Jordan Lake Water Supply Storage Allocation Rec Round Three Appendices

APPENDIX A. Comparison of Application Data
The tables in this appendix are summaries of the data provided by applicants.
Table A-1 provides a comparison of the population projections provided by the
applicants, and the population projections developed by the Division of Water Resources
based on data from the Office of State Planning. Table A-2 provides a comparison of
water use rates among the applicants. Table A-3 provides a summary of the applicants’
projected water needs and the Division’s allocation recommendations.
Table A-1 Population Projections from JL3 Applications
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Orange County
service area population 1 2,629 2,848 3,067 3,505 3,724 4,162 4,600 5,038 5,476 6,134 6,791
% of county populations 2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%3%3%3%
OWASA
service area population 71,600 78,100 84,400 90,800 97,200 103,600 110,000 116,500 122,900 129,300 135,700
% of county population 61%60%59%58%58%58%57%57%57%57%56%
Orange County Population 2 118,227 130,888 143,496 155,325 166,971 179,680 191,868 204,056 216,245 228,433 240,622
City of Durham
service area population 203,341 221,030 240,530 257,166 276,403 291,397 298,974 306,550 314,127 321,703 329,280
% of county population 91%90%90%89%89%87%84%81%78%76%74%
Durham County Population 2 223,314 245,523 268,284 290,007 312,144 334,562 356,753 378,944 401,135 423,326 445,517
Chatham County
service area population 11,351 15,824 20,542 23,412 26,796 30,805 35,579 41,288 48,146 56,420 66,441
% of county population 23%29%34%36%39%41%45%49%54%60%67%
Pittsboro
service area population 2,491 2,725 3,023 3,554 4,233 5,066 6,186 7,717 9,843 12,827 17,060
% of county population 5%5%5%6%6%7%8%9%11%14%17%
Siler City
service area population 8,645 9,639 10,754 12,001 13,381 14,722 16,204 17,843 19,658 21,667 23,893
% of county population 18%18%18%19%19%20%20%21%22%23%24%
Chatham County Population 2 49,329 54,651 59,559 64,492 69,137 74,308 79,250 84,192 89,134 94,076 99,019
Town of Cary
service area population 96,217 115,781 134,222 152,601 172,653 192,971 215,679 236,000 236,000 236,000 236,000
% of county population 15%16%16%16%16%16%17%17%16%15%14%
Town of Apex
service area population 22,453 35,627 48,800 61,700 74,600 87,500 100,400 102,172 102,172 102,172 102,172
% of county population 4%5%6%6%7%7%8%7%7%6%6%
Town of Morrisville
service area population 6,500 14,700 17,750 20,800 23,900 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000
% of county population 1%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%2%
Town of Holly Springs
service area population 9,192 21,506 37,275 54,235 71,403 87,211 103,890 114,816 122,221 125,002 125,002
% of county population 1%3%4%6%7%7%8%8%8%8%7%
Wake County Population 2 627,846 737,805 849,535 959,654 1,071,768 1,182,505 1,293,509 1,404,514 1,515,518 1,626,522 1,737,526
City of Sanford
service area population 27,000 34,800 40,900 48,000 56,600 66,600 76,000 83,700 92,100 101,400 111,600
% of county population 55%66%72%80%88%98%106%111%116%122%129%
Lee County Population 2 49,040 52,970 56,757 60,363 64,038 67,869 71,599 75,329 79,059 82,790 86,520
Harnett County
service area population 66,097 75,112 85,356 96,997 110,226 125,259 142,342 161,755 183,816 208,885 237,374
% of county population 73%73%74%76%78%82%86%91%96%103%110%
Harnett County Population 2 91,025 103,428 115,645 128,323 140,902 153,325 165,805 178,285 190,765 203,246 215,726
City of Fayetteville
service area population 178,200 210,370 243,160 278,310 315,840 355,740 402,480 423,810 445,140 466,470 487,800
% of county population 59%66%73%79%86%93%101%103%104%105%106%
Cumberland County Population 2 302,963 320,003 333,779 351,071 365,182 381,650 397,213 412,775 428,337 443,899 459,461
residential use rate.
2 Linear projection created by DWR staff using Office of State Planning county population projections from 2000-2020.
1 Orange County service area population projection estimated based on Orange Co projected residential demand and Orange-Alamance
Table A-2. Gallons per Person per Day from JL3 Allocation Applications
(Does not include Wake County - RTP-- all use is non-residential with no residential population)
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)(gpcd)
Orange County
residential use 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46
non-residential use 23 21 23 20 19 22 22 20 22 21 22
total water demand (no projected conservation)99 98 98 94 94 96 98 95 97 96 97
OWASA
residential use 61 63 63 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 64
non-residential use 49 49 50 51 50 51 51 52 51 52 52
total water demand (w/ conservation)130 131 133 133 134 134 135 136 136 136 136
City of Durham
residential use 67 79 79 79 80 80 79 80 80 80 80
non-residential use 49 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
total water demand (w/ conservation)152 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155 155
Chatham County
residential use 59 104 199 199 199 199 200 201 201 202 203
non-residential use 27 40 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 62
total water demand (no projected conservation)111 181 301 302 303 304 306 308 309 311 312
Pittsboro
total water demand (no projected conservation)482 620 602 560 534 509 480 439 400 364 329
Siler City
total water demand (no projected conservation)359 359 328 328 328 328 328 328 328 328 328
Town of Cary
residential use 74 71 68 67 65 64 57 58 58 58 58
non-residential use 21 23 25 28 32 35 35 35 35 35 35
total water demand (w/ conservation)109 109 108 110 114 114 107 108 108 108 108
Town of Apex
residential use 71 65 66 62 62 61 61 61 61 61 61
non-residential use 13 8 8 10 9 10 11 11 11 11 11
total water demand (w/ conservation)98 87 86 84 84 83 85 84 84 84 84
Town of Morrisville
residential use 77 67 63 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58
non-residential use 52 41 41 38 40 41 41 41 41 41 41
total water demand (w/ conservation)149 127 123 115 117 119 119 119 119 119 119
Town of Holly Springs
residential use 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
non-residential use 17 30 31 31 31 31 31 32 34 36 36
total water demand (w/ conservation)102 115 117 117 117 117 117 118 120 122 122
City of Sanford
residential use 65 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
non-residential use 111 105 107 112 115 118 126 138 153 168 186
total water demand (no projected conservation)233 228 231 236 240 244 252 268 287 306 328
Harnett County
residential use 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62
non-residential use 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
total water demand (no projected conservation)98 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 89 90 90
City of Fayetteville
residential use 79 76 73 71 70 68 67 66 65 64 63
non-residential use 48 52 56 60 61 61 61 63 66 69 72
total water demand (w/ conservation)145 146 148 150 150 149 147 149 150 153 156
Table A-3. Water Use Summary JL3 Allocation Application Data
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)
Orange County
projected demand 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7
current Jordan Lake supply 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
watershed withdrawal 1 unk unk unk unk unk unk unk unk unk unk
interbasin transfer 1 unk unk unk unk unk unk unk unk unk unk
OWASA
projected demand 9.3 10.2 11.2 12.1 13 13.9 14.9 15.8 16.7 17.6 18.4
current Jordan Lake supply 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Cane Creek/University Lake supplies 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3 14.3
Stone Quarry supply 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
City of Durham
projected demand 31.0 34.2 37.2 39.8 42.8 45.1 46.3 47.5 48.6 49.8 51.0
Lake Michie supply 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.8 5.8 8.1 9.3 10.5 11.6 12.8 14.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Chatham County
projected demand 1.3 2.9 6.2 7.1 8.1 9.4 10.9 12.7 14.9 17.5 20.7
adjusted demand 2 1.3 2.5 3.4 3.9 4.5 5.2 6.0 7.1 8.3 9.7 11.5
current Jordan Lake supply 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Pittsboro supply 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.8 3.2 5.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
watershed withdrawal 3 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
interbasin transfer (ADD) 3 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
interbasin transfer (MDD) 4 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
Town of Pittsboro
projected demand 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.7 5.6
adjusted demand 5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.5
Haw River (20% of 7Q10)9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Town of Siler City
projected demand 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.9 4.4 4.8 5.3 5.9 6.5 7.1 7.8
