August31_2006_Analysis_Report

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply
Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis
Interbasin Transfer

Supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement

August 31, 2006

Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

2
Summary

1. Computer modeling previously done by the Division of Water Resources for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Concord-Kannapolis Interbasin
Transfer and for the supplement to the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final
EIS), dated July 7, 2006, is not reliable for two reasons. First, this modeling did not
use the final version of the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Operations Model of the
Catawba basin and the final version of the Low Inflow Protocol (drought
management plan) for the Catawba basin, which were not yet available at the time of
the Final EIS. Second, the Division of Water Resources made unit conversion and
data input errors, which affected the modeling results. The Division of Water
Resources regrets and apologizes for these errors. New modeling has been done
using the latest version of the computer model and the final version of the Low
Inflow Protocol, which are being used for Duke Energy’s hydropower license
application. The Division of Water Resources has checked its latest modeling by
having three engineers review the inputs and also by obtaining an outside review by
Devine Tarbell & Associates, the consultant to Duke Energy, which developed the
CHEOPS model (Attachments A and B).
2. Four scenarios were modeled using the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Operations
Model for the purpose of evaluating the impacts of the proposed interbasin transfer
(IBT) of water from the Catawba River by Concord and Kannapolis. Each scenario
modeled a different quantity of withdrawal. The following IBT quantities were
modeled: Zero, an average of 10 millions gallons per day (MGD), an average of 16
MGD, and an average of 22 MGD. All results may be downloaded at the website of
the Division of Water Resources at:
http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/Concord/
3. The reservoir level and outflow duration curves included in this report show that, on a
large time scale, average daily interbasin transfers of 10, 16, and 22 MGD have little
or no noticeable effect on reservoir elevations and reservoir outflows in North and
South Carolina over the 75-year period of hydrologic record from 1929-2003.
4. In the future, Duke Energy’s reservoirs will be operated under a Low Inflow Protocol
(LIP) during periods of low flow. As the stage of the LIP increases from Stage 1 to
Stage 4, stricter water use restrictions are applied. Over the 75-year period, the
impacts of the proposed IBT on occurrences of the various stages of LIP were
evaluated. For a 10 MGD average interbasin transfer, no changes are predicted in the
occurrence of Low Inflow Protocol Stages 1 and 2 compared to the Zero transfer
scenario. The model predicts one additional month of LIP Stage 1 for a 16 MGD
average interbasin transfer. Nine additional months of Stage 1 and one less month of
Stage 2 is predicted for an average interbasin transfer of 22 MGD. Stages 3 or 4 are
not triggered under any of the modeled scenarios.
5. A closer examination was made of the modeled effects of the proposed interbasin
transfer during the most severe drought, specifically in 2000-2002. During this
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

3
drought, the model predicts that for the 10 MGD and 16 MGD IBT scenarios, levels
in Lake James are reduced by about a quarter of a foot for a period of about two
months. For the 22 MGD IBT scenario, the model predicted an increase in the
elevation of Lake James, compared to the other scenarios, for about nine months.
This is thought to be because of the seven additional months of Stage 1 LIP
restrictions predicted for the 22 MGD IBT scenario.
6. Reservoir levels in the system of 11 Duke Energy Reservoirs are significantly
affected by reservoir operating policies and by the Low Inflow Protocol. In order to
isolate the effect of the interbasin transfer from these other variables, a simple
analysis was done, assuming that the entire interbasin transfer would be withdrawn
from six of the reservoirs in North Carolina for six months, assuming no inflow to the
reservoirs and no withdrawals from them. This simple analysis showed that the effect
of withdrawing 10, 16, and 22 MGD from the six reservoir system continuously for
six months would lower reservoir elevations by 1 inch to 5 inches. Although this
simplified analysis does not match the way the reservoirs are operated, it does provide
a way to estimate the magnitude of the impact associated with the proposed transfer.
7. A short summary of portions of the Duke Energy Water Supply Study is presented.
During relicensing of the Duke Energy reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree basin in
North and South Carolina, a high priority has been to determine if the basin could
withstand the increased demands projected for the future. These demands are
expected to include larger water supply withdrawals, increased releases from
reservoirs for aquatic habitat, greater consumptive use of cooling water for electric
power generation, and maintenance of critical reservoir elevations to assure water
supply security. Duke Energy worked with water supply users and other interested
parties to project water needs to 2058. The projection show an increase of total
withdrawals from 496 MGD in 2008 to 946 MGD and an increase in “net outflows”
or consumptive uses from 215 MGD in 2008 to 475 MGD. The Duke Energy Water
Supply Study concluded that all of these projected increased water uses for
municipalities, industry, power generation, and agriculture could be met past 2048,
even during the most severe drought of the 75 years of hydrologic record, without
violating the critical reservoir elevations needed to assure the operability of public
water supply sources. This analysis included projected increases in interbasin
transfers from the basin, including Concord and Kannapolis’ proposed transfer, as
well as the many other demands on water resources. This independent conclusion by
the Duke Energy Water Supply Study shows that all projected future demands on the
basin can be met for more than 40 years into the future.
8. A summary of consumptive water use in the Catawba Basin is presented. The Duke
Energy Water Supply Study shows that consumptive water use in the Catawba Basin,
as a percent of average flow from Lake Wateree, is expected to increase from 2008 to
2038. Consumptive use for power generation is projected to grow from 3.0 % to 5.2
% of average flow by 2038. Consumptive use for public water systems, excluding
interbasin transfers, are projected to grow from 1.5% to 4.5% of average flow over
the same period. Interbasin transfers are projected to increase from 0.5% to 2.0% of
average flow, including 0.8% of average flow for an IBT to Concord and Kannapolis,
over the same period.
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

4
Purpose
The purpose of this supplement is to provide updated computer modeling results and other
analyses to evaluate potential impacts on the Catawba River Basin of the proposed interbasin
transfer (IBT) of water by the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis from the Catawba River and
Yadkin River Basins to the Rocky River Basin. These updated modeling results pertain only
to the Catawba River Basin. The results replace previous modeling results in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the July 7, 2006 supplement to the EIS which
contained data input and unit conversion errors.
In addition to the computer modeling analysis, this report includes a simplified analysis of
the incremental effects of the proposed IBT on the reservoirs within North Carolina in the
Catawba River Basin. This less complex approach evaluates the impacts on reservoir levels
of the proposed IBT, assuming no inflows to the system and no other withdrawals over a six-
month period. These assumptions were used to isolate the effects of the proposed IBT from
other factors, such as reservoir operations.
This report also includes a summary of some of the relevant water supply related information
in the Water Supply Study carried out for Duke Energy as a part of its Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process.
Finally, a brief summary is included that compares the proposed IBT to other present and
future consumptive water uses in the Catawba River Basin.
IBT Request
The Cities of Concord and Kannapolis are requesting an IBT certificate to meet their projected
water supply shortfall during the next 30 years. The Cities and their service areas in Cabarrus
County (Figure S-1) are within the Rocky River Basin.
The Cities are requesting permission to transfer an average of 22 million gallons per day (MGD)
from the Catawba River and Yadkin River Basins for use in the Rocky River Basin. The
maximum day IBT being requested is up to 36 MGD. The Cities are requesting permission to
transfer up to a maximum of 10 MGD from the Yadkin River Basin with the remainder of up to a
maximum of 36 MGD to come from the Catawba River Basin. Therefore, if permission is
granted to transfer 10 MGD from the Yadkin River Basin, then the requested amount of the
transfer from the Catawba River Basin is reduced to a maximum day transfer of up to 26 MGD.
The Cities submitted an IBT petition and supporting EIS. The Draft EIS was reviewed by
agencies of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Wildlife Resources
Commission. It was then revised by the applicant to address agency comments. A public
comment period on the revised Draft EIS and IBT Petition began in May 2005 and ended August
11, 2005. Public hearings were held in Charlotte, NC and Albemarle, NC on June 22 and 23,
2005.
The Final EIS, which addressed comments received on the revised Draft EIS and the IBT
Petition, was released for public review on May 26, 2006. Due to modeling errors in the Final
EIS, the public review, originally scheduled for 60 days, was extended by the Environmental
Management Commission until September 30, 2006.
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOMERY
IREDELL
RICHMOND
Charlotte
Concord
Huntersville
Mint Hill
Kannapolis
Albemarle
Mooresville
Midland
Matthews
Cornelius
Locust
Harrisburg
Stanfield
Davidson
Landis
Badin
Norwood
Stallings
Oakboro
Richfield
Faith
Mount Gilead
Rockwell
China Grove
Granite Quarry
Denton
Gold Hill
New London
Indian Trail
Mount Pleasant
Unionville
Salisbury
Hemby Bridge
CoddleCreek LakeConcord
LakeFisher
KannapolisLake
R
o
c
k
y
R
iv
er
Dutch Buffalo Creek
Irish B
uffalo C
ree
k
C
o
d
dle
C
re
e
k
R o c k y R iv e r
Rocky
River
WWTPColdwat
e
r
Cr
e
ekYadkinCatawba
South Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-2
Rocky River
Subbasin 18-4
Catawba River
Subbasin 3-1
Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-1
5 0 52.5 Miles Figure S-1
Existing Raw Water SoucesConcord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
Existing Raw Water Source
IBT Subbasin Boundary
County Boundary
Rocky River WWTP
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

6

Public meetings will be held to facilitate further public comment on this project in the Town
of Valdese, NC on September 7, 2006 and in the Charlotte area the week of Sept 18 (details
not yet available). Details of the September 7 meeting and the Charlotte meeting (when they
become available) may be found at the Division of Water Resources (DWR) website:
http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/Concord/.
It is anticipated that the EMC will act on this request at their November 9, 2006 meeting.
Computer Modeling
Computer modeling results presented in this report have been developed using the most
recent version of the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Operations Model (Version 8.7 released in
March, 2006). This computer model was developed to describe the effects of water quantity
related operational changes and physical modifications to the hydropower facilities operated
by Duke Energy in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Version 8.7 includes the most recent
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) developed for the Catawba-Wateree Project. This version of the
model is being used by Duke Energy as the basis for the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) license application and for the Final Comprehensive Relicensing
Agreement for the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project filed with FERC in August 2006.
Due to the timing of the request for certification, the modeling that was presented in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released in May 2006 had to be done using previous
versions of the model and the LIP. This previous modeling, conducted as a part of the Final
EIS and a supplement to the EIS distributed on July 7, 2006, is unreliable due to input errors
related to the Concord and Kannapolis IBT quantities. DWR apologizes for these data input
errors, has corrected the errors, and has taken steps to ensure that results presented in this
document are accurate. The inputs to the updated modeling have been reviewed in detail by
Devine Tarbell & Associates (DTA), the developers of the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS
Operations Model. The detailed results of the updated modeling presented in Attachment A,
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord-Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
from the Catawba River Basin. DTA’s review report is found in Attachment B, Catawba-
Wateree CHEOPSTM Model Review of Input Concord Kannapolis, NC Final EIS for IBT
Certification.
Updated CHEOPS Results
Four levels of proposed interbasin transfer were analyzed as follows:

Scenario Name Concord Kannapolis IBT

Zero MGD IBT Zero IBT

10 MGD IBT 10 MGD Average IBT withdrawn from Lake Norman

16 MGD IBT 16 MGD Average IBT withdrawn from Lake Norman

22 MGD IBT 22 MGD Average IBT withdrawn from Lake Norman

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

7

All IBT scenarios assume that the water is withdrawn from Lake Norman. Apart from the
Concord Kannapolis IBT, all other inputs to the model for the four scenarios are the same.
The model uses a 75-year historical record of inflows for the Catawba River system from
1929 to 2003 to simulate the effects of the IBT. The analysis is based on a projection of
water supply needs for the year 2035, including municipal water supply, power plant cooling,
agricultural, and industrial demands based on the Water Supply Study developed as part of
FERC relicensing. These demands include other IBTs that are either certified, grandfathered,
or anticipated, but not certified. The model requires that withdrawals be supplied as annual
average daily withdrawal values. Since the withdrawal is not the same for every day of the
year, the annual average daily values are adjusted to produce monthly use patterns to
simulate seasonal water use patterns. In the CHEOPS model, each withdrawal’s monthly
distribution is based on the historical pattern for that water user. The Concord-Kannapolis
proposed IBT withdrawals were distributed according to Concord and Kannapolis’ monthly
demand patterns reflected in their 2002 local water supply plans. Table S-1 shows the
monthly distribution of average demands as a percentage of annual average demand that was
used in the CHEOPS model for the Concord Kannapolis withdrawal in all four scenarios.
Table S -1: Monthly Distribution for Concord and Kannapolis Water Demands

Month % of Average
January 91%
February 90%
March 90%
April 101%
May 108%
June 116%
July 110%
August 111%
September 102%
October 103%
November 91%
December 88%

Results of these simulations have been summarized on a long term time scale using duration
curves of reservoir level and reservoir outflow, and using a summary of the occurrences of
LIP stages. The effects of the transfer are also examined on a shorter term time scale by
examining changes in reservoir elevation and LIP stages during the drought of record. While
the whole system of 11 reservoirs was modeled and analyzed, this summary includes results
of the modeling for Lakes James, Norman, Wylie and Wateree, chosen as representative
reservoirs. Information for additional reservoirs can be found in Attachment A and
additional modeling results are available on the DWR website at
http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Interbasin_Transfer/Status/Concord/
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

8
Long Term Analysis
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.
Figures S-2 and S-3 show reservoir elevation duration curves for Lake James and Lake
Norman for the four scenarios. Tables S-2 and S-3 show the reservoir elevation duration data
for Lake James and Lake Norman. Figures S-4 and S-5 show reservoir outflow duration
curves for outflow from Lake James and Lake Wylie. Tables S-4 and S-5 show reservoir
outflow duration data for outflow from Lake James and Lake Wylie.
Duration curves are typically used because they provide an easy way to compare results of
several different scenarios. In this case the results of the four scenarios are so similar, few
differences are noticeable on the graphs. Tables showing the values for selected frequency
percentages are included to make it easier to see the differences between the four scenarios.
For example, in the case of Lake James elevation shown below, the differences in minimum
elevation, the elevation exceeded 100% of the time, is not discernable from the graph.
However, the data table shows that the predicted absolute minimum elevation is 0.54 feet
lower with a 22 MGD transfer compared to what the model predicts for the zero transfer
scenario. The minimum predicted elevations for Lake James for IBT amounts of 10 and 16
MGD are 0.11 and 0.20 feet lower, respectively.
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

