DEQ-CFW_00020470

I Mm.
Cape Fear River
Water Supply a' a'
Prepared by:
North Carolina
DEQ-CFW-00020470

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Executive Summary
The Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation reviews the long term water needs of public
water systems that depend on surface water from the Deep River, Haw River and Cape Fear
River subbasins and their ability to meet those needs through 2060. The scope of this analysis
is limited to public water systems and self -supplied industrial facilities that use surface water
and the neighboring water systems that depend on them. The evaluation is based on
information submitted to the Division of Water Resources from community water systems
and self -supplied industrial water withdrawers under the local water supply planning and
water withdrawal registration programs. Additional details were provided by local
governments that submitted applications for allocations of water supply storage from Jordan
Lake.
While the driving force for this evaluation is to determine the need for and effects from
allocations of water from the water supply pool in B. Everett Jordan Lake, defensible
allocation decisions require consideration of the adequacy of other regional water supply
sources. Communities in several portions of the basin depend on water from the Neuse River
Basin. Likewise, communities in some areas within the Neuse River Basin depend on water
from the Haw River and Cape Fear River subbasins. Therefore, this evaluation looks at the
interdependency of communities on surface water withdrawals from the Deep River, Haw
River, Cape Fear River, Neuse River and Contentnea Creek subbasins with an emphasis on
the effects on surface water availability upstream of Lock & Dam # I on the Cape Fear River
in Bladen County.
Since the early 1990s North Carolina has required persons that withdraw large quantities of
water to register their withdrawals.' Units of local government and other large community
water systems meet this requirement by preparing and updating a local water supply plan. 2
These programs are managed by the Division of Water Resources. Both programs require
annual reporting of data on current water sources and use. In addition, the local water supply
plans include information on projected water demands through 2060. These two programs
provide the foundation of water use data to evaluate water needs from a basin perspective.
The Cape Fear - Neuse River Basins Hydrologic model, the schematic of which is shown in
Figure ES-2, was calibrated to reproduce known water resource conditions in 2010 providing
a representation of current conditions and a point of comparison for changes predicted from
model scenarios based on various levels of water withdrawals needed to meet future
customer demands. Each model scenario evaluates a specific set of withdrawals and
management options over the range of surface water flows that occurred in the Deep River,
Haw River, Cape Fear River, Neuse River and Contentnea Creek river subbasins from
January 1930 to September 2011. The modeling results are contingent on the specific data
and assumptions used in the model. Local governments that submitted applications for
allocations of water from the Jordan Lake water supply pool submitted additional details on
demand projections and water supply options. The ability of surface water sources to provide
enough water to meet water demands at specific intake locations is evaluated using the
hydrologic model to look at conditions for each of the 29,858 days in the historic flow data.
1 NC GS § 143-215.22H
2 NC GS § 143-355 (1)
4
DEQ-CFW-00020471

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
The analysis focuses on the amount of water available from sources used by communities,
industry and agricultural operations. While the analysis may show that water is available
from a particular source, some water utilities may have to increase the pumping or treatment
capacity to deliver the desired amount of water to meet customer demands in 2060. The Cape
Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model used for this analysis does not reserve water to
protect ecological integrity and it does not include water quality data.
The hydrologic model characterizes surface water quantity conditions over the range of flows
represented by the e 81-
year historic record. it
characterizes water
quantity conditions by
evaluating the effects
of withdrawals and
inflows as water flows
downstream from the
headwaters to the
model's terminal node
where streamflows
become tidally
influenced. Figure ES-1
shows the geographic
boundaries and the
subbasin designations
used in this analysis.
The red dots in each
basin show the
downstream limits of
the Cape Fear — Neuse
River Basins
Hydrologic Model.
Figure ES-1 Geographic scope of Cape Fear - Neuse River Basin Hydrologic
Model
The water utilities included in this analysis are listed in Table I in the body of this report
along with estimates of the number of people currently served and projected to be served in
the future. The specific sources and estimated available supply amounts for each utility
evaluated in this study are shown in Table 2 and water demand estimates are shown in Table
3. Table 4 presents estimates of future water demands prepared by DWR using service
population estimates from the local plans and the calculated gallons per person per day based
on usage in 2010, the basecase year of the hydrologic model.
The Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model is a computer based tool that
evaluates changes in surface water quantities at specific locations based on processing water
withdrawal estimates and associated wastewater returns in the context of streamflows that
N
DEQ-CFW-00020472

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
occurred between 1930 and 2011. The schematic presentation of the model structure in
Figure ES-2 shows the complexity of water sharing among water utilities in these basins.
B. Everett Jordan Dam was constructed in response to flooding of the Cape Fear River. The
Cape Fear River experienced several significant flooding events prior to the devastating flood
of September 1945 which produced an estimated $4.7 million dollars of damage' in
Fayetteville. The Deep River Subbasin and Haw River Subbasin received about six inches of
precipitation during the first week of September that year producing river flows at Lillington,
12007; Carolina Public Health; "The Lake That Almost Wasn't"; Spivey, Angela; Fall 2007
.19
DEQ-CFW-00020473

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
upstream of Fayetteville, of 140,000 cubic feet per second. The citizens of Fayetteville saw
the Cape Fear River rise to 68.9 feet above mean sea level, more than 33 feet above flood
stage. Shortly after this event the U.S. Congress commissioned the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to study water resource needs in the basin.
In 1963, based on the results of this study, the U.S. Congress authorized the construction of
"New Hope Reservoif 'on the Haw River to address issues identified by the USAGE.
Construction began in 1967. In 1973 the project was renamed in honor of U.S. Senator B.
Everett Jordan. "The purposes of B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake are to provide flood
damage reduction, water supply, water quality control, fish and wildlife conservation and
outdoor recreation." The reservoir water levels first met normal operating levels in February
1982.
D: t-, �
R-M
Cwt
, tom
kv of
PO
B. Everett Jordan Dam can retain the runoff from a six inch rainfall on the reservoir
watershed in the 538,400 acre-feet 5 dedicated to flood storage. Water in the flood control
pool can be released in a controlled manner to manage flooding impacts downstream. The
upper level of controllable flood storage is at 240 feet mean sea level. Above this elevation
water flows freely over the spillway.
The project also includes 94,600 acre-feet of storage to provide water for flow augmentation
to address water quality issues downstream. During the study the State of North Carolina
4nllil�lerettlordan.asw
5 538,400 acre-feet can hold 175.4 billion gallons of water
61
DEQ-CFW-00020474

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
agreed to assume financial responsibility for expanding the storage capacity to provide 100
million gallons per day of water to address future water supply needs. Therefore, the project
includes 45,800 acre-feet of storage for water supply needs. In addition, 74,700 acre-feet of
storage are included to provide the ability to compensate for space lost to the water supply
and flow -augmentation pools due to sediment accumulation over the life of the project
When not in flood control mode the reservoir water level is maintained at 216 feet above
mean sea level, except during times of low inflows. At this elevation the conservation storage
and sediment storage pools are full. The storage between 202 feet mean sea level and 216
feet mean sea level is dedicate to flow augmentation and water supply. Storage below 202
feet mean sea level is reserved to compensate for sediment accumulation in the reservoir.
Withdrawals from the flow augmentation account and the water supply accounts are tracked
separately and deducted from the volumes stored for each purpose. Therefore it is helpful to
think of them as two separate reservoirs. Water in the flow augmentation account is not used
for water supply and water in the water supply account is not used to augment streamflow
below the dam.
Flood Risk Management
Since the completion of Jordan Lake the highest water levels in the Cape Fear River at
Fayetteville were generated by Hurricane Fran in 1996 when the water level reached 44 feet
mean sea level. This was above the minor flooding elevation of 35 feet but well below the
1945 flood elevation of 68.9 feet. Precipitation from Hurricane Fran pushed the water level in
Jordan Lake to 233.25 feet mean sea level storing about 341,409 acre-feet (over 111 billion
gallons) of water in the flood control pool and moderating water levels in Fayetteville.6
The Cumberland County Multi jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update of 2010
includes the following statement. "Although the Jordan Dam and Lake serve multiple
purposes, such as water supply, recreation, and flood -control, it is the flood -control purpose
that is most important in Fayetteville. For example, it is estimated that this project provided
an 8-foot reduction in the 100-year flood stage at the U.S. Geological Survey's streamflow
gage on the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville."7
Flow Augmentation for Water Quality
During the water resources study the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consulted with the U.S.
Public Health Service and received the recommendation that a flow in the range of 600 cubic
feet per second would be needed to meet water quality targets given the standards of
6 The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey designate an
elevation of 58 feet mean sea level in the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville as the indicator of a major flooding
event. This water level would be produced by stream flows in the range of 85,000 cubic feet per second. If the
58,000 cubic feet per second of water flow down the Haw River continued downstream rather than being
retained in Jordan Lake flows at the Lillington stream gage could have reached over 99,000 cubic feet per
second, a level sufficient to push water levels in Fayetteville into the major flood classification
2010. Cumberland County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update; prepared by: Comprehensive
Planning Section of the Cumberland County Plamung & Inspections Department and The Fayetteville Planning
Department; March 2011
T
DEQ-CFW 00020475

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
treatment at the time and volumes of wastewater received by the Cape Fear River.' The flow
augmentation pool of the project was designed to provide enough water to augment river
flows to ensure flows of 600 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey's stream
gage on the Cape Fear River at Lillington. This level of flow is equivalent to 388 million
gallons per day. Prior to the completion of Jordan Lake the low flow of record at Lillington
was 11 cubic feet per second in October 1954. Since completion of Jordan Lake Dam and
initiation of flow augmentations the lowest daily average flow at Lillington was 155 cubic
feet per second during drought conditions in August 2002.
Inflows to the reservoir not needed to maintain normal water levels are passed downstream.
Since completion of Jordan Lake Dam flows at Lillington have been above the target more
than 80 percent of the time. More than 50 percent of the time flows have exceeded 1000
cubic feet per second. Therefore much of the time water does not need to be released from
the flow -augmentation pool to meet the target flows downstream. The ability to use water
from the augmentation pool is critical to maintaining downstream flows when inflows to
Jordan Lake decline between precipitation events and during droughts.
During the drought of 1986 the target flow was temporarily reduced to 450 cubic feet per
second to preserve the water remaining in the flow augmentation pool.9 A follow-up study
recommended adjusting the target flow to 600 ± 50 cubic feet per second to provide more
management flexibility. Flows in this range are equivalent to 355 to 421 million gallons per
day.
Severe drought conditions from 1998 through 2002 again required temporarily reducing flow
targets at Lillington to preserve storage in the flow augmentation pool. In 2008 the USACOE
adopted a revised drought management plan that prescribes a progressive reduction in the
flow target as the flow augmentation pool is depleted. Stepped reductions begin when storage
in the flow augmentation pool drops below 80 percent. This protocol is now implemented
automatically as storage declines in the flow -augmentation pool. The drought response
protocol is described in detail in Appendix A.
928ZE=
The State of North Carolina oversees the allocation of 32.62 percent of the conservation pool
dedicated to water supply that was designed to provide 100 million gallons per day of water.
Under General Statute § 143-354 (a) (11) the General Assembly authorized the
Environmental Management Commission to allocate water supply storage in Jordan Lake to
local governments upon proof of need and the commitment to pay the capital, interest,
' 1990: Testimony of John N. Morris, Director, Division of Water Resources: Transcript. of Fayetteville Area
Chamber of Commerce; The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority; the Counties of Bladen, Brunswick,
Columbus, New Hanover, Pender and the City of Wilmington-. Mike Pleasant, President and the Fayetteville
Area Economic Development Corporation; City of Fayetteville, a North Carolina Corporation; and the County
of Cumberland v. North Carolina Department of Environment.. Health and Natural Resources and the
Environmental Management. Commission: August 16, 1990: Raleigh, NC: before Beecher R. Gray, Senior
Administrative Law Judge.
9 1987; NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development; Draft Report, Jordan Lake
Hydrology and Downstream Water Quality Considerations.
A
DEQ-CFW-00020476

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
administrative and operating costs based on the volume allocated. The allocation rules allow
the ENIC to make allocations sufficient to meet applicants' water supply needs over a 30 -
year planning horizon. For allocation requests where the withdrawal or return flows would be
a transfer of surface water requiring an interbasin transfer certificate the review of the
application for an interbasin transfer certificate must be coordinated with the review of the
allocation request. 10
Due to the uncertainty of whether the desired water supply demands and flow augmentation
requirements could be met as water supply withdrawals increased the allocation rules limited
diversions out of the Jordan Lake watershed to 50 percent of the water supply pool yield.
This rule did give the ENIC the authority to "review and revise this limit based on experience
in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed that will affect its
yield"." Since 1988 there have been changes on the watersheds above Lillington that have
enhanced the reliability of the water supply and flow augmentation pools in Jordan Lake.
Table ES-1 shows the current and requested allocations from the Jordan Lake water supply
pool.
The Cape Fear - Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model
The Division of Water Resources uses a hydrologic modeling designed to simulate water
resource systems to evaluate surface water availability under various water withdrawal and
management scenarios. The hydrologic model creates a hypothetical representation of
surface water conditions based on available data and inferences from known data to
characterize the relationships between water withdrawals, return flows and management
protocols. The basecase model scenario produces a mathematical characterization of surface
water volumes and streamflows based on conditions in 2010. The basecase scenario
evaluates water usage and existing infrastructure and management protocols over the range
of stream flows experienced from January 1930 through September 2011. The model does
not project future streamflow conditions. Outputs from the basecase scenario provides
information on the magnitude and duration of water shortages that might have occurred
during historic flow conditions or that may occur if similar flow conditions occur in the
future with water withdrawals to meet the 2010 water demands.
Scenarios based on alternative water withdrawal volumes and management options are
compared to the basecase scenario to identify how conditions could vary compared to current
conditions represented by the basecase scenario. The alternative scenarios that are the focus
of this document are constructed around the water withdrawals expected to be needed to meet
customer demands in 2060. This fifty-year planning period is consistent with requests from
10 -- ---- 15A NCAC 02G.0504 (h)
11 15A NCAC 02G.0504 (h) To protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water supply and water quality
purposes, the Commission will limit water supply allocations that will result in diversions out of the
lake's watershed to 50 percent of the total water supply yield. The Commission may review and revise
this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed
that will affect its yield.
FOR
DEQ-CFW-00020477

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
the Environmental Management Commission in previous Jordan Lake Water Supply
Allocation processes to look at long-term impacts of allocation decisions.
The geographic scope of the Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model is shown in
Figure ES-2. For surface water users included in the model estimates of future water
demands are derived from local water supply plans and other available data. Corresponding
wastewater return flows are estimated as the same percentage of water withdrawals used in
the basecase model scenario, unless more specific information is available. The annual
average amounts are adjusted to estimate monthly average water and wastewater amounts to
capture seasonal variability of water demands. Local government water systems provide data
on available water sources, including expected future sources, in the local water supply plans.
The amount of water available at each surface water withdrawal location is determined
within the model based on the historic flow data. For water supply reservoirs water
availability is based on reservoir physical characteristics, management protocols, inflows and
change in storage. Table 6 in the document lists the annual average withdrawal and
wastewater return amounts used in the model scenarios used for this evaluation.
MU ITO ra a T13. 7: 4 ffmmi & Me
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir is a multipurpose reservoir built and managed by the US Army
Corps of Engineers. It was authorized for flood control, water supply, water quality,
recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. Modeling of Jordan Lake in this evaluation is
targeted at identifying the potential impacts to water supply storage, flow augmentation
storage, reservoir water levels and streamflows downstream of Jordan Dam as more of the
water supply pool is used in the future. The conditions resulting from increased usage of the
water supply storage are compared to the conditions generated by the withdrawals needed to
meet 2010 demands over an 8 [-year hydrologic record. Effects on the water supply pool are
directly related to water withdrawals by units of local government. Currently 63 percent of
the water supply storage is allocated to communities in Chatham, Durham, Orange and Wake
counties.
The Division of Water Resources received requests for new or increased allocations totaling
105.9 percent of the water supply pool. Allocation requests are based on anticipated water
needs to meet customer demands in 2045. Several model scenarios were constructed to
evaluate the ability of surface water withdrawers throughout the Cape Fear River Basin to
meet anticipated 2060 demands from existing and planned sources and from two different
options of future supplies based on allocation requests. The scenario labels and descriptions
are summarized in Table ES-2. Each model scenario evaluates a set of withdrawals needed to
meet customer demands based on the current and expected future infrastructure
configurations described in the local water supply plans and the Jordan Lake Allocation
applications.
X
DEQ-CFW-00020478

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
-r r
Allocation of Jordan Lake Water Supply Pool
Applicant Current Allocation Requested Allocation
Percent Percent
Cary ApexMorrisville RTP
39
46.2
Chatham County -North
6''
13
Durham
10
16.5
Fayettteville PWC
0'
10
Hillsborough
0'
1
Holly Springs
2'
2
Orange County
1'
1.5
Orange Water&Sewer Authority
5'
5
Pittsboro
0
6
Raleigh
0'
4.7
Total Allocations
63
105.9
Ful
DEQ-CFW 00020479

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table ES-2 Model Scenario Descriptions
Model Scenario Descripti ns
This scenario models the baseline current conditons in 2010 based on
Simbase—Current
available water supplies, infrastructure and customer demands at
that time
LWSP indicates this scenario uses demand and supply data from the
local water supply plans of all water systems dependent on surface
01—LWSP—Dem-2060
water sources in the model.
Dem-2060 indicates this scenario is modeling the ability to meet the
estimated water withdrawals needed to meet 2060 demands.
JLA indicates this scenario uses data from Jordan Lake Water Supply
Allocation applications submitted to DWR.
Req2045 indicates this scenario adds the requested Jordan Lake
allocations to existing water supplies reported in the LWSPs.
0
The "F" indicates this scenario includes the allocation request for all
the applicants including Fayetteville PWC.
Dem2060 indicates this scenario evaluates the ability to meet the
water withdrawals needed to meet 2060 water demands and the
resulting changes to water availability.
JLA indicates this scenario uses data from Jordan Lake Water Supply
Allocation applications submitted to DWR.
Req2045 indicates this scenario adds the requested Jordan Lake
allocations to the available water supplies for all applicants.
LA R e q 2 04 5 D�,,mNE5,0
The lack of an "F" indicates this scenario does not include the
allocation request for Fayetteville PWC.
Dem2060 indicates this scenario evaluates the ability to meet the
water withdrawals needed to meet 2060 water demands and the
I
Iresulting changes to water availability.
Modeling indicates that for at least 60 percent of the days represented in the historic flow
record the water supply and water quality pools are at or above 100 percent full and the water
elevation in Jordan Lake is at or above the normal operating elevation. Figures ES-4, ES-5
and ES-6 show the 40 percent of time over the historic record when modeling shows storage
is less than full and when reservoir water elevations drop below the normal operating
elevation of 216 feet above sea level.
The top line in Figures ES-4, ES-5 and ES-6 represents conditions produced by withdrawals
to meet 2010 customer demands. All model scenarios are evaluated over the range of flow
conditions from 1930-2011. The basecase scenario is used to provide a set of conditions that
are likely to be familiar to readers. They provide a baseline against which the effects of
future withdrawal levels can be compared. Figure ES-4 shows that as use of the water supply
pool increases the percent of storage will be lower for longer periods of time.
M
DEQ-CFW-00020480

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Figure ES-4 Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Duration Graph
Duration of Joidw Lake Water Supply Storage Percent
2060 Demands
.......... ...
01 Lwsp Dem NMI :::::: :: � I '. - I 1 .11 � .1 . 1— — —
v��-1 ckw-m J:'��' �� r " 04'- n ... .. ... ...
Figure ES-5 shows that the water quality pool will be below full for more time over the flow
ranges in the model as surface water withdrawers increase use in the future. The storage for
each percent of the flow of the flow record is predicted to be lower in the future compared to
the 2010 basecase scenario figures. However, so declines except in the lowest levels reached
in each scenario. In the future the minimum water quality pool storage rises to 29 percent
from the 21 percent level shown for the 2010 demand scenario.
• 61 LIMP C'm 2060
% Dwatian
Wj
DEQ-CFW-00020481

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
ES-6 Jordan Lake Water Level Duration Gra
Jordan Lake Water Level Duration and Boat damp Impacts
Figure ES-6 shows the combined effects of changes in water supply and water quality storage
on water levels in Jordan Lake. It also indicates elevations at which the use of specific boat
ramps may be compromised. As use of water from Jordan Lake increases boat launching
facilities will be impacted more.
Tables ES-4 and ES-5 show the minimum values reached and when they occurred for the
reservoir water levels, water supply and water quality pool storage and streamflows in the
Cape Fear River at Lillington for each of the included model scenarios.
Table ES-4 Jordan Lake Minimum Values
Jordan Lake Storage Conditions and Target Flow Summary
Jordan Lake
Water Level
Jordan
Lake Water Supply Pool
Minimum
Days in
Model Scenario
Minimum
Date of
Water
Minimum Water
Minimum Longest Period
Days in
Level, ft
Minimum
supply
Supply Period
Supply Storage < 100%
Critical
Level
Period
Storage %
Period
------------------------------------------------------------------
Simbase-current
-------------------------
20932
-------------------------------
8/3012002
-------------------------
90.91
---------------------------------------------------
719/1953 - 1219/1953
---------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
154 71911953 - 121911953
---------------------------
154
01 LWSP Dem2045
207.99
12/1/1953
42.22
7/7/1953 - 1/15/1954
193 5/17/1933 - 3/4/1934
292
01 LWSP Dem206O
207.66
10/23/2007
35.73
7/6/1953 - 1/15/1954
194 5/17/1933 - 3/5/1934
293
03 RAj-_Req2945_Denn2945
29?,33
2666
5117/1934 - 31511934
293 5117/1934 - 3.`V!934
293
Dinn2060
207,21
.1 ".1 9 5 1
2.6.09
3/6;1934
2.94 5/13`1933 - 3/6/1934
294
W,
DEQ-CFW-00020482

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table ES-5 Minimum Values J.L. Water Quality Pool and Cape Fear River Flow at
Lillington
Jordan Lake Storage Conditions and Target Flow Summary
Model Scenario
Jordan Lake Water Quality Pool
Lilington Low -Flow*
Minimum
Water
Quality
Storage, %
Date of
Minimum
Storage
Days Water Events Water
Qualtiy Qualtiy
Storage 0 Storage 0
Lowest Daily
Flowcfs
,
Date of
Lowest Daily
Flow
Years with
Flow
< 600 cfs**
Days with
Flow
< 600 cfs**
Simbase-current
20.82
8/30/2002
0 0
284.55
10/1/2007
61
4,274
01 LWSP Dem2045
29.53
10/23/2007
0 0
171.12
8/19/2002
64
4,987
01 LWSP Dem206O
29.29
10/23/2007
0 0
151.80
8/19/2002
66
5,107
�3 3LA F Req2045 Den)20,15
30,09
10 "23"no
0
�13 3LA F Req2045 Den)206
29A66
10 "231200
0
155,59
8/14/2002
66
5,108
Note * The flow record used for these model scenarios contains a total of 29,858 days in the period of record.
Note" The flow target at the Lillington strearrigage is 600 ± 50 cfs (cubic feet per second). The count in these columns will include periods when
flows were estimated to be between 550 and 600 cfs, not technically a violation of the target.
Table ES-6 shows the results of an analysis of the potential yield of the water supply storage
pool in Jordan Lake based on where withdrawn water is discharged back to the waters of the
state. The 2010 Basecase Scenario values reflect current management protocols. The 2060
Demand Scenario values take into consideration changes to sources, discharge volumes and
management protocols upstream of Jordan Lake that are expected to occur by 2060 based on
MI,
DEQ-CFW-00020483

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
information submitted to DWR. The theoretical yield estimates range from 104 million
gallons per day if all the withdrawn water was removed from the Cape Fear River Basin to
157 million gallons per day if all the withdrawn water was returned to the Jordan Lake
watershed.
As noted earlier the Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model includes surface
water dependent utilities in the Deep River, Haw River, Cape Fear River, Neuse River and
Contentnea Creek subbasins. It includes 40 surface water withdrawals that provide water for
118 community and industrial water systems. This evaluation looks at the ability of the
modeled withdrawers in the Deep River, Haw River and Cape Fear River subbasins to meet
estimated withdrawals needed to meet 2060 customer demands. Demand numbers came from
data submitted support Jordan Lake water supply allocation requests and from local water
supply plans and water withdrawal registrations submitted to DWR for non -applicants.
Many, but not all water withdrawers, have a water shortage response plan included in the
model. These plans are designed to reduce demands during drought conditions.
This analysis assumes some increased use of water from the water supply pool in Jordan
Lake, development of additional supplies and interconnections reported in local water supply
plans, and expansion of water treatment facilities for some communities. The analysis
depends on several key assumptions built into the hydrologic model of water quantity
availability, such as:
• The evaluation focuses on the question, will there be enough water available
at specific locations to satisfy estimated future water demands,
• Water is not reserved in rivers and streams to protect aquatic habitat and
ecological integrity except to the extent that minimum releases are required,
• Population and demand projections in local water supply plans and Jordan
Lake allocation application are the best informed estimates,
• Future water withdrawals will be from the same locations as current
withdrawals with the addition of new withdrawal locations specified in the
source data,
• Water systems that depend on purchasing water from another water system
will continue being supplied by the current seller during the planning horizon
of this study,
• Wastewater return flows will continue at the current locations unless
additional information is provide,
• Future wastewater return flows will be the same percentage of water use as in
the 2010 basecase model scenario unless additional information was provided,
• The model does not predict the future flow conditions, it indicates the effects
of withdrawing various volumes of water over the range of streamflow
conditions that occurred between 1930 and 2011,
• Agricultural water use is based on estimates developed for previous river
basin models and is assumed to be consistent over the planning horizon,
• Water quality is not evaluated,
• Does not evaluate flooding conditions, and
FU
DEQ-CFW-00020484

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
• Does not extend into tidally influenced sections of the Cape Fear River or
Neuse River.
Conclusions
Given the assumptions and data used in the Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Model, the
surface water dependent public water systems in the Deep River, Haw River, and Cape Fear
River subbasins are not expected to face flow related shortages outside of the ranges that can
be addressed if their modeled water shortage response plans are implemented.
Modeling results for Graham, Mebane and Carthage show potential flow related shortages
from their existing water sources. However, their local water supply plans indicate the
intension for each of these system to upgrade their connections to neighboring water systems
in the future to provide additional water. Modeling for Greensboro shows potential supply
shortages at demand levels above those shown for 2045. Currently, Greensboro's supply
from the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority is limited in the model by the existing
capacity of the water treatment plant. If water demand grows as predicted in the local water
supply plans, there is enough water available from Randleman Reservoir and enough time to
increase treatment capacity to address the estimated shortfall.
W-1
DEQ-CFW-00020485

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
The Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation reviews the long term water needs of public
water systems that depend on surface water from the Cape Fear River Basin and their ability
to meet those needs through 2060. The scope of this analysis of water supply resources in the
Cape Fear River Basin is limited to public water systems and self -supplied industrial
facilities that use surface water and the neighboring water systems that depend on them.
While the driving force for this evaluation is to determine the need for and effects from
allocations of water from the water supply pool in B. Everett Jordan Lake, defensible
allocation decisions require consideration of the adequacy of other regional water supply
sources. Communities in several portions of the basin depend on water from the Neuse River
Basin. Likewise, communities in some areas within the Neuse River Basin depend on water
from the Cape Fear River Basin. Therefore, the following evaluation will look at the
interdependency of communities on surface water withdrawals from both basins with an
emphasis on the effects on surface water availability in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The evaluation is based on information submitted to the Division of Water Resources from
community water systems and self -supplied industrial water withdrawers. Since the early
1990s North Carolina has required persons that withdraw large quantities of water to register
their withdrawals. 12 Units of local government and other large community water systems
meet this requirement by preparing and updating a local water supply plan. 13 The Division of
Water Resources receives and manages the data submitted under these programs. The local
water supply plans include information on projected water demands through 2060 as well as
data on current water use and water sources. Other registrations focus on water use and water
sources for a particular year and do not include projections of future needs. Data under both
of these programs are submitted annually to DWR. These two programs provide the
foundation of water use data to evaluate water needs from a basin perspective.
The analysis used for this evaluation focuses on the amount of water available from the
source used by each community. While the analysis may show that water is available from a
particular source, some communities may have to increase the pumping or treatment capacity
to be able to deliver enough water to meet future customer demands. The model used for this
analysis, which will be described in more detail later in this document, does not reserve water
to protect aquatic habitat. If the evaluation indicates a supply shortage while trying to meet
the volume of water needed to meet a given level of demand it is because the model indicates
no water is available from the source. The results of analyzing the potential shortages based
on modeling results will be discussed in this document.
The Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model will be discussed in detail and the
various modeling scenarios used for this evaluation will also be described. The adequacy of
water supply sources will be discussed. The applications for water supply storage from
Jordan Lake will be summarized and the results of modeling several allocation options will
be discussed.
12 NC GS § 143-215.22H
13 NC GS § 143-355 (1)
M
DEQ-CFW-00020486

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Figure I Cape Fear River Basin
The Cape Fear River Basin is the largest
river basin located entirely within North
Carolina encompassing 91200 square
miles. Its 1600 miles of rivers and
streams begin in the southern parts of
Rockingham and Caswell counties and
converge to form the Cape Fear River in
Chatham County on its way to tlow into
the Atlantic Ocean south of Wilmington. The basin contains all or part of twenty-six
counties that include the hilly terrain of the Piedmont as well as the relatively flat Coastal
Plain. The Haw and Deep river subbasins, with the hilly terrain characteristic of the Piedmont
physiographic region, have most of the water supply reservoirs in the basin. B. Everett
Jordan Dam, on the Haw River, creates Jordan Lake the largest reservoir in the basin, which
is capable of holding four million acre-feet of water. At the normal operating water level of
216 feet above mean sea level the reservoir stores water for public water supply and
downstream flow augmentation for water quality. Above this elevation there are twenty-four
vertical feet of flood storage capable of retaining 538,400 acre-feet of runoff during high -
flow events for controlled release to minimize downstream flooding.
Downstream of Jordan Dam the Haw River and the Deep River converge to form the Cape
Fear River. The flow of the river is constrained at four locations below Jordan Lake by dams
that do not regulate flow but do create pools in the river with water levels determined by the
elevations of the tops of the dams. Moving downstream from Jordan Lake, Buckhorn Dam,
south of State Route 42 near Corinth, creates the first such backwater. Below the City of
Fayetteville there are three sets of locks and dams in the Cape Fear River that are operated by
the US Army Corps of Engineers to support navigation on the river between Fayetteville and
the Port of Wilmington. Lock & Dam #1, near the community of Kelly in Bladen County, is
the downstream limit of the evaluation of the effects of surface water withdrawals from Cape
Fear River Basin.
Effectively evaluating water supply resources and options in the Cape Fear River Basin also
requires evaluating water supply conditions in the Neuse River Basin. Regional water sharing
and interconnections between public water utilities are critical to reliably meeting community
water needs in both river basins.
Fff
DEQ-CFW-00020487