adjusted demand 6 2.4 3.1 3.6 4.1 4.7 5.5
Rocky River Reservoirs 3.8 3.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Towns of Cary and Apex
projected demand 12.7 15.7 18.7 22.0 25.9 29.3 31.5 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0
current Jordan Lake supply 16.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.9 8.3 10.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0
watershed withdrawal 7 15.5 18.4 21.6 25.4 28.7 30.9 31.3 31.3 31.2 31.1
interbasin transfer (ADD)13.6 14.2 14.0 14.9 13.6 11.7 10.7 10.8 10.8 10.8
interbasin transfer (MDD) 8 20.4 21.3 21.0 22.4 20.4 17.6 16.1 16.2 16.2 16.2
Table A-3. Water Use Summary JL3 Allocation Application Data (continued)
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)(gpd)
Town of Morrisville
projected demand 1.0 1.9 2.2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
current Jordan Lake supply 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
watershed withdrawal 7 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
interbasin transfer (ADD)1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1
interbasin transfer (MDD) 8 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7
Wake County - RTP
projected demand 0.3 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.1 4.4
current Jordan Lake supply 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.9
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
watershed withdrawal 10 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
interbasin transfer (ADD) 10 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
interbasin transfer (MDD) 11 2.0 2.6 3.3 3.9 4.7 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
Town of Holly Springs
projected demand 0.9 2.5 4.4 6.3 8.3 10.2 12.2 13.6 14.7 15.3 15.3
current Jordan Lake supply 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Cape Fear River supply 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
City of Sanford
projected demand 6.3 7.9 9.4 11.3 13.6 16.2 19.1 22.4 26.4 31.1 36.6
Cape Fear River supply 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3 37.3
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Harnett County
projected demand 6.4 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.9 11.2 12.8 14.5 16.4 18.7 21.3
Cape Fear River supply 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
City of Fayetteville
projected demand 25.9 30.7 36.1 41.7 47.3 53.0 59.3 63.0 66.9 71.6 76.0
Glenville Lake supply 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Cape Fear River (20% of 7Q10)80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8
projected deficit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
recommended total Jordan Lake allocation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
watershed withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
interbasin transfer 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1 Orange County does not currently have a water supply system. There is likely to be some amount of water withdrawn from the Jordan Lake watershed,
as well as some amount transferred from the Haw River Subbasin, but it is impossible to estimate the quantities.
2 Residential use rate for Chatham County set at 85 gpcd for adjusted residential water demand projection.
3 Watershed withdrawal and interbasin transfer quantities estimated by assuming 21% of Chatham County's service area will lie in the Deep River Subbasin.
Twenty-one percent was based on the proportion of residential customers projected for Chatham County's Northwest and Southwest service areas in the
year 2025, as described in the Chatham County Water Feasibility Study Update (2000).
4 MDD interbasin transfer based on a Max/Ave ratio of 1.5, which occurred in July 2000.
5 Use rates based on Pittsboro's 1997 Local Water Supply Plan data. Unaccounted-for water set at 10%. See Pittsboro Siler City worksheet.
6 Use rates based on Siler City's 1997 Local Water Supply Plan data. See Pittsboro Siler City worksheet.
7 Watershed withdrawal quantity based on amount withdrawn from Lake, less consumptive use in Jordan Lake watershed.
8 MDD interbasin transfer based on a Max/Ave ratio of 1.5. Cary's highest Max/Ave ratio in 2000 was 1.4, which occurred in November. Apex's highest Max/Ave ratio
in 2000 was 1.6, which occurred in November.
9 MDD interbasin transfer based on a Max/Ave ratio of 1.5. Morrisville did not provide this information in their Jordan Lake application.
10 Watershed withdrawal and interbasin transfer quantities based on withdrawal amount. Wake County did not provide this information in their Jordan Lake application.
11 MDD interbasin transfer based on a Max/Ave ratio of 1.5. Wake County did not provide this information in their Jordan Lake application.
12 Holly Springs, Sanford, Harnett County and Fayetteville may each have interbasin transfer issues in the future. However, any such interbasin transfers will not be a
result of our recommended Jordan Lake allocations for round three.
Table A-4. Summary of Round 3 Allocation Recommendations
Level I Level II Total Level I Level II Total Level I Level II Total Watershed Withdrawal Interbasin Transfer
(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd)(mgd) 2 (mgd) 3
Orange County 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 unk
OWASA 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
City of Durham 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 4.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
Chatham County 4.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 4.5 10.5 6.0 0.0 6.0 1.3 1.9
Towns of Cary and Apex 21.0 0.0 21.0 34.0 10.0 44.0 32.0 0.0 32.0 31.3 24.0
Town of Morrisville 2.0 0.5 2.5 4.0 1.0 5.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 2.9 *
Wake County - RTP 1.5 0.0 1.5 3.5 2.0 5.5 3.5 0.0 3.5 3.5 *
Town of Holly Springs 0.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 6.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
City of Sanford 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Harnett County 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
City of Fayetteville 1 0 0 0.0 ???0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 28.5 15.5 44.0 73.5 79.5 153.0 55.0 6.0 61.0 40.0 25.9
1 Fayetteville did not quantify their request for an allocation.
2 Watershed Withdrawal is an estimate of the quantity of water withdrawn from Jordan Lake, but not returned to the Jordan Lake watershed.
This quantity is on an Average Daily Demand basis.
Orange County does not currently have a water supply system and anticipate supplying water to county residents through the Orange-Alamance water system.
There is likely to be some amount of water withdrawn from the Jordan Lake watershed,
but it is impossible to estimate the quantity. We have therefore set the quantity at the maximum possible.
Wake County did not provide the information necessary to calculate the amount of water withdrawn from the Jordan Lake watershed. We have
therefore set the quantity at the maximum possible.
3 Interbasin Transfer is an estimate of the quantity of water withdrawn from Jordan Lake, but not returned to the Haw River Subbasin.
This quantity is on an Maximum Day Demand basis.
Only the amount withdrawn from a Jordan Lake allocation is considered for the purpose of estimating interbasin transfer in this table.
Orange County does not currently have a water supply system. There is likely to be some amount of water transferred from the Haw River Subbasin,
but it is impossible to estimate the quantity. In any event, the amount of interbasin transfer would be below the 2.0 mgd threshold set by law.
The total quantity of interbasin transfer for Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Wake-RTP cannot exceed 24.0 mgd, based on their certificate.
Requested Allocation Recommended AllocationCurrent Allocation
APPENDIX B. Model Scenario 1 Data
The tables presented in this section are derived from the Cape Fear River Basin
Water Supply Plan. These tables summarize the data we used to develop Model Scenario
1. The purpose of Scenario 1 is to evaluate the long-term water supply needs in the Cape
Fear River Basin and the cumulative effects of these demands throughout the basin above
Lock & Dam #1. Model Scenario 1 incorporates the maximum projected demands for the
Basin’s water supply systems in 2050.
Table B-1 provides the service area demand projections we used for this scenario.
Table B-2 provides the 2050 withdrawal amounts and the sources of those water demands
for each water withdrawal location we modeled. Table B-3 provides the 2050 discharge
amounts and the sources of those wastewater discharges for each wastewater discharge
location we modeled. We calculated wastewater discharge amounts for each system
based on current ratios of water withdrawal amounts to wastewater discharge amounts.
