HomeMy WebLinkAboutCaryEISApendix2CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL 1 156003.IB.MD
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Cape Fear River Basin Model Analyses for the
Interbasin Transfer EIS
TO:Mark Broadwell /DWR
COPIES:Sheila Ambat/DWR
Tom Fransen/DWR
Kim Fisher/Cary
Tim Donnelly/Apex
David Hodgkins/Morrisville
Britt Stoddard/Wake County
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
Jon Mangles/CH2M HILL
Ruth Swanek/CH2M HILL
FROM:Leila Goodwin/CH2M HILL
David Briley/CH2M HILL
DATE:May 25, 2000
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the evaluation of impacts of the
proposed Cary/Apex/Morrisville/Wake County interbasin transfer (IBT), based on
analyses performed using the Cape Fear River Basin Model (CFRBM).
The memorandum is organized into the following sections:
• Background
• EIS Alternatives
• Model Input
• Modeling Scenarios
• Results
• Summary and Conclusions
• Attachments
1.0 Background
Overview
During 1996, the Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville, as well as the Wake County portion
of Research Triangle Park (RTP South) requested authorization from NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to increase
water withdrawals from Jordan Lake. An existing water supply allocation of 16 million
gallons per day (mgd) was granted to Cary and Apex in 1987. Through a joint agreement,
Cary and Apex treat raw water from Jordan Lake at the Cary/Apex Water Treatment Plant
(WTP). Finished water is supplied to Cary, Apex, Raleigh/Durham Airport Authority
(RDU Airport), RTP South, and the Town of Morrisville. In 1997, DWR recommended
additional water supply allocations for Cary/Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South from Jordan
Lake totaling 9 mgd.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL 2 156003.IB.MD
The boundary between the Cape Fear River basin and the Neuse River basin runs through
the Towns of Cary and Apex. Cary and Apex withdraw water from Jordan Lake and
discharge it to the Neuse River basin through three wastewater treatment facilities that
serve Cary, Apex, RTP South, and Morrisville. Therefore, there is a transfer of water from
the Haw River basin to the Neuse River basin. This interbasin transfer (IBT) requires a
certificate from the EMC in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.22I.
Thus, the additional water supply allocations that DWR recommended for Cary, Apex,
Morrisville and RTP South are contingent upon the issuance of an IBT certificate.
Proposed IBT Increase
The Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville, and Wake County, are requesting an IBT
certificate from the EMC for an additional 11 mgd, for a total IBT of 27 mgd. The requested
IBT certificate is for the maximum IBT that is estimated to occur during the planning period
through 2030, plus an additional contingency factor. The total IBT, including the existing
certificate and the requested amount, is 27 mgd. In 2030, the IBT is projected to be to about
25 mgd (Table 1).
TABLE 1
Proposed IBT
Year IBT Maximum Day
(mgd)
2000 19.7
2010 17.9
2020 18.4
2030 24.1
The proposed action assumes the future return of water to the source basin through a highly
treated effluent from a regional treatment and water reclamation facility in the mainstem of
the Cape Fear River. The Cary North Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), the Cary South
WWTP and the Apex WWTP will not be expanded as a result of the proposed IBT. No
WWTP capacity will be requested in the Neuse River basin in conjunction with this IBT
request, since current permitted discharge amounts are adequate. One or more WWTPs
and/or water reclamation facilities, assumed to discharge to the mainstem of the Cape Fear
River, are being considered or planned and will likely serve Cary, Apex, and the Wake
County portion of RTP, as well as other portions of western Wake County. This will limit
the amount of water discharged to the Neuse River basin, thereby minimizing the IBT
amount.
Cape Fear River Basin Model
This memorandum summarizes the evaluation of the impacts of an increased IBT using the
final version of the CFRBM provided by the DWR in May 2000. The CFRBM was developed
using the Danish Hydraulic Institute’s Mike Basin water resources model. The CFRBM
utilizes ArcView as its graphical user interface. Daily naturalized flow sequences were
developed by DWR’s contractor by calibrating the CFRBM to observed flows throughout
the basin for the 68-year period from January 1, 1930 through December 31, 1998.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL 3 156003.IB.MD
2.0 EIS Alternatives
Alternatives to the proposed increase in the interbasin transfer are discussed below and
summarized in Table 2.
2.1 Alternative 1A: No IBT Increase with No Additional Allocation of Water from
Jordan Lake
Under this alternative, there is no increase in the existing 16-mgd Jordan Lake allocation,
and the existing permitted IBT would remain 16 mgd. There would be no new regional
treatment and water reclamation facility, or other additional discharges to the source basin,
in western Wake County.
Cary, Apex, Morrisville and the Wake County portion of RTP would need to meet water
demands by using other water supply sources such as the Cape Fear River via a Haw River
intake, bulk water from other local water systems (see alternatives No. 2 and No. 4 below),
and small community or individual wells. It is unlikely that any of these options would
allow sufficient water supply to satisfy water demands based on current growth projections.
Thus, local governments may implement very stringent water conservation measures,
convert to a conservation rate structure, and cooperate with industries to lower water usage.
Local governments may also consider creating permanent rules prohibiting the use of water
from the municipal water system for landscaping, and instead, require residents and
businesses to either install individual groundwater wells or utilize reclaimed water for
landscaping purposes (Cary, 1999). These policies may result in a sharp decrease in growth
and development.
2.2 Alternative 1B: No IBT Expansion With Additional Jordan Lake Water
Allocation
Under this no action alternative, Cary, Apex, Morrisville and RTP South would limit
increases in the IBT so that they are balanced by concurrent decreases in customer demand,
through very significant conservation and reuse programs and by a regional discharge to
the Cape Fear River basin. This alternative will limit water supply to the current capacity of
19 mgd (maximum day basis) until 2005 when a regional treatment and water reclamation
facility is in operation. This option qualifies as a No Action alternative largely because it
assumes, as currently planned, the eventual construction of a regional treatment and water
reclamation facility in western Wake County, along with reuse and conservation measures,
so that the existing IBT will not have to be increased above 16 mgd (maximum day basis).
Under this scenario, growth in the Cary, Apex, Morrisville and RTP South area would be
expected to continue to occur, although at a somewhat slower rate than that currently
projected. In the long-term, enough water and sewer service would be provided to future
residents and businesses to accommodate growth.
2.3 Alternative 2: Obtain Water from the Neuse River Basin
Under this alternative, increases in the IBT would be avoided by implementation of water
conservation and reuse programs, construction of a regional wastewater discharge to the
Cape Fear River basin, and purchase of finished water from the water systems in the Neuse
River basin. Slower growth is likely until 2005 when a regional water reclamation facility in
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
CL
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
Y
e
a
r
2
0
3
0
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ac
t
i
o
n
1A
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
1B
No
A
c
t
i
o
n
2
Wa
t
e
r
F
r
o
m
Ne
u
s
e
3
Mo
v
e
W
W
T
P
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
4
Me
r
g
e
r
w
i
t
h
Du
r
h
a
m
5
No
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
WW
T
P
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
I
B
T
(
m
g
d
)
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
9
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
L
a
k
e
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Y
e
s
N
o
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
Y
e
s
20
3
0
M
D
D
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
s
(
m
g
d
)
5
3
.
