|
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this
Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party
involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely
free of errors and omissions. Furthermore, data users are cautioned that
LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent
review may result in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy
or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system
and/or DWR.
1. System Information
Contact Information
Complete
| Water System Name: |
Foxfire Village |
|
PWSID: |
03-63-479 |
| Mailing Address: | One Town Hall Drive Foxfire Village, NC 27281 | Ownership: | Municipality |
| |
| Contact Person: | Jesse Southard | Title: | Distribution ORC |
| Phone: | 910-870-8274 | Cell/Mobile: | 910-870-8274 |
| |
| Secondary Contact: | David Mckew | | Phone: | 910-295-5107 |
| Mailing Address: | One Town Hall Drive Foxfire Village, NC 27281 | Cell/Mobile: | 336-403-7086 |
Distribution System
| Line Type |
Size Range (Inches) |
Estimated % of lines |
| Cast Iron |
12" |
0.86 % |
| Polyvinyl Chloride |
8 - 2 |
99.14 % |
Programs
Water Conservation
The last review for interconnection with Moore County was completed in 2013. We plan to reevaluate the connection in the near future.
2. Water Use Information
Service Area
| Sub-Basin(s) | % of Service Population |
| Lumber River (09-1) | 100 % |
|
| County(s) | % of Service Population |
| Moore | 100 % |
|
Water Use by Type
| Type of Use |
Metered Connections |
Metered Average Use (MGD) |
Non-Metered Connections |
Non-Metered Estimated Use (MGD) |
| Residential |
764 |
0.1090 |
0 |
0.0000 |
| Commercial |
2 |
0.0000 |
0 |
0.0000 |
| Industrial |
0 |
0.0000 |
0 |
0.0000 |
| Institutional |
3 |
0.0007 |
0 |
0.0000 |
How much water was used for system processes (backwash, line cleaning, flushing, etc.)? 0.0010 MGD
3. Water Supply Sources
Monthly Withdrawals & Purchases
|
Average Daily Use (MGD) |
Max Day Use (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Use (MGD) |
Max Day Use (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Use (MGD) |
Max Day Use (MGD) |
| Jan |
0.0948 |
0.1185 |
May |
0.1362 |
0.1762 |
Sep |
0.1073 |
0.1452 |
| Feb |
0.0796 |
0.0995 |
Jun |
0.1842 |
0.2439 |
Oct |
0.1334 |
0.1495 |
| Mar |
0.0908 |
0.1135 |
Jul |
0.1162 |
0.1649 |
Nov |
0.0992 |
0.1001 |
| Apr |
0.1166 |
0.1457 |
Aug |
0.1183 |
0.1593 |
Dec |
0.0920 |
0.1015 |

Ground Water Sources
| Name or Number |
Average Daily Withdrawal (MGD) |
Max Day Withdrawal (MGD) |
12-Hour Supply (MGD) |
CUA Reduction |
Year Offline |
Use Type |
| MGD |
Days Used |
| Well 10 |
0.0214 |
366 |
|
0.0385 |
|
|
Regular |
| Well 11 |
0.0262 |
366 |
|
0.0385 |
|
|
Regular |
| Well 4 (Hoffman SH-1) |
0.0198 |
366 |
|
0.0216 |
|
|
Regular |
| Well 5 (Richmond Rd. RR-4) |
0.0159 |
366 |
|
0.0302 |
|
|
Regular |
| Well 6 (Tennis Courts TC-3) |
0.0000 |
0 |
|
0.0130 |
|
2008 |
Emergency |
| Well 7 (South Hoffman SH-2) |
0.0203 |
366 |
|
0.0280 |
|
|
Regular |
| Well 8 (Bluebird Lane TO-1) |
0.0121 |
366 |
|
0.0187 |
|
|
Regular |
Ground Water Sources (continued)
| Name or Number |
Well Depth (Feet) |
Casing Depth (Feet) |
Screen Depth (Feet) |
Well Diameter (Inches) |
Pump Intake Depth (Feet) |
Metered? |
| Top |
Bottom |
| Well 10 |
78 |
66 |
66 |
76 |
8 |
76 |
Yes |
| Well 11 |
93 |
93 |
74 |
91 |
8 |
87 |
Yes |
| Well 4 (Hoffman SH-1) |
145 |
77 |
77 |
92 |
6 |
82 |
Yes |
| Well 5 (Richmond Rd. RR-4) |
125 |
95 |
95 |
114 |
6 |
110 |
Yes |
| Well 6 (Tennis Courts TC-3) |
100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
96 |
Yes |
| Well 7 (South Hoffman SH-2) |
100 |
80 |
80 |
85 |
6 |
83 |
Yes |
| Well 8 (Bluebird Lane TO-1) |
120 |
85 |
85 |
118 |
6 |
110 |
Yes |
4. Wastewater Information
Monthly Discharges
|
Average Daily Discharge (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Discharge (MGD) |
|
Average Daily Discharge (MGD) |
| Jan |
0.0000 |
May |
0.0000 |
Sep |
0.0000 |
| Feb |
0.0000 |
Jun |
0.0000 |
Oct |
0.0000 |
| Mar |
0.0000 |
Jul |
0.0000 |
Nov |
0.0000 |
| Apr |
0.0000 |
Aug |
0.0000 |
Dec |
0.0000 |

