Appendix-CD-3_Yadkin_Modeling_Results

Appendix CD-3
Yadkin River System Modeling Results

Simulation of
Proposed Concord – Kannapolis
Interbasin Transfer
From the Yadkin River Basin

November 6, 2006

Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

i

Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................................I
LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................................I
LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................................................II
PURPOSE...............................................................................................................................................................- 1 -
MODEL BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................- 1 -
MODEL DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................................- 2 -
Input Data...................................................................................................................................................................- 3 -
Scenario Assumptions.................................................................................................................................................- 4 -
RESULTS SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................- 5 -
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP).........................................................................................................................................- 5 -
System Energy............................................................................................................................................................- 9 -
Reservoir Levels.........................................................................................................................................................- 9 -
Discharge....................................................................................................................................................................- 9 -
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................................- 25 -
A. Draft - Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin & Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Projects...........................- 26 -
B. Water Use Data....................................................................................................................................................- 43 -
C. Hydrologics, Inc.’s Review of Model Inputs .......................................................................................................- 52 -

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Yadkin Model Schematic................................................................................................................................- 2 -
Figure 2 – Low-Inflow (LIP) Stages – Maximum Daily Demands.................................................................................- 6 -
Figure 3 - Low-Inflow (LIP) Stages – Constant Withdrawals Comparison ....................................................................- 7 -
Figure 4 – Total System Annual Generation – Maximum Daily Demands...................................................................- 10 -
Figure 5 - Total System Annual Generation – Constant Withdrawals Comparison......................................................- 11 -
Figure 6 - High Rock Lake Level Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands ........................................................- 13 -
Figure 7 - High Rock Lake Level Duration Curves – Constant Withdrawals Comparison...........................................- 14 -
Figure 8 - High Rock Reservoir 2001-2002 Drought Lake Levels................................................................................- 15 -
Figure 9 -- High Rock Reservoir 2001-2002 Lake Levels for Constant Withdrawal....................................................- 16 -
Figure 10 – Narrows (Badin) Lake Level Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands ............................................- 17 -
Figure 11 – Narrows (Badin) Lake Level Duration Curves – Constant Withdrawals Comparison...............................- 18 -
Figure 12 - Narrows (Badin) Reservoir 2001-2002 Drought Lake Levels....................................................................- 19 -
Figure 13 - Narrows (Badin) Reservoir 2001-2002 Lake Levels for Constant Withdrawal..........................................- 20 -
Figure 14 – Falls Reservoir Total Outflow Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands..........................................- 21 -
Figure 15 - Falls Reservoir Outflow Duration Curves – Constant Withdrawals Comparison.......................................- 22 -
Figure 16 – Rockingham Gage Outflow Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands..............................................- 23 -
Figure 17 - Rockingham Gage Outflow Duration Curves – Constant Demands Comparison.......................................- 24 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

ii
List of Tables

Table 1 – Summary of Low-Inflow (LIP) Stages............................................................................................................- 8 -
Table 2 – Summary of Total System Annual Generation..............................................................................................- 12 -
Table 3 - Summary of Concord – Water-Use Projections.............................................................................................- 43 -
Table 4 - Summary of Concord – Kannapolis Water-Use Projections..........................................................................- 50 -
Table 5 - Monthly Demand Patterns for No Transfer....................................................................................................- 51 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 1 -
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to update the impact analysis of a proposed Interbasin Transfer
(IBT) of water from the Yadkin River Basin to the Rocky River Basin for the cities of Concord
and Kannapolis. The basic differences between this updated analysis and the earlier analysis
done for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis
Proposed Interbasin Transfers to the Rocky River Subbasin, April 2006 (FEIS) are:
• The FEIS version of the model was based on the operating parameters of the current
FERC license. This analysis is based on the proposed operations likely to occur when the
new FERC hydropower license is issued.
• The FEIS version of the model included model nodes for individual withdrawals and
discharges of 100,000 gpd or greater. This analysis uses a version of the model that has
net aggregated withdrawals from the mainstem of the Yadkin River.