6
1
9
4
3
.
8
5
3
.
6
5
3
.
6
5
3
.
6
5
3
.
6
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
I
B
T
(
m
g
d
)
2
5
1
16
1
6
1
6
1
6
19
(N
e
u
s
e
t
o
H
a
w
)
45
To
t
a
l
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
)
$
2
2
6
$
1
1
.
1
$
2
0
7
$
2
0
7
$
2
7
9
$
2
4
8
$
8
4
Wa
t
e
r
R
e
u
s
e
(
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
d
a
y
)
3
.
8
m
g
d
3
.
8
m
g
d
3
.
8
m
g
d
3
.
8
m
g
d
3
.
8
m
g
d
3
.
8
m
g
d
3
.
8
m
g
d
Ne
w
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
W
T
P
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
(m
a
x
i
m
u
m
m
o
n
t
h
)
18
.
0
m
g
d
N
o
1
8
.
0
m
g
d
1
8
.
0
m
g
d
1
8
.
0
m
g
d
1
8
.
0
m
g
d
N
o
Fi
n
i
s
h
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
Ne
u
s
e
R
i
v
e
r
B
a
s
i
n
(
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
d
a
y
)
No
N
o
N
o
9
.
2
m
g
d
N
o
N
o
N
o
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
W
T
P
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
(
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
d
a
y
)
20
.
0
m
g
d
N
o
9
.
0
m
g
d
9
.
0
m
g
d
2
0
.
0
m
g
d
2
0
.
0
m
g
d
2
0
.
0
m
g
d
1.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
I
B
T
i
n
2
0
3
0
i
s
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
2
5
m
g
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
2
7
m
g
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
o
m
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
.
2.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 5 156003.IB.MD
western Wake County is online. Beyond 2005, growth and development in Cary, Apex,
Morrisville and RTP South would follow anticipated patterns.
To maintain an IBT of 16 mgd, the applicants would increase water withdrawals from the
Neuse River basin through additional bulk purchases of finished water from the City of
Durham and/or the City of Raleigh. This would require purchase of 2.4 mgd (annual
average) in 2000, increasing to approximately 5.6 mgd in 2030 (annual average). Maximum
day purchases are projected to be 4.0 mgd in 2000 and 9.2 mgd in 2030. Both the City of
Durham and the City of Raleigh have expressed concern for maintaining sufficient capacity
to satisfy their own demands, and may not have excess capacity to provide finished water to
Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and RTP South on a long-term basis. Raleigh has recently denied
Cary’s request for additional water purchases through 2003.
2.4 Alternative 3: Increase Wastewater Discharges to Cape Fear River Basin
Under this alternative, wastewater flows to the Cape Fear River basin would increase due to
the relocation of the wastewater discharges for the existing Apex and Cary WWTPs from the
Neuse River basin. This scenario also includes implementation of water conservation to
reduce the ADD by 18% by 2030 and a water reclamation program to produce up to 3.8 mgd
of reclaimed water for non-potable uses.
2.5 Alternative 4: Merger of Water and Sewer Utilities
This alternative involves the merger of the water and sewer utility operations of the Town
of Cary and the City of Durham. The City of Durham has an IBT from the Neuse River
basin to the Haw River basin, while Cary has an IBT from the Haw River basin to the Neuse
River basin. When these two systems are considered jointly, the existing net IBT would be
from the Neuse River Basin to the Haw River Basin. If these two systems merged, then
future IBT amounts would be reduced.
This alternative assumes that the City of Durham would continue to meet its water supply
needs from the Neuse River basin and the Town of Cary would continue to meet its water
supply needs from Jordan Lake (Haw River basin). Therefore, this alternative does not
differ physically from the proposed action except for the expansion or addition of
interconnections to provide additional reliability in the merged system.
2.6 Alternative 5: No Regional Treatment and Water Reclamation Facility
This alternative assumes that no regional water reclamation facility in the Cape Fear basin is
constructed, and the Cary North, Cary South and Apex WWTPs are not expanded beyond
current permitted capacities. It is assumed that these WWTPs may have sufficient
permitted capacity to treat projected wastewater flows to 2030. Under this scenario,
wastewater effluent discharges to the Cape Fear River basin remain at zero, and the quantity
of the IBT increases as water withdrawals from Jordan Lake increase and are discharged
through existing wastewater treatment facilities in the Neuse River basin. This alternative
represents the maximum projected IBT compared to the proposed action and all other EIS
alternatives.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 6 156003.IB.MD
3.0 Model Input
Key input to the CFRBM includes municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
withdrawals; NPDES discharges; reservoir operating rules; and daily naturalized flows.
The analyses were performed based on steady-state annual conditions. Thus, water supply
withdrawals and discharges were assumed to be the same for every year during the study
period.
Table 3 shows the 1998 monthly-to-annual ratios of water supply withdrawals and
discharges for Cary/Apex. These ratios were used to develop monthly demands for
Cary/Apex and the other Jordan Lake withdrawals and return flows in all of the modeling
scenarios.
TABLE 3Withdrawal and Discharge Monthly-to-Annual Ratios
Withdrawals Discharges
January 0.94 1.00
February 0.95 1.61
March 1.00 1.10
April 1.01 1.03
May 0.98 1.03
June 1.13 0.86
July 1.11 0.91
August 1.08 0.65
September 1.08 0.82
October 1.09 1.03
November 0.77 1.00
December 0.85 0.96
The “capefear_base” scenario that was included in the final version of the CFRBM was used
as the basis for all modeling scenarios. The “capefear_base” scenario includes 1998
withdrawal and discharge data for all users within the Cape Fear basin. Some
modifications, outlined in Attachment 1, were made to the “capefear_base” scenario prior to
modeling of IBT impacts. More detailed input information for all modeling scenarios is
given in Section 4.0 and Attachment 2.
For the analysis of cumulative impacts, projected municipal water supply withdrawals and
discharges in 2030 were extrapolated from data provided in the 1992 Local Water Supply
Plans for each water system. Linear projections of 2030 water use were developed from
actual water use data in 1992 and projected water use for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020.
The projected 2030 values were then used with the base 1998 municipal withdrawals and
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 7 156003.IB.MD
discharges to calculate demand multipliers for use in the CFRBM. Table 4 summarizes the
demand multipliers that were used in all scenarios modeling the cumulative impacts of the
IBT.