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Neuse River Basin
Figure 2 Neuse River Basin
The Neuse River Basin lies entirely
within the state draining an area of 6,235
square miles in eighteen counties. It is the
third largest river basin in North
Carolina. The Eno, Flat and Little rivers
mer
ge to form the Neuse River in eastern
Durham County in an area now inundated
by Falls Lake. Falls Lake, built and
operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is the largest reservoir in the Neuse River
Basin. It is a multipurpose reservoir that provides storage for water supply and flow
augmentation as well as flood storage to contain runoff from high -flow events to reduce
downstream flooding. Below Falls Lake the Neuse River regains its riverine character as it
flows southeasterly through the broad flat terrain of the Coastal Plain to empty into Pamlico
Sound.
The Town of Hillsborough and the City of Durham rely on reservoirs on the Eno River and
the Flat and Little river watersheds, respectively, to supply water to their water treatment
plants. Downstream of these reservoirs, Falls Lake is the primary source of water for the City
of Raleigh and the surrounding communities that have partnered with the Raleigh Public
Utilities Department. Raleigh also has a water supply source available from the Swift Creek
watershed that supplements the available supply from Falls Lake.
Figure 3 Geographic Scope of the Hydrologic Modeling
Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model.
Me]
The quantitative analysis used for
evaluating the adequacy of surface
water resources is derived from the
outputs of a computer -based
hydrologic model. The model
characterizes surface water quantity
conditions, based on historic flow
data, by appraising withdrawals and
inflows as water flows downstream
from the headwaters to the model's
terminal node where streamflows
become tidally influenced. Figure 3,
shows the geographic boundaries and
the subbasin designations of the Cape
Fear River Basin and Neuse River
Basin used in this analysis. The red
dots in each basin show the
downstream limits of the Cape Fear —
DEQ-CFW-00020488

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
This document will review the current and projected service population estimates submitted
by water systems in the Cape Fear and Neuse river basins in their local water supply plans.
These will be followed by a review of the water utilities' reported available water supplies
and projections of future water demands from 2020 through 2060.
Many factors influence how and when a community grows including: road, water and
sewer infrastructure; local ordinances, land use controls and development patterns;
and availability of jobs. For the purposes of this analysis we assume that local officials
have the best perspective on their community growth. This analysis accepts the
population projections based on currently available data supplied in the local water
supply plans submitted by local officials. Population growth is a key determinant of the
future water demands on the public water systems. Table 1 shows the estimated
service populations for the water supply systems included in the computer modeling
and analysis for this evaluation of water supply conditions. The data provide an insight
into the number of people each water system is expecting to serve from its drinking
water distribution system in the future. The entries in bold are the local governments
that applied for a water supply allocation from Jordan Lake.
Table 1 shows the service population projections for the water systems included in the
modeling for this analysis. The data came from local water supply plans for 2010 and
2012. Future projections were taken from the 2012 plans to coordinate with the Jordan
Lake allocation applications.
This analysis focuses on the quantity of surface water present at various locations
throughout the Cape Fear and Neuse river basins and how the quantity may change as a
result of the withdrawals needed to meet future water demands. The amount of water a
public water system can provide to meet customer needs is an important factor in
assessing the possibility of water shortages. How much water a public water system can
provide is a function of the amount available from the source and how much can be
pumped and treated to produce potable water. This evaluation looks at how much
water is available at the location of water supply intakes. It is important to remember
that the analysis for this report only looks at the quantity of water available. There may
be water quality concerns associated with a particular source that limit the ability to
produce potable water or that limit the amount of water that can be withdrawn because
of potential impacts to instrearn water quality. The amount of water available may also
be limited by contractual arrangements, resource management regulations or habitat
protection needs.
Ground Water Supply
Some public water systems included in this analysis get their water from ground water
and surface water sources. Their surface water demands for this analysis are
all
DEQ-CFW-00020489

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
determined by subtracting the yield of ground water sources from future demand
projections based on information in their local water supply plans.
A practical definition of "yield" for a ground water well is the long-term rate at which
water can be withdrawn without exceeding the natural recharge capability of the
aquifer. In coastal areas withdrawals may be limited to the amount that can be pumped
without causing saltwater intrusion into an aquifer. Systems using ground water
conduct a drawdown test, at least at initial well construction. The drawdown test
determines how much water can be withdrawn from a well without exceeding the
natural recharge capability of the associated aquifer. The results of the drawdown test
are used to determine the maximum sustainable pumping rate, or yield, for the well.
North Carolina requires at least a 24-hour drawdown test to determine well yield for
public water supply wells.14
The rules governing public water systems require that the combined yield of all wells of
a water supply system be adequate to meet the average daily demand in 12 hours
pumping time.15 This requirement ensures that the system can reliably provide
adequate water to its customers. The combined 12-hour supply for the wells supplying
a water system reported in the local water supply plans is used to determine the
adequacy of the existing supplies. If the system needs to pump more than 12 hours a
day to meet average system demands, the system administrators face the question of
whether to encourage customers to use water more efficiently or to develop additional
sources of supply or both.
We used the data on existing 12-hour yields from the Local Water Supply Plans as the
available supply from ground water sources for the systems included in this analysis.
Surface Water Supply
Surface water can be withdrawn from a stream or river as it flows past an intake, a run -
of -river intake, or it can be withdrawn from an impoundment where flowing water is
retained behind a structure that retards its movement downstream. Such an
impoundment can be a managed reservoir which can control releases downstream or it
can simply be a structure in the channel that creates a pool of water at the height of the
structure and allows water to flow unrestricted over the top of the structure. The lock
and dam facilities in the Cape Fear River are examples of the latter arrangement.
Managed reservoirs impound water during high flow periods for later use when stream
flows would otherwise be insufficient to meet withdrawal demands and management
goals. Run -of -river intakes simply withdraw a portion of the water in the stream as it
flows by with withdrawals limited by the amount of water in the channel or by limits
established to meet environmental management goals.
14 15A NCAC 18C.0402(g)(1)
Is 15A NCAC 18C.0402(g)(3)
W
DEQ-CFW-00020490

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
For planning purposes the potential yield or available supply can be estimated for
reservoirs and run -of -river intake locations, but the methods for determining the yields
are different. The potential yield of surface water sources is the amount of water that
can be withdrawn during low flow or drought conditions. The potential yield is
determined from data on the amount of water that is likely to be available based on the
water that was available during a defined period in the recent past.
MIR
Run -of -river intake systems differ from reservoirs in that they are typically limited by
the water flowing in the source stream with no ability to augment water supply during
extended dry weather periods. During moderate to high flows this is not a problem.
However, during low flow periods this inability to augment flows using stored water
can be extremely critical. In some cases, even short-term low flow events can result in
water shortages if alternative sources are not available to augment water supplies.
A commonly used estimate of expected low flow levels is a measure of flow called the
"7Q10." The 7Q10 low flow is the lowest average flow for seven consecutive days
expected to occur on average once in 10 years based on the historic record. The 7Q10 is
not the lowest flow of record, but rather the lowest 7-day average flow with a 10-year
recurrence interval. It is also the flow rate used for calculations of wasteload allocations
for pollution discharge permits. Low flow conditions with a 10-year recurrence interval
have a 10 percent chance of occurring in any year, a high enough probability to warrant
advanced planning.
To protect aquatic ecosystems and other users, run -of -river intakes are allowed to
withdraw only a portion of the 7Q10 low flow. Limits on run -of -river withdrawals are
established by examining the potential impacts of a proposed withdrawal on flows and
the aquatic habitat at a particular location based on a site -specific flow study. The local
habitat is assessed at various flow levels and a determination is made as to the quality
of the habitat and the potential impacts of varying levels of withdrawals. These studies
are time consuming and can be expensive. But, they provide a site -specific evaluation of
the effects of potential withdrawals and help in designing intakes for conditions at a
particular location. An alternative is to use a planning guideline that indicates a
withdrawal amount that is unlikely to have serious effects on aquatic habitat during low
flow conditions.
In North Carolina the planning guideline that has been used is 20 percent of the 7Q10
flow. If a proposed instantaneous surface water withdrawal, in combination with other
withdrawals in the stream reach, will not result in cumulative withdrawals that take
more than 20 percent of the 7Q10 flow there has been a general presumption that it will
have minimal effects on local aquatic habitat and other users and additional studies
have not been automatically required. The 20 percent of the 7Q10 flow is not a limit on
withdrawals, but rather a general planning guideline. If there are specific concerns at
the proposed site, such as potential impacts on an endangered species, in-depth
W'd
DEQ-CFW-00020491

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
environmental studies can be required at any level of withdrawal. If 20 percent of the
7Q10 does not provide enough water to meet the expected water demands of a
particular system then an instream-flow study will help determine if more water can be
withdrawn without harming aquatic habitat.
For water supply systems that withdraw water from streams in the Cape Fear River
Basin, results from the Cape Fear-Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Model provide an
indication of the limits on water availability at surface water intakes. However, the
model does not limit withdrawals to 20 percent of the 7Q10 flow and it does not
reserve water for habitat protection. If water is available at a particular location in the
model it will be used to satisfy modeled demands. In this arrangement a water supply
shortage exists if there is not enough water to satisfy the modeled demands at a
particular location.
VNI—OVIGIFUTP. =1-
Water supply reservoirs impound water during high flow periods for later use when
stream flows are not sufficient to meet demands. Stream flows and reservoir storage
will determine how much water is available, or how many days of supply are available
given a particular daily rate of use. Water can be stored by damming a stream channel
or by developing an off -stream storage facility. In either case the historical occurrence
of low inflow conditions provides essential data for estimating the potential yield. For
any given impoundment the estimated yield is conditioned by the length of the data
record used in the calculations.
Reservoir yields are estimated based on the reliability desired for the intended use. A
20-year yield estimates the allowable withdrawal rate based on an expected reliability
of 19 out of 20 years. This estimate implies that in any given year there would be a 5
percent risk that the estimated level of withdrawal could not be sustained. Similarly, a
50-year yield estimate defines a withdrawal rate with an expected reliability of 49 out
of 50 years having a 2 percent risk that the withdrawal cannot be sustained in any year.
Many surface water systems cannot use the entire amount of their available supply
because of treatment and distribution system limitations. In this analysis, we assumed
that if water were available from the current source, then systems would invest in the
facilities to produce and distribute more potable water when demand approached the
limits of existing capacity.
At several locations on the Cape Fear River water is retained behind an impoundment
that creates a pool of water with a surface elevation determined by the height of the
impounding structure. Water flowing into the impoundment flows freely over the
impounding structure. Water releases from the impoundment are not managed or
regulated. These structures provide a relatively constant water depth that provide
some of the advantages of a reservoir over a run -of -river intake where water levels are
IM,
DEQ-CFW-00020492

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
dependent on flow rates and stream channel configurations. More detail on evaluating
how much water may be available for communities having a water supply intake in this
type of impoundment is provided in Appendix B which discusses conditions above
William 0. Huske Lock & Dam where Fayetteville Public Works Commission withdraws
water.
Many water systems buy water from neighboring systems. The Division of Water
Resources encourages systems that buy or sell water to develop contracts for the
transactions. Contracts make clear to all parties the amount of water to be available and
the length of time it will be available. Systems that buy water need to know how much
water they can get and for how long. While sellers need to plan to have the committed
amount of water available when needed.
Local water supply plans provide information on water sales and purchases as well as
contract amounts. Purchase arrangements are assumed to continue over the fifty year
planning horizon of this analysis. For water systems for which purchasing water is their
only supply, we assumed that their estimated future demands will be met by the
current suppliers, regardless of reported contract limits.
Table 2 shows the amount of water available to each of the water utilities analyzed for
this report, based on the information reported in their local water supply plans. It
indicates the sources available to each utility and the estimated amount of water
available from each source in millions of gallons per day. The streams that provide
surface water sources are identified and, if applicable, water supply reservoirs are
identified. The available supply amounts shown represent the estimated amount of
water that is expected to be available from a particular source. Communities may or
may not have existing infrastructure sufficient to fully use the listed amount of water.
For water systems that depend on water from another system the selling system is
identified and the contract amounts reported in the local water supply plans are shown
as the available supplies. The contracts listed in the local plans are of varying lengths
and may or may not be capable of being increased if the current contracts prove to be
insufficient to meet future demands. These contracts are negotiated directly by the
participating utilities.
Local water supply plans are available for review on the Division of Water Resources
website at
illtp://www.ncwatei-.oi��/Wate.i- Sup.121y -.1J.p g/.Local �Vqter Supply 111an/.
.............................................................. — ..................... .. . ......... .... ................ . ..................... . ........ .... . . . ................
Water demand projections will be discussed in the next section.
9111
DEQ-CFW-00020493

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table 1 Estimated Service Populations
Estimated Service Populations base on data from Local Water Supply Plans and Jordan Lake Allocation Requests*
County System ID# Water System 2010 2013 1 2020 1 2030 1 2040 2050 1 2060
Alamance
02-01-035
Alamance
750
955
1,100
1,200
1,320
1,450
1,600
02-01-010
Burlington
52,000
51,306
56,100
62,896
70,500
79,000
88,600
02-01-025
Elon
9,419
10,056
11,632
13,884
16,136
18,389
20,641
02-01-015
Graham
15,043
14,300
17,554
20,246
23,039
25,873
28,460
02-01-030
Green Level
2,345
2,540
2,873
3,000
3,200
4,144
4,458
02-01-020
Haw River
2,068
2,309
2,643
3,039
3,495
4,019
4,622
02-01-018
Mebane
11,393
12,600
15,419
19,445
23,471
27,497
31,523
30-01-005
Swepsonville
1,154
1,192
1,401
1,751
2,188
2,736
3,419
Bladen
03-09-010
Elizabethtown
3,900
3,683
3,612
3,641
3,670
3,699
3,728
50-09-013
LCFWSA- Kings Bluff (Industrial Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50-09-012
LCFWSA- Bladen Bluffs (Industrial Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Brunswick
04-10-130
Bald Head Island Utilities Dept.
200
215
220
230
240
250
260
04-10-045
Brunswick County
80,000
74,550
96,374
117,025
138,790
158,803
182,622
04-10-070
Brunswick Regional WSD
18,726
20,269
23,106
27,727
33,272
39,926
47,911
04-10-055
Caswell Beach
501
600
510
510
510
510
510
70-10-058
04-10-065
Leland
Navassa
0
1,900
1,240
747
921
845
1,183
962
1,445
1,006
1,707
1,115
1,969
1,245
70-10-045
Northwest
882
278
322
386
463
556
667
04-10-020
Oak Island
8,203
8,595
15,700
16,700
17,700
18,700
19,700
04-10-025
Shallotte
1,998
3,904
4,000
4,078
4,282
4,496
4,721
04-10-010
Southport
5,250
5,405
5,500
5,700
6,000
6,600
6,800
Chatham
40-19-010
Chatham County Asbury Water System
841
985
1,181
1,371
1,591
1,846
2,143
03-19-126
Chatham County North Water System*
10,200
13,120
25,900
41,600
57,300
73,400
94,000
03-19-050
Chatham County Southwest Water System
2,266
2,077
2,601
3,019
3,503
4,066
4,719
03-19-025
Goldston Gulf SD
1,443
1,370
1,280
1,290
1,295
1,300
1,305
03-19-015
Pittsboro*
3,700
4,033
24,000
58,600
79,900
87100
96,800
03-19-010
Siler City
7,877
8,140
8,547
8,974
9,423
9,894
10,388
Cumberland
50-26-027 EastoverSanitary District 0 6,162 6,200 6,300 6,400 6,500 6,600
03-26-035
Falcon
720
730
760
820
907
957
1,007
03-26-010
Fayetteville*
199,102
203,500
254,208
316,772
384,376
412,383
440,390
03-26-050
Godwin
267
257
258
268
278
288
290
03-26-045
Linden
1,547
1,605
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
1,700
50-26-019
Old North Utility Services, Inc.
65,000
76,000
78,195
80,150
82,154
84,208
86,313
03-26-020
Spring Lake
9,000
81900
9,660
10,670
11,780
13,010
14,370
03-26-030 Stedman 970 1,061 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,250 1,300
Durham
03-32-010 Durham* 246,180 262,725 1 286,419 1 329,421 1 372,423 415,425 1 458,426
Granville
02-39-015
Creedmoor
4,124
4,223
1 7,475
1 10,450
13,425
16,400
16,400
02-39-107
South Granville Water and Sewer Authority
10,467
19,216
20,753
22,828
25,111
27,622
30,385
40-39-004
Wilton Water and Sewer
0
900
900
900
900
900
900
ibsonville
5,980
6,619
8,779
11,864
14,950
18,035
21,121
reensboro
260,083
277,080
299,941
339,800
391,874
451,928
521,186
igh Point
101,409
108,285
113,586
123,808
134,950
147,095
160,334
mestown
5,667
5,667
7,000
7,500
8,200
8,500
8,800
edmont Triad Regional Water Authority
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
--- -----------------------------------------------------------
igier 6,545 6,075 8,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
'agg Communities
5,855
5,855
5,855
5,855
5,855
5,855
5,855
pats
2,246
2,246
2,302
2,359
2,418
2,479
2,531
unn
9,263
9,263
9,363
9,463
9,563
9,663
9,763
arnett County Regional Water System
79,059
90,004
122,909
145,211
167,500
189,778
215,018
Ilington
3,300
3,269
4,131
4,338
4,554
4,782
5,260
KU
DEQ-CFW 00020494

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table 1 (cont.) Estimated Service Populations
Estimated Service Populations base on data from Local Water Supply Plans and Jordan Lake Allocation Requests*
County System ID# Water System 2010 2013 1 2020 1 2030 1 2040 2050 1 2060
Johnston
03-51-025
Benson
4,671
3,311
3,625
3,725
3,825
3,925
4,000
I
03-51-020
Clayton
15,780
17,635
21,688
29,127
39,118
52,535
70,555
I
03-51-195
Flowers Plantation
3,637
4,030
6,059
6,059
6,059
6,059
6,059
03-51-035
Four Oaks
2,570
2,430
2,701
3,001
3,376
3,832
4,388
03-51-070
03-51-030
Johnston County
Kenly
59,800
1,328
67,000
1,339
79,500
1,407
972000
1,423
118,500
1,438
144,500
1,451
176,500
1,466
40-51-008
Micro (County Line)
45
15
25
30
40
50
60
03-51-050
Princeton
1,376
1,201
1 1,601
1 2,019
1 2,536
3,175
4,012
03-51-010
Smithfield
11,476
11,016
11,093
11,205
11,317
11,431
11,534
Lee
03-53-015
Broadway
1,476
1,654
1,848
2,113
2,430
2,795
3,186
03-53-101
Carolina Trace WS
4,129
4,388
5,220
5,220
5,220
5,220
5,220
Lenoir
03-53-010
Sanford
40,900
41,967
56,600
76,000
92,200
111,800
135,700
04-54-030
Deep Run WC
12,675
12,880
16,413
19,630
23,478
28,080
28,080
04-54-010
Kinston
27,588
27,500
28,000
28,500
29,000
30,000
30,500
04-54-025
North Lenoir Water Corp.
14,450
15,647
14,700
15,000
15,250
15,500
15,750
04-54-020
Pink Hill
955
955
965
980
990
11000
1,010
50-63-011
50-63-021
East Moore Water District
Moore County Public Utilities -High Falls
03-63-103
Moore County Public Utilities -Hyland Hills
03-63-108
Moore County Public Utilities-Pinehurst
03-63-155
Moore County Public Utilities -Robbins
03-63-117
Moore County Public Utilities -Seven Lakes
03-63-045
Moore County Public Utilities -Vass
03-63-015
Robbins Water System
Hanover
04-65-010 1Cape Fear Public Utility Authority- Wilmin
04-65-015
Carolina Beach
2,414 2,250 2,600 2,800 3,000 3,200 3,300
3,248 5,200 6,320 6,547 6,783 7,027 7,280
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 50 289 300 310 321 333
335 294 358 383 410 438 469
12,450 17,000 17,095 19,511 22,268 25,415 29,005
56 100 62 68 74 81 88
6,365 5,489 6,443 6,675 6,916 7,165 7,423
834 1,000 1,087 1,162 1,242 1,328 1,419
1,332 1,108 2,008 1 2,286 1 2,400 2,500 2,600
169,568 185,000 200,000 233,526 298,636 1 363,570 380,500
11,900 12,000 13,800 0 0 0 0
03-68-015
Hillsborough*
1 12,216
13,565
16,800
1 20,100
1 24,200
29,000
33,800
03-68-010
Orange Water and Sewer Authority*
79,400
80,614
92,700
107,000
121,200
135,500
149,700
03-68-020
Orange-Alamance
8,282
8,456
8,532
8,782
9,032
9,282
9,532
04-74-025
04-74-045
Ayden
Bell Arthur WC
4,861
9,000
5,022
3,860
5,402
9,300
5,973
9,300
6,600
10,000
7,290
10,500
7,390
10,550
04-74-015
Eastern Pines Water Corporation
19,441
19,441
32,160
45,810
45,810
45,810
45,810
04-74-035
Grifton
2,500
2,854
2,825
3,079
3,356
3,658
3,681
ndolph
02-76-030 Archdale
02-76-035 Franklinville
02-76-020 Ramseur
02-76-015 Randleman
---------------------------
ckingham
02-79-020 Reidsville
02-79-050 Rockingham Co
1,380
1,164
1, 250
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
3,271
3,271
3,240
3,560
3,880
4,230
4,400
4,113
4,150
4,700
5,100
5,500
5,900
6,300
14,637
15,000
16,033
16,650
17,066
17,492
18,391
0
818
1,300
1,500
1,700
1,900
2,100
03-92-045 jApex* 37,700 1 42,040 1 53,100 1 74,400 1 100,500 1 109,200 1 112,200
03-92-020 Cary* 144,900 166,678 176,400 208,100 230,600 247,900 248,400
03-92-055 Fuquay-Varina 17,937 19,804 27,662 42,162 59,662 77,162 94,662
03-92-050 Holly Springs* 24,700 28,320 46,710 61,920 74,821 89,041 103,261
04-96-060
Fork Township SD
11,100
11,100
1 11,200
1 11,450
1 11,700
12,000
12,300
04-96-025
Fremont
1,463
1,258
1,324
1,257
1,195
1,135
1,053
04-96-010
Goldsboro
33,312
37,051
41,356
47,559
54,698
62,902
72,337
04-96-030
Pikeville
793
714
793
910
1,025
1,135
1,265
04-96-065
Wayne WD
47,752
47,972
63,037
73,159
85,042
98,692
114,533
04-98-020 Elm City 1,375 1,454 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
04-98-010
Wilson
51,000
52,500
54,500
59,400
64,700
70,500
76,800
m
DEQ-CFW 00020495

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
`fable 2 Available Water Supply in Million Gallons per Da
Water System's Estimated Available Supplies reported in Local Water Supply Plans
County Isystem iD# IWater'system Isource Available Supply{mgd} I Basin
Alamance
Brunswick
Chatham
Columbus
Cumberland
Durham
02-01-035
lAlamance
from Burlington
0.50
02 01-010
Burlington
Stoney Creek Reservoir
14.60
Haw River (02-1)
Burlington
Great Alamance Creek/Lake Mackintosh
35.60
Haw River(02-1)
02-01-025
Elon
from Burlington
1.60
02-01-015
Graham
Back Creek/Graham-Mebane Lake
12.00
Haw River (02-1)
02 01-030
Green Level
from Graham
0.22
02-01-020
Haw River
from Burlington
1.50
02-01-018
Mebane
from Graham
4.00
30-01-005
Swepsonville
from Graham
0.50
03-09-010
Elizabethtown
groundwater
0.98
50-09-013
ILCFWSA- Kings Bluff (Industrial Use)
ICape Fear River
53.00
Cape Fear River (02-3)
50-09-012
ILCFWSA Bladen Bluffs (Industrial Use)
ICape Fear River
6.00
Cape Fear River (02-3)
04-10-130
lBald Head Island Utilities Dept.
from Brunswick County
0.50
04-10-045
Brunswick County
from LCFWSA- Kings Bluff
24.00
Cape Fear River (02-3)
Brunswick County
groundwater
8.88
04-10-070
Brunswick Regional (H2GO)
from Brunswick County
1.00
04-10-055
Caswell Beach
from Brunswick County
0.30
70-10-058
Leland
from Brunswick County
0.50
04-10-065
Navassa
from Brunswick County
0.20
70-10-045
Northwest
from Brunswick County
0.21
04-10-020
Oak Island
from Brunswick County
2.00
04-10-035
Ocean Isle Beach
from Brunswick County
1.06
04-10-025
Shallotte
from Brunswick County
0.75
04-10-010
ISouthport
from Brunswick County
1.42
40-19-010
Chatham County Asbury Water System
from Sanford
0.40
03-19-126
Chatham County North Water System
Haw River/B. Everett Jordan Lake
3.00
Haw River (02-1)
03-19-050
Chatham County Southwest Water System
from Si ler City
0.50
03-19-025
Goldston Gulf SD
from Sanford
0.25
03-19-015
Pittsboro
Haw River
2.00
Haw River (02-1)
03-19-010
Siler City
Rocky River/ Upper & Lower Reservoirs
4.00
Deep River (02-2)
04-24-035 Riegelwood SD ICAPE FEAR RIVER 1 1.00 ICape Fear River (02-3)
50-26-027
Eastover Sanitary District
from Dunn
1.00
03-26-035
Falcon
from Dunn
0.20
03-26-010
Fayetteville
Cape Fear River- 1
42.90
Cape Fear River (02-3)
Fayetteville
Cape Fear- 2
42.90
Cape Fear River (02-3)
Fayetteville
Little Cross Creek/Glenville Lake
4.50
Cape Fear River (02-3)
Fayetteville
Big Cross Creek
0.90
Cape Fear River (02-3)
03-26-050
Godwin
from Falcon
0.04
03-26-045
Linden
from Harnett County RWS
0.25
50-26-019
Old North Utility Services, Inc.
from Fayetteville PWC
8.00
Old North Utility Services, Inc.
from Harnett County RWS
8.00
03-26-020
Spring Lake
from Fayetteville PWC
1.56
Spring Lake
from Harnett County RWS
0.50
03-26-030
Stedman
from Fayetteville PWC
0.16
03-32-010
Durha
lEno River
1 5.00
INeuse River (10-1)
Durham
Haw River/B. Everett Jordan Lake
10.00
Haw River (02-1)
Durham
Flat River/Lake Michie
10.50
Neuse River (10-1)
Durham
Little River Lake
17.40
Neuse River (10-1)
Durham
Eno River/Teer-Hanson Quarry
5.20
Neuse River (10-1)
02-39-015
Creedmoor
I from SGWASAJ
0.55
02-39-107
40-39-004
South Granville Water and Sewer Authority
lWilton Water and Sewer
Knapp of Reed's Creel</RD Holt Reservoir
from Creedmoorl
11.00
0.08
Neuse River (10-1)
Guilford
02-41-025 Gibsonville
02-41-010 Greensborc
gh Point
gh Point
gh Point
mestown
mestown
from Burlington
2.50
Fork Cr./Lake Townsend
24.00
Haw River
-----------------------------------
Fork Cr.Horsepen Cr./Lake Brandt
-----------------------
12.00
----------
Haw River
reek/Lake Higgins
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00
Haw Rivera
from PTRWA
6.37
liver/Oak Hollow
12.84
Deep River
-----------------------------------
liver/City Lake
-----------------------
8.60
----------
Deep River
from PTRWA
2.68
from High Point
1.35
from Greensborol
0.05
M
DEQ-CFW 00020496

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
i able Z Avaname water 5uppiy in minion vaiions per Day (cons.)
Water Systems Estimated Available Supplies reported in Local Water Supply Plans
New Hanover
50-43-001
lBragg Communities
from Harnett County RWSJ
0.80
03-43-020
Coats
from Harnett County RWSJ
0.72
03-43-010
Dunn
Cape Fear River
12.00
Cape Fear River (02-3)
03-43-045
Harnett County Regional Water System
ICape Fear River
68.39
Cape Fear River(02-3)
Harnett County Regional Water System
from Dunnj
1.00
03-43-025
Lillington
from Harnett County RWSJ
2.00
03-51-025
Benson
from Dunn
0.95
Benson
from Johnston County
0.20
03-51-020
Clayton
from Johnston County
2.59
03-51-195
Aqua NC / Flowers Plantation
from Johnston County
0.38
03-51-035
Four Oaks
from Johnston County
0.24
03-51-070
Johnston County
Neuse River
12.00
Neuse River(10-1)
Johnston County
from Harnett County RWS
2.60
03-51-030
Kenly
from Johnston County
0.30
40-51-008
Micro (County Line)
from Johnston County
0.50
03-51-050
Princeton
from Johnston County
0.13
03-51_010
Smithfield
INeuse River
6.20
Neuse River (10-1)
03-53-015
Broadway
from Sanford
0.30
03-53-101
ICarolina Trace WS
from Sanford
0.29
03-53-010
ISanford
Cape Fear River/Yarborough Lake
12.60
Deep River (02-2)
04-54-030
Deep Run WC
from NRWASA
0.73
Deep Run WC
groundwater
2.603 (0.651)
04-54-010
60-54-001
04-54-025
04-54-020
03-63-025
Kinston _________________________________________________________________
Kinston
Neuse_Regional_Water and_Sewer Authority
North Lenoir Water Corp.
North Lenoir Water Corp.
Pink Hill
Pink Hillgroundwater
Carthage
from NRWASA
groundwater
Neuse River
from NRWASA
groundwater
from NRWASA
Nicks Creek/Carthage Reservoir
3.07
------------ 6 217 (1.437)
15.00
1.19
2.938 (0.735)
0.15
0.13
1.00
Neuse_River (10-1) ______
Cape Fear River (02-3)
50-63-011
lEast Moore Water District
from Harnett County RWS
3.00
50-63-021
Moore County Public Utilities -High Falls
from Chatham County SW
0.03
03-63-103
Moore County Public Utilities -Hyland Hills
from East Moore Water District
0.05
Moore County Public Utilities -Hyland Hills
from Chatham County SW
0.03
03-63-108
Moore County Public Utilities-Pinehurst
groundwater
1.37
Moore County Public Utilities-Pinehurst
from East Moore Water District
1.00
Moore County Public Utilities-Pinehurst
from Aberdeen
0.60
Moore County Public Utilities-Pinehurst
from Southern Pines
1.00
03-63-155
Moore County Public Utilities -Robbins
from Robbins
0.03
03-63-117
Moore County Public Utilities -Seven Lakes
groundwater
0.06
Moore County Public Utilities -Seven Lakes
from Moore County-Pinehurst
1.00
0163-045
Moore County Public Utilities -Vass
from East Moore Water District
0.20
03-63-015
Robbi ns Water System
Bear Creek/ CB Brooks Reservoir
0.05
Deep River(02-2)
Robbins Water Svstem
from Monteomery Countvi
0.25
Yadkin River fl9-11
04-65-010
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority - Wilmington
Cape Fear River
53.00
Cape Fear River(02-3)
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority - Wilmington
groundwater
8.15
04-65-015
ICarolina Beach
groundwater
2.01
illsborough
Eno River/Lake Ben Johnston
0.68
Neuse River
illsborough
West Fork of the Eno Reservoir
1.80
Neuse River
illsborough
East Fork Eno River/Lake Orange Reservoir
0.08
Neuse River
range Water and Sewer Authority
Cane Creek Reservoir
8.50
Haw River {(
range Water and Sewer Authority
Morgan Creek/University Lake
2.00
Haw River((
range Water and Sewer Authority
Haw River/ B Everett Jordan Lake
5.00
Haw River {(
range-Alamance
Eno River/Corporation Lake
0.37
Neuse River
yden
from NRWASA
0.39
yden
groundwater
1.091 (0.196)
ell Arthur WC
from NRWASA
0.60
ell Arthur WC
groundwater
1.933 (0.402)
astern Pines Water Corporation
from NRWASA
1.19
astern Pines Water Corporation
groundwater
2.722 (0.824)
rifton
from NRWASA
0.14
rifton
groundwater
0.432 (0.108)
rchdale
from PTRWA
1.45
,anklinville
from Ramseur
0.25
iedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
Deep River/Randleman Reservoir
48.00
Deep River
amseur
ISandy Creek Reservoir
6.60
Deep River
andleman
I from PTRWA
1.00
F..
DEQ-CFW 00020497

