The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFinal_Draft_Catawba_River_Basin_Plan_2007 Catawba River Basin Water Resources Plan North Carolina Division of Water Resources Final DRAFT – August, 2007 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 ii Table of Contents Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................vii Chapter 1 - Introduction..............................................................................................................1-1 Chapter 2 - Existing Water Resources Situation.......................................................................2-1 Section 2.1 County Summaries.....................................................................................................2-2 (a) McDowell County .....................................................................................................2-2 (b) Avery County .............................................................................................................2-5 (c) Burke County.............................................................................................................2-7 (d) Caldwell County.......................................................................................................2-10 (e) Alexander County....................................................................................................2-13 (f) Catawba County.......................................................................................................2-17 (g) Iredell County...........................................................................................................2-20 (h) Lincoln County........................................................................................................2-24 (i) Gaston County.........................................................................................................2-27 (j) Mecklenburg County...............................................................................................2-31 (k) Union County...........................................................................................................2-33 Section 2.2 Hydrology and Climatology....................................................................................2-36 (a) Surface Water...........................................................................................................2-36 (b) Groundwater............................................................................................................2-46 (c) Climate.......................................................................................................................2-49 (d) Drought.....................................................................................................................2-53 Section 2.3 Water Supply – Drainage Area Summaries...........................................................2-61 (a) Lake James Drainage Area .....................................................................................2-61 (b) Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area...............................................................................2-64 (c) Lake Hickory Drainage Area..................................................................................2-68 (d) Lookout Shoals Lake Drainage Area....................................................................2-72 (e) Lake Norman Drainage Area.................................................................................2-75 (f) Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area...................................................................2-79 (g) Lake Wylie Drainage Area and the South Fork Catawba River Basin.............2-83 Section 2.4 Interbasin Transfer in the Catawba River Basin..................................................2-87 Section 2.5 Issues that May Impact Water Supplies................................................................2-90 (a) Flood Management..................................................................................................2-90 (b) Sedimentation...........................................................................................................2-91 Chapter 3 - Water Management and Water Balance................................................................3-1 Section 3.1 Basin Model and Modeling Results.........................................................................3-1 (a) Model Description.....................................................................................................3-1 (b) Summary of Model Inputs and Assumptions........................................................3-2 (c) A Comparison of Demand Types...........................................................................3-8 (d) Summary of Model Results....................................................................................3-24 Section 3.2 Drought Management..............................................................................................3-97 (e) Drought Contingency Plans/LIP..........................................................................3-97 (a) Water Conservation.................................................................................................3-98 (b) Local vs. State Roles..............................................................................................3-100 Section 3.3 Data Management Needs..................................................................................... 3-101 (a) Surface Water.........................................................................................................3-101 (b) Groundwater..........................................................................................................3-101 Chapter 4 - References.................................................................................................................4-1 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 iii List of Figures Figure 1-1: Catawba River Basin Location ........................................................................................................... 1-1 Figure 1-2: Counties in the Catawba River Basin.............................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1-3: Catawba River Lakes and Associated Drainage Areas............................................................ 1-3 Figure 2-1: McDowell County Location .................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections ............................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-3: McDowell County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas....................................... 2-4 Figure 2-4: Avery County Location.......................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-5: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projection .............................................................................................. 2-6 Figure 2-6: Burke County Location.......................................................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2-7: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections ............................................................................................ 2-9 Figure 2-8: Burke County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas.............................................. 2-9 Figure 2-9: Caldwell County Location...................................................................................................................2-10 Figure 2-10: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections .....................................................................................2-11 Figure 2-11: Caldwell County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas ....................................2-12 Figure 2-12: Alexander County Location.............................................................................................................2-13 Figure 2-13: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections........................................................................................2-14 Figure 2-14: Alexander County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas.................................2-16 Figure 2-15: Catawba County Location ...............................................................................................................2-17 Figure 2-16: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections .....................................................................................2-18 Figure 2-17: Catawba County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas....................................2-19 Figure 2-18: Iredell County Location.....................................................................................................................2-20 Figure 2-19: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections .....................................................................................2-22 Figure 2-20: Iredell County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas .........................................2-23 Figure 2-21: Lincoln County Location...................................................................................................................2-24 Figure 2-22: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections......................................................................................2-25 Figure 2-23: Lincoln County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas.......................................2-26 Figure 2-24: Gaston County Location...................................................................................................................2-27 Figure 2-25: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections........................................................................................2-29 Figure 2-26: Gaston County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas.......................................2-30 Figure 2-27: Mecklenburg County Location .......................................................................................................2-31 Figure 2-28: OSP Projections vs. LWSP Projections .....................................................................................2-32 Figure 2-29: Union County Location......................................................................................................................2-33 Figure 2-30: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections .....................................................................................2-34 Figure 2-31: Union County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas..........................................2-35 Figure 2-32: HUCS or Sub Basins in Catawba, North Carolina..................................................................2-37 Figure 2-33: Unregulated USGS Gages..............................................................................................................2-40 Figure 2-34: Mean Stream Flow Statistics..........................................................................................................2-42 Figure 2-35: Maximum Stream Flow Statistics..................................................................................................2-43 Figure 2-36: Minimum Stream Flow Statistics...................................................................................................2-43 Figure 2-37: Unit Mean Stream Flow Statistics.................................................................................................2-44 Figure 2-38: Unit Maximum Stream Flow Statistics ........................................................................................2-45 Figure 2-39: Unit Minimum Stream Flow Statistics..........................................................................................2-45 Figure 2-40: Mean Monthly Flow Duration Plot for four USGS gages for POR Water Years..........2-46 Figure 2-41: Adapted from USGS Water Resources Investigations 77-65, by M. D. Winner, Jr., figure 2. vertically exaggerated and generalized..............................................................................................2-48 Figure 2-42: Average Annual Rainfall At Selected SERCC Stations........................................................2-50 Figure 2-43: Average Monthly Rainfall At Selected SERCC Stations in the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina................................................................................................................................................................2-51 Figure 2-46: Average Monthly Temperature at Selected SERCC Stations in the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina..................................................................................................................................................2-52 Figure 2-47: Seasonal Average Temperature at Selected SERCC Stations in the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina..................................................................................................................................................2-52 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 iv Figure 2-48: Monthly Pattern of Daily Reservoir Evaporation in the Catawba River Basin..............2-53 Figure 2-49: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden............................2-54 Figure 2-50: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Linville River Near Nebo.......................................................2-55 Figure 2-51: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Johns River At Arney’s Store..............................................2-56 Figure 2-52: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Henry Fork Near Henry River .............................................2-56 Figure 2-53: Statistics of Stream flow in Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden.................................2-57 Figure 2-54: Statistics of Stream flow in Linville River Near Nebo ............................................................2-57 Figure 2-55: Statistics of Stream flow in Johns River At Arneys ................................................................2-58 Figure 2-56: Statistics of Stream flow in Henry Fork near Henry River ...................................................2-58 Figure 2-57: Lake James Drainage Area Location ..........................................................................................2-61 Figure 2-58: Lake James Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range.......................................2-63 Figure 2-59: Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area Location.....................................................................................2-64 Figure 2-60: Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range.................................2-66 Figure 2-61: Lake Hickory Drainage Area Location ........................................................................................2-68 Figure 2-62: Lake Hickory Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range......................................2-70 Figure 2-63: Lookout Shoals Lake Drainage Area Location ........................................................................2-72 Figure 2-64: Lake Norman Drainage Area Location .......................................................................................2-75 Figure 2-65: Lake Norman Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range ....................................2-77 Figure 2-66: Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area..........................................................................................2-79 Figure 2-67: Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range....................2-80 Figure 2-68: Lake Wylie Drainage Area Location ............................................................................................2-83 Figure 2-69: South Fork Catawba River Basin Location ...............................................................................2-84 Figure 2-70: Lake Wylie Drainage Area and South Fork Catawba River Basin Demand Projections Range...............................................................................................................................................................................2-86 Figure 3-1: CHEOPS Model Interface .................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: CHEOPS Input Options for Physical, Operation and Generation Conditions for Bridgewater Project ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-3: Municipal High Demand Plots for Reservoirs .............................................................................3-18 Figure 3-4: Municipal Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs ..............................................................................3-18 Figure 3-5: Municipal LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs..........................................................................3-19 Figure 3-6: Power High Demand Plots for Reservoirs ...................................................................................3-19 Figure 3-7: Power Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs ....................................................................................3-20 Figure 3-8: Power LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs................................................................................3-20 Figure 3-9: Industrial High Demand Plots for Reservoirs..............................................................................3-21 Figure 3-10: Industrial Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs ............................................................................3-21 Figure 3-11: Industrial LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs........................................................................3-22 Figure 3-12: Irrigation High Demand Plots for Reservoirs............................................................................3-22 Figure 3-13: Irrigation Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs .............................................................................3-23 Figure 3-14: Irrigation LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs.........................................................................3-23 Figure 3-15 : Lake James at Bridgewater Demand – SY Plots...................................................................3-26 Figure 3-16: Lake Rhodhiss Demand – SY Plots.............................................................................................3-26 Figure 3-17: Lake Hickory at Oxford Demand – SY Plots.............................................................................3-27 Figure 3-18: Lake Lookout Shoals Demand – SY Plots ................................................................................3-27 Figure 3-19: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Demand – SY Plots ..............................................................3-28 Figure 3-20: Mountain Island Lake Demand – SY Plots................................................................................3-28 Figure 3-21: Lake Wylie Demand – SY Plots ....................................................................................................3-29 Figure 3-22: Simulated LIP Stages for the Entire Reservoir System........................................................3-33 Figure 3-23: Demand Shortage Plot for 1950s Drought................................................................................3-46 Figure 3-24: Demand Shortage Plot for 1980s Drought................................................................................3-46 Figure 3-25: Demand Shortage Plot for 2002 Drought ..................................................................................3-47 Figure 3-26: Lake James at Bridgewater Outflows for 2020 High Demand...........................................3-48 Figure 3-27: Lake James Bridgewater Outflows for 2050 High Demand................................................3-49 Figure 3-28: Lake James at Bridgewater Outflows for 2050 LWSP Demand........................................3-50 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 v Figure 3-29: Lake Hickory at Oxford Outflows for 2020 High Demand....................................................3-51 Figure 3-30: Lake Hickory at Oxford Outflows for 2050 High Demand....................................................3-52 Figure 3-31: Lake Hickory at Oxford Outflows for 2050 LWSP Demand ................................................3-53 Figure 3-32: Lake Wylie Outflows for 2020 High Demand............................................................................3-54 Figure 3-33: Lake Wylie Outflows for 2050 High Demand............................................................................3-55 Figure 3-34: Lake Wylie Outflows for 2050 LWSP Demand ........................................................................3-56 Figure 3-35: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand...................3-61 Figure 3-36: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand...................3-62 Figure 3-37: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand....................3-63 Figure 3-38: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Profiles for High Demands...................................3-64 Figure 3-39: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Duration Plots ...........................................................3-65 Figure 3-40: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand ...........................................3-66 Figure 3-41: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand ...........................................3-67 Figure 3-42: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand ............................................3-68 Figure 3-43: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Profiles for High Demands............................................................3-69 Figure 3-44: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Duration Plots....................................................................................3-70 Figure 3-45: Lake Hickory at Oxford Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand ...........................3-71 Figure 3-46: Lake Hickory at Oxford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand ...........................3-72 Figure 3-47: Lake Hickory at Oxford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand ............................3-73 Figure 3-48: Lake Hickory at Oxford Plant Elevation Profiles......................................................................3-74 Figure 3-49: Lake Hickory Elevation Duration Plots at Oxford Plant........................................................3-75 Figure 3-50: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand...............................3-76 Figure 3-51: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand...............................3-77 Figure 3-52: Lookout Shoals Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand...........................................3-78 Figure 3-53: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Profiles.....................................................................................3-79 Figure 3-54: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Duration Plots........................................................................3-80 Figure 3-55: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand.............3-81 Figure 3-56: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand.............3-82 Figure 3-57: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand..............3-83 Figure 3-58: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Profiles...................................................................3-84 Figure 3-59: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation duration Plots ......................................................3-85 Figure 3-60: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand ..............................3-87 Figure 3-61: Lake Mountain Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand............................................3-88 Figure 3-62: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand ...............................3-89 Figure 3-63: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Profiles....................................................................................3-90 Figure 3-64: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Duration Plots.......................................................................3-91 Figure 3-65: Lake Wylie Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand...................................................3-92 Figure 3-66: Lake Wylie Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand...................................................3-93 Figure 3-67: Lake Wylie Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand....................................................3-94 Figure 3-68: Lake Wylie Elevation Profile...........................................................................................................3-95 Figure 3-69: Lake Wylie Elevation Duration Plots............................................................................................3-96 Figure 3-70 Locations of Streams with no Gage Stations...........................................................................3-101 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 vi List of Tables Table 2-1: Catawba River Basin HUCs................................................................................................................2-36 Table 2-2: Catawba Reservoirs / Plant Names.................................................................................................2-38 Table 2-3: Reservoir Watershed / Sub-basin Drainage Areas ....................................................................2-39 Table 2-4: Reservoir Sizes and Capacities ........................................................................................................2-39 Table 2-5: Unregulated USGS Gage Stations in NC ......................................................................................2-41 Table 2-6: Number of months the Public Water Supply Systems under Conservation measures during 1998- 2002 Drought.......................................................................................................................................2-60 Table 2-7: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD).................2-62 Table 2-8: Discharge Projections – Lake James Drainage Area (in MGD)............................................2-63 Table 2-9: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD)..................2-65 Table 2-10: Discharge Projections – Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area (in MGD)....................................2-67 Table 2-11: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD)................2-69 Table 2-12: Discharge Projections – Lake Hickory Drainage Area (in MGD).......................................2-71 Table 2-13: 2002 Community Water System Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD).............2-73 Table 2-14: Discharge Projections – Lookout Shoals Lake Drainage Area (in MGD)........................2-74 Table 2-15: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD)................2-76 Table 2-16: Discharge Projections – Lake Norman Drainage Area (in MGD).......................................2-78 Table 2-17: Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD)...........................2-80 Table 2-18: Discharge Projections – Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area (in MGD).......................2-82 Table 2-19: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD)................2-85 Table 2-20: Discharge Projections – Lake Wylie Drainage Area/South Fork Catawba River Basin (in MGD)..........................................................................................................................................................................2-86 Table 2-21: Interbasin Transfers Out of the Catawba River Major Basin (average day MGD).......2-88 Table 2-22: Interbasin Transfers Into the Catawba River Major Basin (average day mgd).............2-88 Table 2-23: Interbasin Transfers from the Catawba River Basin to the South Fork Catawba River Basin .................................................................................................................................................................................2-89 Table 2-24: Interbasin Transfers from the South Fork Catawba River Basin to the Catawba River Basin .................................................................................................................................................................................2-89 Table 3-1: Summary for High Demand Types...................................................................................................3-12 Table 3-2: Summary for Low Demand Types....................................................................................................3-14 Table 3-3: Summary for LWSP Demand Types ...............................................................................................3-16 Table 3-4: Lower Range Safe Yield Data from HDR’s CHEOPS Analysis.............................................3-24 Table 3-5: Demand Supply Summary for Lake James at Bridgewater....................................................3-34 Table 3-6: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Rhodhiss.............................................................................3-35 Table 3-7: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Hickory at Oxford.............................................................3-36 Table 3-8: Demand Supply Summary for Lookout Shoals Lake.................................................................3-37 Table 3-9: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Norman at Cowans Ford...............................................3-38 Table 3-10: Demand Supply Summary for Mountain Island Lake .............................................................3-39 Table 3-11: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Wylie ..................................................................................3-40 Table 3-12: Demand Shortage Summaries for Drought Periods................................................................3-41 Table 3-13: LIP Trigger Points with Operational Guidelines for Catawba System ..............................3-98 Table 3-14: Catawba Basin Public Water Supply System Status during Drought...............................3-99 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 vii Executive Summary The Catawba River Basin Water Resources Plan evaluates the present and future (2002 through 2050) conditions of this basin, in order to determine the water capacity of the Catawba River to serve future populations and at the same time to identify any potential trouble-spots or conflicts related to water supply and its demand. Chapter 2 begins with a look at the current and future conditions of each county located in the Catawba River basin in terms of population growth, land use, water use, and economic development. Catawba River Basin in North Carolina provides water to eleven counties (located at least partially within the basin and which contains public water systems that rely on the basin for their water supply). Some of those counties include areas that have been experiencing very rapid population growth, like Charlotte Metropolitan Area. One point worth to be mentioned is that these River basin communities not only depend on the river for their water but also for their electricity. Section 2.2 describes the climatology and hydrology of the Catawba River basin and it covers the basic flow of the river, the reservoirs located on the river, stream flow characteristics and ground water characteristics, while the climatology of the basin is described through rainfall data, reservoir evaporation as well as a history of drought in the basin. The following section focuses on water supply and wastewater discharge in the basin. Each of the North Carolina drainage areas identified in the previous section is described in terms of which entities are making withdrawals and how these withdrawals have been projected to change during the period from 2010 to 2050. Section 2.4 focuses on Interbasin Transfer in the Catawba River basin and its future water transfer’s projection, which includes transfer in and out of this River basin. The section following this one involves some issues that may impact water supplies: flood management and sedimentation in reservoirs. Chapter 3 presents a simulation model description, with the model input information, assign basin plan demand to the model and observe response to the river system. Then it moves to the description of the drought management plan and data management necessary to cover the surface and groundwater sources. It starts by describing the CHEOPS model developed in order to test the potential responses of the river to future demands and then presents the results of these tests. For the Catawba Rive basin water supply plan, the CHEOPS model has been used to simulate long-term demand growth, using a base year of 2002 and projecting water demand toward the year 2050, and to figure out how demand will impact the entire river system. Demands from each water intake in the model are aggregated to each drainage area, or reservoir level, so are the return flows. Since the river system works as a unit, any unmet demand from one drainage area can be met from another drainage area. The model set ups were for the two general groups of baseline or existing conditions and demand, and future licensed conditions and projected demand. The projected demands have High, Low and Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 viii LWSP options for the projected decades of 2010, 2020 and 2050, with 2002 set up as baseline, resulting in 10 different scenarios for the reservoirs as a whole. In the section about the summary of the model results, the Mutual Gain (MG) critical intake safe yield quantities are compared to the modeled net withdrawal data as output and input withdrawal data to determine the sustainability of the reservoirs for the future. The net withdrawal data have been averaged for the 75 years, and the difference between the input and output withdrawals are low. At the demand–supply side, the demands for a scenario year are fixed throughout the 75 years of variable hydrology in order to determine the impacts on the reservoir system, while the water supply from the watershed for any year depends upon the hydrological condition of the watershed and the operational constraints determined by the hydrological conditions. The demands can be met fully or partially according to the simulated conditions. Therefore the surplus or shortage after the withdrawal varies over time and for the different demand options. The inclusion in the model of the LIP to simulate future operational conditions has the purpose of making the problems of the water supply be more manageable. For example, if at the beginning of the month the hydrological or storage condition becomes unfavorable or falls at or below certain trigger levels, the LIP stages would be triggered and that stage would remain in effect for the rest of the month for this particularly system. In summary, an earlier trigger can conserve water by maintaining lower storage levels for longer periods and thus any long severe drought can be avoided in the long run. Last sections of the chapter 3 presents some of the reservoir outflow percentiles plots and the reservoir elevation plots, where both of them include daily data from the years 1954 and 2002 and compare to dry conditions, and ends describing Duke Energy’s drought contingency plans. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 1-1 Chapter 1 - Introduction The Catawba River begins in the western end of McDowell County, west of the Town of Old Fort. It flows in an easterly direction, forming part of the boundary between Caldwell and Burke Counties and the boundary between Alexander and Catawba Counties, along which it changes to a southerly direction. The River continues to form county boundaries as it flows southward, running between Iredell and Catawba Counties and along Mecklenburg County’s borders with Lincoln and Gaston Counties. The River then continues on into South Carolina, where, after merging with several other rivers to become the Santee River, it eventually flows out to the Atlantic. Figure 1-1 shows the location of the river basin in North Carolina. Figure 1-1: Catawba River Basin Location The 3,279 square miles of the Catawba River Basin in North Carolina provides water to at least a portion of eleven counties (see Figure 1-2), which contain a number of urban areas, including Charlotte, Hickory, and Gastonia. These communities depend on the river not only for their water, but also for electricity. A network of 7 dams and their accompanying reservoirs are used as power sources, for hydropower and steam plants, sources of coolant, for coal-fired and nuclear power plants, and water sources, with intakes located in the reservoirs which serve a majority of the local communities. The Catawba River Basin houses an area of North Carolina that is experiencing very rapid growth, namely in and around the Charlotte Metropolitan Area. Portions of Union and Gaston Counties have been projecting, and experiencing, Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 1-2 Figure 1-2: Counties in the Catawba River Basin phenomenal increases in development. At the same time, much of the basin has been losing its industrial enterprises, with furniture manufacturing and textile plants being moved overseas. All of this adds up to a region that is changing rapidly, making a study of its water resources timely, if not imperative. Under way at this time as well is Duke Energy’s1 relicensing process. In 2008, Duke Energy’s license to operate the dams on the Catawba River is due to expire, and consequently they are in the middle of a lengthy and complex relicensing effort for which they have completed a number of studies, including a Water Supply Study, which is cited occasionally throughout this report. The purpose of this report is to elucidate the present and future conditions of this basin, in the process determining the capacity of the Catawba River to serve future populations and identifying any potential trouble-spots or conflicts. It begins with a look at the current and future conditions of each county at least partially located in the Catawba River basin in terms of population, land use, and economy. From there, it moves to a discussion of the water supply and wastewater discharge organized by drainage areas (see Figure 1-3), as defined by HDR2 in Duke Energy’s Water Supply Study. This discussion includes public 1 Former Duke Power 2 Consultant Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 1-3 water systems, self-supplied industrial and residential entities, agricultural uses, interbasin transfer, and water used for electricity production. Water quality and other issues that may affect water supply are briefly touched upon, following which is an exploration of any future water resources that may need to be identified. The following section describes the CHEOPS model developed in order to test the potential responses of the river to future demands and presents the results of these tests, and gives a brief description of the implementation of drought management plan in the reservoir systems and necessary data management needs for better aerial coverage. Figure 1-3: Catawba River Lakes and Associated Drainage Areas Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-1 Chapter 2 - Existing Water Resources Situation The purpose of this section is to outline the current state of the Catawba River basin. It begins with a description of each county located at least partially within the basin and which contains public water systems that rely on the basin for their water supply. These descriptions highlight issues surrounding population, economic development, land use, and coverage by water supply systems. The current population of the county as well as population projections, both for the county as a whole and for each of the public water systems located within the county, and economic development projections are provided from a variety of sources. The next section is a description of the climatology and hydrology of the Catawba River basin. The description of the hydrology of the basin covers the basic flow of the river, the reservoirs located on the river, stream flow characteristics, and ground water characteristics. The climatology of the basin is described through precipitation data as well as a history of drought in the basin. The following section focuses on water demand and wastewater discharge in the basin. Each of the North Carolina drainage areas identified in the previous section is described in terms of which entities are making withdrawals and how these withdrawals have been projected to change during the period from 2010 to 2050. Using this information, the discharges to and from each drainage area are similarly characterized. The next two sections focus on particular types of withdrawals and discharges. The first is on interbasin transfers, water withdrawn from one basin for use and eventual discharge in another. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-2 Section 2.1 County Summaries (a) McDowell County In the northwest corner of the Catawba River basin (Figure 2-1), McDowell County houses the river’s headwaters. According to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality’s Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, approximately 86% of the County is located inside the Catawba River basin (1999). The first in a series of reservoirs along the Catawba River, Lake James, originates in McDowell County and shares a portion of the county line with Burke County. The Town of Old Fort and the City of Marion are the only two municipalities in McDowell County. The smaller of the two, the Town of Old Fort, is located in the eastern portion of the County along the Catawba River and has an estimated 2004 population of 975. The City of Marion is located near the intersection of US-70 and US-221, just south of the Catawba River near the western shoreline of Lake James and has an estimated 2004 population of 4,975 (U.S. Census Bureau). Figure 2-1: McDowell County Location The majority of the northwestern part of the County falls within the Pisgah National Forest’s borders, which run diagonally through the county, through the Town of Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-3 Old Fort, just north of the City of Marion (U.S. Forest Service). The total acreage of the County is 282,688 (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002), with 70,914 acres located in the Pisgah National Forest (U.S. Forest Service 2004). According to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture 2002 Census of Agriculture, there were 24,441 acres of farmland in McDowell County in 2002, of which only 5,589 acres were harvested cropland (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Isothermal Planning Region, which includes McDowell County, notes that, unlike other regions in the state, manufacturing has decreased, while service sector employment has not increased significantly (Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness 2005, 1). The local economy in McDowell County is heavily reliant on the manufacturing industry, which employed 42.8% of the County’s workforce, during the second quarter of 2005. From the beginning of 2004 through May of 2005, employment opportunities appeared to be on a downward trend. From January through May of 2005, two employers announced a total of 520 job losses (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Figure 2-2: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-4 The population in McDowell County is expected to steadily rise through 20503 (see Figure 2-2) (North Carolina State Data Center). The Town of Old Fort anticipates a population increase from 1,740 people in 2010 to 2,700 by the year 2050. The City of Marion expects a slightly higher population growth from 9,510 people in 2010 to 14,270 by 2050. Most of the areas north and south of US-70 in McDowell County fall within the City of Marion and the Town of Old Fort’s water service areas. A small community water system, Little Switzerland, is located in the northwestern portion of the County; however, it is not within the Catawba River basin and therefore not discussed in this report. Figure 2-3: McDowell County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas 3 The North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) only calculated population projections through 2030. For a description of how they were extended, see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-5 (b) Avery County Avery County is located in the northeastern corner of the Catawba River Basin (See Figure 2-4). It is a rural county and has a population density of only 69.5 people per square mile (Avery – Banner Elk Chamber of Commerce). Avery County is fairly mountainous, boasting famous peaks such as Grandfather and Sugar Mountains, and claims both the highest county seat and the highest incorporated town in the Eastern United States (Avery – Banner Elk Chamber of Commerce). Banner Elk and Newland are the two largest towns in the county; however, in the year 2000, neither of their populations topped 1,000 (US Census Bureau 2000). According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 30,614 acres of the County’s 158,093 acres were considered farmland, with 9,963 acres of harvested cropland (NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services). Also, 28,369 acres of the Pisgah National Forest is within Avery County (U.S. Forest Service 2004). Figure 2-4: Avery County Location Figure 2-5 compares the population growth projection by the State Data Center (SDC) for Avery County and the population growth projected for the only community water system (Linville Land Harbor) in the County that lies within the Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-6 Catawba River basin. The State Data Center projection for the county shows the population rising slightly and then beginning to fall between 2040 and 20504. The Linville Land Harbor community water system’s 2002 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) included two different population projections, one with the seasonal population and one without. The population projection represented in Figure 2-5 is the year-round population, which does not include the seasonal population. The service area population for this system is expected to remain constant: 440 persons year round, increasing seasonally to 2,340 people. Figure 2-5: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projection In terms of industry, the two largest employment sectors in Avery County, as of the third quarter in 2005, were Health Care and Social Assistance at 19.1% and Accommodation and Food Services accounting for 13.5% of the County’s employment (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Only 35% of Avery County is located within the Catawba River basin (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999), and only one community water system discharges into the basin. There are no systems in the County that withdraw water from the Catawba River basin. The Linville Land Harbor community water system withdraws groundwater and then discharges its wastewater to the Linville River, a tributary to the Catawba River. 