The transfer of water and the impacts due to this transfer were analyzed using a hydrologic
simulation computer model called OASIS with OCL™ (Operational and Simulation of
Integrated Systems). OASIS is a software model developed by Hydrologics, Inc. The basic
OASIS program was customized for Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. in preparation for the
relicensing of their four hydroelectric stations on the Yadkin River. This analysis of the effects of
the proposed IBT is not part of relicensing; however, the Division of Water Resources (DWR)
used the model to study the impacts of the proposed IBT because it is the best tool available.
APGI has allowed the State to use their model to evaluate basin-wide water resources issues.
Some of the model inputs and outputs are confidential pursuant to NC Public Records Law.
These simulations represent the best information available on the operational changes that could
occur in the new license and the potential impacts of the proposed IBT. This analysis will be
updated when the new license is issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission if the
provisions of the license are significantly different from the assumptions modeled in this
analysis.
Model Background
OASIS with OCL™ is a generalized program for modeling the operations of water resources
systems. OASIS uses a linear programming (LP) "engine" to simulate the movement (or
"routing") of water through a system. The patented Operations Control Language (OCL) is an
integral part of OASIS and provides the ability to customize the model for specific situations.
The customized Yadkin OASIS model was used during relicensing to analyze short-term and
long-term water management options for the Yadkin Basin as well as potential drought
management protocols.
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 2 -
Model Description
OASIS is currently being used to address water supply issues associated with hydropower
relicensing of the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project operated by Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
(APGI) and the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project operated by Progress Energy
Carolinas (PE). Also, Progress Energy is using a CHEOPS model to support the analyses for
relicensing of the two hydrostations in their project. There are four hydroelectric reservoirs
owned and operated by APGI and two hydroelectric reservoirs by Progress Energy. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers also operates the W. Kerr Scott dam and reservoir in the headwaters of
the basin. The names of the reservoirs and their project or plant names used in the model and
analysis from upstream to downstream are as follows:

Reservoir Names Operator
Kerr Scott Corps
High Rock APGI
Tuckertown APGI
Narrows (Badin) APGI
Falls APGI
Tillery Progress Energy
Blewett Falls Progress Energy

The following figure shows the model system layout. Note, the Blewett Falls and Pee Dee
withdrawals are shown as inflows because the withdrawals are less than the return flows for
those two nodes.

Figure 1 - Yadkin Model Schematic

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 3 -

All the modeling scenarios were based on the May_Prop_LIP6_ZeroAggDemands_to_NC
simulation provided to DWR by APGI. The changes made to this model run were as follows:
• Add the LIP water demand reductions. The reductions only were applied to the
withdrawals from APGI’s and Progress Energy’s projects, because the demand
reductions do not apply to the other withdrawals.
• Corrected the minimum flows for Falls and Blewett Falls to match Table 6 in the
9/8/2006 Draft LIP.
• Corrected the Narrows (Badin) normal minimum water level based on the 10/3/2006
revised LIP.
• Corrected the High Rock drought recovery to be two weeks to match the 9/8/2006 Draft
LIP.
• Corrected the cfs to mgd units conversion.
• Adjusted the water supply demands and monthly patterns based on the scenario
assumptions.
Input Data
The model simulates for the period from 01/01/1930 to 12/31/2003, 74 yrs of daily hydrological
data. The input and output of hydrological data are in daily format for both reservoir and river
conditions.

The inflow data is based on historical USGS stream gages that have been adjusted for historical
reservoir operations. However, there have been no adjustments to account for historical water
supply withdrawals and discharges. Since, the inflow records have not been adjusted for
withdrawals and discharges there is some double accounting of water supplies withdrawal
especially during the later part of the record when withdrawals are assumed to be higher. The
double accounting is because the water use demands used are total projected amounts and the
historical record already includes the impacts of the historical water use. During the early part of
the record the 1930’s and 1940’s surface water withdrawals were generally much smaller than
today and the impacts of this double accounting is assumed to be minimal. However, during the
later part of the record and especially during the 2001-2002 drought this double accounting has
the potential to over estimate impacts.

For purposes of this impact analysis, analyzes that use the full period of record, such as duration
plots, no adjustments to the net withdrawals are made. For the analyzes that are looking at the
specifics of the 2001-2002 period the 2008 withdrawals are subtracted from the 2035 withdrawal
to characterize the impacts of the changes in withdrawals and return flows that are expected
between 2008 and 2035.

