north carolina management commission/e… · c d-4 appendix cd – 4 yadkin river basin model...

536
CD-4 APPENDIX CD 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 Summary Yadkin-Pee Dee Water Supply Projections Basis and Results 4.3 Yadkin Water Supply Analysis Legend 4.4 - Yadkin Water Supply Analysis Modeling Projections by YRWSP Alternative 4.5 - Yadkin Water Supply Analysis Entity- Specific Projection Detail Sheets 4.6 - Yadkin Water Supply Analysis Union County Projection Inputs by YRWSP Alternative

Upload: others

Post on 08-Oct-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

CD-4 APPENDIX CD – 4

Yadkin River Basin

Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and

Verification Report

4.2 – Summary – Yadkin-Pee Dee Water Supply

Projections Basis and Results

4.3 – Yadkin Water Supply Analysis – Legend

4.4 - Yadkin Water Supply Analysis – Modeling

Projections by YRWSP Alternative

4.5 - Yadkin Water Supply Analysis – Entity-

Specific Projection Detail Sheets

4.6 - Yadkin Water Supply Analysis – Union

County Projection Inputs by YRWSP

Alternative

Page 2: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

CD-4.1 APPENDIX CD – 4.1

Yadkin-Pee Dee Model

Logic and Verification

Report

H-2

Page 3: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

Prepared for:

DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC

Charlotte, North Carolina

UNION COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Monroe, North Carolina

Prepared by:

HDR ENGINEERING, INC. OF THE CAROLINAS

Charlotte, North Carolina

August 2014

H-3

Page 4: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC i Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No.

LIST OF ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................. VIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

2.0 PROJECT DATA ............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 W. Kerr Scott Project ................................................................................................ 2-2

2.2 High Rock Development .......................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Tuckertown Development ........................................................................................ 2-2

2.4 Narrows Development .............................................................................................. 2-3

2.5 Falls Development .................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 Tillery Development ................................................................................................. 2-4

2.7 Blewett Falls Development ....................................................................................... 2-4

2.8 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.8.1 Proration ....................................................................................................... 2-7

2.8.2 Hind-casting of Historical Water Use ........................................................... 2-9

2.8.3 Unimpaired Inflow Development ............................................................... 2-12

2.9 CHEOPS Model Logic Enhancements ................................................................... 2-14

3.0 HISTORICAL BASELINE ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Model Logic .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Model Scenario Definition/Input Data ..................................................................... 3-3

3.2.1 System Data .................................................................................................. 3-3

3.2.1.1 Load Shapes and Energy Values .................................................... 3-3

3.2.1.2 Carry-Over Elevations Condition ................................................... 3-5

3.2.1.3 Forecast Set-Up Condition ............................................................. 3-5

3.2.2 Physical Data ................................................................................................ 3-6

3.2.2.1 Reservoir Storage/Area Curves ...................................................... 3-6

3.2.2.2 Monthly Evaporation .................................................................... 3-10

3.2.2.3 Tailwater Data .............................................................................. 3-12

3.2.2.4 Spillway Capacity ........................................................................ 3-14

3.2.2.5 Plant Operation Type ................................................................... 3-17

3.2.3 Operational Data ......................................................................................... 3-18

3.2.3.1 Spill and Minimum Elevations ..................................................... 3-18

3.2.3.2 Flashboards ................................................................................... 3-19

3.2.3.3 Target Elevations .......................................................................... 3-20

3.2.3.4 Water Withdrawals ....................................................................... 3-21

H-4

Page 5: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Section Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ii Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2.3.5 Minimum Flows ........................................................................... 3-22

3.2.3.6 Maximum Flows .......................................................................... 3-22

3.2.3.7 Reservoir Fluctuation Limits ........................................................ 3-22

3.2.4 Generation Data .......................................................................................... 3-22

3.2.4.1 Headloss Coefficients ................................................................... 3-23

3.2.4.2 Turbine Efficiency Curves ........................................................... 3-24

3.2.4.3 Generator Efficiency Curve ......................................................... 3-30

3.2.4.4 Wicket Gate Leakage ................................................................... 3-35

3.2.4.5 Powerhouse Weekend Operations ................................................ 3-35

3.2.4.6 Maintenance ................................................................................. 3-36

4.0 MODEL CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION PROCESS .................................................. 4-1

4.1 Summary of Modeled Results versus Historical Data .............................................. 4-2

4.1.1 Model Historical Baseline ............................................................................ 4-2

4.1.2 Scenario Verification2001 .......................................................................... 4-14

5.0 MODEL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 6-1

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – REFERENCE GAGE HIND-CASTED WATER USE

APPENDIX B – WATER USE BY RESERVOIR BASIN

H-5

Page 6: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC iii Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page No.

1-1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP. ........................................................................................... 1-2

2-1 PROJECT SCHEMATIC. .................................................................................................. 2-6

2-2 HIGH ROCK DEVELOPMENT OPERATING GUIDE. ............................................... 2-17

3-1 CHEOPS MODEL EXECUTION FLOW CHART ........................................................... 3-1

3-2 CHEOPS MODEL SCHEDULING FLOW CHART ........................................................ 3-2

3-3 W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE ...................... 3-7

3-4 HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE .............................. 3-7

3-5 TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE ......................... 3-8

3-6 NARROWS RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE ................................. 3-8

3-7 FALLS RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE ........................................ 3-9

3-8 TILLERY RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE .................................... 3-9

3-9 BLEWETT FALLS RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE ................... 3-10

3-10 HIGH ROCK POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 THROUGH 3 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES

OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS ............................................................................... 3-24

3-11 TUCKERTOWN POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 THROUGH 3 TURBINE

EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS .................................................... 3-25

3-12 NARROWS POWERHOUSE UNITS 1, 2, AND 4 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES

OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS ............................................................................... 3-25

3-13 NARROWS POWERHOUSE UNIT 3 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE

OF NET HEADS .............................................................................................................. 3-26

3-14 FALLS POWERHOUSE UNIT 1 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF

NET HEADS .................................................................................................................... 3-26

3-15 FALLS POWERHOUSE UNITS 2 AND 3 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A

RANGE OF NET HEADS ............................................................................................... 3-27

3-16 TILLERY POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 AND 3 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A

RANGE OF NET HEADS ............................................................................................... 3-27

H-6

Page 7: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC iv Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3-17 TILLERY POWERHOUSE UNIT 2 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE

OF NET HEADS .............................................................................................................. 3-28

3-18 TILLERY POWERHOUSE UNIT 4 TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE

OF NET HEADS .............................................................................................................. 3-28

3-19 BLEWETT FALLS POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 THROUGH 3 TURBINE

EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS .................................................... 3-29

3-20 BLEWETT FALLS POWERHOUSE UNITS 4 THROUGH 6 TURBINE

EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS .................................................... 3-29

4-1 MODELED AND HISTORICAL W. KERR SCOTT DAILY RESERVOIR

ELEVATION COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 4-3

4-2 MODELED AND HISTORICAL HIGH ROCK MONTHLY RESERVOIR

ELEVATION COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 4-4

4-3 MODELED AND HISTORICAL TUCKERTOWN MONTHLY RESERVOIR

ELEVATION COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 4-5

4-4 MODELED AND HISTORICAL NARROWS MONTHLY RESERVOIR

ELEVATION COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 4-6

4-5 MODELED AND HISTORICAL FALLS MONTHLY RESERVOIR ELEVATION

COMPARISON .................................................................................................................. 4-7

4-6 MODELED AND HISTORICAL TILLERY MONTHLY RESERVOIR

ELEVATION COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 4-8

4-7 MODELED AND HISTORICAL BLEWETT FALLS MONTHLY RESERVOIR

ELEVATION COMPARISON .......................................................................................... 4-9

4-8 MODELED AND HISTORICAL W. KERR SCOTT DISCHARGE COMPARISON .. 4-12

4-9 MODELED AND HISTORICAL BLEWETT FALLS DEVELOPMENT

DISCHARGE COMPARISON ........................................................................................ 4-13

4-10 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL W. KERR SCOTT PROJECT

OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-16

4-11 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL HIGH ROCK PROJECT

OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-17

H-7

Page 8: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

4-12 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 HISTORICAL TUCKERTOWN DEVELOPMENT

OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-18

4-13 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL NARROWS DEVELOPMENT

OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-19

4-14 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL FALLS PROJECT

OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-20

4-15 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL TILLERY PROJECT

OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-21

4-16 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL BLEWETT FALLS PROJECT

OPERATIONS ................................................................................................................. 4-22

4-17 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL W. KERR SCOTT PROJECT

DISCHARGE COMPARISON ........................................................................................ 4-24

4-18 MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL BLEWETT PROJECT

DISCHARGE COMPARISON ........................................................................................ 4-25

H-8

Page 9: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC vi Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No.

2-1 YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN - MODELED SYSTEM ......................................... 2-1

2-2 DRAINAGE AREA OF EACH FACILITY ...................................................................... 2-1

2-3 POTENTIAL REFERENCE GAGES ................................................................................ 2-9

3-1 LOAD SHAPE ................................................................................................................... 3-4

3-2 FREE WATER SURFACE EVAPORATION ................................................................ 3-11

3-3 EVAPORATIVE LOSS COEFFICIENTS ...................................................................... 3-12

3-4 TUCKERTOWN POWERHOUSE TAILWATER RATING CURVE ........................... 3-13

3-5 TILLERY POWERHOUSE TAILWATER RATING CURVE ...................................... 3-13

3-6 BLEWETT FALLS POWERHOUSE TAILWATER RATING CURVE ....................... 3-14

3-7 W. KERR SCOTT SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES ................................................. 3-14

3-8 HIGH ROCK SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES ......................................................... 3-15

3-9 TUCKERTOWN SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES ................................................... 3-15

3-10 NARROWS SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES ........................................................... 3-16

3-11 FALLS SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES ................................................................... 3-16

3-12 TILLERY SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES .............................................................. 3-17

3-13 BLEWETT FALLS SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES ............................................... 3-17

3-14 RESERVOIR SPILL AND MINIMUM ELEVATIONS ................................................ 3-19

3-15 BLEWETT FALLS FLASHBOARD SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES ................... 3-20

3-16 GUIDE CURVE TARGET ELEVATIONS OF APGI RESERVOIRS ......................... 3-21

3-17 HEADLOSS COEFFICIENTS ........................................................................................ 3-23

3-18 HIGH ROCK UNITS 1 THROUGH 3 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ............. 3-30

3-19 TUCKERTOWN UNITS 1 THROUGH 3 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ....... 3-31

3-20 NARROWS UNITS 1, 2, AND 4 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ..................... 3-31

3-21 NARROWS UNIT 3 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ........................................ 3-32

3-22 FALLS UNIT 1 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ................................................ 3-32

H-9

Page 10: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

YADKIN–PEE DEE BASIN

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY

MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC vii Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3-23 FALLS UNITS 2 AND 3 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ................................. 3-33

3-24 TILLERY UNITS 1, 3, AND 4 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ........................ 3-33

3-25 TILLERY UNIT 2 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ............................................ 3-34

3-26 BLEWETT FALLS UNITS 1 THROUGH 3 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ... 3-34

3-27 BLEWETT FALLS UNITS 4 THROUGH 6 GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ... 3-35

4-1 HISTORICAL BASELINE: GENERATION COMPARISON ...................................... 4-10

4-2 MODEL VERIFICATION2001: STATION DISCHARGE COMPARISON ............... 4-15

H-10

Page 11: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC viii Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

LIST OF ACRONYMS

A&I agricultural and irrigation

AGR Annual Growth Rate

APGI Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.

cfs cubic feet per second

CHEOPS™ Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning Software

CSA Comprehensive Settlement Agreement

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FWS free water surface

GIS Geographic Information Systems

IBT inter-basin transfers

LIP low inflow protocol

Model Yadkin–Pee Dee CHEOPS Model

msl mean sea level

NCDWR North Carolina Department of Water Resources

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWS National Weather Service

POR period of record

RM river mile

UIF unimpaired inflow

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USGS United States Geological Survey

H-11

Page 12: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ES-1 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Duke Energy and Union County contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR)

to update an existing operations model of the Yadkin–Pee Dee Basin in North Carolina. The

existing water quantity / hydro operations model was developed to support the Yadkin–Pee Dee

Hydroelectric Project (No. 2206) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing

using HDR’s proprietary CHEOPS™ (Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning

Software) platform and included the six hydroelectric developments on the Yadkin–Pee Dee

River from High Rock reservoir through Blewett Falls reservoir, all in North Carolina.

CHEOPS is specifically designed to evaluate the effects of operational changes and physical

modifications at multi-development hydroelectric projects. The model, as developed for

relicensing, included the Duke Energy-owned Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project, FERC No.

2206, which includes the Tillery and Blewett Falls Developments, and the upstream Alcoa

Power Generating, Inc. (APGI)-owned Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2197, which

includes the High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows, and Falls Developments. The relicensing

operations model has been updated to include the most-upstream reservoir, W. Kerr Scott, owned

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The seven aforementioned Duke Energy,

APGI, and USACE facilities are collectively referred to as “the system.” This expanded model

is intended to be used as a tool to assist in evaluating water quantity distribution between the

seven reservoirs due to changes in model inputs including various operational modifications and

possible inter-basin transfers (IBT). This will be performed by reviewing relative change

between proposed operational modifications within the system.

This report characterizes the development and verification of the customized Yadkin–Pee Dee

CHEOPS Model (Model) by loading the physical and operational parameters specific to the

system. The operating logic for seven reservoirs has been added based on existing and future

station operating plans in accordance with information provided by Duke Energy, APGI, and

publically available W. Kerr Scott data. Operating logic is a single set of rules per scenario and

does not account for changes in external conditions for a single model run. A model calibration

and validation process has been developed for the period of 1997-2003, applying the basic law of

H-12

Page 13: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Executive Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ES-2 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

mass continuity between the reservoirs. The period was selected based on the completion of all

reservoirs and the best available records of constant plant operation and reservoir elevations. A

significant portion of the work for the operation model development included the calculation of

unimpaired inflow hydrology for the system. The unimpaired inflow (UIF) data for the system

was generated from United States Geological Survey (USGS) reported historical flows and

estimated historical water use data. A simulation model is a decision support tool and is not

intended to simulate or predict exact future conditions on a daily or annual basis. The operations

model was constructed to compare different scenarios by reviewing relative changes between

proposed operational modifications within the system. This is done using historic inflows (i.e.,

UIF) to simulate likely future conditions, as if the inflow will occur in the same pattern in the

future as occurred in the past.

Development of the Yadkin–Pee Dee Model was based on input and physical characteristics of

each hydro facility previously developed for the same river basin as part of the Yadkin–Pee Dee

Hydroelectric Project FERC relicensing and updated over time as information became available

(Progress Energy 2006).

Using average daily inflow as input, the Model simulates operations to budget water between

reservoirs (nodes) so that all constraints (physical, environmental, and operational) are met while

maximizing peak period hydro turbine energy as a lower priority objective. This model allows

for user-defined customization of specific constraints within the system, such as flow

requirements, target reservoir elevations, powerhouse equipment constraints, and water

withdrawals and returns.

The purpose of this report is to document inputs and assumptions used in the development of the

Model, to demonstrate the model reasonably characterizes operations of the two Duke Energy,

four APGI, and single USACE facilities modeled, and to demonstrate the model is adequate for

use in evaluating the effects of alternative scenarios.

H-13

Page 14: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Executive Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ES-3 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Model verification is intended to validate the input data and ability of the programmed logic in

simulating daily hydroelectric and reservoir operations. HDR performed model verification by

comparing actual and model-estimated generation and discharge. The verification simulations

were completed for relatively recent hydrologic years with best available historical reservoir

operations over a wide range of hydrologic and reservoir operations conditions.

The Model is coded to run day-to-day operations based on a single set of operating conditions or

rules. Actual project operations generally follow the operating rules; however, human

intervention periodically deviates from the general operating rules to accommodate day-to-day

realities such as equipment failure and maintenance, changing hydrologic conditions, power

demands, and other factors.

The verification was performed using historical operations data provided by Duke Energy,

APGI, and the USACE. Verification scenarios were developed to test the facility operation rules

in an attempt to replicate daily human decision making with respect to typical operating

requirements of the system. Verification of the Model was completed using two different

scenarios (model runs). The first model run performs a verification of the model input data,

logic, and conditions of the Historical Baseline scenario for calendar years 1997 through 2003.

In addition to the Historical Baseline scenario, a second verification scenario was developed to

simulate the detailed operations for calendar year 2001.

In the opinion of HDR, verification results show the operations model and the hydrologic inputs

compare favorably to historical data, reasonably characterize system operations, and are

appropriate for use in evaluating the effects of alternative operating scenarios on generation,

reservoir levels, and outflows. The CHEOPS software and the Yadkin–Pee Dee Model are tools

that, as this report demonstrates, can be successfully used to evaluate the relative sensitivity and

response of the system modeled to changing operational constraints. As with any model,

accuracy is highly dependent on input data; consequently, model results should be viewed in a

relative, rather than an absolute, context.

H-14

Page 15: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-1 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Duke Energy and Union County contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR)

to update an existing operations model of the Yadkin–Pee Dee Basin in North Carolina. The

existing water quantity / hydro operations model was developed to support the Yadkin–Pee Dee

Hydroelectric Project (No. 2206) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing

using HDR’s proprietary CHEOPS™ (Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning

Software) platform and included the six hydroelectric developments on the Yadkin–Pee Dee

River from High Rock reservoir through Blewett Falls reservoir, all in North Carolina.

CHEOPS is specifically designed to evaluate the effects of operational changes and physical

modifications at multi-development hydroelectric projects. The model, as developed for

relicensing, included the Duke Energy-owned Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project, which

includes the Tillery and Blewett Falls Developments, and the upstream Alcoa Power Generating,

Inc. (APGI)-owned Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2197, which includes the High

Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows, and Falls Developments. The relicensing operations model has

been updated to include the most-upstream reservoir, W. Kerr Scott, owned by the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE). The seven aforementioned Duke Energy, APGI, and USACE

facilities are collectively referred to as “the system.” This expanded Yadkin–Pee Dee CHEOPS

Model (Model) is intended to be used as a tool to assist in evaluating water quantity distribution

between the seven reservoirs due to changes in model inputs including various operational

modifications and possible inter-basin transfers (IBT). This will be performed by reviewing

relative change between proposed operational modifications within the system. A project

location map of the seven aforementioned Duke Energy, APGI, and USACE facilities,

collectively referred to as “the system,” is provided in Figure 1-1.

CHEOPS is specifically designed to evaluate the effects of operational changes and physical

modifications at multi-development hydroelectric projects. CHEOPS has been applied to

evaluate the physical and operational changes considered during the FERC relicensing of more

than 25 projects. The Yadkin–Pee Dee Model of the system (minus W. Kerr Scott), was applied

throughout the FERC relicensing process for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (FERC No.

2206).

H-15

Page 16: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 1 Introduction

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-2 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 1-1

PROJECT LOCATION MAP. 1

1 Exhibit A, Figure A-1, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (FERC No. 2206): Application for License. April 2006.

H-16

Page 17: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 1 Introduction

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-3 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

HDR created the CHEOPS hydropower system simulation model as a tool for evaluating a wide

range of physical changes (e.g., turbine upgrades) and operational constraints (e.g., minimum

flows). One of the many strengths of the CHEOPS model is the degree of customization each

individual model contains. The model is tailored to meet the demands of the particular system

being modeled. The Model was custom-configured for the system based on the specific system

constraints such as flow requirements, target reservoir elevations, and powerhouse equipment

constraints.

The original Yadkin–Pee Dee Model was based on a Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 platform. For

increased performance, the model has since been updated to Microsoft .NET Framework in

Visual Basic. As previously indicated, the relicensing model did not include the W. Kerr Scott

Reservoir. The Model has since been updated to include W. Kerr Scott operational logic. The

newer “Build” of the CHEOPS software provides additional logic support for the low inflow

protocol (LIP) as outlined in the Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (CSA), (Progress Energy

2007).

The Model utilizes daily flows, plant-generating characteristics, and operating criteria of the

system to simulate operation, allocate flow releases, and calculate energy production within the

system. The Model calculates reservoir elevation, headlosses, net head, turbine discharge and

spill, and power generation in 15-minute increments. The Model is designed for long-term

analysis of the effects of operational and physical changes made to the modeled hydro/reservoir

system.

Model verification is intended to validate the input data and ability of the programmed logic in

simulating daily hydroelectric and reservoir operations. A “Historical Baseline” scenario was

established following the historic system-wide operation rules outlined in the model verification

process. HDR performed model verification using comparisons of actual and model-estimated

generation and total discharge from each reservoir. The verification simulations were completed

for recent hydrologic years with best available historical reservoir operations over a wide range

of hydrologic and reservoir operations conditions. The purpose of this report is to document

H-17

Page 18: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 1 Introduction

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-4 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

inputs and assumptions used in the development of the Model, to demonstrate that the model

reasonably characterizes operations of the seven facilities modeled, and to demonstrate the

model is adequate for use in evaluating the effects of alternative operating scenarios (varying

water use).

The Model is coded to run day-to-day operations based on a single set of operating conditions or

rules. Actual project operations generally follow the operating rules; however, human

intervention periodically deviates from the general operating rules to accommodate day-to-day

realities such as equipment failure and maintenance, changing hydrologic conditions, power

demands, and other factors. In addition to differences between modeled operations versus actual

operations that include human interventions, there are also inherent discrepancies due to input

data inaccuracies (e.g., differences in calculated hydrology data, turbine or generator efficiencies,

or reservoir storage curves). It is important to understand model results will never completely

match historical or future operations due to these differences between actual operating conditions

and modeled conditions.

H-18

Page 19: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-1 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

2.0 PROJECT DATA

Duke Energy owns and operates the Yadkin–Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project, FERC No 2206

(consisting of the Tillery Development and the Blewett Falls Development); APGI owns and

operates the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2197 (consisting of the High Rock

Development, Tuckertown Development, Narrows Development, and the Falls Development);

the USACE owns and operates the W. Kerr Scott Project. Each facility is linked in series within

the Model and consists of dams and multi-unit powerhouses as shown in Table 2-1. Table 2-2

provides the drainage area of each of the facilities.

TABLE 2-1

YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN - MODELED SYSTEM

Facility Upstream Reservoir Project Type

W. Kerr Scott –– Non-Generating

High Rock W. Kerr Scott Conventional Hydro

Tuckertown High Rock Conventional Hydro

Narrows Tuckertown Conventional Hydro

Falls Narrows Conventional Hydro

Tillery Falls Conventional Hydro

Blewett Falls Tillery Conventional Hydro

TABLE 2-2

DRAINAGE AREA OF EACH FACILITY

Facility Drainage Area

(mi2)

Blewett Falls 6,839

Tillery 4,600

Falls 4,190

Narrows 4,180

Tuckertown 4,080

High Rock 3,973

W. Kerr Scott 367

H-19

Page 20: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-2 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

2.1 W. Kerr Scott Project

W. Kerr Scott Dam is located on the Yadkin River approximately five river miles (RM) upstream

of Wilkesboro, NC. The dam is about 55 miles west of Winston-Salem, NC and about 65 miles

north of Charlotte, NC. W. Kerr Scott Dam is an earthen structure having a top elevation of

1,107.5 ft. above mean sea level (msl) and an overall length of 1,750 ft. The watershed covers

parts of Wilkes, Caldwell, and Watauga counties. The normal pool elevation of W. Kerr Scott

reservoir is 1,030 ft. msl, and there is approximately 41,000 acre-feet of storage at the normal

pool elevation. The drainage area above W. Kerr Scott Dam is 367 square miles. The W. Kerr

Scott project is authorized for the purposes of flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish

and wildlife. (USACE 2014). There is no power generation at the project. Water releases are

made from a controlled outlet structure.

2.2 High Rock Development

The Yadkin River flows out of the W. Kerr Scott Dam and flows through approximately

132 miles of a riverine reach into and through High Rock Lake. The High Rock Development is

located in Davidson, Davie, and Rowan counties, North Carolina. High Rock Dam is a concrete

gravity structure comprised of two short non-overflow sections, a Stoney gate-controlled

spillway section, and an integral intake/powerhouse section. The drainage area above High Rock

Dam is 3,973 square miles. The dam impounds High Rock Reservoir, which has an available

storage capacity of approximately 217,400 acre-feet at the normal full pool elevation of 623.9 ft.

msl, based on a drawdown of 30 ft. High Rock Reservoir extends upstream about 19 miles to

Yadkin North Fork and Hanna’s Ferry, and at full pool elevation, the reservoir has a surface area

of approximately 15,180 acres. The High Rock powerhouse contains three vertical Francis

turbines, each operating under a net head of approximately 55.0 ft. (APGI 2006).

2.3 Tuckertown Development

The Tuckertown Development is located in Davidson, Montgomery, Rowan, and Stanly

counties, North Carolina. Tuckertown Dam consists of a rockfill embankment section, an

earthfill embankment section, three non-overflow concrete gravity sections, a Tainter gate

H-20

Page 21: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-3 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

spillway section, and an integral intake/powerhouse. The drainage area above Tuckertown Dam

is 4,080 square miles and impounds approximately 6,700 acre-feet at the normal full pool

elevation of 564.7 ft. msl, based on a drawdown of 3 ft. The Tuckertown powerhouse contains

three Kaplan turbines, each operating under a net head of approximately 53.5 ft. (APGI 2006).

2.4 Narrows Development

The Narrows Development is located in Davidson, Montgomery, and Stanly counties, North

Carolina. Narrows Dam consists of a main dam section and a bypass spillway section. The main

dam section is a concrete gravity structure that consists of a non-overflow gravity section, a

Tainter gate-controlled spillway section, a Stoney gate side channel spillway structure, a trash

gate section, an intake section, a downstream powerhouse, and four steel penstocks. The

drainage area above Narrows Dam is 4,180 square miles and impounds approximately 129,100

acre-feet at the normal full pool elevation of 509.8 ft. msl, based on a drawdown of 31.1 ft. The

Narrows powerhouse contains four vertical Francis turbines, each operating under a net head of

approximately 174.5 ft. (APGI 2006).

2.5 Falls Development

The Falls Development is located in Montgomery and Stanly counties, North Carolina. Falls

Dam is a concrete gravity structure. The development consists of a non-overflow gravity

section, a Stoney gate-controlled spillway section, a Tainter gate-controlled spillway section, a

trash gate section, and an integral intake/powerhouse section. The drainage area above Falls

Dam is 4,190 square miles and impounds approximately 760 acre-feet at the normal full pool

elevation of 332.8 ft. msl, based on a drawdown of 4 ft. The Falls powerhouse contains one

S. Morgan Smith vertical Francis turbine unit (Unit 1) and two Allis Chalmers propeller-type

turbine units (Units 2 and 3), each operating under a net head of approximately 54.0 ft.

(APGI 2006).

H-21

Page 22: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-4 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

2.6 Tillery Development

The Tillery Development is located in Montgomery and Stanly counties, four miles west of

Mount Gilead, North Carolina. Tillery Dam (also known as Norwood Dam) consists of

approximately 1,200 ft of earthen embankment and 1,550 ft of concrete gravity structures. The

Tillery Dam creates the impoundment known as Lake Tillery. The drainage area above Tillery

Dam is approximately 4,600 square miles. The impoundment extends approximately 16 miles to

the tailwater of APGI’s Falls Development. At the normal maximum reservoir elevation of

278 ft. msl, Lake Tillery impounds approximately 84,150 acre-feet of usable storage. The

Tillery powerhouse contains three Francis turbines and one fixed-blade propeller turbine, each

operating under a net head of approximately 70.0 ft. The powerhouse also contains a small

Francis auxiliary turbine for driving a “house generator.” (Progress Energy 2006).

2.7 Blewett Falls Development

Outflows from the Tillery Development flow into Blewett Falls Lake after passing through a 19-

mile riverine reach of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. The Blewett Falls Dam and powerhouse are

located at river mile 188, approximately 15 miles upstream of the North Carolina-South Carolina

state line. The Blewett Falls Development consists of a concrete gravity ogee-crested spillway

with 4-ft wooden flashboards and easterly and westerly earthen embankments. The concrete

spillway crest is approximately at elevation 176 ft. msl. The drainage area above Blewett Falls

Dam is approximately 6,839 square miles. At the normal maximum reservoir elevation of 178 ft.

msl, Blewett Falls Reservoir impounds approximately 30,893 acre-feet of usable storage,

corresponding to 17 ft of drawdown. The Blewett Falls powerhouse contains six generating

units, each operating under a net head of approximately 47.0 ft. Each generator is driven by two

identical hydraulic turbines operating in tandem. Each turbine consists of two runners; therefore,

each unit contains four separate runners. This configuration is referred to as a “quad-runner”

alignment. Each of the 12 hydraulic turbines, manufactured by S. Morgan Smith, is of a

horizontal-shaft, double-opposed runner, single-discharge configuration. (Progress Energy

2006).

H-22

Page 23: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-5 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

2.8 Hydrology

A significant input to the Model is a reconstructed inflow data set unimpaired by system

operations (unimpaired inflow [UIF]), subdivided by reservoir node for each of the seven

reservoirs included in the Model. This section describes the development of hydrology data for

the Yadkin River extending from the W. Kerr Scott Project to Blewett Falls Dam.

The headwaters of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River originate in the Blue Ridge Mountains of north-

central North Carolina. The river flows east-southeast through the Piedmont region of central

North Carolina, and then into the Uwharrie Lakes region where the Projects are located

(Figure 1-1). Below the Blewett Falls plant, the Pee Dee River flows another 188 miles through

the upper and lower Coastal Plain region before it reaches the Atlantic Ocean at Winyah Bay

near Georgetown, South Carolina. A schematic of the system is shown in Figure 2-1. (Progress

Energy 2006). Water losses in the system due to reservoir evaporation are estimated as part of

the model simulation following the logic outlined in Section 3.2.2.2.

The unimpaired hydrology was estimated by means of proration of the streamflow data from

reference basins. The proration method estimates unimpaired flows for a region of interest by

utilizing one or more reference basins with available representative data. The proration method

gives an estimate of unimpaired flows for a given watershed of interest by scaling the reference

basin as follows:

Where: Qtarget is the flow (cubic feet per second [cfs]) for the basin of interest,

Qreference is the flow (cfs) for the reference basin,

Atarget is the drainage area (square miles) for the basin of interest,

Areference is the drainage area (square miles) for the reference basin.

reference

reference

target

target QA

AQ

H-23

Page 24: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-6 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 2-1

PROJECT SCHEMATIC. 2

2 Exhibit B, Figure B-3, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (FERC No. 2206): Application for License. April 2006.

H-24

Page 25: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-7 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Drainage areas were taken directly from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) records where

available, or by using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based calculations; drainage areas

and river miles are shown in Figure 2-1.

2.8.1 Proration

Proration requires at least one reference basin with reliable data sources of sufficient duration,

and a hydrology that is reasonably similar to the hydrology of the basin of interest. The

reference basin(s) should be similar in basin characteristics to the basin of interest, it should have

good streamflow data for a sufficiently long period of record, and, if possible, an unimpaired

hydrology to begin with or a minimally impaired hydrology to minimize cumulative errors

associated with gage summations. If the unimpaired flow data for the reference watershed is

reasonably accurate, then the proration method is very effective when applied to watersheds with

similar physical characteristics (e.g., climate, topography, elevation, geology). However, as the

physical characteristics of the watershed of interest deviate from that of the reference watershed,

the prorated unimpaired flow data will include deviations that are related to the degree of

differences in watershed characteristics. This was accounted for by selecting a drainage basin

with similar physical characteristics as the basin of interest; in this case, sub-basins of the larger

basin of interest.

The development of reference hydrographs for the system began with a compilation of the

available USGS gages in the vicinity of the area of interest (Table 2-3).

This list of gages was reviewed for applicability based on the period of record, drainage area

size, productivity (cfs/square mile), and accuracy of the gage. The color-coding provided in

Table 2-3 shows the first step in the process of searching for a reference basin based on initial

screening selection criteria. The three initial screening methodologies are described below:

■ Period of Record – The period of record (POR) identified of interest was 1/1/1955

through 12/31/2013. Gages were considered for exclusion that did not extend back

through 1955, or which did not extend through 2013.

H-25

Page 26: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-8 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

■ Productivity – Historical operation records were evaluated to determine approximate

basin productivity for each basin of interest. This was then compared to the productivity

of potential reference gages to determine gages with significantly different productivity.

■ Gage Accuracy - The USGS reports the gage locations were plotted on an isohyets map of

the average annual precipitation in inches/year for the years of 1961 to 1990. This enabled

the identification of gages with significantly different precipitation characteristics.

From the initial comprehensive list of all gages in the basin, the gages noted in Table 2-3 were

selected as possible data sources for the development of hydrology for the system. These gages

were then filtered according to the color coding in Table 2-3. The result was 8 gages were

identified as reference gages for the system. These gages were selected for each basin of interest

based on proximity and productivity. The USGS gages 02120780 and 02125000 were combined

to create a single record (02120780 for the period 4/1/1979 through 12/31/2013 and 02125000

for the period 1/1/1955 through 3/31/1979).

H-26

Page 27: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-9 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 2-3

POTENTIAL REFERENCE GAGES

Gage Drainage Area

(mi2)

Start Date End Date

02111000 YADKIN RIVER AT PATTERSON, NC 29 10/1/1939 Present

02111180 ELK CREEK AT ELKVILLE, NC 51 10/1/1965 Present

02111500 REDDIES RIVER AT NORTH WILKESBORO,

NC

90 10/1/1939 Present

02112120 ROARING RIVER NEAR ROARING RIVER,

NC

128 4/1/1964 Present

02112360 MITCHELL RIVER NEAR STATE ROAD, NC 79 4/1/1964 Present

02113850 ARARAT RIVER AT ARARAT, NC 231 4/1/1964 Present

02114450 LITTLE YADKIN RIVER AT DALTON, NC 43 8/1/1960 Present

02118000 SOUTH YADKIN RIVER NEAR

MOCKSVILLE, NC

306 10/1/1938 Present

02118500 HUNTING CREEK NEAR HARMONY, NC 155 1/1/1951 Present

02121500 ABBOTTS CREEK AT LEXINGTON, NC 174 10/1/1988 Present

02120780 SECOND CREEK NEAR BARBER, NC 118 4/1/1979 Present

02125000 BIG BEAR CR NR RICHFIELD, NC 56 4/1/1954 9/30/2010

02126000 ROCKY RIVER NEAR NORWOOD, NC 1,372 10/1/1929 Present

02128000 LITTLE RIVER NEAR STAR, NC 106 4/1/1954 Present

02133500 DROWNING CREEK NEAR HOFFMAN, NC 183 10/1/1939 Present

2113000 FISHER RIVER NEAR COPELAND, NC 128 10/1/1931 9/30/2010

212414900 MALLARD CREEK BELOW STONY CREEK 35 10/1/2007 Present

Legend For Table 2-3:

Short Period of Record / No Recent Hydrology

USGS Reports Some Records Poor

2.8.2 Hind-casting of Historical Water Use

As part of the model development and verification, historical water use data was developed for

each of the entities in the Yadkin River Basin (Basin) study area. Historical water use data from

1997 through 2012 was compiled for each of the entities. As part of the development of

unimpaired flows, hind-casted water use data from 1955 through 1996 in cfs was developed for

those entities located upstream of the identified potential USGS stream gages. The historical and

hind-casted water uses were added back (withdrawals as positive values and returns as negative

H-27

Page 28: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-10 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

values) to the reported daily USGS flows to create daily average unimpaired reference flows in

cfs. Monthly hind-casted and historical water uses are presented in Appendix A.

The types of water use entities evaluated for this effort were grouped into the following major

categories:

Public Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities – Municipal and other utility agencies

with systems that withdraw and treat water for public consumption and residential,

commercial, and industrial use, as well as those systems that treat wastewater and return

it to a surface water source.

Direct Industrial – These industrial users have direct withdrawals and/or returns from

surface water sources and utilize water in their manufacturing processes.

Thermal-Electric Power – The thermal-electric power facilities within the Basin that use

water for cooling and other energy production needs.

Agricultural and Irrigation – Agricultural and irrigation (A&I) users include farms, golf

courses, and other facilities that use water for livestock production, irrigation, and other

purposes.

The following describes the basis for developing the historical data for each of the categories

outlined above:

Public Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities – Historical monthly withdrawal and

return data from 1997 and 2002 through 2012 was provided by the North Carolina

Department of Water Resources (NCDWR). The data from 1998 through 2001 was

calculated using straight-line interpolation. For the hind-casting calculations from 1955

through 1996, the withdrawals and returns were based on the prior year’s flows and

assumed that the historical water use followed the county population Annual Growth

Rate (AGR) derived from the U.S. Census data for that decade.

H-28

Page 29: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-11 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Direct Industrial – Historical monthly withdrawal and return data from 1997 and 2002

through 2102 was provided by the NCDWR. The data from 1998 through 2011 was

calculated using straight-line interpolation. For the hind-casting calculations from 1955

through 1996, the withdrawals and returns were based on the average of the known flows

from 1997 through 2012 for a given month.

Thermal-Electric Power – The historical data from 1997 through 2012 was provided by

Duke Energy, who has the only Thermal Electric Power plants in the Basin study area.

Hind-casting was not performed, as none of these facilities was located upstream of the

stream gages of interest.

Agricultural and Irrigation – Agricultural and Irrigation use was calculated using

historical data from the USGS in five-year increments from 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005

for North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. The data include crop, livestock, and

golf withdrawals. A&I water withdrawals were assumed to be completely consumptive

and, for a given county, consumed uniformly over that county’s land area. To develop

the withdrawals, the percentage of a county’s land area within a particular reservoir’s

watershed was assumed to be commensurate with the percentage of that county’s total

A&I water withdrawal taken from that watershed. In performing these calculations, it

was determined that the A&I water use reported in the USGS database varies

considerably between reporting years, and no definitive trend in water use exists.

Therefore, the greatest water withdrawal from the 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 USGS

datasets was selected as the county water use for all historical A&I consumption. For

each category (crop, livestock, and golf), these values were multiplied by the percentage

of each county that lies within the basin. A monthly coefficient was established for the

A&I water withdrawals to account for irrigation use trends during the irrigation season of

each year. North Carolina Agricultural Use Data from 2009-2011 was used from the

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Data for irrigation

and livestock withdrawals, not including aquaculture, was used. The monthly coefficient

was developed by taking the 2009 through 2011 average monthly withdrawals divided by

the total average yearly withdrawals for those years.

H-29

Page 30: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-12 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

2.8.3 Unimpaired Inflow Development

The unimpaired reference gage flows were selected and applied to develop estimated unimpaired

inflows to each basin of interest as follows:

W. Kerr Scott – USGS 02111000 Yadkin River at Patterson, NC and 02111500 Reddies

River at North Wilkesboro, NC were selected as the reference gages for the W. Kerr

Scott basin. Due to productivity, the unimpaired Yadkin River gage flows were prorated

following the proration method outlined in Section 2.8 to equate to a drainage area of

276 square miles. The prorated unimpaired Yadkin River flows were then added to the

unimpaired Reddies River gage flows (89.2 square miles) to develop the final W. Kerr

Scott unimpaired inflows.

High Rock Incremental (High Rock Dam to Outlet of W. Kerr Scott Dam) – USGS

02118500 Hunting Creek near Harmony, NC, 02118000 South Yadkin River near

Mocksville, NC and 02128000 Little River near Star, NC were selected as the reference

gages for the High Rock incremental basin. The unimpaired reference flows were

prorated to the High Rock incremental drainage area of 3,608 square miles assuming the

following:

{[(

) (

) (

)] }

o Where: Qtarget is the flow (cfs) for the High Rock Incremental basin,

o Atarget is the drainage area (square miles) for the basin of interest

o Qreference1 is the flow (cfs) for the unimpaired 02118500 basin,

o Areference1 is the drainage area (square miles) for the 02118500 basin,

o Qreference2 is the flow (cfs) for the unimpaired 02118000 basin,

o Areference2 is the drainage area (square miles) for the 02118000 basin,

o Qreference3 is the flow (cfs) for the unimpaired 02128000 basin,

o Areference3 is the drainage area (square miles) for the 02128000 basin.

H-30

Page 31: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-13 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Tuckertown Incremental (Tuckertown Dam to Outlet of High Rock Dam) – USGS

02120780 Second Creek near Barber, NC filled in with 02125000 Big Bear Creek near

Richfield, NC was selected as the reference gage for the Tuckertown incremental basin.

The unimpaired reference gage flows were prorated following the proration method

outlined in Section 2.8 to equate to the Tuckertown incremental drainage area of

107 square miles.

Narrows Incremental (Narrows Dam to Outlet of Tuckertown Dam) – USGS

02120780 Second Creek near Barber, NC filled in with 02125000 Big Bear Creek near

Richfield, NC was selected as the reference gage for the Narrows incremental basin. The

unimpaired reference gage flows were prorated following the proration method outlined

in Section 2.8 to equate to the Narrows incremental drainage area of 100 square miles.

Falls Incremental (Falls Dam to Outlet of Narrows Dam) – USGS 02120780 Second

Creek near Barber, NC filled in with 02125000 Big Bear Creek near Richfield, NC was

selected as the reference gage for the Falls incremental basin. The unimpaired reference

gage flows were prorated following the proration method outlined in Section 2.8 to

equate to the Falls incremental drainage area of 10 square miles.

Tillery Incremental (Tillery Dam to Outlet of Falls Dam) – USGS 02118000 South

Yadkin River near Mocksville, NC was selected as the reference gage for the Tillery

incremental basin. The unimpaired reference gage flows were prorated following the

proration method outlined in Section 2.8 to equate to the Tillery incremental drainage

area of 410 square miles.

Blewett Falls Incremental (Blewett Falls Dam to Outlet of Tillery Dam) – USGS

02118500 Hunting Creek near Harmony, NC, 02126000 Rocky River near, NC, and

02128000 Little River near Star, NC were selected as the reference gages for the Blewett

Falls incremental basin. The unimpaired reference flows were prorated to the Blewett

Falls incremental drainage area of 2,239 square mile assuming the following:

{[(

) (

) (

)] }

o Where: Qtarget is the flow (cfs) for the High Rock Incremental basin,

o Atarget is the drainage area (square miles) for the basin of interest

H-31

Page 32: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-14 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

o Qreference1 is the flow (cfs) for the unimpaired 02118500 basin,

o Areference1 is the drainage area (square miles) for the 02118500 basin,

o Qreference2 is the flow (cfs) for the unimpaired 02126000 basin,

o Areference2 is the drainage area (square miles) for the 02126000 basin,

o Qreference3 is the flow (cfs) for the unimpaired 02128000 basin,

o Areference3 is the drainage area (square miles) for the 02128000 basin.

2.9 CHEOPS Model Logic Enhancements

Enhancements made to the CHEOPS platform to support the Model include functionality

enabling simulation of conditions such as the LIP, which was developed during the FERC

relicensing process for the Yadkin and Yadkin–Pee Dee Hydroelectric Projects. The LIP was

simulated for future scenarios only, as it did not apply to historical operations.

Additionally, the model has been custom configured to accommodate the High Rock Operating

Guide. River flows to Duke Energy’s Tillery and Blewett Falls developments are largely

dependent on releases from APGI’s Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. Flow releases from APGI’s

Yadkin Hydroelectric Project to Duke Energy’s Tillery Development are governed by a FERC-

approved agreement between the parties. This agreement requires APGI to operate in a manner

that allows Duke Energy to meet its continuous flow requirements at Tillery and Blewett Falls.

Yadkin’s seasonal operations are managed in accordance with a “rule curve” that guides the

operation of High Rock Lake.3 From the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (FERC No. 2206):

Initial Consultation Document, September 2002, the operating guide is as follows:

The High Rock operating guide is presented in Figure 2.7-1. (Figure 2.7-1 is referenced below

in this report as Figure 2-2). It should be noted that this figure presents reservoir elevation in

terms of drawdown (in feet, right vertical axis) and depletion (in day-second-feet, left vertical

3 Exhibit A, Section 2.2, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (FERC No. 2206): Application for License. April 2006.

H-32

Page 33: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-15 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

axis). The High Rock operating guide regulates energy generation, not headwater. The

following "rules" are applied to the guide to determine generation values:

Rule 1: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is greater than that indicated by Line 1 or

if, during the next calendar week, the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is expected to be

greater than indicated by Line 1, generate 32,088 MWh, maximum, (191,000 kW

average) each week unless spill is anticipated. If spill is anticipated, generation should

be at maximum practicable rate.

Rule 2: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is greater than that indicated by Line 2,

but less than that indicated by Line 1, generate 27,313 MWh maximum, (162.6 MW

average), each week.

Rule 3: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is greater than that indicated by Line 3,

but less than that indicated by Line 2, generate 21,583 MWh maximum, (128.5 MW

average), each week.

Rule 4: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is greater than that indicated by line 4,

but less than that indicated by Line 3, generate 16,044 MWh maximum, (95.5 MW

average), each week.

Rule 5: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is greater than that indicated by Line 5,

but less than that indicated by Line 4, generate 11,084 MWh maximum, (66.0 MW

average), each week.

Rule 6: If the elevation at High Rock Reservoir is greater than that indicated by line 6,

but less than that indicated by Line 5, generate 8,522 MWh maximum, (50.7 MW

average), each week.

Rule 7: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is greater than 623.9 feet, but less than

that indicated by Line 6, generate approximately 6,000 MWh each week to sustain a

minimum release of 1800 cfs (35.7 MW) average weekly.

H-33

Page 34: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-16 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Rule 8:

a) March 6 through May 13: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is less than

that indicated by Line 7, limit the discharge through High Rock turbines to

1500 cfs, average for the period.

b) May 14 through July 29: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is less than

that indicated by Line 7, limit the discharge though High Rock turbines to

1610 cfs, average for the period.

c) July 30 through September 15: If the elevation of High Rock Reservoir is less

than that indicated by Line 7, limit the discharge through High Rock turbines to

1400 cfs, average for the period.

Note: In the event of conflict between Rule 8 and the other rules, Rule 8 will take

precedence.

H-34

Page 35: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-17 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 2-2

HIGH ROCK DEVELOPMENT OPERATING GUIDE. 4

4 Figure 2.7-1, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (FERC No. 2206): Initial Consultation Document. September 2002.

H-35

Page 36: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-1 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.0 HISTORICAL BASELINE

This section defines the development of the Historical Baseline scenario used for the verification

of the Model. Each sub-section defines specific inputs used in the Model verification to simulate

historical operations.

3.1 Model Logic

Figures 3-1 and 3-2 give an overview of the model logic in sequence.

FIGURE 3-1

CHEOPS MODEL EXECUTION FLOW CHART

Text files are created and stored

in model directories

Output Generated (text files):

Daily summaries and/or Detailed

schedules

Create Conditions needed for

new Scenario

Create Settings needed for new

Scenario

Create new Scenario

Run new Scenario(s)

Select the type of Run to make:

Energy or Rule Curve

Model Executes using data of

selected Scenario (see following

page)

Steps to create a

new Scenario

Create Components if needed for

new Conditions

View Output and create summary

charts and tables

Select hydrologic period to

include in model run

CHEOPS™ Model Execution Flow Chart

Text files are created and stored

in model directories

Output Generated (text files):

Daily summaries and/or Detailed

schedules

Create Conditions needed for

new Scenario

Create Settings needed for new

Scenario

Create new Scenario

Run new Scenario(s)

Select the type of Run to make:

Energy or Rule Curve

Model Executes using data of

selected Scenario (see following

page)

Steps to create a

new Scenario

Create Components if needed for

new Conditions

View Output and create summary

charts and tables

Select hydrologic period to

include in model run

CHEOPS™ Model Execution Flow Chart

H-36

Page 37: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-2 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-2

CHEOPS MODEL SCHEDULING FLOW CHART

Determine "Optimal" Detailed

Discharge Schedule.

Determine Daily Discharge Volume

(Average Daily Discharge)

Determine Inflows (Detailed and

Total Volume)

Check for Elevation

Constraint ViolationsYes

Make adjustments to the detailed

discharge schedule of current

and/or upstream plant

Calculate Spill (if any)

No

Calculate Energy

Calculate Detailed reservoir

elevatoins

CHEOPS™ Scheduling Flow Chart

elevations

H-37

Page 38: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-3 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2 Model Scenario Definition/Input Data

The project data listed in the following subsections shows the general operational constraints and

physical parameters used in the Model to define the current system configuration used in the

Historical Baseline and the Verification2001 scenario setup. Model verification uses historical

data and tests the ability of the model to simulate actual operations of all seven facilities. To

represent historical operations, the Historical Baseline and Verification2001 scenarios presented

in this report are based on the Yadkin–Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project FERC Licensing Baseline

scenario, with the additions outlined below:

• W. Kerr Scott Project and Operations

• 1955 – 2013 hydrologic dataset as outlined in Section 2.8.

• Reservoir Area Estimates, outlined in Section 3.2.2.1

• Reservoir Evaporation, outlined in Section 3.2.2.2

• Water Use, outlined in Section 3.2.3.4

• Estimated unit performance at the four APGI-owned developments, Section 3.2.4

• Additionally, Verification2001 includes reservoir target elevations to reflect reported

historical end-of-week elevations for calendar year 2001.

Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 are organized following the four components (System Data,

Physical Data, Operational Data, and Generation Data) used in the Model to define the current

system configuration for both the Historical Baseline and the Verification2001 scenario setups.

3.2.1 System Data

3.2.1.1 Load Shapes and Energy Values

This section contains the load shape and energy value data common to all six generating

facilities on the Yadkin River. The Model load shape defines the daily schedule of relative

power pricing and the hour durations of each price in the peak, off-peak, and shoulder periods.

The load shape and energy value data common to all six generating facilities on the Yadkin

River is presented in Table 3-1. The model uses the load shape data to schedule the release of

water throughout the day, prioritizing generation during peak periods. Durations for load shape

periods and dollar values for the weekday load shape periods were provided by Progress Energy

as part of the Yadkin–Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project FERC relicensing.

H-38

Page 39: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-4 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-1

LOAD SHAPE

Month

Weekday Durations in Hours Weekday Power Values in Dollars

Morning

Off-Peak

Morning

Secondary

Peak

Morning

Peak

Afternoon

Secondary

Peak

Afternoon

Peak

Evening

Secondary

Peak

Evening

Off-Peak Off-Peak

Secondary

Peak Peak

Jan 6 0 8 3 7 0 0 70 50 25

Feb 6 0 8 3 7 0 0 70 50 25

Mar 6 0 8 3 7 0 0 70 50 25

Apr 6 0 8 3 7 0 0 70 50 25

May 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 70 50 25

Jun 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 70 50 25

Jul 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 70 50 25

Aug 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 70 50 25

Sep 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 70 50 25

Oct 8 0 8 0 8 0 0 70 50 25

Nov 6 0 8 3 7 0 0 70 50 25

Dec 6 0 8 3 7 0 0 70 50 25

Month

Weekend Durations in Hours Weekend Power Values in Dollars

Morning

Off-Peak

Morning

Peak

Afternoon

Off-Peak Afternoon Peak

Evening

Off-Peak Off-Peak Peak

Jan 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Feb 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Mar 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Apr 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

May 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Jun 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Jul 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Aug 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Sep 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Oct 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Nov 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

Dec 10 8 0 0 6 60 30

H-39

Page 40: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-5 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2.1.2 Carry-Over Elevations Condition

The Model Carry-Over Elevations Condition controls how to treat the beginning- and end-of-

year elevations. The model begins the run on January 1 of the start year with each reservoir at its

target elevation. If the scenario is run for a multiple-year period, then the model can either start

subsequent years with the reservoirs at the target elevations or at the end of previous year

elevations.

The Carry-Over Elevations is selected (the checkbox is checked) in this model. Therefore, the

model will carry-over the end-of-year elevations to the next year, and reservoirs will start the

next year at the ending elevations of the previous year.

3.2.1.3 Forecast Set-Up Condition

The Model Forecast Set-Up Condition requires two inputs: a number of forecast days and an

accuracy of the forecast. The number of days is how many days the model looks ahead in the

inflow file to calculate how much water the system is going to receive. The model is set up to

look 1 day ahead with 100 percent accuracy. Since the model has “perfect” forecasting as it

looks at the actual inflow file, the accuracy setting allows the user to adjust the model’s ability to

forecast accurately. The accuracy setting adjusts inflow by a fixed multiple. The model looks

ahead the given number of days, adds up the inflows, multiplies those inflows by the entered

accuracy value, then schedules releases based on this forecasted inflow volume. If the accuracy

setting is not 100 percent (1), then the forecasted volume is not accurate. By running the model

with 90 percent (0.9) accuracy, and then running again at 110 percent (1.1) accuracy, the user

can simulate operations where the operator has an ability to forecast inflows with plus or minus

10 percent accuracy.

H-40

Page 41: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-6 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2.2 Physical Data

3.2.2.1 Reservoir Storage/Area Curves

The Reservoir Storage Curve is a tabulated link between the reservoir elevation and reservoir

volume. The elevations are in units of “feet” and the volumes are in “acre-feet.” The Model

uses this curve to calculate elevations based on inflows and model-determined releases.

Reservoir storage curves were obtained from the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project Application for

License (APGI 2006), Yadkin–Pee Dee River Project Application for License (Progress Energy

2006) and the W. Kerr Scott website (USACE 2014).

The Reservoir Area Curve is a tabulated link between the reservoir elevation and reservoir

surface area. The elevations are in units of “feet” and the areas are in “acres.” The Model uses

this curve only to calculate the surface area based on the simulated reservoir elevation and uses

this data for computing evaporation losses. The surface area curve for W. Kerr Scott was

obtained from W. Kerr Scott website (USACE 2014). Surface area curves for each of the six

hydropower developments reservoirs were estimated based on the reservoir volume. These

estimates were made by dividing the incremental change in volume by the change in elevation.

In instances where smoothing of the surface area curve was required, values were selected to

provide a large surface area. This approach of calculating the reservoir area based on the

incremental change in volume results in a conservative estimate of the approximate reservoir

surface area and, therefore, provides a conservative assessment of total evaporative losses. This

approach is based purely on the incremental change in storage and may not reflect the actual

surface area at any given elevation.

Figures 3-3 through 3-9 show the reservoir area curves used in the model.

H-41

Page 42: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-7 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-3

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE

FIGURE 3-4

HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE

H-42

Page 43: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-8 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-5

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE

FIGURE 3-6

NARROWS RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE

H-43

Page 44: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-9 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-7

FALLS RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE

FIGURE 3-8

TILLERY RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE

H-44

Page 45: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-10 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-9

BLEWETT FALLS RESERVOIR STORAGE/AREA VOLUME CURVE

3.2.2.2 Monthly Evaporation

Evaporation is based upon a monthly varying coefficient that defines the evaporative loss per

reservoir. Evaporation for each of the seven reservoirs was estimated by means of adjusting

published annual Free Water Surface (FWS) (i.e., shallow lake evaporation with negligible heat

storage) evaporation data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)

Technical Report NWS 33 (TR-33) to monthly evaporation for each of the project sites (NOAA

1982a). The adjustment of evaporation data requires a reference site with a reliable data source

of National Weather Service (NWS) Class A pan evaporation data located in an area with

reasonably similar climatology. In other words, the reference sites climatic characteristics

should be similar to the area of interest. For the seven project sites in the Yadkin–Pee Dee basin,

the monthly Class A pan evaporation data from NOAA’s Technical Report NWS 34 (TR-34)

Chapel Hill 2 W pan located in Chapel Hill, NC was used to convert the annual FWS

evaporation to monthly FWS evaporation (NOAA 1982b). The Chapel Hill 2 W Class A pan

site was selected for two main reasons; its proximity to the seven project sites and because it

H-45

Page 46: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-11 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

shares the same physiographic region (i.e., Piedmont physiographic region) and the vast majority

of the Yadkin –Pee Dee basin modeled.

FWS evaporation typically closely represents potential evaporations, and it should be noted that

it may differ significantly from actual lake evaporation during a given month due to the change

in heat storage in the lake. During the spring, heat is stored in the waters of a lake, and

generally, the actual lake evaporation is much less than the computed FWS. During the fall, the

stored energy in the lake is released and the actual lake evaporation is much greater than the

FWS evaporation. It is reported that the FWS evaporation can be estimated with reasonable

accuracy. Table 3-2 below summarizes the monthly and annual FWS evaporation for each of the

seven project sites.

TABLE 3-2

FREE WATER SURFACE EVAPORATION

Month

W. Kerr Scott

Evap Loss

(inches)

High Rock

Evap Loss

(inches)

Tuckertown

Evap Loss

(inches)

Narrows

Evap Loss

(inches)

Falls

Evap Loss

(inches)

Tillery

Evap Loss

(inches)

Blewett Falls

Evap Loss

(inches)

Jan 1.12 1.23 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.26 1.28

Feb 1.33 1.47 1.47 1.48 1.48 1.5 1.52

Mar 2.58 2.85 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.91 2.96

Apr 3.5 3.86 3.88 3.89 3.89 3.95 4.01

May 4.04 4.46 4.48 4.5 4.5 4.56 4.63

Jun 4.43 4.89 4.92 4.93 4.93 5 5.08

Jul 4.47 4.94 4.97 4.98 4.98 5.05 5.13

Aug 4.07 4.49 4.52 4.53 4.53 4.59 4.66

Sep 3.23 3.57 3.59 3.6 3.6 3.65 3.7

Oct 2.27 2.51 2.52 2.53 2.53 2.56 2.6

Nov 1.44 1.59 1.59 1.6 1.6 1.62 1.65

Dec 1.03 1.14 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.16 1.18

Annual 33.5 37 37.2 37.3 37.3 37.8 38.4

In order to incorporate the FWS evaporation into the CHEOPS model, the values provided in

Table 3-2 above were converted from inches per month to feet per day per acre. The

corresponding surface area at each project site's full-pond elevation was assumed for this

H-46

Page 47: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-12 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

conversion. In addition the CHEOPS input coefficients, the average monthly volume of water

being depleted from the system was also calculated by multiplying the surface areas by the FWS

evaporation data; a summary of the CHEOPS input coefficients is provided in Table 3-3.