TABLE 4
Demand Multiplier used in Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Water System Estimated 2030 Use/
Actual 1998 Use
Asheboro 2.1
Burlington 1.2
Durham 1.6
Fayetteville 1.9
Greensboro 1.6
Harnett County 2.0
High Point 1.7
OWASA 1.7
CP&L 1.0
All Other Municipal Systems 2.0
Industrial Users 2.0
4.0 Modeling Scenarios
Table 5 summarizes withdrawal and discharge amounts for the modeling scenarios that
were evaluated, addressing the five alternatives presented in the Environmental Impact
Statement. Additional information on input data for each EIS alternative is included in
Attachment 2. The numbers at the beginning of the scenario names represent the
corresponding alternative number as presented in the EIS. The potential impacts of
Alternatives 2 and 4 are the same as those of other alternatives, as noted below, so they were
not modeled separately.
The Base 1998 scenario represents the existing conditions in 1998. Thus, water supply
withdrawals and discharges throughout the basin are set to actual 1998 values.
Withdrawals from Jordan Lake include Cary/Apex and Chatham County with annual
average withdrawals of 10.7 and 0.8 mgd, respectively.
The Base Future scenario includes full use of the Jordan Lake water supply pool (total
withdrawals = 100 mgd). Potential impacts of the requested IBT are evaluated in
comparison to the Base Future scenario in order to isolate IBT impacts from the impacts of
full Jordan Lake allocation use. For all scenarios except Base 1998, withdrawals from Jordan
Lake total 100 mgd, with 50 percent of the “Other Jordan Lake withdrawals” returned to
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 8 156003.IB.MD
Jordan Lake. Discharges from Cary/Apex are returned downstream of Jordan Lake and
upstream of Lillington.
All scenarios except the Base 1998 scenario are based on the assumption that current
allocation holders (Chatham County, Orange County, and OWASA) are fully utilizing their
water supply allocations, and the balance of the total Jordan Lake withdrawal is attributed
to the “DWR” node in the CFRBM.
The Proposed scenario represents the requested IBT increase and includes planned Jordan
Lake withdrawals in 2030 as well as planned 2030 discharges from a regional water
reclamation facility to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River, downstream of Jordan Lake and
upstream of Lillington. The modeling results for the Proposed action also represent the
impacts of Alternative 4 – Cary/Durham Merger.
Alternative 1B and Alternative 2 are represented by the same modeling scenario since the
impacts on Jordan Lake and the Cape Fear River would be the same for those two
alternatives.
Alternative 3 (Relocate WWTP Discharges) includes the proposed water reclamation facility
discharging to the Cape Fear River. In addition, the existing WWTP discharges to the Neuse
River basin are relocated to the mainstem of the Cape Fear River below Jordan Lake and
upstream of Lillington, such that the IBT remains at the currently permitted amount of 16
mgd.
The only scenario that does not include the proposed regional water reclamation facility is
Alternative 5 (No Cape Fear WRF). This alternative represents the maximum IBT that could
occur, with no wastewater discharges to the Cape Fear River basin to offset the IBT as in the
proposed action.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 11 156003.IB.MD
TABLE 5
Modeling Scenarios for Interbasin Transfer Impact Evaluation
Average Day Flows (mgd)
Scenario Description Base
Year1 Withdrawal
at
Cary/Apex
Intake
Cape Fear
Basin
Discharges
Other
Jordan Lake
withdrawals2
Base 1998 Existing Conditions 1998 10.7 None None
Base Future Existing, plus Jordan Withdrawals = 100 mgd 1998 10.7 None 89.3
Alternatives for Incremental Impacts Evaluation
Proposed Incremental Requested IBT Increase 1998 32.8 12.7 67.2
Alt. 1A Incremental No IBT Increase and No Additional Allocation 1998 11.6 None 88.4
Alt. 1B Additional Allocation with No IBT Increase 1998 26.8 12.7 73.2
Alt. 2 Obtain Water from Neuse Basin Same as Alt. 1B
Alt. 3 Relocate WWTP Discharges to Cape Fear 1998 32.8 17.6 67.2
Alt. 4 Merger with Durham Same as Proposed-Incremental
Alt. 5 No Regional WWTP 1998 32.8 0 67.2
Alternatives for Cumulative Impacts Evaluation
Proposed Cumulative Requested IBT Increase 2030 32.8 12.7 67.2
Alt. 1A Cumulative No IBT Increase and No Additional Allocation 2030 11.6 None 88.4
1 The Base Year is the data year used for all other nodes other than those listed, and as discussed in the preceeding section.2 “Other Jordan Lake Withdrawals” is calculated such that total Jordan Lake withdrawals = 100 mgd, considering Cary/Apex withdra
3 “Other Return Flows” represents the return of 50 percent of “Other Jordan Lake Withdrawals” (excluding Chatham County’s withdr
4 From the Cape Fear Basin to the Neuse Basin on a maximum day basis, in mgd.
5 From the Neuse Basin to the Cape Fear Basin, including Durham’s grandfathered amount.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 10 156003.IB.MD
5.0 Results
For evaluating direct hydrologic impacts of the proposed IBT increase, the following
indicators were used:
• Jordan Lake elevation
• Jordan Lake outflow
• Cape Fear River flow at Lillington
• Cape Fear River flow at Fayetteville
• Water Quality Pool level
For each indicator, the following graphs were developed from model runs using a daily
time step:
• Cumulative frequency distribution for 1930-1998: This represents the overall impact for
the study period. Also, the cumulative frequency of Jordan Lake levels during the
summer months of June, July, and August is presented to illustrate potential impacts
on recreation.
• Daily time series for 1950-1955: This represents the worst drought during the 1930-1998
period. The 1950 – 1955 period was selected based on a CFRBM simulation of the
1930 to 1998 period on a daily time step. Water quality pool levels in Jordan Lake
were evaluated to determine the most severe droughts (lowest water pool level) and
droughts with the longest duration in the Base 1998 and Base Future scenarios.
Droughts were defined as any period in which the water quality pool level dropped
below the long-term average of 86.8%.
In addition to the graphs, the following low flow statistics, calculated by the CFRBM, are
reported for the Cape Fear River at Lillington and at Fayetteville:
• 7Q10
• 30Q20
• 30Q50
5.1 Incremental Impacts
Cumulative Frequency Analysis
Results from the incremental impacts analysis are shown in the cumulative frequency
diagrams in Figures 1-5 and in Table 6. For most parameters, there is little difference
between the proposed action and the other alternatives. The largest difference is found
between the Base 1998 scenario and the other alternatives, especially in Jordan Lake
outflows and lake levels (Figures 1 and 2). This illustrates that, compared to current
conditions, the largest impacts on the Jordan Lake system will occur from the increased use
of the water supply pool. However, this simply represents transition to full utilization of
the lake as it was designed, and is not an impact of the proposed IBT.
Figures 3 and 4 show no difference in downstream Cape Fear River flows at Lillington or
Fayetteville between the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the base scenarios.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 11 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig1
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 12 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 2
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 13 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 3
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 14 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 4
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 15 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 5
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 16 156003.IB.MD
Table 6.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 17 156003.IB.MD
This is even true for Alternative 5, which represents a much larger IBT amount than is being
requested.
Figure 5 shows that there is little difference in water quality pool levels between the
different scenarios.