Table B-1 2050 Scenario 1 Input
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
PWSID notes COUNTY WATER SYSTEM SOURCE WHY MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD
BASIN INCLUDED SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand
02-79-020 ROCKINGHAM REIDSVILLE 02-1 source 3.537 3.626 3.674 3.836 3.961 4.086
02-79-050 1 ROCKINGHAM ROCKINGHAM CO 02-1 source 0.175 0.176 0.176 0.180 0.181 0.182
02-41-010 GUILFORD GREENSBORO 02-1 source 40.185 42.155 43.731 45.908 47.896 49.885
02-41-020 GUILFORD HIGH POINT 02-2 source 14.001 14.648 15.339 16.373 17.290 18.206
02-41-030 GUILFORD JAMESTOWN 02-2 source 0.471 0.565 0.660 0.807 0.932 1.058
02-76-030 RANDOLPH ARCHDALE 02-2 source 0.664 0.995 1.327 1.628 1.943 2.257
02-76-015 RANDOLPH RANDLEMAN 02-2 source 1.385 1.529 1.671 1.899 2.095 2.292
02-76-010 RANDOLPH ASHEBORO 18-3 discharge 4.707 5.255 5.785 6.081 6.476 6.872
none 2 RANDOLPH RANDOLPH CO 02-2 source 8.760 10.286 11.848 13.446 15.030 16.614
02-76-025 RANDOLPH LIBERTY 02-2 source 0.319 0.351 0.386 0.410 0.439 0.468
02-76-020 RANDOLPH RAMSEUR 02-2 source 0.571 0.633 0.691 0.768 0.838 0.907
02-76-035 RANDOLPH FRANKLINVILLE 02-2 source 0.065 0.069 0.074 0.101 0.119 0.137
02-01-010 ALAMANCE BURLINGTON 02-1 source 12.776 13.617 14.437 16.101 17.458 18.815
02-01-035 ALAMANCE ALAMANCE 02-1 source 0.037 0.040 0.044 0.049 0.053 0.057
02-01-025 ALAMANCE ELON COLLEGE 02-1 source 0.492 0.524 0.556 0.606 0.649 0.692
02-41-010 3 GUILFORD *GIBSONVILLE 02-1 source 0.687 0.893 1.160 1.397 1.640 1.884
02-01-123 3 ALAMANCE *OSSIPEE SD 02-1 source 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.041 0.045 0.050
02-01-015 ALAMANCE GRAHAM 02-1 source 2.034 2.376 2.780 3.135 3.502 3.869
02-01-018 ALAMANCE MEBANE 02-1 source 1.682 2.354 2.922 3.704 4.427 5.151
02-01-020 4 ALAMANCE HAW RIVER 02-1 source 0.927 1.065 0.854 0.935 1.001 1.068
02-01-030 3 ALAMANCE *GREEN LEVEL 02-1 source 0.075 0.078 0.081 0.085 0.090 0.094
03-68-020 5 ORANGE ORANGE-ALAMANCE/ORANGE CO 10-1 JLapp 1.167 1.591 2.232 2.825 3.418 4.011
03-68-010 5 ORANGE OWASA 02-1 JLapp 9.300 11.200 13.000 14.900 16.700 18.400
03-32-010 5 DURHAM DURHAM 10-1 JLapp 31.000 37.200 42.800 46.300 48.600 51.000
03-92-020-045 5 WAKE CARY\APEX 02-1 JLapp 12.700 18.700 25.900 31.500 34.000 34.000
03-92-075 5 WAKE MORRISVILLE 02-1 JLapp 1.000 2.200 2.800 3.200 3.200 3.200
none 5 WAKE WAKE CO - RTP 02-1 JLapp 0.300 1.700 2.600 3.400 3.900 4.400
03-19-xxx 5 CHATHAM CHATHAM CO COMBINED 02-1.5 JLapp 1.300 6.200 8.100 10.900 14.900 20.700
03-19-025 7 CHATHAM GOLDSTON-GULF SD 02-2 source 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140
03-19-015 7 CHATHAM PITTSBORO 02-1 source 1.200 1.800 2.300 3.000 3.900 5.600
03-19-010 7 CHATHAM SILER CITY 02-2 source 3.100 3.500 4.400 5.300 6.500 7.800
03-62-025 4 MONTGOMERY STAR 18-1 discharge 0.473 0.577 0.483 0.496 0.510 0.525
03-63-015 4 MOORE ROBBINS 02-2 source 0.831 0.872 0.830 0.844 0.855 0.865
03-53-010 LEE SANFORD (Lee Co WSD I)02-3 JLapp 6.300 9.400 13.600 19.100 26.400 36.600
03-53-015 LEE BROADWAY 02-3 source 0.094 0.108 0.114 0.125 0.135 0.145
03-53-130 4 LEE LEE CO 02-2 source 0.828 1.116 0.764 0.769 0.774 0.778
Table B-1 2050 Scenario 1 Input
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
PWSID notes COUNTY WATER SYSTEM SOURCE WHY MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD
BASIN INCLUDED SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand
03-92-050 5 WAKE HOLLY SPRINGS 02-1 JLapp 0.900 4.400 8.300 12.200 14.700 15.300
03-43-045 5 HARNETT HARNETT CO (Combined)02-3 JLapp 6.400 7.700 9.900 12.800 16.400 21.300
03-92-055 WAKE FUQUAY-VARINA 02-3 source 1.008 2.102 4.481 5.478 6.897 8.316
03-43-010 HARNETT DUNN 02-3 source 2.289 2.508 2.717 3.095 3.414 3.733
03-51-025 JOHNSTON BENSON 02-3 source 1.454 1.772 2.161 2.570 2.960 3.350
03-26-035 CUMBERLAND FALCON 02-3 source 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.096 0.103 0.109
03-26-050 CUMBERLAND GODWIN 02-3 source 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.017 0.019 0.020
03-43-035 HARNETT ERWIN 02-3 source 0.680 0.780 0.880 0.968 1.063 1.158
03-63-040 MOORE CAMERON 02-3 source 0.059 0.066 0.072 0.082 0.091 0.100
03-63-025 MOORE CARTHAGE 02-2 source 0.303 0.331 0.359 0.410 0.451 0.492
03-63-103 MOORE MOORE CO (HYLAND HILLS - NIAGRA)02-3 source 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.024 0.027 0.030
03-63-045 MOORE MOORE CO (VASS)02-3 source 0.096 0.122 0.155 0.178 0.204 0.230
03-63-010 MOORE SOUTHERN PINES 09-1 servarea 2.056 2.303 2.519 2.768 3.009 3.251
03-63-108 MOORE MOORE CO (PINEHURST)02-3 source 1.813 2.671 3.687 4.522 5.413 6.303
03-63-117 MOORE MOORE CO (SEVEN LAKES)02-3 source 0.304 0.412 0.522 0.633 0.744 0.854
03-26-010 5, 8 CUMBERLAND FAYETTEVILLE 02-3 JLapp 25.900 36.100 47.300 59.300 66.900 76.000
03-26-020 CUMBERLAND SPRING LAKE 02-3 source 1.049 1.264 1.525 1.747 1.979 2.211
03-47-025 HOKE HOKE CO RWS 09-1 servarea 1.307 1.690 2.102 2.927 3.582 4.238
03-47-010 3, 4 HOKE *RAEFORD 09-1 discharge 1.897 2.118 1.867 1.930 1.988 2.047
03-26-040 CUMBERLAND WADE 02-3 source 0.036 0.041 0.045 0.049 0.054 0.058
03-26-030 CUMBERLAND STEDMAN 02-4 source 0.080 0.090 0.100 0.109 0.118 0.128
03-26-344 CUMBERLAND FT BRAGG 02-3 source 7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560
03-09-010 BLADEN ELIZABETHTOWN 02-3 source 0.897 0.963 1.034 1.104 1.174 1.244
03-09-030 9 BLADEN WHITE LAKE 02-3 source 0.249 0.259 0.270 0.281 0.292 0.303
03-09-060 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - 701 NORTH 02-3 source 0.087 0.115 0.144 0.191 0.231 0.271
03-09-065 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - EAST ARCADIA 02-3 source 0.098 0.138 0.178 0.248 0.307 0.366
03-09-055 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - W BLADEN 09-1 servarea 0.418 0.505 0.592 0.739 0.862 0.984