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
rfTable 2 Available Water Supply in Million Gallons per Day (cont.)
(Water Svstem's Estimated Available Sunulies reported in Local Water Suuniv Plans
02-79-020
Reidsville
Troublesome Creek/Lake Reidsville
19.00
Haw River (02-1)
Reidsville
ITroublesome Creek/Lake Hunt
0.00
Haw River (02-1)
02-79-050
Rockingham Co
from Reidsville
0.55
Rockingham Co
from Madison
0.20
Roanoke (14-1)
03-92-045
jApex
Haw River/ B Everett Jordan Lake
8.50
Haw River (02-1)
03-92-020
Cary
Haw River/ B Everett Jordan Lake
30.50
Haw River (02-1)
03-92-055
Fuquay-Varina
from Harnett County RWS
2.00
03-92-050
Holly Springs-
from Harnett County RWS
10.00
Holly Springs*
Haw River/ B Everett Jordan Lake
2.00
03-92-010
Raleigh
Neuse River/Falls Lake
66.10
Neuse River (10-1
Raleigh
Swift Creek/Lake Benson
11.20
Neuse River (10-1
e
04-96-060
Fork Towns hip SD
from Goldsboro
0.50
Fork Township SD
groundwater
1.251 (0.645)
04-96-025
Fremont
from Wayne WD
0.17
04-96-010
Goldsboro
Neuse River
25.85
Neuse River (10-1
Goldsboro
Little River
0.65
Neuse River (10-1
04-96-030
Pikeville
from Fremont
0.10
Pikeville
from Wayne WD
0.15
04-96-065
Wayne WD
from Goldsboro
3.20
Wayne WD
groundwater
7.85 (6.376)
n
04-98-020
Elm City
from Wi is on
0.30
Elm City
groundwater
0.15
04-98-010
Wilson
Contentnea Creek/Buckhorn Lake
26.70
Contentnea Creek
Wilson
Contentnea Creek/Wiggins Mill Reservoir
1.00
Contentnea Creek
Wilson
Toisnot Swamp/Toisnot Reservoir
0.20
Contentnea Creek
Wilson
Toisnot Swamp/Lake Wilson
1.00
Contentnea Creek
we
DEQ-CFW 00020498

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
This analysis answers the question: is there likely to be enough water available from a
particular source to meet the 2060 demands of the public water systems that depend on that
source? The results are based on output from the Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic
Model a computer modeling platform designed to characterize water resource systems. The
details of the model will be discussed in a later section of this document. The model does not
reserve water to protect ecological integrity nor does it limit withdrawals to volumes that
would not threaten water quality in the vicinity of the withdrawal. Streamflows and water
availability estimates generated by the model depend on the wastewater discharge volumes
assumed in the model. If the assumptions about the proportions of withdrawals that are
discharged as treated wastewater are changed then the flow estimates, and therefore the water
availability estimates, will change.
The results of this analysis show that, based on the assumptions in the model, including some
increases in water allocations from Jordan Lake reservoir, there appears to be enough water
to meet the estimated withdrawals needed to meet 2060 demands, Some communities may
have to implement their water shortage response plans during droughts to manage demand
and some communities may have to develop additional infrastructure to make use of it. The
ability to develop efficient distribution systems and the ability to have additional water
available when it is needed depends on factors such as funding and regional cooperation. The
demand projections for each water system in this analysis are listed in the Table 3, organized
by county.
Table 3 shows the demand estimates compiled from independent projections for residential,
commercial, institutional and industrial demands submitted by local officials in their local
water supply plans. Table 4 shows demand estimates developed by DWR using the estimated
service populations from the local water supply plans and the system -wide per capita water
use (gallons per capita day, gpcd) from the 2010 local water supply plans.
Projecting demand strictly on increases in the number of residents served provides a general
indication of demand growth. However, overall water system demands can be strongly
influenced by industrial and commercial development within a utility's service area. These
uses are not necessarily linked directly to the number of residential users.
CEO
DEQ-CFW-00020499

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table 3 Local Water Supply Plan Water Demand Estimates
2010 Water Use and Estimated Future Water Demands from 2013 Local Water Supply Plans in Million Gallons per Day
IN
Water system
Reported
use '
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
;Estimated
' Demand'
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
2010
2020
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2060
Alamance County
02-01-035
Alamance
0.096
0.077
0.083
0.088
0.092
0.097
0.102
0.110
02-01-010
Burlington
9.018
7.652
8.501
8.978
9.454
9.991
10.527
11.739
02-01-025
Elon
0.611
0.634
0.735
0.782
0.829
0.874
0.918
0.999
02-01-015
Graham
1.938
2.461
2.836
3.034
3.231
3.429
3.627
-----------------
3.988
02-01-030
Green Level
0.080
0.110
0.111
0.113
0.114
0.114
0.114
0.935
02-01-020
Haw River
0.188
0.276
0.290
0.312
0.333
0.358
0.383
0.441
02-01-018
Mebane
1.250
1.833
2.245
2.438
2.631
2.812
2.992
3.332
30-01-005
Swepsonville
0.119
0.114
0.139
0.153
0.167
0.211
0.254
0.307
Bladen County
03-09-010
Elizabethtown
0.642
0.719
0.775
0.802
0.828
0.862
0.895
0.896
50-09-013
LCFWSA - Kings Bluff (Industrial Use)
2.750
2.627
2.627
2.627
2.627
2.627
2.627
2.627
50-09-012
LCFWSA Bladen Bluffs
1.450
1.450
1.450
1.450
1.450
1.450
1.450
Brunswick 5ounty
04-10-130
Bald Head Island Utilities
0.206
0.141
0.149
0.153
0.157
0.161
0.165
0.173
04-10-045
Brunswick County
9.586
15.587
17.094
18.319
19.544
20.634
21.723
24.174
04-10-070
Brunswick Regional WSD
1.660
1.639
1.967
2.163
2.359
2.594
2.829
3.394
04-10-055
Caswell Beach
0.145
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.257
0.375
70-10-058
Leland
0.243
0.243
0.312
0.347
0.381
0.416
0.451
0.518
04-10-065
Navassa
0.083
0.106
0.113
0.117
0.121
0.128
0.134
0.147
70-10-045
Northwest
0.105
0.233
0.240
0.231
0.222
0.215
0.207
0.215
04-10-020
Oak Island
0.884
0.931
1.346
1.434
1.521
1.622
1.722
1.973
04-10-035
Ocean Isle Beach
0.616
1.085
1.401
1.401
1.401
1.401
1.401
1.401
70-10-057
Sandy Creek
0.013
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.019
0.021
0.024
04-10-025
Shallotte
0.411
0.396
0.416
0.427
0.438
0.449
0.460
0.484
04-10-010
Southport
0.426
1.159
1.390
1.545
1.700
1.780
1.860
2.007
Chatham County
40-19-010
Chatham County Asbury
0.194
0.184
0.213
0.229
0.245
0.266
0.287
0.330
03-19-126
Chatham County North Water System
1.939
5.968
9.397
11.422
13.447
14.705
15.963
20.442
03-19-050
Chatham County SW
0.328
0.283
0.329
0.355
0.381
0.414
0.446
0.516
03-19-025
Goldston Gulf SD
0.053
0.084
0.088
0.089
0.090
0.092
0.093
0.097
0033-0004
Cape Fear Steam Plant (decommissioned
5.620
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0383-0001
Performance Fibers
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201
03-19-015
Pittsboro
0.623
3.335
7.768
8.928
10.087
10.444
10.801
---------------
11.761
03-19-010
Siler City
1.897
1.972
2.070
2.122
2.174
2.228
2.282
2.398
Craven County
CUR-0052 Weyerhaeuser
14.471
14.471
14.471
14.471
14.471
14.471
14.471
14.471
Cumberland County
0059-0003
DuPont Company - Fayetteville
10.217
11.170
11.170
11.170
11.170
11.170
11.170
11.170
50-26-027
Eastover SD
0.400
0.402
0.403
0.404
0.405
0.406
0.408
03-26-035
Falcon
0.110
0.061
0.064
0.066
0.067
0.069
0.070
0.075
03-26-010
Fayetteville PWC
25.244
33.700
44.500
50.000
55.500
59.800
64.100
72.500
03-26-050
Godwin
0.015
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.014
03-26-045
Linden
0.145
0.117
0.118
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.119
0.118
50-26-019
Old North Utility Services, Inc.
4.798
4.588
4.702
4.761
4.819
4.879
4.939
5.062
03-26-020
Spring Lake
0.812
1.109
1.177
1.254
1.331
1.414
1.496
1.651
03-26-030
IStedman
0.089
0.091
1 0.100
1 0.108
0.116
1 0.118
1 0.120
1 0.124
•7
DEQ-CFW 00020500

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
i abie i LOcai water Supply Fian water llemanci estimates Lcont.)
I A I A tiklwa.sw I I- ...A CKi:.ws.ws.nA Ci.3s-. 5klwa.sw r%.s-..A. X..-- I A 4 a l e. I WO.... Ci.a..a..1- M.- t.. Beal Ml:n.. P_"w91.ea..w .anr M-
03-32-010 IDurham
25.284
1 30.669 34.096
36.100
38.100
40.000
41.903
44.401
Granville County
02-39-015
Creedmoor
0.374
0.472 0.635
0.710
0.784
0.872
0.959
0.959
02-39-107
South Granville Water & Sewer Authorit
3.133
2.707 2.978
3.129
3.279
3.442
3.604
3.964
40-39-004
Wilton Water and Sewer
0.021 0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
Guilford County
02-41-025
Gibsonville
0.576
0.707 0.924
1.030
1.135
1.238
1.341
1.544
02-41-010
Greensboro
38.535
40.461 45.314
48.485
51.656
55.312
58.967
67.399
02-41-020
High Point
12.186
13.321 15.205
15.891
16.577
17.323
18.068
19.694
02-41-030
Jamestown
0.500
0.570 0.601
0.622
0.642
0.652
0.662
0.681
02-41-030
Jamestown
0.570
0.570 0.601
0.622
0.642
0.652
0.662
0.681
30-76-010
Piedmont Triad RWA (process water)
0.946
0.770 1.110
1.275
1.440
1.830
2.220
2.220
30-76-010
lPiedmont Triad RWA (withdrawal)
18.625 19.089
19.331
25.963
26.439
33.304
33.364
Harnett County
03-43-015
Angier
0.415
0.556 0.720
0.867
1.013
1.192
1.370
1.638
50-43-001
Bragg Comm/NTA Water Sys
0.273
0.270 0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
0.800
03-43-030
Campbell University
0.111 0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
03-43-020
Coats
0.145
0.154 0.160
0.163
0.166
0.169
0.172
0.178
03-43-010
Dunn
1.907
1.715 1.747
1.764
1.780
1.797
1.814
1.848
03-43-045
Harnett County Regional Water System
7.988
10.340 12.366
13.450
14.533
15.713
16.893
19.725
03-43-025
Lillington
0.366
0.832 0.871
0.894
0.917
0.939
0.961
1.009
Hoke County
03-47-025
Hoke RWS
2.215
3.056 3.846
4.341
4.835
5.270
5.705
6.183
03-47-010
Raeford
1.776
2.488 2.535
2.565
2.594
2.630
2.665
2.735
Johnston County
03-51-025
Benson
0.753
0.854 0.875
0.881
0.886
0.902
0.918
0.939
03-51-020
Clayton
2.244
2.557 3.116
3.459
3.801
4.217
4.633
5.646
03-51-195
Flowers Plantation
0.729
0.416 0.416
0.416
0.416
0.416
0.416
0.416
03-51-035
Four Oaks
0.223
0.281 0.315
0.336
0.357
0.383
0.408
0.469
03-51-070
Johnston County
4.924
6.073 7.331
8.098
8.865
9.849
10.833
----------------
13.113
03-51-030
Kenly
0.230
0.231 0.243
0.257
0.271
0.285
0.298
0.313
40-51-008
Micro (County Line)
0.003
0.014 0.016
0.018
0.019
0.020
0.021
0.031
03-51-050
Princeton
0.113
0.132 0.165
0.185
0.204
0.229
0.253
0.315
03-51-010
Smithfield
2.074
2.005 2.165
2.346
2.526
2.712
2.897
4.308
Lee County
03-53-015
Broadway
0.095
0.118 0.141
0.151
0.161
0.172
0.183
0.209
03-53-015
Broadway
0.095
0.118 0.141
0.151
0.161
0.172
0.183
0.209
03-53-101
Carolina Trace WS
0.214
0.186 0.186
0.186
0.186
0.186
0.186
0.186
0285-0007
Pilgrims Pride
0.929
0.884 0.884
0.884
0.884
0.884
0.884
0.884
03-53-010
Sanford
5.849
7.458 10.563
12.374
14.184
16.710
19.236
23.349
Lenoir County
04-54-030
Deep Run WC
0.916
1.218 1.457
1.600
1.742
1.914
2.085
2.085
04-54-010
Kinston
3.458
5.874 6.358
6.601
6.843
7.085
7.327
7.811
60-54-001
Neuse Regional Water & Sewer Authorit
0.783
1.233 1.233
1.233
1.233
1.233
1.233
1.233
04-54-025
North Lenoir Water Corp.
0.984
1.181 1.200
1.209
1.218
1.225
1.232
1.246
04-54-020
Pink Hill
0.061
0.070 0.071
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
0.072
•Z,
DEQ-CFW 00020501

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table 3 Local Water Su-oDIv Plan Water Demand Estimates (cont.
03-63-114
Aqua NC- Woodlake
0.104
0.140 0.140
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.140
03-63-025
Carthage
0.300
0.531
0.567 0.578
0.588
0.589
0.589
0.642
50-63-011
East Moore Water District
0.237
0.332
0.359 0.388
0.416
0.455
0.493
0.556
50-63-021
Moore County Public Utilities -High Falls
0.003
0.005
0.005 0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
03-63-103
Moore County Public Utilities -Hyland Hill
0.029
0.024
0.026 0.027
0.028
0.029
0.030
0.032
03-63-108
Moore County Public Utilities-Pinehurst
1.947
2.031
2.317 2.481
2.644
2.831
3.018
3.445
03-63-155
Moore County Public Utilities -Robbins
0.010
0.003
0.003 0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
03-63-117
Moore County Public Utilities -Seven Lak(
0.457
0.455
0.472 0.481
0.489
0.499
0.508
0.526
03-63-045
Moore County Public Utilities -Vass
0.094
0.084
0.090 0.093
0.096
0.100
0.103
0.111
03-63-015
Robbins
0.166
0.183
0.208 0.214
0.219
0.223
0.228
0.237
New Hanover County
04-65-010 ICape Fear RUA - Wilmington
19.595
20.648
23.599 25.288
26.977
28.910
30.843
36.715
Orange County
03-68-015
Hillsborough
1.157
2.320
2.700 2.870
3.040
3.220
3.390
3.700
Orange County
0.700
1.600 2.000
2.400
2.800
3.200
3.900
03-68-010
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
7.697
8.320
9.680 10.235
10.790
11.325
11.860
12.910
03-68-020
Orange-Alamance
0.648
0.704
0.725 0.735
0.744
0.755
0.765
0.784
Render County
70-71-011 Pencler County/Rocky Point -Topsail WSE
0.150
2.682
3.576 4.131
4.686
7.320
9.953
12.237
Pitt County
04-74-025
Ayden
0.446
0.509
0.550 0.575
0.599
0.621
0.642
0.681
04-74-045
Bell Arthur WC
0.655
0.846
0.914 0.991
1.068
1.172
1.275
1.358
04-74-015
Eastern Pines Water Corp.
1.531
2.820
4.020 4.020
4.020
4.020
4.020
4.020
04-74-035
Griffon
0.168
0.166
0.177 0.182
0.187
0.192
0.196
0.202
Randolph County
02-76-030
Archdale
1.133
1.107
1.128 1.137
1.146
1.157
1.167
1.182
02-76-030
Archdale
1.133
1.107
1.128 1.137
1.146
1.157
1.167
1.182
02-76-010
Asheboro service area demand
4.065
7.553
8.647 9.276
9.904
10.610
11.315
12.387
02-76-035
Franklinville
0.088
0.102
0.106 0.108
0.109
0.111
0.113
0.116
02-76-020
Ramseur service area demand
0.399
0.396
0.426 0.444
0.462
0.478
0.493
0.519
02-76-015
Randleman service area demand
0.969
0.888
0.991 1.059
1.127
1.202
1.277
1.322
Rockingham County,
02-79-020
IReidsville
3.652
3.545
3.683 3.738
3.792
3.840
3.887
4.032
02-79-050
1 Rockingham Co
0.098
0.134
0.148 0.155
0.161
0.168
0.174
0.188
Wake County
03-92-045
Apex
2.947
4.890
7.093 8.306
9.519
10.028
10.537
10.754
03-92-020
Cary (inc. sale to RDU, RTP&Morrisville)
17.306
23.400
29.600 31.700
33.800
35.100
36.400
36.600
03-92-055
Fuquay-Varina
1.846
2.554
3.866 4.627
5.388
6.150
6.911
8.456
0033-0011
Harris Nuclear Station
26.448
20.000
20.000 20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
03-92-050
Holly Springs
1.601
4.430
5.720 6.230
6.740
6.760
7.740
8.780
03-92-010
IRaleigh
50.999
63.251
75.885 84.800
88.601
97.000
99.630
111.556
Wayne County
04-96-040
Fork Township SD purchases
0.153
0.153 0.153
0.153
0.153
0.153
0.153
04-96-025
Fremont
0.119
0.123
0.119 0.116
0.113
0.111
0.109
0.103
04-96-010
Goldsboro
4.784
5.331
6.015 6.395
6.775
7.204
7.632
8.601
CUR0001
HF Lee Steam Station
15.122
8.077
8.077 8.077
8.077
8.077
8.077
8.077
04-96-030
Pikeville
0.110
0.046
0.063 0.067
0.071
0.075
0.079
0.083
04-96-065
Wayne WD
3.737
4.786
5.555 6.006
6.456
6.974
7.492
8.693
Wilson County
04-98-020
lElm City
0.157
0.131
0.134 0.136
0.137
0.139
0.140
0.143
04-98-010
lWilson
6.828
8.832
9.971 10.437
10.903
11.415
11.927
12.930
7gy
DEQ-CFW-00020502

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table 4 Population Based Water Demand Estimates
timatea service population lrOMLocal water Nuppiy viansmumpilea Dy /-uiu gations per capita aay water use)
mated Water Demands based on Service Populations data from Local Water Supply Plans and Jordan Lake Allocation Requests*
inty ISystem lD# Water System 12010 gpcd 12020 mgd 1! 2030 mgd 2040 mgd 1 2050 mgd 2060 mgd
mance
02-01-035 1,Alamance
128.00
----------------------
0.141 0.154
-----------------
0.169
0.186
0.205
02-01-010 Burlington
173.42
9.729 10.908
12.226
13.700
15.365
02-01-025 Elon
64.87
0.755 0.901
1.047
1.193
1.339
02-01-015 !!Graham
128.83
2.261 2.608
2.968
3.333
3.667
02-01-030 '!Green Level
34.12
0.098 0.102
0.109
0.141
0.152
02-01-020 !,Haw River
90.91
0.240 0.276
0.318
0.365
0.420
02-01-018 Mebane
109.72
1.692 1 2.133
2.575
3.017
3.459
den
30-01-005 Swelpsonville
03-09-010 '!Elizabethtown
103.12
0.144 0.181
0.226
0.282
0.353
89.36
0.323 0.325
0.328
0.331
0.333
50-09-013 11,LCF SA- Kings Bluff (industrial Use)
1.631 1.631
1.631
1.631
1.631
50-09-012 I!LCFWSA Bladen Bluffs (Industrial Use)
4.039 4.039
4.039
4.039
4.039
nswick
04-10-130 !!Bald Head Island Utilities Dept.
103000
0227 0.237
0.247
0.258
0268
04-10-045 Brunswick County
119.83
11.548 14.023
16.631
19.029
21.883
04-10-070 !,Brunswick Regional WSD
88.65
2.048 2.458
2.949
3.539
4.247
04-10-055 '!Caswell Beach
289.42
0.148 0.148
0.148
0-.-14-8
0.148
70-10-058 ,Leland
100.00
0.092 0.118
------
0.145
------
0.171
0.197
04-10-065 INavassa
43.68
0.037 0042
0044
0049
0.054
70-10-045 ,Northwest
119.05
0.038 1 0.046
0.055
0.066
0.079
04-10-020 Calk Island
107.77
1.692 1.800
1.907
2.015
2.123
04-10-025 '!Shallotte
205.71
0.823 0.839
0.881
0.925
0.971
04-10-010 ,Southport
81.14
0.446 0.463
0.487
0.536
0.552
them
40-19-010 Chatham County Asbury Water System
230.68
0.272 0.316
0.367
0.426
0.494
03-19-126 !Chatham County North Water System*
190.10
4.924 Z908
10.893
13.953
I7.869
03-19-050 Chatham County Southwest Water System
144.75
0.376 0.437
0.507
0.589
0.683
03-19-025 Goldston Gulf SD
36.73
0.047 0.047
0.048
0.048
0.048
03-19-015 !!Pittsboro*
168.38
4.041 9.867
13.453
14.666
16.299
03-19-010 I!Siler City
240.83
2.058 2.161
2.269
2.383
2.502
nberland
50-26-027 1! Eastover Sanitary District
64.59
0.400 0.407
0.413
0.420
0.426
03-26-035 ,Falcon
152.78
0.116 0.125
0.139
0.146
0.154
03-26-010 !!Fayetteville*
126.79
32.231 40.163
48.735
52.286
55.837
03-26-050 '!Godwin
56.18
0.014 0.015
0.016
0.016
0.016
03-26-045 Linden
93.73
0.159 0.159
0.159
0A59
0.159
50-26-019 '!Old North Utility Services, Inc.
i-----------------------------------
73.82
5.772 5.916
6.064
6.216
6.371
03-26-020 ,Spring Lake
90.22
0.872 0.963
1.063
1.174
1.296
03-26-030 !!Stedman
91.75
0.096 0.101
0.106
0.115
0.119
ham
103-32-010 Durham 102.71 29.417 33.833 38.250 42.666 47.083
nville
02-39-015
i,Creedmoor
KK
0.678 ii i
0.948
1.217
1
1 1.487
1.487
02-39-107
!!South Granville Water and Sewer Authority
299.32
6.212
6.833
7.516
8.268
9095
40-39-004
'!Wilton Water and Sewer
22.22
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.020
0020
L3UIITora
02-41-025 I!Gibsonville
96.32
0.846 1.143
1.440
1.737
2.034
02-41-010 !,Greensboro
148.16
44.441 50.346
58.062
66.960
77.221
02-41-020 '!High Point
120.17
13.649 14.878
16.217
17.676
19.267
02-41-030 Jamestown
88.23
0.618 0.662
0.723
0350
0.776
30-76-010 ,Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Harnett
03-43-015 ,Angier
63.41
0.507 0.634
0.951
1.268
1.585
50-43-001 ,Bragg Communities
46.63
0.273 0.273
0.273
0.273
0.273
03-43-020 '!Coats
64.56
0.149 0.152
0A56
0.160
0.163
03-43-010 '!Dunn
205.87
1.928 1.948
1.969
1.989
2.010
03-43-045 1! Harnett County Regional Water System
101.04
12.419 14.672
16.924
19.175
21.725
Hoke Co
03-43-025 I! Lillington 110.91
0A58 0.481
0.505
0.530
0.583
03-47-025 ',Hoke RWS
58.68
2.594 3.286
3.638
3990
4343
03-47-010 Raeford
403.64
1.937 2.131
2.341
2.543
2.745
DEQ-CFW-00020503

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
Table 4 Population Based Water Demand Estimates (cont.)
(Estimated service population from Local Water Supply Plans multiplied by 2010 gallons per capita day water use)
Estimated Water Demands based on Service Populations data from Local Water Supply Plans and Jordan Lake Allocation Requests*
iCounty System ID#::Water S:y:st:e:m12010 gpcd 1 2020 mgd 1 2030 mgd 1 2040 mgd 1 2050 mgd 1 2060
Johnston
03-51-025
Benson
161.21
0.584
0.600
0.617
0.633
0.645
03-51-020
Clayton
142.21
3.084
4.142
5.563
7.471
10.033
03-51-195
Flowers Plantation
200.44
1.214
1.214
1.214
1.214
1.214
03-51-035
Four Oaks
86.77
0.234
0.260
0.293
0.333
0.381
03-51-070
Johnston County
82.34
6.546
7.987
9.757
11.898
14.533
03-51-030
Kenly
173.19
0.244
0.246
0.249
0.251
0.254
140-51-008
iMicro (County Line)
66.67
1 0.002
0.002
0.003
1 0.003
0.004
103-51-050
1 Princeton
82.12
1 0.131
0.166
0.208
0.261
0.329
103-51-010
ISmithfield
1 180.72
1 2.005
1 2.025
1 2.045
1 2.066
2.084
103-53-015
lBroadway
64.36
1 0.119
0.136
1 0.156
1 0.180
0.205
103-53-101
ICarolina Trace WS
51.83
1 0.271
0.271
1 0.271
1 0.271
0.271
103-53-010
ISanford
143.01
1 8.094
1 10.869
1 13.185
1 15.988
19.406
04-54-030
Deep Run WC
72.27
1.186
1.419
1.697
2.029
2.029
04-54-010
Kinston
125.34
3.510
3.572
3.635
3.760
3.823
04-54-025
North Lenoir Water Corp.
68.10
1.001
1.021
1.038
1.056
1.073
04-54-020
Pink Hill
63.87
0.062
0.063
0.063
0.064
0.065
03-63-025
Carthage
124.28
0.323
0.348
0.373
0.398
0.410
50-63-011
East Moore Water District
72.97
0.461
0.478
0.495
0.513
0.531
50-63-021
Moore County Public Utilities -High Falls
272.73
0.079
0.082
0.085
0.088
0.091
03-63-103
Moore County Public Utilities -Hyland Hills
86.57
0.031
0.033
0.035
0.038
0.041
03-63-108
Moore County Public Utilities-Pinehurst
156.39
2.673
3.051
3.482
3.975
4.536
03-63-155
Moore County Public Utilities -Robbins
178.57
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.016
03-63-117
Moore County Public Utilities -Seven Lakes
7180
0463
0479
0497
0514
0.533
03-63-045
Moore County Public Utilities -Vass
11271
0.123
0.131
0140
0150
0.160
03-63-015
Robbins Water System
12462
0250
0285
0299
0312
0324
Hanover
104-65-010 ICape Fear Public Utility Authority- Wilmington j 115.56 23.112 26.986 1 34.510 42.014 43.970
104-65-015 ICarolina Beach 1 121.85 1.682 1.682 1 1.682 1.682 1 1.682
ge
103-68-015
Hillsborough*
1 94.71
1.591
1.904
1 2.292
2.747
3.201
103-68-010
1 Orange Water and Sewer Authority*
1 96.94
8.986
10.373
1 11.749
13.135
14.512
[
103-68-020
Orange-Alamance
1 78.24
0.668
0.687
1 0.707
0.726
0.746
04-74-025
Ayden
91.75
0.496
0.548
0.606
0.669
0.678
04-74-045
Bell Arthur WC
72.78
0677
0677
0728
0.764
0.768
04-74-015
Eastern Pines Water Corporation
78.75
2.533
3.608
1
3.608
3.608
1
3.608
04-74-035
Grifton
67.20
0.190
0.207
0.226
0.246
0.247
olph
02-76-030
Archdale
116.80
1.518
1.635
1.752
1.869
1.986
02-76-035
Franklinville
63.77
0.080
0.083
0.089
0.096
0.102
02-76-020
Ramseur
12198
0395
0434
0473
k1.296
0.516
0.537
02-76-015
Randleman
23559
1107
1.202
1.390
1.484
ckingham
102-79-020 IReidsville
102-79-050 IRockingham Co
ike
249.50 4.000 4.154 1 4.258 4.364 1 4.591
96.58 0.126 0.145 1 0.164 0.183 1 0203
03-92-045
Apex*
78.17
4.151
5.816
7.856
8.536
8.771
03-92-020
Cary*
119.43
21.068
24.854
27.542
29.608
29.667
03-92-055
Fuquay-Varina
102.92
2.847
4.339
6.140
7.941
9.742
03-92-050
Holly Springs*
64.82
3.028
4.014
4.850
S.771
6.693
03-92-010
Raleigh*
105.11
67.110
83.989
101.237
119.210
138.339
0-4--9-6---0-6-0
Fork -Township SD -------------------------------------------
------ 82.79 ......
...... 0.927
0.948
0.969
0.994
1.018
04--9-6---0-25
Fremont -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ 81-34 ------
------ 0.108 ------
------ 0.102 ------
------ 0.097 -----
------ 0.092 ------
----- 0.086
04-96-010
Goldsboro
143.61
5.939
6.830
7.855
9.033
10.388
04-96-030
Pikeville
138.71
0.110
0.126
0.142
0.157
0.175
04-96-065
Wayne-WD
78.26
4.933
5.725
6.655
7.723
8.963
20 lElm City 114.18 1 0.171 0.171 1 0.171 1 0.171 0.171
10 lWilson 133.88 1 7.297 7.953 1 8.662 1 9.439 1 10.282
35
DEQ-CFW-00020504