TABLE 3-3

EVAPORATIVE LOSS COEFFICIENTS

Month

W. Kerr Scott

Evap Loss

(ft/acre/day)

High Rock

Evap Loss

(ft/acre/day)

Tuckertown

Evap Loss

(ft/acre/day)

Narrows

Evap Loss

(ft/acre/day)

Falls

Evap Loss

(ft/acre/day)

Tillery

Evap Loss

(ft/acre/day)

Blewett Falls

Evap Loss

(ft/acre/day)

Jan 3.01E-03 3.32E-03 3.34E-03 3.35E-03 3.35E-03 3.39E-03 3.44E-03

Feb 3.95E-03 4.36E-03 4.39E-03 4.40E-03 4.40E-03 4.46E-03 4.53E-03

Mar 6.94E-03 7.67E-03 7.71E-03 7.73E-03 7.73E-03 7.83E-03 7.96E-03

Apr 9.72E-03 1.07E-02 1.08E-02 1.08E-02 1.08E-02 1.10E-02 1.11E-02

May 1.09E-02 1.20E-02 1.21E-02 1.21E-02 1.21E-02 1.23E-02 1.24E-02

Jun 1.23E-02 1.36E-02 1.37E-02 1.37E-02 1.37E-02 1.39E-02 1.41E-02

Jul 1.20E-02 1.33E-02 1.33E-02 1.34E-02 1.34E-02 1.36E-02 1.38E-02

Aug 1.09E-02 1.21E-02 1.21E-02 1.22E-02 1.22E-02 1.23E-02 1.25E-02

Sep 8.98E-03 9.91E-03 9.97E-03 9.99E-03 9.99E-03 1.01E-02 1.03E-02

Oct 6.11E-03 6.75E-03 6.78E-03 6.80E-03 6.80E-03 6.89E-03 7.00E-03

Nov 3.99E-03 4.40E-03 4.43E-03 4.44E-03 4.44E-03 4.50E-03 4.57E-03

Dec 2.77E-03 3.06E-03 3.08E-03 3.09E-03 3.09E-03 3.13E-03 3.18E-03

3.2.2.3 Tailwater Data

The Tailwater Curve relates the powerhouse tailwater elevation to the facility’s outflow. In

cases where the powerhouse releases directly into a downstream reservoir, the downstream

reservoir’s elevation is used to compute tailwater elevation. The elevation is in units of “feet,”

while the flow is in cubic feet per second, or “cfs.” The tailwater elevation is subtracted from the

reservoir elevation to calculate the gross head used in determining turbine and pump-turbine

hydraulic performance.

W. Kerr Scott is not a generating facility; therefore, the model does not apply the tailwater

elevation in calculations.

H-47

Page 48: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-13 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

The High Rock powerhouse releases directly into Tuckertown reservoir, so the elevation of

Tuckertown reservoir is the controlling factor for the High Rock tailwater elevation.

Likewise, the Tuckertown, Narrows, and Falls powerhouses release directly into the downstream

reservoirs, Narrows, Falls and Tillery respectively. Therefore, the elevation of Narrows, Falls,

and Tillery reservoirs are the controlling factor for the upstream tailwater elevation computation.

Tuckertown discharges do influence tailwater at high flows and are modeled as outlined in

Table 3-4.

TABLE 3-4

TUCKERTOWN POWERHOUSE TAILWATER RATING CURVE

Stage

(ft. msl) Flow

(cfs) 509.5 0

512 100,000

526 400,000

The Tillery powerhouse tailwater rating curve was supplied by plant operators and is shown in

Table 3-5.

TABLE 3-5

TILLERY POWERHOUSE TAILWATER RATING CURVE

Stage

(ft. msl) Flow

(cfs) 203.13 0

206.13 5,568

207.73 12,000

The Blewett Falls powerhouse tailwater rating curve was supplied by plant operators and is

shown in Table 3-6.

H-48

Page 49: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-14 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-6

BLEWETT FALLS POWERHOUSE TAILWATER RATING CURVE

Stage

(ft. msl) Flow

(cfs) 123.23 0

124.28 1,248

126.03 3,624

127.73 7,272

3.2.2.4 Spillway Capacity

The Spillway Curve contains the data relating reservoir elevation (feet) and spillway discharge

capacity (cfs). This data allows the model to determine the maximum amount of water that can

be spilled at the current reservoir elevation and is the sum of all spillway conveyances with gates

open to maximum setting. The Model allows for a simple spillway relationship of elevation and

flow; therefore, all spillways, including gates, are modeled as a relationship of elevation and

flow. If the dam has flashboards (Blewett Falls), the Spillway Curve data represents the flow

capacity with the flashboards tripped.

Spillway capacity data for the W. Kerr Scott Project is shown in Table 3-7, derived from the

W. Kerr Scott web site (USACE 2014).

TABLE 3-7

W. KERR SCOTT SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs) 1,075.00 0

1,105.20 199,300

Spillway capacity data for the High Rock Dam is shown in Table 3-8, derived from the Yadkin

Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document (APGI 2002).

H-49

Page 50: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-15 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-8

HIGH ROCK SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs) Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs) Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs)

594.38 0 605.99 63,714 622.54 257,565

595.33 3,026 607.51 78,628 625.02 296,328

597.04 7,015 609.79 98,515 627.11 330,121

598.18 11,991 611.51 116,411 629.20 367,887

599.90 20,946 614.17 146,235 630.92 399,690

601.42 30,893 616.45 173,076 632.82 435,468

603.13 40,842 618.36 197,927 634.53 469,258

604.65 52,776 621.02 231,724 637.00 511,994

Spillway capacity data for the Tuckertown Dam is shown in Table 3-9, derived from the Yadkin

Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document (APGI 2002).

TABLE 3-9

TUCKERTOWN SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs) Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs) Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs)

527.11 0 537.31 43,947 554.94 208,126

529.20 4,146 539.81 61,360 557.42 239,635

530.86 9,121 542.71 84,577 559.69 274,461

532.32 15,755 545.62 110,282 561.75 305,970

534.20 24,046 549.14 143,449 564.22 346,600

535.86 33,168 552.25 178,275

Spillway capacity data for the Narrows Dam is shown in Table 3-10, derived from the Yadkin

Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document (APGI 2002).

H-50

Page 51: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-16 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-10

NARROWS SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

482.20 58 497.88 69,269 511.35 280,086

483.49 2,659 499.17 78,779 512.27 306,000

485.15 5,263 500.28 90,878 513.38 331,915

486.99 11,323 501.38 104,703 514.85 361,288

489.02 19,975 502.86 125,441 515.96 386,340

490.50 26,032 504.15 147,904 516.51 399,298

491.97 32,952 505.63 172,959 517.99 404,491

493.45 40,736 507.10 198,877 520.57 440,782

495.11 49,385 508.39 220,477

496.40 58,895 509.87 250,713

Spillway capacity data for the Falls Dam is shown in Table 3-11, derived from the Yadkin

Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document (APGI 2002).

TABLE 3-11

FALLS SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

299.11 0 314.96 74,897 334.15 281,334

300.68 3,331 318.29 98,481 336.69 315,042

302.63 9,219 321.82 130,496 338.26 340,326

305.18 18,476 324.16 154,088 340.61 369,819

307.72 28,575 326.51 180,209 342.56 401,002

309.88 41,207 329.06 213,074

312.22 55,524 332.19 249,308

Spillway capacity data for the Tillery Dam is shown in Table 3-12, derived from the Yadkin–Pee

Dee Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document (Progress Energy 2003).

H-51

Page 52: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-17 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-12

TILLERY SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

254.17 0 274.67 208,000 288.67 495,000

258.67 18,000 277.17 250,000 290.17 540,000

262.67 50,000 280.17 300,000 290.67 560,000

264.67 70,000 282.67 350,000 291.67 600,000

267.67 103,000 284.67 380,000 293.67 680,000

270.67 145,000 286.67 440,000

Spillway capacity data for the Blewett Falls Dam is shown in Table 3-13, derived from the

Yadkin–Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project Initial Consultation Document (Progress Energy 2003).

TABLE 3-13

BLEWETT FALLS SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

Elevation

(ft. msl)

Capacity

(cfs)

174.08 0 185.38 200,000 193.68 500,000

176.08 13,000 186.08 220,000 194.68 550,000

177.08 25,000 187.58 270,000 195.58 600,000

178.08 37,000 188.38 300,000 196.58 650,000

180.08 70,000 189.08 323,000 197.58 700,000

181.38 100,000 190.08 360,000 198.58 750,000

182.08 120,000 191.08 395,000 199.08 775,000

183.48 150,000 192.58 450,000

This table represents calculations of spillway capacity when all flashboards are tripped.

3.2.2.5 Plant Operation Type

The Plant Operation Type is how the Model classifies and operates the plants. Four different

components are used to describe the operation of the plants.

Min Powerhouse Flow – All plants in this model have zero (0) value entered, as the turbine

input curves accurately define the lowest operating flow of the units.

H-52

Page 53: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-18 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Plant Operation Type – This condition specifies what type of scheduling logic is to be used

for the plant. Options include Strictly Peaking, Non-generating, Run-of-River, and others.

Pumped storage plants follow pumping and discharge schedules. Strictly peaking plants use

logic to generate as much power as possible during the peak period, followed by secondary-

peak and then off-peak periods; all six hydroelectric stations in the system are strictly

peaking. Hybrid-pumped storage plants have a pumping schedule, but schedule plant

discharge using peaking plant logic. Non-generating plants like W. Kerr Scott are storage

plants without a powerhouse that releases flows to follow the target elevations and flow

requirements.

Delinked Owner – This condition sets the level of water conveyance support a plant receives

and provides to other plants operated by the same licensee/operator. All plants in the model

have this value unchecked, meaning the plants provide supporting operation to other plants

operated by the same owner. In this model, this condition means that High Rock,

Tuckertown, Narrows, and Falls provide support to one another and Tillery and Blewett

Falls provide support to one another.

Delinked System – This condition sets the level of support a plant receives and provides to

other plants operated by other licensees/operators in the modeled system. All plants in this

model have this condition checked; meaning the default Model logic for support between

plants is not in effect for plants operated by different operators.

3.2.3 Operational Data

3.2.3.1 Spill and Minimum Elevations

The spill or flood control elevation relates to a variety of physical situations (spillway crest,

partial gate coverage, maximum normal pool, etc.), but it represents the elevation at which the

model will begin to simulate spill to avoid increasing water elevation. Under a strictly peaking

plant, when the model calculates an end-of-period elevation above the spill elevation, the model

will calculate spill as well as the turbine/diversion discharge. The model’s logic, under a strictly

peaking plant, also attempts to reduce or eliminate occurrences when the reservoir elevation

exceeds the spill elevation.

H-53

Page 54: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-19 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

The minimum elevation is the minimum allowable reservoir elevation. The elevation could be

set by regulations or by a physical limit (lowest available outlet invert). Bypass flows,

withdrawals, wicket gate leakage, and evaporation can draw the reservoir below this level. The

model will operate to eliminate occurrences when the reservoir elevation dips below this

elevation.

Table 3-14 lists the spill and minimum elevations for each facility in the Model.

TABLE 3-14

RESERVOIR SPILL AND MINIMUM ELEVATIONS

Facility Spill Elevation

(ft. msl)

Minimum Elevation

(ft. msl)

W. Kerr Scott 1,075.0 1,000.0

High Rock 623.9 594.8

Tuckertown 564.7 526.7

Narrows 509.8 503.8

Falls 332.8 320.0

Tillery 278.17 256.2

Blewett Falls* 178.08 161.1

* The elevation at which Blewett Falls begins to spill water is dependent on the

flashboards. If the flashboards are in place, the spill elevation is 176.08 ft. msl.

3.2.3.2 Flashboards

The Flashboards Condition allows the user to install and remove flashboards. Currently

flashboards can be installed or removed by day or by elevation. Along with controlling the

installation and removal of the flashboards, the Flashboards Condition contains the relationship

(flow versus elevation) for the outlet when the flashboards are installed. Blewett Falls Dam is

the only Dam in the system with flashboards. The Blewett Falls flashboards are elevation

controlled and, based on discussions with plant operators, simulated to trip four feet above the

top of the boards; trip elevation is 180.08 ft. msl. Based on discussions with plant operators, it is

assumed that if the flashboards are tripped they remain out for a minimum of 14 days at which

point the reservoir must be at or below 174.08 ft. msl for the model to initiate the flashboards.

H-54

Page 55: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-20 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

The spillway discharge curve for Blewett Falls Dam with flashboards installed is shown in

Table 3-15.

When using flashboards, the following logic applies:

- When flashboards are installed (not tripped), the spill elevation (Table 3-14) is not used;

rather, the flashboard spillway crest elevation is used to calculate spill.

- Once the flashboards have been tripped, the target elevation is changed by the model to

be 0.1 feet below the flashboard reset elevation. When flashboards are out (tripped), the

Spillway Capacity condition in Physical Settings is used to compute spill flow rate, and

the Spill Elevation is set to be the spillway crest elevation.

TABLE 3-15

BLEWETT FALLS FLASHBOARD SPILLWAY CAPACITY VALUES

Elevation

(ft. msl) Capacity

(cfs)

176.08 0

178.08 75

179.08 5,130

180.08 13,130

180.58 20,130

181.28 30,130

182.09 40,130

3.2.3.3 Target Elevations

The target elevation is the user-defined elevation that the model attempts to meet (targets) as the

end-of-day reservoir elevation. The model straight-line interpolates between user input points to

identify a target elevation for each day. The model will deviate from the target to accommodate

forecasted inflows, to meet the plant’s own outflow requirements or constraints, and to support

flow requirements.

The simulated W. Kerr Scott target elevation is 1,030 ft. msl based on the W. Kerr Scott web site

(USACE, 2014). Table 3-16 lists the guide curve elevations for the APGI reservoirs (curves

H-55

Page 56: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-21 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

needed for modeling). These are the target elevations used for the Historical Baseline scenario.

The Verification2001 scenario uses historical 2001 end-of-month elevations. The Tuckertown

and Falls target elevations were set to 3 feet below normal full pond. The High Rock and

Narrows target elevations are based on average historic elevations for the period 1983 through

2002. The Tillery and Blewett Falls target elevations, 277.5 ft. msl and 177 ft. msl respectively,

were based on discussion with plant operators.

TABLE 3-16

GUIDE CURVE TARGET ELEVATIONS OF APGI RESERVOIRS

Day of Year High Rock Target

Elevation (ft msl)

Tuckertown Target

Elevation (ft msl)

Narrows Target

Elevation (ft msl)

Falls Target

Elevation (ft msl)

Jan 1 616 561.7 508.8 329.8

Feb 1 616 561.7 508.74 329.8

Mar 1 618.3 561.7 509.15 329.8

Apr 1 620.85 561.7 508.89 329.8

Apr 15 622 561.7 508.74 329.8

May 1 622 561.7 508.57 329.8

Jun 1 622 561.7 508.2 329.8

Jul 1 622 561.7 508.23 329.8

Aug 1 622 561.7 508 329.8

Sep 1 619.98 561.7 507.93 329.8

Oct 1 617.51 561.7 508.17 329.8

Nov 1 616 561.7 508.42 329.8

Dec 1 616 561.7 508.52 329.8

Dec 31 616 561.7 508.79 329.8

3.2.3.4 Water Withdrawals

Historical water use (withdrawals and returns in cfs) was estimated following the procedures

outlined in Section 2.8.2. The monthly water use in cfs was modeled in the Historical Baseline

scenario to represent historical municipal and industrial water use from each reservoir. The

Historical Baseline scenario modeled withdrawals and returns in cfs and are presented in

Appendix B.

H-56

Page 57: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-22 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2.3.5 Minimum Flows

The simulated minimum instantaneous flow from W. Kerr Scott was simulated at 125 cfs based

on the W. Kerr Scott web site (USACE 2014).

Based on input from plant operators, the minimum instantaneous flow requirement at Blewett

Falls was simulated at 200 cfs, 50 cfs above the required minimum instantaneous flow during the

period of evaluation (1997 through 2003). Similarly, based on input from plant operators, the

minimum instantaneous flow requirement at Tillery was simulated at 80 cfs, 40 cfs above the

required minimum instantaneous flow during the period of evaluation (1997 through 2003).

3.2.3.6 Maximum Flows

The model allows a maximum flow constraint to be applied based on the reservoir elevation.

Maximum flows are limited from W. Kerr Scott reservoir to prevent flooding at Wilkesboro, NC.

This will limit operations to restrict flow to a maximum of the defined limit. The maximum

discharge is 125 cfs up to reservoir elevation 1,030 ft. msl and 5,400 cfs up until the reservoir is

going to spill.

3.2.3.7 Reservoir Fluctuation Limits

The Reservoir Level fluctuation limit defines how the fluctuation of the reservoir is limited

within each day. The Duke Energy developments both operate with elevation based reservoir

fluctuation limits. The fluctuation limit of the Tillery reservoir is a 1.3 ft. band surrounding the

target elevation of 277.5 ft. msl. The fluctuation limit of the Blewett Falls reservoir is a 5 ft.

band surrounding the target elevation of 177 ft. msl.

3.2.4 Generation Data

All unit performance information was estimated and modeled based on the information available

at the time of model development.

H-57

Page 58: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-23 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2.4.1 Headloss Coefficients

The Model allows two common headloss coefficients for each plant and an individual coefficient

for each unit. Headloss for each unit is calculated by multiplying the unit’s common coefficient

by the total flow for that common coefficient squared, added to the individual coefficient

multiplied, by the individual unit flow squared. The formula is:

iic

n

j

ji hFhFH 2

2

1

Where:

Hi is the unit headloss in feet

hc is the common coefficient for the ith

unit

hi is the individual coefficient for the ith

unit

Fi is the flow for the ith

unit

j runs from 1 to n

n is the number of units that have the same common coefficient as the unit i

Table 3-17 presents the estimated headlosses for each hydroelectric plant as a function of

flow (Q):

TABLE 3-17

HEADLOSS COEFFICIENTS

Facility Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6

High Rock 1.476843E-07 1.476843E-07 1.476843E-07

Tuckertown 1.366996E-07 1.366996E-07 1.366996E-07

Narrows 3.2E-07 3.2E-07 3.2E-07 3.2E-07

Falls 2.402915E-07 2.55102E-07 2.55102E-07

Tillery 7.55442E-08 1.14024E-07 7.55442E-08 5.66657E-08

Blewett Falls 8.21546E-07 8.21546E-07 8.21546E-07 5.09758E-07 5.09758E-07 5.09758E-07

H-58

Page 59: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-24 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2.4.2 Turbine Efficiency Curves

Turbine performance is entered into the Model by plant and as flow versus efficiency at five

separate net heads. The estimated turbine performance is presented in Figures 3-10 through

3-20.

FIGURE 3-10

HIGH ROCK POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 THROUGH 3

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

H-59

Page 60: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-25 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-11

TUCKERTOWN POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 THROUGH 3

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

FIGURE 3-12

NARROWS POWERHOUSE UNITS 1, 2, AND 4

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

H-60

Page 61: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-26 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-13

NARROWS POWERHOUSE UNIT 3

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

FIGURE 3-14

FALLS POWERHOUSE UNIT 1

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

H-61

Page 62: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-27 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-15

FALLS POWERHOUSE UNITS 2 AND 3

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

FIGURE 3-16

TILLERY POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 AND 3

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

H-62

Page 63: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-28 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-17

TILLERY POWERHOUSE UNIT 2

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

FIGURE 3-18

TILLERY POWERHOUSE UNIT 4

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

H-63

Page 64: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-29 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 3-19

BLEWETT FALLS POWERHOUSE UNITS 1 THROUGH 3

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

FIGURE 3-20

BLEWETT FALLS POWERHOUSE UNITS 4 THROUGH 6

TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS

H-64

Page 65: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-30 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

3.2.4.3 Generator Efficiency Curve

The Model generator data, like the turbine data, is entered by plant and then associated with a

unit. The generator performance data is a relationship of generator output versus generator

efficiency.

The generator condition includes a maximum generator output. This value is the maximum

generator output the model will allow, assuming there is turbine capacity to meet this limit. The

model will limit turbine output based on the generator maximum specified output. The generator

efficiency curves for each of the units in the system are shown in Tables 3-18 through 3-27.

TABLE 3-18

HIGH ROCK UNITS 1 THROUGH 3

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Units 1 through 3

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

0 0 13.75

67.06% 0.5 13.75

79.25% 1 13.75

87.53% 2 13.75

90.84% 3 13.75

92.65% 4 13.75

93.8% 5 13.75

95.19% 7 13.75

96.02% 9 13.75

97.09% 13.75 13.75

H-65

Page 66: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-31 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-19

TUCKERTOWN UNITS 1 THROUGH 3

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Units 1 through 3

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

0 0 15.555

64.5% 0.5 15.555

77.37% 1 15.555

86.32% 2 15.555

89.93% 3 15.555

91.92% 4 15.555

94.07% 6 15.555

94.72% 7 15.555

96.24% 11 15.555

97.09% 15.555 15.555

TABLE 3-20

NARROWS UNITS 1, 2, AND 4

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Units 1, 2 and 4

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

0 0 27.5

82.09% 2 27.5

89.39% 4 27.5

92.25% 6 27.5

93.8% 8 27.5

94.78% 10 27.5

95.96% 14 27.5

96.66% 18 27.5

97.13% 22 27.5

97.56% 27.5 27.5

H-66

Page 67: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-32 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-21

NARROWS UNIT 3

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Unit 3

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

0 0 31.25

68.47% 1 31.25

80.34% 2 31.25

88.29% 4 31.25

91.44% 6 31.25

93.15% 8 31.25

94.24% 10 31.25

94.99% 12 31.25

96.6% 20 31.25

97.56% 31.25 31.25

TABLE 3-22

FALLS UNIT 1

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Unit 1

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

0 0 8.75

58.27% 0.25 8.75

72.49% 0.5 8.75

83% 1 8.75

87.39% 1.5 8.75

89.83% 2 8.75

92.51% 3 8.75

93.97% 4 8.75

95.54% 6 8.75

96.62% 8.75 8.75

H-67

Page 68: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-33 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-23

FALLS UNITS 2 AND 3

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Units 2 and 3

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

0 0 12.5

65.57% 0.5 12.5

83.59% 1.5 12.5

86.72% 2 12.5

90.2% 3 12.5

92.11% 4 12.5

93.33% 5 12.5

94.82% 7 12.5

95.7% 9 12.5

96.62% 12.5 12.5

TABLE 3-24

TILLERY UNITS 1, 3, AND 4

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Units 1, 3 and 4

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

92.73% 5 27.5

94.9% 10 27.5

96.19% 15 27.5

96.82% 20 27.5

96.89% 21 27.5

96.94% 22 27.5

96.98% 23 27.5

97.03% 25 27.5

97.05% 26.5 27.5

97.05% 27.5 27.5

H-68

Page 69: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-34 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-25

TILLERY UNIT 2

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Unit 2

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

92.73% 5 22.5

93.94% 7.5 22.5

94.9% 10 22.5

95.64% 12.5 22.5

96.19% 15 22.5

96.57% 17.5 22.5

96.82% 20 22.5

96.89% 21 22.5

96.94% 22 22.5

96.96% 22.5 22.5

TABLE 3-26

BLEWETT FALLS UNITS 1 THROUGH 3

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Units 1 through 3

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

91.53% 0.5 3.75

92.91% 1 3.75

93.99% 1.5 3.75

94.43% 1.75 3.75

94.81% 2 3.75

95.13% 2.25 3.75

95.4% 2.5 3.75

95.61% 2.75 3.75

95.79% 3 3.75

95.92% 3.25 3.75

96.01% 3.5 3.75

96.07% 3.75 3.75

H-69

Page 70: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-35 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

TABLE 3-27

BLEWETT FALLS UNITS 4 THROUGH 6

GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE

Units 4 through 6

Efficiency Output (MW) Maximum Capacity (MW)

91.53% 0.5 5.25

92.91% 1 5.25

93.99% 1.5 5.25

94.81% 2 5.25

95.13% 2.25 5.25

95.4% 2.5 5.25

95.79% 3 5.25

96.01% 3.5 5.25

96.07% 3.75 5.25

96.07% 4 5.25

96.07% 4.5 5.25

96.07% 5.25 5.25

3.2.4.4 Wicket Gate Leakage

The Model wicket gate leakage flow is active only during times of non-generation. Thus, during

periods of non-generation, this leakage flow is used to make up all or a portion of the minimum

flow requirement. Wicket gate leakage was assumed at 10 cfs per unit for each of the APGI

hydroelectric stations (High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows, and Falls). Wicket gate leakage of

10 cfs per unit at Tillery and 21 cfs per unit at Blewett Falls was estimated by plant operators.

3.2.4.5 Powerhouse Weekend Operations

The Powerhouse Weekend Operations Condition permits the simulation of reduced powerhouse

operations during Saturdays and/or Sundays. Minimum instantaneous and minimum daily

average flow requirements will be met by bringing the powerhouse online for the required flow

only. This condition removes the change-in-storage component from consideration in computing

a desired daily discharge. To simulate actual usage, Saturday and Sunday powerhouse

operations are minimized at all six hydroelectric stations. During high inflow times with little

H-70

Page 71: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 3 Historical Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-36 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

usable storage, the model will bring the powerhouse online to generate with outflows, rather than

permit spilling.

3.2.4.6 Maintenance

The maintenance schedule provides the functionality to take a unit out of service for all or part of

each year for a scenario run. There are currently no outages modeled in the Model.

H-71

Page 72: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-1 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

4.0 MODEL CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION PROCESS

Verification is intended to validate the Model input data and logic so the Model and the

Historical Baseline may be used for comparisons of scenarios with various operational

alternatives. HDR performed model verification by comparing actual and model estimated

generation and discharge at multiple points in the system. Verification of the model was

completed using two different scenarios or model runs. The first (Historical Baseline) performs

a verification of the model input data, logic, and conditions. The Historical Baseline scenario

was simulated for the period 1955 through 2003. The results of the Historical Baseline scenario

were compared against historical operations for calendar years 1997 through 2003, which

represents the period of available hydroelectric operational data. Additionally, the Historical

Baseline scenario results where compared to historical USGS gage flows at the outlet of W. Kerr

Scott, High Rock, and Blewett Falls, these summaries are available in the following files:

Blewett02129000.xlsx, Kerr02112000.xlsx, and HighRock02122500.xlsx. In addition to the

Historical Baseline scenario, a second verification scenario (Verification2001) was developed to

simulate the detailed operations for calendar year 2001, which was one of the driest years on

record within the Basin.

Generation data is typically available for hydropower developments and is a metered value that

has good accuracy compared to other forms of data that are not metered or based on estimated

values with lower accuracy. Generation is a measure of available flow and storage volume,

which relates to inflows and reservoir elevations. When performing verification of water

quantity models with power generation, it is common to find discrepancies between observed

data and modeled output for generation and reservoir elevation when looking at a small sample

of time periods (day, week, or month). This is due to the difference between the set of rules

provided in the model versus the day-to-day decisions common in large power developments that

respond to power grid demands as well as storm forecasts and other non-measured impacts on

the reservoir and equipment. Modeled results for each verification scenario were compared with

historic generation, powerhouse flow, and reservoir levels. In addition to verifying the model

under different hydrologic conditions, it was also important to select relatively recent years for

model verification under conditions that are representative of current operating conditions.

As previously stated, the Model is coded to run day-to-day operations based on general operating

conditions or rules. The model follows these rules strictly, 24 hours per day and 365 days per

H-72

Page 73: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-2 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

year, similar to an automated operation. Actual project operations generally follow the operating

rules; however, human intervention periodically deviates from the general operating rules to

accommodate day-to-day realities such as equipment failure and maintenance, changing

hydrologic conditions, power demands and energy pricing, and other factors. In addition to

differences between modeled operations versus actual operations that include human

interventions, there are also inherent discrepancies due to input data inaccuracies (e.g.,

differences in hydrology data, turbine or generator efficiencies, or reservoir storage curves). It is

important to understand that, due to these differences between actual operating conditions and

modeled conditions, model results will never completely match historical operations.

The verification goal is to obtain less than a 5 percent difference when comparing long-term

modeled results to historical generation data over the hydrologic period. In cases where the

modeled results exceeded a 5 percent difference, potential causes for the differences were

examined to determine whether the difference was due to deviations in model setup, historical

deviations in operations, or discrepancies in the reconstructed hydrology data.

4.1 Summary of Modeled Results versus Historical Data

Verification of the Model was performed using historical operations data. Verification of the

model was performed using two different scenarios, or model runs. The first scenario (Historical

Baseline) performs a verification of the model input data, logic, and conditions for calendar years

1997 through 2003. The second verification scenario was run using the specific calendar year

2001 (Verification2001).

4.1.1 Model Historical Baseline

The Historical Baseline scenario results were compared to historical operations for the

hydrologic period 1997 through 2003. Figures 4-1 through 4-7 show comparisons of the

modeled reservoir elevations for the Historical Baseline scenario compared to the historical

reported (observed) elevations for the same period. The plotted reported (observed) elevations

for the six hydroelectric facilities are based on historical end-of-month observations as historical

daily reservoir elevations were not available for the full period 1997 through 2003. Unit outages

during this period were not defined and, therefore, not taken into account in the Model and it was

assumed all units were available for operation for the full period of simulation.

H-73

Page 74: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-3 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-1

MODELED AND HISTORICAL W. KERR SCOTT

DAILY RESERVOIR ELEVATION COMPARISON

H-74

Page 75: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-4 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-2

MODELED AND HISTORICAL HIGH ROCK

MONTHLY RESERVOIR ELEVATION COMPARISON

H-75

Page 76: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-5 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-3

MODELED AND HISTORICAL TUCKERTOWN

MONTHLY RESERVOIR ELEVATION COMPARISON

H-76

Page 77: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-6 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-4

MODELED AND HISTORICAL NARROWS

MONTHLY RESERVOIR ELEVATION COMPARISON

H-77

Page 78: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-7 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-5

MODELED AND HISTORICAL FALLS

MONTHLY RESERVOIR ELEVATION COMPARISON

H-78

Page 79: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-8 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-6

MODELED AND HISTORICAL TILLERY

MONTHLY RESERVOIR ELEVATION COMPARISON

H-79

Page 80: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-9 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-7

MODELED AND HISTORICAL BLEWETT FALLS

MONTHLY RESERVOIR ELEVATION COMPARISON

H-80

Page 81: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-10 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

The Model simulation of the Historical Baseline scenario estimated an average annual energy

output 6 percent higher than historical generation for the same period, as shown in Table 4-1.

Based on available historical generation records, modeled and historical generation were

compared for the period 1997 through 2003 at all hydroelectric facilities. There are significant

annual swings in the percent difference between historical and modeled operations for the 1997

through 2003 period; however, over the long term the modeled and historical operations compare

favorably. Some of the swings in the percent difference between historical and modeled

operations may be due to the fact that this scenario was coded with generic operational logic.

For example, High Rock was simulated with Target Elevations based on average historical

operations and to follow the High Rock Operating Guide as outlined in Figure 2-2 versus the

actual historical reservoir drawdowns which may have occurred. The Verification2001 scenario

simulates targeted historical reservoir operations including drawdowns versus the generic rules

as outlined in the Historical Baseline scenario.

TABLE 4-1

HISTORICAL BASELINE: GENERATION COMPARISON

Percent Difference between Modeled and Historical Generation

([Modeled - Historic]/Historic)

Year High

Rock Tuckertown Narrows Falls Tillery

Blewett

Falls

System

Total

1997 16% 16% 24% 17% 9% 12% 17%

1998 -10% 5% -1% 2% 4% 8% 1%

1999 21% 12% 15% 18% 14% 15% 16%

2000 23% 9% 11% 21% 10% 5% 12%

2001 12% 3% 2% 8% 3% 4% 4%

2002 5% -1% -2% 5% -5% -4% -1%

2003 -6% 4% 0% 5% 0% 9% 1%

Period Total

(1997–2003) 4% 7% 6% 9% 4% 8% 6%

Figures 4-8 and 4-9 show the Model daily and accumulative modeled (verification scenario)

discharges from the W. Kerr Scott Project and the Blewett Falls development as compared to the

historical (observed) discharges for the same period. Blewett Falls simulated discharge is

compared to the USGS 02129000 Pee Dee near Rockingham gage flow, since the gage is just

H-81

Page 82: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-11 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

downstream of the development. For the period 1997 through 2003, the Model estimated a

cumulative discharge from W. Kerr Scott reservoir and Blewett Falls reservoir within 2 percent

of the historical accumulative discharge from each facility. Historical W. Kerr Scott operational

data was unavailable for the period 6/1/1997 through 10/31/1997 and 4/1/2002 through

4/30/2002. The modeled flow was not plotted in Figure 4-8 for the periods of missing historical

operations. Additionally, the simulated W. Kerr Scott discharges during this period were not

included in the accumulated flow calculations.

H-82

Page 83: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-12 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-8

MODELED AND HISTORICAL W. KERR SCOTT DISCHARGE COMPARISON

Periods of missing historical operations data

H-83

Page 84: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-13 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-9

MODELED AND HISTORICAL BLEWETT FALLS DEVELOPMENT

DISCHARGE COMPARISON

H-84

Page 85: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-14 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

4.1.2 Scenario Verification2001

The Verification2001 scenario was established in the Model following the typical operating

requirements of the system (same rule logic as the Historical Baseline scenario). Historical end-

of-week reservoir levels were simulated as the Model target elevations such that the model

attempts to operate the reservoir pools as they were historically operated for calendar year 2001.

During the fall of 2001 there was a significant drawdown of the Tillery and Blewett Falls

reservoirs to support FERC license required inspections. Due to this period of special hydro

operations at these two developments, a more detailed review and adjustment for model inputs

was considered to perform the verification. Historical hourly plant operations were reviewed for

the drawdown period of September through December of 2001. Based on this review, it was

identified that rather than operating for a short period of time at peak efficiency, during the

drawdown period, the hydro turbine units at Narrows and Falls were often operated for longer

durations at minimum unit operational flow. Simulation of this significant diversion from typical

hydro development turbine operations would require override of model logic and would not

result in a true verification of the model. Therefore this verification scenario was compared to

the annual historical discharge. Blewett Falls simulated discharge was compared to the USGS

streamflow gage 02129000 Pee Dee near Rockingham located a short distance downstream of

the development. The comparison of the simulated and historical discharge from each reservoir

combined with the Blewett Falls and USGS gage comparison is considered a good verification of

the model’s ability to simulate operations throughout the system of reservoirs.

As shown in Table 4-2, the simulated station discharge for six of the seven hydro developments

is very similar (within ±5%). The outlier is Falls where the historical discharge is significantly

less than the upstream development, indicating a potential discrepancy in the records for Falls.

Since there is no significant reservoir volume for storage or reregulation of inflows, the

discharge from Falls should be incrementally greater than Narrows as reflected in the modeled

discharge. It appears there is an error in the available historical discharge records for Falls as the

annual historical discharge is less than that reported from High Rock, Tuckertown, or Narrows;

therefore, the discharge comparison at Falls, 16.3%, is not considered valid. Scenario

Verification2001 was further reviewed by comparing the historical and simulated reservoir

H-85

Page 86: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-15 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

elevations over the entire 2001 period. The comparison of the reservoir levels reflects the daily

operating rules and inflow used in the model to the historical data for the same period. Figures

4-10 through 4-16 show the historical and modeled operations for 2001, where modeled target

elevations represent historical end-of-week elevations. As shown, the model follows the trends

of the historical elevations very closely.

TABLE 4-2

MODEL VERIFICATION2001: STATION DISCHARGE COMPARISON

Total Annual Station Discharge (acre-feet)

Month W. Kerr

Scott High Rock Tuckertown Narrows Falls Tillery

Blewett Falls

USGS 02129000

Historical 177,757 1,144,936 1,174,957 1,212,335 1,025,633 1,305,219 1,983,503

Modeled 181,056 1,185,108 1,194,714 1,191,766 1,193,092 1,294,331 1,893,382

Difference

(Modeled -

Historical)

3,299 40,172 19,758 -20,569 167,459 -10,888 -90,121

Percent

Difference

(Difference/

Historical)

1.9% 3.5% 1.7% -1.7% 16.3% -0.8% -4.5%

H-86

Page 87: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-16 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-10

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

W. KERR SCOTT PROJECT OPERATIONS

H-87

Page 88: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-17 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-11

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

HIGH ROCK PROJECT OPERATIONS

H-88

Page 89: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-18 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-12

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 HISTORICAL

TUCKERTOWN DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS

H-89

Page 90: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-19 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-13

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

NARROWS DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS

H-90

Page 91: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-20 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-14

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

FALLS PROJECT OPERATIONS

H-91

Page 92: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-21 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-15

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

TILLERY PROJECT OPERATIONS

H-92

Page 93: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-22 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-16

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

BLEWETT FALLS PROJECT OPERATIONS

H-93

Page 94: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-23 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Figures 4-17 and 4-18 show the Model daily and cumulative modeled (Verification2001

scenario) discharges from the W. Kerr Scott Project and the Blewett Falls development

compared to the historical (observed) discharges for the same period. A review of Figure 4-17

shows the difference between the fixed target curve based operation simulated by the Model

compared to the historical “human factor” releases that tend to smooth out the releases except in

large inflow events. The accumulative discharge volume curve indicates that while the simulated

discharge appears quite different visually, the amount of water being discharged from W. Kerr

Scott is very similar.

H-94

Page 95: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-24 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-17

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

W. KERR SCOTT PROJECT DISCHARGE COMPARISON

H-95

Page 96: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-25 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

FIGURE 4-18

MODEL VERIFICATION2001 AND HISTORICAL

BLEWETT PROJECT DISCHARGE COMPARISON

H-96

Page 97: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-26 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Figure 4-18 reflects the comparison of Blewett Falls simulated discharge to the USGS 02129000

Pee Dee near Rockingham gage. This figure illustrates the good fit between simulated and

historical data. There is one significant discharge difference between the simulated and

historical data that occurred in late March early April where historical data reflects a greater

discharge than was captured in the simulation. Prior to this period and after this single excursion

in data, the discharges are in good agreement and support the conclusion that the model is

validated.

H-97

Page 98: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 5-1 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

5.0 MODEL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Summary

The purpose of this report is to document inputs and assumptions used in the development of the

Model, to demonstrate the model reasonably characterizes operations of the system, and to

demonstrate that the model is adequate for use in evaluating the effects of alternative operating

scenarios. The CHEOPS software and the Model are tools to evaluate relative sensitivity and

response of the Yadkin–Pee Dee River System to changing operational constraints. The model is

a tool and does not predict future conditions or outcomes. The model results must be analyzed

and interpreted based on knowledge of hydrologic and hydraulic principles and understanding of

results viewed in a relative, rather than an absolute, context.

5.2 Conclusions

As discussed in Section 4, the model verification process includes comparisons between modeled

output and historical data. The goal of this process is to obtain no more than 5 percent variance

when comparing modeled results to historical data for generation on an annual basis. The

modeled release from the Project is compared to historical data to show whether the model

provides a reasonable representation of Project operations throughout the year (e.g., the timing,

magnitude, and duration of operations).

As shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2, there are significant swings between modeled and historical

generation. However, there are many factors inherent in the model data and setups that can

contribute to output discrepancies (i.e., deviations) when compared to historical data. In many

cases, several of these factors may be involved simultaneously, which makes it difficult to isolate

individual sources of difference. Potential sources of deviations from historical data include

actual discretionary reservoir operations versus simulated generic operations, estimated reservoir

evaporation, estimated unit performance curves, historical unit outages, hydrology, minimum

flow requirements, and leakage through the Blewett Falls flashboards:

H-98

Page 99: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 5 Model Summary and Conclusions

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 5-2 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Reservoir Operations – Reservoir operations have been modeled based on average or

generic rule curves which do not always capture historical discretionary reservoir

drawdowns.

Reservoir Evaporation – Reservoir evaporation has been simulated based on estimated

reservoir area curves and estimated evaporation rates.

Unit Performance – The Model has been set up with estimated unit performance

information.

Historical Unit Outages – The verification scenarios do not take into account detailed

historical unit outage information.

Hydrology – The Model uses reconstructed UIF data as the input for daily inflow water to

the system. The unimpaired hydrology was synthesized based on gage data and historical

water use records, both of which have a certain amount of inherent error especially when

multiple locations and data sources are involved. The overall hydrologic data set appears to

be a good representation of daily inflows and is acceptable for use in future water

management planning.

Minimum Flow Requirements – The Model is set up to account for minimum streamflow

requirements automatically. As a result, the Model is proactive in automatically addressing

minimum streamflow requirements rather than reactive in providing excess flow to avoid

potential violations, as the case may be in actual operations.

Leakage Through the Blewett Falls Flashboards – The Model has been set up with estimated

leakage trough the flashboards. The actually leakage through the flashboards will vary

depending on the condition of the boards.

In interpreting the information provided in this model operations/verification report, it is

important to reflect on the purpose of the model: to reasonably characterize development

operations. Comparing model results with historical data confirms use of the model as a tool for

simulating “real” operations. It is not possible with reasonable time and budget constraints to

account for every outside influence or condition to match historical operations and hydrology.

H-99

Page 100: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Section 5 Model Summary and Conclusions

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 5-3 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

Small changes in input data or model logic can often result in large swings in output. This is due

to a number of reasons including (but not limited to) runoff characteristics, reliance on

coordinated operations, and numerous/variable flow requirements. Each of these elements

individually contributes to the sensitivity of the system. Combined, they multiply that sensitivity

exponentially. The input data and logic in the historical base scenario is an attempt to

consolidate the effects of these variables to achieve an approximation of “characteristic

operations.”

The sensitivity described above also means that those factors that are unable to be accounted for

in the model (short-term operations decisions based on pricing, demand, forecasts, etc.) as well

as data that is impossible to replicate exactly (synthesized hydrology data, shutdowns due to

irregular maintenance, etc.) can result in relatively large discrepancies between modeled output

and historical data on a per-month/per-development basis. The factors and sensitivity warrant

careful model review with awareness of the potential for outliers. The ultimate acceptance of the

results should not hinge on the extremes, but rather on the overall impression of consistency

between modeled and historical operations. Particularly, it must always be foremost in model

discussions that the model should always be used to assess the relative impacts between

scenarios. What this means is model verification is the only time it is appropriate to compare

model results with historical data.

In the opinion of HDR, verification results show the Model compares favorably to historical

data, reasonably characterizes study area operations, and is appropriate for use in evaluating the

effects of alternative operating scenarios. However, appropriate use of the results is cautioned.

As with any model, accuracy is highly dependent on input data; consequently, model results

should be viewed in a relative, rather than absolute, context. The Model is a tool that, as this

report demonstrates, can be successfully used to evaluate the relative sensitivity and response of

the project to changing operational constraints, including water demands from the system.

H-100

Page 101: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 6-1 Operations Model, Yadkin–Pee Dee River Basin

Union County, North Carolina Model Logic and Verification Report

6.0 REFERENCES

Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI). 2006. Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2197):

Application for License. April 2006.

_____. 2002. Yadkin Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2197): Project Relicensing Initial

Consultation Document. September 2002.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1982a. NOAA Technical Report NWS 33,

Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 United States. June 1982.

–––––. 1982b. NOAA Technical Report NWS 34, Mean Monthly, Seasonal, and Annual Pan

Evaporation for the United States. December 1982.

Progress Energy. 2007. Comprehensive Settlement Agreement for the Relicensing of the

Yadkin–Pee Dee River Project (FERC No. 2206). June 2007.

_____. 2006. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project (FERC No. 2206): Application for License. April

2006.

_____. 2003. Yadkin - Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2206) Initial Consultation

Document. February2003.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/WKSDESC.

TXT. Accessed June 18, 2014.

H-101

Page 102: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

APPENDIX A

REFERENCE GAGE HIND-CASTED WATER USE

H-102

Page 103: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1956 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1957 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1958 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1959 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1960 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1961 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1962 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1963 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1964 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1965 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1966 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1967 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1968 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1969 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1970 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1971 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1972 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1973 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1974 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1975 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1976 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1977 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1978 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1979 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1980 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1981 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1982 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1983 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1984 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1985 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1986 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1987 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1988 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1989 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1990 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1991 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1992 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1993 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1994 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1995 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1996 (0.02) (0.02) 0.03 0.10 0.38 0.71 0.88 0.74 0.38 0.12 0.06 (0.00)

1997 0.02 (0.08) 0.14 0.31 0.51 0.85 0.97 0.90 0.50 0.19 0.22 0.17

1998 0.00 (0.09) 0.10 0.27 0.47 0.81 0.94 0.86 0.46 0.15 0.17 0.12

1999 (0.02) (0.10) 0.06 0.23 0.42 0.77 0.91 0.82 0.41 0.11 0.11 0.07

2000 (0.04) (0.11) 0.03 0.19 0.38 0.73 0.88 0.77 0.37 0.07 0.06 0.01

2001 (0.06) (0.12) (0.01) 0.14 0.33 0.69 0.85 0.73 0.33 0.04 0.00 (0.04)

2002 (0.08) (0.13) (0.05) 0.10 0.29 0.65 0.82 0.68 0.29 (0.00) (0.05) (0.09)

2003 (0.08) (0.10) (0.03) 0.24 0.35 0.72 0.90 0.77 0.53 0.12 0.10 0.02

2004 0.04 0.03 0.03 (0.69) 0.40 0.70 0.92 0.79 0.39 0.12 0.08 (0.01)

2005 0.01 (0.03) 0.04 0.15 0.37 0.70 0.90 0.79 0.39 0.10 0.06 (0.01)

2006 0.00 0.10 (0.02) 0.12 0.34 0.69 0.93 0.76 0.40 0.04 0.01 0.03

2007 (0.01) (0.03) 0.06 0.14 0.41 0.68 0.83 0.68 0.30 0.09 0.05 (0.04)

2008 (0.01) (0.03) 0.05 0.16 0.36 0.70 0.83 0.69 0.31 0.12 0.06 (0.04)

2009 (0.02) 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.36 0.70 0.86 0.70 0.38 0.12 (0.01) (0.03)

2010 (0.03) (0.02) 0.01 0.12 0.37 0.68 0.84 0.65 0.34 0.15 0.04 (0.10)

2011 (0.09) (0.04) 0.00 0.15 0.33 0.68 0.87 0.76 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.05

2012 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.20 0.44 0.70 0.87 0.75 0.35 0.16 0.10 0.02

USGS Gage 02111000

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 1 6/26/2014

H-103

Page 104: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

USGS Gage 2111500

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1956 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1957 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1958 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1959 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1960 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1961 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1962 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1963 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1964 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1965 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1966 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1967 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1968 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1969 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1970 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1971 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1972 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1973 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1974 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1975 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1976 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1977 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1978 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1979 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1980 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1981 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1982 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1983 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1984 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1985 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1986 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1987 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1988 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1989 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1990 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1991 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1992 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1993 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1994 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1995 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1996 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1997 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1998 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

1999 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2000 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2001 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2002 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2003 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2004 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2005 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2006 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2007 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2008 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2009 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2010 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2011 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

2012 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.24 2.26 2.80 2.32 1.35 0.53 0.14 0.05

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 2 6/26/2014

H-104

Page 105: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1956 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1957 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1958 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1959 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1960 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1961 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1962 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1963 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1964 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1965 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1966 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1967 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1968 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1969 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1970 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1971 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1972 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1973 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1974 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1975 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1976 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1977 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1978 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1979 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1980 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1981 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1982 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1983 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1984 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1985 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1986 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1987 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1988 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1989 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1990 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1991 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1992 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1993 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1994 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1995 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1996 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1997 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1998 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

1999 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2000 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2001 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2002 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2003 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2004 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2005 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2006 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2007 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2008 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2009 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2010 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2011 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

2012 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.64 1.25 2.29 2.84 2.35 1.37 0.53 0.14 0.05

USGS Gage 2128000

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 3 6/26/2014

H-105

Page 106: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

USGS Gage 2118500

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1956 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1957 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1958 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1959 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1960 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1961 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1962 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1963 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1964 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1965 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1966 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1967 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1968 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1969 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1970 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1971 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1972 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1973 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1974 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1975 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1976 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1977 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1978 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1979 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1980 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1981 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1982 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1983 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1984 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1985 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1986 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1987 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1988 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1989 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1990 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1991 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1992 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1993 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1994 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1995 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1996 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1997 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1998 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

1999 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2000 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2001 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2002 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2003 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2004 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2005 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2006 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2007 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2008 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2009 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2010 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2011 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

2012 0.06 0.10 0.35 0.91 1.77 3.23 4.01 3.31 1.93 0.75 0.20 0.07

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 4 6/26/2014

H-106

Page 107: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

USGS Gage 02118000

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 4.55 4.59 5.06 6.41 8.41 11.52 13.22 11.78 9.13 6.81 5.28 4.88

1956 4.60 4.63 5.11 6.46 8.46 11.57 13.27 11.83 9.18 6.87 5.33 4.93

1957 4.64 4.68 5.15 6.50 8.51 11.62 13.32 11.88 9.24 6.92 5.38 4.98

1958 4.69 4.73 5.20 6.55 8.56 11.67 13.37 11.94 9.29 6.98 5.43 5.03

1959 4.74 4.77 5.24 6.60 8.61 11.72 13.42 11.99 9.34 7.03 5.48 5.08

1960 4.78 4.82 5.29 6.64 8.66 11.78 13.48 12.04 9.40 7.09 5.54 5.13

1961 4.85 4.89 5.36 6.72 8.74 11.86 13.56 12.12 9.48 7.17 5.61 5.20

1962 4.93 4.96 5.43 6.79 8.82 11.94 13.65 12.21 9.57 7.26 5.69 5.28

1963 5.00 5.03 5.50 6.87 8.90 12.02 13.73 12.29 9.66 7.35 5.78 5.36

1964 5.08 5.11 5.58 6.95 8.98 12.11 13.82 12.38 9.75 7.44 5.86 5.44

1965 5.16 5.18 5.65 7.03 9.06 12.19 13.91 12.46 9.84 7.53 5.94 5.52

1966 5.23 5.26 5.73 7.11 9.15 12.28 14.00 12.55 9.93 7.62 6.03 5.60

1967 5.31 5.34 5.81 7.19 9.23 12.37 14.09 12.64 10.02 7.71 6.11 5.69

1968 5.39 5.42 5.88 7.27 9.32 12.46 14.18 12.73 10.12 7.81 6.20 5.77

1969 5.48 5.50 5.96 7.36 9.41 12.55 14.27 12.83 10.22 7.91 6.29 5.86

1970 5.56 5.58 6.05 7.44 9.50 12.64 14.37 12.92 10.32 8.00 6.38 5.95

1971 5.64 5.66 6.13 7.53 9.59 12.73 14.47 13.01 10.41 8.10 6.47 6.03

1972 5.73 5.74 6.21 7.61 9.68 12.83 14.56 13.11 10.51 8.20 6.56 6.12

1973 5.81 5.83 6.29 7.70 9.77 12.92 14.66 13.20 10.61 8.30 6.65 6.21

1974 5.90 5.91 6.37 7.79 9.86 13.02 14.76 13.30 10.72 8.40 6.74 6.30

1975 5.99 6.00 6.46 7.88 9.95 13.11 14.86 13.40 10.82 8.50 6.84 6.39

1976 6.08 6.08 6.55 7.97 10.05 13.21 14.96 13.50 10.93 8.61 6.93 6.48

1977 6.17 6.17 6.63 8.06 10.15 13.31 15.07 13.60 11.03 8.71 7.03 6.58

1978 6.26 6.26 6.72 8.16 10.25 13.42 15.17 13.71 11.14 8.82 7.13 6.67

1979 6.35 6.35 6.81 8.25 10.35 13.52 15.28 13.81 11.25 8.93 7.23 6.77

1980 6.45 6.45 6.91 8.35 10.45 13.63 15.39 13.92 11.37 9.04 7.33 6.87

1981 6.52 6.52 6.98 8.42 10.53 13.71 15.48 14.00 11.45 9.13 7.41 6.95

1982 6.60 6.59 7.05 8.50 10.61 13.79 15.56 14.09 11.54 9.22 7.49 7.03

1983 6.67 6.67 7.13 8.58 10.69 13.88 15.65 14.17 11.63 9.31 7.58 7.11

1984 6.75 6.74 7.20 8.66 10.77 13.96 15.73 14.26 11.72 9.40 7.66 7.19

1985 6.82 6.82 7.27 8.73 10.86 14.05 15.82 14.35 11.81 9.49 7.74 7.27

1986 6.90 6.90 7.35 8.81 10.94 14.13 15.91 14.44 11.90 9.58 7.83 7.36

1987 6.98 6.97 7.43 8.90 11.03 14.22 16.00 14.53 11.99 9.67 7.92 7.44

1988 7.06 7.05 7.51 8.98 11.11 14.31 16.09 14.62 12.09 9.77 8.00 7.52

1989 7.14 7.13 7.58 9.06 11.20 14.40 16.18 14.71 12.18 9.87 8.09 7.61

1990 7.22 7.21 7.66 9.14 11.29 14.49 16.28 14.80 12.28 9.96 8.18 7.70

1991 7.41 7.40 7.85 9.34 11.50 14.71 16.49 15.02 12.50 10.19 8.39 7.90

1992 7.61 7.60 8.04 9.54 11.71 14.92 16.72 15.24 12.73 10.43 8.61 8.11

1993 7.81 7.80 8.24 9.75 11.93 15.15 16.95 15.47 12.97 10.67 8.83 8.33

1994 8.02 8.00 8.45 9.96 12.16 15.38 17.18 15.71 13.21 10.92 9.06 8.55

1995 8.23 8.22 8.65 10.18 12.39 15.62 17.43 15.95 13.46 11.17 9.30 8.78

1996 8.45 8.43 8.87 10.41 12.63 15.87 17.68 16.20 13.71 11.43 9.54 9.01

1997 8.67 8.66 9.09 10.64 12.87 16.12 17.93 16.46 13.98 11.70 9.79 9.25

1998 8.71 8.71 9.17 10.84 13.05 16.44 17.78 15.73 13.27 11.09 9.34 8.82

1999 8.74 8.75 9.25 11.05 13.23 16.76 17.64 15.01 12.57 10.48 8.90 8.39

2000 8.77 8.80 9.33 11.25 13.41 17.08 17.49 14.28 11.86 9.87 8.46 7.95

2001 8.81 8.85 9.41 11.46 13.59 17.40 17.34 13.56 11.15 9.27 8.02 7.52

2002 8.84 8.90 9.49 11.66 13.77 17.72 17.19 12.84 10.45 8.66 7.58 7.09

2003 8.52 8.61 9.30 11.22 13.71 17.37 17.18 13.72 10.99 8.94 7.64 7.21

2004 8.19 8.32 9.12 10.79 13.65 17.03 17.18 14.60 11.54 9.23 7.71 7.33

2005 7.87 8.02 8.94 10.35 13.59 16.68 17.17 15.49 12.08 9.52 7.77 7.45

2006 7.54 7.73 8.75 9.92 13.53 16.33 17.16 16.37 12.62 9.81 7.84 7.57

2007 7.22 7.44 8.57 9.48 13.46 15.99 17.16 17.26 13.17 10.10 7.90 7.69

2008 7.68 7.58 7.96 9.59 11.83 16.02 17.13 15.22 12.03 9.51 8.10 7.53

2009 7.32 7.11 7.96 8.99 10.84 14.28 16.58 14.65 11.50 8.57 7.26 6.76

2010 7.21 7.32 7.68 9.33 11.41 14.81 16.70 14.88 12.34 9.21 7.51 7.21

2011 7.20 7.03 7.67 9.05 11.23 14.93 16.38 15.04 11.81 9.02 7.54 7.00

2012 7.02 7.03 7.69 9.00 11.31 14.66 16.25 14.66 11.55 8.93 7.63 7.24

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 5 6/26/2014

H-107

Page 108: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

USGS Gage 2120780

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1956 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1957 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1958 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1959 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1960 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1961 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1962 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1963 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1964 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1965 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1966 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1967 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1968 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1969 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1970 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1971 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1972 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1973 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1974 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1975 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1976 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1977 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1978 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1979 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1980 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1981 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1982 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1983 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1984 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1985 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1986 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1987 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1988 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1989 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1990 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1991 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1992 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1993 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1994 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1995 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1996 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1997 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1998 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

1999 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2000 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2001 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2002 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2003 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2004 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2005 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2006 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2007 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2008 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2009 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2010 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2011 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

2012 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.66 1.28 2.33 2.89 2.39 1.39 0.54 0.14 0.05

