20140902 CW_Model Logic and Verification Report and Appendix

CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
OPERATIONS MODEL
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

Prepared for:
CATAWBA-WATEREE WATER MANAGEMENT GROUP
Charlotte, North Carolina
Through Funding Provided by:
North Carolina Department of Water Resources
Raleigh, North Carolina

Prepared by:
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. OF THE CAROLINAS
Charlotte, North Carolina

September 2014

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC i Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page No.

LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ IX
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1
2.0 PROJECT DATA ............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Bridgewater Development ........................................................................................ 2-2
2.2 Rhodhiss Development ............................................................................................. 2-2
2.3 Oxford Development ................................................................................................ 2-2
2.4 Lookout Shoals Development ................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 Cowans Ford Development ...................................................................................... 2-3
2.6 Mountain Island Development ................................................................................. 2-3
2.7 Wylie Development .................................................................................................. 2-3
2.8 Fishing Creek Development ..................................................................................... 2-4
2.9 Great Falls-Dearborn Development .......................................................................... 2-4
2.10 Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Development ................................................................. 2-4
2.11 Wateree Development .............................................................................................. 2-4
2.12 Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 2-5
3.0 HISTORICAL CRA BASELINE ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Model Logic .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Model Scenario Definition/Input Data ..................................................................... 3-3
3.2.1 System Data .................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.1.1 Load Shapes and Energy Values .................................................... 3-3
3.2.1.2 Carry-Over Elevations Condition ................................................... 3-5
3.2.1.3 Forecast Set-Up Condition ............................................................. 3-5
3.2.1.4 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) ............................................................. 3-5
3.2.1.5 High Inflow Protocol (HIP) ............................................................ 3-7
3.2.2 Physical Data ................................................................................................ 3-7
3.2.2.1 Reservoir Storage Curves ............................................................... 3-7
3.2.2.2 Reservoir Area Curves ................................................................. 3-17
3.2.2.3 Monthly Evaporation .................................................................... 3-27
3.2.2.4 Tailwater Data .............................................................................. 3-28
3.2.2.5 Spillway Capacity ........................................................................ 3-32
3.2.2.6 Plant Operation Type ................................................................... 3-38
3.2.3 Operational Data ......................................................................................... 3-39
3.2.3.1 Spill and Minimum Elevations ..................................................... 3-39
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ii Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.2.3.2 Target Elevations .......................................................................... 3-41
3.2.3.3 Water Withdrawals ....................................................................... 3-42
3.2.3.4 Minimum Flows ........................................................................... 3-42
3.2.3.5 Bypass Flows ................................................................................ 3-44
3.2.3.6 Reservoir Fluctuation Limits ........................................................ 3-45
3.2.3.7 Recreation Flows .......................................................................... 3-45
3.2.4 Generation Data .......................................................................................... 3-45
3.2.4.1 Headloss Coefficients ................................................................... 3-45
3.2.4.2 Turbine Efficiency Curves ........................................................... 3-47
3.2.4.3 Generator Efficiency Curve ......................................................... 3-65
3.2.4.4 Wicket Gate Leakage ................................................................... 3-74
3.2.4.5 Maintenance ................................................................................. 3-74
4.0 MODEL CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION PROCESS .................................................. 4-1
4.1 Summary of Modeled Results versus Historical Data .............................................. 4-2
4.1.1 Model Historical CRA Baseline ................................................................... 4-2
5.0 MODEL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 6-1

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – WATER USE

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC iii Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page No.

1-1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP. ........................................................................................... 1-3
2-1 PROJECT SCHEMATIC. .................................................................................................. 2-6
3-1 CHEOPS MODEL EXECUTION FLOW CHART ........................................................... 3-1
3-2 CHEOPS MODEL SCHEDULING FLOW CHART ........................................................ 3-2
3-3 LIP INPUT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 3-6
3-4 HIP INPUT SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 3-7
4-1 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON BRIDGEWATER
DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ..................................................................... 4-3
4-2 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON RHODHISS
DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ..................................................................... 4-4
4-3 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON OXFORD
DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ..................................................................... 4-5
4-4 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON LOOKOUT
SHOALS DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ..................................................... 4-6
4-5 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON COWANS FORD
DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ..................................................................... 4-7
4-6 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON MOUNTAIN
ISLAND DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ..................................................... 4-8
4-7 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON WYLIE
DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ..................................................................... 4-9
4-8 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON FISHING CREEK
DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ................................................................... 4-10
4-9 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON GREAT FALLS-
DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ............................................ 4-11
4-10 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON ROCKY CREEK-
CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ...................................... 4-12
4-11 MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON WATEREE
DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010) ................................................................... 4-13

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC iv Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
CATWABA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page No.

2-1 CATAWABA WATEREE - MODELED SYSTEM ......................................................... 2-1
3-1 LOAD SHAPE ................................................................................................................... 3-4
3-2 BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ...................................... 3-8
3-3 RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ............................................... 3-9
3-4 OXFORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ................................................ 3-10
3-5 LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ............................. 3-11
3-6 COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE .................................... 3-12
3-7 MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ........................... 3-13
3-8 WYLIE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE .................................................... 3-14
3-9 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ................................... 3-15
3-10 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ............... 3-15
3-11 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE ........ 3-16
3-12 WATEREE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE .............................................. 3-17
3-13 BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ........................................... 3-18
3-14 RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA .................................................... 3-19
3-15 OXFORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ........................................................ 3-20
3-16 LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA .................................... 3-21
3-17 COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ........................................... 3-22
3-18 MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ................................... 3-23
3-19 WYLIE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ........................................................... 3-24
3-20 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA .......................................... 3-25
3-21 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ...................... 3-25
3-22 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ............... 3-26
3-23 WATEREE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA ..................................................... 3-27
3-24 EVAPORATIVE LOSS COEFFICIENTS ...................................................................... 3-28
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3-25 BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ........................ 3-29
3-26 RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ................................. 3-29
3-27 OXFORD DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ..................................... 3-30
3-28 LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ................. 3-30
3-29 COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ........................ 3-30
3-30 MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ................ 3-31
3-31 WYLIE DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ........................................ 3-31
3-32 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ....................... 3-31
3-33 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE ... 3-32
3-34 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING
TABLE ............................................................................................................................. 3-32
3-35 WATEREE DEVELOPMENT TAILWATER RATING TABLE .................................. 3-32
3-36 BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ...................... 3-33
3-37 RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ............................... 3-34
3-38 OXFORD DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ................................... 3-34
3-39 LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ............... 3-35
3-40 COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ...................... 3-35
3-41 MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE .............. 3-36
3-42 WYLIE DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ...................................... 3-36
3-43 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ..................... 3-37
3-44 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE . 3-37
3-45 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY
TABLE ............................................................................................................................. 3-38
3-46 WATEREE DEVELOPMENT SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE ................................ 3-38
3-47 RESERVOIR SPILL ELEVATIONS .............................................................................. 3-40
3-48 RESERVOIR MINIMUM ELEVATIONS ...................................................................... 3-41
3-49 RESERVOIR TARGET ELEVATIONS ......................................................................... 3-42
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC vi Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3-50 MINIMUM INSTANTANEOUS FLOW REQUIREMENTS ........................................ 3-43
3-51 MINIMUM DAILY AVERAGE FLOW REQUIREMENTS ......................................... 3-44
3-52 BYPASS FLOW REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 3-44
3-53 HEADLOSS COEFFICIENTS ........................................................................................ 3-46
3-54 BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF
NET HEADS .................................................................................................................... 3-47
3-55 RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET
HEADS ............................................................................................................................. 3-48
3-56 RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET
HEADS ............................................................................................................................. 3-49
3-57 OXFORD DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET
HEADS ............................................................................................................................. 3-50
3-58 LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE
OF NET HEADS .............................................................................................................. 3-51
3-59 COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF
NET HEADS .................................................................................................................... 3-52
3-60 MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE
OF NET HEADS .............................................................................................................. 3-53
3-61 WYLIE DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET
HEADS ............................................................................................................................. 3-54
3-62 WYLIE DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET
HEADS ............................................................................................................................. 3-55
3-63 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF
NET HEADS .................................................................................................................... 3-56
3-64 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF
NET HEADS .................................................................................................................... 3-57
3-65 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF
NET HEADS .................................................................................................................... 3-58
3-66 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A
RANGE OF NET HEADS GREAT FALLS ................................................................... 3-59
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC vii Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3-67 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A
RANGE OF NET HEADS GREAT FALLS ................................................................... 3-60
3-68 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A
RANGE OF NET HEADS DEARBORN ........................................................................ 3-61
3-69 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER
A RANGE OF NET HEADS ROCKY CREEK .............................................................. 3-62
3-70 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER
A RANGE OF NET HEADS ROCKY CREEK .............................................................. 3-63
3-71 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER
A RANGE OF NET HEADS CEDAR CREEK .............................................................. 3-64
3-72 WATEREE DEVELOPMENT TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET
HEADS ............................................................................................................................. 3-65
3-73 BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE .............. 3-66
3-74 RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ....................... 3-66
3-75 OXFORD DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ........................... 3-67
3-76 LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ........ 3-67
3-77 COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE .............. 3-68
3-78 MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ...... 3-68
3-79 WYLIE DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ............................... 3-69
3-80 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE .............. 3-69
3-81 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE .............. 3-70
3-82 FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE .............. 3-70
3-83 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT GREAT FALLS GENERATOR
EFFICIENCY CURVE .................................................................................................... 3-71
3-84 GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT DEARBORN GENERATOR
EFFICIENCY CURVE .................................................................................................... 3-71
3-85 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT ROCKY CREEK GENERATOR
EFFICIENCY CURVE .................................................................................................... 3-72
CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

OPERATIONS MODEL STUDY
MODEL LOGIC AND VERIFICATION REPORT

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page No.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC viii Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3-86 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT ROCKY CREEK GENERATOR
EFFICIENCY CURVE .................................................................................................... 3-72
3-87 ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT CEDAR CREEK GENERATOR
EFFICIENCY CURVE .................................................................................................... 3-73
3-88 WATEREE DEVELOPMENT GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE ........................ 3-73
3-89 WICKET GATE LEAKAGE ........................................................................................... 3-74
4-1 HISTORICAL CRA BASELINE: GENERATION COMPARISON ............................ 4-14

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ix Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
LIST OF ACRONYMS

cfs cubic feet per second
CHEOPS™ Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning Software
CMUD Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department
CRA Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement
CWWMG Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
HIP high inflow protocol
IBT inter-basin transfers
LIP low inflow protocol
Model Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project CHEOPS Model
NCDWR North Carolina Department of Water Resources
UIF unimpaired inflow
USGS United States Geological Survey

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ES-1 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group (CWWMG), with funding provided by North
Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR), contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. of
the Carolinas (HDR) to update an existing operations model of the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project in North Carolina. The previously existing water quantity/hydro
operations model was developed to support the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project
(No. 2232) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing using HDR’s
proprietary CHEOPS™ (Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning Software) platform
and included the eleven hydroelectric developments on the Catawba River from Bridgewater
through Wateree.

By way of background, one of the major drivers of NCDWR’s interest in these modeling efforts
is Session Law SL2010-143. This law is an act to direct the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) to develop basin-wide hydrologic models, as
recommended by the Environmental Review Commission (EMC). NCDWR wishes to ensure
that by investing in an update of the CHEOPS model, it will meet the requirements of SL2010-
143 and is approved by the EMC. The objective of this effort is to update and refine the
CHEOPS model for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to comply with SL2010-143
requirements, provide ease of functionality for NCDWR, execute the scope of work for the
CWWMG, and secure approval from the EMC. The CHEOPS model enhancements for
compliance with SL2010-143 include, but are not limited to:
 Base model update to a Microsoft .NET Framework to enhance simulation time.
 Additional tools to allow server support access for individual users.
 Additional tools to allow user-defined nodes and allocation of inflow.
 Additional nodes for each withdrawal and return of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) or
more located in major tributaries to the Catawba in North Carolina.
 Additional nodes at each ecological flow analysis point located in major tributaries to the
Catawba in North Carolina.

Executive Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ES-2 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
CHEOPS is specifically designed to evaluate the effects of operational changes and physical
modifications at multi-development hydroelectric projects. The model, as developed for
relicensing, included the Duke Energy-owned Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, which
includes the Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island,
Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls-Dearborn, Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek, and Wateree
developments, and is referred to as “the system.” The developments included in the model have
not changed from the relicensing effort; however, the model has been updated for enhanced
functionality associated with model run time and simulation of withdrawals and returns within
the system. This updated model is intended to be used as a tool to assist in evaluating water
quantity distribution between the eleven reservoirs due to changes in model inputs, including
various operational modifications and possible inter-basin transfers (IBT). This will be
performed by reviewing relative changes between proposed operational modifications within the
system.

This report characterizes the development and verification of the updated Catawba-Wateree
CHEOPS Model (Model) by loading the physical and operational parameters specific to the
system associated with the new license requirements as outlined in the Comprehensive
Relicensing Agreement (CRA) for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (Duke 2006a) and
actual operations for the evaluation period of 2008 through 2010. This report appends the model
verification presented in the May 2006 Operations/Verification Report (Duke 2006b) for the
CRA operations which began initial implementation in August 2006. Operating logic for eleven
reservoirs has been added based on post August 2006 (existing) and future station operating
plans in accordance with information provided by Duke Energy and outlined in the CRA. It
should be noted that not all CRA operations were fully implemented for the period of analysis
and, therefore, have not been fully simulated in this updated model verification analysis.
Operating logic is a single set of rules per scenario and does not account for changes in external
conditions for a single model run. A model calibration and validation process has been
developed for the three-year period of 2008 through 2010, applying the basic law of mass
continuity between the reservoirs. This period was selected to simulate basin wide CRA
operations as they have been implemented to date and to utilize available system hydrology. The
Executive Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ES-3 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
Model is a decision support tool and is not intended to simulate or predict exact future conditions
on a daily or annual basis in which hourly operating decisions are implemented to support the
needs of the resource including aquatic habitat, recreation, and power generation. The Model
was constructed to compare different scenarios by reviewing relative changes between proposed
operational modifications within the system. This is done using historic inflows to simulate
likely future conditions, as if the inflow will occur in the same pattern in the future as occurred in
the past.

Development of the Model was based on input and physical characteristics of each hydro facility
previously developed for the same river basin as part of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric
Project FERC relicensing and updated over time as information became available (Duke 2006a,
b).

Using average daily inflow as input, the Model simulates operations to budget water between
reservoirs (nodes) so that all constraints (physical, environmental, and operational) are met while
maximizing peak period hydro turbine energy as a lower priority objective. The Model allows
for user-defined customization of specific constraints within the system, such as flow
requirements, target reservoir elevations (unless otherwise noted all elevations are in 1929
United States Geological Survey [USGS] datum), powerhouse equipment constraints, and water
withdrawals and returns.

The purpose of this report is to document inputs and assumptions used in the development of the
updated Model since the relicensing verification (Duke 2006b), to demonstrate that the model
reasonably characterizes CRA operations, and to demonstrate that the model is adequate for use
in evaluating the effects of alternative operating scenarios (varying water use).
Model verification is intended to validate the input data and ability of the programmed logic in
simulating daily hydroelectric and reservoir operations. HDR performed model verification by
comparing actual and model-estimated generation and discharge. The verification simulations
were completed for relatively recent hydrologic years with best available historical reservoir
operations over a wide range of hydrologic and reservoir operations conditions.

Executive Summary

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC ES-4 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The Model is coded to run day-to-day operations based on a single set of operating conditions or
rules. Actual project operations generally follow the operating rules; however, human
intervention periodically deviates from the general operating rules to accommodate day-to-day
and hour-to-hour realities such as equipment failure and maintenance, changing hydrologic
conditions, power demands, and other factors.

The verification was performed using the methodology outlined in the relicensing verification
(Duke 2006b) with historical operations data provided by Duke Energy for the period after the
initial voluntary implementation of the CRA. Verification scenarios were developed to test the
facility operation rules in an attempt to replicate typical daily operating requirements of the
system. Verification of the updated Model was completed using a single scenario (Historical
CRA Baseline) to represent the initial CRA operations for the period 2008 through 2010. A
model run performs a verification of the model input data, logic, and conditions of the Historical
CRA Baseline scenario for calendar years 2008 through 2010.

In the opinion of HDR, verification results show the operations model and the hydrologic inputs
compare favorably to historical data, reasonably characterize system operations, and are
appropriate for use in evaluating the effects of alternative operating scenarios on generation,
reservoir levels, and outflows. The CHEOPS software and the Catawba-Wateree Model are
tools that, as this report demonstrates, can be successfully used to evaluate the relative sensitivity
and response of the system modeled to changing operational constraints. As with any model,
accuracy is highly dependent on input data; consequently, model results should be viewed in a
relative, rather than an absolute, context.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-1 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group (CWWMG), with funding provided by North
Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. of
the Carolinas (HDR) to update an existing operations model of the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project in North Carolina. The previously existing water quantity/hydro
operations model was developed to support the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project
(No. 2232) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing using HDR’s
proprietary CHEOPS™ (Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning Software) platform
and included the eleven hydroelectric developments on the Catawba River from Bridgewater
through Wateree, located in North Carolina and South Carolina.

By way of background, one of the major drivers of NCDWR’s interest in these modeling efforts
is Session Law SL2010-143. This law is an act to direct the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) to develop basin-wide hydrologic models, as
recommended by the Environmental Review Commission (EMC). NCDWR wishes to ensure
that by investing in an update of the CHEOPS model, it will meet the requirements of SL2010-
143 and is approved by the EMC. The objective of this effort is to update and refine the
CHEOPS model for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to comply with SL2010-143
requirements, provide ease of functionality for NCDWR, execute the scope of work for the
CWWMG, and secure approval from the EMC. The CHEOPS model enhancements for
compliance with SL2010-143 include, but are not limited to:
 Base model update to a Microsoft .NET Framework to enhance simulation time.
 Additional tools to allow server support access for individual users.
 Additional tools to allow user defined nodes and allocation of inflow.
 Additional nodes for each withdrawal and return of 100,000 gallons per day (gpd) or
more located in major tributaries to the Catawba in North Carolina.
 Additional nodes at each ecological flow analysis point located in major tributaries to the
Catawba in North Carolina.

CHEOPS is specifically designed to evaluate the effects of operational changes and physical
modifications at multi-development hydroelectric projects. The model, as developed for
Section 1 Introduction

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-2 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
relicensing, included the Duke Energy-owned Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, which
includes the Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island,
Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls-Dearborn, Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek, and Wateree
Developments, and is referred to as “the system.” The relicensing operations model has been
updated for enhanced functionality. This expanded model is intended to be used as a tool to
assist in evaluating water quantity distribution between the eleven reservoirs due to changes in
model inputs including various operational modifications and possible inter-basin transfers
(IBT). A project location map of the system is provided in Figure 1-1.

CHEOPS has been applied to evaluate the physical and operational changes considered during
the FERC relicensing of more than 25 projects. The Catawba-Wateree Model was utilized
throughout the FERC relicensing process for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project and has
been used in Safe Yield studies of the reservoir system.
Section 1 Introduction

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-3 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 1-1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP. 1

HDR created the CHEOPS hydropower system simulation model as a tool for evaluating a wide
range of physical changes (e.g., turbine upgrades) and operational constraints (e.g., minimum
flows). One of the many strengths of the CHEOPS model is the degree of customization each
individual model contains. The model is tailored to meet the demands of the particular system
being modeled. The Model was custom-configured for the system based on specific constraints
such as flow requirements, target reservoir elevations (unless otherwise noted all elevations are
in 1929 USGS datum), and powerhouse equipment constraints.

1 Operations/Verification Report, Figure 1, (Duke 2006b).
Section 1 Introduction

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-4 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The original Catawba-Wateree Model was based on the Microsoft Visual Basic 6.0 platform.
For increased performance, the model was updated to the Microsoft .NET Framework. The
newer “Build” of the CHEOPS software provides additional logic support for the inclusion of
water use nodes within the system. Previously the Model was configured for the simulation of
withdrawals and returns from reservoirs only. The Model has been updated to support node
locations and flow logic throughout the Basin, including tributaries of the mainstem of the
Catawba River. The model user can view node locations and connectivity, view and edit
individual node data, and add nodes to the model. The node functionality includes calculation of
the hydrology at the node and water quantity calculations to account for river flows as well as
water withdrawals or returns. The intent of the Model functionality enhancements was to meet
the requirements of NCDENR and SL2010-143.

The Model utilizes daily flows, plant-generating characteristics, and operating criteria of the
system to simulate operation, allocate flow releases, and calculate energy production within the
system. The Model calculates reservoir elevation, headlosses, net head, turbine discharge and
spill, and power generation in 15-minute increments. The Model is designed for long-term
analysis of the effects of operational and physical changes made to the modeled hydro/reservoir
system.

Model verification is intended to validate the input data and ability of the programmed logic in
simulating daily hydroelectric and reservoir operations. Based on the Comprehensive
Relicensing Agreement (CRA, Duke 2006a) requirements, a “Historical CRA Baseline” scenario
was established following the historic (initial implementation of the CRA) system-wide
operation rules outlined in the model verification process. HDR performed model verification
using comparisons of actual and model-estimated generation and total discharge from each
reservoir. These two parameters are well tracked for the reservoirs that dominate the watershed
and are good indicators of water quantity movement throughout the system. The verification
simulations were completed for years with available historical CRA reservoir operations and
available hydrology. It should be noted that not all CRA operations were fully implemented for
the period of analysis. The CRA operations implemented were performed on a voluntary basis
Section 1 Introduction

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 1-5 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
as the FERC license containing the CRA operations requirements has not been issued. The
purpose of this report is to document inputs and assumptions used in the development of the
updated Model since the relicensing verification (Duke 2006b), to demonstrate that the model
reasonably characterizes existing operations of the eleven facilities modeled, and to demonstrate
that the model is adequate for use in evaluating the effects of alternative operating scenarios
(varying water use).

The Model is coded to run day-to-day operations based on a single set of operating conditions or
rules. Actual project operations generally follow the operating rules; however, human
intervention periodically deviates from the general operating rules to accommodate day-to-day
and hour-to-hour realities such as equipment failure and maintenance, changing hydrologic
conditions, power demands, and other factors. In addition to differences between modeled
operations versus actual operations that include human interventions, there are also inherent
discrepancies due to input data inaccuracies (e.g., differences in calculated hydrology data,
turbine or generator efficiencies, or reservoir storage curves). It is important to understand
model results will never completely match historical or future operations due to these differences
between actual operating conditions and modeled conditions.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-1 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
2.0 PROJECT DATA

Duke Energy owns and operates the Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans
Ford, Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls-Dearborn, Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek,
and Wateree hydroelectric developments on the Catawba River. These developments comprise
the Catawba–Wateree Hydro Project. Each development is linked in series and consists of dams
and multi-unit power plants along the Catawba River. The system of plants listed will be
modeled with a single CHEOPS operations model.

A summary of the developments as modeled for the verification scenarios is found in Table 2-1.
Additional descriptions of model input parameters for each development are included in the
following sections. Target elevations and minimum flows referenced in this report refer to CRA
operations requirements.

TABLE 2-1
CATAWABA WATEREE - MODELED SYSTEM
Development Upstream Reservoir Sub-basin Drainage Area
(square miles)
Bridgewater Lake James 380
Rhodhiss Lake Rhodhiss 710
Oxford Lake Hickory 220
Lookout Shoals Lookout Shoals Lake 140
Cowans Ford Lake Norman 340
Mountain Island Mountain Island Lake 70
Wylie Lake Wylie 1,160
Fishing Creek Fishing Creek Reservoir 790
Great Falls-Dearborn Great Falls 290
Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Cedar Creek 260
Wateree Lake Wateree 390

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-2 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
2.1 Bridgewater Development
The Bridgewater reservoir (Lake James) receives inflow from the North Fork, Catawba River,
Paddy Creek, Linville River, and many small streams that drain directly into the reservoir. The
reservoir consists of two primary impoundments connected by a canal that makes their combined
storage capacity available for power generation. In addition to providing for Bridgewater
powerhouse’s generating demands, the reservoir’s large storage capacity is used to augment the
much smaller storage capacities of the downstream Rhodhiss, Oxford, and Lookout Shoals
Developments (Duke 2006b).

2.2 Rhodhiss Development
The Rhodhiss reservoir (Lake Rhodhiss) is located downstream of the Bridgewater
Development. Lake Rhodhiss is relatively long and narrow with limited storage capacity.
Municipal water withdrawals from Lake Rhodhiss include the Town of Valdese, City of Lenoir,
and Granite Falls, North Carolina (Duke 2006b).

2.3 Oxford Development
The Oxford reservoir (Lake Hickory) is located downstream of the Rhodhiss Development. The
upper end of the Oxford reservoir backs up to the tailrace at the Rhodhiss powerhouse.
Municipal water withdrawals from Lake Hickory include the Town of Longview and City of
Hickory, North Carolina (Duke 2006b).
2.4 Lookout Shoals Development
The Lookout Shoals reservoir (Lookout Shoals Lake) is located downstream of the Oxford
Development. The upper end of the Lookout Shoals reservoir backs up to within two miles of
the tailrace at the Oxford powerhouse. The City of Statesville, North Carolina has an intake on
Lookout Shoals Lake (Duke 2006b).
Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-3 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
2.5 Cowans Ford Development
The Cowans Ford reservoir (Lake Norman) is located downstream of the Lookout Shoals
Development. The upper end of the Cowans Ford reservoir backs up to the tailrace at the
Lookout Shoals powerhouse. The Cowans Ford Development is the largest development of the
Catawba-Wateree Project, and Lake Norman has the largest storage capacity of the Catawba-
Wateree Project. Duke Power’s Marshall Steam Station and McGuire Nuclear Station are
located on Lake Norman. There are a number of public water supply withdrawals on Lake
Norman including Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD), Lincoln County, North
Carolina, and the Town of Mooresville, North Carolina (Duke 2006b).

2.6 Mountain Island Development
The Mountain Island reservoir (Mountain Island Lake) is located immediately downstream of the
Cowans Ford Development. The upper end of the Mountain Island reservoir backs up to the
tailrace at the Cowans Ford powerhouse. The Mountain Island reservoir level has historically
been operated to provide sufficient storage for the operation of Cowans Ford without spilling
from Mountain Island. Consequently, Mountain Island often starts generation in anticipation of
Cowans Ford generating. Duke Power’s Riverbend Steam Station was located on the Mountain
Island reservoir. Riverbend Steam Station was decommissioned and taken offline in 2013.
Municipal water withdrawals from Mountain Island Lake include CMUD, Two Rivers Utilities
(the City of Gastonia and Town of Cramerton, North Carolina), and the City of Mt. Holly, North
Carolina (Duke 2006b).

2.7 Wylie Development
The Wylie reservoir (Lake Wylie) is located immediately downstream of the Mountain Island
Development. The upper end of the Wylie reservoir backs up to the tailrace at the Mountain
Island powerhouse. Duke Power’s Catawba Nuclear Station and Plant Allen Steam Station are
located on the reservoir. In addition, the municipal withdrawals for Belmont, North Carolina,
and Rock Hill (two intakes, primary intake draws from the lake and the emergency intake draws
from the river downstream of the development), South Carolina, are located on Lake Wylie. The
City of Rock Hill, South Carolina and the town of Fort Mill, South Carolina have intakes on the
river downstream of the development (Duke 2006b). The water departments of Union County,
Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-4 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
North Carolina and Lancaster County, South Carolina also have a joint intake on the riverine
section downstream of Wylie.
2.8 Fishing Creek Development
The Fishing Creek Development’s reservoir (Fishing Creek Reservoir) is located downstream of
the Wylie Development. The upper end of the reservoir backs up to within 25 river miles of the
tailrace at the Wylie powerhouse. Chester Metropolitan Water and Sewer District withdraws
water from the reservoir of the Fishing Creek Development (Duke 2006b).
2.9 Great Falls-Dearborn Development
The Great Falls-Dearborn Development’s reservoir (Great Falls Reservoir) is located
immediately downstream of the Fishing Creek Development. The reservoir is contained by the
diversion dam, the headworks structure, and the dam which forms two integral powerhouses.
The diversion dam and headworks cause two segments of the original Catawba River channel to
be bypassed. The reservoir backs up from the powerhouse-dam, through the headworks, and
along the diversion dam to the Fishing Creek tailrace. There are no municipal water withdrawal
facilities located on the reservoir (Duke 2006b).
2.10 Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Development
The reservoir for the Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Development (Cedar Creek Reservoir) is located
immediately downstream of the Great Falls-Dearborn Development and consists of two
powerhouses on one reservoir. The reservoir backs up to the Great Falls-Dearborn tailrace on
the Rocky Creek arm of the reservoir. There are no municipal water withdrawal facilities located
on the reservoir for the Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Development (Duke 2006b).
2.11 Wateree Development
The Wateree reservoir (Lake Wateree) is located immediately downstream of the Rocky Creek-
Cedar Creek Development and is the last (i.e., most downstream-located) development of the
project. The reservoir backs up to the Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek tailrace. The City of Camden
and Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority, in South Carolina have municipal water withdrawal facilities
on the reservoir (Duke 2006b).

Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-5 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
2.12 Hydrology
A significant input to the Model is a reconstructed inflow data set that represents flows
unimpaired by system operations (unimpaired inflow [UIF]), subdivided by reservoir node, for
each of the eleven reservoirs included in the Model. The hydrology time series, developed as
part of the Catawba-Wateree Project FERC Relicensing, was extended through 2010 following
the methodology applied during the FERC Relicensing:
The process of developing the inflow data series for each of the 11 reservoirs was
performed in three stages. The first stage was to gather the existing plant data and enter
it into a format that would facilitate analysis using computer software. Hand written
daily generation, spill and reservoir elevation records for each of the 11 reservoirs (13
powerhouses) spanning the 75-year period of record were retained from Licensee
archives. Approximately 807,000 out of 903,400 daily records were entered into digital
format and verified for accuracy. Constructing a data set from the use of daily plant
records by nature of the voluminous quantity of data entries and the number of different
operators recording the original data introduced the possibility for inaccuracies into the
data set. A series of database queries and charts were used to review the voluminous
data entries; generation, spill and reservoir elevation, for data entry (typing) and
penmanship reading errors. Suspect data were reviewed using hand written log sheets.
After data entry was completed and checked for errors the data were electronically
transferred to a customized spreadsheet to process using the “water budget” equation
noted above. This step was performed using decade time periods to keep the file sizes
manageable. Additional data error checks were performed at this stage using
spreadsheet functions to identify negative inflows and unexplained rapid changes in
reservoir levels. The spreadsheets were also used to calculate monthly variable
evaporation losses from pan evaporation data and regional published data. Daily
evaporation and estimates of historical withdrawals and returns to each reservoir were
added to the daily inflows.
The final step was reviewing the unimpaired (Itrib) file that was generated from each
decade spreadsheet. This global evaluation resulted in the need for a final iteration of
manual adjustments to fine tune the synthesized unimpaired flows. Inaccuracies were
found in some of the reservoir storage and discharge data, manifested as negative flows
as well as random fluctuations in the unimpaired flow data. For each of the reservoir
subbasins within the Catawba-Wateree Project, the synthesized Itrib flow data was
adjusted by using a combination of the following techniques: summation, regionalized
runoff productivity estimates (cfs per square mile), USGS gage data and engineering
experience to manually adjust the data to smooth the random fluctuations and to
eliminate negative flow values while trying to maintain the mass balance of the inflow
volume in each reservoir. 2

2 Operations/Verification Report, Section 3.1, (Duke 2006b).
Section 2 Project Data

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2-6 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 2-1
PROJECT SCHEMATIC. 3

3 Operations/Verification Report, Figure 2, (Duke 2006b).

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-1 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.0 HISTORICAL CRA BASELINE

This section defines the development of the Historical CRA Baseline scenario used for the
verification of the Model. Each sub-section defines specific inputs used in the Model
verification to simulate historical operations.
3.1 Model Logic
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 give an overview of the model logic in sequence.
FIGURE 3-1
CHEOPS MODEL EXECUTION FLOW CHART

Text files are created and stored
in model directories
Output Generated (text files):
Daily summaries and/or Detailed
schedules
Create Conditions needed for
new Scenario
Create Settings needed for new
Scenario
Create new Scenario
Run new Scenario(s)
Select the type of Run to make:
Energy or Rule Curve
Model Executes using data of
selected Scenario (see following
page)
Steps to create a
new Scenario
Create Components if needed for
new Conditions
View Output and create summary
charts and tables
Select hydrologic period to
include in model run
CHEOPS™ Model Execution Flow Chart

Text files are created and stored
in model directories
Output Generated (text files):
Daily summaries and/or Detailed
schedules
Create Conditions needed for
new Scenario
Create Settings needed for new
Scenario
Create new Scenario
Run new Scenario(s)
Select the type of Run to make:
Energy or Rule Curve
Model Executes using data of
selected Scenario (see following
page)
Steps to create a
new Scenario
Create Components if needed for
new Conditions
View Output and create summary
charts and tables
Select hydrologic period to
include in model run
CHEOPS™ Model Execution Flow Chart

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-2 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 3-2
CHEOPS MODEL SCHEDULING FLOW CHART

Determine "Optimal" Detailed
Discharge Schedule.
Determine Daily Discharge Volume
(Average Daily Discharge)
Determine Inflows (Detailed and
Total Volume)
Check for Elevation
Constraint Violations Yes
Make adjustments to the detailed
discharge schedule of current
and/or upstream plant
Calculate Spill (if any)
No
Calculate Energy
Calculate Detailed reservoir
elevatoins
CHEOPS™ Scheduling Flow Chart

elevations
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-3 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.2 Model Scenario Definition/Input Data
The project data listed in the following subsections shows the general operational constraints and
physical parameters used in the Model to define the system configuration used in the Historical
CRA Baseline scenario setup to represent operations for the 2008 through 2010 period. Model
verification uses historical data and tests the ability of the model to simulate actual operations of
all eleven facilities. To represent historical operations, the Historical CRA Baseline scenario
presented in this report is based on the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project FERC Licensing
scenario, with refinement for the final CRA and actual operations.

Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 are organized following the four components (System Data,
Physical Data, Operational Data, and Generation Data) used in the Model to define the current
system configuration for the Historical CRA Baseline scenario setup.

3.2.1 System Data
3.2.1.1 Load Shapes and Energy Values
This section contains the load shape and energy value data common to all generating facilities on
the Catawba River. The Model load shape defines the daily schedule of relative power pricing
and the hour durations of each price in the peak, off-peak, and shoulder periods. The load shape
and energy value data common to all generating facilities on the Catawba River is presented in
Table 3-1. The model uses the load shape data to schedule the release of water throughout the
day, prioritizing generation during peak periods. Durations for load shape periods and dollar
values for the weekday load shape periods are based on generic values.
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-4 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-1
LOAD SHAPE
Month
Weekday Durations in Hours Weekday Power Values in Dollars
Morning
Off-Peak
Morning
Secondary
Peak
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Secondary
Peak
Afternoon
Peak
Evening
Secondary
Peak
Evening
Off-Peak Off-Peak Secondary
Peak Peak
Jan 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Feb 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Mar 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Apr 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
May 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Jun 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Jul 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Aug 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Sep 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Oct 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Nov 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Dec 6 0 8 0 8 0 2 50 70 100
Month
Weekend Durations in Hours Weekend Power Values in Dollars
Morning
Off-Peak
Morning
Peak
Afternoon
Off-Peak Afternoon Peak Evening
Off-Peak Off-Peak Peak
Jan 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Feb 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Mar 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Apr 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
May 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Jun 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Jul 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Aug 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Sep 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Oct 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Nov 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Dec 6 8 0 8 2 40 75
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-5 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.2.1.2 Carry-Over Elevations Condition
The Model Carry-Over Elevations Condition controls how to treat the beginning and end-of-year
elevations. The model begins the run on January 1 of the start year with each reservoir at its
target elevation. If the scenario is run for a multiple-year period, then the model can either start
subsequent years with the reservoirs at the target elevations or at the end of previous year
elevations. The Carry-Over Elevations is selected (the checkbox is checked) in this model.
Therefore, the model will carry-over the end-of-year elevations to the next year, and reservoirs
will start the next year at the ending elevations of the previous year.

3.2.1.3 Forecast Set-Up Condition
The Model Forecast Set-Up Condition requires two inputs: a number of forecast days and an
accuracy of the forecast. The number of days is how many days the model looks ahead in the
inflow file to calculate how much water the system is going to receive. The model is set up to
look 1 day ahead with 100 percent accuracy. Since the model has “perfect” forecasting as it
looks at the actual inflow file, the accuracy setting allows the user to adjust the model’s ability to
forecast accurately. The accuracy setting adjusts inflow by a fixed multiple. The model looks
ahead the given number of days, adds up the inflows, multiplies those inflows by the entered
accuracy value, then schedules releases based on this forecasted inflow volume. If the accuracy
setting is not 100 percent (1), then the forecasted volume is not accurate. By running the model
with 90 percent (0.9) accuracy, and then running again at 110 percent (1.1) accuracy, the user
can simulate operations where the operator has an ability to forecast inflows with plus or minus
10 percent accuracy.

3.2.1.4 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP)
As part of the relicensing effort, Duke Energy led the development of a Low Inflow Protocol
(LIP) for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The purpose of the LIP is to establish procedures for
reductions in water use during periods of low inflow to the Catawba-Wateree Project.
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-6 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The LIP inputs are entered into the model through an input spreadsheet which defines the LIP
actions. The LIP input file used in the model is summarized in Figure 3-3.
FIGURE 3-3
LIP INPUT SUMMARY

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-7 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.2.1.5 High Inflow Protocol (HIP)
As part of the relicensing effort, Duke Energy led the development of a High Inflow Protocol
(HIP) for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The purpose of the HIP is to establish procedures for
water use during periods of high inflow to the Catawba-Wateree Project. The HIP inputs are
entered into the model through an input spreadsheet which defines the HIP actions. The HIP
input file used in the model is summarized in Figure 3-4.
FIGURE 3-4
HIP INPUT SUMMARY

3.2.2 Physical Data
3.2.2.1 Reservoir Storage Curves
The Reservoir Storage Curve is a tabulated link between the reservoir elevation and reservoir
volume. The elevations are in units of “feet” and the volumes are in “acre-feet.” The Model
uses this curve to calculate elevations based on inflows and model-determined releases.
Reservoir storage curves were carried over from the relicensing model (Duke 2006b).

The reservoir storage curves used in the model are based on estimates of available storage as of
2011 considering projected sedimentation infill within the useable storage zone and summarized
in Tables 3-2 through 3-12. The methods applied in the estimation of 2011 storage volume are
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-8 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
outlined in Appendix B of the May 2006 Operations/Verification Report for the Catawba-
Wateree Hydroelectric Project (Duke 2006b).
TABLE 3-2
BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
1,074.0 0.0 1,104.0 4,425.6 1,134.0 34,443.3 1,164.0 108,417.2 1,194.0 244,263.3
1,075.0 0.2 1,105.0 4,916.0 1,135.0 36,096.5 1,165.0 111,859.6 1,195.0 249,967.7
1,076.0 0.6 1,106.0 5,435.4 1,136.0 37,799.5 1,166.0 115,371.8 1,196.0 255,740.7
1,077.0 1.1 1,107.0 5,984.6 1,137.0 39,553.4 1,167.0 118,955.0 1,197.0 261,580.1
1,078.0 2.0 1,108.0 6,563.7 1,138.0 41,357.2 1,168.0 122,611.1 1,198.0 267,483.1
1,079.0 3.0 1,109.0 7,172.7 1,139.0 43,212.9 1,169.0 126,339.0 1,199.0 273,446.6
1,080.0 4.5 1,110.0 7,814.6 1,140.0 45,120.5 1,170.0 130,139.9 1,200.0 279,468.8
1,081.0 6.5 1,111.0 8,487.4 1,141.0 47,082.0 1,171.0 134,014.7 1,201.0 285,707.9
1,082.0 9.5 1,112.0 9,193.1 1,142.0 49,096.3 1,172.0 137,964.4 1,202.0 292,082.9
1,083.0 13.4 1,113.0 9,933.7 1,143.0 51,165.5 1,173.0 141,990.0 1,203.0 298,582.9
1,084.0 18.2 1,114.0 10,707.1 1,144.0 53,290.6 1,174.0 146,090.6 1,204.0 305,201.9
1,085.0 25.1 1,115.0 11,515.5 1,145.0 55,470.5 1,175.0 150,269.1 1,205.0 311,937.9
1,086.0 35.0 1,116.0 12,359.7 1,146.0 57,706.4 1,176.0 154,524.6 1,206.0 318,786.9
1,087.0 47.8 1,117.0 13,240.8 1,147.0 60,000.1 1,177.0 158,858.0 1,207.0 325,746.9
1,088.0 66.7 1,118.0 14,158.9 1,148.0 62,351.7 1,178.0 163,270.5 1,208.0 332,817.9
1,089.0 90.4 1,119.0 15,113.8 1,149.0 64,762.1 1,179.0 167,761.9 1,209.0 339,995.9
1,090.0 124.2 1,120.0 16,107.6 1,150.0 67,231.4 1,180.0 172,334.4 1,210.0 347,281.9
1,091.0 168.9 1,121.0 17,140.3 1,151.0 69,761.6 1,181.0 176,987.9 1,211.0 354,672.9
1,092.0 230.5 1,122.0 18,212.8 1,152.0 72,351.7 1,182.0 181,722.5 1,212.0 362,169.9
1,093.0 315.1 1,123.0 19,326.3 1,153.0 75,002.6 1,183.0 186,540.1 1,213.0 369,769.9
1,094.0 429.6 1,124.0 20,480.7 1,154.0 77,716.4 1,184.0 191,440.8 1,214.0 377,472.9
1,095.0 585.0 1,125.0 21,676.9 1,155.0 80,492.1 1,185.0 196,425.6 1,215.0 385,278.9
1,096.0 796.3 1,126.0 22,916.1 1,156.0 83,332.6 1,186.0 201,399.5 1,216.0 393,186.9
1,097.0 1,084.6 1,127.0 24,198.1 1,157.0 86,236.0 1,187.0 206,464.6 1,217.0 401,194.9
1,098.0 1,476.7 1,128.0 25,524.1 1,158.0 89,204.3 1,188.0 211,617.9 1,218.0 409,303.9
1,099.0 2,009.8 1,129.0 26,894.9 1,159.0 92,238.4 1,189.0 216,858.5 1,219.0 417,512.9
1,100.0 2,734.8 1,130.0 28,311.6 1,160.0 95,339.4 1,190.0 222,182.2 1,220.0 425,820.9
1,101.0 3,117.6 1,131.0 29,773.2 1,161.0 98,506.3 1,191.0 227,587.2
1,102.0 3,527.4 1,132.0 31,282.7 1,162.0 101,742.0 1,192.0 233,070.5
1,103.0 3,963.0 1,133.0 32,839.1 1,163.0 105,044.7 1,193.0 238,630.2

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-9 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-3
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
937.1 0.0 953.1 1,378.7 969.1 10,057.6 985.1 28,313.2 1,001.1 65,268.3
938.1 0.8 954.1 1,640.1 970.1 10,919.8 986.1 29,778.5 1,002.1 69,770.3
939.1 1.8 955.1 1,931.2 971.1 11,819.5 987.1 31,284.3 1,003.1 74,528.3
940.1 4.6 956.1 2,255.0 972.1 12,755.7 988.1 32,830.1 1,004.1 79,533.3
941.1 12.8 957.1 2,613.5 973.1 13,729.3 989.1 34,417.4 1,005.1 84,775.3
942.1 36.0 958.1 3,028.8 974.1 14,739.5 990.1 36,045.8 1,006.1 90,245.3
943.1 71.1 959.1 3,480.7 975.1 15,787.0 991.1 37,717.2 1,007.1 95,938.3
944.1 119.0 960.1 3,971.4 976.1 16,872.0 992.1 39,432.3 1,008.1 101,846.3
945.1 181.4 961.1 4,497.8 977.1 17,993.5 993.1 41,191.1 1,009.1 107,965.3
946.1 260.1 962.1 5,062.9 978.1 19,152.4 994.1 42,994.6 1,010.1 114,289.3
947.1 354.8 963.1 5,664.7 979.1 20,348.0 995.1 44,845.0 1,011.1 120,814.3
948.1 468.6 964.1 6,303.3 980.1 21,581.2 996.1 47,244.3 1,012.1 127,536.3
949.1 603.2 965.1 6,979.5 981.1 22,851.3 997.1 50,155.3 1,013.1 134,451.3
950.1 759.7 966.1 7,693.3 982.1 24,160.2 998.1 53,454.3 1,014.1 141,555.3
951.1 940.0 967.1 8,444.8 983.1 25,505.4 999.1 57,091.3 1,015.1 148,846.3
952.1 1,146.0 968.1 9,231.9 984.1 26,889.9 1,000.1 61,036.3

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-10 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-4
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
840.0 0.0 864.0 2,301.0 888.0 16,181.5 912.0 54,010.8 936.0 130,758.3
841.0 1.4 865.0 2,571.2 889.0 17,185.1 913.0 56,317.4 937.0 135,141.3
842.0 6.1 866.0 2,861.2 890.0 18,231.6 914.0 58,691.9 938.0 139,659.3
843.0 15.0 867.0 3,173.1 891.0 19,319.8 915.0 61,136.3 939.0 144,305.3
844.0 28.0 868.0 3,507.9 892.0 20,453.0 916.0 63,651.7 940.0 149,076.3
845.0 46.0 869.0 3,864.4 893.0 21,631.9 917.0 66,238.0 941.0 153,968.3
846.0 70.9 870.0 4,244.9 894.0 22,856.7 918.0 68,897.2 942.0 158,978.3
847.0 101.9 871.0 4,651.2 895.0 24,128.3 919.0 71,631.5 943.0 164,106.3
848.0 139.8 872.0 5,082.3 896.0 25,448.7 920.0 74,441.7 944.0 169,349.3
849.0 185.7 873.0 5,539.3 897.0 26,818.0 921.0 77,328.0 945.0 174,706.3
850.0 239.6 874.0 6,024.2 898.0 28,238.0 922.0 80,292.4 946.0 180,175.3
851.0 303.4 875.0 6,536.9 899.0 29,708.9 923.0 83,335.9 947.0 185,756.3
852.0 377.2 876.0 7,079.5 900.0 31,232.7 924.0 86,460.5 948.0 191,446.3
853.0 461.9 877.0 7,650.9 901.0 32,810.2 925.0 89,666.4 949.0 197,246.3
854.0 557.5 878.0 8,254.1 902.0 34,442.6 926.0 92,955.5 950.0 203,154.3
855.0 665.0 879.0 8,888.2 903.0 36,129.7 927.0 96,329.9 951.0 209,170.3
856.0 785.4 880.0 9,556.2 904.0 37,874.7 928.0 99,788.6 952.0 215,292.3
857.0 919.7 881.0 10,257.0 905.0 39,676.6 929.0 103,335.7 953.0 221,521.3
858.0 1,067.8 882.0 10,991.7 906.0 41,538.2 930.0 106,971.3 954.0 227,854.3
859.0 1,231.9 883.0 11,763.2 907.0 43,459.7 931.0 110,696.4 955.0 234,293.3
860.0 1,410.8 884.0 12,569.6 908.0 45,443.0 932.0 114,513.1
861.0 1,606.5 885.0 13,414.8 909.0 47,488.2 933.0 118,421.6
862.0 1,820.2 886.0 14,296.9 910.0 49,597.2 934.0 122,424.7
863.0 2,050.6 887.0 15,219.8 911.0 51,771.1 935.0 126,523.7

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-11 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-5
LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
771.1 0.0 789.1 1,207.5 807.1 5,762.2 825.1 14,763.7 843.1 30,437.8
772.1 1.8 790.1 1,364.6 808.1 6,134.8 826.1 15,418.8 844.1 31,810.8
773.1 3.6 791.1 1,530.5 809.1 6,521.2 827.1 16,090.9 845.1 33,256.8
774.1 7.2 792.1 1,708.3 810.1 6,921.4 828.1 16,782.1 846.1 34,771.8
775.1 14.0 793.1 1,895.8 811.1 7,336.3 829.1 17,491.3 847.1 36,354.8
776.1 28.9 794.1 2,095.2 812.1 7,766.0 830.1 18,218.8 848.1 38,005.8
777.1 57.9 795.1 2,304.3 813.1 8,210.5 831.1 18,965.4 849.1 39,722.8
778.1 106.8 796.1 2,526.3 814.1 8,668.8 832.1 19,730.4 850.1 41,504.8
779.1 163.6 797.1 2,759.1 815.1 9,143.8 833.1 20,515.7 851.1 43,351.8
780.1 228.3 798.1 3,002.7 816.1 9,632.6 834.1 21,320.6 852.1 45,261.8
781.1 301.0 799.1 3,259.1 817.1 10,138.1 835.1 22,145.1 853.1 47,234.8
782.1 382.5 800.1 3,527.3 818.1 10,658.5 836.1 22,991.4 854.1 49,270.8
783.1 472.9 801.1 3,808.3 819.1 11,195.6 837.1 23,856.6 855.1 51,367.8
784.1 572.1 802.1 4,101.1 820.1 11,748.5 838.1 24,743.8 856.1 53,525.8
785.1 680.1 803.1 4,407.7 821.1 12,318.2 839.1 25,707.8 857.1 55,744.8
786.1 798.0 804.1 4,726.2 822.1 12,903.8 840.1 26,767.8 858.1 58,023.8
787.1 924.7 805.1 5,058.4 823.1 13,507.2 841.1 27,912.8
788.1 1,061.2 806.1 5,403.4 824.1 14,126.5 842.1 29,136.8

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-12 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-6
COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
643.0 0.0 671.0 6,129.8 699.0 71,697.7 727.0 319,578.6 755.0 908,734.3
644.0 0.5 672.0 6,917.8 700.0 76,482.4 728.0 333,722.5 756.0 939,466.3
645.0 2.5 673.0 7,777.6 701.0 81,500.9 729.0 348,288.2 757.0 970,738.9
646.0 6.9 674.0 8,714.3 702.0 86,761.3 730.0 363,283.7 758.0 1,002,346.0
647.0 14.8 675.0 9,731.8 703.0 92,270.6 731.0 378,716.1 759.0 1,034,267.0
648.0 27.8 676.0 10,834.2 704.0 98,035.6 732.0 394,593.4 760.0 1,066,672.0
649.0 46.7 677.0 12,027.4 705.0 104,066.5 733.0 410,924.5 761.0 1,099,601.0
650.0 73.6 678.0 13,314.5 706.0 110,369.2 734.0 427,718.6 762.0 1,132,986.0
651.0 108.4 679.0 14,701.4 707.0 116,952.8 735.0 444,985.5 763.0 1,166,897.0
652.0 155.3 680.0 16,192.1 708.0 123,824.2 736.0 462,734.3 764.0 1,201,375.0
653.0 214.1 681.0 17,791.7 709.0 130,993.4 737.0 480,977.1 765.0 1,236,454.0
654.0 287.0 682.0 19,506.2 710.0 138,467.5 738.0 499,723.9 766.0 1,272,160.0
655.0 376.8 683.0 21,340.5 711.0 146,255.3 739.0 518,985.6 767.0 1,308,514.0
656.0 485.6 684.0 23,299.6 712.0 154,365.0 740.0 538,775.3 768.0 1,345,536.0
657.0 614.3 685.0 25,389.6 713.0 162,806.5 741.0 559,104.0 769.0 1,383,244.0
658.0 766.9 686.0 27,615.5 714.0 171,587.9 742.0 579,985.8 770.0 1,421,652.0
659.0 944.5 687.0 29,983.2 715.0 180,718.0 743.0 601,432.6 771.0 1,460,776.0
660.0 1,150.0 688.0 32,498.7 716.0 190,206.0 744.0 623,459.4 772.0 1,500,627.0
661.0 1,387.5 689.0 35,167.1 717.0 200,061.8 745.0 646,079.4 773.0 1,541,219.0
662.0 1,657.8 690.0 37,996.3 718.0 210,288.4 746.0 669,307.6 774.0 1,582,562.0
663.0 1,965.0 691.0 40,990.4 719.0 220,888.8 747.0 693,158.9 775.0 1,624,668.0
664.0 2,311.0 692.0 44,157.4 720.0 231,866.0 748.0 717,649.5 776.0 1,667,539.0
665.0 2,701.0 693.0 47,502.2 721.0 243,223.1 749.0 742,794.3 777.0 1,711,192.0
666.0 3,136.8 694.0 51,032.8 722.0 254,962.9 750.0 768,610.4 778.0 1,755,635.0
667.0 3,621.5 695.0 54,755.3 723.0 267,091.6 751.0 795,114.9 779.0 1,800,878.0
668.0 4,160.0 696.0 58,675.6 724.0 279,612.1 752.0 822,323.8 780.0 1,846,930.0
669.0 4,754.5 697.0 62,801.8 725.0 292,529.5 753.0 850,257.1
670.0 5,409.7 698.0 67,139.8 726.0 305,849.6 754.0 878,937.9

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-13 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-7
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
577.5 0.0 596.5 1,822.0 615.5 8,533.3 634.5 29,192.1 653.5 79,315.2
578.5 6.2 597.5 2,015.1 616.5 9,149.8 635.5 31,003.0 654.5 83,189.2
579.5 25.0 598.5 2,220.2 617.5 9,804.1 636.5 32,906.8 655.5 87,220.2
580.5 54.0 599.5 2,438.1 618.5 10,498.4 637.5 34,903.7 656.5 91,405.2
581.5 94.9 600.5 2,669.9 619.5 11,235.5 638.5 36,993.7 657.5 95,745.2
582.5 144.9 601.5 2,915.7 620.5 12,017.5 639.5 39,174.7 658.5 100,238.2
583.5 205.8 602.5 3,177.4 621.5 12,846.5 640.5 41,444.8 659.5 104,883.2
584.5 275.8 603.5 3,455.0 622.5 13,724.3 641.5 43,801.1 660.5 109,680.2
585.5 354.7 604.5 3,749.5 623.5 14,655.1 642.5 46,238.6 661.5 114,628.2
586.5 443.6 605.5 4,063.9 624.5 15,639.7 643.5 48,754.3 662.5 119,725.2
587.5 540.4 606.5 4,397.2 625.5 16,681.2 644.5 51,342.3 663.5 124,972.2
588.5 646.2 607.5 4,751.5 626.5 17,782.6 645.5 53,995.7 664.5 130,367.2
589.5 761.0 608.5 5,129.7 627.5 18,947.0 646.5 56,708.5 665.5 135,911.2
590.5 883.6 609.5 5,530.7 628.5 20,176.2 647.5 59,471.7 666.5 141,603.2
591.5 1,016.2 610.5 5,957.7 629.5 21,475.4 648.5 62,355.2 667.5 147,442.2
592.5 1,157.8 611.5 6,411.6 630.5 22,850.4 649.5 65,417.2
593.5 1,308.2 612.5 6,894.4 631.5 24,305.4 650.5 68,647.2
594.5 1,469.6 613.5 7,407.2 632.5 25,845.4 651.5 72,042.2
595.5 1,639.8 614.5 7,952.8 633.5 27,473.3 652.5 75,598.2

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-14 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-8
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
504.4 0.0 522.4 1,058.1 540.4 29,190.7 558.4 128,452.7 576.4 324,902.8
505.4 1.1 523.4 1,389.2 541.4 32,669.7 559.4 136,494.3 577.4 340,603.8
506.4 2.0 524.4 1,798.6 542.4 36,377.7 560.4 144,791.6 578.4 356,827.8
507.4 4.0 525.4 2,295.3 543.4 40,316.8 561.4 153,346.1 579.4 373,561.8
508.4 8.3 526.4 2,894.3 544.4 44,486.9 562.4 162,159.5 580.4 390,798.8
509.4 13.0 527.4 3,606.6 545.4 48,885.9 563.4 171,230.5 581.4 408,529.8
510.4 19.3 528.4 4,446.2 546.4 53,515.9 564.4 180,561.0 582.4 426,747.8
511.4 27.4 529.4 5,428.2 547.4 58,375.9 565.4 190,151.8 583.4 445,446.8
512.4 39.3 530.4 6,566.5 548.4 63,466.9 566.4 200,004.9 584.4 464,619.8
513.4 56.9 531.4 7,876.2 549.4 68,786.9 567.4 210,119.6 585.4 484,260.8
514.4 81.5 532.4 9,376.2 550.4 74,338.0 568.4 220,498.0 586.4 504,366.8
515.4 114.9 533.4 11,081.5 551.4 80,119.2 569.4 231,141.6 587.4 524,930.8
516.4 164.1 534.4 13,011.1 552.4 86,131.7 570.4 242,559.8 588.4 545,949.8
517.4 224.9 535.4 15,183.9 553.4 92,373.5 571.4 254,745.8 589.4 567,418.8
518.4 311.1 536.4 17,581.1 554.4 98,847.0 572.4 267,594.8
519.4 429.9 537.4 20,137.5 555.4 105,866.3 573.4 281,061.8
520.4 587.9 538.4 22,925.1 556.4 113,139.6 574.4 295,115.8
521.4 794.4 539.4 25,942.8 557.4 120,668.3 575.4 309,734.8