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
The analysis presented in this report is based on combining
water use data submitted by water users with that compiled by
the DWR staff and consultants. The data are evaluated using a
computer based hydrologic model designed to simulate the
effects of water withdrawals on surface water availability. The
results of the modeling give a hypothetical representation of
changes in water quantity that may occur as surface water
withdrawals vary. The results are dependent on data
availability and the accuracy of presumptions made about
future conditions. Changes in the data used or changes in the
presumptions will produce different results.
An initial version of a Cape Fear River Basin Model was developed for analyzing the
potential impacts of water supply allocations from B. Everett Jordan Lake that were
approved in 2002. In 2007 the data compiled for the initial model were transferred to a
different program platform called OASIS with OCL'" developed by HydroLogics, Inc.
OASIS is a generalized simulation program designed to characterize water resource
systems. OCL, Operations Control Language, is a proprietary program that facilitates the
customization of OASIS for specific applications. The resulting Cape Fear River Basin
Hydrologic Model was developed in consultation with the major surface water
withdrawers in the basin along with representatives of State and federal resource
management agencies. During the updating process the historic inflow data were
updated to extend streamflow data used in the model through 2005.
For the analysis of this fourth round of allocations of water supply storage in Jordan
Lake the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Model was combined with the existing
Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Model. The combined Cape Fear - Neuse River Basins
Hydrologic Model characterizes the effects of surface water withdrawals and water
sharing among public utilities in both basins. During the process of merging the two
models inflow data were updated to capture flow conditions through September 2011.
The basecase of the model processes the range of historical flows through the existing
and known future infrastructure and management protocols. Scenarios using expected
future water withdrawals are processed to evaluate how resource conditions could
vary in the future. The modeling for this analysis evaluates various levels of surface
water withdrawals over the range of flows that have occurred in these two basins
between January 1930 and September 2011.
The Division of Water Resources uses hydrologic modeling to evaluate surface water
availability under various water withdrawal and management scenarios. A hydrologic
model creates a hypothetical representation of surface water conditions based on
available data and inferences based on known data to characterize the relationships
between water withdrawals, return flows and management protocols. Each model
produces a mathematical characterization of surface water volumes and streamflows
DEQ-CFW-00020505

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
based on conditions defined for a point in time when water withdrawals, wastewater
discharges, and water management protocols are fixed and data describing the
resultant surface water conditions are available. The model coding is adjusted to closely
approximate the known conditions. This primary model scenario captures current
conditions at the time of model development, based on conditions up to that time and
provides the "basecase" for the model. The basecase scenario provides the benchmark
against which the impacts from changes in management regimes and water
withdrawals can be compared.
While future demand scenarios are typically designed using withdrawal levels thought
to be needed to meet demands some year in the future, the model does not project
future surface water flows. It evaluates various water demand quantities against the
range of streamflows that have occurred in the historic record. Comparing model
scenarios provides information to describe how surface water conditions may differ
under the alternative scenarios, from those of the basecase scenario, over the range of
flow conditions that historically occurred in the basins.
The basecase scenario is a point in time with which people living and working in the
basin had direct experience. In the model used for this analysis the basecase represents
conditions in 2010. Looking at the outputs from the basecase of the model provides
information on the magnitude and duration of water shortages that might have
occurred with the 2010 levels of water demands during historic flow conditions or that
may occur if similar flow conditions occur in the future. For instance, what might water
resource conditions be like if water withdrawers were trying to meet 2010 water
demands during the water availability conditions that existed during the 1953-54
drought?
Modeling the increased withdrawals needed to meet estimated future water demands
provides information on how water resource conditions could be affected over the
range of historic flow conditions used in the model. Of particular concern are the
potential impacts to the ability to meet public water system demands and changes to
the magnitude and duration of water shortages as demands increase.
The Cape Fear -Meuse River Basins Hydrologic Model analyzes changes in surface water
quantity as water flows downstream. The model includes a sequential set of evaluation
locations, referred to as model nodes, which represent locations along the waterways in
the Cape Fear and Neuse river basins. The model evaluates the effects of inflows,
withdrawals and return flows over the range of flow conditions in these basins from
1930 to 2011. The model balances water coming into the surface water network with
water going out of the network at all nodes, subject to the goals and constraints
established at each node. Priority among multiple withdrawals at a particular node is
regulated by a series of weighting coefficients used to set priority among multiple
withdrawals at a node. For example, at reservoir nodes water is stored and released
subject to reservoir operating rules. If the reservoir has a required minimum
downstream release of water, then that goal is given a higher priority and water is
subtracted for that use before water is subtracted for other withdrawals. The model
9 -m
DEQ-CFW-00020506

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
operates on a daily time step. Each model run makes one set of calculations based on
daily average values for each of the 29,858 days of flow data in the model.
Future demand projections and the magnitude of water withdrawals needed to meet
those demands were derived from data submitted to the division by local officials and
water withdrawal managers. In order to keep future demand estimates compatible,
future water demand projections for water systems not applying for a Jordan Lake
allocation were taken from 2013 local water supply plans to capture all systems
expectations of the future needs at a similar point in time to when the applicants were
assembling their application data. Public water systems included in the model were
asked to review the data included in the model basecase before finalization. Water
systems that have reservoirs or multiple sources of water were specifically asked to
review the data in the model describing reservoir capacity and how water demands are
distributed between multiple sources. Revisions to the data submitted by the water
utilities were incorporated into the model before this analysis was completed.
9��aU C�7M
The geographic scope of the model is limited by the fact that the model can only handle
streamflow moving in one direction, downstream. Therefore the downstream limits of
the model are set at a point upstream of where water begins to be tidally influenced and
moves upstream as well as downstream in response to tidal actions. The Cape Fear
portion of the model includes 5260 square miles of the basin including the drainage
areas of the Deep River, the Haw River and the Cape Fear River above Lock and Dam #1
in Bladen County. The Neuse River portion of the model includes 4060 square miles of
the basin including the drainage areas of Contentnea Creek and the Neuse River
upstream of New Bern.
The model schematic in Figure 6 shows the geographic coverage of the model and
shows the relative location of the various model nodes. The nodes on the schematic are
not geographically linked to the underlying map. The schematic shows the relative
positions where water is withdrawn or added to the streams as it flows downstream.
Each of the polygons in the schematic represents a node where the model performs a
calculation to sum the effects of inflows and outflows of water.
Figure 7 provides a more detailed image of the model schematic in the vicinity of Jordan
Lake.
DEQ-CFW-00020507

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
I 1 11 11!! 1! 11 111111111 11 11;
Awe]
DEQ-CFW-00020508

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
wn"TEM11,711
I Eailmmt M LAID [1111311.031=
IN
DEQ-CFW-00020509

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
During each model run the Cape Fear-Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model balances
surface water coming into the streams in the basins with water going out of the streams
at all nodes, subject to goals, constraints and management protocols defined for the
scenario. Each type of water use is given a priority at each node during model
development so that water is apportioned between competing uses to emulate real
world conditions. At the reservoir nodes water is stored and released subject to
operating rules established in consultation with reservoir managers and users. For
each scenario run the model calculates daily average values for the characteristics being
considered at each node for each of the 29,858 days in the historic flow dataset.
For future demand scenarios water systems that depend on neighboring water systems
for their current water supplies are assumed to continue having their demands met by
the same suppliers in the future, unless information is available describing planned
changes.
Public water systems that submit a local water supply plan provide estimates of future
water demands. The plans do not include estimates of future wastewater return flows.
Therefore, for model scenarios other than the basecase scenario wastewater return
flows are estimated at the same percentage of water withdrawal or water use as that
used in the 2010 basecase scenario, unless additional information is available. The
actual amount of treated wastewater returned to the surface waters in these basins will
be determined by the utilities' desire and ability to construct the necessary collection
systems and treatment facilities as well as the ability to secure the necessary permits.
The results of the various modeling scenarios used for this analysis are inextricably
linked to the assumptions about how much treated wastewater is returned to the
surface waters of the basins. Changes in modeling assumptions will change the model
outputs.
The model schematic above represents the workings of the model as a series of lines, or
arcs, leading into, out of, or connecting a variety of polygons. The color codes are
explained below. The arrows on the arcs show how the model moves water. The
polygons show points in the process where a mathematical evaluation is done to
determine the cumulative effects of actions represented by the water flowing into or
out of that location. The result of that calculation determines the volume of water that is
passed downstream to the next node.
Estimated Inflows:
W'd
DEQ-CFW-00020511

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
In the schematic watershed inflows are shown as purple arcs. The
model uses a set of historic flow data that was adjusted to approximate
natural inflows to streams produced by surface water runoff and
groundwater discharges. These inflow data were reconstructed using
streamflow gage data to create 81years of flow records that were adjusted for historic
withdrawals, wastewater discharges, and reservoir operations. The inflows are
introduced into the modeling sequence at discrete points throughout the watershed to
reflect where the flow enters the actual river system relative to other model nodes.
Flows between nodes:
Water movement between model nodes is indicated by black arcs in
the schematic. The direction of the arrows indicates the direction of
flow through the arcs. The yellow oval nodes are junction nodes and
indicate where a calculation has to be made to adjust for an addition or
subtraction of water to the surface water system or a location where a calculation is
needed for the analysis for which the model is being used.
Water Withdrawals:
Arcs leading to a demand node, represented by blue boxes in the
schematic, give the location of the withdrawal made to satisfy that
demand relative to the locations of other withdrawals and return
flows. Water withdrawals are made at discrete nodes to meet
demands requested for the associated demand nodes. Withdrawals can be for water
supply systems, industrial water users, or agricultural water uses. Public water supply
withdrawals are based on local water supply plan data including projections of future
demands. Self -supplied industrial water withdrawals were derived from data submitted
to the Division under the water withdrawal registration program. Demands for self -
supplied industrial users are assumed to remain the same as in the 2010 basecase
scenario through 2060 unless additional information is available to justify changes in
projections. Agricultural withdrawals represent the estimated agricultural use on the
watershed above the point of withdrawal. Agricultural withdrawals are not linked to
specific agricultural operations.
Agricultural demands are the same as those used in previous versions of the individual
basin models. Agricultural uses for livestock and irrigation were estimated with the
help of county agricultural extension agents and an agricultural irrigation specialist.
Water use estimates were developed for crops, taking into consideration variations in
planting times in the upper, middle and lower regions of the basins. Irrigation water is
withdrawn to make up for precipitation shortfalls to provide optimum crop needs.
Livestock water needs are based on animal head counts in each county and the water
needs of various animal types. Percentages of irrigated crops and livestock in the basin
were developed for each county in consultation with county agricultural extension
agents. Agricultural water withdrawals are distributed in the model based on the
geographic locations where the water is used.
IN
DEQ-CFW-00020512

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Wastewater Inflows:
.-- Black arcs leading out of a demand node give the relative location
where wastewater from that user is returned to the surface waters of
412< the basin.
Return flows from wastewater discharges that are not linked to a
water withdrawal in the model are represented in the schematic as brown arcs and are
handled similar to natural inflows, as water inputs at discrete nodes. The sources of this
water may be from users that get water from a neighboring subbasin or from
groundwater sources. Inflows from wastewater discharges come from industrial
operations and municipal water reclamation facilities.
Local water supply plans include estimates of expected future water withdrawals but
do not include estimates of the expected portions of used water that may be collected
for treatment and discharged to the surface waters being modeled. Assumptions about
the magnitude of wastewater return flows are key factors in the hydrologic model.
Wastewater discharges linked to a modeled withdrawal are estimated based on the
percentage of a facility's water withdrawal that was directly returned to the surface
waters of the basin in the basecase scenario. This percentage was then applied to
estimated future withdrawals to estimate future wastewater return flows. For example,
if a town withdrew 10 million gallons per day on average and returned 6 million gallons
per day of treated wastewater in the basecase conditions, then 60 percent of the
withdrawal was returned directly to the surface waters of the basin. In other scenarios,
the assumed wastewater discharge, for this specific user, is assumed to be 60 percent of
the withdrawal. This relationship is used for all wastewater discharges linked to a
surface water withdrawal unless more specific information is available.
Wastewater return flows are estimated in the
model so that the cumulative withdrawals in
model scenarios do not deplete the water
resource system. This is a critical assumption in
the model. If communities choose not to develop
wastewater treatment capacities at these levels
or their ability to get permits to discharge the
estimated volumes of wastewater modeled are
limited by policy or funding then future surface
water conditions could be significantly different
from those shown in the current modeling.
M11
DEQ-CFW-00020513

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Reservoirs are represented by red triangles in the schematic. The
model balances inflows and outflows at each node for each time step
in a model run except reservoirs. For reservoirs, the change in storage
is included in the balancing equation. Each reservoir in the model has
a set of operating guidelines that set the maximum and minimum water levels during
normal and extraordinary operating conditions. The largest reservoirs in the model,
Jordan Lake and Falls Lake, are multipurpose reservoirs managed by the US Army
Corps of Engineers. Both are required to make water releases established to minimize
violations of water quality standards downstream. Jordan Lake and Falls Lake have
storage dedicated for flow augmentation releases that is managed separately from the
storage dedicated to water supply. The management plans for Jordan Lake and Falls
Lake can be found at the Corp of Engineer's Wilmington District's website aS
c�,c.sa�wjisac�e.arm �,,nul.
With the exception of the series of flood control impoundments in the Crabtree Creek
watershed in the Neuse Basin the other reservoirs in the model were primarily
developed as water supply reservoirs. Some of the water supply reservoirs in the basins
have minimum release requirements to maintain streamflows.
For instance, Randleman Lake, which is primarily a water supply reservoir, under
normal conditions maintains a minimum release of 30 cubic feet per second
downstream of the reservoir. During times when inflows are not adequate to maintain
60 percent or more of usable storage the release requirements are reduced to more
closely mimic the downstream flow conditions that would be typical of flow conditions
during droughts. When usable storage drops below 60 percent the required minimum
release drops to 20 cubic feet per second. If storage drops below 30 percent of usable
storage the required release drops to 10 cubic feet per second. For reservoirs that have
minimum release requirements the stipulations of the release schedules are built into
the model.
Several levels of water demands were evaluated for this exercise. The 2010 base case
scenario reflecting current conditions provides the point of comparison for all other
model scenarios. Water demands and return flows were estimated using local water
supply plan data, additional information received from water systems including Jordan
Lake water supply allocation applications and data from other registered water users.
The results of the alternative scenarios are compared to the basecase scenario to
identify changes to surface water resources due to the variations in withdrawals, return
flows and management protocols included in each alternative scenario.
The regulations governing allocation of water supply storage in Jordan Lake limit
allocations to the amount estimated to be needed 30 years in the future. A 2045
demand scenario characterizes the water demands expected to be needed in the year
2045 using local water supply plan data and information contained in the Jordan Lake
ILI
DEQ-CFW-00020514

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
water supply allocation applications. With allocation decisions expected to be finalized
in 2015 this scenario gives information on anticipated needs 30 years in the future. The
specified levels of demand may actually be reached before or after 2045. The evaluation
focuses on the changes in conditions that may occur from the specified levels of
demand, whenever they are reached. Modeling the quantity of water to be withdrawn
to satisfy estimated 2045 demands provides the analysis used to evaluate requested
water supply allocations.
The 2060 demand scenario is based on the water withdrawals expected to be needed to
meet 2060 demands as presented in the local water supply plans. It provides a long-
range picture of water resource conditions including the effects of the requested water
supply allocations. In previous rounds of Jordan Lake water supply allocations
members of the Environmental Management Commission asked DWR to provide an
analysis over a 50-year planning horizon to identify potential water supply issues
beyond the 30-year planning horizon used for allocation decisions.
IMMM
Table 6 lists the water supply nodes for the Cape Fear-Neuse River Basin Hydrologic
Model and the average annual values used for water withdrawals and the estimated
amounts of wastewater that was assumed to be collected, treated and discharged back
to the surface waters at the current discharge locations. Some of these withdrawals
represent the cumulative demands for multiple water purveyors that depend on water
from that source to meet customer demands.
in.
DEQ-CFW-00020515

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Modeled Annual Average Surface Water Withdrawals and Return Flows in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Model
Node
TSufface WateWithdrawer
Wastewater
Proportion
Current
Conditions
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
Estimate
Type
Durham County Triangle WRF ncOO26051
2,204
0.000
U00
0,000
Return
OEQ-CFVV_00020516

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Modeled Annual Average Surface Water Withdrawals and Return Flows in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Node Surface WaterWithdrawer Proportion Current Estimated Estimated Estimated Type
Lnclition Demand Demand Demand
Old North Utilities WW to Harnett Co. RWS
1
4.800
4.761
4.879
5.062
Return
906
Randolph Co Demand Randleman
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Withdrawal
Return
IN
OEQ-CFVV_00020517

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Modeled Annual Average Surface Water Withdrawals and Return Flows in Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Node
Surface WaterWithdrawer
Proportion
Current
Lndition
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
Estimated
Demand
Type
--------------
----------------
Included in SGWASA
Return
Johnston County to Benson
0015
OA28
OA90
0,230
0304
Return
OEQ-CFVV_00020518

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
M"ITITITOYMMT-47707re
In 1963, based on the results of this study, the U.S. Congress authorized the
construction of "New Hope Reservoir" on the Haw River to address issues identified by
the USACE. The project was later renamed in honor of U.S. Senator B. Everett Jordan.
According to the USACE website "The purposes of B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake are
to provide flood damage reduction, water supply, water quality control, fish and wildlife
conservation and outdoor recreation."17 Jordan Lake first attained its normal operating
level in the fall of 1982.
B. Everett Jordan Dam created 538,400 acre-feet18 of storage to reduce flooding
damages downstream. The project provides controlled releases of stored water
produced by high flow events in the Haw River Subbasin. The project also includes
94,600 acre-feet of storage to provide water for flow augmentation to address water
quality issues downstream. During the study the State of North Carolina agreed to
assume financial responsibility for expanding the storage capacity with the goal of
providing 100 million gallons per day of water to address future water supply needs.
Therefore, the project includes 45,800 acre-feet of storage for water supply needs. In
addition, 74,700 acre-feet of storage are included to provide the ability to compensate
for space lost to the water supply and flow -augmentation pools due to sediment
accumulation over the life of the project
Except during times of low precipitation the reservoir water level is maintained at 216
feet above mean sea level. At this level the flow augmentation, water supply storage and
sediment storage pools are full. The storage between 202 feet mean sea level and 216
feet mean sea level is dedicate to flow augmentation and water supply. Storage below
202 feet mean sea level is reserved to compensate for sediment accumulation in the
reservoir. Withdrawals from the flow augmentation account and the water supply
16 2007; Carolina Public Health; "The Lake That Almost Wasn't"; Spivey, Angela; Fall 2007
17
18538,400 acre-feet can hold 175.4 billion gallons of water
911
DEQ-CFW-00020519

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
accounts are tracked separately and deducted from the volumes stored for each
purpose. It is helpful to think of the two storage accounts as two separate reservoirs.
Water in the flow augmentation account is not used for water supply and water in the
water supply account is not used to augment strearnflow below the dam. The upper
level of controllable flood storage is at 240 feet mean sea level. Above this elevation
water flows freely over the spillway.
Figure 4 Jordan Lake Schematic D,�
The tropical storm that
generated flooding in
P* d
Fayetteville in 1945
deposited about six inches of
rain across the Cape Fear
Um air:
River Basin. The headwaters
of the Cape Fear River basin
are composed of the Deep
River Subbasin and the Haw
River Subbasin. B. Everett
Jordan Dam is located on the
Haw River upstream of
where it joins the Deep River
to form the Cape Fear River. Although usually empty the flood control storage
component of Jordan Lake is designed to retain the runoff from six inches of rainfall on
the reservoir's watershed. Water in the flood storage pool can be released from the dam
in a controlled manner to manage water levels downstream.
Flood Risk Management
The highest flows in Fayetteville since the completion of Jordan Lake were generated by
Hurricane Fran in 1996. On September 81h the Cape Fear River elevation at Fayetteville
reached 44 feet mean sea level. This was above the minor flooding elevation of 35 feet
but below the moderate flooding elevation of 48 feet and well below the 1945 flood
elevation of 68.9 feet. The previous day flows in the Deep River near the confluence
with the Haw River reached 33,600 cubic feet per second producing flows of 41,400
cubic feet per second at the Lillington stream gage. At the same time Jordan Lake was
storing about 58,000 cubic feet per second of water that was flowing down the Haw
River above the dam. The water level in Jordan Lake eventually reached 233.25 feet
mean sea level storing about 341,409 acre-feet (over 111 billion gallons) of water in the
flood control pool and moderating water levels in Fayetteville.19 The intended flood
control benefits of Jordan Lake were demonstrated during this event.
" The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey designate an
elevation of 58 feet mean sea level in the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville as the indicator of a major flooding
event. This water level would be produced by stream flows in the range of 85,000 cubic feet per second. If the
58.000 cubic feet per second of water flow down the Haw River continued downstream rather than being
retained in Jordan Lake flows at the Liflington stream gage could have reached over 99,000 cubic feet per
second, a level sufficient to push water levels in Fayetteville into the major flood classification.
DEQ-CFW-00020520

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
The Cumberland County Multi -jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update of 2010
includes the following statement. "Although the Jordan Dam and Lake serve multiple
purposes, such as water supply, recreation, and flood -control, it is the flood -control
purpose that is most important in Fayetteville. For example, it is estimated that this
project provided an 8-foot reduction in the 100-year flood stage at the U.S. Geological
Survey's streamflow gage on the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville."20
Flow Augmentation for Water Quality
While flood control was the primary purpose for initiating the study of water resource
needs in the Cape Fear River Basin the issue of water quality arose during the study.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consulted with the U.S. Public Health Service for
guidance on how much streamflow may be needed to meet water quality targets. The
USPHS estimated that a flow in the range of 600 cubic feet per second would be needed
to meet water quality targets given the standards of treatment at the time and volumes
of wastewater received by the Cape Fear River.21 The flow augmentation pool of the
project was intended to provide enough water to augment river flows to ensure flows of
600 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey's stream gage on the Cape Fear
River at Lillington. This level of flow is equivalent to 388 million gallons per day. Prior
to the completion of Jordan Lake the low flow of record at Lillington was 11 cubic feet
per second in October 1954. Since completion of Jordan Lake Dam and initiation of flow
augmentations the lowest daily average flow at Lillington reported by the U.S.
Geological Survey is 155 cubic feet per second in August 2002.
River flows at Lillington are comprised mainly of the combined flows of the Deep River
and Haw River supplemented by the contributions of runoff between the confluence of
these rivers and the stream gage. The steam gage at Lillington was set as the
compliance point for monitoring flow augmentation releases from Jordan Lake.
Releases from Jordan Lake are intended to supplement flows from other sources with
the goal of maintaining flows of 600 cubic feet per second (388 million gallons per day)
at the Lillington stream gage.
Flows from the Deep River are influenced by the effects of several small hydropower
operations on the river. Prior to the drought of 1986 the Army Corps of Engineers was
managing downstream releases from Jordan Lake to prevent flows at Lillington from
ever dropping below 600 cubic feet per second. Because of the unpredictable nature of
212010; Cumberland County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update: prepared by: Comprehensive
Planning Section of the Cumberland County Planning & Inspections Department and The Fayetteville Planning
Department; March 2011
2' 1990; Testimony of John N. Morris, Director, Division of Water Resources: Transcript of Fayetteville Area
Chamber of Commerce; The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority; the Counties of Bladen, Brunswick,
Columbus, New Hanover, Pender and the City of Wilmington-. Mike Pleasant, President and the Fayetteville
Area Economic Development Corporation; City of Fayetteville, a North Carolina Corporation; and the County
of Cumberland v. North Carolina Department of Environment.. Health and Natural Resources and the
Environmental Management Commission: August 16, 1990: Raleigh, NC: before Beecher R. Gray, Senior
Administrative Law Judge.
WJ
DEQ-CFW-00020521

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
flows from the Deep River, releases from Jordan Lake were frequently more than what
was needed to meet the target flow at Lillington. During the drought of 1986 water
levels in Jordan Lake were drawn down eight feet below the normal pool elevation of
216 feet mean sea level, with no withdrawals for water supply. In order to preserve the
water remaining in the flow augmentation pool the target flow was temporarily
reduced to 450 cubic feet per second.22 A follow-up study recommended creating a 50
cubic feet per second buffer on either side of the 600 cubic feet per second flow target
to provide more leeway meeting the target and to improve the reliability of the flow
augmentation pool. The current flow target is 600 ± 50 cubic feet per second
representing a range of flows between 355 and 421 million gallons per day at Lillington.
5 Daily Average Flows at
NC from January 1983 to
09-75 06-2" 3-lr U-0 091-03 0"i 30 �C'-22 1- "' 06- 2, is^e-p6 01-'t
11310 1385 199,
. 1993 1'3!36 13'i:3 2001 7_0+M ;M
2015 When water
levels in Jordan
Lake are at the
normal pool
elevation of 216
feet mean sea
level if inflows to
the reservoir are
greater than
water
withdrawals and
losses from
evaporation the
remainder will
NO9. -- Station Q il�Fri, - CN E FEftP o tEP a- ..I3.� M T1., i:C Raxi± rt'eraged Strearof Ie rcf i
u'atues less ti,an or- eq�F. to .,ero � re set to O.bl or the r zi x�» va:uH Q�.'�A? i,. ,�e :.� ies.. be released
downstream. Therefore much of the time water does not need to be released from the
flow -augmentation pool to meet the target flows downstream. Figure 5 shows the daily
average streamflows at Lillington since January 1983 with a reference line at 600 cubic
feet per second. Over this period flows have been above the target more than 80
percent of the time. More than 50 percent of the time flows have exceeded 1000 cubic
feet per second. The ability to use water from the augmentation pool is critical to
maintaining downstream flows when inflows to Jordan Lake decline between
precipitation events and during droughts.
Severe drought conditions from 1998 through 2002 again required temporarily
reducing flow targets at Lillington to preserve storage in the flow augmentation pool. In
2008 the USACOE adopted a revised drought management plan that prescribes a
progressive reduction in the flow target as the flow augmentation pool is depleted
during periods of low inflows to the reservoir. Stepped reductions begin when storage
in the flow augmentation pool drops below 80 percent. This protocol is now
implemented automatically as storage declines in the flow -augmentation pool.
zz 1987; NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development; Draft Report, Jordan Lake
Hydrology and Downstream Water Quality Considerations.
W,
DEQ-CFW 00020522

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Water Supply
The State of North Carolina oversees the allocation of 32.62 percent of the conservation
pool dedicated to water supply that was designed to provide 100 million gallons per
day of water. Under General Statute § 143-354 (a) (11) the General Assembly
authorized the Environmental Management Commission to allocate water supply
storage in Jordan Lake to local governments upon proof of need and the commitment to
pay the capital, interest, administrative and operating costs based on the volume
allocated.
The rules allow the EMC to make allocations sufficient to meet applicants' water supply
needs over a 30 -year planning horizon designating two levels of allocations based on
how soon the allocation will be used. For allocation requests where the withdrawal or
return flows would be a transfer of surface water requiring an interbasin transfer
certificate the review of the application for an interbasin transfer certificate must be
coordinated with the review of the allocation request. 23
At the time the rules were being formulated Jordan Lake was relatively new and no
water was being withdrawn for water supply purposes. Due to the uncertainty of
whether the desired water supply demands and flow augmentation requirements could
be met as water supply withdrawals increased the rules limited diversions out of the
Jordan Lake watershed. Allocations that would result in a diversion out of the
watershed were limited to 50 percent of the water supply pool yield, assumed to be 100
mgd. This rule did give the EMC the authority to "review and revise this limit based on
experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed
that will affect its yield".24 Since 1988 there have been changes on the watersheds
above Lillington that have enhanced the reliability of the water supply and flow
augmentation pools in Jordan Lake. Table 5 shows the current status of allocations from
the Jordan Lake water supply pool.
-- ---- 15A NCAC 02G.0504 (h)
24 15A NCAC 02G.0504 (h) To protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water supply and water quality
purposes, the Commission will limit water supply allocations that will result in diversions out of the
lake's watershed to 50 percent of the total water supply yield. The Commission may review and revise
this limit based on experience in managing the lake and on the effects of changes in the lake's watershed
that will affect its yield.
WA
DEQ-CFW-00020523

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table 5 Current allocations from the Jordan Lake Water Supply Pool
CurrentJorclan Lake Water Supply
Allocation Holder
Allocations
Percent of Water
Supply Pool
Cary Apex Morrisville RTP
39
Chatham County -North
6
Durham
10
Holly Springs
2
Orange Water & Sewer Authority
5
orange County
I
Total Allocated
63
Jordan Lake Operations:
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir is a multipurpose reservoir built and managed by the US
Army Corps of Engineers. It was authorized for flood control, water supply, water
quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. The storage volume of the
impoundment is subdivided based on elevation above sea level. The normally empty
space between 216 feet and 240 feet above mean sea level, designated as the flood
control pool, can retain the runoff from about six inches of rainfall on the watershed in
its 538,000 acre feet of controlled flood storage.
The conservation pool, between 202 and 216 feet above mean sea level, provides
storage for water supply and storage for flow augmentation releases to protect water
quality downstream. Under normal conditions water level in the reservoir is
maintained at the top of the conservation pool. At this elevation, the reservoir covers
13,900 acres. The conservation pool includes approximately 140,400 acre-feet of
storage. The conservation pool is managed as two separate pools of water, with
separate accounting for each pool. The 74,700 acre-feet of storage below 202 feet mean
sea level is reserved to compensate for lost storage volume in the conservation pool due
to sediment accumulation.
The 45,800 acre-feet in the water supply pool, reserved for water supply and allocated
by the State of North Carolina, contains about 15 billion gallons of water that can
reliably supply 100 million gallons per day for local government water systems. The
94,600 acre-feet in the flow augmentation pool is used to supplement downstream river
flows. When the releases to maintain water levels at 216 feet mean sea level, in
combination with tributary inflows below the dam, are not sufficient to meet the flow
target at Lillington water is released from this pool to augment downstream flows.
M
DEQ-CFW-00020524