Appendix B contains the tables for the water use projections and monthly demand patterns. The
model uses a monthly varying withdrawal for the withdrawals and discharges.
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 4 -
Scenario Assumptions
The scenario “Zero IBT 2008” is used as the base case. “Zero IBT 2008” is APGI’s
May_Prop_LIP6_ZeroAggDemands_to_NC with the modifications described above. This
scenario uses the 2008 estimated water supply demands with no Concord Kannapolis proposed
IBT.

The scenario “Zero IBT 2008” was selected as the base case, because this simulation represents
our best available estimate of the new baseline conditions when the new hydropower license
takes effect.

The model scenarios analyzed are:
• Zero Yadkin Transfer conditions.
o “Zero IBT 2008” – Base case current water use and no Yadkin interbasin transfer.
o “Zero IBT 2035” – 2035 water use projections and no Yadkin interbasin transfer.
• Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) Transfer conditions.
o “Salisbury 10 MGD MDD Transfer” – 2035 water use projections with the
Concord Kannapolis IBT being supplied by the City of Salisbury. Uses a 30 year
planning projection and a 10 mgd maximum day transfer.
o “Tuckertown 10 MGD MDD Transfer” – 2035 water use projections with the
Concord Kannapolis IBT being supplied by the City of Albemarle. Uses a 30 year
planning projection and a 10 MGD maximum day transfer from the Tuckertown
Reservoir.
o “Tuckertown-Narrows 10 MGD MDD Transfer” – 2035 water use projections
with the Concord Kannapolis IBT being supplied by the City of Albemarle. Uses
a 30 year planning projection and a 10 MGD maximum day transfer even split
from the Tuckertown and Narrows (Badin) reservoirs.
o “Tuckertown-Salisbury 10 MGD MDD Transfer” – 2035 water use projections
with the Concord Kannapolis IBT being supplied by the cities of Albemarle and
Salisbury. Uses a 30 year planning projection and a 10 MGD maximum day
transfer even split from the Tuckertown Reservoir and the City of Salisbury.
• Constant Transfer conditions.
o “Tuckertown 10 MGD Constant Transfer” – 2035 water use projections with the
Concord Kannapolis IBT being supplied by the City of Albemarle. Uses a 30 year
planning projection and a 10 MGD constant day transfer from the Tuckertown
Reservoir.
• 2001-2002 Drought conditions.
o “Zero IBT 2035 Drought” – 2035 minus the 2008 water use projections with no
Concord Kannapolis IBT.
o “Tuckertown 10 MGD MDD Drought Transfer” – 2035 minus the 2008 water use
projections with the Concord Kannapolis IBT being supplied by the City of
Albemarle. Uses a 30 year planning projection and a 10 MGD maximum day
transfer from the Tuckertown Reservoir.
o “Tuckertown 10 MGD Constant Drought Transfer” – 2035 water use projections
with the Concord Kannapolis IBT being supplied by the City of Albemarle. Uses
a 30 year planning projection and a 10 MGD constant day transfer from the
Tuckertown Reservoir.
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 5 -
Results Summary
The analysis was organized to analyze the potential impacts based on the location of the
withdrawal, maximum daily demand vs. constant transfer, and adjusted for over accounting of
withdrawals during the 2001-2002 drought period.

The results presented in this report focus on the key areas of:
• Elevation Duration Plots for High Rock Reservoir and Narrows (Badin) Reservoir
• Discharge Durations Plots for Falls and the Rockingham Gage
• System Energy
• LIP impacts stages and summary
• Elevation Plots High Rock Reservoir and Narrows (Badin) Reservoir

In addition to the information presented, DWR setup a web site to allow interested parties to
review all the output at http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/Yadkin/. Some of the
model inputs and outputs are confidential pursuant to NC Public Records Law. Therefore, not all
of the inputs and outputs are available for review.