Low Flow Statistics
Low-flow statistics for Cape Fear River flows at Lillington and Fayetteville are summarized
for each scenario in Table 7. The 7Q10 flow at Lillington is 217 cubic feet per second (cfs)
under the Proposed scenario compared to 183 cfs under the Base Future scenario. The 7Q10
flow at Lillington was lowest under the Base 1998 scenario, although the total withdrawal
from Jordan Lake is lowest in this scenario compared to the other scenarios.
Examination of daily flows at Lillington in the Base 1998 and Base Future scenarios reveals
that flows are higher under the Base 1998 scenario most of the time. However, when the
water quality pool drops to zero during drought conditions, Jordan Lake releases are
dependent upon inflows. Under all scenarios except Base 1998, discharges from allocation
holders to Jordan Lake supplement inflows and increases downstream releases during these
drought periods.
TABLE 7.Low Flow Statistics for Cape Fear River Flows at Lillington and Fayetteville
Lillington FayettevilleScenario
7Q10 30Q20 30Q50 7Q10 30Q20 30Q50
Base 1998 133 225 134 406 428 301
Base Future 183 260 160 446 458 335
Proposed and Alt. 4 217 279 178 466 473 352
Alt. 1A 182 259 160 445 458 335
Alts. 1B and 2 220 282 180 470 475 354
Alt. 3 231 291 188 476 481 360
Alt. 5 162 248 152 426 449 327
Note: all values in cfs.
Incremental Impacts under Drought Conditions
To illustrate the incremental impacts of all alternatives under drought conditions, results for
the period 1950 to 1955 are shown in Figures 6 through 10. Figure 7 illustrates that outflows
dropped below the minimum release amount of 100 cfs on three occasions during the 1950
to 1955 period. During these periods, the water quality pool was depleted (Figure 10) and
Cape Fear River flows at Lillington dropped below the target flow of 600 cfs. To further
illustrate the impacts of the alternatives under drought conditions, the number of days in
which Cape Fear River flows at Lillington dropped below the target flow are summarized in
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 18 156003.IB.MD
Table 8. Flows at Lillington dropped below the target flow less frequently under the
Proposed scenario compared to the Base Future and Base 1998 scenarios.
TABLE 8.
Comparison of Cape Fear River Flows Under Drought Conditions (1950-1955)
Scenario Days Below Target Flow
(600 cfs) at Lillington
Minimum Flow
at Lillington (cfs)
Minimum Flow
at Fayetteville (cfs)
Base 1998 118 0 109
Base Future 111 0 104
Proposed and Alt. 4 107 15 130
Alt. 1A 111 0 104
Alts. 1B and 2 103 15 129
Alt. 3 100 23 137
Alt. 5 117 0 76
To assess the impacts of the Proposed action on recreation, Jordan Lake levels during the
summer months (June, July, and August) were evaluated. Table 9 illustrates that
summertime Jordan Lake levels were between 204 and 216 ft MSL under all scenarios
during the 1950 to 1955 period. Summertime lake levels under the Proposed action were
lower than the Base 1998 scenario, but were similar to all other scenarios, indicating that any
impacts are due to the full utilization of the water supply pool and not an increase in the
IBT.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 19 156003.IB.MD
TABLE 9Percent of Days Lake Levels Are Exceeded in June, July and August, 1950-1955
Jordan Lake
Elevation
(ft MSL)
Base
1998
Base
Future
Proposed
and Alt. 4
Alt 1A Alts. 1B
and 2
Alt 3 Alt 5
200 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
202 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
204 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
206 100.0% 99.1% 99.1% 99.1% 99.3% 99.3% 98.7%
208 99.1% 96.3% 96.3% 96.3% 96.3% 96.3% 95.9%
210 95.4% 91.3% 91.3% 91.3% 91.5% 91.7% 90.9%
212 83.7% 81.7% 81.7% 81.7% 81.7% 82.0% 81.1%
214 72.0% 56.7% 57.0% 56.7% 57.2% 57.2% 55.4%
216 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
218 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
220 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 20 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 6
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 21 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 7
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 22 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 8
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 23 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 9
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 24 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 10
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 25 156003.IB.MD
5.2 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Frequency Analysis
Figures 11-15 and Table 10 show the cumulative impacts of the Proposed action and
Alternative 1A - No Action, compared to the Base Future scenario, using estimated 2030
withdrawals and discharges throughout the Cape Fear basin. Alternative 1A represents the
potential cumulative impacts in the basin without the proposed IBT increase. The results
show that the Proposed action does not show a significant impact compared to Alternative 1A.
Also, the potential cumulative impacts of increasing all water withdrawals and discharges
throughout the Cape Fear basin do not seem significant compared to the Base Future
scenario.
Low Flow Statistics
The cumulative impacts on Cape Fear River flows at Lillington and Fayetteville are
summarized in Table 11. The 7Q10 flow at Lillington and Fayetteville is higher under the
Proposed action compared to the Base Future scenario and Alternative 1A. As discussed in
Section 5.2, this is due to increased discharges to Jordan Lake during drought periods.
Inflows to Jordan Lake from tributary rivers and streams as well as wastewater discharges
are distributed between the water quality pool and the individual water supply pools.
Thus, increased discharge to Jordan Lake effectively augments the water supply pool, which
allows for higher lake releases during severe drought periods and therefore higher Cape
Fear River flows.
TABLE 11.
Low Flow Statistics for Cape Fear River Flows at Lillington and Fayetteville
Lillington FayettevilleScenario
7Q10 30Q20 30Q50 7Q10 30Q20 30Q50
Base Future 183 260 160 446 458 335
Proposed Cumulative 357 368 271 511 521 420
Alt. 1A Cumulative 331 346 243 496 499 391
Note: all values in cfs.
Cumulative Impacts under Drought Conditions
Cumulative impacts under drought conditions (1950 to 1955) are shown in Figures 16-20.
The results show that there is little cumulative impact of the proposed action when
compared to the Alt 1A – No Action and Base Future scenarios.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 26 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 11
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 27 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 12
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 28 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 13
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 29 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 14
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 30 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 15
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 31 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 16
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 32 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 17
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 33 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 18
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 34 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 19
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 35 156003.IB.MD
Insert Fig 20
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 36 156003.IB.MD
Table 10
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 37 156003.IB.MD
6.0 Summary and Conclusions
To summarize the results of the modeling, Table 12 shows the frequency with which the
following conditions occur under each scenario:
• Jordan Lake Outflows < 100 cfs (minimum release)
• Jordan Lake Levels < 210 ft. MSL (lower limit for boat ramp use)
• Water Quality Pool < 20%
• Cape Fear River Flow at Lillington < 600 cfs (target flow)
• Cape Fear River Flow at Fayetteville < 600 cfs
Table 12 shows that Jordan Lake outflows are expected to be slightly lower with the
requested IBT than they would be under either base conditions (Base Future) or the “No
Action” scenario. Jordan Lake levels are expected to be similar under the Proposed scenario
compared to the Base Future scenario and Alternative 1A. The impacts of the Proposed action
on water quality pool levels and Cape Fear River flows at Lillington and Fayetteville are
negligible compared to the Base Future scenario and the other EIS alternatives.