9
Figure S-2: Lake James Elevation Duration Curve

Exceedance Curve of Lake James Elevations
for all Elevations Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
1185
1187
1189
1191
1193
1195
1197
1199
1201
1203
1205
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
Exceedance, Percent TimeEnd of Day Elevation (ft)Zero IBT
10 MGD IBT
16 MGD IBT
22 MGD IBT

Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 1203.2 1203.2 1203.2 1203.2
10% 1199.88 1199.88 1199.86 1199.88
25% 1197.65 1197.64 1197.59 1197.62
50% 1195.67 1195.66 1195.62 1195.62
75% 1194.59 1194.59 1194.59 1194.62
90% 1193.05 1193.05 1193.05 1193.07
95% 1192.57 1192.57 1192.58 1192.61
99% 1192.01 1192.01 1192.01 1192.01
100% 1188.88 1188.77 1188.68 1188.34
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake James Levels Remain above Elevation, FT

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

10
Figure S-3 : Lake Norman Elevation Duration Curves

Exceedance Curve of Lake Norman Elevations
for all Elevations Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
749
751
753
755
757
759
761
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10
Exceedance, Percent TimeEnd of Day Elevation (ft)Zero IBT
10 MGD IBT
16 MGD IBT
22 MGD IBT

Table S--2: Lake Norman Elevation Duration Data
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
10% 759.99 759.99 759.99 759.99
25% 758.1 758.09 758.09 758.09
50% 757.84 757.83 757.81 757.82
75% 756.11 756.09 756.08 756.15
90% 755.31 755.23 755.24 755.3
95% 754.78 754.71 754.72 754.74
99% 754.19 754.14 754.18 754.2
100% 751.53 750.65 751.22 752.95
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake Norman Levels Remain above Elevation, FT

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

11
Figure S-4: Lake James Outflow Duration Curves

Exceedance Curve of Lake James Outflows
for all Outflows Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10
ExceedanceDaily Avg Flow(cfs)Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT
16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT

Table S--3: Lake James Outflow Duration Curves

Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 15,491 15,491 15,491 15,491
10% 1,384 1,382 1,381 1,379
25% 986 985 985 985
50% 627 627 628 627
75% 327 327 327 327
90% 202 202 202 203
95% 159 159 159 159
99% 140 140 140 140
100% 139 139 139 139
Exceedance, Percent
Time
Lake James Flow Remain above, cfs

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

12

Figure S-5: Lake Wylie Outflow Duration Curves

Exceedance Curve of Wylie Outflows
for all Outflows Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10
ExceedanceDaily Avg Flow(cfs)Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT
16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT

Table S--4 : Lake Wylie Outflow Duration Data
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 68,400 68,399 68,392 68,404
10% 8,047 7,997 7,965 7,946
25% 4,027 3,981 3,980 3,953
50% 2,345 2,321 2,314 2,303
75% 1,271 1,270 1,270 1,269
90% 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221
95% 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,204
99% 1,011 1,011 1,011 995
100% 838 838 838 838
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake Wylie Flow Remain above, cfs

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

13
Effects on Low Inflow Protocol Implementation
In the future, Duke Energy’s reservoirs will be operated under a Low Inflow Protocol during
periods when inflows to the system are not adequate to maintain required water levels in the
reservoirs while supplying required downstream releases. As the stage of the LIP increases
from Stage 1 to Stage 4, stricter water use restrictions are applied.
Another long term approach to examining the impacts of the IBT is to evaluate changes to
the occurrence of Low Inflow Protocol stages for the four levels of transfer modeled. Each
LIP stage stipulates water management actions designed to manage project operations and
withdrawals during drought conditions. Stage 0 is a watch stage, and Stages 1-4 impose
increasing levels of water use reduction measures and changes to outflows from the
reservoirs. The Low Inflow Protocol included in the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Operations
Model Version V8.7 is included with this report as Attachment C.
Table S-6 is a summary of the LIP actions for public water supply systems.
TABLE S- 6
Summary of Catawba River Basin Low Inflow Protocol Stages

Stage Public Water Supply Actions Water Use Reduction Goals
-1 Normal Conditions None
0 Low Inflow Watch – DMAG Meets None
1 Voluntary Water Use Restrictions 3 to 5 percent
2 Mandatory Use Restrictions 5 to 10 percent
3 Increased Mandatory Use Restrictions 10 to 20 percent
4 Emergency Use Restrictions 20 to 30 percent
DMAG = Drought Management Advisory Group

The Low Inflow Protocol included in the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Operations Model
Version 8.7 is included with this report as Attachment C.
The model examines the effect of the four scenarios of IBT on the LIP stage over the 75
years of available hydrologic record. Occurrences of Stages 1-4 are particularly important in
the evaluation because these stages require water users in the basin to reduce water use and
require reductions in normal outflows from the reservoirs. In this analysis, neither Stage 3
nor Stage 4 is triggered by any of the four levels of transfer modeled.
The top part of Table S-7 shows that the model predicts the 10 MGD IBT scenario would
produce the same months of Stages 1 and 2 occurrences as the Zero MGD IBT scenario. The
16 MGD IBT scenario has one additional month of Stage 1 compared to the Zero MGD IBT
scenario. The model predicts that the 22 MGD IBT scenario would have an additional seven
months of Stage 1 restrictions and one less month of Stage 2 restrictions than the Zero MGD
IBT scenario. All of the predicted deviations in LIP stage between the four scenarios
occurred during the hydrologic conditions experienced in the period 2000-2002.
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

14
Further, the lower part of Table S-7 shows that for all four IBT scenarios, the model predicts
that Stage 1 voluntary restrictions would be implemented in ten of the 75 years studied and
Stage 2 mandatory restrictions would be implemented in one year, the year 2002. Stage 0
watch measures would have been implemented in 55 of 75 years according to the model, one
less than for the other three scenarios. This is because more months are spent in Stage 1
voluntary restriction under the 22 MGD IBT scenario.
Table S-7: Occurrence of Low Inflow Protocol Stages
Table S-7: LIP Summary by Stage for a Lake Norman Withdrawal
Model
Scenario Zero MGD IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
LIP
Stage
Number
of
Months
Percent
of Time
Number
of
Months
Percent
of Time
Number
of
Months
Percent
of Time
Number
of
Months
Percent
of Time
Monthly Summary
-1 576 64.0% 574 63.8% 576 64.0% 574 63.8%
0 276 30.7% 278 30.9% 275 30.6% 270 30.0%
1 43 4.8% 43 4.8% 44 4.9% 52 5.8%
2 5 0.6% 5 0.6% 5 0.6% 4 0.4%
3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
LIP
Stage
Number
of Years
Percent
of Years
Number
of Years
Percent
of Years
Number
of Years
Percent
of Years
Number
of Years
Percent
of Years
Annual Summary - Number of years with least 1 month occurrence in the calendar year.
-1 66 88.0% 66 88.0% 66 88.0% 66 88.0%
0 56 74.7% 56 74.7% 56 74.7% 55 73.3%
1 10 13.3% 10 13.3% 10 13.3% 10 13.3%
2 1 1.3% 1 1.3% 1 1.3% 1 1.3%
3 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
4 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Extreme Case Analysis
To assess impacts on a shorter time scale, the effect of the proposed IBT amounts during
significant droughts in the period of record were examined.
The most severe drought during the 75-year period of record in the Catawba Basin occurred
during 2001-02. Figures S-6 and S-7 show the period of greatest variation between the four
modeled scenarios in reservoir elevations of Lake James and Lake Norman predicted by the
model during the 2001-02 droughts. LIP stage levels are indicated in the figures for the four
scenarios.
Modeling predicts that for the 75 year record all variations in LIP implementation caused by
the IBT would occur during a repeat of the hydrologic conditions experienced from early
summer 2000 through the spring of 2003. During this three-year period, under all scenarios,
restrictions at the level of Stage 1 and above would be in place by mid-summer of year two
(2001 on the graph) and continue through the end of year three (2002 on the graph). Under
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

15
the Zero MGD IBT and 10 MGD IBT scenarios, Stage 1 is initiated in July of year two and
under the 16 MGD IBT scenario, it is initiated a month earlier in June. Under the 22 MGD
IBT scenario, Stage 1 is initiated in November of year one (2000 on the graph), adding an
additional eight months of restrictions to the nineteen months predicted under the Zero and
10 MGD scenarios, and seven months to the twenty months predicted for the 16 MGD
scenario. In summary, during conditions similar to those experienced during the drought of
record, the model predicts that with a 22 MGD IBT, the basin would experience one
additional Winter, Spring and early Summer under LIP Stage 1 restrictions, compared to
what would occur under the other three scenarios.
As the LIP goes to each higher stage, additional reductions in hydropower production, water
withdrawals, and required outflows occur, thereby reducing the volume of water that leaves
the reservoirs. The modeling shows that during hydrologic conditions similar to the drought
of record, one effect of the 22 MGD IBT is that the LIP would be in Stage 1 for a longer
period of time than in the other scenarios. The earlier and longer reduced outflows required
under Stage 1 restrictions postpone initiation of Stage 2 restrictions by one month. This
reduces Stage 2 restrictions to four consecutive months as opposed to five consecutive
months under the other three scenarios. As Figure S-6 shows, the modeling indicates that for
Lake James, the reduction in outflows associated with the additional months of Stage 1
restrictions with a 22 MGD transfer, results in an increase in water elevation in the reservoir.
Reservoir elevations would be higher than what is predicted for the other scenarios over the
additional seven months of Stage 1 restrictions.
Figure S-6: Lake James Elevation during 2001-02 Drought
Simulated Lake James Elevation Profiles at Bridgewater Dam during 2002 Drought
1,190
1,192
1,194
1,196
1,198
1,200
5/1/20007/1/20009/1/200011/1/20001/1/20013/1/20015/1/20017/1/20019/1/200111/1/20011/1/20023/1/20025/1/20027/1/20029/1/200211/1/2002TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT
16 MGD IBT
10 MGD IBT
ZERO IBT
Stage 0 / Stage 0:(Zero / 22 MGD)Stage 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 : (16 MGD)Stage 1 : (Zero MGD)Stage 2: (Zero MGD)Stage 2 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 / Stage 1:(Zero / 22 MGD)
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

16

Figure S-6 shows the plot of the predicted reservoir levels of Lake James during the 2001-02
drought. It shows that the Zero, 10 MGD and 16 MGD curves follow each other closely
indicating little variation in the reservoir elevation between these scenarios. For the 16 MGD
IBT scenario, the LIP stage moves to Stage 1 in June 2001, one month earlier than the Zero
and 10 MGD IBT scenarios. The earlier shift to Stage 1 appears to cause the 16 MGD
reservoir level curve to drop slightly below the Zero and 10 MGD IBT curves for
approximately two months, and then it rises above the Zero and 10 MGD IBT curves from
July to August of 2001. From September 2001 through the end of 2003, the water levels for
Lake James are almost identical under all four scenarios.
The 22 MGD IBT curve follows the other three curves until November 2000, when the LIP
stage shifts to Stage 1, 7 months before the 16 MGD IBT scenarios shifts to Stage 1. This
shift in LIP stage has a significant effect on the reservoir level. The model predicts that upon
implementation of the LIP Stage 1, the Lake James level would rise above the other three
curves before joining the other curves in August 2001 when Stage 1 is in place for all four
scenarios.
The reservoir levels predicted by the model for Lake Norman during the hydrologic
conditions experienced in 2000-2002 are also significantly affected by LIP restrictions.
Figure S-7 shows that all four scenarios closely follow each other until November 2000 when
the 22 MGD would trigger LIP Stage 1. This causes the 22 MGD curve to drop to about 1.5
feet below the other three curves over the next four months. Later, however, the 22 MGD
curve joins the others and, beginning in about June of 2001, rises up to about 2 feet above the
other curves over the following 18 months. This increase in reservoir levels is explained by
the extra months of Stage 1 LIP measures predicted in the 22 MGD scenario. These results
show that predicted reservoir levels may be significantly affected by the LIP drought stage
level and the associated drought response measures built into the model.

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

17
Figure S-7: Lake Norman Elevation during 2001-02 Drought
Simulated Lake Norman Elevation Profiles at Cowans Ford Dam during 2002 Drought
750
752
754
756
758
760
5/1/20007/1/20009/1/200011/1/20001/1/20013/1/20015/1/20017/1/20019/1/200111/1/20011/1/20023/1/20025/1/20027/1/20029/1/200211/1/2002TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT
16 MGD IBT
10 MGD IBT
ZERO IBT Stage 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 2: (Zero MGD)Stage 1 : (Zero MGD)Stage 2 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 / Stage 1:(Zero / 22 MGD)Stage 1 : (16 MGD)Stage 0 / Stage 0:(Zero / 22 MGD)
Water Quality Impacts
In the Final EIS, the predicted impacts on reservoir elevation and outflow were used to
evaluate potential water quality impacts of the proposed IBT. Since the proposal is to remove
water from the basin and not discharge water into the basin, the proposed IBT would not
directly increase the inputs of pollutants to the Catawba River Basin. It is necessary to assess
whether the transfer of the specified volumes of water out of the river system could influence
the ability of the basin to assimilate pollutants.
The modeling results presented in Figures S-2, S-3, S-4 and S-5 show there are little or no
noticeable effects of the proposed IBT amounts on the frequency of occurrence of reservoir
elevations or reservoir outflows. Some effects of the IBT were noted at the 22 MGD level
when focusing specifically on the 2001-0202 drought of record. Hydrologic conditions,
stream flow and reservoir volume are major input parameters to the water quality model
developed as part of the relicensing effort. Because there were no significant changes to
hydrologic conditions, and the proposed withdrawal of water from the basin are not expected
to directly increase the pollutant inputs, additional water quality modeling was considered
unwarranted in the Final EIS. The updated CHEOPS TM analysis presented in this report
predicts less effects on system hydrology than the analysis in the Final EIS; therefore,
additional modeling to evaluate water quality effects in the Catawba River Basin of the IBT
is not required.