03-09-035 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - WHITE OAK 02-3 source 0.099 0.129 0.159 0.214 0.260 0.306
03-09-025 BLADEN DUBLIN 09-1 discharge 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.057 0.062 0.067
03-09-040 BLADEN TAR HEEL 09-1 servarea 0.028 0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038
04-65-010 NEW HANOVER WILMINGTON 02-3 source 11.543 11.952 13.078 14.386 15.541 16.696
04-65-510 10 NEW HANOVER NEW HANOVER CO AIRPORT 02-3 source 0.021 0.024 0.029 0.032 0.036 0.040
04-65-020 NEW HANOVER WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH 02-6 source 1.005 1.111 1.117 1.221 1.297 1.372
04-65-226 NEW HANOVER APPLE VALLEY 02-5 source 0.134 0.156 0.174 0.198 0.220 0.241
04-65-191 4 NEW HANOVER NEW HANOVER CO FLEMINGTON 02-3 source 0.312 0.362 0.293 0.302 0.308 0.315
04-65-119 11 NEW HANOVER FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND 02-6 source 0.355 0.399 0.444 0.517 0.579 0.642
04-65-015 NEW HANOVER CAROLINA BEACH 02-3 source 0.645 0.742 0.834 0.923 1.014 1.104
04-65-025 NEW HANOVER KURE BEACH 02-3 source 0.357 0.414 0.480 0.589 0.677 0.766
04-65-999 10 NEW HANOVER LOWER CAPE FEAR WSA 02-3 source 6.650 11.650 11.650 11.650 11.650 11.650
04-10-045 BRUNSWICK BRUNSWICK CO 02-3 source 11.628 14.466 17.022 20.432 23.509 26.586
04-10-035 3, 12 BRUNSWICK *NORTH BRUNSWICK WSA (LELAND SD)02-3 source 0.494 0.588 0.647 0.759 0.856 0.953
04-10-065 BRUNSWICK NAVASSA 02-3 source 0.047 0.053 0.062 0.069 0.076 0.084
04-10-055 BRUNSWICK CASWELL BEACH 02-3 source 0.169 0.220 0.275 0.270 0.292 0.314
Table B-1 2050 Scenario 1 Input
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
PWSID notes COUNTY WATER SYSTEM SOURCE WHY MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD
BASIN INCLUDED SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand
04-10-060 BRUNSWICK HOLDEN BEACH 02-3 source 0.411 0.799 1.435 1.757 2.178 2.599
04-10-015 BRUNSWICK LONG BEACH WATER 02-3 source 0.822 1.030 1.293 1.575 1.842 2.110
04-10-035 BRUNSWICK OCEAN ISLE BEACH 02-3 source 0.490 0.589 0.708 0.869 1.013 1.157
04-10-025 BRUNSWICK SHALLOTTE 02-3 source 0.217 0.228 0.239 0.264 0.284 0.303
04-10-010 BRUNSWICK SOUTHPORT 02-3 source 0.660 0.800 0.928 1.117 1.282 1.446
04-10-050 BRUNSWICK SUNSET BEACH 02-3 source 0.584 0.628 0.677 0.894 1.040 1.185
04-10-020 BRUNSWICK YAUPON BEACH 02-3 source 0.167 0.185 0.204 0.229 0.251 0.273
04-65-137 NEW HANOVER MONTEREY HEIGHTS 02-3 source 0.109 0.122 0.134 0.149 0.163 0.177
04-65-232 NEW HANOVER MURRAYVILLE 02-5 source 1.333 1.667 1.917 2.243 2.549 2.855
04-65-154 NEW HANOVER WALNUT HILLS 02-5 source 0.079 0.092 0.103 0.117 0.130 0.143
04-65-190 NEW HANOVER RUNNYMEADE 02-5 source 0.057 0.066 0.074 0.084 0.094 0.103
04-65-188 NEW HANOVER PRINCE GEORGE 02-5 source 0.057 0.066 0.074 0.084 0.094 0.103
04-65-229 NEW HANOVER WESTBAY 02-6 source 0.043 0.050 0.056 0.063 0.070 0.077
04-65-192 NEW HANOVER BRICKSTONE - MARSH OAKS 02-6 source 0.065 0.075 0.084 0.096 0.106 0.117
04-24-035 4 COLUMBUS RIEGELWOOD SD 02-3 source 0.643 0.734 0.611 0.620 0.627 0.635
Notes:
1. Used 2000 water use, service area demand, and population. Population projections adjusted to represent residential use, not service to schools.
2. System population estimated by subtracting existing system populations from County population.
Table B-2 Withdrawal Node 2050 Scenario Inputs
System Withdrawal Node Demand Source 2050 Withdrawal Safe Yield
(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
REIDSVILLE 02-79-020Reidsville REIDSVILLE 4.086ROCKINGHAM CO 0.182
Total =4.268 19
GREENSBORO 02-41-010Greensboro-TownsendLk GREENSBORO 15.000
Total =15.000 36
02-41-010GreensboroNLMitchell GREENSBORO 15.000
Total =15.000 see above
GreensboroRL GREENSBORO 19.885JAMESTOWN0.000
GIBSONVILLE 0.288
Total =20.173 28.51
HIGH POINT 02-41-020HighPointFWard HIGH POINT 8.206JAMESTOWN0.000
ARCHDALE 1.057
Total =9.264 21.44
HighPointRL HIGH POINT 10.000Total =10.000 10.08
JAMESTOWN JamestownRL JAMESTOWN 1.058
Total =1.058 1.2
ARCHDALE ArchdaleRL ARCHDALE 1.200
Total =1.200 1.2
RANDLEMAN 02-76-015Randleman RANDLEMAN 1.500
Total =1.500 1.5
RandlemanRL RANDLEMAN 0.792
Total =0.792 1.01
RANDOLPH CO RandolphRL RANDOLPH CO 6.000Total =6.000 6
RAMSEUR 02-76-020Ramseur RAMSEUR 0.907
FRANKLINVILLE 0.137
Total =1.044 6.6
BURLINGTON 02-01-010Burlington-Mackintosh BURLINGTON 17.140
ALAMANCE 0.057
GIBSONVILLE 1.596
Total =18.793 36
02-01-010Burlington-EdThomas BURLINGTON 1.674
ELON COLLEGE 0.569
HAW RIVER 0.228
Total =2.472 12
GRAHAM/02-01-015-018GrahamMebane GRAHAM 3.869
MEBANE MEBANE 5.151
HAW RIVER 0.840
GREEN LEVEL 0.094ORANGE-ALAMANCE\ORANGE CO 0.000
Total =9.954 12
ORANGE-ALAMANCE \OrangeJL ORANGE-ALAMANCE\ORANGE CO 3.541
ORANGE CO Total =3.541 4.0
OWASA 03-68-010OWASA OWASA 5.000
Total =5.000 14.3
03-68-010OWASACaneCrk OWASA 8.400Total =8.400 see above
OWASAJL OWASA 5.000
Total =5.000 5.0
DURHAM DuhamJL DURHAM 14.000
Total =14.000 14.0
CARY\APEX 03-92-020-045CaryApex CARY\APEX 34.000
Total =34.000 34.0
MORRISVILLE MorrisvilleJL MORRISVILLE 3.200
Total =3.200 3.5
WAKE CO - RTP RTPJL WAKE CO - RTP 4.400Total =4.400 4.5
CHATHAM CO (Combined)ChathamCo CHATHAM CO (Combined)14.389
SILER CITY 2.000
Total =16.389 17.0
GOLDSTON-GULF SD 03-19-025GoldstonGulf GOLDSTON-GULF SD 0.140
CHATHAM CO (Combined)2.100
Total =2.240 2.24
PITTSBORO 03-19-015Pittsboro PITTSBORO 5.600
CHATHAM CO (Combined)4.211
Total =9.811 9.8
Table B-2 Withdrawal Node 2050 Scenario Inputs
System Withdrawal Node Demand Source 2050 Withdrawal Safe Yield(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
SILER CITY 03-19-010SilerCity SILER CITY 5.800
Total =5.800 5.8
ROBBINS 03-63-015Robbins-CBBrooks ROBBINS 0.865
Total =0.865 1.5
SANFORD 03-53-010Sanford SANFORD 36.600
BROADWAY 0.082LEE CO 0.000
Total =36.682 61.6
LEE CO 03-53-130Lee-Cumnock LEE CO 0.778
Total =0.778 2.2
HOLLY SPRINGS HollySprings 1 HOLLY SPRINGS 15.300Total =15.300 34.25