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 6 6/26/2014

H-108

Page 109: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

USGS Gage 2125000

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1956 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1957 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1958 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1959 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1960 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1961 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1962 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1963 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1964 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1965 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1966 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1967 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1968 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1969 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1970 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1971 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1972 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1973 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1974 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1975 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1976 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1977 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1978 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1979 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1980 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1981 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1982 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1983 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1984 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1985 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1986 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1987 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1988 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1989 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1990 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1991 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1992 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1993 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1994 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1995 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1996 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1997 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1998 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

1999 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2000 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2001 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2002 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2003 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2004 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2005 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2006 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2007 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2008 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2009 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2010 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2011 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

2012 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.20 0.40 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.43 0.17 0.04 0.02

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 7 6/26/2014

H-109

Page 110: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix A - Reference Gage Hind-Casted Water Use

USGS Gage 2126000

NET WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1955 (12.83) (16.50) (14.95) (9.51) 4.27 18.64 22.35 19.76 5.86 (6.68) (14.38) (17.57)

1956 (13.03) (16.72) (15.18) (9.74) 4.09 18.47 22.15 19.59 5.68 (6.88) (14.60) (17.82)

1957 (13.22) (16.95) (15.41) (9.97) 3.91 18.30 21.96 19.42 5.50 (7.09) (14.84) (18.07)

1958 (13.42) (17.19) (15.66) (10.21) 3.72 18.13 21.75 19.25 5.31 (7.30) (15.07) (18.32)

1959 (13.62) (17.42) (15.90) (10.45) 3.53 17.95 21.55 19.07 5.12 (7.51) (15.31) (18.58)

1960 (13.83) (17.67) (16.15) (10.69) 3.33 17.77 21.34 18.89 4.92 (7.73) (15.56) (18.85)

1961 (14.04) (17.92) (16.41) (10.94) 3.15 17.61 21.14 18.72 4.75 (7.94) (15.79) (19.10)

1962 (14.25) (18.18) (16.67) (11.19) 2.97 17.44 20.94 18.56 4.57 (8.15) (16.02) (19.36)

1963 (14.47) (18.44) (16.93) (11.44) 2.78 17.27 20.74 18.39 4.39 (8.36) (16.25) (19.63)

1964 (14.69) (18.71) (17.20) (11.70) 2.60 17.10 20.53 18.21 4.21 (8.57) (16.49) (19.89)

1965 (14.92) (18.98) (17.47) (11.97) 2.40 16.92 20.32 18.04 4.02 (8.79) (16.74) (20.17)

1966 (15.15) (19.26) (17.75) (12.24) 2.21 16.74 20.10 17.86 3.83 (9.02) (16.98) (20.45)

1967 (15.39) (19.54) (18.03) (12.51) 2.01 16.56 19.88 17.67 3.63 (9.25) (17.24) (20.73)

1968 (15.63) (19.83) (18.32) (12.79) 1.80 16.37 19.66 17.49 3.43 (9.48) (17.49) (21.02)

1969 (15.88) (20.12) (18.61) (13.07) 1.59 16.18 19.43 17.29 3.23 (9.72) (17.76) (21.31)

1970 (16.13) (20.42) (18.91) (13.36) 1.38 15.99 19.19 17.10 3.03 (9.96) (18.02) (21.61)

1971 (16.45) (20.81) (19.29) (13.73) 1.12 15.76 18.91 16.87 2.78 (10.25) (18.36) (21.99)

1972 (16.78) (21.21) (19.68) (14.10) 0.86 15.53 18.62 16.64 2.52 (10.55) (18.71) (22.37)

1973 (17.12) (21.61) (20.07) (14.48) 0.60 15.30 18.33 16.40 2.27 (10.85) (19.06) (22.77)

1974 (17.46) (22.02) (20.47) (14.86) 0.33 15.06 18.03 16.17 2.01 (11.16) (19.41) (23.16)

1975 (17.81) (22.44) (20.88) (15.25) 0.06 14.82 17.73 15.92 1.74 (11.47) (19.77) (23.57)

1976 (18.16) (22.87) (21.29) (15.65) (0.22) 14.58 17.43 15.68 1.47 (11.79) (20.14) (23.98)

1977 (18.52) (23.30) (21.71) (16.05) (0.50) 14.33 17.12 15.43 1.20 (12.11) (20.51) (24.39)

1978 (18.89) (23.74) (22.14) (16.46) (0.79) 14.08 16.80 15.18 0.93 (12.44) (20.88) (24.82)

1979 (19.26) (24.19) (22.57) (16.88) (1.08) 13.82 16.48 14.92 0.64 (12.77) (21.27) (25.25)

1980 (19.64) (24.64) (23.01) (17.30) (1.37) 13.57 16.16 14.66 0.36 (13.11) (21.65) (25.68)

1981 (19.95) (25.02) (23.40) (17.68) (1.64) 13.32 15.86 14.42 0.10 (13.42) (22.00) (26.08)

1982 (20.27) (25.41) (23.79) (18.06) (1.91) 13.08 15.56 14.18 (0.16) (13.73) (22.36) (26.47)

1983 (20.60) (25.81) (24.18) (18.44) (2.19) 12.83 15.25 13.93 (0.43) (14.05) (22.72) (26.88)

1984 (20.93) (26.21) (24.58) (18.83) (2.47) 12.57 14.94 13.67 (0.71) (14.38) (23.08) (27.29)

1985 (21.26) (26.62) (24.99) (19.23) (2.76) 12.32 14.63 13.42 (0.99) (14.71) (23.46) (27.71)

1986 (21.60) (27.03) (25.41) (19.64) (3.05) 12.05 14.30 13.16 (1.27) (15.04) (23.83) (28.13)

1987 (21.95) (27.45) (25.83) (20.05) (3.35) 11.78 13.98 12.89 (1.56) (15.38) (24.22) (28.56)

1988 (22.31) (27.88) (26.26) (20.47) (3.65) 11.51 13.64 12.62 (1.85) (15.73) (24.61) (29.00)

1989 (22.67) (28.32) (26.70) (20.90) (3.96) 11.23 13.30 12.34 (2.15) (16.08) (25.01) (29.45)

1990 (23.03) (28.77) (27.15) (21.33) (4.27) 10.95 12.96 12.06 (2.45) (16.44) (25.42) (29.90)

1991 (23.75) (29.64) (28.01) (22.17) (4.86) 10.42 12.30 11.53 (3.02) (17.12) (26.17) (30.76)

1992 (24.49) (30.54) (28.89) (23.03) (5.47) 9.87 11.63 10.99 (3.61) (17.82) (26.96) (31.64)

1993 (25.26) (31.46) (29.80) (23.92) (6.10) 9.31 10.93 10.43 (4.21) (18.53) (27.76) (32.54)

1994 (26.05) (32.42) (30.74) (24.84) (6.75) 8.73 10.22 9.85 (4.84) (19.27) (28.59) (33.47)

1995 (26.87) (33.41) (31.70) (25.78) (7.41) 8.13 9.48 9.26 (5.48) (20.03) (29.44) (34.43)

1996 (27.71) (34.42) (32.70) (26.76) (8.10) 7.52 8.72 8.65 (6.13) (20.82) (30.32) (35.42)

1997 (29.30) (36.39) (34.52) (28.52) (9.63) 6.87 6.90 6.58 (8.46) (22.58) (31.78) (36.94)

1998 (30.52) (35.74) (34.27) (26.21) (8.40) 8.51 9.59 7.69 (7.82) (22.67) (33.10) (37.46)

1999 (31.74) (35.09) (34.02) (23.90) (7.16) 10.14 12.29 8.80 (7.18) (22.75) (34.41) (37.98)

2000 (32.97) (34.44) (33.77) (21.59) (5.92) 11.78 14.98 9.91 (6.54) (22.83) (35.73) (38.50)

2001 (34.19) (33.79) (33.52) (19.28) (4.69) 13.42 17.67 11.02 (5.90) (22.91) (37.05) (39.02)

2002 (35.41) (33.14) (33.27) (16.96) (3.45) 15.06 20.36 12.13 (5.25) (22.99) (38.36) (39.53)

2003 (25.52) (48.05) (60.34) (56.43) (36.05) (16.83) 1.89 (2.50) (4.21) (11.75) (19.84) (29.10)

2004 (20.85) (49.91) (30.48) (16.15) 0.75 11.22 18.71 11.74 (22.41) (16.88) (26.21) (29.61)

2005 (27.35) (33.52) (39.81) (25.01) 1.19 6.46 14.07 10.86 4.41 (14.14) (21.01) (40.52)

2006 (32.61) (25.90) (20.60) (10.12) 2.80 9.33 23.38 12.46 (5.99) (16.32) (40.41) (29.84)

2007 (41.50) (35.27) (32.15) (18.52) 2.07 12.11 21.91 19.96 5.19 (10.28) (15.08) (21.19)

2008 (17.29) (21.80) (23.63) (24.78) (4.31) 16.50 21.49 5.94 (8.02) (15.27) (21.89) (40.11)

2009 (26.06) (23.61) (43.42) (18.86) (5.41) 11.19 19.87 13.87 2.06 (4.55) (28.84) (42.48)

2010 (45.74) (54.75) (38.87) (18.77) (9.54) 1.66 14.40 4.84 (2.98) (12.00) (17.17) (22.93)

2011 (21.26) (28.76) (33.76) (24.10) (10.68) 8.72 18.84 11.42 (4.64) (16.62) (27.15) (31.24)

2012 (37.66) (35.63) (30.49) (17.79) (11.23) 8.10 16.13 2.84 (9.63) (16.43) (19.52) (25.71)

USGS_gage_flows_1955to2012_Daily.xlsx A - 8 6/26/2014

H-110

Page 111: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

APPENDIX B

WATER USE BY RESERVOIR BASIN

H-111

Page 112: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

1998 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

1999 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2000 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2001 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2002 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2003 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2004 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2005 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2006 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2007 0.44 0.52 1.22 2.78 5.19 9.29 11.47 9.56 5.61 2.31 0.83 0.45

2008 0.48 0.49 1.18 2.77 5.24 9.24 11.37 9.53 5.49 2.18 0.70 0.28

2009 0.35 0.49 1.08 2.61 5.10 9.27 11.42 9.41 5.54 2.25 0.75 0.39

2010 0.34 0.50 1.25 2.79 5.17 9.33 11.54 9.69 5.68 2.25 0.94 0.57

2011 0.56 0.55 1.25 2.83 5.27 9.34 11.55 9.59 5.66 2.45 0.88 0.50

2012 0.46 0.56 1.34 2.87 5.18 9.28 11.47 9.59 5.67 2.42 0.89 0.50

DATA TRANSMITTED ON: 6/24/14

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 1 6/26/2014

H-112

Page 113: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

RETURNS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 0.26 0.35 0.17 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.19 0.09 0.09

1998 0.28 0.36 0.21 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.15 0.14

1999 0.30 0.37 0.25 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.20 0.19

2000 0.32 0.38 0.29 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.24

2001 0.35 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.31 0.29

2002 0.37 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.37 0.34

2003 0.36 0.37 0.34 0.20 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.12 0.25 0.21 0.24

2004 0.25 0.24 0.29 1.12 0.25 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.27

2005 0.28 0.30 0.27 0.29 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.26

2006 0.28 0.17 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.34 0.31 0.23

2007 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.30 0.24 0.31 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.29 0.26 0.29

2008 0.34 0.27 0.22 0.27 0.34 0.24 0.25 0.33 0.22 0.13 0.13 0.13

2009 0.22 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.23

2010 0.22 0.28 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.35 0.41 0.53 0.39 0.16 0.38 0.48

2011 0.50 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.40 0.37 0.38 0.31 0.28 0.32 0.30 0.26

2012 0.29 0.27 0.36 0.34 0.21 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.27 0.29

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 2 6/26/2014

H-113

Page 114: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN HIGH ROCK LAKE

WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 143.18 143.18 149.78 171.94 204.64 247.37 273.47 257.25 219.73 176.01 151.10 140.64

1998 141.93 142.43 148.66 173.25 206.26 250.55 273.62 256.75 215.84 173.11 148.66 139.73

1999 140.68 141.67 147.54 174.55 207.89 253.73 273.77 256.24 211.95 170.21 146.22 138.82

2000 139.43 140.92 146.42 175.86 209.51 256.91 273.92 255.74 208.07 167.30 143.79 137.90

2001 138.18 140.16 145.30 177.17 211.14 260.09 274.07 255.23 204.18 164.40 141.35 136.99

2002 136.94 139.41 144.18 178.48 212.76 263.27 274.22 254.72 200.29 161.50 138.91 136.08

2003 135.79 138.69 144.00 175.55 212.43 259.87 271.73 257.20 203.81 162.84 138.95 134.59

2004 133.82 137.27 143.08 171.96 211.61 256.29 269.02 259.34 206.66 164.13 139.27 132.67

2005 132.93 136.71 142.99 168.90 211.09 252.09 266.11 262.70 211.82 166.06 137.60 131.89

2006 130.84 136.34 143.28 167.27 209.02 249.59 263.65 264.45 212.69 166.78 140.25 128.95

2007 131.74 137.44 143.03 164.44 212.22 246.28 261.65 266.50 219.43 170.39 141.47 129.66

2008 132.17 129.21 135.40 155.82 188.12 254.45 264.89 241.82 192.55 152.63 130.12 123.15

2009 127.60 123.06 129.17 147.21 173.89 227.87 254.06 237.67 190.54 148.95 127.91 122.54

2010 132.79 130.93 132.52 154.78 185.71 238.09 263.42 235.82 203.02 155.69 116.64 125.86

2011 126.66 123.18 129.93 147.08 180.82 242.89 257.85 244.07 194.71 153.61 128.11 121.66

2012 123.95 124.18 133.49 154.16 185.93 233.90 261.76 234.08 189.18 151.49 132.86 122.08

DATA TRANSMITTED ON: 6/24/14

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 3 6/26/2014

H-114

Page 115: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN HIGH ROCK LAKE

RETURNS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 118.56 125.90 124.82 131.14 119.89 117.72 114.38 110.66 108.42 107.01 103.40 104.83

1998 117.47 121.75 121.53 125.62 116.53 114.79 112.35 109.39 108.37 108.97 107.30 109.00

1999 116.38 117.61 118.24 120.11 113.18 111.87 110.32 108.12 108.33 110.94 111.19 113.18

2000 115.30 113.47 114.95 114.59 109.82 108.94 108.29 106.84 108.28 112.90 115.09 117.36

2001 114.21 109.32 111.66 109.07 106.46 106.01 106.25 105.57 108.24 114.86 118.98 121.53

2002 113.12 105.17 108.37 103.56 103.11 103.07 104.22 104.29 108.19 116.82 122.87 125.70

2003 111.85 129.09 156.89 161.34 138.24 146.08 139.62 132.26 124.67 110.13 107.27 114.12

2004 104.33 120.89 116.06 114.30 107.70 109.12 106.74 107.86 137.11 109.81 115.25 118.96

2005 112.42 116.78 127.06 116.02 106.95 108.68 111.89 111.32 102.97 109.60 104.14 117.34

2006 117.08 108.45 106.39 107.46 102.18 110.43 110.30 105.88 116.86 107.84 128.28 105.68

2007 135.08 111.02 124.50 117.14 102.95 104.67 98.24 97.24 93.84 101.05 93.73 99.09

2008 99.77 105.71 106.17 113.21 101.38 91.44 91.49 98.37 102.91 93.86 93.72 105.87

2009 106.93 96.81 118.88 106.41 104.75 108.24 90.32 93.61 93.75 93.18 120.15 127.79

2010 130.06 135.65 120.44 109.39 107.11 103.98 97.93 104.89 99.31 99.98 96.08 100.12

2011 98.61 101.61 115.56 106.89 103.65 98.47 100.74 99.82 103.57 98.34 107.21 107.17

2012 100.92 100.43 102.82 95.80 108.95 95.35 92.66 96.50 96.40 93.52 86.56 89.12

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 4 6/26/2014

H-115

Page 116: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 5.64 5.79 5.81 6.39 7.19 8.04 8.43 8.06 7.37 6.65 6.00 5.48

1998 5.98 6.06 6.10 6.71 7.47 8.40 8.73 8.30 7.55 6.83 6.20 5.69

1999 6.32 6.33 6.40 7.03 7.76 8.76 9.04 8.55 7.74 7.02 6.40 5.90

2000 6.65 6.60 6.69 7.35 8.04 9.12 9.34 8.79 7.92 7.21 6.61 6.11

2001 6.99 6.86 6.99 7.67 8.32 9.48 9.64 9.04 8.10 7.39 6.81 6.33

2002 7.33 7.13 7.28 7.99 8.60 9.84 9.95 9.28 8.28 7.58 7.01 6.54

2003 6.98 6.81 6.92 7.56 8.45 9.56 9.63 9.00 8.11 7.23 6.82 6.33

2004 6.64 6.49 6.56 7.14 8.29 9.28 9.32 8.72 7.94 6.88 6.63 6.12

2005 6.29 6.17 6.20 6.72 8.14 9.00 9.00 8.44 7.77 6.54 6.44 5.92

2006 5.94 5.84 5.83 6.30 7.99 8.72 8.69 8.16 7.60 6.19 6.25 5.71

2007 5.60 5.52 5.47 5.88 7.83 8.44 8.37 7.88 7.42 5.84 6.06 5.50

2008 5.98 6.18 6.05 6.52 7.20 8.73 8.46 8.44 7.14 6.36 5.83 5.34

2009 5.29 5.35 5.23 5.35 6.29 7.66 8.04 7.53 6.73 5.88 5.36 5.25

2010 5.71 5.40 5.55 6.00 6.79 7.95 8.26 7.92 7.07 6.05 5.61 5.38

2011 5.57 5.35 5.33 5.88 6.57 7.77 8.15 7.53 6.74 5.87 5.48 5.58

2012 5.10 5.14 5.18 5.86 6.29 7.60 8.26 7.54 6.94 5.79 5.68 6.31

DATA TRANSMITTED ON: 6/24/14

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 5 6/26/2014

H-116

Page 117: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

RETURNS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 0.66 0.75 0.72 0.66 0.46 0.39 0.47 0.41 0.46 0.71 0.76 0.58

1998 0.71 0.73 0.74 0.64 0.46 0.40 0.46 0.43 0.48 0.70 0.74 0.62

1999 0.76 0.72 0.76 0.62 0.47 0.41 0.46 0.44 0.50 0.70 0.73 0.66

2000 0.81 0.71 0.78 0.60 0.47 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.51 0.70 0.71 0.69

2001 0.86 0.70 0.79 0.58 0.48 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.53 0.69 0.70 0.73

2002 0.91 0.69 0.81 0.56 0.48 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.55 0.69 0.68 0.77

2003 0.55 0.76 0.89 0.80 0.75 0.57 0.44 0.55 0.51 0.42 0.35 0.48

2004 0.43 0.70 0.50 0.40 0.31 0.53 0.41 0.47 0.61 0.42 0.57 0.56

2005 0.55 0.65 0.83 0.61 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.47 0.70

2006 0.66 0.51 0.55 0.53 0.42 0.54 0.36 0.43 0.53 0.51 0.84 0.68

2007 0.81 0.75 0.65 0.61 0.46 0.51 0.41 0.44 0.45 0.53 0.46 0.62

2008 0.61 0.66 0.73 0.87 0.61 0.45 0.48 0.56 0.63 0.49 0.57 0.80

2009 0.70 0.66 1.12 0.73 0.57 0.88 0.71 0.63 0.60 0.59 0.92 1.12

2010 1.16 1.46 1.19 0.83 1.06 0.86 0.84 0.78 0.79 0.67 0.70 0.75

2011 0.82 0.85 0.95 0.77 0.82 0.81 0.64 0.68 0.81 0.79 0.92 0.97

2012 0.89 0.88 0.93 0.77 0.80 0.81 0.69 0.70 0.77 0.74 0.70 0.77

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 6 6/26/2014

H-117

Page 118: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 5.59 5.76 5.62 6.00 6.51 6.88 7.02 6.95 6.66 6.41 5.93 5.46

1998 5.83 5.92 5.79 6.21 6.68 7.09 7.21 7.06 6.71 6.44 5.98 5.49

1999 6.08 6.08 5.97 6.41 6.84 7.30 7.39 7.18 6.76 6.46 6.03 5.52

2000 6.32 6.24 6.15 6.62 7.01 7.51 7.57 7.29 6.81 6.49 6.08 5.55

2001 6.56 6.40 6.32 6.83 7.18 7.72 7.75 7.41 6.86 6.51 6.13 5.58

2002 6.81 6.56 6.50 7.03 7.34 7.93 7.93 7.52 6.90 6.54 6.18 5.61

2003 6.38 6.13 6.09 6.55 7.13 7.57 7.49 7.08 6.68 6.14 6.00 5.41

2004 5.94 5.70 5.68 6.08 6.91 7.20 7.05 6.63 6.45 5.74 5.82 5.21

2005 5.51 5.27 5.27 5.60 6.70 6.84 6.61 6.18 6.22 5.35 5.63 5.01

2006 5.08 4.84 4.86 5.12 6.48 6.47 6.17 5.73 6.00 4.95 5.45 4.81

2007 4.65 4.41 4.45 4.64 6.27 6.11 5.73 5.28 5.77 4.55 5.27 4.61

2008 5.22 5.30 5.22 5.48 5.51 6.42 5.91 6.22 5.53 5.26 4.94 4.32

2009 4.43 4.32 4.23 4.05 4.40 5.02 5.45 5.32 5.12 4.71 4.30 4.14

2010 4.76 4.46 4.68 4.82 5.39 5.94 5.79 5.73 5.31 5.01 4.74 4.37

2011 4.59 4.49 4.58 4.77 5.12 5.76 5.79 5.55 5.32 4.80 4.77 5.04

2012 4.42 4.51 4.49 4.73 4.85 5.59 5.78 5.36 5.33 4.60 4.80 5.72

DATA TRANSMITTED ON: 6/24/14

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 7 6/26/2014

H-118

Page 119: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

RETURNS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 0.91 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.67 0.74 1.29 0.86 0.80 0.93 1.06 1.12

1998 0.97 0.59 0.60 0.64 0.58 0.64 1.06 0.83 0.70 0.84 0.97 0.95

1999 1.02 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.49 0.54 0.83 0.80 0.60 0.75 0.88 0.79

2000 1.08 0.38 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.60 0.78 0.50 0.66 0.79 0.63

2001 1.14 0.27 0.32 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.37 0.75 0.39 0.56 0.70 0.47

2002 1.20 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.25 0.14 0.72 0.29 0.47 0.61 0.31

2003 0.23 0.48 0.66 0.52 0.81 0.31 0.37 0.61 0.37 0.14 0.93 0.16

2004 0.13 0.43 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.25 0.19 0.50 1.03 0.20 0.23 0.22

2005 0.51 0.23 1.46 0.28 0.13 0.32 0.39 0.14 0.10 0.33 0.40 0.61

2006 0.21 0.11 0.19 0.16 0.07 0.23 0.12 0.80 0.16 0.43 0.24 0.24

2007 0.54 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.08 0.19 0.08 0.15 0.14 0.51 0.04 0.02

2008 0.13 0.13 0.46 0.40 0.10 0.06 0.89 0.44 1.41 0.66 0.05 0.13

2009 0.48 0.06 0.57 0.36 0.23 0.19 0.38 0.04 0.64 0.54 0.95 0.31

2010 0.58 0.46 0.39 0.06 0.65 0.30 0.25 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.09 0.06

2011 0.10 0.26 0.54 0.38 0.17 0.12 0.20 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.12 0.37

2012 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.05 0.56 0.40 0.12 0.32 0.26 0.05 0.02 0.56

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 8 6/26/2014

H-119

Page 120: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN FALLS RESERVOIR

WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

1998 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

1999 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2000 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2001 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2002 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2003 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2004 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2005 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2006 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2007 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2008 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2009 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2010 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2011 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

2012 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00

DATA TRANSMITTED ON: 6/24/14

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 9 6/26/2014

H-120

Page 121: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN FALLS RESERVOIR

RETURNS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1999 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2007 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2008 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2009 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2011 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2012 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 10 6/26/2014

H-121

Page 122: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN LAKE TILLERY

WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 11.68 11.68 12.34 14.46 17.93 23.06 25.55 23.19 18.60 14.62 12.39 10.69

1998 12.00 12.16 12.45 14.67 18.06 23.28 25.86 23.67 18.79 14.70 12.47 11.07

1999 12.32 12.64 12.56 14.88 18.20 23.51 26.16 24.15 18.98 14.78 12.55 11.46

2000 12.64 13.12 12.67 15.10 18.34 23.73 26.47 24.64 19.17 14.87 12.62 11.85

2001 12.96 13.59 12.78 15.31 18.48 23.95 26.78 25.12 19.36 14.95 12.70 12.24

2002 13.28 14.07 12.89 15.52 18.62 24.17 27.09 25.60 19.55 15.03 12.78 12.63

2003 13.01 13.78 13.09 15.62 18.91 24.28 27.16 25.95 20.04 15.61 13.16 12.66

2004 12.74 13.48 13.29 15.71 19.21 24.39 27.23 26.29 20.53 16.19 13.54 12.69

2005 12.46 13.19 13.49 15.81 19.50 24.49 27.31 26.63 21.03 16.76 13.92 12.72

2006 12.19 12.89 13.68 15.90 19.80 24.60 27.38 26.97 21.52 17.34 14.29 12.76

2007 11.92 12.60 13.88 16.00 20.09 24.71 27.46 27.31 22.01 17.92 14.67 12.79

2008 13.65 13.51 14.08 15.53 18.51 26.08 28.30 26.69 20.87 16.99 14.32 13.48

2009 12.35 11.60 12.06 14.14 16.81 22.42 26.03 24.19 19.51 14.49 11.07 10.55

2010 10.58 10.20 11.18 13.52 16.96 22.77 24.98 23.04 18.58 13.33 11.31 9.87

2011 9.66 10.25 10.96 12.56 16.26 22.19 24.70 21.89 17.18 13.49 11.00 9.94

2012 9.61 10.03 10.88 13.11 16.52 21.85 25.16 22.56 17.79 13.43 11.01 10.14

DATA TRANSMITTED ON: 6/24/14

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 11 6/26/2014

H-122

Page 123: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN LAKE TILLERY

RETURNS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 0.82 0.99 0.83 0.89 0.69 0.34 0.75 0.24 0.39 0.48 0.80 0.97

1998 0.84 0.93 0.83 0.82 0.63 0.33 0.66 0.27 0.40 0.56 0.86 1.05

1999 0.86 0.86 0.84 0.75 0.58 0.33 0.57 0.30 0.40 0.64 0.91 1.13

2000 0.88 0.80 0.84 0.68 0.52 0.32 0.48 0.33 0.41 0.72 0.96 1.21

2001 0.90 0.74 0.84 0.61 0.47 0.31 0.39 0.36 0.42 0.80 1.01 1.29

2002 0.92 0.68 0.85 0.54 0.41 0.31 0.30 0.39 0.42 0.88 1.07 1.37

2003 0.75 1.24 1.68 1.41 1.39 1.28 0.94 1.29 0.61 0.38 0.36 0.34

2004 0.35 0.96 0.69 0.42 0.55 0.44 0.39 0.51 1.01 0.53 0.59 0.60

2005 0.65 0.77 1.25 0.98 0.48 0.62 0.69 0.66 0.40 0.49 0.38 0.98

2006 0.61 0.30 0.38 0.65 0.48 0.68 0.52 0.57 0.75 0.55 1.39 0.94

2007 1.20 0.85 0.73 0.42 0.21 0.26 0.19 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.41

2008 0.49 0.53 0.76 0.77 0.31 0.20 0.14 0.18 0.32 0.22 0.25 0.75

2009 0.44 0.36 1.11 0.38 0.33 0.28 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.96 1.17

2010 1.13 1.27 0.74 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.15 0.35 0.28 0.19 0.19 0.29

2011 0.37 0.51 0.66 0.39 0.32 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.34 0.51 0.62 0.61

2012 0.68 0.61 0.60 0.34 0.34 0.25 0.29 0.41 0.42 0.37 0.27 0.32

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 12 6/26/2014

H-123

Page 124: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WITHDRAWALS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 56.12 55.93 55.05 64.31 78.65 98.18 109.14 100.64 82.22 65.31 55.01 47.87

1998 55.23 54.77 54.54 64.68 78.83 99.40 109.55 100.91 81.75 65.44 55.25 48.21

1999 54.33 53.60 54.03 65.04 79.00 100.63 109.95 101.18 81.28 65.57 55.48 48.55

2000 54.15 53.04 54.40 65.95 79.72 103.75 112.43 104.31 82.49 66.81 56.36 49.76

2001 53.25 51.87 53.89 66.31 79.90 104.98 112.84 104.59 82.02 66.94 56.60 50.10

2002 52.36 50.71 53.38 66.67 80.07 106.20 113.24 104.86 81.55 67.07 56.84 50.44

2003 53.19 51.87 55.11 67.91 81.84 106.99 114.83 107.55 84.31 68.99 57.91 51.44

2004 54.03 53.02 56.83 69.15 83.60 107.78 116.43 110.24 87.06 70.91 58.99 52.43

2005 54.86 54.18 58.56 70.39 85.37 108.57 118.15 112.37 89.74 72.10 59.48 53.53

2006 54.99 54.81 60.42 71.35 87.30 108.70 119.77 115.55 91.91 74.33 60.98 54.17

2007 56.66 57.23 62.05 73.70 89.27 110.33 121.16 118.36 95.94 75.79 61.71 55.13

2008 58.73 57.11 61.16 62.71 76.68 101.96 110.58 103.71 81.98 66.44 54.69 47.75

2009 54.54 53.12 58.01 64.79 77.95 101.66 114.11 103.73 86.24 73.61 62.87 53.43

2010 51.33 52.74 53.07 63.04 76.98 99.16 109.71 99.10 84.66 67.02 59.30 47.49

2011 53.19 54.23 58.62 65.73 83.22 108.98 119.91 109.54 88.98 73.54 62.79 58.17

2012 54.74 53.69 56.77 66.64 81.12 103.08 115.35 105.34 84.71 68.29 58.11 51.26

DATA TRANSMITTED ON: 6/24/14

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 13 6/26/2014

H-124

Page 125: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Appendix B - Water Use by Reservoir Basin

SUBBASIN BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

RETURNS (CFS)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

1997 75.41 81.88 78.41 78.89 69.61 65.09 73.45 67.14 69.39 70.13 72.38 75.67

1998 75.66 80.30 77.88 76.70 68.40 64.27 70.96 66.15 68.36 70.58 73.84 76.30

1999 75.92 78.72 77.36 74.51 67.19 63.44 68.48 65.15 67.33 71.03 75.30 76.94

2000 76.17 77.14 76.84 72.33 65.99 62.62 65.99 64.15 66.30 71.48 76.77 77.57

2001 76.43 75.56 76.32 70.14 64.78 61.80 63.51 63.16 65.27 71.93 78.23 78.21

2002 76.68 73.98 75.79 67.95 63.57 60.97 61.02 62.16 64.24 72.39 79.69 78.85

2003 67.11 90.03 105.46 109.94 99.64 95.91 81.72 80.64 65.40 61.48 60.92 68.61

2004 62.24 92.43 75.74 69.73 63.17 66.71 64.89 67.22 86.49 68.00 68.54 69.97

2005 69.85 76.77 87.44 80.86 64.38 72.84 70.94 70.22 60.57 66.07 63.97 82.35

2006 76.19 69.40 68.07 65.91 63.79 70.55 62.05 70.26 73.46 69.71 85.97 72.44

2007 86.51 80.51 81.99 76.09 66.32 68.15 64.55 65.10 64.17 64.64 60.45 63.99

2008 64.23 69.06 74.24 74.07 63.15 56.29 57.29 67.84 66.40 60.28 59.46 75.44

2009 68.12 64.21 88.72 69.98 64.48 62.86 61.11 59.79 59.30 59.41 74.84 84.03

2010 83.61 91.48 77.04 63.89 64.30 67.68 61.56 63.46 60.07 57.36 54.66 58.54

2011 59.68 66.69 74.23 70.03 66.75 63.36 60.21 61.50 63.87 64.23 67.74 69.27

2012 75.33 70.78 68.62 62.03 64.88 60.24 60.02 65.88 65.01 61.05 57.12 60.83

UCYR_WSS_CHEOPS_Data_1997_2012_20140624.xlsx B - 14 6/26/2014

H-125

Page 126: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

CD-4.2 APPENDIX CD – 4.2

Summary – Yadkin-Pee

Dee Water Supply

Projections Basis and

Results

H-126

Page 127: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 1

T e c h n i c a l M e m o r a n d u m

PROJECT: Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project – Permitting and Preliminary

Engineering

DATE: October 23, 2014

SUBJECT: Water Supply Projections for Water Supply Modeling – Basis and Results

BACKGROUND As part of the comprehensive evaluation for securing a reliable water supply to serve customers in its

Yadkin River Basin service area, the Union County Public Works Department (UCPW) has authorized

HDR to provide Permitting and Preliminary Engineering assistance for the County’s Yadkin River Water

Supply Project (YRWSP). One of the tasks is to provide technical evaluations to support these permitting

efforts. As part of these evaluations, HDR will develop a water supply model for a portion of the Yadkin

River Basin (Basin). This modeling effort requires net withdrawal (withdrawals minus returns) projections

for water use within each watershed of the Basin. Those using the Yadkin River Basin for water supply

purposes can generally be grouped into the following major categories:

� Public Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities – Municipal and other utility agencies with

systems that withdraw and treat water for public consumption and residential, commercial, and

industrial use, as well as those systems that treat wastewater and return it to a surface water

source.

� Direct Industrial – These industrial users have direct withdrawals and/or returns from surface

water sources and utilize water in their manufacturing processes.

� Thermal-Electric Power – The thermal-electric power facilities within the Basin that use water for

cooling and other energy production needs.

� Agricultural and Irrigation – Agricultural and irrigation (A&I) users include farms, golf courses,

and other facilities that use water for livestock production, irrigation, and other purposes.

For the purposes of the water quantity model, the Basin was delineated into seven incremental

watersheds. Additionally, an eighth watershed, from below Blewett Falls Lake to the North Carolina –

South Carolina state line, is being evaluated for water use outside of the water quantity model through a

post-processing routine. These watersheds are listed below from the most upstream reservoir to the most

downstream reservoir in the Yadkin Basin.

� W. Kerr Scott Reservoir

� High Rock Lake

� Tuckertown Reservoir

� Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)

H-127

Page 128: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 2

� Falls Reservoir

� Lake Tillery

� Blewett Falls Lake

� Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake to NC-SC state line (evaluated through post-processing

routine)

The boundaries of the Basin and watershed locations being used in the modeling effort are provided in

Figure 1. As can be seen from the map, only a very small portion of the Basin being modeled is located

within South Carolina. The area of the Basin within South Carolina was examined through aerial mapping

sources and there appears to be no major water users in that area. Additionally, the United States

Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

website was evaluated for the portion of Chesterfield County within the Basin, and there are no

discharges in that area. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Controls

(SCDHEC) was also contacted to determine if any withdrawals or returns exist in that portion of the state,

and concurred that there are none. Based on this evaluation, South Carolina was not included in the

evaluation of water uses for modeling purposes, with the exception of the A&I category, as described

below.

As shown in Figure 1, there is a model subbasin within North Carolina (“Downstream of Blewett Falls

Lake”) that appears to lie outside the Yadkin River Basin. However, Figure 2 shows how this subbasin

area is in fact included in the Yadkin River Basin, as part of the Lower Pee Dee River Basin, according to

the subbasin delineations published by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR)

Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). This sub-basin is below the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) regulated reservoirs and thus was considered in the modeling effort through a post-

processing routine.

Also shown on Figure 1 is a small portion of the Basin is within the Commonwealth of Virginia. The area

shown is rural, and no major water users have been identified within this area; therefore, Virginia was not

included in the evaluation of water use, except for the A&I category.

This document summarizes the entities being evaluated, the sources for historical data, the methodology

for developing water supply projections to determine net withdrawals for each watershed in the CHEOPS

water quantity model for the Basin, and the results of the water supply projections.

PROJECTION METHODOLOGY The proceeding sections describe how historical data was gathered and projections developed for each of

the four water user categories. In compiling the list of current users, the focus was on those users that

currently withdraw or return from a surface water source an average annual daily rate of 100,000 gpd or

more from the Basin. While numerous users may withdraw or return water at rates less than 100,000

gpd, their impact on net withdrawal from the watersheds of each reservoir was considered insignificant for

the long-term water quantity modeling effort. Also, the net withdrawal produced by these users would be

very small relative to the overall net withdrawal resulting from the users documented in the projections.

For the North Carolina users, several databases were provided by the North Carolina Department of

Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The databases included

information from the Local Water Supply Plans (1997 to 2012), Water Withdrawal and Transfer

H-128

Page 129: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 3

Registrations (1999 to 2012), and NPDES discharge data (1997 to 2014). This data was used to

determine the appropriate entities to include in the evaluation, intake and discharge locations, and to

obtain monthly historical water use data.

The historical water use data in the NDDWR databases was not used directly as a model input. Rather,

the historical databases were aggregated into one Excel reference file, which was used to compile the

model input values for both historical and projected flows. For historical flows, gaps in the data (missing

months) were filled in by interpolating between known data points. For projection values, the average

value from 2010 to 2012 in a given month was used as the basis (“Base Year”) for making projections.

Water withdrawal and returns were projected to the year 2060.

In the databases received by NCDWR, the data is separated by subbasin. However, these subbasin

divisions are different than those watersheds being used for the water quantity model. Figure 2 shows

the modeling watersheds with the NCDWR subbasins overlaid for reference. Figure 3 shows all of the

water users being considered in this evaluation, with the modeling watersheds and County boundaries

shown for reference. The entity list with the name of the facilities is also shown on Figure 3.

H-129

Page 130: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Santee

Upper Pee Dee (Yadkin)

Lower Pee Dee

RoanokeKanawha

Cape Fear

Santee

Overall Basin Map with Modeling SubbasinsFigure 1

Union County | Yadkin River Water Supply Project - Permitting and Preliminary Engineering | Basis of Water Supply Projection

\\clts

main\

gis_d

ata\G

IS\Pr

ojects

\0002

40_U

nionC

ounty

\0214

323_

UCYR

WSPP

ermit-P

relim

Eng\m

ap_d

ocs\m

xd\Te

chnic

al Me

mo fig

ures\T

M_Fig

ure_1

_rev.m

xd | L

ast U

pdate

d: 10

.15.20

14

LegendOverall River Basins

SubbasinsW. Kerr Scott ReservoirHigh Rock LakeTuckertown ReservoirNarrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)Falls ReservoirLake TilleryBlewett Falls LakeDownstream of Blewett Falls Lake

.

H-130

Page 131: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

18-1Yadkin River

18-4Rocky River

18-2South Yadkin River

18-3Uwharrie River

Modeling Subbasins with NCDWR Subbasins OverlaidFigure 2

Union County | Yadkin River Water Supply Project - Permitting and Preliminary Engineering | Basis of Water Supply Projection

\\clts

main\

gis_d

ata\G

IS\Pr

ojects

\0002

40_U

nionC

ounty

\0214

323_

UCYR

WSPP

ermit-P

relim

Eng\m

ap_d

ocs\m

xd\Te

chnic

al Me

mo fig

ures\T

M_Fig

ure_2

_rev.m

xd | L

ast U

pdate

d: 10

.15.20

14

LegendNCDWR Subbasins

SubbasinsW. Kerr Scott ReservoirHigh Rock LakeTuckertown ReservoirNarrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)Falls ReservoirLake TilleryBlewett Falls LakeDownstream of Blewett Falls Lake

.

H-131

Page 132: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(89

88

87

86 85

84

83

81

78

75

93

71

67

66

64 63

62

60

59

58

56

55

52

45

34

16

13

11

92

09

04

01

88b

77c

77a

76d

76c76b76a

74a

73b73a

72b72a

70c70b

69b

69a

68a

65c65b65a

61b61a

46b

40b

35b

30f

30e

30d

30b

28d

28c

27b

25f

25e

25d

25c

25b

25a

24b24a

23c23b

23a

90c90b

90a

21c21b

21a

20d

20b

19c

19a

18b

17c17b

91b91a

15d15b

14d14c

14a

94c

08b

05c05b

03e

03d

42

02

74b

70a

68b

46a

40a

35c35a 30g

30c

30a

28b

28a

27a

22b22a

20c

20a

19b

18a

17a

15a

14b

94b94a

08a

03c03b03a76a(F)

York County

Wilkes County

Union County

Randolph County

Fairfield CountyKershaw County

Iredell County

Surry County

Guilford County

Chesterfield County

Anson County

Chester County

Rowan County

Davidson County

Lee County

Stokes County

Lancaster County

Darlington County

Ashe County

Stanly County

Patrick CountyGrayson County

Forsyth County

Rockingham County

Henry County

Mecklenburg County

Richmond County

Marlboro County

Catawba County

Montgomery County

Richland County

Gaston County

Newberry County

Carroll County

Florence County

Yadkin County

Union County

Caldwell County

Cabarrus CountyCleveland County

Lincoln County

Davie County

Moore County

Alexander County

Burke County

Cherokee County

Alleghany County

Smyth County

Lexington County Sumter County

Watauga County

Saluda County

Water-Using Entities Considered in the Current StudyFigure 3

Union County | Yadkin River Water Supply Project - Permitting and Preliminary Engineering | Basis of Water Supply Projection

\\clts

main\

gis_d

ata\G

IS\Pr

ojects

\0002

40_U

nionC

ounty

\0214

323_

UCYR

WSPP

ermit-P

relim

Eng\m

ap_d

ocs\m

xd\Te

chnic

al Me

mo fig

ures\T

M_Fig

ure_3

_rev.m

xd | L

ast U

pdate

d: 11

.14.20

14

LegendWater-Using Facilities!( Water-Withdrawing Facilities!( Water-Returning Facilities

SubbasinsW. Kerr Scott ReservoirHigh Rock LakeTuckertown ReservoirNarrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)Falls ReservoirLake TilleryBlewett Falls LakeDownstream of Blewett Falls Lake

.ID No. Entity Facility ID No. Entity Facility ID No. Entity Facility ID No. Entity Facility

01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc ATI Allvac Monroe Plant 23a City of Statesville City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River) 45 PPG Ind. Fiber Glass Products PPG Industries Fiber Glass Products 73a Tow n of Yadkinville Yadkinville WTP02 Aluminum Company Of America Badin Works 23b City of Statesville Fourth Creek WWTP 46a/b Performance Fibers, Inc Salisbury Facility 73b Tow n of Yadkinville Yadkinville WWTP

03a-e Anson County Anson County Filtration Plant 23c City of Statesville Third Creek WWTP 52 Stanly County West Stanly WWTP 74a True Textiles, Inc True Elkin, Inc.04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Country Wood WWTP 24a City of Thomasville City of Thomasville WTP 55 Teledyne Allvac Monroe Plant 74b True Textiles, Inc 304 East Main Street Plant05b Asheboro W. L. Brow n Jr WTP (Lake Lucas) 24b City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP 56 The Fork, LLC The Fork, LLC 75 Tyson Foods, Inc Harmony Plant05c Asheboro W. L. Brow n Jr WTP (Lake Reese) 25a City of Winston-Salem Archie Elledge WWTP 58 Tow n of Bermuda Run Bermuda Run WWTP 76a Union County Public Works Crooked Creek WWTP #2

08a/b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp Patterson Mill 25b City of Winston-Salem Muddy Creek WWTP 59 Tow n of Biscoe Biscoe WWTP 76b Union County Public Works Hunley Creek WWTP09 Bradfield Farms Water Company Bradfield Farms WWTP 25c/e City of Winston-Salem P. W. Sw ann WTP 60 Tow n of Boonville Boonville WWTP 76c Union County Public Works Grassy Branch WWTP11 Carolina Water Service Inc of NC Hemby Acres WWTP 25d City of Winston-Salem R. A. Thomas WTP 61a Tow n of Denton Denton WP 76d Union County Public Works Tallw ood Estates WWTP13 CMUD Mallard Creek WWTP 25f City of Winston-Salem R.W. Neilson WTP 61b Tow n of Denton Denton WWTP 77a WSA of Cabarrus County Mt. Pleasant WTF14a City of Albemarle Long Creek WWTP 27a Davidson Water Inc C. O. Pickle WP 62 Tow n of Dobson Dobson WWTP 77c WSA of Cabarrus County Rocky River WWTP (WSACC)

14b/c City of Albemarle Tuckertow n WTP 27b Davidson Water Inc Davidson Water WTP 63 Tow n of Elkin Elkin Municipal WTP 78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn Dobson Plant14d City of Albemarle US 52 HWY WTP 28a Davie County Cooleemee WTP 64 Tow n of Jonesville Jonesville WP 81 Yadkin Valley Sew er Authority, Inc Yadkin Valley S.A. WWTP

15a/b City of Concord Coddle Creek WTP 28b/c Davie County Sparks Road WTP 65a Tow n of Mocksville Hugh A. Lagle WTP 83 Carolina Stalite Company Carolina Stalite Company15d City of Concord Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher) 28d Davie County Cooleemee WWTP 65b Tow n of Mocksville Bear Creek WWTP 84 City of Charlotte Cabarrus Woods WWTP16 City of High Point Westside WWTP 30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Buck Steam Station 65c Tow n of Mocksville Dutchman Creek WWTP 85 Norfolk Southern Railw ay Company Linw ood Yard

17a/b/c City of Kannapolis City of Kannapolis WTP 30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Buck Combined Cycle Station 66 Tow n of Mooresville Rocky River WWTP 86 Tow n of Cleveland Cleveland WWTP18a/b City of King City of King WTP 30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Smith Energy Complex 67 Tow n of Mount Gilead Mount Gilead WWTP 87 Energy United Water Energy United Water WTP19a City of Lexington Lexington Regional WWTP 30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 68a Tow n of North Wilkesboro North Wilkesboro WP 88/88b Richmond County Richmond County WTP19b City of Lexington Lexington WTP #1 & 2 30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 68b Tow n of North Wilkesboro Thurman Street WWTP 89 Wilkes County Wilkes County WTP (Future)19c City of Lexington Lexington WTP (Lake Thom-A-Lex) 30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Nuclear Plant #1 69a Tow n of Norw ood Norw ood WTP 90a City of Rockingham Rockingham WWTP

20a/b City of Monroe John Glenn WTP 30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Nuclear Plant #2 69b Tow n of Norw ood Norw ood WWTP 90b/c City of Rockingham Rockingham WTP20c/d City of Monroe Monroe WWTP 34 Greater Badin W&SD Badin WWTP 70a/b Tow n of Pilot Mountain Pilot Mountain WTP 91a City of Hamlet Hamlet WTP21a City of Mount Airy F. G. Doggett WTP 35a/b/c Hedrick Industries Aquadale Quarry 70c Tow n of Pilot Mountain Pilot Mountain WWTP 91b City of Hamlet Hamlet WWTP21b City of Mount Airy Mount Airy WWTP 40a Louisiana Pacif ic Corporation Lousiana Pacif ic Corporation 71 Tow n of Troy Troy WWTP 92 Burlington Industries LLC Richmond Plant21c City of Mount Airy S. L. Spencer WTP 40b Louisiana Pacif ic Corporation LP Roaring River WWTP 72a Tow n of Wilkesboro Cub Creek WWTP 93 Tow n of Wadesboro Tow n of Wadesboro WTP22a City of Salisbury Salisbury WTP 42 Montgomery County Montgomery County WTP 72b Tow n of Wilkesboro Wilkesboro WFP 94a/b/c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co. Hedrick Mine (Pump House 1/2/3)22b City of Salisbury Salisbury-Row an WWTP

H-132

Page 133: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 7

Public Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities � Historical Data Source: Databases provided by NCDWR. Monthly withdrawal and discharge data

for each year from 2007-2012 were analyzed to determine annual averages. Monthly coefficients

based on the monthly average divided by the annual average were calculated using the historical

data record of each entity for use in the water quantity model.

� Projection Methodology

o Projections for water withdrawals were based on the projected annual growth rate (AGR)

of the County being served for the majority of the entities. The projected AGR takes into

account historical population data for the state from the 2010 Census and population

projections prepared by the North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management. For

larger entities in the basin, the projections from the Local Water Supply Plans were used.

This alternate methodology was chosen because growth was assumed to occur in the

larger cities at a faster rate than the overall County AGR. Local Water Supply Plan

projections were not used for all withdrawal entities because some entities’ projections

appeared intuitively incorrect – either overly aggressive (i.e., growth rates far exceeding

historic values) or overly conservative (i.e., negative growth rates). Using the Census

AGR values (or if the Census AGR was low, a minimum AGR of 0.25%) for these entities

provided a reasonable growth projection without giving undue weight to any one entity’s

projections. The notes in each of the detailed entity sheets denote whether an AGR

projection or a Local Water Supply Plan projection was used for that entity.

o For water treatment plant backwash returns, the average historical backwash return as a

percentage of water use from 2010 to 2012 was applied to the water withdrawal

projections.

o The wastewater treatment plant projections for returns were based on the projected

annual growth rate for the County being served or the average historical return as a

percentage of water use from 2010 to 2012 applied to the water withdrawal projections,

depending on the methodology used for the withdrawal projections.

Direct Industrial � Historical Data Source – Databases provided by NCDWR. Monthly withdrawal and discharge

data for each year from 2007-2012 were analyzed to determine annual averages. Monthly

coefficients based on the monthly average divided by the annual average were calculated using

the historical data record of each entity for use in the water quantity model.

� Projection Methodology – The projections for industrial withdrawals and returns were based on

the specific industry and the gross state product (GSP) for that industrial sector. Historical data

from the Bureau of Economic Analysis from 1997-2012 was used to calculate a long term GSP

growth percentage for the specific industry sector. The overall GSP growth percentage for

industry in North Carolina was also used as a reference. If the industrial sector showed a

negative GSP growth percentage, a zero percentage growth was assigned in the projections to

be conservative. An estimate for future industry was also added to the projections. This

assumed 0.5 MGD per year in the smaller basins (Tuckertown Reservoir, Badin Lake and Falls

Reservoir), 1 MGD per year in the larger basins (High Rock Lake, Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls

Lake) and no future industry in the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir basin.

H-133

Page 134: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 8

Thermal Electric Power � The only thermal-electric power facility in the Basin that meets the criteria for water supply

evaluation outlined in this document is Duke Energy’s Buck Combined Cycle facility. Duke

Energy provided historical use and projections for this facility. The Smith Energy Complex (Duke

Energy combined cycle facility) also receives water from the Yadkin basin through the Richmond

County water system. Historical data for the Smith Energy Complex was received from

Richmond County and projections were provided by Duke Energy. Future power facility

projections were also provided by Duke Energy. These included two potential future additional

combined cycle stations, one in High Rock Lake and one in an upstream tributary of High Rock

Lake, and two potential future nuclear plants, one in Blewett Falls Lake and one in Lake Tillery.

Agricultural and Irrigation (A&I) � Historical Data Source: Data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in five-year

increments for North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, on a per-county basis (USGS, 2014).

The USGS data provided crop plus golf (combined) and livestock surface water withdrawals

between 1990 and 2000. In 2005, water usage data were further disaggregated into separate

crop, livestock, and golf course surface water withdrawal categories.

� Projection Methodology: A&I users required a multi-step process to project usage within the

Basin. Data on specific agricultural and irrigation withdrawals are limited. Therefore, the

following approach was used to forecast A&I usage. It should be noted that the A&I forecasts

incorporate four main assumptions.

o A&I water withdrawals are completely consumptive (i.e., no surface returns). The majority of

A&I water used for irrigation and livestock is consumed and is not returned to the Basin.

o A&I water withdrawals for a given county are consumed uniformly over that county’s land

area. In the absence of more detailed land use data, A&I water use is assumed to be

distributed equally throughout the county.

o The percentage of a county’s land area within a particular reservoir’s watershed is

commensurate with the percentage of that county’s total A&I water withdrawal taken from that

watershed. For example, if 25 percent of a county’s land area resides within a particular

watershed, it was assumed 25 percent of that county’s A&I water demand is satisfied by the

reservoir associated with that watershed. In the absence of more detailed land use data and

changing land use in the Basin, this approach was used.

o Private irrigation by individual residential properties directly from Project reservoirs is

considered to represent a negligible impact on the net withdrawals from the Project

reservoirs. While there may be numerous residential irrigation users, their average daily

withdrawals are relatively small relative to other user types in this evaluation. Additionally,

because these properties are adjacent, or nearly adjacent, to the reservoirs, much of the

water withdrawn is likely transferred into the groundwater and feeds back into the reservoirs.

Projections were completed for each watershed within the Basin. For example, A&I usage was

calculated for Lake Tillery separately from Blewett Falls Lake. A GIS database was developed to

determine the percentage of each county that lies in each watershed within the Basin.

H-134

Page 135: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 9

The water withdrawal trends for A&I were evaluated from 1990 through 2005. The A&I water use

reported in the USGS database varies considerably between reporting years, and no definitive

trend in water use (increase or decrease) exists. Therefore, the use of an AGR for water use

projections is not relevant for the A&I category. Instead, to forecast A&I water withdrawals for

each county, the greatest water withdrawal from the 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 USGS datasets

was selected as the county water use for all future A&I consumption, by category. For each

category (golf, crop, and livestock), these values were multiplied by the percentage of each

county that lies within each reservoir’s watershed. This value serves as the basis for A&I water

use projections for each watershed, and is the same value for each projection decade (i.e., no

increase or decrease in A&I water use over the Study Period).

A monthly coefficient was established for the A&I water withdrawals to account for irrigation use

trends during the irrigation season of each year. North Carolina Agricultural Use Data from 2009-

2011 was used from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Data

for irrigation and livestock withdrawals, not including aquaculture, was used. The monthly

coefficient was developed by taking the 2009-2011 average monthly withdrawals divided by the

total average yearly withdrawals for those years.

RESULTS The following summarizes the withdrawals, returns and net withdrawal projections for the Yadkin-Pee

Dee River Basin using the methodology described above. The first set of results is summarized based on

each of the major user categories for the entire basin. Figure 4 shows the projections for the Public

Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities. As this figure shows, the withdrawals and returns grow at a

similar rate to 2060, resulting in the net withdrawal remaining fairly constant through the projection period.

One of the reasons for this is there are several entities that withdraw water from outside of the basin, but

return it within the basin. Also, for those entities that the wastewater returns were projected based on the

average return as a percentage of water use, the percentages were fairly high, with many exceeding

90%. This could be indicative of systems with high inflow and infiltration in the collection system.

Figure 4

Drought

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Pro

ject

ed

Flo

w (

MG

D)

Yadkin River Water Supply Study

for All Subbasins for Public Water/Wastewater Utilities (Baseline)

Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals

H-135

Page 136: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 10

Figure 5 provides the projections for the Direct Industrial category. All but one of the existing industries

had a negative GSP for the industrial sector. Zero percent growth was used for these industries, as

shown by the constant projections. The future industrial flows were added in 2020, thus the increase to

industrial flows shown at that time. The irregular shape of the historical data in years 2007 to 2012 is

driven by the Hedrick Mine in the Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake subbasin; Hedrick’s flows fluctuated

greatly during that time period.

Figure 5

Figure 6 shows the projections for the Power category. All power use is shown as a net withdrawal.

These projections include an additional combined cycle plant in the time frame of 2020 to 2049 and an

additional combined cycle plant and two nuclear plants in 2050.

Figure 6

Drought-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Pro

ject

ed

Flo

w (

MG

D)

Yadkin River Water Supply Study

for All Subbasins for All Categories - Industrial (Baseline)

Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals

Drought

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Pro

ject

ed

Flo

w (

MG

D)

Yadkin River Water Supply Study

for All Subbasins for All Categories - Power (Baseline)

Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals

H-136

Page 137: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 11

Figure 7 shows the results of the Agricultural and Irrigation (A&I) projections. All A&I use was considered

a net withdrawal. The AI& projections were developed based on a constant net withdrawal over the

projection period using the greatest withdrawal data from the USGS data as the basis.

Figure 7

Drought

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060

Pro

ject

ed

Flo

w (

MG

D)

Yadkin River Water Supply Study

for All Subbasins for All Categories - Agricultural/Irrigation (Baseline)

Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals

H-137

Page 138: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 12

Figure 8 provides the withdrawals, returns and net withdrawals for all categories by subbasin for the Base

Year, which is the average of 2010 to 2012.

Figure 8

H-138

Page 139: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 13

Figure 9 provides the withdrawals, returns and net withdrawals for all categories by subbasin in 2060.

Figure 9

H-139

Page 140: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results 14

SUMMARY The projected net withdrawals depicted in Figure 8 and Figure 9, above, are driven by a series of

circumstances and assumptions captured in the model. One circumstance is the high rate of return

exhibited by public water and wastewater utilities - many entities return more than 90% of the water that

they withdraw. This value is higher than typical, but can be partially explained by high inflow and

infiltration (I&I) in the wastewater collection systems. Additionally, there is significant inter-basin transfer

(IBT) occurring from the Catawba River Basin to the Yadkin River Basin. This inflates the return flow

values and creates the appearance of higher-than-actual rates of return for some public utilities. Finally,

the rural nature of the Yadkin River Basin means there are few large municipalities or industries to

withdraw water for consumptive use (e.g. lawn irrigation); this reduces the net withdrawals compared to

more highly-developed basins in the state.