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
The flow target of 600 cubic feet per second was the level of flow thought to be needed
to meet water quality targets based on treatment protocols, discharge volumes and
water quality standards in place when the project was being designed. The target flow
at Lillington was recommended by the Federal Water Quality Agency which was part of
the U.S. Public Health Service at that time. The recommended target flow provides a
significant increase in the amount of water available during low -flow conditions
compared to the estimated seven-day average low flow prior to dam construction of 94
cubic feet per second and the historic minimum flow of 11 cubic feet per second prior to
operations of Jordan Lake.
Figure 10 shows a generalized representation of the how the storage space behind
Jordan Lake Dam is allocated.
10 Jordan Lake Storage Volume
11M
Based on experiences trying to not violate the specific flow target of 600 cubic feet per
second during drought conditions in the 1980s the target was changed to a flow range
of 600 ± 50 cubic feet per second. Drought conditions from 1998-2002 required
reductions in downstream releases in order to extend the storage in the flow
augmentation pool resulting in a minimum daily average flow of 155 cubic feet per
second at Lillington during the first week of August 2002. Further studies led to the
adoption of a revised drought protocol for the reservoir in 2008. A copy of the "Drought
Contingency Plan, Updated May 2008" can be found in Appendix A.
M.
DEQ-CFW-00020525

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Under the revised drought protocol the Army Corps of Engineers manages the
withdrawals from the augmentation pool based on the percent of storage available.
Under normal operations there is a minimum release requirement of 40 cubic feet per
second from the dam and the goal of maintaining a streamflow of 600 ± 50 cubic feet
per second at the Lillington streamflow gage, with the additional goal of maintaining
water levels at 216 feet mean sea level. The flow requirements are typically met by
releasing inflow to the reservoir to maintain water levels in the reservoir.
When inflows to the reservoir decline during low -flow conditions, and releases to
maintain water levels are not adequate to meet the downstream flow target, water is
released from the flow augmentation pool to supplement flows below the dam. If the
storage in the flow augmentation pool continues to decline then downstream releases
are adjusted to meet the adjusted targets outlined in Table 7. The goal of these staged
reductions is to extend the usefulness of the water remaining in storage to supplement
streamflow as long as possible; protecting water quality and downstream users while at
the same time approximating flow reductions that would naturally occur during
droughts.
Table 7 Jordan Lake Reservoir Operating Rules during Drought
(Releases and Target values in cubic feet per second)
% Remaining in
Minimum
Lillington
Drought
Release
Target
Stage
Flow
(Cfs)
(Cfs)
Augmentation
Pool
0
80-100
40
600 ±50
1
60-80
40
450-600
2
40-60
40
300-450
3
20-40
200
None
4
0-20
100
None
lmmm��
The analysis for the Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation is based on comparing
different levels of estimated future water withdrawals and water supply allocations to
current conditions represented by the 2010 basecase model scenario. Data from the
local water supply plans, that include estimates of expected water demands through
2060, were used to develop model scenarios.
Future demand estimates were developed by local government water systems and the
applicants for allocations of water supply storage in Jordan Lake based on expected
customer demands at specific points in the future. Water supply allocations from Jordan
Lake are limited by rule to the amount needed within a 30-year planning period. The
M
DEQ-CFW-00020526

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
final decisions on allocations are expected to be made by the Environmental
Management Commission in late 2015 therefore some model scenarios evaluate
estimated withdrawals expected to be needed to meet 2045 demands. Current river
basin planning protocols evaluate water supply conditions for fifty years into the future
making 2060, fifty years from the 2010 model simulation basecase, a useful scenario to
investigate potential long-range withdrawal needs. This evaluation focuses on the
ability of water withdrawers to meet the level of withdrawals anticipate to meet 2060
demands. Table 8 shows the current and requested water supply allocations.
On each of the following graphs and plots a line representing current conditions,
labeled as "Simbase-current", provides reference conditions against which alternative
scenarios can be compared. In addition to the "Simbase - current" line, three additional
plots are included showing the results of alternative scenarios for meeting estimated
future demands. On the graphs with "2060 Demands" in the title all the withdrawals
compared are based on the estimated withdrawals needed to meet customer demands
in the year 2060 at the end of the 50-year planning period. The scenarios vary based on
factors that are designated in the line labels on the graphics and described below.
The line designated as "01 - LWSP - Dem206O" shows the results of modeling the
withdrawals needed to meet the estimated 2060 demands by all surface water
withdrawers based on the demands and supplies reported in the local water supply
plans.
Jordan Lake allocation requests were based on the amount of water needed to meet
demands in 2045 by each applicant. The designation "Req2045" in a plot title indicates
that the requested allocation amount was used in the calculation of available supplies
for applicants. The line designated as "03_JLA_F_Req2045_Dem2060" shows the
cumulative effects of meeting the estimated 2060 demands if all the requested Jordan
Lake water supply allocations are granted. DWR received applications from the
following applicants: Cary -Apex -Morrisville -Wake County for RTP, Chatham County -
North, Durham, Fayetteville Public Works Commission, Hillsborough, Holly Springs,
Orange County, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Pittsboro and Raleigh. The total
requests for water supply allocations amounted to 105.9% of the water supply pool.
DEQ-CFW-00020527

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
3!1 1,11 =10FIRM. P NO=,
Allocation of Jordan Lake Water Supply
Applicant Current Allocation
Percent
Pool
Requested Allocation
Percent
Cary Apex Morrisville RTP
39
46.2
Chatham County -North
6
13
Durham
10
16.5
Fayettteville PWC
0
10
Hillsborough
0
1
Holly Springs
2
2
Orange County
1
1.5
Orange Water&Sewer Authority
5
5
Pittsboro
0
6
lRaleigh
0
4.7
I Total Allocations
i 63
105.9
Most of the requested allocations would be withdrawn directly from Jordan Lake.
Raleigh's and Fayetteville PWC's applications expressed the intention of requesting
water from the water supply pool be released from Jordan Lake Dam to be withdrawn
downstream. To avoid the potential complication of the resulting surface water
transfer, Raleigh proposed withdrawing their allocation and returning treated
wastewater at a site on the Cape Fear River in the vicinity of Lillington. Fayetteville
PWC would use the existing water supply intakes on the Cape Fear River in the
backwater of Lock& Dam #3 downstream of Lillington.
The lines designated as "04JLA - Req2045-Dem2O6O" on the following graphs show the
results if the requested Jordan Lake allocations of all applicants are approved except for
Fayetteville PWC. Fayetteville's withdrawals are modeled as coming from their current
water sources without a supplemental release from the water supply pool.
Withdrawals in the model for water utilities not submitting an application for an
allocation from Jordan Lake are based on information in their local water supply plans
for each model scenario. The withdrawals are set to the levels needed to meet the
estimated volumes necessary to meet demands in 2060 for all modeled water utilities.
Jordan Lake Water Storage Evaluation:
The discussions of impacts to water resource conditions that follow rely on a series of
graphs and tables to present the variations that occur under different water withdrawal
arrangements. This evaluation focuses on the variations in water resource conditions
between the volumes of water withdrawals in 2010 and the level of withdrawals
expected to be needed to meet demands in 2060. Table 9 provides brief descriptions of
the conditions in each of the model scenarios presented in the following graphs. The
"Simbase Current" scenario represents the effects of meeting 2010 water demands over
the range of hydrologic conditions experienced from 1930 to 2011. The plots for this
we
DEQ-CFW-00020528

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
scenario are shown in red on each graph. The plots for the other scenarios show how
conditions may change given the withdrawal levels and management protocols in each
Meralffiffelp
Model Scenario Descripti ns
This scenario models the baseline current conditons in 2010 based on
Simbase—Current
available water supplies, infrastructure and customer demands at
that time
LWSP indicates this scenario uses data extracted from the local
water supply plans of all water systems dependent on surface water
01—LWSP—Dem-2060
sources in the model.
Dem-2060 indicates this scenario is modeling the ability to meet the
estimated water withdrawals needed to meet 2060 demands.
JLA indicates this scenario uses data from Jordan Lake Water Supply
Allocation applications submitted to DWR.
Req2045 indicates this scenario adds the requested Jordan Lake
allocations to the available water supplies for all applicants.
03
The "F" indicates this scenario includes the allocation request for all
the applicants including Fayetteville PWC.
Dem2060 indicates this scenario evaluates the ability to meet the
water withdrawals needed to meet 2060 water demands and the
resulting changes to water availability.
JLA indicates this scenario uses data from Jordan Lake Water Supply
Allocation applications submitted to DWR.
Req2045 indicates this scenario adds the requested Jordan Lake
allocations to the available water supplies for all applicants.
02—R,A_Req2O45_De,n-,�2060
The lack of an "F" indicates this scenario does not include the
allocation request for Fayetteville PWC.
Dem2060 indicates this scenario evaluates the ability to meet the
water withdrawals needed to meet 2060 water demands and the
I
Iresulting changes to water availability.
If requested allocations from the water supply pool are granted the water withdrawals
from Jordan Lake will increase dramatically over the coming decades. Larger
withdrawals will produce more fluctuations in the storage in the water supply pool as
demands and inflows vary seasonally and from year to year. From a water supply
perspective low flow conditions and droughts are critical periods since water shortages
can threaten the ability to protect public health. The period from 2000 to 2011 includes
two of the driest periods in the Cape Fear River Basin. The two graphs that follow show
the storage conditions for the water supply and water quality pools for the four
scenarios presented during the flow conditions experienced during these years.
Before looking closely at these plots it may be helpful to remember that reservoirs are
intended to retain water when flows are high so that it can be used when flows are low.
M-1
DEQ-CFW-00020529

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
During low inflow periods, when water is used from storage, water levels are expected
to decline. Without the storage in the reservoir the source stream would not be able to
sustain the desired levels of withdrawals needed to meet customer demands. With the
larger withdrawals expected in the future the water supply pool in Jordan Lake will be
drawn down deeper and longer when the basin experiences low flow conditions. The
modeling used for this analysis shows the possible effects of increased withdrawals
over the range of hydrologic conditions that have occurred between 1930 and 2011.
The graphs below show the effects of each model scenario on the storage pools in
Jordan Lake focusing on conditions during recent serious droughts. The red lines on the
graphs show the effects on the water supply pool and the flow augmentation pool from
withdrawing water to meet the demands in 2010 during the hydrologic conditions
experienced from 2000 to 2011.
Figure 5 shows that the model predicts that during the conditions experienced in 2002
and 2007 the water supply pool would likely have been drawn down to about 95
percent of full pool fulfilling the 2010 demands. With larger withdrawals in the future
more of the water supply storage will be required to meet customer demands. As
expected the graph indicates that during a recurrence of the 2002 or 2007 low inflow
conditions meeting the expected water demands for 2060 could reduce water supply
storage to about 30 percent of full storage.
An optimistic interpretation of this analysis is that even at the significantly higher levels
of withdrawals anticipated in the future the water supply pool appears to be able to
meet those demands over the range of drought conditions that have occurred in the
Cape Fear River Basin since 1930, with a reserve.
re 5 Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage 2000-2011
Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage
2060 Demands
M, :L;a � q2c4tia;nllase
Under future water demand scenarios the model indicates that conditions of the water
quality pool in Jordan Lake will not be drawn down as much as it would be in the 2010
M.
DEQ-CFW-00020530

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
basecase scenario for the period 2000-2011. This is likely due to a couple of factors.
Randleman Reservoir, on the Deep River, was not operational in the 2010 basecase
scenario. There is a required minimum release of water from the reservoir which is
included in the future scenarios. The supplemental input to the Deep River, especially in
times of naturally low flows, raises the contribution from the Deep River to the flows in
the Cape Fear River at Lillington. Therefore reducing the amount of water required
from Jordan Lake to meet flow targets. Also, increased wastewater discharges between
Jordan Dam and Lillington reduce the flow -augmentation releases needed from Jordan
Lake.
The effects of these changes in the future scenarios can be seen in the Figure 6 where it
is most noticeable during the drought conditions in 2002. In the 2010 basecase scenario
the model indicates the water quality pool would be drawn down to about 20 percent of
available storage while in the future 2060 demand scenarios it would be drawn down to
about 35 percent of available storage. The effects are less dramatic in other low -flow
periods. In a repeat of the October 2007 hydrologic conditions the difference is less
than 5 percent, from about 27 percent remaining storage in the 2010 basecase scenario
to about 30 percent in the 2060 demand scenarios. The minimum value variations
among the 2060 demand scenarios are in the range of a half of one percent.
According to the modeling done for this evaluation, changes in management and
wastewater return volumes projected to occur in the future will likely increase the
reliability of the water quality pool, the source of water for flow augmentation, in
Jordan Lake. While this analysis is limited to the range of flows that occurred from
1930-2011, the results suggest that the flow augmentation storage in Jordan Lake is
likely to be capable of meeting its management goals if flows are outside of this range in
the future.
3Ordon Lake vv-'tof QJW" Stwopo
2060 Demands
`7
IIII li ti°
WIN
DEQ-CFW-00020531

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Figures 7 and 8 show the percent of time the water supply and water quality storage
pools are at or below a certain percent of available storage. Note that both graphs show
only 40 percent of the entire period of record. For the remaining 60 percent both
storage pools are at or above 100 percent full. For water supply storage shown in
Figure 7 modeling indicates that the water supply pool is less than 100 percent full
about 5 percent of the 29,859 days in the historic flow record for the 2010 basecase
demand scenario. The periods when the water supply pool in less than full increases as
withdrawals increase in the future. For the 2060 demand scenarios the model indicates
that water supply storage is likely to be less than full more than 30 percent of the time,
over the range of streamflows in the 81-year flow record. All of the 2060 demand
scenarios indicate that for 5 percent of the time water supply storage could be about 65
percent of full, or less.
For the water quality pool the time when storage is less than 100 percent is longer in all
the 2060 demand scenarios compared to the 2010 basecase demand scenario. Over
most to the range shown in Figure 8 the decline is less than about 10 percent from 2010
demand levels. The maximum drawdown is less in the 2060 demand scenarios than the
basecase scenario. In the 2010 basecase demand scenario the minimum storage in the
water quality pool over the range of flows in the historic record is 21 percent of full
storage. Under the 2060 demand scenarios the minimum water quality storage is about
29 percent of full storage.
Figure 9 shows the magnitude and duration of drought stages that would be triggered
under the 2008 Drought Contingency Plan during the flow conditions experienced from
2000 to 2011. Drought responses enter Stage 1 when storage in the water quality pool
drops below 80 percent. If storage drops below 60 percent Stage 2 operations are
triggered and if storage drops below 40 percent Stage 3 operations are implemented.
The effects of the water quality storage declines shown in Figure 6 are reflected in the
drought stage designations shown in Figure 9.
M.,
DEQ-CFW-00020532

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
[117
17:103 PITMUrl "I U rimi '7�. I RMB=I�
%Oknatiml
ire 9 fordan Lake DrouLytit StaLye 2000-2011
Jordan Lake Drought Levels
for the range of flows that occurred between January 2000 and September 2011
2060 Demands
:�a:
Jordan Lake Water Level Evaluations:
The combined effects of the declines in water storage shown in Figures 5 and 6 are
reflected in the duration plot of water levels in Jordan Lake shown in Figure 10. As in
Figures 5 and 6 Figure 10 shows the 40 percent of time when water levels are below the
PIV,
DEQ-CFW-00020533

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
normal operating water level for Jordan Lake of 216 feet above mean sea level. At the
normal operating level, and above, the water supply and flow augmentation pools are
full. During high flow events the water level rises as runoff from the watershed
upstream of the reservoir is retained to mitigate flooding impacts to downstream
communities. As inflows to the reservoir and downstream high flows decline the water
in the flood storage pool is released under controlled conditions until the normal
operating elevation of 216 feet mean sea level is regained.
When inflows are sufficient to compensate for evaporation and water supply
withdrawals and streamflows are above 550 cubic feet per second downstream at the
Lillington streamflow gage the water level will not drop below 216 feet mean sea level.
When not in flood control mode, water flowing into the reservoir is credited to the
water supply account and flow augmentation account based on the percentage of the
conservation pool designated for each, 32.6 percent for water supply and 67.4 percent
for flow augmentation. If both of these accounts are full water is released downstream.
When inflows are not sufficient to maintain water levels at 216 feet mean sea level the
level of water declines as withdrawals are made for public water supplies and water is
released downstream to augment streamflows. The combined effects of the declines in
the water supply and flow augmentation pools shown in the graphs above are reflected
in Figure 10. Figure 10 shows the model derived water levels during the 40 percent of
the time when the water level is predicted to be below the normal operating level over
the 81-year flow record. These model results imply that 60 percent of the time the
water level is predicted to be at or above the normal operating elevation of 216 feet
mean sea level.
With withdrawals sufficient to meet the estimated 2060 demands the hydrologic
modeling shows the water level in Jordan Lake will likely be lower for longer than
under the 2010 current conditions scenario. The vertical scale on the graphs represents
feet above mean sea level. The horizontal scale shows the percent of time of the over
29,000 days in the historic record that the water level may be below specific elevations
under four model scenarios.
Recreational opportunities at Jordan Lake are impacted by reservoir water levels. One
way to characterize this impact is by looking at how boat launching facilities are
affected at various reservoir water levels. Figure 11 includes the elevations at which the
use of boat ramps at Jordan Lake may become limited due to water levels. The levels
noted on the graph are generally a couple of feet above the bottom of the boat ramp
structure. The elevations of the bottoms of the boat ramps on Jordan Lake are listed in
Table 3 of the Appendix A, the Drought Contingency Plan. Figure 11 shows that as more
of the water supply pool is used in the future boating access will be restricted at more
facilities and for longer periods over the historic range of flows than have been
experienced in the past.
M-1
DEQ-CFW-00020534

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
VAIISP N NO
Table 10 shows the model generated minimum values for water level in Jordan Lake,
water supply storage, flow augmentation storage in the water quality pool, and the
minimum average streamflow at the Lillington streamflow gage for the demand
scenarios modeled for this analysis. In addition to the results of the 2060 demand
scenarios Table 10 includes results for three 2045 demand scenarios.
The"01 - LWSP - Dem2045" evaluates water quantity conditions based on local water
supply plan data. And, the "03_JLA-F-Req2045-Dem2045" model scenarios evaluates
M-1
DEQ-CFW-00020535

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
water quantity conditions when withdrawing water sufficient to meet 2045 demands if
all the requested Jordan Lake allocations are granted. The
"02_JLA_Req2045_Dem2045" model scenario entries show the values if the requested
allocations excluding Fayetteville PWC are granted. The dates in the historic flow record
when flow conditions produced each of the minimum values are also shown for each
M.) 1 P. I 111143
m3m=
Jordan Lake Storage Conditions and Target Flow Summary
Model Scenario
Jordan Lake Water Level
Jordan Lake Water Supply Pool
Minimum
Love 1, ft
Date of
minimum
Level
Minimum
Water
supply
Storage %
Minimum Water
S u p p ly P e ri o d
Days in
Minimum
supply
Period
Longest Period
Storage< 100%
Days in
Critical
Period
Simbaso-current
209.72
813012002
90.91
7 /9/1953 - 12/9/1953
154
71911953- 12 19 11.95 3
154
01—LWSP—Dem2045
207.99
12/1/1953
42.22
7/7/1953 1/15/1954
193
5/17/1933 -3/4/1934
292
01.--LWSP--Dem206O
207.66
10/23/2007
35.73
7/6/1953 1/15/1954
194
5/17/1933 - 3/5/1934
293
3:­
7
z1 11
6 f,
z
e;.I e6 e;_i �rl •I
Z
€J 3 LA R e 92 9 45j, e. m2 9 6J
2 0 7 Z 1
12/1/1953
26,09
S /I 7/1133 3 - 316119 -1,4
294
1 -'s /19 3 3 /6 /1,-3 3
294
Jordan Lake Storage Conditions and Target Flow Summary
Model Scenario
Jordan Lake Water Quality Pool
Lilington Low -Flow*
Minimum
Water
Quality
Storage, %
Date of
Minimum
Storage
Days Water
Qualtiy
Storage 0
Events Water
Qualtiy
Storage 0
Lowest Daily
Flow, cf s
Date of
Lowest Daily
Flow
Years with
Flow
:600 cfs**
Days with
Flow
:600 cfs**
Sirnbase-current
20,02
013012002
0
0
204.55
1011/2007
61
4,274
01_l_VVSP_Dem2045
29.53
1.012312007
0
0
171.12
811.912002
64
4,987
0J__LWSP_Dom206O
29.29
10/23/2007
0
0
151.80
8/19/2002
66
5,107
S.
30,01-3
1 �jj—"/20gz
0
0
174.S3
8/19/29�J2
65
4,97.1
63MA FgeqH.W N,; Y &2, 0 U�
2 Zp "IQ
ul I P ��. 0 7
155,13��
8jz,120;12
U,
8
Note * The flow record used for these model scenarios contains a total of 29,858 days in the period of record.
Note** The flow target at the Lillington strearngage is 600 ± 50 c-fs (cubic feet per second). The count in these columns will include periods when
flows were estimated to be between 550 and 600 cfs, not technically a violation of the target.
M.
DEQ-CFW-00020536

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
The modeling for this evaluation indicates that
even as withdrawals increase in the future there
remains significant storage for water supply and
flow -augmentation during the worst droughts
represented in the historic flow data. With the
expected withdrawals needed to meet demands
over the next 50 years neither the water supply
pool nor the flow augmentation pool are depleted.
Both have supply remaining during the driest
conditions that have occurred over the 81 years of
the historic record. The modeling results indicate
MUM
that Jordan Lake storage appears to be resilient enough to meet its intended purposes if
more extreme drought conditions occur in the future.
MI-0
DEQ-CFW-00020537

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Jordan Lake Water Supply Pool Potential Yield
The water supply pool of Jordan Lake was designed to reliably supply 100 million gallons
per day. The rules governing allocation of water supply storage required the Environmental
Management Commission to limit allocations that would result in "diversions out of the
lake's watershed to 50 percent of the total water supply yield". This limitation was
included to protect the yield of Jordan Lake for water supply and water quality purposes.
The allocation rules allow for revising the 50 percent diversion limit "based on experience
in managing the lake and on the eff
ects oj'changes in the lake 's watershed that will affect
its yield".
Water supply purposes are met by local government water systems that hold an allocation
and withdraw water from the water supply pool. The water quality purposes are met by
releasing water from the dam to augment flows in the river downstream. The magnitude of
downstream releases are set to maintain a target flow at the USGS stream gage at
Lillington.
The reliability of the volume of water available to water withdrawers that use surface water
sources is limited by the amount of water available during low -flow conditions.
Withdrawers taking water directly from a stream face seasonal variations in streamflows
that limit their reliable supply. The purpose of a water supply reservoir is to store water so
there is a pool of water available to buffer the effects of seasonal flow variations and
thereby increase the reliable supply. The amount of water available to be withdrawn from a
reservoir is determined by the storage volume and the amount of inflow available from the
watershed contributing drainage to the reservoir. While the drainage area and the physical
storage volume are fixed for a specific reservoir the amount of water available is dependent
on the water that flows off the watershed into the reservoir, which varies seasonally and
from year-to-year.
The yield of a water supply reservoir is determined by estimating how much could be
reliably withdrawn over a given record of inflows. The period of record used for this type
of analysis is typically 25 years, 50 years or the entire available record of streamflows,
depending on the level of risk that is acceptable to the users. The risk of not being able to
reliably withdraw the estimated yield during droughts typically decreases as the period of
record increases and a broader range of historic flows are used in the analysis.
The Cape Fear-Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model provides a tool to evaluate the
amount of water available to meet the water supply purposes from Jordan Lake. This
computer -based mathematical model tracks changes in water volume in the reservoirs and
rivers of the basins in response to variations in flows and water withdrawals. To evaluate
the potential water supply yield 12 different hypothetical scenarios were constructed to
bookend the range of potential yields. The magnitude and location of used water return
flows were varied to estimate the reliably of the water supply pool over the range of flows
in the 8 1 -year hydrologic record and the assumptions used in the model. Various
percentages of water withdrawals are assigned to be returned to three different geographic
areas; on the Jordan Lake watershed, in the Cape Fear River between the dam and the
Lillington streamflow gage or completely out of the watershed above the Lillington
N
DEQ-CFW-00020538

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
streamflow gage. The yield analysis tool in the model iteratively raises withdrawals from
the water supply pool up to the level when the next increase would reduce storage to zero.
The lowest water supply yield estimate occurs when none of the withdrawn water is
returned to the reservoir's watershed. The resulting estimated water supply yield is 104
million gallons per day using 2010 water withdrawals for systems not using water from
Jordan Lake. Using the 2060 scenario of estimated withdrawals the lowest estimated water
supply yield is 113 million gallons per day.
Twelve scenarios of return flow possibilities are summarized in Table 11. Reviewing the
data in Table 11, it appears that even if none of the water withdrawn from Jordan Lake is
returned to the reservoir's watershed the water supply pool can reliably supply 100 million
gallons per day.
The model provides the ability for evaluating the effects of releasing water from the low
flow augmentation pool in Jordan Lake to enhance river flows down steam by tracking the
volume of storage remaining during drought conditions. All model scenarios include the
drought management protocol for adjusting flow targets based on the percentage of water
quality storage remaining in the reservoir. Table Y shows the minimum storage amounts
for each of the 12 scenarios evaluated using 2010 and 2060 model scenarios. With the
withdrawal levels in the 2010 basecase scenario modeling does not indicate that the water
quality pool will be depleted under any of the return flow options. Modeling suggests that
ME
DEQ-CFW-00020539

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
as water withdrawals increase in the future, during recurrences of some of the hydrologic
conditions that have occurred since 1930, there could be times when the water quality pool
may be depleted if none of the withdrawn water is returned to the Jordan Lake watershed.
EStimated Minimum Water Quality Pool Storage,
Return
Flow Assumption
2010 8asecase Scenario
ZUS.fl H3emaad
sceararas
pe rcent of
Perce Lrt 6f
Minimum
Date of
Number
Number
Max
lU.iEnimnm
:Date of
Ttumher
Number;
Marc
Withdrawal
Withdraws
Peroe rtof
water
UEtater
..
Returned to
Returned
Withdrawal
Quality
Minimum
.Days
Events
DuratmnaE,
Minimum
Days
Events
Durar[an
WaterQuality
Water
Water
daysWater
W:mrQata(ity
'i$fater
Water .
d,�ys'i$fater
Model Set
Jordan Lake
Below Jordan
Out of Basin
Storage
Storage
Quality=0
Quality=0
Quality 0.
xttxrage
:Storage
QuaEity=O:
Quality=0!
O,uaEity=it;
Watershed
Lake Dam
(%)
(°)
UP
i 1 1
0
0
100
0.02
8/22/2002
0
0
0
0.00
8/9/2002
10
4
4
2
100
0
0
14.04
11/30/1953
0
0
0
9.94
2/24/1934
0
0
0
3
0
100
0
9.15
2/24/1934
0
0
0
4.08
2/24/19M
0
0
0
4
50
50
0
11.94
2/24/1934
0
0
0
7.03
2/24/1934
0
0
0
5
50
0
50
0.21
10/20/2007
0
0
0
0.11
8/22/2002
0
0
0
s 11
'-- ----
0
50
50
0.08
10/23/2007
0
0
0
0.00
8/21/2002
4
1
4
7
-----
25
-----
75
----- --
0
----------
10.75
-------------
2/24/1934
----------
0
----------
0
--------------------
0
5.99
-------------
2/24/1934
----------
0
----------
0
----------
0
S
25
0
75
0.08
8/22/2002
0
0
0
0.03
8/22/2002
0
0
0
's 9
75
25
0
13.63
11/30/1953
0
0
0
8.43
2/24/1934
0
0
0
10
0
25
75
0.02
8/24/2002
0
0
0
0.00
8/14/2002
7
3
4
11
75
0
25
0.35
12/11/2007
0
0
0
0.26
8/29/2002
0
0
0
12
0
75
25
0.12
12/13/2007
0
0
0
0.08
12/11/2007
0
0
0
Table 13 presents the lowest daily average flows at the Lillington streamflow gage for each
of the return flow configurations. The chart uses the flow value of 600 cubic feet per
second as the measure for the flow target. The flow target is currently defined as 600 ±50
cubic feet per second. When storage in the water quality pool declines during droughts the
flow target at Lillington is reduced based on the steps defined in the Drought Contingency
Plan. Table 13 shows the number of years out of 81 years in the flow record and the
number of days out of 29,858 days in the flow record when the model estimates the flows
at Lillington to be less than 600 cubic feet per second. The table also shows the date when
the minimum flow rate was estimated to occur given the return flow configurations used
for the analysis of the water supply yield.
Figure 12 summarizes the results of the suite of analyses that were conducted to determine
the reliability of the water supply pool in Jordan Lake. Each spoke on the radial graph
shows the result of a different configuration of return flow assignments. The center of the
graph represents zero million gallons per day and the outer edge represents 175 million
gallons per day. The red band represents the desired yield when the water supply pool was
designed, 100 million gallons per day. The graph shows that all of the options of where
water withdrawn from the supply pool is used produce potential yield estimates greater
than 100 million gallons per day. Even if all the water withdrawn from the water supply
pool is removed from the Haw River and Cape Fear River basins the yield estimate
exceeds 100 million gallons per day.
VA
DEQ-CFW 00020540

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Table 13 Cape Fear River Minimum Flows (a_). Lillington
Estimated
Minimum Flows at Lillington Streamflow
Gage
Return
Flow Assumption
2010 Basecase Scenario
.......................................................................................................
.....................................
.................... ....
................... ..........
........ ......... .............................
........................................................................................................
.................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................
....................................................................................................
. .. ...
. .......
Im. :Mond
...
..... .............. .........................
..............
stehaft .............................
............... ............................
Percent of
Percent of
Lillington
.....................................................................................................
.................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................
.................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................
.................................................................................................... .................
......... ..............................
................. ..............................
........................ ..............................
....................... ..............................
.. ..............................
.. ..............................
...........
.......
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
.
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
Withdrawal
Withdrawl
Percentof
Lowest
Date of
Years with
Days with
....................... ...............
................. ..... .............
....................
...................
we% .... ........
.......
Years
......................................... ..................
with:with :Days
............
.......................
Returned to
Returned
Withdrawal
daily flow,
Minimum
Flow
Fla W
... .....
.......................................................... ....................... ..............................
. 9 M.. ....
lx...Qw.
..
.............................
M' xxxx�xxx�
....... . ....ous......
.... .. ................
................................
....
....... ..............
....... PI ............
ow
.....
Model set
JordanLake
BelowJordan
Out of Basin
(cfs)
<600 cfs
�600 cfs
.4
................... ..
................. ...................
...... ....... ...................
....................................................................................
...... ....... ..............................
..... ..............................
. ...
..... ... ....
................
.... ................
.......................
......
.......................
.......................
........................
Up
Watershed
Lake Dam
...... ...... ......... ..............................
.. . ..............................................................................
..................... ..............................
................. . ..............................
....................... ..............................
................. . ..............................
....................... ..............................
................. ...............................
....................... ...........
.....................................................................................................
.................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................
.......................
.................
.
.... ................
.... ................
.......................
.... ................
.......................
.... ..............
.......................
........................
. ...
.......................
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
........................
.......................
.......................
1
0
0
100
43.36
8/23/2002
23
620
0.00
10/25/1953
1 14
504
2
100
0
0
600.00
5/2/1930
0
0
600.00
5/2/1930
0
0
3
0
100
0
600.00
5/2/1930
0
0
600.00
5/2/1930
0
0
4
50
so
0
284.56
10/2/1986
7
175
600.00
5/2/1930
0
0
5
50-
0
so
119.71
10/21/2007
20
364
0.00
8/22/2002
10
226
6
0
so
so
140.74
10/23/2007
12
214
18.06
8/22/2002
7
169
7
25
75
0
284.56
10/2/1986
6
164
600.00
5/2/1930
0
0
a
25
0
75
71.44
8/23/2002
21
427
0.00
8/12/2002
13
394
9
75
25
0
284.56
10/2/1986
7
182
600.00
5/2/1930
0
0
10
0
25
75
95.47
10/21/2007
11
268
0.00
8/14/2002
12
355
11
75
0
25
233.51
12/12/2007
11
285
105.32
8/28/2002
5
103
12
0
1 75
25
247.90
12/14/2007
9 1
172
183.43
12/14/20071
4
1 84 1
it Nummary of Jordan Lake water Nuppiy -rooi Yieia Estimates
Jordan Lake
Yield:: Analysis, MGD
2Q10
20"D
7 P: 0, :
P:., Cr
----------
r"I u D
-----------------------
------------------------------ �
DEQ-CFW-00020541