4 The North Carolina SDC only calculated population projections through 2030. For a description of how they were extended, see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-7 (c) Burke County Burke County is one of only two counties that fall entirely within the Catawba River basin (Figure 2-6) (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). Along with Alexander, Caldwell, and Catawba counties it forms part of the Hickory Metropolitan Statistical Area, also known as the Unifour Region. A portion of Lake James is located in the western part of the County. Lake Rhodhiss runs along the northeastern edge of the County and forms part of the boundary between Burke and Caldwell Counties. The City of Morganton, the County seat, is by far the largest city in the County with 17,310 residents estimated in 2004 (US Census Bureau). The towns of Valdese and Drexel are the next largest municipalities with estimated 2004 populations of 4,485 and 1,938, respectively (US Census Bureau). Other smaller towns in the County include Glen Alpine, Rutherford College, and Connelly Springs. Figure 2-6: Burke County Location The period between 1990 and 1999 was a dynamic decade for growth in the Unifour Region. Approximately 21,670 new jobs were created in the region, resulting in a large migration to the region and a shift in the focus of the regional economy. The 2002 report “Blueprint Burke” estimated that over 75% of the growth in Burke County alone “was the direct result of net in-migration”. Burke County’s growth rate of 18% during the 1990’s was quadruple that of the 1980’s, 4.5% (Burke County Strategic Planning Committee 2002, 2). Approximately 10 percent (32,037 acres) of Burke County’s 324,320 acres were considered Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-8 farmland in 2002 and, of that; 11,181 acres were harvested cropland (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). Service producing jobs overtook goods producing jobs during the 1990’s. In 1993 there were 1,392 more goods producing jobs than there were service jobs. By the year 2000, service producing jobs made up 56.7% of the County’s workforce, surpassing the number of goods producing jobs by 5,670 (Burke County Strategic Planning Committee 2002, 3). As of July 2005, the manufacturing industry was the largest employment sector in the County with 10,663 employees accounting for 31.5% of the total workforce. The next largest employment sector was Health Care and Social Assistance, whose 6,903 employees make up 20.4% of the total workforce (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Population projections from the North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) show population growth projections steadily rising through 2030 (North Carolina State Data Center 2005). An extension of these projections to the year 2050 show a leveling off of population growth after 2040, as the County’s population approaches 140,0005. Local water suppliers, however, see the County’s population continuing to grow, without any leveling off through the year 2050 (Figure 2-7). The population projections provided in the Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) do not come near to the SDC projections for the entire County. As seen in Figure 2-8 the City of Hickory, The Town of Long View, The Town of Rhodhiss, and Baton Water Corporation also provided water to small portions of Burke County according to 1997 LWSP data. However, the service areas for each of these systems are located in more than one county and it is impossible to determine how much of their service population, reported in their LWSPs, is located in each county. For the purposes of this report, population numbers from the aforementioned seven water systems were not used for calculating the population served by local public water systems in the County. Instead, LWSP population figures are included in the sections of this report relating to the County in which the majority of a system’s population resides. The Brentwood Water Authority and the Brentwood Water Corporation are not represented in Figure 2-8, because they did not submit Local Water Supply Plans for 1997. Of all the public water supply systems in Burke County, only three (the City of Morganton, the Town of Valdese, and the City of Hickory) withdraw surface water directly from the Catawba River basin. The rest of the community water systems purchase water from at least one of the three. The City of Morganton, the Town of Valdese, and the City of Hickory also have the only community water systems that return wastewater through their own wastewater treatment plants. Burke County and the Town of Drexel return wastewater via the Town of Valdese and the City of Hickory’s wastewater treatment facilities. The remaining water systems primarily rely on septic systems for wastewater disposal. 5 The North Carolina SDC only calculated population projections through 2030. For a description of how they were extended, see Appendix - B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-9 Figure 2-7: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections Figure 2-8: Burke County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-10 (d) Caldwell County Caldwell County is located in the north-central portion of the Catawba River basin (Figure 2-9). The river itself forms the southernmost border of the County, Lake Rhodhiss runs along its southwestern edge and Lake Hickory begins on southeastern edge of the County. According to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality’s Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, approximately 75% of the County is located within the Catawba River basin (1999). The municipalities in Caldwell County are clustered in the southern and western portions of the County along US-321 and US-64, respectively. Of the seven municipalities in the County, only the City of Lenoir has a population of over 10,000 (17,943 (2004 estimate)); the next largest is the Town of Sawmills with a 2004 population estimate of 4,933 (US Census Bureau). Since the City of Hickory is adjacent to the southeastern border of Caldwell County, the County is considered part of the Hickory Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Figure 2-9: Caldwell County Location The County, as a whole, encompasses 301,875 acres. In 2002, there were 411 farms covering 34,918 acres (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). According to the Western Piedmont Labor Area Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-11 Industry Growth Analysis, minimal industrial growth has been recorded; in fact, a net decline in industrial activities throughout the County has been noted (Western Piedmont Council of Governments 2004). In July of 2005, the North Carolina Department of Commerce estimated that only 352 employers in the County could be classified as goods producing, compared to the 1,102 service producing employers. However, even with fewer employers, the manufacturing industry employs the most people with 10,803 employees. Retail is the second largest industry in the County with 2,857 employees (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Figure 2-10: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections From 1990 to 2000, population in the County increased from 70,809 to 77,415, and in July of 2005 population was estimated at 78,816 (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Figure 2-10 is a chart comparing the projected service area populations in Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) to the projected County population from the North Carolina State Data Center (SDC). The LWSP population projections show a slow total increase in expected service area populations, while the total County population begins to level off around 2040 and Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-12 actually decreases between the years 2040 and 2050, from 94,240 to 93,2486 (North Carolina State Data Center). Most of the community water system service areas are located in the County’s southern half (Figure 2-11). A very small area in the northern portion of the County is served by the Town of Blowing Rock, which obtains its water from the New River. The remaining community water systems in the County obtain all of their water from within the Catawba River basin. It is significant to mention here that there has been some movement recently in the County to develop the Yadkin River as a potential future water supply source. A description of the Caldwell County Yadkin Reservoir Project, on the Caldwell County website, notes that “considering all of the existing and potential problems with the Catawba River, Caldwell County’s current administration believes that it is prudent to begin the efforts to develop a second supply of drinking water for the county.” The County has already received a $20,000 grant to complete the Environmental Assessment for the project. Plans for the project include the Yadkin River becoming the primary drinking water supply source for the part of the County that lies within the Yadkin River basin and for the river to also serve as a reliable backup supply of drinking water for the rest of the County (Caldwell County). Figure 2-11: Caldwell County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas 6 The North Carolina SDC only projected populations to 2030. For a discussion of the methodology we used in extending these projections, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-13 (e) Alexander County Alexander County is positioned in the northwest corner of the Catawba River basin (Figure 2-12). According to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, an estimated 68% of the County’s land area falls within the Catawba River basin (1999). It is considered part of the Hickory Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) (along with Burke, Caldwell, and Catawba Counties) and is a member of the Western Piedmont Council of Governments. The Town of Taylorsville, situated in the center of the County, is the largest town in the County with a population of 1,837 in the year 2004 (US Census Bureau). Other small towns in the county include Bethlehem (located in the southwestern portion of the county), Hiddenite, and Stony Point (both located in the eastern central portion of the county). Figure 2-12: Alexander County Location Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-14 Alexander County could be considered rural, approximately two-thirds of its area is given over to agriculture, producing mainly “poultry, dairy, tobacco, apples, forestry products, grain crops, and beef cattle” (Charlotte Regional Partnership 2004). According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, conducted by the North Carolina Division of Agriculture, 58,366 of Alexander County’s 166,611 acres were considered farmland, 17,436 acres of which were harvested cropland (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). The County’s largest employment sector is manufacturing and includes textiles, furniture, apparel, paper products, electrical components, and lumber products (Charlotte Regional Partnership 2004). As of the third quarter of 2005, the manufacturing sector employed 570,924 people, 91,236 more than the next largest sector, Health Care and Social Assistance (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Figure 2-13: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections In terms of population, the North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) portrays the County growing at a seemingly steady rate (Figure 2-13), reaching 50,223 by the year 2030. Extending this projection to 2050, Alexander County could potentially grow to a population of almost 62,0007. Figure 2-13 compares the SDC projections to the stacked population projections provided by community water 7 The North Carolina OSP only calculated population projections through 2030. For a description of how they were extended, see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-15 systems in their Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs). By the year 2050, the stacked population projections exceed those from the SDC, which is problematic in that the stacked population projections from the LWSPs are not meant to represent the entire County population, only those purchasing water from one of the community water systems. Also, the portion of the County served by the City of Hickory’s water supply system is not included, since its service area straddles Alexander and Catawba Counties (Figure 2-14). It would be impossible to separate the number of people served in Alexander County from the majority of the City of Hickory’s service population located in Catawba County. In terms of industry, growth is more difficult to quantify. According to the Western Piedmont Council of Governments, employment in the 12 county region that it represents peaked in 1994 and has been declining ever since (Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness 2003, 3). Between January 2001 and December 2003, the four counties composing the Hickory MSA reportedly lost more than 20,000 jobs (Western Piedmont Council of Governments 2004, 13). The Western Piedmont Labor Area (Hickory MSA) Industry Growth Analysis did identify several industrial sectors already present in the region that are predicted to grow nationally, including wood products (wood container and pallet manufacturing), plastics, and motor vehicle-related industries (2004, 5). Service sector industries are also projected to grow in the region, although these positions do not tend to pay as well as the manufacturing positions (3). More specifically, in June of 2005 it was announced that Paragon Films, “a major producer of plastic film”, will be locating a new manufacturing operation in Alexander County (Herman 2005). The 40,000 square foot facility will initially create 25 new jobs, with more expected as the company moves through its planned expansions (Herman 2005). Five community water supply systems that serve the residents of Alexander County submitted LWSPs indicating that all but one withdraw a portion of their water from the Catawba River. The Alexander County Highway 16 and Town of Bethlehem systems purchase all of their water from the City of Hickory, which draws all of its water from the Catawba River. The Town of Taylorsville system buys approximately half of its water supply from the City of Hickory and the rest is purchased from the Energy United system. The Energy United system withdraws all of its water from the South Yadkin River8. The City of Hickory system provides water to a small section of southwestern Alexander County. The service areas for each of these systems have been mapped, as shown in Figure 2-14 (1997 LWSP data). The Sugar Loaf system shown in Figure 2-14 was not mentioned above, because they did not submit a LWSP in 2002. The Town of Taylorsville currently has the only system that treats and disposes of its own wastewater. It is also the only system in Alexander County with a majority 8 It should be noted that in 2002 Energy United did purchase a small amount of its water from Alexander County, however it noted in its LWSP that this source would no longer be available due to high fees. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-16 of customers (approximately 92%) connected to a sewer system. The Town of Bethlehem and Alexander County Highway 16 systems send their wastewater to the Hickory wastewater treatment plant, although most of their water customers utilize septic tanks. Figure 2-14: Alexander County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-17 (f) Catawba County Catawba County is one of two counties that falls entirely within the Catawba River basin (Figure 2-15) and is home to the City of Hickory. The City of Hickory is one of the largest cities in the basin and has become a regional hub, anchoring the four-county Hickory Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). It also has the largest population in the County, which in 2004 was estimated at 40,112. The second largest city in Catawba County is the City of Newton, with an estimated population in 2004 of 12,881 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). The Catawba River serves as the County’s northern and eastern borders with Caldwell, Alexander, and Iredell Counties. To its west and south, the County shares borders with Burke and Lincoln Counties, respectively. Lake Hickory is located along a portion of the border with Caldwell and Alexander Counties and the upper reaches of Lake Norman are located along the southeastern border with Iredell County (Figure 2.15). Figure 2-15: Catawba County Location In the early 1990s, it was estimated that the County contained more than 20,000 acres of agricultural land and more than 115,000 acres of timberland (Benchmark Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-18 Incorporated 1999, 2). The North Carolina Department of Agriculture reported in 2002 that the County contained 78,516 acres of farmland, 26,949 acres of which were harvested cropland (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). In terms of growth potential, in 1999, the Catawba County Strategic Growth Plan identified the southeastern portion of the County as its fastest growing region (Benchmark Incorporated 1999, 7). Much of this development was attributed to lakeside development along Lake Norman. As with other counties belonging to the Hickory MSA, the 1990s were a period of economic growth that was followed by several years of economic decline. Between 1990 and 2001, Catawba County gained 16,679 new jobs throughout a variety of manufacturing and service sectors. Then, between 2001 and 2003, 12,601 jobs were lost (Catawba County 2004). Between April 2002 and December 2003, the manufacturing industry experienced the only mass layoff in the County, reporting 713 separations. Nevertheless, the manufacturing industry continues to have the most employees in the County, employing 29,838 people in 2005. The retail industry comes in second with 10,499 employees (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Figure 2-16: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-19 The North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) is projecting relatively steady growth (Figure 2-16) for Catawba County9. Likewise, the Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) similarly project steady overall growth; although the larger community water systems in the County (the Cities of Hickory, Conover, and Newton) seem to be projecting more growth than the smaller systems. The City of Hickory is by far the largest water supplier in the County. The 1997 map of service areas in Catawba County (Figure 2-17) shows that the City of Hickory’s service area covers almost the entire western half of the County. It also covers small areas in Alexander and Caldwell counties10. In contrast, the southeastern portion of the County was, in 1997, virtually uncovered by community water systems. Figure 2-17: Catawba County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas 9 The North Carolina SDC only calculated population projections through 2030. For a description of how they were extended, see Appendix B. 10 Please refer to the summaries of each of these counties for their coverage by community water systems. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-20 (g) Iredell County As seen in Figure 2-18, not much of Iredell County is actually located within the Catawba River basin. According to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality’s Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, only about 22% of the County’s land area falls within the basin (1999). However, all but one of the water systems serving Iredell County withdraw at least some of their water from the Catawba River basin. The Catawba River forms Iredell County’s boundaries with Catawba and Lincoln Counties. Lookout Shoals Lake is located on the northernmost corner of the County’s border with Catawba County and Lake Norman makes up a large portion of this border. There are only five municipalities located within the County: the City of Statesville and the Towns of Troutman, Mooresville, Love Valley, and Harmony. The City of Statesville and the Town of Mooresville are the two largest municipalities, with estimated 2004 populations of 24,489 and 20,122, respectively. The smallest municipality is the Town of Love Valley, located in the northwestern region of the County, with an estimated 2004 population of only 33 (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). Figure 2-18: Iredell County Location In its 2002 Census of Agriculture, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture reported that the County contained 146,556 acres of farmland and 55,846 acres of that were harvested cropland (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). An Economic Development Assessment completed for Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-21 the Mooresville-South Iredell Chamber of Commerce in 2005 estimated that population in its region has increased annually by 4.5% since 1990 (Angelou Economics 2005, 8). Much of the growth was attributed to the expansion of the Charlotte metro area, a high quality of life, and the attractiveness of the region to businesses. Recently, the motor sports industry has expanded locally and Lowe’s (the home improvement retailers) has chosen to locate their regional headquarters in the area (4). The Town of Mooresville has been credited with being “responsible for nearly all the County’s population growth over the past decade”. Other areas in the County have not been growing as quickly. Below average growth has been projected for both the Town of Troutman and the City of Statesville during the same period (Angelou Economics 2005, 8). The Town of Troutman, however, anticipates growth in the near future. According to a 2004 article in the Charlotte Business Journal, the town has “plans for more than 1,250 homes in five subdivisions, a multimillion-dollar industrial expansion, anticipated development of 1,100 acres in nearby Barium Springs and talk of a separate, Birkdale Village-style project,” referring to the mixed-use development in Huntersville, North Carolina (Elkins 2004). As seen in Figure 2-19, the calculated population projections by community water systems are well below the North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) projection11. Most of the community water systems seem to be projecting moderate growth; the largest increase projected is, predictably, in the Town of Mooresville, where they plan to more than double their service area population from 24,660 in 2010 to 50,000 by 2050. Manufacturing has continued to be the largest employer in the County. In the period between 1982 and 1993, while manufacturing was on the decline throughout the region (Iredell County 1997, 5), the diversity of manufacturing jobs in Iredell County enabled a 14 percent net increase in overall manufacturing positions, although employment in textile manufacturing fell by 2,160 (Iredell County 1997, 5). The 1997 Land Use Plan predicted that total employment would rise from 52,600 in 1990 to 69,820 in 2010, with major increases in retail, services, and manufacturing (10). 11 The North Carolina SDC only calculated projections through the year 2030. For information on how these were extended to the year 2050, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-22 Figure 2-19: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections In 1997, a small portion of Iredell County was served by community water supply systems (Figure 2-20). The Alexander County Water Company, the City of Statesville, the West Iredell Water Company, the Town of Troutman, and the Town of Mooresville all draw at least a portion of their water from the Catawba River basin. The City of Statesville only began drawing water from the Catawba River basin in 2004 and plans on increasing withdrawals from the basin in the future (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). According to the South Iredell Small Area Plan, the Town of Mooresville has plans to expand their water system’s service area in the near future; its 1998 water and sewer plan includes coverage for much of southern Iredell County (Iredell County 2004, 13). Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-23 Figure 2-20: Iredell County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-24 (h) Lincoln County Lake Norman forms most of Lincoln County’s eastern border between Mecklenburg and Iredell Counties (Figure 2-21). Most of Lincoln County is located in the Catawba River basin; the percentage of its land area within the basin was estimated at 93% (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). The City of Lincolnton is the only municipality in the County. It is centrally located in the County and, in 2004, was home to an estimated 10,194 people (U.S. Census Bureau). As of July 2005, the County’s population was recorded at 69,145 people (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Figure 2-21: Lincoln County Location The 2002 Agricultural Census reports that 57,777 acres of Lincoln County’s 191,245 total acreage were considered agricultural. Of the 57,777 agricultural acres, 23,202 acres were harvested cropland (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). As noted in the City of Lincolnton’s 2003 land use plan, much of the growth expected for the County will occur toward the east, near Lake Norman and convenient to Charlotte (Centralina Council of Governments 2003, 2-2). In the Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-25 City of Lincolnton, growth has been increasing and is expected to continue to increase to the east and south, with less growth towards the north and west, away from Charlotte and Lake Norman (2-1). Manufacturing and retail are the two largest employment sectors in the County. Manufacturing represents 29.9% of the County’s total employment and retail employs an additional 11.6% of Lincoln County’s workforce (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Figure 2-22 depicts two increasing population projections for the County, as calculated by the North Carolina State Data Center12 (SDC) and community water systems. Most of the growth in the number of people in the County served by the two systems is due to the Lincoln County water system. Figure 2-22: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections The concentration of population in the southeastern portion of the County is visibly reinforced by the size of the service areas for the two community water systems in the County, as shown in Figure 2-23. In 1997, the Lincoln County water supply system extends out from the City of Lincolnton to the northeast and south, along Lake Norman. It is also interesting to note the lack of water system coverage in the western portion of the County. A possible reason for this is touched on in the 12 The Office of State Planning projections were given only through 2030. For a description of how these were extended, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-26 Lincolnton’s Land Use Plan, which identified the South Fork Catawba River as an impediment to extending water service to the western portion of the County (Centralina Council of Governments 2003, 2-1, 2-2). Figure 2-23: Lincoln County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-27 (i) Gaston County Approximately 97% of Gaston County’s land area is located within the southwestern corner of the Catawba River basin (Figure 2-24) (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). The Catawba River serves as the eastern border between Mecklenburg and Gaston Counties. The South Fork Catawba River runs diagonally through Gaston County and joins with the Catawba River in the County’s southeastern corner. There are 15 municipalities in Gaston County (Gaston County 2002, 1) and four have populations over 5,000. In 2004, the City of Gastonia was the largest municipality with an estimated population of 68,292. The next three largest municipalities, in order of their estimated 2004 population size, were the Cities of Mount Holly (9,639), Belmont (8,786), and Cherryville (5,430) (U.S. Census Bureau). Figure 2-24: Gaston County Location Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-28 Development in Gaston County is closely tied to the development in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. According to the City of Cherryville’s website (www.cityofcherryville.com), in the year 2000, approximately 37% of the County’s resident workforce commuted to other counties for work. Of the 29,013 out- commuters, 23,101 were headed for jobs in Mecklenburg County (City of Cherryville 2004). Population growth in Gaston County, however, occurred at a slower rate (18% from 1970 to 1990) than other areas in the vicinity of the City of Charlotte (over 50% in Union and York Counties from 1970 to 1990). This lower rate was attributed, in the City of Gastonia’s CityVision 2010 comprehensive plan, to the fact that during that period most of the growth from the City of Charlotte was extending towards the south and southeast, rather than to the west where Gaston County is located (City of Gastonia 1995, 23). In its 2002 Comprehensive Plan, Gaston County reported that over 40% of the County’s land was forested (3). According to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, in 2002, there were 13,303 acres of harvested cropland in the County out of 41,827 total acres of agricultural land (North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2002). Many of Gaston County’s textile mills have closed, leading to a decline in the textile industry in the region. During the 1970’s and 1980’s, textiles manufacturing declined from representing 64% of manufacturing jobs in the county to representing approximately half of manufacturing jobs in 1990 (City of Gastonia 1995, 44). The Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) 2005 Long Range Transportation Plan reported that this trend was slowing down; however, this may be attributed to the fact that the only remaining textile mills are essential to the companies that operate them and would only close if they should fail (41). Employment projections from the Gaston Urban Area MPO transportation plan show a decline in employment in the manufacturing sector from 2000 to 2010. The manufacturing sector is expected to recover somewhat by 2030, while the textile industry is not anticipated to fully recover (Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2002, 42). Gaston County’s 2002 Comprehensive Plan states that the services industry will provide most of the employment growth in the County, upward to 26.7% of total employment by 2010 (13). The manufacturing sector has already begun to recover with several companies making large investments in the County and creating new jobs. One of the most recent and highly publicized industrial investments in the County has been the announcement of Dole’s intention to build a processing plant, creating 900 new jobs by the year 2016 (Gaston County Economic Development Commission 2005). Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-29 Figure 2-25 shows the comparison of the North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) population projections13 to community water system service area population projections given in the 2002 Local Water Supply Plans14 (LWSPs). The 2002 LWSP projections are more ambitious than the SDC projection. The SDC projected an increase in population between the years 2010 and 2050 of approximately 29,000, while the LWSP projections add up to a difference of more than 267,000 in the same timeframe. Unfortunately, it is practically impossible to pinpoint the reason(s) for this discrepancy, it can only be concluded that the SDC and the community water systems have different expectations for growth within the County. Figure 2-25: SDC Projection vs. LWSP Projections As reported in the City of Gastonia’s CityVision 2010, in 1995 Gaston County consumed water at that unusually high rate of 250-300 gallons per person per day. The reason given for this was the presence of high-volume industrial water users, the ten largest of which used approximately 41% of the total amount of water distributed by the City of Gastonia’s community water system (City of Gastonia 1995, 82). 13 North Carolina SDC projections were only calculated through 2030, for an explanation of how they were extended to 2050, please see Appendix B. 14 In their LWSP, Dallas only provided population projections through 2020. These were extended simply by fitting a linear expression to the given data points. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-30 Most of Gaston County lies in a sub-basin of the Catawba River basin known as the South Fork Catawba River basin. The South Fork Catawba River cuts through the central eastern portion of the County, originating just west of the Town of Stanley and running southeast between the Town of Cramerton and the City of Belmont. Figure 2-26 shows community water systems’ service area coverage in Gaston County during 1997. About half of the systems in the County draw their water from the South Fork Catawba River, while the other half withdraw from the Catawba River. The City of Gastonia, by far the largest water supplier in the County, withdraws its water from Mountain Island Lake. Only four community water systems in the County purchase water from other systems, three of which buy their water from the City of Gastonia’s water system. Figure 2-26: Gaston County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-31 (j) Mecklenburg County Mecklenburg County is considered the most influential county in the Catawba River Basin. It contains the City of Charlotte, which drives most of the growth in the basin. As can be seen in Figure 2-27, Mecklenburg County is located in the southeastern portion of the basin. Most of the County (74/%) is located within the basin (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). Only a small portion of the County, along the eastern border, falls outside of the Catawba River basin. In 2004, the City of Charlotte’s estimated population was 594,359, more than three quarters of the entire County’s population estimate of 771,617. The next largest municipality in the County is the City of Huntersville, with a 2004 estimated population of 34,332, while the smallest, in terms of population, is the Town of Pineville, with a 2004 estimated population of 3,643 (U.S. Census Bureau). Figure 2-27: Mecklenburg County Location Mecklenburg County is different from the other counties in the Catawba River basin in several areas. While many of the counties in the basin rely on the manufacturing industry as a major component of their local economy, manufacturing has never been a strong industry in Mecklenburg County. It has fallen from representing 8.3 percent of total employment in the County in 2000 (Advantage Carolina 2005, 12) to representing 6.9 percent of total employment in Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-32 the County during the third quarter of 2005 (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). The Finance and Insurance sector is considered prominent in Mecklenburg County, although it was the second largest employment sector as of the third quarter of 2005 with 49,509 employees. Mecklenburg County’s largest employment sector for this period was retail trade, with 53,553 employees (North Carolina Department of Commerce 2005). Other differences include Mecklenburg County’s higher population growth rates, higher average wages, and a population that is younger, more racially diverse, more educated, and wealthier than the populations of other counties in the basin (Advantage Carolina 2005, 86). Mecklenburg County’s population, however, is expanding into neighboring counties, with 33% of the County’s workforce commuting in from other counties (City of Charlotte Economic Development Office 2005, 6). Figure 2-28 shows population in Mecklenburg County growing steadily through 2050. By 2020, the North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) is expecting the County to pass the one million mark, reaching 1,807,000 by 205015. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Utilities’ (CMU) service area encompasses the entire County; therefore, it is the only community water system to perform a population projection. Figure 2-28: OSP Projections vs. LWSP Projections 15 The North Carolina SDC only provided population projections through 2030. For information on how these were extended, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-33 (k) Union County Union County is located in the southeastern corner of North Carolina’s portion of the Catawba River basin. As shown in Figure 2-29, only a small part (25%) of the County is actually within the basin’s boundaries (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). However, through an interbasin transfer, much of Union County depends on the Catawba River basin for its water supply source. Union County contains 14 municipalities, 12 of which are located in the northwestern portion of the County, close to the border with Mecklenburg County. The County seat, the City of Monroe, is the largest municipality with an estimated 2004 population of 28,422 (U.S. Census Bureau). Figure 2-29: Union County Location According to the Union County Chamber of Commerce, Union County has grown faster than any other county in the state (Union County Chamber of Commerce 2006). In fact, concerns over its rapid growth have compelled the County to institute a 12-month moratorium on “major residential development”, beginning on the 15th of August, 2005 (Union County 2005). In terms of business and industrial development, the City of Monroe’s airport and the Monroe Corporate Center were both identified by the Union County Chamber Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-34 of Commerce as potential attractions for new business (Union County Chamber of Commerce 2006). Another factor cited as a potential catalyst for economic growth, is the extension of sewer service to townships in the western portion of the County south of US-74 and the US-74 bypass (also known as the Monroe Bypass). Due to funding and environmental issues, the wastewater collection expansion project has yet to be constructed. The bypass project’s start date is currently set for 2018; however, County officials are hoping to resolve funding and environmental issues and have the bypass finished by 2010 (Quirk 2005). Currently, the number of people employed within the County is fewer than the number of Union County residents commuting to neighboring counties for work. Reversing this trend is a major goal of the County’s economic development plans, as outlined in its Vision 2020 Long Range Plan (Union County 1999, 11). As previously mentioned, Union County anticipates dramatic population growth (Figure 2-30). For the 20 year period between 2000 and 2030, the North Carolina State Data Center (SDC) projects that Union County’s population will more than double. Of the community water systems serving the County, the Union County system is expected to expand the most, from a service area population of 133,470 in 2010 to one of 289,953 in 2050 (Figure 2-30). Figure 2-30: SDC Projections vs. LWSP Projections The 1997 map of the community water system service areas in Union County (Figure 2-31) shows most of the western portion of the County receiving its water from the Union County water system. The City of Monroe, the Town of Wingate, Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-35 and the Town of Marshville systems’ service areas seem to cover their respective municipal areas. In 1997, much of the eastern portion of the County was not served by a community water system. Of the four systems in the County, the Town of Marshville is the only one, in 2002, that did not obtain any of its water from the Catawba River basin. Figure 2-31: Union County 1997 Community Water System Service Areas Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-36 Section 2.2 Hydrology and Climatology (a) Surface Water (i) Basin Description The Catawba is the eighth largest river basin in North Carolina covering 3,343 square miles. The Catawba River forms in the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains at elevations of over 3,000 feet. The river flows approximately 3,004 miles (including tributaries) at first eastward into the piedmont, where it shifts to a more southerly direction at the Lookout Shoals Lake impoundment. It crosses the line into South Carolina near Charlotte and continues on to connect with the Broad River, becoming the Santee-Cooper River system, which then flows on to the Atlantic Ocean. The entire Catawba basin can be divided into four major sub- basins or hydrologic unit codes (HUC), shown in Table 2-1 pictured in Figure 2-32. Table 2-1: Catawba River Basin HUCs HUCs HUC Names/Sub- basins States Major Streams 03050101 Upper Catawba NC, SC Linville Rv., Johns Rv., Catawba Main Stream, Long Cr. etc 03050102 South Fork Catawba NC South Fork Catawba, Henry fork, Jacob Fork etc 03020103 Lower Catawba NC, SC Catawba Main Stream, Irwin Cr., Sugar Cr., Briar Cr. Etc in NC & Rocky Cr. In SC 03020104 Wateree SC Wateree Rv., Colonels Cr. Etc in South Carolina Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-37 Figure 2-32: HUCS or Sub Basins in Catawba, North Carolina The major tributaries to the Catawba River in North Carolina are the Linville River, Dutchman’s Creek, the South Fork Catawba River and Sugar Creek (Figure 2-32). An important headwater stream is the Linville River, which flows through the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area, a section of the Pisgah National Forest, and into Lake James. The largest of these tributaries is the South Fork Catawba River which flows into Lake Wylie near the state line. It originates in the South Mountain area in southern Burke County. Its two major headwater tributaries are Jacob Fork and Henry Fork. Below Lake Wylie in South Carolina, the Catawba flows through Fishing Creek Reservoir and Wateree Lake before becoming the Wateree River. The Wateree, joined by the Congaree River, flows into Lake Marion, and the entire river system eventually drains to the Atlantic Ocean. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-38 (ii) Major Flow Modifications: o Reservoirs There are 11 impoundments commonly referred to as the Catawba Chain Lakes located along the main stem of the river in North Carolina and South Carolina. Hydroelectric operations on these lakes are owned and operated by Duke Energy. The lakes also provide the water supply needed for community water systems, industries and for agricultural and irrigation uses throughout the area from the mountains to the piedmont region, and are significant in terms of flood management in the basin. Approximately two-thirds of the main river stem and seven reservoirs are located in North Carolina. The names of the reservoirs and the corresponding project or plant names commonly used from upstream to downstream are listed in Table 2-2. Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 list the drainage areas and capacities of these reservoirs, respectively. Table 2-2: Catawba Reservoirs / Plant Names Reservoir Names Project Names Location (State) Approximate Distance from Lake Wateree (miles)16 Lake James Bridgewater North Carolina 206 Lake Rhodhiss Rhodhiss North Carolina 170 Lake Hickory Oxford North Carolina 155 Lookout Shoals Lake Lookout Shoals North Carolina 143 Lake Norman Cowan’s Ford North Carolina 108 Mountain Island Lake Mountain Island North Carolina 94 Lake Wylie Lake Wylie North Carolina/ South Carolina 65 Fishing Creek Reservoir Fishing Creek South Carolina 34 Great Falls Lake/ Dearborn Lake Great Falls South Carolina 26 Rocky Creek Lake/ Cedar Creek Lake Rocky Creek South Carolina 22 Lake Wateree Wateree South Carolina - 16 Source: Figure 1.2-1, First Stage Consultation Document, Catawba-Wateree Project, FERC # 2232, by Duke Energy. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-39 Table 2-3: Reservoir Watershed / Sub-basin Drainage Areas Project Drainage Area17 Bridgewater 380 Rhodhis 1,090 Oxford 1,310 Lookout Shoals 1,450 Cowans Ford 1,790 Mountain Island 1,860 Wylie 3,020 Fishing Creek 3,810 Great Falls/Dearborn 4,100 Rocky Creek/Cedar Creek 4,360 Wateree 4,750 Table 2-4: Reservoir Sizes and Capacities18 17 Source: CHEOPS model input file for Inflow data 18 Source: CHEOPS model interface and calculated storage at critical elevation Full Pond Storage (ac-ft) Critical Datum (ft) Full Pond Elevation (ft) Critical Elevation (ft) Storage at Critical Elevation (ac-ft) Normal Usable Storage (NUS) (ac- ft) Bridgew- ater 280,076 61 1,200 1,161 98,789 181,287 Rhodhiss 46,357 89.4 995.1 984.5 28,521 17,836 Oxford 126,990 94 935 929 103,76 7 23,223 Lookout Shoals 25,043 74.9 838.1 813 8,273.9 16,769.1 Cowans Ford 1,067,396 90 760 750 769,254 298,142 Mountain Island 59,618 94.3 647.5 641.8 44,669.3 14,948.7 Wylie 233,618 92.6 569.4 562 160,707 72,911 Fishing Creek 39,953 95 417.2 412.2 25,633 14,320 Great Falls 5,025 87.2 355.8 343 1,380 3,645 Cedar Creek 17,690 80.3 284.4 264.7 6,197.3 11,492.7 Wateree 256,196 92.5 225.5 218 171,749 84,448 Normal Usable Storage 739,022 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-40 Withdrawals According to 2002 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) data, 31% of the total demand for water was supplied by Mountain Island Lake. Fishing Creek Reservoir supplied 28%, and Lake Wylie, with the third largest contribution, supplied 15%. These three reservoirs are located near the cities of Charlotte and Gastonia in North Carolina and the City of Rock Hill in South Carolina, three of the major municipal communities located in the middle part of the basin, which are also responsible for some of the basin’s largest surface-water withdrawals19. Surface water availability and reliability The Catawba River stream flows are monitored at 46 United States Geological Survey (USGS) gage stations. Among these, 27 stations are at unregulated reaches of the river, where impoundments or any manmade disturbances do not impact the natural flow of the river. Of these 27, only 4 have good data over a significant drainage area for a considerable continuous time period. The list of the gage stations in North Carolina with record information is provided in Table 2-520. Daily stream flow values at these four stations from the Upper Catawba River and the South Fork Catawba River have been analyzed. The locations of the four stations are shown in Figure 2-33. Figure 2-33: Unregulated USGS Gages 19 For more specific information on withdrawals in the Catawba River basin, please refer to Appendix D4-D6. 20 Information gathered from USGS website 2-41 Table 2-5: Unregulated USGS Gage Stations in NC USGS Site Number Site Name Huc Code Huc Name Drainage Area Approximate Years of Record Regulated or Unregulated 02137727 CATAWBA RIVER NEAR PLEASANT GARDENS, NC 03050101 Upper Catawba 126 24.01 U 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC 03050101 Upper Catawba 66.7 82.31 U 02140991 JOHNS RIVER AT ARNEYS STORE, NC 03050101 Upper Catawba 201 19.43 U 02142000 LOWER LITTLE RIVER NEAR ALL HEALING SPRINGS, NC 03050101 Upper Catawba 28.2 51.78 U 0214253830 NORWOOD CREEK NEAR TROUTMAN, NC 03050101 Upper Catawba 7.18 20.85 U 0214266000 MCDOWELL CREEK NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC (CSW10) 03050101 Upper Catawba 26.3 7.00 U 0214295600 PAW CR AT WILKINSON BLVD NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050101 Upper Catawba 10.8 10.01 U 02143000 HENRY FORK NEAR HENRY RIVER, NC 03050102 South Fork Catawba 83.2 79.22 U 02143040 JACOB FORK AT RAMSEY, NC 03050102 South Fork Catawba 25.7 43.03 U 02143500 INDIAN CREEK NEAR LABORATORY, NC 03050102 South Fork Catawba 69.2 53.12 U 02146300 IRWIN CREEK NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 30.7 42.45 U 02146315 TAGGART CREEK AT WEST BOULEVARD NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 5.38 6.25 U 02146348 COFFEY CREEK NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 9.14 5.00 U 02146409 LTL SUGAR CR AT MEDICAL CENTER DR AT CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 11.8 10.01 U 0214642825 BRIAR CREEK NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 5.2 6.50 U 0214643860 BRIAR CREEK BELOW EDWARDS BRANCH NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 14.22 1.17 U 0214645022 BRIAR CREEK ABOVE COLONY RD AT CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 19 8.84 U 02146470 LITTLE HOPE CREEK AT SENECA PLACE AT CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 2.63 21.85 U 0214655255 MCALPINE CREEK AT SR3150 NEAR IDLEWILD, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 7.52 5.34 U 02146562 CAMPBELL CREEK NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 5.6 5.25 U 0214657975 IRVINS CREEK AT SR3168 NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 8.37 4.00 U 02146600 MCALPINE CREEK AT SARDIS ROAD NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 39.6 42.53 U 02146670 FOUR MILE CREEK NEAR PINEVILLE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 17.8 7.25 U 02146700 MCMULLEN CREEK AT SHARON VIEW RD NEAR CHARLOTTE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 6.95 42.53 U 02146750 MCALPINE CR BELOW MCMULLEN CREEK NEAR PINEVILLE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 92.4 30.52 U 0214678175 STEELE CREEK AT SR1441 NEAR PINEVILLE, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 6.73 6.42 U 02147126 WAXHAW CREEK AT SR1103 NEAR JACKSON, NC 03050103 Lower Catawba 35 2.42 U Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-42 The results from the statistical analyses for monthly stream flow values are presented in figures in the following few pages. The plots were arranged to show the mean, maximum and minimum flows for the water year for the available period of record. The period of records for the stations start from 1981 for Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden, 1922 for Linville River Near Nebo, 1985 for Johns River at Arney’s Store and 1942 for Henry Fork Near Henry River and records end in 2004 water year21 for these four USGS gage stations. These plots indicate that two significant peaks occur in the upper Catawba and South Fork Catawba River watersheds. The peak mean monthly flow occurs during the early spring, as shown in Figure 2-34. The annual drought occurs around late summer, shown in Figure 2-34 and Figure 2-36, balanced by seasonal heavy rain events producing a peak for maximum monthly flow during the same time frame, as shown in Figure 2-35. - 100 200 300 400 500 600 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Fl o w s , c f s Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Linville River Near Nebo Johns River at Arneys Store Henry Fork Near Henry River Figure 2-34: Mean Stream Flow Statistics 21 The USGS uses the 12-month period, October 1 through September 30 to designate the "water year". Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-43 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Fl o w s , c f s Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Linville River Near Nebo Johns River at Arneys Store Henry Fork Near Henry River Figure 2-35: Maximum Stream Flow Statistics - 50 100 150 200 250 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonths Fl o w s , c f s Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Linville River Near Nebo Johns River at Arneys Store Henry Fork Near Henry River Figure 2-36: Minimum Stream Flow Statistics Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-44 The peak stream flow volumes are totally dependant upon the rainfall over the corresponding drainage areas. Thus the drainage area size as well as other factors such as geology, topography, vegetation, and temperature has a great influence over total runoff. The yield of a stream is calculated as the measured stream flow out of a unit area. Figure 2-37 through 2-39 show the mean, maximum and minimum unit stream flow measured as cubic feet per second (cfs) per square mile. These comparable unit flow plots are useful for decision-making in water resources management. Compared to other gages, Johns River Near Arney’s Store measured the highest stream flow in both wet and dry seasons as shown in figures 2-34 – 2-36 as it has the largest drainage area of 201 square miles. The second largest drainage area (126 square miles) is above the gage station at Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden. The stream flow statistics show that this station recorded about two-thirds of the volume measured at Johns River Near Arney’s Store. However, unit flow volumes give a different picture. Even though the Linville area is the smallest of all four observed drainage areas, it is still the maximum producing stream (figures 2- 37 – 2-38). One reason is that it includes the Linville Gorges and this topography influences the stream flow production. - 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Fl o w s , c f s / s q m i l e Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Linville River Near Nebo Johns River at Arneys Store Henry Fork Near Henry Fork Figure 2-37: Unit Mean Stream Flow Statistics Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-45 - 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Fl o w s , c f s / s q m i l e Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Linville River Near Nebo Johns River at Arneys Store Henry Fork Near Henry River Figure 2-38: Unit Maximum Stream Flow Statistics - 0.5 1.0 1.5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecMonths Fl o w s , c f s / s q m i l e Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Linville River Near Nebo Johns River at Arneys Store Henry Fork Near Henry River Figure 2-39: Unit Minimum Stream Flow Statistics Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-46 To supply certain quantity of water to the communities, a stream must be capable of producing that reliable quantity of water consistently throughout the year. The availability of that surface water throughout the year can be best presented in a duration plot. The stream flow duration plots for the above four stations are shown in Figure 2-40. 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % Duration Exceeded Me a n M o n t h l y F l o w s , c f s Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Linville River Near Nebo John River at Arneys Store Henry Fork Near Henry River Figure 2-40: Mean Monthly Flow Duration Plot for four USGS gages for POR Water Years These plots show that 50 percent of the time the flow varies at or below 110 cfs to 275 cfs at these four stations. Ninety percent of the time the flow varies at or below only 52 cfs to 125 cfs. The upper basin gage stations are more prone to flash floods than the lower basin stations such as Henry Fork Near Henry River as shown in the plot in Figure 2-40. (b) Groundwater Ground water occurs in the subsurface of the Catawba river basin in a similar fashion to other river basins in the Piedmont and Mountain provinces of North Carolina. In general, ground water flow boundaries are equivalent to the surface water drainage areas. Topographic highs form surface drainage and ground water divides and topographic lows form drainage avenues for both surface and ground water systems. Ground water flow tends to be of a local origin or contained within a watershed and not in a regional sense or between surface water basins which can occur in the Coastal Plain. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-47 Rainfall infiltrates through soil horizons (if present) and into the weathered material overlying bedrock (saprolite) and into bedrock fractures, or into eroded and deposited weathered material (alluvium) and into bedrock fractures, or directly into bedrock where it is exposed at land surface. The water table is defined as the depth where the openings in the subsurface materials become saturated. Those openings may be joints or fractures in rock or pore spaces in unconsolidated rock material. The water table is a muted imitation of the topography; it is highest under hills and lowest in stream valleys. However, the water table is also closest to land surface in valleys. Ground water naturally discharges from the subsurface as base flow in streams and at springs (where the water table is higher than land surface). Base flow is the portion of stream flow made up of ground water. It is most easily measured when rainfall is negligible over a significant amount of time. In Figure 2-41, the water table is represented by the solid line (the height water will reach in a well). When rainfall is scarce the ground water is not recharged and the water table declines (dashed line) as it is discharged from the subsurface via surface water drainage. Ground water would naturally follow theoretical flow lines as indicated, but would be restricted to flow through available openings or fractures. In this example, the stream would go dry without current runoff from rainfall into drainage. In the diagram fractures in the bedrock illustrate some of the pathways in which ground water might flow. Fractures are shown as being more common in the valley and less common below the hill. In most cases topography is controlled by the fracture patterns. More highly fractured rock forms the valleys and draws and less fractured the hills and ridges. Often, fractures form conjugate pairs; fractures that are 60 to 90 degrees apart from one another. In some areas of the Catawba River Basin, the fracture patterns are obvious from the distribution and alignment of streams and topography. Ground water flow within saprolite and alluvium occurs in the porespaces. Locating wells near lineations in topography or drainage patterns or at the intersection of such features usually increases the well yield. However, yields are dependent on many factors including depth of well, diameter of well, location (hill or valley), degree and orientation of fracturing of the rock unit, degree of weathering of rock (thickness of saprolite). Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-48 Figure 2-41: Adapted from USGS Water Resources Investigations 77-65, by M. D. Winner, Jr., figure 2. vertically exaggerated and generalized Shallow wells, commonly dug or bored wells, tap the shallowest portion of the subsurface above the bedrock. They are usually a few tens of feet deep. They are most susceptible to going dry during drought conditions. Springs are also used for water supplies, but are also susceptible to going dry. Ground water reconnaissance studies identified many springs within the basin. Drilled wells are the most common method of extracting ground water. These wells are typically six inches in diameter and more than two hundred feet deep. Yields from all wells range from 0 to 500 gallons per minute and average about 18 gallons per minute within the Catawba River Basin based on ground water reconnaissance studies published between 1952 and 1967. Undoubtedly, yield averages have reduced if you factor in more recently constructed wells as homesites tend to be higher on the hillsides or ridgelines. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-49 Although it is interesting to note the range of yield, differences in the methods used to collect this data and the variability of well construction and other factors make such comparisons unreliable. The best way to ensure a good yielding well is to drill it where it has the best chance to intersect as many bedrock fractures as possible. Often this is difficult to achieve. One may accomplish this by a review of topography and drainage patterns for the best locations. It is usually the case that a well should not be drilled in the most convenient location. Dug or bored wells should not be used as they are prone to pollution and drying up. (c) Climate The overall climate can be described as humid subtropical, consisting of long, hot, humid summers, and short, mild winters (USGS Report 2005). Temperature variations over the area are not very significant even though altitudes vary along the terrain, although climate changes can be observed between the mountains in the west and the piedmont in the east and south. The rain is formed by the moisture carried mostly from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The highest rainfall amounts occur in the mountains of southwest just outside of the Catawba River basin and the lowest occur in the central mountains, to the west of the Catawba River basin, where the surrounding mountains apparently reduce the amount of rainfall reaching the area. Rainfall during the winter tends to be widely distributed and summer rainfall tends to be spotty with thunderstorms (USGS Report 2005). Statistical analyses performed using the observed rainfall and temperature data from several weather stations22, and Duke’s reservoir evaporation data23 are presented in the following sub-sections. (i) Rainfall The rainfall data were collected from the South East Regional Climate Center (SERCC) for seven stations: five in North Carolina and two in South Carolina. On average one station was selected from each county covering the length of the river basin. The selected stations are: Marion, Bridgewater, Morganton, Lookout Shoals, Lincolnton, Charlotte, Rockhill and Great Falls. All of these stations have at least 55 years of rainfall records with very few missing data points. The annual average rainfall plots for these stations are shown in Figure 2-42. This plot shows that the highest average annual rainfall of 54.5 inches was observed at Marion in the western portion of the basin. The rainfall amounts are relatively lower to the 22 Southeast Regional Climate Center, “Historical Climate Summaries for North Carolina” http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sercc/climateinfo/historical/historical_nc.html 23 CHEOPS model data Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-50 east, with the lowest being observed in Charlotte (42.7 inches). Figures 2-42 and 2-43 show that the stations in southern part of the basin in South Carolina measured slightly higher rainfall. In North Carolina, monthly rainfall varies from 3 to 5 inches depending on the season as shown in Figure 2-43. It also shows that during the summer the western stations experience higher amount of rainfall, and eastern/southern stations experience lower amount of rainfall. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Marion Bridgewater Morganton Lookoutshoals Lincolnton Charlotte Rockhill Great Falls Months An n u a l R a i n f a l l ( i n c h e s ) Figure 2-42: Average Annual Rainfall At Selected SERCC Stations Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-51 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Av e r a g e R a i n f a l l ( i n c h e s ) Marion BW Hydro Morganton Lookout Shoals Hydro Lincolnton Charlotte ARPT Figure 2-43: Average Monthly Rainfall At Selected SERCC Stations in the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina (ii) Temperature Temperature readings recorded at five SERCC weather stations (Marion, Morganton, Hickory, Lincolnton, and Charlotte) was analyzed. As mentioned above, temperature variations across the basin are relatively small. Figure 2-44 shows the average monthly temperature variation for the five stations. The region warms to the upper 70s in summer, falls to below 40 in winter and stays in the upper 50s during the spring (Figure 2-45). Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-52 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Months Te m p e r a t u r e , F Marion Morganton Hickory Lincolnton Charlotte Figure 2-44: Average Monthly Temperature at Selected SERCC Stations in the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Marion Morganton Hickory Lincolnton Charlotte Seasons Te m p e r a t u r r e , F Winter Spring Summer Fall Figure 2-45: Seasonal Average Temperature at Selected SERCC Stations in the Catawba River Basin, North Carolina Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-53 (iii) Reservoir Evaporation The eleven reservoirs along the main stem of the Catawba River create huge open surfaces of water that allow the loss of water through evaporation. The average daily reservoir evaporation rate is collected for eleven reservoirs from the data used in Duke Energy’s CHEOPS reservoir operation model. The monthly patterns of these data are presented in Figure 2-46. This figure shows that the highest evaporation occurs in July, when it varies from .01 to .014 feet per acre of reservoir surface area per day. 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Months Ev a p o r a t i o n , F t / A c r e BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 2-46: Monthly Pattern of Daily Reservoir Evaporation in the Catawba River Basin (d) Drought Drought conditions prevailed across much of North Carolina from 1998 to 2002, resulting in widespread record-low streamflow and groundwater levels in many areas (USGS Report 2005, 2). In general, it is believed to be the most severe drought in recent years. The hydrology from USGS stream gage records show that much of the Catawba River basin experienced low flow conditions from 2000 to 2002 compared to the other low flow periods. The report, “The Drought of 1998 – 2002 in North Carolina – Precipitation and Hydrologic Conditions” published by USGS also shows the variability of the drought throughout the state from 1998 to 2002 (USGS Report Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-54 2005). Daily mean discharges before and after the drought were compiled and minimum 7-day average discharges at six selected gaging stations with long term records were compared by USGS. At three of the six sites, all located in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont areas, the minimum 7-day average discharges during the 1998 to 2002 drought became the minimum flows of record (USGS Report 2005, 40). These comparisons confirmed that the deepest drought occurred in the streams near the Catawba basin. Figure 2-47: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-55 Figure 2-48: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Linville River Near Nebo Also for further comparison, stream flows for four of the Catawba USGS gage stations were downloaded from USGS website and hydrographs were plotted in time series and are presented in figures 2-49 through 2-52. Gage stations at Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden, Johns River Near Arney’s Store and Henry Fork Near Henry River in figures 2-49, 2-50 and 2-51 show that the flows gradually declined in 2002 from previous year. The flow statistics are also presented in figures 2-53 through 2-56 for those stream flows from the same gages. Monthly stream flow averages are compared with drought period’s flows, especially for 2002. Only Linville River had the driest period in mid 1920s as shown in figure 2- 54, whereas the other three locations show the minimum flows recorded during 2001 and 2002. The USGS report also noted that precipitation records in two stations within Catawba River basin (Hickory and Charlotte), the average monthly deficit for the 1998 to 2002 drought exceeded the values computed for the other drought periods. The largest cumulative precipitation deficit (66.7 inches below normal) occurred in Hickory during the 1998 to 2002 (USGS 2005).Thus, these rainfall deficits also illustrate how much the basin was affected by this recent drought. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-56 Figure 2-49: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Johns River At Arney’s Store Figure 2-50: Hydrograph of Stream flow in Henry Fork Near Henry River Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-57 Figure 2-51: Statistics of Stream flow in Catawba River Near Pleasant Garden Figure 2-52: Statistics of Stream flow in Linville River Near Nebo Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-58 Figure 2-53: Statistics of Stream flow in Johns River At Arneys Figure 2-54: Statistics of Stream flow in Henry Fork near Henry River Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-59 Ground water levels have been measured on a recurring basis in 15 wells located in the Catawba River Basin between 1968 and present day. Currently, four wells continue to be measured. The four current stations and their beginning year of record are Glen Alpine in Burke County (1970), Linville in Avery County (1972), Hornets Nest Park in Mecklenburg County (1984), and Troutman in Iredell County (1972). The water level records from all 15 wells reveal four distinct periods of drought. The time period from 1970 through 1972 was dry for four wells, 1986 through 1989 was dry for seven wells, 1999 through 2002 was dry for four wells (only four wells were being monitored at this time), and 2005 was dry for one of the four wells. The magnitude of the decline in water levels was largest for the 1999 through 2002 time period. Beyond the water levels measured in the monitoring wells, the 1999 through 2002 drought could be measured in the number of phone calls received and the reports from county health departments about well failures. Most of these well failures were dug or bored well owners getting information about new well construction and permits. Above normal rainfall amounts began to occur in August and September of 2002. However, the stream flows and groundwater levels did not begin to increase across most of North Carolina, including the Catawba River basin, until the spring of 2003, thereby ending the hydrological drought (USGS Report, 2005). This recent drought not only dried out the streams and wells within the basin, this dry condition impacted the public water supply systems also. These systems responded to drought through various forms of water conservations. Table 2-6 shows the water conservation status of the public water supply systems during 1998 – 2002 droughts. The numbers in the table show that many systems were in emergency water conservation condition for many months in 2002. Granite Falls, Bessemer City and Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities had the highest cumulative impact of emergency condition for four months in 2002. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-60 Table 2-6: Number of months the Public Water Supply Systems under Conservation measures during 1998- 2002 Drought PWSID Water System WC Public Education Program V98 V99 V00 V01 V02 M98 M99 M00 M01 M02 E98 E99 E00 E01 E02 Pub Education02 Voluntary Mandatory Emergency 01-02-010Taylorsville No 000010000000002 No 10 2 01-02-020Alexander County WD Yes 000000000000000 Yes 00 0 01-02-035Bethlehem WD No 000060000000000 Yes 60 0 01-06-104Linville Land Harbor Yes 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-12-010Valdese Yes 000020000000000 Yes 20 0 01-12-015Morganton No 000000000000000 Yes 00 0 01-12-040Triple Community WC Yes 000080000000000 Yes 80 0 01-12-045Drexel No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-12-060Icard Township WC Yes 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-12-065Burke County No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-12-103Brentwood WA No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-12-104Brentwood Water Corp No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-14-010Lenoir No 000060000000000 No 60 0 01-14-025Baton WC No 000050000000000 Yes 50 0 01-14-030Granite Falls No 000040000000004 Yes 40 4 01-14-035Rhodhiss No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-14-040Sawmills No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-14-045Caldwell County W No 000030000000000 No 30 0 01-14-046Caldwell County S No 000030000000000 No 30 0 01-14-047Caldwell County SE No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-14-048Caldwell County N No 000030000000000 No 30 0 01-18-010Hickory Yes 000000000000000 Yes 00 0 01-18-015Newton No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-18-020Conover No 000030000000000 Yes 30 0 01-18-025Longview No 000050000000000 No 50 0 01-18-030Maiden Yes 000050000000000 Yes 50 0 01-18-035Claremont No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-18-040Catawba No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-36-010Gastonia No 000020000000000 Yes 20 0 01-36-015Belmont Yes 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-36-020Mount Holly Yes 000040000000000 Yes 40 0 01-36-025Bessemer City No 122120100000124 Yes 81 7 01-36-030Cherryville Yes 555660000600000 Yes 27 6 0 01-36-034Ranlo No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-36-035Stanley No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-36-040Cramerton No 000000000000000 Yes 00 0 01-36-045McAdenville No 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-36-060Lowell Yes 000000000000000 No 00 0 01-36-065Dallas No 000010000000000 No 10 0 01-36-075High Shoals No 000030000100002 No 31 2 01-49-015Mooresville Yes 000030000000002 Yes 30 2 01-55-010Lincolnton Water System Yes 000300000000000 No 30 0 01-55-035Lincoln County Yes 000030000000002 Yes 30 2 01-56-010Marion Yes 000000000000000 Yes 00 0 01-56-025Old Fort No 000000000000000 Yes 00 0 01-60-010 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Yes 0 0 6 12 8 0000000004 Yes 26 0 4 01-90-413Union County No 000020000000001 Yes 20 1 20-18-004Southeastern Catawba County WD No 000060000000000 No 60 0 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-61 Section 2.3 Water Supply – Drainage Area Summaries (a) Lake James Drainage Area Lake James is the westernmost lake in the Catawba River basin. The Lake James drainage area includes the headwaters for the Catawba River, just west of the Town of Old Fort, and is comprised of 380 square miles of largely forested land. In fact, approximately half of the drainage area is located within the Pisgah National Forest (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001, 6). Major tributaries within the Lake James drainage area include the North Fork of the Catawba River and the Linville River. The largest portion of the drainage area is located in McDowell County, with smaller portions located in Burke and Avery Counties (Figure 2-55). It is located in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains and the landscape is dominated by rolling hills (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999, 3). Figure 2-55: Lake James Drainage Area Location The three counties in this drainage area are relatively rural. The largest municipality is the City of Marion, located in McDowell County, which also Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-62 operates the only community water system to withdraw surface water from the drainage area. Other surface water withdrawals in the drainage area are made by Coats American, two trout farms, several fish hatcheries, and for use in agriculture and irrigation, including golf courses. A Duke Energy facility is also projected to withdraw water from Lake James beginning in 2048; although, specific plans for this facility do not, as of yet, exist (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, 14). Table 2-7 shows the City of Marion’s projected demand (2002 Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP)). As seen in Figure 2-5624, of the demand projections calculated for this report25, the LWSP projections (blue line) and the Duke Water Supply Study projections (red line) (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C) both fall near the bottom of the projection range. In between 2040 and 2050, projected demand in the Lake James Drainage Area seems to jump drastically; however, this is only due to the aforementioned future Duke Energy facility, which is projected to use 15.3 MGD on average. The lowest and highest projections begin only 0.717 MGD apart in 2010 and finish 4.346 MGD apart in 2050. The lowest projections, the LWSP projections, and the Duke projections all rise between 2010 and 2050 by approximately 22 MGD (21.97, 21.8, and 21.94 MGD respectively) (HDR Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). The highest projections rise by 25.6 MGD for the same period. Table 2-7: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD) 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Surface Water Systems City of Marion 1.51 1.717 1.983 2.243 2.542 2.889 Total 1.51 1.717 1.983 2.243 2.542 2.889 Groundwater Systems Town of Old Fort 0.38 0.418 0.469 0.525 0.582 0.648 Linville Land Harbor 0.29 0.292 0.292 0.292 0.292 0.292 Total 0.67 0.71 0.761 0.817 0.874 0.94 In terms of wastewater, the City of Marion, the Linville Harbor Private Owners Association and the Town of Old Fort are all community water systems that discharge into the drainage area through their own wastewater treatment plants. The Linville Harbor Private Owners Association and the Town of Old Fort rely solely on groundwater as their water source. While the City of Marion discharges some of its wastewater to Lake James, a small portion of it is also discharged to the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area through Marion’s Corpening Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Table 2-8 shows projections for wastewater discharges in the 24 Figure 2-58 represents the range of withdrawal projections calculated for the Lake James drainage area. The highest and lowest projections for each year were selected from all projections calculated, and so do not always represent just one projection method. For a table of all of the projection values calculated, please see Appendix C. 25 For information on how these projections were calculated, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-63 Lake James drainage area based on the 2002 LWSPs and projections from the Duke Energy Water Supply Study (HDR, Inc. of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C)26. Figure 2-56: Lake James Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range Table 2-8: Discharge Projections – Lake James Drainage Area (in MGD) 26 For information about how these projections were calculated, please see Appendix B. 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Discharge to Lake James Withdrawn from Lake James 7.969 8.780 9.401 10.085 10.832 11.736 Withdrawn from Groundwater 0.635 0.670 0.719 0.719 0.826 0.889 Withdrawn from Unknown Source 1.110 1.360 1.660 1.960 2.260 2.560 Total 9.714 10.810 11.780 12.764 13.918 15.185 Discharge to Other Drainage Areas Discharge to Lake Rhodhiss 0.621 0.636 0.725 0.838 0.948 1.221 Total Discharge From Lake James Drainage Area 10.335 11.446 12.505 13.601 14.866 16.405 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-64 (b) Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area Based on the streamflow direction, Lake Rhodhiss is the second of seven lakes on the Catawba River in North Carolina. Its 710 square miles cover portions of McDowell, Avery, Burke and Caldwell Counties (Figure 2-57). According to the Division of Water Quality Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, approximately three quarters of the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area is forested (1999), as much of the northwestern portion of the drainage area lies within the Pisgah National Forest (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001). Figure 2-57: Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area Location Twenty community water systems depend on surface water from the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area. For seventeen of these systems, the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area is their only source of water. Icard Township, Burke County, and the Town of Rhodhiss only partially rely on this portion of the Catawba River basin as their water source. Four water systems in the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area withdraw their water directly from the Catawba River and its tributaries: the Town of Granite Falls, the City of Lenoir, the City of Morganton, and the Town of Valdese. The remaining sixteen systems purchase water from one of these four. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-65 Non-municipal withdrawals in the basin consist of a fish hatchery, agricultural uses, and irrigation (including golf courses) (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). Table 2-9 shows the projected demand of all public water supply systems that rely on the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area for water, as presented in their Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs). Table 2-9: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD) Surface Water Systems 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Granite Falls 0.906 0.996 1.113 1.241 1.385 1.549 City of Lenoir 4.041 4.152 4.357 4.554 4.747 4.938 City of Morganton 7.055 7.266 7.506 7.796 8.146 8.566 Town of Valdese 4.851 5.112 5.514 5.842 6.600 7.187 Caldwell County S 0.511 0.441 0.450 0.459 0.468 0.477 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Icard Townshipb 0.428 0.477 0.507 0.600 0.696 0.715 Burke Countyb 0.164 0.177 0.202 0.227 0.256 0.289 Rhodhissb 0.044 0.045 0.045 0.048 0.048 0.048 Caldwell County N 0.300 0.311 0.315 0.319 0.323 0.328 Caldwell County SE 0.410 0.353 0.360 0.366 0.374 0.384 Caldwell County W 0.599 0.532 0.542 0.552 0.563 0.574 Sawmills 0.282 0.288 0.301 0.309 0.320 0.330 Baton WC 0.529 0.673 0.591 0.615 0.641 0.667 Joycetona Triple Comm WC 0.487 0.568 0.645 0.721 0.801 0.881 Rutherford Collegea Drexel 0.240 0.336 0.400 0.464 0.523 0.582 Brentwood WA 0.760 0.795 0.831 0.871 0.912 0.955 Brentwood WC 0.342 0.354 0.371 0.388 0.407 0.426 Burke Caldwella Total 21.949 22.877 24.050 25.371 27.209 28.896 a No 2002 LWSP submitted b Only the amount of water withdrawn from the Lake Rhodhiss Drainage area is represented, based on the percentage of the total amount withdrawn from all sources in 2002 Figure 2-5827 shows the lowest and highest service area water demand projections28 in the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area. The blue line represents a compilation of the Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) service area demand 27 Figure 2.60 represents the range of withdrawal projections calculated for the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area. The highest and lowest projections for each year were selected from all projections calculated, and so do not always represent just one projection method. For a table of all of the withdrawal projections calculated, please see Appendix C. 28 For information on how these projections were calculated, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-66 projections and the red line represents a compilation of the Duke Energy Water Supply Study projections (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). Both are near the bottom of the range and follow the slope of the low end of the range fairly closely. The lowest projections rise only by 7.81 MGD, from 22.223 in 2010 to 30.034 in 2050. The LWSP projections increase by a combined 8.632 MGD and the Duke Energy projections by a combined 11.748 MGD. The highest projections show an increase from 45.895 in 2010 to 143.345 in 2050 (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). The difference between the highest and lowest projections in 2050 is 113.28 MGD. Figure 2-58: Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range The Cities of Marion, Lenoir, Morganton and the Town of Valdese return wastewater through their own treatment plants to the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area. Of the four, only the latter three withdraw water from the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area. Marion withdraws its water from the Lake James drainage area. In 2002, approximately 61% of the water withdrawn from Lake Rhodhiss was discharged as wastewater and about 88% of that was discharged back into Lake Rhodhiss. Table 2-10 summarizes current and future discharge projections based on LWSP service area demand projections to and from the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area29. 29 For information about how these projections were calculated, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-67 Table 2-10: Discharge Projections – Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area (in MGD) 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Discharge to Lake Rhodhiss Withdrawn from Lake Rhodhiss 11.862 12.517 13.280 13.889 15.149 16.190 Withdrawn from Lake James 0.621 0.636 0.725 0.838 0.948 1.221 Withdrawn from Lake Hickory 0.122 0.133 0.152 0.170 0.192 0.217 Withdrawn from Unknown Source 1.700 0.920 1.020 1.140 1.320 1.440 Total 14.305 14.206 15.177 16.037 17.609 19.068 Discharge to Other Drainage Areas Discharge to Lake Hickory 1.446 2.618 2.787 2.869 3.136 3.325 Discharge to Lake Wylie 0.081 0.088 0.100 0.112 0.127 0.143 Discharge to Lake Norman 0.027 0.029 0.033 0.037 0.042 0.048 Total 1.554 2.735 2.920 3.018 3.305 3.516 Total Discharge from Lake Rhodhiss Drainage Area 13.416 15.252 16.200 16.907 18.454 19.706 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-68 (c) Lake Hickory Drainage Area The largest portion of the Lake Hickory drainage area30 is located in the eastern part of Caldwell County and the remainder of the reservoir resides in Alexander, Catawba, and Burke Counties (Figure 2-59). The City of Hickory is the largest municipality in the Lake Hickory drainage area (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001). The Division of Water Quality Catawba River Basin Plan estimated that roughly half of the drainage area is forested and approximately a third is agricultural (1999). The reservoir’s drainage area is approximately 220 square miles (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001); its major tributaries include the Catawba River, the Middle Little River, and Gunpowder Creek (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). Figure 2-59: Lake Hickory Drainage Area Location Of the eleven community water systems that depend on surface water in the Lake Hickory drainage area, only two, the City of Hickory and the Town of Longview, have their own intakes in the drainage area. The remaining nine systems purchase water from one of these two community water systems. Table 2-11 30 Drainage area boundaries were determined by HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas for the Duke Energy Water Supply Study (2005). Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-69 shows the projected withdrawals from each system’s Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP). The only other surface water withdrawals in the lake Hickory drainage area are for agriculture and irrigation (including golf courses); there are no direct industrial withdrawals (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). No community water systems in this drainage area rely on groundwater. Table 2-11: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD) Surface Water Systems 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 City of Hickory 8.944 9.531 10.540 11.760 12.980 14.510 Town of Longview 1.036 1.140 1.184 1.211 1.484 1.551 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Bethlehem 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 Alexander County 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 Conover 1.553 1.617 2.101 2.731 3.550 4.616 Claremont 0.233 0.300 0.427 0.625 0.930 1.421 Icard Township 0.350 0.391 0.415 0.491 0.569 0.585 Burke County 0.055 0.059 0.067 0.076 0.085 0.096 Rhodhiss 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.014 SE Catawba County 0.096 0.137 0.206 0.268 0.321 0.071 Taylorsville 0.403 0.264 0.269 0.274 0.279 0.284 Total 13.859 14.713 16.792 19.228 22.205 25.384 Figure 2-6031 shows the lowest and highest service area water demand projections calculated in the Lake Hickory drainage area32. The line showing the Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) service area projections starts out closely following the bottom of the range of projections (see Appendix B). Around 2030, the LWSP water demand projection crosses below the line representing the lowest projection in the range and continues below the projection range, indicating a slower projected growth rate. The lowest water demand projection in this range rises from 15.309 MGD in 2010 to 31.863 MGD in 2050, while the LWSP projection rises from 16.503 MGD in 2010 to only 27.964 in the same timeframe. The highest water demand projection in the range begins at 30.525 MGD in 2010 and escalates to 121.287 MGD in 2050. 