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

18
Simplified Analysis
Another evaluation of the impacts associated with the proposed transfer of water for Concord
and Kannapolis was greatly aided by the availability of the complex and powerful Catawba-
Wateree CHEOPS Operations Model. However, so that the model not be the only analysis
tool for evaluating the impacts of the proposed IBT, a simpler analysis was also conducted to
evaluate the effect of the IBT on reservoir levels.
Procedure
An analysis was conducted to show the effects of the proposed IBT on reservoir elevations
for reservoirs located in North Carolina over a six-month period. The analysis is designed to
answer the following question: How much would the elevation of water in the six reservoirs
in North Carolina be changed by the proposed IBT if that was the only withdrawal and no
water was flowing in to replace lost water? The no-inflow assumption is chosen in order to
evaluate the case of extreme drought, and would not be expected to ever actually occur.
During the period of analysis, no downstream releases are made from any of the reservoirs.
To help simulate drought conditions, two starting points were used, one with reservoir levels
at 90 percent, and one at 75 percent of storage volume. The 10 MGD, 16 MGD and 22 MGD
withdrawals were distributed over the six reservoirs proportionally by volume. The share of
IBT taken from each reservoir is the ratio for storage in that reservoir to storage in all six
reservoirs. In order to isolate the impacts of the IBT, no other withdrawals were included.
To summarize the assumptions for this analysis:
1. No inflows to the system for a six month period.
2. Evaporation neglected.
3. No required releases.
4. Only the six reservoirs in North Carolina are included in the analysis.
5. Reservoirs begin the 6-month period either 75% full or 90% full by volume.
6. The share of the IBT taken from each reservoir is the ratio of storage in that reservoir
to storage in all six reservoirs.
7. Other than the IBT, no other water withdrawals from the system are included.
Table S-8 summarizes the results of the analysis. Note that the reductions in elevation in the
table are shown in inches.
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

19
Table S-8. No Inflow Assumption Analysis

Reduction in Reservoir Elevations (inches) for Transfers of 10, 16,
and 22 MGD
10 MGD 16 MGD 22 MGD
Initial Storage Conditions
Reservoir
90%
storage
75%
storage
90%
storage
75%
storage
90%
storage
75%
storage

James 2.1 2.3 2.1 3.7 4.5 5.0
Rhodhiss 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.9 2.4 2.6
Hickory 1.4 1.6 1.4 2.5 3.0 3.5
Lookout Shoals 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.1 2.8 2.9
Norman 1.4 1.7 1.4 2.6 3.1 3.6
Mountain Island 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.6 2.1 2.3

The results show a range of potential reductions in reservoir elevation from 1 to 5 inches.
To reiterate, this is a worst case analysis, since no inflow to the reservoirs is assumed and
storage volume is taken only out of the upper six reservoirs in the system. In reality, Duke
Energy operates the project as a whole and balances storage throughout the system, which
would tend to lessen the impact on reservoir level of each of the six reservoirs considered.
Despite these conservative assumptions, this analysis is useful for comparing the magnitude
of the IBT to the amount of storage in the Catawba Basin.
Duke Energy Water Supply Study
One of the concerns with the proposed IBT is whether the Catawba River Basin can continue
to meet the water supply needs for the growth and development of communities in the basin
and for increased power generation for the region without adverse impacts to users and the
environment.
This same issue was a top priority during relicensing. Relicensing participants wanted to
know if the Catawba-Wateree River Basin could support large projected increases in water
use and electric power generation, while providing higher downstream releases for aquatic
habitat and meeting critical reservoir elevation targets.
To answer this question, Duke Energy contracted for a Water Supply Study to be conducted,
with the participation of major water users in the basin in North and South Carolina, as part
of the relicensing process. The Water Supply Study projected future water use to 2058 for
industrial, public water supply, power generation and agricultural irrigation water use for the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin in North Carolina and South Carolina above Lake Wateree
Dam. The projections included grandfathered, permitted, and other potential IBTs, including
Concord and Kannapolis. Table S-9 is a summary of these projections by category and shows
this projected growth in water use for the watersheds of each of the reservoirs.
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

20

Table S-9: Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water
Withdrawals (mgd)

Reservoir Watershed Type
2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058
Lake James Industrial 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.7
Public Water Supply 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.3 3.8
Power 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 15.3
Agricultural/Irrigation 8.9 9.3 9.7 10.2 11.0 12.0
Total Withdrawals 12.0 12.9 13.9 15.1 31.9 33.8

Lake Rhodhiss Public Water Supply 23.3 25.3 27.5 29.9 32.5 35.5
Agricultural/Irrigation 4.7 5.1 5.6 6.2 7.0 7.9
Total Withdrawals 28.0 30.4 33.1 36.1 39.5 43.4

Lake Hickory Public Water Supply 15.8 19.1 23.1 28.1 34.1 41.4
Agricultural/Irrigation 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.9
Total Withdrawals 17.1 20.6 24.9 30.2 36.6 44.3

Lookout Shoals Lake Public Water Supply 4.5 5.5 6.6 8.0 9.0 9.0
Agricultural/Irrigation 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.7 3.2
Total Withdrawals 5.8 7.1 8.5 10.2 11.7 12.2

Lake Norman Public Water Supply 26.9 49.4 68.9 83.6 102.1 112.0
Power 36.4 46.0 46.0 46.0 62.5 62.5
Agricultural/Irrigation 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.2 4.6
Total Withdrawals 66.2 98.6 118.4 133.4 168.8 179.1

Mountain Island Lake Public Water Supply 127.6 149.8 168.7 188.2 203.6 219.9
Power 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Agricultural/Irrigation 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
Total Withdrawals 130.9 153.2 172.1 191.7 207.1 223.5

Lake Wylie Industrial 15.0 15.6 16.4 17.2 18.5 20.2
Public Water Supply 29.0 34.2 40.6 48.1 57.3 68.1
Power 41.9 41.9 53.0 53.0 53.0 53.0
Agricultural/Irrigation 8.8 9.6 10.4 11.4 12.6 14.0
Total Withdrawals 94.7 101.3 120.4 129.7 141.4 155.3

Fishing Creek
Reservoir Industrial 102.1 104.6 107.3 110.4 113.9 117.8
Public Water Supply 21.4 32.8 42.2 51.3 58.9 66.3
Agricultural/Irrigation 8.4 8.8 9.3 9.8 10.3 10.9
Total Withdrawals 131.9 146.2 158.8 171.5 183.1 195.0

Great Falls-Dearborn Agricultural/Irrigation 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
Reservoir Total Withdrawals 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3

Cedar Creek Reservoir Agricultural/Irrigation 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9
Total Withdrawals 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9

Lake Wateree Public Water Supply 6.3 8.0 9.7 11.0 12.7 14.4
Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

21
Power 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 13.1 39.7
Agricultural/Irrigation 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
Total Withdrawals 7.5 9.3 11.1 25.6 27.4 55.8

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058
Total by Category1 Industrial 118.3 121.6 125.4 129.6 134.7 140.7
Public Water Supply 256.7 326.3 389.8 451.1 513.5 570.4
Power 80.8 90.4 101.5 114.6 146.4 173.0
Agricultural/Irrigation 40.4 43.6 46.9 50.9 55.8 61.5
Total Withdrawals 496.2 581.9 663.6 746.2 850.4 945.6
1. Totals represent total withdrawals or demands by category and do not consider whether any portion is
returned to the basin.

The public water system estimates from the Water Supply Study show increases in demand
for all public water system withdrawals for the period 2008 to 2058. For example, the
withdrawal for Valdese is modeled as growing 2.1 MGD from 6.2 MGD to 8.3 MGD and
Morganton’s withdrawal is modeled to increase 6 MGD from 8.9 MGD to 14.9 MGD.
Hickory’s withdrawal is modeled as growing from 14.3 MGD to 38.1 MGD an increase of
23.8 MGD this is similar to the increase expected for Gastonia, modeled to grow 24.8 MGD
from 15.4 MGD to 40.2 MGD. Further downstream in South Carolina Rock Hill’s
withdrawal is modeled as increasing 24.1 MGD from 14.3 MGD to 38.4 MGD and the
Chester Metro system withdrawal is modeled to grow by 15.9 MGD from 4 MGD to 19.9
MGD. To support growth in the Mecklenburg County area, the Charlotte Mecklenburg
Utilities’ demand is modeled as increasing 95.2 MGD from 128 MGD to 223.2 MGD. The
water withdrawal information tabulated above does not quantify what part of the withdrawal
is returned to the basin after use and what part is lost to the basin due to evaporation,
incorporation into products, other consumptive uses or transfers out of the basin. The
relicensing Water Supply Study also evaluated these losses to the basin (withdrawals minus
returns), which were collectively presented as “net outflows” in the final report.
The annual growth rate (AGR) for net outflows for industrial, public water supply,
agricultural, and power generation water uses were estimated. These annual growth rates
from the study are shown in Table S-10. Continued significant growth in net outflows from
the basin is anticipated over the next 50 years, especially for the public water supply
category.
Table S-10: Projected Net Outflows and Annual Growth Rates (AGR)
Table S-10
Water Supply Study - Projected Net Outflows and Annual Growth Rates (AGR)
Water User
Category
Current
MGD
2058
MGD AGR
Industrial 3.7 5.9 0.85%
Public Water Supply 55.0 243.0 2.74%
Agricultural/Irrigation 31.2 53.5 0.99%
Power 80.8 173.0 1.39%
Total Basin 170.7 475.4 1.88%

Analysis of Reservoir Levels and Water Supply Impacts of Proposed Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer
August 31, 2006

22
The Safe Yield analysis developed for the Water Supply Study was evaluated using the
Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS TM Operations Model. The analysis using the final set of
operating protocols and the final LIP shows that the projected demands shown in Table S-9,
including all anticipated interbasin transfers, can be met beyond 2048. The Duke Energy
Water Supply Study concluded that through 2048, with an additional 354 MGD of water
withdrawals, and a total of 421 MGD of net outflows, the Catawba-Wateree Basin can meet
these demands even during a reoccurrence of drought conditions like 2001-2002 (the worst
on record) without any reservoir dropping below critical elevations for the existing water
supply intakes. Usable storage was limited for each reservoir by the highest intake elevation
in the reservoir. Modifications of intake elevations could further increase the usable storage.
Consumptive Uses in the Catawba Basin
A key factor affecting river basin water supply is the amount of water that is withdrawn and
not directly returned to the river system, or “consumptive water use”. Consumptive water
use for this evaluation refers to the difference between the volume of water withdrawn by
water users and the volume of water directly returned to the river system. This is also
referred to as “net outflow” in the Duke Energy Water Supply Study. The principal
consumptive water users in the Catawba River Basin are public water supply systems,
thermal electric power plants (cooling water use), and irrigation. For the Catawba-Wateree
River system above Lake Wateree dam, the Water Supply Study projected an average day
withdrawal of 747 MGD in 2038. Of this amount, the study projected 355 MGD of
consumptive use, or net outflow.
In order to compare the magnitude of present and projected IBTs in the Catawba River Basin
to other consumptive uses, IBTs were separated from other public water supply uses in this
analysis. Figure S-8 shows consumptive use estimates for 2008. Figure S-9 shows projected
consumptive use estimates for the year 2038, near the end of the planning period for the
proposed Concord Kannapolis IBT. The IBT amount depicted in the pie chart for Concord
and Kannapolis is based on no IBT in 2008 and an average of 22 MGD in 2038.
These charts show that all IBTs are expected to be about 0.5% of the average flow in the
Catawba Basin in 2008. In 2038, IBTs are expected to increase to about 2.0% of the average
flow, 0.8% of which would be attributed to Concord and Kannapolis if the entire 22 MGD
request were certified. Another approach to put into context the impact of the proposed
Concord-Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer, relative to all water demands on the basin, is to
examine all water uses that remove water from the basin, including consumptive use and
interbasin transfer. These water uses that remove water from the basin were compared to the
average flow at Lake Wateree in SC.
FIGURE 2-82008 CATAWBA RIVER WATER USERSConcord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact StatementPublic Water Supply1.5%Interbasin Transfer0.5%Agriculture1.2%Industrial0.1%Power3.0%Water Remaining in Basin93.7%IndustrialPublic Water SupplyPublic Water Supply - Interbasin TransferAgriculture/IrrigationPowerWater Remaining in BasinNote: Consumptive uses are defined as those uses that remove water from the Catawba River system without returning it to the basin.Note: Consumptive Use is measured at Lake Wateree2008 Catawba River Consumptive Use
FIGURE 2-92038 Catawba River Water Consumptive UsesConcord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact StatementConcord-Kannapolis IBT0.8%Industrial0.2%Agriculture/Irrigation1.7%Water Remaining in Basin86.4%Power5.2%Public Water Supply4.5%Other Interbasin Transfers1.2%IndustrialPublic Water SupplyOther Interbasin TransfersConcord-Kannapolis IBTAgriculture/IrrigationPowerWater Remaining in BasinNote: Consumptive uses are defined as those uses that remove water from the Catawba River system without returning it to the basin.Note: Consumptive Use is measured at Lake Wateree2038 Catawba River Consumptive Use

Attachment A

CHEOPS Simulation of
Proposed Concord - Kannapolis
Interbasin Transfer
from the Catawba River Basin

August 31, 2006

Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

1
Introduction

The revised modeling analysis in this report was prepared to replace previous modeling
analysis performed to assess the impacts on the Catawba River Basin of a proposed
interbasin transfer (IBT) by the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis from the Catawba and
Yadkin River Basins to the Rocky River Basin. Input errors were found in previous
modeling work, first in the May 2006 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
later in a July 2006 supplement to the Final EIS. For this reason, the inputs developed by
the Division of Water Resources to perform the model runs presented in this report were
reviewed and verified as accurate by Devine, Tarbell, & Associates, Inc. (DTA), the
consulting firm hired by Duke Energy to develop the model.

Modeling presented in this report was performed using the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPSTM
Operations Model Version 8.7. This model was developed as a study tool during the
ongoing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing of Duke Energy’s
hydropower projects in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. A detailed description of the
model along with the findings of DTA’s review can be found in the attached report titled Catawba-Wateree CHEOPSTM Model, Review of Input, Concord-Kannapolis, NC Final EIS for IBT Certification.