One factor that drives the projections toward higher consumptive use is the increase in projected

withdrawals for power facilities beginning in the base year and increasing step-wise through 2060 as new

facilities come online. Power utilities within the region project the need for these new facilities to meet

increasing base load power demands throughout their service areas as future population increases.

These power facility flows represent a large fraction of the projected withdrawals in 2060 for the Lake

Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake basins, and a smaller but still significant fraction of the 2060 High Rock

Lake basin withdrawals.

H-140

Page 141: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

CD-4.3 APPENDIX CD – 4.3

Yadkin Water Supply

Analysis – Legend

H-141

Page 142: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Legend/Acronym List

Code Name Description Master Code

Part 1 of Entity ID:

State/Area

N North Carolina Code used for entities within the state of North Carolina N

S South Carolina Code used for entities within the state of South Carolina S

Part 2 of Entity ID: 

Water Supply

W Withdrawal Code for an entity's facility that withdraws water  W

R Return Code for an entity's facility that discharges water R

N Net Withdrawal Net Outflow is the difference between withdrawals and discharges. N

Part 3 of Entity ID: 

Subbasins

W W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR W. Kerr Scott Reservoir Subbasin W

H HIGH ROCK LAKE High Rock Lake Subbasin H

T TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR Tuckertown Reservoir Subbasin T

N NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) Subbasin N

F FALLS RESERVOIR Falls Reservoir Subbasin F

L LAKE TILLERY Lake Tillery Subbasin L

B BLEWETT FALLS LAKE Blewett Falls Lake Subbasin B

D DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake Subbasin (NC) D

Part 4 of Entity ID:

Unique ID Number

# Unique number for each entity; letters after the number designate different facilities within that entity. #

Category

PW/WU Public Water/Wastewater Utilities City utilities withdrawing or discharging water PW/WU

PW/WU (D) Public Water/Wastewater Utilities ‐ Domestic For‐profit utilities withdrawing or discharging water PW/WU

TEP Power Entities/Facilities producing Thermo‐Electric Power TEP

TEP‐F Power ‐ New Future Power Entities/Facilities projected to produce Thermo‐Electric Power in the 

future

TEP

IND Industrial Industrial facilities that direct withdrawing and/or discharging water IND

IND‐F Industrial ‐ New Future Industry Industrial facilities projected to make direct withdrawals and/or 

discharges in the future

IND

A/I Agricultural/Irrigation Entity specific agricultural or irrigation A/I

A/I (CL) Agricultural/Irrigation (Crop & Livestock) County‐wide "crop" and "livestock" A/I

A/I (CGL) Agricultural/Irrigation (Crop, Golf, & Livestock) County‐wide "crop", "golf",  and "livestock" A/I

A/I (LS) Agricultural/Irrigation (Residential Lakeside) Residential Lakeside Irrigation (Increase from Base) A/I

A/I‐F Agricultural/Irrigation ‐ New Future Future crop, livestock, and golf course A/I

Entity IDs are composed of four parts and then assigned to specific "Category":Part 1 ‐ State CodePart 2 ‐Water Supply CodePart 3 ‐ Subbasin CodePart 4 ‐ Unique ID NumberCategory ‐ Type of Entity

Example: "NWT‐14b" is the Tuckertown WTP. This entity's facility is a North Carolina (Part 1="N") Withdrawal (Part 2="W") in the Tuckertown Reservoir subbasin (Part 3="T") assigned a Unique ID Number of "14b" (Part 4="14b"). It has a Category of "Public Water/Wastewater Utilities" 

H-142

Page 143: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

CD-4.4 APPENDIX CD – 4.4

Yadkin Water Supply

Analysis – Modeling

Projections by YRWSP

Alternative

H-143

Page 144: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 205.0 0.90

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 15.0 ‐0.62

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 69.4 0.01

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 26.3

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 147.2 1.45

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Baseline)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-144

Page 145: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-145

Page 146: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-146

Page 147: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Baseline)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-147

Page 148: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Baseline)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-148

Page 149: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Baseline)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-149

Page 150: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Baseline)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-150

Page 151: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Baseline)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 15.8 16.6 50.3 51.4

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 15.5 16.3 49.9 51.1

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 53.5 56.5 96.4 102.2

H-151

Page 152: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Baseline)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 ‐5.6 ‐11.6 17.4 11.7

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 220.3 232.6 314.8 328.7

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 78.3 77.7 144.2 140.9

H-152

Page 153: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Baseline)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 19.24 ‐3.96 ‐4.60 ‐13.40 5.07 23.35 43.66 49.29 46.67 39.85 30.41 14.30 ‐0.95

2040 18.59 ‐6.32 ‐7.18 ‐16.64 3.43 23.18 44.74 50.68 47.67 40.78 30.76 13.70 ‐3.03

2050 18.30 ‐8.81 ‐9.98 ‐20.14 1.93 23.48 46.72 53.26 49.80 42.44 31.87 13.15 ‐5.50

2060 15.04 ‐14.42 ‐15.79 ‐26.74 ‐2.53 20.81 45.70 52.89 48.90 41.14 30.01 9.70 ‐10.79

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 84.70 19.29 20.33 19.42 55.29 100.22 166.46 196.59 172.32 122.45 77.26 43.21 22.27

2040 84.03 16.90 17.72 16.16 53.62 100.03 167.52 197.97 173.30 123.36 77.59 42.58 20.17

2050 150.53 86.73 84.15 75.22 112.84 161.62 239.29 274.31 249.12 192.57 141.95 104.16 82.90

2060 147.24 81.09 78.31 68.59 108.36 158.92 238.24 273.92 248.20 191.24 140.06 100.68 77.57

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-153

Page 154: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Baseline)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 162.97 152.02 149.35 148.81 154.44 166.69 182.11 181.33 182.78 175.69 164.18 151.51 145.93

2040 175.42 163.84 160.90 160.38 166.33 179.48 195.79 194.80 196.32 189.01 176.68 163.36 157.34

2050 190.97 178.49 175.16 174.75 181.16 195.41 212.96 211.96 213.62 205.68 192.48 177.88 171.17

2060 204.95 191.56 187.91 187.60 194.51 209.77 228.50 227.48 229.25 220.73 206.63 190.84 183.60

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 232.64 179.85 178.73 186.07 209.05 247.86 308.94 332.81 312.87 262.55 214.93 184.19 173.04

2040 245.09 191.66 190.28 197.64 220.94 260.65 322.62 346.28 326.41 275.87 227.43 196.03 184.45

2050 327.46 278.66 273.79 274.60 296.51 337.90 409.62 437.22 417.43 360.11 306.51 272.70 263.50

2060 341.44 291.73 286.54 287.45 309.86 352.26 425.15 452.75 433.06 375.16 320.66 285.66 275.92

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-154

Page 155: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Baseline)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-155

Page 156: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Baseline)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 232.64 179.85 178.73 186.07 209.05 247.86 308.94 332.81 312.87 262.55 214.93 184.19 173.04

2040 245.09 191.66 190.28 197.64 220.94 260.65 322.62 346.28 326.41 275.87 227.43 196.03 184.45

2050 327.46 278.66 273.79 274.60 296.51 337.90 409.62 437.22 417.43 360.11 306.51 272.70 263.50

2060 341.44 291.73 286.54 287.45 309.86 352.26 425.15 452.75 433.06 375.16 320.66 285.66 275.92

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 84.70 19.29 20.33 19.42 55.29 100.22 166.46 196.59 172.32 122.45 77.26 43.21 22.27

2040 84.03 16.90 17.72 16.16 53.62 100.03 167.52 197.97 173.30 123.36 77.59 42.58 20.17

2050 150.53 86.73 84.15 75.22 112.84 161.62 239.29 274.31 249.12 192.57 141.95 104.16 82.90

2060 147.24 81.09 78.31 68.59 108.36 158.92 238.24 273.92 248.20 191.24 140.06 100.68 77.57

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-156

Page 157: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Baseline)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 232.64 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 53.47 12.39

2040 245.09 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 56.47 12.52

2050 327.46 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 96.37 12.65

2060 341.44 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 102.19 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 84.70 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 84.03 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 150.53 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 17.40 6.32

2060 147.24 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 11.66 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-157

Page 158: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Baseline)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 6.67 8.11 8.26 8.40

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 8.08 10.73 11.52 12.12

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 15.77 16.60 50.26 51.41

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 53.47 56.47 96.37 102.19

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 232.64 245.09 327.46 341.44

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Baseline)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 43.62 46.09 51.04 59.11 68.02 78.97 90.53

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Baseline)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 5.97 7.31 7.44 7.56

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 7.91 10.57 11.36 11.96

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.56 10.96 14.30 15.46 16.28 49.92 51.07

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 5.87 4.40 2.85 ‐5.64 ‐11.55 17.40 11.66

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 84.70 84.03 150.53 147.24

H-158

Page 159: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Baseline)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 6.76 ‐12.19 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 8.16 ‐15.47 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 10.50 ‐18.03 ‐0.64

2030 19.24 7.00 15.44 4.98 7.34 0.00 11.65 ‐26.51 ‐0.66

2040 18.59 7.18 15.72 6.31 10.00 0.00 12.48 ‐32.43 ‐0.68

2050 18.30 7.36 16.09 6.44 10.79 0.00 13.96 ‐35.64 ‐0.69

2060 15.04 7.55 16.53 6.56 11.38 0.00 15.10 ‐41.38 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 84.70 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 84.03 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 150.53 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 17.40 6.32

2060 147.24 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 11.66 6.30

Year

H-159

Page 160: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Baseline)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 162.97 7.00 93.69 5.68 7.34 0.00 11.96 32.17 5.12

2040 175.42 7.18 97.91 7.12 10.00 0.00 12.80 35.17 5.25

2050 190.97 7.36 102.98 7.26 10.79 0.00 14.29 42.92 5.38

2060 204.95 7.55 108.92 7.40 11.38 0.00 15.44 48.73 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 232.64 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 53.47 12.39

2040 245.09 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 56.47 12.52

2050 327.46 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 96.37 12.65

2060 341.44 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 102.19 12.78

Year

H-160

Page 161: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Baseline)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.29 43.20 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 45.67 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.30 50.62 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.31 58.69 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.32 67.60 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.33 78.56 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 90.11 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

Year

H-161

Page 162: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 223.8 1.08

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 33.9 1.08

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 88.3 0.51

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 45.1

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 166.1 1.71

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Alternative 1)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-162

Page 163: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-163

Page 164: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-164

Page 165: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 1)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-165

Page 166: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 1)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-166

Page 167: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 1)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-167

Page 168: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 1)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-168

Page 169: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 1)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.8 16.5 18.8

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 22.8 28.4 66.7 70.2

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 22.5 28.0 66.4 69.9

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 53.5 56.5 96.4 102.2

H-169

Page 170: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 1)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 ‐5.6 ‐11.6 17.4 11.7

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 227.3 244.3 331.3 347.5

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 85.4 89.5 160.7 159.8

H-170

Page 171: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 26.30 1.64 0.86 ‐7.73 11.82 31.49 52.19 57.95 54.94 47.81 37.95 20.73 4.75

2040 30.35 3.01 1.93 ‐7.18 14.67 36.75 58.96 65.12 61.47 54.04 43.33 24.40 6.47

2050 34.77 4.25 2.77 ‐6.90 17.66 42.48 66.62 73.46 69.11 61.00 49.46 28.14 7.80

2060 33.86 0.51 ‐1.22 ‐11.61 15.45 42.51 68.44 75.99 70.97 62.36 50.12 26.84 4.40

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-171

Page 172: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 170.03 157.62 154.82 154.49 161.19 174.83 190.63 189.99 191.05 183.65 171.72 157.94 151.63

2040 187.19 173.17 170.01 169.83 177.57 193.04 210.00 209.23 210.11 202.27 189.24 174.07 166.84

2050 207.44 191.56 187.91 187.99 196.90 214.40 232.86 232.17 232.93 224.25 210.07 192.87 184.47

2060 223.77 206.49 202.49 202.74 212.49 231.47 251.24 250.58 251.32 241.95 226.73 207.97 198.79

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-172

Page 173: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-173

Page 174: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-174

Page 175: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 22.83 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 28.37 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 66.73 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 70.24 102.19 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 22.52 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 28.05 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 66.39 17.40 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 69.89 11.66 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-175

Page 176: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 6.67 8.11 8.26 8.40

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 8.08 10.73 11.52 12.12

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 22.83 28.37 66.73 70.24

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 53.47 56.47 96.37 102.19

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 239.70 256.86 343.93 360.26

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 43.62 46.09 51.04 59.11 68.02 78.97 90.53

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 5.97 7.31 7.44 7.56

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 7.91 10.57 11.36 11.96

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.56 10.96 14.30 22.52 28.05 66.39 69.89

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 5.87 4.40 2.85 ‐5.64 ‐11.55 17.40 11.66

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 91.76 95.79 167.00 166.06

H-176

Page 177: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 6.76 ‐12.19 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 8.16 ‐15.47 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 10.50 ‐18.03 ‐0.64

2030 26.30 7.00 15.44 4.98 7.34 0.00 18.71 ‐26.51 ‐0.66

2040 30.35 7.18 15.72 6.31 10.00 0.00 24.24 ‐32.43 ‐0.68

2050 34.77 7.36 16.09 6.44 10.79 0.00 30.43 ‐35.64 ‐0.69

2060 33.86 7.55 16.53 6.56 11.38 0.00 33.92 ‐41.38 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 22.52 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 28.05 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 66.39 17.40 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 69.89 11.66 6.30

Year

H-177

Page 178: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 170.03 7.00 93.69 5.68 7.34 0.00 19.02 32.17 5.12

2040 187.19 7.18 97.91 7.12 10.00 0.00 24.56 35.17 5.25

2050 207.44 7.36 102.98 7.26 10.79 0.00 30.76 42.92 5.38

2060 223.77 7.55 108.92 7.40 11.38 0.00 34.27 48.73 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 22.83 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 28.37 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 66.73 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 70.24 102.19 12.78

Year

H-178

Page 179: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 1)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.29 43.20 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 45.67 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.30 50.62 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.31 58.69 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.32 67.60 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.33 78.56 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 90.11 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

Year

H-179

Page 180: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 223.8 1.08

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 33.9 1.08

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 88.3 0.51

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 45.1

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 166.1 1.71

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Alternative 2A)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-180

Page 181: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-181

Page 182: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-182

Page 183: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2A)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-183

Page 184: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2A)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-184

Page 185: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2A)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-185

Page 186: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2A)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-186

Page 187: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2A)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.8 16.5 18.8

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 22.8 28.4 66.7 70.2

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 22.5 28.0 66.4 69.9

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 53.5 56.5 96.4 102.2

H-187

Page 188: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2A)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 ‐5.6 ‐11.6 17.4 11.7

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 227.3 244.3 331.3 347.5

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 85.4 89.5 160.7 159.8

H-188

Page 189: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 26.30 1.64 0.86 ‐7.73 11.82 31.49 52.19 57.95 54.94 47.81 37.95 20.73 4.75

2040 30.35 3.01 1.93 ‐7.18 14.67 36.75 58.96 65.12 61.47 54.04 43.33 24.40 6.47

2050 34.77 4.25 2.77 ‐6.90 17.66 42.48 66.62 73.46 69.11 61.00 49.46 28.14 7.80

2060 33.86 0.51 ‐1.22 ‐11.61 15.45 42.51 68.44 75.99 70.97 62.36 50.12 26.84 4.40

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-189

Page 190: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 170.03 157.62 154.82 154.49 161.19 174.83 190.63 189.99 191.05 183.65 171.72 157.94 151.63

2040 187.19 173.17 170.01 169.83 177.57 193.04 210.00 209.23 210.11 202.27 189.24 174.07 166.84

2050 207.44 191.56 187.91 187.99 196.90 214.40 232.86 232.17 232.93 224.25 210.07 192.87 184.47

2060 223.77 206.49 202.49 202.74 212.49 231.47 251.24 250.58 251.32 241.95 226.73 207.97 198.79

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-190

Page 191: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-191

Page 192: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-192

Page 193: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 15.13 0.52 15.77 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 22.50 0.52 16.60 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 27.99 0.52 50.26 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 30.94 0.52 51.41 102.19 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 14.97 0.52 15.46 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 22.33 0.52 16.28 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 27.83 0.52 49.92 17.40 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 30.78 0.52 51.07 11.66 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-193

Page 194: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 6.67 8.11 8.26 8.40

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 15.13 22.50 27.99 30.94

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 15.77 16.60 50.26 51.41

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 53.47 56.47 96.37 102.19

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 239.70 256.86 343.93 360.26

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 43.62 46.09 51.04 59.11 68.02 78.97 90.53

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 5.97 7.31 7.44 7.56

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 14.97 22.33 27.83 30.78

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.56 10.96 14.30 15.46 16.28 49.92 51.07

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 5.87 4.40 2.85 ‐5.64 ‐11.55 17.40 11.66

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 91.76 95.79 167.00 166.06

H-194

Page 195: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 6.76 ‐12.19 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 8.16 ‐15.47 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 10.50 ‐18.03 ‐0.64

2030 26.30 7.00 15.44 4.98 14.40 0.00 11.65 ‐26.51 ‐0.66

2040 30.35 7.18 15.72 6.31 21.76 0.00 12.48 ‐32.43 ‐0.68

2050 34.77 7.36 16.09 6.44 27.26 0.00 13.96 ‐35.64 ‐0.69

2060 33.86 7.55 16.53 6.56 30.21 0.00 15.10 ‐41.38 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 14.97 0.52 15.46 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 22.33 0.52 16.28 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 27.83 0.52 49.92 17.40 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 30.78 0.52 51.07 11.66 6.30

Year

H-195

Page 196: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 170.03 7.00 93.69 5.68 14.40 0.00 11.96 32.17 5.12

2040 187.19 7.18 97.91 7.12 21.76 0.00 12.80 35.17 5.25

2050 207.44 7.36 102.98 7.26 27.26 0.00 14.29 42.92 5.38

2060 223.77 7.55 108.92 7.40 30.21 0.00 15.44 48.73 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 15.13 0.52 15.77 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 22.50 0.52 16.60 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 27.99 0.52 50.26 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 30.94 0.52 51.41 102.19 12.78

Year

H-196

Page 197: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2A)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.29 43.20 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 45.67 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.30 50.62 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.31 58.69 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.32 67.60 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.33 78.56 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 90.11 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

Year

H-197

Page 198: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 223.8 1.08

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 33.9 1.08

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 88.3 0.51

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 45.1

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 166.1 1.71

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Alternative 2B)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-198

Page 199: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-199

Page 200: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-200

Page 201: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2B)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-201

Page 202: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2B)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-202

Page 203: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2B)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-203

Page 204: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2B)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-204

Page 205: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2B)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.8 16.5 18.8

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 22.8 28.4 66.7 70.2

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 22.5 28.0 66.4 69.9

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 53.5 56.5 96.4 102.2

H-205

Page 206: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 2B)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 ‐5.6 ‐11.6 17.4 11.7

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 227.3 244.3 331.3 347.5

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 85.4 89.5 160.7 159.8

H-206

Page 207: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 26.30 1.64 0.86 ‐7.73 11.82 31.49 52.19 57.95 54.94 47.81 37.95 20.73 4.75

2040 30.35 3.01 1.93 ‐7.18 14.67 36.75 58.96 65.12 61.47 54.04 43.33 24.40 6.47

2050 34.77 4.25 2.77 ‐6.90 17.66 42.48 66.62 73.46 69.11 61.00 49.46 28.14 7.80

2060 33.86 0.51 ‐1.22 ‐11.61 15.45 42.51 68.44 75.99 70.97 62.36 50.12 26.84 4.40

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-207

Page 208: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 170.03 157.62 154.82 154.49 161.19 174.83 190.63 189.99 191.05 183.65 171.72 157.94 151.63

2040 187.19 173.17 170.01 169.83 177.57 193.04 210.00 209.23 210.11 202.27 189.24 174.07 166.84

2050 207.44 191.56 187.91 187.99 196.90 214.40 232.86 232.17 232.93 224.25 210.07 192.87 184.47

2060 223.77 206.49 202.49 202.74 212.49 231.47 251.24 250.58 251.32 241.95 226.73 207.97 198.79

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-208

Page 209: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-209

Page 210: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-210

Page 211: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 13.73 8.08 0.52 15.77 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 19.87 10.73 0.52 16.60 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 24.73 11.52 0.52 50.26 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 27.22 12.12 0.52 51.41 102.19 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 13.03 7.91 0.52 15.46 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 19.07 10.57 0.52 16.28 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 23.91 11.36 0.52 49.92 17.40 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 26.38 11.96 0.52 51.07 11.66 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-211

Page 212: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 13.73 19.87 24.73 27.22

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 8.08 10.73 11.52 12.12

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 15.77 16.60 50.26 51.41

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 53.47 56.47 96.37 102.19

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 239.70 256.86 343.93 360.26

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 43.62 46.09 51.04 59.11 68.02 78.97 90.53

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 13.03 19.07 23.91 26.38

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 7.91 10.57 11.36 11.96

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.56 10.96 14.30 15.46 16.28 49.92 51.07

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 5.87 4.40 2.85 ‐5.64 ‐11.55 17.40 11.66

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 91.76 95.79 167.00 166.06

H-212

Page 213: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 6.76 ‐12.19 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 8.16 ‐15.47 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 10.50 ‐18.03 ‐0.64

2030 26.30 7.00 15.44 12.04 7.34 0.00 11.65 ‐26.51 ‐0.66

2040 30.35 7.18 15.72 18.08 10.00 0.00 12.48 ‐32.43 ‐0.68

2050 34.77 7.36 16.09 22.91 10.79 0.00 13.96 ‐35.64 ‐0.69

2060 33.86 7.55 16.53 25.39 11.38 0.00 15.10 ‐41.38 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 13.03 7.91 0.52 15.46 ‐5.64 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 19.07 10.57 0.52 16.28 ‐11.55 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 23.91 11.36 0.52 49.92 17.40 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 26.38 11.96 0.52 51.07 11.66 6.30

Year

H-213

Page 214: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 170.03 7.00 93.69 12.74 7.34 0.00 11.96 32.17 5.12

2040 187.19 7.18 97.91 18.88 10.00 0.00 12.80 35.17 5.25

2050 207.44 7.36 102.98 23.73 10.79 0.00 14.29 42.92 5.38

2060 223.77 7.55 108.92 26.23 11.38 0.00 15.44 48.73 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 13.73 8.08 0.52 15.77 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 19.87 10.73 0.52 16.60 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 24.73 11.52 0.52 50.26 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 27.22 12.12 0.52 51.41 102.19 12.78

Year

H-214

Page 215: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 2B)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.29 43.20 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 45.67 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.30 50.62 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.31 58.69 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.32 67.60 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.33 78.56 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 90.11 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

Year

H-215

Page 216: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 223.8 1.08

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 33.9 1.08

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 88.3 0.51

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 45.1

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 166.1 1.71

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Alternative 3)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-216

Page 217: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-217

Page 218: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-218

Page 219: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 3)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-219

Page 220: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 3)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-220

Page 221: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 3)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-221

Page 222: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 3)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-222

Page 223: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 3)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 15.8 16.6 50.3 51.4

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 15.5 16.3 49.9 51.1

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.8 16.5 18.8

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 60.5 68.2 112.8 121.0

H-223

Page 224: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 3)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 1.4 0.2 33.9 30.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 227.3 244.3 331.3 347.5

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 85.4 89.5 160.7 159.8

H-224

Page 225: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 26.30 1.64 0.86 ‐7.73 11.82 31.49 52.19 57.95 54.94 47.81 37.95 20.73 4.75

2040 30.35 3.01 1.93 ‐7.18 14.67 36.75 58.96 65.12 61.47 54.04 43.33 24.40 6.47

2050 34.77 4.25 2.77 ‐6.90 17.66 42.48 66.62 73.46 69.11 61.00 49.46 28.14 7.80

2060 33.86 0.51 ‐1.22 ‐11.61 15.45 42.51 68.44 75.99 70.97 62.36 50.12 26.84 4.40

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-225

Page 226: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 170.03 157.62 154.82 154.49 161.19 174.83 190.63 189.99 191.05 183.65 171.72 157.94 151.63

2040 187.19 173.17 170.01 169.83 177.57 193.04 210.00 209.23 210.11 202.27 189.24 174.07 166.84

2050 207.44 191.56 187.91 187.99 196.90 214.40 232.86 232.17 232.93 224.25 210.07 192.87 184.47

2060 223.77 206.49 202.49 202.74 212.49 231.47 251.24 250.58 251.32 241.95 226.73 207.97 198.79

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-226

Page 227: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-227

Page 228: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-228

Page 229: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 60.53 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 68.23 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 112.84 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 121.01 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 1.42 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 0.21 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 33.87 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 30.48 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-229

Page 230: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 6.67 8.11 8.26 8.40

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 8.08 10.73 11.52 12.12

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 15.77 16.60 50.26 51.41

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 60.53 68.23 112.84 121.01

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 239.70 256.86 343.93 360.26

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 43.62 46.09 51.04 59.11 68.02 78.97 90.53

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 5.97 7.31 7.44 7.56

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 7.91 10.57 11.36 11.96

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.56 10.96 14.30 15.46 16.28 49.92 51.07

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 5.87 4.40 2.85 1.42 0.21 33.87 30.48

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 91.76 95.79 167.00 166.06

H-230

Page 231: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 6.76 ‐12.19 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 8.16 ‐15.47 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 10.50 ‐18.03 ‐0.64

2030 26.30 7.00 15.44 4.98 7.34 0.00 11.65 ‐19.46 ‐0.66

2040 30.35 7.18 15.72 6.31 10.00 0.00 12.48 ‐20.66 ‐0.68

2050 34.77 7.36 16.09 6.44 10.79 0.00 13.96 ‐19.17 ‐0.69

2060 33.86 7.55 16.53 6.56 11.38 0.00 15.10 ‐22.56 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 1.42 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 0.21 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 33.87 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 30.48 6.30

Year

H-231

Page 232: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 170.03 7.00 93.69 5.68 7.34 0.00 11.96 39.23 5.12

2040 187.19 7.18 97.91 7.12 10.00 0.00 12.80 46.94 5.25

2050 207.44 7.36 102.98 7.26 10.79 0.00 14.29 59.39 5.38

2060 223.77 7.55 108.92 7.40 11.38 0.00 15.44 67.56 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 60.53 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 68.23 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 112.84 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 121.01 12.78

Year

H-232

Page 233: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 3)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.29 43.20 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 45.67 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.30 50.62 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.31 58.69 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.32 67.60 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.33 78.56 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 90.11 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

Year

H-233

Page 234: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 223.8 1.08

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 33.9 1.08

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 88.3 0.51

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 45.1

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 166.1 1.71

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Alternative 4)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-234

Page 235: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-235

Page 236: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-236

Page 237: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 4)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-237

Page 238: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 4)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-238

Page 239: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 4)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-239

Page 240: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 4)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-240

Page 241: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 4)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.8 16.5 18.8

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 22.8 28.4 66.7 70.2

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 22.5 28.0 66.4 69.9

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 53.5 56.5 96.4 102.2

H-241

Page 242: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 4)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 ‐5.6 ‐11.6 17.4 11.7

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 227.3 244.3 331.3 347.5

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 85.4 89.5 160.7 159.8

H-242

Page 243: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 26.30 1.64 0.86 ‐7.73 11.82 31.49 52.19 57.95 54.94 47.81 37.95 20.73 4.75

2040 30.35 3.01 1.93 ‐7.18 14.67 36.75 58.96 65.12 61.47 54.04 43.33 24.40 6.47

2050 34.77 4.25 2.77 ‐6.90 17.66 42.48 66.62 73.46 69.11 61.00 49.46 28.14 7.80

2060 33.86 0.51 ‐1.22 ‐11.61 15.45 42.51 68.44 75.99 70.97 62.36 50.12 26.84 4.40

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-243

Page 244: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 170.03 157.62 154.82 154.49 161.19 174.83 190.63 189.99 191.05 183.65 171.72 157.94 151.63

2040 187.19 173.17 170.01 169.83 177.57 193.04 210.00 209.23 210.11 202.27 189.24 174.07 166.84

2050 207.44 191.56 187.91 187.99 196.90 214.40 232.86 232.17 232.93 224.25 210.07 192.87 184.47

2060 223.77 206.49 202.49 202.74 212.49 231.47 251.24 250.58 251.32 241.95 226.73 207.97 198.79

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-244

Page 245: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-245

Page 246: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-246

Page 247: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 60.53 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 68.23 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 112.84 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 121.01 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 1.42 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 0.21 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 33.87 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 30.48 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-247

Page 248: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 6.67 8.11 8.26 8.40

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 8.08 10.73 11.52 12.12

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 15.77 16.60 50.26 51.41

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 60.53 68.23 112.84 121.01

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 239.70 256.86 343.93 360.26

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 43.62 46.09 51.04 59.11 68.02 78.97 90.53

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 5.97 7.31 7.44 7.56

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 7.91 10.57 11.36 11.96

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.56 10.96 14.30 15.46 16.28 49.92 51.07

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 5.87 4.40 2.85 1.42 0.21 33.87 30.48

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 91.76 95.79 167.00 166.06

H-248

Page 249: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 6.76 ‐12.19 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 8.16 ‐15.47 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 10.50 ‐18.03 ‐0.64

2030 26.30 7.00 15.44 4.98 7.34 0.00 11.65 ‐19.46 ‐0.66

2040 30.35 7.18 15.72 6.31 10.00 0.00 12.48 ‐20.66 ‐0.68

2050 34.77 7.36 16.09 6.44 10.79 0.00 13.96 ‐19.17 ‐0.69

2060 33.86 7.55 16.53 6.56 11.38 0.00 15.10 ‐22.56 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 1.42 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 0.21 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 33.87 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 30.48 6.30

Year

H-249

Page 250: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 170.03 7.00 93.69 5.68 7.34 0.00 11.96 39.23 5.12

2040 187.19 7.18 97.91 7.12 10.00 0.00 12.80 46.94 5.25

2050 207.44 7.36 102.98 7.26 10.79 0.00 14.29 59.39 5.38

2060 223.77 7.55 108.92 7.40 11.38 0.00 15.44 67.56 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 60.53 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 68.23 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 112.84 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 121.01 12.78

Year

H-250

Page 251: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 4)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.29 43.20 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 45.67 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.30 50.62 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.31 58.69 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.32 67.60 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.33 78.56 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 90.11 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

Year

H-251

Page 252: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 223.8 1.08

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 33.9 1.08

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 88.3 0.51

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 45.1

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 166.1 1.71

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Alternative 5)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-252

Page 253: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-253

Page 254: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-254

Page 255: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 5)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-255

Page 256: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 5)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-256

Page 257: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 5)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-257

Page 258: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 5)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-258

Page 259: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 5)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.8 16.5 18.8

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 22.8 28.4 66.7 70.3

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 22.5 28.0 66.4 69.9

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 53.5 56.5 96.4 102.2

H-259

Page 260: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 5)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 ‐5.6 ‐11.6 17.4 11.7

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 227.3 244.3 331.3 347.5

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 85.4 89.5 160.7 159.8

H-260

Page 261: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 26.30 1.64 0.86 ‐7.73 11.82 31.49 52.19 57.95 54.94 47.81 37.95 20.73 4.75

2040 30.35 3.01 1.93 ‐7.18 14.67 36.75 58.96 65.12 61.47 54.04 43.33 24.40 6.47

2050 34.77 4.25 2.77 ‐6.90 17.66 42.48 66.62 73.46 69.11 61.00 49.46 28.14 7.80

2060 33.88 0.52 ‐1.21 ‐11.60 15.47 42.53 68.46 76.01 70.99 62.38 50.13 26.85 4.41

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.08 96.03 92.89 83.74 126.36 180.64 261.01 297.03 270.29 212.48 160.18 117.83 92.78

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-261

Page 262: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 170.03 157.62 154.82 154.49 161.19 174.83 190.63 189.99 191.05 183.65 171.72 157.94 151.63

2040 187.19 173.17 170.01 169.83 177.57 193.04 210.00 209.23 210.11 202.27 189.24 174.07 166.84

2050 207.44 191.56 187.91 187.99 196.90 214.40 232.86 232.17 232.93 224.25 210.07 192.87 184.47

2060 223.79 206.50 202.50 202.75 212.51 231.49 251.26 250.60 251.34 241.97 226.75 207.99 198.80

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.28 306.67 301.13 302.60 327.86 373.98 447.92 475.86 455.15 396.40 340.78 302.81 291.13

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-262

Page 263: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-263

Page 264: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.28 306.67 301.13 302.60 327.86 373.98 447.92 475.86 455.15 396.40 340.78 302.81 291.13

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.08 96.03 92.89 83.74 126.36 180.64 261.01 297.03 270.29 212.48 160.18 117.83 92.78

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-264

Page 265: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 60.53 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 68.23 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 112.84 12.65

2060 360.28 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 121.03 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 1.42 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 0.21 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 33.87 6.32

2060 166.08 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 30.50 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-265

Page 266: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 6.67 8.11 8.26 8.40

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 8.08 10.73 11.52 12.12

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 15.77 16.60 50.26 51.41

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 60.53 68.23 112.84 121.03

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 239.70 256.86 343.93 360.28

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.35

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 43.62 46.09 51.04 59.11 68.02 78.97 90.53

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 5.97 7.31 7.44 7.56

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 7.91 10.57 11.36 11.96

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.56 10.96 14.30 15.46 16.28 49.92 51.07

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 5.87 4.40 2.85 1.42 0.21 33.87 30.50

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 91.76 95.79 167.00 166.08

H-266

Page 267: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 6.76 ‐12.19 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 8.16 ‐15.47 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 10.50 ‐18.03 ‐0.64

2030 26.30 7.00 15.44 4.98 7.34 0.00 11.65 ‐19.46 ‐0.66

2040 30.35 7.18 15.72 6.31 10.00 0.00 12.48 ‐20.66 ‐0.68

2050 34.77 7.36 16.09 6.44 10.79 0.00 13.96 ‐19.17 ‐0.69

2060 33.88 7.55 16.53 6.56 11.38 0.00 15.10 ‐22.54 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 9.56 5.87 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 10.96 4.40 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 14.30 2.85 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 15.46 1.42 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 16.28 0.21 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 49.92 33.87 6.32

2060 166.08 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 51.07 30.50 6.30

Year

H-267

Page 268: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 170.03 7.00 93.69 5.68 7.34 0.00 11.96 39.23 5.12

2040 187.19 7.18 97.91 7.12 10.00 0.00 12.80 46.94 5.25

2050 207.44 7.36 102.98 7.26 10.79 0.00 14.29 59.39 5.38

2060 223.79 7.55 108.92 7.40 11.38 0.00 15.44 67.57 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 15.77 60.53 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 16.60 68.23 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 50.26 112.84 12.65

2060 360.28 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 51.41 121.03 12.78

Year

H-268

Page 269: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 5)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.29 43.20 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 45.67 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.30 50.62 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.31 58.69 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.32 67.60 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.33 78.56 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.35 90.11 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 0.29 43.62 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 0.29 46.09 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 0.30 51.04 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 0.31 59.11 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.32 68.02 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 0.33 78.97 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.35 90.53 6.48

Year

H-269

Page 270: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Base Year 2060

Industrial

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 10.0 15.5 0.92

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 4.2 4.3 0.06

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 5.8 11.2 1.37

Public Water/ Wastewater

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 133.4 223.8 1.08

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 113.1 189.9 1.08

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 20.2 33.9 1.08

Agriculture/Irrigation

Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 43.2 43.2 0.00

Subtotal (Excluding Power)‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 69.2 88.3 0.51

Public Water Supply/Wastewater and Industrial 26.1 45.1

Power

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Returns 2010‐2012 Average 0.0 0.0 n/a

Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 4.4 77.8 6.15

Total Basin‐ Net Withdrawals 2010‐2012 Average 73.7 166.1 1.71

Yadkin River Water Supply Study 

Net Withdrawal Projection and Comparison with Historical and Forecasted Populations

(Alternative 11)

Flow

Water User Category Base Year AGR

Page 1 of 18

H-270

Page 271: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Population Projections Years Start Year End Year AGR

United States 2010‐2030 308,745,538 369,662,000 0.90

2030‐2050 369,662,000 420,268,000 0.64

2040‐2050 389,934,000 420,268,000 0.75

2010‐2050 308,745,538 420,268,000 0.77

South Carolina1, 3 2010‐2035 4,625,364 5,722,720 0.86

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2035 75,667 74,220 ‐0.08

Chesterfield 2010‐2035 46,734 49,140 0.20

Marlboro 2010‐2035 28,933 25,080 ‐0.57

Virginia4 2010‐2040 8,001,024 10,530,228 0.69

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2040 64,065 64,609 0.02

Carroll 2010‐2040 30,042 31,187 0.09

Grayson 2010‐2040 15,533 14,520 ‐0.17

Patrick 2010‐2040 18,490 18,902 0.06

North Carolina2, 3 2010‐2030 9,535,483 11,576,088 0.97

    Yadkin River Basin 2010‐2030 3,418,431 4,219,846 1.06

Alexander 2010‐2030 37,198 37,276 0.01

Alleghany 2010‐2030 11,155 11,137 ‐0.01

Anson 2010‐2030 26,948 26,425 ‐0.10

Ashe 2010‐2030 27,281 27,649 0.07

Cabarrus 2010‐2030 178,011 237,929 1.46

Caldwell 2010‐2030 83,029 81,667 ‐0.08

Davidson 2010‐2031 162,878 169,749 0.21

Davie 2010‐2030 41,240 43,626 0.28

Forsyth 2010‐2030 350,670 393,805 0.58

Guilford 2010‐2030 488,406 601,279 1.04

Iredell 2010‐2030 159,437 199,982 1.14

Mecklenburg 2010‐2030 919,628 1,360,364 1.98

Montgomery 2010‐2030 27,798 27,489 ‐0.06

Randolph 2010‐2030 141,752 143,669 0.07

Richmond 2010‐2030 46,639 45,593 ‐0.11

Rowan 2010‐2030 138,428 146,442 0.28

Scotland 2010‐2030 36,157 33,904 ‐0.32

Stanly 2010‐2030 60,585 64,565 0.32

Stokes 2010‐2030 47,401 43,614 ‐0.42

Surry 2010‐2030 73,673 73,367 ‐0.02

Union 2010‐2030 201,292 285,500 1.76

Watauga 2010‐2030 51,079 57,214 0.57

Wilkes 2010‐2030 69,340 70,511 0.08

Yadkin 2010‐2030 38,406 37,090 ‐0.17

Page 2 of 18

H-271

Page 272: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Historical Data Years Start Year End Year AGR

US Population History3 1970‐2010 203,302,031 308,745,538 1.05

South Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 2,590,516 4,625,364 1.46

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 60,818 75,667 0.55

Chesterfield 1970‐2010 33,667 46,734 0.82

Marlboro 1970‐2010 27,151 28,933 0.16

Virginia Historical Population4 1970‐2010 4,648,494 8,001,024 1.37

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 53,813 64,065 0.44

Carroll 1970‐2010 23,092 30,042 0.66

Grayson 1970‐2010 15,439 15,533 0.02

Patrick 1970‐2010 15,282 18,490 0.48

North Carolina Historical Population3 1970‐2010 5,082,059 9,535,483 1.59

    Yadkin River Basin 1970‐2010 1,768,998 3,418,431 1.66

Alexander 1970‐2010 19,466 37,198 1.63

Alleghany 1970‐2010 8,134 11,155 0.79

Anson 1970‐2010 23,488 26,948 0.34

Ashe 1970‐2010 19,571 27,281 0.83

Cabarrus 1970‐2010 74,629 178,011 2.20

Caldwell 1970‐2010 56,699 83,029 0.96

Davidson 1970‐2010 95,627 162,878 1.34

Davie 1970‐2010 18,855 41,240 1.98

Forsyth 1970‐2010 214,348 350,670 1.24

Guilford 1970‐2010 288,590 488,406 1.32

Iredell 1970‐2010 72,197 159,437 2.00

Mecklenburg 1970‐2010 354,656 919,628 2.41

Montgomery 1970‐2010 19,267 27,798 0.92

Randolph 1970‐2010 76,358 141,752 1.56

Richmond 1970‐2010 39,889 46,639 0.39

Rowan 1970‐2010 90,035 138,428 1.08

Scotland 1970‐2011 26,929 36,157 0.74

Stanly 1970‐2012 42,822 60,585 0.87

Stokes 1970‐2013 23,782 47,401 1.74

Surry 1970‐2014 51,415 73,673 0.90

Union 1970‐2015 54,714 201,292 3.31

Watauga 1970‐2016 23,404 51,079 1.97

Wilkes 1970‐2017 49,524 69,340 0.84

Yadkin 1970‐2010 24,599 38,406 1.12

Sources

4.  Virginia data retrieved online on June 26, 2014 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/profile/VA)

3.  U.S. Census Bereau

2. North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management

1. South Carolina Office of Research and Statistics Health & Demographics webpage

Page 3 of 18

H-272

Page 273: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 11)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsWWAI‐1 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill IND In‐take Pump ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWW‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐W. Kerr Scott Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐89 Wilkes County‐‐‐‐Wilkes County WTP (Future) PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.1 10.3

ReturnsNRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp‐‐‐‐Patterson Mill (return) IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.9 10.0

H-273

Page 274: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 11)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

HIGH ROCK LAKE

WithdrawalsHWAI‐2 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6 23.6NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐Lousiana Pacific Corporation IND Yadkin River ND ND 1.4 1.5 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Second Creek ND ND ND 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐True Elkin, Inc. IND Big Elkin Creek ND ND 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWH‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐High Rock Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWH‐18a City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Yadkin River 1.6 1.7 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9

NWH‐19c City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) PW/WUAbbotts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.9 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5

NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐F. G. Doggett WTP PW/WU Stewarts Creek 3.9 2.6 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐S. L. Spencer WTP PW/WU Lovills Creek 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NWH‐22a City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury WTP PW/WU Yadkin/South Yadkin 8.0 6.2 7.7 7.4 7.8 8.2 8.4 8.7 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.7 10.4 11.2 12.1NWH‐23a City of Statesville‐‐‐‐City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) PW/WU South Yadkin River 5.2 3.9 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.9 5.0 5.4 5.8 6.3 6.8

NWH‐24a City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐City of Thomasville WTP PW/WUAbbots Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Thom‐A‐Lex)3.2 2.6 3.0 ND 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0

NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Swann RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr Scott)13.1 13.6 12.1 11.4 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.1 11.2 11.9 13.0 14.6 15.3 16.1 17.2

NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WUYadkin River @ Idols RWPS 

(Reservoir: W. Kerr‐Scott)31.5 32.7 29.0 27.4 26.4 26.8 27.1 26.7 26.9 28.5 31.3 35.1 36.6 38.7 41.3

NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐C. O. Pickle WP PW/WU Yadkin River 9.2 10.1 11.8 11.3 10.8 11.3 10.2 9.9 10.5 10.6 10.7 11.0 11.2 11.5 11.8NWH‐28a Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WTP PW/WU S. Yadkin 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3NWH‐28b Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Yadkin 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8NWH‐63 Town of Elkin‐‐‐‐Elkin Municipal WTP PW/WU Elkin Creek (Reservoir: Elkin) 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville‐‐‐‐Jonesville WP PW/WU Yadkin River 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Hugh A. Lagle WTP PW/WU Hunting Creek 0.8 0.8 0.9 ND ND 0.9 0.8 ND 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐North Wilkesboro WP PW/WU Reddies River 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Toms Creek 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Wilkesboro WFP PW/WU Yadkin River 3.8 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WTP PW/WUSouth Deep Creek (Reservoir: 

Town of  Yadkinville)1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

NWH‐87 Energy United Water‐‐‐‐Energy United Water WTP PW/WU South Yadkin River 0.8 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Steam Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Buck Combined Cycle Station TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND 0.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 TEPYadkin River/High Rock Lake 

(upstream tributary)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 TEP Yadkin River/High Rock Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 120.1 118.1 119.3 109.5 107.4 111.8 110.5 109.4 110.4 116.2 118.7 126.0 130.3 137.8 143.8

ReturnsNRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc‐‐‐‐ATI Allvac Monroe Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation‐‐‐‐LP Roaring River WWTP IND Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

NRH‐45P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc‐‐‐‐PPG Industries Fiber Glass 

ProductsIND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc‐‐‐‐Salisbury Facility IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc‐‐‐‐304 East Main Street Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc‐‐‐‐Harmony Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn‐‐‐‐Dobson Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company‐‐‐‐Linwood Yard IND Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐16 City of High Point‐‐‐‐Westside WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.4 4.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 4.1 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3NRH‐18b City of King‐‐‐‐City of King WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐19a City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.5 3.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.7NRH‐19b City of Lexington‐‐‐‐Lexington WTP #1 & 2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy‐‐‐‐Mount Airy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 5.0 3.2 2.0 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2NRH‐22b City of Salisbury‐‐‐‐Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 4.5 6.8 7.3 7.2 7.8 7.7 7.1 6.3 7.0 7.2 7.5 8.0 8.7 9.3 10.1NRH‐23b City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Fourth Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2 2.5 2.1 2.6 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.7 5.1 5.6NRH‐23c City of Statesville‐‐‐‐Third Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4NRH‐24b City of Thomasville‐‐‐‐Hamby Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐07 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.7NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Archie Elledge WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 21.1 18.4 18.0 17.0 17.6 17.6 15.7 14.8 16.0 17.4 19.0 21.4 22.3 23.6 25.1NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐Muddy Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 13.1 14.6 15.5 14.4 14.9 15.9 15.1 15.3 15.5 15.5 17.0 19.0 19.9 21.0 22.4NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐P. W. Swann WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem‐‐‐‐R. A. Thomas WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 ND ND 1.5 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc‐‐‐‐Davidson Water WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐04 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4NRH‐28c Davie County‐‐‐‐Sparks Road WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NRH‐28d Davie County‐‐‐‐Cooleemee WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run‐‐‐‐Bermuda Run WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐60 Town of Boonville‐‐‐‐Boonville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRH‐62 Town of Dobson‐‐‐‐Dobson WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Bear Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville‐‐‐‐Dutchman Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐05 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Thurman Street WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

H-274

Page 275: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 11)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain‐‐‐‐Pilot Mountain WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐03 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro‐‐‐‐Cub Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐01 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.7 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville‐‐‐‐Yadkinville WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

NRH‐81Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc‐‐‐‐Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority 

WWTPPW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐02 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland‐‐‐‐Cleveland WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐06 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Return Subtotal 73.8 70.1 68.8 64.7 66.9 69.1 67.1 62.4 66.7 69.5 74.9 81.4 85.4 90.1 95.6

HIGH ROCK LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 46.3 47.9 50.6 44.8 40.6 42.7 43.4 47.0 43.7 46.7 43.8 44.6 44.9 47.7 48.1

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsTWAI‐3 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NWT‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Tuckertown Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWT‐14b City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown)3.0 3.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.4 ND 2.4 2.4 3.9 4.2 4.4 5.8 5.9 6.0

NWT‐61a Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: 

Tuckertown Reservoir)0.9 1.4 1.4 ND 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.4 5.2 4.3 3.1 4.0 4.2 1.7 4.1 4.1 5.6 6.5 6.7 8.1 8.3 8.4

ReturnsNRT‐14c City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Tuckertown WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4NRT‐61b Town of Denton‐‐‐‐Denton WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 4.0 4.8 3.9 2.7 3.5 3.6 1.2 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.8 6.0 7.3 7.4 7.6

H-275

Page 276: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 11)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE)

WithdrawalsNWAI‐4 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) A/I (CGL) n/a 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NWN‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NWN‐14d City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐US 52 HWY WTP PW/WUYadkin River at Narrows 

(Reservoir: Narrows (Badin Lake))3.8 4.2 3.1 3.3 2.8 3.1 ND 3.0 3.0 5.4 6.7 7.3 10.0 10.8 11.4

Withdrawal Subtotal 4.0 4.5 3.3 3.5 3.0 3.3 0.2 3.2 3.3 5.7 7.5 8.1 10.7 11.5 12.1

ReturnsNRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America‐‐‐‐Badin Works IND Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 3.5 4.2 3.2 3.3 2.7 3.1 0.1 3.1 3.1 5.5 7.3 7.9 10.6 11.4 12.0

FALLS RESERVOIR

WithdrawalsFWAI‐5 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir A/I (CGL) n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NWF‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Falls Reservoir IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Withdrawal Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Returns

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

None None None ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Return Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FALLS RESERVOIR TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

H-276

Page 277: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 11)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

LAKE TILLERY

WithdrawalsLWAI‐6 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery A/I (CGL) n/a 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8NWL‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Lake Tillery IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐76eUnion County Public Works‐‐‐‐Planned Yadkin River Water Intake 

(Future)PW/WU n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 11.8 16.5 18.8

NWL‐05b Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) PW/WU Back Creek (Reservoir: Lake Lucas) 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.1 4.5

NWL‐05c Asheboro‐‐‐‐W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) PW/WU Uwharrie (Reservoir: Lake Reese) 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 3.7 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.2 7.9

NWL‐42 Montgomery County‐‐‐‐Montgomery County WTP PW/WULAKE TILLERY (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)2.5 3.1 3.5 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5

NWL‐69a Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WTP PW/WUYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #2 TEPYadkin River (Reservoir: Lake 

Tillery)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 10.6 11.4 11.9 12.0 10.5 10.0 9.7 9.8 9.9 11.3 14.6 22.8 28.4 66.7 70.2

ReturnsNRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District‐‐‐‐Badin WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐08 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

LAKE TILLERY TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS 10.1 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.2 9.7 9.4 9.5 9.6 11.0 14.3 22.5 28.0 66.4 69.9

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE

WithdrawalsBWAI‐7 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake A/I (CGL) n/a 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5

NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) IND Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond ND ND ND 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) IND Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond ND ND ND 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac‐‐‐‐Monroe Plant IND Lower Pond ND ND ND ND 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC‐‐‐‐The Fork, LLC IND Rocky River ND ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NWB‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Blewett Falls Lake IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NWB‐03a Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)5.5 6.0 6.0 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.8 5.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2

NWB‐03bAnson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (treated wholesale to 

UCPW)PW/WU

Pee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐03c Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant (raw wholesale to UCPW) PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NWB‐15a City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WUCoddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake Don 

T. Howell)6.8 7.8 9.6 ND 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.3 8.3 8.5 9.1 12.2 14.1

NWB‐15d City of Concord‐‐‐‐Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) PW/WUCold Water Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Fisher)2.1 2.4 2.9 ND 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.8 4.3

NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WUIrish Buffalo Creek (Reservoir: 

Kannapolis Lake)6.5 5.4 7.8 5.4 7.6 3.8 4.9 3.4 4.1 3.2 3.7 3.7 4.0 5.4 6.2

NWB‐17cCity of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake 

Howell)PW/WU

Coddle Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Howell)0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

NWB‐20a City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WUStewarts Creek (Reservoir: Lake 

Twitty)7.0 6.9 6.2 ND 5.7 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.7 13.9

NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Mt. Pleasant WTF PW/WU Dutch Buffalo Creek 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

NWB‐88 Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WUPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)3.7 3.2 3.9 3.3 2.7 3.0 3.7 ND 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8

NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Smith Energy Complex TEP n/a 0.0 ND 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.3 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0

NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC‐‐‐‐Additional Nuclear Plant #1 TEPPee Dee River (Reservoir: Blewett 

Falls Lake)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32.2 32.2

Withdrawal Subtotal 44.0 44.1 50.2 28.1 48.7 46.5 50.5 44.7 49.5 50.5 53.9 53.5 56.5 96.4 102.2

H-277

Page 278: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Catawba‐Wateree Basin Water Use Projections: Withdrawals, Returns, and Net Withdrawals (Alternative 11)

Proj ID Entity Entity Type Source Water Historical Water Use (MGD) Projected Water Use (MGD) 

1997 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

ReturnsNRB‐35a Hedrick Industries‐‐‐‐Aquadale Quarry IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 1.2 ND 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company‐‐‐‐Carolina Stalite Company IND Subbasin 03‐07‐13 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department‐‐‐‐Mallard Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 5.1 5.5 7.8 7.5 8.2 7.9 8.4 7.9 8.1 8.6 9.6 11.4 13.6 16.3 19.4NRB‐14a City of Albemarle‐‐‐‐Long Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐13 8.1 9.1 7.4 5.5 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.4 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.4NRB‐15b City of Concord‐‐‐‐Coddle Creek WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.4 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis‐‐‐‐City of Kannapolis WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4NRB‐20b City of Monroe‐‐‐‐John Glenn WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7NRB‐20c City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 7.1 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.4 7.0 8.3 9.9 11.8 14.0NRB‐20d City of Monroe‐‐‐‐Monroe WWTP (allotment to Union County) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.1 3.4 4.7 6.6 7.6NRB‐52 Stanly County‐‐‐‐West Stanly WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe‐‐‐‐Biscoe WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 4.2 4.6 5.2 5.8NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead‐‐‐‐Mount Gilead WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐10 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐69b Town of Norwood‐‐‐‐Norwood WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐14 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NRB‐71 Town of Troy‐‐‐‐Troy WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐15 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5NRB‐76a Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NRB‐76a(F) Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Crooked Creek WWTP #2 (Future) PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5NRB‐76b Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Hunley Creek WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.2 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0NRB‐76c Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Grassy Branch WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 ND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1NRB‐76d Union County Public Works‐‐‐‐Tallwood Estates WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

NRB‐77cWater and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County‐‐‐‐Rocky River WWTP 

(WSACC)PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐12 17.1 14.6 14.7 14.3 14.7 14.4 14.2 13.9 14.2 14.9 16.1 18.4 21.1 24.1 27.7

NRB‐84 City of Charlotte‐‐‐‐Cabarrus Woods WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc‐‐‐‐Country Wood WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company‐‐‐‐Bradfield Farms WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐11 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7

NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina‐‐‐‐Hemby Acres WWTP PW/WU (D) Subbasin 03‐07‐12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

Return Subtotal 47.9 44.5 45.3 42.4 44.0 43.2 42.4 41.6 43.6 46.1 51.0 59.1 68.0 79.0 90.5

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐3.9 ‐0.4 4.9 ‐14.3 4.7 3.3 8.1 3.1 5.9 4.4 2.8 ‐5.6 ‐11.6 17.4 11.7

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WithdrawalsDWAI‐8 Agriculture/Irrigation‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) A/I (CGL) n/a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NWD‐00 New Future Industry‐‐‐‐Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake (NC) IND‐F n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) IND Pump House ‐ 1 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) IND Pump House ‐ 3 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.‐‐‐‐Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) IND Pump House ‐ 4 ND ND ND 1.7 2.1 2.1 1.8 0.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

NWD‐91a City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WTP PW/WUHamlet Water System (Reservoir: 

Hamlet Water Lake)1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3

NWD‐90b City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) PW/WU City Pond (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.1 0.8 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1

NWD‐90c City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) PW/WURoberdel Lake (Reservoir: 

Roberdel Lake)2.1 1.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2

NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro‐‐‐‐Town of Wadesboro WTP PW/WU Jones Creek (Reservoir: City Pond) 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Withdrawal Subtotal 8.0 6.8 7.2 11.7 12.8 12.7 12.4 8.4 11.2 11.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.8

ReturnsNRD‐03d Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Regional WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 2.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5NRD‐03e Anson County‐‐‐‐Anson County Filtration Plant PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC‐‐‐‐Richmond Plant IND Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3NRD‐91b City of Hamlet‐‐‐‐Hamlet WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8NRD‐90a City of Rockingham‐‐‐‐Rockingham WWTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 4.8 4.3 3.8 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1NRD‐88b Richmond County‐‐‐‐Richmond County WTP PW/WU Subbasin 03‐07‐16 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Return Subtotal 9.1 7.5 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.5

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) TOTAL NET WITHDRAWALS ‐1.1 ‐0.7 0.2 4.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 2.4 5.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3

GRAND TOTAL (ALL BASINS)WITHDRAWALS 185.6 185.7 191.7 158.8 176.3 178.5 175.3 174.0 179.8 192.0 211.2 227.3 244.3 331.3 347.5

RETURNS 123.2 115.9 115.0 108.3 112.1 113.6 110.7 105.1 111.5 116.9 127.3 141.9 154.9 170.6 187.7

NET WITHDRAWALS 62.4 69.8 76.6 50.6 64.2 65.0 64.6 68.9 68.3 75.1 83.9 85.4 89.5 160.7 159.8

H-278

Page 279: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 1.50 0.93 ‐6.20 8.74 23.81 40.24 44.94 42.76 36.83 29.16 15.69 3.40

2015 22.96 3.20 2.52 ‐4.90 10.87 26.82 44.06 48.79 46.53 40.51 32.28 18.35 5.44

2020 24.82 3.30 2.58 ‐5.40 11.67 28.91 47.70 52.82 50.43 43.92 35.03 19.92 5.80

2030 26.30 1.64 0.86 ‐7.73 11.82 31.49 52.19 57.95 54.94 47.81 37.95 20.73 4.75

2040 30.35 3.01 1.93 ‐7.18 14.67 36.75 58.96 65.12 61.47 54.04 43.33 24.40 6.47

2050 34.77 4.25 2.77 ‐6.90 17.66 42.48 66.62 73.46 69.11 61.00 49.46 28.14 7.80

2060 33.86 0.51 ‐1.22 ‐11.61 15.45 42.51 68.44 75.99 70.97 62.36 50.12 26.84 4.40