31 Figure 2.62 represents the range of withdrawal projections calculated for the Lake Hickory drainage area. The highest and lowest projections for each year were selected from all projections calculated, and so do not always represent just one projection method. For a table of all of the withdrawal projections calculated, please see Appendix C. 32 For information on how these projections were calculated, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-70 Figure 2-60: Lake Hickory Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range Fourteen public water supply systems discharge wastewater into the Lake Hickory drainage area; however, only the water systems for the Cities of Hickory and Lenoir and the Town of Granite Falls do so through their own wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), the remaining eleven systems transfer their wastewater to the latter three systems for discharge. Of the three municipalities, the City of Hickory’s water system is the only one that withdraws water from the Lake Hickory drainage area. The water systems for the Cities of Lenoir and Granite Falls withdraw all of their water from the Lake Rhodhiss drainage area. Roughly 65% of the water withdrawn from the Lake Hickory drainage area is discharged as wastewater and approximately 40% of that total discharge is returned to the Lake Hickory drainage area. Table 2-12 summarizes the current and projected discharges in the Lake Hickory drainage area, based on 2002 LWSP data. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-71 Table 2-12: Discharge Projections – Lake Hickory Drainage Area (in MGD) 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Discharge to Lake Hickory Withdrawn from Lake Hickory 3.703 3.943 4.366 4.873 5.380 6.015 Withdrawn from Lake Rhodhiss 1.446 2.618 2.787 2.869 3.136 3.325 Withdrawn from Unknown Source 0.120 0.120 0.200 0.200 0.220 0.300 Total 5.269 6.681 7.353 7.942 8.736 9.640 Discharge to Other Drainage Areas Discharge to Lake Wylie 3.947 4.394 4.826 5.323 6.076 6.761 Discharge to Lake Norman 1.191 2.201 2.706 3.378 4.254 5.465 Discharge to Lake Rhodhiss 0.122 0.133 0.152 0.170 0.192 0.217 Discharge to Lookout Shoals Lake 0.149 0.098 0.100 0.101 0.103 0.105 Total Discharge From Lake Hickory Drainage Area 9.112 10.769 12.150 13.845 16.005 18.563 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-72 (d) Lookout Shoals Lake Drainage Area The drainage area for Lookout Shoals Lake is located almost entirely within Alexander County, which is the northeastern corner of the Catawba River basin. Small portions of the drainage area also extend into Catawba County and Iredell County (Figure 2-61). It is within this drainage area that the Catawba River turns from a predominantly eastward flow to a more southerly flow. Figure 2-61: Lookout Shoals Lake Drainage Area Location The City of Statesville operates the only community water system that withdraws water from the Lookout Shoals Lake drainage area via an interbasin transfer. Statesville is located in the Yadkin River basin and discharges all of its wastewater there. The demand projections shown in Table 2-13 are based on the projections presented in the Duke Energy Water Supply Study, because the City of Statesville did not include estimated water withdrawal projections from Lookout Shoals Lake in its 2002 LWSP. The only other withdrawals of surface water occurring in the drainage area are agricultural. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-73 Table 2-13: 2002 Community Water System Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD) 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Surface Water Systems City of Statesville 0 4.69 5.68 6.88 8.34 9 Total 0 4.69 5.68 6.88 8.34 9 Since the only estimates of the withdrawal from the Lookout Shoals Lake drainage area come from the Duke Energy Water Supply Study, water demand projections were not calculated. The Town of Taylorsville operates the only community water system that discharges wastewater directly into the Lookout Shoals Lake drainage area. The Town of Taylorsville’s 2002 LWSP shows that it purchased approximately half of its water from Energy United Water Corporation and received their remaining water needs from the City of Hickory in 2002. Determining the sources of the discharges from community water systems into the Lookout Shoals drainage area is complicated. The City of Hickory withdraws all of its water from Lake Hickory. Energy United Water Corporation’s water source is a bit more complicated. In 2002, Energy United withdrew most of its water supply from the Yadkin River basin and purchased a small amount of water from Alexander County; however, Energy United’s 2002 LWSP indicated that the latter source would no longer be available. In 2005, Energy United began purchasing all of its water from the City of Newton, which withdraws all of its water from the South Fork Catawba River basin/Lake Wylie drainage area. If Taylorsville continues to purchase water from both Energy United and the City of Hickory at the same levels presented above, it can be assumed that approximately equal amounts of Taylorsville’s discharged wastewater into the Lookout Shoals Lake drainage area will originate from the Lake Hickory drainage area and the South Fork Catawba River basin/Lake Wylie drainage area (Table 2-14). In addition to the community water system discharges, there is one industrial discharge to the drainage area. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-74 Table 2-14: Discharge Projections – Lookout Shoals Lake Drainage Area (in MGD) 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Discharge to Lookout Shoals Lake Withdrawn from Lake Hickory 0.149 0.098 0.100 0.101 0.103 0.105 Withdrawn from Lake Wylie 0.149 0.098 0.100 0.101 0.103 0.105 Withdrawn from Unknown Source 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 Total 0.598 0.495 0.499 0.503 0.506 0.510 Discharge to Other Drainage Areas Discharge to Yadkin River basin 0.000 4.690 5.680 6.880 8.340 9.000 Total Discharge From Lookout Shoals Lake Drainage Area 0.000 4.690 5.680 6.880 8.340 9.000 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-75 (e) Lake Norman Drainage Area Lake Norman is the largest reservoir in the State of North Carolina, with an area of more than 32,500 acres and extending approximately 34 miles in length from its headwaters to its spillover. Its associated drainage area covers roughly 340 square miles (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001, 19) and encompasses portions of Iredell, Catawba, Lincoln, Gaston, and Mecklenburg Counties (Figure 2-62). According to the Division of Water Quality Catawba River basin plan, about half of the drainage basin is forested and over a quarter of it is agricultural land (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). Lake Norman’s waterfront property is, however, considered the most developed in the Catawba River basin, with 61% of its 569 miles of shoreline developed (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001, 19). Figure 2-62: Lake Norman Drainage Area Location Only three community water systems depend on surface water and two systems depend on groundwater in the Lake Norman drainage area. The three surface water systems, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU), Lincoln County, and the Town of Mooresville, all have intakes in the Catawba River basin. Table 2-15 lists the projected demand of all community water systems that depend on this Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-76 drainage area for their water supply, as presented in their Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs). Table 2-15 also includes projections for the proposed Concord/Kannapolis interbasin transfer. In addition to community water system withdrawals, Lake Norman provides for agricultural and irrigation withdrawals and two Duke Energy power facilities, the Marshall Steam Station and the McGuire Nuclear Station. According to Duke Energy’s Water Supply Study, the possibility of a third facility is under consideration to begin operations in 2018 (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, 14). Table 2-15: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD) Surface Water Systems 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 CMUa 17.319 20.048 23.888 27.168 30.451 33.536 Lincoln County 2.102 2.493 3.259 4.073 5.090 6.365 Town of Mooresville 3.680 6.000 8.750 11.750 14.750 17.500 Concord/Kannapolis/ Cabarrus County IBT 0.000 1.000 6.000 11.000 16.600 23.860 Total 23.101 29.541 41.897 53.991 66.891 81.261 Ground Water Systems Iredell WC 1.545 1.995 2.536 3.077 3.618 4.159 Claremonta 0.048 0.061 0.088 0.128 0.191 0.291 Total 1.593 2.056 2.624 3.205 3.809 4.450 a Only the amount of water withdrawn from the Lake Norman Drainage area is represented, based on the percentage of the total amount withdrawn from all sources in 2002. Figure 2-6333 shows the lowest and highest service area demand projections calculated in the Lake Norman drainage area34. The lowest projections rise from 53.855 MGD in 2010 to 111.920 MGD in 2050. The highest projections increase by 152.711 MGD, from 86.183 MGD in 2010 to 238.894 MGD in 2050. The difference between the highest and lowest projections in 2050 is 126.974 MGD. The LWSP projections fall in between the two; beginning at 70.821 MGD in 2010 and growing by 77.22 MGD to 148.041 MGD in 2050. The Duke Energy Water Supply Study projections fall mainly underneath the lowest projections, only rising to their level between 2040 and 2050 (HDR Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). 33 Figure 2.65 represents the range of withdrawal projections calculated for the Lake Norman drainage area. The highest and lowest projections for each year were selected from all projections calculated, and so do not always represent just one projection method. For a table of all of the withdrawal projections calculated, please see Appendix C. 34 For a description of how the projections were calculated, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-77 Figure 2-63: Lake Norman Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range Four community water systems (the Cities of Claremont, Conover, and Hickory and Lincoln County) and two private water systems (Aqua North Carolina and Heather Utilities, Inc.) return wastewater to the Lake Norman drainage basin through their own wastewater treatment plants. Only two of the community water systems, the City of Claremont and Lincoln County, obtain at least some of their water from the Lake Norman drainage area. The Cities of Conover and Hickory withdraw their water from Lake Hickory. In 2002, of the 12.465 MGD that was discharged as wastewater from the Lake Norman drainage area, only 0.181 MGD was returned to Lake Norman. A summary and projection of the discharges, based on the LWSP service area demand projections, to and from Lake Norman is presented in Table 2-16. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-78 Table 2-16: Discharge Projections – Lake Norman Drainage Area (in MGD) 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Discharge to Lake Norman Withdrawn from Lake Norman 0.181 0.197 0.227 0.259 0.299 0.348 Withdrawn from Lake Hickory 1.191 2.201 2.706 3.378 4.254 5.465 Withdrawn from Lake Rhodhiss 0.027 0.029 0.033 0.037 0.042 0.048 Withdrawn from Lake Wylie 0.040 0.046 0.048 0.051 0.051 0.054 Withdrawn From Groundwater 0.039 0.050 0.071 0.104 0.154 0.236 Withdrawn from Unknown Source 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.120 0.200 0.200 Total 1.478 2.624 3.186 3.949 5.000 6.351 Discharge to Other Drainage Areas Discharge to Mountain Island Lake 0.782 0.692 0.824 0.937 1.051 1.157 Discharge to Fishing Creek Reservoir 10.316 11.066 13.186 14.997 16.809 18.512 Discharge to Rocky River Basin 0.886 2.075 2.472 2.812 3.152 3.471 Discharge to Lake Wylie 0.300 0.349 0.456 0.570 0.713 0.891 Total 12.284 14.182 16.939 19.316 21.724 24.031 Total Discharge from Lake Norman Drainage Area 12.465 14.379 17.166 19.575 22.022 24.379 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-79 (f) Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area The Mountain Island Lake drainage area is, at 70 square miles, the smallest drainage area in the Catawba River basin (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001, 21). Most of the drainage area is in Mecklenburg County, with smaller portions located in Lincoln and Gaston counties (see Figure 2-64). The Division of Water Quality Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan Plan (1999) estimated, at that time, that half of the drainage area was forested, one fourth of it was agricultural, and the remainder of it was urban. Figure 2-64: Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area Three community water systems have intakes in the Mountain Island Lake drainage area: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU), and the Cities of Gastonia and Mount Holly. In addition, the City of Lowell and the Towns of Cramerton, and McAdenville purchase all of their water from the City of Gastonia, and Stanley purchases approximately half of its water from the City of Mount Holly. In terms of non-municipal water withdrawals, there are some agricultural and irrigation withdrawals in the drainage area and Duke Energy operates the Riverbend Steam Station on Mountain Island Lake (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). Table 2-17 shows the projected demand of all community water Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-80 systems that rely on the Mountain Island Lake drainage area for water, as presented in their Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs). Table 2-17: Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD) Surface Water Systems 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 CMUa 90.925 105.252 125.412 142.632 159.869 176.064 City of Gastonia 10.751 14.233 19.007 21.868 25.164 28.931 City of Mount Holly 1.453 3.272 5.308 7.871 11.954 18.392 Lowell 0.430 0.449 0.471 0.496 0.521 0.546 McAdenville 0.440 0.544 0.565 0.588 0.615 0.643 Cramerton 0.355 0.424 0.461 0.497 0.538 0.575 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Stanleya 0.812 0.859 1.038 1.219 1.342 1.593 Total 105.166 125.033 152.262 175.171 200.003 226.744 a Only the amount of water withdrawn from the Mountain Island Lake drainage area is represented, based on the percentage of the total amount withdrawn from all sources in 2002. Figure 2-65: Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area Water Demand Projections Range Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-81 Figure 2-6535 shows the lowest and highest service area demand projections in the Mountain Island Lake drainage area36. The line for the LWSP service area demand projections is near the bottom of the range, and increases at a faster rate than the lowest projections, which begin at 124.933 MGD in 2010 and grow to 179.109 MGD in 2050. The LWSP service area demand projections begin in 2010 a little above the lowest projections at 130.171 MGD and rise by over 100 MGD to 233.041 MGD in 2050. The Duke Energy Water Supply Study projections begin at 135.34 MGD in 2010 and rise to 210.46 MGD in 2050, staying close to the lowest projections, but continuing to rise once the lowest projections level off between 2020 and 2030 (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C). The highest projections begin at 181.025 and increase by over 400 MGD to 526.673 MGD in 2050. CMU is the only community water system that discharges into the Mountain Island Lake drainage area. Of the water that is withdrawn from this drainage area, most of it is discharged into either the Lake Wylie drainage area or the South Fork Catawba River basin. A summary of the discharge projections to and from Mountain Island Lake is presented in Table 2-18 (LWSP data). 35 Figure 2.67 represents the range of withdrawal projections calculated for the Mountain Island Lake drainage area. The highest and lowest projections for each year were selected from all projections calculated, and so do not always represent just one projection method. For a table of all of the withdrawal projections calculated, please see Appendix C. 36 For information on how these projections were calculated, please see Appendix B. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-82 Table 2-18: Discharge Projections – Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area (in MGD) 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Discharge to Mountain Island Lake Discharge from Mountain Island Lake 4.108 3.631 4.327 4.921 5.515 6.074 Discharge from Lake Norman 0.782 0.692 0.824 0.937 1.051 1.157 Total 4.890 4.323 5.151 5.858 6.566 7.231 Discharge to Other Drainage Areas Discharge to Fishing Creek Reservoir 54.157 58.099 69.227 78.733 88.248 97.187 Discharge to Rocky River Basin 4.654 10.894 12.980 14.762 16.546 18.223 Discharge to Lake Wylie 10.889 16.220 22.599 28.507 36.983 49.257 Total 69.700 85.212 104.807 122.002 141.777 164.667 Total Discharge From Mountain Island Lake Drainage Area 73.808 88.844 109.134 126.923 147.292 170.741 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-83 (g) Lake Wylie Drainage Area and the South Fork Catawba River Basin For purposes of this report, the Lake Wylie drainage area and the South Fork Catawba River basin have been combined because they both drain into Lake Wylie. Figures 2.68 and 2.69 show the delineated areas for the Lake Wylie drainage area and the South Fork Catawba River basin, relative to the Catawba River basin and each other. Together, the drainage areas form a large piece of the Catawba River basin, covering portions of five counties and containing at least part of 19 different community water systems. The Lake Wylie drainage area alone covers approximately 369 square miles (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001). It contains portions of the City of Charlotte and much of the area’s growth is a result of the City of Charlotte’s expansion. Consequently, this is one of the most urbanized drainage areas in the Catawba River basin (North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1999). Figure 2-66: Lake Wylie Drainage Area Location Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-84 Figure 2-67: South Fork Catawba River Basin Location The South Fork Catawba River basin adds another 650 square miles of drainage area for Lake Wylie (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 2001, 27). The southern portion of the South Fork Catawba River basin, near the City of Charlotte, is more urbanized than its northern reaches, which tend to be more rural37. Ten of the aforementioned 19 community water systems depend on water from these two drainage areas for their water supplies. Nine of the ten have surface water intakes, while the tenth water system, the Town of Catawba, purchases all of its water from the City of Newton. Table 2-19 shows the projected demands for all of the community water systems that rely on the Lake Wylie drainage area and the South Fork Catawba River basin for water, as presented in their Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs). Furthermore, there are several non-municipal water withdrawals in these areas; they include five direct industrial water withdrawals and three Duke Energy power facilities (Allen Steam Plant, Lincoln Combustion Turbine Facility, and Catawba Nuclear Station) on Lake Wylie. Lake Wylie also 37 For more detail, please see the county summaries in Chapter 2, Section 2.1 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-85 crosses into South Carolina and two of their municipal community water systems (Rock Hill and Tega Cay38) rely on the lake for their water source. Table 2-19: 2002 Local Water Supply Plan Service Area Demand Projections (in MGD) Surface Water Systems 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 City of Belmont 2.483 3.783 4.564 5.431 6.379 7.013 Bessemer City 0.861 1.082 1.092 1.107 1.122 1.137 City of Cherryville 0.821 1.129 1.446 1.763 2.079 2.396 Town of Dallasb 0.572 0.567 0.617 Town of High Shoals 0.064 0.110 0.138 0.153 0.170 0.204 City of Lincolnton 4.310 4.825 5.546 6.375 7.329 8.425 City of Newton 2.334 2.581 2.994 3.651 4.449 5.423 Town of Stanleya 0.406 0.430 0.519 0.610 0.671 0.797 Catawba 0.073 0.084 0.088 0.092 0.096 0.099 Maiden 1.459 1.548 1.592 1.648 1.696 1.755 Total 13.383 16.139 18.596 20.830 23.991 27.249 a Only the amount of water withdrawn from the Lake Wylie drainage area is represented based on the percentage of the total amount withdrawn from all sources in 2002. b The Town of Dallas only provided projections out to 2020 in their 2002 Local Water Supply Plan. Figure 2-68 displays the lowest and highest service area demand projections in the Lake Wylie drainage area and the South Fork Catawba River basin. Both the line representing the LWSP service area demand projections and the line representing the Duke Energy Water Supply Study projections (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C) mimic, but remain slightly above, the line representing the lowest projections. The lowest, LWSP, and Duke Energy Water Supply Study projections (HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas 2005, Appendix C) all increase by around the same amount (46.9 MGD, 47.8 MGD, and 48.1 MGD respectively) from 2010 to 2050. The highest projections increase at a much faster rate, growing by 156.5 MGD during the same period; from 117.767 MGD in 2010 by 156.543 MGD to 274.310 MGD in 2050. In 2050, the difference between the highest and lowest projections is 131.619 MGD. In North Carolina, thirteen industrial water users, three private water systems and fourteen community water systems discharge into the Lake Wylie drainage area/ South Fork Catawba River basin. Two more community water systems discharge into the Lake Wylie drainage area in South Carolina. Almost all of the wastewater originally withdrawn from these two areas is discharged back into the Lake Wylie drainage area and South Fork Catawba River basin (99.81% in 2002). A summary of the discharge projections, based on the LWSP service area demand projections, into the Lake Wylie drainage area and South Fork Catawba River basin is presented in Table 2-20. 38 Since this plan is focused on the North Carolina portion of the Catawba River basin, the South Carolina municipal withdrawals will not be presented with the North Carolina municipal withdrawal information. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-86 Figure 2-68: Lake Wylie Drainage Area and South Fork Catawba River Basin Demand Projections Range Table 2-20: Discharge Projections – Lake Wylie Drainage Area/South Fork Catawba River Basin (in MGD) Discharge to Lake Wylie/ South Fork Catawba 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Withdrawn from Lake Wylie/South Fork Catawba 20.976 23.512 25.691 27.844 30.912 33.770 Withdrawn from Lake Rhodhiss 11.862 12.517 13.280 13.889 15.149 16.190 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Withdrawn from Lake Hickory 3.947 4.394 4.826 5.323 6.076 6.761 Withdrawn from Lake Norman 0.300 0.349 0.456 0.570 0.713 0.891 Withdrawn from Mountain Island Lake 10.889 16.220 22.599 28.507 36.983 49.257 Total 47.974 56.992 66.852 76.133 89.833 106.869 Discharge to Other Drainage Areas Discharge to Lake Norman 0.040 0.046 0.048 0.051 0.051 0.054 Total Discharge from Lake Wylie/SF Catawba 21.016 23.558 25.739 27.895 30.963 33.824 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-87 Section 2.4 Interbasin Transfer in the Catawba River Basin Defining Interbasin Transfer According to the Interbasin Transfer Statute, interbasin transfer is defined as “the withdrawal, diversion, or pumping of surface water from one river basin and discharge of all or any part of the water in a river basin different from the origin.” Expanding on this, the Administrative Code for Interbasin Transfer states that “the amount of a transfer shall be determined by the amount of water moved from the source basin to the receiving basin, less the amount of the water returned to the source basin.” Put more simply, an interbasin transfer of water occurs when water is not returned to its source basin. Calculating interbasin transfer amounts, and then projecting them into the future, however, is not as simple as it may sound. Complicating situations occur, for example, when the service area for a system crosses basin boundaries, so that part of their withdrawal is considered interbasin transfer while another is not. Along with their 2002 Local Water Supply Plans, any community water systems that reported a current or planned interbasin transfer were required to also submit an interbasin transfer worksheet, estimating the amount of water transferred through their system. This data, along with the Local Water Supply Plan data and calculations completed for studies related to these transfers, are all used in constructing an estimate of interbasin transfer amounts for each basin. Presented below are the Division of Water Resources best estimates of interbasin transfer amounts in and out of the Catawba River Basin. These were calculated for the most part using the 2002 Local Water Supply Plans (including the interbasin transfer worksheets), data collected and projections calculated by the Duke Energy Water Supply Study. These numbers are not exact and are meant only to provide an example of how the interbasin transfer situation in the Catawba River basin may evolve over the years according to the information currently at hand. As the circumstances of each system using water from this basin change, so may the amounts of interbasin transfers. Interbasin Transfers Into and Out Of the Catawba River Major Basin There are currently five systems that transfer water out of the Catawba River Major Basin (consisting of both the Catawba River basin and the South Fork Catawba River basin). Of these five systems, only one, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, has an Interbasin Transfer Certificate; the others have transfers that either do not exceed their grandfathered capacities or do not meet the 2 mgd minimum required for obtaining a certificate. Table 2-21 shows the estimated transfer amounts for these systems. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-88 Table 2-21: Interbasin Transfers Out of the Catawba River Major Basin (average day MGD) System Receiving Basin 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Charlotte- Mecklenburg Utilities Rocky River Basin 6.147 11.780 14.100 16.040 17.660 18.900 Concord/Kannapolis1 Rocky River Basin 1.480 5.920 11.830 17.750 17.750 17.750 Caldwell County North Yadkin River Basin 0.218 0.222 0.227 0.231 0.233 0.236 Mooresville2 Rocky River Basin 2.786 4.890 6.360 6.214 6.067 5.933 Mooresville3 South Yadkin River Basin 0.306 0.290 0.430 0.576 0.723 0.858 System Receiving Basin 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Statesville South Yadkin River Basin 0.000 4.690 5.680 6.880 8.340 9.000 Union County4 Rocky River Basin 3.200 4.900 7.600 10.200 11.900 14.800 Total Transfer Out of Catawba River Major Basin 14.137 32.692 46.227 57.891 62.687 67.4761 The Concord/Kannapolis projection was held flat once it reached the capacity listed in its interbasin transfer request 2 The overall Mooresville projection was held flat once it reached its grandfathered capacity. For the Rocky River Basin portion of its transfer, the amount projected beginning in 2020 is the grandfathered capacity minus the projection for the transfer to the South Yadkin River Basin. 3 Because this portion of Mooresville’s interbasin transfer is consumptive loss and not a direct discharge, it was projected out to 2050 with no limit. 4 The estimates for 2002, 2040, and 2050 were calculated based on total demand for water during those years and the interbasin transfer estimates given for the remaining projection years. It is possible that interbasin transfer demand for Union County may decrease in the future due to the development of another water supply source in the Yadkin River Basin. The only system reporting an interbasin transfer into the Catawba River Major Basin is Kings Mountain, which withdraws all of its water from the Broad River Basin. A portion of their service area lies within the Catawba River Major Basin and they have a contract to discharge a maximum of 1 mgd (average day) to the City of Gastonia. No interbasin transfer worksheet was submitted for the Kings Mountain system, and therefore there is no information about consumptive use within the Catawba River Major Basin. The only thing that can be estimated is Kings Mountain’s discharge to the City of Gastonia, presented in Table 2-22. Table 2-22: Interbasin Transfers Into the Catawba River Major Basin (average day mgd) System Source Basin 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Kings Mountain Broad River Basin 1.044 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Interbasin Transfers Between the Catawba River Basin and the South Fork Catawba River Basin The Catawba River Major Basin is actually made up of the South Fork Catawba River Basin and the Catawba River Basin and transfers between the two are regulated through the Interbasin Transfer Statute. Currently, there are no interbasin transfer certificates for transfers between these two basins, however Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-89 there are seven systems that transfer water from the Catawba River Basin to the South Fork Catawba River Basin and four systems that transfer water from the South Fork Catawba River Basin to the Catawba River Basin. Estimates of these transfers are presented in Tables 2-22 and 2-23. Table 2-23: Interbasin Transfers from the Catawba River Basin to the South Fork Catawba River Basin System 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Conover 0.372 0.522 0.678 0.881 1.1431 1.4863 Cramerton 0.355 0.424 0.461 0.497 0.538 0.575 Gastonia 10.672 11.23 14.04 15.3 17.615 20.252 Hickory1 4.798 6.948 8.692 10.909 11.942 13.349 Lowell 0.43 0.449 0.471 0.496 0.521 0.546 System 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Stanley2 0.3814776 0.404 0.4877 0.5727 0.6305 0.7484 McAdenville 0.44 0.544 0.565 0.588 0.615 0.643 Total 17.4484776 20.52 25.395 29.244 33.004 37.6 1 The interbasin transfer estimates for Hickory were estimated by subtracting the estimated interbasin transfer amounts for Conover (which purchases all of its water from Hickory) from the interbasin transfer amounts given in Hickory’s 2002 LWSP. 2 The interbasin transfer estimates for Stanley were calculated using information from their 2002 LWSP. We are currently waiting for more detailed information concerning their interbasin transfer and will update this estimate when we receive it. Table 2-24: Interbasin Transfers from the South Fork Catawba River Basin to the Catawba River Basin System 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Catawba 0.073 0.084 0.088 0.092 0.096 0.099 Stanley1 0.2353176 0.249 0.3008 0.3533 0.3889 0.4617 Taylorsville2 0.411 0.277 0.2815 0.2865 0.2915 0.2965 Energy United 0 1.817 2 2 2 2 Total 0.7193176 2.426 2.6703 2.7318 2.7764 2.8572 1 The interbasin transfer estimates for Stanley were calculated using information from their 2002 LWSP. We are currently waiting for more detailed information concerning their interbasin transfer and will update this estimate when we receive it. 2 The interbasin transfer estimates for Taylorsville were calculated using information from their 2002 LWSP. We are currently waiting for more detailed information concerning their interbasin transfer and will update this estimate when we receive it. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-90 Section 2.5 Issues that May Impact Water Supplies (a) Flood Management Catawba River is a source of energy, recreation, drinking water as well as flood management. Most floods in the Catawba River basin occur during the spring as a result of intense, short duration seasonal rains and rainfall events of prolonged duration caused by stationary frontal systems. Flood occurring during midsummer and late summer are often associated with tropical storms moving north along the Atlantic coastline (ncfloodmaps.com, Catawba final plan 3-17-06, 13). North Carolina faces extreme hazard and consequences from hurricanes and flooding. Only in Catawba basin total flood claims and repetitive loss claims were 1750 and 278 respectively since 1978 till 2004. The vulnerability to hurricanes and flooding makes it crucial that communities and property owners have accurate, up-to-date information about the flood risk. State of North Carolina has taken an action to provide reliable flood data for the citizen’s along the basin. The State, through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Cooperating Technical Community partnership initiative, was designated as the nation’s first Cooperating Technical State (CTS). As a CTS, the state assumed primary ownership and responsibility of the National Flood Insurance Program’s (NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for all North Carolina communities. This role has traditionally been fulfilled by FEMA. This flood program benefits include: (Catawba final plan 3-17-06, Table 1, pg 7) o Updated flood hazard data will provide current, accurate information for the communities and property owners to make proper sitting and design decisions. o The use of updated data will dramatically reduce long-term flood losses to local communities. o New flood information will alert those at risk of flooding of the need to purchase insurance. o A digital information system will allow online access to all map users 24 hours a day without requiring sophisticated software o Up-to-date base maps along with the digital format will allow users to make more efficient and accurate flood risk determinations. Duke Energy works closely with local, county and state emergency management officials during high water and flooding conditions to provide information to help ensure they can make appropriate public action decisions. During recent FERC relicensing application, Duke Energy also conducted a study on the high water management in the lower portion of the Catawba River. This study examined the historical frequency of flood occurrences. High intensity rainfall events have been shown to cause Lake Wateree to rise above the normal full reservoir elevation. The potential for such occurrences is exacerbated if the Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 2-91 rainfall events occur within the portion of the Catawba watershed downstream of Lake Wylie. The study included a comprehensive review of operational and physical changes that would be implemented to mitigate the magnitude and impact of high water events at Lake Wateree. A High Inflow Protocol for Lake Wylie is also available through FERC relicensing agreements (C-W final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06, Page A -10). (b) Sedimentation Sedimentation in reservoirs is principally the result of fluvial erosion within the reservoir’s drainage basin. As a part of the on-going hydropower relicensing process required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Duke Energy has conducted a study to determine the impacts of sedimentation over the years on the surface area and capacity of each of the reservoirs. A review of available data has allowed the determination of the appropriate annual sedimentation/deposition volumes to be used to project reductions in storage within the reservoirs. In addition, the distribution of the deposition within the reservoirs has been evaluated. For selected reservoirs, Duke Energy has performed bathymetric surveys to compute and evaluate accumulated depositions. Observations on the data include: o The lowest yield was computed for Lake James, which is consistent with the high percentage of undeveloped and forest land with the Lake James drainage basin. o Yields are comparable for drainage basin within the central portion of the Catawba basin. o Lake Wateree has the highest calculated sediment yield. It is felt that this is in part due to sedimentation entering the lake from upstream (Rocky Creek – Cedar Creek) discharges. The details on this study can be found on the report “Estimating Sediment Deposition and Volume Reduction in the Catawba – Wateree Reservoirs” by Duke Energy available in the Appendix – C8 (DUKE Energy, November 2004, FERC 2232, Appendix – C8). Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-1 Chapter 3 - Water Management and Water Balance The purpose of this chapter is to provide the simulation model description, the model input information, assign basin plan demand to the model, observe response to the river system in the first section. The next two sections describe the drought management plan and data management necessary to cover the surface and groundwater sources. Section 3.1 Basin Model and Modeling Results (a) Model Description Duke Energy, for the purpose of the relicensing process, contracted with Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc [DTA] to develop the Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software CHEOPSTM for the Catawba River basin. The first version of CHEOPS was released to stakeholders in the relicensing process in January of 2005. Since then, several versions have been released, modifying the model as it was first developed and adding new features. The version of the model used in this plan is the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Interface 8.3 released in mid- October of 2005. A version 8.7 was released in March of 2006, after this study was started. The interface of the CHEOPS model is shown in Figure 3-1. CHEOPS is designed for long-term analysis of the effects of operational and physical changes made to the modeled hydrologic system. Along with hydropower generation, it also supports the water supply feature as a management and operation tool. For this basin water supply plan, the CHEOPS model has been used to simulate long-term demand growth, using a base year of 2002 and projecting water demand forward to the year 2050, and to figure out how demand will impact the entire river system. For future planning activities, it is necessary to determine how many of these demands can be met and how much of a shortage or surplus there will be, if any, before the reservoir storage becomes fully or partially exhausted without harming the environment. It is also important to know the supply ability (safe yield) of the reservoirs before planning begins. In general, safe yield for any reservoir systems can be described as the maximum quantity of water that can be withdrawn from each of the reservoir in a dry year without depleting the source or causing any negative impact while considering all the operational and physical constraints implemented. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-2 Figure 3-1: CHEOPS Model Interface In the model, the demands from each water intake are aggregated to each drainage area, or reservoir level. The return flows from the systems are also aggregated to the drainage area level. Since the river system works as a unit, any unmet demand from one drainage area can be met from another drainage area. (b) Summary of Model Inputs and Assumptions The model is developed for existing licensed reservoir operational and physical conditions. The hydropower generation plant, reservoir, river, weather, environment and operation information are entered into the model in several different input format sets. The basic input options for the model interface can be categorized as physical, operational and generation conditions, as shown in Figure 3-2. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-3 Figure 3-2: CHEOPS Input Options for Physical, Operation and Generation Conditions for Bridgewater Project (i) Temporal Data: The model simulates the hydrologic system in a time series for the period from January 1st, 1929, to December 31st, 2003, with 75 years of daily hydrological data. The input for hydrological data are in a daily format; however the outputs are in a daily format for reservoir and river conditions, and 15 minute time steps for both hydrologic operation and reservoir conditions. (ii) Engineering Data The engineering data for this model are the static data for the plants and reservoirs in the river basin. For the purposes of this study, none of this data was varied. Two examples of engineering data used in this model are: Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-4 o Rating curves – include relationships of reservoir surface area to the elevation of water surface, of the storage volume to elevation, and the spillway capacity curve. o Generation conditions – include generating components such as turbine or generator’s information and plant’s scheduling. (iii) Hydrological Data The hydrological data is the naturally occurring water data that is available on the surface as surface water or stream flow, below or subsurface as ground water and in the atmosphere as cloud or rain. For this surface water modeling purposes, only surface and atmospheric water are included as assumption in the format of evaporation from open surface water body, rainfall to the surface or water body and inflow39 to the reservoir from upper part of the river reach. o Evaporation/Rainfall - In the model, monthly patterns of daily evaporation rates were used to estimate the evaporation from each reservoir. Rainfall data, however, was not included. o Inflow - The inflows to the reservoirs were computed in two steps: 1. Inflow Estimation based on Historical Reservoir Operation The inflows at the hydropower generation plant locations are not available. Therefore, DTA chose to use historical hydrological generation data to estimate inflows to the reservoirs at the plant locations. 2. Adjustments of Inflow Data The inflows generated as described above also generated numerous negative inflows. Tributary inflow data for all of the reservoirs (Itrib40) were adjusted to remove negatives by using USGS gage data, as well as the North Carolina runoff isohyets map and the engineering judgments, as appropriate, with an emphasis on maintaining the Mass Volume close to the Inflow Raw value generated in the first step. Minimum values were selected to replace negatives based on a review of drainage area (DA) and runoff production using the cfs/square mile and flow duration curves from unregulated gages. The adjusted Inflows were used as the inflow to the CHEOPS model to compare to historical Duke Generation numbers for each plant and system-wide. In the next step it was refined based on generation comparison (DTA, CHEOPS Inflow Data Generation Worksheet). (iv) Variable Data Variable data is the type of modeling input data that can be altered or varied to simulate any operational and physical condition over the hydrologic period and adjustments can be made to have minimal impacts on the river system. Some variable data are related to the physical conditions set to the reservoir operation. 