Compared to the Base 1998 scenario, all scenarios impact Jordan Lake and Cape Fear River
flows. However, comparison of the results of the Base 1998, Base Future and Proposed
scenarios reveal that the impacts are related to the increased utilization of Jordan Lake to its
maximum withdrawal rate of 100 mgd (annual average), rather than to the requested
increase in IBT.
The results also indicate that impacts are more severe under Alternative 5 (No regional
WWTP) compared all other EIS alternatives.
During drought periods, impacts on Jordan Lake and Cape Fear River flows may be
expected, but these impacts are similar for the Proposed scenario and all other scenarios. The
modeled scenarios do not include drought management for any water users, including users
of Jordan Lake. All Jordan Lake water supply allocation holders are required to develop
drought management plans, and DWR will be developing a drought management plan for
the water quality pool. Since one purpose for developing the CFRBM will be to begin
evaluating and developing these plans, drought management measures for Jordan Lake are
not available for incorporation into this analysis. If drought management policies were
considered, the impacts of the proposed action under drought conditions would be expected
to be less than those reported in this TM.
Overall, the conclusion of this evaluation is that the hydrologic impacts of the proposed
increase in IBT will be insignificant. Some impact is expected compared to current
conditions due to the eventual use of the full Jordan Lake water supply pool as designed,
but this is unrelated to the proposed IBT. The cumulative impacts analysis shows that the
impacts of the proposed action in 2030 will be similar to the impacts of Alternative 1A (no
increase in IBT) and that any cumulative impacts are also due to increased use of basinwide
water resources.
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
CL
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
3
8
1
5
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
1
2
Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
E
I
S
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
Sc
e
n
a
r
i
o
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
J
o
r
d
a
n
L
a
k
e
Ou
t
f
l
o
w
<
10
0
c
f
s
Jo
r
d
a
n
L
a
k
e
Le
v
e
l
<
2
1
0
ft
.
M
S
L
Wa
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
Po
o
l
<
2
0
%
Fl
o
w
s
a
t
Li
l
l
i
n
g
t
o
n
<
60
0
c
f
s
Fl
o
w
s
a
t
Fa
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
<
60
0
c
f
s
Ba
s
e
1
9
9
8
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
12
.
6
%
4
.
9
%
4
.
2
%
3
4
.
3
%
2
.
0
%
Ba
s
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
,
p
l
u
s
J
o
r
d
a
n
W
i
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
s
=
1
0
0
m
g
d
15
.
2
%
8
.
7
%
3
.
8
%
3
5
.
5
%
1
.
9
%
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
I
B
T
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
16
.
0
%
8
.
6
%
3
.
5
%
3
4
.
9
%
1
.
8
%
Al
t
.
1
A
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
a
l
N
o
I
B
T
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
n
d
N
o
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
15
.
2
%
8
.
7
%
3
.
8
%
3
5
.
5
%
1
.
9
%
Al
t
.
1
B
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
N
o
I
B
T
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
15
.
9
%
8
.
4
%
3
.
4
%
3
4
.
8
%
1
.
8
%
Al
t
.
2
O
b
t
a
i
n
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
m
N
e
u
s
e
B
a
s
i
n
15
.
9
%
8
.
4
%
3
.
4
%
3
4
.
8
%
1
.
8
%
Al
t
.
3
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
W
W
T
P
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
t
o
C
a
p
e
F
e
a
r
16
.
2
%
8
.
3
%
3
.
4
%
3
4
.
5
%
1
.
8
%
Al
t
.
4
M
e
r
g
e
r
w
i
t
h
D
u
r
h
a
m
16
.
0
%
8
.
6
%
3
.
5
%
3
4
.
9
%
1
.
8
%
Al
t
.
5
N
o
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
W
T
P
15
.
8
%
9
.
2
%
4
.
1
%
3
5
.
7
%
2
.
0
%
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
I
B
T
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
13
.
7
%
6
.
2
%
2
.
6
%
3
3
.
9
%
1
.
8
%
Al
t
.
1
A
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
N
o
I
B
T
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
n
d
N
o
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
13
.
0
%
6
.
3
%
2
.
7
%
3
4
.
5
%
1
.
9
%
1.
D
a
t
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
d
a
y
s
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
v
a
l
u
e
w
a
s
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
t
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
.
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 39 156003.IB.MD
Attachments
CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN MODEL ANALYSES FOR THE INTERBASIN TRANSFER EIS
CLT/EIS_MODELRESULTS_FINAL.DOC 40 156003.IB.MD
Attachment 1: Modifications to CFRBM “Capefear_base”
Scenario
The following modifications were made to the “capefear_base” scenario of the CFRBM. The
modified scenario was then used as the basis for modeling of all scenarios.
1) Modified “Reservoir.shp” file to eliminate influence of Randleman.
a) Created "zero_evapo.dfs0" with evaporation time series of zero for each time step.
b) Created "zero_rain.dfs0" with precipitation time series of zero for each time step.
c) Set "Precipitation" to "zero_rain.dfs0" for Randleman.
d) Set "Evaporation" to "zero_evapo.dfs0" for Randleman.
e) Set "Minimum downstream releases" and "Maximum downstream releases" to
1.0x109 cfs.
f) Set "Initial water level" and "Top of dead storage" to 630 ft MSL.
2) Deleted file “caryapex.dfs0”.
3) Created new water supply node for Cary/Apex discharges downstream of Jordan Lake
at node 119..
4) Created new water supply node for “DWR Return” that discharges to Jordan Lake.
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
CL
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
1
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
:
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
C
F
R
B
M
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
t
a
b
l
e
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
t
h
e
d
a
t
a
i
n
p
u
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
C
F
R
B
M
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
m
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
TA
B
L
E
1
Jo
r
d
a
n
L
a
k
e
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
t
i
o
s
f
o
r
C
F
R
B
M
Wa
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
Pr
i
o
r
i
t
y
Wa
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
N
a
m
e
B
a
s
e
1
9
9
8
B
a
s
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
n
d
Al
t
.
4
Al
t
.
1
A
A
l
t
s
.
1
B
a
n
d
2
A
l
t
.
3
A
l
t
.
5
0
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
P
o
o
l
0
.
6
7
3
8
0
.
6
7
3
8
0
.
6
7
3
8
0
.
6
7
3
8
0
.
6
7
3
8
0
.
6
7
3
8
0
.
6
7
3
8
1
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
0
.
0
5
2
2
0
.
0
3
5
9
0
.
1
0
7
6
0
.
0
3
9
1
0
.
0
8
8
1
0
.
1
0
7
6
0
.
1
0
7
6
2
C
h
a
t
h
a
m
C
o
u
n
t
y
0
.
0
1
9
6
0
.
0
1
9
6
0
.
0
1
9
6
0
.