The model incorporates operational strategies that were developed during the lengthy
process of negotiations between stakeholders during the FERC hydropower relicensing
process. A component of these operational strategies is the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP),
which establishes procedures for reductions in water use and outflows during periods of
low inflow. A purpose of the LIP is that all parties with interests in water quantity would
share responsibility to establish priorities and conserve the limited water supply.

The latest version of the model, and the version used in the analysis presented in this
report is Version 8.7. Version 8.7 incorporates the operational strategies in the final
negotiated settlement agreement from FERC relicensing, including the final LIP. This
version of the model was used to analyze the set of operational strategies that were
included in the final settlement agreement. Previous modeling in the Final EIS and the
July 2006 supplement was performed using a previous of the model, Version V8.3.

Model Inputs

The intent of the modeling is to evaluate the impacts of varying levels of the Concord
Kannapolis IBT amount. For this reason, four scenarios were modeled, each with a
different IBT amount. All inputs for the four scenarios are identical, except for the
Concord and Kannapolis IBT amount. The four scenarios are as follows:

Scenario Name Concord Kannapolis IBT
Zero IBT No IBT
10 MGD IBT 10 million gallons per day IBT average day from Lake Norman
16 MGD IBT 16 million gallons per day IBT average day from Lake Norman
22 MGD IBT 22 million gallons per day IBT average day from Lake Norman
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

2

Inflows

Streamflow and climate data is available for a 75 year period of record in the Catawba
Basin. This data was summarized into a set of historical streamflows from 1929-2003.
The model then evaluates how the system would behave during the 75 year period of
record under the set of assumptions represented in each of the four scenarios to be
studied.

Withdrawals

Because the modeling analysis is intended to assess impacts over a 30-year planning
period, 2035 projected withdrawals were used for all model runs. Withdrawals for the
four scenarios were developed by modifying the projected water withdrawals in the year
2035 derived from the Duke Energy Water Supply Study developed during the FERC
relicensing process. Withdrawals include all projected water uses in the basin including
public water supply, industrial use, agricultural use, and power generation. The
withdrawals in the study were modified to reflect the various levels of IBT by the Cities of
Concord and Kannapolis to be studied.

The model does not assume the IBT is withdrawn equally for every day of the year.
Rather, the average annual daily withdrawal is converted to a monthly average daily
withdrawal using a distribution factor multiplier to approximate the monthly pattern of
water use for all water withdrawals. Distribution factors are specific to each withdrawal.
Tables 1 - 4 show the distribution multipliers used for the Concord-Kannapolis IBT and
the resulting monthly average daily withdrawals that were modeled for each of the four
scenarios.

All of the IBT by Concord and Kannapolis is assumed by the model to come from Lake
Norman. The actual withdrawals used as inputs to the model from Lake Norman for the
four modeling scenarios are summarized in the following four tables:

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 3Table 1: Withdrawals for Zero IBT Scenario Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average2035 Original Wtihdrawal, cfs 189 184 169 209 216 233 229 217 195 191 172 183 199Concord Kannapolis Distribution Pattern 91% 90% 90% 101% 108% 116% 110% 111% 102% 103% 91% 88%2035 IBT amount, cfs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02035 IBT amount, MGD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Mod 2035 Total Withdrawal, cfs170.49 165.58 150.08 187.95 193.61 208.64 205.74 194.29 173.56 169.49 152.61 165.04 178.09 Table 2: Withdrawals for 10 MGD IBT Scenario Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average2035 Original Wtihdrawal, cfs 189 184 169 209 216 233 229 217 195 191 172 183 199Concord Kannapolis Distribution Pattern 91% 90% 90% 101% 108% 116% 110% 111% 102% 103% 91% 88%2035 IBT amount, cfs 14.1 13.8 13.9 15.5 16.7 17.9 16.9 17.2 15.8 15.8 14.0 13.6 15.42035 IBT amount, MGD 9.11 8.96 9.00 10.07 10.82 11.58 10.99 11.12 10.22 10.25 9.07 8.82 10.00Mod 2035 Total Withdrawal, cfs184.55 179.40 163.96 203.48 210.30 226.50 222.69 211.44 189.33 185.31 166.60 178.65 193.52
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 4Table 3: Withdrawals for 16 MGD IBT Scenario Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average2035 Original Wtihdrawal, cfs 189 184 169 209 216 233 229 217 195 191 172 183 199Concord Kannapolis Distribution Pattern 91% 90% 90% 101% 108% 116% 110% 111% 102% 103% 91% 88%2035 IBT amount, cfs 22.5 22.1 22.2 24.9 26.7 28.6 27.1 27.4 25.2 25.3 22.4 21.8 24.72035 IBT amount, MGD 14.58 14.33 14.39 16.11 17.31 18.53 17.58 17.79 16.36 16.40 14.51 14.11 16.00Mod 2035 Total Withdrawal, cfs192.98 187.69 172.29 212.80 220.31 237.23 232.86 221.73 198.79 194.80 175.00 186.81 202.77 Table 4: Withdrawals for 22 MGD IBT Scenario Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Average2035 Original Wtihdrawal, cfs 189 184 169 209 216 233 229 217 195 191 172 183 199Concord Kannapolis Distribution Pattern 91% 90% 90% 101% 108% 116% 110% 111% 102% 103% 91% 88%2035 IBT amount, cfs 30.9 30.4 30.5 34.2 36.7 39.3 37.3 37.7 34.7 34.8 30.8 29.9 33.92035 IBT amount, MGD 20.05 19.70 19.79 22.15 23.80 25.48 24.17 24.46 22.49 22.55 19.95 19.41 22.00Mod 2035 Total Withdrawal, cfs201.41 195.98 180.61 222.12 230.32 247.95 243.02 232.02 208.26 204.29 183.39 194.98 212.03
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

5
Modeling Results

The model was run for each of the four scenarios over the entire 75-year record. As the
model runs on a 15-minute time step, a large volume of output data was generated for
each run. This output was then analyzed and summarized into tables and plots that are
useful in interpreting the large volume of data. The tables and plots depict in different
ways the impacts of the proposed IBT and are presented in the remainder of this report.

Low Inflow Protocol Impacts

The Catawba LIP includes the following five stages of water use restriction:

Stage 0: Low Inflow Watch
Stage 1: Voluntary Restrictions
Stage 2: Mandatory Restrictions
Stage 3: Mandatory Restrictions
Stage 4: Mandatory Restrictions

Each increasing level of restriction involves an increasing degree of water use
restriction and reductions in required downstream releases as indicated by the LIP
agreement. A table is included totaling the number of months the model predicts
that each of the five levels of LIP would be invoked. This information is depicted
graphically in chronological order.

It is important, therefore, to evaluate how the proposed IBT is predicted to affect
the frequency of the different levels of restriction that would be implemented.

Table and plots are presented indicating the predicted impacts of the IBT on LIP
stage under the four IBT scenarios, both for the overall period of record and during
the extreme drought period of 2001-02.

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

6

Table 5: Comparison of LIP Stage Durations by Month during 2001-2002 Drought

Date
Zero IBT LIP
Stage
10 MGD LIP
Stage
16 MGD LIP
Stage
22 MGD IBT LIP
Stage
06/01/2000 0 0 0 0
07/01/2000 0 0 0 0
08/01/2000 0 0 0 0
09/01/2000 0 0 0 0
10/01/2000 0 0 0 0
11/01/2000 0 0 0 1
12/01/2000 0 0 0 1
01/01/2001 0 0 0 1
02/01/2001 0 0 0 1
03/01/2001 0 0 0 1
04/01/2001 0 0 0 1
05/01/2001 0 0 0 1
06/01/2001 0 0 1 1
07/01/2001 1 1 1 1
08/01/2001 1 1 1 1
09/01/2001 1 1 1 1
10/01/2001 1 1 1 1
11/01/2001 1 1 1 1
12/01/2001 1 1 1 1
01/01/2002 1 1 1 1
02/01/2002 1 1 1 1
03/01/2002 1 1 1 1
04/01/2002 1 1 1 1
05/01/2002 1 1 1 1
06/01/2002 1 1 1 1
07/01/2002 1 1 1 1
08/01/2002 2 2 2 1
09/01/2002 2 2 2 2
10/01/2002 2 2 2 2
11/01/2002 2 2 2 2
12/01/2002 2 2 2 2
01/01/2003 1 1 1 1
02/01/2003 0 0 0 0
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 7Figure 1: LIP Stages for IBT Runs Simulated LIP Stages-10123Jan-29 Jan-34 Jan-39 Jan-44 Jan-49 Jan-54 Jan-59 Jan-64 Jan-69 Jan-74 Jan-79 Jan-84 Jan-89 Jan-94 Jan-99TimeLIP StagesZERO IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

8

Table 6: LIP Summary for Scenario Zero IBT

LIP Stage Number of
Months
Percent of
Time
-1 576 64%
0 276 31%
1435%
251%
300%
400%
LIP Stage-1 0 1234
Total
Number of
Months 576 276 43 5 0 0
January 42 29 4000
February 45 27 3000
March 46 26 3000
April 48 24 3000
May 49 22 4000
June 47 25 3000
July 49 22 4000
August 51 20 3100
September 47 24 3100
October 51 19 4100
November 52 17 5100
December 49 21 4100
ZERO IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
LIP Stage Summary for
ZERO IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
Monthly LIP Stage Summary for
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

9
Table 7: LIP Summary for Scenario 10 MGD IBT

LIP Stage Summary for
10 MGD IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
LIP Stage Number of
Months
Percent of
Time
-1 574 64%
0 278 31%
1 43 5%
2 5 1%
3 0 0%
4 0 0%

Monthly LIP Stage Summary for
10 MGD IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
LIP Stage -1 0 1 2 3 4
Total
Number of
Months 574 278 43 5 0 0
January 42 29 4 0 0 0
February 45 27 3 0 0 0
March 46 26 3 0 0 0
April 48 24 3 0 0 0
May 49 22 4 0 0 0
June 47 25 3 0 0 0
July 49 22 4 0 0 0
August 51 20 3 1 0 0
September 47 24 3 1 0 0
October 51 19 4 1 0 0
November 51 18 5 1 0 0
December 48 22 4 1 0 0

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

10
Table 8: LIP Summary for Scenario 16 MGD IBT

LIP Stage Summary for
16 MGD IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
LIP Stage Number of
Months
Percent of
Time
-1 576 64%
0 275 31%
1 44 5%
2 5 1%
3 0 0%
4 0 0%

Monthly LIP Stage Summary for
16 MGD IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
LIP Stage -1 0 1 2 3 4
Total
Number of
Months 576 275 44 5 0 0
January 42 29 4 0 0 0
February 45 27 3 0 0 0
March 46 26 3 0 0 0
April 48 24 3 0 0 0
May 49 22 4 0 0 0
June 47 24 4 0 0 0
July 49 22 4 0 0 0
August 51 20 3 1 0 0
September 47 24 3 1 0 0
October 51 19 4 1 0 0
November 52 17 5 1 0 0
December 49 21 4 1 0 0

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

11
Table 9: LIP Summary for Scenario 22 MGD IBT

LIP Stage Number of
Months
Percent of
Time
-1 574 64%
0 270 30%
1526%
24<1%
300%
400%
LIP Stage -1 0 1 2 3 4
Total
Number of
Months 574 270 52 4 0 0
January 42 28 5 0 0 0
February 45 26 4 0 0 0
March 46 25 4 0 0 0
April 48 23 4 0 0 0
May 49 21 5 0 0 0
June 47 24 4 0 0 0
July 49 22 4 0 0 0
August 51 20 4 0 0 0
September 47 24 3 1 0 0
October 51 19 4 1 0 0
November 51 17 6 1 0 0
December 48 21 5 1 0 0
22 MGD IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
LIP Stage Summary for
22 MGD IBT from Lake Norman
1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
Monthly LIP Stage Summary for

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

12
Impacts on Reservoir Levels

Lakes James, Norman, Wylie, and Wateree were identified as representative reservoirs for
evaluating impacts in the basin. Therefore the following sets of plots are included for each of
these four reservoirs. Each plot contains four curves, one for each of the four IBT scenarios.

I. Elevation Duration Curves

Reservoir elevation duration curves are cumulative frequency curves showing the
percentage of time over the period of record that specified daily average reservoir
levels are equaled or exceeded. Elevation duration curves are useful for evaluating
large impacts on reservoir elevation over a long period of time.

II. Outflow Duration Curves

Outflow duration curves are cumulative frequency curves showing the percentage of
time over the period of record that specified daily average reservoir outflows are
equaled or exceeded. Outflow duration curves are useful for evaluating large impacts
on reservoir outflow over a long period of time.

III. Elevation Profiles

An elevation profile shows the predicted reservoir elevation over the period of interest.
Plots are presented both for the entire period of record and for droughts of interest.
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.