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
ITITUI "I
Responsibility for water supply and water infrastructure development are assumed
by local governments or non -governmental entities based on specific goals and needs.
The primary focus of this exercise is to evaluate the long term water needs of water
systems that depend on surface water sources in the Deep River, Haw River and Cape
Fear River Subbasins to evaluate allocation requests of water supply storage in Jordan
Lake. Because of mutual water sharing relationships an effective analysis also
requires consideration of the use of surface water sources and water demands in the
Neuse River Basin. Cumulative water demands and water sharing arrangements in
the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins were evaluated over a fifty-year planning
horizon using data submitted to the Division of Water Resources. Local water supply
plans, prepared by units of local government and other large community water
systems, provide water use and water source information as well as estimates of
future water demands. The effects of the expected water withdrawals were evaluated
using the Cape Fear - Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model that simulates changes in
surface water quantity induced by changes in surface water withdrawals and
management protocols in the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins.
The Cape Fear - Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Model provides DWR staff the ability
to evaluate changes to surface water availability that could occur from increases in
withdrawals to meet demands at several levels expected to be needed over the next
fifty years. The hydrologic model is used to establish a baseline set of conditions by
comparing a given year's known withdrawals and management protocols, in this case
2010, to the amount of water available to meet that level of demand in each of 81
years of a reconstructed hydrologic record.
The 81 years of flow records for this model contains several extreme droughts, a
couple of which may be familiar to the readers of this report. The 2010 basecase
scenario gives an indication of the magnitude and duration of supply shortages that
could be expected during a repeat of flow conditions that have occurred in the past
given the 2010 levels of water withdrawals and management protocols.
In the analysis for this report DWR staff compiled projections from local water supply
plans submitted to the division and created model scenarios based on several levels
of water withdrawals expected to be needed to meet customer demands in the future.
Comparing the model results of the future demand scenarios with the basecase
scenario gives an indication of how the frequency, magnitude and duration of supply
shortages may be different during a reoccurrence of conditions similar to historic low
flow periods. The goal of these evaluations is to provide water utility managers and
local decision makers with data to inform water source and demand management
planning and fine tuning of local water shortage response plans.
The Cape Fear Basin portion of the model includes the 27 surface water withdrawals
in the Cape Fear River and its tributaries above Lock & Dam #1 in Bladen County.
These withdrawals support 82 community and industrial water systems in the Cape
73
DEQ-CFW-00020542

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Fear and the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Basin portion of the model includes
the 13 surface water withdrawals in the Neuse River and its tributaries above New
Bern. These withdrawals support 36 community and industrial water systems in the
Neuse and the Cape Fear River Basin. A schematic of the model is shown in Figure 6.
This section will summarize the potential of flow -related supply shortages for surface
water withdrawals in the Haw River, Deep River and Cape Fear River Subbasins based
on the Cape Fear-Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model results. More detail of each of
the water system's local water supply plan is available on the division's website at
www.nc\,�,;ater.oi-�,/A,,'at�er SLIPply Planning/ ,LocaI_IVaLer &Li -ply Plan/.
Beginning in the headwaters of the Haw River
Subbasin the Town of Reidsville withdraws water
from Lake Reidsville on Troublesome Creek
supplying water to Greensboro and Rockingham
County as well as the town's service area
customers. Based on modeling results Reidsville is
expected to be able to reliably meet its projected
2060 annual average demand of 5.7 million gallons
per day from its current sources without supply
shortages.
The City of Greensboro has three reservoirs that it
manages for water supply, Lake Higgins, Lake
Townsend and Lake Brandt. The supply from these
sources is supplemented by finished water purchases
from Burlington, Reidsville and the Piedmont Triad
Regional Water Authority. The PTRWA recently
completed construction of the Randleman Reservoir
on the Deep River, a regional water supply source.
PTRWA operates a water treatment facility
distributing drinking water to surrounding
communities. Greensboro's multiple sources of water,
from different watersheds, provides source
redundancy and resilience to low flow conditions. The
available capacity in Randleman Reservoir has the ability to cover regional water
supply needs for some time to come. The current water treatment plant with a
permitted capacity of 12 million gallons per day is not able to fully utilize the
estimated available supply of 48 million gallons per day.
Modeling for this analysis indicates Greensboro could face short periods of supply
shortages trying to meet the estimated 2060 demand levels of 65.6 million gallons per
VZ111
DEQ-CFW-00020543

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
day given the treatment limit of PTRWA. As demand increases it will become more
practical to invest in water treatment plant expansions to access more water from
Randleman Reservoir. In the meantime, modeling does not show any predicted
supply shortages from current sources over the range of flows that occurred from
1930 to 2011 while meeting the 2045 estimated annual average demand of about 54
million gallons per day.
The City of Burlington manages two water supply
Ao:l
reservoirs in the Haw River Subbasin; Lake
2 Mackintosh on Great Alamance Creek and Stoney
z . . B gto
urfin ton Creek Reservoir on Stoney Creek. From these
0 M, sources Burlington supplies their service
M
customersdemands and regularly provides water
to the communities of Greensboro, Elon,
'stir :qw.:
Gibsonville, Alamance and Haw River. In turn Haw
River passes some of that water on to the Orange
Alamance Water System. The modeling for this
report indicates the expected demand needed to meet 2060 customer demands, 26.8
million gallons per day, is likely to be available without any flow -related shortages
over the range of historic hydrologic conditions experienced on the watersheds of
these reservoirs from 1930 to 2011.
The cities of Graham and Mebane share a
reservoir, the Graham -Mebane Lake on Back
Creek in Alamance County, and a water treatment
plant. Besides the residents of Graham and
Mebane the water treatment plant regularly
supplies water to customers of the Swepsonville
and Green Level water utilities. In the modeling
done for this analysis the total demand on this
reservoir is estimated to increase from a 2010
level of 3.4 million gallons per day to an estimated .................. ... jswepsonvin'e 1
9.5 million gallons per day to meet customer demands in 2060. The modeling predicts
that at that future level of demand, with a repeat of the drought conditions seen in
2007-2008 or 1934, the water supply storage in the reservoir could be depleted
producing water shortages. No other flow -related shortages were noted in the
modeling results for this group of water systems. The existing emergency connection
with Burlington may be sufficient to avoid supply shortages.
V2
DEQ-CFW-00020544

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
h
P a -nd I
I
In addition to Greensboro, the communities
of High Point, Jamestown, Archdale and
Randleman receive water from PTRWA as a
sole source or to supplement existing
sources. According to the modeling for this
analysis flow -related shortages are not an
issue for these systems as water demands
increase to the amounts expected to be
needed to meet 2060 customer demands.
The Town of Ramseur manages the Sandy Creek
I Oj Ll
Reservoir, on a tributary of the Deep River, and operates
a water treatment plant supplying water to its service L' P
�xxxx...j �,;, . . ..... .. . ..
.!xx 14
customers and providing the sole source of potable ix ":j,
water to the Franklinville water system. According to ..........
information in these towns' local water supply plans they
are expecting only a modest growth in water demand IT)
from now to 2060. Modeling indicates they are likely to
14
be able to withdraw the amount of water expected to be Coleridge,
needed to meet 2060 without flow -related shortages.
Siler City manages the Rocky River Upper and
4 l
Lower Reservoirs as a combined system to supply
water to its water treatment plant and deliver
....................
potable water to the residents and industries in
­x siler City
its service area. In addition to its service
H A
customers the Siler City water system supplies
water to the Moore County Public Utilities -High
C" U
Falls system and is the sole supplier of potable
water to the Chatham County Southwest Water
System. The estimated water withdrawal needed
GOW"�6'3'
Bmlm -
to meet 2060 demand in this analysis is 2.1
,x
million gallons per day. The hydrologic model
does not indicate any flow -related shortages likely
to limit meeting this level of demand from these
sources over the range of flows that have
occurred on this watershed from 1930 to 2011.
K-1
DEQ-CFW-00020545

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority provides
water and sewer services to residents of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro and surrounding portions of Orange County.
OWASA manages two reservoirs, University Lake on
Chapel N
Morgan Creek and Cane Creek Reservoir, and it
Carrburo ...........
.... .......
currently holds a five percent allocation of the Jordan
Lake water supply pool. Water from Jordan Lake
.... ........
provides an alternative source that can be accessed
Lake
by receiving finished water treated by the Cary -Apex,
R 1,5
WTP and delivered to OWASA through the Durham
distribution system. OWASA's long-term plan includes development of increase
supply storage in the quarry, currently operated by American Stone, located on the
same watershed as the Cane Creek Reservoir. OWASA has submitted an application to
retain a five percent allocation of the water supply pool in Jordan Lake. OWASA is a
member of the Jordan Lake Partnership and the consortium working to develop the
western Jordan Lake intake and water treatment plant. Modeling indicates the
OWASA's current sources including the Jordan Lake allocation is expected to be
capable of reliably meeting the expected 2060 demand of 12.9 million gallons per day.
The resilience of OWASA's water supplies is enhanced by having a source from the
larger watershed and reservoir storage provided by Jordan Lake.
The Town of Pittsboro has an intake in the Haw River
upstream of the hydropower dam at Bynum.
5U, 1
Currently the town operates a two million gallon per
e rrfn6ator
day water treatment plant. With the proposal toil
age
develop Chatham Park east of Pittsboro the water
1�-W d
utility is expecting to see its customer base grow from
Hoc,
3,700 in 2010 to about 96,800 by 2060 with
Yp 5
B NfliF0 r 0
accompanying growth in water demands. Pittsboro
has submitted an application for a six percent
Pitt
allocation of water supply storage in Jordan Lake to
supplement an eventual six million gallon per day
supply from the Haw River. Pittsboro is a member of the Jordan Lake Partnership and
is a member of the consortium of local governments working together to develop an
intake and water treatment plant on the western shore of Jordan Lake to allow full
utilization of the water supply storage in the reservoir. Modeling indicates that if
Pittsboro receives the requested allocation and completes the intended expansions of
their withdrawal and treatment capacity from the Haw River there will be enough
water available to meet the projected demand of 11.24 million gallons per day.
WA
DEQ-CFW-00020546

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Currently the only water intake available to
access the water supply storage in Jordan Lake
is jointly owned and maintained by the towns of
Cary and Apex. There are a group of utilities
currently holding allocations of water supply
storage in Jordan Lake that depend on the Cary -
Apex raw water pump station to access their
allocations. The Chatham County - North water
system has an arrangement with Cary and Apex
that allows it to supply water to its water
treatment plant from water withdrawn at the
Cary -Apex raw water pump station. The Cary -Apex WTP regularly supplies water to
RDU Airport, Morrisville and the Wake County portion of the Research Triangle Park.
The Town of Holly Springs has an interconnection with Apex that can provide access
to its current two percent allocation of water supply storage in Jordan Lake. If these
local governments receive their requested allocations their demands will be covered
through the allocation planning horizon. Cary has interconnections with OWASA and
Durham through which those utilities can access their current Jordan Lake water
supply allocations. Modeling shows that if the Cary -Apex, Morrisville and Holly
Springs allocation requests are granted these communities will reliably be able to
meet currently expected customer demands through 2060.
Chatham County provides public water
service to areas in the county east of the Haw
and Cape Fear rivers not served by Cary or
Pittsboro through its Chatham County -North
system. The development of Chatham Park,
east of Pittsboro, is expected to bring
increased development to the surrounding
county areas. The Chatham County -North
water system is preparing for a service
population grow from the 2010 level of
10,200 using 2.16 million gallons per day to
94,000 using 18.1 million gallons per day by
2060. Chatham County currently holds a 6 percent allocation from the Jordan Lake
water supply pool and a 3 million gallon per day water treatment plant supplied by
the Cary -Apex raw water pump station. Chatham County has requested a 13 percent
water supply allocation that will cover there expected demands through 2045.
Chatham County is a member of the coalition of systems pursuing the development of
the western intake and treatment plant through which its allocation, if granted, will
be accessed. If Chatham County receives the anticipated growth associated with
Chatham Park it will likely need to find additional sources of water to meet the
projected 2060 demand of over 18 million gallons per day.
DEQ-CFW-00020547

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Below Jordan Lake the City of Sanford
withdraws water from an unmanaged
42,
Impoundment behind Buckhorn Dam on the
.42 a vnif rd Cape Fear River known as Yarborough Lake
Ki;A
a
and Buckhorn Dam Lake. In addition to its
own custom
ers Sanford also provides water
L
. ..... to the Chatham County - East Water
A R N
System, the Goldston-Gulf Sanitary District,
ryryryry
the Town of Broadway and the Utilities, Inc.
Carolina Trace Water System. Sanford discharges about two-thirds of the water it
delivers to its service area customers as treated wastewater to the Deep River,
upstream of its water supply intake. With this arrangement the effects of Sanford's
withdrawals on streamflows becomes the difference between the quantity of the
system's water withdrawal and the amount of its wastewater return flow. Modeling
results indicate that the water available at Sanford's current intake location is
sufficient to meet the cumulative demands of 24.2 million gallons per day estimated
to be needed to meet 2060 water demands for this group of water utilities that
depend on Sanford's water withdrawals.
Southwest of Sanford the Town of Carthage
X.,
withdraws water from Nicks Creek in the
42 .... .... ...
headwaters of the Little River watershed, a t
. . ....... . .
/ x..
tributary of the Cape Fear River. The estimated
Ila
2060 water demand for this utility is 0.64 million "A:
gallons per day. The model does predict the
possibility of short-term flow -related shortages
from their current surface water source at this
level of demand. Carthage's recent local water
supply plan indicates the intention to convert an
emergency connection with the Town of Southern
Pines to a regular source of water. The additional water source has the potential to
alleviate flow related shortages at their current source.
Moving downstream on the Cape Fear
42
River the next surface water intake is
Sa Prd the Harnett County Regional Water n ,
System facility near the USGS
streamflow gage at Lillington. Over the
1 '2
last few decades this utility has become
27
H
A-l'.1.
A R N E T
a regional water supplier meeting the
needs of communities in Harnett, Moore,
Cumberland, Wake and Johnston
Counties. Its location downstream of
Jordan Lake gives this utility an
advantageous position to make use of the reliability of water available from the flow
augmentation releases from the reservoir. Modeling results do not indicate any flow
WE
DEQ-CFW-00020548

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
related water supply shortages associated with meeting the projected annual average
demand of 43.2 million gallons per day estimated to be needed to meet the
cumulative demands on this intake in 2060.
Downstream from the Lillington streamflow gage the City of Dunn (shown on the map
above) withdraws water from the Cape Fear River to supply its residents as well as
supplying water to the Town of Benson. The estimated 2060 demand for this intake is
3.2 million gallons per day. The model does show potential flow related shortages for
this volume of withdrawal at this location. The shortage from the model analysis is
the result of the levels of flow chosen as the triggers in Dunn's water shortage
response plans combined with a 14-day waiting period to activate demand reductions
when the triggers are met. This combination results in several periods of shortages
lasting 14 days or less.
• 4 4
Ea ream �>Further
downstream, the
im
City of Fayetteville's Public
Works Commission
from the Cape Fear River
providing potable water to
customers in its own
service area as well as
i...
24,
several surrounding
.......
-- --- --- ----- ---
communities. Fayetteville
*F'SH
PWC maintains two surface
QN
AT
water intakes on the Cape
71 1,
U N D
E 14 R L A
Fear River in the
backwater of William 0.
MW7 ..... -- -------- Husks Lock and Dam (Lock
& Dam #3) operated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. It also has access to water
from Little Cross Creek and Big Cross Creek, tributaries of the Cape Fear River. The
lock and dam structure maintains a relatively stable water level in the river above the
elevation of the top of the dam for approximately 29 miles upstream as long as there
is more water flowing downstream than the net withdrawals and evaporation from
the impoundment. Fayetteville PWC's withdrawals are approximately 20 miles
upstream of the lock and dam structure and the utility discharges treated wastewater
downstream of the water supply intakes and upstream of the dam. The wastewater
discharges are generally at a volume approximately equal to 90 percent or more of
water withdrawals. Similar to Sanford's arrangement discussed above the magnitude
of the effect of Fayetteville's water withdrawals on the flow in the Cape Fear River is
best characterized as the difference between the amount of withdrawal and the
amount of wastewater return flow. At the current intake location, modeling does not
indicate any flow related supply shortages limiting Fayetteville PWC ability to meet
its estimated annual average 2060 demand of 78.3 million gallons per day. This
analysis assumes the range of flow conditions experienced in the basin from 1930-
2011, and the current management and drought protocols for Jordan Lake.
=1
DEQ-CFW-00020549

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
�'_ . �;� . - . - . - - - -
Lhfle
- - - — - - - -
Below Fayetteville, the Lower Cape Fear Water
and Sewer Authority withdraws water from
111ke Lake
Horse,h,
the Cape Fear River, at its Bladen Bluffs facility
Lake
near Tarheel, supplying finished water to The
­_\Wi�lte. Oak
Smithfield Packing Company facility in Tarheel.
Based on available information the estimated
Heel <�,
r
SK Pk
NX
annual average day demand from this
in 2060 is 2.3
withdrawal million gallons per
day with approximately the same volume of
BCC
water returned to the river nearby as treated
+ 2
wastewater. Modeling results do not indicate
lerton Eliz..
M hq,
-- ---
any flow -related shortages from this volume of
-
withdrawal at this location.
The Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority and the Lower Cape
Fear Water and Sewer Authority
Kings Bluff facility withdraw
water from the Cape Fear River
in the back water of Lock and
Dam # 1 near Kelly, N.C. The
CFPUA supplies water to
Wilmington and surrounding
areas of New Hanover County.
The LCFWSA Kings Bluff facility
supplies raw water to several
industrial customers as well as
the water treatment plants
operated by Brunswick County,
Pender County and CFPUA. The
estimated combined 2060
surface water demand for
CFPUA and LCFWSA is 59.3
million gallons per day. Hydrologic modeling of the Cape Fear River does not indicate
the likelihood of flow -related shortages from withdrawing this amount of water at
this location. However, none of the water withdrawn is returned to the backwater of
the dam, therefore this withdrawal reduces the streamflow below Lock & Dam # 1 by
the amount of the withdrawal.
Brunswick County's surface water treatment plant, in combination with water from a
groundwater treatment plant, provides water to residents and industries throughout
the county including those serviced by the following community water systems: Bald
Head Utilities, Brunswick Regional (H2GO), Caswell Beach, Holden Beach, Leland,
Navassa, Northwest, Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach, Shallotte and Southport. In
M.
DEQ-CFW-00020550

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
addition, the LCFWSA also provides raw water to the Rocky Point - Topsail Water and
Sewer District in Pender County.
As noted in the introduction to this section, consideration of the water needs and the
available supplies of communities in the upper Neuse River Basin are crucial to an
accurate understanding and optimum utilization of water supply storage in Jordan
Lake. Hillsborough, Durham and Raleigh submitted applications for allocations of
water supply storage in Jordan Lake and all depend on water sources in the Neuse
River Subbasin.
Durham currently has a 10 percent
allocation of the Jordan Lake water
supply pool which it can receive as
finished water through interconnections
with Cary's water system. Durham's
primary water supply sources are Lake
Michie and the Little River Reservoir
upstream of Falls Lake in the Neuse River
Subbasin. To date Durham has only used
its Jordan Lake allocation during drought
conditions. Durham's ability to access
water from Jordan Lake is likely to
become less dependable as the Cary -Apex
system requires more of their plant
capacity to meet their own demands. Except for its Jordan Lake allocation all of
Durham's water supply comes from sources upstream of Falls Lake, which is Raleigh's
primary water supply source. Durham has some provisions to pump water from the
Eno River, a tributary of Falls Lake, under certain conditions. For some time Durham
has been considering the possibility of expanding Lake Michie to increase the amount
of water it can provide. Without a reliable source of water outside of the Neuse River
Basin all of Durham's options for increasing supply to meet future water demands
will impact inflows to Falls Lake.
Durham is a partner with the utilities collaborating on the development of a western
intake and treatment plant on Jordan Lake. Durham has indicated in its application
that when the water treatment plant comes online it expects to use the full amount of
its anticipated 16.5 million gallons a day on a daily basis reducing its withdrawal from
the Neuse River Subbasin. Durham currently has mutual aid agreements and
emergency connections with Cary, Chatham County - North, Raleigh, Hillsborough,
Orange-Alamance Water System and OWASA. Historically about fifty percent of
Durham's average daily water use is discharged to the Jordan Lake watershed as
treated wastewater.
Durham applied for a 16.5 percent allocation from the Jordan Lake water supply pool,
a 6.5 percent increase over their current allocation. Durham's estimated average daily
M.
DEQ-CFW-00020551

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
demand in 2060 is 44.37 million gallons per day. Durham's available supply from
Lake Michie and the Little River Reservoir is estimated at 34.4 million gallons per day.
The modeling done for this analysis does not indicate any flow -related shortages
limiting Durham's ability to meet its customer's demands as modified by the utilities
water shortage response plans if it receives the requested allocation from Jordan
Lake.
Hillsborough will soon begin an expansion of the West Fork Eno Reservoir which will
increase its water supply storage. The town can receive water from Durham, OWASA
and the Orange-Alamance Water System through existing emergency connections.
The town can supply water to the Orange-Alamance Water System. Orange County
anticipates having the town supply water to economic development zones in the
county bordering Hillsborough's current utility service area. Hillsborough applied for
a one percent allocation from the Jordan Lake water supply pool to meet its long term
water supply needs. Hillsborough's estimated average daily demand in 2060 is 3.7
million gallons per day. The modeling done for this evaluation does not indicate any
flow -related shortages limiting Hillsborough's ability to meet their customer's
demands as modified by the utilities water shortage response plan.
M.
Also upstream of Falls Lake the
South Granville Water and
Sewer Authority withdraws
water out of R.D. Holt Reservoir
on Knapp of Reed's Creek to
supply their customers and the
Town of Creedmoor. The
reservoir has an estimated
yield of eleven million gallons
per day and the system has an
estimated 2060 demand of five
million gallons per day.
DEQ-CFW-00020552

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Modeling does not show any flow related shortages meeting the predicted water
demands. SGWASA did not apply for a Jordan Lake water supply allocation.
Raleigh depends on the Neuse
River Subbasin to supply water
to meet its customer's
demands. Raleigh's water
utility customer base includes
the residents of Raleigh,
Garner, Knightdale, Rolesville,
Wake Forest, Wendell and
Zebulon. Raleigh's largest
source of water is Falls Lake
with an estimated available
supply of 66.1 million gallons
per day. In addition Lake
Wheeler and Lake Benson on
the Swift Creek watershed can
provide an estimated 11.2
million gallons per day. The
combined yield of 77.3 million
gallons per day represents an estimate of the reliable supply available during dry
conditions. Most of the time inflows to the reservoirs are sufficient to support larger
withdrawals. Raleigh's 2035,2045 and 2060 average daily water demands are
estimated to be 85, 97 and 115 million gallons per day, respectively. As water
withdrawals increase the stress on water supply sources during dry periods will also
increase.
The estimated 2045 demand of 97 million gallons per day on average represents a
range of demands from 83 to114 million gallons per day depending on the month of
the year. Figure 8 shows the model predictions of the remaining water supply storage
for 2010 and 2045 demand levels during the flow conditions experienced from 2000
to 2011. This analysis reflects the restricted demands expected from the water
shortage response protocols that Raleigh specified for this modeling effort.
Raleigh has been exploring several options to expand the utility's water supply by
increments of 14 to 24 million gallons per day. Each option requires extensive
environmental and regulatory review and approval resulting in multi -year permitting
periods prior to construction and completion. Raleigh will need additional water
supplies to meet the anticipated future customer demands. The 01-LWSP-Dem2045
scenario includes Raleigh's proposed Little River Reservoir which was included as a
future option in the local water supply plan. The other two 2045 demand scenarios
shown in Figure 10 do not include water from the Little River Reservoir but they
include Raleigh's Jordan Lake allocation request of 4.7 million gallons per day from
ME
DEQ-CFW-00020553

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Jordan Lake in one scenario and from the Cape Fear River near Lillington in the other
scenario.
Figure 8 Falls Lake Water Supply Storage
Falls Lake Water Supply Storage
2045 Demands
% N:ratior'
31 �;Arsp C--m 2"X5 J." A
According to the modeling scenarios run for this analysis no flow related supply
shortages were noted in the modeling results for other surface water withdrawers
downstream of Raleigh on the Neuse River or in the Contentnea Creek subbasin.
Appendix C contains tables showing the results of the shortage evaluations for the
various model scenarios run for this report.
Summary
Modeling shows that for most public water systems that rely on surface water from
the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins, based on the range of flows that have occurred
since 1930, there will likely be adequate quantities of water available to meet
anticipated water needs through 2060. Some communities may have to implement
their water shortage response plans in order to reduce customer demands during
recurrences of historic drought conditions to reliably supply enough water to cover
essential water needs. Some communities may be able to cover unrestricted demands
even during droughts. This group includes communities that get water from the Cape
Fear River below Jordan Lake and the Neuse River below Falls Lake. The flow
augmentation releases from these reservoirs improve the reliability of water supplies
for downstream communities compared to what would be available without the
additional flow releases. The completion of Randleman Reservoir and the Piedmont
Triad Regional Water Treatment Facility has significantly improved the reliability of
water supplies for communities in the Triad Region by reducing the risk of water
shortages. Also, Lake Mackintosh continues to provide reliable water supplies for
Burlington and the interconnected surrounding communities.
DEQ-CFW-00020554

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Water supply reliability is less certain for communities in the Research Triangle
Region. Thirteen local government entities in this region formed the Jordan Lake
Partnership to investigate options to make optimum use of existing water supplies
and to cooperatively plan for additional sources to meet anticipated future needs. The
resulting Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan presents the results of the group's
work. The TRWSP recommendations included increased allocations from Jordan Lake
for several communities to be withdrawn through a newly constructed intake and
water treatment plant on the western shore of Jordan Lake. Optimum utilization of
the water supply storage in Jordan Lake will require an additional intake facility. The
existing raw water intake does not have the capacity to withdraw the 100 million
gallons a day of water assumed to be available from the water supply storage.
The TRWSP includes the presumption that Raleigh would continue to pursue the
options they were already investigating for expanding water supplies from the Neuse
River Basin. Therefore, the TRWSP does not include an allocation from Jordan Lake
for Raleigh. The City of Raleigh Public Utility Department did submit an application
for an allocation from Jordan Lake to provide a portion of their future needs.
Model scenarios were constructed to characterize options presented in the local
water supply plans submitted by communities in the Cape Fear and Neuse River
Basins as well as alternative water supply options derived from the allocation
applications received by DWR. Additional graphs describing the variations in water
supply reservoirs in the model is available in Appendix D. Also, Appendix E presents a
discussion and summary tables of the variations in low flow conditions for river
nodes in the model for the various model scenarios used for this evaluation.
Conclusions
The Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation is based on the water demand, population
estimates, and water supply options data available at the time of the study. The cumulative
effects of individual surface water withdrawers' expected future water needs from the Deep
River, Haw River, Cape Fear River, Neuse River and Contentnea Creek river subbasins are
evaluated using a computer -based hydrologic model. The Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins
Hydrologic Model is a platform to evaluate the effects of various levels of water
withdrawals on water availability in the context of current and known future management
protocols over the range of streamflow variability that occurred between 1930 and 2011 in
these subbasins.
The model results and subsequent interpretation depends on the following key assumptions
and limitations:
• The evaluation focuses on the question, will there be enough water available
at specific locations to satisfy estimated future water demands,
• Water is not reserved in rivers and streams to protect aquatic habitat and
ecological integrity except to the extent that minimum releases are required,
• Population and demand projections in local water supply plans and Jordan
Lake allocation application are the best informed estimates,
M.
DEQ-CFW-00020555

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
• Future water withdrawals will be from the same locations as current
withdrawals with the addition of new withdrawal locations specified in the
source data,
• Water systems that depend on purchasing water from another water system
will continue being supplied by the current seller during the planning
horizon of this study,
• Wastewater return flows will continue at the current locations unless
additional information is provide,
• Future wastewater return flows will be the same percentage of water use as
in the 2010 basecase model scenario unless additional information was
provided,
• The model does not predict the future flow conditions, it indicates the
effects of withdrawing various volumes of water over the range of
streamflow conditions that occurred between 1930 and 2011,
• Agricultural water use is based on estimates developed for previous river
basin models and is assumed to be consistent over the planning horizon,
• Water quality is not evaluated,
• The model does not evaluate flooding conditions, and
• The model does not extend into tidally influenced sections of the Cape Fear
River or Neuse River.
Given these caveats, the water quantity modeling done for this evaluation suggests that,
with several exceptions, the public utilities and other surface water withdrawers in these
basins are unlikely to face flow related shortages in the foreseeable future, with an
increased use of water supply in Jordan Lake. Some communities will have to make use of
their water shortage response plans to protect essential water uses during droughts. The
modeling does indicate potential shortages for five water withdrawers, most of which have
plans in place to address these concerns as demands increase.
Greensboro's currently available supply will need to be increased to meet projected 2060
demands. However, the currently available supply is limited by the existing water
treatment capacity of the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority. PTRWA's water
source, Randleman Regional Reservoir, reportedly has the capacity to support a three -fold
increase in the current 12 million gallons per day treatment plant. Prudent expansions of
treatment facilities will be able to cover the expected growth in demand.
Modeling for the City of Randleman indicates potential supply shortage from current
sources if demands reach the anticipated 2060 levels. As a partner in the PTRWA,
Randleman will benefit from future expansions of the authority's treatment facilities that
will address the model -indicated shortages.
The cities of Graham and Mebane, and several surrounding water systems, depend on
Graham -Mebane Lake on Back Creek to supply water for their customers. The model
indicates a possible three-week shortage meeting 2060 water demands during a
reoccurrence of the drought conditions experienced in 2007-2008 or 1934. These water
systems have existing connections with the City of Burlington that should be able to cover
DEQ-CFW-00020556