0
1
9
6
0
.
0
1
9
6
0
.
0
1
9
6
0
.
0
1
9
6
3
O
W
A
S
A
0
.
0
3
2
6
0
.
0
3
2
6
0
.
0
3
2
6
0
.
0
3
2
6
0
.
0
3
2
6
0
.
0
3
2
6
0
.
0
3
2
6
4
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
0
.
0
0
3
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
5
D
W
R
0
.
2
1
8
6
0
.
2
3
4
9
0
.
1
6
3
1
0
.
2
3
1
6
0
.
1
8
2
7
0
.
1
6
3
1
0
.
1
6
3
1
6
D
W
R
2
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
CL
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
3
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
.
CF
R
B
M
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
No
t
e
:
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
i
n
m
g
d
.
Mo
n
t
h
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
WT
P
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ch
a
t
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
OW
A
S
A
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
R
e
t
u
r
n
T
o
t
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
La
k
e
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
fi
l
e
n
a
m
e
0
3
-
9
2
-
0
2
0
-
04
5
c
a
r
y
a
p
e
x
.
d
f
s
0
ca
r
y
p
a
p
e
x
_
d
i
s
c
h
.
d
f
s0
nc
0
0
8
1
5
9
1
c
a
r
y
a
p
e
x.
d
f
s
0
ch
a
t
h
a
m
c
o
.
d
f
s
0
o
w
a
s
a
_
w
i
t
h
.
d
f
s
0
o
r
a
n
g
e
c
o
_
w
i
t
h
.
d
f
s
0
dw
r
_
j
l
_
w
i
t
h
.
d
f
s
0
d
w
r
_
j
l
_
d
i
s
c
h
.
d
f
s
0
Ba
s
e
1
9
9
8
Ja
n
1
0
.
1
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
1
0
.
5
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
7
3
Fe
b
1
0
.
2
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
1
0
.
6
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
.
8
0
Ma
r
1
0
.
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
3
0
.
6
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
.
4
0
Ap
r
1
0
.
8
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
4
0
.
7
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
.
5
4
Ma
y
1
0
.
4
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
2
0
.
8
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
.
3
1
Ju
n
1
2
.
1
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
7
1
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
3
.
2
5
Ju
l
1
1
.
9
5
0
.
0
0
1
.
1
0
0
.
9
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
2
.
9
4
Au
g
1
1
.
5
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
6
0
.
8
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
2
.
4
7
Se
p
1
1
.
6
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
9
1
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
2
.
6
6
Oc
t
1
1
.
7
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
8
0
.
9
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
2
.
6
4
No
v
8
.
2
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
5
0
.
7
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
.
0
3
De
c
9
.
1
7
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
0
0
.
7
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
.
9
0
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
10
.
7
5
0.
0
0
0.
6
1
0.
8
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
11
.
5
6
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
C
L
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
4
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
.
CF
R
B
M
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
No
t
e
:
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
i
n
m
g
d
.
Mo
n
t
h
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
WT
P
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ch
a
t
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
OW
A
S
A
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
R
e
t
u
r
n
T
o
t
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
La
k
e
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ba
s
e
F
u
t
u
r
e
Ja
n
1
0
.
1
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
1
5
.
6
7
9
.
4
4
0
.
9
4
6
8
.
2
8
4
4
.
4
5
9
4
.
4
9
Fe
b
1
0
.
2
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
1
5
.
6
9
9
.
4
9
0
.
9
5
6
8
.
6
2
7
1
.
0
5
9
4
.
9
5
Ma
r
1
0
.
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
3
6
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
5
1
.
0
0
7
2
.
6
5
4
8
.
7
4
1
0
0
.
5
4
Ap
r
1
0
.
8
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
4
6
.
0
5
1
0
.
0
8
1
.
0
1
7
2
.
8
5
4
5
.
5
2
1
0
0
.
8
2
Ma
y
1
0
.
4
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
2
5
.
8
5
9
.
7
5
0
.
9
8
7
0
.
5
0
4
5
.
5
2
9
7
.
5
6
Ju
n
1
2
.
1
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
7
6
.
7
9
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
1
3
8
1
.
8
0
3
8
.
2
0
1
1
3
.
2
0
Ju
l
1
1
.
9
5
0
.
0
0
1
.
1
0
6
.
6
7
1
1
.
1
2
1
.
1
1
8
0
.
3
9
4
0
.
3
5
1
1
1
.
2
4
Au
g
1
1
.
5
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
6
6
.
4
6
1
0
.
7
7
1
.
0
8
7
7
.
9
0
2
8
.
5
6
1
0
7
.
8
0
Se
p
1
1
.
6
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
9
6
.
5
1
1
0
.
8
5
1
.
0
8
7
8
.
4
4
3
6
.
0
6
1
0
8
.
5
4
Oc
t
1
1
.
7
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
8
6
.
5
4
1
0
.
9
0
1
.
0
9
7
8
.
7
7
4
5
.
5
2
1
0
9
.
0
1
No
v
8
.
2
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
5
4
.
6
2
7
.
7
0
0
.
7
7
5
5
.
7
0
4
4
.
4
5
7
7
.
0
8
De
c
9
.
1
7
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
0
5
.
1
2
8
.
5
3
0
.
8
5
6
1
.
6
9
4
2
.
4
9
8
5
.
3
6
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
10
.
7
5
0.
0
0
0.
6
1
6.
0
0
10
.
0
0
1.
0
0
72
.
3
0
44
.
2
5
10
0
.
0
5
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
C
L
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
5
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
.
CF
R
B
M
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
No
t
e
:
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
i
n
m
g
d
.
Mo
n
t
h
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
WT
P
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ch
a
t
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
OW
A
S
A
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
R
e
t
u
r
n
T
o
t
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
La
k
e
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
n
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
4
Ja
n
3
0
.
9
8
1
2
.
7
6
1
.
5
6
5
.
6
7
9
.
4
4
0
.
9
4
4
7
.
4
1
3
3
.
3
6
9
4
.
4
4
Fe
b
3
1
.
1
3
2
0
.
4
0
1
.
5
6
5
.
6
9
9
.
4
9
0
.
9
5
4
7
.
6
4
5
3
.
3
2
9
4
.
9
1
Ma
r
3
2
.
9
6
1
3
.
9
9
1
.
6
2
6
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
5
1
.
0
0
5
0
.
4
5
3
6
.
5
7
1
0
0
.
4
9
Ap
r
3
3
.
0
5
1
3
.
0
7
1
.
6
5
6
.
0
5
1
0
.
0
8
1
.
0
1
5
0
.
5
9
3
4
.
1
6
1
0
0
.
7
7
Ma
y
3
1
.
9
8
1
3
.
0
7
1
.
5
9
5
.
8
5
9
.
7
5
0
.
9
8
4
8
.
9
5
3
4
.
1
6
9
7
.
5
1
Ju
n
3
7
.
1
1
1
0
.
9
7
2
.
3
5
6
.
7
9
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
1
3
5
6
.