39 Hydrological term for river or stream flow 40 Itrib – Tributary Inflow Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-5 There are several variable input data set assumed for the purpose of basin water supply planning as future operational condition. o Water Demand - During the relicensing process a water supply study report was prepared by HDR in December 2005. In this report future water demand is projected for the next five decades starting from 2008 to 2058 and used in the model as withdrawal data. Return flows were also estimated in this report and projected for the same time horizon, although are not necessarily a function of the water withdrawals from each reservoir or to that specific watershed from where it was withdrawn. Rather, they are a function of withdrawals from different combinations of reservoirs and the projected return flow percentages to a specific reservoir for different decades also vary. o Reservoir level conditions – include reservoirs’ spill levels, target elevations, minimum elevations, and fluctuation limits. o Required flow conditions – include the minimum flow requirements, such as minimum instantaneous flow, minimum daily average flow, bypass flow and minimum recreational flow. o Other operational conditions – include other conditions such as ramping rate and the use of flashboard. (v) Model Flexibility/Functionality: The model can be run for a variety of physical, operational and generation settings for individual plants. The current condition with HDR’s water supply 2008 demand is called the Baseline scenario. Any change to reflect operational condition proposed by the water user or interest groups with 2008 demand is called the current licensed condition. As explained previously, there are options to vary the physical or operational conditions, such as gradual increase in future sedimentation that reduces the storage capacity of the reservoirs and projected gradual increase in water withdrawal. The modeler does have the option to either use the fixed sedimentation or withdrawal for any particular year of interest or gradually increase the sedimentation and withdrawal over the hydrologic period of records. (vi) Model Enhancements for Operational Conditions: o Low Inflow Protocol [LIP]: As a part of future drought management, this feature has been added to the model in order to comply with the LIP adopted in the relicensing agreement and to simulate operational constraints effectively. The purpose of the LIP was to establish procedures for reductions in water use during periods of low inflow to the Catawba-Wateree reservoir system. This LIP provides trigger points and procedures for how the Catawba-Wateree reservoir system will be operated as well as water withdrawal reduction measures for other water users during periods of low inflow (i.e., periods when there is not enough water flowing into the reservoirs to meet the normal water demands plus maintain lake levels within the Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-6 normal ranges). The LIP was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water quantity will share the responsibility to conserve the limited water supply (DUKE Energy June 2006, Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree Project). The details of the latest LIP including LIP stages can be found in the document in Appendix D1 – LIP Document. o Mutual Gains Conditions: To meet the demands needed for community water systems and to maintain recommended water levels at the reservoirs and rivers within the normal ranges for a safe and sound ecosystem and seasonal public recreational activities, several scenarios were simulated by DTA to establish a flow schedule where all interested parties benefit equally. These flow schedules are called Mutual Gain (MG) scenarios and have been added as future operational constraints. (vii) Modeling Assumptions for Catawba River Basin Plan Runs: The model scenarios were set up according to several basin plan specific conditions. The overall model set ups were for two general groupings: 1. Baseline or existing conditions and demand 2. Future licensed conditions and projected demand. The input assumptions were as follows: o Sedimentation: No gradual sedimentation over the projection period was included. o Routing: The routing function was not used. o Water Withdrawal Planning year - The demands were projected for the planning years 2010, 2020 and 2050 Withdrawal and Return Flow quantity & distribution – For comparison purposes, 2002 demand data was run as a baseline with the model’s original baseline setup. The projected demand and return flow values for the planning years 2010, 2020 and 2050 were entered into the model with HDR’s original withdrawal and return flow distributions for the corresponding years. The only exception is for 2002 demand, 2008 model demand and return flow distributions were used. The projected demands have High, Low and LWSP options for all three projected decades. Therefore, 10 scenarios were simulated: 1. Plan 2002– 2002 demand with baseline setup 2. Plan 2010 High – 2010 high demand with future licensed condition 3. Plan 2010 Low – 2010 low demand with future licensed condition 4. Plan 2010 LWSP – 2010 LWSP demand with future licensed condition 5. Plan 2020 High – 2020 high demand with future licensed condition Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-7 6. Plan 2020 Low – 2020 low demand with future licensed condition 7. Plan 2020 LWSP – 2020 LWSP demand with future licensed condition 8. Plan 2050 High – 2050 high demand with future licensed condition 9. Plan 2050 Low – 2050 low demand with future licensed condition 10. Plan 2050 LWSP – 2050 LWSP demand with future licensed condition o Low Inflow Protocol: - The Low Inflow Protocol [LIP] option is added to all future demands scenarios, except for the 2002 base scenario with current conditions. However, for basin planning purposes, older version of the LIP data that was available during the analyses was used and this input data is available in Appendix D2_LIP Input Table. o Mutual Gain: - Mutual Gain [MG] reservoir conditions and flow schedules published by Duke in November, 2005 that was available at the time of the analyses were used for future demand conditions. A summary of this set up is attached in Appendix D3 _ Mutual Gain CHEOPS Scenario Input Sheet. Notice this is an older version of MG scenario data and in the relicensing agreement version of the model used later final version of data released in March 2006. The model assumes that all withdrawals are from hydropower generation plant locations; therefore plant names were used in the plots and tables in this report instead of reservoir. The following list shows the reservoir names along with their corresponding plant names: Reservoir Plant Names Used [Acronyms] 01. Lake James Bridgewater [BW] 02. Lake Rhodhiss Rhodhiss [RH] 03. Lake Hickory Oxford [OX] 04. Lookout Shoals Lookout Shoals [LS] 05. Lake Norman Cowans Ford [CF] 06. Lake Mountain Island Mountain Island [MI] 07. Lake Wylie Wylie [WY] 08. Fishing Creek Reservoir Fishing Creek [FC] 09. Great Falls Reservoir Great Falls [GF] 10. Rocky Creek Reservoir Rocky Creek [RC] 11. Lake Wateree Wateree [WA] Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-8 (c) A Comparison of Demand Types The plan contains variable demands for the water service area for the years 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. These variable demands can be categorized into four types: Municipal, Power, Industrial and Irrigation. All these types of demands for any single drainage area are aggregated at the reservoir level and this demand is entered into the model input sheet as a single demand. Therefore, model input demands or output withdrawals do not separate or color code the types of water. Separate tables have been prepared to summarize the demands according to the types. Tables 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 show the High, Low and LWSP demands for the years 2010, 2020, and 2050 for individual reservoirs and a total for the entire system. It is obvious that municipal demands are the highest for all of the years, followed by industrial. Figure 3-3 through 3-5 compare the municipal type for High, Low and LWSP demands. Mountain Island has the highest municipal demand whereas Wylie and Cowans Ford [Lake Norman] take the second and third positions. Figures 3-6 through 3-8 compare the power type of demands for High, Low and LWSP. Cowans Ford and Wylie require the most power demands for the next two decades with additional requirements from Bridgewater and Wateree in year 2050. Fishing Creek registers the highest industrial demand, as shown in Figure 3-9 through 3-11. Where all the demands gradually increase over time, irrigation demands are mostly consistent with slight increase from all reservoirs along the river, as shown in Figure 3-12 through 3-14. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-12 Table 3-1: Summary for High Demand Types Catawba-Wateree High Withdrawals Summary Sheet (in MGD) 2002 Demands 2002 BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.500 22.67 13.86 0 23.0 105.0 26.98 15.98 0 0 5.1 214.127 Industrial 1.080 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 14.82 73.10 0 0 0 89.000 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 2.5 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 2.500 Irrigation 8.759 4.53 1.20 1.2 2.8 0.8 8.50 8.20 1.4 0.6 1.2 39.189 Total 11.339 27.197 15.058 1.200 25.800 108.336 50.303 97.283 1.400 0.600 6.300 344.816 2010 High Demand 2010 High BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.971 46.08 28.93 4.5 43.9 175.3 26.98 34.68 0 0 6.3 368.594 Industrial 1.200 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 14.82 102.10 0 0 0 118.120 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 36.4 2.5 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 38.900 Irrigation 9.100 4.80 1.30 1.3 2.9 0.8 8.50 8.40 1.5 0.6 1.2 40.400 Total 12.271 50.884 30.226 5.800 83.203 178.553 50.303 145.175 1.500 0.600 7.500 566.014 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-13 2020 High Demand 2020 High BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 2.754 73.04 51.42 5.5 75.2 263.2 102.65 56.34 0 0 8 638.115 Industrial 1.400 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 15.62 104.60 0 0 0 121.620 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 46.0 2.5 41.90 0.00 0 0 0 90.400 Irrigation 9.700 5.20 1.50 1.6 3.2 0.9 9.60 8.80 1.6 0.7 1.3 44.100 Total 13.854 78.244 52.915 7.100 124.400 266.621 169.765 169.736 1.600 0.700 9.300 894.235 2050 High Demand 2050 High BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 4.968 143.33 114.45 9 171.3 520.4 235.27 141.78 0 0 12.7 1353.114 Industrial 2.300 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 18.52 113.90 0 0 0 134.720 Power 15.300 0.00 0.00 0 62.5 2.5 53.00 0.00 0 0 13.1 146.400 Irrigation 12.900 7.30 2.50 2.7 4.2 1.0 12.60 10.30 2.1 0.8 1.6 58.000 Total 35.468 150.625 116.946 11.700 237.954 523.876 319.389 265.976 2.100 0.800 27.400 1692.234 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-14 Table 3-2: Summary for Low Demand Types Catawba-Wateree Low Withdrawals Summary Sheet (in MGD) 2002 Demand 2002 BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.500 22.67 13.86 0 23.0 105.0 26.98 15.98 0 0 5.1 214.127 Industrial 1.080 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 14.82 73.10 0 0 0 89.000 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 2.5 0.00 0.00 0 0 NA 2.500 Irrigation 8.759 4.53 1.20 1.2 2.8 0.8 8.50 8.20 1.4 0.6 1.2 39.189 Total 11.339 27.197 15.058 1.200 25.800 108.336 50.303 97.283 1.400 0.600 6.300 344.816 2010 Low Demand 2010 Low BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.611 24.26 15.83 4.5 29.3 127.4 26.98 20.24 0 0 6.3 256.436 Industrial 1.200 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 14.82 102.10 0 0 0 118.120 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 36.4 2.5 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 38.900 Irrigation 9.100 4.80 1.30 1.3 2.9 0.8 8.50 8.40 1.5 0.6 1.2 40.400 Total 11.911 29.060 17.134 5.800 68.592 130.714 50.303 130.741 1.500 0.600 7.500 453.856 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-15 2020 Low Demand 2020 Low BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.860 27.34 18.66 5.5 41.0 153.1 37.66 27.86 0 0 8 320.953 Industrial 1.400 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 15.60 104.60 0 0 0 121.600 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 46.0 2.5 41.90 0.00 0 0 0 90.400 Irrigation 9.700 5.20 1.50 1.6 3.2 0.9 9.60 8.80 1.6 0.7 1.3 44.100 Total 12.960 32.539 20.161 7.100 90.170 156.507 104.756 141.259 1.600 0.700 9.300 577.053 2050 Low Demand 2050 Low BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 2.868 39.27 29.94 9 62.3 162.7 62.35 51.13 0 0 12.7 432.276 Industrial 2.300 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 18.50 113.90 0 0 0 134.700 Power 15.300 0.00 0.00 0 62.5 2.5 53.00 0.00 0 0 13.1 146.400 Irrigation 12.900 7.30 2.50 2.7 4.2 1.0 12.60 10.30 2.1 0.8 1.6 58.000 Total 33.368 46.572 32.439 11.700 129.036 166.177 146.454 175.330 2.100 0.800 27.400 771.376 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-16 Table 3-3: Summary for LWSP Demand Types Catawba-Wateree LWSP Withdrawals Summary Sheet (in MGD) 2002 Demands 2002 BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.500 22.39 13.91 0 23.0 105.0 26.98 15.98 0 0 5.1 213.899 Industrial 1.080 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 14.82 73.10 0 0 0 89.000 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 2.5 0.00 0.00 0 0 NA 2.500 Irrigation 8.759 4.53 1.20 1.2 2.8 0.8 8.50 8.20 1.4 0.6 1.2 39.189 Total 11.339 26.916 15.111 1.200 25.800 108.336 50.303 97.283 1.400 0.600 6.300 344.587 2010 LWSP Demand 2010 LWSP BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.717 22.88 14.71 4.5 28.5 125.0 26.98 25.81 0 0 6.3 256.476 Industrial 1.200 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 14.82 102.10 0 0 0 118.120 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 36.4 2.5 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 38.900 Irrigation 9.100 4.80 1.30 1.3 2.9 0.8 8.50 8.40 1.5 0.6 1.2 40.400 Total 12.017 27.677 16.013 5.800 67.841 128.333 50.303 136.312 1.500 0.600 7.500 453.896 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-17 2020 LWSP Demand 2020 LWSP BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 1.983 24.05 16.79 5.5 40.9 152.3 38.51 32.50 0 0 8 320.495 Industrial 1.400 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 15.60 104.60 0 0 0 121.600 Power 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 46.0 2.5 41.90 0.00 0 0 0 90.400 Irrigation 9.700 5.20 1.50 1.6 3.2 0.9 9.60 8.80 1.6 0.7 1.3 44.100 Total 13.083 29.250 18.292 7.100 90.097 155.662 105.613 145.898 1.600 0.700 9.300 576.595 2050 LWSP Demand 2050 LWSP BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA TOTAL Municipal 2.889 28.90 25.38 9 80.4 226.7 63.35 55.39 0 0 12.7 504.748 Industrial 2.300 0.00 0.00 0 0.0 0.0 18.50 113.90 0 0 0 134.700 Power 15.300 0.00 0.00 0 62.5 2.5 53.00 0.00 0 0 13.1 146.400 Irrigation 12.900 7.30 2.50 2.7 4.2 1.0 12.60 10.30 2.1 0.8 1.6 58.000 Total 33.389 36.196 27.884 11.700 147.101 230.244 147.447 179.587 2.100 0.800 27.400 843.848 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-18 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2002 2010 2020 2050Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-3: Municipal High Demand Plots for Reservoirs 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2002 2010 2020 2050Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-4: Municipal Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-19 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2002 2010 2020 2050 Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-5: Municipal LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs 0 25 50 75 2002 2010 2020 2050 Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-6: Power High Demand Plots for Reservoirs Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-20 0 25 50 75 2002 2010 2020 2050Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-7: Power Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs 0 25 50 75 2002 2010 2020 2050 Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-8: Power LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-21 0 50 100 150 200 2002 2010 2020 2050Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-9: Industrial High Demand Plots for Reservoirs 0 50 100 150 200 2002 2010 2020 2050Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-10: Industrial Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-22 0 50 100 150 200 2002 2010 2020 2050 Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-11: Industrial LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs 0 10 20 2002 2010 2020 2050Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-12: Irrigation High Demand Plots for Reservoirs Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-23 0 10 20 2002 2010 2020 2050 Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-13: Irrigation Low Demand Plots for Reservoirs 0 10 20 2002 2010 2020 2050 Decades De m a n d , M G D BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA Figure 3-14: Irrigation LWSP Demand Plots for Reservoirs Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-24 (d) Summary of Model Results. (i) Brief description of HDR Safe Yield Analysis For Duke Energy’s Water Supply Study, HDR analyzed the CHEOPS model results to estimate the safe yields for the eleven reservoirs. Safe yield is a term used in that study to describe the amount of water theoretically available at a given location in a watershed. It is a commonly used measure of the dependability of a water supply sources. To estimate safe yield, the basic analytical approach generally employed is the calculation of a water budget that allocates and accounts for the water, given the constraints imposed by the facilities and their operation, over the critical low flow period of the available hydrologic record (HDR 2006, page 2). Safe yield analyses were completed for the Baseline and Mutual Gain (MG) operating scenarios. MG operating conditions include many new and proposed operating parameters and constraints, such as down stream flow requirements from each reservoir, normal minimum elevations for each reservoir, and implementation of the LIP. Table 3-4 shows safe yield values for the reservoirs for the different operating scenarios. MG Critical Intake values are used for comparison purposes. Table 3-4: Lower Range Safe Yield Data from HDR’s CHEOPS Analysis41 Lakes Baseline Critical Intake MG Critical Intake MG Boat Access MG Full Reservoir Access BW 34 32 12 44 RH 40 40 52 52 OX 37 37 17 54 LS 12 12 15 15 CF 133 169 202 223 MI 192 207 131 272 WY 171 141 95 189 FC 225 238 238 238 GF 2 3 3 3 RC 1 1 1 1 WA 74 74 74 74 Total System Yield 921 954 840 1165 SAFE Yield [MGD] Summary from HDR's Water Supply Study 41 Source: HDR 2006, Table 4-15, Page 67 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-25 (ii) Reservoir net withdrawal comparison with safe yield The MG critical intake safe yield quantities for upper 7 reservoirs have been compared to the modeled net withdrawal data (supply) as output and demand withdrawal data as input to determine the sustainability of the reservoirs for the planning horizon. The net withdrawal data have been averaged for the 75 years, and the difference between the input and output withdrawals (between demand and supply) are low. For the year 2010, and in some cases for 2020, the output withdrawals are much lower than safe yield. However, many of the reservoirs have much higher withdrawals for the High demands especially for the year 2050, whereas Low and LWSP demands for 2050 are below safe yield as shown in the following few figures. Lake Norman and Mountain Island reservoir withdrew the most water compared to other reservoirs and exceeded the safe yield for the High demand option only. Lake Rhodhiss and Lake Hickory on the other hand exceeded the safe yield with lower demands. Few downstream reservoirs have negative demands with higher return flow values. The exception is Lake Wateree, which has a higher demand, but because it gets the return flow from the upper two reservoirs, the demands are safely lower than safe yield value. In the figures the net High withdrawals are sometimes lower than the Low or LWSP demands. This is because the comparisons were between the net withdrawals, and for High demands the return flows were much higher than for the Low and LWSP demands, resulting in lower net withdrawals than Low and LWSP demands as shown in Figure 3-15. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-26 0 8 16 24 32 2002 2010 2020 2050 Year Wi t h d r a w a l , M G D High - input High -output Low - input Low - output LWSP - input LWSP - output Safe Yield = 32 Figure 3-15 : Lake James at Bridgewater Demand – SY Plots 0 20 40 60 80 100 2002 2010 2020 2050 Year Wi t h d r a w a l , M G D High -input High -output Low -input Low - output LWSP -input LWSP - output Safe Yield = 40 Figure 3-16: Lake Rhodhiss Demand – SY Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-27 0 32 64 96 2002 2010 2020 2050 Year Wi t h d r a w a l , M G D High -input High - output Low -input Low - output LWSP -input LWSP - output Safe Yield = 37 Figure 3-17: Lake Hickory at Oxford Demand – SY Plots 0 5 10 15 2002 2010 2020 2050Year Wi t h d r a w a l , M G D High -input High - output Low -input Low -output LWSP -input LWSP -output Safe Yield = 12 Figure 3-18: Lake Lookout Shoals Demand – SY Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-28 0 50 100 150 200 250 2002 2010 2020 2050 Year Wi t h d r a w a l , M G D High -input High -output Low -input Low -output LWSP -input LWSP -output Safe Yield = 169 Figure 3-19: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Demand – SY Plots 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2002 2010 2020 2050 Year Wi t h d r a w a l , M G D High -input High -output Low -input Low -output LWSP -input LWSP -output Safe Yield = 207 Figure 3-20: Mountain Island Lake Demand – SY Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-29 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 2002 2010 2020 2050 Year Wi t h d r a w a l , M G D High -input High -output Low-input Low - output LWSP -input LWSP -output Safe Yield = 141 Figure 3-21: Lake Wylie Demand – SY Plots (iii) Demand - Supply Summary Tables In the model, the demands for a scenario year are fixed throughout the 75 years of variable hydrology in order to determine the impacts on the reservoir system. The supply of water from the watershed for any year depends upon the hydrological condition of the watershed and the operational constraints determined by the hydrological conditions. The demands can be met fully or partially according to the simulated conditions. Therefore the surplus or shortage after the withdrawal varies over time and for the different demand options. The model includes the LIP to simulate future operational conditions. At the beginning of the month if the hydrological or storage condition becomes unfavorable or falls at or below certain trigger levels (Appendix D2 – LIP Input Table), LIP stages are triggered and that stage remains in effect for the rest of the month for the system. Therefore, the triggering of the LIP stages depend upon the conditions set for the system. An earlier trigger can conserve water by maintaining lower storage levels for longer periods and thus any long, severe drought can be avoided in the long run. Figure 3-22 shows the LIP stages activated during the simulation of 75 years of hydrology for the entire river system for the demand years 2010 and 2050. There are 5 LIP stages from 0 to 4, with 4 being the most severe condition and 0 being the LIP watch condition shown in the scale in Figure 3-22. The hydrology and LIP Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-30 conditions show that there were four distinct major droughts that occurred in the 1930s, 1950s, the late 1980s, and in the year 2002. Summaries of the storage conditions and supply statuses (shortages or surpluses) have been presented in the Table 3-5 through 3-11 for the 1950s, 1980s and 2002 drought periods. Table 3-12 provides a summary of the shortages during the major drought periods for all 11 reservoirs. With the 2050 High demand, Mountain Island had a severe drought condition for about 18 months with the highest shortage in the 1950s. With this demand, the drought severity and shortage were much less in 2002, but moderate during the 1980s for the same location. The 2010 High demand created almost similar shortages in Mountain Island; however the LIP level was higher in 2002. During the 1950s drought, only a few reservoirs experienced shortages, whereas in the 1980s and 2002, the shortages were progressively worse, as shown in Table 3-12. Figure 3-23 through 25 compare the shortages along the river system for the three drought periods. The shortages were mostly in Mountain Island, the downstream reservoirs experienced little or no shortages, which is because these reservoirs receive return flows from the upstream reservoirs and the net withdrawals are negative for few reservoirs. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-33 Simulated LIP Stages 0 1 2 3 4 Jan-29 Jan-34 Jan-39 Jan-44 Jan-49 Jan-54 Jan-59 Jan-64 Jan-69 Jan-74 Jan-79 Jan-84 Jan-89 Jan-94 Jan-99 Time LI P S t a g e s 2050 High 2050 Low 2010 High 2010 Low Figure 3-22: Simulated LIP Stages for the Entire Reservoir System Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-34 Table 3-5: Demand Supply Summary for Lake James at Bridgewater 2002 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Lowest Elevation Date 10/26/1954 11/18/1953 11/21/1953 10/26/1954 02/26/1934 Lowest Elevation, MSL 1188.49 1190.99 1191.05 1156.33 1188.00 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 214,706 228,090 228,427 84,550 212,216 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 98,789 98,789 98,789 98,789 98,789 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 115,917 129,301 129,638 (14,239) 113,427 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 4.39 2.26 2.49 48.47 58.05 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 4.39 2.25 2.47 46.24 58.05 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (0.01) (0.02) (2.23) (0.00) Lowest Elevation Date 08/31/1986 02/10/1986 09/05/1988 02/04/1989 03/26/1989 Lowest Elevation, MSL 1185.20 1192.00 1190.64 1181.83 1198.08 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 197,905 233,671 226,181 181,398 268,588 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 98,789 98,789 98,789 98,789 98,789 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 99,116 134,882 127,392 82,609 169,799 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 5.75 3.56 3.55 49.34 58.24 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 5.75 3.56 3.53 47.98 57.49 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - - (0.02) (1.36) (0.75) Lowest Elevation Date 10/11/2002 11/04/2002 11/09/2002 02/27/2002 11/05/2002 Lowest Elevation, MSL 1161.53 1183.00 1190.00 1189.98 1186.80 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 100,509 187,049 222,756 222,623 206,156 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 98,789 98,789 98,789 98,789 98,789 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 1,720 88,260 123,967 123,834 107,367 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 4.39 2.26 2.49 49.34 52.82 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 4.39 2.20 2.45 49.07 52.82 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (0.06) (0.04) (0.27) - Bridgewater D r o u g h t : 1 9 5 4 D r o u g h t : 2 0 0 2 D r o u g h t : 1 9 8 8 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-35 Table 3-6: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Rhodhiss 2002 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Lowest Elevation Date 08/05/1953 11/05/1953 11/02/1953 09/14/1954 11/21/1953 Lowest Elevation, MSL 988.38 988.26 989.12 984.09 988.09 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 34,538 34,334 35,750 27,923 34,057 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 28,521 28,521 28,521 28,521 28,521 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 6,017 5,813 7,229 (598) 5,536 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 50.06 73.06 31.33 287.62 46.32 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 50.06 70.86 31.33 215.71 44.93 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft (0.00) (2.20) (0.00) (71.91) (1.39) Lowest Elevation Date 12/16/1992 10/12/1986 10/13/1988 08/28/1988 10/14/1988 Lowest Elevation, MSL 988.43 987.12 988.14 985.97 987.12 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 34,611 32,512 34,142 30,727 32,505 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 28,521 28,521 28,521 28,521 28,521 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 6,090 3,991 5,621 2,206 3,984 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 26.92 81.30 36.26 344.94 53.74 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 26.92 75.61 35.17 293.20 49.98 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft (0.00) (5.69) (1.09) (51.74) (3.76) Lowest Elevation Date 03/18/2003 09/06/2002 09/22/2002 05/23/2003 09/13/2001 Lowest Elevation, MSL 989.50 986.80 987.10 983.73 987.00 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 36,369 32,005 32,484 27,398 32,379 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 28,521 28,521 28,521 28,521 28,521 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 7,848 3,484 3,963 (1,123) 3,858 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 33.15 92.66 42.99 329.20 65.18 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 33.15 78.76 39.98 329.20 60.62 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (13.90) (3.01) (0.00) (4.56) Rhodhiss D r o u g h t : 1 9 5 4 D r o u g h t : 2 0 0 2 D r o u g h t : 1 9 8 8 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-36 Table 3-7: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Hickory at Oxford 2002 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Lowest Elevation Date 08/19/1956 08/20/1956 08/19/1956 09/23/1956 08/19/1956 Lowest Elevation, MSL 929.00 927.90 928.30 925.80 928.00 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 103,759 99,897 101,351 92,673 100,487 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 103,767 103,767 103,767 103,767 103,767 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft (8) (3,870) (2,416) (11,095) (3,280) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 38.60 83.68 43.94 297.49 84.87 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 38.60 83.68 43.94 288.56 84.87 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - 0.00 (0.00) (8.93) (0.00) Lowest Elevation Date 08/23/1988 08/06/1988 08/07/1988 08/30/1987 08/22/1987 Lowest Elevation, MSL 929.63 928.48 928.47 927.72 928.79 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 106,076 101,908 101,868 99,257 103,023 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 103,767 103,767 103,767 103,767 103,767 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 2,309 (1,859) (1,899) (4,510) (744) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 38.59 83.68 43.94 349.84 84.87 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 38.60 83.68 43.94 349.83 84.87 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft 0.01 - (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) Lowest Elevation Date 11/20/2001 08/15/1999 09/25/1999 09/23/2002 08/14/2000 Lowest Elevation, MSL 929.70 928.40 928.61 918.00 928.44 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 106,229 101,687 102,391 69,254 101,871 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 103,767 103,767 103,767 103,767 103,767 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 2,462 (2,080) (1,376) (34,513) (1,896) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 24.28 83.68 35.89 297.49 84.87 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 24.28 83.68 35.89 288.56 82.32 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - 0.00 0.00 (8.93) (2.55) D r o u g h t : 1 9 5 4 D r o u g h t : 2 0 0 2 Oxford D r o u g h t : 1 9 8 8 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-37 Table 3-8: Demand Supply Summary for Lookout Shoals Lake 2002 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Lowest Elevation Date 01/09/1955 08/16/1956 08/16/1956 11/21/1954 08/16/1956 Lowest Elevation, MSL 825.16 830.84 831.04 812.90 830.84 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 15,005 19,026 19,177 8,244 19,025 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 8,274 8,274 8,274 8,274 8,274 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 6,731 10,752 10,903 (30) 10,751 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 3.13 13.74 13.76 27.63 28.98 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 3.13 13.74 13.76 20.72 28.98 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) (6.91) 0.00 Lowest Elevation Date 04/22/1988 07/24/1986 08/04/1986 09/23/1988 08/04/1986 Lowest Elevation, MSL 826.03 830.89 831.03 829.07 830.07 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 15,583 19,061 19,166 17,710 18,444 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 8,274 8,274 8,274 8,274 8,274 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 7,309 10,787 10,892 9,436 10,170 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 3.36 18.57 13.76 25.43 28.98 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 3.36 18.02 13.35 21.62 26.95 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft 0.00 (0.55) (0.41) (3.81) (2.03) Lowest Elevation Date 05/02/2002 09/05/2002 09/13/2002 10/17/2002 09/13/2002 Lowest Elevation, MSL 825.40 829.00 829.80 829.37 829.00 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 15,166 17,725 18,247 17,927 17,828 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 8,274 8,274 8,274 8,274 8,274 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 6,892 9,451 9,973 9,654 9,554 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 3.46 12.04 12.06 27.70 25.52 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 3.46 10.23 11.22 26.87 23.73 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (1.81) (0.84) (0.83) (1.79) D r o u g h t : 1 9 5 4 D r o u g h t : 2 0 0 2 D r o u g h t : 1 9 8 8 Lookout Shoals Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-38 Table 3-9: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Norman at Cowans Ford 2002 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Lowest Elevation Date 03/02/1956 12/09/1953 12/08/1953 10/21/1956 01/06/1954 Lowest Elevation, MSL 751.93 750.90 753.00 748.32 750.79 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 821,094 793,859 851,838 726,189 790,262 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 769,254 769,254 769,254 769,254 769,254 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 51,840 24,605 82,584 (43,065) 21,008 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 58.24 222.78 193.23 627.06 364.60 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 58.24 218.48 189.50 614.96 357.57 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (4.30) (3.73) (12.10) (7.03) Lowest Elevation Date 03/01/1991 02/02/1986 08/20/1988 11/26/1987 Lowest Elevation, MSL 751.92 754.02 749.90 753.78 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 820,921 880,054 766,656 873,168 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 769,254 769,254 769,254 769,254 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 51,667 110,800 (2,598) 103,914 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 58.24 224.42 715.58 337.92 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 58.24 224.42 646.57 331.40 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (0.00) (69.01) (6.52) Lowest Elevation Date 03/02/1999 09/13/2002 09/28/2002 10/02/2002 02/10/2001 Lowest Elevation, MSL 751.90 751.10 753.80 649.00 750.24 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 818,708 798,093 875,734 47 775,758 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 769,254 769,254 769,254 769,254 769,254 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 49,454 28,839 106,480 (769,207) 6,504 Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 58.24 237.37 202.55 627.06 358.49 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 58.24 214.48 193.44 614.96 351.57 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (22.89) (9.11) (12.10) (6.92) Cowan Ford D r o u g h t : 1 9 5 4 D r o u g h t : 2 0 0 2 D r o u g h t : 1 9 8 8 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-39 Table 3-10: Demand Supply Summary for Mountain Island Lake 2002 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Lowest Elevation Date 06/11/1940 05/03/1953 01/26/1937 10/15/54 - 11 01/26/1937 Lowest Elevation, MSL 641.73 641.66 640.50 577.50 640.50 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 44,493 44,317 41,554 - 41,648 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 44,669 44,669 44,669 44,669 44,669 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft (176) (353) (3,115) (44,669) (3,022) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 410.61 616.75 327.54 1,474.47 416.87 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 410.60 616.75 327.53 1,110.33 416.87 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (364.14) 0.00 Lowest Elevation Date 06/28/1988 01/29/1989 08/22/1988 12/12/1988 Lowest Elevation, MSL 641.74 641.15 577.50 641.16 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 44,523 43,096 - 43,134 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 44,669 44,669 44,669 44,669 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft (146) (1,573) (44,669) (1,535) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 410.61 447.94 1,828.02 397.10 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 410.60 416.96 1,557.14 369.64 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft (0.01) (30.98) (270.88) (27.46) Lowest Elevation Date 06/23/2002 11/19/2002 10/20/2002 06/29/01 - 8/ 04/21/2002 Lowest Elevation, MSL 641.73 641.10 641.10 577.50 614.14 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 44,502 43,159 43,197 - 43,087 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 44,669 44,669 44,669 44,669 44,669 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft (167) (1,510) (1,472) (44,669) (1,582) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 410.61 447.65 367.69 1,997.83 487.77 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 410.60 381.31 342.26 1,938.59 454.04 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft (0.01) (66.34) (25.43) (59.24) (33.73) D r o u g h t : 1 9 5 4 D r o u g h t : 2 0 0 2 Mountain Island D r o u g h t : 1 9 8 8 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-40 Table 3-11: Demand Supply Summary for Lake Wylie 2002 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Lowest Elevation Date 09/06/1954 11/04/1953 09/25/1956 08/29/1953 11/04/1953 Lowest Elevation, MSL 566.48 555.20 561.20 504.40 549.60 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 203,179 106,218 154,023 - 71,612 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 160,707 160,707 160,707 160,707 160,707 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 42,472 (54,489) (6,684) (160,707) (89,095) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 33.17 173.34 180.54 335.78 225.14 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 33.13 173.33 180.54 335.78 225.14 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft (0.04) (0.01) 0.00 (0.00) (0.00) Lowest Elevation Date 07/23/1988 09/14/1986 07/06/1986 10/12/1987 10/19/1988 Lowest Elevation, MSL 562.03 561.70 562.10 504.40 561.70 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 160,974 158,045 161,617 - 158,134 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 160,707 160,707 160,707 160,707 160,707 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft 267 (2,662) 910 (160,707) (2,573) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 31.56 195.15 180.06 331.92 240.48 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 31.56 192.46 179.00 331.92 237.16 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - 2.69 (1.06) (0.00) (3.32) Lowest Elevation Date 07/31/2001 08/03/2002 09/13/2002 08/05/2001 11/26/1993 Lowest Elevation, MSL 562.00 561.70 561.65 504.40 555.39 Storage at Lowest Elevation [LS], ac-ft 160,699 158,067 157,591 - 107,363 Storage at Critical Elevation [CS], ac-ft 160,707 160,707 160,707 160,707 160,707 Storage Diff =[LS - CS], ac-ft (8) (2,640) (3,116) (160,707) (53,344) Actual Demand on Lowest Elevation Date, ac-ft 31.56 206.37 180.54 335.78 225.14 Modeled Supply on that Date, ac-ft 31.56 186.85 178.05 333.80 225.14 Shortage =[ Supply - Demand], ac-ft - (19.52) (2.49) (1.98) (0.00) Wylie D r o u g h t : 1 9 5 4 D r o u g h t : 1 9 8 8 D r o u g h t : 2 0 0 2 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-41 Table 3-12: Demand Shortage Summaries for Drought Periods Demand Shortage Reservoirs 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low BW (2.2) (1.4) (0.8) RH (71.9) (1.4) (5.7) (1.1) (51.7) (3.8) (13.9) (3.0) (4.6) OX (8.9) (8.9) (2.6) LS (6.9) (0.6) (0.4) (3.8) (2.0) (1.8) (0.8) (0.8) (1.8) CF (4.3) (3.7) (12.1) (7.0) (69.0) (6.5) (22.9) (9.1) (12.1) (6.9) MI (364.1) (31.0) - (270.9) (27.5) (66.3) (25.4) (59.2) (33.7) WY 2.7 (1.1) (3.3) (19.5) (2.5) (2.0) FC 8.2 GF RC WA Start of LIP/ Drought Nov-53 Nov-53 Nov-53 Nov-53 Sep-88 Sep-88 Nov-87 Aug-88 Sep-00 Nov-00 Mar-99 Aug-00 End of LIP/ Drought Sep-55 Sep-55 Mar-57 Sep-55 May-89 May-89 May-89 May-89 Jan-03 Jan-03 Dec-02 Feb-03 Highest LIP Stage 1 1 4 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 Longest LIP Stage 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 Drought Period: 1953-57 Drought Period: 2000-2002Drought Period: 1986-88 Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-46 (400.0) (350.0) (300.0) (250.0) (200.0) (150.0) (100.0) (50.0) - BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA De m a n d S h o r t a g e , M G D 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Figure 3-23: Demand Shortage Plot for 1950s Drought (400.0) (350.0) (300.0) (250.0) (200.0) (150.0) (100.0) (50.0) - BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA De m a n d S h o r t a g e , M G D 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Figure 3-24: Demand Shortage Plot for 1980s Drought Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-47 (400.0) (350.0) (300.0) (250.0) (200.0) (150.0) (100.0) (50.0) - BW RH OX LS CF MI WY FC GF RC WA De m a n d S h o r t a g e , M G D 2010 High 2010 Low 2050 High 2050 Low Figure 3-25: Demand Shortage Plot for 2002 Drought (iv) Reservoir Outflow Percentiles Plots The calculated total outflow from each reservoir is the sum of the releases for hydropower generation and the spill for the wet conditions. Mutual Gain (MG) operating conditions require maintaining downstream flows from reservoirs with generation plant locations at Bridgewater [BW], Oxford [OX], Wylie [WY] and Wateree [WA]. Since the demands for years 2020 High and 2050 High and 2050 LWSP are much higher and sometimes exceed several of the reservoirs’ safe yields, these two years’ (2020 and 2050) outflows have been presented in the plots for few aforementioned reservoirs. The hydrology for the system shows that the years 1954 and 2002 were among the driest years in the 75 years of hydrology for most of the reservoirs. The plots in logarithmic scale in this subsection include combinations of the daily data from the years 1954, 1988 and 2002 as appropriate and compare the conditions such as dry (10th percentile) in yellow, normal (25th to 75th percentile) in green and wet (90th to 95th percentile) in blue. The 2002 outflows were near the lower percentiles, whereas the 1954 outflows varied. Plots shown in Figure 3-26 through 3-34 are at the plant locations for the reservoirs and thus refer to plant names or acronyms. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-48 Figure 3-26: Lake James at Bridgewater Outflows for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-49 Figure 3-27: Lake James Bridgewater Outflows for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-50 Figure 3-28: Lake James at Bridgewater Outflows for 2050 LWSP Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-51 Figure 3-29: Lake Hickory at Oxford Outflows for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-52 Figure 3-30: Lake Hickory at Oxford Outflows for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-53 Figure 3-31: Lake Hickory at Oxford Outflows for 2050 LWSP Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-54 Figure 3-32: Lake Wylie Outflows for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-55 Figure 3-33: Lake Wylie Outflows for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-56 Figure 3-34: Lake Wylie Outflows for 2050 LWSP Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-60 (v) Reservoir Elevation Plots There are three types of reservoir elevation plots: elevation percentile, elevation profile, and elevation duration plots. Similar to the outflow percentile plots, the elevation percentile plots include daily data from the years 1954 and 2002 and compare to dry conditions (10th percentile) in yellow, normal conditions (25th to 75th percentile) in green, and wet conditions (90th to 95th percentile) in blue. The reference lines in the plots are the critical elevations, offered as a comparison to the modeled elevation conditions. The 2020 High, 2050 High and 2050 Low percentiles are presented here42. The elevation profiles are plotted by reservoir. The duration plots show only the highest demand for the year 2050 in comparison to the 2002 base case. Figure 3-36 shows that for the 2050 High demand, the elevation level for Lake James at Bridgewater (BW) remained below critical elevation for more than 4 months in 1954. The elevation profile shows the same result for the 2050 High demand in Figure 3-38. The 2002 base case shows much lower elevations during the 2002 drought because the model simulated baseline operational condition and did not use the future modified operational constraints along with implementation of LIP during low flow conditions. In the same Figure 3-38, profiles for the High demand for 2010 and 2020 show less fluctuation throughout the 75-year of simulation period. The duration plots in Figure 3-39 show the majority of the times elevations were well above the critical level. Figure 3-43 shows the elevation at Rhodhiss (RH) went below the critical level in 1954 and 2002 for a short time for the 2050 High demands. The 1954 hydrology stressed both Bridgewater and Rhodhiss locations. The elevations at Oxford were below critical for long time for both the 2020 and 2050 scenarios as shown in Figure 3-45 through Figure 3-47. Elevations for Lookout Shoals (LS) are above critical but it was close with the 2050 High demand condition as shown in Figure 3-51. Lake Norman elevations are above critical level for both the 2020 and 2050 Low demands, but much below critical level for the 2050 High demand as shown in Figure 3-55 through Figure 3-57. Figure 3-58 shows the Lake Norman elevation profiles. For almost 4 years the elevation was below the critical level during the late 1990s through mid 2003 for the 2050 High demand. 42 CHEOPS does not include the leap years in the time series, so data for February 29th is missing and is shown as a blank or sudden change in the plots. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-61 Figure 3-35: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-62 Figure 3-36: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-63 Figure 3-37: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-64 1,155 1,165 1,175 1,185 1,195 1,205 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 2 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 8 01 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 Time El ev a ti on , ft 2002201020202050Critical Elevation Figure 3-38: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Profiles for High Demands Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-65 1155 1160 1165 1170 1175 1180 1185 1190 1195 1200 1205 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Exceedance El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 2050 Low 2050 LWSP 2050 High 2002 Critical Elevation Figure 3-39: Lake James at Bridgewater Elevation Duration Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-66 Figure 3-40: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-67 Figure 3-41: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-68 Figure 3-42: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-69 975 980 985 990 995 1,000 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 2 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 8 01 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 Time El ev a ti on , ft 2002201020202050Critical Elevation Figure 3-43: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Profiles for High Demands Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-70 984 986 988 990 992 994 996 998 1000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Exceedance El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 2050 Low 2050 LWSP 2050 High 2002 Critical Figure 3-44: Lake Rhodhiss Elevation Duration Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-71 Figure 3-45: Lake Hickory at Oxford Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-72 Figure 3-46: Lake Hickory at Oxford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-73 Figure 3-47: Lake Hickory at Oxford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-74 915 920 925 930 935 940 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 2 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 8 01 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 Time El e v a t i o n , f t 2002201020202050Critical Elevation Figure 3-48: Lake Hickory at Oxford Plant Elevation Profiles Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-75 920 922 924 926 928 930 932 934 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Exceedance El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 2050 Low 2050 LWSP 2050 High 2002 Critical Figure 3-49: Lake Hickory Elevation Duration Plots at Oxford Plant Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-76 Figure 3-50: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-77 Figure 3-51: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-78 Figure 3-52: Lookout Shoals Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-79 810 815 820 825 830 835 840 845 850 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 2 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 8 01 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 Time El e v a t i o n , f t 2002201020202050Critical Elevation Figure 3-53: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Profiles Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-80 810 815 820 825 830 835 840 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Exceedance El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 2050 Low 2050 LWSP 2050 High 2002 Critical Elevation Figure 3-54: Lake Lookout Shoals Elevation Duration Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-81 Figure 3-55: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-82 Figure 3-56: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-83 Figure 3-57: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-84 645 660 675 690 705 720 735 750 765 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 2 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 8 01 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 Time El e v a t i o n , f t 2002201020202050Critical Elevation Figure 3-58: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation Profiles Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-85 ,, 748 750 752 754 756 758 760 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Exceedance El e v a t i o n (ft ) 2050 Low 2050 LWSP 2050 High 2002 Critical Elevation Figure 3-59: Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Elevation duration Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-86 Figure 3-61 shows that Mountain Island normal elevations are below critical almost all the time except for a few weeks during the late winter or early spring for the 2050 High demand. Figure 3-63 is the elevation profile, where most of the times for the 2050 High demand the elevations were below critical. The same is true for WY as shown in Figure 3-66 through Figure 3-68. Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-87 Figure 3-60: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-88 Figure 3-61: Lake Mountain Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-89 Figure 3-62: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-90 575 590 605 620 635 650 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 2 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 8 01 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 Time El e v a t i o n , f t 2002201020202050Critical Elevation Figure 3-63: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Profiles Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-91 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Exceedance El e v a t i o n ( f t ) 2050 Low 2050 LWSP 2050 High 2002 Critical Elevation Figure 3-64: Lake Mountain Island Elevation Duration Plots Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-92 Figure 3-65: Lake Wylie Elevation Percentiles for 2020 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-93 Figure 3-66: Lake Wylie Elevation Percentiles for 2050 High Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-94 Figure 3-67: Lake Wylie Elevation Percentiles for 2050 Low Demand Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-95 500 515 530 545 560 575 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 2 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 3 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 4 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 5 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 6 8 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 1 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 4 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 7 7 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 0 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 3 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 6 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 8 9 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 2 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 5 01 / 0 1 / 1 9 9 8 01 / 0 1 / 2 0 0 1 Time El e v a t i o n , ft 2002 2010 2020 2050 CriticalElevation Figure 3-68: Lake Wylie Elevation Profile Catawba River Basin Plan – August, 2007 3-96 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Exceedance El e v a t i o n (ft ) 2050 Low 2050 LWSP 2050 High 2002 Critical Elevation Figure 3-69: Lake Wylie Elevation Duration Plots Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 3-97 Section 3.2 Drought Management (e) Drought Contingency Plans/LIP During the relicensing process, Duke Energy formulated a procedure to manage the river system during any drought or low flow condition. The inflows in the streams and the storage condition of the reservoirs determine the overall condition for the entire river system. This formulated procedure is called Low Inflow Protocol or LIP. The purpose of the LIP is to establish a procedure for reductions in water use by providing trigger points and procedures for how the Catawba River system plants will be operated by Duke Energy, as well as water withdrawal reduction measures for other water users during the period of low inflow or drought. During periods of normal inflow, reservoir levels will be maintained within a prescribed Normal Operating Range. During times when inflow is not adequate to meet all of the normal demands for water and maintain reservoirs levels as normally targeted, Duke Energy will progressively reduce hydroelectric power generation. If the hydrologic conditions continue to worsen, reaching various trigger points, Duke Energy will continue to declare progressive stages of Low Inflow Conditions starting from stage 0 to stage 4, stage 0 being the beginning of drought or low inflow watch and stage 4 being the most extreme drought condition. Each progressive stage will call for greater reductions in water releases and withdrawals and allow additional use of the available water storage inventory. The trigger points that will be checked on a monthly basis for various stages are summarized below in Table 3-13. The specific triggers required to enter successive stages are defined in the procedure for each stage. Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 3-98 Table 3-13: LIP Trigger Points with Operational Guidelines for Catawba System43 In order to ensure continuous improvement of the LIP and its implementation throughout the new license term, the LIP will be re-evaluated and modified periodically. The details of the procedures are available in the final version of the LIP document in Appendix D1_LIP Document. These proposed LIP conditions will be in effect during any drought situation in the new licensed condition of the reservoir operation and will be officially effective after the renewal of the license in 2008. (a) Water Conservation North Carolina General Statute G.S. 143-355(l) requires all units of local government that provide or plan to provide public water service to prepare a Local Water Supply Plan. In addition to units of local governments, all community water systems having 1,000 connections or serving more than 3,000 people in North Carolina are required to prepare a Local Water Supply Plan. A Local Water Supply Plan is an assessment of community water supply needs and the ability of a water system to meet those needs. As part of the Local Water Supply Plan, water systems are required to include a description of how water system will respond to drought and other water shortage emergencies and continue to meet essential public water supply needs during the emergency. This portion of the plan is called 43 Duke Energy, June 2006, LIP Document Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 3-99 Table 3-14: Catawba Basin Public Water Supply System Status during Drought PWSID Water System Basin County Conservation Program WSRP Voluntary 1998 - 2002 (month) Mandatory 1998 - 2002 (month) 01-02-010 Taylorsville Catawba River (03-1) Alexander Yes 10 01-02-020 Alexander County W D Catawba River (03-1) Alexander Yes Yes 00 01-02-035 Bethlehem W D Catawba River (03-1) Alexander Yes 60 01-06-104 Linville Land Harbor Catawba River (03-1) Avery Yes Yes 00 01-12-010 Valdese Catawba River (03-1) Burke Yes Yes 20 01-12-015 Morganton Catawba River (03-1) Burke Yes 00 01-12-040 Triple Community W C Catawba River (03-1) Burke Yes Yes 80 01-12-045 Drexel Catawba River (03-1) Burke 00 01-12-060 Icard Township W C Catawba River (03-1) Burke Yes 00 01-12-065 Burke County Catawba River (03-1) Burke 00 01-12-103 Brentwood W A Catawba River (03-1) Burke 00 01-12-104 Brentwood W C Catawba River (03-1) Burke 00 01-14-010 Lenoir Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell Yes 60 01-14-025 Baton W C Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell Yes 50 01-14-030 Granite Falls Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell Yes 40 01-14-035 Rhodhiss Catawba River (03-1) Burke 00 01-14-040 Sawmills Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell 00 01-14-045 Caldwell County W Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell 30 01-14-046 Caldwell County S Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell 30 01-14-047 Caldwell County SE Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell 00 01-14-048 Caldwell County N Catawba River (03-1) Caldwell 30 01-18-010 Hickory South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Catawba Yes Yes 00 01-18-015 Newton South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Catawba Yes 00 01-18-020 Conover Catawba River (03-1) Catawba Yes 30 01-18-025 Longview Catawba River (03-1) Catawba Yes 50 01-18-030 Maiden South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Catawba Yes Yes 50 01-18-035 Claremont Catawba River (03-1) Catawba Yes 00 01-18-040 Catawba Catawba River (03-1) Catawba 00 01-36-010 Gastonia Catawba River (03-1) Gaston Yes 20 01-36-015 Belmont Catawba River (03-1) Gaston Yes 00 01-36-020 Mount Holly Catawba River (03-1) Gaston Yes Yes 40 01-36-025 Bessemer City South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston Yes 81 01-36-030 Cherryville South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston Yes 27 6 01-36-034 Ranlo Catawba River (03-1) Gaston 00 01-36-035 Stanley South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston 00 01-36-040 Cramerton South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston Yes 00 01-36-045 McAdenville South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston 00 01-36-060 Lowell South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston Yes 00 01-36-065 Dallas South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston Yes 10 01-36-075 High Shoals South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Gaston 31 01-49-015 Mooresville Catawba River (03-1) Iredell Yes Yes 30 01-55-010 Lincolnton W ater System South Fork Catawba River (03-2) Lincoln Yes 30 01-55-035 Lincoln County Catawba River (03-1) Lincoln Yes 30 01-56-010 Marion Catawba River (03-1) Mcdowell Yes Yes 00 01-56-025 Old Fort Catawba River (03-1) Mcdowell Yes 00 01-60-010 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Catawba River (03-1) Mecklenburg Yes Yes 26 0 01-90-413 Union County Catawba River (03-1) Union Yes 20 20-18-004 Southeastern Catawba County W D Catawba River (03-1) Catawba 60 Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 3-100 a Water Shortage Response Plan (WSRP). Table 3-14 indicates the water systems with a water shortage response plan. In the Local Water Supply Plan questionnaire, we asked water systems do they have an active water conservation public education program. This allows us to determine which systems actively provide water conservation information to their customers. Table 3-14 indicates the water systems with an active water conservation program. The table also indicates the number of months each water system was in each level of drought during the 1998 through 2002 drought period. (b) Local vs. State Roles Water supply systems in North Carolina are numerous and diverse, the best place to address water shortages and drought response is at the local level. To provide guidance to local systems, the Division of Water Resources has developed a Water Shortage Response Handbook along with Water Shortage Response Plan Template for public water supply systems in North Carolina. The handbook emphasizes the need for local officials and the local community to develop a plan to deal with a drought or other water shortage. The handbook describes how a community can implement a multi-level drought response plan. Having a water shortage response plan, including a drought ordinance, allows a community to respond to water shortages early and to avoid the need for more stringent measures later. A Drought Response Plan has been adopted by North Carolina agencies to provide a systematic means of assessing and responding to the impact of drought on water supply. The assessment system calls for representatives from state and federal agencies to form task forces that use a broad range of data sources to evaluate and assess water availability and drought impacts and distribute the information to water system managers. The response system deals with water supply needs across the state. When needed, recommendations are made to seek legislative or federal assistance. The Drought Management Advisory Council (DMAC) is a working group of various federal and state agencies with expertise in the areas of water resources, climatology, agriculture, public health, and emergency management. The DMAC, chaired by the Water Supply Planning Section, Division of Water Resources, oversees North Carolina’s response to water shortage situations. The DMAC routinely monitors climatological and other drought related information, including precipitation, streamflows, ground water levels, soil moisture, reservoir levels, water supply and demand, and other drought data. During an extended drought, the DMAC keeps the State Emergency Response Team apprised of any water needs, identifies and recommends ways to meet those needs, ensures inter-agency coordination, identifies potential drought mitigation measures, and determines when to deactivate as water shortages subside. Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 3-101 Section 3.3 Data Management Needs (a) Surface Water The basin contains many USGS gage stations to monitor the stream flow and stage conditions along with other useful parameters. Those gage stations encompass major tributaries across the basin. Several of them are unregulated sites, most are on the regulated portion of the streams. However, there are few more streams in the upper sub basins or upstream of few tributaries that do not have any gage stations. It would have been more useful if there were few more gages on those streams as identified and labeled in violet in the Figure 3-70 below. Figure 3-70 Locations of Streams with no Gage Stations (b) Groundwater While we enjoy access to four wells currently to assess the impacts of drought on ground water conditions, more monitoring wells that give us complete geographic coverage of the Catawba River Basin is a must. An additional six to eight wells distributed in the basin will provide that geographic coverage. Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 4-1 Chapter 4 - References Advantage Carolina. 2005. Economic Profile of the Charlotte Region. Angelou Economics. 2005. Assessment: Economic Development Community Assessment. http://economicdevelopment.mooresvillenc.org/Pubreport .pdf. Benchmark Incorporated. 1999. Catawba County Strategic Growth Plan. http://www.catawbacountync.gov/depts/PLANNING/HTML/GROWMAIN .htm Burke County Strategic Planning Committee. 2002. Blueprint Burke: Burke County Strategic Plan. Caldwell County. Yadkin Reservoir Project. http://www.co.caldwell.nc.us/depart/ water/wateryadkin.html. (Accessed March, 2006). Catawba County. 2004. Foresight. http://www.catawbacountync.gov/ events/4sight2.pdf. Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness. 2003. Future Forward – Economic Development Strategy and Action Plan. Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness. 2005. A Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for the Isothermal Planning Region. http://www.regionc.org/vertical/Sites/{DFE47B5B-AB93-4B04-B6F5- 2766D754553A}/uploads/{2EB75C2A-0453-4E89-BBD5- 3CD6214005D6}.PDF. Centralina Council of Governments. 2003. Lincolnton North Carolina Land Use Plan. Charlotte Regional Partnership. Alexander County. http://www.charlotteusa.com/ Regional/regional_communities.asp?DataType=Overview&countyFIPS= 37003. (Accessed November, 2005). City of Charlotte Economic Development Office. 2005. Economic Development Strategic Framework 2005-2010. City of Cherryville. 2004. Cherryville, NC: Demographics and Labor Force. http://www.cityofcherryville.com/EconomicDevelopment/ DemographicsLaborForce.aspx. (Accessed December 2005). City of Gastonia. 1995. CityVision 2010: Gastonia’s Comprehensive Plan. Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc., January 2006, “User’s Guide Cheops Model”. Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 4-2 Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc., October 2005, “CHEOPS V 8.3”, an early version of computer simulation model developed for DUKE Energy. DUKE Energy, 2006, FERC No 2232, “Catawba-Wateree Project, First Stage Consultation Document”. http://www.dukepower.com/lakes/cw/library/catwat_fscd_complete.pdf DUKE Energy, DRAFT: November 2004, FERC No 2232, “Estimating Sediment Deposition and Volume Reduction in the Catawba-Wateree Reservoirs”. http://www.dukepower.com/lakes/cw/library/plans/sediment.pdf DUKE Energy, June 2006, FERC No 2232, “Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba- Wateree Project”. DUKE Energy, August 2006, FERC No 2232, “Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement for the Catawba–Wateree Hydro Project” – Signature Copy. Elkins, Ken. 2004. Plans to transform pastoral Troutman. Charlotte Business Journal. April 23. http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2004/04/26/ story1.html. Gaston County. 2002. Gaston County Comprehensive Plan. http://www.co .gaston.nc.us/CompPlan/ComprehensivePlan.htm Gaston County Economic Development Commission. www.gaston.org. (Accessed December 2005). Gaston County Economic Development Commission. 2005. Dole Brings 525 Jobs to Gaston County. http://www.gaston.org/newsarticles/dolefoods.pdf. Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2005. 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. http://www.cityofgastonia.com/dept/planning/trans/ trans.cfm. HDR, Inc. Engineering of the Carolinas. 2005. Water Supply Study – Catawba- Wateree Hydroelectric – Relicensing Project. HDR Engineering, Inc., April 2006, “Water Supply Study, Final Report, Catawba – Wateree Hydroelectric Relicensing Project”. http://www.dukepower.com/lakes/cw/library/plans/FINAL_WSS_REPORT_0406.pdf Herman, Gary. 2005. Oklahoma-based business to open first facility in Industrial Park. The Taylorsville Times, June 27. Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 4-3 Iredell County. 1998. Iredell County Land Use Plan. http://www.co.iredell.nc.us/ Departments/Planning/forms/Landuse/1997%20Land%20Use%20Plan. pdf. Iredell County. 2004. South Iredell Small Area Plan. http://www.co.iredell.nc.us/ Departments/Planning/forms/South_Iredell_Final_Draft.pdf. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2002. Summary of Commodities by County. http://ncagr.com/stats/cntysumm/ index.htm. (Accessed December, 2005) North Carolina Department of Commerce. Economic Development Information Services. http://cmedis.commerce.state.nc.us/countyprofiles/default.dfm. (Accessed March, 2006). North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2001. Catawba River Basin Natural Resources Plan. http://www.ncwater.org/Reports_and _Publications/Catawba_River _Basin/CRBNRPfinal.pdf. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, September 2004, “Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan” http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/documents/CTBA-2.pdf North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1999. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/catawba_wq _management_plan.htm. North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program, March 2006 http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/pubdocs/catawba_final_basin_plan_3-17-06.pdf North Carolina State Data Center. Projected Annual County Population Totals 2010-2019. http://demog.state.nc.us. Quirk, Bea. 2005. Union leaders endure long wait for Monroe bypass. Charlotte Business Journal. April 1. http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/ 2005/04/04/focus4.html. Southeast Regional Climate Center, “Historical Climate Summaries for North Carolina”, http://www.dnr.sc.gov/climate/sercc/climateinfo/historical/historical_nc.html Union County. 1999. Vision 2020: A Union County Long Range Plan. http://www .co.union.nc.us/2nd_pages/community/vision2020. Union County. 2005. Amendment to the Union County Land Use Ordinance Establishing a 12-Month Moratorium on Major Residential Development. http://www.co.union.nc.us/12MonthMoratorium.pdf. Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 4-4 Union County Chamber of Commerce. 1998. Focus on Communities. http://www. unioncountycoc.com/newcomers/community_focus.php. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000. www.census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau. 2004 Population Estimates. http://factfinder.census.gov /servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=PEP&_submenuID=datasets_ 3&_land=en&_ts=. U.S. Forest Service. National Forests in North Carolina. www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/ recreation/recreate.htm. (Accessed November 2005). US Forest Service. 2004. Acreage of National Forests in North Carolina. http:// www.cs.unca.edu/nfsnc/facts/acres_fy2004.pdf. US Geological Survey, 2005, “The Drought of 1998-2002 in North Carolina – Precipitations and Hydrologic Conditions” http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5053/pdf/SIR2005-5053.pdf Western Piedmont Council of Governments. 2004. Western Piedmont Industry Growth Analysis. Catawba River Water Resources Plan 2006 – Dec 31, 2006 4-5 Appendices Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Appendix B: Population Projection Methodology Appendix C: County Water Supply Projections Appendix D: Basin Model Input Appendix A Glossary of Terms and Acronyms ac-ft acre feet cfs cubic feet per second CHEOPS Computer Hydro- Electric Operations and Planning Software CMU Charlotte Mecklenburg Utility CTS Cooperating Technical State C-W Catawba Wateree DWR Division of Water Resoureces FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FIRMS Flood Insurance Rate Maps HDR HDR, Inc - an architectural, engineering and consulting firm HUCS Hydrologic Unit Codes ITRIB Inflows in Tributary LWSP Local Water Supply Plan mgd million gallon per day MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area NFIP National Flood Insurance Program WWTPS Waste Water Treatment Plants SDC State Data Center Appendix B Projection Methodology All of the projections in this report reflect potential population growth and water demand scenarios through the year 2050. The intentions of the projections are to provide an approximation of future conditions, not to be absolutes. Projections for both population and water demand are presented in Chapters 1 and 2. These, along with the projections calculated for wastewater returns, are detailed in Appendix C. Five different water demand projections were calculated for the purpose of developing a range of high and low projections to be used in the basin model: average growth rate projections, 1970 to 2030 trend projections, 2000 to 2030 trend projections, 2002 LWSP future service area population projections, and 2002 LWSP future demand projections. The average growth rate projections are based on the work done by HDR Engineering, Inc for the Duke Power Water Supply Study (2006). The 1970 to 2030 trend projections and the 2000 to 2030 trend projections are based on historic county population figures from the US Census Bureau and county population projections developed by the SDC. The 2002 LWSP future service area population projections and the 2002 LWSP future demand projections are based on the population and demand projections provided in the 2002 LWSPs. Population Projections The population projections presented in the county descriptions in Chapter 1 for individual community water systems were taken directly from the 2002 Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs). The 2002 LWSPs are presented in conjunction with the State Data Center (SDC) population projection for each county. For an in-depth discussion of the SDC’s methodology, please refer to the State Demographics Unit website (www.demog.state.nc.us). The SDC projections used were those that were available at the time of publication for Catawba River Basin Plan, prior to those published in July of 2005. Since the Division had begun the projection modeling process before the July SDC projections were published, it elected not to use the more recent figures. In order to compute the five sets of water demand projections for each community water system, five different sets of population projections were also necessary. Several steps were necessary in order to calculate a community water system’s service area population projection based on the SDC county population projections. First the projections needed to be protracted over a greater period of time, since the SDC only projected out to 2030 and we needed the projections to extend to 2050. A simple regression analysis showed that the best way to extend the projections was to use a third degree polynomial equation, rather than simply calculating a linear extension. Two third degree polynomial equations were developed, one representing the population growth trend from 2000 to 2030 and the other representing the population growth trend from 1970 to 2030. The equations were then modified by replacing the constant in each equation (the base population for each county) with the 2002 community water system population, as reported in the 2002 LWSPs. This allowed these same trends to be projected onto the service populations for each of the community water systems. The HDR projections that were calculated for the Duke Power Water Supply Study were initially calculated only for independent community water systems that either withdraw water from or discharge wastewater into the Catawba River basin. Dependent systems that purchase all of their water from other systems or discharge all of their wastewater through another system were accounted for in these calculations. However, for the purposes of this report, all of the systems needed to have projections calculated, because HDR used average growth rates in order to calculate their initial projections. DWR used the same average growth rates and applied them individually to each dependent system and removed the values from the independent systems that accounted for the dependent systems. Water Demand Projections All five projections were calculated by separating water demand into four categories: residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional. These are categories that the community water systems divided their water demands into in the 2002 LWSPs. The average growth rate projection used the method and growth rates developed by HDR for the Duke Power Water Supply Study. The equation takes the 2002 customer numbers from each of the four categories and multiplies it by one plus the appropriate average growth rate raised to an exponent of the number of years between the base year (in this case, 2002) and the projection year. Two growth rates were used; one was applied to the residential and commercial connections to the water system in 2002 and the other to the industrial and institutional connections to the water system in 2002. These were translated into total water demand by category by multiplying the number of connections by the average demand per connection per year that was reported in 2002 LWSPs. The percentage of unaccounted-for and system process water was maintained as a constant throughout the projection period. Water sales to other systems were projected using the average growth rate for residential and commercial demand. For the 1970 to 2030 trend projection, 2000 to 2030 trend projection, and the LWSP future service population projection, projections were calculated as described above for the average growth rate projection, excluding the residential component. In the cases of the 1970 to 2030 and the 2000 to 2030 trend projections, the same trends used for the population projections were applied to the number of residential connections from the 2002 LWSPs. For the LWSP future service population projection, the population projections from the 2002 LWSP were added to the average growth rate projections for commercial, industrial, and institutional demand. The 2002 LWSPs project service population but not the number of residential connections, therefore the number of connections was derived by determining the average number of persons per residential connection in 2002 and dividing the population projections by that number. Once the number of connections was determined for all three of these projections, it was multiplied by the average demand per connection for each year projected in the 2002 LWSPs. Again, the percentage of unaccounted-for and system process water was held constant throughout the projection period and the sales to other systems were projected using the average growth rate for residential and commercial demands only. The 2002 LWSP future demand projection is simply the demand projections, as required by reporting systems in their 2002 LWSPs. While the DWR provided guidance for these calculations upon request, each projection acquired through the 2002 LWSPs contain a certain amount of expected variability between each system’s calculation methodologies. Every community water system in the Catawba River basin was required to submit demand projections that were broken down into the aforementioned four categories of water use at ten-year intervals from 2010 to 2050. Unaccounted-for water and service area demand were also included in these projections. In order to develop the demand range, the projections for all community water systems and the industrial, institutional, and agricultural projections calculated by HDR were added together for each drainage area; so that each drainage area had five sets of demand projections. Three of the five projections were compared to determine the highest and lowest projected demands for each year. For example, if the 1970-2030 projection was higher in 2010, then it was used as the highest projection in the range for that year; however, if the LWSP future service population projection had the highest number for 2020, then it was used as the highest projection for that year. Neither the highest nor the lowest projections in the range were necessarily calculated by the same projection methodologies. The two projections that were not included in this last process, the 2002 LWSP projections and the average growth rate projections based on HDR’s projections for the Duke Power Water Supply Study, are represented separately on each chart in the drainage area section. Wastewater Discharge Projections In order to run the model for the Catawba River basin, wastewater discharge projections needed to be calculated as well. Since wastewater projections were not calculated as part of the 2002 LWSPs, the only reference available on which to base these projections were the ratios of wastewater to water demand from the LWSPs. This ratio was calculated for both the 2002 and 1997 LWSPs1 to generate a percentage from these two numbers. The percentage was then applied to the demand projections presented in the 2002 LWSPs for each of the community water systems in the Catawba River basin. The resulting wastewater discharge projections were grouped by their withdrawal drainage area and added together by the discharge drainage area, along with the agricultural, industrial, and institutional discharge projections calculated by HDR for the Duke Power Water Supply Study (2006). For example, Lake James has nine major withdrawals (not including the Duke Energy facility located on the lake); projections for the eight that discharge wastewater to Lake James were added together, while the one discharge to Lake Rhodhiss was kept separate. The discharge amounts by withdrawal drainage area were then used to track the movement of water through the Catawba River. Percentages were calculated to represent the amount of water withdrawn from one drainage area and discharged to another. The percentages were then applied to each set of withdrawal projections run through the model. 1 This was done because 2002 was the year of a major drought and the ratio could have been affected by this. Appendix C County Water Supply Projections Owner System Facility Data Source PWSID # Data Reference Date mgd mgd % AvAnnUse 02 AvAnnUse 0.73 0.729 02 AvAnnDis 0.01325 0.013 02 Unacct For 0.033 0.045 02 Sys Process 0 0.000 Combined Unacct and Sys Proc 0.045 # used in demand calc Table #1 0.04521 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Resid 0.614 0.706 0.812 0.918 1.028 1.151 1.289 0.150 0.131 0.120 0.120 Com 0.083 0 0.11 0.124 0.139 0.156 0.175 0.000 0.127 0.121 0.122 Indust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Instit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Backwash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unacct 0.033 0.036 0.04 0.044 0.048 0.053 0.053 0.111 0.100 0.091 0.104 Sales Contracts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Fut Sales Contracts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Demand 0.73 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.36 1.517 Service Pop relationship to previous period 1.152 1.130 1.115 1.115 1.115 2002 Demand 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (6-A Y-R pop)Service Pop 8,634 9,946 11,458 12,948 14,437 16,097 9,946 11,458 12,948 14,437 16,097 17,948 (7-A 6)Tot SAD 0.73 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.36 Estimated SAD 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.522 (7-A 9)Tot Demand 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 0.73 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.522 Pop/# per household Connections 3,554 4,094 4,716 5,330 5,943 6,626 2002 Wastewater Enter info from 4-B in LWSP in beige cells - NOTE MODEL NODE NPDES/Name of Receiver Permit Cap Ann Ave DischRec Strm Sub-basin % AvAnnDis% AvAnnUseReturn Node (AvAnnDisch/AvAnnSAD (D46:D52/D41) x Est SAD above L41:Q41) #1 City of Hickory 2 0.012 90.65%1.65%#1 City of Hickory 0.012 0.016 0.018 0.020 0.022 0.025 #2 0.00%0.00%#2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #3 0.00%0.00%#3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #4 0.00%0.00%#4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #5 0.00%0.00%#5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #6 0.00%0.00%#6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #7 0.00%0.00%#7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0.012 0.906 0.016 Enter info from 3-A, 3-D, and/or 3-F from LWSP in beige cells NOTE MODEL NODE Source ADWithdrawal #days ADD Avail Sup % AvAnnUse Withdrawal Node Hickory 0.73 365 0.730 2 1.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0.730 2 1.00 2002 2002 Calculated Mon Ave Use 2002 Mon Ave Disch 2002 Mon Disch Calculated Month mgd % of AAUse mgd % of AADisch mg Mon Use Jan 0.692 94.88%0.013 98.20%0.403 21.452 Feb 0.891 122.17%0.015 113.31%0.420 24.948 Mar 0.592 81.17%0.01 75.54%0.310 18.352 Apr 0.552 75.69%0.01 75.54%0.300 16.560 May 0.599 82.13%0.011 83.09%0.341 18.569 Jun 0.687 94.20%0.012 90.65%0.360 20.610 Jul 0.926 126.97%0.018 135.97%0.558 28.706 Aug 0.853 116.96%0.016 120.86%0.496 26.443 Sep 0.899 123.26%0.017 128.41%0.510 26.970 Oct 0.781 107.08%0.014 105.75%0.434 24.211 Nov 0.699 95.84%0.013 98.20%0.390 20.970 Dec 0.594 81.44%0.01 75.54%0.310 18.414 2002 LWSP Demand Projections2002 LWSP Demand and Wastewater Tables 2002 Source Water Table 2002 Water Use Data Calc from Mo# % Increase Per Decade2002 LWSP Demand Projections 2002 LWSP Wastewater Projections 2002 LWSP November 15, 2005 2002 Monthly Pattern 01-02-020 Data Source Notes Alexander County WD Enter monthly average daily use (2-E) and average daily discharge (4-A) from LWSP in beige cells 2002 LWSP DATA Alexander County WD County Name: 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Source 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 State Data Center (SDC)19,466 24,999 27,544 33,603 38,742 44,546 50,223 Annual Inc in decade 553.3 254.5 605.9 513.9 580.4 567.7 AGR from first yr of decade 0.0284 0.0102 0.0220 0.0153 0.0150 0.0127 Population Comparisons Index Numbers SDC 1970-2030 40 50 60 70 80 90 Index Numbers SDC 2000-2030 10 20 30 40 50 60 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 Population by Residential Connection 10,116 12,331 15,032 18,324 22,337 27,228 2002 LWSP Service Population 9,946 11,458 12,948 14,437 16,097 17,948 OSP County Population 38,742 44,546 50,223 54,981 44,342 50,340 Extended using cubic polynomial equation LWSP Service Pop % of SDC County Pop 0.256723969 0.257217259 0.257810167 0.262581619 0.363023353 0.356530797 Index Numbers 0 8 18 28 38 48 58 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 LWSP Serv Pop trend 8,634 9,946 11,458 12,948 14,437 16,097 17,948 Linear function based on LWSP Projections CoPop Trend 1970-2030 8,634 12,280 16,758 21,595 26,793 32,354 38,279 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 8,634 13,508 16,130 20,966 34,518 63,287 113,776 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 8,634 10,116 12,331 15,032 18,324 22,337 27,228 Linear function based on average growth rates CoPop Trend 2000-2030 8,634 12,667 18,401 24,167 29,172 32,624 33,732 Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections County Population Index Numbers Population Projections Alexander From County Pop Worksheet Assumed same rate of growth between 2040 and 2050 as between 2050 and 2060 Service Area Population Estimated Service Population 2002-2060 5,000 25,000 45,000 65,000 85,000 105,000 LWSP Serv Pop trend 8,634 9,946 11,458 12,948 14,437 16,097 17,948 CoPop Trend 1970-2030 8,634 12,280 16,758 21,595 26,793 32,354 38,279 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 8,634 13,508 16,130 20,966 34,518 63,287 113,776 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 8,634 10,116 12,331 15,032 18,324 22,337 27,228 CoPop Trend 2000-2030 8,634 12,667 18,401 24,167 29,172 32,624 33,732 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 DEMAND PROJECTIONS Enter connection and demand for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional water use (2-D) from LWSP in beige cells Res/Com AGR 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 Inf Adjusted GSPIndust/Instit AGR 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 Use Type 02Con'cts/Dem'd per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3,399 2.540 3,982 4,855 5,918 7,214 8,793 10,719 Resid Demand 0.614 181 0.719 0.877 1.069 1.303 1.588 1.936 Comm Cust #155 182 221 270 329 401 489 Comm Demand 0.083 535 0.097 0.119 0.145 0.176 0.215 0.262 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (Service Area Demand) SAD 0.730 0.855 1.043 1.271 1.549 1.889 2.302 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust #3554 4164 5076 6188 7543 9194 11208 Linear AGR based estimate 0.730 0.855 1.043 1.271 1.549 1.889 2.302 Adjusted LWSP SAD + Est Sales Line 39 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.522 Enter system name and average daily sale based on 365 (366) days (2-G) from LWSP in beige cells (adjust projections as needed) Projections for purchasers that have an LWSP should be compared to data in their LWSP (add method of estimation note) mgd expire 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Notes: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 % of AvAnn Use Source % of AvAnn Use Yield Limit 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Hickory 100%0.856 1.044 1.272 1.551 1.890 2.304 0 0%0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0%0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assumptions: Average Growth Rates Withdrawal Estimations Estimates of Future Demands based on above AGRs applied to #of Customers * 02 gpd/cust Sales to other systems 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3399 2.540 7045 11523 16360 21558 27119 33044 Resid Demand 0.614 181 1.273 2.082 2.955 3.894 4.899 5.969 Comm Cust #155 182 221 270 329 401 489 Comm Demand 0.083 535 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.730 1.406 2.240 3.144 4.118 5.166 6.284 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust #3554 7227 11745 16630 21887 27520 33533 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.04521 0.036 0.04 0.044 0.048 0.053 0.053 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.730 1.406 2.240 3.144 4.118 5.166 6.284 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3399 2.540 7,432 13,166 18,932 23,937 27,389 28,497 Resid Demand 0.614 181 1.342 2.378 3.420 4.324 4.948 5.148 Comm Cust #155 182 221 270 329 401 489 Comm Demand 0.083 535 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust # 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.73 1.476 2.537 3.608 4.548 5.215 5.463 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust #3554 7613 13387 19202 24266 27790 28986 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.04521 0.036 0.04 0.044 0.048 0.053 0.053 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.730 1.476 2.537 3.608 4.548 5.215 5.463 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3399 2.540 4094 4716 5330 5943 6626 7309 Resid Demand 0.614 181 0.740 0.852 0.963 1.073 1.197 1.320 Comm Cust #155 182 221 270 329 401 489 Comm Demand 0.083 535 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.73 0.873 1.011 1.151 1.298 1.465 1.635 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust #3554 4276 4938 5600 6272 7027 7798 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.04521 0.036 0.04 0.044 0.048 0.053 0.053 02 LWSP Serv. Pop Trend 0.730 0.873 1.011 1.151 1.298 1.465 1.635 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3399 2.540 3,908 4,495 5,082 5,691 6,372 7,134 Resid Demand 0.614 181 0.706 0.812 0.918 1.028 1.151 1.289 Comm Cust #155 0 205 232 260 291 327 Comm Demand 0.083 535 0.000 0.110 0.124 0.139 0.156 0.175 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Backwash 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unaccounted-for 0.033 0.036 0.040 0.044 0.048 0.053 0.053 SAD 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.517 Sales contracts 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Demand 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.517 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Linear AGR Based 0.730 0.855 1.043 1.271 1.549 1.889 2.302 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.730 1.406 2.240 3.144 4.118 5.166 6.284 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.730 1.476 2.537 3.608 4.548 5.215 5.463 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 0.730 0.873 1.011 1.151 1.298 1.465 1.635 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.522 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.517 Estimates of Future Demands based 2002 LWSP future demand information Estimated Total Demand Future Demands 2000-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections for Residential Demand Estimates of Future Demands based on 02 LWSP Service Pop. Trend Equation for Residential Demand Future Demands 1970-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections Alexander County Estimated Total Demand 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 Mil l i o n G a l l o n s p e r D a y Linear AGR Based 0.730 0.855 1.043 1.271 1.549 1.889 2.302 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.730 1.406 2.240 3.144 4.118 5.166 6.284 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.730 1.476 2.537 3.608 4.548 5.215 5.463 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 0.730 0.873 1.011 1.151 1.298 1.465 1.635 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.522 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 1.517 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Owner System Facility Data Source PWSID # Data Reference Date mgd mgd % AvAnnUse 02 AvAnnUse 0.447 0.441 02 AvAnnDis 0.013 0.013 02 Unacct For 0.041 0.092 02 Sys Process 0 0.000 Combined Unacct and Sys Proc 0.092 # used in demand calc Table #1 0.09172 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Resid 0.364 0.429 0.507 0.583 0.658 0.744 0.841 0.182 0.150 0.129 0.131 Com 0.042 0.046 0.051 0.056 0.062 0.068 0.075 0.109 0.098 0.107 0.097 Indust 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Instit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Backwash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unacct 0.041 0.045 0.05 0.054 0.058 0.064 0.064 0.111 0.080 0.074 0.103 Sales Contracts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Fut Sales Contracts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Sales 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Demand 0.447 0.52 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.980 Service Pop relationship to previous period 1.180 1.150 1.130 1.130 1.130 2002 Demand 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (6-A Y-R pop)Service Pop 4,613 5,443 6,423 7,386 8,346 9,431 5,443 6,423 7,386 8,346 9,431 10,657 (7-A 6)Tot SAD 0.447 0.52 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 Estimated SAD 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.986 (7-A 9)Tot Demand 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.986 Total # of connections Connections 1,865 2,201 2,597 2,986 3,374 3,813 2002 Wastewater Enter info from 4-B in LWSP in beige cells - NOTE MODEL NODE NPDES/Name of Receiver Permit Cap Ann Ave DischRec Strm Sub-basin % AvAnnDis% AvAnnUse Return Node (AvAnnDisch/AvAnnSAD (D46:D52/D41) x Est SAD above L41:Q41) Hickory 0 0.12 906.46%27.24%Hickory 0.140 0.163 0.186 0.209 0.235 0.265 #2 0.00%0.00%#2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #3 0.00%0.00%#3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #4 0.00%0.00%#4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #5 0.00%0.00%#5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #6 0.00%0.00%#6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #7 0.00%0.00%#7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0.12 9.065 0.272 Enter info from 3-A, 3-D, and/or 3-F from LWSP in beige cells NOTE MODEL NODE Source ADWithdrawal#days ADD Avail Sup % AvAnnUse Withdrawal Node Hickory 0.447 365 0.447 2 1.