HollySpringsRelease HOLLY SPRINGS 0.000
Total =0.000 0
HARNETT CO (Combined)03-43-045HarnettCo 1 HARNETT CO (Combined)21.300
FUQUAY-VARINA 7.566HOLLY SPRINGS 0.000
Total =28.866 34.25
HarnettRelease HARNETT CO (Combined)0.000
Total =0.000 0
DUNN 03-43-010Dunn DUNN 3.733BENSON3.150
FALCON 0.109
GODWIN from FALCON 0.020Total =7.012 69.8
ERWIN 03-43-035BurligtonIndustries(SwiftTextiles-ErwinMills)ERWIN 1.158
Total =1.158 5
CARTHAGE 03-63-025Carthage CARTHAGE 0.492
Total =0.492 1
MOORE CO (VASS)03-63-045MowasaVass MOORE CO (VASS)0.230
Total =0.230 1.45
FAYETTEVILLE 3-26-010FayettevillePOHoffer FAYETTEVILLE 71.000SPRING LAKE 2.211
HOKE CO RWS 2.057
RAEFORD from HOKE CO RWS 0.000Total =75.268 80.8
03-26-010FayettevilleGlenville FAYETTEVILLE 5.000
Total =5.000 5
FayettevilleRelease FAYETTEVILLE 0.000
Total =0.000 0
FT BRAGG 03-26-344FortBragg FT BRAGG 7.560
Total =7.560 20
WILMINGTON 04-65-010Wilmington 2 WILMINGTON 16.696
NEW HANOVER CO AIRPORT 0.040
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH 0.150APPLE VALLEY 0.075
NEW HANOVER CO FLEMINGTON 0.000
FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND 0.078
CAROLINA BEACH 0.214
Total =17.253 53.3
LCFWASA 04-65-999LowerCapeFearWSA 2 LCFWASA 11.650BRUNSWICK CO 23.168
NORTH BRUNSWICK WSA from BRUNSWICK CO 0.953NAVASSA from N. BRUNSWICK SD 0.084
CASWELL BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 0.314
HOLDEN BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 2.599LONG BEACH WATER from BRUNSWICK CO 2.110
OCEAN ISLE BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 1.157SHALLOTTE from BRUNSWICK CO 0.303
SOUTHPORT from BRUNSWICK CO 1.093
SUNSET BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 1.185YAUPON BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 0.090
WILMINGTON 0.000Total =44.707 53.3
1 These intakes will likely be located close together. Therefore, the safe yield of 68.5 will apply to the sum of both withdrawals.2 These intakes are located close together. Therefore, the safe yield of 106.6 will apply to the sum of both withdrawals.
Table B-3 Discharge Node 2050 Scenario Inputs
System Discharge Node Discharge Source 2050 Discharge Permit Limit
(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
REIDSVILLE nc0024881Reidsville REIDSVILLE 3.344
Total =3.344 7.5
GREENSBORO nc0047384GreensboroTZOsborne GREENSBORO 25.229
Total =25.229 22
nc0024325GreensboroNBuffalo GREENSBORO 16.000
Total =16.000 16
nc0082082UNCGreensboro GREENSBORO 0.091
Total =0.091 not limited
HIGH POINT nc0024210HighPoint HIGH POINT 11.448
GREENSBORO 0.051
JAMESTOWN 2.806
ARCHDALE 3.654
Total =17.958 16
RANDLEMAN nc0025445Randleman RANDLEMAN 2.050
Total =2.050 1.745
ASHEBORO nc0026123Asheboro ASHEBORO 3.938
Total =3.938 9
RAMSEUR nc0026565Ramseur RAMSEUR 0.488
Total =0.488 0.48
FRANKLINVILLE nc0007820Franklinville FRANKLINVILLE 0.117
Total =0.117 0.03
BURLINGTON nc0023876BurlingtonWWTP BURLINGTON 7.185
ALAMANCE 0.029
ELON COLLEGE 0.532
ELON COLLEGE to GIBSONVILLE 0.351
GIBSONVILLE 0.863
Total =8.960 12
nc0023868Burlington BURLINGTON 6.650
GRAHAM 0.520
HAW RIVER 1.358
HAW RIVER to GRAHAM 0.125
GREEN LEVEL to HAW RIVER 0.074
Total =8.727 12
GRAHAM/nc0021211Graham GRAHAM 3.500
MEBANE Total =3.500 3.5
nc0021474MebaneWWTP MEBANE 4.896
Total =4.896 2.5
OWASA nc0025241OWASA-Mason OWASA 12.000
Total =12.000 12
DURHAM nc0047597DurhamSouth DURHAM 14.747
OWASA 3.849
Total =18.596 20
nc0026051DurhamTriangle DURHAM 5.128
Total =5.128 6
CARY\APEX CaryRegionalWWTP CARY\APEX 19.610
Total =19.610 unk
CHATHAM CO (Combined)nc0051314NorthChatham CHATHAM CO (Combined)0.205
Total =0.205 0.05
PITTSBORO nc0020354Pittsboro PITTSBORO 2.471
Total =2.471 0.75
SILER CITY nc0026441SilerCity SILER CITY 7.860
Total =7.860 4
Table B-3 Discharge Node 2050 Scenario Inputs
System Discharge Node Discharge Source 2050 Discharge Permit Limit
(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
STAR nc0058548Star STAR 0.342
Total =0.342 0.6
ROBBINS nc0062855Robbins ROBBINS 0.781
Total =0.781 1.3
SANFORD nc0024147Sanford SANFORD 25.284
Total =25.284 5
nc0038831CarTrace SANFORD 0.325
Total =0.325 0.325
BROADWAY nc0059242Broadway BROADWAY 0.123
Total =0.123 0.145
HOLLY SPRINGS nc0063096HollySprings HOLLY SPRINGS 11.141
Total =11.141 1.5
HARNETT CO (Combined)nc0031470HarnettCoUtilities HARNETT CO (Combined)0.400
Total =0.400 0.4
nc0030091BuiesCrk HARNETT CO (Combined)0.500
Total =0.500 0.5
nc0021636LillingtonWWTP HARNETT CO (Combined)2.929
Total =2.929 0.6
nc0082597Angier HARNETT CO (Combined)0.500
Total =0.500 0.5
FUQUAY-VARINA nc0028118FuquayVarina FUQUAY-VARINA 7.414
Total =7.414 1.2
DUNN nc0043176Dunn DUNN 4.221
Total =4.221 3
ERWIN nc0064521ErwinSouthWWTP ERWIN 1.108
Total =1.108 1.2
nc0001406SwiftTextiles ERWIN 0.000
Total =0.000 2.5
FAYETTEVILLE nc0023957FayettevillCrossCrk FAYETTEVILLE 51.402
Total =51.402 22
nc0050105FayettevilleRockfishCrk FAYETTEVILLE 14.000
Total =14.000 14
SPRING LAKE nc0030970SpringLake SPRING LAKE 1.784
Total =1.784 1.5
RAEFORD nc0026514Raeford RAEFORD 1.780
Total =1.780 3
ELIZABETHTOWN nc0026671Elizabethtown ELIZABETHTOWN 0.823
DUBLIN 0.088
Total =0.910 1.275
APPENDIX C. Model Scenario 2 Data
The tables presented in this section are derived from the Cape Fear River Basin
Water Supply Plan. These tables summarize the data we used to develop Model Scenario
2. The purpose of Model Scenario 2 is to evaluate the Basin water supply needs and
recommended Jordan Lake water supply storage allocations for 2030, and the cumulative
effects of these demands throughout the basin above Lock & Dam #1. For Scenario 2, we
incorporated the same projections used for Scenario 1 adjusted for 2030 with the
following exception. For Scenario 2, we adjusted the projected water demands for
Chatham County, Siler City and Pittsboro based upon our evaluations of all Jordan Lake
water supply storage applications.