8
0
2
8
.
6
7
1
1
3
.
1
4
Ju
l
3
6
.
4
7
1
1
.
5
8
3
.
3
6
6
.
6
7
1
1
.
1
2
1
.
1
1
5
5
.
8
2
3
0
.
2
8
1
1
1
.
1
9
Au
g
3
5
.
3
4
8
.
2
0
2
.
0
1
6
.
4
6
1
0
.
7
7
1
.
0
8
5
4
.
0
9
2
1
.
4
3
1
0
7
.
7
5
Se
p
3
5
.
5
8
1
0
.
3
5
1
.
8
0
6
.
5
1
1
0
.
8
5
1
.
0
8
5
4
.
4
6
2
7
.
0
6
1
0
8
.
4
9
Oc
t
3
5
.
7
4
1
3
.
0
7
1
.
7
7
6
.
5
4
1
0
.
9
0
1
.
0
9
5
4
.
7
0
3
4
.
1
6
1
0
8
.
9
6
No
v
2
5
.
2
7
1
2
.
7
6
1
.
6
8
4
.
6
2
7
.
7
0
0
.
7
7
3
8
.
6
7
3
3
.
3
6
7
7
.
0
4
De
c
2
7
.
9
9
1
2
.
2
0
1
.
5
3
5
.
1
2
8
.
5
3
0
.
8
5
4
2
.
8
3
3
1
.
8
8
8
5
.
3
2
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
32
.
8
0
12
.
7
0
1.
8
7
6.
0
0
10
.
0
0
1.
0
0
50
.
2
0
33
.
2
0
10
0
.
0
0
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
C
L
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
6
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
.
CF
R
B
M
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
No
t
e
:
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
i
n
m
g
d
.
Mo
n
t
h
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
WT
P
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ch
a
t
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
OW
A
S
A
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
R
e
t
u
r
n
T
o
t
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
La
k
e
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
A
Ja
n
1
0
.
9
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
5
5
.
6
7
9
.
4
4
0
.
9
4
6
7
.
4
3
4
4
.
0
1
9
4
.
4
4
Fe
b
1
1
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
5
5
.
6
9
9
.
4
9
0
.
9
5
6
7
.
7
6
7
0
.
3
4
9
4
.
9
1
Ma
r
1
1
.
6
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
7
6
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
5
1
.
0
0
7
1
.
7
5
4
8
.
2
5
1
0
0
.
4
9
Ap
r
1
1
.
6
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
8
6
.
0
5
1
0
.
0
8
1
.
0
1
7
1
.
9
5
4
5
.
0
7
1
0
0
.
7
7
Ma
y
1
1
.
3
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
6
5
.
8
5
9
.
7
5
0
.
9
8
6
9
.
6
2
4
5
.
0
7
9
7
.
5
1
Ju
n
1
3
.
1
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
3
6
.
7
9
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
1
3
8
0
.
7
8
3
7
.
8
2
1
1
3
.
1
4
Ju
l
1
2
.
9
0
0
.
0
0
1
.
1
9
6
.
6
7
1
1
.
1
2
1
.
1
1
7
9
.
3
9
3
9
.
9
4
1
1
1
.
1
9
Au
g
1
2
.
5
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
1
6
.
4
6
1
0
.
7
7
1
.
0
8
7
6
.
9
3
2
8
.
2
8
1
0
7
.
7
5
Se
p
1
2
.
5
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
4
6
.
5
1
1
0
.
8
5
1
.
0
8
7
7
.
4
6
3
5
.
7
0
1
0
8
.
4
9
Oc
t
1
2
.
6
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
3
6
.
5
4
1
0
.
9
0
1
.
0
9
7
7
.
7
9
4
5
.
0
7
1
0
8
.
9
6
No
v
8
.
9
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
9
4
.
6
2
7
.
7
0
0
.
7
7
5
5
.
0
1
4
4
.
0
1
7
7
.
0
4
De
c
9
.
9
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
5
4
5
.
1
2
8
.
5
3
0
.
8
5
6
0
.
9
2
4
2
.
0
6
8
5
.
3
2
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
11
.
6
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
6
6
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
7
1
.
4
0
4
3
.
8
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
C
L
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
7
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
.
CF
R
B
M
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
No
t
e
:
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
i
n
m
g
d
.
Mo
n
t
h
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
WT
P
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ch
a
t
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
OW
A
S
A
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
R
e
t
u
r
n
T
o
t
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
La
k
e
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
B
a
n
d
2
Ja
n
2
5
.
3
1
1
2
.
7
6
1
.
2
7
5
.
6
7
9
.
4
4
0
.
9
4
5
3
.
0
8
3
6
.
3
7
9
4
.
4
4
Fe
b
2
5
.
4
3
2
0
.
4
0
1
.
2
7
5
.
6
9
9
.
4
9
0
.
9
5
5
3
.
3
4
5
8
.
1
3
9
4
.
9
1
Ma
r
2
6
.
9
3
1
3
.
9
9
1
.
3
2
6
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
5
1
.
0
0
5
6
.
4
7
3
9
.
8
8
1
0
0
.
4
9
Ap
r
2
7
.
0
1
1
3
.
0
7
1
.
3
5
6
.
0
5
1
0
.
0
8
1
.
0
1
5
6
.
6
3
3
7
.
2
5
1
0
0
.
7
7
Ma
y
2
6
.
1
3
1
3
.
0
7
1
.
3
0
5
.
8
5
9
.
7
5
0
.
9
8
5
4
.
8
0
3
7
.
2
5
9
7
.
5
1
Ju
n
3
0
.
3
2
1
0
.
9
7
1
.
9
2
6
.
7
9
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
1
3
6
3
.
5
9
3
1
.
2
6
1
1
3
.
1
4
Ju
l
2
9
.
8
0
1
1
.
5
8
2
.
7
4
6
.
6
7
1
1
.
1
2
1
.
1
1
6
2
.
4
9
3
3
.
0
1
1
1
1
.
1
9
Au
g
2
8
.
8
8
8
.
2
0
1
.
6
5
6
.
4
6
1
0
.
7
7
1
.
0
8
6
0
.
5
5
2
3
.
3
7
1
0
7
.
7
5
Se
p
2
9
.
0
8
1
0
.
3
5
1
.
4
7
6
.
5
1
1
0
.
8
5
1
.
0
8
6
0
.
9
7
2
9
.
5
1
1
0
8
.
4
9
Oc
t
2
9
.
2
0
1
3
.
0
7
1
.
4
5
6
.
5
4
1
0
.
9
0
1
.
0
9
6
1
.
2
3
3
7
.
2
5
1
0
8
.
9
6
No
v
2
0
.
6
5
1
2
.
7
6
1
.
3
7
4
.
6
2
7
.
7
0
0
.
7
7
4
3
.
3
0
3
6
.
3
7
7
7
.
0
4
De
c
2
2
.
8
7
1
2
.
2
0
1
.
2
5
5
.
1
2
8
.
5
3
0
.