Industrial

Base 5.84 5.41 5.49 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.60 5.70 5.53 5.78 7.25 7.15 5.68

2015 5.83 5.40 5.48 5.41 5.49 5.45 5.59 5.69 5.53 5.77 7.25 7.14 5.67

2020 11.32 10.89 10.97 10.90 10.98 10.94 11.09 11.18 11.02 11.26 12.74 12.63 11.16

2030 11.30 10.87 10.95 10.88 10.96 10.92 11.07 11.16 11.00 11.24 12.71 12.61 11.14

2040 11.28 10.84 10.92 10.86 10.94 10.90 11.04 11.14 10.98 11.22 12.69 12.59 11.12

2050 11.25 10.81 10.90 10.83 10.92 10.87 11.02 11.12 10.96 11.19 12.66 12.56 11.09

2060 11.23 10.78 10.86 10.80 10.89 10.84 10.99 11.09 10.93 11.17 12.63 12.53 11.06

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-279

Page 280: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Month (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 124.27 122.00 121.49 126.39 136.71 149.28 148.91 149.80 143.65 134.49 123.73 119.08

2015 141.48 131.77 129.41 128.89 134.09 145.09 158.30 157.72 158.68 152.48 142.59 131.49 126.56

2020 153.79 143.25 140.70 140.21 145.75 157.61 171.97 171.30 172.48 165.80 155.07 143.03 137.57

2030 170.03 157.62 154.82 154.49 161.19 174.83 190.63 189.99 191.05 183.65 171.72 157.94 151.63

2040 187.19 173.17 170.01 169.83 177.57 193.04 210.00 209.23 210.11 202.27 189.24 174.07 166.84

2050 207.44 191.56 187.91 187.99 196.90 214.40 232.86 232.17 232.93 224.25 210.07 192.87 184.47

2060 223.77 206.49 202.49 202.74 212.49 231.47 251.24 250.58 251.32 241.95 226.73 207.97 198.79

Industrial

Base 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2015 10.01 9.94 9.90 9.82 9.85 9.72 9.60 9.83 9.95 10.00 11.11 10.87 9.53

2020 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2030 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2040 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2050 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

2060 15.51 15.44 15.40 15.32 15.35 15.22 15.10 15.33 15.45 15.50 16.61 16.37 15.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2015 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2020 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2030 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2040 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2050 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

2060 43.18 1.85 2.98 10.98 28.23 54.85 100.23 124.41 102.87 59.90 23.34 6.22 2.30

Power

Base 4.44 3.75 4.93 4.72 4.05 4.27 4.82 6.31 5.59 4.27 2.82 3.47 4.24

2015 8.49 8.27 8.50 8.48 8.51 8.55 8.75 8.87 8.89 8.73 8.40 8.04 7.89

2020 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2030 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2040 10.98 10.54 11.00 10.96 11.02 11.10 11.50 11.74 11.78 11.46 10.80 10.08 9.78

2050 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

2060 77.80 82.88 80.25 73.55 71.76 72.42 81.32 85.52 85.50 79.04 74.08 72.23 75.00

Total

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-280

Page 281: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Month (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 122.77 121.07 127.69 117.65 112.90 109.04 103.97 107.03 106.82 105.33 108.04 115.68

2015 118.52 128.57 126.90 133.78 123.22 118.27 114.24 108.93 112.15 111.97 110.31 113.14 121.12

2020 128.98 139.95 138.13 145.61 134.07 128.69 124.27 118.49 122.05 121.88 120.03 123.12 131.77

2030 143.73 155.98 153.95 162.21 149.37 143.34 138.45 132.05 136.11 135.84 133.78 137.21 146.88

2040 156.83 170.16 168.09 177.01 162.90 156.29 151.05 144.12 148.64 148.23 145.91 149.66 160.37

2050 172.67 187.30 185.14 194.89 179.24 171.93 166.24 158.70 163.82 163.24 160.61 164.73 176.67

2060 189.91 205.98 203.71 214.34 197.04 188.96 182.80 174.59 180.34 179.59 176.62 181.14 194.39

Industrial

Base 4.17 4.53 4.41 4.40 4.36 4.27 4.00 4.14 4.41 4.22 3.86 3.73 3.85

2015 4.18 4.54 4.41 4.41 4.37 4.27 4.01 4.14 4.42 4.22 3.87 3.73 3.85

2020 4.19 4.55 4.42 4.42 4.38 4.28 4.02 4.15 4.43 4.23 3.88 3.74 3.86

2030 4.21 4.57 4.45 4.44 4.40 4.30 4.04 4.17 4.45 4.25 3.90 3.76 3.88

2040 4.23 4.60 4.47 4.46 4.42 4.32 4.06 4.19 4.47 4.28 3.92 3.79 3.91

2050 4.26 4.63 4.50 4.48 4.44 4.35 4.08 4.21 4.49 4.30 3.95 3.82 3.93

2060 4.28 4.66 4.53 4.51 4.46 4.38 4.11 4.24 4.51 4.33 3.98 3.85 3.96

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-281

Page 282: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Month (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 139.80 139.80 147.01 168.53 205.55 263.93 289.46 268.21 217.82 171.76 144.30 135.14

2015 203.16 151.82 150.79 158.17 180.69 218.21 276.89 300.83 280.38 231.11 185.45 156.63 146.28

2020 223.46 171.07 170.08 177.47 200.35 238.78 298.80 322.78 302.58 252.66 205.82 175.71 164.68

2030 239.70 185.45 184.19 191.75 215.79 256.00 317.47 341.47 321.15 270.50 222.47 190.62 178.74

2040 256.86 200.99 199.39 207.09 232.18 274.22 336.83 360.71 340.20 289.13 239.99 206.74 193.94

2050 343.93 291.72 286.54 287.84 312.25 356.89 429.52 457.43 436.74 378.68 324.10 287.69 276.79

2060 360.26 306.66 301.12 302.58 327.84 373.96 447.90 475.84 455.13 396.38 340.76 302.80 291.12

RETURNS

Base 117.31 127.30 125.48 132.09 122.02 117.16 113.04 108.11 111.45 111.04 109.19 111.77 119.53

2015 122.70 133.10 131.31 138.19 127.59 122.54 118.25 113.07 116.57 116.19 114.18 116.88 124.98

2020 133.16 144.50 142.55 150.02 138.45 132.97 128.28 122.64 126.48 126.11 123.91 126.86 135.63

2030 147.94 160.55 158.40 166.65 153.76 147.64 142.48 136.21 140.56 140.09 137.68 140.98 150.77

2040 161.06 174.75 172.56 181.47 167.31 160.62 155.10 148.31 153.11 152.51 149.84 153.45 164.28

2050 176.93 191.93 189.64 199.37 183.67 176.28 170.33 162.92 168.31 167.55 164.56 168.55 180.60

2060 194.20 210.64 208.24 218.86 201.50 193.34 186.91 178.83 184.86 183.92 180.60 184.98 198.35

NET WITHDRAWAL

Base 73.68 12.50 14.32 14.92 46.51 88.39 150.89 181.35 156.76 106.79 62.57 32.53 15.62

2015 80.46 18.72 19.48 19.98 53.10 95.68 158.64 187.76 163.82 114.92 71.27 39.75 21.30

2020 90.30 26.58 27.53 27.44 61.90 105.81 170.52 200.15 176.10 126.55 81.91 48.85 29.05

2030 91.76 24.89 25.79 25.10 62.03 108.36 174.99 205.25 180.59 130.41 84.80 49.64 27.97

2040 95.79 26.24 26.83 25.62 64.86 113.60 181.73 212.40 187.09 136.62 90.16 53.29 29.67

2050 167.00 99.80 96.90 88.46 128.57 180.62 259.19 294.51 268.43 211.13 159.54 119.15 96.19

2060 166.06 96.02 92.88 83.73 126.34 180.62 260.99 297.01 270.27 212.46 160.16 117.82 92.76

Year

Annual 

Average

Month

H-282

Page 283: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Flow by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Subbasins

Year Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM OF 

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC)

WITHDRAWALS

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 22.83 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 28.37 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 66.73 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 70.24 102.19 12.78

RETURNS

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 1.49 42.42 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 1.79 44.59 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 2.41 48.93 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 3.74 55.67 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 5.06 63.28 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 6.89 72.42 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 7.97 82.91 6.48

NET WITHDRAWALS

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 8.36 7.07 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 9.46 5.91 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 12.19 4.96 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 19.08 ‐2.21 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 23.31 ‐6.81 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 59.84 23.95 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 62.27 19.28 6.30

Draft Projections 14 of 18 12/11/2014

H-283

Page 284: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.71 2.71 9.53 9.71 9.88 10.07 10.25

HIGH ROCK LAKE 110.39 116.16 118.73 126.05 130.26 137.82 143.77

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 4.12 5.65 6.47 6.67 8.11 8.26 8.40

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.26 5.68 7.46 8.08 10.73 11.52 12.12

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 9.85 11.26 14.60 22.83 28.37 66.73 70.24

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 49.49 50.49 53.88 53.47 56.47 96.37 102.19

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 11.16 11.20 12.26 12.39 12.52 12.65 12.78

Total 191.00 203.16 223.46 239.70 256.86 343.93 360.26

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21

HIGH ROCK LAKE 66.70 69.47 74.88 81.42 85.37 90.10 95.63

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 0.55 0.65 0.68 0.70 0.80 0.82 0.84

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

LAKE TILLERY 1.49 1.79 2.41 3.74 5.06 6.89 7.97

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 42.42 44.59 48.93 55.67 63.28 72.42 82.91

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.78 5.82 5.89 6.03 6.18 6.33 6.48

Total 117.31 122.70 133.16 147.94 161.06 176.93 194.20

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Subbasin Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

W. KERR SCOTT RESERVOIR 2.49 2.49 9.32 9.49 9.67 9.85 10.04

HIGH ROCK LAKE 43.69 46.70 43.85 44.63 44.89 47.73 48.14

TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR 3.56 4.99 5.79 5.97 7.31 7.44 7.56

NARROWS RESERVOIR (BADIN LAKE) 3.10 5.51 7.30 7.91 10.57 11.36 11.96

FALLS RESERVOIR 0.02 0.02 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52

LAKE TILLERY 8.36 9.46 12.19 19.08 23.31 59.84 62.27

BLEWETT FALLS LAKE 7.07 5.91 4.96 ‐2.21 ‐6.81 23.95 19.28

DOWNSTREAM OF BLEWETT FALLS LAKE (NC) 5.38 5.38 6.37 6.36 6.34 6.32 6.30

Total 73.68 80.46 90.30 91.76 95.79 167.00 166.06

H-284

Page 285: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Net Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 20.23 0.00 20.19 3.07 3.03 0.00 5.55 ‐10.98 ‐0.63

2015 22.96 0.00 20.96 4.50 5.44 0.00 6.66 ‐13.97 ‐0.63

2020 24.82 6.83 14.63 4.80 6.73 0.00 8.39 ‐15.92 ‐0.64

2030 26.30 7.00 15.44 4.98 7.34 0.00 15.28 ‐23.08 ‐0.66

2040 30.35 7.18 15.72 6.31 10.00 0.00 19.50 ‐27.69 ‐0.68

2050 34.77 7.36 16.09 6.44 10.79 0.00 23.87 ‐29.09 ‐0.69

2060 33.86 7.55 16.53 6.56 11.38 0.00 26.30 ‐33.76 ‐0.71

Industrial

Base 5.84 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2015 5.83 ‐0.02 ‐0.36 0.00 ‐0.16 0.00 0.00 2.35 4.03

2020 11.32 ‐0.02 0.63 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2030 11.30 ‐0.02 0.61 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2040 11.28 ‐0.02 0.58 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2050 11.25 ‐0.02 0.56 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

2060 11.23 ‐0.02 0.53 0.50 0.34 0.50 1.00 3.35 5.03

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 73.68 2.49 43.69 3.56 3.10 0.02 8.36 7.07 5.38

2015 80.46 2.49 46.70 4.99 5.51 0.02 9.46 5.91 5.38

2020 90.30 9.32 43.85 5.79 7.30 0.52 12.19 4.96 6.37

2030 91.76 9.49 44.63 5.97 7.91 0.52 19.08 ‐2.21 6.36

2040 95.79 9.67 44.89 7.31 10.57 0.52 23.31 ‐6.81 6.34

2050 167.00 9.85 47.73 7.44 11.36 0.52 59.84 23.95 6.32

2060 166.06 10.04 48.14 7.56 11.96 0.52 62.27 19.28 6.30

Year

H-285

Page 286: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Withdrawals by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 133.37 0.00 83.77 3.62 3.03 0.00 7.05 31.01 4.89

2015 141.48 0.00 87.30 5.15 5.44 0.00 8.45 30.20 4.93

2020 153.79 6.83 86.38 5.48 6.73 0.00 10.79 32.59 4.99

2030 170.03 7.00 93.69 5.68 7.34 0.00 19.02 32.17 5.12

2040 187.19 7.18 97.91 7.12 10.00 0.00 24.56 35.17 5.25

2050 207.44 7.36 102.98 7.26 10.79 0.00 30.76 42.92 5.38

2060 223.77 7.55 108.92 7.40 11.38 0.00 34.27 48.73 5.52

Industrial

Base 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2015 10.01 0.19 2.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.77 4.28

2020 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2030 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2040 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2050 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

2060 15.51 0.19 3.77 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 3.77 5.28

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2015 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2020 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2030 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2040 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2050 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

2060 43.18 2.51 23.60 0.49 0.23 0.02 2.80 11.52 1.99

Power

Base 4.44 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.18 0.00

2015 8.49 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2020 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2030 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2040 10.98 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.00

2050 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

2060 77.80 0.00 7.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.16 38.16 0.00

Total

Base 191.00 2.71 110.39 4.12 3.26 0.02 9.85 49.49 11.16

2015 203.16 2.71 116.16 5.65 5.68 0.02 11.26 50.49 11.20

2020 223.46 9.53 118.73 6.47 7.46 0.52 14.60 53.88 12.26

2030 239.70 9.71 126.05 6.67 8.08 0.52 22.83 53.47 12.39

2040 256.86 9.88 130.26 8.11 10.73 0.52 28.37 56.47 12.52

2050 343.93 10.07 137.82 8.26 11.52 0.52 66.73 96.37 12.65

2060 360.26 10.25 143.77 8.40 12.12 0.52 70.24 102.19 12.78

Year

H-286

Page 287: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Projected Returns by Subbasin (mgd) (Alternative 11)

Subbasin

Total

W. KERR SCOTT 

RESERVOIR HIGH ROCK LAKE

TUCKERTOWN 

RESERVOIR

NARROWS 

RESERVOIR 

(BADIN LAKE)

FALLS 

RESERVOIR LAKE TILLERY

BLEWETT FALLS 

LAKE

DOWNSTREAM 

OF BLEWETT 

FALLS LAKE (NC)

Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Base 113.14 0.00 63.58 0.55 0.00 0.00 1.49 42.00 5.52

2015 118.52 0.00 66.34 0.65 0.00 0.00 1.79 44.17 5.57

2020 128.98 0.00 71.74 0.68 0.00 0.00 2.41 48.51 5.64

2030 143.73 0.00 78.26 0.70 0.00 0.00 3.74 55.26 5.78

2040 156.83 0.00 82.19 0.80 0.00 0.00 5.06 62.86 5.92

2050 172.67 0.00 86.89 0.82 0.00 0.00 6.89 72.00 6.07

2060 189.91 0.00 92.39 0.84 0.00 0.00 7.97 82.49 6.23

Industrial

Base 4.17 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2015 4.18 0.21 3.13 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2020 4.19 0.21 3.14 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2030 4.21 0.21 3.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2040 4.23 0.21 3.18 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2050 4.26 0.21 3.21 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

2060 4.28 0.21 3.24 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.25

Agriculture/Irrigation

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Power

Base 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2020 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2030 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2060 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

Base 117.31 0.21 66.70 0.55 0.16 0.00 1.49 42.42 5.78

2015 122.70 0.21 69.47 0.65 0.16 0.00 1.79 44.59 5.82

2020 133.16 0.21 74.88 0.68 0.16 0.00 2.41 48.93 5.89

2030 147.94 0.21 81.42 0.70 0.16 0.00 3.74 55.67 6.03

2040 161.06 0.21 85.37 0.80 0.16 0.00 5.06 63.28 6.18

2050 176.93 0.21 90.10 0.82 0.16 0.00 6.89 72.42 6.33

2060 194.20 0.21 95.63 0.84 0.16 0.00 7.97 82.91 6.48

Year

H-287

Page 288: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

CD-4.5 APPENDIX CD – 4.5

Yadkin Water Supply

Analysis – Entity-Specific

Projection Detail Sheets

H-288

Page 289: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Table of Contents for 

Public Water/Wastewater Utility Projection SheetsPages Basin ID No. Entity Facility1 ‐ 2 NWB‐03a Anson County Anson County Filtration Plant3 ‐ 4 NRD‐03d Anson County Anson County Regional WWTP5 ‐ 6 NRD‐03e Anson County Anson County Filtration Plant7 ‐ 8 NRB‐04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Country Wood WWTP9 ‐ 10 NWL‐05b Asheboro W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake)11 ‐ 12 NWL‐05c Asheboro W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake)13 ‐ 14 NRB‐09 Bradfield Farms Water Company Bradfield Farms WWTP15 ‐ 16 NRB‐11 Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina Hemby Acres WWTP17 ‐ 18 NRB‐13 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department Mallard Creek WWTP19 ‐ 20 NRB‐14a City of Albemarle Long Creek WWTP21 ‐ 22 NWT‐14b City of Albemarle Tuckertown WTP23 ‐ 24 NRT‐14c City of Albemarle Tuckertown WTP25 ‐ 26 NWN‐14d City of Albemarle US 52 HWY WTP27 ‐ 28 NRB‐84 City of Charlotte Cabarrus Woods WWTP29 ‐ 30 NWB‐15a City of Concord Coddle Creek WTP31 ‐ 32 NRB‐15b City of Concord Coddle Creek WTP33 ‐ 34 NWB‐15d City of Concord Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake)35 ‐ 36 NWD‐91a City of Hamlet Hamlet WTP37 ‐ 38 NRD‐91b City of Hamlet Hamlet WWTP39 ‐ 40 NRH‐16 City of High Point Westside WWTP41 ‐ 42 NWB‐17a City of Kannapolis City of Kannapolis WTP43 ‐ 44 NRB‐17b City of Kannapolis City of Kannapolis WTP45 ‐ 46 NWB‐17c City of Kannapolis City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake Howell)47 ‐ 48 NWH‐18a City of King City of King WTP49 ‐ 50 NRH‐18b City of King City of King WTP51 ‐ 52 NRH‐19a City of Lexington Lexington Regional WWTP53 ‐ 54 NRH‐19b City of Lexington Lexington WTP #1 & 255 ‐ 56 NWH‐19c City of Lexington Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake)57 ‐ 58 NWB‐20a City of Monroe John Glenn WTP59 ‐ 60 NRB‐20b City of Monroe John Glenn WTP61 ‐ 62 NRB‐20c City of Monroe Monroe WWTP63 ‐ 64 NWH‐21a City of Mount Airy F. G. Doggett WTP65 ‐ 66 NRH‐21b City of Mount Airy Mount Airy WWTP67 ‐ 68 NWH‐21c City of Mount Airy S. L. Spencer WTP69 ‐ 70 NRD‐90a City of Rockingham Rockingham WWTP71 ‐ 72 NWD‐90b City of Rockingham Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake)73 ‐ 74 NWD‐90c City of Rockingham Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake)75 ‐ 76 NWH‐22a City of Salisbury Salisbury WTP77 ‐ 78 NRH‐22b City of Salisbury Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP79 ‐ 80 NWH‐23a City of Statesville City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake)81 ‐ 82 NRH‐23b City of Statesville Fourth Creek WWTP83 ‐ 84 NRH‐23c City of Statesville Third Creek WWTP85 ‐ 86 NWH‐24a City of Thomasville City of Thomasville WTP87 ‐ 88 NRH‐24b City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP89 ‐ 90 NRH‐25a City of Winston‐Salem Archie Elledge WWTP91 ‐ 92 NRH‐25b City of Winston‐Salem Muddy Creek WWTP93 ‐ 94 NRH‐25c City of Winston‐Salem P. W. Swann WTP95 ‐ 96 NRH‐25d City of Winston‐Salem R. A. Thomas WTP97 ‐ 98 NWH‐25e City of Winston‐Salem P. W. Swann WTP99 ‐ 100 NWH‐25f City of Winston‐Salem R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP101 ‐ 102 NWH‐27a Davidson Water Inc C. O. Pickle WP103 ‐ 104 NRH‐27b Davidson Water Inc Davidson Water WTP105 ‐ 106 NWH‐28a Davie County Cooleemee WTP107 ‐ 108 NWH‐28b Davie County Sparks Road WTP109 ‐ 110 NRH‐28c Davie County Sparks Road WTP111 ‐ 112 NRH‐28d Davie County Cooleemee WWTP113 ‐ 114 NWH‐87 Energy United Water Energy United Water WTP115 ‐ 116 NRL‐34 Greater Badin Water & Sewer District Badin WWTP117 ‐ 118 NWL‐42 Montgomery County Montgomery County WTP119 ‐ 120 NWB‐88 Richmond County Richmond County WTP121 ‐ 122 NRD‐88b Richmond County Richmond County WTP123 ‐ 124 NRB‐52 Stanly County West Stanly WWTP125 ‐ 126 NRH‐58 Town of Bermuda Run Bermuda Run WWTP127 ‐ 128 NRB‐59 Town of Biscoe Biscoe WWTP129 ‐ 130 NRH‐60 Town of Boonville Boonville WWTP131 ‐ 132 NRH‐86 Town of Cleveland Cleveland WWTP133 ‐ 134 NWT‐61a Town of Denton Denton WP135 ‐ 136 NRT‐61b Town of Denton Denton WWTP137 ‐ 138 NRH‐62 Town of Dobson Dobson WWTP139 ‐ 140 NWH‐63 Town of Elkin Elkin Municipal WTP141 ‐ 142 NWH‐64 Town of Jonesville Jonesville WP143 ‐ 144 NWH‐65a Town of Mocksville Hugh A. Lagle WTP145 ‐ 146 NRH‐65b Town of Mocksville Bear Creek WWTP

Public Water/Wastewater TOC

H-289

Page 290: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Table of Contents for 

Public Water/Wastewater Utility Projection SheetsPages Basin ID No. Entity Facility

147 ‐ 148 NRH‐65c Town of Mocksville Dutchman Creek WWTP149 ‐ 150 NRB‐66 Town of Mooresville Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville)151 ‐ 152 NRB‐67 Town of Mount Gilead Mount Gilead WWTP153 ‐ 154 NWH‐68a Town of North Wilkesboro North Wilkesboro WP155 ‐ 156 NRH‐68b Town of North Wilkesboro Thurman Street WWTP157 ‐ 158 NWL‐69a Town of Norwood Norwood WTP159 ‐ 160 NRB‐69b Town of Norwood Norwood WWTP161 ‐ 162 NWH‐70a Town of Pilot Mountain Pilot Mountain WTP163 ‐ 164 NRH‐70b Town of Pilot Mountain Pilot Mountain WTP165 ‐ 166 NRH‐70c Town of Pilot Mountain Pilot Mountain WWTP167 ‐ 168 NRB‐71 Town of Troy Troy WWTP169 ‐ 170 NWD‐93 Town of Wadesboro Town of Wadesboro WTP171 ‐ 172 NRH‐72a Town of Wilkesboro Cub Creek WWTP173 ‐ 174 NWH‐72b Town of Wilkesboro Wilkesboro WFP175 ‐ 176 NWH‐73a Town of Yadkinville Yadkinville WTP177 ‐ 178 NRH‐73b Town of Yadkinville Yadkinville WWTP179 ‐ 180 NRB‐76a Union County Public Works Crooked Creek WWTP #2181 ‐ 182 NRB‐76b Union County Public Works Hunley Creek WWTP183 ‐ 184 NRB‐76c Union County Public Works Grassy Branch WWTP185 ‐ 186 NRB‐76d Union County Public Works Tallwood Estates WWTP187 ‐ 188 NWB‐77a Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Mt. Pleasant WTF189 ‐ 190 NRB‐77c Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Rocky River WWTP (WSACC)191 ‐ 192 NWH‐89 Wilkes County Wilkes County WTP (Future)193 ‐ 194 NRH‐81 Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority WWTP

Public Water/Wastewater TOC

H-290

Page 291: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐03a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Anson County Type Withdrawal

Facility Anson County Filtration Plant Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 4.83 5.26 5.30 5.18 5.47 5.60 5.72 6.12 6.00 5.58 5.61 5.28 5.49

2002 6.09 5.44 5.53 6.22 6.09 6.62 6.25 6.30 5.73 5.93 5.51 5.80 5.96

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 5.64 5.46 5.61 5.52 6.05 6.40 7.43 7.36 6.06 5.90 5.04 5.21 5.98

2008 5.18 4.79 5.07 5.08 5.11 5.98 6.19 5.74 5.51 5.05 5.24 5.45 5.37

2009 5.19 5.52 5.24 5.20 5.46 5.80 6.79 5.75 6.33 5.87 5.64 6.01 5.73

2010 6.40 7.92 6.47 6.23 6.39 6.92 6.91 5.86 7.87 5.76 7.98 4.47 6.58

2011 5.85 6.69 6.86 6.48 6.97 7.14 7.33 6.99 6.54 6.45 6.74 7.36 6.78

2012 4.95 5.38 4.47 5.69 6.29 5.94 6.10 6.42 6.34 5.79 5.70 4.89 5.66

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-291

Page 292: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐03a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.76 4.58 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.35 4.61 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.35 4.67 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.79 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.91 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.03 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.16 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Anson County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 4.58 Jan 0.92

2015 4.61 Feb 0.99

2020 4.67 Mar 0.93

2030 4.79 Apr 0.95

2040 4.91 May 1.00

2050 5.03 Jun 1.06

2060 5.16 Jul 1.13

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.07

Oct 0.96

Nov 1.01

Dec 0.92

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Projected Annual Average Flow values below exclude wholesale water sold to Union County. Wholesale

water is accounted for under entities NWB‐03b and NWB‐03c using a different forecasting method.

Wholesale flows shown above include both raw and treated water.

‐‐

‐‐

H-292

Page 293: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐03d Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Anson County Type Return

Facility Anson County Regional WWTP Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.52 2.68 2.41 2.54 2.33 2.13 2.44 2.35 2.20 2.35 2.36 2.00 2.36

2002 1.37 1.24 1.13 1.04 1.00 0.86 0.90 0.94 1.00 1.18 1.36 1.41 1.12

2003 1.39 1.82 2.15 1.75 1.46 1.48 1.19 1.39 1.06 1.07 1.01 1.01 1.40

2004 1.00 1.36 1.23 1.53 1.05 1.07 0.94 1.00 1.83 1.16 1.09 1.10 1.20

2005 1.55 1.56 1.74 1.72 1.24 1.24 1.13 1.12 0.94 1.28 1.18 1.59 1.36

2006 1.44 1.35 1.23 1.13 1.15 1.38 1.04 1.27 1.04 1.18 2.06 1.55 1.32

2007 1.82 1.61 1.70 1.34 1.15 1.15 1.00 1.02 1.08 1.09 1.02 1.21 1.26

2008 1.34 1.35 1.47 1.57 1.15 1.05 1.35 1.67 1.60 1.32 1.24 1.49 1.38

2009 1.44 1.40 1.85 1.54 1.32 1.16 1.04 1.05 0.92 0.98 1.22 1.65 1.30

2010 1.87 2.16 1.71 1.33 1.38 1.23 1.09 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.19 1.43 1.41

2011 1.26 1.34 1.51 1.40 1.32 1.17 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.17 1.23 1.25

2012 1.31 1.36 1.44 1.35 1.42 1.16 0.84 1.09 1.55 1.49 1.49 1.76 1.36

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-293

Page 294: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐03d

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.34 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.35 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.37 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.40 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.44 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.47 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Anson County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.34 Jan 1.14

2015 1.35 Feb 1.16

2020 1.37 Mar 1.22

2030 1.40 Apr 1.07

2040 1.44 May 0.97

2050 1.47 Jun 0.87

2060 1.51 Jul 0.81

Aug 0.91

Sep 0.94

Oct 0.91

Nov 0.92

Dec 1.10

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

H-294

Page 295: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐03e Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Anson County Type Return

Facility Anson County Filtration Plant Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.53 0.48 0.56 0.58 0.70 0.50 0.43 0.58 0.55 0.64 0.49 0.60 0.55

2002 0.67 0.58 0.64 0.61 0.52 0.71 0.44 0.58 0.69 0.62 0.72 0.67 0.62

2003 0.69 0.67 0.53 0.65 0.61 0.64 0.69 0.61 0.98 0.71 0.61 0.64 0.67

2004 0.72 0.67 0.52 0.51 0.60 0.64 0.64 0.53 1.15 0.60 0.64 0.60 0.65

2005 0.67 0.58 0.58 0.48 0.48 0.56 0.45 0.49 0.45 0.58 0.60 0.64 0.55

2006 0.72 0.55 0.45 0.48 0.62 1.07 0.45 0.58 0.53 0.58 0.69 0.87 0.63

2007 0.73 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.56 0.64 0.72 0.60 0.58 0.56 0.49 0.67 0.66

2008 0.78 0.61 0.66 0.54 0.58 0.53 0.88 0.85 0.75 0.66 0.67 0.79 0.69

2009 0.48 0.64 0.61 0.60 0.72 0.56 0.78 0.67 0.73 0.55 0.80 0.84 0.66

2010 0.78 0.72 0.69 0.48 0.53 0.78 0.78 0.26 0.17 0.20 0.30 0.31 0.50

2011 0.31 0.36 0.44 0.29 0.36 0.27 0.46 0.35 0.56 0.56 1.03 0.56 0.46

2012 0.85 0.65 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.81 0.85 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.53 0.55 0.61

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-295

Page 296: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐03e

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.52 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.53 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.53 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.55 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.56 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.58 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.59 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Anson County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.52 Jan 1.10

2015 0.53 Feb 1.05

2020 0.53 Mar 1.01

2030 0.55 Apr 0.87

2040 0.56 May 0.89

2050 0.58 Jun 1.00

2060 0.59 Jul 1.25

Aug 0.92

Sep 0.94

Oct 0.87

Nov 1.06

Dec 1.04

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

H-296

Page 297: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐04 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities ‐ Domestic

Entity Aqua North Carolina, Inc Type Return

Facility Country Wood WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05

2002 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.11

2003 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.14

2004 0.11 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.14

2005 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.24 0.18

2006 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.28 0.24 0.20

2007 0.28 0.24 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.20

2008 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.20

2009 0.21 0.19 0.30 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.28 0.32 0.21

2010 0.28 0.30 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.23

2011 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.23 ND 0.23

2012 0.29 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.22

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-297

Page 298: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐04

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.24 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.26 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.31 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.37 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.44 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.52 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.23 Jan 1.15

2015 0.24 Feb 1.12

2020 0.26 Mar 1.14

2030 0.31 Apr 0.93

2040 0.37 May 0.94

2050 0.44 Jun 1.00

2060 0.52 Jul 0.93

Aug 0.95

Sep 0.87

Oct 0.88

Nov 0.98

Dec 1.11

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-298

Page 299: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐05b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Asheboro Type Withdrawal

Facility W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas intake) Sub‐basin Lake Tillery

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.71 1.67 1.63 1.67 1.82 1.91 1.91 1.87 1.80 1.75 1.59 1.53 1.74

2002 1.78 1.79 1.70 1.87 1.92 2.05 1.92 2.07 1.85 1.78 1.69 1.66 1.84

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 1.67 1.71 1.73 1.74 1.94 1.98 1.95 2.33 2.19 2.12 1.79 1.45 1.88

2008 1.59 1.50 1.47 1.45 1.50 2.13 2.05 2.21 1.96 1.84 1.67 1.63 1.75

2009 1.63 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.46 1.56 1.73 1.85 1.79 1.61 1.41 1.35 1.55

2010 1.36 1.38 1.41 1.50 1.56 1.71 1.74 1.79 1.82 1.65 1.58 1.36 1.57

2011 1.32 1.45 1.44 1.42 1.54 1.80 1.79 1.69 1.70 1.62 1.55 1.38 1.56

2012 1.35 1.42 1.47 1.54 1.61 1.74 1.87 1.80 1.77 1.63 1.53 1.43 1.60

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all Asheboro facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-299

Page 300: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐05b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.58 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.07 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.91 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.30 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.58 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.09 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.47 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.58 Jan 0.90

2015 2.07 Feb 0.89

2020 2.91 Mar 0.90

2030 3.30 Apr 0.91

2040 3.58 May 0.97

2050 4.09 Jun 1.10

2060 4.47 Jul 1.12

Aug 1.18

Sep 1.13

Oct 1.06

Nov 0.96

Dec 0.87

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Local Water Supply Plan projected flowrates for

the entire entity and (b) historical flow splits among the entity's facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

Projected flowrate for 2015 is interpolated between Base value and 2020 value from LWSP.

‐‐

‐‐

H-300

Page 301: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐05c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Asheboro Type Withdrawal

Facility W. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese intake) Sub‐basin Lake Tillery

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.02 2.96 2.89 2.95 3.22 3.38 3.38 3.31 3.19 3.10 2.81 2.71 3.08

2002 3.15 3.18 3.02 3.31 3.40 3.62 3.41 3.66 3.27 3.15 2.99 2.94 3.26

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.96 3.04 3.05 3.07 3.43 3.50 3.46 4.13 3.87 3.76 3.17 2.57 3.34

2008 2.82 2.66 2.60 2.56 2.66 3.77 3.63 3.91 3.46 3.25 2.95 2.89 3.10

2009 2.88 2.39 2.45 2.49 2.59 2.77 3.07 3.28 3.17 2.85 2.50 2.39 2.74

2010 2.40 2.44 2.50 2.66 2.76 3.02 3.08 3.17 3.21 2.91 2.79 2.41 2.78

2011 2.33 2.57 2.54 2.51 2.73 3.19 3.17 2.99 3.01 2.87 2.75 2.44 2.76

2012 2.38 2.52 2.60 2.72 2.84 3.09 3.30 3.19 3.12 2.88 2.71 2.54 2.82

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all Asheboro facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-301

Page 302: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐05c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.79 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.67 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.15 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.84 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.33 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.23 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.91 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.79 Jan 0.90

2015 3.67 Feb 0.89

2020 5.15 Mar 0.90

2030 5.84 Apr 0.91

2040 6.33 May 0.97

2050 7.23 Jun 1.10

2060 7.91 Jul 1.12

Aug 1.18

Sep 1.13

Oct 1.06

Nov 0.96

Dec 0.87

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Local Water Supply Plan projected flowrates for

the entire entity and (b) historical flow splits among the entity's facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

Projected flowrate for 2015 is interpolated between Base value and 2020 value from LWSP.

‐‐

‐‐

H-302

Page 303: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐09 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities ‐ Domestic

Entity Bradfield Farms Water Company Type Return

Facility Bradfield Farms WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12

2002 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.15

2003 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.13 0.03 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.16

2004 0.20 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.15 0.12

2005 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.23 0.13

2006 0.34 0.25 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.14

2007 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.22 0.35 0.39 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.22

2008 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.23

2009 0.24 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.28 0.29 0.25

2010 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27

2011 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27

2012 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.28

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-303

Page 304: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐09

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.29 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.32 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.39 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.55 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.65 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 2.16%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.77%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Mecklenburg County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.27 Jan 0.91

2015 0.29 Feb 0.91

2020 0.32 Mar 0.94

2030 0.39 Apr 0.95

2040 0.46 May 1.06

2050 0.55 Jun 1.09

2060 0.65 Jul 1.01

Aug 1.05

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.00

Nov 1.02

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-304

Page 305: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐11 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities ‐ Domestic

Entity Carolina Water Service Inc of North Carolina Type Return

Facility Hemby Acres WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.13

2002 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.12

2003 0.12 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.16

2004 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.14

2005 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.18 0.23 0.16

2006 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.19 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16

2007 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.23 0.13 0.14

2008 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 4.47 0.49

2009 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.12

2010 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11

2011 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.10

2012 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-305

Page 306: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐11

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.14 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.17 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.20 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.24 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.11 Jan 0.75

2015 0.11 Feb 0.75

2020 0.12 Mar 0.72

2030 0.14 Apr 0.66

2040 0.17 May 0.57

2050 0.20 Jun 0.59

2060 0.24 Jul 0.57

Aug 0.60

Sep 0.59

Oct 0.62

Nov 0.74

Dec 4.77

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-306

Page 307: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐13 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility Department Type Return

Facility Mallard Creek WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 4.74 5.07 5.19 5.09 4.83 4.78 5.04 4.92 4.97 5.24 5.46 5.72 5.09

2002 6.78 6.87 5.93 5.09 4.71 4.72 4.85 4.93 5.64 5.62 6.99 4.56 5.54

2003 4.07 8.62 9.44 10.44 9.75 9.06 7.87 7.74 6.49 6.22 7.14 8.77 7.96

2004 7.66 17.71 8.48 8.59 7.02 7.60 7.26 7.65 8.60 7.86 7.63 7.91 8.62

2005 7.65 8.17 8.87 9.28 7.39 7.48 7.55 7.51 7.05 7.46 7.19 7.94 7.79

2006 7.81 7.54 7.42 7.47 7.31 7.46 6.99 8.26 8.39 7.61 8.66 7.73 7.72

2007 8.56 8.03 8.36 8.01 7.75 7.70 7.61 7.72 7.42 7.50 7.16 7.40 7.77

2008 7.65 7.58 7.98 7.87 7.39 6.99 6.99 7.65 7.90 7.32 7.13 7.63 7.51

2009 7.95 7.86 9.49 8.48 8.17 8.14 7.67 7.73 7.59 7.51 8.85 9.15 8.22

2010 9.27 9.65 8.73 7.97 7.85 7.86 7.46 7.76 7.40 7.22 7.24 7.06 7.95

2011 7.63 8.33 9.11 8.94 8.49 7.96 7.94 8.38 8.53 8.42 8.78 8.87 8.45

2012 9.14 8.55 8.20 7.71 7.92 7.79 7.59 7.82 7.83 7.51 7.37 7.39 7.90

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-307

Page 308: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐13

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.10 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.63 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.60 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.45 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.64 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 16.26 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 19.37 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 2.16%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.77%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Mecklenburg County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 8.10 Jan 1.05

2015 8.63 Feb 1.05

2020 9.60 Mar 1.09

2030 11.45 Apr 1.02

2040 13.64 May 1.00

2050 16.26 Jun 0.97

2060 19.37 Jul 0.95

Aug 0.98

Sep 0.98

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.97

Dec 0.99

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-308

Page 309: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐14a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Albemarle Type Return

Facility Long Creek WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 8.83 9.82 9.13 8.56 7.24 6.29 7.46 6.80 7.49 7.68 9.11 9.43 8.14

2002 11.41 10.90 10.98 9.60 7.68 6.80 5.71 6.72 7.81 9.96 10.94 11.37 9.15

2003 8.93 11.92 14.18 14.01 12.42 12.28 10.58 10.94 8.41 8.08 7.75 8.10 10.62

2004 7.87 11.16 9.86 8.10 7.95 7.38 6.44 7.59 11.15 8.48 9.02 8.51 8.61

2005 9.22 10.42 12.02 10.74 8.44 9.17 8.37 9.01 6.85 7.14 7.50 10.77 9.13

2006 8.97 7.75 7.56 6.85 6.23 7.04 5.78 6.47 7.09 6.95 9.98 8.35 7.41

2007 10.23 9.87 9.33 8.37 6.72 7.28 6.11 6.23 5.92 6.30 6.11 6.45 7.39

2008 5.81 6.31 7.09 7.67 5.87 4.07 3.85 4.78 5.45 4.66 4.88 5.88 5.52

2009 5.80 5.26 9.09 6.12 5.61 4.49 4.89 5.06 5.84 4.84 7.08 8.82 6.08

2010 8.11 9.53 7.70 5.51 5.17 6.01 4.56 4.97 4.58 4.21 3.98 4.11 5.68

2011 4.69 5.81 7.11 6.23 5.03 4.90 4.71 4.55 4.55 5.16 5.29 5.24 5.27

2012 6.34 6.04 6.18 4.74 4.78 3.74 3.89 5.07 5.84 5.32 3.81 4.08 4.99

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-309

Page 310: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐14a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.31 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.74 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.42 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.80 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.95 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.20 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.44 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 5.31 Jan 1.17

2015 5.74 Feb 1.23

2020 6.42 Mar 1.33

2030 6.80 Apr 1.11

2040 6.95 May 0.95

2050 7.20 Jun 0.87

2060 7.44 Jul 0.80

Aug 0.88

Sep 0.92

Oct 0.87

Nov 0.89

Dec 0.99

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) total projected water demand for the entire entity

based on 2012 Local Water Supply Plan, and (b) historic ratio between total wastewater flow and total

water demand, based on the 2010‐2012 average.

‐‐

‐‐

H-310

Page 311: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWT‐14b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Albemarle Type Withdrawal

Facility Tuckertown WTP Sub‐basin Tuckertown Reservoir

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.85 2.93 2.82 2.94 3.09 3.08 3.05 3.11 3.15 3.17 3.00 2.78 3.00

2002 3.47 3.34 3.27 3.47 3.51 3.62 3.52 3.40 3.27 3.24 3.13 2.85 3.34

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.37 2.24 2.22 2.25 2.97 2.69 2.39 2.26 2.69 2.22 2.66 2.34 2.44

2008 2.66 2.69 2.62 2.68 2.58 2.85 2.48 2.74 2.57 2.59 2.49 2.20 2.59

2009 2.25 2.19 2.11 1.95 2.01 2.13 2.25 2.28 2.36 2.31 2.17 2.10 2.18

2010 2.42 2.27 2.34 2.34 2.52 2.60 2.43 2.49 2.46 2.46 2.39 2.22 2.41

2011 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2012 2.25 2.29 2.25 2.29 2.24 2.42 2.42 2.29 2.47 2.25 2.42 2.91 2.38

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Albemarle facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-311

Page 312: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWT‐14b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.39 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.34 2.58 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.34 2.89 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.34 3.06 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.68 3.12 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.68 3.23 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.68 3.34 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.39 Jan 1.00

2015 3.92 Feb 0.97

2020 4.22 Mar 0.96

2030 4.39 Apr 0.96

2040 5.80 May 1.03

2050 5.91 Jun 1.06

2060 6.02 Jul 1.00

Aug 1.00

Sep 1.05

Oct 0.99

Nov 1.01

Dec 0.98

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

WTPs' permitted capacities.

Projected Flowrates shown as "Other" are based on (a) Local Water Supply Plan projected flowrates for

the entire entity and (b) historical flow splits among the entity's facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

Projected flowrate for 2015 is interpolated between Base value and 2020 value from LWSP.

Wholesale projected values are based on Catawba IBT agreement requirements for Yadkin River subbasin

flows and the assumption that flows between Albemarle's two WTPs will be split proportional to the

H-312

Page 313: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRT‐14c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Albemarle Type Return

Facility Tuckertown WTP Sub‐basin Tuckertown Reservoir

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 ND 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.04 0.04

2002 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02

2003 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.03

2004 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01

2006 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2007 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2008 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2009 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.11 ND ND ND ND ND 0.04

2010 0.20 0.30 0.24 0.18 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.20

2011 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.12

2012 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-313

Page 314: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRT‐14c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.15 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.25 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.28 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.37 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.15 Jan 1.01

2015 0.25 Feb 1.08

2020 0.27 Mar 1.04

2030 0.28 Apr 1.01

2040 0.37 May 1.18

2050 0.38 Jun 1.33

2060 0.38 Jul 1.18

Aug 0.92

Sep 1.03

Oct 0.83

Nov 0.91

Dec 0.84

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-314

Page 315: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWN‐14d Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Albemarle Type Withdrawal

Facility US 52 HWY WTP Sub‐basin Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.60 3.70 3.57 3.73 3.91 3.91 3.87 3.93 3.98 4.02 3.80 3.52 3.79

2002 4.39 4.22 4.14 4.39 4.45 4.58 4.45 4.31 4.14 4.10 3.96 3.61 4.23

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 3.00 2.83 2.81 2.85 3.75 3.41 3.03 2.85 3.41 2.81 3.37 2.97 3.09

2008 3.36 3.41 3.31 3.39 3.26 3.61 3.15 3.46 3.25 3.27 3.16 2.78 3.28

2009 2.85 2.77 2.67 2.46 2.55 2.70 2.85 2.88 2.98 2.92 2.75 2.66 2.75

2010 3.07 2.87 2.96 2.96 3.19 3.29 3.07 3.15 3.11 3.11 3.03 2.81 3.05

2011 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2012 2.84 2.90 2.84 2.91 2.84 3.07 3.06 2.91 3.12 2.84 3.07 3.68 3.01

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Albemarle facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-315

Page 316: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWN‐14d

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.03 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 3.21 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 4.50 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 5.11 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.46 5.53 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.46 6.32 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.46 6.92 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 3.03 Jan 1.00

2015 5.44 Feb 0.97

2020 6.73 Mar 0.96

2030 7.34 Apr 0.96

2040 10.00 May 1.03

2050 10.79 Jun 1.06

2060 11.38 Jul 1.00

Aug 1.00

Sep 1.05

Oct 0.99

Nov 1.01

Dec 0.98

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

WTPs' permitted capacities.

Projected Flowrates shown as "Other" are based on (a) Local Water Supply Plan projected flowrates for

the entire entity and (b) historical flow splits among the entity's facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

Projected flowrate for 2015 is interpolated between Base value and 2020 value from LWSP.

Wholesale projected values are based on Catawba IBT agreement requirements for Yadkin River subbasin

flows and the assumption that flows between Albemarle's two WTPs will be split proportional to the

H-316

Page 317: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐15a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Concord Type Withdrawal

Facility Coddle Creek WTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 7.08 6.37 6.12 6.35 7.22 7.11 7.73 7.66 7.54 6.70 5.79 5.50 6.77

2002 7.17 6.72 6.76 7.57 8.28 8.71 8.33 8.31 8.55 8.57 7.47 7.12 7.80

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 8.10 8.43 8.94 9.45 11.31 10.49 10.63 11.80 10.68 9.27 8.12 7.76 9.59

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 7.57 7.37 7.63 8.01 8.12 8.93 8.84 8.38 8.39 8.20 7.51 7.20 8.01

2010 8.34 7.36 7.07 7.81 8.18 8.68 8.63 8.30 8.75 8.46 7.68 7.25 8.05

2011 7.40 7.30 7.36 7.34 7.77 8.96 9.01 9.00 8.41 8.36 7.64 7.17 7.98

2012 8.16 7.02 7.26 7.80 8.51 8.68 8.96 8.51 8.16 8.12 7.77 7.32 8.03

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Concord facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-317

Page 318: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐15a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.02 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.34 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.26 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.47 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.12 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12.24 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14.09 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 8.02 Jan 0.95

2015 7.34 Feb 0.90

2020 8.26 Mar 0.92

2030 8.47 Apr 0.97

2040 9.12 May 1.05

2050 12.24 Jun 1.10

2060 14.09 Jul 1.11

Aug 1.10

Sep 1.07

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.88

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Yadkin River Basin flows required by Catawba IBT

agreement, (b) historical flow splits between Concord and Kannapolis, and (c) historical flow splits

among Concord's WTP facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

‐‐

‐‐

H-318

Page 319: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐15b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Concord Type Return

Facility Coddle Creek WTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.36 0.32 0.34 0.37 0.36 0.54 0.41 0.48 0.45 0.34 0.50 0.47 0.41

2002 1.15 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.75 0.89 1.13 0.95 0.87 0.97 1.37 1.44 0.99

2003 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.04 1.80 1.45 1.16 1.59 1.37 0.86 1.13 1.33 1.21

2004 0.38 0.06 0.84 0.96 0.86 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.68 0.50 0.15 0.40 0.59

2005 0.42 0.32 0.22 0.43 0.12 0.15 0.63 0.14 0.19 0.21 0.28 0.26 0.28

2006 0.45 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.28 0.19 0.12 0.09 0.19

2007 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.27 0.25 0.39 0.35 0.10 0.08 0.10 0.19

2008 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.19 0.25 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.08 0.21 0.14

2009 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.30 0.26 0.32 0.35 0.36 0.32 0.28

2010 0.39 0.38 0.46 0.29 0.31 0.45 0.56 0.32 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.36 0.39

2011 0.62 0.40 0.35 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.36

2012 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.38 0.33 0.31

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-319

Page 320: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐15b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.36 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.33 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.37 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.40 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.54 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.63 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.36 Jan 1.05

2015 0.33 Feb 0.98

2020 0.37 Mar 1.03

2030 0.38 Apr 0.84

2040 0.40 May 0.93

2050 0.54 Jun 0.99

2060 0.63 Jul 1.10

Aug 1.04

Sep 1.15

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.97

Dec 0.97

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-320

Page 321: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐15d Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Concord Type Withdrawal

Facility Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher intake) Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.17 1.96 1.88 1.95 2.22 2.18 2.37 2.35 2.31 2.06 1.78 1.69 2.08

2002 2.20 2.06 2.08 2.32 2.54 2.67 2.56 2.55 2.63 2.63 2.29 2.19 2.39

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.49 2.59 2.74 2.90 3.47 3.22 3.26 3.62 3.28 2.84 2.49 2.38 2.94

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 2.32 2.26 2.34 2.46 2.49 2.74 2.71 2.57 2.58 2.52 2.30 2.21 2.46

2010 2.56 2.26 2.17 2.40 2.51 2.66 2.65 2.55 2.69 2.59 2.36 2.22 2.47

2011 2.27 2.24 2.26 2.25 2.39 2.75 2.77 2.76 2.58 2.57 2.34 2.20 2.45

2012 2.51 2.16 2.23 2.40 2.61 2.66 2.75 2.61 2.51 2.49 2.39 2.25 2.46

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Concord facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-321

Page 322: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐15d

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.46 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.25 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.54 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.60 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.80 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.33 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.46 Jan 0.95

2015 2.25 Feb 0.90

2020 2.54 Mar 0.92

2030 2.60 Apr 0.97

2040 2.80 May 1.05

2050 3.76 Jun 1.10

2060 4.33 Jul 1.11

Aug 1.10

Sep 1.07

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.88

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Yadkin River Basin flows required by Catawba IBT

agreement, (b) historical flow splits between Concord and Kannapolis, and (c) historical flow splits

among Concord's WTP facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

‐‐

‐‐

H-322

Page 323: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐16 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of High Point Type Return

Facility Westside WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 4.36 4.70 4.58 4.06 3.38 3.05 2.92 3.09 2.52 2.67 2.78 2.92 3.41

2002 3.92 3.85 4.38 3.59 3.28 3.23 3.56 3.30 3.99 4.73 4.81 5.43 4.01

2003 4.32 5.33 6.34 6.28 5.64 5.99 4.72 5.86 5.42 3.68 3.38 3.95 5.07

2004 3.47 4.84 4.91 4.43 3.76 3.85 3.43 3.57 4.61 3.78 3.74 4.40 4.06

2005 3.71 4.09 4.77 4.37 3.59 3.40 3.54 3.50 3.01 3.32 3.01 3.87 3.68

2006 3.85 3.51 3.98 4.08 3.53 4.02 3.51 3.41 4.17 3.69 4.87 3.99 3.88

2007 4.50 4.08 4.53 4.67 3.71 3.62 3.28 3.25 3.11 3.55 3.04 3.47 3.73

2008 3.61 3.67 4.54 4.42 3.55 3.14 3.04 3.30 3.68 3.12 3.26 3.85 3.60

2009 3.74 3.42 4.71 3.82 3.64 3.17 2.89 2.68 2.80 3.08 4.37 4.35 3.56

2010 4.13 4.48 3.84 3.54 3.69 3.14 2.96 3.27 3.22 3.18 2.84 4.05 3.52

2011 4.12 4.05 4.55 4.08 4.16 4.07 4.05 3.56 4.05 4.40 4.21 3.91 4.10

2012 3.41 3.13 3.18 2.94 3.07 2.76 2.75 3.21 2.46 2.35 1.99 2.16 2.79

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-323

Page 324: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐16

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.47 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.57 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.73 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.08 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.47 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.89 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.35 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2060: 0.91%

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 3.47 Jan 1.10

2015 3.57 Feb 1.07

2020 3.73 Mar 1.19

2030 4.08 Apr 1.10

2040 4.47 May 1.02

2050 4.89 Jun 0.93

2060 5.35 Jul 0.89

Aug 0.91

Sep 0.91

Oct 0.92

Nov 0.93

Dec 1.02

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Applied AGR shown above is derived from 2020‐2060 growth in total water demand as listed in the 2012

Local Water Supply Plan.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-324

Page 325: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐17a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Kannapolis Type Withdrawal

Facility City of Kannapolis WTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 7.81 7.56 5.90 6.24 6.53 6.33 6.50 6.77 6.64 6.15 6.00 5.74 6.51

2002 4.88 5.17 5.18 5.80 6.05 6.67 6.24 6.47 4.87 4.90 4.46 4.51 5.44

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 6.82 6.87 6.99 7.85 7.49 7.95 7.64 8.71 8.60 8.30 8.14 7.93 7.78

2008 9.35 9.25 8.83 4.34 4.44 5.16 4.46 4.72 3.58 3.57 3.83 3.50 5.41

2009 7.30 6.81 7.01 7.07 7.18 7.34 7.43 7.75 7.57 10.24 8.77 6.87 7.62

2010 3.42 3.30 3.31 3.72 3.93 4.17 4.33 4.19 4.11 4.15 3.71 3.62 3.83

2011 4.81 4.69 4.58 4.72 4.89 5.50 5.36 5.46 5.12 4.76 4.71 4.56 4.93

2012 3.00 3.08 2.98 3.13 3.29 3.78 4.03 3.91 3.76 3.77 3.48 3.09 3.44

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Kannapolis facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-325

Page 326: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐17a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.07 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.24 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.74 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.03 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.41 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.23 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 4.07 Jan 1.05

2015 3.24 Feb 1.03

2020 3.65 Mar 1.02

2030 3.74 Apr 0.93

2040 4.03 May 0.95

2050 5.41 Jun 1.03

2060 6.23 Jul 1.01

Aug 1.05

Sep 0.99

Oct 1.05

Nov 0.99

Dec 0.90

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Yadkin River Basin flows required by Catawba IBT

agreement, (b) historical flow splits between Concord and Kannapolis, and (c) historical flow splits

among Kannapolis's WTP intakes, based on 2012 flow data.

‐‐

‐‐

H-326

Page 327: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐17b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Kannapolis Type Return

Facility City of Kannapolis WTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.64 0.52 0.44 0.45 0.63 0.57 0.56 0.67 0.59 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.58

2002 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.31 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.25

2003 0.29 0.22 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.07 0.05 ND 0.21

2004 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.07

2005 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.57 0.66 0.59 0.55 0.59 0.55 0.54 0.37

2006 0.48 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.45 0.50 0.49 0.43 0.42 0.36 0.30 0.23 0.42

2007 0.33 0.36 0.45 0.42 0.36 0.31 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.36 0.39

2008 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.31 0.27 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.30

2009 0.26 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.28 0.42 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.38 0.35

2010 0.43 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.28 0.19 0.33

2011 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.27

2012 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.28 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.27 0.29 0.37 0.23

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-327

Page 328: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐17b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.28 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.25 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.26 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.28 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.37 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.43 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.28 Jan 0.94

2015 0.22 Feb 0.92

2020 0.25 Mar 1.03

2030 0.26 Apr 1.04

2040 0.28 May 0.97

2050 0.37 Jun 1.00

2060 0.43 Jul 1.00

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.04

Oct 1.00

Nov 1.05

Dec 0.94

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-328

Page 329: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐17c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Kannapolis Type Withdrawal

Facility City of Kannapolis WTP (supplemental intake ‐ Lake Howel Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.88 0.86 0.67 0.71 0.74 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.75 0.70 0.68 0.65 0.74

2002 0.55 0.59 0.59 0.66 0.69 0.76 0.71 0.73 0.55 0.55 0.50 0.51 0.62

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.77 0.78 0.79 0.89 0.85 0.90 0.87 0.99 0.97 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.88

2008 1.06 1.05 1.00 0.49 0.50 0.58 0.50 0.54 0.41 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.61

2009 0.83 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.88 0.86 1.16 0.99 0.78 0.86

2010 0.39 0.37 0.38 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.41 0.43

2011 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.62 0.61 0.62 0.58 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.56

2012 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.43 0.46 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.39 0.35 0.39

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Kannapolis facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-329

Page 330: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐17c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.37 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.41 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.42 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.61 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.71 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.46 Jan 1.05

2015 0.37 Feb 1.03

2020 0.41 Mar 1.02

2030 0.42 Apr 0.93

2040 0.46 May 0.95

2050 0.61 Jun 1.03

2060 0.71 Jul 1.01

Aug 1.05

Sep 0.99

Oct 1.05

Nov 0.99

Dec 0.90

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Yadkin River Basin flows required by Catawba IBT

agreement, (b) historical flow splits between Concord and Kannapolis, and (c) historical flow splits

among Kannapolis's WTP intakes, based on 2012 flow data.