The Progress Energy projects are not presented in this report, but are included on the web site.
The reason is the OASIS model was developed by APGI for FERC relicensing of their projects.
Therefore the Progress Energy’s projects are simulated in a very simplistic manner. However,
the model does do a reasonably good job of routing water through all the reservoirs, including
the Progress Energy reservoirs, and provides a good estimate of the flows below Blewett Falls.
Also, OASIS is being used by both power companies for the development of Low Inflow
Protocol (LIP). The CHEOPS model currently does not include the LIP, therefore, was not used
for this analysis.
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP)
The following LIP summary shows how the various LIP stages are related to different levels of
drought.
Stage -1 - Normal Operations, no drought.
Stage 0 - Low Inflow Watch, conditions are drier than normal but no drought yet.
Stage 1 - Stage 1 Drought (voluntary water conservation).
Stage 2 - Stage 2 Drought (level 1 mandatory water conservation).
Stage 3 - Stage 3 Drought (level 2 mandatory water conservation).
Stage 4 - Stage 4 Drought (emergency water conservation).

Table 1 is a summary of the LIP stages for the model scenarios. The major difference is between
the 2008 and 2035 water supply demands. The proposed transfer causes some small changes in
percent of time in the various stages, but does not impact the number of years.
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 6 -

Figure 2 – Low-Inflow (LIP) Stages – Maximum Daily Demands

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 7 -

Figure 3 - Low-Inflow (LIP) Stages – Constant Withdrawals Comparison

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 8 -

Table 1 – Summary of Low-Inflow (LIP) Stages

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 9 -
System Energy
Table 2, like the LIP summaries, shows the main difference in total system energy is between the
increases in water use from 2008 to 2035. The proposed interbasin transfer impacts the total
system energy by less than 1%. Figures 5 and 6 show how the total annual system generation
varies over the 74-year model period.

Reservoir Levels
The duration curves presented here are cumulative frequency curves showing the percentage of
time over the period of record that a specified reservoir level or outflow is equaled or exceeded.
They show in a probabilistic way how the various levels of IBT are predicted to affect reservoir
levels and outflows, and provide a means of presenting the impacts of the transfers on a large
time scale. Duration curves are typically used because they provide an easy way to compare
results of several different scenarios.

The duration plots for both High Rock (Figures 6 and 7) and Narrows (Badin) (Figures 10 and
11) reservoirs show the main difference in elevations is between the increases in water use from
2008 to 2035.

An elevation profile shows the predicted reservoir elevation over the period of interest. Plots are
presented for the extreme drought of 2001-02, the plots also show when the LIP stages were
invoked for each of the scenarios. Elevation profiles are useful for examining the shorter term
impacts on reservoir elevation.

The 2001-2002 drought lake level plots for both High Rock (Figures 8 and 9) and Narrows
(Badin) (Figures 12 and 13) show very small increases in lower lake levels during the critical
period. Even in the worst drought conditions all scenarios are still well above the critical
elevations.
Discharge
The discharge duration plots for both Falls Reservoir (Figures 14 and 15) and the Rockingham
Gage (Figures 16 and 17) show only very small differences in the discharges.

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 10 -

Figure 4 – Total System Annual Generation – Maximum Daily Demands

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 11 -

Figure 5 - Total System Annual Generation – Constant Withdrawals Comparison

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 12 -

Table 2 – Summary of Total System Annual Generation

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 13 -

Figure 6 - High Rock Lake Level Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 14 -

Figure 7 - High Rock Lake Level Duration Curves – Constant Withdrawals Comparison

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 15 -

Figure 8 - High Rock Reservoir 2001-2002 Drought Lake Levels

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 16 -

Figure 9 -- High Rock Reservoir 2001-2002 Lake Levels for Constant Withdrawal

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 17 -

Figure 10 – Narrows (Badin) Lake Level Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 18 -

Figure 11 – Narrows (Badin) Lake Level Duration Curves – Constant Withdrawals Comparison

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 19 -

Figure 12 - Narrows (Badin) Reservoir 2001-2002 Drought Lake Levels

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 20 -

Figure 13 - Narrows (Badin) Reservoir 2001-2002 Lake Levels for Constant Withdrawal

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 21 -

Figure 14 – Falls Reservoir Total Outflow Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 22 -

Figure 15 - Falls Reservoir Outflow Duration Curves – Constant Withdrawals Comparison

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 23 -

Figure 16 – Rockingham Gage Outflow Duration Curves – Maximum Daily Demands

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 24 -

Figure 17 - Rockingham Gage Outflow Duration Curves – Constant Demands Comparison