Reservoirs and Power Generation Plants

References are made in the following results to both reservoir names and the names of the
power generation plants corresponding to the reservoirs. Here is a list of reservoirs and their
corresponding power generation plants:

Reservoir Plant Names Used [Abbrev]
01. Lake James Bridgewater [BW]
02. Lake Rhodhiss Rhodhiss [RH]
03. Lake Hickory Oxford [OX]
04. Lookout Shoals Lookout Shoals [LS]
05. Lake Norman Cowan Ford [CF]
06. Lake Mountain Island Mountain Island [MI]
07. Lake Wylie Wylie [WY]
08. Fishing Creek Reservoir Fishing Creek [FC]
09. Great Falls Reservoir Great Falls [GF]
10. Rocky Creek Reservoir Rocky Creek [RC]
11. Lake Wateree Wateree [WA]
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 13Figure 2: Elevation Duration Curve for Lake James Exceedance Curve of Lake James Elevations for all Elevations Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003118511871189119111931195119711991201120312050% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Exceedance, Percent TimeEnd of Day Elevation (ft)Zero IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

14
Table 10: Lake James Elevation Exceedance Data, FT
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 1203.2 1203.2 1203.2 1203.2
1% 1200 1200 1200 1200
2% 1200 1200 1200 1200
5% 1200 1200 1200 1200
10% 1199.88 1199.88 1199.86 1199.88
20% 1197.96 1197.96 1197.95 1197.96
30% 1197.14 1197.11 1197.06 1197.07
40% 1196.12 1196.11 1196.07 1196.09
50% 1195.67 1195.66 1195.62 1195.62
60% 1195.07 1195.06 1195.06 1195.06
70% 1194.9 1194.9 1194.9 1194.91
80% 1194.21 1194.21 1194.2 1194.24
90% 1193.12 1193.11 1193.11 1193.16
95% 1192.83 1192.82 1192.83 1192.86
98% 1192.08 1192.07 1192.07 1192.08
99% 1192.01 1192.01 1192.01 1192.01
100% 1188.88 1188.77 1188.68 1188.34
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake James Levels Remain above Elevation, FT

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 15Figure 3: Elevation Duration Curve for Lake Norman Exceedance Curve of Lake Norman Elevationsfor all Elevations Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 20037497517537557577597610% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Exceedance, Percent TimeEnd of Day Elevation (ft)Zero IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

16
Table 11: Lake Norman Elevation Exceedance Data, FT
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 760 760 760 760
1% 760 760 760 760
2% 760 760 760 760
5% 760 760 760 760
10% 759.99 759.99 759.99 759.99
20% 758.83 758.78 758.71 758.75
30% 758.02 758.02 758.02 758.02
40% 757.96 757.96 757.95 757.96
50% 757.84 757.83 757.81 757.82
60% 757.18 757.15 757.12 757.18
70% 756.46 756.45 756.41 756.51
80% 755.96 755.95 755.94 755.97
90% 755.2 755.12 755.14 755.19
95% 754.78 754.71 754.72 754.74
98% 754.34 754.29 754.32 754.35
99% 754.19 754.14 754.18 754.2
100% 751.53 750.65 751.22 752.95
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake Norman Levels Remain above Elevation, FT

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 17Figure 4: Elevation Duration Curve for Lake Wylie Exceedance Curve of Lake Wylie Elevations for all Elevations Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 20035605625645665685700% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Exceedance, Percent TimeEnd of Day Elevation (ft)Zero IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

18
Table 12: Lake Wylie Elevation Exceedance Data, FT
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4
1% 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4
2% 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4
5% 569.4 569.4 569.4 569.4
10% 569.39 569.39 569.39 569.39
20% 568.58 568.6 568.55 568.6
30% 566.98 566.98 566.96 566.98
40% 566.5 566.5 566.49 566.5
50% 566.34 566.34 566.34 566.34
60% 566.21 566.2 566.2 566.2
70% 565.99 565.98 565.98 565.98
80% 565.51 565.46 565.47 565.45
90% 563.92 563.87 563.87 563.85
95% 563.37 563.36 563.36 563.37
98% 563.15 563.15 563.16 563.14
99% 562.99 562.99 563.01 562.98
100% 561.21 561.03 560.89 560.83
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake Wylie Levels Remain above Elevation, FT

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 19Figure 5: Elevation Duration Curve for Lake Wateree Exceedance Curve of Lake Wateree Elevations for all Elevations Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 20032182202222242262282302320% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Exceedance, Percent TimeEnd of Day Elevation (ft)Zero IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

20
Table 13: Lake Wateree Elevation Exceedance Data, FT
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 231.95 231.94 231.95 231.96
1% 225.56 225.56 225.55 225.56
2% 225.5 225.5 225.5 225.5
5% 225.5 225.5 225.5 225.5
10% 225.5 225.5 225.5 225.5
20% 225.5 225.5 225.5 225.5
30% 225.46 225.46 225.45 225.47
40% 223.67 223.7 223.66 223.71
50% 222.68 222.68 222.68 222.69
60% 222.43 222.43 222.43 222.43
70% 222.25 222.25 222.25 222.25
80% 221.9 221.9 221.9 221.91
90% 220.99 221 220.97 220.98
95% 220.35 220.35 220.34 220.35
98% 220.04 220.04 220.04 220.05
99% 219.91 219.92 219.91 219.92
100% 218.61 218.61 218.61 218.61
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake Wateree Levels Remain above Elevation, FT

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 21Figure 6: Outflow Duration Curve for Lake James Exceedance Curve of Lake James Outflows for all Outflows Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 200302000400060008000100001200014000160000% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%ExceedanceDaily Avg Flow(cfs)Zero IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

22
Table 14: Lake James Outflow Exceedance Data, FT
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 15,491 15,491 15,491 15,491
1% 3,238 3,246 3,232 3,246
2% 2,744 2,744 2,744 2,744
5% 2,011 2,026 2,025 2,029
10% 1,384 1,382 1,381 1,379
20% 1,071 1,070 1,069 1,069
30% 884 883 884 882
40% 729 729 730 729
50% 627 627 628 627
60% 458 457 460 462
70% 360 360 360 360
80% 237 237 237 237
90% 202 202 202 203
95% 159 159 159 159
98% 146 146 146 146
99% 140 140 140 140
100% 139 139 139 139
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake James Flow Remain above, cfs

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 23Figure 7: Outflow Duration Curve for Lake Wylie Exceedance Curve of Wylie Outflows for all Outflows Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 20030100002000030000400005000060000700000% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%ExceedanceDaily Avg Flow(cfs)Zero IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

24
Table 15: Lake Wylie Outflow Exceedance Data, CFS
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 68,400 68,399 68,392 68,404
1% 13,093 13,094 13,073 13,100
2% 12,810 12,810 12,810 12,810
5% 10,819 10,819 10,807 10,807
10% 8,047 7,997 7,965 7,946
20% 4,870 4,837 4,818 4,803
30% 3,373 3,338 3,337 3,306
40% 2,550 2,549 2,549 2,549
50% 2,345 2,321 2,314 2,303
60% 1,761 1,745 1,743 1,743
70% 1,400 1,377 1,374 1,341
80% 1,258 1,256 1,256 1,256
90% 1,221 1,221 1,221 1,221
95% 1,205 1,205 1,205 1,204
98% 1,096 1,096 1,095 1,034
99% 1,011 1,011 1,011 995
100% 838 838 838 838
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake Wylie Flow Remain above, cfs

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 25Figure 8: Outflow Duration Curve for Lake Wateree Exceedance Curve of Wateree Outflows for all Outflows Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 20030200004000060000800001000001200000% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%ExceedanceDaily Avg Flow(cfs)Zero IBT10 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT22 MGD IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
August 31, 2006

26
Table 16: Lake Wateree Outflow Exceedance Data, CFS
Zero IBT 10 MGD IBT 16 MGD IBT 22 MGD IBT
0% 119,380 119,332 119,379 119,578
1% 21,755 22,059 21,878 22,115
2% 16,489 16,418 16,355 16,405
5% 14,001 14,002 14,001 14,001
10% 12,112 12,113 12,110 12,110
20% 8,735 8,707 8,678 8,649
30% 5,992 5,974 5,955 5,935
40% 4,258 4,212 4,212 4,200
50% 3,177 3,164 3,157 3,135
60% 2,777 2,776 2,776 2,766
70% 2,248 2,233 2,239 2,209
80% 1,654 1,641 1,640 1,629
90% 1,343 1,327 1,333 1,318
95% 1,038 1,037 1,037 1,037
98% 1,005 1,005 1,005 994
99% 991 991 991 991
100% 963 963 963 963
Exceedance,
Percent Time
Lake Wateree Flow Remain above, cfs

Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 27Figure 9: Lake James Elevation Profiles Simulated Lake James Elevation Profiles at Bridgewater Dam1,1871,1921,1971,2021/1/19291/1/19321/1/19351/1/19381/1/19411/1/19441/1/19471/1/19501/1/19531/1/19561/1/19591/1/19621/1/19651/1/19681/1/19711/1/19741/1/19771/1/19801/1/19831/1/19861/1/19891/1/19921/1/19951/1/19981/1/2001TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 28Figure 10: Lake James Elevation Profiles during 1950’s Drought Simulated Lake James Elevation Profiles at Bridgewater Dam during 1950s Drought1,1851,1901,1951,2001/1/19542/1/19543/1/19544/1/19545/1/19546/1/19547/1/19548/1/19549/1/195410/1/195411/1/195412/1/19541/1/19552/1/19553/1/19554/1/19555/1/19556/1/19557/1/19558/1/19559/1/195510/1/195511/1/195512/1/1955TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 0: (22 MGD)Stage 1: (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 29Figure 11: Lake James Elevation Profiles during 1980’s Drought Simulated Lake James Elevation Profiles at Bridgewater Dam during 1980s Drought1,1901,1921,1941,1961,1981,2001,2021/1/19873/1/19875/1/19877/1/19879/1/198711/1/19871/1/19883/1/19885/1/19887/1/19889/1/198811/1/19881/1/19893/1/19895/1/19897/1/19899/1/198911/1/1989TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 0: (22 MGD)Stage 1: (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 30 Figure 12: Lake James Elevation Profiles during 2002 Drought Simulated Lake James Elevation Profiles at Bridgewater Dam during 2002 Drought1,1901,1921,1941,1961,1981,2005/1/20007/1/20009/1/200011/1/20001/1/20013/1/20015/1/20017/1/20019/1/200111/1/20011/1/20023/1/20025/1/20027/1/20029/1/200211/1/2002TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 0 / Stage 0:(Zero / 22 MGD)Stage 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 : (16 MGD)Stage 1 : (Zero MGD)Stage 2: (Zero MGD)Stage 2 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 / Stage 1: (Zero / 22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 31Figure 13 Lake Norman Elevation Profiles Simulated Lake Norman Elevation Profiles at Cowans Ford Dam7507557607651/1/19291/1/19321/1/19351/1/19381/1/19411/1/19441/1/19471/1/19501/1/19531/1/19561/1/19591/1/19621/1/19651/1/19681/1/19711/1/19741/1/19771/1/19801/1/19831/1/19861/1/19891/1/19921/1/19951/1/19981/1/2001TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 32Figure 14: Lake Norman Elevation Profiles during 1950s Drought Simulated Lake Norman Elevation Profiles at Cowans Ford Dam during 1950s Drought7507557607651/1/19533/1/19535/1/19537/1/19539/1/195311/1/19531/1/19543/1/19545/1/19547/1/19549/1/195411/1/19541/1/19553/1/19555/1/19557/1/19559/1/195511/1/1955TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 33Figure 15: Lake Norman Elevation Profiles during 1980s Drought Simulated Lake Norman Elevation Profiles at Cowans Ford Dam during 1980s Drought7547567587607621/1/19873/1/19875/1/19877/1/19879/1/198711/1/19871/1/19883/1/19885/1/19887/1/19889/1/198811/1/19881/1/19893/1/19895/1/19897/1/19899/1/198911/1/1989TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 34Figure 16: Lake Norman Elevation Profiles during 2002 Drought Simulated Lake Norman Elevation Profiles at Cowans Ford Dam during 2002 Drought7507527547567587605/1/20007/1/20009/1/200011/1/20001/1/20013/1/20015/1/20017/1/20019/1/200111/1/20011/1/20023/1/20025/1/20027/1/20029/1/200211/1/2002TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 2: (Zero MGD)Stage 1 : (Zero MGD)Stage 2 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 / Stage 1: (Zero / 22 MGD)Stage 1 : (16 MGD)Stage 0 / Stage 0: (Zero / 22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 35Figure 17: Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles Simulated Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles5605625645665685701/1/19291/1/19321/1/19351/1/19381/1/19411/1/19441/1/19471/1/19501/1/19531/1/19561/1/19591/1/19621/1/19651/1/19681/1/19711/1/19741/1/19771/1/19801/1/19831/1/19861/1/19891/1/19921/1/19951/1/19981/1/2001TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO CF IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 36Figure 18: Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles during 1950s Drought Simulated Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles during 1950s Drought5605625645665685701/1/19534/1/19537/1/195310/1/19531/1/19544/1/19547/1/195410/1/19541/1/19554/1/19557/1/195510/1/19551/1/19564/1/19567/1/195610/1/19561/1/19574/1/19577/1/195710/1/1957TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)Stage - 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)Stage - 1 : (22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 37Figure 19: Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles during 1980s Drought Simulated Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles during 1980s Drought5605625645665685701/1/19873/1/19875/1/19877/1/19879/1/198711/1/19871/1/19883/1/19885/1/19887/1/19889/1/198811/1/19881/1/19893/1/19895/1/19897/1/19899/1/198911/1/1989TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 0: (22 MGD)Stage 1: (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)Stage - 1 : (22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 38Figure 20: Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles during 2002 Drought Simulated Lake Wylie Elevation Profiles during 2002 Drought5605625645665685705/1/20007/1/20009/1/200011/1/20001/1/20013/1/20015/1/20017/1/20019/1/200111/1/20011/1/20023/1/20025/1/20027/1/20029/1/200211/1/2002TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 0 / Stage 0: (Zero / 22 MGD)Stage 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 : (16 MGD)Stage 1 : (Zero MGD)Stage 2: (Zero MGD)Stage 2 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 / Stage 1: (Zero / 22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 39 Figure 21: Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles Simulated Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles2152202252302351/1/19291/1/19321/1/19351/1/19381/1/19411/1/19441/1/19471/1/19501/1/19531/1/19561/1/19591/1/19621/1/19651/1/19681/1/19711/1/19741/1/19771/1/19801/1/19831/1/19861/1/19891/1/19921/1/19951/1/19981/1/2001TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO CF IBT
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 40Figure 22: Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles during 1950s Drought Simulated Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles during 1950s Drought2152202252301/1/19534/1/19537/1/195310/1/19531/1/19544/1/19547/1/195410/1/19541/1/19554/1/19557/1/195510/1/19551/1/19564/1/19567/1/195610/1/19561/1/19574/1/19577/1/195710/1/1957TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)Stage - 1 : (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)Stage - 1 : (22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 41Figure 23: Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles during 1980s Drought Simulated Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles during 1980s Drought2152202252301/1/19873/1/19875/1/19877/1/19879/1/198711/1/19871/1/19883/1/19885/1/19887/1/19889/1/198811/1/19881/1/19893/1/19895/1/19897/1/19899/1/198911/1/1989TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 0: (22 MGD)Stage 1: (22 MGD)Stage 0: (22 MGD)Stage - 1 : (22 MGD)
Revised Report: CHEOPS Simulation of Proposed Concord - Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin August 31, 2006 42Figure 24: Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles during 2002 Drought Simulated Lake Wateree Elevation Profiles during 2002 Drought2152202252307/1/20009/1/200011/1/20001/1/20013/1/20015/1/20017/1/20019/1/200111/1/20011/1/20023/1/20025/1/20027/1/20029/1/200211/1/20021/1/20033/1/20035/1/20037/1/20039/1/200311/1/2003TimeEnd of Day Elevation, ft22 MGD IBT16 MGD IBT10 MGD IBTZERO IBTStage 1: (22 MGD)Stage 1 : (16 MGD)Stage 1 : (Zero MGD)Stage 2: (Zero MGD)Stage 2 : (22 MGD)Stage 1 / Stage 1:(Zero / 22 MGD)