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-15 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-9
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
377.2 0.0 390.2 1,058.5 403.2 7,881.4 416.2 32,538.6 429.2 91,196.6
378.2 1.2 391.2 1,303.2 404.2 8,910.9 417.2 35,532.6 430.2 97,025.6
379.2 3.9 392.2 1,584.3 405.2 10,063.8 418.2 38,690.6 431.2 102,997.6
380.2 13.1 393.2 1,903.8 406.2 11,346.6 419.2 42,269.6 432.2 109,109.6
381.2 30.8 394.2 2,265.7 407.2 12,769.3 420.2 46,211.6 433.2 115,355.6
382.2 65.0 395.2 2,671.0 408.2 14,337.4 421.2 50,423.6 434.2 121,734.6
383.2 128.7 396.2 3,125.5 409.2 16,055.3 422.2 54,868.6 435.2 128,243.6
384.2 194.9 397.2 3,629.3 410.2 17,928.5 423.2 59,524.6 436.2 134,878.6
385.2 279.6 398.2 4,188.4 411.2 19,960.7 424.2 64,375.6 437.2 141,637.6
386.2 384.8 399.2 4,774.6 412.2 22,152.6 425.2 69,408.6 438.2 148,511.6
387.2 512.5 400.2 5,423.0 413.2 24,507.2 426.2 74,614.6
388.2 665.7 401.2 6,148.5 414.2 27,023.3 427.2 79,985.6
389.2 847.3 402.2 6,963.3 415.2 29,701.3 428.2 85,514.6

TABLE 3-10
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
315.8 0.0 328.8 204.6 341.8 1,165.9 354.8 4,499.5 367.8 11,722.1
316.8 1.5 329.8 240.2 342.8 1,308.3 355.8 4,934.4 368.8 12,466.1
317.8 5.6 330.8 279.7 343.8 1,464.4 356.8 5,391.1 369.8 13,244.1
318.8 11.9 331.8 324.0 344.8 1,636.4 357.8 5,858.1 370.8 14,058.1
319.8 20.8 332.8 373.2 345.8 1,824.2 358.8 6,340.1 371.8 14,907.1
320.8 31.7 333.8 429.2 346.8 2,030.9 359.8 6,840.1 372.8 15,794.1
321.8 44.6 334.8 490.0 347.8 2,256.5 360.8 7,360.1 373.8 16,719.1
322.8 60.3 335.8 559.7 348.8 2,503.0 361.8 7,903.1 374.8 17,683.1
323.8 77.9 336.8 636.2 349.8 2,771.5 362.8 8,470.1 375.8 18,688.1
324.8 97.3 337.8 721.5 350.8 3,063.1 363.8 9,062.1
325.8 119.6 338.8 815.6 351.8 3,379.9 364.8 9,683.1
326.8 144.8 339.8 921.6 352.8 3,723.9 365.8 10,332.1
327.8 173.8 340.8 1,037.3 353.8 4,096.4 366.8 11,011.1

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-16 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-11
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
218.4 0.0 236.4 373.0 254.4 2,826.8 272.4 9,489.4 290.4 22,242.9
219.4 1.4 237.4 435.2 255.4 3,066.7 273.4 10,026.7 291.4 23,162.9
220.4 3.2 238.4 505.0 256.4 3,320.2 274.4 10,585.1 292.4 24,110.9
221.4 5.7 239.4 580.6 257.4 3,587.5 275.4 11,163.6 293.4 25,086.9
222.4 9.8 240.4 663.9 258.4 3,868.3 276.4 11,763.5 294.4 26,092.9
223.4 14.7 241.4 755.9 259.4 4,163.9 277.4 12,385.9 295.4 27,126.9
224.4 21.6 242.4 855.6 260.4 4,474.1 278.4 13,029.8 296.4 28,190.9
225.4 30.4 243.4 964.0 261.4 4,798.9 279.4 13,692.4 297.4 29,284.9
226.4 42.1 244.4 1,081.2 262.4 5,140.5 280.4 14,374.0 298.4 30,408.9
227.4 56.7 245.4 1,207.0 263.4 5,497.6 281.4 15,071.7 299.4 31,563.9
228.4 75.1 246.4 1,343.6 264.4 5,870.5 282.4 15,787.7 300.4 32,749.9
229.4 96.3 247.4 1,489.9 265.4 6,260.0 283.4 16,520.2 301.4 33,965.9
230.4 121.3 248.4 1,646.9 266.4 6,667.3 284.4 17,270.9 302.4 35,213.9
231.4 151.1 249.4 1,814.7 267.4 7,091.3 285.4 18,039.9 303.4 36,492.9
232.4 184.6 250.4 1,993.1 268.4 7,534.0 286.4 18,830.9 304.4 37,803.9
233.4 223.9 251.4 2,183.2 269.4 7,994.5 287.4 19,644.9
234.4 267.9 252.4 2,385.1 270.4 8,472.9 288.4 20,484.9
235.4 317.6 253.4 2,599.6 271.4 8,971.2 289.4 21,350.9

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-17 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-12
WATEREE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR STORAGE
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
Elevation
(ft)
Storage
(ac-ft)
155.5 0.0 174.5 2,096.3 193.5 21,881.4 212.5 121,353.8 231.5 352,309.3
156.5 1.2 175.5 2,479.0 194.5 24,208.3 213.5 130,105.4 232.5 371,312.3
157.5 3.1 176.5 2,911.1 195.5 26,774.4 214.5 139,162.9 233.5 390,931.3
158.5 7.5 177.5 3,394.5 196.5 29,600.9 215.5 148,510.7 234.5 411,132.3
159.5 18.8 178.5 3,932.3 197.5 32,706.6 216.5 158,136.9 235.5 431,886.3
160.5 47.6 179.5 4,528.5 198.5 36,107.6 217.5 168,027.7 236.5 453,170.3
161.5 118.3 180.5 5,185.1 199.5 39,825.9 218.5 178,171.3 237.5 474,962.3
162.5 152.9 181.5 5,907.1 200.5 43,878.4 219.5 188,554.0 238.5 497,244.3
163.5 196.3 182.5 6,804.5 201.5 48,284.2 220.5 199,164.0 239.5 520,001.3
164.5 250.6 183.5 7,723.3 202.5 53,062.3 221.5 209,986.8 240.5 543,218.3
165.5 319.5 184.5 8,676.5 203.5 58,231.7 222.5 221,010.7 241.5 566,880.3
166.5 406.1 185.5 9,682.1 204.5 63,811.3 223.5 232,221.9 242.5 590,978.3
167.5 513.2 186.5 10,759.1 205.5 69,703.3 224.5 243,609.1 243.5 615,499.3
168.5 642.9 187.5 11,926.5 206.5 75,959.6 225.5 255,158.6 244.5 640,433.3
169.5 801.1 188.5 13,203.2 207.5 82,612.3 226.5 268,572.3 245.5 665,772.3
170.5 987.7 189.5 14,607.4 208.5 89,647.4 227.5 283,493.3
171.5 1,207.7 190.5 16,158.8 209.5 97,052.1 228.5 299,467.3
172.5 1,463.2 191.5 17,875.7 210.5 104,813.3 229.5 316,325.3
173.5 1,759.1 192.5 19,776.9 211.5 112,918.1 230.5 333,962.3

3.2.2.2 Reservoir Area Curves
The Reservoir Area Curve is a tabulated link between the reservoir elevation and reservoir
surface area. The elevations are in units of “feet” and the areas are in “acres.” The Model uses
this curve only to calculate the surface area based on the simulated reservoir elevation and uses
this data for computing evaporation losses (Duke 2006b).

The reservoir area curves used in the model are based on estimates of surface area as of 2011and
are summarized in Tables 3-13 through 3-24. The methods applied in the estimation of the
reservoir surface area as of 2011 are outlined in Appendix B of the May 2006
Operations/Verification Report for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (Duke 2006b).
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-18 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-13
BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
1,074.0 0.0 1,104.0 457.6 1,134.0 1,635.3 1,164.0 3,405.5 1,194.0 5,634.1
1,075.0 2.3 1,105.0 486.5 1,135.0 1,685.2 1,165.0 3,473.4 1,195.0 5,688.5
1,076.0 5.6 1,106.0 515.3 1,136.0 1,736.0 1,166.0 3,541.3 1,196.0 5,742.9
1,077.0 10.0 1,107.0 545.2 1,137.0 1,787.9 1,167.0 3,610.2 1,197.0 5,807.4
1,078.0 15.0 1,108.0 576.1 1,138.0 1,839.8 1,168.0 3,680.1 1,198.0 5,890.0
1,079.0 20.9 1,109.0 608.0 1,139.0 1,892.7 1,169.0 3,749.0 1,199.0 6,002.6
1,080.0 27.9 1,110.0 639.9 1,140.0 1,946.6 1,170.0 3,819.9 1,200.0 6,158.2
1,081.0 35.9 1,111.0 672.8 1,141.0 2,000.5 1,171.0 3,890.8 1,201.0 6,308.1
1,082.0 44.9 1,112.0 706.7 1,142.0 2,054.3 1,172.0 3,961.7 1,202.0 6,439.0
1,083.0 54.9 1,113.0 741.6 1,143.0 2,110.2 1,173.0 4,033.6 1,203.0 6,560.0
1,084.0 64.9 1,114.0 776.5 1,144.0 2,166.1 1,174.0 4,105.6 1,204.0 6,678.0
1,085.0 76.9 1,115.0 812.4 1,145.0 2,222.0 1,175.0 4,178.5 1,205.0 6,793.0
1,086.0 88.9 1,116.0 849.2 1,146.0 2,279.8 1,176.0 4,251.5 1,206.0 6,905.0
1,087.0 101.9 1,117.0 887.1 1,147.0 2,337.7 1,177.0 4,325.5 1,207.0 7,016.0
1,088.0 116.8 1,118.0 925.0 1,148.0 2,395.6 1,178.0 4,399.5 1,208.0 7,125.0
1,089.0 131.8 1,119.0 964.9 1,149.0 2,454.5 1,179.0 4,474.5 1,209.0 7,232.0
1,090.0 147.7 1,120.0 1,004.8 1,150.0 2,514.3 1,180.0 4,549.5 1,210.0 7,339.0
1,091.0 163.7 1,121.0 1,044.7 1,151.0 2,574.2 1,181.0 4,624.5 1,211.0 7,444.0
1,092.0 181.6 1,122.0 1,086.6 1,152.0 2,634.1 1,182.0 4,700.6 1,212.0 7,548.0
1,093.0 200.6 1,123.0 1,128.5 1,153.0 2,695.9 1,183.0 4,776.6 1,213.0 7,652.0
1,094.0 219.5 1,124.0 1,170.4 1,154.0 2,757.8 1,184.0 4,853.7 1,214.0 7,755.0
1,095.0 239.4 1,125.0 1,214.3 1,155.0 2,819.7 1,185.0 4,930.8 1,215.0 7,857.0
1,096.0 260.3 1,126.0 1,258.2 1,156.0 2,882.5 1,186.0 4,989.0 1,216.0 7,958.0
1,097.0 282.3 1,127.0 1,303.0 1,157.0 2,946.4 1,187.0 5,068.1 1,217.0 8,059.0
1,098.0 305.2 1,128.0 1,347.9 1,158.0 3,010.3 1,188.0 5,159.3 1,218.0 8,159.0
1,099.0 328.1 1,129.0 1,394.8 1,159.0 3,075.1 1,189.0 5,254.5 1,219.0 8,259.0
1,100.0 353.0 1,130.0 1,441.7 1,160.0 3,140.0 1,190.0 5,346.8 1,220.0 8,358.0
1,101.0 377.9 1,131.0 1,488.6 1,161.0 3,205.9 1,191.0 5,433.0
1,102.0 403.8 1,132.0 1,537.5 1,162.0 3,271.8 1,192.0 5,508.3
1,103.0 430.7 1,133.0 1,586.4 1,163.0 3,338.6 1,193.0 5,575.7

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-19 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-14
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
937.1 0.0 953.1 248.7 969.1 842.7 985.1 1,447.3 1,001.1 4,369.0
938.1 0.4 954.1 279.4 970.1 880.2 986.1 1,493.3 1,002.1 4,632.0
939.1 4.9 955.1 317.1 971.1 917.7 987.1 1,531.8 1,003.1 4,883.0
940.1 11.6 956.1 354.8 972.1 955.2 988.1 1,565.8 1,004.1 5,125.0
941.1 19.5 957.1 392.5 973.1 992.7 989.1 1,598.3 1,005.1 5,357.0
942.1 29.2 958.1 429.2 974.1 1,030.1 990.1 1,633.5 1,006.1 5,583.0
943.1 41.1 959.1 467.0 975.1 1,067.6 991.1 1,674.4 1,007.1 5,801.0
944.1 53.9 960.1 504.7 976.1 1,104.0 992.1 1,724.1 1,008.1 6,014.0
945.1 69.4 961.1 542.4 977.1 1,141.5 993.1 1,785.8 1,009.1 6,222.0
946.1 85.7 962.1 580.1 978.1 1,179.0 994.1 1,863.5 1,010.1 6,425.0
947.1 103.8 963.1 617.8 979.1 1,216.6 995.1 1,959.4 1,011.1 6,624.0
948.1 123.8 964.1 655.5 980.1 1,254.2 996.1 2,685.3 1,012.1 6,819.0
949.1 144.7 965.1 693.2 981.1 1,292.0 997.1 3,115.0 1,013.1 7,010.0
950.1 168.5 966.1 730.9 982.1 1,330.0 998.1 3,474.0 1,014.1 7,198.0
951.1 193.3 967.1 767.5 983.1 1,368.1 999.1 3,795.0 1,015.1 7,382.0
952.1 220.0 968.1 805.1 984.1 1,406.6 1,000.1 4,092.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-20 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-15
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
840.0 0.0 864.0 260.3 888.0 982.8 912.0 2,272.7 936.0 4,311.5
841.0 3.0 865.0 280.2 889.0 1,024.6 913.0 2,340.6 937.0 4,452.0
842.0 6.6 866.0 301.0 890.0 1,067.4 914.0 2,409.5 938.0 4,583.0
843.0 11.0 867.0 322.9 891.0 1,111.3 915.0 2,479.4 939.0 4,709.0
844.0 16.0 868.0 345.7 892.0 1,156.1 916.0 2,550.3 940.0 4,832.0
845.0 21.0 869.0 368.6 893.0 1,200.9 917.0 2,623.3 941.0 4,952.0
846.0 27.0 870.0 393.5 894.0 1,247.8 918.0 2,696.3 942.0 5,070.0
847.0 34.0 871.0 418.3 895.0 1,295.6 919.0 2,771.2 943.0 5,186.0
848.0 41.9 872.0 444.2 896.0 1,344.4 920.0 2,847.3 944.0 5,300.0
849.0 49.9 873.0 471.0 897.0 1,394.3 921.0 2,925.3 945.0 5,413.0
850.0 58.9 874.0 498.9 898.0 1,445.1 922.0 3,003.4 946.0 5,525.0
851.0 68.9 875.0 527.7 899.0 1,497.9 923.0 3,083.5 947.0 5,636.0
852.0 78.8 876.0 556.6 900.0 1,550.7 924.0 3,164.7 948.0 5,745.0
853.0 89.7 877.0 587.4 901.0 1,604.5 925.0 3,247.9 949.0 5,854.0
854.0 101.6 878.0 618.3 902.0 1,659.4 926.0 3,331.1 950.0 5,962.0
855.0 114.5 879.0 651.1 903.0 1,716.2 927.0 3,416.4 951.0 6,069.0
856.0 127.4 880.0 684.0 904.0 1,773.0 928.0 3,502.7 952.0 6,176.0
857.0 141.3 881.0 717.8 905.0 1,831.8 929.0 3,590.1 953.0 6,281.0
858.0 156.2 882.0 752.7 906.0 1,891.7 930.0 3,679.6 954.0 6,386.0
859.0 171.0 883.0 788.5 907.0 1,952.5 931.0 3,770.1 955.0 6,491.0
860.0 187.9 884.0 825.4 908.0 2,014.3 932.0 3,861.7
861.0 204.8 885.0 863.2 909.0 2,077.2 933.0 3,955.4
862.0 222.6 886.0 902.1 910.0 2,141.0 934.0 4,050.2
863.0 240.5 887.0 941.9 911.0 2,206.9 935.0 4,146.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-21 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-16
LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
771.1 0.0 789.1 157.3 807.1 364.8 825.1 664.2 843.1 1,337.0
772.1 2.2 790.1 169.1 808.1 374.6 826.1 688.1 844.1 1,410.0
773.1 4.4 791.1 181.9 809.1 384.4 827.1 713.1 845.1 1,480.0
774.1 8.9 792.1 194.7 810.1 395.2 828.1 737.2 846.1 1,550.0
775.1 18.0 793.1 207.5 811.1 405.9 829.1 755.3 847.1 1,617.0
776.1 24.0 794.1 219.4 812.1 418.7 830.1 774.4 848.1 1,684.0
777.1 31.9 795.1 232.2 813.1 431.5 831.1 792.7 849.1 1,750.0
778.1 39.9 796.1 245.0 814.1 445.3 832.1 806.0 850.1 1,815.0
779.1 48.8 797.1 256.8 815.1 460.0 833.1 814.4 851.1 1,879.0
780.1 57.7 798.1 269.6 816.1 475.8 834.1 819.9 852.1 1,942.0
781.1 67.6 799.1 281.4 817.1 493.6 835.1 825.5 853.1 2,004.0
782.1 77.5 800.1 293.2 818.1 511.3 836.1 836.3 854.1 2,066.0
783.1 87.4 801.1 305.0 819.1 530.1 837.1 859.2 855.1 2,128.0
784.1 98.2 802.1 315.8 820.1 550.9 838.1 901.2 856.1 2,189.0
785.1 110.1 803.1 326.6 821.1 571.7 839.1 1,014.1 857.1 2,249.0
786.1 120.9 804.1 336.4 822.1 593.6 840.1 1,104.0 858.1 2,309.0
787.1 132.7 805.1 346.2 823.1 616.4 841.1 1,185.0
788.1 145.5 806.1 355.0 824.1 640.3 842.1 1,263.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-22 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-17
COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
643.0 0.0 671.0 753.1 699.0 4,669.9 727.0 13,936.0 755.0 30,345.4
644.0 1.1 672.0 823.0 700.0 4,900.7 728.0 14,353.8 756.0 31,052.0
645.0 3.1 673.0 897.8 701.0 5,138.6 729.0 14,779.7 757.0 31,457.6
646.0 6.1 674.0 976.7 702.0 5,383.4 730.0 15,212.5 758.0 31,751.4
647.0 9.9 675.0 1,059.5 703.0 5,636.2 731.0 15,653.4 759.0 32,119.2
648.0 15.9 676.0 1,147.4 704.0 5,897.1 732.0 16,103.3 760.0 32,749.1
649.0 22.9 677.0 1,239.2 705.0 6,164.9 733.0 16,561.2 761.0 33,139.7
650.0 30.9 678.0 1,336.1 706.0 6,441.7 734.0 17,029.0 762.0 33,639.0
651.0 40.9 679.0 1,437.9 707.0 6,726.6 735.0 17,505.9 763.0 34,188.0
652.0 51.9 680.0 1,544.8 708.0 7,019.4 736.0 17,993.9 764.0 34,774.0
653.0 65.8 681.0 1,656.6 709.0 7,320.2 737.0 18,492.8 765.0 35,388.0
654.0 80.8 682.0 1,773.5 710.0 7,630.1 738.0 19,002.7 766.0 36,026.0
655.0 98.8 683.0 1,896.3 711.0 7,947.9 739.0 19,523.7 767.0 36,685.0
656.0 118.8 684.0 2,023.2 712.0 8,274.7 740.0 20,056.7 768.0 37,362.0
657.0 140.7 685.0 2,157.0 713.0 8,609.5 741.0 20,602.7 769.0 38,056.0
658.0 164.7 686.0 2,295.8 714.0 8,954.3 742.0 21,161.7 770.0 38,764.0
659.0 191.6 687.0 2,440.7 715.0 9,308.2 743.0 21,734.8 771.0 39,485.0
660.0 220.5 688.0 2,591.5 716.0 9,670.0 744.0 22,320.9 772.0 40,220.0
661.0 253.4 689.0 2,747.4 717.0 10,040.8 745.0 22,922.0 773.0 40,966.0
662.0 288.3 690.0 2,910.2 718.0 10,413.6 746.0 23,537.2 774.0 41,723.0
663.0 326.2 691.0 3,080.1 719.0 10,788.4 747.0 24,168.3 775.0 42,490.0
664.0 368.1 692.0 3,254.9 720.0 11,166.2 748.0 24,814.6 776.0 43,259.7
665.0 412.0 693.0 3,436.8 721.0 11,548.1 749.0 25,477.8 777.0 44,046.7
666.0 459.8 694.0 3,625.6 722.0 11,933.9 750.0 26,157.1 778.0 44,841.7
667.0 510.7 695.0 3,820.5 723.0 12,323.7 751.0 26,853.5 779.0 45,645.7
668.0 565.6 696.0 4,022.3 724.0 12,718.5 752.0 27,567.9 780.0 46,457.7
669.0 624.4 697.0 4,231.2 725.0 13,118.3 753.0 28,300.3
670.0 687.3 698.0 4,447.0 726.0 13,524.2 754.0 29,150.8

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-23 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-18
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
577.5 0.0 597.5 199.1 617.5 674.3 637.5 2,043.9 657.5 4,417.0
578.5 12.0 598.5 211.0 618.5 715.2 638.5 2,135.9 658.5 4,569.0
579.5 24.0 599.5 224.9 619.5 759.1 639.5 2,226.0 659.5 4,721.0
580.5 35.0 600.5 238.9 620.5 805.0 640.5 2,313.1 660.5 4,872.0
581.5 46.0 601.5 253.8 621.5 852.9 641.5 2,397.3 661.5 5,022.0
582.5 56.0 602.5 269.7 622.5 903.8 642.5 2,477.5 662.5 5,172.0
583.5 64.9 603.5 286.6 623.5 956.7 643.5 2,552.7 663.5 5,321.0
584.5 74.9 604.5 304.5 624.5 1,012.6 644.5 2,622.0 664.5 5,470.0
585.5 83.9 605.5 323.4 625.5 1,071.5 645.5 2,684.4 665.5 5,618.0
586.5 92.9 606.5 344.3 626.5 1,132.4 646.5 2,738.8 666.5 5,766.0
587.5 101.9 607.5 366.3 627.5 1,196.3 647.5 2,786.2 667.5 5,913.0
588.5 109.8 608.5 389.2 628.5 1,263.2 648.5 2,974.5
589.5 118.7 609.5 414.1 629.5 1,336.2 649.5 3,147.0
590.5 127.7 610.5 440.0 630.5 1,414.1 650.5 3,313.0
591.5 136.6 611.5 467.9 631.5 1,497.0 651.5 3,476.0
592.5 146.5 612.5 497.8 632.5 1,583.9 652.5 3,637.0
593.5 155.4 613.5 529.7 633.5 1,672.9 653.5 3,796.0
594.5 166.4 614.5 562.6 634.5 1,764.9 654.5 3,953.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-24 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-19
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
504.4 0.0 522.4 296.8 540.4 3,409.9 558.4 7,932.4 576.4 15,437.0
505.4 1.2 523.4 368.1 541.4 3,633.0 559.4 8,221.6 577.4 15,964.0
506.4 1.6 524.4 449.4 542.4 3,860.0 560.4 8,497.3 578.4 16,481.0
507.4 2.1 525.4 541.7 543.4 4,089.1 561.4 8,756.5 579.4 16,987.0
508.4 2.9 526.4 647.0 544.4 4,321.1 562.4 9,002.4 580.4 17,485.0
509.4 4.4 527.4 766.3 545.4 4,556.1 563.4 9,235.0 581.4 17,976.0
510.4 6.3 528.4 898.7 546.4 4,793.0 564.4 9,461.5 582.4 18,459.0
511.4 9.1 529.4 1,047.0 547.4 5,033.0 565.4 9,690.8 583.4 18,937.0
512.4 13.8 530.4 1,211.3 548.4 5,275.0 566.4 9,935.2 584.4 19,408.0
513.4 19.6 531.4 1,392.7 549.4 5,521.0 567.4 10,205.7 585.4 19,874.0
514.4 26.6 532.4 1,592.0 550.4 5,768.1 568.4 10,522.4 586.4 20,336.0
515.4 38.5 533.4 1,810.3 551.4 6,019.2 569.4 10,903.6 587.4 20,792.0
516.4 54.2 534.4 2,049.6 552.4 6,272.5 570.4 11,823.2 588.4 21,245.0
517.4 75.8 535.4 2,309.9 553.4 6,528.9 571.4 12,527.0 589.4 21,693.0
518.4 105.3 536.4 2,540.2 554.4 6,788.5 572.4 13,164.0
519.4 141.7 537.4 2,753.4 555.4 7,051.3 573.4 13,765.0
520.4 185.1 538.4 2,969.6 556.4 7,338.3 574.4 14,340.0
521.4 236.4 539.4 3,187.8 557.4 7,635.7 575.4 14,896.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-25 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-20
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
377.2 0.0 391.2 261.7 405.2 1,232.0 419.2 3,786.0 433.2 6,313.0
378.2 1.0 392.2 298.1 406.2 1,366.7 420.2 4,085.0 434.2 6,444.0
379.2 3.7 393.2 337.5 407.2 1,507.7 421.2 4,333.0 435.2 6,572.0
380.2 8.2 394.2 378.9 408.2 1,655.1 422.2 4,554.0 436.2 6,697.0
381.2 17.7 395.2 423.3 409.2 1,807.9 423.2 4,756.0 437.2 6,820.0
382.2 34.2 396.2 471.6 410.2 1,964.2 424.2 4,944.0 438.2 6,934.0
383.2 62.7 397.2 521.8 411.2 2,124.2 425.2 5,121.0
384.2 79.2 398.2 576.0 412.2 2,285.9 426.2 5,290.0
385.2 98.7 399.2 632.2 413.2 2,448.5 427.2 5,451.0
386.2 119.2 400.2 702.4 414.2 2,611.2 428.2 5,606.0
387.2 142.7 401.2 785.6 415.2 2,774.0 429.2 5,756.0
388.2 169.2 402.2 881.8 416.2 2,934.2 430.2 5,901.0
389.2 197.7 403.2 989.1 417.2 3,093.0 431.2 6,042.0
390.2 228.2 404.2 1,105.5 418.2 3,257.0 432.2 6,180.0