5. Planning
Projections
| |
2024 |
2030 |
2040 |
2050 |
2060 |
2070 |
| Year-Round Population |
1,384 |
1,703 |
2,072 |
2,441 |
2,884 |
3,188 |
| Seasonal Population |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| |
| Residential |
0.1090 |
0.1226 |
0.1492 |
0.1757 |
0.2076 |
0.2295 |
| Commercial |
0.0000 |
0.0015 |
0.0018 |
0.0021 |
0.0024 |
0.0027 |
| Industrial |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
| Institutional |
0.0007 |
0.0008 |
0.0009 |
0.0010 |
0.0011 |
0.0012 |
| System Process |
0.0010 |
0.0012 |
0.0014 |
0.0016 |
0.0018 |
0.0020 |
| Unaccounted-for |
0.0050 |
0.0057 |
0.0069 |
0.0081 |
0.0096 |
0.0106 |
Future Supply Sources
| Source Name |
PWSID |
Source Type |
Additional Supply |
Year Online |
Year Offline |
Type |
| Foxfire Village |
03-63-479 |
Ground |
0.0240 |
2025 |
|
Regular |
New well to be constructed in 2025. Also, see notes below on how we plan to meet future supply deficits. Demand v/s Percent of Supply
| |
2024 |
2030 |
2040 |
2050 |
2060 |
2070 |
| Surface Water Supply |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
| Ground Water Supply |
0.1755 |
0.1755 |
0.1755 |
0.1755 |
0.1755 |
0.1755 |
| Purchases |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
| Future Supplies |
0.0240 |
0.0240 |
0.0240 |
0.0240 |
0.0240 |
| Total Available Supply (MGD) |
0.1755 |
0.1995 |
0.1995 |
0.1995 |
0.1995 |
0.1995 |
| Service Area Demand |
0.1157 |
0.1318 |
0.1602 |
0.1885 |
0.2225 |
0.2460 |
| Sales |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
| Future Sales |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
| Total Demand (MGD) |
0.1157 |
0.1318 |
0.1602 |
0.1885 |
0.2225 |
0.2460 |
| Demand as Percent of Supply |
66% |
66% |
80% |
94% |
112% |
123% |

The purpose of the above chart is to show a general indication of how the long-term per capita water demand changes over time. The per capita water demand may actually be different than indicated due to seasonal populations and the accuracy of data submitted. Water systems that have calculated long-term per capita water demand based on a methodology that produces different results may submit their information in the notes field.
Your long-term water demand is 79 gallons per capita per day. What demand management practices do you plan to implement to reduce the per capita water demand (i.e. conduct regular water audits, implement a plumbing retrofit program, employ practices such as rainwater harvesting or reclaimed water)? If these practices are covered elsewhere in your plan, indicate where the practices are discussed here.
Water Conservation tips including water use, and low water need landscape plans are posted on the village website.
Are there other demand management practices you will implement to reduce your future supply needs? During peak seasonal demand voluntary and mandatory water restrictions are put in place.
What supplies other than the ones listed in future supplies are being considered to meet your future supply needs? As for our need for additional production/supply, we are actively looking into multiple solutions.
• We are in the process of reevaluating Well Site 6 to bring it back into full service. We have had the well brushed, flushed, and drawdown calculations taken. As well as taken samples to determine the health of the site. This will only help a small amount as the production is looking like 20-25 GPM, but we need all we can get.
• The new Well 13 project, sits on a 5-acre parcel that that the village purchased. We are exploring the option of drilling another well on that property with the assistance of Russel Underwood. We will be drilling a test well here as soon as Well 13 is up and running to determine what effects the two wells will have on each other. We may alternate pumping between the two or hopefully be able to run both at the same time. This additional well will hopefully be another 50GPM.
• We are always looking for property in the area that may have good production sites on them. We work closely with Russel Underwood, who has extensive knowledge of the aquifers in our area. We have areas he has pointed out to us that may be viable sites and we are always on the hunt for new well sites.
• Interconnection with Moore County is always a option, and we are looking into the logistics and cost of that as well.
How does the water system intend to implement the demand management and supply planning components above? We have increased water rates to help with funding for new production projects. We are also in talks with engineers and well drillers in the area to advise on best practices.
Additional Information
Has this system participated in regional water supply or water use planning? No
What major water supply reports or studies were used for planning?
Please describe any other needs or issues regarding your water supply sources, any water system deficiencies or needed improvements (storage, treatment, etc.) or your ability to meet present and future water needs. Include both quantity and quality considerations, as well as financial, technical, managerial, permitting, and compliance issues:
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) provides the data contained within this
Local Water Supply Plan (LWSP) as a courtesy and service to our customers.
DWR staff does not field verify data. Neither DWR, nor any other party
involved in the preparation of this LWSP attests that the data is completely
free of errors and omissions. Furthermore, data users are cautioned that
LWSPs labeled PROVISIONAL have yet to be reviewed by DWR staff. Subsequent
review may result in significant revision. Questions regarding the accuracy
or limitations of usage of this data should be directed to the water system
and/or DWR.
|