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 25 -
Appendices

A. Draft -- Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin & Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Projects

B. Water Use Data

C. Hydrologics, Inc.s’ Review of Model Inputs

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 26 -
A. Draft - Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin & Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Projects

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 27 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 28 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 29 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 30 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 31 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 32 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 33 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 34 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 35 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 36 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 37 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 38 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 39 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 40 -

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 41 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 42 -
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 43 -
B. Water Use Data

Table 3 - Summary of Concord – Water-Use Projections

Projection Year
Node
Public Water System/Self
Supplied Industry 2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058

Wilkesboro Grp
Withdrawal 4.99 5.14 6.75 7.24 7.53 8.93 9.98

N Wilkesboro Grp
Withdrawal 2.80 2.85 3.40 3.56 3.65 4.06 4.36

ABT_Louisiana Pacific
Withdrawal 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46 1.46
Elkin Withdrawal 1.28 1.31 1.61 1.70 1.76 2.00 2.17

Chatham_Interface
Fabrics Withdrawal 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Jonesville Withdrawal 0.36 0.37 0.48 0.51 0.53 0.63 0.70
Dobson Withdrawal 1.07 1.11 1.52 1.64 1.72 2.08 2.36
Mount Airy Withdrawal 3.70 3.82 5.13 5.53 5.77 6.91 7.77

Pilot Mountain
Withdrawal 0.42 0.43 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.74 0.83
King Withdrawal 1.82 1.89 2.62 2.84 2.98 3.63 4.13
Yadkinville Withdrawal 1.03 1.07 1.44 1.55 1.62 1.94 2.19

Davie Co Withdrawal
Yad 1.65 1.72 2.47 2.71 2.85 3.55 4.09

Winston-Salem
Withdrawal 45.76 47.09 61.79 66.18 68.81 81.25 90.56

Davidson Water
Withdrawal 11.32 11.64 15.11 16.14 16.75 19.63 21.77

Yadkin College Gage
Cumulative Withdrawals 79.18 81.40 105.84 113.16 117.56 138.31 153.86

Wilkesboro Grp Return 3.84 3.95 5.20 5.57 5.80 6.87 7.68
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 44 -
Projection Year
Node
Public Water System/Self
Supplied Industry 2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058
N Wilkesboro Grp Return 0.82 0.84 1.00 1.04 1.07 1.19 1.28

ABT_Louisiana Pacific
NC0005266 Return 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Elkin Return 0.80 0.82 1.02 1.07 1.11 1.26 1.37

Chatham_Interface
Fabrics NC0005312
Return 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
Jonesville Return 0.29 0.30 0.39 0.42 0.43 0.51 0.57
Dobson Return 0.23 0.24 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.44 0.50

Wayne Farms WW
Return 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Boonville Return 0.09 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.19
Mount Airy Return 3.52 3.63 4.87 5.25 5.47 6.56 7.37
Pilot Mountain Return 0.38 0.39 0.51 0.55 0.57 0.68 0.75
Yadkinville Return 0.79 0.81 1.10 1.18 1.23 1.48 1.67

Davie co return goes to
Winston-Salem node 395 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bermuda Run WW
NC0055158 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Winston-Salem Return 33.39 34.36 45.13 48.35 50.28 59.40 66.23

Davidson Water Return
NC0084425 0.33 0.34 0.45 0.48 0.49 0.58 0.64

Yadkin College Gage
Cumulative Returns 47.05 48.34 62.68 66.96 69.53 81.70 90.82
147
Yadkin College Gage Net
Withdrawals 32.13 33.06 43.16 46.20 48.03 56.61 63.05

Statesville Withdrawal
SoYad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 2.80
Mocksville Withdrawal 0.84 0.87 1.25 1.36 1.43 1.78 2.05
Davie Co Withdrawal So 1.38 1.44 2.06 2.26 2.38 2.96 3.42
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 45 -
Projection Year
Node
Public Water System/Self
Supplied Industry 2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058
Yad

KOSA_Invista S.a.r.l.
Withdrawal 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06
Salisbury Grp Withdrawal 10.43 11.13 20.21 23.38 25.29 35.03 43.10