TABLE 3-21
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
315.8 0.0 328.8 33.9 341.8 135.6 354.8 418.1 367.8 727.0
316.8 2.8 329.8 37.7 342.8 149.4 355.8 450.9 368.8 761.0
317.8 5.3 330.8 41.5 343.8 164.2 356.8 460.7 369.8 795.0
318.8 7.7 331.8 47.3 344.8 180.0 357.8 474.0 370.8 831.0
319.8 10.0 332.8 52.2 345.8 196.8 358.8 491.0 371.8 868.0
320.8 12.0 333.8 58.0 346.8 215.7 359.8 510.0 372.8 906.0
321.8 14.0 334.8 64.8 347.8 235.6 360.8 531.0 373.8 945.0
322.8 17.0 335.8 72.7 348.8 257.5 361.8 554.0 374.8 984.0
323.8 18.8 336.8 80.5 349.8 279.5 362.8 579.0 375.8 1,025.0
324.8 21.6 337.8 90.3 350.8 304.6 363.8 606.0
325.8 24.4 338.8 100.1 351.8 329.8 364.8 634.0
326.8 27.2 339.8 111.0 352.8 358.1 365.8 664.0
327.8 30.1 340.8 122.8 353.8 387.5 366.8 695.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-26 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-22
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
218.4 0.0 236.4 59.4 254.4 233.2 272.4 527.2 290.4 906.0
219.4 1.6 237.4 66.1 255.4 246.9 273.4 547.3 291.4 934.0
220.4 2.1 238.4 72.9 256.4 260.6 274.4 568.4 292.4 962.0
221.4 3.1 239.4 79.6 257.4 274.2 275.4 589.6 293.4 991.0
222.4 4.3 240.4 87.3 258.4 287.9 276.4 610.9 294.4 1,020.0
223.4 6.0 241.4 96.0 259.4 302.5 277.4 633.3 295.4 1,049.0
224.4 8.0 242.4 103.7 260.4 318.2 278.4 653.9 296.4 1,079.0
225.4 10.8 243.4 112.4 261.4 332.9 279.4 671.7 297.4 1,109.0
226.4 12.7 244.4 122.2 262.4 349.5 280.4 689.6 298.4 1,139.0
227.4 16.6 245.4 131.9 263.4 365.2 281.4 706.7 299.4 1,170.0
228.4 19.4 246.4 141.6 264.4 381.9 282.4 723.0 300.4 1,201.0
229.4 23.2 247.4 151.3 265.4 398.5 283.4 739.5 301.4 1,232.0
230.4 27.0 248.4 162.0 266.4 415.3 284.4 758.7 302.4 1,264.0
231.4 31.8 249.4 172.7 267.4 433.0 285.4 779.0 303.4 1,295.0
232.4 36.5 250.4 184.4 268.4 451.7 286.4 802.0 304.4 1,327.0
233.4 41.3 251.4 196.1 269.4 469.5 287.4 827.0
234.4 47.0 252.4 208.8 270.4 488.4 288.4 853.0
235.4 52.7 253.4 220.5 271.4 508.3 289.4 879.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-27 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-23
WATEREE DEVELOPMENT RESERVOIR AREA
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
Elevation
(ft)
Area
(acres)
155.5 0.0 175.5 413.7 195.5 2,697.2 215.5 9,501.8 235.5 21,023.0
156.5 0.9 176.5 465.1 196.5 2,975.5 216.5 9,759.2 236.5 21,541.0
157.5 1.8 177.5 520.4 197.5 3,270.7 217.5 9,997.8 237.5 22,040.0
158.5 3.6 178.5 578.8 198.5 3,582.0 218.5 10,222.6 238.5 22,522.0
159.5 7.1 179.5 640.2 199.5 3,907.3 219.5 10,437.7 239.5 22,989.0
160.5 13.8 180.5 704.6 200.5 4,247.5 220.5 10,647.1 240.5 23,442.0
161.5 18.7 181.5 772.0 201.5 4,599.8 221.5 10,857.8 241.5 23,882.0
162.5 26.6 182.5 843.4 202.5 4,963.1 222.5 11,077.8 242.5 24,311.0
163.5 37.5 183.5 916.8 203.5 5,336.4 223.5 11,316.3 243.5 24,729.0
164.5 52.2 184.5 994.2 204.5 5,717.7 224.5 11,581.2 244.5 25,138.0
165.5 68.9 185.5 1,074.6 205.5 6,076.0 225.5 11,885.5 245.5 25,538.0
166.5 89.6 186.5 1,158.0 206.5 6,435.3 226.5 14,294.7
167.5 113.2 187.5 1,245.4 207.5 6,805.7 227.5 15,486.0
168.5 139.7 188.5 1,336.8 208.5 7,182.1 228.5 16,437.0
169.5 169.2 189.5 1,460.1 209.5 7,555.6 229.5 17,261.0
170.5 201.6 190.5 1,608.5 210.5 7,921.2 230.5 18,002.0
171.5 238.1 191.5 1,782.9 211.5 8,273.9 231.5 18,683.0
172.5 277.5 192.5 1,979.2 212.5 8,610.7 232.5 19,317.0
173.5 319.9 193.5 2,198.5 213.5 8,928.6 233.5 19,915.0

3.2.2.3 Monthly Evaporation
Evaporation is based upon a monthly varying coefficient that defines the evaporative loss per
reservoir. Reservoir evaporation is accounted for in the model by multiplying each day’s surface
area by the monthly coefficient to get an evaporation volume for the day in “acre-ft.” The
evaporation volume is converted into a flow for the day and is removed from the reservoir evenly
throughout the day. The coefficient’s units are “ft/day/acre,” a summary of the CHEOPS input
coefficients is provided in Table 3-24.
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-28 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-24
EVAPORATIVE LOSS COEFFICIENTS
Evaporation Coefficient*
(ft/day/acre) Month Bridgewater Rhodhiss Oxford Lookout
Shoals
Cowans
Ford
Mt.
Island Wylie Fishing
Creek
Great
Falls-
Dearborn
Rocky
Creek-
Cedar
Creek
Wateree
1 3.1E-03 3.2E-03 3.3E-03 3.4E-03 3.5E-03 3.5E-03 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 2.7E-03 3.7E-03
2 4.5E-03 4.7E-03 4.9E-03 5.0E-03 5.3E-03 5.2E-03 5.3E-03 5.4E-03 5.4E-03 4.0E-03 5.4E-03
3 6.9E-03 7.1E-03 7.4E-03 7.5E-03 7.9E-03 7.9E-03 8.0E-03 8.1E-03 8.1E-03 6.1E-03 8.2E-03
4 9.5E-03 9.7E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 8.2E-03 1.1E-02
5 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 9.3E-03 1.3E-02
6 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.0E-02 1.4E-02
7 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.4E-02 1.0E-02 1.4E-02
8 1.1E-02 1.1E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.2E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 1.3E-02 9.4E-03 1.3E-02
9 8.5E-03 8.7E-03 9.1E-03 9.3E-03 9.6E-03 9.8E-03 9.8E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-02 7.3E-03 1.0E-02
10 6.3E-03 6.5E-03 6.8E-03 6.9E-03 7.2E-03 7.3E-03 7.3E-03 7.4E-03 7.5E-03 5.5E-03 7.6E-03
11 4.4E-03 4.5E-03 4.7E-03 4.8E-03 4.9E-03 5.1E-03 5.1E-03 5.2E-03 5.2E-03 3.8E-03 5.2E-03
12 3.0E-03 3.1E-03 3.3E-03 3.3E-03 3.4E-03 3.5E-03 3.5E-03 3.6E-03 3.6E-03 2.6E-03 3.6E-03
*Values rounded to 1 decimal for report presentation
3.2.2.4 Tailwater Data
The Tailwater Curve relates the powerhouse tailwater elevation to the facility’s outflow. In
cases where the powerhouse releases directly into a downstream reservoir, the downstream
reservoir’s elevation is used to compute tailwater elevation. The elevation is in units of “feet,”
while the flow is in cubic feet per second, or “cfs.” The tailwater elevation is subtracted from the
reservoir elevation to calculate the gross head used in determining turbine hydraulic
performance. If the downstream plant’s reservoir elevation is higher than the calculated tailwater
elevation, the model uses that downstream reservoir elevation as the tailwater elevation in the
gross head calculations. The tailwater rating curves for the developments are presented in
Tables3-25 through 3-35.

Tailwater elevation at Rhodhiss, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing Creek, Great Falls-
Dearborn, and Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek are dependent on the headwater elevation at each of
the next downstream plants; Oxford, Mountain Island, Great Falls-Dearborn, Rocky Creek-Cedar
Creek and Wateree, respectively.
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-29 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-25
BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
1,059.0 1.0 1,081.5 80,000.0
1,064.5 10,000.0 1,082.8 90,000.0
1,068.0 20,000.0 1,084.3 100,000.0
1,071.5 30,000.0 1,086.0 110,000.0
1,073.5 40,000.0 1,087.0 120,000.0
1,076.0 50,000.0 1,087.5 130,000.0
1,077.5 60,000.0 1,088.0 140,000.0
1,079.5 70,000.0

TABLE 3-26
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
928.3 87.0 944.2 60,711.0
930.0 7,600.0 946.0 67,760.0
932.5 15,598.0 948.0 75,746.0
935.0 25,933.0 951.6 89,375.0
936.7 30,646.0 956.8 109,581.0
939.5 42,387.0 959.2 119,446.0
941.6 50,843.0 962.0 129,787.0
943.1 56,950.0 964.5 139,185.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-30 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-27
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
842.5 1.0 855.0 50,000.0
846.0 10,000.0 861.0 100,000.0
849.3 20,000.0 866.0 150,000.0
851.8 30,000.0 868.3 190,000.0

TABLE 3-28
LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
760.0 1.0 777.8 80,000.0
765.0 10,000.0 780.5 100,000.0
768.0 20,000.0 787.3 150,000.0
770.0 30,000.0 794.0 210,000.0
773.0 50,000.0

TABLE 3-29
COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
635.0 1.0 652.3 50,000.0
640.0 10,000.0 654.0 60,000.0
643.5 20,000.0 661.0 90,000.0
647.0 30,000.0 682.0 200,000.0
649.0 40,000.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-31 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-30
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
563.8 1.0 577.0 40,000.0
567.5 10,000.0 579.0 50,000.0
572.0 20,000.0 605.0 200,000.0
574.0 30,000.0

TABLE 3-31
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
490.0 1.0 518.0 120,000.0
500.0 20,000.0 525.3 180,000.0
505.0 40,000.0 538.0 310,000.0

TABLE 3-32
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
351.6 1.0
355.5 20,000.0
357.0 30,000.0
370.0 340,000.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-32 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-33
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
280.4 1.0 290.0 60,000.0
285.0 20,000.0 295.3 120,000.0
287.4 40,000.0 300.5 200,000.0

TABLE 3-34
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
213.2 891.0 233.6 167,160.0
215.9 13,220.0 236.8 202,337.0
220.3 39,800.0 238.2 217,548.0
222.6 58,802.0 240.7 248,926.0
225.8 86,360.0 243.4 280,302.0
228.0 107,269.0 248.0 335,452.0
230.6 132,933.0 251.2 376,340.0

TABLE 3-35
WATEREE DEVELOPMENT
TAILWATER RATING TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
143.5 1.0 154.0 60,000.0
147.5 20,000.0 157.0 80,000.0
152.0 40,000.0 168.5 200,000.0

3.2.2.5 Spillway Capacity
The Spillway Curve contains the data relating reservoir elevation (feet) and spillway discharge
capacity (cfs). This data allows the model to determine the maximum amount of water that can
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-33 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
be spilled at the current reservoir elevation and is the sum of all spillway conveyances with gates
open to maximum setting. The Model allows for a simple spillway relationship of elevation and
flow; therefore, all spillways, including gates, are modeled as a relationship of elevation and
flow.

Spillway capacity data for each of the developments are shown in Tables 3-36 through 3-46

The Primary outlet capacity for the Bridgewater Development is through the Linville-Paddy
Creek and Catawba Spillways.
TABLE 3-36
BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
1,200.0 0.0 1,212.5 96,410.0
1,200.5 716.0 1,213.0 102,642.0
1,201.0 2,027.0 1,214.0 116,005.0
1,202.0 5,800.0 1,215.0 130,415.0
1,203.0 10,751.0 1,216.0 145,997.0
1,204.0 16,676.0 1,217.0 162,365.0
1,205.0 23,469.0 1,218.0 179,368.0
1,206.0 31,055.0 1,219.0 197,044.0
1,207.0 39,363.0 1,220.0 215,384.0
1,208.0 48,358.0 1,221.0 234,335.0
1,209.0 58,004.0 1,222.0 253,873.0
1,210.0 68,304.0 1,223.0 273,976.0
1,211.0 79,161.0 1,224.0 294,546.0
1,212.0 90,526.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-34 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The primary outlet capacity for the Rhodhiss Development is through the overflow.

TABLE 3-37
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation (ft) Flow
(cfs) Elevation (ft) Flow
(cfs)
995.1 0.0 1,006.1 109,966.0
996.1 2,539.0 1,007.1 126,805.0
997.1 7,346.0 1,008.1 144,604.0
998.1 13,784.0 1,009.1 163,338.0
999.1 21,646.0 1,010.1 182,983.0
1,000.1 30,817.0 1,011.1 203,519.0
1,001.1 41,219.0 1,012.1 224,924.0
1,002.1 52,794.0 1,013.1 247,182.0
1,003.1 65,494.0 1,014.1 270,277.0
1,004.1 79,280.0 1,015.1 294,195.0
1,005.1 94,114.0

The primary outlet capacity for the Oxford Development is through the ten spillway gates.

TABLE 3-38
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
935.0 0.0 938.0 255,288.0
935.1 212,917.0 939.0 271,417.0
936.0 225,248.0 940.0 288,176.0
937.0 239,846.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-35 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The primary outlet capacity for the Lookout Shoals Development is through the ogee overflow
spillway.

TABLE 3-39
LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
838.1 0.0 849.1 123,097.0
839.1 2,787.0 850.1 142,157.0
840.1 8,062.0 851.1 162,355.0
841.1 15,173.0 852.1 183655.0
842.1 23,891.0 853.1 206,022.0
843.1 34,111.0 854.1 229,458.0
844.1 45,739.0 855.1 253,946.0
845.1 58,699.0 856.1 279,452.0
846.1 72,947.0 857.1 305,954.0
847.1 88,462.0 858.1 333,435.0
848.1 105,193.0

The primary outlet capacity for the Cowans Ford Development is through the eleven spillway
gates.
TABLE 3-40
COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
760.0 0.0 765.0 247,880.0
760.1 214,442.0 766.0 254,001.0
761.0 225,364.0 767.0 259,979.0
762.0 237,715.0 768.0 265,821.0
763.0 250,286.0 769.0 271,539.0
764.0 241,603.0 770.0 277,138.0
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-36 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The primary outlet capacity for the Mountain Island Development is through the ogee overflow
spillway.
TABLE 3-41
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
647.5 0.0 657.5 119,252.0
648.5 3,174.0 658.5 139,411.0
649.5 9,208.0 659.5 160,828.0
650.5 17,316.0 660.5 183,464.0
651.5 27,246.0 661.5 207,288.0
652.5 38,853.0 662.5 232,268.0
653.5 52,041.0 663.5 258,378.0
654.5 66,732.0 664.5 285,596.0
655.5 82,866.0 665.5 313,900.0
656.5 100,389.0

The primary outlet capacity for the Wylie Development is through the eleven spillway gates.
Additional discharge capacity available at elevation 569.4 ft is included in the following table.

TABLE 3-42
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
569.4 0.0 572.4 338,781.0
569.5 290,712.0 573.4 356,566.0
570.4 305,003.0 574.4 375,190.0
571.4 321,578.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-37 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The primary outlet capacity for the Fishing Creek Development is through the twenty-one
operable spillway gates and overflow spillway.

TABLE 3-43
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
417.2 0.0 421.2 601,871.0
417.3 483,991.0 422.2 633,436.0
418.2 511,184.0 432.2 949,086.0
419.2 540,699.0 442.2 1,264,736.0
420.2 570,946.0

The primary outlet capacity for the Great Falls-Dearborn Development is through the main
spillway, the long bypass spillway, and the canal spillway. There are 4-feet-high flashboards at
the canal spillway that are tripped when the headwater elevation reaches 357.8 ft. (2 feet above
the top of the flashboards). This assumption is accounted for in the spillway rating table below.

TABLE 3-44
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
355.8 0.0 361.8 167,013.0
356.8 7,181.0 362.8 204,965.0
357.8 20,460.0 363.8 245,779.0
358.8 67,682.0 364.8 289,450.0
359.8 94,040.0 365.8 335,846.0
360.8 127,883.0

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-38 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The primary outlet capacity for the Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Development is through the ogee
spillway and the two spillway gates.
TABLE 3-45
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
284.4 0.0 291.4 132,562.0
284.5 40,161.0 292.4 152,946.0
285.4 45,960.0 293.4 174,776.0
286.4 55,378.0 294.4 197,989.0
287.4 67,116.0 295.4 222,527.0
288.4 80,861.0 296.4 248,334.0
289.4 96,429.0 297.4 275,360.0
290.4 113,696.0 298.4 303,557.0

The primary outlet capacity for the Wateree Development is through the ogee spillway.
TABLE 3-46
WATEREE DEVELOPMENT
SPILLWAY CAPACITY TABLE
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
Elevation
(ft)
Flow
(cfs)
225.5 0.0 233.5 113,949.0
226.5 4,526.0 234.5 137,639.0
227.5 13,014.0 235.5 163,089.0
228.5 24,331.0 236.5 190,250.0
229.5 38,085.0 237.5 219,076.0
230.5 54,050.0 238.5 249,529.0
231.5 72,080.0 239.5 281,569.0
232.5 92,074.0 240.5 315,163.0

3.2.2.6 Plant Operation Type
The Plant Operation Type is how the Model classifies and operates the plants. Four different
components are used to describe the operation of the plants.

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-39 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
 Min Powerhouse Flow – All plants in this model have zero (0) value entered, as the turbine
input curves accurately define the lowest operating flow of the units.
 Plant Operation Type – This condition specifies what type of scheduling logic is to be used
for the plant. Options include Strictly Peaking, Non-generating, Run-of-River, and others.
Strictly peaking plants use logic to generate as much power as possible during the peak
period, followed by secondary-peak, and then off-peak periods; all eleven hydroelectric
stations in the system are strictly peaking.
 Delinked Owner – This condition sets the level of water conveyance support a plant receives
and provides to other plants operated by the same licensee/operator. All plants in the model
have this value unchecked, meaning the plants provide supporting operation to other plants
as they are all operated by the same owner.
 Delinked System – This condition sets the level of support a plant receives and provides to
other plants operated by other licensees/operators in the modeled system. All plants in this
model have this condition unchecked; meaning the default Model logic for support between
plants is in effect as all plants are operated by the same owner.

3.2.3 Operational Data
3.2.3.1 Spill and Minimum Elevations
The spill or flood control elevation relates to a variety of physical situations (spillway crest,
partial gate coverage, maximum normal pool, etc.), but it represents the elevation at which the
model will begin to simulate spill to avoid increasing water elevation. Under a strictly peaking
plant, when the model calculates an end-of-period elevation above the spill elevation, the model
will calculate spill as well as the turbine/diversion discharge. The model’s logic, under a strictly
peaking plant, also attempts to reduce or eliminate occurrences when the reservoir elevation
exceeds the spill elevation.
The minimum elevation is the minimum allowable reservoir elevation. The elevation could be
set by regulations or by a physical limit (lowest available outlet invert). Bypass flows,
withdrawals, wicket gate leakage, and evaporation can draw the reservoir below this level. The
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-40 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
model will operate to eliminate occurrences when the reservoir elevation dips below this
elevation.

Table 3-47 lists the spill elevations for each development in the Model. Table 3-48 lists the
minimum elevations for each development in the Model. The spill and minimum elevations are
as specified in the CRA, which is expected to be the final FERC-licensed requirements. In
accordance with the LIP outlined in the CRA, the minimum elevation may be reset throughout
the simulation.

TABLE 3-47
RESERVOIR SPILL ELEVATIONS
Development Spill Elevation
(ft.)
Bridgewater 1,200.0
Rhodhiss 995.1
Oxford 935.0
Lookout Shoals 838.1
Cowans Ford 760.0
Mountain Island 647.5
Wylie 569.4
Fishing Creek 417.2
Great Falls-Dearborn 355.8
Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek 284.4
Wateree 225.5

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-41 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-48
RESERVOIR MINIMUM ELEVATIONS
Day of
Year
Bridgewater
(ft.)
Rhodhiss
(ft.)
Oxford
(ft.)
Lookout
Shoals
(ft.)
Cowans
Ford
(ft.)
Mountain
Island
(ft.)
Wylie
(ft.)
Fishing
Creek
(ft.)
Great
Falls-
Dearborn
(ft.)
Rocky
Creek-
Cedar
Creek
(ft.)
Wateree
(ft.)
Jan 1 1,193.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 753.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 218.5
Feb 1 1,192.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 751.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 218.5
Mar 1 1,192.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 752.3 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
Apr 1 1,192.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 753.7 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
May 1 1,195.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 755.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
Jun 1 1,195.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 755.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
Jul 1 1,195.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 755.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
Aug 1 1,195.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 755.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
Sep 1 1,195.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 755.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
Oct 1 1,195.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 755.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 219.5
Nov 1 1,193.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 754.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 218.5
Dec 1 1,193.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 753.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 218.5
Dec 31 1,193.0 989.1 929.0 832.1 753.0 641.8 563.4 412.2 350.8 280.4 218.5

3.2.3.2 Target Elevations
The target elevation is the user-defined elevation that the model attempts to meet (targets) as the
end-of-day reservoir elevation. The model straight-line interpolates between user input points to
identify a target elevation for each day. The model will deviate from the target to accommodate
forecasted inflows, to meet the plant’s own outflow requirements or constraints, and to support
flow requirements.

Table 3-49 lists the reservoir target elevation for each development in the Model. The target
elevations are as specified in the CRA, which is expected to be the final FERC-licensed
requirements.

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-42 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-49
RESERVOIR TARGET ELEVATIONS
Day of
Year
Bridgewater
(ft.)
Rhodhiss
(ft.)
Oxford
(ft.)
Lookout
Shoals
(ft.)
Cowans
Ford
(ft.)
Mountain
Island
(ft.)
Wylie
(ft.)
Fishing
Creek
(ft.)
Great
Falls-
Dearborn
(ft.)
Rocky
Creek-
Cedar
Creek
(ft.)
Wateree
(ft.)
Jan 1 1,196.0 992.1 931.0 835.1 756 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 220
Feb 1 1,194.0 992.1 931.0 835.1 754 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 220.5
Mar 1 1,195.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 755.3 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Apr 1 1,196.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 756.7 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
May 1 1,198.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 758.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Jun 1 1,198.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 758.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Jul 1 1,198.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 758.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Aug 1 1,198.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 758.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Sep 1 1,198.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 758.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Oct 1 1,198.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 758.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Nov 1 1,196.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 757.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 222.5
Dec 1 1,196.0 992.1 932.0 835.1 756.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 220.5
Dec 31 1,196.0 992.1 931.0 835.1 756.0 643.5 566.4 415.2 353.3 281.9 220.0

3.2.3.3 Water Withdrawals
Historical water use (withdrawals and returns in cfs) were estimated as part of the Catawba-
Wateree River Basin Master Plan and the methodologies used in the development outlined in the
May 2014 Water Supply Master Plan (HDR 2014). The monthly water use in cfs was modeled
in the Historical CRA Baseline scenario to represent historical municipal and industrial water use
from each reservoir basin. The Historical CRA Baseline scenario modeled withdrawals and
returns in cfs and is presented in Appendix A.
3.2.3.4 Minimum Flows
The model allows a minimum flow constraint to be applied at a powerhouse on both a daily
average and an instantaneous basis. This will limit operations to maintain flow at or above the
defined limit.

Table 3-50 lists the minimum instantaneous flow requirements for each development in the
Model with a minimum instantaneous flow requirement. The minimum instantaneous flow
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-43 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
requirements are as specified in the CRA, which is expected to be the final FERC-licensed
requirements.

TABLE 3-50
MINIMUM INSTANTANEOUS FLOW REQUIREMENTS
Day of
Year
Bridgewater*
(cfs)
Oxford
(cfs)
Lookout Shoals
(cfs)
Wylie
(cfs)
Wateree*
(cfs)
Jan 1 145.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Feb 1 145.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Feb 15 145.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 2,400.0
Mar 1 145.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 2,700.0
Apr 1 95.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 2,700.0
May 1 95.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 2,400.0
May 16 95.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 1,250.0
Jun 1 95.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Jul 1 95.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Aug 1 75.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Sep 1 75.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Oct 1 75.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Nov 1 75.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Dec 1 145.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0
Dec 31 145.0 150.0 80.0 1,100.0 930.0

* Bridgewater and Wateree minimum instantaneous flow requirements have been simulated as
daily average flow requirements as the necessary powerhouse modifications had not been
implemented to meet the minimum instantaneous flows through the various powerhouses for the
2008 through 2010 scenario run period. The new Bridgewater powerhouse went into operation
in 2011 and at the time of this writing the proposed Wateree and Wylie minimum flow units
have yet to be installed.

Table 3-51 lists the minimum daily average flow requirements for each development in the
Model with a minimum daily average flow requirement. The minimum daily flow requirements
are as specified in the CRA, which is expected to be the final FERC-licensed requirements.

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-44 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-51
MINIMUM DAILY AVERAGE FLOW REQUIREMENTS
Day of Year Rhodhiss
(cfs)
Cowans Ford
(cfs)
Mountain Island
(cfs)
Fishing Creek
(cfs)
Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek
(cfs)
Jan 1 – Dec 31 225.0 311.0 314.0 440.0 445.0

3.2.3.5 Bypass Flows
The model allows a bypass flow to be applied at each reservoir. The bypass flow requirements
are simulated 24 hours a day and are not available for generation. Each of the bypass flows in
the system return to the next downstream plant, bypass flows are only required at the
Bridgewater and Great Falls-Dearborn developments. However, the CRA bypass flows were not
fully implemented for the period of analysis (2008 through 2010) and the simulation of these
flows may result in an underestimation of historical generation.

Table 3-52 lists the bypass flow requirements for each development in the Model with a bypass
flow requirement. The minimum bypass flow requirements are as specified in the CRA, which is
expected to be the final FERC-licensed requirements.

TABLE 3-52
BYPASS FLOW REQUIREMENTS
Day of
Year
Bridgewater
(cfs)
Great Falls-Dearborn
(cfs)
Jan 1 75.0 550.0
Feb 1 75.0 550.0
Feb 15 75.0 950.0
Mar 1 75.0 950.0
Apr 1 75.0 950.0
May 1 75.0 950.0
May 16 75.0 550.0
Jun 1 75.0 550.0
Jul 1 50.0 550.0
Aug 1 50.00 550.00
Sep 1 50.00 550.00
Oct 1 50.00 550.00
Nov 1 50.00 550.00
Dec 1 75.00 550.00
Dec 31 75.00 550.00

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-45 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.2.3.6 Reservoir Fluctuation Limits
The model allows the definition of a reservoir level fluctuation limit which defines how the
fluctuation of the reservoir is limited within each day. In other words, level fluctuations define
the allowable difference between maximum and minimum elevations achieved during the
specified period. For Bridgewater (April 24 through May 14), Cowans Ford (April 18 through
May 8), Wylie (April 12 through May 2), and Wateree (April 10 through April 30), daily limits
on reservoir fluctuation are 1 foot. The purpose of these fluctuation limits is to stabilize the lake
during fish spawning season. Fluctuation limit restrictions may be waived during LIP stage 1
and higher, and are modeled as suspended during these LIP stages.

3.2.3.7 Recreation Flows
The model allows a recreation flow to be applied for specified days of the year from a plant at
specified times of the day. The recreation flow, as with the minimum flow requirements, limits
operations to maintain flow at or above the defined limit for the period specified. However, the
CRA recreation flows were not fully implemented for the period of analysis (2008 through 2010)
and, therefore, have not been simulated.

3.2.4 Generation Data
All unit performance information was estimated and modeled based on the information available
at the time of model development. Unit performance was simulated to estimate the stations as
they existed for the period of analysis; the new Bridgewater powerhouse, and Wylie and Wateree
minimum flow units were not in operation. The new Bridgewater powerhouse went into
operation in 2011, and at the time of this writing the proposed Wateree and Wylie minimum flow
units have yet to be installed.

3.2.4.1 Headloss Coefficients
The Model allows two common headloss coefficients for each plant and an individual coefficient
for each unit. Headloss for each unit is calculated by multiplying the unit’s common coefficient
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-46 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
by the total flow for that common coefficient squared, added to the individual coefficient
multiplied, by the individual unit flow squared. The formula is:
iic
n
j
ji hFhFH2
2
1








Where:
Hi is the unit headloss in feet
hc is the common coefficient for the ith unit
hi is the individual coefficient for the ith unit
Fi is the flow for the ith unit
j runs from 1 to n
n is the number of units that have the same common coefficient as the unit i

Table 3-53 presents the estimated headlosses for each hydroelectric plant as a function of
flow (Q):
TABLE 3-53
HEADLOSS COEFFICIENTS
Headloss Coefficients (ft/cfs^2)
Plant Common Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Unit 7 Unit 8
Bridgewater 2.87E-07 2.30E-07 2.30E-07
Rhodhiss 0 1.91E-07 1.91E-07 1.91E-07
Oxford 0 1.33E-07 1.33E-07
Lookout Shoals 0 6.96E-07 6.96E-07 6.96E-07
Cowans Ford 0 8.46E-09 8.46E-09 8.46E-09 8.46E-09
Mountain Island 0 1.51E-07 1.51E-07 1.51E-07 1.51E-07
Wylie 0 8.62E-08 8.62E-08 8.62E-08 8.62E-08
Fishing Creek 0 2.22E-07 2.22E-07 2.22E-07 2.22E-07 2.22E-07
Great Falls 0 1.78E-06 1.78E-06 1.78E-06 1.78E-06 1.78E-06 1.78E-06 1.78E-06 1.78E-06
Dearborn 0 1.63E-07 1.63E-07 1.63E-07
Rocky Creek 0 1.06E-06 1.06E-06 1.06E-06 1.06E-06 1.06E-06 1.06E-06 1.06E-06
Cedar Creek 0 1.18E-07 1.18E-07 1.18E-07
Wateree 0 1.29E-07 1.29E-07 1.29E-07 1.29E-07 1.29E-07

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-47 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.2.4.2 Turbine Efficiency Curves
Turbine performance is entered into the Model by plant and as flow versus efficiency at five
separate net heads. The estimated turbine performance is presented in Tables 3-54 through 3-72.