‐‐

‐‐

H-330

Page 331: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐18a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of King Type Withdrawal

Facility City of King WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.45 1.39 1.52 1.69 2.01 1.86 1.86 1.81 1.59 1.54 1.40 1.42 1.63

2002 1.50 1.49 1.46 1.67 1.73 2.05 1.82 1.84 1.64 1.62 1.54 1.55 1.66

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.17 2.17 2.15 2.21 2.44 2.41 2.40 2.55 2.49 2.26 2.18 2.16 2.30

2008 2.23 2.20 2.21 2.04 1.81 2.08 1.94 1.95 1.78 1.59 1.59 1.61 1.92

2009 1.59 1.56 1.57 1.65 1.70 1.76 1.84 1.85 1.79 1.73 1.66 1.61 1.69

2010 1.61 1.63 1.57 1.75 1.80 1.94 1.97 1.85 1.85 1.73 1.60 1.55 1.74

2011 1.37 1.35 1.34 1.38 1.45 1.78 1.68 1.74 1.63 1.72 1.66 1.67 1.57

2012 2.00 1.68 1.64 1.63 1.73 1.75 1.77 1.74 1.64 1.54 1.50 1.46 1.67

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-331

Page 332: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐18a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.66 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.67 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.69 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.73 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.78 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.82 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.87 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Stokes County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.66 Jan 1.01

2015 1.67 Feb 0.97

2020 1.69 Mar 0.96

2030 1.73 Apr 0.98

2040 1.78 May 1.00

2050 1.82 Jun 1.08

2060 1.87 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.07

Sep 1.03

Oct 0.97

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.92

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-332

Page 333: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐18b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of King Type Return

Facility City of King WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2010 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.10

2011 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08

2012 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.22 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.13

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-333

Page 334: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐18b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.10 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.10 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.10 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Stokes County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.10 Jan 0.79

2015 0.10 Feb 0.93

2020 0.10 Mar 0.86

2030 0.11 Apr 0.97

2040 0.11 May 1.05

2050 0.11 Jun 1.05

2060 0.11 Jul 1.22

Aug 1.05

Sep 1.30

Oct 0.99

Nov 1.01

Dec 0.84

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-334

Page 335: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐19a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Lexington Type Return

Facility Lexington Regional WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.70 4.00 4.06 4.17 3.60 3.45 3.42 3.02 2.94 2.90 3.00 3.20 3.45

2002 3.41 2.82 3.34 2.89 2.71 2.58 2.47 2.54 2.66 3.44 4.00 4.51 3.12

2003 2.38 3.51 4.38 4.79 3.45 4.58 3.74 4.51 4.59 3.02 3.39 4.29 3.88

2004 2.93 2.41 4.17 2.96 2.38 2.72 3.14 2.04 3.75 2.66 3.34 3.31 2.99

2005 2.95 3.59 3.21 3.59 2.88 2.83 3.15 3.11 2.52 2.86 2.65 3.90 3.10

2006 3.51 2.90 2.71 2.94 2.15 3.41 2.77 2.87 3.29 2.88 4.37 3.04 3.07

2007 3.79 3.34 3.36 3.48 2.12 2.50 2.21 1.83 1.72 2.40 1.73 2.10 2.54

2008 2.11 2.44 2.61 2.80 2.05 1.47 1.76 1.96 3.06 2.18 2.06 2.73 2.27

2009 2.64 2.16 3.60 2.90 3.23 3.09 1.93 2.54 2.54 2.82 4.50 4.55 3.05

2010 3.90 4.11 3.84 2.95 3.20 2.66 2.67 3.05 2.58 3.11 3.70 2.81 3.21

2011 2.88 2.82 3.64 3.17 2.94 2.44 2.58 2.32 2.52 2.73 3.61 3.48 2.93

2012 2.94 2.77 2.77 2.59 2.82 2.49 2.61 2.70 2.67 2.54 2.13 2.17 2.60

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-335

Page 336: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐19a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.91 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.02 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.19 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.31 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.45 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.59 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.74 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.91 Jan 1.10

2015 3.02 Feb 1.06

2020 3.19 Mar 1.19

2030 3.31 Apr 1.08

2040 3.45 May 0.99

2050 3.59 Jun 0.88

2060 3.74 Jul 0.83

Aug 0.87

Sep 0.91

Oct 0.95

Nov 1.07

Dec 1.07

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WWTP return to WTP use from 2002‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-336

Page 337: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐19b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Lexington Type Return

Facility Lexington WTP #1 & 2 Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.30 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.26

2002 0.30 0.37 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.34 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31

2003 0.28 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.32 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.26

2004 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.33 0.38 0.31 0.28 0.24 0.21 0.25 0.29

2005 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.24 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.26 0.27 0.34 0.28 0.28 0.29

2006 0.27 0.23 0.31 0.25 0.31 0.35 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29

2007 0.32 0.31 0.28 0.31 0.36 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.30

2008 0.23 0.29 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.23 0.25

2009 0.27 0.27 0.33 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.23 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.28 0.27

2010 0.31 0.40 0.26 0.27 0.38 0.28 0.49 0.14 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.27

2011 0.15 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.17 0.19 0.25 0.31 0.41 0.26

2012 0.49 0.47 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.31 0.25 0.35 0.32 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.29

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-337

Page 338: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐19b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.48 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.50 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.53 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.55 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.57 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.59 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.62 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.48 Jan 1.08

2015 0.50 Feb 1.29

2020 0.53 Mar 1.01

2030 0.55 Apr 1.01

2040 0.57 May 0.98

2050 0.59 Jun 0.97

2060 0.62 Jul 1.11

Aug 0.89

Sep 0.96

Oct 0.84

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.95

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-338

Page 339: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐19c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Lexington Type Withdrawal

Facility Lexington WTP (Lake Thom‐A‐Lex Intake) Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.50 3.37 3.56 3.74 3.94 4.11 4.31 4.34 4.12 4.14 3.88 3.45 3.87

2002 3.09 3.00 2.99 3.33 3.42 3.96 3.63 3.51 3.24 3.07 3.06 3.11 3.28

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.83 2.84 2.95 2.98 3.36 3.39 3.43 3.93 3.59 3.34 3.03 2.85 3.21

2008 2.82 2.83 2.80 2.93 2.98 3.33 3.21 3.20 2.98 2.81 2.77 2.70 2.95

2009 2.71 2.77 2.63 2.48 2.77 2.76 2.97 2.93 2.73 2.47 2.31 2.44 2.66

2010 2.42 2.45 2.53 2.65 2.85 3.06 3.12 2.90 2.84 2.81 2.50 2.59 2.73

2011 2.53 2.52 2.46 2.75 2.75 3.19 3.31 3.03 2.84 2.75 2.63 2.69 2.79

2012 2.36 2.39 2.50 2.66 2.88 2.99 3.01 2.86 2.68 2.53 2.42 2.34 2.64

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-339

Page 340: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐19c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.72 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.82 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.98 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.09 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.22 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.35 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.49 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.72 Jan 0.92

2015 2.82 Feb 0.93

2020 2.98 Mar 0.94

2030 3.09 Apr 0.97

2040 3.22 May 1.04

2050 3.35 Jun 1.10

2060 3.49 Jul 1.12

Aug 1.11

Sep 1.04

Oct 0.98

Nov 0.92

Dec 0.92

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections were developed from the LWSP. 

Projections for 2020‐2060 are directly from the LWSP; 2015 data was interpolated

‐‐

‐‐

H-340

Page 341: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐20a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Monroe Type Withdrawal

Facility John Glenn WTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 6.62 7.07 6.90 7.33 7.61 7.71 7.48 7.13 7.13 6.72 6.19 6.15 7.00

2002 6.77 6.64 6.22 7.17 7.28 8.10 8.11 7.16 6.39 6.38 6.08 6.09 6.87

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 5.78 5.41 6.17 6.58 7.27 7.18 7.00 7.28 6.74 5.82 4.93 4.59 6.23

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 5.20 5.00 5.30 5.80 5.90 6.20 6.40 5.90 6.10 5.80 5.30 5.20 5.68

2010 5.27 5.35 5.64 6.08 6.68 6.71 6.81 6.31 6.45 5.93 5.66 5.60 6.04

2011 5.80 5.40 5.30 5.80 6.70 6.70 6.90 6.70 6.70 6.40 5.90 5.80 6.18

2012 5.74 5.47 5.75 5.90 6.02 6.57 6.33 6.09 6.04 5.98 5.47 5.35 5.89

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-341

Page 342: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐20a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.04 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.38 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.98 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.30 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.86 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.71 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.92 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 6.04 Jan 0.93

2015 6.38 Feb 0.89

2020 6.98 Mar 0.94

2030 8.30 Apr 1.00

2040 9.86 May 1.08

2050 11.71 Jun 1.11

2060 13.92 Jul 1.11

Aug 1.07

Sep 1.07

Oct 1.00

Nov 0.91

Dec 0.88

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-342

Page 343: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐20b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Monroe Type Return

Facility John Glenn WTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.43 0.43 0.38 0.34 0.56 0.51 0.30 0.36 0.38 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.39

2002 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.43 0.31 0.32

2003 0.35 0.28 0.40 0.43 0.42 0.53 0.43 0.38 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.40

2004 0.31 0.27 0.44 0.52 0.33 0.37 0.44 0.27 0.39 0.28 0.27 0.46 0.36

2005 0.44 0.48 0.37 0.46 0.59 0.80 0.62 0.49 0.62 0.23 0.55 0.58 0.52

2006 0.52 0.59 0.84 0.58 1.04 1.14 1.12 0.69 0.92 0.97 1.02 0.51 0.83

2007 0.38 0.34 0.69 1.04 0.67 0.94 0.90 0.82 1.10 0.85 0.73 0.82 0.77

2008 0.76 0.79 0.74 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.66 0.65 0.80 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.76

2009 0.79 0.87 0.84 0.81 0.60 0.87 0.78 0.77 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.72 0.79

2010 0.57 0.68 0.67 0.71 0.85 0.61 0.75 0.64 0.65 0.83 0.87 0.76 0.72

2011 0.69 0.57 0.61 0.84 0.86 0.69 0.78 0.62 0.69 0.67 0.74 0.76 0.71

2012 0.75 0.72 0.68 0.72 0.62 0.80 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.71 0.85 0.87 0.78

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-343

Page 344: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐20b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.74 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.78 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.85 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.01 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.20 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.43 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.70 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.74 Jan 0.87

2015 0.78 Feb 0.88

2020 0.85 Mar 0.93

2030 1.01 Apr 1.08

2040 1.20 May 0.96

2050 1.43 Jun 1.03

2060 1.70 Jul 1.05

Aug 0.96

Sep 1.09

Oct 1.04

Nov 1.07

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-344

Page 345: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐20c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Monroe Type Return

Facility Monroe WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 8.83 9.64 8.68 8.39 6.38 6.13 6.89 6.10 5.82 6.27 6.00 6.82 7.15

2002 7.56 6.87 7.03 6.19 5.78 5.73 5.36 5.74 6.09 7.19 7.74 8.30 6.63

2003 6.76 10.40 11.10 10.97 8.87 8.44 7.76 8.29 6.25 5.98 5.00 6.55 8.02

2004 5.91 8.67 7.13 6.01 5.56 6.79 6.53 7.41 9.78 6.96 6.56 6.89 7.01

2005 7.13 8.10 9.49 7.67 5.80 7.39 6.20 7.10 5.55 6.35 5.97 8.52 7.10

2006 7.89 7.41 6.07 5.61 5.56 7.44 5.61 6.77 6.74 6.97 9.06 7.56 6.88

2007 9.82 8.87 8.12 6.32 5.51 5.99 5.58 5.77 5.55 5.72 5.17 5.74 6.50

2008 6.27 7.44 7.62 7.53 5.62 5.01 5.24 6.50 6.39 6.00 5.87 7.40 6.40

2009 7.16 6.79 9.45 6.42 5.49 5.30 5.13 4.99 4.54 5.07 7.26 9.19 6.40

2010 9.15 10.10 7.77 5.38 5.80 6.82 5.81 5.70 5.43 4.71 4.93 5.33 6.39

2011 5.71 6.23 7.66 6.48 6.18 5.27 4.86 5.36 5.45 5.78 5.75 5.40 5.84

2012 7.25 5.85 6.34 5.65 5.57 4.98 5.40 7.25 6.51 5.61 4.93 6.05 5.95

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-345

Page 346: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐20c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.06 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.40 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.01 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.33 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.89 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.76 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.97 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 6.06 Jan 1.21

2015 6.40 Feb 1.21

2020 7.01 Mar 1.25

2030 8.33 Apr 1.01

2040 9.89 May 0.91

2050 11.76 Jun 0.89

2060 13.97 Jul 0.85

Aug 0.95

Sep 0.90

Oct 0.88

Nov 0.90

Dec 1.04

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Projections for the flow portion allotted to Union County are calculated separately as entity NRB‐20d;

those flows are excluded from the numbers shown here.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-346

Page 347: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐21a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Mount Airy Type Withdrawal

Facility F. G. Doggett WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.75 3.79 3.76 4.01 3.98 3.91 3.88 4.04 4.21 4.15 3.72 3.36 3.88

2002 2.38 2.33 2.22 2.50 2.73 2.80 2.82 3.18 2.83 2.86 2.58 2.30 2.63

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.49 2.49 2.40 2.49 2.56 2.46 2.35 2.24 1.90 1.86 1.57 1.48 2.19

2008 1.64 1.83 1.62 1.56 1.59 1.79 1.72 1.61 1.53 1.53 1.37 1.47 1.61

2009 1.53 1.59 1.52 1.37 1.56 1.71 1.79 1.69 1.62 1.61 1.53 1.37 1.57

2010 1.29 1.43 1.56 1.71 1.91 2.07 1.94 1.87 1.70 1.53 1.56 1.80 1.70

2011 1.47 1.85 1.97 2.09 2.18 1.84 1.66 1.66 1.59 1.60 1.49 1.84 1.77

2012 2.44 2.44 2.52 2.52 2.57 2.46 2.69 2.66 2.48 2.64 2.65 2.61 2.56

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Mount Airy facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-347

Page 348: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐21a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.01 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.02 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.05 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.10 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.15 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.21 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.26 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Surry County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.01 Jan 0.95

2015 2.02 Feb 1.02

2020 2.05 Mar 1.02

2030 2.10 Apr 1.03

2040 2.15 May 1.09

2050 2.21 Jun 1.08

2060 2.26 Jul 1.07

Aug 1.03

Sep 0.95

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.89

Dec 0.93

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-348

Page 349: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐21b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Mount Airy Type Return

Facility Mount Airy WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 4.07 4.59 3.65 6.10 6.02 5.89 5.73 5.18 4.87 5.03 4.57 4.19 4.99

2002 4.51 2.75 3.04 2.87 2.95 3.09 3.22 3.41 3.16 3.20 3.35 3.11 3.23

2003 3.43 4.05 4.16 3.72 3.29 3.96 3.50 4.09 3.27 3.29 2.69 3.19 3.55

2004 3.22 3.02 2.76 2.92 2.69 2.70 2.66 2.51 3.16 3.14 3.13 3.09 2.91

2005 2.96 2.91 2.86 2.21 1.90 2.25 2.15 2.40 2.70 2.87 2.40 2.40 2.50

2006 2.87 2.62 2.65 2.51 2.73 2.95 2.93 2.87 2.97 2.77 2.92 2.37 2.76

2007 2.59 2.05 2.80 2.37 2.24 2.18 1.84 1.78 1.89 1.64 1.40 1.63 2.03

2008 1.61 1.76 1.61 1.69 1.50 1.41 1.34 1.31 1.35 1.43 1.31 1.48 1.48

2009 1.65 1.33 1.63 1.38 1.74 1.68 1.19 1.19 1.08 1.36 2.01 2.69 1.58

2010 2.67 3.00 2.82 2.34 2.10 1.84 1.76 1.84 1.76 1.84 1.71 2.04 2.14

2011 1.85 1.96 2.68 2.54 2.49 2.26 1.81 1.73 1.88 1.83 1.66 2.40 2.09

2012 1.98 1.85 2.42 1.92 2.40 1.74 1.61 1.49 1.54 1.39 1.25 1.38 1.75

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-349

Page 350: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐21b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.99 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.01 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.09 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.14 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.19 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.25 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Surry County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.99 Jan 1.11

2015 2.01 Feb 1.08

2020 2.03 Mar 1.26

2030 2.09 Apr 1.11

2040 2.14 May 1.13

2050 2.19 Jun 1.00

2060 2.25 Jul 0.86

Aug 0.84

Sep 0.86

Oct 0.86

Nov 0.84

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-350

Page 351: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐21c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Mount Airy Type Withdrawal

Facility S. L. Spencer WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.09 1.10 1.09 1.17 1.15 1.14 1.13 1.18 1.22 1.21 1.08 0.98 1.13

2002 0.69 0.68 0.65 0.73 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.92 0.82 0.83 0.75 0.67 0.76

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.72 0.68 0.65 0.55 0.54 0.46 0.43 0.64

2008 0.48 0.53 0.47 0.45 0.46 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.40 0.43 0.47

2009 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.40 0.46

2010 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.56 0.54 0.50 0.45 0.45 0.52 0.49

2011 0.43 0.54 0.57 0.61 0.63 0.54 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.53 0.51

2012 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.73 0.75 0.72 0.78 0.77 0.72 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.74

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Mount Airy facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-351

Page 352: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐21c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.58 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.59 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.60 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.61 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.63 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.64 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.66 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Surry County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.58 Jan 0.95

2015 0.59 Feb 1.02

2020 0.60 Mar 1.02

2030 0.61 Apr 1.03

2040 0.63 May 1.09

2050 0.64 Jun 1.08

2060 0.66 Jul 1.07

Aug 1.03

Sep 0.95

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.89

Dec 0.93

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-352

Page 353: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐22a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Salisbury Type Withdrawal

Facility Salisbury WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 7.88 7.51 7.63 7.74 8.03 8.28 8.61 8.73 8.58 8.26 7.80 6.88 8.00

2002 5.60 5.50 5.40 6.20 6.60 7.70 7.40 7.10 6.00 5.90 5.50 6.00 6.25

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 6.20 6.30 6.30 6.50 7.70 8.90 8.80 10.60 9.60 8.60 6.60 6.00 7.68

2008 6.20 6.10 6.00 6.20 6.90 8.90 9.30 9.40 8.50 7.70 6.70 7.30 7.44

2009 6.70 6.60 6.50 6.90 7.50 9.30 10.20 10.40 9.00 7.70 6.40 6.50 7.82

2010 7.70 7.10 6.50 6.80 7.60 9.60 10.20 9.70 9.70 9.00 7.60 7.20 8.23

2011 7.70 7.50 7.30 7.50 8.60 9.30 10.50 9.90 9.40 8.60 7.80 7.10 8.44

2012 7.50 7.90 7.50 9.20 9.40 9.80 10.20 9.80 9.30 8.60 7.90 7.50 8.72

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-353

Page 354: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐22a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.46 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.66 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.98 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.68 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.43 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.24 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12.11 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2060: 0.75%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 8.46 Jan 0.87

2015 8.66 Feb 0.86

2020 8.98 Mar 0.83

2030 9.68 Apr 0.89

2040 10.43 May 0.99

2050 11.24 Jun 1.15

2060 12.11 Jul 1.22

Aug 1.24

Sep 1.15

Oct 1.04

Nov 0.89

Dec 0.86

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

County AGR determined to be too low for Salisbury; LWSP Projections very high

considering the service area and potential growth; AGR estimated to be 0.75%

‐‐

‐‐

H-354

Page 355: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐22b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Salisbury Type Return

Facility Salisbury‐Rowan WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 4.98 5.36 5.38 5.47 4.62 4.37 4.46 3.91 3.76 3.85 3.89 4.40 4.53

2002 6.94 6.42 7.26 6.20 5.89 5.72 5.66 5.89 6.21 7.34 8.28 9.86 6.81

2003 7.88 9.66 11.46 13.30 11.15 10.88 8.38 8.91 8.36 7.37 6.97 7.79 9.33

2004 6.99 8.57 8.09 8.13 7.08 6.66 7.11 7.57 9.37 7.87 8.23 9.04 7.89

2005 8.62 9.32 10.47 8.85 7.24 7.65 8.40 7.38 6.37 6.90 6.86 8.98 8.08

2006 8.61 7.85 7.44 7.39 6.92 7.22 6.56 6.56 7.25 6.91 9.05 7.73 7.45

2007 9.48 8.54 9.20 8.68 6.84 6.66 6.41 6.12 6.05 6.53 6.26 6.56 7.27

2008 6.64 7.47 7.98 8.46 6.92 6.30 6.30 7.41 7.20 6.68 6.71 8.84 7.24

2009 7.92 7.03 10.06 8.37 7.16 8.40 6.32 6.20 6.09 6.25 9.00 10.66 7.79

2010 10.15 11.17 9.20 8.07 8.07 7.57 6.44 6.81 6.19 6.06 6.13 6.45 7.67

2011 6.57 7.25 8.42 7.61 6.78 6.55 6.45 5.86 6.35 6.51 8.42 8.46 7.10

2012 7.65 8.70 7.02 6.27 6.96 6.22 5.52 5.27 5.27 5.66 5.29 5.51 6.27

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-355

Page 356: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐22b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.01 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.19 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.46 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.04 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.67 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 9.34 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.06 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 7.01 Jan 1.12

2015 7.19 Feb 1.16

2020 7.46 Mar 1.20

2030 8.04 Apr 1.10

2040 8.67 May 0.99

2050 9.34 Jun 0.96

2060 10.06 Jul 0.86

Aug 0.87

Sep 0.86

Oct 0.87

Nov 0.96

Dec 1.07

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-356

Page 357: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐23a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Statesville Type Withdrawal

Facility City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River intake) Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 4.71 4.77 4.68 4.89 5.22 5.32 5.35 5.44 5.47 5.76 5.34 5.18 5.18

2002 4.25 4.21 4.29 4.84 5.06 5.56 4.47 3.11 2.61 2.93 2.91 2.90 3.92

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 3.57 3.78 4.03 3.71 4.83 4.62 4.32 5.09 4.40 4.02 3.56 3.51 4.12

2008 3.47 3.35 3.04 3.30 3.48 4.07 3.86 3.54 3.36 3.37 3.21 2.98 3.42

2009 3.04 2.98 3.19 3.07 3.09 3.27 3.62 3.37 3.25 3.04 2.96 2.85 3.14

2010 3.05 3.15 3.00 3.27 3.35 3.54 3.67 3.60 3.73 3.36 3.04 2.97 3.31

2011 2.93 2.95 2.98 3.08 3.21 3.57 3.42 3.47 3.35 3.17 3.03 2.87 3.17

2012 2.85 2.85 2.94 3.01 3.22 3.27 3.44 3.33 3.23 3.12 3.17 2.99 3.12

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-357

Page 358: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐23a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.20 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.86 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.97 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.37 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.79 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.28 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.85 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 3.20 Jan 0.93

2015 3.86 Feb 0.94

2020 4.97 Mar 0.95

2030 5.37 Apr 0.96

2040 5.79 May 1.04

2050 6.28 Jun 1.10

2060 6.85 Jul 1.10

Aug 1.10

Sep 1.05

Oct 0.99

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.90

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections were developed from the LWSP. 

Projections for 2020‐2060 are directly from the LWSP; 2015 data was interpolated

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-358

Page 359: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐23b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Statesville Type Return

Facility Fourth Creek WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.89 3.54 3.22 3.37 2.81 2.69 2.75 2.76 2.70 2.87 2.72 3.23 2.96

2002 2.60 2.36 2.59 2.30 2.39 2.69 2.73 2.35 2.42 2.61 3.11 3.28 2.62

2003 2.80 3.16 3.90 4.04 3.27 3.26 3.01 2.95 2.76 2.65 2.72 2.85 3.11

2004 2.64 3.01 2.79 2.80 2.74 2.67 2.51 2.61 3.16 2.69 3.13 3.21 2.83

2005 3.05 3.16 3.14 2.90 2.73 2.54 2.65 2.75 2.59 2.48 2.41 2.79 2.76

2006 2.94 2.57 2.74 2.81 2.61 2.67 2.49 2.67 2.84 3.04 2.93 2.97 2.78

2007 3.23 2.88 3.38 3.01 3.37 2.94 2.82 2.91 2.78 3.00 2.89 2.99 3.02

2008 2.93 3.09 3.31 3.19 2.74 3.01 2.75 3.12 3.13 2.83 2.86 3.35 3.03

2009 3.38 2.77 3.47 3.26 3.39 3.53 2.80 2.98 2.91 2.95 3.26 3.40 3.18

2010 3.70 3.68 3.40 3.26 3.34 3.02 3.06 3.05 3.08 2.87 2.71 2.73 3.16

2011 2.61 2.73 3.12 2.89 2.78 2.34 2.28 2.10 2.20 2.06 2.18 2.23 2.46

2012 2.11 2.08 2.14 2.05 2.37 2.07 2.09 2.02 2.18 2.03 1.90 2.02 2.09

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-359

Page 360: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐23b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.14 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.04 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.37 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.11 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.57 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.57 Jan 1.06

2015 3.14 Feb 1.02

2020 4.04 Mar 1.11

2030 4.37 Apr 1.04

2040 4.71 May 1.06

2050 5.11 Jun 1.00

2060 5.57 Jul 0.93

Aug 0.96

Sep 0.96

Oct 0.93

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.99

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on (a) LWSP projected water use and (b) historic ratio of WWTP flows to WTP flows

(using 2010‐2012 average to determine ratio).

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-360

Page 361: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐23c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Statesville Type Return

Facility Third Creek WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.08 2.24 2.16 2.27 1.95 1.91 1.77 1.75 1.97 2.00 1.84 1.85 1.98

2002 1.71 1.47 1.43 1.35 1.37 1.28 1.27 1.16 1.20 1.03 1.11 1.12 1.29

2003 0.91 1.45 1.91 1.95 1.53 1.62 1.33 1.35 1.03 1.11 1.21 1.27 1.39

2004 1.16 1.44 1.66 1.82 1.54 1.57 1.34 1.27 1.58 1.24 1.79 2.08 1.54

2005 1.53 1.54 2.04 1.38 1.27 1.44 1.33 1.35 1.28 1.47 1.37 1.56 1.46

2006 1.63 1.31 1.29 1.43 1.27 1.30 1.11 1.35 1.34 1.38 1.64 1.23 1.36

2007 1.77 1.72 1.79 ND 1.34 1.30 1.29 1.21 1.42 1.32 1.23 1.43 1.44

2008 1.31 1.35 1.35 1.45 1.08 1.06 1.15 1.24 1.28 1.19 1.11 1.38 1.25

2009 1.31 1.30 1.75 1.29 1.36 1.31 0.98 1.04 1.08 1.17 1.54 1.75 1.32

2010 1.61 1.98 1.53 1.50 1.80 1.48 1.26 1.39 1.41 1.18 1.13 1.23 1.46

2011 1.14 1.19 1.37 0.93 0.81 0.70 0.62 0.74 0.88 0.73 0.88 0.91 0.91

2012 0.88 0.90 0.88 0.80 0.88 0.78 0.76 0.70 0.82 0.87 0.73 0.83 0.82

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-361

Page 362: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐23c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.06 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.35 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.74 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.88 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.20 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.40 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.06 Jan 1.12

2015 1.35 Feb 1.17

2020 1.74 Mar 1.21

2030 1.88 Apr 1.00

2040 2.03 May 1.01

2050 2.20 Jun 0.92

2060 2.40 Jul 0.84

Aug 0.88

Sep 0.96

Oct 0.90

Nov 0.92

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on (a) LWSP projected water use and (b) historic ratio of WWTP flows to WTP flows

(using 2010‐2012 average to determine ratio).

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-362

Page 363: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐24a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Thomasville Type Withdrawal

Facility City of Thomasville WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.22 3.15 2.97 3.13 3.37 3.31 3.31 3.35 3.24 3.17 2.83 2.84 3.16

2002 2.53 2.36 2.35 2.77 3.00 3.15 2.72 2.85 2.63 2.54 2.33 2.34 2.63

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.77 2.72 2.77 2.81 3.37 3.28 3.26 3.47 3.14 2.95 2.65 2.55 2.98

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 2.41 2.49 2.63 2.24 2.59 2.66 2.51 2.68 2.69 2.55 2.52 2.47 2.54

2010 2.62 2.52 2.56 2.70 2.72 2.67 2.75 2.58 2.86 3.21 3.30 2.47 2.75

2011 2.35 2.15 2.08 2.02 2.02 3.16 2.79 2.73 2.45 2.47 2.40 2.38 2.42

2012 2.35 2.33 2.32 2.41 2.66 2.73 2.78 2.56 2.38 2.37 2.25 2.29 2.45

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-363

Page 364: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐24a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.54 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.55 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.58 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.71 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.86 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.94 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.02 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.54 Jan 0.95

2015 2.55 Feb 0.93

2020 2.58 Mar 0.94

2030 2.71 Apr 0.93

2040 2.86 May 1.02

2050 2.94 Jun 1.10

2060 3.02 Jul 1.07

Aug 1.07

Sep 1.03

Oct 1.03

Nov 1.00

Dec 0.93

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections were developed from the LWSP.  

Projections for 2020‐2060 are directly from the LWSP; 2015 data was interpolated

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-364

Page 365: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐24b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Thomasville Type Return

Facility Hamby Creek WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.71 3.60 3.67 3.64 3.14 2.74 2.68 2.42 2.51 2.60 2.65 2.91 3.02

2002 2.80 2.58 3.00 2.57 2.31 2.14 2.29 2.45 2.91 3.16 3.45 3.12 2.73

2003 2.81 2.87 4.12 3.92 3.55 3.44 3.04 3.34 3.01 2.37 2.29 2.29 3.09

2004 2.19 2.53 2.64 2.50 2.34 2.35 2.47 2.46 2.63 2.45 2.48 2.50 2.46

2005 2.42 2.48 2.60 2.99 2.95 3.00 2.87 2.64 2.20 2.47 2.60 3.30 2.71

2006 3.17 3.04 2.76 2.78 2.52 2.73 2.60 2.47 2.91 2.69 2.86 2.37 2.74

2007 3.48 3.11 2.89 2.95 2.39 2.66 2.53 2.25 2.07 2.55 2.36 2.59 2.65

2008 2.72 3.01 3.45 2.96 2.82 1.81 1.86 2.10 2.45 2.08 2.02 2.56 2.49

2009 2.50 2.24 3.77 2.61 2.15 2.22 1.71 1.84 1.98 1.97 2.91 3.21 2.43

2010 2.91 3.98 2.93 2.56 2.41 2.17 2.17 2.39 2.19 2.17 1.91 1.92 2.47

2011 2.04 2.18 2.46 2.49 2.30 1.89 2.03 1.81 2.10 2.14 2.67 2.75 2.24

2012 2.34 2.39 2.47 2.09 2.20 2.01 2.04 2.22 2.13 2.07 1.64 1.81 2.12

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-365

Page 366: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐24b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.29 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.31 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.43 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.56 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.63 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.70 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.27 Jan 1.11

2015 2.29 Feb 1.18

2020 2.31 Mar 1.25

2030 2.43 Apr 1.09

2040 2.56 May 0.99

2050 2.63 Jun 0.89

2060 2.70 Jul 0.86

Aug 0.88

Sep 0.90

Oct 0.90

Nov 0.94

Dec 1.03

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on (a) LWSP projected water use and (b) historic ratio of WWTP flows to WTP flows

(using 2010‐2012 average to determine ratio).

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-366

Page 367: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Winston‐Salem Type Return

Facility Archie Elledge WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 21.37 22.72 22.33 23.33 21.05 20.95 20.27 20.80 20.96 20.39 19.97 18.98 21.08

2002 18.19 18.23 17.79 18.05 17.79 18.16 17.22 18.08 18.71 19.98 19.73 19.40 18.44

2003 17.92 19.78 22.01 22.19 20.34 21.65 21.30 20.92 19.54 18.11 17.12 17.79 19.89

2004 16.70 18.44 18.32 17.93 17.64 17.52 16.79 18.67 21.20 18.22 18.58 19.12 18.25

2005 17.87 18.16 18.89 18.54 17.72 18.18 17.72 18.33 17.66 18.05 17.26 18.42 18.07

2006 17.37 16.93 16.90 17.30 16.97 17.75 18.25 18.77 19.93 18.50 19.88 17.37 17.99

2007 20.44 18.40 19.89 19.11 17.95 18.70 17.20 17.22 16.72 17.75 15.93 16.24 17.96

2008 16.58 17.38 17.08 18.61 17.55 15.89 15.91 16.78 17.81 16.55 16.77 17.40 17.02

2009 17.95 16.60 18.69 17.24 17.00 17.95 16.01 16.25 16.15 16.30 20.85 20.45 17.62

2010 18.88 20.52 19.69 18.33 17.61 17.93 17.14 17.70 16.85 16.68 15.60 14.79 17.62

2011 14.89 14.98 15.56 14.62 14.58 15.06 17.28 16.67 16.93 15.29 16.36 15.80 15.67

2012 15.45 15.41 15.89 14.17 15.62 13.75 13.65 14.78 16.30 15.18 13.88 13.89 14.83

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-367

Page 368: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 16.04 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17.37 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 19.05 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 21.37 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 22.30 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 23.56 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 25.13 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 16.04 Jan 1.03

2015 17.37 Feb 1.03

2020 19.05 Mar 1.06

2030 21.37 Apr 1.01

2040 22.30 May 1.00

2050 23.56 Jun 0.99

2060 25.13 Jul 0.96

Aug 0.99

Sep 1.00

Oct 0.97

Nov 0.99

Dec 0.98

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on (a) LWSP projected water use and (b) historic ratio of WWTP flows to WTP flows

(using 2010‐2012 average to determine ratio).

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-368

Page 369: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Winston‐Salem Type Return

Facility Muddy Creek WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 13.41 14.43 14.51 14.46 13.70 13.09 12.47 12.77 12.50 12.07 11.91 12.16 13.11

2002 15.19 13.85 14.05 13.68 13.21 13.10 13.96 13.99 14.55 15.56 16.99 16.97 14.60

2003 15.80 18.25 27.22 27.81 22.49 22.99 25.93 18.08 18.45 15.78 15.53 16.38 20.40

2004 15.44 19.73 16.24 16.64 15.49 15.46 15.18 15.14 23.19 15.39 16.25 16.54 16.70

2005 16.04 16.39 19.54 16.88 15.38 15.16 16.28 15.94 14.00 15.86 15.61 17.60 16.23

2006 18.24 16.55 15.46 14.74 14.60 15.15 17.64 13.77 16.63 14.44 19.52 14.45 15.92

2007 23.38 14.93 19.45 17.04 14.22 14.29 13.74 13.57 13.23 13.99 13.63 14.30 15.49

2008 14.20 15.13 14.84 16.61 15.62 13.19 12.91 13.30 13.98 13.63 13.83 15.12 14.36

2009 15.30 14.17 16.39 15.77 14.97 15.57 12.59 13.10 13.30 13.38 16.58 17.88 14.92

2010 22.16 19.57 16.96 15.81 14.48 14.53 13.27 14.27 13.35 15.91 15.30 15.69 15.92

2011 15.47 15.55 17.72 16.81 16.20 14.02 13.08 12.36 13.82 14.58 15.82 15.85 15.10

2012 15.17 15.14 16.19 15.81 18.44 15.22 14.50 15.36 14.33 14.81 14.25 14.84 15.34

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-369

Page 370: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 15.46 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 15.46 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 16.96 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 19.02 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 19.85 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 20.98 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 22.38 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 15.46 Jan 1.16

2015 15.46 Feb 1.04

2020 16.96 Mar 1.11

2030 19.02 Apr 1.07

2040 19.85 May 1.03

2050 20.98 Jun 0.95

2060 22.38 Jul 0.88

Aug 0.90

Sep 0.90

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.98

Dec 1.03

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on (a) LWSP projected water use and (b) historic ratio of WWTP flows to WTP flows

(using 2010‐2012 average to determine ratio).

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-370

Page 371: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Winston‐Salem Type Return

Facility P. W. Swann WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.76 0.42 0.52 0.53 0.39 0.41 0.51

2005 0.37 0.41 0.57 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.66 0.46 1.56 1.08 0.39 0.37 0.63

2006 0.37 0.46 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.49 0.41 0.38 0.43 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.41

2007 0.35 0.46 0.55 0.37 0.38 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.46 0.37 0.39 0.35 0.40

2008 0.37 0.39 0.50 0.38 0.56 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.42 0.54 0.46 0.40 0.43

2009 0.45 0.35 0.36 0.33 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.41 0.48 0.53 0.38 0.50 0.41

2010 0.58 0.58 0.50 0.42 0.41 0.50 0.30 0.44 0.50 0.52 0.40 0.47 0.47

2011 0.43 0.59 0.49 0.55 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.38 0.36 0.36 0.52 0.44 0.44

2012 0.37 0.39 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.41 0.38 0.57 0.39 0.38 0.31 0.38

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-371

Page 372: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.43 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.50 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.56 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.59 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.62 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.66 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.43 Jan 1.00

2015 0.46 Feb 1.08

2020 0.50 Mar 1.09

2030 0.56 Apr 0.95

2040 0.59 May 0.98

2050 0.62 Jun 0.95

2060 0.66 Jul 0.91

Aug 0.93

Sep 1.10

Oct 1.06

Nov 1.00

Dec 0.97

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-372

Page 373: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25d Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Winston‐Salem Type Return

Facility R. A. Thomas WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.90 ND 0.56 1.08 0.56 0.81 0.67 0.72 1.11 0.76 0.61 0.63 0.76

2002 0.55 0.77 0.39 0.71 0.83 1.10 1.09 0.99 0.87 0.84 0.61 0.62 0.78

2003 0.82 0.53 1.08 0.92 0.85 0.89 0.78 0.90 0.80 0.74 0.84 ND 0.83

2004 0.77 0.80 0.68 0.67 0.74 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.46 0.36 0.45 0.45 0.62

2005 0.58 0.57 0.43 0.46 0.92 0.66 0.69 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.76 0.92 0.67

2006 0.94 0.95 0.87 1.24 0.85 0.86 0.76 0.72 0.87 0.93 0.91 0.96 0.90

2007 0.95 0.91 0.81 0.77 0.65 0.69 0.58 0.60 0.58 0.64 0.63 0.78 0.71

2008 0.63 0.64 0.62 0.72 0.58 0.72 0.79 0.70 0.53 0.23 ND ND 0.62

2009 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2010 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2011 ND ND ND ND ND 1.36 1.42 3.56 3.04 0.31 0.42 0.51 1.52

2012 0.37 0.32 0.33 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.22 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.28

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

H-373

Page 374: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐25d

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.89 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.95 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.04 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.17 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.22 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.29 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.37 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.89 Jan 1.21

2015 0.95 Feb 1.16

2020 1.04 Mar 1.10

2030 1.17 Apr 1.09

2040 1.22 May 0.95

2050 1.29 Jun 1.03

2060 1.37 Jul 1.01

Aug 0.94

Sep 0.88

Oct 0.72

Nov 0.82

Dec 0.95

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 375: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐25e Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Winston‐Salem Type Withdrawal

Facility P. W. Swann WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 11.86 11.96 11.87 12.62 13.66 14.06 14.33 14.59 14.94 13.31 12.42 11.84 13.13

2002 11.87 12.36 12.11 14.02 15.37 16.00 15.43 15.83 13.91 12.92 11.92 11.95 13.65

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 10.41 10.83 10.83 11.39 13.74 13.15 12.42 14.53 13.86 12.56 11.09 10.36 12.10

2008 10.59 10.44 10.36 11.00 11.59 14.15 13.30 12.80 11.62 10.86 10.39 9.77 11.41

2009 10.41 10.00 10.06 10.59 10.36 12.03 12.59 12.89 11.80 10.83 10.44 9.94 11.00

2010 10.65 10.39 10.09 10.97 11.41 12.71 13.12 12.18 12.97 11.44 8.18 10.09 11.19

2011 10.12 9.97 9.86 10.00 11.06 13.53 12.53 13.56 12.62 11.59 10.44 10.00 11.28

2012 9.94 9.89 10.24 10.59 11.24 12.65 13.18 12.62 11.65 11.03 10.62 9.77 11.12

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

Prior to 2010, the P. W. Swann WTP was known as the Northwest WTP.

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Winston‐Salem facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 376: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐25e

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.20 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.89 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.04 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14.62 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 15.26 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 16.13 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 17.20 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 11.20 Jan 0.91

2015 11.89 Feb 0.90

2020 13.04 Mar 0.90

2030 14.62 Apr 0.95

2040 15.26 May 1.02

2050 16.13 Jun 1.15

2060 17.20 Jul 1.13

Aug 1.15

Sep 1.09

Oct 1.00

Nov 0.90

Dec 0.88

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Local Water Supply Plan projected flowrates for

the entire entity and (b) historical flow splits among the entity's facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

Projected flowrate for 2015 is interpolated between Base value and 2020 value from LWSP.

‐‐

‐‐

Page 377: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐25f Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Winston‐Salem Type Withdrawal

Facility R. W. Neilson WTP / R. A. Thomas WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 28.45 28.70 28.49 30.28 32.76 33.73 34.38 34.99 35.85 31.92 29.80 28.41 31.49

2002 28.47 29.64 29.04 33.62 36.88 38.39 37.01 37.97 33.36 31.01 28.59 28.68 32.74

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 24.99 25.97 25.97 27.31 32.96 31.55 29.78 34.87 33.24 30.14 26.61 24.84 29.04

2008 25.41 25.06 24.84 26.40 27.81 33.95 31.90 30.70 27.88 26.04 24.91 23.43 27.36

2009 24.99 24.00 24.14 25.41 24.84 28.87 30.21 30.91 28.30 25.97 25.06 23.86 26.39

2010 25.55 24.91 24.21 26.33 27.39 30.49 31.48 29.22 31.13 27.46 19.62 24.21 26.85

2011 24.28 23.93 23.64 24.00 26.54 32.47 30.07 32.54 30.28 27.81 25.06 24.00 27.07

2012 23.86 23.71 24.56 25.41 26.96 30.35 31.62 30.28 27.95 26.47 25.48 23.43 26.68

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

The flows for R. A. Thomas WTP are included in the historical data shown above.

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Winston‐Salem facilities.

backwash waste flow discharged from this WTP.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

The R. W. Neilson WTP recycles its decanted lagoon effluent back to the headwaters of the plant, therefore there is no

Page 378: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐25f

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 26.87 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 28.52 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 31.28 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 35.08 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 36.62 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 38.69 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 41.27 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 26.87 Jan 0.91

2015 28.52 Feb 0.90

2020 31.28 Mar 0.90

2030 35.08 Apr 0.95

2040 36.62 May 1.02

2050 38.69 Jun 1.15

2060 41.27 Jul 1.13

Aug 1.15

Sep 1.09

Oct 1.00

Nov 0.90

Dec 0.88

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projected Flowrates shown above are based on (a) Local Water Supply Plan projected flowrates for

the entire entity and (b) historical flow splits among the entity's facilities, based on 2012 flow data.

Projected flowrate for 2015 is interpolated between Base value and 2020 value from LWSP.

‐‐

‐‐

Page 379: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐27a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Davidson Water Inc Type Withdrawal

Facility C. O. Pickle WP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 8.29 7.97 8.05 8.14 9.31 9.89 10.51 10.65 10.02 9.47 9.45 8.71 9.21

2002 8.71 8.34 8.55 10.37 11.71 12.92 11.21 11.00 9.78 9.70 9.35 9.38 10.09

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 10.06 10.40 10.45 11.21 13.96 12.84 12.67 14.81 13.69 10.19 10.77 10.19 11.78

2008 10.12 9.72 9.78 10.13 11.92 15.36 12.97 12.73 11.81 11.29 10.08 9.58 11.29

2009 9.97 9.83 9.70 10.13 12.20 11.99 12.18 11.43 11.09 10.65 10.39 10.41 10.84

2010 11.07 10.99 10.10 11.25 12.32 12.80 13.22 11.84 12.41 10.92 9.97 8.92 11.32

2011 9.74 9.30 9.54 9.44 10.39 12.63 11.90 11.25 10.48 9.27 9.39 9.07 10.20

2012 9.02 8.74 9.43 9.83 10.74 11.62 11.63 10.30 10.21 9.45 9.34 8.79 9.93

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 380: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐27a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.48 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.56 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.69 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 10.96 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.24 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.53 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.82 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Davidson County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 10.48 Jan 0.92

2015 10.56 Feb 0.90

2020 10.69 Mar 0.90

2030 10.96 Apr 0.95

2040 11.24 May 1.09

2050 11.53 Jun 1.18

2060 11.82 Jul 1.14

Aug 1.11

Sep 1.07

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.92

Dec 0.87

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 381: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐27b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Davidson Water Inc Type Return

Facility Davidson Water WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21

2002 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28

2003 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

2004 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

2005 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

2006 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

2007 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

2008 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

2009 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29

2010 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.28

2011 0.40 0.35 0.44 0.37 0.47 0.54 0.50 0.48 0.42 0.38 0.40 0.37 0.43

2012 0.41 0.34 0.46 0.55 0.42 0.41 0.44 0.34 0.40 0.34 0.40 0.33 0.40

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 382: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐27b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.37 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.39 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.40 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.41 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.42 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.37 Jan 1.00

2015 0.38 Feb 0.93

2020 0.38 Mar 1.03

2030 0.39 Apr 1.05

2040 0.40 May 1.04

2050 0.41 Jun 1.06

2060 0.42 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.00

Sep 0.99

Oct 0.92

Nov 0.98

Dec 0.94

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of (WTP return) to (WTP use) from 2010‐2012 

multiplied by the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 383: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐28a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Davie County Type Withdrawal

Facility Cooleemee WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.77 0.72 0.73 0.76 0.92 0.92 1.04 1.06 0.99 0.88 0.76 0.73 0.86

2002 0.98 0.91 0.92 1.18 1.38 1.51 1.43 1.42 1.18 1.00 0.93 0.87 1.14

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.97 0.92 0.98 1.10 1.43 1.41 1.31 1.75 1.61 1.35 1.12 1.00 1.25

2008 0.88 0.80 0.88 0.90 1.15 1.50 1.24 1.19 1.05 0.97 0.90 0.86 1.03

2009 1.10 1.07 1.02 1.09 1.09 1.32 1.44 1.40 1.25 1.10 0.99 1.04 1.16

2010 0.96 0.92 0.89 1.01 1.12 1.22 1.30 1.20 1.29 1.17 1.01 1.01 1.09

2011 0.97 0.92 0.93 0.96 1.06 1.41 1.38 1.38 1.25 1.16 0.99 0.95 1.11

2012 0.94 0.90 0.94 1.08 1.14 1.34 1.52 1.50 1.15 1.26 1.12 0.99 1.16

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

Bear Creek WWTP (see entity sheet NWH‐65a) was replaced with a pump station to Cooleemee WWTP in 2008.

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all Davie County facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 384: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐28a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.12 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.13 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.15 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.18 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.22 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.25 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.29 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.30%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.29%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Davie County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.12 Jan 0.86

2015 1.13 Feb 0.81

2020 1.15 Mar 0.83

2030 1.18 Apr 0.90

2040 1.22 May 1.03

2050 1.25 Jun 1.21

2060 1.29 Jul 1.20

Aug 1.24

Sep 1.12

Oct 1.03

Nov 0.90

Dec 0.86

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 385: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐28b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Davie County Type Withdrawal

Facility Sparks Road WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.08 1.01 1.02 1.07 1.28 1.29 1.45 1.49 1.39 1.23 1.07 1.02 1.20

2002 1.37 1.27 1.29 1.65 1.94 2.12 2.01 1.98 1.65 1.40 1.30 1.22 1.60

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 1.35 1.30 1.37 1.54 2.00 1.98 1.84 2.45 2.26 1.89 1.57 1.40 1.75

2008 1.23 1.12 1.23 1.26 1.62 2.10 1.74 1.67 1.47 1.36 1.26 1.20 1.44

2009 1.55 1.49 1.44 1.52 1.53 1.84 2.02 1.97 1.75 1.54 1.38 1.46 1.63

2010 1.34 1.28 1.24 1.41 1.57 1.71 1.83 1.69 1.80 1.64 1.41 1.41 1.53

2011 1.36 1.29 1.30 1.35 1.49 1.97 1.93 1.93 1.76 1.63 1.39 1.33 1.56

2012 1.32 1.26 1.31 1.51 1.60 1.88 2.12 2.11 1.61 1.77 1.57 1.39 1.62

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all Davie County facilities.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 386: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐28b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.57 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.59 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.61 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.66 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.70 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.81 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.30%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.29%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Davie County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.57 Jan 0.86

2015 1.59 Feb 0.81

2020 1.61 Mar 0.83

2030 1.66 Apr 0.90

2040 1.70 May 1.03

2050 1.75 Jun 1.21

2060 1.81 Jul 1.20

Aug 1.24

Sep 1.12

Oct 1.03

Nov 0.90

Dec 0.86

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 387: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐28c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Davie County Type Return

Facility Sparks Road WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.53 0.38 0.45

2004 0.38 0.27 0.19 0.31 0.25 0.41 0.46 0.37 0.42 0.41 0.54 0.40 0.37

2005 0.37 0.41 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.13 0.28 0.43 0.39 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.27

2006 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.23 0.21 0.14

2007 0.18 0.12 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.18 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.17 0.16 0.14

2008 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.13

2009 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.22 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.12 0.19 0.25 0.16

2010 0.16 0.07 0.13 0.19 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.16 0.20 0.17

2011 0.15 0.15 1.05 1.02 1.05 1.40 1.53 1.55 1.54 1.31 1.16 1.06 1.09

2012 ND ND 1.00 1.20 1.57 1.56 1.71 1.89 1.46 1.75 1.44 1.23 1.48

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 388: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐28c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.92 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.95 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.98 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.01 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.04 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.91 Jan 0.42

2015 0.91 Feb 0.33

2020 0.92 Mar 0.88

2030 0.95 Apr 0.97

2040 0.98 May 0.92

2050 1.01 Jun 1.24

2060 1.04 Jul 1.29

Aug 1.31

Sep 1.31

Oct 1.15

Nov 1.08

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 389: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐28d Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Davie County Type Return

Facility Cooleemee WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.97 1.02 1.08 1.10 0.85 0.88 0.81 0.73 0.90 0.73 0.68 0.75 0.87

2002 0.60 0.50 0.61 0.69 0.99 0.90 0.91 0.74 0.39 0.35 0.40 0.34 0.62

2003 0.32 0.41 0.51 0.59 0.51 0.56 0.51 0.66 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.36 0.48

2004 0.36 0.63 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.42 0.48 0.65 0.50 0.48 0.45 0.49

2005 0.47 0.44 0.61 0.50 0.42 0.43 0.45 0.50 0.44 0.38 0.38 0.36 0.45

2006 0.46 0.40 0.43 0.36 0.38 0.43 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.33 0.43 0.25 0.38

2007 0.60 0.39 0.48 0.40 0.34 0.36 0.28 0.47 0.36 0.43 0.47 0.40 0.42

2008 0.50 0.49 0.38 0.48 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.63 0.54 0.53 0.63 0.47

2009 0.65 0.54 0.58 0.45 0.92 0.44 0.27 0.37 0.44 0.43 0.69 0.80 0.55

2010 0.84 1.36 0.61 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.51 0.42 0.52 0.65 0.90 0.63

2011 ND 0.57 0.72 0.49 0.49 0.43 0.51 0.51 0.46 0.50 0.60 0.55 0.53

2012 0.54 0.54 0.57 0.45 0.67 0.49 0.62 0.55 0.47 0.50 0.53 ND 0.54

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 390: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐28d

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.57 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.57 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.58 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.60 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.61 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.63 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.65 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.30%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.29%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Davie County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.57 Jan 1.20

2015 0.57 Feb 1.24

2020 0.58 Mar 1.06

2030 0.60 Apr 0.87

2040 0.61 May 1.04

2050 0.63 Jun 0.81

2060 0.65 Jul 0.79

Aug 0.88

Sep 0.89

Oct 0.93

Nov 1.10

Dec 1.26

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 391: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRL‐34 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Greater Badin Water & Sewer District Type Return

Facility Badin WWTP Sub‐basin Lake Tillery

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.53 0.64 0.54 0.57 0.45 0.22 0.49 0.16 0.25 0.31 0.52 0.62 0.44

2002 0.60 0.44 0.55 0.35 0.27 0.20 0.19 0.25 0.27 0.57 0.69 0.88 0.44

2003 0.48 0.80 1.09 0.91 0.90 0.83 0.61 0.84 0.39 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.63

2004 0.23 0.62 0.44 0.27 0.36 0.28 0.25 0.33 0.66 0.34 0.38 0.39 0.38

2005 0.42 0.50 0.81 0.63 0.31 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.26 0.31 0.25 0.64 0.45

2006 0.39 0.19 0.24 0.42 0.31 0.44 0.34 0.37 0.48 0.36 0.90 0.61 0.42

2007 0.78 0.55 0.47 0.27 0.14 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.26 0.26

2008 0.32 0.34 0.49 0.50 0.20 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.21 0.14 0.16 0.49 0.26

2009 0.28 0.23 0.72 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.62 0.76 0.31

2010 0.73 0.82 0.48 0.20 0.23 0.25 0.10 0.23 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.30

2011 0.24 0.33 0.42 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.22 0.33 0.40 0.39 0.30

2012 0.44 0.39 0.39 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.19 0.27 0.27 0.24 0.17 0.21 0.26

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 392: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRL‐34

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.29 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.29 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.30 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.31 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.32 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.33 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.35 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.34%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.39%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Stanly County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.29 Jan 1.63

2015 0.29 Feb 1.57

2020 0.30 Mar 1.74

2030 0.31 Apr 0.99

2040 0.32 May 0.70

2050 0.33 Jun 0.67

2060 0.35 Jul 0.54

Aug 0.64

Sep 0.64

Oct 0.63

Nov 0.93

Dec 1.34

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 393: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐42 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Montgomery County Type Withdrawal

Facility Montgomery County WTP Sub‐basin Lake Tillery

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.32 2.36 2.34 2.49 2.54 2.63 2.65 2.64 2.66 2.64 2.81 2.12 2.52

2002 3.19 3.60 2.58 2.65 2.77 2.98 3.66 3.72 3.23 2.93 2.84 3.10 3.10

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.56 2.74 3.10 3.32 3.61 3.65 3.92 4.14 3.88 3.75 3.73 3.70 3.51

2008 3.82 3.99 3.91 3.79 3.80 3.94 4.05 3.99 3.73 3.98 3.83 3.61 3.87

2009 2.95 3.14 2.85 2.99 2.83 3.17 3.48 3.37 3.32 2.99 2.42 2.43 2.99

2010 2.45 2.10 2.14 2.29 2.63 2.91 2.76 2.77 2.54 2.11 2.14 2.02 2.41

2011 2.00 1.97 1.99 1.95 2.22 2.37 2.45 2.37 2.11 2.02 2.00 2.00 2.12

2012 2.00 2.00 1.90 2.02 2.23 2.37 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.26 2.11 2.06 2.18

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 394: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐42

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.24 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.25 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.28 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.34 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.40 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.46 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.52 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Montgomery County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.24 Jan 0.92

2015 2.25 Feb 0.93

2020 2.28 Mar 0.93

2030 2.34 Apr 0.96

2040 2.40 May 1.01

2050 2.46 Jun 1.08

2060 2.52 Jul 1.12

Aug 1.11

Sep 1.05

Oct 1.00

Nov 0.95

Dec 0.93

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 395: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐52 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Stanly County Type Return

Facility West Stanly WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.48 0.34 0.42 0.40 0.33 0.34 0.38 0.46 0.50 0.42

2002 0.32 0.24 0.33 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.27

2003 0.27 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.44 0.48 0.34 0.25 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.31 0.35

2004 0.22 0.43 0.30 0.22 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.44 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.30

2005 0.34 0.46 0.49 0.44 0.30 0.47 0.43 0.25 0.23 0.30 0.28 0.47 0.37

2006 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.29 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.34 0.47 0.37 0.33

2007 0.47 0.42 0.36 0.32 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.33 0.30

2008 0.32 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.31 0.25 0.29 0.35 0.42 0.31 0.35 0.46 0.36

2009 0.42 0.39 0.65 0.38 0.39 0.31 0.33 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.49 0.58 0.40

2010 0.55 0.54 0.48 0.29 0.33 0.36 0.31 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.38

2011 0.36 0.46 0.56 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.39

2012 0.54 0.39 0.40 0.33 0.35 0.29 0.33 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.29 0.37 0.37

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 396: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐52

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.39 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.41 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.42 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.44 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.34%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.39%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Stanly County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.38 Jan 1.21

2015 0.38 Feb 1.18

2020 0.39 Mar 1.31

2030 0.41 Apr 0.99

2040 0.42 May 0.93

2050 0.44 Jun 0.82

2060 0.46 Jul 0.82

Aug 0.86

Sep 0.90

Oct 0.91

Nov 0.95

Dec 1.13

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 397: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐58 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Bermuda Run Type Return