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
the potential shortfalls. Modeling of Burlington's supplies and demands do not indicate
potential supply shortage over the planning horizon for this evaluation.
The Town of Carthage relies on Nicks Creek for water to meet customer demands. The
system also has a long-term contract to purchase water on an emergency basis from the
Town of Southern Pines. Modeling of Carthage's 2060 estimated water demands indicate
the potential of short-term flow -related shortages during low -flow periods if this demand
level becomes reality. The Town's connection with Southern Pines provides a way to
address the potential shortages from Nicks Creek.
The Chatham County -North water system anticipates the need to meet annual average day
demands of 18 million gallons per days in 2060. Chatham County currently holds a six
percent allocation from the water supply pool in Jordan Lake. They have submitted an
application request to increase the allocation by seven percent to a total of 13 percent.
Under a couple of the allocation options modeled Chatham County -North could face
challenges meeting the 2060 estimated demands.
There is no indication this system will face supply shortages over the planning horizon for
Jordan Lake water supply allocation decision making, if they receive the requested
allocation increase. Chatham County is a member of the consortium of entities proposing
to develop a raw water intake and water treatment plant on the western side of Jordan
Lake. Their ability to access the requested volume of water is dependent on the
construction of these facilities, which is dependent on all members be assured they will
have access to Jordan Lake water by receiving their requested allocations.
The City of Raleigh currently depends on water sources in the Neuse River basin to meet
water customer needs. It is included in this evaluation because of the water sharing
arrangements among water utilities in Haw River, Cape Fear River and Neuse River
subbasins. Also, the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department submitted a request for a
4.7 percent allocation from the water supply pool in Jordan Lake. Raleigh does not
currently have an allocation from Jordan Lake. With the water supply pool designed to
supply 100 million gallons per day each percent of the pool is generally thought of as
representing one million gallons per day. The modeling done for this evaluation shows
Raleigh having a potential supply shortage to meet the estimated 2045 demands from their
existing water sources in the Neuse River Subbasin. Raleigh's primary water supply source
is Falls Lake where the city has access to 42.3 percent of the conservation pool. This
source is supplemented by water from the Swift Creek Watershed south of the city. The
current available supply from both sources is estimated to be 77.3 million gallons per day.
The model scenarios based on local water supply plan data on current and future available
supplies supplements existing supplies with 13.7 million gallons per day from a proposed
reservoir on Little River in Wake County. The other modeling scenarios do not include
water from the Little River Reservoir in Raleigh's available supply. They do however
include a 4.7 million gallons a day supplement to the existing supplies from a source
outside of the Neuse River Basin. The City of Raleigh has a very aggressive water shortage
response plan included in the model that is triggered by the percent of storage in the water
DEQ-CFW-00020557

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
supply pool of Falls Lake. When supply storage declines during low -flow periods
implementation of the water shortage response plan reduces customer demands.
Modeling for this evaluation that included the additional supplies discussed above and the
water shortage response plan did not indicate potential flow -related shortages related to
meeting 2060 demand estimates.
This evaluation indicates that, with the water supply sharing arrangements detailed in the
Triangle Regional Water Supply Plan and the local water supply plans submitted by
surface water dependent water systems in the Deep River, Haw River, Cape Fear River,
Neuse River and Contentnea Creek basins, the quantity of surface water is likely to be
sufficient to meet expected 2060 demand levels given the assumptions and limitations of
the hydrologic model. The modeling results are dependent on the wastewater return flow
assumptions and the limitation that the model does not reserve streamflow to protect
aquatic habitats and ecological integrity. This evaluation does not evaluate or predict the
quality of water available to public water systems. Delivering drinking water that meets
customer expectations may become more challenging as water quality conditions change.
The water elevation variations under the model scenarios discussed above for the reservoirs
other than Jordan Lake can be found in the graphs in Appendix D, which also has graphic
representations of the flow variations at locations in the Cape Fear River and Neuse River
basins.
0
DEQ-CFW-00020558

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake
!. Fear RiverBasin,
Updated May 2008
DEQ-CFW 00020559

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
EXHIBIT B
B. EVERETT JORDAN LAKE
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN, NORTH CAROLINA
DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN Updated May
2008
The purpose of this report is to (1) provide a platform from which to make decisions on
implementation of water conservation measures during future droughts, (2) review the
operational flexibility of the Jordan Water Control Plan in a drought, and (3) address the
potential problems associated with an extreme drought. A severe drought in the Cape Fear River
basin develops over a fairly long period of time and may have a typical duration of 6-12 months.
However, the severe drought which climaxed in 2002 may have begun as early as 1996.
Adequate time will be available to plan specific details of a drought operation. Therefore, this
plan is an outline of water management measures and coordination actions to be considered
when a severe drought occurs. Details of particular water management measures and the timing
of their application will be determined as the drought progresses. This plan is part of the Water
Control Manual for B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake.
Usually, the demand for water is the greatest when the natural supply is the least. Jordan
Lake has been drawn below elevation 210 feet, MSL on four separate occasions since
completion of permanent impoundment on February 4, 1982. (Normal level is 216 ft, MSL).
During this time period, no water supply withdrawals were made. The only releases were for
water quality needs downstream. Table I shows the minimum lake elevation for each year since
inception of the project.
These elevations indicate that the 1980's decade was a dry period. The potential for a serious
drought did exist in 1983, 1986, and 1988 due to the time of year and the minimum elevation that
occurred.
M
DEQ-CFW-00020560

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
TABLE I
Minimum Elevation at Jordan Lake since Permanent Impoundment
Calendar Year
Date
Elevation (ft. MSL)
1982
September 28
213.95
1983
October 23
208.85
1984
November 28
212.55
1985
November 3
213.25
1986
November 12
207.85
1987
November 26
210.60
1988
August 29
210.23
1989
September 16
215.63
1990
October 10
209.59
1991
December 26
212.69
1992
October 29
2 131. 8 0
1993
November 26
210.80
1994
October 13
214.75
1995
August 26
214.87
1996
July 23
215.18
1997
October 18
213.65
1998
December 8
210.31
1999
August 24
212.56
2000
December 15
212.95
2001
December 31
210.89
2002
August 24
209.87
2003
September 14
215.88
2004
March 22
215.76
2005
November 20
212.13
2006
August 30
215.34
2007
October 24
210.19
Historical surface water use (in 1987) by municipalities and industries downstream of Jordan
Dam as tabulated by the U. S. Geological Survey is provided in table 2. This table illustrates that
the required water supply is significant and will likely continue to increase.
M
DEQ-CFW-00020561

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
Cape Fear River Basin Water Supply Users below Jordan Dam
Municipality
Source of Supply
Amount of
Population (1987)
Withdrawal MGD
Served
Vass
Little River
0.14
900
Carthage
Nicks Creek
0.26
1,500
Sanford
Cape Fear River
3.34
18,000
Northeast Metro
Cape Fear River
0.75
5,000
Water District
(Harnett Co.)
Dunn
Cape Fear River
2.35
9,450
Fayetteville
Cape Fear River
16.25
118,604
Fort Bragg
Little River
7.94
121,828
Wilmington
Cape Fear River
9.72
52,000
Industry
Chembond Corp.
Honeywell
Moncure Fiberboard Plant
Sanford Group
Elliott Gravel Pit
Burlington Industries Erwin
Plant
Dupont (Cumberland Co.)
Monsanto (Cumberland Co.)
Cape Fear Feed Products
Federal Paper Board Co.
Wright Chemical Corp
Dupont (Brunswick Co.)
Occidental Chemical Corp.
Dixie Cement
Haw River
Haw River
Shaddox Creek
Several Ponds
Several Ponds
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Livingston Creek
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River
Cape Fear River (2 intakes)
Average Annual Withdrawal
in MGD(1987)
0.22
0.32
0.34
0.08
0.20
2.0
9.0
1.3
0.05
43.25
0.2
7.3
0.29
1.2
Lake access is available during periods of low lake levels. This is illustrated in table 3
which gives the bottom elevation of boat ramps at current and future access areas. The top
elevation of boat ramps at Jordan Lake is approximately 227 feet MSL. However, operational
experience during this period showed that recreational use of the lake began to suffer once the
elevation fell below 212-2 13 feet MSL. Numerous complaints were received at both the
Resource Manager's Office and Crosswinds Marina during low elevation periods primarily
regarding shoals and navigational hazards within the lake. While the facilities at Crosswinds
Marina were designed to function at elevations lower than what occurred, there was very little
recreational use observed when Jordan Lake fell below elevation 212 feet MSL. While
recreational use of the lake is significantly impacted at elevation 212 feet MSL and below,
serious problems are also encountered at Crosswinds Marina once the elevation drops to 205.0
MSL. The problem at Crosswinds Marina is the bracings on the finger pier system which require
92
DEQ-CFW-00020562

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
approximately 6 feet of water to remain in place.
TABLE
Bottom Elevation of Public Boat Ramps at Jordan Lake
May 2008
Location
Lanes
Bottom of Ramp Elevation
(ft. MSL)
Access Currently Available:
Ebenezer
2 Lanes
202.0
4 Lanes
206.0
Vista Point
2 Lanes
202.0
2 Lanes
206.0
Parkers Creek
2 Lanes
210.0
Farrington
2 Lanes
202.0
2 Lanes
206.0
2 Lanes
208.0
Crosswinds Ramp
4 Lanes
212.0
2 Lanes
202.0
Crosswinds Marina
2 Lanes
202.0
2 Lanes
208.0
Poes Ridge
4 Lanes
210.0
Poplar Point
4 Lanes
210.0
Seaforth
3 Lanes
205.0
3 Lanes
210.0
Crosswinds Campground
2 Lanes
207.0
Robeson Creek
2 Lanes
202.0
New Hope Overlook
2 Lanes
202.0
4 Lanes
208.0
Note: All boat ramps were constructed prior to impoundment of Jordan Lake. The top elevation
of all ramps is approximately 227 feet, MSL.
The authorized purposes of Jordan Lake are to provide for flood control, water supply,
water quality control, recreation, and fish and wildlife conservation. The top of the conservation
pool is at elevation 216.0 feet MSL. At that elevation, the mean depth of the lake is 15 feet and
the maximum depth is about 66 feet. Allocated storages for Jordan Lake are shown in table 4.
a
DEQ-CFW-00020563

Draft Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Storage Allocation
Elevation (Ft. MSL)
Area (Ac.)
Capacity/Jun85 (Ac-Ft)
Top of flood control pool
240
31,811
753,560
Flood control storage
216-240
538,430
Top of conservation pool
216
13,942
215,1310
Bottom of conservation pool
202
6,658
74,700
Conservation pool storage
202-216
140,430
Water Supply
45,810
Water Quality (Low Flow)
94,620
Sediment storage
155-202
74,700
The plan of operation for Jordan Lake project provides for maintaining a normal pool at
elevation 216 feet MSL on a year round basis. This is accomplished during periods of normal
flow by releasing inflow. During flood periods, releases are based on a combination of
downstream flow conditions and lake levels to minimize flood damages downstream. During
normal and low -flow conditions, flows are released to maintain a minimum target flow of 600
cubic feet per second (c.f s.) at the Lillington gage with an allowable range of 550 to 650 c.f s..
A minimum instantaneous flow of 40 c.f s. is maintained immediately below the dam. The
conservation pool storage is divided with 67.38 percent allocated for water quality releases
downstream and 32.62 percent contracted by the State of North Carolina for water supply.
Regulation flexibility is very limited under existing authority. When the lake elevation is
in the conservation pool, the project will be operated to meet water supply requirements and
water quality low flow releases. The only available flexibility from a regulation viewpoint in
this situation would be that the State of North Carolina water quality release requirements and/or
water supply withdrawals.
Storage -use flexibility between the conservation and flood control pools is not a viable
option within the guidelines authorizing the project. Flexibility within the conservation pool
between water supply and water quality would have to be initiated and addressed by the State of
North Carolina.
Dry periods occur randomly during anytime period. There is no major indicator to
distinguish "normal" dry periods from severe droughts during the early stages. Conditions may
vary depending on the time of year, length of time the lake is below elevation 216 feet MSL, and
water supply and water quality requirements. However, a water budget (which will be generated
and maintained by the Wilmington District) outlining water quality and water supply storage
remaining will be used to initiate action.
all]
DEQ-CFW-00020564

The Drought Management Committee shall consist of the Wilmington District and other
Federal agencies as required. Advisors to the committee will be representatives from the State of
North Carolina and local governments. Coordination activities shall include but not be limited to
initiation of the Drought Contingency Plan, alerting recreation interests within the lake, issuing
forecasts of water supply and water quality storage remaining, implementing conservation
measures, and making public information releases.
The Division of Water Resources with the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources will act as the point of contact for the State of North Carolina, and as the responsible
party for notifying all related concerned interests. The Operations Manager for Jordan Lake will
be responsible for notifying all related concerned interests within the lake (marina operation,
recreation use areas, etc.) of the current status, forecast of drawdown and for performing duties
in conjunction with state agencies as described in the "Operational Management Plan" for B.
Everett Jordan Lake. Wilmington District Water Management personnel shall prepare a water
budget consisting of water supply, water quality storage remaining and a forecast of time
remaining at the current usage rate for water quality and water supply. This forecast and water
budget shall be updated as needed and furnished to the Operations Manager at Jordan Lake and
the Director of Water Resources with the State.
Public press releases shall be made on an "as -needed" basis through the Public Affairs
Office (PAO) in the Wilmington District. These statements shall provide the public with a full
explanation of drought operations and forecasts of expected conditions in an effort to reduce
inquiries from recreation and concerned interests.
A drought situation report for Jordan and other projects within the Wilmington District
shall be prepared as appropriate by the Reservoir Regulation Section of the Wilmington District.
This report shall provide detailed information on current and forecast situations for informational
purposes of District and South Atlantic Division elements.
This plan may be initiated by the Chief, Coastal, Hydrology and Hydraulics Section of
the Wilmington District Corps of Engineers when the elevation at Jordan is below 216 ft., MSL.
The Drought Management Plan focuses on waters contained in the conservation pool (202-216
ft, MSL) of Jordan Lake. The said conservation pool contains water to meet congressionally
approved water supply and water quality purposes. The Drought Management Plan emphasizes
increased coordination and consultation with stakeholders when either water supply or water
quality pool storage declines to 80 percent remaining. Due to capacity and outflow requirements,
the water quality pool is the controlling entity in management of drought releases.
W
DEQ-CFW-00020565

The Drought Management Committee shall consist of the Wilmington District and other
The drought release schedule from Jordan Dam is listed in table 5 below.
Table 5: Drought Release Schedule
Water
Jordan Dam
Jordan Dam
Quality
Minimu
Maximum
Lillington
Storage
m
Release
Daily Average Flow
Drought
Remainin
Release*
(cfs)
Target
Level
0' (0/,)
0
>= 80
40+
600
600+/-50
1
60-80
40+
Lillington target
450 - 600 +/- 50
2
40-60
40+
Lillington target
300 - 450 +/- 50
3
20-40
40+
200+ *
None"
4
0-20
40+
100-200+
None"
Water quality release plus any required downstream water supply releases.
** Lillington flow will be total of Jordan Dam release plus local inflow.
1. A water budget shall be initiated by the Wilmington District (retroactive to the date
that the lake first dropped below elevation 216.0 feet MSL). The State of North Carolina shall
be updated by the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on a weekly basis
regarding water quality and water supply storage remaining. Based on the budget and storage
remaining the following operations from BE Jordan Dam and Lake will be taken:
A. Drought level 0: flow target at Lillington remains at 600 +/- 50 cfs
B. Drought level 1: flow target at Lillington ranges from 450 — 600 50 cfs
C. Drought level 2: flow target at Lillington ranges from 300 — 450 50 cfs
D. Drought level 3: no flow target set at Lillington. A maximum release rate of 200 cfs from
BE Jordan Dam and Lake, plus any required downstream water supply releases.
E. Drought level 4: no flow target set at Lillington. A maximum release rate of 100-200 cfs
from BE Jordan Dam and Lake, plus any required downstream water supply releases
Note that for drought levels 0-2, the flow target is a range of flow targets at Lillington. The
range of flows result from collaboration and coordination on a variety of parameters such as
stakeholder input, short and long term weather outlook, project gate status, influences on stream
flows downstream, and local inflows to both Jordan Lake and reaches below the dam. In
addition the minimal flows immediately below B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake is 40 cfs for all
drought levels.
Note that for drought level 3 — 4, no flow target is set for Lillington. The flow rate is a mostly
constant release set from B. Everett Jordan Dam and Lake. Level 4 releases between 100-200
c.f. s. will be set based on consultation with the state of NC and other stakeholders. Temporary
reductions can be made as long as flows at Lillington can be maintained at 300 c.f. s. or greater.
K11
DEQ-CFW-00020566

For all release modes listed, in table 5 above, the release operation will be made for a minimum
of seven (7) days in conjunction with the monitoring of the river system, made by NCDWQ and
other agencies.
Conversely, with increasing water quality storage, the sequence of operation will generally be
reversed; however, consideration of limited watershed inflows, precipitation forecasts, or other
factors with appropriate stakeholder consultation may warrant continued reduced flow targets at
Lillington.
2. Once drought level 4 has passed and no water quality storage remains, the plan of
action will depend on decisions that must be made by the State of North Carolina, since all
storage within the conservation pool at Jordan Lake has been allocated to water supply and water
quality. Potential alternatives available to the State of North Carolina once drought level 4 of the
management plan has been met include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Implement restrictive water use measures for personal and emergency use only (no water
for lawns, gardens, pools, car washes, etc.)
b. Temporarily relax State standards for water quality requirements in the river below
Jordan Lake to permit continued operation of industrial and municipal waste treatment facilities,
and conserve remaining water quality storage.
c. Reallocate any surplus water supply storage for the duration of the drought to
supplement water quality storage and/or provide relief in those areas of greatest need.
3. Should the elevation of Jordan Lake fall below lake elevation 202 ft, MSL or all water
supply or water quality storage become depleted, potential alternatives include but are not
limited to:
a. Emergency reallocation(s) by the Corps under PL 78-534 of remaining storage volume
within the Sediment Pool.
b. Declaration by the State of North Carolina of a water emergency as authorized by G.S.
143-355.3. After a water emergency has been declared by the Governor, State of North
Carolina, the Secretary, Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, can order
emergency diversions to meet the essential water uses of water systems experiencing water
shortage emergencies. The Division of Water Resources along with other agencies within the
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources will assess water supply problems and
recommend actions to the Secretary under this statute.
SELECTED FEDERAL EMERGENCY AUTHORITIES PROVIDING DROUGHT
ASSISTANCE
The responsibility for providing an adequate supply of water to inhabitants of any area is
basically non -Federal. Corps assistance to provide emergency water supplies will only be
M
DEQ-CFW-00020567

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
considered when non -Federal interests have exhausted reasonable means for securing
necessary water supplies, including assistance and support from other Federal agencies.
Assistance may be available from the Corps through PL 84-99 as amended by PL 95-
5 1. Before Corps assistance is considered under PL 95-5 1, the applicability of other Federal
assistance authorities should be evaluated. If these programs cannot provide the needed
assistance, then maximum coordination should be made with appropriate agencies in
implementing Corps assistance. The applicability of programs administered by the following
Federal agencies, as a minimum, will be determined prior to consideration of Corps
assistance.
1. Small Business Administration (SBA).
2. Farmers Home Administration (FmHA).
3. Economic Development Administration (EDA).
MMMM��
The Corps authority for Drought Assistance is contained in Chapter 6, "Emergency
Water Supplies and Drought Assistance" of Engineering Regulation 500-1 -1 Natural Disaster
Procedures (1983). Under this authority, the Chief of Engineers, acting for the Secretary of the
Army, can construct wells and transport water to farmers, ranchers, and political subdivisions
within areas he determines to be drought -distressed.
ffot
DEQ-CFW-00020568

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Appendix B
Cape Fear River Water Availability at Lock & Dam 3
For some time DWR has been suggesting to water utilities with run -of -river intakes to consider
20% of the ten year seven-day low flow' as a guideline of how much water it may be possible to
withdraw at a specific location for planning purposes, if no better value is available. This value
was chosen because it is one of the benchmark criteria in DENR's rules 26 for conforming to the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. 27 The rules define minor construction activities that
may not require the preparation of an environmental document as outlined in the NCEPA.
Specific criteria that must be met for public water supply system projects to be considered minor
are "improvements to water treatment plants that involve less than 1,000,000 gallons per day of
added capacity and total design withdrawal less than one -fifth of the 7-day, I 0-year low flow of
the contributing stream." 21 If a proposed increase in the total design capacity for a potable water
treatment plant would equal or exceed this amount at the withdrawal location then the
preparation of an environmental document is required to evaluate the impact of the proposed
projeCt.29 Using 20% of the 7QI0 flow for planning suggests the amount of water that may be
available from a run -of -river intake location without an extensive environmental impact
evaluation, if no other NCEPA criteria are triggered by a proposed project. It is not a fixed limit
on the withdrawal capacity that may be possible at a specific location. With the proper
environmental impact evaluation the utility may be able to withdraw more water.
Estimates of 7Q 10 flows are dependent on the historic flow conditions reflected in the data in the
period of record used. Water intakes located in free -flowing stream reaches have the potential to
significantly impact the river environment and other water users when flows are low. In free -
flowing river reaches the amount of water available for all uses is only the amount flowing in the
stream channel. If water is withdrawn from a managed reservoir, stored water is available to
meet water withdrawal demands and supplement downstream flows to minimize environmental
impacts during low flows. Having stored water available increases the reliability of a public
water supply source. Having the ability to manage downstream releases provides the ability to
compensate for the potential environmental impacts of a withdrawal during low flow conditions
by releasing stored water to supplement downstream river flows.
In Fayetteville's case basing the quantity of water available at the intake on the 7Q 10 value has
limited usefulness. Fayetteville PWC has the capacity to withdraw and treat 57.5 mgd of water
through an intake on the Cape Fear Fiver in the backwater of Lock and Dam #3. The lock and
dam structure maintains water levels sufficient to reliably keep the intake structure covered to a
2-5 7Q10,
26 15A NCAC 01C.0101 et seq.
27 NC G.S. § 113A-1
21115A NCAC 01C.0408 (2)(b)(i)
29 The same section of the rule includes the criteria that if the proposed project would increase treatment
capacity by 1,000,000 gallons per day or more the preparation of an environmental document would also be
required.
&B
DEQ-CFW-00020569

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
depth sufficient to pump water to the water treatment plants. This arrangement increases the
reliability of the source to meet the utility's water needs. L&D#3 is not operated to regulate
downstream releases. The water levels behind L&D#3 are typically at or above the top of the
spillway creating a pool of water that extends 29 miles upstream. However, unlike a managed
water supply reservoir where downstream releases can be tailored to compensate for withdrawals
and minimize environmental impacts, L&D#3 does not have the ability to compensate for the
cumulative effects of water use from the backwater on downstream river flows. Water flowing
into the backwater of L&D#3 flows over the dam with little variation in water levels except
during flooding events making it difficult to estimate flow variation within this river reach. The
amount of water flowing below L&D#3 is affected by the cumulative use of water from the
backwater. Evaluating the potential changes in flows from L&D#3 can be used to consider
potential environmental impacts from any proposed increases in water withdrawals in the
vicinity of Fayetteville's intake.
The Cape Fear-Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model can provide flow estimations at L&D#3.
Flows downstream from the model node representing L&D#3 can be compared under various
withdrawal scenarios to quantify the resulting changes in downstream river flows.
Lock and Dam Number 3 (William O. Huske Lock and Dam) is located at river mile (RM) 95 on
the main stem of the Cape Fear River. The estimated upstream limit of the backwater of L&D#3
3
is RM 1241 . Within the 29 miles of backwater there are several withdrawals and discharges:
0 DuPont intake at RIVI 96.
• DuPont discharge at RM 95.3.
• City of Fayetteville discharge at RM 109.
• City of Fayetteville discharge at RM 115.5.
• City of Fayetteville intake at RM 117.
The map below, extracted from a Technical Memorandum prepared for Fayetteville PWC by
staff at Malcolm Pirnie, shows the location of the features cited above.
The Cape Fear-Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model characterizes the cumulative effects on
surface water conditions of water withdrawals, wastewater returns and water resource
management protocols, in the context of over 80 years of surface water flows. The model covers
both basins from the headwaters downstream to where flows are tidally influenced. In the Cape
Fear River Basin it goes to Lock and Dam #1 and in the Neuse River downstream to a bit above
New Bern. A portion of the model schematic showing the nodes associated with the water users
in the backwater of L&D#3 is shown below. The locations of inputs and outflows in the model
are shown in their relative location to other features in the model. The nodes in the model
schematic are not geographically referenced. The schematic represents a very large mathematical
equation tracking surface water conditions as water flows downstream. The nodes show where in
the sequence water is added to the system from tributary flows, where water is withdrawn for
off -stream uses, where used water is returned, where water is stored in a reservoir and where the
model compensates for the time -of -travel of water flowing downstream.
10 Malcolm Pirme June 25, 2007 Technical Memorandum - Cape Fear River Safe Yield Evaluation.
Kill]
DEQ-CFW-00020570

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
The relevant model nodes in the combined Cape Fear — Neuse Hydrologic Model are shown
below. The arcs between polygons show the direction of water movement. The purple arcs
indicate where local inflows are added to the river system.
• Node 777 is Lock and Dam Number 3
• Node 730 is Fayetteville's intake on the Cape Fear Fiver
• Node 731 is Fayetteville's total water withdrawal including water for PWC customers
and water supplied to Spring Lake and Old North Utilities
• Node 740 adjusts river flows for the cumulative effects of water flow from node 730,
inflow from Glenville Lake, return flow from Fayetteville's Cross Creek WWTP, and
agricultural withdrawals in Cumberland County
• Node 760 is Glenville Lake
"I
DEQ-CFW-00020571

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
• Node 770 adjusts river flows for the cumulative effects of water flow from node 740,
local inflow, return flow from Fayetteville's Rockfish Creek WWTP, withdrawals to and
return flow from the Dupont facility, agricultural withdrawals in Cumberland and Hoke
counties, and inflows from two wastewater treatment plants that do not withdraw surface
water from the basin.
Data on the elevation, area and volume relationships for the backwater of L&D#3 are not
available therefore it is not modeled as a reservoir but as a free -flowing river reach with no
accommodations for water storage. The combined basin model was calibrated to sufficiently
describe the known surface water conditions experienced in 2010. To evaluate potential changes
that may occur due to changes in management, return flows and water withdrawals, various
scenarios are developed from the 2010 scenario and modeling results are compared to those from
the 2010 scenario. This approach provides a picture of how conditions may change under the
alternative scenarios compared to the conditions experienced in 2010, given the assumptions in
the model. The hydrologic model produces flow data at river nodes that can be used to estimate
various flow statistics, including 7Q 10.
There are many factors that will come into play in the evaluation of a proposed expansion of
water withdrawal capacity at Fayetteville's intake location. In all likelihood an in-depth
environmental impact evaluation will be required regardless of any estimation of the magnitude
of the design capacity in relationship to an estimated 7Q10 flow. Potential impacts to river flows
due to an increased withdrawal will have to be evaluated. For this analysis DWR staff proposes
to use the flow from Lock and Dam #3, as the appropriate measure of impacts to flows from the
fflyd
DEQ-CFW-00020572

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
affected river reach resulting from any increased withdrawal in the backwater of L&D#3. The
Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model could be used for this analysis by comparing
the effects of proposed withdrawal scenarios on outflows from Node 777 representing L&D#3.
Cumulative withdrawals in relation to 7QI0 flow below L&D#3
L&D#3 is not equipped to manage downstream releases. River flows below L&D#3 are the
result of spillage over the dam resulting from the cumulative effects of upstream inflows, water
withdrawals and return flows in the backwater. The flows coming out of Node 777, representing
spillage over the dam, can be used to estimate 7Q 10 flows at this location based on the flow
record used in the model runs. Changes in outflows from Node 777 under various withdrawal
scenarios can be used to evaluate the effects of streamflows that may result from proposed
withdrawal increases in the backwater.
Therefore, due to the presence of multiple withdrawals and discharges in the affected reach of
Fayetteville's intake, for planning purposes DWR proposes to evaluate the flow impacts of any
withdrawal proposals by comparing model outputs at Node 777 to those in the 2010 model
scenario that forms the basecase and point of comparison for all modeling scenarios.
The proposed water availability evaluation and flow impact evaluation described above is
presented to support water supply planning. Any evaluation associated with a proposed project
will be subject to all relevant criteria addressed in the rules 31 guiding conformity with the NC
Environmental Policy Act. 32
In February 2015 DWR staff evaluated the proposed methodology to assess the implications of
Fayetteville PWC's 2060 demand projections noted in its Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation
Application. For this evaluation the results of two model scenarios were compared. The 2010
Basecase of the Cape Fear- Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model and the scenario constructed
to evaluate the Jordan Lake allocation requests for 2045 with the estimated water supply
withdrawals needed to meet demands in 2060, referred to here as the 2060 scenario. The 2060
scenario did not include Fayetteville PWC's requested allocation from Jordan Lake to see if
future demands could be met from the river at the current intake location and to limit the
potential effects on flows below L&D#3 to flows in the river and Fayetteville's use of water
above L&D#3.
Fayetteville's annual average demand in the 2010 model scenario is 27 mgd with withdrawals
ranging from 20 mgd to 35 mgd. For the 2010 scenario the model estimated 7QI0 flow at
L&D#3 is 277 mgd. The maximum daily average withdrawal of 35 mgd is about 13% of 277
mgd. The reductions in flows at L&D#3 from Fayetteville's withdrawal is offset by the system's
wastewater discharges in the affected reach between the water supply intake and L&D#3. The
2010 model scenario shows the cumulative annual average discharge as 26 mgd with discharges
ranging from 25 mgd to 27 mgd. Having the system's wastewater return flows between the
withdrawal and first downstream point where flow can be measured suggests that the logical
measure of Fayetteville's impact on river flows should be measured as the net withdrawal rather
31 15A NCAC 01C.0101
11 Additional information of compliance with the NCEPA can be found at:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/deao/sepa
DEQ-CFW-00020573