Table C-1 2030 Scenario 2 Input
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
PWSID notes COUNTY WATER SYSTEM SOURCE WHY MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD
BASIN INCLUDED SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand
02-79-020 ROCKINGHAM REIDSVILLE 02-1 source 3.537 3.626 3.674 3.836 3.961 4.086
02-79-050 1 ROCKINGHAM ROCKINGHAM CO 02-1 source 0.175 0.176 0.176 0.180 0.181 0.182
02-41-010 GUILFORD GREENSBORO 02-1 source 40.185 42.155 43.731 45.908 47.896 49.885
02-41-020 GUILFORD HIGH POINT 02-2 source 14.001 14.648 15.339 16.373 17.290 18.206
02-41-030 GUILFORD JAMESTOWN 02-2 source 0.471 0.565 0.660 0.807 0.932 1.058
02-76-030 RANDOLPH ARCHDALE 02-2 source 0.664 0.995 1.327 1.628 1.943 2.257
02-76-015 RANDOLPH RANDLEMAN 02-2 source 1.385 1.529 1.671 1.899 2.095 2.292
02-76-010 RANDOLPH ASHEBORO 18-3 discharge 4.707 5.255 5.785 6.081 6.476 6.872
none 2 RANDOLPH RANDOLPH CO 02-2 source 8.760 10.286 11.848 13.446 15.030 16.614
02-76-025 RANDOLPH LIBERTY 02-2 source 0.319 0.351 0.386 0.410 0.439 0.468
02-76-020 RANDOLPH RAMSEUR 02-2 source 0.571 0.633 0.691 0.768 0.838 0.907
02-76-035 RANDOLPH FRANKLINVILLE 02-2 source 0.065 0.069 0.074 0.101 0.119 0.137
02-01-010 ALAMANCE BURLINGTON 02-1 source 12.776 13.617 14.437 16.101 17.458 18.815
02-01-035 ALAMANCE ALAMANCE 02-1 source 0.037 0.040 0.044 0.049 0.053 0.057
02-01-025 ALAMANCE ELON COLLEGE 02-1 source 0.492 0.524 0.556 0.606 0.649 0.692
02-41-010 3 GUILFORD *GIBSONVILLE 02-1 source 0.687 0.893 1.160 1.397 1.640 1.884
02-01-123 3 ALAMANCE *OSSIPEE SD 02-1 source 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.041 0.045 0.050
02-01-015 ALAMANCE GRAHAM 02-1 source 2.034 2.376 2.780 3.135 3.502 3.869
02-01-018 ALAMANCE MEBANE 02-1 source 1.682 2.354 2.922 3.704 4.427 5.151
02-01-020 4 ALAMANCE HAW RIVER 02-1 source 0.927 1.065 0.854 0.935 1.001 1.068
02-01-030 3 ALAMANCE *GREEN LEVEL 02-1 source 0.075 0.078 0.081 0.085 0.090 0.094
03-68-020 5 ORANGE ORANGE-ALAMANCE/ORANGE CO 10-1 JLapp 1.167 1.591 2.232 2.825 3.418 4.011
03-68-010 5 ORANGE OWASA 02-1 JLapp 9.300 11.200 13.000 14.900 16.700 18.400
03-32-010 5 DURHAM DURHAM 10-1 JLapp 31.000 37.200 42.800 46.300 48.600 51.000
03-92-020-045 5 WAKE CARY\APEX 02-1 JLapp 12.700 18.700 25.900 31.500 34.000 34.000
03-92-075 5 WAKE MORRISVILLE 02-1 JLapp 1.000 2.200 2.800 3.200 3.200 3.200
none 5 WAKE WAKE CO - RTP 02-1 JLapp 0.300 1.700 2.600 3.400 3.900 4.400
03-19-xxx 5, 6 CHATHAM CHATHAM CO COMBINED 02-1, 02-2 JLapp 1.300 3.400 4.500 6.000 8.300 11.500
03-19-025 7 CHATHAM GOLDSTON-GULF SD 02-2 source 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140
03-19-015 6, 7 CHATHAM PITTSBORO 02-1 source 0.700 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.700 2.500
03-19-010 6, 7 CHATHAM SILER CITY 02-2 source 2.400 3.100 3.600 4.100 4.700 5.500
03-62-025 4 MONTGOMERY STAR 18-1 discharge 0.473 0.577 0.483 0.496 0.510 0.525
03-63-015 4 MOORE ROBBINS 02-2 source 0.831 0.872 0.830 0.844 0.855 0.865
03-53-010 5 LEE SANFORD (Lee Co WSD I)02-3 JLapp 6.300 9.400 13.600 19.100 26.400 36.600
03-53-015 LEE BROADWAY 02-3 source 0.094 0.108 0.114 0.125 0.135 0.145
03-53-130 4 LEE LEE CO 02-2 source 0.828 1.116 0.764 0.769 0.774 0.778
Table C-1 2030 Scenario 2 Input
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
PWSID notes COUNTY WATER SYSTEM SOURCE WHY MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD
BASIN INCLUDED SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand
03-92-050 5 WAKE HOLLY SPRINGS 02-1 JLapp 0.900 4.400 8.300 12.200 14.700 15.300
03-43-045 5 HARNETT HARNETT CO (Combined)02-3 JLapp 6.400 7.700 9.900 12.800 16.400 21.300
03-92-055 WAKE FUQUAY-VARINA 02-3 source 1.008 2.102 4.481 5.478 6.897 8.316
03-43-010 HARNETT DUNN 02-3 source 2.289 2.508 2.717 3.095 3.414 3.733
03-51-025 JOHNSTON BENSON 02-3 source 1.454 1.772 2.161 2.570 2.960 3.350
03-26-035 CUMBERLAND FALCON 02-3 source 0.080 0.085 0.090 0.096 0.103 0.109
03-26-050 CUMBERLAND GODWIN 02-3 source 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.017 0.019 0.020
03-43-035 HARNETT ERWIN 02-3 source 0.680 0.780 0.880 0.968 1.063 1.158
03-63-040 MOORE CAMERON 02-3 source 0.059 0.066 0.072 0.082 0.091 0.100
03-63-025 MOORE CARTHAGE 02-2 source 0.303 0.331 0.359 0.410 0.451 0.492
03-63-103 MOORE MOORE CO (HYLAND HILLS - NIAGRA)02-3 source 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.024 0.027 0.030
03-63-045 MOORE MOORE CO (VASS)02-3 source 0.096 0.122 0.155 0.178 0.204 0.230
03-63-010 MOORE SOUTHERN PINES 09-1 servarea 2.056 2.303 2.519 2.768 3.009 3.251
03-63-108 MOORE MOORE CO (PINEHURST)02-3 source 1.813 2.671 3.687 4.522 5.413 6.303
03-63-117 MOORE MOORE CO (SEVEN LAKES)02-3 source 0.304 0.412 0.522 0.633 0.744 0.854
03-26-010 5, 8 CUMBERLAND FAYETTEVILLE 02-3 JLapp 25.900 36.100 47.300 59.300 66.900 76.000
03-26-020 CUMBERLAND SPRING LAKE 02-3 source 1.049 1.264 1.525 1.747 1.979 2.211
03-47-025 HOKE HOKE CO RWS 09-1 servarea 1.307 1.690 2.102 2.927 3.582 4.238
03-47-010 3, 4 HOKE *RAEFORD 09-1 discharge 1.897 2.118 1.867 1.930 1.988 2.047
03-26-040 CUMBERLAND WADE 02-3 source 0.036 0.041 0.045 0.049 0.054 0.058
03-26-030 CUMBERLAND STEDMAN 02-4 source 0.080 0.090 0.100 0.109 0.118 0.128
03-26-344 CUMBERLAND FT BRAGG 02-3 source 7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560 7.560
03-09-010 BLADEN ELIZABETHTOWN 02-3 source 0.897 0.963 1.034 1.104 1.174 1.244
03-09-030 9 BLADEN WHITE LAKE 02-3 source 0.249 0.259 0.270 0.281 0.292 0.303
03-09-060 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - 701 NORTH 02-3 source 0.087 0.115 0.144 0.191 0.231 0.271
03-09-065 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - EAST ARCADIA 02-3 source 0.098 0.138 0.178 0.248 0.307 0.366