Facility Bermuda Run WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.12

2002 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.13

2003 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15

2004 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.11

2005 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.12

2006 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.13

2007 0.15 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11

2008 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.13

2009 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.18 0.13

2010 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.13

2011 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.13

2012 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 398: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐58

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.13 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.13 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.13 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.14 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.14 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.30%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.29%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Davie County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.12 Jan 1.11

2015 0.12 Feb 1.03

2020 0.13 Mar 1.09

2030 0.13 Apr 1.06

2040 0.13 May 1.03

2050 0.14 Jun 0.99

2060 0.14 Jul 0.91

Aug 0.91

Sep 0.89

Oct 0.91

Nov 0.97

Dec 1.11

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 399: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐59 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Biscoe Type Return

Facility Biscoe WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.18 0.21 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.25

2002 0.31 0.26 0.23 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.28 0.33 0.30 0.30 0.26

2003 0.23 0.30 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.34 0.39 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.34 0.34

2004 0.30 0.43 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.40 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.37

2005 0.39 0.46 0.45 0.34 0.24 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.27 0.16 0.24 0.30

2006 0.24 0.17 0.18 0.31 0.18 0.21 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.20

2007 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.18

2008 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.20

2009 0.19 0.16 0.29 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.24 0.29 0.19

2010 0.24 0.32 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.22

2011 0.17 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

2012 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.20

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 400: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐59

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Montgomery County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.21 Jan 1.07

2015 0.21 Feb 1.15

2020 0.21 Mar 1.25

2030 0.21 Apr 1.06

2040 0.22 May 0.98

2050 0.23 Jun 0.88

2060 0.23 Jul 0.83

Aug 0.93

Sep 0.95

Oct 0.90

Nov 0.96

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 401: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐60 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Boonville Type Return

Facility Boonville WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.46 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.13

2002 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.10

2003 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12

2004 0.09 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11

2005 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08

2006 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.06

2007 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.11

2008 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.14

2009 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.14

2010 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.17 0.14 0.09 0.11 0.12

2011 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11

2012 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.11

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 402: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐60

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.13 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Yadkin County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.11 Jan 0.90

2015 0.11 Feb 0.91

2020 0.12 Mar 1.04

2030 0.12 Apr 1.03

2040 0.12 May 1.07

2050 0.12 Jun 1.04

2060 0.13 Jul 0.93

Aug 0.85

Sep 1.09

Oct 1.07

Nov 0.99

Dec 1.09

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 403: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWT‐61a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Denton Type Withdrawal

Facility Denton WP Sub‐basin Tuckertown Reservoir

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.78 0.78 0.81 0.87 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.92 0.93 0.86 0.81 0.74 0.86

2002 1.25 1.24 1.31 1.37 1.42 1.59 1.49 1.42 1.40 1.39 1.33 1.35 1.38

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 1.23 1.30 1.19 1.23 1.47 1.62 1.60 1.66 1.42 1.29 1.18 1.19 1.36

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 1.15 1.24 1.14 1.19 1.43 1.67 1.52 1.41 1.30 1.23 1.22 1.27 1.31

2010 1.25 1.19 1.12 1.21 1.24 1.39 1.49 1.45 1.43 1.18 1.16 1.23 1.28

2011 1.24 1.15 1.03 1.16 1.24 1.36 1.42 1.30 1.21 1.17 1.06 1.02 1.20

2012 1.03 1.00 0.98 1.17 1.19 1.34 1.49 1.40 1.33 1.23 1.18 1.14 1.21

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 404: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWT‐61a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.24 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.25 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.32 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.35 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.38 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Davidson County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.23 Jan 0.93

2015 1.24 Feb 0.92

2020 1.25 Mar 0.86

2030 1.28 Apr 0.94

2040 1.32 May 1.03

2050 1.35 Jun 1.16

2060 1.38 Jul 1.18

Aug 1.14

Sep 1.05

Oct 0.96

Nov 0.91

Dec 0.92

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 405: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRT‐61b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Denton Type Return

Facility Denton WWTP Sub‐basin Tuckertown Reservoir

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.41 0.47 0.45 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.29 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.39 0.34 0.34

2002 0.53 0.43 0.48 0.34 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.34 0.43 0.43 0.48 0.39

2003 0.31 0.48 0.57 0.49 0.47 0.36 0.27 0.31 0.28 0.22 0.21 0.30 0.36

2004 0.27 0.44 0.31 0.25 0.19 0.33 0.26 0.29 0.39 0.26 0.36 0.36 0.31

2005 0.35 0.41 0.53 0.39 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.44 0.32

2006 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.26 0.34 0.23 0.27 0.33 0.32 0.53 0.43 0.34

2007 0.52 0.47 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.32 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.29 0.39 0.35

2008 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.52 0.38 0.28 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.36 0.51 0.39

2009 0.44 0.42 0.70 0.46 0.36 0.47 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.32 0.53 0.66 0.44

2010 0.55 0.65 0.53 0.36 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.35 0.34 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.40

2011 0.40 0.44 0.51 0.38 0.37 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.40 0.42 0.46 0.52 0.41

2012 0.47 0.46 0.49 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.40 0.40

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 406: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRT‐61b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.40 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.40 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.41 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.42 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.43 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.44 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Davidson County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.40 Jan 1.15

2015 0.40 Feb 1.20

2020 0.41 Mar 1.30

2030 0.42 Apr 1.03

2040 0.43 May 0.92

2050 0.44 Jun 0.90

2060 0.45 Jul 0.78

Aug 0.83

Sep 0.88

Oct 0.86

Nov 0.97

Dec 1.19

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 407: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐62 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Dobson Type Return

Facility Dobson WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.16 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.22 0.17

2002 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.21

2003 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.22

2004 0.19 0.26 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20

2005 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.19

2006 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.17

2007 0.24 0.19 0.21 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.15 0.17 0.18

2008 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.19

2009 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.23 0.19

2010 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.18

2011 0.13 0.16 0.23 0.21 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.17

2012 0.17 0.17 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 408: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐62

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.18 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.18 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.18 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.18 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.19 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.19 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.20 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Surry County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.18 Jan 1.07

2015 0.18 Feb 1.04

2020 0.18 Mar 1.15

2030 0.18 Apr 1.07

2040 0.19 May 1.04

2050 0.19 Jun 0.94

2060 0.20 Jul 0.88

Aug 0.92

Sep 0.97

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.96

Dec 1.02

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 409: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐63 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Elkin Type Withdrawal

Facility Elkin Municipal WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.39 1.35 1.35 1.43 1.45 1.43 1.44 1.43 1.46 1.44 1.42 1.50 1.42

2002 1.32 1.17 1.23 1.21 1.18 1.18 1.08 1.05 1.02 1.06 1.02 1.01 1.13

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.86 0.88 0.88 0.85 0.95 0.87 0.87 1.43 1.06 0.87 0.81 0.82 0.93

2008 0.84 0.87 0.83 0.81 0.87 0.97 0.86 0.92 0.83 0.83 0.85 0.90 0.87

2009 0.81 0.71 0.81 0.82 0.80 0.87 0.76 0.80 0.83 0.73 0.81 0.92 0.81

2010 0.77 0.74 0.75 0.72 0.78 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.83 0.74

2011 0.72 0.68 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.69 0.70 0.65 0.63 0.68 0.68

2012 0.65 0.65 0.67 0.64 0.68 0.69 0.74 0.72 0.70 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.69

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 410: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐63

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.70 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.71 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.72 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.73 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.75 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.77 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.79 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Surry County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.70 Jan 0.99

2015 0.71 Feb 0.96

2020 0.72 Mar 0.97

2030 0.73 Apr 0.96

2040 0.75 May 1.01

2050 0.77 Jun 1.03

2060 0.79 Jul 0.99

Aug 1.12

Sep 1.02

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.95

Dec 1.03

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 411: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐64 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Jonesville Type Withdrawal

Facility Jonesville WP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31

2002 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.33

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.37

2008 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.41 0.40 0.43 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.36 0.38

2009 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.36

2010 0.36 0.33 0.28 0.29 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.44 0.52 0.71 0.49 0.34 0.40

2011 0.37 0.36 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.30 0.29 0.41 0.52 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.36

2012 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.36 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.30 0.30

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 412: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐64

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.36 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.36 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.36 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.37 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.39 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.40 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Yadkin County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.36 Jan 0.95

2015 0.36 Feb 0.91

2020 0.36 Mar 0.92

2030 0.37 Apr 0.92

2040 0.38 May 0.98

2050 0.39 Jun 0.99

2060 0.40 Jul 0.98

Aug 1.10

Sep 1.15

Oct 1.14

Nov 1.03

Dec 0.93

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 413: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐65a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Mocksville Type Withdrawal

Facility Hugh A. Lagle WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.68 0.65 0.63 0.69 0.85 0.87 0.91 0.86 0.77 0.75 0.66 0.71 0.75

2002 0.72 0.74 0.72 0.80 0.86 0.88 0.81 0.78 0.71 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.75

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.87 0.84 0.83 0.80 0.92 0.89 0.92 1.05 0.98 0.90 0.91 0.88 0.90

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2010 0.87 0.80 0.77 0.85 0.88 0.95 0.96 0.90 0.87 0.89 0.82 0.90 0.87

2011 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.83 0.86 0.94 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.79 0.76 0.84

2012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 414: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐65a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.86 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.86 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.88 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.90 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.93 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.96 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.98 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.30%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.29%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Davie County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.86 Jan 0.98

2015 0.86 Feb 0.94

2020 0.88 Mar 0.92

2030 0.90 Apr 0.95

2040 0.93 May 1.02

2050 0.96 Jun 1.06

2060 0.98 Jul 1.07

Aug 1.09

Sep 1.03

Oct 0.99

Nov 0.96

Dec 0.97

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐2012 data not available, so 2011 was used as base year.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 415: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐65b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Mocksville Type Return

Facility Bear Creek WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.10 0.11 0.17 0.29 ND 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.18 0.17

2002 0.16 0.17 0.22 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.26 0.18

2003 0.22 0.27 0.30 0.28 ND 0.34 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.25

2004 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.27 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.20

2005 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.17 0.19 0.18 0.22 0.21

2006 0.21 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.17

2007 0.21 0.18 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.18

2008 0.20 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.21 0.18 ND ND ND 0.21

2009 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2010 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2011 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

Bear Creek WWTP was replaced with a pump station to Cooleemee WWTP (see entity sheet NWH‐28a) and is now inactive.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 416: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐65b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.30%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.29%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Davie County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 0.93

2015 ‐‐ Feb 0.99

2020 ‐‐ Mar 1.10

2030 ‐‐ Apr 1.07

2040 ‐‐ May 0.85

2050 ‐‐ Jun 1.01

2060 ‐‐ Jul 1.00

Aug 0.96

Sep 0.97

Oct 0.94

Nov 1.05

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 417: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐65c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Mocksville Type Return

Facility Dutchman Creek WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.35 0.36 0.46 0.48 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.40

2002 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.48 0.65 0.64 0.51

2003 0.47 0.61 0.73 0.65 ND 0.57 0.55 0.59 0.50 0.50 0.46 0.50 0.56

2004 0.46 0.54 0.52 0.55 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.68 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.54

2005 0.54 0.59 0.63 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.49 0.51 0.51 0.66 0.54

2006 0.67 0.56 0.52 0.53 0.49 0.51 0.49 0.52 0.56 0.52 0.62 0.55 0.55

2007 0.61 0.58 0.62 0.53 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.48 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.53

2008 0.53 0.58 0.58 0.65 0.52 0.49 0.49 0.56 0.53 0.47 0.44 0.54 0.53

2009 0.50 0.44 0.62 0.51 0.43 0.56 0.39 0.39 0.44 0.50 0.68 0.70 0.52

2010 0.61 0.71 0.54 0.45 0.42 0.45 0.65 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.44 0.48 0.51

2011 0.45 0.46 0.52 0.44 0.47 0.41 0.40 0.33 0.39 0.36 0.43 0.43 0.42

2012 0.40 0.37 0.40 0.34 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.33 0.32 ND 0.35

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 418: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐65c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.43 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.43 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.44 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.47 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.48 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.49 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.30%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.29%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Davie County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.43 Jan 1.09

2015 0.43 Feb 1.10

2020 0.44 Mar 1.14

2030 0.45 Apr 1.02

2040 0.47 May 0.96

2050 0.48 Jun 0.97

2060 0.49 Jul 0.96

Aug 0.88

Sep 0.92

Oct 0.93

Nov 0.98

Dec 1.12

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 419: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐66 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Mooresville Type Return

Facility Rocky River WWTP (Town of Mooresville) Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.60 2.96 3.07 3.47 3.11 3.19 3.24 3.10 3.02 2.95 2.56 2.41 2.97

2002 2.32 2.31 2.51 2.61 2.58 2.57 2.49 2.89 2.64 2.34 2.41 2.59 2.52

2003 2.33 2.61 2.87 3.15 3.25 2.92 2.46 2.83 2.64 2.39 2.34 2.44 2.69

2004 2.40 2.68 2.51 2.67 2.58 2.56 2.54 2.59 3.01 2.57 2.69 2.86 2.64

2005 2.70 2.74 2.81 2.64 2.52 2.53 2.68 2.67 2.54 2.87 2.67 2.98 2.70

2006 3.01 2.82 2.76 3.03 3.57 2.94 2.74 3.03 2.93 2.87 3.17 2.84 2.98

2007 3.26 2.88 3.14 3.01 2.87 2.90 2.75 2.73 2.69 2.84 2.64 2.73 2.87

2008 2.92 2.88 2.96 3.06 2.74 2.82 2.97 3.10 3.07 3.01 2.97 3.18 2.97

2009 2.97 2.96 3.51 3.23 3.17 3.19 3.17 3.09 3.04 3.10 3.66 3.62 3.23

2010 3.49 4.19 3.57 3.49 3.55 3.61 3.58 3.72 3.23 3.03 2.89 2.98 3.44

2011 3.11 3.20 3.40 3.32 3.27 3.28 3.33 3.18 3.51 3.22 3.54 3.28 3.30

2012 3.30 3.27 3.43 3.34 3.76 3.58 3.52 3.46 3.39 3.31 3.36 3.34 3.42

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 420: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐66

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.39 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.51 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.73 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.63 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.16 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.76 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.21%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.09%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Iredell County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 3.39 Jan 0.99

2015 3.51 Feb 1.01

2020 3.73 Mar 1.04

2030 4.16 Apr 1.01

2040 4.63 May 1.01

2050 5.16 Jun 1.01

2060 5.76 Jul 1.00

Aug 1.00

Sep 0.98

Oct 0.96

Nov 0.99

Dec 0.99

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 421: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐67 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Mount Gilead Type Return

Facility Mount Gilead WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.60 0.66 0.59 0.50 0.28 0.24 0.29 0.19 0.15 0.26 0.54 0.67 0.41

2002 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.48 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.36 0.52 0.56 0.39

2003 0.51 0.66 0.87 0.68 0.52 0.72 0.50 0.58 0.26 0.25 0.19 0.31 0.50

2004 0.23 0.38 0.49 0.48 0.33 0.16 0.13 0.22 0.39 0.30 0.22 0.30 0.30

2005 0.32 0.54 0.87 0.94 0.53 0.42 0.30 0.17 0.09 0.19 0.13 0.50 0.41

2006 0.63 0.58 0.49 0.40 0.25 0.35 0.24 0.13 0.20 0.27 0.35 0.38 0.35

2007 0.64 0.75 0.73 0.56 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.13 0.24 0.19 0.15 0.36

2008 0.25 0.48 0.52 0.46 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.12 0.16 0.26

2009 0.16 0.13 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.14 0.34 0.13

2010 0.32 0.46 0.32 0.17 0.15 0.22 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.21 0.17

2011 0.25 0.25 0.33 0.29 0.28 0.22 0.21 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.31 0.32 0.26

2012 0.39 0.32 0.29 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.21

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 422: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐67

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.24 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Montgomery County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.21 Jan 1.46

2015 0.21 Feb 1.73

2020 0.22 Mar 1.72

2030 0.22 Apr 1.35

2040 0.23 May 0.88

2050 0.23 Jun 0.73

2060 0.24 Jul 0.66

Aug 0.63

Sep 0.60

Oct 0.65

Nov 0.66

Dec 0.98

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 423: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐68a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of North Wilkesboro Type Withdrawal

Facility North Wilkesboro WP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 2.75 2.67 2.65 2.75 2.88 2.88 3.25 3.28 3.19 3.08 2.84 2.80 2.92

2002 2.55 2.55 2.53 2.67 2.68 3.09 2.87 2.97 2.77 2.58 2.40 2.46 2.68

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 2.75 2.80 2.81 3.05 3.08 3.09 2.99 3.35 3.20 3.02 2.82 2.76 2.98

2008 2.82 2.50 2.37 2.41 2.52 2.98 2.86 2.63 2.52 2.53 2.55 2.34 2.59

2009 2.46 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.42 2.58 2.58 2.59 2.49 2.43 2.28 2.33 2.43

2010 2.50 2.36 2.47 2.34 2.54 2.75 2.82 2.68 2.58 2.56 2.32 2.48 2.53

2011 2.42 2.25 2.39 2.41 2.59 2.81 2.93 2.89 2.50 2.74 2.44 2.48 2.57

2012 2.40 2.46 2.45 2.53 2.70 2.81 2.97 2.90 2.80 2.65 2.77 2.61 2.67

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 424: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐68a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.59 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.61 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Wilkes County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.59 Jan 0.97

2015 2.61 Feb 0.93

2020 ‐‐ Mar 0.94

2030 ‐‐ Apr 0.96

2040 ‐‐ May 1.00

2050 ‐‐ Jun 1.08

2060 ‐‐ Jul 1.09

Aug 1.08

Sep 1.02

Oct 1.01

Nov 0.96

Dec 0.95

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Beginning in 2020, the Wilkes County WTP will come online and replace this facility. See entity sheet

NWH‐89 for details.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 425: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐68b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of North Wilkesboro Type Return

Facility Thurman Street WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.96 0.94 0.98 1.01 0.86 0.91 0.87 0.89 0.95 0.73 0.65 0.70 0.87

2002 0.74 0.71 0.75 0.72 0.74 0.74 0.66 0.85 0.92 0.96 0.82 0.72 0.78

2003 0.71 0.88 0.98 1.04 0.80 0.97 0.84 0.85 0.76 0.70 0.74 0.84 0.84

2004 0.67 0.85 0.72 0.76 0.68 0.94 0.76 0.69 0.94 0.74 0.82 0.80 0.78

2005 0.73 0.73 0.85 0.82 0.73 0.81 0.70 0.68 0.61 0.68 0.61 0.57 0.71

2006 0.62 0.54 0.60 0.67 0.66 0.86 0.69 0.75 0.74 0.62 0.73 0.76 0.69

2007 0.81 0.69 0.82 0.75 0.66 0.67 0.63 0.59 0.63 0.61 0.43 0.66 0.66

2008 0.78 0.83 0.74 0.65 0.56 0.51 0.60 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.54 0.57 0.63

2009 0.78 0.67 0.83 0.76 0.89 0.84 0.67 0.66 0.73 0.68 0.84 0.93 0.77

2010 0.73 0.89 0.75 0.65 0.88 0.71 0.71 0.79 0.74 0.63 0.68 0.69 0.74

2011 0.61 0.67 0.96 0.72 0.82 0.73 0.64 0.78 0.72 0.70 0.78 0.92 0.76

2012 0.99 0.89 0.94 1.00 1.09 0.90 0.89 0.86 0.92 0.94 0.64 0.69 0.90

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 426: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐68b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.80 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.80 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.81 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.83 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.85 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.87 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.90 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Wilkes County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.80 Jan 1.06

2015 0.80 Feb 1.04

2020 0.81 Mar 1.13

2030 0.83 Apr 1.02

2040 0.85 May 1.10

2050 0.87 Jun 0.98

2060 0.90 Jul 0.93

Aug 0.96

Sep 0.98

Oct 0.93

Nov 0.88

Dec 1.00

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 427: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐69a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Norwood Type Withdrawal

Facility Norwood WTP Sub‐basin Lake Tillery

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.37 0.36 0.41 0.40 0.44 0.47 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.43

2002 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.39 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.37

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.40 0.46 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.33 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.44 0.39 0.40 0.39

2008 0.47 0.39 0.41 0.40 0.44 0.50 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.44

2009 0.40 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.40 0.42 0.50 0.43

2010 0.51 0.48 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.57 0.49 0.49 0.55 0.43 0.40 0.44 0.48

2011 0.47 0.44 0.40 0.41 0.46 0.47 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.69 0.40 0.45 0.46

2012 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.44 0.41 0.51 0.51 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.37 0.40

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 428: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWL‐69a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.48 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.50 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.52 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.54 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.34%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.39%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Stanly County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.45 Jan 1.00

2015 0.45 Feb 0.97

2020 0.46 Mar 0.93

2030 0.48 Apr 0.93

2040 0.50 May 1.02

2050 0.52 Jun 1.06

2060 0.54 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.03

Sep 1.02

Oct 1.06

Nov 0.91

Dec 0.99

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 429: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐69b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Norwood Type Return

Facility Norwood WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.56 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.51 0.40 0.44 0.41 0.42 0.44 0.61 0.65 0.51

2002 0.46 0.45 0.50 0.42 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.32 0.42 0.43 0.46 0.39

2003 0.29 0.61 0.71 0.65 0.64 0.71 0.48 0.69 0.38 0.30 0.25 0.27 0.50

2004 0.20 0.53 0.47 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.32 0.35 0.50 0.28 0.21 0.21 0.35

2005 0.26 0.33 0.47 0.41 0.25 0.39 0.37 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.43 0.34

2006 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.21 0.33 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.51 0.35 0.30

2007 0.44 0.41 0.38 0.37 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.22 0.29

2008 0.23 0.28 0.36 0.37 0.24 0.25 0.33 0.36 0.39 0.28 0.25 0.38 0.31

2009 0.33 0.31 0.57 0.39 0.34 0.31 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.29 0.42 0.30

2010 0.44 0.49 0.34 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.22

2011 0.13 0.22 0.32 0.23 0.26 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.20

2012 0.25 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.14 0.10 0.23 0.18

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 430: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐69b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.20 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.20 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.22 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.23 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.24 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.34%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.39%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Stanly County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.20 Jan 1.20

2015 0.20 Feb 1.26

2020 0.21 Mar 1.46

2030 0.22 Apr 1.12

2040 0.22 May 0.95

2050 0.23 Jun 0.89

2060 0.24 Jul 0.91

Aug 0.91

Sep 0.88

Oct 0.74

Nov 0.69

Dec 0.99

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 431: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐70a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Pilot Mountain Type Withdrawal

Facility Pilot Mountain WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.91 0.85 0.92 1.07 1.11 1.10 1.17 1.07 0.92 0.79 0.57 0.50 0.92

2002 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.51 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.39 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.40

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.20 0.26

2008 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20

2009 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21

2010 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.23

2011 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

2012 0.25 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.28 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.26

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 432: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐70a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.25 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.25 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.25 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.26 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.28 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Surry County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.25 Jan 0.96

2015 0.25 Feb 0.98

2020 0.25 Mar 0.96

2030 0.26 Apr 0.97

2040 0.27 May 1.00

2050 0.27 Jun 1.05

2060 0.28 Jul 1.05

Aug 1.10

Sep 1.04

Oct 1.00

Nov 0.95

Dec 0.94

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 433: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐70b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Pilot Mountain Type Return

Facility Pilot Mountain WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.21

2002 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.23 0.22 0.35 0.18 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.22

2003 0.19 0.33 0.18 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.17

2004 0.15 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15

2005 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.05 0.06 0.10

2006 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.07

2007 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.08

2008 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.07

2009 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.07

2010 0.08 0.16 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.14

2011 0.19 0.13 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.13 0.15

2012 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.20 0.14 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.15

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 434: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐70b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.14 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.15 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.15 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.15 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.16 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.16 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.16 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: Not Used

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: Not Used

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.14 Jan 1.02

2015 0.15 Feb 1.01

2020 0.15 Mar 0.87

2030 0.15 Apr 1.00

2040 0.16 May 0.91

2050 0.16 Jun 1.16

2060 0.16 Jul 1.01

Aug 0.99

Sep 1.04

Oct 0.94

Nov 1.04

Dec 1.02

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Projections based on average percentage of WTP return to use from 2010‐2012 

multiplied times the water use projections

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 435: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐70c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Pilot Mountain Type Return

Facility Pilot Mountain WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.86 0.80 0.89 1.06 0.97 0.91 0.93 0.90 0.74 0.70 0.63 0.56 0.83

2002 0.37 0.40 0.46 0.40 0.35 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.38 0.36

2003 0.34 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.35

2004 0.34 0.39 0.31 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.26

2005 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.20

2006 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23

2007 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.20 0.22

2008 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.17

2009 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.17 0.16

2010 0.17 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.17

2011 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.31 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.23

2012 0.15 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 436: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐70c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.19 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.19 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.19 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.20 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.20 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.21 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Surry County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.19 Jan 1.00

2015 0.19 Feb 1.01

2020 0.19 Mar 1.08

2030 0.20 Apr 1.02

2040 0.20 May 1.03

2050 0.21 Jun 1.04

2060 0.21 Jul 1.04

Aug 1.07

Sep 1.00

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.86

Dec 0.91

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 437: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐71 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Troy Type Return

Facility Troy WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.72 0.78 0.65 0.70 0.57 0.52 0.61 0.64 0.61 0.54 0.61 0.63 0.63

2002 0.74 0.69 0.62 0.48 0.46 0.44 0.45 0.49 0.61 0.81 0.84 0.58 0.60

2003 0.78 0.56 0.66 0.66 0.82 0.70 0.54 0.61 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.48 0.60

2004 0.46 0.56 0.49 0.38 0.42 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.56 0.45 0.41 0.43 0.44

2005 0.47 0.47 0.58 0.53 0.42 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.48 0.46

2006 0.43 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.35 0.49 0.33 0.39 0.48 0.45 0.68 0.58 0.45

2007 0.74 0.51 0.54 0.53 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.38 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.45 0.46

2008 0.46 0.45 0.50 0.48 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.32 0.39 0.32 0.34 0.41 0.38

2009 0.43 0.38 0.61 0.45 0.42 0.34 0.32 0.33 0.30 0.32 0.48 0.53 0.41

2010 0.53 0.65 0.51 0.37 0.38 0.44 0.31 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.33 0.35 0.41

2011 0.36 0.41 0.49 0.38 0.38 0.33 0.33 0.42 0.51 0.51 0.56 0.52 0.43

2012 0.59 0.58 0.54 0.46 0.44 0.40 0.47 0.51 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.53 0.49

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 438: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐71

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.47 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.48 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.49 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.50 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Montgomery County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.45 Jan 1.21

2015 0.45 Feb 1.15

2020 0.46 Mar 1.23

2030 0.47 Apr 1.03

2040 0.48 May 0.93

2050 0.49 Jun 0.85

2060 0.50 Jul 0.81

Aug 0.90

Sep 0.92

Oct 0.92

Nov 0.98

Dec 1.08

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 439: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐72a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Wilkesboro Type Return

Facility Cub Creek WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.13 3.16 3.40 3.69 3.88 3.94 3.28 2.83 2.65 2.80 2.53 2.67 3.16

2002 3.49 3.50 3.07 3.14 3.86 3.31 3.15 3.22 3.27 3.53 3.60 3.77 3.41

2003 3.71 3.92 3.56 3.74 3.45 3.79 3.40 3.57 3.30 3.54 3.54 3.53 3.58

2004 2.81 2.94 2.94 2.93 3.28 3.82 3.40 3.40 3.81 3.14 3.25 3.15 3.24

2005 3.32 3.35 3.47 2.74 3.00 3.09 3.36 3.56 2.95 3.48 3.27 3.24 3.24

2006 3.36 3.11 2.96 3.41 3.18 3.26 3.52 3.50 3.71 3.93 3.94 3.14 3.42

2007 3.40 3.03 3.25 3.23 3.38 3.44 3.09 3.11 2.47 3.11 3.00 3.12 3.14

2008 3.20 3.18 2.38 2.82 2.52 2.68 2.70 3.06 2.59 2.46 2.21 2.49 2.69

2009 3.19 2.74 2.89 2.95 3.66 3.13 2.96 2.92 3.00 2.91 3.55 3.66 3.13

2010 3.82 3.76 4.06 3.91 3.39 3.50 2.89 3.06 3.48 3.38 2.96 3.69 3.49

2011 3.33 3.63 4.00 3.68 3.93 3.50 3.55 3.57 3.23 3.61 3.25 3.41 3.56

2012 3.92 3.48 3.17 3.36 4.31 4.30 3.68 3.66 3.71 3.66 3.53 3.67 3.71

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 440: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐72a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.58 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.61 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.66 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.75 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.84 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.04 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Wilkes County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 3.58 Jan 1.06

2015 3.61 Feb 1.01

2020 3.66 Mar 1.00

2030 3.75 Apr 1.01

2040 3.84 May 1.07

2050 3.94 Jun 1.04

2060 4.04 Jul 0.96

Aug 0.98

Sep 0.94

Oct 0.97

Nov 0.94

Dec 1.02

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 441: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐72b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Wilkesboro Type Withdrawal

Facility Wilkesboro WFP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.60 3.50 3.60 3.80 4.00 3.90 3.90 4.10 4.10 4.00 3.50 3.60 3.80

2002 4.50 4.46 4.17 4.43 4.76 4.92 5.08 5.04 4.68 4.63 4.42 4.58 4.64

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 4.33 4.43 4.34 4.43 5.07 4.83 4.54 4.90 4.54 4.68 4.30 4.04 4.54

2008 4.20 4.35 4.35 4.43 4.38 4.76 4.59 4.53 4.35 4.42 4.05 4.21 4.38

2009 4.46 3.89 3.92 4.14 4.28 4.47 4.61 4.55 4.44 4.47 4.36 4.38 4.33

2010 4.72 4.63 4.40 4.10 4.14 4.35 4.25 4.01 4.24 3.88 3.25 3.91 4.15

2011 4.20 3.91 3.78 3.70 3.96 4.31 4.18 4.49 4.02 4.52 3.77 3.53 4.03

2012 4.14 3.87 3.61 3.51 4.40 4.56 4.46 4.42 4.14 4.34 4.02 3.92 4.12

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 442: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐72b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.10 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.13 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Wilkes County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 4.10 Jan 1.02

2015 4.13 Feb 0.98

2020 ‐‐ Mar 0.95

2030 ‐‐ Apr 0.95

2040 ‐‐ May 1.03

2050 ‐‐ Jun 1.07

2060 ‐‐ Jul 1.04

Aug 1.05

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.03

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.94

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Beginning in 2020, the Wilkes County WTP will come online and replace this facility. See entity sheet

NWH‐89 for details.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 443: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐73a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Yadkinville Type Withdrawal

Facility Yadkinville WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.04 0.99 0.90 0.93 1.05 1.08 1.21 1.24 1.18 1.05 0.93 0.85 1.04

2002 0.90 0.87 0.80 0.88 0.90 1.05 1.09 1.06 0.93 0.83 0.94 0.88 0.93

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.86 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.90 0.98 1.00 1.12 1.03 0.96 0.86 0.85 0.92

2008 0.86 0.92 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.98 1.00 1.04 0.96 0.93 0.77 0.75 0.90

2009 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.62 0.75 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.69

2010 0.78 0.81 0.77 0.79 0.91 0.93 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.76 0.86

2011 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.82 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.84 0.78 0.79 0.85

2012 0.79 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.83 0.91 0.96 0.93 0.89 0.82 0.78 0.68 0.81

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 444: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐73a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.84 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.85 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.86 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.88 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.90 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.93 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.95 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Yadkin County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.84 Jan 0.93

2015 0.85 Feb 0.91

2020 0.86 Mar 0.91

2030 0.88 Apr 0.92

2040 0.90 May 0.99

2050 0.93 Jun 1.10

2060 0.95 Jul 1.14

Aug 1.15

Sep 1.10

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.89

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 445: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐73b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Yadkinville Type Return

Facility Yadkinville WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.77 0.83 0.86 0.83 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.68 0.67 0.65 0.59 0.57 0.73

2002 0.60 0.54 0.57 0.54 0.60 0.63 0.67 0.63 0.61 0.60 0.66 0.70 0.61

2003 0.60 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.73 0.90 0.74 0.70 0.67 0.58 0.59 0.61 0.69

2004 0.56 0.62 0.61 0.67 0.78 0.69 0.66 0.66 0.84 0.68 0.70 0.71 0.68

2005 0.69 0.68 0.78 0.79 0.65 0.68 0.78 0.78 0.71 0.77 0.69 0.73 0.73

2006 0.77 0.71 0.73 0.65 0.66 0.74 0.69 0.69 0.71 0.66 0.73 0.71 0.70

2007 0.84 0.68 0.72 0.67 0.62 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.77 0.65 0.71 0.71

2008 0.64 0.68 0.67 0.74 0.69 0.67 0.65 0.72 0.79 0.69 0.59 0.68 0.68

2009 0.65 0.60 0.73 0.69 0.69 0.79 0.66 0.70 0.75 0.70 0.83 0.87 0.72

2010 0.89 0.94 0.87 0.76 0.73 0.69 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.75 0.69 0.73 0.77

2011 0.68 0.70 0.81 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.78 0.86 0.84 0.79

2012 0.71 0.66 0.69 0.64 0.76 0.71 0.73 0.74 0.81 0.69 0.64 0.66 0.71

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 446: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐73b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.75 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.76 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.77 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.79 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.81 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.83 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.85 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Yadkin County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.75 Jan 1.01

2015 0.76 Feb 0.97

2020 0.77 Mar 1.02

2030 0.79 Apr 0.97

2040 0.81 May 0.98

2050 0.83 Jun 1.00

2060 0.85 Jul 0.98

Aug 1.01

Sep 1.06

Oct 1.00

Nov 0.97

Dec 1.02

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 447: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Union County Public Works Type Return

Facility Crooked Creek WWTP #2 Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.14 1.37 1.33 1.17 1.06 0.98 1.02 0.88 0.94 1.10 1.26 1.42 1.14

2002 1.43 1.24 1.34 1.06 0.99 0.81 0.87 0.88 1.15 1.26 1.44 1.64 1.18

2003 1.16 1.66 1.69 1.79 1.55 1.38 1.40 1.27 0.93 0.98 0.92 1.03 1.31

2004 0.98 1.23 1.00 0.84 0.69 0.86 0.82 0.91 1.19 0.86 0.92 0.97 0.94

2005 0.99 1.23 1.39 1.24 0.93 1.13 1.11 1.19 1.12 1.37 1.21 1.64 1.21

2006 1.47 1.47 1.32 1.26 1.30 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.55 1.51 1.50 1.22 1.41

2007 1.42 1.29 1.39 1.24 1.08 1.26 1.32 1.28 1.31 1.36 1.19 1.32 1.29

2008 1.03 1.19 1.19 1.16 1.03 0.91 1.03 1.09 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.11 1.08

2009 1.11 0.99 1.37 1.02 0.99 1.02 0.84 0.90 0.81 0.84 1.08 1.33 1.03

2010 1.18 1.37 1.12 0.85 0.91 1.09 0.98 0.91 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.87 0.97

2011 0.88 0.99 1.11 0.98 0.91 0.96 0.98 1.05 0.99 1.04 1.00 1.07 1.00

2012 1.14 1.04 1.14 1.11 1.15 0.97 1.04 1.08 1.04 0.97 0.89 1.01 1.05

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 448: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 1.05

2015 ‐‐ Feb 1.07

2020 ‐‐ Mar 1.14

2030 ‐‐ Apr 0.99

2040 ‐‐ May 0.94

2050 ‐‐ Jun 0.97

2060 ‐‐ Jul 0.96

Aug 0.98

Sep 0.94

Oct 0.95

Nov 0.94

Dec 1.05

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

See Union County Public Works projections in other tables (values not displayed on this sheet).

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 449: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Union County Public Works Type Return

Facility Hunley Creek WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.10

2002 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.17

2003 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.20

2004 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.19

2005 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.24 0.21

2006 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.22 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.21

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2010 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2011 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐WWTP was taken out of service May 10, 2006 and remains inactive (per Union County WW System Performance Summary)

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 450: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 0.98

2015 ‐‐ Feb 1.04

2020 ‐‐ Mar 1.08

2030 ‐‐ Apr 1.06

2040 ‐‐ May 0.96

2050 ‐‐ Jun 0.95

2060 ‐‐ Jul 0.94

Aug 0.95

Sep 0.96

Oct 0.97

Nov 1.01

Dec 1.10

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐No projected flows because plant is permanently closed.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 451: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Union County Public Works Type Return

Facility Grassy Branch WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2003 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2004 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

2006 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01

2007 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

2008 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

2009 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02

2010 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03

2011 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04

2012 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 452: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.03 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.03 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.04 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.04 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.05 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.06 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.07 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.03 Jan 1.14

2015 0.03 Feb 1.21

2020 0.04 Mar 1.39

2030 0.04 Apr 1.01

2040 0.05 May 0.99

2050 0.06 Jun 0.78

2060 0.07 Jul 0.69

Aug 0.88

Sep 1.01

Oct 0.92

Nov 0.87

Dec 1.12

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 453: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76d Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Union County Public Works Type Return

Facility Tallwood Estates WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

2002 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

2003 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

2004 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

2005 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02

2006 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03

2007 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03

2008 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03

2009 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03

2010 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03

2011 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

2012 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 454: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐76d

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.03 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.03 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.04 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.04 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.05 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.06 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.07 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.83%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.74%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Union County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.03 Jan 1.15

2015 0.03 Feb 1.25

2020 0.04 Mar 1.32

2030 0.04 Apr 1.04

2040 0.05 May 0.94

2050 0.06 Jun 0.93

2060 0.07 Jul 0.90

Aug 0.87

Sep 0.82

Oct 0.83

Nov 0.86

Dec 1.10

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 455: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐77a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Type Withdrawal

Facility Mt. Pleasant WTF Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.32 0.33 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.27

2002 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.26

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.25

2008 0.24 0.26 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23

2009 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.25

2010 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29

2011 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.28

2012 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.24

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 456: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐77a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.28 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.31 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.35 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.40 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.46 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.53 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.56%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.37%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Cabarrus County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.27 Jan 0.97

2015 0.28 Feb 0.94

2020 0.31 Mar 0.95

2030 0.35 Apr 0.97

2040 0.40 May 1.03

2050 0.46 Jun 1.06

2060 0.53 Jul 1.03

Aug 1.07

Sep 1.04

Oct 0.99

Nov 0.96

Dec 0.97

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 457: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐77c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County Type Return

Facility Rocky River WWTP (WSACC) Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 16.53 17.73 17.15 18.26 16.92 15.85 18.37 16.20 17.09 17.03 16.74 17.11 17.08

2002 14.42 14.00 15.08 14.43 14.40 13.95 14.02 13.89 13.43 14.82 15.63 16.57 14.56

2003 15.00 17.13 20.15 22.28 21.38 18.61 15.10 14.08 12.37 11.79 11.63 12.16 15.96

2004 11.64 13.57 13.13 12.58 12.58 12.61 12.75 12.57 15.83 12.62 13.26 13.31 13.03

2005 12.89 13.58 15.15 14.24 12.58 13.18 13.58 12.54 11.97 13.09 12.52 15.13 13.37

2006 14.16 13.01 13.20 13.16 12.80 13.30 12.83 15.04 15.91 14.23 17.57 14.87 14.17

2007 16.56 15.66 16.96 15.56 14.62 14.10 14.11 14.20 14.37 14.27 12.76 13.55 14.72

2008 13.69 14.49 15.58 15.40 13.88 12.97 13.36 17.04 14.67 13.03 12.58 14.67 14.28

2009 14.65 13.39 18.70 15.30 14.19 14.51 14.08 13.21 12.90 12.94 15.26 16.80 14.67

2010 17.67 18.41 15.80 14.00 13.95 13.93 13.17 14.05 13.69 13.27 11.73 13.63 14.42

2011 12.34 14.21 14.71 14.89 14.65 14.63 13.15 13.19 14.00 13.44 14.76 16.37 14.19

2012 16.65 16.56 14.65 13.43 14.75 14.00 13.14 13.38 13.08 12.70 12.35 12.76 13.95

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 458: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐77c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 14.19 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.22 14.86 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12.63 16.06 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12.95 18.40 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 13.95 21.08 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 18.72 24.15 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 21.55 27.66 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.56%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.37%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Cabarrus County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 14.19 Jan 1.06

2015 14.86 Feb 1.08

2020 16.06 Mar 1.12

2030 18.40 Apr 1.03

2040 21.08 May 1.00

2050 24.15 Jun 0.98

2060 27.66 Jul 0.94

Aug 0.99

Sep 0.96

Oct 0.92

Nov 0.92

Dec 1.02

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Wholesale projections shown above assume that 85% of Rocky River subbasin water flows required by

Catawba IBT agreement will become wastewater treated at Rocky River WWTP.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 459: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐81 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc Type Return

Facility Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.97 0.80 0.84 0.91 0.84 0.89 0.91 0.86 0.90 0.90

2002 0.80 0.72 0.77 0.69 0.66 0.59 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.75 0.75 0.83 0.71

2003 0.78 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.69 0.82 0.78 0.66 0.62 0.58 0.62 0.71 0.75

2004 0.61 0.75 0.62 0.61 0.53 0.55 0.53 0.56 0.68 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.61

2005 0.55 0.55 0.73 0.61 0.53 0.53 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.56 0.54 0.63 0.57

2006 0.64 0.57 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.55 0.49 0.55 0.49 0.62 0.59 0.56

2007 0.66 0.56 0.61 0.51 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.70 0.52 0.41 0.53 0.67 0.55

2008 0.58 0.63 0.58 0.65 0.54 0.55 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.53 0.51 0.68 0.57

2009 0.66 0.59 0.76 0.66 0.81 0.69 0.54 0.55 0.59 0.54 0.68 0.73 0.65

2010 0.65 0.67 0.57 0.48 0.48 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.38 0.40 0.57 0.61 0.50

2011 0.55 0.61 0.82 0.70 0.65 0.59 0.62 0.60 0.67 0.62 0.67 0.76 0.66

2012 0.66 0.64 0.77 0.66 0.74 0.61 0.70 0.57 0.66 0.60 0.55 0.66 0.65

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 460: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐81

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.60 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.61 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.62 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.63 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.65 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.66 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.68 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR values

for Surry, Wilkes, and Yadkin Counties. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the

service area compared to the overall county‐average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.60 Jan 1.05

2015 0.61 Feb 1.03

2020 0.62 Mar 1.15

2030 0.63 Apr 1.02

2040 0.65 May 1.03

2050 0.66 Jun 0.94

2060 0.68 Jul 0.91

Aug 0.94

Sep 0.94

Oct 0.86

Nov 0.98

Dec 1.14

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 461: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐84 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Charlotte Type Return

Facility Cabarrus Woods WWTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.24 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.32 0.26

2002 0.38 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.46 0.44 0.36 0.37

2003 0.33 0.39 0.31 0.43 0.42 0.36 0.29 0.29 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.34

2004 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29

2005 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.30

2006 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.23 0.29

2007 0.25 0.46 0.67 0.73 0.50 0.53 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.51

2008 0.40 0.46 0.94 0.57 0.52 0.52 0.46 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.41 0.45

2009 0.23 0.34 0.63 0.54 0.52 0.53 0.38 0.36 0.42 0.51 0.65 0.47 0.47

2010 0.44 0.62 0.51 0.50 0.43 0.38 0.34 0.39 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.40 0.42

2011 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.44 0.46 0.41 0.40 0.42 0.34 0.37 0.51 0.51 0.43

2012 0.45 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.45

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 462: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐84

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.43 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.49 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.56 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.64 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.74 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.84 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 1.56%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 1.37%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Cabarrus County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.43 Jan 0.80

2015 0.45 Feb 1.03

2020 0.49 Mar 1.42

2030 0.56 Apr 1.23

2040 0.64 May 1.07

2050 0.74 Jun 1.05

2060 0.84 Jul 0.91

Aug 0.88

Sep 0.82

Oct 0.87

Nov 1.01

Dec 1.00

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐2012 data forecasted based on 2011 data and county AGR

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 463: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐86 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Cleveland Type Return

Facility Cleveland WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.13

2002 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.12

2003 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.12

2004 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.13

2005 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.14

2006 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.13

2007 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.11 0.12

2008 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.12

2009 0.12 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10

2010 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.10

2011 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.11

2012 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.11

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 464: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐86

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.11 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.12 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.34%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.32%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Applied AGR values shown above are based on Projected AGR values for Rowan County.

‐‐

‐‐

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.11 Jan 0.87

2015 0.11 Feb 0.76

2020 0.11 Mar 0.92

2030 0.11 Apr 0.90

2040 0.12 May 0.99

2050 0.12 Jun 1.18

2060 0.12 Jul 1.17

Aug 1.28

Sep 1.19

Oct 0.96

Nov 0.88

Dec 0.90

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 465: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐87 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Energy United Water Type Withdrawal

Facility Energy United Water WTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.82 0.70 0.73 0.79 0.78 0.85 0.97 0.84 1.03 0.82 0.72 0.71 0.81

2002 1.38 1.41 1.38 1.51 1.52 1.65 1.38 0.83 1.61 1.68 1.73 1.59 1.47

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 1.02 0.90 1.04 1.22 1.55 1.48 1.50 1.71 1.57 1.52 1.29 1.37 1.35

2008 1.41 1.42 1.64 1.70 1.85 2.04 1.94 1.95 1.88 1.79 1.76 1.79 1.77

2009 1.61 1.49 1.49 1.54 1.60 1.72 1.84 1.75 1.65 1.51 1.47 1.42 1.59

2010 1.53 1.46 1.50 1.57 1.71 1.79 1.86 1.67 1.71 1.61 1.55 1.59 1.63

2011 1.64 1.47 1.51 1.57 1.72 1.84 1.91 1.90 1.75 1.67 1.57 1.56 1.68

2012 1.60 1.57 1.56 1.61 1.76 1.96 1.81 1.79 1.70 1.67 1.50 1.59 1.68

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 466: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐87

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.66 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.67 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.69 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.74 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.78 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.83 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.87 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Alexander County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.66 Jan 0.91

2015 1.67 Feb 0.86

2020 1.69 Mar 0.90

2030 1.74 Apr 0.95

2040 1.78 May 1.05

2050 1.83 Jun 1.12

2060 1.87 Jul 1.12

Aug 1.11

Sep 1.06

Oct 1.01

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.96

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 467: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐88 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Richmond County Type Withdrawal

Facility Richmond County WTP Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 3.70 3.60 3.19 3.58 3.70 4.31 4.05 4.06 4.08 3.58 3.36 2.64 3.65

2002 2.55 2.27 1.96 2.77 3.11 4.41 3.71 4.24 4.23 2.96 3.86 2.52 3.22

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 3.29 3.10 2.65 3.32 3.31 4.38 4.27 4.71 5.48 5.05 4.03 3.22 3.90

2008 2.60 2.50 2.00 2.80 2.90 3.80 3.70 4.20 4.80 4.40 3.50 2.60 3.32

2009 3.00 2.30 2.10 2.00 2.40 3.30 3.50 3.70 3.40 2.60 2.50 2.00 2.74

2010 2.60 2.70 2.10 3.20 2.40 3.00 3.20 4.20 4.10 3.40 2.60 2.20 2.97

2011 3.63 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.80 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.00 3.30 2.40 3.73

2012 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 468: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐88

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.35 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.38 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.42 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.51 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.60 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.69 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.78 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Richmond County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 3.35 Jan 0.91

2015 3.38 Feb 0.82

2020 3.42 Mar 0.72

2030 3.51 Apr 0.88

2040 3.60 May 0.89

2050 3.69 Jun 1.14

2060 3.78 Jul 1.15

Aug 1.28

Sep 1.34

Oct 1.17

Nov 0.96

Dec 0.75

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 469: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

z NRD‐88b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Richmond County Type Return

Facility Richmond County WTP Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.10

2002 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.19 0.21 0.30 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.20 0.10 0.08 0.20

2003 0.32 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.19 0.14 0.25 0.21 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.13 0.17

2004 0.18 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.32 0.34 0.28 0.21 0.29 0.21

2005 0.28 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.36 0.33 0.30 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.28

2006 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.23 0.20 0.19 ND 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.22 0.25

2007 0.33 0.39 0.28 0.32 0.30 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.26

2008 0.10 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.36 0.37 0.45 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.27

2009 0.28 0.26 0.35 0.32 0.34 0.42 0.41 0.49 0.43 0.39 0.40 0.36 0.37

2010 0.45 0.44 0.54 0.27 ND 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.35

2011 0.31 0.41 0.31 0.28 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.22 0.21 0.27 0.24

2012 0.33 0.16 0.20 0.25 0.21 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.29 0.19 0.21

Data Source: NC Local Water Supply Plan database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 470: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐88b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.27 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.28 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.29 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.29 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.30 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Richmond County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.27 Jan 1.05

2015 0.27 Feb 1.09

2020 0.27 Mar 1.11

2030 0.28 Apr 0.97

2040 0.29 May 0.86

2050 0.29 Jun 1.09

2060 0.30 Jul 1.03

Aug 1.10

Sep 0.89

Oct 0.92

Nov 0.93

Dec 0.91

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 471: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐89 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Wilkes County Type Withdrawal

Facility Wilkes County WTP (Future) Sub‐basin W. Kerr Scott Reservoir

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2002 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2003 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2004 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2005 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2006 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2007 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2008 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2009 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2010 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2011 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2012 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Data Source: n/a

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

This future facility will replace two existing facilities: (a) North Wilksboro WP (entity ID: NWH‐68a) and (b) Wilkesboro WFP

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

(entity ID: NWH‐72b). See those two entity sheets for historical flow data.

Page 472: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐89

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.83 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.00 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.18 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.36 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 7.55 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Wilkes County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 1.00

2015 ‐‐ Feb 0.96

2020 6.83 Mar 0.95

2030 7.00 Apr 0.95

2040 7.18 May 1.02

2050 7.36 Jun 1.07

2060 7.55 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.94

Projections assume that this new facility will come online in 2020. At that point, all flows from

(a) North Wilksboro WP (entity ID: NWH‐68a) and (b) Wilkesboro WFP (entity ID: NWH‐72b) will be

transferred to this new combined facility and then projected forward.

Monthly coefficients shown below are based on combined historical flow data for the two entities listed

above (NWH‐68a, NWH‐72b).

‐‐

Page 473: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐90a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Rockingham Type Return

Facility Rockingham WWTP Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 5.61 5.79 5.24 5.11 4.76 4.41 4.93 4.15 4.10 4.46 4.37 4.70 4.80

2002 3.38 4.49 4.51 4.66 3.87 3.77 4.00 3.90 3.87 4.82 5.13 5.22 4.30

2003 4.84 5.77 6.50 5.88 5.57 5.51 4.66 5.57 5.08 4.59 4.25 4.38 5.21

2004 4.19 4.86 4.91 4.38 4.29 4.23 3.92 4.12 5.27 4.22 3.41 3.21 4.25

2005 3.59 3.64 4.22 4.24 3.63 4.05 4.04 4.09 3.00 3.93 3.46 4.36 3.86

2006 4.18 4.10 3.86 3.30 3.27 4.10 3.35 3.67 3.37 3.40 4.92 4.45 3.83

2007 4.98 4.88 4.92 4.05 3.55 3.53 3.24 3.22 3.19 3.37 3.03 3.41 3.78

2008 4.05 3.84 4.17 4.88 3.78 3.28 4.38 4.41 5.77 3.60 3.46 4.07 4.14

2009 3.67 3.41 3.93 3.35 2.91 2.59 2.66 2.73 2.40 2.39 2.95 3.95 3.08

2010 3.79 4.43 3.42 2.56 2.05 2.33 2.10 2.22 2.35 2.71 2.28 2.39 2.71

2011 2.51 2.86 2.75 2.76 2.57 2.24 2.15 2.25 2.16 2.20 2.33 2.24 2.42

2012 2.35 2.33 2.74 3.12 3.07 2.91 3.05 3.68 3.38 3.37 2.95 3.14 3.01

Data Source: n/a

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 474: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐90a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.71 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.73 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.77 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.84 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.91 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.98 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.06 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Richmond County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 2.71 Jan 1.00

2015 2.73 Feb 0.96

2020 2.77 Mar 0.95

2030 2.84 Apr 0.95

2040 2.91 May 1.02

2050 2.98 Jun 1.07

2060 3.06 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.94

‐‐

Page 475: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐90b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Rockingham Type Withdrawal

Facility Rockingham WTP (City Pond intake) Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.98 1.01 0.98 0.93 1.04 1.16 1.23 1.21 1.19 1.10 0.99 1.03 1.07

2002 0.79 0.83 0.82 0.90 0.85 0.84 0.66 0.65 0.83 0.76 0.79 0.85 0.80

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.98 1.01 0.98 1.02 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.27 1.11 1.10 0.96 0.94 1.07

2008 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.87 0.92 0.86 0.94 0.88 0.93 0.89

2009 0.92 0.82 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.88 0.80 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.87

2010 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.88 0.85 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.85

2011 0.90 0.94 0.93 0.96 1.00 1.10 1.03 1.10 1.05 1.00 0.99 0.91 0.99

2012 0.89 0.92 1.00 1.40 1.44 1.44 1.09 1.04 0.94 1.04 0.98 0.93 1.09

Data Source: n/a

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Rockingham facilities.

Page 476: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐90b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.98 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.98 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.00 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.02 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.05 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.07 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.10 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Richmond County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.98 Jan 1.00

2015 0.98 Feb 0.96

2020 1.00 Mar 0.95

2030 1.02 Apr 0.95

2040 1.05 May 1.02

2050 1.07 Jun 1.07

2060 1.10 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.94

‐‐

Page 477: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐90c Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Rockingham Type Withdrawal

Facility Rockingham WTP (Roberdel Lake intake) Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.96 2.02 1.95 1.86 2.08 2.31 2.46 2.43 2.37 2.21 1.98 2.07 2.14

2002 1.57 1.65 1.64 1.79 1.70 1.69 1.31 1.30 1.66 1.53 1.57 1.70 1.59

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 1.96 2.01 1.97 2.04 2.24 2.28 2.31 2.55 2.22 2.21 1.92 1.87 2.13

2008 1.67 1.68 1.57 1.81 1.87 1.87 1.74 1.84 1.72 1.87 1.77 1.86 1.77

2009 1.85 1.63 1.76 1.76 1.80 1.77 1.59 1.77 1.74 1.76 1.70 1.67 1.73

2010 1.56 1.57 1.67 1.77 1.70 1.74 1.69 1.72 1.74 1.69 1.71 1.74 1.69

2011 1.81 1.88 1.86 1.92 1.99 2.21 2.07 2.19 2.10 2.00 1.97 1.83 1.99

2012 1.77 1.83 2.00 2.79 2.88 2.89 2.18 2.08 1.89 2.08 1.95 1.86 2.18

Data Source: n/a

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Historical Data above is based on the 2012 flow split between all City of Rockingham facilities.