Attachment B

Attachment C
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 1

APPENDIX C: LOW INFLOW PROTOCOL (LIP) FOR THE
CATAWBA-WATEREE PROJECT
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) is to establish procedures for reductions in
water use during periods of low inflow to the Catawba-Wateree Project (the Project).
The LIP was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water quantity will
share the responsibility to establish priorities and to conserve the limited water supply.
OVERVIEW
This Low Inflow Protocol provides trigger points and procedures for how the Catawba-
Wateree Project will be operated by the Licensee, as well as water withdrawal reduction
measures and goals for other water users during periods of low inflow (i.e., periods when
there is not enough water flowing into the Project reservoirs to meet the normal water
demands while maintaining Remaining Usable Storage in the reservoir system at or
above a seasonal target level).
The Licensee will provide flow from hydro generation and other means to support
electric customer needs and the instream flow needs of the Project. During periods of
normal inflow, reservoir levels will be maintained within prescribed Normal Operating
Ranges. During times that inflow is not adequate to meet all of the normal demands for
water and maintain reservoir levels as normally targeted the Licensee will progressively
reduce hydro generation. If hydrologic conditions worsen until trigger points outlined
herein are reached, the Licensee will declare a Stage 0 - Low Inflow Watch and begin
meeting with the applicable agencies and water users to discuss this LIP. If hydrologic
conditions continue to worsen, the Licensee will declare various stages of a Low Inflow
Condition (LIC) as defined in the Procedure section of this document. Each progressive
stage of the LIC will call for greater reductions in hydro station releases and water
withdrawals, and allow additional use of the available water storage inventory.
The goal of this staged LIP is to take the actions needed in the Catawba-Wateree River
Basin to delay the point at which the Project’s usable water storage inventory is fully
depleted. While there are no human actions that can guarantee that the Catawba-
Wateree River Basin will never experience operability limitations at water intake
structures due to low reservoir levels or low streamflows, this LIP is intended to provide
additional time to allow precipitation to restore streamflow, reservoir levels, and
groundwater levels to normal ranges. The amount of additional time that is gained during
the LIP depends primarily on the diagnostic accuracy of the trigger points, the amount of
regulatory flexibility the Licensee has to operate the Project, and the effectiveness of the
Licensee and other water users in working together to implement their required actions
and achieve significant water use reductions in a timely manner.
To ensure continuous improvement regarding the LIP and its implementation throughout
the term of the New License, the LIP will be re-evaluated and modified periodically.
These re-evaluations and modifications will be as determined by the Catawba-Wateree
Drought Management Advisory Group (CW-DMAG).
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 2
KEY FACTS AND DEFINITIONS
1. Human Health and Safety and the Integrity of the Public Water Supply and Electric
Systems are of Utmost Importance – Nothing in this protocol will limit the Licensee’s
ability to take any and all lawful actions necessary at the Project to protect human
health and safety, protect its equipment from major damage, protect the equipment
of the Large Water Intake Owners from major damage, and ensure the stability of the
regional electric grid and public water supply systems. It is recognized that the
Licensee may take the steps that are necessary to protect these things without prior
consultation or notification. Likewise, nothing in this LIP will limit the States of North
Carolina and South Carolina from taking any and all lawful actions necessary within
their jurisdictions to protect human health and safety. It is recognized that North
Carolina and South Carolina may also take the steps necessary to protect these
things without prior consultation or notification.
2. No Abrogation of Statutory Authority – It is understood that the South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) must operate under the statutory
authority of its drought response statutes, and nothing in this LIP will require the
SCDNR to take any action that exceeds its authority under their drought response
statute.
3. Normal Full Pond Elevation – Also referred to simply as “full pond,” this is the level of
a reservoir that corresponds to the point at which water would first begin to spill from
the reservoir’s dam(s) if the Licensee took no action. This level corresponds to the
lowest point along the top of the spillway (including flashboards) for reservoirs
without floodgates and to the lowest point along the top of the floodgates for
reservoirs that have floodgates. To avoid confusion among the many reservoirs the
Licensee operates, it has adopted the practice of referring to the Full Pond Elevation
for all of its reservoirs as equal to 100.0 ft. relative. The Full Pond Elevations for the
Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs are as follows:

Reservoir Full Pond Elevation
(ft. above Mean Sea Level)
Lake James 1200.0
Lake Rhodhiss 995.1
Lake Hickory 935.0
Lookout Shoals Lake 838.1
Lake Norman 760.0
Mountain Island Lake 647.5
Lake Wylie 569.4
Fishing Creek Reservoir 417.2
Great Falls Reservoir 355.8
Cedar Creek Reservoir 284.4
Lake Wateree 225.5

Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 3
4. Net Inflow – The cumulative inflow into a reservoir, expressed in acre-feet (ac-ft) per
month. Net inflow is the sum of tributary stream flow, inflow from upstream hydro
development releases (where applicable), groundwater inflow, precipitation falling on
the reservoir surface, land surface runoff, and on-reservoir point-source return flows,
less the sum of on-reservoir water withdrawals, groundwater recharge, hydro
development flow releases, evaporation, and other factors.
5. Normal Minimum Elevation – The level of a reservoir (measured in feet above Mean
Sea Level (MSL) or feet relative to the full pond contour with 100.0 ft. corresponding
to full pond) that defines the bottom of the reservoir’s Normal Operating Range for a
given day of the year. If inflows and outflows to the reservoir are kept within some
reasonable range of the average or expected amounts, hydroelectric project
equipment is operating properly and no protocols for abnormal conditions have been
implemented, reservoir level excursions below the Normal Minimum Elevation should
not occur.
6. Normal Maximum Elevation – The level of a reservoir (measured in feet above Mean
Sea Level (MSL) or feet relative to the full pond contour with 100.0 ft. corresponding
to full pond) that defines the top of the reservoir’s Normal Operating Range for a
given day of the year. If inflows and outflows to the reservoir are kept within some
reasonable range of the average or expected amounts, hydroelectric project
equipment is operating properly, and no protocols for abnormal conditions have been
implemented, reservoir level excursions above the Normal Maximum Elevation
should not occur.
7. Normal Target Elevation – The level of a reservoir (measured in feet above Mean
Sea Level (msl) or feet relative to the full pond contour with 100.0 ft corresponding to
full pond) that the Licensee will endeavor in good faith to achieve, unless operating in
this Low Inflow Protocol, the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol, the Spring
Reservoir Level Stabilization Program (Lakes James, Norman, Wylie and Wateree
only), a Spring Stable Flow Period (Lake Wateree only) or a Floodplain Inundation
Period (Lake Wateree only). Since inflows vary significantly and outflow demands
also vary, the Licensee will not always be able to maintain actual reservoir level at
the Normal Target Elevation. The Normal Target Elevation falls within the Normal
Operating Range, but it is not always the average of the Normal Minimum and
Normal Maximum Elevations.
8. Normal Operating Range for Reservoir Levels – The band of reservoir levels within
which the Licensee normally attempts to maintain a given reservoir that it operates
on a given day. Each reservoir has its own specific Normal Operating Range, and
that range is bounded by a Normal Maximum Elevation and a Normal Minimum
Elevation. If inflows and outflows to the reservoir are kept within some reasonable
range of the average or expected amounts, hydro project equipment is operating
properly and no protocols for abnormal conditions have been implemented, reservoir
level excursions outside of the Normal Operating Range should not occur.
9. Large Water Intake – Any water intake (e.g., public water supply, industrial,
agricultural, power plant, etc.) having a maximum instantaneous capacity greater
than or equal to one Million Gallons per Day (MGD) that withdraws water from the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin.
10. Public Water Supply (PWS) – Any water delivery system owned and/or operated by
any governmental or private entity that utilizes waters from the Catawba-Wateree
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 4
River Basin for the public interest including drinking water; residential, commercial,
industrial, and institutional uses; irrigation, and/or other public uses.
11. Critical Reservoir Elevation – Unless it is otherwise stated as applying only to a
specific intake or type of intake, the Critical Reservoir Elevation is the highest level of
water in a reservoir (measured in feet above Mean Sea Level (mls) or feet relative to
the full pond contour with 100.0 ft. corresponding to full pond) below which any Large
Water Intake used for Public Water Supply or industrial uses, or any regional power
plant intake located on the reservoir will not operate at its Licensee-approved
capacity. The Critical Reservoir Elevations, as of June 1, 2006, are defined below:
Reservoir
Critical Reservoir Elevation
(ft. relative to local datum)
(100 ft = Full Pond)
Type of Limit
Lake James 61.0 Power Production
Lake Rhodhiss 89.4 Municipal Intake
Lake Hickory 94.0 Municipal Intake
Lookout Shoals Lake 74.9 Municipal Intake
Lake Norman 90.0 Power Production
Mountain Island Lake 94.3 Power Production
Lake Wylie 92.6 Industrial Intake
Fishing Creek Reservoir 95.0 Municipal Intake
Great Falls Reservoir 87.2 Power Production
Cedar Creek Reservoir 80.3 Power Production
Lake Wateree 92.5 Municipal Intake

12. Total Usable Storage (TUS) – The sum of the Project’s volume of water expressed in
acre-feet (ac-ft) contained between each reservoir’s Critical Reservoir Elevation and
the Full Pond Elevation.
13. Remaining Usable Storage (RUS) – The sum of the Project’s volume of water
expressed in acre-feet (ac-ft) contained between each reservoir’s Critical Reservoir
Elevation and the actual reservoir elevation at any given point in time.
14. Storage Index (SI) – The ratio, expressed in percent, of Remaining Usable Storage
to Total Usable Storage at any given point in time.
15. Target Storage Index (TSI) – The ratio of Remaining Usable Storage to Total Usable
Storage based on the Project reservoirs being at their Normal Target Elevations.
The following table lists the Target Storage Index for the first day of each month:

Month Target Storage Index For 1st
Day of Month (%)*
Jan 61
Feb 51
Mar 61
Apr 66
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 5
Month Target Storage Index For 1st
Day of Month (%)*
May 75
Jun 75
Jul 75
Aug 75
Sep 75
Oct 75
Nov 69
Dec 62
* Target Storage Indices for
other days of the month are
determined by linear
interpolation.