03-09-055 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - W BLADEN 09-1 servarea 0.418 0.505 0.592 0.739 0.862 0.984
03-09-035 BLADEN BLADEN CO WD - WHITE OAK 02-3 source 0.099 0.129 0.159 0.214 0.260 0.306
03-09-025 BLADEN DUBLIN 09-1 discharge 0.048 0.048 0.048 0.057 0.062 0.067
03-09-040 BLADEN TAR HEEL 09-1 servarea 0.028 0.030 0.032 0.034 0.036 0.038
04-65-010 NEW HANOVER WILMINGTON 02-3 source 11.543 11.952 13.078 14.386 15.541 16.696
04-65-510 10 NEW HANOVER NEW HANOVER CO AIRPORT 02-3 source 0.021 0.024 0.029 0.032 0.036 0.040
04-65-020 NEW HANOVER WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH 02-6 source 1.005 1.111 1.117 1.221 1.297 1.372
04-65-226 NEW HANOVER APPLE VALLEY 02-5 source 0.134 0.156 0.174 0.198 0.220 0.241
04-65-191 4 NEW HANOVER NEW HANOVER CO FLEMINGTON 02-3 source 0.312 0.362 0.293 0.302 0.308 0.315
04-65-119 11 NEW HANOVER FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND 02-6 source 0.355 0.399 0.444 0.517 0.579 0.642
04-65-015 NEW HANOVER CAROLINA BEACH 02-3 source 0.645 0.742 0.834 0.923 1.014 1.104
04-65-025 NEW HANOVER KURE BEACH 02-3 source 0.357 0.414 0.480 0.589 0.677 0.766
04-65-999 10 NEW HANOVER LOWER CAPE FEAR WSA 02-3 source 6.650 11.650 11.650 11.650 11.650 11.650
04-10-045 BRUNSWICK BRUNSWICK CO 02-3 source 11.628 14.466 17.022 20.432 23.509 26.586
04-10-035 3, 12 BRUNSWICK *NORTH BRUNSWICK WSA (LELAND SD)02-3 source 0.494 0.588 0.647 0.759 0.856 0.953
04-10-065 BRUNSWICK NAVASSA 02-3 source 0.047 0.053 0.062 0.069 0.076 0.084
04-10-055 BRUNSWICK CASWELL BEACH 02-3 source 0.169 0.220 0.275 0.270 0.292 0.314
Table C-1 2030 Scenario 2 Input
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
PWSID notes COUNTY WATER SYSTEM SOURCE WHY MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD
BASIN INCLUDED SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand SA Demand
04-10-060 BRUNSWICK HOLDEN BEACH 02-3 source 0.411 0.799 1.435 1.757 2.178 2.599
04-10-015 BRUNSWICK LONG BEACH WATER 02-3 source 0.822 1.030 1.293 1.575 1.842 2.110
04-10-035 BRUNSWICK OCEAN ISLE BEACH 02-3 source 0.490 0.589 0.708 0.869 1.013 1.157
04-10-025 BRUNSWICK SHALLOTTE 02-3 source 0.217 0.228 0.239 0.264 0.284 0.303
04-10-010 BRUNSWICK SOUTHPORT 02-3 source 0.660 0.800 0.928 1.117 1.282 1.446
04-10-050 BRUNSWICK SUNSET BEACH 02-3 source 0.584 0.628 0.677 0.894 1.040 1.185
04-10-020 BRUNSWICK YAUPON BEACH 02-3 source 0.167 0.185 0.204 0.229 0.251 0.273
04-65-137 NEW HANOVER MONTEREY HEIGHTS 02-3 source 0.109 0.122 0.134 0.149 0.163 0.177
04-65-232 NEW HANOVER MURRAYVILLE 02-5 source 1.333 1.667 1.917 2.243 2.549 2.855
04-65-154 NEW HANOVER WALNUT HILLS 02-5 source 0.079 0.092 0.103 0.117 0.130 0.143
04-65-190 NEW HANOVER RUNNYMEADE 02-5 source 0.057 0.066 0.074 0.084 0.094 0.103
04-65-188 NEW HANOVER PRINCE GEORGE 02-5 source 0.057 0.066 0.074 0.084 0.094 0.103
04-65-229 NEW HANOVER WESTBAY 02-6 source 0.043 0.050 0.056 0.063 0.070 0.077
04-65-192 NEW HANOVER BRICKSTONE - MARSH OAKS 02-6 source 0.065 0.075 0.084 0.096 0.106 0.117
04-24-035 4 COLUMBUS RIEGELWOOD SD 02-3 source 0.643 0.734 0.611 0.620 0.627 0.635
Notes:
1. Used 2000 water use, service area demand, and population. Population projections adjusted to represent residential use, not service to schools.
2. System population estimated by subtracting existing system populations from County population.
3. No 1997 LWSP submitted, therefore data based on 1992 LWSP.
4. Current industrial use is greater than 60% of total water use. Therefore, industrial use assumed to remain constant while other uses projected linearly.
5. Data from Jordan Lake application.
6. Projected demand adjusted by DWR.
7. Population & demand from Chatham Co Jordan Lake application.
8. Includes Hope Mills.
9. Summer population is 3x permanent population.
10. Projected demands for 1992-2020 used for projections of 2030-2050.
11. Seasonal population used for projections.
12. System also referred to as the N. Brunswick SD.
Table C-2 Withdrawal Node 2030 Scenario Inputs
System Withdrawal Node Demand Source 2030 Withdrawal Safe Yield
(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
REIDSVILLE 02-79-020Reidsville REIDSVILLE 3.836
ROCKINGHAM CO 0.180
Total =4.016 19
GREENSBORO 02-41-010Greensboro-TownsendLk GREENSBORO 15.000
Total =15.000 36
02-41-010GreensboroNLMitchell GREENSBORO 15.000
Total =15.000 see above
GreensboroRL GREENSBORO 15.908
JAMESTOWN 0.000
GIBSONVILLE 0.213Total =16.121 28.5
HIGH POINT 02-41-020HighPointFWard HIGH POINT 7.873
JAMESTOWN 0.000ARCHDALE0.428
Total =8.302 21.4
HighPointRL HIGH POINT 8.500
Total =8.500 10.1
JAMESTOWN JamestownRL JAMESTOWN 0.807
Total =0.807 1.2
ARCHDALE ArchdaleRL ARCHDALE 1.200
Total =1.200 1.2
RANDLEMAN 02-76-015Randleman RANDLEMAN 1.500
Total =1.500 1.5
RandlemanRL RANDLEMAN 0.399
Total =0.399 1.0
RANDOLPH CO RandolphRL RANDOLPH CO 6.000
Total =6.000 6
RAMSEUR 02-76-020Ramseur RAMSEUR 0.768
FRANKLINVILLE 0.101Total =0.869 6.6
BURLINGTON 02-01-010Burlington-Mackintosh BURLINGTON 14.668
ALAMANCE 0.049GIBSONVILLE1.184
Total =15.900 36
02-01-010Burlington-EdThomas BURLINGTON 1.433
ELON COLLEGE 0.496
HAW RIVER 0.200
Total =2.129 12
GRAHAM/02-01-015-018GrahamMebane GRAHAM 3.135
MEBANE MEBANE 3.704
HAW RIVER 0.735
GREEN LEVEL 0.085
ORANGE-ALAMANCE\ORANGE CO 1.355
Total =9.014 12
ORANGE-ALAMANCE \OrangeJL ORANGE-ALAMANCE\ORANGE CO 1.000
ORANGE CO Total =1.000 1.0
OWASA 03-68-010OWASA OWASA 3.000Total =3.000 14.3
03-68-010OWASACaneCrk OWASA 7.400
Total =7.400 see above
OWASAJL OWASA 4.500Total =4.500 5.0
DURHAM DuhamJL DURHAM 9.300
Total =9.300 10.0
CARY\APEX 03-92-020-045CaryApex CARY\APEX 31.500
Total =31.500 32.0
MORRISVILLE MorrisvilleJL MORRISVILLE 3.200
Total =3.200 3.5
WAKE CO - RTP RTPJL WAKE CO - RTP 3.400
Total =3.400 3.5
CHATHAM CO (Combined)ChathamCo CHATHAM CO (Combined)5.500