TABLE 3-54
BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 and 2
Net Head of 127ft Net Head of 129ft Net Head of 131ft Net Head of 133ft Net Head of 135ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
797 84.95% 803 84.96% 809 84.97% 815 84.94% 822 84.92%
837 85.83% 843 85.85% 849 85.87% 853 85.85% 857 85.82%
877 86.56% 883 86.59% 889 86.62% 890 86.59% 892 86.56%
917 87.12% 923 87.16% 929 87.20% 928 87.17% 927 87.14%
957 87.53% 963 87.57% 969 87.62% 965 87.60% 962 87.57%
997 87.77% 1003 87.82% 1009 87.87% 1003 87.86% 997 87.86%
1037 87.84% 1043 87.90% 1049 87.95% 1040 87.97% 1032 88.00%
1077 87.74% 1083 87.80% 1089 87.86% 1078 87.93% 1067 87.99%
1117 87.47% 1123 87.53% 1129 87.60% 1115 87.73% 1102 87.85%
1157 87.02% 1163 87.09% 1169 87.16% 1153 87.37% 1137 87.58%
1197 86.38% 1203 86.46% 1209 86.55% 1190 86.86% 1172 87.18%
1237 85.56% 1243 85.66% 1249 85.76% 1228 86.20% 1207 86.65%
1277 84.56% 1283 84.67% 1289 84.78% 1265 85.39% 1242 86.00%
1317 83.36% 1323 83.49% 1329 83.63% 1303 84.43% 1277 85.24%
1357 81.96% 1363 82.13% 1369 82.29% 1340 83.32% 1312 84.36%
1397 80.37% 1403 80.57% 1409 80.76% 1378 82.07% 1347 83.37%
1430 78.91% 1440 78.95% 1450 78.98% 1406 80.93% 1363 82.88%
Note: Bridgewater turbine curves in Table 3-54 are for the old retired powerhouse for this
validation. The new powerhouse was placed in service in 2011.

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-48 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-55
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 and 3
Net Head of 56ft Net Head of 57.5ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60ft Net Head of 61ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1404 82.51% 1438 83.11% 1471 83.70% 1528 81.85% 1584 80.00%
1460 83.54% 1493 84.08% 1526 84.61% 1581 83.03% 1636 81.45%
1516 85.13% 1549 85.55% 1581 85.96% 1635 84.81% 1688 83.66%
1572 86.89% 1604 87.19% 1636 87.48% 1688 86.79% 1740 86.10%
1628 88.52% 1660 88.74% 1691 88.95% 1742 88.68% 1792 88.42%
1684 89.82% 1715 90.02% 1746 90.22% 1795 90.29% 1844 90.35%
1740 90.68% 1771 90.93% 1801 91.19% 1849 91.47% 1896 91.75%
1796 91.04% 1826 91.42% 1856 91.79% 1902 92.18% 1948 92.56%
1852 90.91% 1882 91.46% 1911 92.01% 1956 92.40% 2000 92.80%
1908 90.35% 1937 91.10% 1966 91.84% 2009 92.18% 2052 92.52%
1964 89.42% 1993 90.38% 2021 91.34% 2063 91.59% 2104 91.84%
2020 88.24% 2048 89.39% 2076 90.54% 2116 90.71% 2156 90.87%
2076 86.91% 2104 88.22% 2131 89.52% 2170 89.64% 2208 89.76%
2132 85.53% 2159 86.94% 2186 88.35% 2223 88.48% 2260 88.61%
2188 84.19% 2215 85.64% 2241 87.09% 2277 87.31% 2312 87.53%
2244 82.93% 2270 84.38% 2296 85.82% 2330 86.18% 2364 86.55%
2300 81.79% 2326 83.18% 2351 84.58% 2384 85.12% 2416 85.66%
2356 80.70% 2381 82.05% 2406 83.41% 2437 84.08% 2468 84.76%
2412 79.57% 2437 80.94% 2461 82.31% 2491 82.99% 2520 83.67%
2475 78.00% 2503 79.50% 2530 81.00% 2546 81.74% 2561 82.48%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-49 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-56
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Unit 2
Net Head of 56ft Net Head of 58ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60ft Net Head of 61ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1556 79.01% 1569 78.76% 1582 78.52% 1582 78.36% 1582 78.20%
1623 81.65% 1634 81.33% 1644 81.02% 1643 80.79% 1642 80.56%
1690 83.98% 1698 83.61% 1706 83.25% 1704 82.97% 1702 82.68%
1757 86.01% 1763 85.61% 1768 85.22% 1765 84.90% 1762 84.59%
1824 87.75% 1827 87.35% 1830 86.94% 1826 86.61% 1822 86.28%
1891 89.22% 1892 88.82% 1892 88.42% 1887 88.09% 1882 87.76%
1958 90.43% 1956 90.05% 1954 89.68% 1948 89.36% 1942 89.04%
2025 91.39% 2021 91.05% 2016 90.72% 2009 90.42% 2002 90.13%
2092 92.11% 2085 91.83% 2078 91.55% 2070 91.29% 2062 91.03%
2159 92.61% 2150 92.40% 2140 92.18% 2131 91.97% 2122 91.76%
2226 92.90% 2214 92.76% 2202 92.63% 2192 92.47% 2182 92.31%
2293 92.98% 2279 92.94% 2264 92.90% 2253 92.80% 2242 92.69%
2360 92.88% 2343 92.94% 2326 93.00% 2314 92.96% 2302 92.92%
2427 92.61% 2408 92.78% 2388 92.95% 2375 92.98% 2362 93.01%
2494 92.18% 2472 92.46% 2450 92.75% 2436 92.85% 2422 92.94%
2561 91.59% 2537 92.00% 2512 92.41% 2497 92.58% 2482 92.75%
2628 90.87% 2601 91.41% 2574 91.95% 2558 92.18% 2542 92.42%
2695 90.03% 2666 90.70% 2636 91.37% 2619 91.67% 2602 91.98%
2762 89.07% 2730 89.88% 2698 90.68% 2680 91.05% 2662 91.42%
2830 88.00% 2798 88.91% 2766 89.82% 2747 90.25% 2728 90.68%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-50 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-57
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 and 2
Net Head of 85ft Net Head of 86ft Net Head of 87ft Net Head of 89ft Net Head of 90ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1849 87.67% 1858 87.77% 1866 87.87% 1887 87.67% 1907 87.47%
1924 88.81% 1933 88.91% 1941 89.00% 1962 88.79% 1982 88.58%
1999 90.02% 2008 90.10% 2016 90.19% 2037 89.97% 2057 89.75%
2074 91.21% 2083 91.29% 2091 91.37% 2112 91.14% 2132 90.91%
2149 92.32% 2158 92.40% 2166 92.48% 2187 92.24% 2207 92.00%
2224 93.30% 2233 93.38% 2241 93.46% 2262 93.22% 2282 92.97%
2299 94.12% 2308 94.20% 2316 94.28% 2337 94.03% 2357 93.79%
2374 94.73% 2383 94.82% 2391 94.90% 2412 94.66% 2432 94.42%
2449 95.13% 2458 95.22% 2466 95.31% 2487 95.08% 2507 94.85%
2524 95.30% 2533 95.39% 2541 95.49% 2562 95.28% 2582 95.07%
2599 95.23% 2608 95.34% 2616 95.45% 2637 95.26% 2657 95.07%
2674 94.96% 2683 95.08% 2691 95.20% 2712 95.03% 2732 94.87%
2749 94.49% 2758 94.62% 2766 94.75% 2787 94.61% 2807 94.47%
2824 93.86% 2833 94.01% 2841 94.15% 2862 94.03% 2882 93.92%
2899 93.12% 2908 93.27% 2916 93.43% 2937 93.33% 2957 93.24%
2974 92.32% 2983 92.48% 2991 92.64% 3012 92.56% 3032 92.48%
3049 91.53% 3058 91.69% 3066 91.85% 3087 91.77% 3107 91.69%
3124 90.82% 3133 90.97% 3141 91.13% 3162 91.03% 3182 90.94%
3199 90.28% 3208 90.42% 3216 90.56% 3237 90.43% 3257 90.31%
3255 90.05% 3271 90.15% 3286 90.25% 3324 90.01% 3361 89.77%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-51 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-58
LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 - 3
Net Head of 71ft Net Head of 72ft Net Head of 74ft Net Head of 77ft Net Head of 78ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1013 78.89% 1015 77.65% 1028 78.42% 1016 76.30% 1005 76.10%
1051 79.97% 1048 79.12% 1064 79.57% 1044 77.89% 1036 77.53%
1089 80.99% 1083 80.32% 1099 80.63% 1075 79.23% 1067 78.77%
1126 81.98% 1119 81.36% 1133 81.66% 1106 80.38% 1099 79.87%
1162 82.98% 1155 82.33% 1167 82.67% 1139 81.42% 1132 80.88%
1197 84.00% 1191 83.27% 1200 83.69% 1171 82.38% 1164 81.84%
1230 85.04% 1225 84.24% 1231 84.72% 1203 83.31% 1196 82.77%
1263 86.09% 1258 85.24% 1262 85.76% 1235 84.23% 1227 83.70%
1295 87.12% 1289 86.28% 1292 86.80% 1266 85.16% 1257 84.63%
1327 88.10% 1320 87.32% 1322 87.81% 1296 86.09% 1287 85.57%
1359 88.98% 1350 88.33% 1352 88.76% 1325 87.01% 1316 86.50%
1394 89.69% 1382 89.24% 1383 89.59% 1355 87.91% 1345 87.41%
1433 90.16% 1416 89.96% 1417 90.25% 1385 88.76% 1374 88.28%
1476 90.29% 1454 90.39% 1454 90.66% 1416 89.49% 1404 89.07%
1527 89.98% 1499 90.38% 1497 90.73% 1450 90.07% 1436 89.72%
1589 89.08% 1555 89.79% 1548 90.37% 1487 90.40% 1471 90.19%
1667 87.46% 1626 88.41% 1609 89.44% 1530 90.40% 1511 90.40%
1766 84.94% 1742 85.41% 1686 87.81% 1581 89.96% 1556 90.25%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-52 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-59
COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 - 4
Net Head of 95ft Net Head of 97.5ft Net Head of 100ft Net Head of 105ft Net Head of 110ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
6126 91.00% 6216 90.99% 6305 90.99% 6239 90.98% 6173 90.97%
6451 91.06% 6516 91.13% 6580 91.21% 6491 91.19% 6403 91.18%
6776 91.13% 6816 91.27% 6855 91.41% 6744 91.39% 6633 91.37%
7101 91.21% 7116 91.41% 7130 91.60% 6996 91.58% 6863 91.55%
7426 91.31% 7416 91.54% 7405 91.77% 7249 91.75% 7093 91.72%
7751 91.40% 7716 91.67% 7680 91.93% 7501 91.90% 7323 91.88%
8076 91.50% 8016 91.79% 7955 92.08% 7754 92.05% 7553 92.02%
8401 91.60% 8316 91.90% 8230 92.20% 8006 92.18% 7783 92.15%
8726 91.69% 8616 92.01% 8505 92.32% 8259 92.30% 8013 92.27%
9051 91.78% 8916 92.10% 8780 92.42% 8511 92.40% 8243 92.38%
9376 91.85% 9216 92.18% 9055 92.50% 8764 92.49% 8473 92.48%
9701 91.92% 9516 92.24% 9330 92.57% 9016 92.57% 8703 92.56%
10026 91.96% 9816 92.29% 9605 92.62% 9269 92.63% 8933 92.63%
10351 91.99% 10116 92.32% 9880 92.66% 9521 92.68% 9163 92.69%
10676 91.99% 10416 92.34% 10155 92.68% 9774 92.71% 9393 92.74%
11001 91.97% 10716 92.33% 10430 92.69% 10026 92.73% 9623 92.78%
11326 91.92% 11016 92.30% 10705 92.68% 10279 92.74% 9853 92.80%
11651 91.84% 11316 92.24% 10980 92.65% 10531 92.73% 10083 92.82%
11976 91.72% 11616 92.16% 11255 92.61% 10784 92.71% 10313 92.82%
12158 91.64% 11798 92.11% 11437 92.57% 10901 92.69% 10364 92.82%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-53 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-60
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 - 4
Net Head of 72ft Net Head of 76ft Net Head of 80ft Net Head of 82ft Net Head of 83ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1837 81.03% 1898.7 82.42% 2105.2 82.35% 2116.8 81.90% 2128.4 81.45%
1915.7 81.97% 1967.5 83.47% 2178.3 83.34% 2228.3 83.31% 2278.3 83.27%
1988.4 83.08% 2034.6 84.53% 2249.3 84.35% 2299.3 84.29% 2349.3 84.24%
2059.5 84.18% 2101.3 85.53% 2319.9 85.31% 2370 85.24% 2420 85.17%
2130.2 85.22% 2167.4 86.51% 2390.1 86.24% 2440.1 86.15% 2490.2 86.06%
2200.1 86.23% 2232 87.48% 2458.9 87.16% 2508.9 87.05% 2559 86.95%
2267.9 87.27% 2294.1 88.50% 2525.5 88.11% 2575.5 87.99% 2625.6 87.87%
2332.9 88.35% 2353.6 89.56% 2589.4 89.10% 2639.4 88.96% 2689.5 88.83%
2395.3 89.47% 2411.5 90.64% 2651 90.12% 2701.1 89.96% 2751.2 89.81%
2456.8 90.57% 2469.9 91.64% 2712 91.11% 2762 90.94% 2812 90.78%
2520.8 91.52% 2532.2 92.44% 2775 91.99% 2824.7 91.82% 2874.4 91.65%
2592.1 92.16% 2602.9 92.91% 2843.7 92.64% 2892.6 92.48% 2941.6 92.32%
2676.4 92.32% 2686.8 92.88% 2922.6 92.92% 2970.2 92.81% 3017.7 92.69%
2779.8 91.83% 2788.9 92.25% 3016.5 92.73% 3061.7 92.68% 3107 92.64%
2907.2 90.61% 2912.9 90.97% 3129.6 91.97% 3171.7 92.03% 3213.8 92.08%
3061.2 88.72% 3059.9 89.11% 3342 89.76% 3378.1 90.00% 3414.3 90.24%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-54 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-61
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 - 3
Net Head of 63.5ft Net Head of 64.5ft Net Head of 65.5ft Net Head of 67ft Net Head of 68.5ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1000 66.00% 1000 65.50% 1000 65.00% 1000 64.50% 1000 64.00%
2170 84.11% 2168 84.13% 2165 84.15% 2165 84.58% 2164 85.01%
2200 84.53% 2200 84.59% 2200 84.65% 2200 85.01% 2200 85.37%
2300 85.45% 2300 85.71% 2300 85.97% 2300 86.09% 2300 86.21%
2400 86.03% 2400 86.59% 2400 87.16% 2400 87.07% 2400 86.99%
2500 86.60% 2500 87.42% 2500 88.25% 2500 88.05% 2500 87.84%
2600 87.33% 2600 88.29% 2600 89.25% 2600 89.04% 2600 88.84%
2700 88.28% 2700 89.22% 2700 90.15% 2700 90.06% 2700 89.96%
2800 89.40% 2800 90.18% 2800 90.95% 2800 91.04% 2800 91.12%
2900 90.58% 2900 91.11% 2900 91.64% 2900 91.93% 2900 92.22%
3000 91.65% 3000 91.91% 3000 92.18% 3000 92.66% 3000 93.13%
3100 92.44% 3100 92.49% 3100 92.54% 3100 93.14% 3100 93.73%
3200 92.81% 3200 92.75% 3200 92.68% 3200 93.30% 3200 93.92%
3300 92.64% 3300 92.60% 3300 92.56% 3300 93.09% 3300 93.63%
3400 91.90% 3400 92.01% 3400 92.11% 3400 92.49% 3400 92.88%
3500 90.64% 3500 90.97% 3500 91.29% 3500 91.51% 3500 91.73%
3600 89.07% 3600 89.56% 3600 90.04% 3600 90.21% 3600 90.38%
3633 88.54% 3662 88.50% 3691 88.47% 3721 88.56% 3751 88.66%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-55 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-62
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Unit 4
Net Head of 63.5ft Net Head of 64.5ft Net Head of 65.5ft Net Head of 67ft Net Head of 68.5ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
2579 81.00% 2579 81.00% 2579 81.00% 2610 81.01% 2640 81.02%
2600 81.30% 2600 81.26% 2600 81.21% 2650 81.51% 2700 81.80%
2700 82.57% 2700 82.42% 2700 82.28% 2725 82.35% 2750 82.42%
2800 83.75% 2800 83.62% 2800 83.48% 2800 83.26% 2800 83.04%
2900 85.03% 2900 84.94% 2900 84.85% 2900 84.59% 2900 84.33%
3000 86.44% 3000 86.39% 3000 86.34% 3000 86.04% 3000 85.74%
3100 87.94% 3100 87.90% 3100 87.86% 3100 87.54% 3100 87.23%
3200 89.39% 3200 89.34% 3200 89.29% 3200 88.99% 3200 88.70%
3300 90.63% 3300 90.57% 3300 90.51% 3300 90.27% 3300 90.02%
3400 91.51% 3400 91.46% 3400 91.41% 3400 91.24% 3400 91.07%
3500 91.90% 3500 91.90% 3500 91.90% 3500 91.81% 3500 91.73%
3600 91.77% 3600 91.85% 3600 91.94% 3600 91.93% 3600 91.93%
3700 91.17% 3700 91.37% 3700 91.56% 3700 91.63% 3700 91.71%
3800 90.32% 3800 90.60% 3800 90.88% 3775 91.18% 3750 91.47%
3888 89.65% 3885 89.95% 3882 90.25% 3829 90.79% 3776 91.33%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-56 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-63
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 and 4
Net Head of 57ft Net Head of 58ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60.5ft Net Head of 62ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1925 88.49% 1950.6 88.72% 1976.3 88.95% 1969.9 88.88% 1963.6 88.82%
1961.6 88.81% 1987.1 89.01% 2012.5 89.21% 2005.6 89.12% 1998.7 89.04%
1998.2 89.12% 2023.4 89.29% 2048.5 89.46% 2041.1 89.36% 2033.6 89.26%
2034.8 89.42% 2059.6 89.57% 2084.4 89.72% 2076.2 89.61% 2068.1 89.49%
2071.1 89.73% 2095.5 89.85% 2120 89.98% 2111.1 89.85% 2102.3 89.73%
2107.2 90.02% 2131.3 90.13% 2155.3 90.24% 2145.7 90.11% 2136.1 89.98%
2143.3 90.32% 2166.9 90.40% 2190.6 90.49% 2180.1 90.36% 2169.6 90.23%
2179.3 90.60% 2202.6 90.67% 2225.8 90.74% 2214.3 90.61% 2202.8 90.48%
2215.6 90.86% 2238.4 90.92% 2261.2 90.97% 2248.6 90.85% 2236.1 90.73%
2252.4 91.09% 2274.8 91.14% 2297.1 91.18% 2283.3 91.07% 2269.5 90.96%
2290.1 91.29% 2312 91.32% 2333.8 91.35% 2318.6 91.26% 2303.3 91.17%
2329.1 91.42% 2350.4 91.44% 2371.8 91.46% 2354.9 91.40% 2338 91.34%
2370 91.48% 2390.7 91.49% 2411.5 91.51% 2392.7 91.48% 2373.9 91.46%
2413.4 91.44% 2433.5 91.45% 2453.5 91.46% 2432.5 91.49% 2411.5 91.51%
2460.1 91.27% 2479.4 91.29% 2498.7 91.31% 2475.1 91.39% 2451.5 91.47%
2511.2 90.96% 2529.4 90.99% 2547.7 91.02% 2521.1 91.17% 2494.5 91.32%
2567.6 90.47% 2584.7 90.52% 2601.7 90.57% 2571.5 90.80% 2541.3 91.04%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-57 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-64
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 2 and 3
Net Head of 57ft Net Head of 58ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60.5ft Net Head of 62ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1600 81.41% 1600 81.31% 1600 81.20% 1600 80.15% 1600 79.10%
1700 83.19% 1675 82.64% 1650 82.09% 1637.5 80.80% 1625 79.52%
1750 84.01% 1725 83.49% 1700 82.96% 1675 81.43% 1650 79.90%
1800 84.82% 1775 84.33% 1750 83.83% 1725 82.23% 1700 80.62%
1850 85.63% 1825 85.18% 1800 84.73% 1775 83.06% 1750 81.39%
1900 86.44% 1875 86.04% 1850 85.64% 1825 83.95% 1800 82.26%
1950 87.27% 1925 86.92% 1900 86.57% 1875 84.91% 1850 83.25%
2000 88.11% 1975 87.81% 1950 87.50% 1925 85.90% 1900 84.30%
2050 88.94% 2025 88.68% 2000 88.41% 1975 86.87% 1950 85.33%
2100 89.73% 2075 89.51% 2050 89.28% 2025 87.76% 2000 86.25%
2150 90.45% 2125 90.26% 2100 90.06% 2075 88.52% 2050 86.98%
2200 91.05% 2175 90.89% 2150 90.73% 2125 89.11% 2100 87.49%
2250 91.45% 2225 91.35% 2200 91.25% 2175 89.51% 2150 87.77%
2300 91.58% 2275 91.57% 2250 91.56% 2225 89.72% 2200 87.88%
2350 91.33% 2325 91.48% 2300 91.63% 2275 89.77% 2250 87.90%
2425 90.00% 2393 90.66% 2361 91.32% 2316 89.62% 2271 87.91%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-58 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-65
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Unit 5
Net Head of 57ft Net Head of 58ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60.5ft Net Head of 62ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1000 83.24% 1000 82.39% 1000 81.54% 1000 78.10% 1000 74.65%
1250 86.57% 1275 86.51% 1300 86.44% 1317.5 86.12% 1335 85.80%
1300 87.19% 1325 87.19% 1350 87.18% 1375 86.99% 1400 86.80%
1350 87.89% 1375 87.92% 1400 87.96% 1425 87.77% 1450 87.59%
1400 88.64% 1425 88.71% 1450 88.78% 1475 88.60% 1500 88.42%
1450 89.44% 1475 89.53% 1500 89.62% 1525 89.45% 1550 89.28%
1550 91.03% 1575 91.11% 1600 91.20% 1625 91.09% 1650 90.98%
1600 91.73% 1625 91.81% 1650 91.88% 1675 91.80% 1700 91.73%
1650 92.32% 1675 92.37% 1700 92.42% 1725 92.39% 1750 92.36%
1700 92.75% 1725 92.78% 1750 92.80% 1775 92.81% 1800 92.82%
1750 92.98% 1775 92.99% 1800 92.99% 1825 93.03% 1850 93.06%
1800 92.99% 1825 92.97% 1850 92.96% 1875 93.01% 1900 93.07%
1850 92.76% 1875 92.73% 1900 92.70% 1925 92.76% 1950 92.82%
1900 92.29% 1925 92.25% 1950 92.21% 1975 92.26% 2000 92.31%
1950 91.60% 1975 91.56% 2000 91.53% 2025 91.55% 2050 91.57%
2000 90.74% 2025 90.71% 2050 90.68% 2075 90.67% 2100 90.66%
2050 89.77% 2075 89.76% 2100 89.75% 2125 89.69% 2150 89.64%
2100 88.80% 2125 88.80% 2150 88.80% 2175 88.72% 2200 88.64%
2150 87.96% 2175 87.97% 2200 87.97% 2225 87.89% 2250 87.81%
2225 87.32% 2245 87.32% 2265 87.32% 2290 87.33% 2315 87.34%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-59 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-66
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
GREAT FALLS
Units 1 - 4 and 6 - 8
Net Head of 68ft Net Head of 69ft Net Head of 70ft Net Head of 71ft Net Head of 72ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
489 74.01% 500 74.01% 511 74.01% 519.5 73.50% 528 72.99%
509 74.27% 520 74.49% 531 74.71% 539.5 74.20% 548 73.70%
529 74.92% 540 75.28% 551 75.63% 559.5 75.21% 568 74.78%
549 75.79% 560 76.23% 571 76.66% 579.5 76.37% 588 76.07%
569 76.76% 580 77.22% 591 77.69% 599.5 77.54% 608 77.40%
589 77.71% 600 78.16% 611 78.62% 619.5 78.64% 628 78.65%
609 78.56% 620 78.97% 631 79.39% 639.5 79.56% 648 79.72%
629 79.22% 640 79.59% 651 79.95% 659.5 80.24% 668 80.53%
649 79.66% 660 79.96% 671 80.25% 679.5 80.64% 688 81.03%
669 79.83% 680 80.07% 691 80.30% 699.5 80.74% 708 81.19%
689 79.73% 700 79.90% 711 80.08% 719.5 80.54% 728 81.01%
709 79.34% 720 79.48% 731 79.62% 739.5 80.06% 748 80.51%
729 78.70% 740 78.83% 751 78.95% 759.5 79.35% 768 79.75%
749 77.86% 760 77.99% 771 78.13% 779.5 78.46% 788 78.79%
769 76.86% 780 77.05% 791 77.23% 799.5 77.49% 808 77.75%
789 75.80% 800 76.07% 811 76.35% 822 76.43% 833 76.50%
805 74.97% 820 75.22% 835 75.46% 840 75.74% 845 76.02%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-60 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-67
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
GREAT FALLS
Unit 5
Net Head of 68ft Net Head of 69ft Net Head of 70ft Net Head of 71ft Net Head of 72ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
453 80.98% 454 81.38% 455 81.78% 455 81.83% 455 81.87%
475 82.40% 470 82.42% 465 82.44% 465 82.44% 465 82.43%
500 83.85% 487.5 83.45% 475 83.04% 475 83.00% 475 82.97%
525 85.20% 512.5 84.78% 500 84.36% 500 84.30% 500 84.23%
550 86.45% 537.5 86.00% 525 85.54% 525 85.48% 525 85.41%
575 87.63% 562.5 87.13% 550 86.63% 550 86.57% 550 86.52%
600 88.70% 587.5 88.18% 575 87.67% 575 87.61% 575 87.56%
625 89.63% 612.5 89.14% 600 88.64% 600 88.58% 600 88.52%
650 90.38% 637.5 89.95% 625 89.53% 625 89.45% 625 89.38%
675 90.90% 662.5 90.59% 650 90.28% 650 90.20% 650 90.11%
700 91.15% 687.5 91.00% 675 90.85% 675 90.77% 675 90.69%
725 91.11% 712.5 91.15% 700 91.18% 700 91.13% 700 91.08%
747 90.83% 735.5 91.04% 724 91.24% 714.5 91.19% 705 91.14%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-61 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-68
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
DEARBORN
Units 1 - 3
Net Head of 68ft Net Head of 69ft Net Head of 70ft Net Head of 71ft Net Head of 72ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1907 82.50% 1802.5 80.03% 1698 77.57% 1706 77.57% 1714 77.57%
1962 83.70% 1865 81.33% 1768 78.95% 1776 78.95% 1784 78.95%
2017 84.86% 1927.5 82.62% 1838 80.37% 1846 80.37% 1854 80.37%
2072 85.96% 1990 83.89% 1908 81.82% 1916 81.81% 1924 81.81%
2127 87.00% 2052.5 85.12% 1978 83.25% 1986 83.25% 1994 83.25%
2182 87.96% 2115 86.31% 2048 84.66% 2056 84.66% 2064 84.66%
2237 88.83% 2177.5 87.42% 2118 86.01% 2126 86.01% 2134 86.01%
2292 89.62% 2240 88.45% 2188 87.28% 2196 87.28% 2204 87.29%
2347 90.30% 2302.5 89.37% 2258 88.45% 2266 88.45% 2274 88.46%
2402 90.87% 2365 90.18% 2328 89.49% 2336 89.49% 2344 89.50%
2457 91.33% 2427.5 90.85% 2398 90.37% 2406 90.38% 2414 90.39%
2512 91.65% 2490 91.37% 2468 91.08% 2476 91.09% 2484 91.11%
2567 91.84% 2552.5 91.71% 2538 91.58% 2546 91.60% 2554 91.62%
2622 91.88% 2615 91.87% 2608 91.86% 2616 91.88% 2624 91.90%
2677 91.77% 2677.5 91.83% 2678 91.88% 2686 91.91% 2694 91.94%
2732 91.49% 2740 91.56% 2748 91.63% 2756 91.66% 2764 91.69%
2787 91.05% 2802.5 91.06% 2818 91.08% 2826 91.11% 2834 91.14%
2842 90.42% 2865 90.31% 2888 90.19% 2896 90.23% 2904 90.27%
2897 89.59% 2927.5 89.28% 2958 88.96% 2966 89.01% 2974 89.05%
2980 87.97% 2994.5 87.90% 3009 87.83% 3019.5 87.82% 3030 87.80%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-62 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-69
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
ROCKY CREEK
Units 1 - 4 and 7
Net Head of 57ft Net Head of 58ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60.5ft Net Head of 62ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
535 72.81% 529.5 72.30% 524 71.80% 518.5 70.80% 513 69.81%
547 73.63% 541.5 73.17% 536 72.70% 530 71.69% 524 70.68%
559 74.43% 553.5 74.01% 548 73.59% 541.5 72.56% 535 71.54%
571 75.21% 565.5 74.83% 560 74.45% 553 73.41% 546 72.38%
583 75.98% 577.5 75.63% 572 75.29% 564.5 74.24% 557 73.20%
595 76.74% 589 76.39% 583 76.03% 575.5 75.02% 568 74.00%
607 77.48% 600.5 77.12% 594 76.76% 586.5 75.77% 579 74.79%
619 78.20% 612 77.83% 605 77.47% 597.5 76.51% 590 75.55%
631 78.91% 623.5 78.53% 616 78.16% 608.5 77.23% 601 76.30%
643 79.60% 635 79.21% 627 78.83% 619.5 77.93% 612 77.03%
655 80.28% 646.5 79.88% 638 79.48% 630.5 78.61% 623 77.74%
667 80.94% 658 80.52% 649 80.11% 641.5 79.27% 634 78.43%
679 81.58% 669.5 81.15% 660 80.72% 652.5 79.91% 645 79.10%
691 82.21% 681 81.76% 671 81.31% 663.5 80.53% 656 79.76%
703 82.83% 692.5 82.35% 682 81.88% 674.5 81.13% 667 80.39%
715 83.42% 704.5 82.95% 694 82.48% 686 81.74% 678 81.01%
727 84.01% 716.5 83.53% 706 83.05% 697.5 82.33% 689 81.61%
739 84.58% 728.5 84.09% 718 83.61% 709 82.90% 700 82.19%
751 85.13% 740.5 84.63% 730 84.14% 720.5 83.44% 711 82.75%
759 85.49% 750 85.05% 741 84.60% 729.5 83.85% 718 83.09%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-63 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-70
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
ROCKY CREEK
Units 5 and 6
Net Head of 57ft Net Head of 58ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60.5ft Net Head of 62ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
666 81.02% 682 81.80% 698 82.59% 699.5 82.39% 701 82.19%
692 82.59% 707.5 83.29% 723 83.98% 725 83.82% 727 83.66%
718 83.95% 733 84.55% 748 85.15% 750.5 85.01% 753 84.87%
744 85.08% 758.5 85.59% 773 86.09% 776 85.97% 779 85.84%
770 86.01% 784 86.42% 798 86.83% 801.5 86.72% 805 86.61%
796 86.74% 809.5 87.06% 823 87.38% 827 87.28% 831 87.18%
822 87.28% 835 87.52% 848 87.75% 852.5 87.67% 857 87.58%
848 87.64% 860.5 87.80% 873 87.96% 878 87.89% 883 87.82%
874 87.84% 886 87.92% 898 88.01% 903.5 87.96% 909 87.92%
900 87.88% 911.5 87.90% 923 87.91% 929 87.90% 935 87.89%
926 87.77% 937 87.73% 948 87.69% 954.5 87.72% 961 87.74%
952 87.52% 962.5 87.44% 973 87.35% 980 87.42% 987 87.48%
978 87.14% 988 87.03% 998 86.91% 1005.5 87.01% 1013 87.12%
1004 86.65% 1013.5 86.51% 1023 86.37% 1031 86.51% 1039 86.65%
1030 86.04% 1039 85.90% 1048 85.76% 1056.5 85.92% 1065 86.09%
1056 85.34% 1064.5 85.21% 1073 85.08% 1082 85.25% 1091 85.43%
1082 84.55% 1090 84.45% 1098 84.35% 1107.5 84.51% 1117 84.67%
1108 83.68% 1115.5 83.63% 1123 83.57% 1133 83.69% 1143 83.80%
1134 82.74% 1141 82.75% 1148 82.77% 1158.5 82.80% 1169 82.82%
1167 81.46% 1169 81.74% 1171 82.02% 1180 82.00% 1189 81.99%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-64 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-71
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
CEDAR CREEK
Units 1 - 3
Net Head of 57ft Net Head of 58ft Net Head of 59ft Net Head of 60.5ft Net Head of 62ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
1650 75.95% 1665 77.24% 1680 78.52% 1690 78.19% 1700 77.85%
1700 77.71% 1700 78.21% 1700 78.71% 1750 79.17% 1800 79.62%
1800 79.86% 1800 79.91% 1800 79.95% 1850 80.58% 1900 81.22%
1900 81.30% 1900 81.43% 1900 81.56% 1950 82.20% 2000 82.84%
2000 82.75% 2000 83.08% 2000 83.41% 2050 83.96% 2100 84.52%
2100 84.44% 2100 84.89% 2100 85.34% 2150 85.77% 2200 86.20%
2200 86.30% 2200 86.74% 2200 87.17% 2250 87.47% 2300 87.77%
2300 88.07% 2300 88.40% 2300 88.74% 2350 88.90% 2400 89.06%
2400 89.45% 2400 89.67% 2400 89.89% 2450 89.92% 2500 89.94%
2500 90.21% 2500 90.37% 2500 90.52% 2550 90.42% 2600 90.31%
2600 90.20% 2600 90.39% 2600 90.58% 2650 90.34% 2700 90.11%
2700 89.44% 2700 89.74% 2700 90.05% 2750 89.70% 2800 89.34%
2800 88.06% 2800 88.53% 2800 89.00% 2850 88.53% 2900 88.06%
2900 86.32% 2900 86.92% 2900 87.52% 2950 86.97% 3000 86.42%
3000 84.53% 3000 85.14% 3000 85.75% 3050 85.17% 3100 84.59%
3100 82.94% 3100 83.39% 3100 83.83% 3150 83.31% 3200 82.79%
3179 81.91% 3189.5 81.92% 3200 81.94% 3225 81.95% 3250 81.97%