Place holder for Con-Kan
Proposed IBT

DP Buck SS and Future
NET Withdrawal 3.24 12.71 60.30 73.27 81.05 81.05 81.05

Lexington-Thomasville
Withdrawal 6.95 7.15 9.43 10.11 10.52 12.44 13.88

High Rock Reservoir
Cumulative Withdrawals 23.90 34.36 94.31 111.44 121.73 135.47 147.37

Statesville Grp Return
(includes IBT from
Lookout Shoals) 4.48 4.67 6.86 7.56 7.98 10.08 11.73

Tyson Foods RivValley
NC0005126 Return 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

Mocksville Return
NC0050903 0.22 0.23 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.46 0.53

Davie Co Return
NC0024872 0.69 0.71 1.02 1.12 1.18 1.47 1.70

Cleveland Return
NC0049867 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.23

KOSA_Invista S.a.r.l.
NC0004944 Return 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06

Mocksville Return
NC0021491 0.56 0.58 0.83 0.91 0.96 1.19 1.37
Salisbury Grp Return 9.72 10.37 18.96 21.96 23.76 32.99 40.63

High Point IBT
NC0024228 4.36 4.49 5.91 6.33 6.59 7.78 8.68
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 46 -
Projection Year
Node
Public Water System/Self
Supplied Industry 2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058

Lexington-Thomasville
Return 6.33 6.51 8.59 9.21 9.58 11.33 12.65
PPG WW Return HPIBT 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38

High Rock Reservoir
Cumulative Returns 28.08 29.29 44.26 49.22 52.20 67.12 79.12
151
High Rock Reservoir Net
Withdrawals MGD -4.18 5.07 50.05 62.22 69.53 68.35 68.24

Denton Withdrawal 1.49 1.53 1.98 2.11 2.19 2.56 2.84

Place holder for Con-Kan
Proposed IBT

Albemarle Net
Tuckertown 3.95 4.07 5.32 5.70 5.93 7.01 7.82

Tuckertown Reservoir
Cumulative Withdrawals 5.44 5.60 7.30 7.81 8.12 9.57 10.66

Denton Return 0.41 0.43 0.55 0.59 0.61 0.72 0.79

171
Tuckertown Reservoir
Net Withdrawals MGD 5.02 5.17 6.75 7.22 7.51 8.85 9.86

Place holder for Con-Kan
Proposed IBT
Albemarle Narrows 4.55 4.68 6.13 6.56 6.82 8.06 8.99
191
Narrows Reservoir Net
Withdrawals MGD 4.55 4.68 6.13 6.56 6.82 8.06 8.99

Asheboro Withdrawal 5.63 5.83 8.11 8.82 9.24 11.29 12.85

Montgomery Co Grp
Withdrawal 2.83 2.90 3.68 3.91 4.05 4.68 5.15
Norwood Withdrawal 0.40 0.41 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.68 0.76
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 47 -
Projection Year
Node
Public Water System/Self
Supplied Industry 2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058

Tillery Reservoir
Cumulative Withdrawals 8.86 9.14 12.32 13.29 13.87 16.65 18.76

Badin W&S-Stanly Co
NC0074756 0.48 0.49 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.72 0.78

221
Tillery Reservoir Net
Withdrawals MGD 8.38 8.65 11.72 12.66 13.23 15.93 17.98

Kann/Conc/MtPleas
Withdrawal - Existing
Rocky Sources 25.40 26.80 31.00 31.00 31.00 31.00 31.00
Monroe Withdrawal 7.82 8.21 12.79 14.33 15.25 20.16 24.14
Richmond Co Withdrawal 3.26 3.33 4.14 4.38 4.53 5.22 5.75

Anson County
Withdrawals 6.68 6.84 8.64 9.22 9.57 11.37 12.80

Blewett Falls Reservoir
Cumulative Withdrawals 43.17 45.18 56.57 58.93 60.36 67.75 73.69

CMUD-Mooresville
Wwdisch grp Combined
Return 29.55 31.84 53.91 58.62 61.44 69.61 73.85

River Run Utility
NC0067920 Return 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60