16. U.S. Drought Monitor – A synthesis of multiple indices, outlooks, and news accounts
that represents a consensus of federal and academic scientists concerning the
drought status of all parts of the United States. Typically, the U.S. Drought Monitor
indicates intensity of drought as D0-Abnormally Dry, D1-Moderate, D2-Severe, D3-
Extreme, and D4-Exceptional. The website address is
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html. The following federal agencies are
responsible for maintaining the U.S. Drought Monitor:
ƒ Joint Agricultural Weather Facility (U.S. Department of Agriculture and
Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
ƒ Climate Prediction Center (U.S. Department of Commerce/NOAA/National
Weather Service)
ƒ National Climatic Data Center (DOC/NOAA)
17. U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month Numeric Average – If the U.S. Drought Monitor
has a reading of D0-D4 as of the last day of the previous month for any part of the
Catawba-Wateree River Basin that drains to Lake Wateree, the Basin will be
assigned a numeric value for the current month. The numeric value will equal the
highest Drought Monitor designation (e.g., D0 = 0, D4 = 4) as of the last day of the
previous month that existed for any part of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin that
drains to Lake Wateree. A normal condition in the Basin, defined as the absence of
a Drought Monitor designation, would be assigned a numeric value of negative one (-
1). A running average numeric value of the current month and the previous two
months will be monitored and designated as the U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month
Numeric Average.
18. Critical Flows – The minimum flow releases from the hydro developments that may
be necessary to:
a. prevent long-term or irreversible damage to aquatic communities consistent
with the resource management goals and objectives for the affected stream
reaches;
b. provide some basic level of operability for Large Water Intakes located on the
affected stream reaches; and,
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 6
c. provide some basic level of water quality maintenance in the affected stream
reaches.
For the purposes of this LIP, the Critical Flows are as follows:
a. Linville River, below the Bridgewater Development: 75 cubic feet per second
(cfs).
b. Catawba River Bypassed Reach below the Bridgewater Development: 25
cfs.
c. Oxford Regulated River Reach below the Oxford Development: 100 cfs.
d. Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach below the Lookout Shoals
Development: 80 cfs.
e. Wylie Regulated River Reach below the Wylie Development: 700 cfs.
f. Great Falls Bypassed Reaches (Long and Short) at the Great Falls-Dearborn
Development: 450 cfs and 80 cfs respectively.
g. Wateree Regulated River Reach below the Wateree Development: 800 cfs.
h. Leakage flows at the remaining Project structures. Leakage flows are
defined as the flow of water through wicket gates when the hydro units are
not operating and seepage through the Project structures at each
development.
19. Recreation Flow Reductions – Since all recreation flow releases must be made by
either releasing water through hydroelectric generation or through flow releases that
bypass hydro generation equipment, reductions in Project Flow Requirements will
impact recreation flow releases.
20. Organizational Abbreviations – Organizational abbreviations include the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources (SCDNR), South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and the United States Geological Survey
(USGS).
21. Catawba-Wateree Drought Management Advisory Group (CW-DMAG) – The CW-
DMAG will be tasked with working with the Licensee when the LIP is initiated. This
team will also meet as necessary to foster a basin-wide response to a Low Inflow
Condition (see Procedure section of this LIP). Members of the CW-DMAG agree to
comply with the conditions of this LIP. Membership on the CW-DMAG is open to the
following organizations, of which each organization may have up to two members:
a. NCDENR (including Division of Water Resources and the Division of Water
Quality)
b. NCWRC
c. SCDNR
d. SCDHEC
e. USGS
f. Each Owner of a Large Water Intake located on one of the Catawba-Wateree
Project reservoirs or the main stem of the Catawba-Wateree River
g. Each Owner of a Large Water Intake located on any tributary stream within
the Catawba-Wateree River Basin that ultimately drains to Lake Wateree
h. Licensee (CW-DMAG Coordinator)
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 7
The CW-DMAG will meet at least annually (typically during the month of May)
beginning in 2007 and continuing throughout the term of the New License,
regardless of the Low Inflow Condition status, to review prior year activities, discuss
data input from Large Water Intake Owners, and discuss other issues relevant to the
LIP. The Licensee will maintain an active roster of the CW-DMAG and update the
roster as needed. The Licensee will prepare meeting summaries of all CW-DMAG
meetings and will make these meeting summaries available to the public by posting
on its Web site.
22. Revising the LIP – During the term of the New License, the CW-DMAG will review
and update the LIP periodically to ensure continuous improvement of the LIP and its
implementation. These evaluations and modifications will be considered at least
once every five (5) years during the New License term. Modifications must be
approved by a consensus of the participating CW-DMAG members. If the
participating members cannot reach consensus, then the dispute resolution
procedures set forth in Section 31.0 of the relicensing Final Agreement will apply.
Approved modifications will be incorporated through revision of the LIP and the
Licensee will file the revised LIP with the FERC. If any modifications of the LIP
require amendment of the New License, the Licensee will: (i) provide notice to all
Parties to the relicensing Final Agreement advising them of the proposed license
article amendment and the Licensee’s intent to file it with the FERC; (ii) submit the
modification request to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and/or
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) for
formal review and approval as may be required by any reopener conditions of the
respective state's 401 Water Quality Certification for the Project; and (iii) file a
license amendment request for FERC approval. During this process, the CW-DMAG
may appoint an ad hoc committee to address issues and revisions relevant to the
LIP. The filing of a revised LIP by the Licensee will not constitute or require
modification to the relicensing Final Agreement and any Party to the relicensing Final
Agreement may be involved in the FERC’s public process for assessing the revised
LIP. Issues such as sediment fill impact on reservoir storage volume calculations,
revising the groundwater monitoring plan and substitution of a regional drought
monitor for the U.S. Drought Monitor, if developed in the future, are examples of
items that may be addressed.
23. Water Withdrawal Data Collection and Reporting – The Licensee will maintain
information on cumulative water use from Project reservoirs beginning in 2006 and
continuing throughout the term of the New License and will make the information
available to water intake owners and governmental agencies upon their request.
The Licensee will require all owners of Large Water Intakes located within the FERC
Project Boundaries to report to the Licensee, on an annual basis in MGD, their
average monthly water withdrawals from and flow returns to the Project or its
tributary streams that drain to Lake Wateree. The Licensee will maintain a database
of this information including the Licensee’s own non-hydro water use records (i.e.,
water uses due to thermal power generation). These annual withdrawal summaries
will be in writing, certified for accuracy by a professional engineer or other
appropriate official, and will be provided to the Licensee by January 31 of each year
for the preceding calendar year beginning in 2007. This information may be used to
determine if future increased water withdrawals would be within the projections of the
Water Supply Study conducted during the relicensing process and filed with the
FERC as part of the Licensee’s Application for New License for the Project.
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 8
24. Reclaimed Water – Wastewater that has been treated to reclaimed water standards
and is re-used for a designated purpose (e.g. industrial process, irrigation).
Reclaimed Water will not be subject to the water use restrictions outlined in this LIP.
25. Drought Response Plan Updates – All Large Water Intake Owners will review and
update their Drought Response Plans or Ordinances (or develop a plan or ordinance
if they do not have one) by June 30, 2007 and within 180 days following the
acceptance by the FERC of any future LIP revisions during the term of the New
License to ensure compliance and coordination with the LIP, including the authority
to enforce the provisions outlined herein, provided that the requirements of the LIP
are consistent with state law.
26. Relationship Between the LIP and the Maintenance & Emergency Protocol (MEP) –
The MEP outlines the response the Licensee will take under certain emergency and
equipment failure and maintenance situations to continue practical and safe
operation of the Project, to mitigate any related impacts to license conditions, and to
communicate with resource agencies and the affected parties. Under the MEP,
temporary modifications of prescribed flow releases and the reservoir level Normal
Operating Ranges are allowed. Lowering levels of Project reservoirs caused by
situations addressed under the MEP will not invoke implementation of this Low Inflow
Protocol (LIP). Also, if the LIP has already been implemented at the time that a
situation covered by the MEP is initiated, the Licensee will typically suspend
implementation of the LIP until the MEP situation has been eliminated. The Licensee
may, however, choose to continue with the LIP if desirable.
27. Consensus – Consensus is reached when all CW-DMAG members in attendance
can ‘live with’ the outcome or proposal being made. The concept of consensus is
more fully described in the Catawba – Wateree Hydroelectric Project Relicensing –
Stakeholder Teams Charter (dated October, 2005).
28. Monitored USGS Streamflow Gages – The Monitored USGS Streamflow Gages are
identified as USGS streamflow gage #’s 02145000 (South Fork Catawba River at
Lowell, NC), 02137727 (Catawba River near Pleasant Gardens, NC), 02140991
(Johns River at Arney’s Store, NC), and 02147500 (Rocky Creek at Great Falls, SC).
ASSUMPTIONS
1. Instream Flows for Recreation – The New License for the Catawba-Wateree Project
includes recreational flow releases as listed in the proposed Recreational Flows
License Article.
2. Minimum Flows – The New License for the Catawba-Wateree Project includes the
minimum flow requirements as listed in the proposed Minimum Flows License Article,
the proposed Wylie High Inflow Protocol License Article, and the proposed Flows
Supporting Public Water Supply and Industrial Processes License Article.
3. Project Flow Requirements – These flow requirements include the Minimum Flows
and the portion of the Recreational Flows that is greater than the Minimum Flows for
normal conditions (i.e., conditions outside of this LIP or Maintenance and Emergency
Protocol).
4. Public Information System – The New License for the Catawba-Wateree Project
includes the requirement to provide information to the public as specified in the
proposed Public Information License Article.
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 9
5. Normal Operating Ranges for Reservoir Levels – The New License for the Catawba-
Wateree Project includes the Normal Operating Ranges for reservoir levels (i.e.,
Normal Minimum, Normal Maximum, and Normal Target Elevations) as listed in the
proposed Reservoir Elevations License Article.
6. Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program – The New License for the Catawba-
Wateree Project includes the reservoir level requirements in the proposed Spring
Reservoir Level Stabilization Program License Article.
PROCEDURE
During periods of normal inflow, reservoir levels will be maintained within prescribed
Normal Operating Ranges. During times that inflow is not adequate to meet all of the
normal demands for water and maintain reservoir levels as normally targeted, the
Licensee will progressively reduce hydro generation while meeting Project Flow
Requirements. During a Low Inflow Watch or a Low Inflow Condition (LIC) (as defined
below), the Licensee and other water users will follow the protocol set forth below for the
Catawba-Wateree Project regarding communications and adjustments to hydro station
flow releases, bypassed flow releases, minimum reservoir elevations, and other water
demands. The adjustments set forth below will be made on a monthly basis and are
designed to equitably allocate the impacts of reduced water availability in accordance
with the purpose statement of this LIP.
Trigger points that demonstrate worsening hydrologic conditions will define various
stages of the Low Inflow Condition. A summary of trigger points for various stages is
provided in the table below. The specific triggers required to enter successive stages
are defined in the procedure for each stage.