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
than the water supply withdrawal. Evaluating the annual average withdrawal of 27.3 mgd, in
relation to the annual average wastewater discharge of 25.8 mgd, results in a net withdrawal of
1.5 mgd from the Cape Fear River in the backwater of L&D#3. A 1.5 mgd net withdrawal
translates into about 0.5% of the estimated 277 mgd 7Q 10 flow. Evaluating the maximum
withdrawal (35 mgd) in relation to the minimum wastewater discharge (25 mgd) produces a net
withdrawal of 10 mgd; or about 4% of the 7Q 10 flow.
The other demand scenario evaluated was for Fayetteville's estimated 2060 water demands.
According to Fayetteville's Jordan Lake Water Supply Allocation Application the estimated
annual average water demand in 2060 is 75 mgd, ranging from 60 mgd to 90 mgd throughout the
year. This demand scenario evaluates water quantity conditions using the estimated 2060
demands for all modeled water withdrawals and the same historic flow data as the 2010 scenario.
As expected, increasing withdrawals over the same range of flow conditions reduces river flows
below L&D#3 below the levels in the 2010 scenario. The estimated 7Q 10 flow below L&D#3 in
the 2060 scenario is 246 mgd. Fayetteville's daily average withdrawal of 75 mgd represents 30%
of the 7QI0 flow at L&D#3. Fayetteville's estimated 2060 wastewater return flows averages 72
mgd which produces a net withdrawal by Fayetteville PWC of 3 mgd or a little over 1% of the
model estimated 7QI0 flow. Estimated wastewater discharges in 2060 range from 69 mgd to 76
mgd. Evaluating the maximum withdrawal estimate (90 mgd) in relationship to the minimum
estimated wastewater discharge (69 mgd) gives an estimated net withdrawal of 21 mgd or about
9% of the 7Q 10 flow at L&D#3.
Using this approach of assessing net withdrawal by Fayetteville compared to the 2060 7Q 10
estimate, based on the water demands and assumptions in the Cape Fear — Neuse River Basin
Hydrologic Model, we can estimate the level of withdrawal that may be possible without
exceeding 20% of the 7Q10.
2060 Lock & Dam # 3 estimated 7Q 10 flow 246 mgd
20% of estimated 7Q 10 flow
Fayetteville's
Estimated 2060 Average Day Demand
Maximum Day Withdrawal
Minimum Wastewater Discharge
Maximum Net Withdrawal
Maximum Day / Average Day ratio
Minimum Wastewater / Maximum Withdrawal
Net Withdrawal portion of Maximum Withdrawal
Net Withdrawal as % of 7Q 10
Potential Withdrawals relative to 20% of 246 mgd 7QI0
90 — 69 = 21 mgd
90 / 75 = 1.2
69 / 90 = 0.766"
1— 0.766 = 0.234
21 mgd / 246 mgd = 8.5 %
Estimated Maximum Day Withdrawal 49 mgd / 0.234 = 209.4 mgd
Estimated Average Day Withdrawal 209.4 mgd / 1.2 = 174.5 mgd
33 76.6% of the water withdrawn is returned as treated wastewater
WA
DEQ-CFW-00020574

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Based on these calculations, Fayetteville PWC may be able to withdraw 174.5 mgd from behind
Lock & Dam 9 3, on an average day basis, without reducing the 7QI0 flow by more than 20
percent. Because this estimate is based on net withdrawals it depends on Fayetteville's ability to
maintain a similar ratio of wastewater discharges to water withdrawals in the future. The
estimate of potential withdrawal capacity only takes into consideration the water quantity effects
of the withdrawal. During the planning and review of a proposed project other factors may be
identified that limit the actual withdrawal possible.
When Fayetteville PWC submits a proposal to increase water treatment capacity to supply their
customers' estimated future demands, they will in all likelihood be required to prepare an
environmental assessment for the project. The methodology described above provides a way to
estimate the potential impact to river flows associated with any proposed increase in water
withdrawals using the Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model. Water demand
estimates may need to be reassessed and additional model scenarios developed to capture
changes in customers' water use patterns when an expansion project is proposed.
III
DEQ-CFW-00020575

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
ffSiTS3Ti Flr'ZiJ
Summary of Model Predicted Water Supply Shortages
Twelve scenarios were developed for the Cape Fear — Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model for
this water supply evaluation. Water delivery shortages were identified for each surface water
withdrawal under each scenario. The tables in Appendix C summarize the magnitude and
duration of delivery shortages documented using output from the model. The magnitudes of
delivery shortages are presented in million gallons per day. The durations of shortages are listed
as the number of days. For context when reviewing the duration figures if may be helpful to bear
in mind that the 81 years of hydrologic data used in the model results in demands and deliveries
being evaluated for 29,858 days for each model scenario.
Three model scenarios evaluate different supply options for three different demand quantities.
The demand volumes used in each represent the estimated volumes of water expected to be
needed to satisfy water system needs in 2035, 2045 and 2060. These demand estimates represent
the amount of water expected to be needed to meet customer demands 20, 30 and 50 years in the
future, based on current knowledge.
Two variations on the model basecase scenario are shown. "Simbase—currenf' is the scenario that
captures the 2010 current conditions against which other scenarios are compared. The
"Simbase — Dem2045" scenario includes the water sources available to water systems in 2010
with the estimated 2045 customer demands. This scenario shows if there is enough water
available from existing sources to satisfy 2045 withdrawal needs. Shortage under this scenario
indicate that water systems are likely to need additional water supply sources to meet anticipated
future demands. The other ten scenarios were all developed for the Jordan Lake Allocation
review process and include "JLA" in the title.
For some systems customer demands are reduced during low flow conditions based on protocols
outlined in a water shortage response plan. Some water shortage response plans are triggered by
criteria that cannot be captured using the hydrologic model. These systems are designated in the
table by the label "Without Water Shortage Response Plan". The shortage evaluation for these
systems does not take into consideration the reduced demands induced by implementing demand
reduction protocols during supply shortages.
The table shows three scenarios designated as "0 1 — JLA — LWSP — Dem" followed by 2035, 2045
and 2060. This label denotes a scenario developed for the Jordan Lake Allocation review process
using water availability and water demands based on data presented in the Local Water Supply
Plans for expected demands in 2035, 2045 and 2060.
The second group of scenarios is designated as "02 — JLA — Req2045 Dem" followed by 2035,
2045 and 2060. These scenarios include the requested Jordan Lake allocation amounts to meet
demands in 2045 for the applicants that proposed to use water drawn directly from the reservoir.
The scenarios include the preferred usage schemes outlined in each allocation application. This
set of scenarios does not include Fayetteville PWC's allocation request in which their allocation
would be released from the reservoir to be withdrawn from the Cape Fear River in Fayetteville.
These scenarios evaluate the resource changes produced by meeting the 2035, 2045 and 2060
"I.
DEQ-CFW-00020576

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
expected demands with the supplies available if the requested allocations are approved by the
Environmental Management Commission.
The third group of scenarios is designated as "03 — JLA — F — Req2045 — Dem" followed by 2035,
2045 and 2060. This set of model scenarios incorporates Fayetteville PWC's requested allocation
and withdrawal scenario into the three scenarios in the previous group.
The twelfth model scenario, designated as "04—JLA—Raleit-,h—Lillint-,ton—Dem2045", models the
outcome if: Raleigh's requested allocation amount is withdrawn from the Cape Fear River in the
vicinity of Lillington, with no water supply release from Jordan Lake; Fayetteville PWC
continues to withdraw water from its existing locations with no water supply release from Jordan
Lake; and the other applicants withdraw their requested Jordan Lake water supply allocations as
described in their applications.
In the tables systems that show a shortage also show a figure for the total number of days out of
the flow record that a shortage is indicated by the model, with or without a water shortage
response plan. The count of the total days with a shortage is based on over 29,000 days within
the historic flow record used in the model. The row indicating the longest average shortage and
the longest shortage period suggests the magnitude and duration of shortage these communities
may want to address when updating their local water shortage response plan.
Notes:
Greensboro
The shortages shown for Greensboro in the table below appears to be related to the limits on
treatment capacity of the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority's water treatment plant. The
reported available supply from Randleman Regional Reservoir will support an increase in
treatment capacity. As water demand among the member communities increases in the future
expanding treatment capacity will become more practical. As envisioned the increase treatment
capacity should be adequate to alleviate the potential shortages in by the present modeling.
Randleman
When the model was being developed the City of Randleman depended on the Randleman City
Reservoir on Polecat Creek with the expectation of using their share of the Piedmont Triad
Regional Water Authority system's capacity in the future. The current model has Randleman's
supply coming exclusively for PTRWA. The modeling results indicate that, without the benefit
of a modelable water shortage response plan, their current available supply from PTRWA is not
sufficient to meet projected demands under several future demand scenarios. More recently
Randleman has developed an arrangement with Asheboro to purchase water which will likely
reduce the indicated shortage magnitude and duration. Also, Randleman's local officials have the
authority to designate a water emergency which is intended to reduce customers' water demands
when supplies are inadequate to meet demands. Implementation of this provision along with the
additional water available from Asheboro may be sufficient to avoid the shortages suggested by
the modeling for this analysis.
WIN
DEQ-CFW-00020577

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Graham -Mebane
The communities of Graham and Mebane share Graham -Mebane Lake reservoir, on Back Creek,
and a water treatment facility. In addition to their own service area customers they regularly
supply water to the towns of Swepsonville and Green Level. Current modeling indicates the
potential for supply shortages when withdrawals reach the amount currently expected to be
needed to meet customer demands in 2060, even with the current water shortage response plan.
These communities have a recurring emergency supply arrangement with the City of Burlington
which is likely to be able to address the potential shortages indicated in this analysis.
DEQ-CFW-00020578

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
DEQ-CFW 00020579

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Cape Fear River Basin
Model Scenarios
m a co
o a o
N N N
E E E
v v m
o ® o
0341
'Burlington
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max.
shortage Period, days'.
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0401
Pittsboro
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0:
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, pays'.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Orange Water & Sewer
With Water Shortage Response Plan
0431
Authority
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
5 6j22
shortage Period, days
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd)
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0
G
o
G
0
0
0
0
52f 22
Total Days Sheri
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
22
0471
Cary Apex
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days'
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
G
G
G
o
G
0473
Chatham County -North
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd /Max
shortage Period, days
0
0
0
0
0
12Aj1
0
0
16.9j1
0
0
12.5j24
LongestAug Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, gays
0
0
0
0
G
£3.9f3
0
0
4.97%33
U
0
10:21f24.
Total Days Short
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
152
0
0
136
0474
Research Triangle Park
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
shortage Period, days
i
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
0
o
G
G
0
o
G
G
G
G
o
G
0477
Morrisville
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days
o
0
0
0:
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0483
Performance Fiber
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0
0
0 :
0
0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0491
Sanford
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max'.
shortage Period, days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
0
o
G
G
0
o
G
G
G
G
o
G
DEQ-CFW 00020580

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Cape Fear River Basin
Model Scenarios
m a co
o a o
N N N
E E E
v v m
o ® o
0521
Cape Fear Steam Station
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max.
shortage Period, days!.
0
0
0
0:
G:
0
0
0
0
: 0
: 0
: 0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6551
Harnett County RWS
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0:
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, pays!.
0
o
G
G
0
o
G
G
G
G
o
G
With Water Shortage Response Plan
0663
! Dunn
Max Shortage, mgd / Max :.
1.1/6
1.1/14
1.1/14
1.1/6
1.1/7:
1.1/14:
1.1/6 :
1.1/6
: 1.1/14
1.1/14
1.1/14
shortage Period, days
,
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0.8/20
0.8/20
0.9/33
0.8/19
0.8/19
0.9f271
0.8/19 :
0.8/20
: 0.9/27
!0,8/20
0
08/27
Total Days short
70
81
119
63
71
101
63
71
101
! 90
0
173
h h I
0674
Carolina Trace
Wit out Water S ortage Response P an
Max shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period' Days'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0701
Carthage
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd /Max !
shortage Period, days
0
0
0
0
0
0.7J12
0
0
0.7/21
!0.7/14
0.3/21
0.7/12
LongestAug Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, gays
0
0
0
0:
G :
0.7f12:
0
0
: 0.7%21
:0,7/14
0.3f21
07f22
Total Days Short
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
72
71
66
71
0719
Spring Lake
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days
0
0
0
0
0
0 i
0
0
0
G
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd
Longest Shortage Period, Days!.
0
o
G
G
0
o
G
G
G
G
o
G
0721
Old North Utilities
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days
o
0
0
0:
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0733
Fayetteville PWC
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days.
0
0
0
0
0
0 :
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
: 0
G
0
0771
Monsanto
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max'.
shortage Period, days 0 0 0 0 0
ongestAvg Shortage, mgd / 0 0 0 0 0
lgestShortage Period, Days!.
DEQ-CFW 00020581

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Cape Fear River Basin
I Model Scenarios
N
iV
N`
iJ
i
I
N1
ci'
v
tt
J
cf
❑
al
❑
al
❑
al
p
p
a
O"
�
6
Epp
�
N
Model
3
3
3
v
m
a, '
r
a
a
'�
U
❑
Node
Water System / Shortage
Number
Measure
til
til
tia
�r
rol
�r
mr
mB
ml
I
E
0785
LCFWSA_Bladen Bluffs
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
0823
Cape Fear Public Utilities
Without Water Shortage Response Plan'
Max Shortage, mgd / Max'.
0
0
0
0 i
0 i
0
0
0
0
0
i 0
i 0
shortage Periods days.
Longest Aug Shortage, mgd /,
Longest Shortage Period, nays.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Without Water Shortage Response Plan'
0825
LCFWSA Kings Bluff
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days'.
Longest Avg shortage, mgd/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0903
Jamestown
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days.
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd %..
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0904
Archdale
Without Water Shortage Response Planl
Max Shortages mgd / Max
0
0
0
0:
0:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days
Longest Aug Shortage, mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0906
Randolph
Without Water Shortage Response Plan',
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg Shortages mgd /.
Longest Shortage Period, Days'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0921
Orange County
Without Water Shortage Response Plan'
Max shortage, mgd/Max
0
0
0
0'
0
0
0
0
L77/2
0
0
3.03/26
shortage Period, days
Longest Aug Shortage, mgd 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.13/49
0
0
1.98/59
Longest shortage Periods Days
Total Days short
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
0
0
670
0923
Holly Springs
Without Water Shortage Response Plan',
Max Shortage, mgd / Max'
shortage Period, days'.
0
0
0
0<
0
0 :
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Avg shortage, mgd/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0940
Broadway
Without Water Shortage Response Plan',
Max Shortage, mgd / Max.
shortage Period, days 0 0 0 0 0
ongest Avg Shortage, mgd /'.
sgest Shortage Period, Days 0 0 0 0 0
IMI
DEQ-CFW 00020582

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
1046
Orange Alamance Water
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max'
o
0
0
0:
0:
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg shortage, mgd
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
1106
Hillsborough
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
G
0
0
0 0
G
0
0
0
shortage Periods days
- -
---
---
--
+
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd /.
G
0
0
G
0
0
0 0
G
0
0
0
Longest Shortage Period, nays.
1116
Piedmont Minerals
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max.
shortage Perldd, days'.
0
0
0
G
0
0
0 0
G
0
0
0
Longest Aug Shortage,mgd/
Longest Shortage Period, Days.
0
0
o
G
0
0
0 0
G
0
0
0
1162
Durham
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
shortage Period, days
o
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Longest Aug Shortage, mgd
Longest Shortage Period, Days.
o 0 0 0' 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
1256
South Granville WSA
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max'.
shortage Period, days
-
0
----
0
---_0
0
---
0
0
0
-
0 0
0
-
G
0
0
-
-
Longest Aug Shortage, mgd /'.
0
Longest Shortage Period, Days
G
G
0
G
G G
G
G
G
, 0
1306
Raleigh
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max shortage, mgd / Max.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
82/10
shortage Period, days'.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd /''
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0'.
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
133/184'.
1506
Wilson
With Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
o
0
0
0:
0:
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg shortage, mgd
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
1646
Johnston County
Without Water Shortage Response Plan'
Max Shortage, mgd / Max'
0
0
0
G
0
0
0 0
G
0
0
0
shortage Periods days
- -
----
---
--
+
Longest Aug Shortage, mgd /
G
0
0
G
0
0
0 0
G
0
0
0.
Longest Shortage Period, Days.
1666
Smithfield
Without Water Shortage Response Plan'
tax Shortage, mgd / Max.
o 0 o G
shortage Perlcd, days
;est Aug Shortage, mgd / 0 0 0 0
st Shortage Period, Days.
DEQ-CFW 00020583

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
1706
Fuquay-Varina Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd f Max.
shortage Period, days!.
0
0
0
0:
G:
0
0
0 0
: 0
: 0
: 0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgtl/
Longest Shortage Period, Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
1756
Benson Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd / Max
0
0
0
0:
0:
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd j
0 o G G 0 o G
Longest Shortage Period, pays!.
G G
G o G
1766
HF Lee Energy Complex Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, rngd / Max'.
shortage Period, days
- -----
FLongestShortage
0
0
----0
0
0:
O i
0
0
0 0
! 0
i 0
i 0
Longest Avg shortage, mgdl
Period, Days.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
! 0
0
0
1786
Goldsboro Without Water Shortage Response Plan
- - - ----- ----0 --
Max Shortage, mgtl f Max
!
0 0 Q i O i 0
shortage Period, days.
0
0 0
0 i 0 i 0
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
Longest shortage Perod, Days.
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0 0
0
G
0
1806
Neuse Regional WSA
Without Water Shortage Response Plan
Max Shortage, mgd f Max
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
G
0
shortage Period, days.
Longest Avg Shortage, mgtl f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
Longest shortage Penatl, Days.
1906
Weyerheauser Without Water Shortage Response Flan
Max Shortage, mgtl / Max!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
shortage Period, days
Longest Avg Shortage, mgd/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
G
0
0
Longest Shortage Period, Days'.
*WA
DEQ-CFW 00020584

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
Appendix D: Reservoir and River Flows Status Graphs
The following graphs show the variation in reservoir conditions across the four model scenarios
the form the primary focus of this evaluation. The scenario labeled "Simbase — Current" is a
characterization of current conditions based on water use and supplies in 2010. This scenario
provides a point of comparison to show how meeting 2060 demands may alter conditions over
the range of flows used in the model. The scenario labeled "Ol — LWSP — Dem — 2060" uses the
2060 water demands and available water sources reported in the local water supply plans for all
water systems in the model. The scenario labeled "03 JLA F Req2045 Dem206O" integrates
all the requested allocations from Jordan Lake to the water supply sources to evaluate the effects
of meeting estimated 2060 demand levels. The scenario labeled "02—JLA Req2045—Dem2O6O"
integrates all the requested allocations from Jordan Lake except for Fayetteville Public Works
Commission to evaluate the effects of meeting estimated 2060 demand levels.
The percent of remaining storage is shown for the water supply and flow augmentation pools in
Jordan Lake and Falls Lake for the period from 2000 through 2011. For each of the reservoirs
presented the duration plots show the percent of time that water levels are at or below certain
elevations of storage percentage. For more differentiation the graphs show the portion of the
record when reservoir levels are less than full or when storage is less than 100 percent.
The plots of water levels in the Jordan Lake Reservoir Elevation Duration graph show that the
modeling indicates that the water levels are likely to be at or above the normal operating level
over 60 percent of the time in the flow record. As a reminder the flow record includes 29,858
days from January 1, 1930 to September 30, 2011. For Jordan Lake the normal operating level is
216 feet above sea level. For the Simbase Current scenario the shows that the model indicates
the water level below 213 feet mean sea level about 6 percent of the time. For the other scenarios
the model estimates water levels below 213 feet from 11 to about 13 percent of the days in the
flow record.
0470 Jordmi Lake Res we ji:r Elevation OumVon
2060 Demands
% Ouf&w
MV
DEQ-CFW-00020585

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
PI LWSP Dom 21NO
I-, rsamt�m
Fw.
DEQ-CFW-00020586

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
DEQ-CFW 00020587

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
% Duration
190
DEQ-CFW-00020588

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
% Duration
% Duration
FMG
DEQ-CFW-00020589

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
022O~Lake High Point Elevation Duration
----------------------------------------J
i
~.7Ff
--------............. -----.............. ----'--...................
--------J
> ' ..............................
�
m� ------------------------------'—'-----------'—i
�v�of-------'-------'-------------------'—'-----'—'------'--
` '
Dan
% Duration
Fwl

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
0324 Siler City Upper Reservoir Elevation Duration
% Duration
FM
DEQ-CFW-00020591

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
0340 Mackintosh Riiservoir Elevation Nration
% Duration
... .... .... ....
"wd
DEQ-CFW-00020592

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
00Y8~Old Stoney Creek Reservoir Elevation Duration
_---_____��____—____'�__—__—_—_-�—____—__--�-__---___-�
.............. '......... ...... ................. --- ......
_'_�_'___'_�__'___—j
__—__---|
___ ,
__-_____-_�___-___-
�
uo----'------ -------�
�
- �
----------!------------ ------------.
�
LU_-_____-
__'__'_—�
----------r---------.---------�----------�
t
% Duration
% Duration

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
0-, LVVIP Dem NQ Si�ane
FMA
DEQ-CFW-00020594

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
% Duration
01 LMSP Dom 2M — S�m..Lm�, Cixmni
LA— —Rx,2W—V. �C�0
FMI
DEQ-CFW-00020595

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation
December 2015
% Duration
01 MSP Dem 2060 'L &A F R --VIORI — Simba�:c OimW
% Duration
C-1 LYiSP Dori 2060 C ALA i Rc 2E)4,- D_
WO
DEQ-CFW-00020596

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
A
DEQ-CFW 00020597

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
1050 -West Fork Eno Reservoir Elevation Duration
W-0
DEQ-CFW-00020598

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation Dmcaozber2Ul5
12OOLittle River Reservoir Elevation Duration
2060[emards
-----------------'-------------------r------------------�
i ! �
'—_�--�'--------�--'_'�--_�—_��—_��--�'-----�--^---_--� ---�

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
1420 Lake Wheeler Elevation Duration
2060 Demands
The following flow duration graphs highlight the variations in low flows at each location
presented. The vertical scale shows flow rates in cubic feet per second while the horizontal scale
shows the percent of simulated time steps in a model run. Using daily time steps when running a
model scenario over the 29,858 days in the flow record means there are 29,858 time steps
simulated for each model scenario. The flow record used in the model was reconstructed from
Mul
DEQ-CFW-00020600

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
M
DEQ-CFW 00020601

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
DEQ-CFW 00020602

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
DEQ-CFW 00020603

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
1480_MiddIeCr—Gage_FIowDuration
zzu
200
180
160
140
LL
120
. . . .. . .. . . .. .
100
.2
LL
80
.. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. .
60
. ... . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .
40
20
Percent of simulated time steps
01 LVV,P Der 2060
FMA
DEQ-CFW-00020604

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
y
DEQ-CFW 00020605

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
DEQ-CFW 00020606

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
When considering how much water is reliably available at a particular location on a river
low -flow conditions become the critical measure. Availability may be an issue for
determining a potential waste load allocation for a wastewater discharge or it may be an
issue for determining the amount of water available for a public water supply withdrawal.
A common measure of low flows for these evaluations is what is called the 7Q10 flow. The
7Q10 is a statistically calculated estimate of the lowest 7-day average flow expected to
occur once in ten years, based on the historic flow record used in the analysis. The 7Q10
value varies with the length of flow record used and with the beginning and end dates used
for defining each year in the record. The calculations that produced the values in the tables
below are based on the Climatic Year which encompasses the twelve months between April
1st and March 30th.
The duration of the low flow levels designated by the 7Q10 calculation has the potential to
produce negative impacts to resident aquatic species if this level of flow is not considered
when determining how much waste load a stream can handle. Similarly it is important
when determining how much water can be withdrawn while protecting environmental
quality. The 7Q10 flow is estimated to occur once in ten years which means there is a 10
percent chance this level of flow can occur in any year. This level of flow has a high enough
probability of occurrence that it has become a benchmark in a variety of flow evaluations to
define conditions that happen frequently enough to be considered likely to occur but is not
the historic minimum flow.
The numbers in these tables cannot be compared to the 7Q10 calculations derived from the
historic streamflow gage data. The model derived calculations are based on the
hypothetical situations that are created by passing the 81 years of flow information
through the hydrologic model representing the infrastructure and management protocols
being used today or expected to be used in the future. For example, the streamflow records
for 1955 reflect what actually happened in that year, prior to construction of Jordan Lake.
The hydrologic model shows what conditions may be given the current and planned
infrastructure and management protocols during the recurrence of the 1955 hydrologic
conditions.
Twelve scenarios for the Cape Fear - Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model were used for
this evaluation of impacts to 7Q10 flow estimates. Three model scenario groups evaluate
different supply options for each of three different demand quantities. The demand
volumes used in each represent the estimated volumes of water expected to be needed to
satisfy water system needs in 2035, 2045 and 2060. These demand estimates represent the
amount of water expected to be needed 20, 30 and 50 years in the future to meet customer
demands, based on current knowledge. The 7Q10 flows for locations in the Cape Fear River
and Neuse River Basins from each of the model scenarios are shown in the tables below.
Two variations on the model basecase scenario are shown. "Simbase current" is the
scenario that captures the current conditions in 2010 against which other scenarios are
compared. The "Simbase-Dem2045" scenario combines the water sources available to
"M
DEQ-CFW-00020607

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
water systems in 2010 with the estimated 2045 customer demands. This scenario shows
the impacts of withdrawing water sufficient to meet estimated 2045 demands from the
sources available in 2010. The other ten scenarios were all developed for the Jordan Lake
Allocation review process and include "JLA" in the title.
The tables show three scenarios designated as "01JLA-LWSP-Dem" followed by 2035,
2045 and 2060. This label denotes a scenario developed for the Jordan Lake Allocation
review process using water availability and water demands based on data presented in the
Local Water Supply Plans for expected demands in 2035, 2045 and 2060.
The second group of scenarios is designated as "02JLA-Req2045-Dem" followed by 2035,
2045 and 2060. These scenarios include the requested Jordan Lake allocation amounts to
meet demands in 2045 for the applicants that propose to use water drawn directly from
the reservoir. The scenarios include the preferred usage schemes outlined in each
allocation application. This set of scenarios does not include Fayetteville PWC's allocation
request in which their allocation would be released from the reservoir to be withdrawn
from the Cape Fear River in Fayetteville. These scenarios evaluate the resource changes
produced by meeting the 2035, 2045 and 2060 expected demands with the supplies
available if the requested allocations are approved by the Environmental Management
Commission.
The third group of scenarios is designated as "03_JLA-F-Req2045-Dem" followed by 2035,
2045 and 2060. This set of model scenarios incorporates Fayetteville PWC's requested
allocation and withdrawal scenario into the three scenarios in the previous group. This set
of scenarios shows the possible outcomes of approving all the requested allocations.
The twelfth model scenario, designated as "04JLA-Raleigh-Lillington-Dem2045", models
the outcome if: Raleigh's requested allocation amount is withdrawn from the Cape Fear
River in the vicinity of Lillington, with no water supply release from Jordan Lake;
Fayetteville PWC continues to withdraw water from its existing locations with no water
supply release from Jordan Lake; and the other applicants withdraw their requested Jordan
Lake water supply allocations as described in their applications.
As water withdrawals increase to meet higher future demands one would expect the
residual streamflows and the resulting 7Q10 estimates to decline. However, changes in
sources and the magnitude and location of wastewater water returns produce changes in
water availability that result in 7Q10 estimates that increase and decrease between model
scenarios at locations throughout the basins. The estimated 7Q10 values at fourteen
locations in the Cape Fear and Neuse River Basins are presented for each model scenario in
the following tables. For each location the lowest value is shown in bold typeface.
The modeling results are products of the data and assumptions used in the Cape Fear -
Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model. Improvements to the data and revisions of the
assumptions used will produce different results. A useful way to interpret the data in these
tables is to compare the values under the various model scenarios to the "Simbase-Current"
scenario values to see how resource conditions may change in the future compared to the
current conditions.
W-0
DEQ-CFW-00020608

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
me
DEQ-CFW 00020609

DRAFT Cape Fear River Water Supply Evaluation December 2015
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I IndeI sfiniate
:.::.::.::.::.........................................................................................................................
of 1
t2
l Ia trs ibeI
r Falls Lake
in ub'
T . t .'.'.:r
�........................
r a d if :
{........ }..........................................................
.
Neuse
Nodes
Clayton
Johnston Co
Smithfield
HFLee
Goldboro
NRWASA
Kinston
Weyerhaeuser'.
Scenario
Gage
Intake
Gage
Energy
Intake'
Intake
gage
Intake
Number
Model' Scenario'
Complex
1
01 JLA LWSP Dem2035
232
228
225
254
255
256
258
297
2
01 JLA LWSP Dem2045
244
237
234
258
256
257
260
301
3
01 JLA LWSP Dem2060
234
224
217
247
241
244
247
290
4
02 JLA Reg2045_Dem2035'
231
227'
224
254
253
254
257
295
5
02 1LA_Reg2045_Dem2045
242
235
232
258
253
255
258
298'
6
02 JLA Reg2045_Dem2060'
255
244'
238
263
254
259
262
306
7
03 JLA F Reg2045 Dem2035
231
227
224
254
253
254
257
295'
8
03 JLA F Reg2045 Dem2045
242
235'
232
258
253
255
258
298
9
03 1LA F Reg2045_Dem206O
256
245
238
264
255
260
263
307'
10041LA
RaleighW€ilingtoa i3em2045
237
231
227
255
252
22
255
296
11
Simbase current<
203
203'
202
245
i 250
256
259
290
12
Simbase Dem2045
238
232<
229
265
1 262
262
265
305
............:...................::...................::....................:....................:.........................................................................................................:.....................:...............................................................::................................
11t7te1 Eft.
�)iliNSlil3hi
itk 11Ililtkilt?I1S
t Gy
Neuse
Nodes
Clayton
Johnston Co
Smithfield
HF
Goldboro
NRWASA
Kinston
Weyerhaeuser
Scenario
Gage
intake
Gage
E eLee
rgy
Intake
Intake
Gage
Intake
Number
Model Scenario
Complex
1
01 JLA LWSP Dem2035
150
147
146
164
165
165
167
192
2
01 JLA LWSP Dem2045
158
153
151
167
166
166
168
194
3
01 JLA LWSP Dem2060
151
145
140 1
160
156
158
160
188
4
02 JLA Reg2045_Dem2035
149
147
145
164
164
164
166
191
5
02 JLA Reg2045_Dem2045
156
152
150
166
163
165
167
193
6
02 JLA Reg2045_Dem2060
165
158
154
170
164
168
170
198
7103
JLA F Reg2045 Dem2035
149
147
145
164
164
164
166
191
8103
JLA F Reg2045 Dem2045
156
152'
150
166
163
165
167
193
9
03 JLA F Reg2045 Dem2060
165
158
154
171
165
168
170
198
10
04 JiA RaleighGilington €etri204S
153
149
117
165
162
163
165
191
11
Simbase current<
131
131'
130
158
162
165
167
187
12
Simbase Dem2045
154
150
148
171
169
169
171
197
The minimum value at each location is shown in Bold
JUM
DEQ-CFW 00020610