Kann/Conc/MtPleas
Return MGD 22.60 23.90 35.00 37.10 38.70 45.30 49.80

Carolina Water Serv
Bradford Farms WW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Carolina Water Serv
Cabarrus Woods 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 48 -
Projection Year
Node
Public Water System/Self
Supplied Industry 2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058
NC0035033
Union Co Return 2.35 2.63 4.87 5.28 5.52 6.29 6.83

Heater Utilities County
Wood NC0065684 Return 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67
Albemarle Return 8.50 8.75 11.45 12.27 12.75 15.07 16.81
Oakboro NC0043532 0.21 0.22 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.33 0.35
Monroe Return 7.82 8.21 12.79 14.33 15.25 20.16 24.14

Carolina Water Serv
Hemby NC0035041
Return 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Norwood Return 0.40 0.41 0.53 0.56 0.58 0.68 0.76
Troy NC0028916 Return 0.56 0.58 0.72 0.76 0.78 0.89 0.97

Biscoe NC0021504
Return 0.29 0.30 0.40 0.43 0.44 0.53 0.59

Blewett Falls Cumulative
Discharges 74.81 79.36 122.46 132.15 138.29 161.38 176.62
241
Blewett Falls Net
Withdrawals (Net
Discharges to DA)
-
31.65
-
34.18 -65.89 -73.22 -77.93 -93.63
-
102.93

Rockingham Self-
supplied 2.40 2.45 3.11 3.31 3.43 4.00 4.43

Wadesboro SAD from
Jones Creek 0.66 0.67 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.91 0.97
Hamlet Withdrawal mgd 1.54 1.57 1.83 1.90 1.95 2.17 2.33

Pee Dee Gage Cumulative
Withdrawals 4.59 4.69 5.71 6.01 6.20 7.08 7.73

Anson Co
NC0041408/NC0074390
Return 1.89 1.93 2.44 2.61 2.71 3.21 3.62
Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 49 -
Projection Year
Node
Public Water System/Self
Supplied Industry 2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058
Rockingham NC0020427 4.60 4.71 5.97 6.35 6.58 7.68 8.52
Richmond Co Return 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.30

Burlington Ind
NC0043320 (from
Richmond Co Water) 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76

Wadesboro Return(100%
to Anson Co node 945) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hamlet Return 0.83 0.84 0.99 1.03 1.05 1.17 1.25

Pee Dee Gage Cumulative
Discharges 8.25 8.41 10.38 10.98 11.33 13.09 14.44
291
Pee Dee Gage Net
Withdrawals (Net
Discharges) -3.65 -3.72 -4.67 -4.97 -5.13 -6.01 -6.71

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 50 -
Table 4 - Summary of Concord – Kannapolis Water-Use Projections

Projection Year
2008 2010 2030 2035 2038 2050 2058
Average Daily Demands
Concord/Harrisburg/Midland 14.0 14.8 23.7 25.6 26.9 32.3 35.9
Mt. Pleasant 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0
Kannapolis 11.0 11.6 15.3 16.0 16.5 18.7 20.3
Combined 25.4 26.8 39.7 42.4 44.2 52.0 57.2

Discharges
Concord/Harrisburg/Midland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mt. Pleasant 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kannapolis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Combined 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 51 -

Table 5 - Monthly Demand Patterns for No Transfer

Yadkin
College
Gage
High
Rock Tuckertown
Narro
ws Tillery
Blewett
Falls
PeeDee
Gage
Month/Node 147 151 171 191 221 241 291
1 0.94 0.89 0.90 0.95 0.91 0.93 0.81
2 0.91 0.86 0.92 0.98 0.90 0.96 0.86
3 0.92 0.86 0.91 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.94
4 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.84
5 1.04 1.08 1.03 1.03 1.01 1.04 0.92
6 1.05 1.10 1.05 1.03 1.06 1.11 1.00
7 1.09 1.18 1.04 1.02 1.08 1.07 1.03
8 1.10 1.16 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.14
9 1.07 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.13
10 1.01 0.97 1.00 1.06 1.01 0.99 1.08
11 0.92 0.92 0.94 1.00 0.97 0.93 0.86
12 0.90 0.89 0.87 0.93 0.87 0.86 0.89

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 52 -

C. Hydrologics, Inc.’s Review of Model Inputs

Simulation of Proposed Concord –Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Yadkin River Basin
November 6, 2006

- 53 -