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0.447 2 1.01 2002 2002 Calculated Mon Ave Use 2002 Mon Ave Disch 2002 Mon Disch Calculated Month mgd % of AAUse mgd % of AADisch mg Mon Use Jan 0.442 100.33%0.013 98.20%0.403 13.702 Feb 0.487 110.54%0.015 113.31%0.420 13.636 Mar 0.320 72.64%0.01 75.54%0.310 9.920 Apr 0.332 75.36%0.01 75.54%0.300 9.960 May 0.363 82.40%0.011 83.09%0.341 11.253 Jun 0.412 93.52%0.012 90.65%0.360 12.360 Jul 0.602 136.65%0.018 135.97%0.558 18.662 Aug 0.546 123.94%0.016 120.86%0.496 16.926 Sep 0.565 128.25%0.017 128.41%0.510 16.950 Oct 0.471 106.91%0.014 105.75%0.434 14.601 Nov 0.418 94.88%0.013 98.20%0.390 12.540 Dec 0.332 75.36%0.01 75.54%0.310 10.292 Enter monthly average daily use (2-E) and average daily discharge (4-A) from LWSP in beige cells 2002 LWSP DATA Bethlehem WD Bethlehem WD 2002 LWSP November 15, 2005 2002 Monthly Pattern 01-02-035 Data Source Notes 2002 LWSP Demand Projections2002 LWSP Demand and Wastewater Tables 2002 Source Water Table 2002 Water Use Data Calc from Mo# % Increase Per Decade2002 LWSP Demand Projections 2002 LWSP Wastewater Projections County Name: 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Source 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 State Data Center (SDC)19,466 24,999 27,544 33,603 38,742 44,546 50,223 Annual Inc in decade 553.3 254.5 605.9 513.9 580.4 567.7 AGR from first yr of decade 0.0284 0.0102 0.0220 0.0153 0.0150 0.0127 Population Comparisons Index Numbers SDC 1970-2030 40 50 60 70 80 90 Index Numbers SCD 2000-2030 10 20 30 40 50 60 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 Population by Residential Connection 5,405 6,588 8,031 9,790 11,934 14,548 2002 LWSP Service Population 5,443 6,423 7,386 8,346 9,431 10,657 OSP County Population 38,742 44,546 50,223 38,708 44,342 50,340 Extended using cubic polynomial equation LWSP Service Pop % of OSP County Pop 0.140493521 0.14418803 0.147064094 0.215614343 0.212690144 0.21170018 LWSP Service Pop % of FRB County Pop #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! Index Numbers 0 8 18 28 38 48 58 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 LWSP Serv Pop trend 4,613 5,443 6,423 7,386 8,346 9,431 10,657 Linear function based on LWSP Projections CoPop Trend 1970-2030 4,613 8,259 12,737 17,574 22,772 28,333 34,258 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 4,613 9,487 12,109 16,945 30,497 59,266 109,755 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 4,613 5,405 6,588 8,031 9,790 11,934 14,548 Linear function based on average growth rates CoPop Trend 2000-2030 4,613 8,646 14,380 20,146 25,151 28,603 29,711 Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections Population Projections Alexander From County Pop Worksheet Index Numbers County Population Assumed same rate of growth between 2040 and 2050 as between 2050 and 2060 Service Area Population Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections Estimated Service Population 2002-2060 1,000 21,000 41,000 61,000 81,000 101,000 LWSP Serv Pop trend 4,613 5,443 6,423 7,386 8,346 9,431 10,657 CoPop Trend 1970-2030 4,613 8,259 12,737 17,574 22,772 28,333 34,258 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 4,613 9,487 12,109 16,945 30,497 59,266 109,755 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 4,613 5,405 6,588 8,031 9,790 11,934 14,548 CoPop Trend 2000-2030 4,613 8,646 14,380 20,146 25,151 28,603 29,711 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 DEMAND PROJECTIONS Enter connection and demand for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional water use (2-D) from LWSP in beige cells Res/Com AGR 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 AGR to get from 1970 to 2030 SDC #s from COUNTY POP worksheet Inf Adjusted GSPIndust/Instit AGR 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166Inflation adjusted manufacture growth rate for NC from HDR's Catawba Water Supply Plan 2004 Use Type 02Con'cts/Dem'd per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #1,845 2.500 2,162 2,635 3,212 3,916 4,773 5,818 Resid Demand 0.364 197 0.426 0.520 0.634 0.773 0.942 1.148 Comm Cust #20 23 29 35 42 52 63 Comm Demand 0.042 2100 0.049 0.060 0.073 0.089 0.109 0.132 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (Service Area Demand) SAD 0.447 0.524 0.638 0.778 0.949 1.156 1.410 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust #1865 2185 2664 3247 3958 4825 5882 Linear AGR based estimate 0.447 0.524 0.638 0.778 0.949 1.156 1.410 Adjusted LWSP SAD + Est Sales Line 39 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.986 Enter system name and average daily sale based on 365 (366) days (2-G) from LWSP in beige cells (adjust projections as needed) Projections for purchasers that have an LWSP should be compared to data in their LWSP (add method of estimation note) mgd expire 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Notes: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 % of AvAnn Use Source % of AvAnn Use Yield Limit 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Hickory 101%0.531 0.648 0.790 0.963 1.173 1.430 0 0%0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0%0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assumptions: Average Growth Rates Withdrawal Estimations Estimates of Future Demands based on above AGRs applied to #of Customers * 02 gpd/cust Sales to other systems 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #1845 2.500 5491 9969 14806 20004 25565 31490 Resid Demand 0.364 197 1.083 1.967 2.921 3.947 5.044 6.213 Comm Cust #20 23 29 35 42 52 63 Comm Demand 0.042 2100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.447 1.178 2.077 3.048 4.094 5.216 6.409 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust # 1865 5515 9998 14841 20046 25616 31553 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.09172 0.045 0.05 0.054 0.058 0.064 0.064 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.447 1.178 2.077 3.048 4.094 5.216 6.409 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #1845 2.500 5,878 11,612 17,378 22,383 25,835 26,943 Resid Demand 0.364 197 1.160 2.291 3.428 4.416 5.097 5.316 Comm Cust #20 23 29 35 42 52 63 Comm Demand 0.042 2100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.447 1.254 2.401 3.556 4.563 5.270 5.512 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust # 1865 5901 11641 17413 22425 25887 27007 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.09172 0.045 0.05 0.054 0.058 0.064 0.064 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.447 1.254 2.401 3.556 4.563 5.270 5.512 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #1845 2.500 2201 2597 2986 3374 3813 4252 Resid Demand 0.364 197 0.434 0.512 0.589 0.666 0.752 0.839 Comm Cust #20 23 29 35 42 52 63 Comm Demand 0.042 2100 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.447 0.528 0.622 0.716 0.813 0.925 1.035 Sales to Others 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Cust #1865 2224 2625 3021 3417 3865 4315 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.09172 0.045 0.05 0.054 0.058 0.064 0.064 02 LWSP Serv. Pop Trend 0.447 0.528 0.622 0.716 0.813 0.925 1.035 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #1845 2.500 2,174 2,570 2,955 3,335 3,771 4,264 Resid Demand 0.364 197 0.429 0.507 0.583 0.658 0.744 0.841 Comm Cust #20 22 24 27 30 32 36 Comm Demand 0.042 2100 0.046 0.051 0.056 0.062 0.068 0.075 Indust Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Demand 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Backwash 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unaccounted-for 0.041 0.045 0.050 0.054 0.058 0.064 0.064 SAD 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.980 Sales contracts 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Demand 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.980 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Linear AGR Based 0.447 0.524 0.638 0.778 0.949 1.156 1.410 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.447 1.178 2.077 3.048 4.094 5.216 6.409 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.447 1.254 2.401 3.556 4.563 5.270 5.512 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 0.447 0.528 0.622 0.716 0.813 0.925 1.035 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.986 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.980 Estimates of Future Demands based on 02 LWSP Service Pop. Trend Equation for Residential Demand Estimates of Future Demands based 2002 LWSP future demand information Future Demands 1970-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections Future Demands 2000-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections for Residential Demand Estimated Total Demand Bethlehem Estimated Total Demand 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 Mi l l i o n G a l l o n s p e r D a y Linear AGR Based 0.447 0.524 0.638 0.778 0.949 1.156 1.410 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.447 1.178 2.077 3.048 4.094 5.216 6.409 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.447 1.254 2.401 3.556 4.563 5.270 5.512 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 0.447 0.528 0.622 0.716 0.813 0.925 1.035 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.986 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 0.980 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Owner System Facility Data Source PWSID # Data Reference Date mgd mgd % AvAnnUse 02 AvAnnUse 1.706 1.471 02 AvAnnDis 0.06258333 0.063 02 Unacct For 0.304 0.178 02 Sys Process 0.05 0.029 Combined Unacct and Sys Proc 0.208 # used in demand calc Table #1 0.20750 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Resid 0.485 0.65 0.91 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.064 0.400 0.209 0.273 0.214 Com 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.144 0.500 0.333 0.250 0.200 Indust 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.408 0.333 0.250 0.200 0.167 Instit 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.163 0.333 0.250 0.200 0.167 Backwash 0.05 0.075 0.01 0.015 0.018 0.02 0.020 -0.867 0.500 0.200 0.111 Unacct 0.304 0.45 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.200 0.333 0.333 0.250 0.200 Sales Contracts 1.544 1.544 1.544 1.544 1.544 1.544 1.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Fut Sales Contracts 0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 0 0 0.000 0.000 -0.444 -1.000 Total Sales 1.544 2.444 2.444 2.444 2.044 1.544 1.544 0.000 0.000 -0.164 -0.245 Total Demand 2.553 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 5.544 Service Pop relationship to previous period 1.400 1.286 1.222 1.182 1.182 2002 Demand 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (6-A Y-R pop)Service Pop 9,906 12,600 17,640 22,680 27,720 32,760 12,600 17,640 22,680 27,720 32,760 38,716 (7-A 6)Tot SAD 1.009 1.425 1.86 2.345 2.938 3.53 Estimated SAD 1.425 1.860 2.345 2.938 3.530 4.241 (7-A 9)Tot Demand 2.553 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 1.706 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 5.168 Total # of connections Connections 3,931 5,000 7,000 9,000 11,000 13,000 2002 Wastewater Enter info from 4-B in LWSP in beige cells - NOTE MODEL NODE NPDES/Name of Receiver Permit Cap Ann Ave DischRec Strm Sub-basin % AvAnnDis% AvAnnUse Return Node (AvAnnDisch/AvAnnSAD (D46:D52/D41) x Est SAD above L41:Q41) #1 0.00%0.00%#1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #2 0.00%0.00%#2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #3 0.00%0.00%#3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #4 0.00%0.00%#4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #5 0.00%0.00%#5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #6 0.00%0.00%#6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #7 0.00%0.00%#7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0 0.000 0.000 Enter info from 3-A, 3-D, and/or 3-F from LWSP in beige cells NOTE MODEL NODE Source ADWithdrawal#days ADD Avail Sup % AvAnnUse Withdrawal Node South Yadkin River 1.6 365 1.600 2 1.088 Alexander County 0.106 365 0.106 0 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 1.706 2 1.16 2002 2002 Calculated Mon Ave Use 2002 Mon Ave Disch 2002 Mon Disch Calculated Month mgd % of AAUse mgd % of AADisch mg Mon Use Jan 1.382 93.93%0.067 107.16%2.077 42.842 Feb 1.413 96.04%0.066 105.56%1.848 39.564 Mar 1.382 93.93%0.06 95.96%1.860 42.842 Apr 1.506 102.36%0.071 113.56%2.130 45.180 May 1.523 103.52%0.06 95.96%1.860 47.213 Jun 1.653 112.35%0.064 102.36%1.920 49.590 Jul 1.376 93.53%0.054 86.37%1.674 42.656 Aug 0.829 56.35%0.046 73.57%1.426 25.699 Sep 1.609 109.36%0.056 89.57%1.680 48.270 Oct 1.682 114.33%0.062 99.16%1.922 52.142 Nov 1.729 117.52%0.071 113.56%2.130 51.870 Dec 1.585 107.73%0.074 118.36%2.294 49.135 2002 LWSP Demand Projections2002 LWSP Demand and Wastewater Tables 2002 Source Water Table 2002 Water Use Data Calc from Mo# % Increase Per Decade2002 LWSP Demand Projections 2002 LWSP Wastewater Projections 2002 LWSP November 15, 2005 2002 Monthly Pattern 01-02-015 Data Source Notes Energy United Enter monthly average daily use (2-E) and average daily discharge (4-A) from LWSP in beige cells 2002 LWSP DATA Energy United County Name: 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Source 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 State Data Center (SDC)19,466 24,999 27,544 33,603 38,742 44,546 50,223 Annual Inc in decade 553.3 254.5 605.9 513.9 580.4 567.7 AGR from first yr of decade 0.0284 0.0102 0.0220 0.0153 0.0150 0.0127 Index Numbers SDC 1970-2030 40 50 60 70 80 90 Index Numbers SDC 2000-2030 10 20 30 40 50 60 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 Population by Residential Connection 11,606 14,148 17,247 21,023 25,628 31,240 2002 LWSP Service Population 12,600 17,640 22,680 27,720 32,760 38,716 SDC County Population 38,742 44,546 50,223 38,708 44,342 50,340 Extended using cubic polynomial equation LWSP Service Pop % of SDC County Pop 0.325228434 0.395995151 0.451585927 0.716131032 0.738811272 0.769092681 Service Area Population Index Numbers 0 8 18 28 38 48 58 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 LWSP Serv Pop trend 9,906 12,600 17,640 22,680 27,720 32,760 38,716 Linear function based on LWSP Projections CoPop Trend 1970-2030 9,906 13,552 18,030 22,867 28,065 33,626 39,551 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 9,906 14,780 17,402 22,238 35,790 64,559 115,048 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 9,906 11,606 14,148 17,247 21,023 25,628 31,240 Linear function based on average growth rates CoPop Trend 2000-2030 9,906 13,939 19,673 25,439 30,444 33,896 35,004 Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections Population Comparisons Assumed same rate of growth between 2040 and 2050 as between 2050 and 2060 Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections Population Projections Alexander From County Pop Worksheet Index Numbers County Population Estimated Service Population 2002-2060 5,000 25,000 45,000 65,000 85,000 105,000 LWSP Serv Pop trend 9,906 12,600 17,640 22,680 27,720 32,760 38,716 CoPop Trend 1970-2030 9,906 13,552 18,030 22,867 28,065 33,626 39,551 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 9,906 14,780 17,402 22,238 35,790 64,559 115,048 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 9,906 11,606 14,148 17,247 21,023 25,628 31,240 CoPop Trend 2000-2030 9,906 13,939 19,673 25,439 30,444 33,896 35,004 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 DEMAND PROJECTIONS Enter connection and demand for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional water use (2-D) from LWSP in beige cells Res/Com AGR 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 AGR to get from 1970 to 2030 SDC #s from COUNTY POP worksheet Inf Adjusted GSPIndust/Instit AGR 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166Inflation adjusted manufacture growth rate for NC from HDR's Catawba Water Supply Plan 2004 Use Type 02Con'cts/Dem'd per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3,706 2.673 4,342 5,293 6,452 7,865 9,588 11,687 Resid Demand 0.485 131 0.568 0.693 0.844 1.029 1.255 1.530 Comm Cust #200 234 286 348 424 517 631 Comm Demand 0.03 150 0.035 0.043 0.052 0.064 0.078 0.095 Indust Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Indust Demand 0.1 5000 0.114 0.134 0.159 0.187 0.220 0.260 Instit Cust #5 6 7 8 9 11 13 Instit Demand 0.04 8000 0.046 0.054 0.063 0.075 0.088 0.104 (Service Area Demand) SAD 0.655 1.177 1.426 1.729 2.097 2.543 3.084 Sales to Others 0.697 0.817 0.995 1.213 1.479 1.803 2.198 Total Cust #3931 4605 5612 6840 8336 10160 12383 Linear AGR based estimate 1.352 1.993 2.422 2.943 3.576 4.346 5.282 Adjusted LWSP SAD + Est Sales Line 39 2.242 2.855 3.558 4.417 5.333 6.439 Enter system name and average daily sale based on 365 (366) days (2-G) from LWSP in beige cells (adjust projections as needed) Projections for purchasers that have an LWSP should be compared to data in their LWSP (add method of estimation note) mgd expire 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Notes: West Irdell Water Corp.0.242 0.284 0.346 0.421 0.514 0.626 0.763 Town of Taylorsville 0.411 0.482 0.587 0.716 0.872 1.063 1.296 Iredell Water Corp.0.044 0.052 0.063 0.077 0.093 0.114 0.139 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sales to Others 0.697 0.817 0.995 1.213 1.479 1.803 2.198 % of AvAnn Use Source % of AvAnn Use Yield Limit 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 South Yadkin River 109%2.168 2.634 3.200 3.889 4.726 5.744 Alexander County 7%0.144 0.174 0.212 0.258 0.313 0.381 0 0%0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assumptions: Average Growth Rates Withdrawal Estimations Estimates of Future Demands based on above AGRs applied to #of Customers * 02 gpd/cust Sales to other systems 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3706 2.673 7352 11830 16667 21865 27426 33351 Resid Demand 0.485 131 0.962 1.548 2.181 2.861 3.589 4.365 Comm Cust #200 234 286 348 424 517 631 Comm Demand 0.03 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Indust Demand 0.1 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #5 6 7 8 9 11 13 Instit Demand 0.04 8000 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.655 1.682 2.389 3.270 4.205 5.195 6.043 Sales to Others 0.697 0.817 0.995 1.213 1.479 1.803 2.198 Total Cust # 3931 7615 12150 17055 22336 27998 34047 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.20750 0.525 0.61 0.815 1.018 1.22 1.22 1970-2030 Pop Trend 1.352 2.499 3.385 4.484 5.684 6.999 8.241 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3706 2.673 7,739 13,473 19,239 24,244 27,696 28,804 Resid Demand 0.485 131 1.013 1.763 2.518 3.173 3.625 3.770 Comm Cust #200 234 286 348 424 517 631 Comm Demand 0.03 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Indust Demand 0.1 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #5 6 7 8 9 11 13 Instit Demand 0.04 8000 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.655 1.733 2.604 3.607 4.516 5.231 5.448 Sales to Others 0.697 0.817 0.995 1.213 1.479 1.803 2.198 Total Cust # 3931 8002 13792 19627 24715 28269 29500 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.20750 0.525 0.61 0.815 1.018 1.22 1.22 2000-2030 Pop Trend 1.352 2.549 3.600 4.820 5.995 7.034 7.646 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3706 2.673 5000 7000 9000 11000 13000 15000 Resid Demand 0.485 131 0.654 0.916 1.178 1.440 1.701 1.963 Comm Cust #200 234 286 348 424 517 631 Comm Demand 0.03 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Indust Demand 0.1 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #5 6 7 8 9 11 13 Instit Demand 0.04 8000 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.655 1.374 1.757 2.267 2.783 3.307 3.641 Sales to Others 0.697 0.817 0.995 1.213 1.479 1.803 2.198 Total Cust #3931 5263 7319 9388 11471 13573 15696 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.20750 0.525 0.61 0.815 1.018 1.22 1.22 02 LWSP Serv. Pop Trend 1.352 2.191 2.753 3.481 4.262 5.111 5.840 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #3706 2.673 4,967 6,954 8,405 10,698 12,990 15,774 Resid Demand 0.485 131 0.650 0.910 1.100 1.400 1.700 2.064 Comm Cust #200 267 400 533 667 800 960 Comm Demand 0.03 150 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.144 Indust Cust #20 30 40 50 60 70 81.66666667 Indust Demand 0.1 5000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #5 8 10 13 15 18 20 Instit Demand 0.04 8000 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.163 Backwash 0.05 0.075 0.010 0.015 0.018 0.020 0.020 Unaccounted-for 0.304 0.450 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200 1.200 SAD 0.655 1.425 1.860 2.345 2.938 3.530 4.000 Sales contracts 1.544 2.444 2.444 2.444 2.044 1.544 1.544 Total Demand 2.199 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 5.544 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Linear AGR Based 1.352 1.993 2.422 2.943 3.576 4.346 5.282 1970-2030 Pop Trend 1.352 2.499 3.385 4.484 5.684 6.999 8.241 2000-2030 Pop Trend 1.352 2.549 3.600 4.820 5.995 7.034 7.646 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 1.352 2.191 2.753 3.481 4.262 5.111 5.840 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 2.553 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 5.168 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 2.199 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 5.544 Estimated Total Demand Future Demands 1970-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections Future Demands 2000-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections for Residential Demand Estimates of Future Demands based on 02 LWSP Service Pop. Trend Equation for Residential Demand Estimates of Future Demands based 2002 LWSP future demand information Energy United Estimated Total Demand 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 Mi l l i o n G a l l o n s p e r D a y Linear AGR Based 1.352 1.993 2.422 2.943 3.576 4.346 5.282 1970-2030 Pop Trend 1.352 2.499 3.385 4.484 5.684 6.999 8.241 2000-2030 Pop Trend 1.352 2.549 3.600 4.820 5.995 7.034 7.646 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 1.352 2.191 2.753 3.481 4.262 5.111 5.840 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 2.553 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 5.168 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 2.199 3.869 4.304 4.789 4.982 5.074 5.544 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Owner System Facility Data Source PWSID # Data Reference Date mgd mgd % AvAnnUse 02 AvAnnUse 0.831 0.414 02 AvAnnDis 0.29766667 0.298 02 Unacct For 0.382 0.460 02 Sys Process 0 0.000 Combined Unacct and Sys Proc 0.460 # used in demand calc Table #1 0.45969 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Resid 0.206 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.260 0.048 0.045 0.043 0.042 Com 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Indust 0.163 0.163 0.163 0.163 0.163 0.163 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Instit 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Backwash 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unacct 0.382 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sales Contracts 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Fut Sales Contracts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Sales 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Demand 0.831 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.603 Service Pop relationship to previous period 1.048 1.045 1.043 1.042 1.042 2002 Demand 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 (6-A Y-R pop)Service Pop 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,604 (7-A 6)Tot SAD 0.806 0.528 0.538 0.548 0.558 0.568 Estimated SAD 0.528 0.538 0.548 0.558 0.568 0.578 (7-A 9)Tot Demand 0.831 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.831 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.603 Total # of connections Connections 1,122 1,178 1,234 1,290 1,346 1,403 2002 Wastewater Enter info from 4-B in LWSP in beige cells - NOTE MODEL NODE NPDES/Name of Receiver Permit Cap Ann Ave DischRec Strm Sub-basin % AvAnnDis% AvAnnUse Return Node (AvAnnDisch/AvAnnSAD (D46:D52/D41) x Est SAD above L41:Q41) NC 0026271 0.83 0.298 Lower Little RiverCatawba River (03-1)99.87%72.01%NC 0026271 0.195 0.199 0.203 0.206 0.210 0.214 #2 0.00%0.00%#2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #3 0.00%0.00%#3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #4 0.00%0.00%#4 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #5 0.00%0.00%#5 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #6 0.00%0.00%#6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 #7 0.00%0.00%#7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0.298 0.999 0.720 Enter info from 3-A, 3-D, and/or 3-F from LWSP in beige cells NOTE MODEL NODE Source ADWithdrawal#days ADD Avail Sup % AvAnnUse Withdrawal Node Energy United 0.411 365 0.411 0.5 0.993 Hickory 0.42 365 0.420 0.5 1.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total 0.831 1 2.01 2002 2002 Calculated Mon Ave Use 2002 Mon Ave Disch 2002 Mon Disch Calculated Month mgd % of AAUse mgd % of AADisch mg Mon Use Jan 0.340 82.16%0.166 55.63%5.146 10.540 Feb 0.320 77.33%0.165 55.30%4.620 8.960 Mar 0.300 72.49%0.239 80.10%7.409 9.300 Apr 0.490 118.40%0.246 82.44%7.380 14.700 May 0.210 50.74%0.262 87.81%8.122 6.510 Jun 0.380 91.82%0.247 82.78%7.410 11.400 Jul 0.460 111.16%0.233 78.09%7.223 14.260 Aug 0.670 161.90%0.406 136.07%12.586 20.770 Sep 0.370 89.41%0.415 139.08%12.450 11.100 Oct 0.440 106.32%0.381 127.69%11.811 13.640 Nov 0.510 123.24%0.419 140.42%12.570 15.300 Dec 0.470 113.57%0.393 131.71%12.183 14.570 Taylorsville Enter monthly average daily use (2-E) and average daily discharge (4-A) from LWSP in beige cells 2002 LWSP DATA Taylorsville 2002 LWSP November 15, 2005 2002 Monthly Pattern 01-02-010 Data Source Notes 2002 LWSP Demand Projections2002 LWSP Demand and Wastewater Tables 2002 Source Water Table 2002 Water Use Data Calc from Mo# % Increase Per Decade2002 LWSP Demand Projections 2002 LWSP Wastewater Projections County Name: 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Source 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 State Data Center (SDC)19,466 24,999 27,544 33,603 38,742 44,546 50,223 Annual Inc in decade 553.3 254.5 605.9 513.9 580.4 567.7 AGR from first yr of decade 0.0284 0.0102 0.0220 0.0153 0.0150 0.0127 Population Comparisons Index Numbers SDC 1970-2030 40 50 60 70 80 90 Index Numbers SDC 2000-2030 10 20 30 40 50 60 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2002 Population by Residential Connection 2,343 2,856 3,482 4,245 5,174 6,307 2002 LWSP Service Population 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,604 OSP County Population 38,742 44,546 50,223 38,708 44,342 50,340 Extended using cubic polynomial equation LWSP Service Pop % of SDC County Pop 0.054204739 0.04938715 0.045795751 0.062002687 0.056380592 0.051731241 Service Area Population Index Numbers 0 8 18 28 38 48 58 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 LWSP Serv Pop trend 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,604 Linear function based on LWSP Projections CoPop Trend 1970-2030 2,000 5,646 10,124 14,961 20,159 25,720 31,645 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 2,000 6,874 9,496 14,332 27,884 56,653 107,142 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 2,000 2,343 2,856 3,482 4,245 5,174 6,307 Linear function based on average growth rates CoPop Trend 2000-2030 2,000 6,033 11,767 17,533 22,538 25,990 27,098 Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections Assumed same rate of growth between 2040 and 2050 as between 2050 and 2060 Cubic polynomial equation based on SDC county population projections Index Numbers County Population Population Projections Alexander From County Pop Worksheet Estimated Service Population 2002-2060 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 LWSP Serv Pop trend 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,604 CoPop Trend 1970-2030 2,000 5,646 10,124 14,961 20,159 25,720 31,645 CoPop Trend 1970-2000 2,000 6,874 9,496 14,332 27,884 56,653 107,142 Linear Single 70-30 AGR 2,000 2,343 2,856 3,482 4,245 5,174 6,307 CoPop Trend 2000-2030 2,000 6,033 11,767 17,533 22,538 25,990 27,098 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 DEMAND PROJECTIONS Enter connection and demand for residential, commercial, industrial and institutional water use (2-D) from LWSP in beige cells Res/Com AGR 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 0.02000 AGR to get from 1970 to 2030 SDC #s from COUNTY POP worksheet Inf Adjusted GSPIndust/Instit AGR 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166Inflation adjusted manufacture growth rate for NC from HDR's Catawba Water Supply Plan 2004 Use Type 02Con'cts/Dem'd per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #900 2.222 1,054 1,285 1,567 1,910 2,328 2,838 Resid Demand 0.205 228 0.240 0.293 0.357 0.435 0.530 0.646 Comm Cust #190 223 271 331 403 492 599 Comm Demand 0.05 263 0.059 0.071 0.087 0.106 0.129 0.158 Indust Cust #12 14 16 19 22 26 31 Indust Demand 0.163 13583 0.186 0.219 0.258 0.305 0.359 0.424 Instit Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Instit Demand 0.005 250 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.011 0.013 (Service Area Demand) SAD 0.804 0.933 1.123 1.352 1.628 1.961 2.363 Sales to Others 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.053 0.065 0.079 Total Cust #1122 1314 1600 1948 2373 2890 3521 Linear AGR based estimate 0.829 0.962 1.158 1.395 1.681 2.026 2.442 Adjusted LWSP SAD + Est Sales Line 39 0.557 0.574 0.592 0.611 0.633 0.657 Enter system name and average daily sale based on 365 (366) days (2-G) from LWSP in beige cells (adjust projections as needed) Projections for purchasers that have an LWSP should be compared to data in their LWSP (add method of estimation note) mgd expire 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Notes: Sugar Loaf (Alexander Co.)0.025 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.053 0.065 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Sales to Others 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.053 0.065 0.079 % of AvAnn Use Source % of AvAnn Use Yield Limit 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Energy United 99%0.955 1.150 1.386 1.670 2.012 2.425 Hickory 101%0.976 1.176 1.416 1.706 2.056 2.479 0 0%0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Assumptions: Estimates of Future Demands based on above AGRs applied to #of Customers * 02 gpd/cust Sales to other systems Average Growth Rates Withdrawal Estimations 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #900 2.222 4546 9024 13861 19059 24620 30545 Resid Demand 0.205 228 1.036 2.056 3.157 4.341 5.608 6.958 Comm Cust #190 223 271 331 403 492 599 Comm Demand 0.05 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #12 14 16 19 22 26 31 Indust Demand 0.163 13583 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Instit Demand 0.005 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.804 1.386 2.453 3.611 4.861 6.207 7.652 Sales to Others 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.053 0.065 0.079 Total Cust #1122 4806 9339 14243 19522 25182 31228 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.45969 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.829 1.415 2.489 3.654 4.914 6.272 7.731 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #900 2.222 4,933 10,667 16,433 21,438 24,890 25,998 Resid Demand 0.205 228 1.124 2.430 3.743 4.883 5.670 5.922 Comm Cust #190 223 271 331 403 492 599 Comm Demand 0.05 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #12 14 16 19 22 26 31 Indust Demand 0.163 13583 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Instit Demand 0.005 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.80414922 1.474 2.827 4.196 5.403 6.269 6.616 Sales to Others 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.053 0.065 0.079 Total Cust #1122 5192 10981 16814 21901 25453 26681 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.45969 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.829 1.503 2.863 4.240 5.456 6.334 6.695 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #900 2.222 1178 1234 1290 1346 1403 1459 Resid Demand 0.205 228 0.268 0.281 0.294 0.307 0.319 0.332 Comm Cust #190 223 271 331 403 492 599 Comm Demand 0.05 263 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indust Cust #12 14 16 19 22 26 31 Indust Demand 0.163 13583 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #20 23 27 32 37 44 52 Instit Demand 0.005 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAD 0.80414922 0.619 0.678 0.747 0.827 0.919 1.026 Sales to Others 0.025 0.029 0.036 0.044 0.053 0.065 0.079 Total Cust #1122 1437 1549 1672 1809 1965 2141 Combined Unacc & Syst Proc 0.45969 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 02 LWSP Serv. Pop Trend 0.829 0.648 0.714 0.791 0.880 0.984 1.105 8 18 28 38 48 58 Use Type 2002 per connect 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Resid Cust #900 2.222 922 966 1,010 1,054 1,098 1,143 Resid Demand 0.205 228 0.210 0.220 0.230 0.240 0.250 0.260 Comm Cust #190 190 190 190 190 190 190 Comm Demand 0.05 263 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 Indust Cust #12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Indust Demand 0.163 13583 0 0 0 0 0 0 Instit Cust #20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Instit Demand 0.005 250 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 Backwash 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Unaccounted-for 0.382 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 SAD 0.804 0.528 0.538 0.548 0.558 0.568 0.578 Sales contracts 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 Total Demand 0.829 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.603 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Linear AGR Based 0.829 0.962 1.158 1.395 1.681 2.026 2.442 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.829 1.415 2.489 3.654 4.914 6.272 7.731 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.829 1.503 2.863 4.240 5.456 6.334 6.695 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 0.829 0.648 0.714 0.791 0.880 0.984 1.105 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 0.831 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.603 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 0.829 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.603 Estimated Total Demand Estimates of Future Demands based 2002 LWSP future demand information Estimates of Future Demands based on 02 LWSP Service Pop. Trend Equation for Residential Demand Future Demands 2000-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections for Residential Demand Future Demands 1970-2030 OSP County Pop Trend Equation for Resid Connections Taylorsville Estimated Total Demand 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 Mi l l i o n G a l l o n s p e r D a y Linear AGR Based 0.829 0.962 1.158 1.395 1.681 2.026 2.442 1970-2030 Pop Trend 0.829 1.415 2.489 3.654 4.914 6.272 7.731 2000-2030 Pop Trend 0.829 1.503 2.863 4.240 5.456 6.334 6.695 02 LWSP Service Pop Trend 0.829 0.648 0.714 0.791 0.880 0.984 1.105 02 LWSP Total Demand Trend 0.831 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.603 02 LWSP Future Demand Figures 0.829 0.553 0.563 0.573 0.583 0.593 0.603 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Appendix D Basin Model Inputs Appendix D1 LIP Documents Appendix D2 LIP Input Table LIP Input Sheet Duke Enery Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Model Data updated:08/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/27/2005 Intended Scenario:Base Condition, by-plant changes to Minimum Elevations Days of Month to Recalculate LIP Conditions:1 -- Modified By:Brian Krolak Ey Miles NS: Changed critical flows and critical elevation by NS on 11-21-05 Reservoir Critial Elevations (should be at or below the Minimum Elevation entered in the scenario being run.) Reservoir Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Critical Reservoir Elevation (ft, relative datum)61.0 89.4 94.0 74.9 90.0 94.3 92.6 95.0 87.2 80.3 92.5 Critical Flows (flows from dams per LIP documentation) Reservoir Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Critical Flow (cfs) Jan 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Feb 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Mar 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Jun 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Jul 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Aug 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Sep 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Oct 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 Critical Flow (cfs) Nov 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0Critical Flow (cfs) Dec 100.0 -100.0 80.0 --700.0 -530.0 -800.0 BOM Storage/Target Storage ratio Ratio less than or equal to Ratio greater than 6 Month USGS Gage hydrology sum less than or equal to Stage 0 90%85% Stage 1 90%75%78% Stage 2 75%57%65% Stage 3 57%42%55%Stage 4 42%0%40% Input sheet for LIP criterion to be modeled in the Catawba Wateree CHEOPS Model LIP Input Sheet Duke Enery Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Model Actions to be performed Licensee Actions Licensee Delay in implementing Actions (days) NLPF Reduction (%) Reduction to difference between NLPF and Critical Flow Bypass Reduction (%) Reduction to difference between Bypass and Critical Flow Recreation Flows Reduction (%) Plant 1 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 2 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 3 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 4 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 5 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 6 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 7 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 8 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 9 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 10 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Plant 11 Normal Minimum Pond Elevation Reduction (ft, absolute) Stage 0 4 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stage 1 4 60% 60% 60% 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stage 2 4 95% 95% 100% 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 Stage 3 4 100% 100% 100% 10 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3Stage 4 4 100%100%100%critical critical critical critical critical critical critical critical critical critical critical Consumptive Withdrawal Reduction (%) Owners of public and large water supply intakes Owner Delay in implementing Actions (days)Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Plant 6 Plant 7 Plant 8 Plant 9 Plant 10 Plant 11 Stage 0 4 0% Stage 1 4 0.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 1.9% 3.0% 0.6% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 0.9% Stage 2 4 1.3% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 4.5% 6.9% 1.4% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0% 2.0% Stage 3 4 2.8% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 9.6% 14.8% 3.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 4.3%Stage 4 4 4.6%25.0%25.0%25.0%16.1%24.7%4.9%25.0%25.0%25.0%7.2% LIP Recovery Days delayed after storage and hydrology condition recovery for groundwater wells to indicate groundwater levels have recovered From Stage 4 to Stage 3 From Stage 3 to Stage 2 From Stage 2 to Stage 1 From Stage 1 to Stage 0 Stage 0 to Normal Groundwater Monitor 0 0 0 0 0 File: New LIP_Base.xls, Tab: Data Page 2 of 2 Printed: 06/16/2006, 8:08 AM Appendix D3 Mutual Gain CHEOPS Scenario Input Sheet Appendix D4 Plan Withdrawal Table _ HIGH high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Highest Catawba-Wateree Withdrawals Summary Sheet (in mgd) Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Coats American Sevier Finishing Plant North Fork Catawba River 1.080 1.200 1.400 1.700 2.000 2.300 Municipal City of Marion Marion WTP Buck Creek, Clear Creek, Mackey Creek 1.500 1.971 2.754 3.559 4.253 4.968 Power Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake James 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.300 Agricultural/Irrigation Buck Creek Trout Farm Buck Creek Trout Farm Buck Creek 1.320 1.400 1.400 1.500 1.600 1.700 Harris Creek Trout Farm Harris Creek Trout Farm Harris Creek 0.877 0.900 0.900 1.000 1.000 1.100 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery - Upper Armstrong Creek 0.761 0.800 0.800 0.900 0.900 1.000 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery - Lower Armstrong Creek 3.309 3.400 3.600 3.800 4.000 4.200 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery Bee Rock Creek 0.508 0.500 0.500 0.600 0.600 0.600 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Marion State Fish Hatchery Catawba River 0.284 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.400 Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.700 1.800 2.200 2.600 3.100 3.900 LAKE JAMES SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 11.339 12.271 13.400 14.800 17.753 35.468 LAKE RHODHISS Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Town of Granite Falls Granite Falls WTP Lake Rhodhiss 0.906 2.169 3.339 4.293 5.145 6.013 City of Lenoir Lenoir WTP Lake Rhodhiss 4.041 5.282 6.540 7.644 8.700 9.812 City of Morganton Catawba River WTP Catawba River 7.055 8.897 11.308 14.235 16.830 19.152 Town of Valdese Valdese WTP Lake Rhodhiss 4.851 6.638 9.063 11.993 14.625 16.824 Caldwell County S Lenoir 0.511 4.602 8.337 11.252 13.741 16.197 Icard Township Valdese 0.778 1.190 2.198 3.447 4.385 5.023 Burke County Morganton, Valdese 0.218 1.061 2.254 3.730 4.820 5.544 Rhodhiss Granite Falls, Morganton, Valdese 0.057 0.953 2.153 3.638 4.730 5.451 Caldwell County N Lenoir 0.300 1.514 2.610 3.481 4.241 5.002 Caldwell County SE Lenoir 0.410 0.882 1.401 1.807 2.155 2.499 Caldwell County W Lenoir 0.599 1.954 3.240 4.246 5.109 5.961 Sawmills Lenoir 0.282 1.349 2.304 3.051 3.689 4.320 Baton WC Lenoir 0.529 1.849 3.034 3.961 4.755 5.538 Joyceton* Triple Comm WC Valdese 0.568 1.718 3.338 5.340 6.817 7.798 Rutherford College* LAKE JAMES 1 of 5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Highest Drexel Morganton 0.240 1.743 3.725 6.177 7.983 9.179 Brentwood WA Morganton 0.760 2.432 4.640 7.373 9.386 10.717 Brentwood WC Morganton 0.342 1.610 3.286 5.359 6.886 7.894 Burke Caldwell**0.220 0.243 0.275 0.312 0.353 0.399 Agricultural/Irrigation NC Wildlife Resources Commission Table Rock State Fish Hatchery Irish Creek 0.930 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.100 1.200 Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 3.600 3.800 4.200 4.700 5.300 6.100 LAKE RHODHISS SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 27.197 50.884 78.244 107.138 130.752 150.625 LAKE HICKORY Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal City of Hickory Hickory WTP Lake Hickory 8.944 12.478 18.014 24.186 25.623 32.123 Town of Long View Long View WTP Lake Hickory 1.036 1.282 1.587 1.926 2.292 2.678 Bethlehem Hickory 0.447 1.254 2.401 3.556 4.563 5.270 Alexander County Hickory 0.730 1.476 2.537 3.608 4.548 5.215 Conover Hickory 1.553 4.019 7.932 12.087 16.132 19.713 Claremont Hickory 0.233 2.251 5.161 8.239 11.213 13.814 Icard Twp Hickory 0.350 0.973 1.799 2.820 3.588 4.110 Burke County Long View 0.055 0.354 0.751 1.243 1.607 1.848 Rhodhiss Hickory, Long View 0.013 0.269 0.607 1.026 1.334 1.538 SE Catawba County Hickory 0.096 3.833 9.214 14.884 20.321 25.002 Taylorsville Hickory 0.402 0.737 1.414 2.098 2.702 3.135 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.200 1.300 1.500 1.800 2.100 2.500 LAKE HICKORY SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 15.058 30.226 52.915 77.474 96.024 116.946 LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal City of Statesville (Under Construction) Statesville WTP Lookout Shoals Lake 0 4.5 5.5 6.6 8 9 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.7 LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 1.2 5.8 7.1 8.5 10.2 11.7 LAKE NORMAN Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial 2 of 5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Highest Burlington Industries Mooresville Plant 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Municipal Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Mecklenburg WTP Lake Norman 17.319 27.626 40.420 53.666 66.604 79.744 Lincoln County Lincoln County WTP Lake Norman 2.102 4.008 6.786 9.539 12.269 14.873 Town of Mooresville Mooresville WTP Lake Norman 3.579 12.269 22.993 32.989 42.800 53.637 Corcord/Kannapolis/Cabarrus Co. Future - New - IBT Lake Norman 0.