Page 478: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐90c

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.95 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.97 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.99 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.04 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.09 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.15 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.20 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Richmond County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.95 Jan 1.00

2015 1.97 Feb 0.96

2020 1.99 Mar 0.95

2030 2.04 Apr 0.95

2040 2.09 May 1.02

2050 2.15 Jun 1.07

2060 2.20 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.94

‐‐

Page 479: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐91a Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Hamlet Type Withdrawal

Facility Hamlet WTP Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.12 1.11 1.06 1.13 1.35 1.43 1.51 1.72 1.64 1.60 1.42 1.33 1.37

2002 1.43 1.39 1.36 1.63 1.71 1.90 1.57 1.49 1.37 1.37 1.34 1.08 1.47

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.96 0.97 1.03 1.14 1.37 1.42 1.49 1.60 1.35 1.25 1.14 1.02 1.23

2008 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.17 1.42 1.26 1.17 1.09 0.93 0.87 0.86 1.06

2009 0.87 0.85 0.87 0.91 1.04 1.26 1.43 1.40 1.19 1.06 0.97 0.91 1.06

2010 1.10 0.97 0.99 1.20 1.28 1.33 1.32 1.45 1.43 1.21 1.12 1.01 1.20

2011 1.02 0.97 1.01 1.04 1.25 1.48 1.32 1.22 1.14 1.11 1.01 1.00 1.13

2012 1.00 1.02 1.12 1.13 1.22 1.29 1.31 1.68 1.19 1.08 1.02 0.96 1.17

Data Source: n/a

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 480: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐91a

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.17 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.18 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.19 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.22 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.25 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.32 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Richmond County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 1.17 Jan 1.00

2015 1.18 Feb 0.96

2020 1.19 Mar 0.95

2030 1.22 Apr 0.95

2040 1.25 May 1.02

2050 1.28 Jun 1.07

2060 1.32 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.94

‐‐

Page 481: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐91b Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity City of Hamlet Type Return

Facility Hamlet WWTP Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.80 0.84 0.78 0.66 0.66 0.58 0.76 0.68 0.62 0.69 0.75 0.77 0.72

2002 0.79 0.73 0.73 0.68 0.69 0.92 0.79 0.65 0.66 0.87 0.86 0.84 0.77

2003 0.76 0.83 0.99 0.96 0.87 1.00 0.96 1.08 0.87 0.82 0.86 0.78 0.90

2004 0.77 0.89 0.64 0.73 0.68 0.73 0.87 0.81 1.09 0.77 0.76 0.70 0.79

2005 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.72 0.71 0.86 1.21 1.02 0.66 0.94 0.76 0.91 0.85

2006 0.85 0.80 0.78 0.65 0.64 0.66 0.71 0.75 0.71 0.70 0.94 0.87 0.75

2007 0.90 0.88 0.91 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.70 0.65 0.77 0.75

2008 0.76 0.81 0.81 0.89 0.71 0.61 0.71 0.81 0.96 0.74 0.75 0.78 0.78

2009 0.71 0.70 0.82 0.73 0.69 0.65 0.65 0.54 0.65 0.66 0.74 0.87 0.70

2010 0.88 0.95 0.84 0.83 0.71 0.72 0.73 0.76 0.77 0.84 0.70 0.65 0.78

2011 0.62 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.73 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.67 0.67 0.68

2012 0.67 0.68 0.69 0.67 0.61 0.51 0.49 0.58 0.59 0.51 0.51 0.54 0.59

Data Source: n/a

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 482: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐91b

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.68 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.69 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.70 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.72 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.73 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.75 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.77 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Richmond County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.68 Jan 1.00

2015 0.69 Feb 0.96

2020 0.70 Mar 0.95

2030 0.72 Apr 0.95

2040 0.73 May 1.02

2050 0.75 Jun 1.07

2060 0.77 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.94

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 483: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐93 Category Public Water/Wastewater Utilities

Entity Town of Wadesboro Type Withdrawal

Facility Town of Wadesboro WTP Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.15 1.30 1.75 1.32 1.28 1.44 1.36 1.65 1.72 1.62 1.05 1.20 1.40

2002 0.83 0.88 0.79 0.97 0.98 1.01 0.95 1.15 0.89 0.84 0.80 0.81 0.91

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.82 0.70 0.92 0.99 0.91 0.98 0.71 0.82

2008 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.82 0.70 0.92 0.99 0.92 0.98 0.71 0.82

2009 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.82 0.70 0.92 0.99 0.91 0.98 0.71 0.82

2010 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.72 0.76

2011 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.82 0.70 0.92 0.99 0.91 0.85 0.72 0.81

2012 0.79 0.82 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.82 0.70 0.92 0.99 0.91 0.85 0.72 0.81

Data Source: n/a

Customer Data

<Year> <Year> <Year> <Year>

Customer Type I II III I II III I II III I II III

Residential ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Commercial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Industrial ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Institutional ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Wholesale ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Other ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Unaccounted ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Notes:  I ‐ Number of customers; II ‐ Per capita flow (gpd/c); III ‐ Total Flow (mgd)

Data Source: <Source>; <Contact Person>; <Date>

Historical Data Summary Notes

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Page 484: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐93

(continued from previous page)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Projected Flowrates (mgd)

Customer Type

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Wholesale Other Unaccounted

Base ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.80 ‐‐

2015 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.80 ‐‐

2020 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.81 ‐‐

2030 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.83 ‐‐

2040 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.86 ‐‐

2050 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.88 ‐‐

2060 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.90 ‐‐

Applied AGR 2012‐2020: 0.25%

Applied AGR 2030‐2060: 0.25%

Analysis and Projections Notes

Both Applied AGR values shown above were set to 0.25% rather than the (lower) projected AGR value

for Anson County. This is to account for the higher growth expected in the service area compared

to the overall county average growth during those periods.

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient

2012 0.80 Jan 1.00

2015 0.80 Feb 0.96

2020 0.81 Mar 0.95

2030 0.83 Apr 0.95

2040 0.86 May 1.02

2050 0.88 Jun 1.07

2060 0.90 Jul 1.06

Aug 1.06

Sep 1.01

Oct 1.02

Nov 0.94

Dec 0.94

‐‐

Page 485: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Table of Contents for 

Industrial Projection Sheets

Page No. Basin ID No. Entity Facility1 New IND Multiple N/A2 NRH‐01 Allegheny Technologies, Inc ATI Allvac Monroe Plant3 NRN‐02 Aluminum Company Of America Badin Works4 NWW‐08a Blue Ridge Tissue Corp Patterson Mill5 NRW‐08b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp Patterson Mill (return)6 NRD‐92 Burlington Industries LLC Richmond Plant7 NWD‐94a B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co. Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1)8 NWD‐94b B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co. Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3)9 NWD‐94c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co. Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4)10 NRB‐35a Hedrick Industries Aquadale Quarry11 NWB‐35b Hedrick Industries Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond)12 NWB‐35c Hedrick Industries Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond)13 NWH‐40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation Lousiana Pacific Corporation14 NRH‐40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation LP Roaring River WWTP15 NRH‐45 P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc PPG Industries Fiber Glass Products16 NRH‐46a Performance Fibers, Inc Salisbury Facility17 NWH‐46b Performance Fibers, Inc Salisbury Facility18 NWB‐55 Teledyne Allvac Monroe Plant19 NWB‐56 The Fork, LLC The Fork, LLC20 NWH‐74a True Textiles, Inc True Elkin, Inc.21 NRH‐74b True Textiles, Inc 304 East Main Street Plant

22 NRH‐75 Tyson Foods, Inc Harmony Plant

23 NRH‐78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn Dobson Plant

24 NRB‐83 Carolina Stalite Company Carolina Stalite Company

25 NRH‐85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company Linwood Yard

Industrial Projections TOC

Page 486: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Source: 

New Future Industry

Basin Projected (MGD)

ID Name Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NWW‐00 W. Kerr Scott Reservoir ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

NWH‐00 High Rock Lake ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

NWT‐00 Tuckertown Reservoir ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

NWN‐00 Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

NWF‐00 Falls Reservoir ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

NWL‐00 Lake Tillery ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

NWB‐00 Blewett Falls Lake ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

NWD‐00 Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake Subbasin (NC) ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Draft Projections 1 of 25 12/11/2014

Page 487: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐01 Category Industrial

Entity Allegheny Technologies, Inc Type Return

Facility ATI Allvac Monroe Plant Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.31  0.30 0.18 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.32 0.02 0.01 0.20 0.25 0.52 0.20

2002 0.20 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.13

2003 0.06 0.23 0.33 0.31 0.23 0.19 0.23 0.39 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.21

2004 0.06 0.17 0.24 0.20 0.12 0.26 0.16 0.16 0.46 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.17

2005 0.07 0.08 0.19 0.06 0.07 0.23 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.12 0.15 0.25 0.12

2006 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.46 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.36 0.18 0.15

2007 0.22 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.21 ND 0.13 0.12

2008 0.14 0.30 0.25 0.34 0.11 ND 0.07 0.24 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.16 0.18

2009 0.11 0.04 0.29 0.07 0.12 0.23 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.24 0.26 0.15

2010 0.24 0.31 0.19 0.01 0.10 0.21 0.20 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.16 0.10 0.14

2011 0.05 0.11 0.17 ND 0.18 0.16 0.05 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13

2012 0.20 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.16 0.37 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.16

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐0.67%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.14 Jan 1.10 Jul 0.79

2015 0.14 Feb 1.12 Aug 1.15

2020 0.14 Mar 1.34 Sep 0.65

2030 0.14 Apr 0.93 Oct 0.81

2040 0.14 May 0.78 Nov 1.10

2050 0.14 Jun 1.10 Dec 1.16

2060 0.14

‐‐Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 488: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRN‐02 Category Industrial

Entity Aluminum Company Of America Type Return

Facility Badin Works Sub‐basin Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.59 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.43 0.48 0.83 0.55 0.52 0.60 0.69 0.72 0.57

2002 0.77 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.16 0.09 0.47 0.19 0.31 0.39 0.20 0.26

2003 0.15 0.31 0.42 0.34 0.52 0.20 0.24 0.40 0.24 0.09 0.60 0.10 0.30

2004 0.09 0.28 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.16 0.12 0.33 0.66 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.21

2005 0.33 0.15 0.94 0.18 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.09 0.07 0.21 0.26 0.40 0.27

2006 0.14 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.15 0.08 0.51 0.10 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.16

2007 0.35 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.10 0.09 0.33 0.02 0.01 0.12

2008 0.09 0.09 0.29 0.26 0.07 0.04 0.58 0.29 0.91 0.42 0.03 0.08 0.26

2009 0.31 0.04 0.37 0.23 0.15 0.12 0.25 0.03 0.41 0.35 0.61 0.20 0.26

2010 0.37 0.29 0.25 0.04 0.42 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.15 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.19

2011 0.06 0.17 0.35 0.24 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.24 0.14

2012 0.12 0.12 0.06 0.03 0.36 0.26 0.08 0.21 0.17 0.03 0.01 0.36 0.15

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐0.40%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.16 Jan 1.15 Jul 1.10

2015 0.16 Feb 0.72 Aug 0.79

2020 0.16 Mar 1.26 Sep 1.59

2030 0.16 Apr 0.83 Oct 1.23

2040 0.16 May 1.03 Nov 0.72

2050 0.16 Jun 0.72 Dec 0.83

2060 0.16

‐‐Primary Metal Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 489: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWW‐08a Category Industrial

Entity Blue Ridge Tissue Corp Type Withdrawal

Facility Patterson Mill Sub‐basin W. Kerr Scott Reservoir

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.05 0.12

2009 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.10

2010 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.27 0.18 0.09 0.25 0.23 0.18

2011 0.25 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.20

2012 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.19

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐2.67%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.19 Jan 1.10 Jul 1.05

2015 0.19 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.18

2020 0.19 Mar 0.93 Sep 0.85

2030 0.19 Apr 0.94 Oct 0.83

2040 0.19 May 1.01 Nov 1.09

2050 0.19 Jun 1.05 Dec 0.97

2060 0.19

‐‐Paper Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 490: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRW‐08b Category Industrial

Entity Blue Ridge Tissue Corp Type Return

Facility Patterson Mill (return) Sub‐basin W. Kerr Scott Reservoir

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.17 0.23 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.11

2002 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.23

2003 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.17

2004 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.73 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.21

2005 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18

2006 0.18 0.11 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.18

2007 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.15 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.19

2008 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.15

2009 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.14

2010 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.21 0.17 0.23 0.26 0.34 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.31 0.22

2011 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.17 0.22

2012 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.13 0.18 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.20

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐2.67%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.21 Jan 1.07 Jul 1.12

2015 0.21 Feb 0.97 Aug 1.18

2020 0.21 Mar 0.94 Sep 1.03

2030 0.21 Apr 0.99 Oct 0.82

2040 0.21 May 0.94 Nov 0.91

2050 0.21 Jun 1.05 Dec 0.97

2060 0.21

‐‐Paper Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 491: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐35a Category Industrial

Entity Hedrick Industries Type Return

Facility Aquadale Quarry Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.22 1.25 ND ND ND ND 1.24

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND 2.16 1.94 ND 2.16 2.16 ND ND ND ND ND 2.11

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.84 0.70 0.84 0.75 0.36 0.70

2007 0.50 0.46 0.50 0.49 0.24 0.31 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.37 0.27

2008 0.44 0.51 0.59 0.41 0.29 0.16 0.19 0.31 0.37 0.39 0.28 0.25 0.35

2009 0.29 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.18 0.11 0.28 0.23 0.13 0.34 0.47 0.37 0.27

2010 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.32 0.25 0.37 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.25 0.27

2011 0.23 0.31 0.28 0.39 0.30 0.29 0.23 0.33 0.29 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.30

2012 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.30

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐11.81%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.29 Jan 1.17 Jul 0.89

2015 0.29 Feb 1.27 Aug 0.86

2020 0.29 Mar 1.28 Sep 0.76

2030 0.29 Apr 1.19 Oct 0.87

2040 0.29 May 0.93 Nov 0.95

2050 0.29 Jun 0.81 Dec 1.05

2060 0.29

‐‐Mining (except oil and gas) sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 492: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐35b Category Industrial

Entity Hedrick Industries Type Withdrawal

Facility Aquadale Quarry (Pump 1 ‐ Fresh Water Pond) Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

2009 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

2010 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

2011 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

2012 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐11.81%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.39 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.00

2015 0.39 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.00

2020 0.39 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.00

2030 0.39 Apr 1.00 Oct 1.00

2040 0.39 May 1.00 Nov 1.00

2050 0.39 Jun 1.00 Dec 1.00

2060 0.39

‐‐Mining (except oil and gas) sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 493: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐35c Category Industrial

Entity Hedrick Industries Type Withdrawal

Facility Aquadale Quarry (Pump 2 ‐ Cement Pond) Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09

2009 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

2010 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07

2011 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

2012 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐11.81%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.08 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.00

2015 0.08 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.00

2020 0.08 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.00

2030 0.08 Apr 1.00 Oct 1.00

2040 0.08 May 1.00 Nov 1.00

2050 0.08 Jun 1.00 Dec 1.00

2060 0.08

‐‐Mining (except oil and gas) sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 494: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐40a Category Industrial

Entity Louisiana Pacific Corporation Type Withdrawal

Facility Lousiana Pacific Corporation Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 1.30 1.40 1.30 1.40 1.40 1.50 1.60 1.60 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.40 1.45

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 1.80 1.90 1.30 1.80 1.20 1.10 1.00 1.20 1.70 1.50 1.00 1.30 1.40

2008 1.45 1.30 1.39 1.67 1.58 1.66 1.78 1.65 1.68 1.49 1.11 0.91 1.47

2009 1.18 0.92 0.70 0.73 0.60 0.59 0.95 1.51 1.83 1.78 1.55 1.52 1.16

2010 2.44 2.60 2.41 1.80 2.04 2.21 1.88 2.62 2.00 1.20 1.05 2.54 2.06

2011 2.31 2.46 2.63 2.79 2.56 2.83 2.70 2.88 2.60 1.85 1.62 2.16 2.45

2012 2.35 2.39 2.69 2.61 2.69 1.39 2.31 1.26 2.17 1.46 1.45 1.91 2.06

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐1.17%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 2.19 Jan 1.09 Jul 1.00

2015 2.19 Feb 1.09 Aug 1.05

2020 2.19 Mar 1.05 Sep 1.13

2030 2.19 Apr 1.08 Oct 0.88

2040 2.19 May 1.01 Nov 0.73

2050 2.19 Jun 0.92 Dec 0.97

2060 2.19

‐‐Wood Product Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 495: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐40b Category Industrial

Entity Louisiana Pacific Corporation Type Return

Facility LP Roaring River WWTP Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.93 0.97 0.91 0.83 0.73 0.80 0.83 0.81 0.75 0.88

2002 0.79 0.98 0.93 0.94 0.97 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.93 0.77 0.93

2003 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.89 0.96 0.97 0.79 0.61 0.69 0.85 0.85 0.86

2004 0.81 0.91 0.85 0.91 0.94 0.94 0.97 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.95 0.93

2005 1.07 1.20 1.22 1.34 1.47 1.44 1.49 1.43 1.32 1.38 1.37 0.81 1.30

2006 1.40 1.31 1.35 1.31 1.18 1.24 1.36 1.24 1.28 1.01 1.20 0.84 1.23

2007 1.33 1.37 0.80 1.33 1.15 1.13 1.33 1.21 1.23 1.29 1.17 1.31 1.22

2008 1.37 1.42 1.41 1.55 1.48 1.51 1.35 1.76 1.55 1.06 0.98 1.10 1.38

2009 1.49 1.60 1.27 1.41 1.10 1.14 1.63 1.55 1.52 1.26 0.75 0.93 1.30

2010 1.67 1.61 1.61 1.29 1.45 1.22 1.33 1.59 1.13 1.23 0.96 1.43 1.38

2011 1.52 1.50 1.44 1.47 1.08 1.00 1.08 1.40 1.11 1.13 0.98 0.82 1.21

2012 1.51 1.67 1.69 1.11 1.48 1.21 1.19 1.30 1.26 1.14 1.29 1.19 1.34

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐1.17%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 1.31 Jan 1.14 Jul 1.01

2015 1.31 Feb 1.17 Aug 1.13

2020 1.31 Mar 1.05 Sep 1.00

2030 1.31 Apr 1.04 Oct 0.91

2040 1.31 May 0.99 Nov 0.78

2050 1.31 Jun 0.92 Dec 0.87

2060 1.31

‐‐Wood Product Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 496: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐45 Category Industrial

Entity P P G Industries Fiber Glass Products, Inc Type Return

Facility PPG Industries Fiber Glass Products Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.44 0.41 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.39

2002 0.27 0.24 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.30 0.27

2003 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.32

2004 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.39 0.40 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.35

2005 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.41 0.43 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.21 0.26 0.35

2006 0.27 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.34 0.37 0.35 0.31 0.31 0.37 0.34

2007 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.36 0.35 0.38 0.37

2008 0.36 0.36 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.40 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.36

2009 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.31 0.34 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.29

2010 0.35 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.41 0.42 0.39 0.37 0.40 0.38 0.41 0.39

2011 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.45 0.44 0.42 0.42 0.49 0.50 0.44

2012 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.45 0.41 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.38 0.42

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐4.09%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.42 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.01

2015 0.42 Feb 1.03 Aug 1.01

2020 0.42 Mar 1.04 Sep 0.98

2030 0.42 Apr 1.03 Oct 0.93

2040 0.42 May 1.01 Nov 0.94

2050 0.42 Jun 1.03 Dec 1.00

2060 0.42

‐‐Non‐Metallic Mineral Product Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 497: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐46a Category Industrial

Entity Performance Fibers, Inc Type Return

Facility Salisbury Facility Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.64 1.54 1.53 1.62 1.45 1.45 1.59 1.51 1.54 1.57

2002 1.29 1.16 1.06 0.94 0.96 1.05 1.14 0.81 0.91 1.01 1.13 1.14 1.05

2003 1.00 1.12 1.13 1.22 0.99 1.01 0.82 1.05 1.21 0.96 0.92 1.08 1.04

2004 0.97 1.09 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.97 1.07 1.15 1.38 1.15 1.09 1.04 1.11

2005 0.83 0.89 0.90 0.75 0.72 0.97 0.79 0.87 0.70 0.63 0.69 0.73 0.79

2006 0.66 0.71 0.69 0.65 0.61 0.72 0.52 0.59 0.51 0.43 0.60 0.44 0.59

2007 0.48 0.40 0.51 0.43 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.43 0.44 0.49 0.40 0.47 0.45

2008 0.51 0.47 0.53 0.56 0.48 0.39 0.60 0.55 0.58 0.44 0.50 0.48 0.51

2009 0.34 0.37 0.57 0.42 0.42 0.58 0.33 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.57 0.48 0.43

2010 0.24 0.50 0.39 0.29 0.57 0.48 0.37 0.38 0.29 0.37 0.33 0.31 0.38

2011 0.33 0.35 0.40 0.38 0.41 0.37 0.60 0.44 0.53 0.39 0.48 0.39 0.42

2012 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.40 0.49 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.33 0.22 0.28 0.36

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐6.47%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.39 Jan 0.87 Jul 1.08

2015 0.39 Feb 0.96 Aug 1.02

2020 0.39 Mar 1.07 Sep 1.04

2030 0.39 Apr 0.97 Oct 0.93

2040 0.39 May 1.09 Nov 0.98

2050 0.39 Jun 1.03 Dec 0.95

2060 0.39

‐‐Textile Mills and Textile Product Mills sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 498: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐46b Category Industrial

Entity Performance Fibers, Inc Type Withdrawal

Facility Salisbury Facility Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 0.66 0.62 0.74 0.82 0.90 0.97 0.86 0.86 0.72 0.60 0.67 0.51 0.74

2009 0.62 0.63 0.57 0.41 0.41 0.54 0.55 0.51 0.47 0.45 0.39 0.39 0.49

2010 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.42 0.44 0.34 0.41

2011 0.35 0.41 0.45 0.48 0.46 0.52 0.59 0.59 0.47 0.39 0.36 0.30 0.45

2012 0.35 0.37 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.46 0.58 0.48 0.46 0.36 0.29 0.27 0.41

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐6.47%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.42 Jan 0.95 Jul 1.24

2015 0.42 Feb 0.97 Aug 1.19

2020 0.42 Mar 1.04 Sep 1.06

2030 0.42 Apr 0.99 Oct 0.88

2040 0.42 May 0.99 Nov 0.86

2050 0.42 Jun 1.11 Dec 0.72

2060 0.42

‐‐Textile Mills and Textile Product Mills sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 499: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐55 Category Industrial

Entity Teledyne Allvac Type Withdrawal

Facility Monroe Plant Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2009 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

2010 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

2011 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

2012 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐0.40%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 2.00 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.00

2015 2.00 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.00

2020 2.00 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.00

2030 2.00 Apr 1.00 Oct 1.00

2040 2.00 May 1.00 Nov 1.00

2050 2.00 Jun 1.00 Dec 1.00

2060 2.00

‐‐Primary Metal Manufacturing sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 500: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWB‐56 Category Industrial

Entity The Fork, LLC Type Withdrawal

Facility The Fork, LLC Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.80 1.80 ‐‐ 0.30

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.80 1.80 ‐‐ 0.30

2008 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.80 1.80 ‐‐ 0.30

2009 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.80 1.80 ‐‐ 0.30

2010 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.80 1.80 ‐‐ 0.30

2011 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.80 1.80 ‐‐ 0.30

2012 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.80 1.80 ‐‐ 0.30

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐2.02%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.30 Jan ‐‐ Jul ‐‐

2015 0.30 Feb ‐‐ Aug ‐‐

2020 0.30 Mar ‐‐ Sep ‐‐

2030 0.30 Apr ‐‐ Oct 5.99

2040 0.30 May ‐‐ Nov 5.99

2050 0.30 Jun ‐‐ Dec ‐‐

2060 0.30

‐‐Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 501: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWH‐74a Category Industrial

Entity True Textiles, Inc Type Withdrawal

Facility True Elkin, Inc. Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 1.31 0.80 0.93 0.92 1.01 0.98 0.90 1.16 1.21 1.10 1.20 1.00 1.04

2008 0.79 0.83 0.67 0.70 0.77 0.83 0.91 0.82 0.87 0.91 0.77 0.82 0.81

2009 0.74 0.56 0.50 0.53 0.43 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.33 0.22 0.20 0.16 0.42

2010 0.23 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.31 0.17

2011 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14

2012 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.16

Data Source: Water Withdrawal Registration Program database; Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 17, 2014 (file dated Feb 17, 2014)

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐6.47%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.16 Jan 1.23 Jul 1.01

2015 0.16 Feb 0.95 Aug 1.05

2020 0.16 Mar 0.94 Sep 1.03

2030 0.16 Apr 0.96 Oct 0.96

2040 0.16 May 0.97 Nov 0.92

2050 0.16 Jun 1.00 Dec 0.95

2060 0.16

‐‐Textile Mills and Textile Product Mills sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 502: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐74b Category Industrial

Entity True Textiles, Inc Type Return

Facility 304 East Main Street Plant Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.07 1.32 1.74 1.30 1.83 2.48 2.25 2.40 1.44 1.24 0.80 0.74 1.55

2002 0.53 0.60 0.59 0.63 0.75 0.93 0.92 0.90 0.71 0.77 0.76 0.68 0.73

2003 0.83 0.79 0.82 0.86 0.97 1.08 1.21 1.08 0.89 1.11 0.99 0.97 0.97

2004 0.77 0.83 0.94 0.89 1.01 1.31 1.06 0.96 1.02 0.96 1.09 1.06 0.99

2005 1.08 1.03 0.97 0.85 0.88 1.08 1.09 1.38 1.32 1.49 1.28 1.05 1.12

2006 0.80 0.77 0.94 0.84 0.87 1.06 1.19 1.38 1.41 1.26 1.31 1.15 1.08

2007 1.29 0.84 0.93 0.89 0.87 0.88 0.79 0.83 0.78 0.79 0.73 0.67 0.86

2008 0.61 0.55 0.42 0.48 0.50 0.63 0.66 0.57 0.56 0.47 0.35 0.43 0.52

2009 0.46 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.30 0.33 0.26 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.26

2010 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.18 0.09

2011 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.08

2012 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐6.47%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.09 Jan 1.39 Jul 1.08

2015 0.09 Feb 1.02 Aug 1.04

2020 0.09 Mar 1.01 Sep 0.93

2030 0.09 Apr 1.01 Oct 0.84

2040 0.09 May 1.02 Nov 0.74

2050 0.09 Jun 1.10 Dec 0.83

2060 0.09

‐‐Textile Mills and Textile Product Mills sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 503: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐75 Category Industrial

Entity Tyson Foods, Inc Type Return

Facility Harmony Plant Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.20

2002 0.19 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.17

2003 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.32 0.25 0.18 0.23 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.20

2004 0.14 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.17

2005 0.16 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.17

2006 0.20 0.18 0.13 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.15

2007 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.15

2008 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.18 0.16

2009 0.19 0.17 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.17

2010 0.19 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.16 0.16

2011 0.20 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.15

2012 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.14 0.14

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 1.17%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP 1.17%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.15 Jan 1.13 Jul 0.92

2015 0.16 Feb 1.09 Aug 0.89

2020 0.16 Mar 0.99 Sep 1.01

2030 0.18 Apr 0.87 Oct 1.04

2040 0.21 May 1.01 Nov 1.08

2050 0.23 Jun 0.94 Dec 1.02

2060 0.26

‐‐Food and Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing sector GSP for North Carolina was applied.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 504: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐78 Category Industrial

Entity Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn Type Return

Facility Dobson Plant Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.45 0.43 0.40 0.34 0.46 0.46

2002 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.60 0.55 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.54 0.50 0.55

2003 0.56 0.54 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.54 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.56 0.55 0.49 0.54

2004 0.61 0.57 0.55 0.63 0.47 0.43 0.34 0.37 0.39 0.42 0.39 0.35 0.46

2005 0.40 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.37 0.39 0.41

2006 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.44 0.42 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.43 0.42 0.37 0.42

2007 0.40 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.42 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.42

2008 0.40 0.23 0.29 0.41 0.33 0.23 0.34 0.39 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.27 0.33

2009 0.32 0.27 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.34

2010 0.33 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.37

2011 0.34 0.37 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.44 0.41 0.45 0.40 0.37 0.40 0.40

2012 0.36 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.43 0.41 0.48 0.44 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.41

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐3.49%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.39 Jan 0.96 Jul 1.06

2015 0.39 Feb 0.84 Aug 1.11

2020 0.39 Mar 0.93 Sep 1.08

2030 0.39 Apr 0.99 Oct 1.04

2040 0.39 May 1.03 Nov 0.99

2050 0.39 Jun 1.00 Dec 0.96

2060 0.39

‐‐Crop and Animal Production (Farms) sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 505: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRB‐83 Category Industrial

Entity Carolina Stalite Company Type Return

Facility Carolina Stalite Company Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.90 1.06 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.33 0.30 0.37 1.55 0.97 0.73 0.75 0.82

2002 0.24 0.89 0.98 0.21 1.05 ND 0.21 0.29 0.43 0.34 0.44 0.30 0.49

2003 0.26 0.31 0.60 0.66 0.62 0.75 0.53 0.35 0.35 0.18 0.35 0.40 0.45

2004 0.30 0.57 ND 0.56 0.46 0.05 0.45 0.11 1.59 0.80 0.97 0.90 0.61

2005 0.51 0.82 0.83 0.63 0.29 0.51 0.53 0.77 0.32 0.64 0.40 1.13 0.61

2006 0.77 0.48 0.56 0.56 ND 0.92 0.18 0.27 0.35 0.26 0.31 0.40 0.46

2007 1.26 0.71 0.46 1.26 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.06 0.50 0.08 0.47

2008 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.29 0.30 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.26 0.30 0.21 0.35 0.18

2009 0.44 0.24 0.26 0.30 0.09 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17

2010 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.15

2011 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.27 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.27 0.20 0.15 0.14

2012 0.16 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.12 ND 0.08 0.07 ND 0.10

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐11.81%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.13 Jan 1.82 Jul 0.51

2015 0.13 Feb 1.20 Aug 0.54

2020 0.13 Mar 1.04 Sep 0.73

2030 0.13 Apr 1.84 Oct 0.76

2040 0.13 May 1.13 Nov 1.00

2050 0.13 Jun 0.76 Dec 0.79

2060 0.13

‐‐Mining (except oil and gas) sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 506: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRH‐85 Category Industrial

Entity Norfolk Southern Railway Company Type Return

Facility Linwood Yard Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.11 0.07

2002 0.14 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 ND 0.33 0.13 0.23 0.20 0.11

2003 0.15 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.10 0.20 0.21 0.19

2004 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.22 ND 0.20 0.18

2005 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.19 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.10

2006 0.03 0.05 ND ND 0.22 0.16 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.16 0.20 ND 0.15

2007 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.20 ND 0.23 ND ND ND 0.15 0.21 ND 0.18

2008 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.21 ND 0.20 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.21 0.30 0.24

2009 0.20 0.27 0.21 0.28 ND 0.19 ND 0.26 ND 0.16 0.22 0.27 0.23

2010 0.28 0.26 0.23 ND 0.28 0.21 0.23 0.26 ND 0.24 0.18 0.15 0.23

2011 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.28 0.31 0.16 0.24 ND 0.31 0.26 0.27 0.23 0.26

2012 ND 0.20 0.23 ND 0.29 0.24 ND 0.28 ND 0.21 ND ND 0.24

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐0.58%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.24 Jan 1.05 Jul 0.97

2015 0.24 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.21

2020 0.24 Mar 0.94 Sep 1.22

2030 0.24 Apr 1.06 Oct 0.89

2040 0.24 May 1.18 Nov 0.93

2050 0.24 Jun 0.89 Dec 1.02

2060 0.24

‐‐Rail Transportation sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 507: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NRD‐92 Category Industrial

Entity Burlington Industries LLC Type Return

Facility Richmond Plant Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 0.52 0.50 0.57 0.53 0.56 0.53 0.50 0.62 0.58 0.59 0.58 0.43 0.54

2002 0.43 0.57 0.55 0.54 0.42 0.40 0.44 0.50 0.64 0.60 0.50 0.34 0.50

2003 0.43 0.52 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.41 0.44 0.46 0.51 0.59 0.47 0.35 0.46

2004 0.40 0.38 0.47 0.43 0.46 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.38 0.27 0.42

2005 0.39 0.45 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.59 0.49 0.57 0.54 0.48 0.43 0.39 0.48

2006 0.37 0.48 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.32 0.38 0.36 0.30 0.31 0.29 0.40

2007 0.36 0.35 0.36 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.25 0.36 0.38 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.33

2008 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.25 0.28 0.24 0.23 0.19 0.13 0.25

2009 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.23 0.27 0.21 0.33 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.21 0.24

2010 0.19 0.23 0.29 0.30 0.37 0.34 0.28 0.32 0.29 0.21 0.20 0.14 0.26

2011 0.19 0.29 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.23 0.34 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.18 0.26

2012 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.24

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐6.47%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 0.25 Jan 0.89 Jul 0.95

2015 0.25 Feb 0.98 Aug 1.22

2020 0.25 Mar 0.99 Sep 1.07

2030 0.25 Apr 1.08 Oct 0.92

2040 0.25 May 1.20 Nov 0.87

2050 0.25 Jun 1.16 Dec 0.67

2060 0.25

‐‐Textile sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 508: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐94a Category Industrial

Entity B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co. Type Withdrawal

Facility Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 1) Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.14

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.68 1.75 1.75 1.74

2009 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11

2010 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08

2011 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84

2012 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐11.81%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 1.44 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.00

2015 1.44 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.00

2020 1.44 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.00

2030 1.44 Apr 1.00 Oct 0.99

2040 1.44 May 1.00 Nov 1.00

2050 1.44 Jun 1.00 Dec 1.00

2060 1.44

‐‐Mining sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 509: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐94b Category Industrial

Entity B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co. Type Withdrawal

Facility Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 3) Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.14

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.72 1.65 1.72 1.72 1.71

2009 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07

2010 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04

2011 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80

2012 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐11.81%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 1.41 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.00

2015 1.41 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.00

2020 1.41 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.00

2030 1.41 Apr 1.00 Oct 0.99

2040 1.41 May 1.00 Nov 1.00

2050 1.41 Jun 1.00 Dec 1.00

2060 1.41

‐‐Mining sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 510: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NWD‐94c Category Industrial

Entity B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co. Type Withdrawal

Facility Hedrick Mine (Pump House ‐ 4) Sub‐basin Downstream Of Blewett Falls Lake (Nc)

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.16 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.14

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2006 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2007 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2008 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.68 1.75 1.75 1.74

2009 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11 2.11

2010 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08

2011 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84 1.84

2012 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39

Data Source: NPDES database; Jennifer Smith at NCDENR‐DWR; received April 22, 2014

PROJECTIONS ANALYSIS

Industrial Sector Information

Industrial Sector ‐‐ State GSP 2.52% Applied AGR 0.00%

SIC Code ‐‐ Sector GSP ‐11.81%

NAICS Code ‐‐ Inflation ‐‐

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

Base 1.44 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.00

2015 1.44 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.00

2020 1.44 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.00

2030 1.44 Apr 1.00 Oct 0.99

2040 1.44 May 1.00 Nov 1.00

2050 1.44 Jun 1.00 Dec 1.00

2060 1.44

‐‐Mining sector GSP value for North Carolina was negative, so an AGR of zero was applied to be conservative.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Base Year's projected flowrate is based on 2010‐2012 Average.

Page 511: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Agriculture and Irrigation Projection Sheet Table of Contents

Page No. Basin ID No. Entity Facility

1 AI (CGL) Rollup Crop and Livestock Flows Summarized by Basin All

A/I Projection TOC 1 of 1

Page 512: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Agriculture/Irrigation (Crop, Livestock, and Golf Course) Rollup Summary

Historical (MGD) Projected (MGD)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51 2.51

23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60 23.60

0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49

0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80

11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52 11.52

1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99

Monthly Coefficients

Month Coefficient

Annual 1.00

Jan 0.04

Feb 0.07

Mar 0.25

Apr 0.65

May 1.27

Jun 2.32

Jul 2.88

Aug 2.38

Sep 1.39

Oct 0.54

Nov 0.14

Dec 0.05

Annual 1.00 <‐‐ for use in Monthly Summary worksheet

Draft Projections 1 of 47 12/11/2014

Page 513: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Table of Contents for 

Thermo‐Electric Power Projection Sheets

Page No. Basin ID No. Entity Facility1 TEP Summary Summary of Projections All Basins2 NNH‐30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Buck Steam Station3 NNH‐30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Buck Combined Cycle Station4 NNB‐30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Smith Energy Complex5 NNH‐30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Combined Cycle Station #16 NNH‐30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Combined Cycle Station #27 NNH‐30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Nuclear Plant #18 NNH‐30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Nuclear Plant #2

Power Projections TOC

Page 514: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

New Future Power

Basin Projected (MGD)

ID Facility Name Category Base 2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

NNH‐30a Buck Steam Station High Rock Lake TEP ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

NNH‐30b Buck Combined Cycle Station High Rock Lake TEP 0.25 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49

NNB‐30c Smith Energy Complex Blewett Falls Lake TEP 4.18 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00

NNH‐30d Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 High Rock Lake TEP ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49

NNH‐30e Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 High Rock Lake TEP ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.49 2.49

NNH‐30f Additional Nuclear Plant #1 Blewett Falls Lake TEP ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 32.16 32.16

NNH‐30g Additional Nuclear Plant #2 Lake Tillery TEP ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 32.16 32.16

Draft Projections 1 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 515: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NNH‐30a Category Power

Entity Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Type Net Withdrawal

Facility Buck Steam Station Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 1.14 1.70 1.64 1.95 1.58 2.21 2.58 2.34 1.76 1.30 1.58 1.39 1.76

2002 1.14 1.70 1.64 1.95 1.58 2.21 2.58 2.34 1.76 1.30 1.58 1.39 1.76

2003 1.14 1.70 1.64 1.95 1.58 2.21 2.58 2.34 1.76 1.30 1.58 1.39 1.76

2004 1.14 1.70 1.64 1.95 1.58 2.21 2.58 2.34 1.76 1.30 1.58 1.39 1.76

2005 1.14 1.64 1.70 1.73 1.52 1.83 2.50 3.04 2.75 1.67 0.64 1.88 1.84

2006 0.36 1.70 2.00 2.43 0.46 2.54 2.72 2.70 0.98 1.27 2.49 0.97 1.72

2007 0.76 2.34 1.46 1.87 2.26 2.22 2.79 1.89 2.26 2.07 2.65 1.86 2.03

2008 2.31 1.12 1.38 1.77 2.07 2.25 2.29 1.71 1.04 0.18 0.53 0.84 1.46

2009 1.09 0.56 0.38 0.37 0.12 1.00 0.21 0.92 0.40 0.07 ‐‐ 0.34 0.45

2010 1.33 1.29 0.76 1.09 1.46 1.91 2.29 2.09 1.25 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.10 1.22

2011 1.60 0.26 0.27 0.48 1.05 1.18 1.44 1.68 0.21 0.11 0.06 ‐‐ 0.70

2012 ‐‐ 0.28 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.20 0.34 0.92 0.28 0.08 0.11 0.67 0.17 0.25

Data Source: Duke Energy Historical Data; Ed Bruce at Duke Energy; received May 21, 2014

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROJECTIONS ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 1.16 Jul 1.63

2015 ‐‐ Feb 0.96 Aug 1.40

2020 ‐‐ Mar 0.70 Sep 0.86

2030 ‐‐ Apr 0.91 Oct 0.41

2040 ‐‐ May 1.17 Nov 0.64

2050 ‐‐ Jun 1.45 Dec 0.70

2060 ‐‐

‐‐

NOTE: Per email from Ed Bruce received on May 21, 2014, all flow data for Buck Combined Cycle Station was included in the historical data for Buck Steam Station. Therefore historical flows for both facilities are 

included on this sheet. See entity sheet NNH‐30b for the Buck Combined Cycle Station projected data.

Historical data were unavailable for 1997‐2004, so flows for those years were approximated using the average flows from 2005‐2008 for each respective month.

This facility was replaced by the Buck Combined Cycle Station and therefore is inactive and has zero projected flows.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Draft Projections 2 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 516: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NNH‐30b Category Power

Entity Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Type Net Withdrawal

Facility Buck Combined Cycle Station Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2002 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2003 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2004 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2005 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2006 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2007 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2008 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2009 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2010 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2011 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2012 See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note See Note ND

Data Source: Duke Energy Historical Data; Ed Bruce at Duke Energy; received May 21, 2014

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROJECTIONS ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

2012 0.25 Jan 0.91 Jul 1.15

2015 2.49 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.16

2020 2.49 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.10

2030 2.49 Apr 1.01 Oct 0.96

2040 2.49 May 1.02 Nov 0.82

2050 2.49 Jun 1.10 Dec 0.76

2060 2.49

Monthly Coefficients are calculated based on 2015 projected monthly net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

NOTE: Per email from Ed Bruce received on May 21, 2014, all flow data for Buck Combined Cycle Station was included in the historical data for Buck Steam Station. See entity sheet NNH‐30a for the combined flow 

data.

Projected net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Draft Projections 3 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 517: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NNB‐30c Category Power

Entity Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Type Net Withdrawal

Facility Smith Energy Complex Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2002 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2003 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2004 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

2005 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1.43 1.48 1.05 0.24 0.04 0.63 0.81

2006 ‐‐ 0.05 0.65 0.18 0.46 0.80 1.44 1.80 0.67 0.44 0.31 0.40 0.61

2007 0.54 0.87 0.59 0.90 0.59 1.34 1.31 1.87 1.50 0.14 0.08 0.38 0.84

2008 0.83 0.26 0.46 0.00 0.00 1.52 1.28 1.86 1.11 1.56 0.86 0.92 0.89

2009 0.83 1.01 1.61 0.47 0.84 1.27 1.47 2.10 1.97 0.61 1.59 1.05 1.24

2010 1.07 1.41 1.59 0.72 1.92 2.06 2.04 2.05 1.62 1.87 1.80 1.65 1.65

2011 0.83 1.67 2.14 1.67 3.33 4.75 5.07 4.54 4.33 3.68 3.24 4.26 3.30

2012 3.75 4.64 4.72 4.05 4.07 4.48 5.39 5.32 4.19 2.72 2.79 4.07 4.18

Data Sources: Richmond County WTP Historical Data; Harold Walton, Richmond County WTP Superintendent; received June 19, 2014

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROJECTIONS ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

2012 4.18 Jan 1.00 Jul 1.00

2015 6.00 Feb 1.00 Aug 1.00

2020 6.00 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.00

2030 6.00 Apr 1.00 Oct 1.00

2040 6.00 May 1.00 Nov 1.00

2050 6.00 Jun 1.00 Dec 1.00

2060 6.00

‐‐

Smith Energy Complex receives wholesale water from Richmond County WTP (both raw and potable). Raw water flows are shown above, while potable flows are included on the Richmond County WTP facility sheet 

(see entity sheet NWB‐88). The Smith Energy Complex does not discharge back into the project area.  Therefore all withdrawals shown above are net withdrawals.

Smith Energy Complex began operations in 2000. No data was provided for Jan 2000 through Jun 2005. For Jul 2005 through Dec 2012, data was provided by Richmond County. For modeling purposes, Jan 2000 

through Jun 2005 flows were assumed to be equal to the 2006‐2008 average flows (first 3 full years on record) for each respective month.

Except for the 2012 flow value, projections shown below were provided by Ed Bruce at Duke Energy, received May 21, 2014. The 2012 flow value is taken from historical data above.

‐‐

‐‐

‐‐

Draft Projections 4 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 518: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NNH‐30d Category Power

Entity Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Type Net Withdrawal

Facility Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2002 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2003 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2004 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2005 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2006 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2007 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2008 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2009 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2010 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2011 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2012 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Data Source: Duke Energy Historical Data; Ed Bruce at Duke Energy; received May 21, 2014

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROJECTIONS ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 0.91 Jul 1.15

2015 ‐‐ Feb 1.00 Aug 1.16

2020 2.49 Mar 1.00 Sep 1.10

2030 2.49 Apr 1.01 Oct 0.96

2040 2.49 May 1.02 Nov 0.82

2050 2.49 Jun 1.10 Dec 0.76

2060 2.49

Station included to account for future additional water required to meet long‐range energy demand."

See Note Below.

Per Ed Bruce at Duke Energy: "Duke Energy does not have specific plans to build a new power plant at this location.  This is a hypothetical plant identical to the existing Buck Combined Cycle 

Projected net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

Monthly Coefficients are calculated based on 2020 projected monthly net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

‐‐

Draft Projections 5 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 519: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NNH‐30e Category Power

Entity Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Type Net Withdrawal

Facility Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 Sub‐basin High Rock Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2002 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2003 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2004 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2005 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2006 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2007 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2008 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2009 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2010 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2011 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2012 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Data Source: Duke Energy Historical Data; Ed Bruce at Duke Energy; received May 21, 2014

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROJECTIONS ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 0.91 Jul 1.15

2015 ‐‐ Feb 1.00 Aug 1.16

2020 ‐‐ Mar 1.00 Sep 1.10

2030 ‐‐ Apr 1.01 Oct 0.96

2040 ‐‐ May 1.02 Nov 0.82

2050 2.49 Jun 1.10 Dec 0.76

2060 2.49

Station included to account for future additional water required to meet long‐range energy demand."

See Note Below.

‐‐Per Ed Bruce at Duke Energy: "Duke Energy does not have specific plans to build a new power plant at this location.  This is a hypothetical plant identical to the existing Buck Combined Cycle 

Projected net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

Monthly Coefficients are calculated based on 2050 projected monthly net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

‐‐

Draft Projections 6 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 520: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NNH‐30f Category Power

Entity Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Type Net Withdrawal

Facility Additional Nuclear Plant #1 Sub‐basin Blewett Falls Lake

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2002 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2003 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2004 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2005 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2006 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2007 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2008 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2009 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2010 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2011 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2012 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Data Source: Duke Energy Historical Data; Ed Bruce at Duke Energy; received May 21, 2014

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROJECTIONS ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 1.09 Jul 1.10

2015 ‐‐ Feb 1.04 Aug 1.10

2020 ‐‐ Mar 0.93 Sep 1.01

2030 ‐‐ Apr 0.91 Oct 0.95

2040 ‐‐ May 0.91 Nov 0.93

2050 32.16 Jun 1.04 Dec 0.98

2060 32.16

 Catawba Nuclear Station included to account for future additional water required to meet long‐range energy demand."

See Note Below.

‐‐Per Ed Bruce at Duke Energy: "Duke Energy does not have specific plans to build a new power plant at this location.  This is a hypothetical plant with similar consumptive water use to

Projected net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

Monthly Coefficients are calculated based on 2050 projected monthly net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

‐‐

Draft Projections 7 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 521: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

ID No. NNH‐30g Category Power

Entity Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Type Net Withdrawal

Facility Additional Nuclear Plant #2 Sub‐basin Lake Tillery

Contact Harold Brady at NCDENR‐DWR IBT? ‐‐

HISTORICAL DATA SUMMARY

Flow Rate Data (MGD)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Avg

1997 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2002 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2003 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2004 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2005 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2006 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2007 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2008 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2009 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2010 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2011 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2012 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

Data Source: Duke Energy Historical Data; Ed Bruce at Duke Energy; received May 21, 2014

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PROJECTIONS ASSUMPTIONS

Analysis and Projections Notes

PROJECTIONS SUMMARY

Annual Average Flow Monthly Coefficients

Year Flow (mgd) Month Coefficient Month Coefficient

2012 ‐‐ Jan 1.09 Jul 1.10

2015 ‐‐ Feb 1.04 Aug 1.10

2020 ‐‐ Mar 0.93 Sep 1.01

2030 ‐‐ Apr 0.91 Oct 0.95

2040 ‐‐ May 0.91 Nov 0.93

2050 32.16 Jun 1.04 Dec 0.98

2060 32.16

 Catawba Nuclear Station included to account for future additional water required to meet long‐range energy demand."

See Note Below.

‐‐Per Ed Bruce at Duke Energy: "Duke Energy does not have specific plans to build a new power plant at this location.  This is a hypothetical plant with similar consumptive water use to

Projected net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

Monthly Coefficients are calculated based on 2050 projected monthly net withdrawals provided by Duke Energy.

‐‐

Draft Projections 8 of 8 12/11/2014

Page 522: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

CD-4.6 APPENDIX CD – 4.6

Yadkin Water Supply

Analysis – Union County

Projection Inputs by

YRWSP Alternative

Page 523: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐ 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐ 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐ 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐ 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐ 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 7.06

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 7.06

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 7.06

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 7.06

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 7.06

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 7.06

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 7.06

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 7.06

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 7.06

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 7.06

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.72

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 11.76

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 11.76

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 11.76

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 11.76

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 11.76

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 11.76

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 11.76

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 11.76

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 11.76

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 11.76

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 11.76

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 16.47

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 16.47

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 16.47

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 16.47

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 16.47

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 16.47

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 16.47

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 16.47

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 16.47

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 16.47

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 16.47

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 18.82

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 18.82

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 18.82

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 18.82

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 18.82

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 18.82

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension completed by assuming 1.8% AGR but no service area expansion.

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 1)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

Page 524: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.72

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 18.82

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 2A)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Page 525: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.72

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 18.82

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 2B)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Page 526: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.72 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 0.91 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 1.23 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 1.56 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 1.91 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 2.27 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 2.65 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 3.04 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 3.44 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 3.85 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.06 4.25 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 0.38 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 0.82 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 1.28 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 1.75 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 2.23 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 2.74 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 3.25 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 3.79 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 4.25 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 4.72 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.76 5.20 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 0.99 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 1.51 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 2.03 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 2.57 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 3.13 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 3.70 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 4.28 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 4.65 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 5.06 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 5.47 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.47 5.88 ‐‐

‐‐ 18.82 3.94 ‐‐

‐‐ 18.82 4.35 ‐‐

‐‐ 18.82 4.76 ‐‐

‐‐ 18.82 5.24 ‐‐

‐‐ 18.82 5.71 ‐‐

‐‐ 18.82 6.12 ‐‐

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 3)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

Page 527: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.72

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 18.82

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 4)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Page 528: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.76 ‐‐ 3.18

1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.72

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.65 16.49

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 16.48

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 16.46

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.35 18.83

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.76 18.85

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.24 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.71 18.80

‐‐ ‐‐ 6.12 18.84

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply ‐ 

Rocky River (mgd)

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 5)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

Page 529: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.76 3.18 ‐‐

1.76 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ 7.96 ‐‐

‐‐ 8.29 ‐‐

‐‐ 8.62 ‐‐

‐‐ 8.97 ‐‐

‐‐ 9.33 ‐‐

‐‐ 9.71 ‐‐

‐‐ 10.09 ‐‐

‐‐ 10.50 ‐‐

‐‐ 10.91 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.31 ‐‐

‐‐ 11.72 ‐‐

‐‐ 12.15 ‐‐

‐‐ 12.59 ‐‐

‐‐ 13.04 ‐‐

‐‐ 13.51 ‐‐

‐‐ 14.00 ‐‐

‐‐ 14.50 ‐‐

‐‐ 15.02 ‐‐

‐‐ 15.56 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.01 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.48 ‐‐

‐‐ 16.97 ‐‐

‐‐ 17.47 ‐‐

‐‐ 17.98 ‐‐

‐‐ 18.50 ‐‐

‐‐ 19.04 ‐‐

‐‐ 19.60 ‐‐

‐‐ 20.17 ‐‐

‐‐ 20.75 ‐‐

‐‐ 21.12 ‐‐

‐‐ 21.53 ‐‐

‐‐ 21.94 ‐‐

‐‐ 22.35 ‐‐

‐‐ 22.76 ‐‐

‐‐ 23.18 ‐‐

‐‐ 23.59 ‐‐

‐‐ 24.06 ‐‐

‐‐ 24.53 ‐‐

‐‐ 24.94 ‐‐

CRWTP/CMUD 

(Catawba IBT) 

Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 6)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

Page 530: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 7.96 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 8.29 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 8.62 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 8.97 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 9.33 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 9.71 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 10.09 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 10.50 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 10.91 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 11.31 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 11.72 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 12.15 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 12.59 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 13.04 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 13.51 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 14.00 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 14.50 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 15.02 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 15.56 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 16.01 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 16.48 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 16.97 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 17.47 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 17.98 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 18.50 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 19.04 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 19.60 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 20.17 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 20.75 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 21.12 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 21.53 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 21.94 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 22.35 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 22.76 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 23.18 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 23.59 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 24.06 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 24.53 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 24.94 ‐‐

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 7)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP/CMUD 

(Catawba IBT) 

Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Page 531: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

2010 4.90 1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

2011 5.10 1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

2012 5.30 1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

2013 5.52 1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2014 5.76 2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2015 6.00 2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2016 6.25 2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2017 6.51 2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2018 6.78 2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2019 7.06 2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2020 7.35 2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2021 7.65 2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

2022 7.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 ‐‐

2023 8.29 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 ‐‐

2024 8.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 ‐‐

2025 8.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 ‐‐

2026 9.33 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 ‐‐

2027 9.71 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 ‐‐

2028 10.09 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 ‐‐

2029 10.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 ‐‐

2030 10.91 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 ‐‐

2031 11.31 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2032 11.72 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐

2033 12.15 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 ‐‐

2034 12.59 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 ‐‐

2035 13.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 ‐‐

2036 13.51 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 ‐‐

2037 14.00 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 ‐‐

2038 14.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 ‐‐

2039 15.02 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 ‐‐

2040 15.56 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 ‐‐

2041 16.01 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 ‐‐

2042 16.48 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 ‐‐

2043 16.97 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 ‐‐

2044 17.47 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 ‐‐

2045 17.98 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 ‐‐

2046 18.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 ‐‐

2047 19.04 ‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 ‐‐

2048 19.60 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 ‐‐

2049 20.17 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 ‐‐

2050 20.75 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 ‐‐

2051 21.14 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 ‐‐

2052 21.54 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 ‐‐

2053 21.94 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 ‐‐

2054 22.35 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 ‐‐

2055 22.76 ‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 ‐‐

2056 23.19 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 ‐‐

2057 23.62 ‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 ‐‐

2058 24.06 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 ‐‐

2059 24.50 ‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 ‐‐

2060 24.96 ‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 ‐‐

Notes:

1. All projections are in million gallons per day (mgd) on an annual average daily value basis.

2. 2051 to 2060 projections have been extended from originally developed YRWSP projections; extension com

Water Supply Projections (Baseline)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Planning 

Year

Union County ‐ 

Yadkin Service 

Area Water 

Demand 

Projection (mgd)

1.76 ‐‐ 3.18 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.34 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.54 ‐‐

1.76 ‐‐ 3.76 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.41 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.65 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 3.90 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.16 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.43 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 4.71 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.00 ‐‐

2.35 ‐‐ 5.30 ‐‐

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.23 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.56 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.91 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.27 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.65 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.04 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.44 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.85 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 7.06

‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 11.72

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.38 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.82 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.28 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.75 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.23 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.74 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.79 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.25 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.72 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.20 11.76

‐‐ ‐‐ 0.99 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 1.51 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.03 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 2.57 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.13 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.70 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.28 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.67 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.06 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.47 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.88 16.47

‐‐ ‐‐ 3.94 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.36 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 4.80 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.23 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 5.68 18.82

‐‐ ‐‐ 6.14 18.82

Water Supply Projections (Alternative 11)

Anson County 

Treated Supply 

(mgd)

Anson County Raw 

Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba 

IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply 

(mgd)

Page 532: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

--

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Wat

er

Flo

w (

mgd

; an

nu

al a

vera

ge d

ay)

Projection Year

Union County Yadkin Basin Water Demand & Supply - Alternatives 1, 2 & 4

Union County - Yadkin Service Area Water Demand Projection (mgd) Anson County Treated Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba IBT) Supply (mgd) YRWSP Supply (mgd)

Page 533: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

--

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Wat

er

Flo

w (

mgd

; an

nu

al a

vera

ge d

ay)

Projection Year

Union County Yadkin Basin Water Demand & Supply- Alternative 3

Union County - Yadkin Service Area Water Demand Projection (mgd)

Anson County Treated Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply (mgd)

Page 534: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

--

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Wat

er

Flo

w (

mgd

; an

nu

al a

vera

ge d

ay)

Projection Year

Union County Yadkin Basin Water Demand & Supply - Alternative 5

Union County - Yadkin Service Area Water Demand Projection (mgd) Anson County Treated Supply (mgd)

CRWTP (Catawba IBT) Supply (mgd) YRWSP Supply - Rocky River (mgd)

Page 535: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

--

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060Wat

er

Flo

w (

mgd

; an

nu

al a

vera

ge d

ay)

Projection Year

Union County Yadkin Basin Water Demand & Supply - Alternatives 6 & 7

Union County - Yadkin Service Area Water Demand Projection (mgd)

Anson County Treated Supply (mgd)

CRWTP/CMUD (Catawba IBT) Supply (mgd)

YRWSP Supply (mgd)

Page 536: North Carolina Management Commission/E… · C D-4 APPENDIX CD – 4 Yadkin River Basin Model Reference Files 4.1 – Yadkin-Pee Dee Model Logic and Verification Report 4.2 – Summary

Crooked Creek 

WRF2

Monroe WWTP ‐ 

UCPW Capacity3

2010 1.0 1.0

2011 1.0 1.1

2012 1.0 1.2

2013 1.0 1.3

2014 1.1 1.4

2015 1.1 1.5

2016 1.2 1.6

2017 1.2 1.7

2018 1.3 1.9

2019 1.4 2.0

2020 1.5 2.1

2021 1.5 2.2

2022 1.5 2.4

2023 1.5 2.5

2024 1.5 2.6

2025 1.5 2.8

2026 1.5 2.9

2027 1.5 3.0

2028 1.5 3.2

2029 1.5 3.3

2030 1.5 3.4

2031 1.5 3.6

2032 1.5 3.7

2033 1.5 3.8

2034 1.5 4.0

2035 1.5 4.1

2036 1.5 4.2

2037 1.5 4.3 Notes:

2038 1.5 4.5 1. Wastewater flow projections are in units of million gallons per day, on  an average annual daily basis.

2039 1.5 4.6

2040 1.5 4.7

2041 1.5 4.9

2042 1.5 5.1

2043 1.5 5.3

2044 1.5 5.5

2045 1.5 5.6

2046 1.5 5.8

2047 1.5 6.0

2048 1.5 6.2

2049 1.5 6.4

2050 1.5 6.6

2051 1.5 6.7

2052 1.5 6.8

2053 1.5 6.9

2054 1.5 7.0

2055 1.5 7.1

2056 1.5 7.2

2057 1.5 7.3

2058 1.5 7.4

2059 1.5 7.5

2060 1.5 7.6

4. Projections for other small wastewater treatment facilities in Union County's Yadkin Basin service area (Grassy Branch WWTP, Olde Sycamore 

WWTP,  and Tallwood WWTP) have not been included in these projections as they are small package plant facilities.

Planning 

Year

Wastewater Flow Projections in 

Yadkin Service Area (mgd)1

2. Crooked Creek WRF capacity is 1.9 MGD (max month capacity; = 1.5 MGD average day capacity); once Crooked Creek WRF capacity is reached, 

flow is assumed to be scalped to Poplin Road Pump Station and diverted to Twelve Mile WRF (Catawba Basin), per Master Plan.

3. Monroe WWTP values shown are for Union County Public Works flow to City of Monroe's WWTP and do not include Monroe, Marshville or 

Wingate flows.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Wastewater Flow (mgd; annual average day)

Projection Year

Union County Yadkin Basin Wastewater Return Projections

Crooked Creek WRF Monroe WWTP ‐ UCPW Capacity