Summary of LIP Trigger Points
Stage Storage Index 1
Drought Monitor 2
(3-month
average)
Monitored USGS 3
Streamflow Gages
04 90% < SI < 100% TSI 3mo Ave DM ≥ 0 AVG ≤ 85% LT 6mo Ave
1 75% TSI < SI ≤ 90% TSI and 3mo Ave DM ≥ 1 or AVG ≤ 78% LT 6mo Ave
2 57% TSI < SI ≤ 75% TSI and 3mo Ave DM ≥ 2 or AVG ≤ 65% LT 6mo Ave
3 42% TSI < SI ≤ 57% TSI and 3mo Ave DM ≥ 3 or AVG ≤ 55% LT 6mo Ave
4 SI ≤ 42% TSI and 3mo Ave DM = 4 or AVG ≤ 40% LT 6mo Ave
1 The ratio of Remaining Useable Storage to Total Usable Storage at a given
point in time.
2 The three-month numeric average of the published U.S. Drought Monitor.
3 The sum of the rolling sixth-month average for the Monitored USGS Streamflow
Gages as a percentage of the period of record rolling average for the same six-
month period for the Monitored USGS Streamflow Gages.
4 Stage 0 is triggered when any two of the three trigger points are reached.
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 10
Stage 0 Actions
The Licensee will monitor the Storage Index, the U.S. Drought Monitor, and the
Monitored USGS Streamflow Gages on at least a monthly basis and will declare a Stage
0 Low Inflow Watch if any two of the following conditions occur:
a. On the first day of the month, Storage Index is below the Target Storage
Index, but greater than 90% of the Target Storage Index, while providing the
Project Flow Requirements for the previous month.
b. The U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month Numeric Average has a value greater
than or equal to 0.
c. The sum of the actual rolling six-month average streamflows at the Monitored
USGS Streamflow Gages is equal to or less than 85% of the sum of the
period of record rolling average streamflows for the same six-month period.
When a Low Inflow Watch has been declared:
a. The Licensee will activate the CW-DMAG, including the initiation of monthly
meetings or conference calls to occur on the second Tuesday of each month.
These monthly discussions will focus on:
ƒ Proper communication channels between the CW-DMAG members.
ƒ Information reporting consistency for CW-DMAG members, including a
storage index history and forecast (at least a 90-day look back and look
ahead) from the Licensee, a water use history and forecast (at least a 90-
day look back and look ahead) from each water user on the CW-DMAG,
streamflow gage and groundwater monitoring status from the state
agencies and USGS, and state-wide drought response status from the
state agencies.
ƒ Refresher training on this LIP.
ƒ Overview discussions from each CW-DMAG member concerning their
role and plans for responding if a Stage 1 or higher Low Inflow Condition
is subsequently declared.
b. The Licensee will reduce the prescribed recreation flow releases at the Wylie
Development from 6,000 cfs to 3,000 cfs.
Stage 1 Actions
1. The Licensee will declare a Stage 1 Low Inflow Condition (LIC) and notify the CW-
DMAG if:
a. On the first day of the month, the Storage Index is at or below 90% of the
Target Storage Index, but greater than 75% of the Target Storage Index,
while providing the Project Flow Requirements for the previous month.
and either of the following conditions exists:
b. The U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month Numeric Average has a value greater
than or equal to 1.
c. The sum of the actual rolling six-month average streamflows at the Monitored
USGS Streamflow Gages is equal to or less than 78% of the sum of the
period of record rolling average streamflows for the same six-month period.
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 11
2. The Licensee will complete the following activities within 5 days after the Stage 1 LIC
declaration:
a. Reduce the Project Flow Requirements by 60% of the difference between the
normal Project Flow Requirements and the Critical Flows. These reduced
Project Flow Requirements are referred to as Stage 1 Minimum Project
Flows.
b. Reduce the Normal Minimum Elevations by two feet at Lake James and Lake
Norman and by one foot at each of the other Project reservoirs, but not to
levels at any reservoir below the applicable Critical Reservoir Elevation.
These elevations are referred to as the Stage 1 Minimum Elevations.
c. Update its Web site and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) messages to
account for the impacts of the LIP on reservoir levels, usability of the
Licensee’s public access areas, and recreation flow schedules.
d. Notify the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the United States Bureau of Indian
Affairs (USBIA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the Catawba
Indian Nation of the Stage 1 LIC declaration.
e. Provide bi-weekly (once every two weeks) information updates to owners of
Large Water Intakes about reservoir levels, meteorological forecasts, and
inflow of water into the system.
f. In addition the Licensee may, at its sole discretion, modify or suspend its use
of selected operating procedures that are designed for periods of normal or
above normal inflow to optimize the water storage capabilities of the Project,
including the Normal Maximum Elevations and Normal Target Elevations for
reservoir levels; the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program; the Wylie
High Inflow Protocol and at Lake Wateree, the Spring Stable Flow Periods
and Floodplain Inundation Periods. These modifications and suspensions
may be used at the Licensee’s sole discretion in any Low Inflow Condition
(Stages 1 through 4).
3. Owners of Public Water Supply intakes and owners of intakes used for irrigation with
a capacity greater than 100,000 gallons per day will complete the following activities
within 14 days after the Stage 1 LIC declaration:
a. Notify their water customers and employees of the Low Inflow Condition
through public outreach and communication efforts.
b. Request that their water customers and employees implement voluntary
water use restrictions, in accordance with their drought response plans, which
may include:
ƒ Reduction of lawn and landscape irrigation to no more than two days per
week (i.e. residential, multi-family, parks, streetscapes, schools, etc).
ƒ Reduction of residential vehicle washing.
At this stage, the goal is to reduce water usage by 3-5% (or more) from the
amount that would otherwise be expected. The baseline for this comparison
will be generated by each entity and will be based on existing conditions (i.e.
drought conditions). For the purposes of determining ‘the amount that would
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 12
otherwise be expected’, each entity may give consideration to one or more of
the following:
ƒ Historical maximum daily, weekly, and monthly flows during drought
conditions.
ƒ Increased customer base (e.g. population growth, service area
expansion) since the historical flow comparison.
ƒ Changes in major water users (e.g. industrial shifts) since the historical
flow comparison.
ƒ Climatic conditions for the comparison period.
ƒ Changes in water use since the historical flow comparison.
ƒ Other system specific considerations.
c. Provide a status update to the CW-DMAG on actual water withdrawal trends.
Discuss plans for moving to mandatory restrictions, if required.
4. Owners of Large Water Intakes, other than those referenced in item 3 above, will
complete the following activities within 14 days after the Stage 1 LIC declaration:
a. Notify their customers and employees of the Low Inflow Condition through
public outreach and communication efforts.
b. Request that their customers and employees conserve water through
reduction of water use, electric power consumption, and other means.
c. Provide a status update to the CW-DMAG on actual water withdrawal trends.
Stage 2 Actions
1. The Licensee will declare a Stage 2 Low Inflow Condition (LIC) and notify the CW-
DMAG if:
a. On the first day of the month, the Storage Index is at or below 75% of the
Target Storage Index, but greater than 57% of the Target Storage Index,
while providing the Stage 1 Minimum Project Flows during the previous
month.
and either of the following conditions exists:
b. The U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month Numeric Average has a value greater
than or equal to 2.
c. The sum of the actual rolling six-month average streamflows at the Monitored
USGS Streamflow Gages is equal to or less than 65% of the sum of the
period of record rolling average streamflows for the same six-month period.
2. The Licensee will complete the following activities within 5 days after the Stage 2 LIC
declaration:
a. Eliminate prescribed recreation flow releases at this stage and all subsequent
stages. Reduce the Project Flow Requirements by 95% of the difference
between the normal Project Flow Requirements and Critical Flows. These
reduced flows are referred to as Stage 2 Minimum Project Flows.
b. Reduce the Stage 1 Minimum Elevations by one additional foot at Lake
James (three feet total below Normal Minimum Elevation) and two additional
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 13
feet at Lake Norman (four feet total below Normal Minimum Elevation) and by
one additional foot (two feet total below Normal Minimum Elevations) at each
of the other Project reservoirs but not to levels at any reservoir below the
applicable Critical Reservoir Elevation. These elevations are referred to as
the Stage 2 Minimum Elevations.
c. Update its Web site and IVR messages to account for the impacts of the LIP
on reservoir levels, usability of the Licensee’s public access areas, and
recreation flow schedules.
d. Notify the FERC, the USFWS, the USBIA, NMFS, and the Catawba Indian
Nation of the Stage 2 LIC declaration.
e. Provide bi-weekly information updates to owners of Large Water Intakes
about reservoir levels, meteorological forecasts, and inflow of water into the
system.
f. In addition the Licensee may, at its sole discretion, modify or suspend its use
of selected operating procedures that are designed for periods of normal or
above normal inflow to optimize the water storage capabilities of the Project,
including the Normal Maximum Elevations and Normal Target Elevations for
reservoir levels; the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program; the Wylie
High Inflow Protocol; and at Lake Wateree, the Spring Stable Flow Periods
and Floodplain Inundation Periods. These modifications and suspensions
may be used at the Licensee’s sole discretion in any Low Inflow Condition
(Stages 1 through 4).
3. Owners of Public Water Supply intakes and owners of intakes used for irrigation with
a capacity greater than 100,000 gallons per day will complete the following activities
within 14 days after the Stage 2 LIC declaration:
a. Notify their water customers and employees of the continued Low Inflow
Condition and movement to mandatory water use restrictions through public
outreach and communication efforts.
b. Require that their water customers and employees implement mandatory
water use restrictions, in accordance with their drought response plans, which
may include:
ƒ Limiting lawn and landscape irrigation to no more than two days per week
(i.e. residential, multi-family, parks, streetscapes, schools, etc).
ƒ Eliminating residential vehicle washing.
ƒ Limiting public building, sidewalk, and street washing activities except as
required for safety and/or to maintain regulatory compliance.
At this stage, the goal is to reduce water usage by 5-10% (or more) from the
amount that would otherwise be expected (as discussed in Stage 1 above).
c. Enforce mandatory water use restrictions through the assessment of
penalties.
d. Provide a status update to the CW-DMAG on actual water withdrawal trends.
4. Owners of Large Water Intakes, other than those referenced in item 3 above, will
complete the following activities within 14 days after the Stage 2 LIC declaration:
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 14
a. Continue informing their customers and employees of the Low Inflow
Condition through public outreach and communication efforts.
b. Request that their customers and employees conserve water through
reduction of water use, electric power consumption, and other means.
c. Provide a status update to the CW-DMAG on actual water withdrawal trends.
Stage 3 Actions
1. The Licensee will declare a Stage 3 Low Inflow Condition (LIC) and notify the CW-
DMAG if:
a. On the first day of the month, the Storage Index is at or below 57% of the
Target Storage Index, but greater than 42% of the Target Storage Index,
while providing the Stage 2 Minimum Project Flows during the previous
month.
and either of the following conditions exists:
b. The U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month Numeric Average has a value greater
than or equal to 3.
c. The sum of the actual rolling six-month average streamflows at the Monitored
USGS Streamflow Gages is equal to or less than 55% of the sum of the
period of record rolling average streamflows for the same six-month period.
2. The Licensee will complete the following activities within 5 days after the Stage 3 LIC
declaration:
a. Reduce the Project Flow Requirements to Critical Flows. These reduced
flows are referred to as Stage 3 Minimum Project Flows.
b. Reduce the Stage 2 Minimum Elevations by seven additional feet at Lake
James (ten feet total below Normal Minimum Elevation) and one additional
foot at Lake Norman (five feet total below Normal Minimum Elevation) and by
one additional foot (three feet total below Normal Minimum Elevations) at
each of the other Project reservoirs but not to levels at any reservoir below
the applicable Critical Reservoir Elevation. These elevations are referred to
as the Stage 3 Minimum Elevations.
c. Update its Web site and IVR messages to account for the impacts of the LIP
on reservoir levels, usability of the Licensee’s public access areas, and
recreation flow schedules.
d. Notify the FERC, the USFWS, the USBIA, NMFS, and the Catawba Indian
Nation of the Stage 3 LIC declaration.
e. Provide bi-weekly information updates to owners of Large Water Intakes
about reservoir levels, meteorological forecasts, and inflow of water into the
system.
f. In addition the Licensee may, at its sole discretion, modify or suspend its use
of selected operating procedures that are designed for periods of normal or
above normal inflow to optimize the water storage capabilities of the Project,
including the Normal Maximum Elevations and Normal Target Elevations for
reservoir levels; the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program; the Wylie
High Inflow Protocol; and at Lake Wateree, the Spring Stable Flow Periods
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 15
and Floodplain Inundation Periods. These modifications and suspensions
may be used at the Licensee’s sole discretion in any Low Inflow Condition
(Stages 1 through 4).
3. Owners of Public Water Supply intakes and owners of intakes used for irrigation with
a capacity greater than 100,000 gallons per day will complete the following activities
within 14 days after the Stage 3 LIC declaration:
a. Notify their water customers and employees of the continued Low Inflow
Condition and movement to more stringent mandatory water use restrictions
through public outreach and communication efforts.
b. Require that their water customers and employees implement increased
mandatory water use restrictions, in accordance with their drought response
plans, which may include:
ƒ Limiting lawn and landscape irrigation to no more than one day per week
(i.e. residential, multi-family, parks, streetscapes, schools, etc).
ƒ Eliminating residential vehicle washing.
ƒ Limiting public building, sidewalk, and street washing activities except as
required for safety and/or to maintain regulatory compliance.
ƒ Limiting construction uses of water such as dust control.
ƒ Limiting flushing and hydrant testing programs, except to maintain water
quality or other special circumstances.
ƒ Eliminating the filling of new swimming pools.
At this stage, the goal is to reduce water usage by 10-20% (or more) from the
amount that would otherwise be expected (as discussed in Stage 1 above).
c. Enforce mandatory water use restrictions through the assessment of
penalties.
d. Encourage industrial/manufacturing process changes that reduce water
consumption.
e. Provide a status update to the CW-DMAG on actual water withdrawal trends.
4. Owners of Large Water Intakes, other than those referenced in item 3 above, will
complete the following activities within 14 days after the Stage 3 LIC declaration:
a. Continue informing their customers and employees of the Low Inflow
Condition through public outreach and communication efforts.
b. Request that their customers and employees conserve water through
reduction of water use, electric power consumption, and other means.
c. Encourage industrial/manufacturing process changes that reduce water
consumption.
d. Provide a status update to the CW-DMAG on actual water withdrawal trends.
Stage 4 Actions
1. The Licensee will declare a Stage 4 Low Inflow Condition (LIC) and notify the CW-
DMAG if:
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 16
a. On the first day of the month, the Storage Index is at or below 42% of the
Target Storage Index, while providing the Stage 3 Minimum Project Flows
during the previous month.
and either of the following conditions exists:
b. The U.S. Drought Monitor Three-Month Numeric Average has a value of 4.
c. The sum of the actual rolling six-month average streamflows at the Monitored
USGS Streamflow Gages is equal to or less than 40% of the sum of the
period of record rolling six-month average streamflows for the same six-
month period.
2. The Licensee will:
a. Continue to provide Critical Flows as long as possible.
b. Reduce the Stage 3 Minimum Elevations to the Critical Reservoir Elevations.
c. Establish a meeting date and notify the CW-DMAG within 1 day following the
Stage 4 LIC declaration.
d. Notify the FERC, the USFWS, the USBIA, NMFS, and the Catawba Indian
Nation of the Stage 4 LIC declaration.
e. Continue to update its Web site and IVR messages to account for the impacts
of the LIP on reservoir levels, usability of the Licensee’s public access areas,
and recreation flow schedules.
f. Provide bi-weekly information updates to owners of Large Water Intakes
about reservoir levels, meteorological forecasts, and inflow of water into the
system.
g. In addition the Licensee may, at its sole discretion, modify or suspend its use
of selected operating procedures that are designed for periods of normal or
above normal inflow to optimize the water storage capabilities of the Project,
including the Normal Maximum Elevations and Normal Target Elevations for
reservoir levels; the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program; the Wylie
High Inflow Protocol, and at Lake Wateree, the Spring Stable Flow Periods
and Floodplain Inundation Periods. These modifications and suspensions
may be used at the Licensee’s sole discretion in any Low Inflow Condition
(Stages 1 through 4).
Note: Once a Stage 4 LIC is declared, the Remaining Usable Storage in the
reservoir system is small and can be fully depleted in a matter of weeks or
months. Groundwater recharge may also contribute to declining reservoir
levels. For these reasons in the Stage 4 LIC, the Licensee may not be able
to ensure that flow releases from its hydro developments will meet or
exceed Critical Flows or that reservoir elevations will be greater than or
equal to the Critical Reservoir Elevations.
3. Owners of Public Water Supply intakes and owners of intakes used for irrigation with
a capacity greater than 100,000 gallons per day will complete the following activities
within 14 days after the Stage 4 LIC declaration:
a. Notify their water customers and employees of the continued Low Inflow
Condition and movement to emergency water use restrictions through public
outreach and communication efforts.
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 17
b. Restrict all outdoor water use.
c. Implement emergency water use restrictions in accordance with their drought
response plans, including enforcement of these restrictions and assessment
of penalties.
d. Prioritize and meet with their commercial and industrial large water customers
to discuss strategies for water reduction measures including development of
an activity schedule and contingency plans.
e. Prepare to implement emergency plans to respond to water outages.
At this level, the goal is to reduce water usage by 20-30% (or more) from the
amount that would otherwise be expected (as discussed in Stage 1 above).
4. Owners of Large Water Intakes on the CW-DMAG, other than those referenced in
item 3 above, will complete the following activities within 14 days after the Stage 4
LIC declaration:
a. Continue informing their customers and employees of the Low Inflow
Condition through public outreach and communication efforts.
b. Request that their customers and employees conserve water through
reduction of water use, electric power consumption, and other means.
c. Encourage industrial/manufacturing process changes that reduce water
consumption.
d. Provide a status update to the CW-DMAG on actual water withdrawal trends.
5. The CW-DMAG will:
a. Meet within 5 days after the declaration of the Stage 4 LIC and determine if
there are any additional measures that can be implemented to:
(1) reduce water withdrawals without creating more severe regional
problems;
(2) reduce water releases from the Project without creating more severe
regional problems; or
(3) use additional reservoir storage without creating more severe regional
problems.
b. Work together to develop plans and implement any additional measures
identified above.
Recovery from the Low Inflow Protocol
1. Recovery under the LIP as conditions improve will be accomplished by reversing the
staged approach outlined above, except that:
a. All three of the trigger points identified above for declaring the lower
numbered stage must be met or exceeded before returning reservoir
minimum elevations and Project flows to levels specified in that LIC stage,
Low Inflow Watch, or Normal Conditions.
b. The following groundwater level trigger points must also be attained before
returning reservoir minimum elevations and Project flows to the levels
specified in that LIC stage, Low Inflow Watch, or Normal Conditions:
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
C-W Final Agreement Signature Copy 07-18-06 C - 18
USGS has reviewed available well records and has determined that there
are existing wells with an adequate period that can be used for this process
and has also determined that additional wells are advised in order to
include groundwater data as part of the recovery. The CW-DMAG and the
Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group (WMG) will work together to
revise the plan for groundwater monitoring by December 31, 2007 and will
update the table below.
Groundwater Trigger Points (depth below land surface (feet)) for Returning to the Indicated Stage
Groundwater Monitor
[Reg.=regolith; BR=bedrock]
Stage 3
(a)
Stage 2
(b)
Stage 1
(c)
Stage 0
(d)
Normal
(d)
#1 Future Well Placeholder
#2 Future Well Placeholder
#3 Future Well Placeholder
#4 Future Well Placeholder
#5 Future Well Placeholder
#6 USGS Langtree Peninsula RS Reg. well
MW-2 & BR well MW-2D 24.91 23.61 22.21 18.21 18.21
#7 USGS Linville RS NC-220 BR well 2.74 2.19 2.11 2.04 2.04
#8 NC DWR Glen Alpine BR well L 76G2 10.01 9.03 8.32 7.69 7.69
#9 Future Well Placeholder
#10 Future Well Placeholder

Note: USGS groundwater levels calculated from daily mean data. North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR) water levels calculated from hourly data. All trigger levels calculated from
water levels collected through the 2005 Water Year. Trigger groundwater levels may be updated
on a yearly or water-year basis.
Footnotes:
(a) Stage 3: Period of record low water level
(b) Stage 2: 10th percentile
(c) Stage 1: 25th percentile
(d) Stage 0 and Normal: 50th percentile
2. The NCDENR, SCDNR, SCDHEC, USGS and the Licensee will determine when
attainment of the groundwater trigger points for recovery is reached.
3. The Licensee will directly notify the CW-DMAG members within 5 days following
attainment of all the trigger points necessary to recover to a lower stage of the LIC,
Low Inflow Watch, or Normal Conditions.
4. The Licensee will update its Web site and IVR messages to account for the impacts
of the LIP on reservoir levels, usability of the Licensee’s public access areas, and
recreation flow schedules.