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-65 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-72
WATEREE DEVELOPMENT
TURBINE EFFICIENCIES OVER A RANGE OF NET HEADS
Units 1 - 5
Net Head of 74ft Net Head of 75ft Net Head of 76ft Net Head of 77.5ft Net Head of 79ft
Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency Flow
(cfs) Efficiency
2040 85.02% 2045 85.02% 2050 85.02% 2055.5 85.01% 2061 85.01%
2100 85.83% 2105 85.85% 2110 85.88% 2115.5 85.93% 2121 85.99%
2160 86.77% 2165 86.77% 2170 86.78% 2175.5 86.83% 2181 86.89%
2220 87.85% 2225 87.82% 2230 87.78% 2235.5 87.79% 2241 87.81%
2280 89.05% 2285 88.97% 2290 88.90% 2295.5 88.85% 2301 88.81%
2340 90.30% 2345 90.20% 2350 90.11% 2355.5 90.01% 2361 89.91%
2400 91.57% 2405 91.47% 2410 91.36% 2415.5 91.22% 2421 91.08%
2460 92.78% 2465 92.69% 2470 92.61% 2475.5 92.44% 2481 92.28%
2520 93.87% 2525 93.81% 2530 93.76% 2535.5 93.59% 2541 93.43%
2580 94.77% 2585 94.75% 2590 94.74% 2595.5 94.60% 2601 94.47%
2640 95.42% 2645 95.45% 2650 95.47% 2655.5 95.39% 2661 95.31%
2700 95.78% 2705 95.84% 2710 95.90% 2715.5 95.89% 2721 95.89%
2760 95.83% 2765 95.91% 2770 95.99% 2775.5 96.07% 2781 96.15%
2820 95.55% 2825 95.63% 2830 95.71% 2835.5 95.89% 2841 96.07%
2880 94.97% 2885 95.04% 2890 95.11% 2895.5 95.38% 2901 95.65%
2940 94.15% 2945 94.20% 2950 94.24% 2955.5 94.59% 2961 94.94%
3000 93.18% 3005 93.21% 3010 93.23% 3015.5 93.63% 3021 94.04%
3060 92.20% 3065 92.23% 3070 92.26% 3075.5 92.67% 3081 93.09%
3120 91.38% 3125 91.48% 3130 91.57% 3135.5 91.94% 3141 92.31%
3180 90.98% 3178.5 91.21% 3177 91.44% 3175.5 91.75% 3174 92.06%

3.2.4.3 Generator Efficiency Curve
The Model generator data, like the turbine data, is entered by plant and then associated with a
unit. The generator performance data is a relationship of generator output versus generator
efficiency.

The generator condition includes a maximum generator output. This value is the maximum
generator output the model will allow, assuming there is turbine capacity to meet this limit. The
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-66 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
model will limit turbine output based on the generator maximum specified output. The generator
efficiency curves for each of the units in the system are shown in Tables 3-73 through 3-88.
TABLE 3-73
BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1 and 2*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
91.3% 3
94.0% 5
95.2% 7
95.6% 8
95.8% 8.75
96.0% 9.5
96.2% 10.25
96.3% 11
96.4% 11.75
96.5% 12.5
*Maximum Generator Output is 12.5 MW
Note: Bridgewater generator curves presented are for the old powerhouse retired in 2011.
TABLE 3-74
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1 - 3*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
92.0% 4
93.5% 5
94.5% 6
95.3% 7
95.8% 8
96.2% 9
96.5% 10
96.7% 11
96.9% 12
97.0% 13
* Maximum Generator Output is 13 MW
Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-67 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-75
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1and 2*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
90.0% 4
92.9% 6
94.4% 8
95.4% 10
96.1% 12
96.5% 14
96.9% 16
97.1% 18
97.3% 20
97.5% 22.5
* Maximum Generator Output is 22.5 MW

TABLE 3-76
LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1- 3*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
93.0% 4
94.2% 5
94.7% 5.5
95.0% 6
95.3% 6.5
95.6% 7
95.9% 7.5
96.1% 8
96.3% 8.5
96.5% 8.97
* Maximum Generator Output is 8.97 MW

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-68 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-77
COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1- 4*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
94.1% 20
95.9% 30
97.0% 45
97.3% 52.5
97.4% 57.5
97.6% 62.5
97.8% 72.5
97.9% 77.5
97.9% 82.5
97.9% 87.5
* Maximum Generator Output is 87.5 MW

TABLE 3-78
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1- 4*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
92.5% 6
94.1% 8
95.0% 10
95.6% 12
96.1% 14
96.3% 15
96.5% 16
96.7% 17
96.8% 18
97.0% 18.75
* Maximum Generator Output is 18.75 MW

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-69 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-79
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1- 4*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
92.5% 6
94.1% 8
95.0% 10
95.6% 12
96.1% 14
96.3% 15
96.5% 16
96.7% 17
96.8% 18
97.0% 18.75
* Maximum Generator Output is 18.75 MW

TABLE 3-80
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1 and 4*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
91.5% 4
94.0% 6
95.4% 8
95.9% 9
96.0% 9.5
96.2% 10
96.3% 10.5
96.4% 11
96.5% 11.7
* Maximum Generator Output is 11.7 MW

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-70 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-81
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 2 and 3*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
88.0% 2
93.2% 4
94.3% 5
95.1% 6
95.6% 7
96.0% 8
96.2% 8.5
96.3% 9
96.4% 9.5
96.5% 10
* Maximum Generator Output is 10 MW

TABLE 3-82
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Unit 5*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
89.0% 2
93.7% 4
94.6% 5
95.3% 6
95.8% 7
96.1% 8
96.2% 8.5
96.3% 9
96.4% 9.5
96.5% 10
* Maximum Generator Output is 10 MW

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-71 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-83
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT
GREAT FALLS GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1 - 8*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
89.0% 1
91.6% 1.5
93.5% 2
94.8% 2.5
95.1% 2.75
95.4% 3
95.7% 3.25
95.9% 3.5
96.0% 3.75
96.0% 4
* Maximum Generator Output is 4 MW

TABLE 3-84
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT
DEARBORN GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1 - 3*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
92.5% 6
94.1% 8
95.0% 10
95.6% 12
96.1% 14
96.3% 15
96.5% 16
96.7% 17
96.8% 18
97.0% 18.75
* Maximum Generator Output is 18.75 MW

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-72 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-85
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
ROCKY CREEK GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1 - 4 and 7*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
88.5% 1
92.0% 1.5
93.7% 2
94.2% 2.25
94.7% 2.5
95.1% 2.75
95.4% 3
95.7% 3.25
95.9% 3.5
96.0% 3.75
* Maximum Generator Output is 3.75 MW

TABLE 3-86
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
ROCKY CREEK GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 5 and 6*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
89.0% 1
93.0% 2
94.5% 3
94.8% 3.25
95.0% 3.5
95.2% 3.75
95.4% 4
95.6% 4.25
95.7% 4.5
96.0% 5
* Maximum Generator Output is 5 MW

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-73 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
TABLE 3-87
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
CEDAR CREEK GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 1 - 3*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
92.5% 6
94.1% 8
95.0% 10
95.6% 12
96.1% 14
96.3% 15
96.5% 16
96.7% 17
96.8% 18
97.0% 18.75
* Maximum Generator Output is 18.75 MW

TABLE 3-88
WATEREE DEVELOPMENT
GENERATOR EFFICIENCY CURVE
Units 5 and 6*
Efficiency Output
(MW)
93.3% 6
94.8% 8
95.7% 10
96.4% 12
96.8% 14
97.0% 15
97.1% 16
97.3% 17
97.4% 18
97.5% 19
* Maximum Generator Output is 19 MW

Section 3 Historical CRA Baseline

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 3-74 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
3.2.4.4 Wicket Gate Leakage
The Model wicket gate leakage flow is active only during times of non-generation. Thus, during
periods of non-generation, this leakage flow is used to make up all or a portion of the minimum
flow requirement. The wicket gate leakage for each of the units in the system is shown in
Table 3-89.

TABLE 3-89
WICKET GATE LEAKAGE
Plant
Total
Leakage
(cfs)
Leakage through
Each Unit
(cfs)
Bridgewater 50 25.0
Rhodhiss 60 20.0
Oxford 40 20.0
Lookout Shoals 60 20.0
Cowans Ford 80 20.0
Mountain Island 80 20.0
Wylie 100 25.0
Fishing Creek 100 20.0
Great Falls-Dearborn 140.03 12.7
Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek 140 14.0
Wateree 100 20.0
Note: Leakage for Bridgewater is based on the old powerhouse with 2 units that were retired in
2011. The new powerhouse has a min flow unit to discharge the minimum instantaneous flow.

3.2.4.5 Maintenance
The maintenance schedule provides the functionality to take a unit out of service for all or part of
each year for a scenario run. There are currently no outages modeled in the Model.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-1 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
4.0 MODEL CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION PROCESS

Verification is intended to validate the Model input data and logic so the Model may be used for
comparisons of scenarios with various operational alternatives. HDR performed model
verification by comparing actual and model estimated generation and discharge throughout the
system. Verification of the model was completed using the Historical CRA Baseline scenario;
which performs a verification of the model input data, logic, and conditions. The Historical
CRA Baseline scenario was simulated for the period 2008 through 2010. The results of the
Historical CRA Baseline scenario were compared against historical operations, which represents
the period of available hydrology and hydroelectric operational data after the initial
implementation of the CRA. Additionally, the Historical CRA Baseline scenario results were
compared to historical USGS gage flows downstream of the Bridgewater, Wylie, and Wateree
developments; these summaries are available in the following files: Wylie02146000.xlsx,
Wateree02148000.xlsx, and Bridgewater02138520.xlsx.

Generation data is typically available for hydropower developments and is a metered value that
has good accuracy compared to other forms of data that are not metered or based on estimated
values with lower accuracy. Generation is a measure of available flow and storage volume,
which relates to inflows and reservoir elevations. When performing verification of water
quantity models with power generation, it is common to find discrepancies between observed
data and modeled output for generation and reservoir elevation when looking at a small sample
of time periods (day, week, or month). This is due to the difference between the set of rules
provided in the model versus the day-to-day decisions common in large power developments that
respond to power grid demands as well as storm forecasts and other non-measured impacts on
the reservoir and equipment. Modeled results for each verification scenario were compared with
historic generation, powerhouse flow, and reservoir levels. In addition to verifying the model
under different hydrologic conditions, it was also important to select relatively recent years for
model verification under conditions that are representative of current operating conditions.
As previously stated, the Model is coded to run day-to-day operations based on general operating
conditions or rules. The model follows these rules strictly, 24 hours per day and 365 days per
year, similar to an automated operation. Actual project operations generally follow the operating
rules; however, human intervention periodically deviates from the general operating rules to
Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-2 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
accommodate day-to-day realities such as equipment failure and maintenance, changing
hydrologic conditions, power demands and energy pricing, and in this case, initial
implementation of the CRA. In addition to differences between modeled operations versus
actual operations that include human interventions, there are also inherent discrepancies due to
input data inaccuracies (e.g., differences in hydrology data, turbine or generator efficiencies, or
reservoir storage curves). It is important to understand that, due to these differences between
actual operating conditions and modeled conditions, model results will never completely match
historical operations.

The verification goal is to obtain less than a 5 percent difference when comparing long-term
modeled results to historical generation data over the hydrologic period. In cases where the
modeled results exceeded a 5 percent difference, potential causes for the differences were
examined to determine whether the difference was due to deviations in model setup, historical
deviations in operations, or discrepancies in the reconstructed hydrology data.

4.1 Summary of Modeled Results versus Historical Data
Verification of the Model was performed using historical operations data and the Historical CRA
Baseline scenario; which performs a verification of the model input data, logic, and conditions
for calendar years 2008 through 2010.

4.1.1 Model Historical CRA Baseline
The Historical CRA Baseline scenario results were compared to historical operations for the
hydrologic period 2008 through 2010. Figures 4-1 through 4-11 show comparisons of the
modeled reservoir elevations for the Historical CRA Baseline scenario compared to the historical
reported (observed) elevations for the same period. Unit outages during this period were not
defined and, therefore, not taken into account in the Model and it was assumed all units were
available for operation for the full period of simulation. Additionally, it was assumed that the
Bridgewater and Great Falls bypass flows were in operation for the full period of analysis,
whereas they were only actually implemented through portions of the period of analysis.
Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-3 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-1
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
BRIDGEWATER DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-4 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-2
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-5 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-3
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
OXFORD DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-6 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-4
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
LOOKOUT SHOALS DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-7 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-5
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
COWANS FORD DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-8 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-6
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
MOUNTAIN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-9 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-7
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
WYLIE DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-10 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-8
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
FISHING CREEK DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-11 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-9
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
GREAT FALLS-DEARBORN DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-12 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-10
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
ROCKY CREEK-CEDAR CREEK DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)

Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-13 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
FIGURE 4-11
MODELED AND HISTORICAL OPERATIONS COMPARISON
WATEREE DEVELOPMENT (2008 THROUGH 2010)
Section 4 Model Calibration/Verification Process

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 4-14 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
The Model simulation of the Historical CRA Baseline scenario estimated an average annual
energy output 6 percent higher than historical generation for the same period, as shown in
Table 4-1. There are significant annual swings in the percent difference between historical and
modeled operations for the 2008 through 2010 period; however, over the long term, the modeled
and historical operations compare favorably. Some of the swings in the percent difference
between historical and modeled operations may be due to the fact that this scenario was coded
with generic operational logic. For example, Bridgewater and Great Falls-Dearborn
developments were simulated without recreation flows; whereas in reality, Duke was beginning
to operate the CRA recreation flows during the period of the analysis. Additionally, it was
assumed that the Bridgewater and Great Falls bypass flows were in operation during the full
period of analysis; whereas they were actually implemented for only portions of the period of
analysis.
TABLE 4-1
HISTORICAL CRA BASELINE: GENERATION COMPARISON
Percent Difference between Modeled and Historical Generation
([Modeled - Historic]/Historic)
2008 2009 2010 3 Year Average
Bridgewater -8% -6% -18% -11%
Rhodhiss 3% -3% 10% 3%
Oxford -8% -1% 8% 1%
Lookout -5% -6% 6% -1%
Cowans Ford 9% 6% 19% 12%
Mountain Island 6% 7% 13% 9%
Wylie -7% 5% 16% 7%
Fishing Creek 13% 5% 16% 11%
Great Falls -23% 5% 3% -2%
Rocky Creek 8% 9% 15% 11%
Wateree 6% 11% 17% 12%
System Total 0% 5% 12% 6%

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 5-1 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
5.0 MODEL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Summary
The purpose of this report is to document inputs and assumptions used in the development of the
Model, to demonstrate the model reasonably characterizes operations of the system, and to
demonstrate that the model is adequate for use in evaluating the effects of alternative operating
scenarios. The CHEOPS software and the Model are tools to evaluate relative sensitivity and
response of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to changing operational constraints. The model is
a tool for use in operational evaluations and water supply planning but does not predict future
conditions or outcomes. The model results must be analyzed and interpreted based on
knowledge of hydrologic and hydraulic principles and understanding of results viewed in a
relative, rather than an absolute, context.

5.2 Conclusions
As discussed in Section 4, the model verification process includes comparisons between modeled
output and historical data. The goal of this process is to obtain no more than 5 percent variance
when comparing modeled results to historical data for generation on an annual basis. The
validation scenario system generation total variance was 6% (Table 4-1). The 1% difference
from the goal of 5% is considered reasonable based on the differences in actual operations
compared to modeled as explained below. The modeled releases from the Project were
compared to historical data, and in HDR’s opinion provides a reasonable representation of
Project operations throughout the year (e.g., the timing, magnitude, and duration of operations).

As shown in Table 4-1, there are significant swings between modeled and historical generation.
However, there are many factors inherent in the model data and setups that can contribute to
output discrepancies (i.e., deviations) when compared to historical data. In many cases, several
of these factors may be involved simultaneously, which makes it difficult to isolate individual
sources of difference. In addition to the initial implementation of CRA bypass and recreation
flows, potential sources of deviations from historical data include actual discretionary reservoir
Section 5 Model Summary and Conclusions

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 5-2 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
operations versus simulated generic operations, estimated reservoir evaporation, estimated unit
performance curves, historical unit outages, hydrology, and minimum flow requirements:

 Reservoir Operations – Reservoir operations have been modeled based on average or
generic rule curves which do not always capture historical discretionary reservoir
drawdowns.
 Reservoir Evaporation – Reservoir evaporation has been simulated based on estimated
reservoir area curves and estimated evaporation rates.
 Unit Performance – The Model has been set up with estimated unit performance
information.
 Historical Unit Outages – The verification scenarios do not take into account detailed
historical unit outage information.
 Hydrology – The Model uses reconstructed UIF data as the input for daily inflow water to
the system. The unimpaired hydrology was synthesized based on plant operations data,
which has a certain amount of inherent error especially when multiple locations and data
sources are involved. The overall hydrologic data set appears to be a good representation of
daily inflows and is acceptable for use in future water management planning.
 Minimum Flow Requirements – The Model is set up to account for minimum streamflow
requirements automatically. As a result, the Model is proactive in automatically addressing
minimum streamflow requirements rather than reactive in providing excess flow to avoid
potential violations, as the case may be in actual operations.
 CRA Bypass and Recreation Flows – Recreation flows were not simulated; whereas in
reality, Duke was beginning to operate the CRA recreation flows during the period of the
analysis. Additionally, it was assumed that the Bridgewater and Great Falls bypass flows
were in operation during the full period of analysis; whereas the bypass flows were only
implemented through portions of the period of analysis. This may account for some of the
differences between simulated and historical reservoir elevations. When modeled elevations
are higher than actual, historically, water may have been transferred out of the reservoirs to
meet recreational and bypass flows, whereas the model maintained this water in the
Section 5 Model Summary and Conclusions

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 5-3 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
reservoir during that time period as bypass and recreation flows were not simulated for the
entire simulation.

In interpreting the information provided in this model operations/verification report, it is
important to reflect on the model’s purpose to reasonably characterize development operations.
Comparing model results with historical data confirms use of the model as a tool for simulating
“real” operations. It is not possible with reasonable time and budget constraints to account for
every outside influence or condition to match historical operations and hydrology.

Small changes in input data or model logic can often result in large swings in output. This is due
to a number of reasons including (but not limited to) runoff characteristics, reliance on
coordinated operations, and numerous/variable flow requirements. Each of these elements
individually contributes to the sensitivity of the system. Combined, they multiply that sensitivity
exponentially. The input data and logic in the historical base scenario is an attempt to
consolidate the effects of these variables to achieve an approximation of “characteristic
operations.”

The sensitivity described above also means that those factors that are unable to be accounted for
in the model (short-term operations decisions based on pricing, demand, forecasts, etc.) as well
as data that is impossible to replicate exactly (synthesized hydrology data, shutdowns due to
irregular maintenance, etc.) can result in relatively large discrepancies between modeled output
and historical data on a per-month/per-development basis. The factors and sensitivity warrant
careful model review with awareness of the potential for outliers. The ultimate acceptance of the
results should not hinge on the extremes, but rather on the overall impression of consistency
between modeled and historical operations. Most importantly, it must always be foremost in
model discussions that the model should always be used to assess the relative impacts between
scenarios. What this means is model verification is the only time it is appropriate to compare
model results with historical data.

Section 5 Model Summary and Conclusions

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 5-4 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
In the opinion of HDR, verification results show the Model compares favorably to historical
data, reasonably characterizes study area operations, and is appropriate for use in evaluating the
effects of alternative operating scenarios. However, appropriate use of the results is cautioned.
As with any model, accuracy is highly dependent on input data; consequently, model results
should be viewed in a relative, rather than absolute, context. The Model is a tool that, as this
report demonstrates, can be successfully used to evaluate the relative sensitivity and response of
the project to changing operational constraints, including water demands from the system.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 6-1 Operations Model, Catawba-Wateree FERC No. 2232
Model Logic and Verification Report
6.0 REFERENCES

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. 2006a. Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement for the Catawba-
Wateree Hydroelectric Project. December 2006.

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC. 2006b. Operations/Verification Report for the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project. May 2006.

HDR and McKim & Creed. 2014. Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Master Plan.
May 2014.

