August31_2006_CHEOPS_Modeling_Report

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

43

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.