8
5
4
7
.
9
5
3
4
.
7
6
8
5
.
3
2
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
26
.
8
0
1
2
.
7
0
1
.
5
3
6
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
5
6
.
2
0
3
6
.
2
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
C
L
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
8
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
.
CF
R
B
M
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
No
t
e
:
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
i
n
m
g
d
.
Mo
n
t
h
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
WT
P
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ch
a
t
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
OW
A
S
A
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
R
e
t
u
r
n
T
o
t
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
La
k
e
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
3
Ja
n
3
0
.
9
8
1
7
.
6
8
1
.
2
7
5
.
6
7
9
.
4
4
0
.
9
4
4
7
.
4
1
3
3
.
3
6
9
4
.
4
4
Fe
b
3
1
.
1
3
2
8
.
2
6
1
.
2
7
5
.
6
9
9
.
4
9
0
.
9
5
4
7
.
6
4
5
3
.
3
2
9
4
.
9
1
Ma
r
3
2
.
9
6
1
9
.
3
9
1
.
3
2
6
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
5
1
.
0
0
5
0
.
4
5
3
6
.
5
7
1
0
0
.
4
9
Ap
r
3
3
.
0
5
1
8
.
1
1
1
.
3
5
6
.
0
5
1
0
.
0
8
1
.
0
1
5
0
.
5
9
3
4
.
1
6
1
0
0
.
7
7
Ma
y
3
1
.
9
8
1
8
.
1
1
1
.
3
0
5
.
8
5
9
.
7
5
0
.
9
8
4
8
.
9
5
3
4
.
1
6
9
7
.
5
1
Ju
n
3
7
.
1
1
1
5
.
2
0
1
.
9
2
6
.
7
9
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
1
3
5
6
.
8
0
2
8
.
6
7
1
1
3
.
1
4
Ju
l
3
6
.
4
7
1
6
.
0
5
2
.
7
4
6
.
6
7
1
1
.
1
2
1
.
1
1
5
5
.
8
2
3
0
.
2
8
1
1
1
.
1
9
Au
g
3
5
.
3
4
1
1
.
3
6
1
.
6
5
6
.
4
6
1
0
.
7
7
1
.
0
8
5
4
.
0
9
2
1
.
4
3
1
0
7
.
7
5
Se
p
3
5
.
5
8
1
4
.
3
5
1
.
4
7
6
.
5
1
1
0
.
8
5
1
.
0
8
5
4
.
4
6
2
7
.
0
6
1
0
8
.
4
9
Oc
t
3
5
.
7
4
1
8
.
1
1
1
.
4
5
6
.
5
4
1
0
.
9
0
1
.
0
9
5
4
.
7
0
3
4
.
1
6
1
0
8
.
9
6
No
v
2
5
.
2
7
1
7
.
6
8
1
.
3
7
4
.
6
2
7
.
7
0
0
.
7
7
3
8
.
6
7
3
3
.
3
6
7
7
.
0
4
De
c
2
7
.
9
9
1
6
.
9
0
1
.
2
5
5
.
1
2
8
.
5
3
0
.
8
5
4
2
.
8
3
3
1
.
8
8
8
5
.
3
2
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
32
.
8
0
1
7
.
6
0
1
.
8
7
6
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
.
0
0
5
0
.
2
0
3
3
.
2
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
CA
P
E
F
E
A
R
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
M
O
D
E
L
A
N
A
L
Y
S
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
I
N
T
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
E
I
S
C
L
T
/
E
I
S
_
M
O
D
E
L
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
_
F
I
N
A
L
.
D
O
C
4
9
15
6
0
0
3
.
I
B
.
M
D
TA
B
L
E
2
.
CF
R
B
M
I
n
p
u
t
D
a
t
a
f
o
r
M
o
d
e
l
i
n
g
S
c
e
n
a
r
i
o
s
No
t
e
:
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
i
n
m
g
d
.
Mo
n
t
h
C
a
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ca
r
y
/
A
p
e
x
WT
P
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
Ch
a
t
h
a
m
Co
u
n
t
y
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
OW
A
S
A
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
DW
R
R
e
t
u
r
n
T
o
t
a
l
J
o
r
d
a
n
La
k
e
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
5
Ja
n
3
0
.
9
8
0
.
0
0
1
.
2
7
5
.
6
7
9
.
4
4
0
.
9
4
4
7
.
4
1
3
3
.
3
6
9
4
.
4
4
Fe
b
3
1
.
1
3
0
.
0
0
1
.
2
7
5
.
6
9
9
.
4
9
0
.
9
5
4
7
.
6
4
5
3
.
3
2
9
4
.
9
1
Ma
r
3
2
.
9
6
0
.
0
0
1
.
3
2
6
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
5
1
.
0
0
5
0
.
4
5
3
6
.
5
7
1
0
0
.
4
9
Ap
r
3
3
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
1
.
3
5
6
.
0
5
1
0
.
0
8
1
.
0
1
5
0
.
5
9
3
4
.
1
6
1
0
0
.
7
7
Ma
y
3
1
.
9
8
0
.
0
0
1
.
3
0
5
.
8
5
9
.
7
5
0
.
9
8
4
8
.
9
5
3
4
.
1
6
9
7
.
5
1
Ju
n
3
7
.
1
1
0
.
0
0
1
.
9
2
6
.
7
9
1
1
.
3
1
1
.
1
3
5
6
.
8
0
2
8
.
6
7
1
1
3
.
1
4
Ju
l
3
6
.
4
7
0
.
0
0
2
.
7
4
6
.
6
7
1
1
.
1
2
1
.
1
1
5
5
.
8
2
3
0
.
2
8
1
1
1
.
1
9
Au
g
3
5
.
3
4
0
.
0
0
1
.
6
5
6
.
4
6
1
0
.
7
7
1
.
0
8
5
4
.
0
9
2
1
.
4
3
1
0
7
.
7
5
Se
p
3
5
.
5
8
0
.
0
0
1
.
4
7
6
.
5
1
1
0
.
8
5
1
.
0
8
5
4
.
4
6
2
7
.
0
6
1
0
8
.
4
9
Oc
t
3
5
.
7
4
0
.
0
0
1
.
4
5
6
.
5
4
1
0
.
9
0
1
.
0
9
5
4
.
7
0
3
4
.
1
6
1
0
8
.
9
6
No
v
2
5
.
2
7
0
.
0
0
1
.
3
7
4
.
6
2
7
.
7
0
0
.
7
7
3
8
.
6
7
3
3
.
3
6
7
7
.
0
4
De
c
2
7
.
9
9
0
.
0
0
1
.
2
5
5
.
1
2
8
.
5
3
0
.
8
5
4
2
.
8
3
3
1
.
8
8
8
5
.
3
2
An
n
u
a
l
Av
e
r
a
g
e
32
.
8
0
0.
0
0
1.
8
7
6.
0
0
10
.
0
0
1.
0
0
50
.
2
0
33
.
2
0
10
0
.
0
0