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 23.000 Power Duke Energy Corporation Marshall Steam Station Lake Norman 0.000 13.100 13.100 13.100 13.100 13.100 Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Station Lake Norman 0.000 23.300 23.300 23.300 23.300 23.300 Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Norman 0.000 0.000 9.600 9.600 9.600 26.100 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 2.800 2.900 3.200 3.500 3.800 4.200 LAKE NORMAN SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 25.800 83.203 124.400 155.694 186.473 237.954 MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Charlotte-Mecklenburg Franklin and Vest WTP Mountain Island Lake 90.925 145.037 212.205 281.745 349.670 418.656 City of Gastonia Gastonia WTP Mountain Island Lake 10.689 14.660 20.333 21.686 25.237 28.758 City of Mount Holly Mount Holly WTP Mountain Island Lake 1.453 3.801 6.678 9.506 12.307 15.097 Lowell Gastonia 0.430 3.684 7.673 11.508 15.183 18.646 McAdenville Gastonia 0.372 3.098 6.444 9.679 12.791 15.744 Cramerton Gastonia 0.355 2.147 4.334 6.418 8.432 10.335 Stanley Mount Holly 0.812 2.825 5.555 8.206 10.737 13.141 Power Duke Energy Corporation Riverbend Steam Station Mountain Island Lake 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 0.800 0.800 0.900 0.900 1.000 1.000 MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 108.336 178.553 266.621 352.149 437.857 523.876 LAKE WYLIE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial American & Efird, Inc.Dyeing & Finishing Plant 15 Catawba River 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 1.820 Clariant Corporation Mt. Holly Plant Catawba River 0.260 0.300 0.500 0.800 1.200 1.800 Cramer Mountain Finishing LLC Cramer Mountain Finishing South Fork Catawba River 1.360 1.400 1.700 2.000 2.300 2.700 Hedrich Industries Lake Norman Quarry Forney Creek 0.680 0.700 0.800 1.000 1.100 1.400 Siemens Westinghouse Siemens Westinghouse Catawba River 10.700 10.800 10.800 10.800 10.800 10.800 3 of 5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Highest Municipal City of Belmont Belmont WTP Lake Wylie 2.483 4.623 6.970 9.283 11.640 13.843 Bessemer City J.V. Tarpley WTP Long Creek, Arrowood 0.861 3.000 5.443 7.825 10.129 12.334 City of Cherryville Cherryville WTP Indian Creek 0.821 2.661 4.992 7.118 9.223 11.220 Town of Dallas Dallas WTP South Fork Catawba River 0.572 2.338 4.495 6.436 8.421 10.293 Town of High Shoals High Shoals WTP South Fork Catawba River 0.064 2.488 5.448 8.306 11.034 13.604 City of Lincolnton Lincolnton WTP South Fork Catawba River 4.310 7.372 11.456 15.668 19.840 23.808 City of Newton Newton WTP Jacobs Fork, City Lake 2.334 6.155 11.665 17.546 23.261 28.306 Energy United Newton 0.000 1.733 2.389 3.607 4.516 5.231 Taylorsville Energy United 0.000 1.474 2.827 4.196 5.403 6.269 West Iredell Energy United 0.000 5.683 12.436 19.541 27.055 35.559 Town of Stanley Stanley WTP Hoyle Creek 0.406 1.413 2.777 4.103 5.368 6.570 Catawba Newton 0.073 2.480 5.941 9.591 13.091 16.104 Maiden Lake Wylie 1.459 4.337 8.405 12.722 16.919 20.629 Rock Hill Lake Wylie 13.600 14.300 17.400 21.200 25.800 31.500 Tega Cay 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Power Duke Energy Corporation Allen Steam Plant Lake Wylie 0.000 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 Duke Energy Corporation Lincoln Combustion Turbine Facility Killian Creek NA NA NA NA NA NA Duke Energy Corporation Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie 0.000 35.800 35.800 35.800 35.800 35.800 Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Wylie 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.100 11.100 11.100 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 8.500 8.800 9.600 10.400 11.400 12.600 LAKE WYLIE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 50.303 125.777 169.765 226.963 273.322 319.389 FISHING CREEK RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Celanese Acetate Celriver Plant Catawba River 36.100 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill Catawba River 25.300 30.000 31.500 33.100 34.800 36.600 Springs Industrial Grace Complex Catawba River 10.600 10.900 11.500 12.000 12.700 13.300 Nation Ford Chemical Catawba River 1.100 1.200 1.600 2.200 2.900 4.000 Municipal Rock Hill (Emergency/Backup) Catawba River 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Union County Catawba River Plant Catawba River 5.925 15.144 25.335 36.097 49.168 66.160 Wingate Union County 0.258 8.031 17.001 26.585 38.341 53.816 Lancaster County Catawba River Plant Catawba River 6.300 7.500 9.100 10.600 12.300 13.500 Chester Metro Catawba River 3.500 4.000 4.900 6.200 7.200 8.300 4 of 5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Highest Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 8.200 8.400 8.800 9.300 9.800 10.300 FISHING CREEK RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 97.283 145.175 169.736 196.082 227.209 265.976 GREAT FALLS - DEARBORN RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 GREAT FALLS - DEARBORN RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 LAKE WATEREE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Camden Lake Wateree 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.9 Lugoff Elgin Water Authority Lake Wateree 2.3 3.6 4.8 6.0 6.8 7.8 Power Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Wateree NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.1 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 LAKE WATEREE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 6.3 7.5 9.3 11.0 25.7 27.4 NOTE: Duke Power Withdrawals are actually net consumptive use or "outflows" from the system. No return projections are given for these facilites since the values reported here are for net outflow 5 of 5 Appendix D5 Plan Withdrawal Table _ LOW high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Lowest Catawba-Wateree Withdrawals Summary Sheet (in mgd) Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Coats American Sevier Finishing Plant North Fork Catawba River 1.080 1.200 1.400 1.700 2.000 2.300 Municipal City of Marion Marion WTP Buck Creek, Clear Creek, Mackey Creek 1.500 1.611 1.860 2.148 2.482 2.868 Power Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake James 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.300 Agricultural/Irrigation Buck Creek Trout Farm Buck Creek Trout Farm Buck Creek 1.320 1.400 1.400 1.500 1.600 1.700 Harris Creek Trout Farm Harris Creek Trout Farm Harris Creek 0.877 0.900 0.900 1.000 1.000 1.100 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery - Upper Armstrong Creek 0.761 0.800 0.800 0.900 0.900 1.000 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery - Lower Armstrong Creek 3.309 3.400 3.600 3.800 4.000 4.200 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery Bee Rock Creek 0.508 0.500 0.500 0.600 0.600 0.600 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Marion State Fish Hatchery Catawba River 0.284 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.400 Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.700 1.800 2.200 2.600 3.100 3.900 LAKE JAMES SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 11.339 11.911 12.960 14.548 15.982 33.368 LAKE RHODHISS Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Town of Granite Falls Granite Falls WTP Lake Rhodhiss 0.906 1.022 1.178 1.321 1.483 1.670 City of Lenoir Lenoir WTP Lake Rhodhiss 4.041 4.420 4.954 5.563 6.138 6.719 City of Morganton Catawba River WTP Catawba River 7.055 7.903 8.914 10.112 11.535 13.236 Town of Valdese Valdese WTP Lake Rhodhiss 4.851 5.519 6.485 7.621 8.956 10.333 Caldwell County S Lenoir 0.511 0.443 0.452 0.461 0.470 0.480 Icard Township Valdese 0.778 0.473 0.512 0.559 0.614 0.672 Burke County Morganton, Valdese 0.218 0.182 0.208 0.239 0.273 0.313 Rhodhiss Granite Falls, Morganton, Valdese 0.057 0.047 0.049 0.051 0.056 0.062 Caldwell County N Lenoir 0.300 0.336 0.377 0.425 0.482 0.549 Caldwell County SE Lenoir 0.410 0.313 0.323 0.333 0.345 0.356 Caldwell County W Lenoir 0.599 0.539 0.557 0.576 0.596 0.619 Sawmills Lenoir 0.282 0.300 0.324 0.350 0.371 0.385 Baton WC Lenoir 0.529 0.563 0.606 0.634 0.669 0.700 Joyceton* Triple Comm WC Valdese 0.568 0.538 0.610 0.692 0.785 0.890 LAKE JAMES 1of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Lowest Rutherford College* Drexel Morganton 0.240 0.265 0.302 0.344 0.391 0.446 Brentwood WA Morganton 0.760 0.801 0.844 0.892 0.944 0.997 Brentwood WC Morganton 0.342 0.354 0.371 0.393 0.417 0.447 Burke Caldwell**0.220 0.243 0.275 0.312 0.353 0.399 Agricultural/Irrigation NC Wildlife Resources Commission Table Rock State Fish Hatchery Irish Creek 0.930 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.100 1.200 Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 3.600 3.800 4.200 4.700 5.300 6.100 LAKE RHODHISS SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 27.197 29.060 32.539 36.676 41.279 46.572 LAKE HICKORY Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal City of Hickory Hickory WTP Lake Hickory 8.944 10.448 12.226 14.362 16.673 19.609 Town of Long View Long View WTP Lake Hickory 1.036 1.170 1.363 1.581 1.821 2.098 Bethlehem Hickory 0.447 0.524 0.622 0.716 0.813 0.925 Alexander County Hickory 0.730 0.855 1.011 1.151 1.298 1.465 Conover Hickory 1.553 1.684 2.139 2.659 3.223 3.908 Claremont Hickory 0.233 0.269 0.323 0.387 0.463 0.555 Icard Twp Hickory 0.350 0.387 0.419 0.457 0.503 0.550 Burke County Long View 0.055 0.061 0.069 0.080 0.091 0.104 Rhodhiss Hickory, Long View 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.016 0.018 SE Catawba County Hickory 0.096 0.112 0.137 0.167 0.204 0.248 Taylorsville Hickory 0.402 0.309 0.339 0.374 0.413 0.460 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.200 1.300 1.500 1.800 2.100 2.500 LAKE HICKORY SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 15.058 17.134 20.161 23.749 27.617 32.439 LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal City of Statesville (Under Construction) Statesville WTP Lookout Shoals Lake 0 4.5 5.5 6.6 8 9 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.7 LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 1.2 5.8 7.1 8.5 10.2 11.7 LAKE NORMAN 2of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Lowest Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Burlington Industries Mooresville Plant 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Municipal Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Mecklenburg WTP Lake Norman 17.319 20.849 24.662 26.338 25.643 25.479 Lincoln County Lincoln County WTP Lake Norman 2.102 2.539 3.218 4.080 5.178 6.542 Town of Mooresville Mooresville WTP Lake Norman 3.579 5.904 8.091 9.085 9.148 7.314 Corcord/Kannapolis/Cabarrus Co. Future - New - IBT Lake Norman 0.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 23.000 Power Duke Energy Corporation Marshall Steam Station Lake Norman 0.000 13.100 13.100 13.100 13.100 13.100 Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Station Lake Norman 0.000 23.300 23.300 23.300 23.300 23.300 Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Norman 0.000 0.000 9.600 9.600 9.600 26.100 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 2.800 2.900 3.200 3.500 3.800 4.200 LAKE NORMAN SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 25.800 68.592 90.170 99.004 104.768 129.036 MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Charlotte-Mecklenburg Franklin and Vest WTP Mountain Island Lake 90.925 109.459 129.473 138.274 134.626 133.766 City of Gastonia Gastonia WTP Mountain Island Lake 10.689 14.044 19.109 16.299 18.950 22.034 City of Mount Holly Mount Holly WTP Mountain Island Lake 1.453 1.688 2.036 2.456 2.964 3.578 Lowell Gastonia 0.430 0.486 0.521 0.543 0.581 0.621 McAdenville Gastonia 0.372 0.434 0.528 0.587 0.690 0.812 Cramerton Gastonia 0.355 0.459 0.530 0.544 0.634 0.710 Stanley Mount Holly 0.812 0.844 0.910 0.979 1.060 1.155 Power Duke Energy Corporation Riverbend Steam Station Mountain Island Lake 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 0.800 0.800 0.900 0.900 1.000 1.000 MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 108.336 130.714 156.507 163.081 163.004 166.177 LAKE WYLIE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial American & Efird, Inc.Dyeing & Finishing Plant 15 Catawba River 1.820 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 Clariant Corporation Mt. Holly Plant Catawba River 0.260 0.300 0.500 0.800 1.200 1.800 3of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Lowest Cramer Mountain Finishing LLC Cramer Mountain Finishing South Fork Catawba River 1.360 1.400 1.700 2.000 2.300 2.700 Hedrich Industries Lake Norman Quarry Forney Creek 0.680 0.700 0.800 1.000 1.100 1.400 Siemens Westinghouse Siemens Westinghouse Catawba River 10.700 10.800 10.800 10.800 10.800 10.800 Municipal City of Belmont Belmont WTP Lake Wylie 2.483 2.761 3.157 3.612 4.139 4.746 Bessemer City J.V. Tarpley WTP Long Creek, Arrowood 0.861 1.026 1.176 1.350 1.550 1.754 City of Cherryville Cherryville WTP Indian Creek 0.821 0.909 1.013 1.139 1.282 1.445 Town of Dallas Dallas WTP South Fork Catawba River 0.572 0.578 0.587 0.158 0.609 0.624 Town of High Shoals High Shoals WTP South Fork Catawba River 0.064 0.068 0.073 0.079 0.086 0.093 City of Lincolnton Lincolnton WTP South Fork Catawba River 4.310 4.894 5.636 6.405 7.300 8.344 City of Newton Newton WTP Jacobs Fork, City Lake 2.334 2.622 3.032 3.507 4.057 4.694 Energy United Newton 0.000 1.374 1.757 2.267 2.783 3.307 Taylorsville Energy United 0.000 0.619 0.678 0.747 0.827 0.919 West Iredell Energy United 0.000 0.530 0.679 0.884 0.984 1.369 Town of Stanley Stanley WTP Hoyle Creek 0.406 0.422 0.455 0.489 0.530 0.577 Catawba Newton 0.073 0.082 0.090 0.097 0.103 0.109 Maiden Lake Wylie 1.459 1.674 1.922 2.190 2.504 2.874 Rock Hill Lake Wylie 13.600 14.300 17.400 21.200 25.800 31.500 Tega Cay 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Power Duke Energy Corporation Allen Steam Plant Lake wylie 0.000 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 Duke Energy Corporation Lincoln Combustion Turbine Facility Killian Creek NA NA NA NA NA NA Duke Energy Corporation Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie 0.000 35.800 35.800 35.800 35.800 35.800 Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Wylie 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.100 11.100 11.100 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 8.500 8.800 9.600 10.400 11.400 12.600 LAKE WYLIE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 50.303 97.560 104.756 123.924 134.154 146.454 FISHING CREEK RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Celanese Acetate Celriver Plant Catawba River 36.100 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill Catawba River 25.300 30.000 31.500 33.100 34.800 36.600 Springs Industrial Grace Complex Catawba River 10.600 10.900 11.500 12.000 12.700 13.300 Nation Ford Chemical Catawba River 1.100 1.200 1.600 2.200 2.900 4.000 Municipal Rock Hill (Emergency/Backup)Catawba River 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls Lowest Union County Catawba River Plant Catawba River 5.925 8.253 13.109 19.442 23.077 26.712 Wingate Union County 0.258 0.489 0.751 1.125 1.705 2.618 Lancaster County Catawba River Plant Catawba River 6.300 7.500 9.100 10.600 12.300 13.500 Chester Metro Catawba River 3.500 4.000 4.900 6.200 7.200 8.300 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 8.200 8.400 8.800 9.300 9.800 10.300 FISHING CREEK RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 97.283 130.741 141.259 153.967 164.482 175.330 GREAT FALLS - DEARBORN RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 GREAT FALLS - DEARBORN RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 LAKE WATEREE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Camden Lake Wateree 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.9 Lugoff Elgin Water Authority Lake Wateree 2.3 3.6 4.8 6.0 6.8 7.8 Power Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Wateree NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.1 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 LAKE WATEREE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 6.3 7.5 9.3 11.0 25.7 27.4 NOTE: Duke Power Withdrawals are actually net consumptive use or "outflows" from the system. No return projections are given for these facilites since the values reported here are for net outflow 5of5 Appendix D6 Plan Withdrawal Table _ LWSP high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls LWSP Catawba-Wateree Withdrawals Summary Sheet (in mgd) Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Coats American Sevier Finishing Plant North Fork Catawba River 1.080 1.200 1.400 1.700 2.000 2.300 Municipal City of Marion Marion WTP Buck Creek, Clear Creek, Mackey Creek 1.500 1.717 1.983 2.243 2.542 2.889 Power Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake James 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.300 Agricultural/Irrigation Buck Creek Trout Farm Buck Creek Trout Farm Buck Creek 1.320 1.400 1.400 1.500 1.600 1.700 Harris Creek Trout Farm Harris Creek Trout Farm Harris Creek 0.877 0.900 0.900 1.000 1.000 1.100 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery - Upper Armstrong Creek 0.761 0.800 0.800 0.900 0.900 1.000 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery - Lower Armstrong Creek 3.309 3.400 3.600 3.800 4.000 4.200 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Armstrong State Fish Hatchery Bee Rock Creek 0.508 0.500 0.500 0.600 0.600 0.600 NC Wildlife Resources Commission Marion State Fish Hatchery Catawba River 0.284 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.400 Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.700 1.800 2.200 2.600 3.100 3.900 LAKE JAMES SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 11.339 12.017 13.400 14.800 16.042 33.389 LAKE RHODHISS Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Town of Granite Falls Granite Falls WTP Lake Rhodhiss 0.906 0.996 1.113 1.241 1.385 1.549 City of Lenoir Lenoir WTP Lake Rhodhiss 4.041 4.152 4.357 4.554 4.747 4.938 City of Morganton Catawba River WTP Catawba River 7.055 7.266 7.506 7.796 8.146 8.566 Town of Valdese Valdese WTP Lake Rhodhiss 4.851 5.112 5.514 5.842 6.600 7.187 Caldwell County S Lenoir 0.511 0.441 0.450 0.459 0.468 0.477 Icard Township Valdese 0.497 0.477 0.507 0.600 0.696 0.715 Burke County Morganton, Valdese 0.218 0.177 0.202 0.227 0.256 0.289 Rhodhiss Granite Falls, Morganton, Valdese 0.057 0.045 0.045 0.048 0.048 0.048 Caldwell County N Lenoir 0.300 0.311 0.315 0.319 0.323 0.328 Caldwell County SE Lenoir 0.410 0.353 0.360 0.366 0.374 0.384 Caldwell County W Lenoir 0.599 0.532 0.542 0.552 0.563 0.574 Sawmills Lenoir 0.282 0.288 0.301 0.309 0.320 0.330 Baton WC Lenoir 0.529 0.673 0.591 0.615 0.641 0.667 Joyceton* Triple Comm WC Valdese 0.568 0.568 0.645 0.721 0.801 0.881 Rutherford College* Drexel Morganton 0.240 0.336 0.400 0.464 0.523 0.582 Brentwood WA Morganton 0.760 0.795 0.831 0.871 0.912 0.955 Brentwood WC Morganton 0.342 0.354 0.371 0.388 0.407 0.426 Burke Caldwell**0.220 Agricultural/Irrigation NC Wildlife Resources Commission Table Rock State Fish Hatchery Irish Creek 0.930 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.100 1.200 LAKE JAMES 1of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls LWSP Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 3.600 3.800 4.200 4.700 5.300 6.100 LAKE RHODHISS SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 26.916 27.677 29.250 31.171 33.609 36.196 LAKE HICKORY Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal City of Hickory Hickory WTP Lake Hickory 8.944 9.531 10.540 11.760 12.980 14.510 Town of Long View Long View WTP Lake Hickory 1.036 1.140 1.184 1.211 1.484 1.551 Bethlehem Hickory 0.447 0.520 0.608 0.693 0.778 0.876 Alexander County Hickory 0.730 0.742 0.962 1.086 1.215 1.360 Conover Hickory 1.553 1.617 2.101 2.731 3.550 4.616 Claremont Hickory 0.233 0.300 0.427 0.625 0.930 1.421 Icard Twp Hickory 0.403 0.391 0.415 0.491 0.569 0.585 Burke County Long View 0.055 0.059 0.067 0.076 0.085 0.096 Rhodhiss Hickory, Long View 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.014 SE Catawba County Hickory 0.096 0.137 0.206 0.268 0.321 0.071 Taylorsville Hickory 0.402 0.264 0.269 0.274 0.279 0.284 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.200 1.300 1.500 1.800 2.100 2.500 LAKE HICKORY SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 15.111 16.013 18.292 21.028 24.305 27.884 LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal City of Statesville (Under ConstructionStatesville WTP Lookout Shoals Lake 0 4.5 5.5 6.6 8 9 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.7 LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 1.2 5.8 7.1 8.5 10.2 11.7 LAKE NORMAN Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Burlington Industries Mooresville Plant 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Municipal Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Mecklenburg WTP Lake Norman 17.319 20.048 23.888 27.168 30.451 33.536 Lincoln County Lincoln County WTP Lake Norman 2.102 2.493 3.259 4.073 5.090 6.365 Town of Mooresville Mooresville WTP Lake Norman 3.579 6.000 8.750 11.750 14.750 17.500 Corcord/Kannapolis/Cabarrus Co. Future - New - IBT Lake Norman 0.000 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 23.000 Power Duke Energy Corporation Marshall Steam Station Lake Norman 0.000 13.100 13.100 13.100 13.100 13.100 Duke Energy Corporation McGuire Nuclear Station Lake Norman 0.000 23.300 23.300 23.300 23.300 23.300 Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Norman 0.000 0.000 9.600 9.600 9.600 26.100 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 2.800 2.900 3.200 3.500 3.800 4.200 2of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls LWSP LAKE NORMAN SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 25.800 67.841 90.097 102.491 115.091 147.101 MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Charlotte-Mecklenburg Franklin and Vest WTP Mountain Island Lake 90.925 105.252 125.412 142.632 159.869 176.064 City of Gastonia Gastonia WTP Mountain Island Lake 10.689 14.233 19.007 21.868 25.164 28.931 City of Mount Holly Mount Holly WTP Mountain Island Lake 1.453 3.272 5.308 7.871 11.954 18.392 Lowell Gastonia 0.430 0.449 0.471 0.496 0.521 0.546 McAdenville Gastonia 0.372 0.544 0.565 0.588 0.615 0.643 Cramerton Gastonia 0.355 0.424 0.461 0.497 0.538 0.575 Stanley Mount Holly 0.812 0.859 1.038 1.219 1.342 1.593 Power Duke Energy Corporation Riverbend Steam Station Mountain Island Lake 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 2.500 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 0.800 0.800 0.900 0.900 1.000 1.000 MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 108.336 128.333 155.662 178.571 203.503 230.244 LAKE WYLIE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial American & Efird, Inc. Dyeing & Finishing Plant 15 Catawba River 1.820 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 Clariant Corporation Mt. Holly Plant Catawba River 0.260 0.300 0.500 0.800 1.200 1.800 Cramer Mountain Finishing LLC Cramer Mountain Finishing South Fork Catawba River 1.360 1.400 1.700 2.000 2.300 2.700 Hedrich Industries Lake Norman Quarry Forney Creek 0.680 0.700 0.800 1.000 1.100 1.400 Siemens Westinghouse Siemens Westinghouse Catawba River 10.700 10.800 10.800 10.800 10.800 10.800 Municipal City of Belmont Belmont WTP Lake Wylie 2.483 3.783 4.564 5.431 6.379 7.013 Bessemer City J.V. Tarpley WTP Long Creek, Arrowood 0.861 1.082 1.092 1.107 1.122 1.137 City of Cherryville Cherryville WTP Indian Creek 0.821 1.129 1.446 1.763 2.079 2.396 Town of Dallas Dallas WTP South Fork Catawba River 0.572 0.567 0.617 Town of High Shoals High Shoals WTP South Fork Catawba River 0.064 0.110 0.138 0.153 0.170 0.204 City of Lincolnton Lincolnton WTP South Fork Catawba River 4.310 4.825 5.546 6.375 7.329 8.425 City of Newton Newton WTP Jacobs Fork, City Lake 2.334 2.581 2.994 3.651 4.449 5.423 Town of Stanley Stanley WTP Hoyle Creek 0.406 0.430 0.519 0.610 0.671 0.797 Catawba Newton 0.073 0.084 0.088 0.092 0.096 0.099 Energy United Newton 0.000 1.425 1.860 2.345 2.938 3.530 Taylorsville Energy United 0.000 0.264 0.269 0.274 0.279 0.284 West Iredell Energy United 0.000 0.302 0.388 0.506 0.561 0.785 Maiden Lake Wylie 1.459 1.548 1.592 1.648 1.696 1.755 Rock Hill Lake Wylie 13.600 14.300 17.400 21.200 25.800 31.500 Tega Cay 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Power Duke Energy Corporation Allen Steam Plant Lake wylie 0.000 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 6.100 3of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls LWSP Duke Energy Corporation Lincoln Combustion Turbine Facility Killian Creek NA NA NA NA NA NA Duke Energy Corporation Catawba Nuclear Station Lake Wylie 0.000 35.800 35.800 35.800 35.800 35.800 Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Wylie 0.000 0.000 0.000 11.100 11.100 11.100 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 8.500 8.800 9.600 10.400 11.400 12.600 LAKE WYLIE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 50.303 98.130 105.613 124.955 135.169 147.447 FISHING CREEK RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Industrial Celanese Acetate Celriver Plant Catawba River 36.100 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 60.000 Bowater Pulp and Paper Mill Catawba River 25.300 30.000 31.500 33.100 34.800 36.600 Springs Industrial Grace Complex Catawba River 10.600 10.900 11.500 12.000 12.700 13.300 Nation Ford Chemical Catawba River 1.100 1.200 1.600 2.200 2.900 4.000 Municipal Rock Hill (Emergency/Backup)Catawba River 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Union County Catawba River Plant Catawba River 5.925 13.804 17.672 21.735 25.866 30.014 Wingate Union County 0.258 0.508 0.826 1.347 2.193 3.573 Lancaster County Catawba River Plant Catawba River 6.300 7.500 9.100 10.600 12.300 13.500 Chester Metro Catawba River 3.500 4.000 4.900 6.200 7.200 8.300 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 8.200 8.400 8.800 9.300 9.800 10.300 FISHING CREEK RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 97.283 136.312 145.898 156.482 167.759 179.587 GREAT FALLS - DEARBORN RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 GREAT FALLS - DEARBORN RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Agricultural/Irrigation Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIR SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 LAKE WATEREE Entity Facility Source Water 2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Municipal Camden Lake Wateree 2.8 2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.9 Lugoff Elgin Water Authority Lake Wateree 2.3 3.6 4.8 6.0 6.8 7.8 Power Duke Energy Corporation Future - New Lake Wateree NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.1 Agricultural/Irrigation 4of5 high_low_lwsp withdrawals_BPlan2006_Modified for Katy.xls LWSP Basin Agricultural/Irrigation Demand Varies Varies 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 LAKE WATEREE SUB-BASIN TOTAL FLOW 6.3 7.5 9.3 11.0 25.7 27.4 NOTE: Duke Power Withdrawals are actually net consumptive use or "outflows" from the system. No return projections are given for these facilites since the values reported here are for net outflow 5of5 Appendix D7 Plan Withdrawal from 11 Reservoirs in Model JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 19.2 19.2 17.9 18.2 18.2 17.6 16.6 16.4 16.1 16.1 16.7 17.7 2002 16.2 16.3 15.0 15.4 15.2 14.3 13.8 13.5 13.5 13.9 14.6 15.3 2010 20.7 20.8 19.4 19.7 19.6 19.1 18.0 17.8 17.4 17.5 18.1 19.2 2010 18.9 19.0 17.4 17.9 17.7 16.6 16.0 15.7 15.7 16.1 16.9 17.8 2020 22.5 22.6 21.1 21.5 21.4 20.9 19.7 19.5 19.1 19.1 19.7 20.9 2020 21.5 21.6 19.9 20.4 20.2 19.1 18.5 18.2 18.1 18.6 19.5 20.4 2050 54.5 54.6 52.8 52.8 49.3 52.9 51.7 51.4 50.6 50.6 50.6 52.2 2050 29.5 29.7 27.5 28.4 28.2 26.7 26.1 25.8 25.6 26.2 27.2 28.2 2002 19.2 19.2 17.9 18.2 18.2 17.6 16.6 16.4 16.1 16.1 16.7 17.7 2002 16.2 16.3 15.0 15.4 15.2 14.3 13.8 13.5 13.5 13.9 14.6 15.3 2010 20.1 20.2 18.8 19.1 19.1 18.5 17.5 17.2 16.9 16.9 17.6 18.6 2010 18.1 18.2 16.8 17.2 17.0 16.0 15.4 15.1 15.1 15.5 16.3 17.1 2020 22.5 22.6 21.1 21.5 21.4 20.9 19.7 19.5 19.1 19.1 19.7 20.9 2020 19.6 19.7 18.2 18.6 18.5 17.4 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.0 17.8 18.6 2050 54.5 54.6 52.8 52.8 49.3 52.9 51.7 51.4 50.6 50.6 50.6 52.2 2050 25.1 25.3 23.5 24.2 24.0 22.8 22.2 22.0 21.8 22.3 23.2 24.1 2002 19.2 19.2 17.9 18.2 18.2 17.6 16.6 16.4 16.1 16.1 16.7 17.7 2002 16.2 16.3 15.0 15.4 15.2 14.3 13.8 13.5 13.5 13.9 14.6 15.3 2010 20.3 20.3 19.0 19.3 19.2 18.7 17.6 17.4 17.1 17.1 17.7 18.8 2010 18.2 18.3 16.8 17.2 17.0 16.0 15.5 15.1 15.2 15.6 16.4 17.2 2020 22.5 22.6 21.1 21.5 21.4 20.9 19.7 19.5 19.1 19.1 19.7 20.9 2020 19.8 19.8 18.3 18.7 18.6 17.5 17.0 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.9 18.8 2050 54.5 54.6 52.8 52.8 49.3 52.9 51.7 51.4 50.6 50.6 50.6 52.2 2050 25.0 25.2 23.3 24.1 23.9 22.7 22.1 21.9 21.7 22.2 23.1 23.9 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 40.6 40.1 40.5 43.0 45.4 47.4 47.2 45.6 41.4 38.7 36.8 36.9 2002 23.6 22.6 23.8 22.4 22.1 21.2 18.8 20.4 21.7 22.2 22.7 23.3 2010 75.9 75.0 75.8 80.4 85.0 88.7 88.3 85.3 77.4 72.4 68.9 69.0 2010 33.3 31.9 33.6 31.7 31.1 29.9 26.5 28.7 30.7 31.4 32.1 32.9 2020 116.6 115.2 116.5 123.5 130.7 136.4 135.8 131.3 119.1 111.3 106.0 106.1 2020 47.6 45.7 48.2 45.2 44.5 42.7 38.0 41.2 43.9 45.0 46.0 47.2 2050 224.0 221.3 224.0 237.6 251.1 262.8 261.7 253.1 229.4 214.1 204.6 204.8 2050 91.6 87.6 92.6 86.6 85.1 81.7 73.4 79.2 84.4 86.7 88.5 91.2 2002 40.6 40.1 40.5 43.0 45.4 47.4 47.2 45.6 41.4 38.7 36.8 36.9 2002 23.6 22.6 23.8 22.4 22.1 21.2 18.8 20.4 21.7 22.2 22.7 23.3 2010 43.3 42.8 43.3 45.9 48.6 50.6 50.4 48.7 44.2 41.3 39.3 39.4 2010 24.4 23.4 24.7 23.3 22.9 21.9 19.5 21.1 22.5 23.0 23.6 24.2 2020 48.5 47.9 48.4 51.4 54.3 56.7 56.5 54.6 49.5 46.3 44.1 44.1 2020 27.8 26.7 28.1 26.4 26.0 24.9 22.2 24.1 25.7 26.3 26.9 27.6 2050 69.3 68.4 69.2 73.4 77.6 81.3 80.9 78.3 70.9 66.2 63.3 63.3 2050 41.3 39.5 41.8 39.0 38.4 36.9 33.1 35.7 38.1 39.1 39.9 41.1 2002 40.6 40.1 40.5 43.0 45.4 47.4 47.2 45.6 41.4 38.7 36.8 36.9 2002 23.6 22.6 23.8 22.4 22.1 21.2 18.8 20.4 21.7 22.2 22.7 23.3 2010 41.3 40.8 41.2 43.7 46.2 48.2 48.0 46.4 42.1 39.4 37.5 37.5 2010 23.1 22.2 23.4 22.0 21.7 20.8 18.4 20.0 21.3 21.8 22.3 22.9 2020 43.6 43.1 43.5 46.2 48.8 51.0 50.8 49.1 44.5 41.6 39.6 39.7 2020 24.8 23.7 25.0 23.5 23.1 22.2 19.8 21.4 22.8 23.4 23.9 24.6 2050 53.8 53.2 53.8 57.1 60.3 63.2 62.9 60.8 55.1 51.5 49.2 49.2 2050 31.0 29.6 31.3 29.3 28.8 27.6 24.8 26.8 28.5 29.3 29.9 30.8 HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake Rhodhiss LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake James at Bridgewater Withdrawals Returns Withdrawals Returns HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 22.1 20.2 19.7 22.3 24.5 27.6 27.0 27.1 23.9 22.1 21.5 20.7 2002 8.7 7.9 8.3 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 8.0 8.4 9.3 9.4 2010 44.3 40.6 39.6 44.7 49.2 55.5 54.1 54.4 48.0 44.3 43.2 41.5 2010 13.8 12.6 13.2 12.1 11.9 12.0 11.9 12.2 12.8 13.5 14.8 15.1 2020 77.5 71.0 69.3 78.3 86.1 97.2 94.9 95.3 84.0 77.5 75.6 72.7 2020 20.8 19.0 19.8 18.2 18.0 18.1 18.1 18.5 19.3 20.3 22.2 22.6 2050 171.2 156.6 152.8 172.8 190.3 215.2 210.1 211.0 185.9 171.2 167.1 160.8 2050 38.6 35.6 36.9 34.1 33.8 33.9 34.0 34.6 35.9 37.5 40.8 41.8 2002 22.1 20.2 19.7 22.3 24.5 27.6 27.0 27.1 23.9 22.1 21.5 20.7 2002 8.7 7.9 8.2 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 8.0 8.4 9.3 9.4 2010 25.1 23.0 22.5 25.4 27.9 31.5 30.7 30.8 27.2 25.1 24.5 23.6 2010 9.8 9.0 9.4 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.7 9.1 9.6 10.5 10.7 2020 29.5 27.1 26.4 29.8 32.8 37.0 36.2 36.3 32.0 29.5 28.8 27.7 2020 11.4 10.4 10.8 9.9 9.8 9.9 9.9 10.1 10.5 11.1 12.1 12.3 2050 47.5 43.4 42.4 47.9 52.8 59.7 58.3 58.5 51.6 47.5 46.3 44.6 2050 17.5 16.2 16.8 15.5 15.4 15.4 15.5 15.7 16.3 17.1 18.6 19.0 2002 22.1 20.2 19.7 22.3 24.5 27.6 27.0 27.1 23.9 22.1 21.5 20.7 2002 8.7 7.9 8.3 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.6 8.0 8.4 9.3 9.4 2010 23.5 21.5 21.0 23.7 26.1 29.4 28.7 28.8 25.4 23.5 22.9 22.0 2010 9.2 8.4 8.8 8.0 7.9 8.0 7.9 8.1 8.5 9.0 9.9 10.0 2020 26.8 24.5 24.0 27.1 29.8 33.6 32.8 33.0 29.1 26.8 26.1 25.1 2020 10.3 9.5 9.9 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.2 9.6 10.1 11.0 11.2 2050 40.8 37.3 36.4 41.2 45.4 51.3 50.1 50.3 44.3 40.8 39.8 38.3 2050 12.2 11.3 11.7 10.8 10.7 10.8 10.8 11.0 11.4 11.9 12.9 13.3 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 2002 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2010 9.5 9.5 9.6 10.6 10.9 11.8 9.9 7.5 6.6 7.2 7.1 7.1 2010 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2020 11.7 11.6 11.7 12.9 13.4 14.5 12.1 9.2 8.1 8.8 8.7 8.7 2020 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 2050 19.2 19.1 19.3 21.2 22.0 23.8 19.9 15.2 13.4 14.5 14.5 14.4 2050 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 2002 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 2002 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2010 9.5 9.5 9.6 10.6 10.9 11.8 9.9 7.5 6.6 7.2 7.1 7.1 2010 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2020 11.7 11.6 11.7 12.9 13.4 14.5 12.1 9.2 8.1 8.8 8.7 8.7 2020 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2050 19.2 19.1 19.3 21.2 22.0 23.8 19.9 15.2 13.4 14.5 14.5 14.4 2050 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 2002 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 2002 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2010 9.5 9.5 9.6 10.6 10.9 11.8 9.9 7.5 6.6 7.2 7.1 7.1 2010 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2020 11.7 11.6 11.7 12.9 13.4 14.5 12.1 9.2 8.1 8.8 8.7 8.7 2020 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2050 19.2 19.1 19.3 21.2 22.0 23.8 19.9 15.2 13.4 14.5 14.5 14.4 2050 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake Lookout Shoals LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake Hickory at Oxford Withdrawals Returns Withdrawals Returns HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 39 38 32 42 42 46 46 44 39 39 33 38 2002 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.9 2010 126 121 103 137 137 148 147 141 127 125 107 122 2010 10.1 8.1 8.6 7.8 7.6 7.0 6.8 7.2 7.1 7.5 9.0 9.8 2020 185 179 160 202 205 222 220 210 189 186 164 180 2020 20.7 16.5 17.5 15.8 15.3 14.0 13.6 14.5 14.3 15.3 18.4 20.0 2050 351 343 322 382 391 424 416 397 360 354 325 341 2050 51.0 41.1 43.2 38.9 38.2 34.9 34.1 36.2 35.8 38.1 45.9 49.9 2002 39 38 32 42 42 46 46 44 39 39 33 38 2002 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.7 2.9 2010 104 100 85 113 113 122 121 116 104 103 88 101 2010 3.4 2.7 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 3.0 3.3 2020 134 130 116 146 149 161 159 152 137 135 119 130 2020 4.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.6 3.9 2050 190 186 174 207 212 230 226 215 195 192 176 185 2050 6.4 5.2 5.5 4.9 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.5 4.8 5.8 6.3 2002 39 38 32 42 42 46 46 44 39 39 33 38 2002 3.0 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.7 2.9 2010 103 99 84 111 111 121 120 115 103 102 87 100 2010 3.2 2.6 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.9 3.1 2020 134 130 116 146 149 161 159 152 137 134 119 130 2020 3.8 3.1 3.2 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.4 3.7 2050 217 212 199 236 242 262 257 245 223 219 201 211 2050 6.9 5.6 5.9 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.9 5.2 6.2 6.8 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 142 138 138 166 194 214 208 196 170 159 143 137 2002 778877777888 2010 235 228 228 274 320 353 343 323 280 263 235 225 2010 99999899991010 2020 351 341 341 409 476 526 511 482 418 392 352 337 2020 13 13 13 13 13 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 2050 691 671 671 805 933 1032 1003 947 820 770 692 664 2050 25 25 26 26 25 25 25 25 26 27 28 29 2002 142 138 138 166 194 214 208 196 170 159 143 137 2002 778877777888 2010 172 167 167 201 234 258 251 236 205 192 172 165 2010 777766777778 2020 206 200 200 240 279 309 300 283 245 230 206 198 2020 888888888899 2050 219 213 213 255 296 327 318 300 260 244 220 211 2050 9 9 10 999999101010 2002 142 138 138 166 194 214 208 196 170 159 143 137 2002 778877777888 2010 169 164 164 197 230 254 246 232 201 189 169 162 2010 667666666777 2020 205 199 199 239 278 307 298 281 244 229 205 197 2020 878877778889 2050 304 295 295 354 410 453 441 416 360 339 304 292 2050 11 10 11 11 10 10 11 10 11 11 12 12 HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake Mountain Island LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake Norman at Cowans Ford Withdrawals Returns Withdrawals Returns HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 76 75 75 77 72 80 82 82 81 81 77 75 2002 68 64 66 66 67 66 66 67 65 65 65 66 2010 189 187 188 191 180 199 205 204 204 201 193 186 2010 110 103 107 107 109 107 107 109 105 106 105 108 2020 256 252 253 258 244 269 277 276 275 272 260 251 2020 173 163 169 169 172 169 170 172 166 168 166 170 2050 481 473 474 484 461 508 520 521 519 512 490 469 2050 353 329 342 344 351 344 350 351 338 345 337 343 2002 76 75 75 77 72 80 82 82 81 81 77 75 2002 68 64 66 66 67 66 66 67 65 65 65 66 2010 147 145 146 148 140 154 159 158 158 156 150 144 2010 70 66 68 68 69 68 68 69 67 67 67 68 2020 158 156 156 159 150 166 171 170 170 168 161 155 2020 82 77 80 80 81 80 80 81 79 79 79 80 2050 220 217 218 222 212 233 239 239 238 235 224 215 2050 116 108 113 113 116 113 115 116 112 114 111 113 2002 76 75 75 77 72 80 82 82 81 81 77 75 2002 68 64 66 66 67 66 66 67 65 65 65 66 2010 148 146 147 149 141 155 160 159 159 157 150 145 2010 73 69 71 71 72 71 72 72 70 71 70 72 2020 159 157 158 161 152 167 172 172 171 169 162 156 2020 87 82 85 85 86 85 86 86 84 84 84 85 2050 222 218 219 223 213 234 240 240 240 236 226 217 2050 94 87 91 91 93 91 93 93 90 92 89 91 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 130 127 129 136 135 146 148 141 136 134 127 127 2002 215 205 217 205 202 209 216 208 209 214 231 264 2010 217 210 215 225 225 242 246 235 226 222 211 211 2010 296 281 298 282 278 287 297 285 287 295 317 363 2020 252 244 250 264 265 287 289 276 264 259 246 245 2020 368 350 371 352 347 357 369 355 358 368 397 452 2050 391 379 388 415 419 458 456 436 413 405 383 381 2050 595 566 602 572 563 576 594 574 581 601 649 733 2002 145 141 144 151 151 162 165 157 152 149 142 142 2002 215 205 217 205 202 209 216 208 209 214 231 264 2010 195 190 194 203 203 218 221 212 204 200 190 190 2010 259 246 260 247 243 251 260 249 251 258 277 318 2020 209 203 208 220 221 239 241 230 220 216 205 204 2020 283 269 286 271 267 274 284 273 276 283 305 348 2050 257 250 256 274 276 302 301 287 272 267 252 251 2050 321 305 325 308 304 311 321 310 313 324 350 395 2002 145 141 144 151 151 162 165 157 152 149 142 142 2002 215 205 217 205 202 209 216 208 209 214 231 264 2010 203 198 202 212 211 228 231 221 213 209 198 198 2010 256 244 258 244 241 248 257 247 249 255 274 315 2020 216 210 215 227 228 247 249 237 227 223 211 211 2020 280 267 283 268 264 272 281 271 273 281 302 345 2050 264 256 262 280 283 309 308 294 279 273 259 257 2050 347 330 351 333 328 336 347 335 339 350 378 427 HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs LWSP OPTION, cfs Fishing Creek Reservoir LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake Wylie Withdrawals Returns Withdrawals Returns HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2002 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2010 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2010 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2020 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2020 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.0 3.5 2050 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2050 5.9 5.2 6.2 5.2 5.9 6.7 5.2 5.2 5.9 6.5 7.2 8.4 2002 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2002 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2010 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2010 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2020 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2020 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 2050 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2050 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 2002 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2002 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2010 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2010 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.6 1.8 2.9 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.6 2020 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2020 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 2050 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 2050 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.2 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.7 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2002 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2010 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2010 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2020 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2020 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2050 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 2050 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2002 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2002 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2010 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2010 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2020 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2020 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2050 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 2050 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 2002 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2002 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2010 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2010 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2020 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2020 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.5 2050 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 2050 1.8 1.8 1.7 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs LWSP OPTION, cfs Rocky Creek Reservoir LWSP OPTION, cfs Great Falls Reservoir Withdrawals Returns Withdrawals Returns HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2002 9.6 9.1 8.9 9.4 9.9 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.1 9.5 9.5 9.1 2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2010 11.5 10.9 10.6 11.2 11.8 12.7 12.4 12.4 12.0 11.3 11.3 10.8 2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2020 14.3 13.5 13.2 13.9 14.7 15.8 15.4 15.3 14.9 14.0 14.0 13.4 2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2050 42.6 41.5 41.1 41.4 38.9 44.4 44.3 44.0 43.4 42.6 41.8 41.2 2050 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2002 9.6 9.1 8.9 9.4 9.9 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.1 9.5 9.5 9.1 2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2010 11.5 10.9 10.6 11.2 11.8 12.7 12.4 12.4 12.0 11.3 11.3 10.8 2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2020 14.3 13.5 13.2 13.9 14.7 15.8 15.4 15.3 14.9 14.0 14.0 13.4 2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2050 42.6 41.5 41.1 41.4 38.9 44.4 44.3 44.0 43.4 42.6 41.8 41.2 2050 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2002 9.6 9.1 8.9 9.4 9.9 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.1 9.5 9.5 9.1 2002 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2010 11.5 10.9 10.6 11.2 11.8 12.7 12.4 12.4 12.0 11.3 11.3 10.8 2010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2020 14.3 13.5 13.2 13.9 14.7 15.8 15.4 15.3 14.9 14.0 14.0 13.4 2020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2050 42.6 41.5 41.1 41.4 38.9 44.4 44.3 44.0 43.4 42.6 41.8 41.2 2050 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LWSP OPTION, cfs Lake Wateree Withdrawals Returns HIGH OPTION, cfs LOW OPTION, cfs