APPENDIX A
WATER USE

Appendix ABridgewater Rhodhiss Oxford LookoutCowansFordMountainIslandFishingCreekGreat Falls-DearbornRocky Creek-Cedar CreekWatereeNRJ-1 NRR-1 NRH-1 NRL-1 NRN-1 NRM-1 NRY-1 NRY-7 NRF-1 SRG-1 SRC-1 SWW-1NRJ-10 NRR-2 NRH-2 NRL-2 NRN-10 NRM-2 NRY-10 NRY-8 NRF-2 SRG-2 SRC-2 SWW-2NRJ-11 NRR-3 NRH-3 NWL-1 NRN-11 NRM-3 NRY-11 NRY-9 NRF-3 SWG-1 SWC-1 SWW-3NRJ-12 NRR-4 NRH-4 NWL-2 NRN-2 NRM-4 NRY-12 NWY-1 NRF-4 SWG-2 SWC-2 SWW-4NRJ-13 NRR-5 NRH-5 NWL-4 NRN-3 NWM-1 NRY-13 NWY-10 NRF-5SWW-5NRJ-14 NRR-6 NWH-1 NRN-4 NWM-2 NRY-14 NWY-12 NRF-6NRJ-2 NRR-7 NWH-2 NRN-5 NWM-3 NRY-15 NWY-13 NWF-10NRJ-3 NRR-8 NWH-3 NRN-6 NWM-4 NRY-16 NWY-14 NWF-3NRJ-4 NWR-1 NWH-4 NRN-7 NWM-5 NRY-17 NWY-15 NWF-5NRJ-5 NWR-2 NWH-5 NRN-8 NWM-6 NRY-18 NWY-16 SRF-1NRJ-6 NWR-3 NWH-7 NRN-9 NWM-7 NRY-19 NWY-17 SRF-10NRJ-7 NWR-4 NWH-8 NWN-1 NRY-2 NWY-18 SRF-2NRJ-8 NWR-5 NWN-10 NRY-20 NWY-2 SRF-3NRJ-9 NWR-6 NWN-11 NRY-21 NWY-21 SRF-4NWJ-1 NWR-7 NWN-12 NRY-22 NWY-23 SRF-5NWJ-10NWN-13 NRY-23 NWY-3 SRF-6NWJ-11NWN-14 NRY-24 NWY-4 SRF-7NWJ-12NWN-2 NRY-25 NWY-5 SRF-8NWJ-13NWN-3 NRY-26 NWY-6 SRF-9NWJ-15NWN-4 NRY-27 NWY-7 SWF-1NWJ-16NWN-5 NRY-28 NWY-8 SWF-10NWJ-2NWN-6 NRY-29 NWY-9 SWF-11NWJ-3NWN-7 NRY-3 SRY-1 SWF-2NWJ-4NWN-8 NRY-30 SRY-2 SWF-3NWJ-5NWN-9 NRY-31 SRY-3 SWF-4NWJ-6NRY-32 SWY-1 SWF-5NWJ-7NRY-33 SWY-2 SWF-6NWJ-8NRY-34 SWY-3 SWF-7NWJ-9NRY-35 SWY-38 SWF-8NRY-36 SWY-4 SWY-8NRY-37 SWY-5NRY-4 SWY-6NRY-5 SWY-7NRY-6 SWY-9WylieWater Use Node ID by Reservoir Sub-BasinW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 17/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeBridgewater Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRJ-1 NRJ-2 NWJ-1 NWJ-3 NWJ-4 NRJ-5 NRJ-3 NRJ-4 NRJ-6 NWJ-2 NRJ-7 NRJ-8 NWJ-9 NRJ-9 NWJ-10 NWJ-8 NRJ-11 NWJ-11 NWJ-6 NWJ-7 NRJ-10 NRJ-12 NRJ-14 NWJ-12 NWJ-51/1/2008 1.32 0.82 1.59 - - 0.57 - - - - 0.11 0.12 6.24 - 1.07 1.611.61 0.43 - - - 6.24 0.43 0.39 -2/1/2008 1.38 0.84 1.28 - - 0.39 - - - - 0.12 0.06 6.24 - 1.07 1.611.61 0.43 - - - 6.24 0.43 0.56 -3/1/2008 1.27 0.79 1.44 - - 0.46 - - - - 0.15 0.06 5.57 - 0.80 1.211.21 0.43 - - - 5.57 0.43 1.82 -4/1/2008 1.33 0.76 0.97 - - 0.37 - - 0.02 - 0.12 0.06 5.57 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.57 0.43 4.33 -5/1/2008 1.22 0.74 1.13 - - 0.34 - - 0.02 - 0.15 0.09 5.42 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.42 0.43 6.33 -6/1/2008 1.35 0.68 1.13 - - 0.36 - - 0.02 - 0.20 0.17 4.46 - 0.76 1.13 1.13 0.43 - - - 4.46 0.43 16.43 -7/1/2008 1.19 0.70 1.13 - - 0.32 - - 0.02 - 0.23 0.19 4.24 - 0.71 1.07 1.07 - - - - 4.24 - 22.16 -8/1/2008 1.16 0.85 1.28 - - 0.42 - - 0.02 - 0.31 0.11 4.01 - 0.62 0.93 0.93 - - - - 4.01 - 16.21 -9/1/2008 1.18 0.84 1.28 - - 0.42 - - - - 0.23 0.08 4.01 - 0.54 0.800.80 0.43 - - - 4.01 0.43 7.46 -10/1/2008 1.18 0.84 1.44 - - 0.42 - - - - 0.19 0.06 4.24 - 0.62 0.93 0.93 0.43 - - - 4.24 0.43 2.23 -11/1/2008 1.01 0.76 1.13 - - 0.37 - - - - 0.12 0.05 4.90 - 0.71 1.07 1.07 0.43 - - - 4.90 0.43 0.84 -12/1/2008 1.07 0.74 1.28 - - 0.40 - - - - 0.17 0.05 5.68 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.68 0.43 0.45 -1/1/2009 1.08 0.76 1.39 - - 0.43 0.03 0.22 - 2.54 0.17 0.05 6.24- 1.07 1.61 1.61 0.43 - - - 6.24 0.43 0.39 -2/1/2009 1.14 0.79 1.24 - - 0.36 0.03 0.22 - 2.49 0.12 0.03 6.24- 1.07 1.61 1.61 0.43 - - - 6.24 0.43 0.56 -3/1/2009 1.25 0.79 1.24 - - 0.45 0.03 0.25 - 2.31 0.15 0.03 5.57- 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.57 0.43 1.82 -4/1/2009 1.19 0.80 1.08 - - 0.42 0.03 0.22 - 2.24 0.17 0.05 5.57- 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.57 0.43 4.33 -5/1/2009 1.24 0.90 1.55 - - 0.45 0.03 0.23 - 2.40 0.28 0.06 5.42- 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.42 0.43 6.33 -6/1/2009 1.19 0.97 1.39 - - 0.42 0.05 0.25 0.02 2.48 0.25 0.06 4.46 - 0.76 1.13 1.13 0.43 - - - 4.46 0.43 16.43 -7/1/2009 0.97 0.88 1.24 - - 0.31 0.05 0.17 0.02 2.49 0.25 0.08 4.24 - 0.71 1.07 1.07 - - - - 4.24 - 22.16 -8/1/2009 1.05 0.90 1.55 - - 0.32 0.05 0.19 0.02 2.37 0.23 0.08 4.01 - 0.62 0.93 0.93 - - - - 4.01 - 16.21 -9/1/2009 1.04 0.91 1.55 - - 0.53 0.03 0.25 - 2.41 0.26 0.08 4.01- 0.54 0.80 0.80 0.43 - - - 4.01 0.43 7.46 -10/1/2009 1.10 0.88 1.55 - - 0.43 0.03 0.22 - 2.15 0.20 0.06 4.24 - 0.62 0.93 0.93 0.43 - - - 4.24 0.43 2.23 -11/1/2009 1.07 0.85 1.55 - - 0.56 0.03 0.23 - 2.04 0.20 0.05 4.90 - 0.71 1.07 1.07 0.43 - - - 4.90 0.43 0.84 -12/1/2009 1.08 0.90 1.55 - - 0.62 0.03 - - 2.12 0.25 0.05 5.68 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.68 0.43 0.45 -1/1/2010 1.10 0.82 0.22 - - 0.62 0.03 - - 2.37 0.29 0.06 6.24 - 1.07 1.61 1.61 0.43 - - - 6.24 0.43 0.39 -2/1/2010 1.08 0.87 0.22 - - 0.60 0.03 - - 2.29 0.15 0.03 6.24 - 1.07 1.61 1.61 0.43 - - - 6.24 0.43 0.56 -3/1/2010 1.05 0.88 0.22 - - 0.42 0.03 - - 2.27 0.25 0.05 5.57 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.57 0.43 1.82 -4/1/2010 1.10 0.90 0.22 - - 0.36 0.03 - - 2.26 0.14 0.03 5.57 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.57 0.43 4.33 -5/1/2010 1.11 0.88 0.22 - - 0.39 0.03 - - 2.38 0.19 0.05 5.42 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.42 0.43 6.33 -6/1/2010 1.21 0.93 0.22 - - 0.42 0.05 - - 2.49 0.20 0.08 4.46 - 0.76 1.13 1.13 0.43 - - - 4.46 0.43 16.43 -7/1/2010 1.10 0.90 0.22 - - 0.37 0.05 - - 2.35 - - 4.24 - 0.71 1.071.07 - - - - 4.24 - 22.16 -8/1/2010 1.18 0.87 0.22 - - 0.46 0.05 - - 2.35 - - 4.01 - 0.62 0.930.93 - - - - 4.01 - 16.21 -9/1/2010 1.14 0.79 0.22 - - 0.31 0.03 - - 2.32 - - 4.01 - 0.54 0.800.80 0.43 - - - 4.01 0.43 7.46 -10/1/2010 1.25 0.79 0.22 - - 0.36 0.03 - - 2.26 - - 4.24 - 0.62 0.93 0.93 0.43 - - - 4.24 0.43 2.23 -11/1/2010 1.14 0.80 0.22 - - 0.37 0.03 - - 2.20 - - 4.90 - 0.71 1.07 1.07 0.43 - - - 4.90 0.43 0.84 -12/1/2010 1.07 0.85 0.22 - - 0.40 0.03 - - 2.41 - - 5.68 - 0.80 1.21 1.21 0.43 - - - 5.68 0.43 0.45 -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 27/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeBridgewater Development Sub-Basin - ContinuedThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRJ-13 NWJ-13 NWJ-16 NWJ-151/1/2008 1.07 - - -2/1/2008 1.07 - - -3/1/2008 0.80 - - -4/1/2008 0.80 - - -5/1/2008 0.80 - - -6/1/2008 0.76 - - -7/1/2008 0.71 - - -8/1/2008 0.62 - - -9/1/2008 0.54 - - -10/1/2008 0.62 - - -11/1/2008 0.71 - - -12/1/2008 0.80 - - -1/1/2009 1.07 - - -2/1/2009 1.07 - - -3/1/2009 0.80 - - -4/1/2009 0.80 - - -5/1/2009 0.80 - - -6/1/2009 0.76 - - -7/1/2009 0.71 - - -8/1/2009 0.62 - - -9/1/2009 0.54 - - -10/1/2009 0.62 - - -11/1/2009 0.71 - - -12/1/2009 0.80 - - -1/1/2010 1.07 - - -2/1/2010 1.07 - - -3/1/2010 0.80 - - -4/1/2010 0.80 0.12 - -5/1/2010 0.80 0.15 - -6/1/2010 0.76 0.19 - -7/1/2010 0.71 0.19 - -8/1/2010 0.62 0.19 - -9/1/2010 0.54 0.15 - -10/1/2010 0.62 0.05 - -11/1/2010 0.71 0.05 - -12/1/2010 0.80 - - -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 37/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeRhodhiss Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRR-1 NRR-2 NRR-3 NRR-4 NRR-5 NRR-6 NRR-7 NWR-1 NWR-2 NWR-3 NWR-4 NWR-5 NRR-8 NWR-6 NWR-71/1/2008 2.17 0.20 3.87 - 6.48 - 4.15 1.87 8.91 12.39 6.07 1.871.87 0.48 -2/1/2008 1.86 0.22 4.21 - 6.62 - 3.98 1.76 8.70 11.76 5.57 1.931.93 0.70 -3/1/2008 1.86 0.20 4.33 - 7.24 - 3.99 1.73 8.42 11.71 5.65 1.841.84 2.25 -4/1/2008 1.86 0.20 4.07 - 7.32 - 4.04 1.84 8.87 12.21 5.66 1.671.67 5.38 -5/1/2008 1.86 0.22 3.95 - 7.38 - 3.42 2.00 9.33 13.12 5.89 1.811.81 7.86 -6/1/2008 2.32 0.22 3.91 - 7.78 - 3.09 2.24 10.27 15.84 6.25 1.30 1.30 20.39 -7/1/2008 2.17 0.22 3.87 - 6.19 - 3.08 1.93 9.62 14.48 5.77 1.811.81 27.51 -8/1/2008 1.86 0.20 4.35 - 6.14 - 3.76 1.83 9.61 14.03 5.80 0.770.77 20.12 -9/1/2008 2.48 0.22 4.01 - 6.14 - 3.48 1.86 9.17 13.46 5.34 0.760.76 9.26 -10/1/2008 1.70 0.20 3.76 - 5.69 - 3.36 1.75 8.79 12.81 5.11 0.94 0.94 2.76 -11/1/2008 1.55 0.20 3.85 - 4.95 - 2.65 1.73 8.66 11.73 4.55 0.94 0.94 1.04 -12/1/2008 2.01 0.22 4.36 - 5.25 - 2.78 1.56 8.59 12.01 4.02 1.33 1.33 0.55 -1/1/2009 1.86 0.34 4.15 1.30 6.48 - 3.13 1.59 9.25 12.27 4.60 1.87 1.87 0.48 -2/1/2009 1.70 0.36 3.85 1.25 6.85 - 2.54 1.58 8.90 11.05 4.60 1.93 1.93 0.70 -3/1/2009 1.70 0.28 4.67 1.41 7.24 - 3.96 1.55 8.51 11.68 4.52 1.84 1.84 2.25 -4/1/2009 1.39 0.28 4.36 1.25 7.32 - 3.37 1.61 8.77 12.02 4.73 1.67 1.67 5.38 -5/1/2009 0.93 0.29 4.80 1.39 7.38 - 3.62 1.66 9.39 12.53 4.78 1.81 1.81 7.86 -6/1/2009 0.93 0.31 4.18 1.47 7.78 - 3.09 1.76 9.58 12.64 5.20 1.30 1.30 20.39 -7/1/2009 0.62 0.29 3.65 1.01 6.19 - 2.31 1.73 9.56 12.92 5.21 1.81 1.81 27.51 -8/1/2009 0.62 0.26 3.60 1.11 6.14 - 2.68 1.83 8.76 13.18 4.87 0.77 0.77 20.12 -9/1/2009 0.62 0.29 4.08 1.45 6.14 - 2.74 1.67 8.97 12.42 5.20 0.76 0.76 9.26 -10/1/2009 0.93 0.31 3.74 1.24 5.69 - 2.54 1.62 8.96 11.77 4.870.94 0.94 2.76 -11/1/2009 1.24 0.36 4.67 1.33 4.95 - 3.91 1.69 8.76 11.65 4.700.94 0.94 1.04 -12/1/2009 1.24 0.51 5.59 - 5.25 - 5.48 1.62 9.07 11.28 4.61 1.33 1.33 0.55 -1/1/2010 1.24 0.28 5.03 1.62 8.39 - 5.03 1.79 9.47 11.93 4.94 1.87 1.87 0.48 -2/1/2010 1.55 0.76 5.54 1.73 8.29 - 4.78 1.55 9.14 11.43 5.17 1.93 1.93 0.70 -3/1/2010 1.24 0.28 5.17 1.55 7.64 - 3.48 1.56 8.35 11.53 5.32 1.84 1.84 2.25 -4/1/2010 1.24 0.28 5.18 1.27 6.54 - 2.85 1.67 8.37 12.07 5.40 1.67 1.67 5.38 -5/1/2010 1.55 0.34 5.09 1.24 6.68 - 2.78 1.76 9.19 12.83 5.18 1.81 1.81 7.86 -6/1/2010 1.70 0.54 4.64 1.22 6.96 - 2.89 1.81 10.21 14.39 5.761.30 1.30 20.39 -7/1/2010 1.86 0.43 4.60 1.18 6.28 - 2.10 1.89 10.24 14.22 5.201.81 1.81 27.51 -8/1/2010 1.86 0.37 4.04 1.47 7.24 - 3.00 1.76 9.70 13.92 5.43 0.77 0.77 20.12 -9/1/2010 1.86 0.28 3.39 1.25 7.12 - 2.60 1.86 9.92 13.97 5.55 0.76 0.76 9.26 -10/1/2010 1.86 0.39 3.08 1.14 6.99 - 2.41 1.81 9.73 12.38 5.030.94 0.94 2.76 -11/1/2010 1.86 0.36 2.99 1.10 7.32 - 2.26 1.64 9.48 11.65 4.700.94 0.94 1.04 -12/1/2010 1.86 0.60 3.47 1.41 7.98 - 2.51 1.72 10.18 11.68 4.56 1.33 1.33 0.55 -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 47/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeOxford Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRH-1 NRH-2 NRH-3 NRH-4 NRH-5 NWH-1 NWH-2 NWH-3 NWH-4 NWH-5 NWH-8 NWH-71/1/2008 0.11 - 5.12 1.69 0.71 17.64 1.16 0.10 - - - -2/1/2008 0.12 - 5.42 1.78 0.63 17.41 1.11 0.15 - - - -3/1/2008 0.09 - 5.38 1.67 0.57 17.93 - 0.49 - - - -4/1/2008 0.11 - 5.42 1.66 0.56 19.06 - 1.16 - - - -5/1/2008 0.09 - 4.84 1.38 0.45 20.45 - 1.69 - - - -6/1/2008 0.09 - 4.70 1.30 0.43 23.44 - 4.39 - - - -7/1/2008 0.08 - 4.89 1.47 0.46 21.65 - 5.92 - - - -8/1/2008 0.03 - 5.23 1.64 0.53 22.16 - 4.33 - - - -9/1/2008 0.05 - 5.32 1.47 0.48 19.90 1.95 1.99 - - - -10/1/2008 0.05 - 5.04 1.42 0.48 19.49 1.89 0.60 - - - -11/1/2008 0.05 - 4.97 1.38 0.50 18.88 1.28 0.22 - - - -12/1/2008 0.03 - 5.31 1.70 0.59 17.64 1.24 0.12 - - - -1/1/2009 0.05 - 5.38 1.89 0.62 17.41 1.24 0.10 - - - -2/1/2009 0.05 - 4.94 1.41 0.56 17.14 1.25 0.15 - - - -3/1/2009 0.05 - 5.86 2.15 0.71 17.11 1.22 0.49 - - - -4/1/2009 0.06 - 5.35 1.58 0.45 17.89 1.21 1.16 - - - -5/1/2009 0.06 - 5.54 2.27 0.51 18.97 1.22 1.69 - - - -6/1/2009 0.06 - 5.57 2.52 0.57 20.14 1.28 4.39 - - - -7/1/2009 0.05 - 4.87 1.33 0.39 21.24 1.27 5.92 - - - -8/1/2009 0.05 - 4.86 1.41 0.43 21.03 1.21 4.33 - - - -9/1/2009 0.08 - 4.95 1.56 0.45 20.22 1.24 1.99 - - - -10/1/2009 0.08 - 5.00 1.49 0.43 18.89 1.11 0.60 - - - -11/1/2009 0.06 - 5.65 2.17 0.62 17.84 1.21 0.22 - - - -12/1/2009 0.05 - 6.27 3.02 0.84 16.82 1.16 0.12 - - - -1/1/2010 0.06 - 5.74 2.37 0.65 17.81 1.28 0.10 - - - -2/1/2010 0.05 - 6.27 3.40 0.71 17.68 1.21 0.15 - - - -3/1/2010 0.06 - 5.85 2.38 0.62 17.11 1.21 0.49 - 0.02 - -4/1/2010 0.03 - 5.12 1.66 0.43 18.97 1.19 1.16 - 0.28 - -5/1/2010 0.03 - 5.04 1.49 0.45 18.12 1.22 1.69 - 0.60 - -6/1/2010 0.03 - 4.86 1.33 0.40 20.45 1.28 4.39 - 0.19 - -7/1/2010 0.03 - 4.80 1.32 0.39 21.40 1.18 5.92 - 0.82 - -8/1/2010 0.03 - 5.59 1.61 0.48 21.13 1.14 4.33 - 0.80 - -9/1/2010 0.05 - 4.80 1.36 0.40 21.21 1.21 1.99 - 0.77 - -10/1/2010 0.05 - 5.04 1.47 0.43 23.59 1.21 0.60 - 0.03 - -11/1/2010 0.03 - 4.87 1.50 0.50 20.50 1.14 0.22 - 0.03 - -12/1/2010 0.02 - 4.83 1.84 0.46 19.79 1.22 0.12 - - - -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 57/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeLookout Shoals Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRL-1 NRL-2 NWL-1 NWL-2 NWL-41/1/2008 0.60 0.62 3.48 0.09 -2/1/2008 0.67 0.59 4.38 0.13 -3/1/2008 0.54 0.79 3.73 0.43 -4/1/2008 0.59 0.68 4.15 1.02 -5/1/2008 0.50 0.60 4.49 1.49 -6/1/2008 0.57 0.60 5.32 3.86 -7/1/2008 0.57 0.60 4.83 5.20 -8/1/2008 0.56 0.68 4.50 3.80 -9/1/2008 0.54 0.67 4.25 1.75 -10/1/2008 0.54 0.59 4.30 0.52 -11/1/2008 0.48 0.57 4.24 0.20 -12/1/2008 0.56 0.70 4.01 0.10 -1/1/2009 0.53 0.76 4.70 0.09 -2/1/2009 0.43 0.73 4.61 0.13 -3/1/2009 0.45 0.74 4.94 0.43 -4/1/2009 0.39 0.65 4.75 1.02 -5/1/2009 0.45 0.87 4.78 1.49 -6/1/2009 0.46 0.84 5.06 3.86 -7/1/2009 0.40 0.62 5.60 5.20 -8/1/2009 0.39 0.67 5.21 3.80 -9/1/2009 0.39 0.65 5.03 1.75 -10/1/2009 0.43 0.63 4.70 0.52 -11/1/2009 0.39 0.76 4.58 0.20 -12/1/2009 0.43 0.85 4.41 0.10 -1/1/2010 0.43 0.77 4.72 0.09 -2/1/2010 0.48 0.74 4.87 0.13 -3/1/2010 0.50 0.76 4.64 0.43 -4/1/2010 0.50 0.63 5.06 1.02 -5/1/2010 0.51 0.63 5.18 1.49 -6/1/2010 0.53 0.57 5.48 3.86 -7/1/2010 0.54 0.59 5.68 5.20 -8/1/2010 0.42 0.62 5.57 3.80 -9/1/2010 0.39 0.56 5.77 1.75 -10/1/2010 0.42 0.56 4.77 0.52 -11/1/2010 0.39 0.54 4.35 0.20 -12/1/2010 0.43 0.57 3.85 0.10 -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 67/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeCowans Ford Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRN-1 NRN-2 NRN-3 NRN-4 NRN-5 NRN-6 NRN-7 NRN-8 NRN-9 NWN-1 NWN-2 NWN-3 NWN-4 NRN-11 NRN-10 NWN-5 NWN-6 NWN-7 NWN-8 NWN-9NWN-10 NWN-11 NWN-12 NWN-13 NWN-141/1/2008 0.20 0.08 - 0.94 - 0.06 0.15 - 0.05 21.63 3.34 5.18 - - -24.66 41.34 - 0.08 - - - - - -2/1/2008 0.22 0.09 - 1.04 - 0.06 0.14 - 0.05 21.65 3.23 5.11 - - -20.78 41.08 - 0.12 - - - - - -3/1/2008 0.23 0.09 - 0.91 - 0.06 0.14 - 0.05 23.49 3.13 5.03 - - -18.20 21.34 - 0.38 - - - - - -4/1/2008 0.26 0.09 - 1.14 - 0.06 0.12 - 0.05 22.28 3.31 5.26 - - -20.08 28.48 - 0.92 - - - - - -5/1/2008 0.23 0.08 - 1.01 - 0.06 0.14 - 0.05 21.72 3.87 5.72 - - -23.66 38.97 - 1.34 - - - - - -6/1/2008 0.25 0.09 - 0.91 - 0.05 0.11 - 0.05 26.74 4.30 6.39 - - -24.76 36.78 - 3.48 - - - - - -7/1/2008 0.25 0.09 - 1.04 - 0.05 0.09 - 0.05 27.54 4.38 6.27 - - -25.11 39.61 - 4.69 - - - - - -8/1/2008 0.28 0.11 - 1.11 - 0.08 0.11 - 0.05 27.49 4.50 6.39 - - -25.14 39.53 - 3.43 - - - - - -9/1/2008 0.25 0.11 - 1.08 - 0.06 0.11 - 0.05 27.20 4.10 6.17 - - -21.30 31.93 - 1.58 - - - - - -10/1/2008 0.22 0.09 - 0.96 - 0.06 0.11 - 0.05 25.00 3.96 6.22 - -- 13.80 18.69 - 0.47 - - - - - -11/1/2008 0.19 0.09 - 0.93 - 0.05 0.11 - 0.05 25.28 3.67 5.74 - -- 15.91 30.73 - 0.18 - - - - - -12/1/2008 0.20 0.11 - 1.18 - 0.06 0.14 - 0.05 20.95 3.31 5.15 - -- 16.06 40.40 - 0.09 - - - - - -1/1/2009 0.22 0.11 - 1.13 - 0.06 0.06 - 0.05 21.40 3.50 5.29 - - -23.90 40.58 - 0.08 - - - - - -2/1/2009 0.19 0.09 - 0.94 - 0.06 0.06 - 0.05 21.63 3.34 5.18 - - -19.68 39.50 - 0.12 - - - - - -3/1/2009 0.28 0.12 - 1.21 - 0.08 0.08 - 0.05 22.31 3.39 5.40 - - -19.11 40.41 - 0.38 - - - - - -4/1/2009 0.23 0.12 - 1.30 - 0.06 0.06 - 0.05 23.02 3.84 5.74 - - -16.56 40.01 - 0.92 - - - - - -5/1/2009 0.23 0.12 - 1.16 - 0.06 0.05 - 0.05 26.81 3.96 6.30 - - -19.56 38.83 - 1.34 - - - - - -6/1/2009 0.31 0.14 - 1.35 - 0.08 0.06 - 0.05 27.66 4.47 6.90 - - -21.55 38.48 - 3.48 - - - - - -7/1/2009 0.20 0.11 - 1.07 - 0.05 0.06 - 0.05 34.10 5.00 7.47 - - -24.52 39.16 - 4.69 - - - - - -8/1/2009 0.22 0.11 - 1.21 - 0.05 0.05 - 0.05 31.86 4.52 7.29 - - -28.22 39.72 - 3.43 - - - - - -9/1/2009 0.22 0.11 - 1.25 - 0.05 0.05 - 0.05 31.04 4.41 6.62 - - -20.33 23.33 - 1.58 - - - - - -10/1/2009 0.22 0.06 - 1.11 - 0.06 0.06 - 0.05 25.58 4.15 6.13 - -- 12.50 32.10 - 0.47 - - - - - -11/1/2009 0.26 0.08 - 1.38 - 0.08 0.06 - 0.05 20.90 3.64 5.72 - -- 23.36 40.06 - 0.18 - - - - - -12/1/2009 0.26 0.09 - 1.69 - - 0.05 - 0.05 20.55 3.39 5.55 - - - 25.31 40.83 - 0.09 - - - - - -1/1/2010 0.25 0.09 - 1.45 - 0.08 - - 0.03 21.68 3.47 5.40 - - - 24.24 40.71 - 0.08 0.03 - - - - -2/1/2010 0.31 0.09 - 1.39 - 0.08 - - 0.05 22.87 3.34 5.60 - - - 24.20 41.09 - 0.12 0.03 - - - - -3/1/2010 0.25 0.08 - 1.24 - 0.06 - - 0.05 22.08 3.40 5.63 - - - 23.15 27.97 - 0.38 0.02 - 0.02 - - -4/1/2010 0.26 0.09 - 1.18 - 0.05 - - 0.05 24.07 3.85 5.96 - - - 23.47 26.61 - 0.92 0.22 0.11 0.03 - - -5/1/2010 0.25 0.09 - 1.04 - 0.05 - - 0.05 25.41 4.15 6.65 - - - 21.04 40.29 - 1.34 0.23 0.20 0.09 0.09 - -6/1/2010 0.25 0.09 - 0.94 - 0.03 - - - 27.39 4.77 7.41 - - - 24.63 36.42 - 3.48 0.32 0.31 0.14 0.28 - -7/1/2010 0.25 0.11 - 0.91 - 0.05 - - - 28.95 5.15 7.78 - - - 23.72 39.93 - 4.69 0.36 0.29 0.20 0.34 - -8/1/2010 0.23 0.14 - 0.84 - 0.05 - - - 28.56 4.87 7.38 - - - 25.47 39.36 - 3.43 0.36 0.28 0.08 0.19 - -9/1/2010 0.23 0.14 - 0.93 - 0.08 - - - 28.70 5.11 7.52 - - - 20.81 39.36 - 1.58 0.56 0.39 0.23 0.31 - -10/1/2010 0.26 0.17 - 1.16 - 0.09 - - - 28.79 5.03 7.07 - - - 11.3939.64 - 0.47 0.22 0.15 0.06 0.08 - -11/1/2010 0.20 0.15 - 0.93 - 0.06 - - - 25.54 4.08 6.00 - - - 13.4639.45 - 0.18 0.03 0.02 0.03 - - -12/1/2010 0.20 0.17 - 1.21 - 0.08 - - - 23.18 3.71 5.55 - - - 23.2542.47 - 0.09 - - - - - -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 77/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeMountain Island Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRM-1 NRM-2 NWM-1 NWM-2 NWM-3 NRM-4 NRM-3 NWM-4 NWM-5 NWM-6 NWM-71/1/2008 0.28 6.73 124.49 23.21 2.75 - - 3.56 0.03 - -2/1/2008 0.25 6.70 120.05 23.21 2.12 - - 3.25 0.04 - -3/1/2008 