SILER CITY 0.000
Total =5.500 6.0
GOLDSTON-GULF SD 03-19-025GoldstonGulf GOLDSTON-GULF SD 0.140CHATHAM CO (Combined)0.000
Total =0.140 2.2
PITTSBORO 03-19-015Pittsboro PITTSBORO 1.200CHATHAM CO (Combined)0.500
Total =1.700 9.8
Table C-2 Withdrawal Node 2030 Scenario Inputs
System Withdrawal Node Demand Source 2030 Withdrawal Safe Yield
(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
SILER CITY 03-19-010SilerCity SILER CITY 4.100
Total =4.100 5.8
ROBBINS 03-63-015Robbins-CBBrooks ROBBINS 0.844Total =0.844 1.5
SANFORD 03-53-010Sanford SANFORD 19.100
BROADWAY 0.062LEE CO 0.000
Total =19.162 61.6
LEE CO 03-53-130Lee-Cumnock LEE CO 0.769
Total =0.769 2.2
HOLLY SPRINGS HollySprings 1 HOLLY SPRINGS 12.200Total =12.200 34.25
HollySpringsRelease HOLLY SPRINGS 0.000
Total =0.000 0
HARNETT CO (Combined)03-43-045HarnettCo 1 HARNETT CO (Combined)12.800
FUQUAY-VARINA 4.728HOLLY SPRINGS 0.000
Total =17.528 34.25
HarnettRelease HARNETT CO (Combined)0.000Total =0.000 0
DUNN 03-43-010Dunn DUNN 3.095
BENSON 2.393
FALCON 0.096
GODWIN from FALCON 0.017
Total =5.601 69.8
ERWIN 03-43-035BurligtonIndustries(SwiftTextiles-ErwinMills)ERWIN 0.968
Total =0.968 5
CARTHAGE 03-63-025Carthage CARTHAGE 0.410
Total =0.410 1
MOORE CO (VASS)03-63-045MowasaVass MOORE CO (VASS)0.178
Total =0.178 1.5
FAYETTEVILLE 3-26-010FayettevillePOHoffer FAYETTEVILLE 54.300
SPRING LAKE 1.747
HOKE CO RWS 0.746
RAEFORD from HOKE CO RWS 0.000Total =56.793 80.8
03-26-010FayettevilleGlenville FAYETTEVILLE 5.000
Total =5.000 5
FayettevilleRelease FAYETTEVILLE 0.000Total =0.000 0
FT BRAGG 03-26-344FortBragg FT BRAGG 7.560
Total =7.560 20
WILMINGTON 04-65-010Wilmington 2 WILMINGTON 14.386
NEW HANOVER CO AIRPORT 0.032WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH 0.000
APPLE VALLEY 0.032NEW HANOVER CO FLEMINGTON 0.000
FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND 0.000CAROLINA BEACH 0.033
Total =14.483 53.3
LCFWASA 04-65-999LowerCapeFearWSA 2 LCFWASA 11.650
BRUNSWICK CO 17.014NORTH BRUNSWICK WSA from BRUNSWICK CO 0.759
NAVASSA from N. BRUNSWICK SD 0.069CASWELL BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 0.270
HOLDEN BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 1.757LONG BEACH WATER from BRUNSWICK CO 1.575
OCEAN ISLE BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 0.869SHALLOTTE from BRUNSWICK CO 0.264
SOUTHPORT from BRUNSWICK CO 0.764
SUNSET BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 0.894
YAUPON BEACH from BRUNSWICK CO 0.075
WILMINGTON 0.000
Total =35.960 53.3
1 These intakes will likely be located close together. Therefore, the safe yield of 68.5 will apply to the sum of both withdrawals.
2 These intakes are located close together. Therefore, the safe yield of 106.6 will apply to the sum of both withdrawals.
Table C-3 Discharge Node 2030 Scenario Inputs
System Discharge Node Discharge Source 2030 Discharge Permit Limit
(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
REIDSVILLE nc0024881Reidsville REIDSVILLE 3.139
Total =3.139 7.5
GREENSBORO nc0047384GreensboroTZOsborne GREENSBORO 21.942
Total =21.942 22
nc0024325GreensboroNBuffalo GREENSBORO 16.000
Total =16.000 16
nc0082082UNCGreensboro GREENSBORO 0.084
Total =0.084 not limited
HIGH POINT nc0024210HighPoint HIGH POINT 10.295
GREENSBORO 0.047
JAMESTOWN 2.139
ARCHDALE 2.635
Total =15.117 16
RANDLEMAN nc0025445Randleman RANDLEMAN 1.699
Total =1.699 1.7
ASHEBORO nc0026123Asheboro ASHEBORO 3.485
Total =3.485 9
RAMSEUR nc0026565Ramseur RAMSEUR 0.413
Total =0.413 0.48
FRANKLINVILLE nc0007820Franklinville FRANKLINVILLE 0.086
Total =0.086 0.03
BURLINGTON nc0023876BurlingtonWWTP BURLINGTON 6.148
ALAMANCE 0.025
ELON COLLEGE 0.466
ELON COLLEGE to GIBSONVILLE 0.308
GIBSONVILLE 0.640
Total =7.586 12
nc0023868Burlington BURLINGTON 5.691
GRAHAM 0.120
HAW RIVER 1.275
HAW RIVER to GRAHAM 0.023
GREEN LEVEL to HAW RIVER 0.068
Total =7.177 12
GRAHAM/nc0021211Graham GRAHAM 3.137
MEBANE Total =3.137 3.5
nc0021474MebaneWWTP MEBANE 3.521
Total =3.521 2.5
OWASA nc0025241OWASA-Mason OWASA 12.000
Total =12.000 12
DURHAM nc0047597DurhamSouth DURHAM 13.388
OWASA 0.834
Total =14.222 20
nc0026051DurhamTriangle DURHAM 4.656
Total =4.656 6
CARY\APEX CaryRegionalWWTP CARY\APEX 17.390
Total =17.390 unk
CHATHAM CO (Combined)nc0051314NorthChatham CHATHAM CO (Combined)0.059
Total =0.059 0.05
PITTSBORO nc0020354Pittsboro PITTSBORO 0.530
Total =0.530 0.75
SILER CITY nc0026441SilerCity SILER CITY 4.132
Total =4.132 4
Table C-3 Discharge Node 2030 Scenario Inputs
System Discharge Node Discharge Source 2030 Discharge Permit Limit
(file name)(mgd)(mgd)
STAR nc0058548Star STAR 0.323
Total =0.323 0.6
ROBBINS nc0062855Robbins ROBBINS 0.762
Total =0.762 1.3
SANFORD nc0024147Sanford SANFORD 13.039
Total =13.039 5
nc0038831CarTrace SANFORD 0.325
Total =0.325 0.325
BROADWAY nc0059242Broadway BROADWAY 0.106
Total =0.106 0.145
HOLLY SPRINGS nc0063096HollySprings HOLLY SPRINGS 8.883
Total =8.883 1.5
HARNETT CO (Combined)nc0031470HarnettCoUtilities HARNETT CO (Combined)0.400
Total =0.400 0.4
nc0030091BuiesCrk HARNETT CO (Combined)0.500
Total =0.500 0.5
nc0021636LillingtonWWTP HARNETT CO (Combined)1.201
Total =1.201 0.6
nc0082597Angier HARNETT CO (Combined)0.500
Total =0.500 0.5
FUQUAY-VARINA nc0028118FuquayVarina FUQUAY-VARINA 4.884
Total =4.884 1.2
DUNN nc0043176Dunn DUNN 3.499
Total =3.499 3
ERWIN nc0064521ErwinSouthWWTP ERWIN 0.926
Total =0.926 1.2
nc0001406SwiftTextiles ERWIN 0.000
Total =0.000 2.5
FAYETTEVILLE nc0023957FayettevillCrossCrk FAYETTEVILLE 37.031
Total =37.031 22
nc0050105FayettevilleRockfishCrk FAYETTEVILLE 14.000
Total =14.000 14
SPRING LAKE nc0030970SpringLake SPRING LAKE 1.410
Total =1.410 1.5
RAEFORD nc0026514Raeford RAEFORD 1.678
Total =1.678 3
ELIZABETHTOWN nc0026671Elizabethtown ELIZABETHTOWN 0.730
DUBLIN 0.074
Total =0.805 1.275