0.28 7.18 125.21 23.21 1.90 - - 3.65 0.13 - -4/1/2008 0.29 7.19 125.35 23.05 1.76 - - 4.64 0.32 - -5/1/2008 0.37 7.10 142.17 26.75 1.90 - - 3.71 0.47 - -6/1/2008 0.68 6.61 157.66 27.85 3.40 - - 4.80 1.21 - -7/1/2008 0.56 6.68 149.89 27.82 5.03 - - 3.98 1.63 - -8/1/2008 0.54 7.47 157.18 29.49 5.91 - - 3.36 1.19 - -9/1/2008 0.54 7.04 139.99 27.85 6.39 - - 1.90 0.55 - -10/1/2008 0.50 6.67 145.64 27.85 6.44 - - 0.45 0.16 - -11/1/2008 0.34 6.75 186.30 27.74 5.66 - - 1.47 0.06 - -12/1/2008 0.26 7.30 121.76 27.77 6.42 - - 1.32 0.03 - -1/1/2009 0.26 7.16 122.03 25.98 6.14 - - 1.36 0.03 - -2/1/2009 0.26 6.85 118.11 24.76 6.05 - - 0.94 0.04 - -3/1/2009 0.31 8.01 117.43 24.72 5.63 - - 0.60 0.13 - -4/1/2009 0.32 7.21 124.87 24.76 3.22 - - 0.17 0.32 - -5/1/2009 0.60 7.07 137.59 24.76 3.39 - - 0.06 0.47 - -6/1/2009 0.53 7.21 150.56 24.17 3.39 - - 1.93 1.21 - -7/1/2009 0.74 6.71 164.99 28.58 3.54 - - 1.25 1.63 - -8/1/2009 0.70 6.78 158.31 27.77 3.33 - - 2.03 1.19 - -9/1/2009 0.68 6.68 153.87 27.32 3.31 - - 0.32 0.55 - -10/1/2009 0.36 6.59 142.64 23.67 3.30 - - - 0.16 - -11/1/2009 0.39 7.47 135.81 27.85 2.97 - - - 0.06 - -12/1/2009 0.23 7.61 137.25 27.85 3.33 - - 1.14 0.03 - -1/1/2010 0.26 8.15 141.60 27.85 3.71 - - 2.20 0.03 - -2/1/2010 0.25 8.35 137.21 27.85 3.73 - - 2.71 0.04 - -3/1/2010 0.29 7.80 136.29 27.82 3.68 - - 0.71 0.13 - -4/1/2010 0.43 7.23 154.44 27.85 3.70 - - 1.75 0.32 - -5/1/2010 0.48 7.21 169.54 27.85 3.93 - - 2.72 0.47 - -6/1/2010 0.54 7.13 176.67 27.82 4.30 - - 3.78 1.21 - -7/1/2010 0.59 6.93 186.00 27.73 4.29 - - 3.45 1.63 - -8/1/2010 0.70 7.26 175.28 27.85 4.30 - - 3.62 1.19 - -9/1/2010 0.56 6.75 191.68 27.85 4.13 - - 1.61 0.55 - -10/1/2010 0.48 6.73 180.33 27.82 4.05 - - - 0.16 - -11/1/2010 0.31 6.68 154.15 27.40 3.78 - - - 0.06 - -12/1/2010 0.28 6.82 140.97 27.85 3.56 - - 1.67 0.03 - -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 87/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeWylie Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRY-1 NRY-10 NRY-11 NRY-12 NRY-13 NRY-14 NRY-15 NRY-16 NRY-17 NRY-18 NRY-19 NRY-2 NRY-20 NRY-21 NRY-22 NRY-23 NRY-24 NRY-25 NRY-26 NRY-27 NRY-28 NRY-29 NRY-31/1/2008 0.31 - 0.12 0.03 0.19 2.18 0.62 - 3.14 8.63 3.33 1.75 -4.33 0.37 0.11 3.02 - 0.96 0.90 0.68 0.34 0.192/1/2008 0.51 - 0.12 0.03 0.19 2.18 0.71 - 3.13 8.87 3.43 1.75 -4.64 0.39 0.08 2.97 - 1.02 0.93 0.56 0.40 0.343/1/2008 0.56 - 0.12 - 0.19 2.31 0.74 - 3.40 9.64 3.45 1.44 - 4.02 0.46 0.05 3.26 - 1.01 0.96 0.53 0.45 1.224/1/2008 0.43 - 0.12 0.02 0.26 2.24 0.67 - 3.23 8.70 3.56 1.64 -4.33 0.42 0.12 3.02 - 1.02 0.99 0.48 0.50 1.305/1/2008 0.62 - 0.11 0.03 0.20 2.46 0.63 - 3.08 8.28 3.25 1.69 -3.71 0.39 0.09 2.75 - 0.96 0.84 0.42 0.37 0.806/1/2008 0.48 - 0.09 0.02 0.22 2.26 0.50 - 2.88 7.88 3.31 1.49 -3.71 0.34 0.09 2.83 - 0.93 0.79 0.40 0.31 0.507/1/2008 0.65 - 0.09 0.03 0.26 2.04 0.54 - 2.92 8.35 3.51 1.53 -3.56 0.37 0.09 2.86 - 0.94 0.85 0.51 0.32 1.078/1/2008 0.65 - 0.09 0.06 0.22 2.26 0.71 - 3.42 9.22 3.95 1.70 -4.33 0.40 0.06 3.16 - 0.99 1.01 0.50 0.67 9.959/1/2008 0.84 - 0.12 0.03 0.19 2.27 0.46 - 3.39 9.56 3.73 1.76 -4.18 0.40 0.20 3.06 - 1.01 0.97 0.53 0.40 1.9510/1/2008 0.63 - 0.11 0.05 0.19 2.09 0.60 - 3.23 8.70 3.13 1.76- 3.87 0.34 0.12 2.77 - 0.99 0.70 0.46 0.32 1.0211/1/2008 0.70 - 0.11 0.05 0.23 2.10 0.56 - 3.17 9.19 3.20 1.59- 3.56 0.34 0.11 2.71 - 1.14 0.74 0.53 0.29 0.5612/1/2008 0.62 - 0.12 0.06 0.19 2.34 0.79 - 3.74 9.93 3.50 1.01- 3.40 0.46 0.11 3.00 - 1.18 0.88 0.68 0.48 0.671/1/2009 0.45 - 0.11 8.37 0.14 2.27 0.74 - 3.71 9.47 3.42 1.07 -3.40 0.43 0.06 2.94 2.97 1.11 0.88 0.60 0.48 6.952/1/2009 0.57 - 0.11 8.37 0.15 2.21 0.63 - 3.28 8.68 2.85 1.14 -3.56 0.37 0.08 2.80 2.48 1.08 0.71 0.54 0.36 1.213/1/2009 0.82 - 0.11 8.37 0.19 2.66 1.05 - 4.67 11.57 3.91 1.44- 4.49 0.56 0.09 3.60 3.96 1.18 0.96 0.70 0.70 2.294/1/2009 0.82 - 0.11 8.39 0.20 2.15 0.84 - 3.50 9.70 3.53 1.25 -3.87 0.40 0.11 3.20 3.28 1.08 0.79 0.62 0.54 1.695/1/2009 0.80 - 0.11 8.37 0.22 2.09 0.74 - 3.37 9.87 3.56 1.16 -3.87 0.42 0.05 3.16 2.44 1.13 0.80 0.57 0.56 1.456/1/2009 0.67 - 0.11 8.35 0.17 1.96 0.68 - 3.53 9.44 3.45 1.22 -3.71 0.43 0.12 3.20 3.13 1.05 0.71 0.60 0.51 0.967/1/2009 0.59 - 0.11 8.34 0.25 1.76 0.51 - 2.85 8.79 2.96 1.16 -3.09 0.34 0.05 2.77 2.49 0.97 0.74 0.50 0.28 0.708/1/2009 0.57 - 0.11 8.35 0.17 1.93 0.51 - 2.78 9.07 2.92 1.16 -3.56 0.34 0.03 2.58 2.57 0.97 0.77 0.53 0.28 0.469/1/2009 0.53 - 0.11 8.39 0.23 2.01 0.57 - 2.80 8.91 3.47 1.33 -3.87 0.34 0.05 2.71 2.69 1.05 0.73 0.54 0.34 0.2810/1/2009 0.56 - 0.11 8.40 0.19 2.06 0.65 - 3.00 9.11 3.25 1.42- 3.71 0.36 0.08 2.94 3.22 1.10 0.65 0.50 0.36 0.4011/1/2009 0.65 - 0.11 8.42 0.15 2.27 0.82 - 3.84 10.89 4.33 1.41 - 3.87 0.50 0.08 3.26 4.05 1.21 0.94 0.56 0.59 0.5012/1/2009 0.73 - 0.11 8.40 0.17 2.54 1.13 - 4.84 12.73 4.78 1.11 - 4.02 0.59 0.05 3.57 2.69 1.25 1.19 0.70 0.76 0.741/1/2010 0.59 - 0.11 9.99 0.20 2.35 1.05 - 4.69 11.93 4.56 1.39- 4.64 0.53 0.15 3.65 3.08 1.19 1.07 0.50 0.74 1.392/1/2010 0.68 - 0.11 9.98 0.26 2.46 1.19 - 4.89 12.84 5.15 1.42- 4.95 0.56 0.08 2.99 4.61 1.27 1.05 0.50 0.96 3.953/1/2010 0.59 - 0.11 9.96 0.15 2.38 0.94 - 4.19 11.20 4.15 1.36- 4.64 0.50 0.09 3.31 3.82 1.18 1.04 0.53 0.70 2.234/1/2010 0.56 - 0.11 9.96 0.19 1.95 0.71 - 3.42 9.90 3.51 1.53 -3.71 0.39 0.12 2.99 3.28 1.11 0.76 0.60 0.62 1.415/1/2010 0.53 - 0.11 9.93 0.29 2.01 0.73 - 3.19 9.44 3.37 1.47 -4.02 0.42 0.02 2.99 3.06 1.16 0.80 0.60 0.60 1.276/1/2010 0.59 - 0.11 9.93 0.26 1.95 0.50 - 2.96 8.83 3.06 1.50 -4.18 0.36 0.11 2.99 2.65 1.14 0.70 0.53 0.45 2.637/1/2010 0.67 - - 9.90 0.31 1.67 0.45 - 2.83 8.51 3.09 1.41 - 3.09 - 0.09 3.20 3.16 1.13 0.70 0.54 0.42 -8/1/2010 0.56 - - 9.92 0.17 1.55 0.53 - 2.91 9.44 3.11 1.53 - 3.87 - 0.05 3.43 2.55 1.18 0.79 0.56 0.50 6.589/1/2010 0.43 - - 9.93 0.25 1.50 0.03 - 3.06 8.66 3.00 1.52 - 3.71 - 0.06 3.05 2.57 1.21 0.71 0.57 0.40 -10/1/2010 0.45 - - 9.93 0.19 1.32 0.48 - 2.91 8.46 3.33 1.53 - 3.40 - 0.03 2.92 2.69 0.70 0.74 0.53 0.43 1.0111/1/2010 0.51 - - 9.95 0.14 1.32 0.53 - 3.16 8.90 3.08 1.41 - 3.56 - 0.05 3.39 2.51 0.62 0.77 0.53 0.42 0.6812/1/2010 0.59 - - 10.01 0.14 1.22 0.65 - 3.25 9.00 3.81 1.22 - 3.25 - 0.02 3.37 2.80 0.63 0.87 0.54 0.42 6.58NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 97/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeWylie Development Sub-Basin - ContinuedThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRY-30 NRY-31 NRY-32 NRY-33 NRY-34 NRY-37 NRY-4 NRY-5 NRY-6NRY-7 NRY-8 NRY-9 NWY-1 NWY-10 NWY-12 NWY-13 NWY-14 NWY-15 NWY-2 NWY-3 NWY-4 NWY-5 NWY-6 NWY-71/1/2008 - 0.34 0.02 0.05 - - - - 0.25 0.09 - - - 0.77 5.46 4.70 - - 0.23 - - 0.03 2.80 1.582/1/2008 - 0.34 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.28 0.09 - - - 0.91 5.55 4.81 - - 0.28 - - 0.03 2.71 1.563/1/2008 - 0.36 0.02 0.06 - - - - 0.25 0.09 - - - 0.87 4.98 5.11 - - 0.32 - - 0.02 2.55 1.674/1/2008 - 0.34 0.02 0.05 - - - - 0.14 0.09 - - - 0.96 5.32 5.28 - - 0.34 - - 0.02 2.74 1.765/1/2008 - 0.31 0.02 0.05 - - - - 0.17 0.09 - - - 0.99 5.32 5.74 - - 0.26 - - 0.03 3.17 1.876/1/2008 - 0.28 0.02 0.05 - - - - 0.17 0.09 - - - 1.08 5.68 6.42 - - 0.29 - - 0.03 3.39 2.047/1/2008 - 0.29 0.02 0.05 - - - - 0.15 0.08 - - - 1.10 5.52 5.99 - - 0.15 - - 0.03 3.09 1.988/1/2008 - 0.32 0.02 0.05 - - - - 0.20 0.08 - - - 1.04 5.66 6.10 - - 0.11 - - 0.08 3.54 1.559/1/2008 - 0.34 0.02 0.05 - - - - 0.22 0.08 - - - 0.97 5.46 5.68 - - 0.25 - - 0.06 2.77 1.8910/1/2008 - 0.26 0.03 0.03 - - - - 0.15 0.08 - - - 0.96 5.18 5.32 - -0.22 - - 0.06 2.78 1.8311/1/2008 - 0.29 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.09 0.08 - - - 0.93 5.07 5.28 - -0.19 - - 0.06 2.74 1.8412/1/2008 - 0.36 0.03 0.06 - - - - 0.12 0.08 - - - 0.93 4.50 5.21 - -0.22 - - 0.09 2.78 1.701/1/2009 - 0.36 0.03 0.06 - - - - 0.26 0.08 - - - 0.99 3.99 5.18 - - 0.19 - - 8.46 2.71 1.582/1/2009 - 0.28 0.03 0.06 - - - - 0.19 0.09 - - - 0.97 4.08 5.09 - - 0.20 - - 8.46 2.65 1.723/1/2009 - 0.31 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.15 0.09 - - - 0.94 4.16 5.17 - - 0.03 - - 8.46 2.60 1.524/1/2009 - 0.25 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.12 0.09 - - - 0.85 4.35 5.28 - - 0.02 - - 8.48 2.63 1.955/1/2009 - 0.31 0.03 0.06 - - - - 0.14 0.09 - - - 0.93 4.32 5.54 - - 0.06 - - 8.46 2.68 1.586/1/2009 - 0.32 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.23 0.09 - - - 0.91 4.36 5.89 - - 0.15 - - 8.48 2.96 1.647/1/2009 - 0.32 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.17 0.09 - - - 0.99 4.47 6.50 - - 0.12 - - 8.46 3.11 1.758/1/2009 - 0.32 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.26 0.09 - - - 1.02 4.58 6.10 - - 0.12 - - 8.46 2.92 1.849/1/2009 - 0.26 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.28 0.09 - - - 0.85 4.70 6.02 - - 0.11 - - 8.48 3.16 1.8410/1/2009 - 0.39 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.20 0.11 - - - 0.73 4.58 5.71 - -0.14 - - 8.46 2.91 2.0911/1/2009 - 0.40 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.14 0.09 - - - 0.71 4.04 5.37 - -0.17 - - 8.48 2.65 1.7012/1/2009 - 0.42 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.12 0.09 - - - 0.76 3.88 5.31 - -0.14 - - 8.46 2.57 1.561/1/2010 - 0.29 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.14 0.11 - - - 0.94 5.03 5.37 - - 0.15 - 0.32 10.03 2.60 1.832/1/2010 - 0.28 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.15 0.08 - - - 0.84 5.20 5.11 - - 0.14 - 0.32 10.03 2.69 1.663/1/2010 - 0.29 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.14 0.06 - - - 0.84 4.98 5.28 - - 0.19 - 0.32 10.03 2.65 1.734/1/2010 - 0.26 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.15 0.06 - - - 0.85 4.95 5.43 - - 0.17 - 0.32 10.03 2.88 1.055/1/2010 - 0.23 0.03 0.05 - - - - 0.15 0.06 - - - 0.85 5.15 5.76 - - 0.14 - 0.32 10.03 3.16 2.176/1/2010 - 0.22 0.05 0.05 - - - - 0.14 0.06 - - - 0.93 5.35 6.47 - - 0.20 - 0.32 10.03 3.17 1.817/1/2010 - 0.22 - - - - - - 0.19 - - - - 0.90 4.72 6.76 - - 0.20 - 0.32 10.03 3.23 2.108/1/2010 - 0.25 - - - - - - 0.19 - - - - 0.28 5.11 6.28 - - 0.23 - 0.32 10.03 3.31 1.599/1/2010 - 0.28 - - - - - - 0.17 - - - - 0.32 5.31 6.31 - - 0.14 - 0.32 10.03 3.20 1.5810/1/2010 - 0.23 - - - - - - 0.12 - - - - 1.22 5.26 6.19 - - 0.11 - 0.3210.03 2.97 2.8011/1/2010 - 0.29 - - - - - - 0.11 - - - - 0.87 4.86 5.77 - - 0.15 - 0.3210.03 2.60 1.8612/1/2010 - 0.29 - - - - - - 0.12 - - - - 0.94 4.78 5.59 - - 0.26 - 0.3210.03 2.48 1.86NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 107/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeWylie Development Sub-Basin - ContinuedThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNWY-8 NWY-9 SRY-1 SRY-2 SWY-1 SWY-2 SWY-3 NRY-35 NRY-36 SRY-3 NWY-16 NWY-17 SWY-4 SWY-5 NWY-18 NWY-21 NWY-23 SWY-6 SWY-7SWY-9 SWY-381/1/2008 - 1.22 0.22 0.17 17.62 - 53.87 - - - 12.81 - - 0.26 - - - - -- -2/1/2008 - 1.18 0.29 0.23 18.49 - 52.23 - - - 10.88 - - 0.38 - - - - 0.03 - -3/1/2008 - 1.10 0.36 0.31 18.58 - 54.17 - - - 9.64 - - 1.23 - - - 0.03 0.03 - -4/1/2008 - 1.14 0.28 0.26 18.12 - 54.20 - - - 9.22 - - 2.94 - - 0.020.02 0.05 - -5/1/2008 - 1.30 0.25 0.25 21.34 - 29.27 - - - 11.94 - - 4.30 - - 0.02 0.32 0.20 - -6/1/2008 - 1.42 0.22 0.26 28.11 - 35.88 - - - 12.22 - - 11.14 - - 0.05 0.57 0.48 - -7/1/2008 - 1.35 0.22 0.26 25.61 - 54.54 - - - 12.38 - - 15.03 - - 0.09 0.28 0.39 - -8/1/2008 - 1.32 0.31 0.29 26.12 - 54.66 - - - 10.92 - - 11.00 - - 0.03 0.23 0.25 - -9/1/2008 - 1.32 0.28 0.25 22.16 - 54.62 - - - 11.90 - - 5.06 - - 0.02 0.05 0.25 - -10/1/2008 - 0.12 0.28 0.22 21.21 - 54.21 - - - 6.90 - - 1.51 - - - 0.05 0.11 - -11/1/2008 - 1.10 0.29 0.19 19.73 - 54.11 - - - 10.13 - - 0.57 - - - 0.03 0.03 - -12/1/2008 - 1.07 0.36 0.23 17.68 - 54.01 - - - 7.60 - - 0.30 - - - - 0.03 - -1/1/2009 - 1.05 0.31 0.19 17.90 - 54.12 - - - 9.90 - - 0.26 - - - - - --2/1/2009 - 1.01 0.31 0.20 18.16 - 54.04 - - - 5.49 - - 0.38 - - - - - --3/1/2009 - 0.99 0.40 0.15 18.43 - 31.61 - - - 7.61 - - 1.23 - - - 0.05 - - -4/1/2009 - 1.14 0.25 0.31 20.13 - 36.02 - - - 7.43 - - 2.94 - - 0.020.11 - - -5/1/2009 - 1.04 0.31 0.28 21.60 - 54.59 - - - 4.81 - - 4.30 - - 0.020.08 - - -6/1/2009 - 1.13 0.28 0.29 24.60 - 54.60 - - - 15.56 - - 11.14 - - 0.05 0.31 - - -7/1/2009 - 1.16 0.20 0.26 27.28 - 54.79 - - - 9.95 - - 15.03 - - 0.09 0.48 - - -8/1/2009 - 1.14 0.20 0.26 24.96 - 54.88 - - - 14.57 - - 11.00 - - 0.03 0.25 - - -9/1/2009 - 1.11 0.20 0.23 24.35 - 54.55 - - - 7.02 - - 5.06 - - 0.020.15 - - -10/1/2009 - 1.08 0.28 0.22 20.59 - 54.38 - - - 0.87 - - 1.51 - - - 0.05 - - -11/1/2009 - 1.05 0.40 0.23 17.82 - 31.87 - - - 2.72 - - 0.57 - - - 0.02 - - -12/1/2009 - 1.07 0.48 0.20 16.94 - 42.32 - - - 9.79 - - 0.30 - - - - -- -1/1/2010 - 1.07 0.40 0.22 17.84 - 54.28 - - - 9.27 - - 0.26 - 0.02 -- 0.15 - -2/1/2010 - 1.01 0.42 0.22 17.70 - 46.62 - - - 15.83 - - 0.38 - 0.02- - 0.17 - -3/1/2010 - 0.99 0.31 0.23 17.93 - 53.78 - - - 10.75 - - 1.23 0.15 0.06 - - 0.40 - -4/1/2010 - 1.07 0.23 0.20 21.54 - 54.23 - - - 11.99 - - 2.94 0.31 0.14 0.02 0.06 0.42 - -5/1/2010 - 1.13 0.28 0.28 22.73 - 54.59 - - - 11.98 - - 4.30 0.42 0.23 0.02 0.11 0.54 - -6/1/2010 - 1.22 0.22 0.29 27.00 - 54.34 - - - 14.23 - - 11.14 0.430.37 0.05 0.34 0.57 - -7/1/2010 - 1.22 0.23 0.28 27.87 - 54.97 - - - 12.18 - - 15.03 0.36- 0.09 0.39 0.54 - -8/1/2010 - 1.16 0.15 0.19 25.93 - 54.76 - - - 12.75 - - 11.00 0.500.32 0.03 0.26 0.54 - -9/1/2010 - 1.19 0.14 0.14 28.11 - 41.23 - - - 13.37 - - 5.06 0.28 0.14 0.02 0.32 0.57 - -10/1/2010 - 1.08 0.14 0.12 26.33 - 33.73 - - - 5.12 - - 1.51 0.31 0.08 - 0.09 0.40 - -11/1/2010 - 1.07 0.20 0.15 21.65 - 52.91 - - - 7.07 - - 0.57 0.09 0.03 - - 0.42 - -12/1/2010 - 1.08 0.25 0.22 21.40 - 54.21 - - - 12.42 - - 0.30 - 0.02 - - 0.15 - -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 117/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeFishing Creek Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNRF-1 NRF-2 NRF-3 NRF-4 NRF-5 NRF-6 SRF-1 SRF-10 SRF-2 SRF-3SRF-4 SRF-5 SRF-6 SRF-7 SRF-8 SRF-9 SWF-1 SWF-2 SWF-3 SWF-4 SWF-5 SWF-6 SWF-7 SWF-8 NWF-31/1/2008 3.67 12.19 19.40 70.66 5.00 0.15 27.56 0.06 - 1.67 0.96 1.36 3.62 0.65 13.45 0.36 - 34.58 0.96 3.34 - 22.88 3.71 0.08-2/1/2008 3.88 12.53 16.08 77.24 5.49 0.15 29.13 0.06 - 1.67 1.01 1.58 3.99 0.65 13.85 0.37 - 35.11 1.01 3.23 - 20.59 3.56 0.11-3/1/2008 3.47 13.74 19.28 80.10 5.72 0.17 45.02 0.06 - 1.67 0.96 1.73 4.32 0.59 15.26 0.36 - 36.39 0.96 3.34 - 20.78 3.74 0.36-4/1/2008 3.67 12.86 18.91 75.67 5.59 0.14 58.17 0.05 - 1.67 1.02 1.45 4.89 0.53 14.09 0.36 - 36.47 1.02 3.34 - 26.44 3.78 0.87-5/1/2008 4.49 11.56 17.22 72.27 4.84 0.17 17.17 0.03 - 1.67 1.19 1.38 3.03 0.60 12.93 0.34 - 36.73 1.19 3.34 - 26.69 3.90 1.27-6/1/2008 4.84 12.07 16.73 70.66 4.58 0.15 9.59 0.02 - 1.67 1.50 1.30 2.96 0.48 12.32 0.32 - 37.09 1.50 3.34 - 32.49 4.22 3.29 -7/1/2008 4.41 12.45 17.96 71.48 4.66 0.15 26.91 0.05 - 1.67 1.32 1.35 2.77 0.67 12.45 0.32 - 37.09 1.32 3.34 - 28.56 4.25 4.44-8/1/2008 4.97 13.48 21.07 73.26 5.01 0.15 47.36 0.06 - 1.67 1.35 1.59 3.45 0.70 15.41 0.37 - 37.94 1.35 3.34 - 29.54 4.13 3.25-9/1/2008 4.41 13.34 20.28 73.51 5.07 0.15 32.34 0.05 - 1.67 1.18 1.47 3.14 0.73 13.66 0.32 - 37.75 1.18 3.34 - 25.34 3.84 1.49-10/1/2008 4.70 11.96 19.84 68.32 4.66 0.15 19.17 0.03 - 1.67 1.10 1.39 3.20 0.71 13.48 0.32 - 39.13 1.10 3.34 - 26.46 3.76 0.45 -11/1/2008 4.66 11.48 19.63 67.55 5.18 0.15 36.16 0.05 - 1.67 0.56 1.45 3.23 0.74 14.45 - - 37.64 0.56 3.34 - 24.29 3.67 0.17 -12/1/2008 5.35 12.75 20.55 74.90 5.76 0.17 95.93 0.09 - 3.34 0.57 1.67 3.98 0.76 16.29 0.22 - 32.24 0.57 3.34 - 22.36 3.42 0.09 -1/1/2009 4.75 12.84 18.54 77.59 5.65 0.17 75.52 0.08 - 3.34 3.87 1.61 3.74 0.74 15.87 0.36 - 39.93 3.87 3.34 - 21.51 3.73 0.08-2/1/2009 4.22 12.10 15.13 72.66 5.40 0.15 31.55 0.06 - 3.34 2.32 1.45 3.54 0.80 13.97 0.36 - 35.76 2.32 3.34 - 20.42 3.45 0.11-3/1/2009 3.56 15.02 20.16 84.12 6.93 0.19 39.48 0.12 - 3.34 2.32 1.90 5.38 0.88 18.37 0.40 - 36.68 2.32 3.34 - 20.07 3.64 0.36-4/1/2009 3.85 13.49 19.45 73.04 5.69 0.17 34.81 0.05 - 3.34 2.63 1.56 4.60 0.76 15.63 0.37 - 38.53 2.63 3.34 - 22.71 3.57 0.87-5/1/2009 3.76 13.74 19.97 76.40 5.34 0.17 31.75 0.06 - 3.34 2.63 1.53 3.40 0.79 15.29 0.37 - 37.58 2.63 3.34 - 24.88 3.47 1.27-6/1/2009 3.81 14.05 19.91 74.37 5.11 0.17 35.28 0.05 - 3.34 2.17 1.56 3.31 0.77 16.56 0.37 - 40.85 2.17 3.34 - 28.99 3.76 3.29-7/1/2009 5.06 12.75 20.04 65.86 4.53 0.15 33.09 0.03 - 3.34 2.17 1.22 3.16 0.73 14.90 0.36 - 39.93 2.17 3.34 - 31.45 4.10 4.44-8/1/2009 4.64 12.35 20.04 65.55 4.56 0.15 25.70 0.03 - 3.34 2.78 1.22 3.02 0.74 14.28 0.36 - 43.03 2.78 3.34 - 29.30 4.25 3.25-9/1/2009 5.86 11.99 19.23 63.30 4.55 0.14 22.08 0.05 - 3.34 2.78 1.22 2.88 0.76 13.94 0.39 - 41.62 2.78 3.34 - 29.09 4.83 1.49-10/1/2009 6.17 11.91 19.84 63.93 4.75 0.14 32.49 0.06 - 3.34 3.40 1.28 3.23 0.82 14.59 0.36 - 41.03 3.40 3.23 - 25.78 4.66 0.45 -11/1/2009 5.57 14.22 20.67 75.44 6.10 0.17 66.17 0.02 - 3.34 2.48 1.38 3.81 0.93 16.09 0.39 - 40.69 2.48 3.34 - 21.72 4.08 0.17 -12/1/2009 5.11 15.91 21.44 84.43 7.33 0.19 35.88 0.12 - 3.34 2.94 1.84 5.06 0.99 18.92 0.40 - 40.07 2.94 3.34 - 21.13 3.37 0.09 -1/1/2010 4.90 15.50 20.93 84.85 6.93 0.19 40.68 0.08 - 3.34 0.09 1.90 5.06 0.99 18.16 0.42 - 42.22 0.09 3.34 - 21.85 4.21 0.080.032/1/2010 4.63 17.24 22.12 91.66 7.36 0.20 43.49 0.11 - 3.34 0.05 2.03 5.49 1.13 19.74 0.40 - 44.70 0.05 3.34 - 21.32 4.27 0.110.123/1/2010 4.16 14.84 18.15 83.33 6.41 0.17 38.68 0.05 - 3.34 0.05 1.70 4.49 0.94 18.20 0.39 - 42.38 0.05 3.34 - 20.31 3.90 0.360.404/1/2010 4.60 13.00 18.16 72.83 5.18 0.17 36.20 0.03 - 3.34 0.11 1.38 3.20 0.87 15.74 0.36 - 42.55 0.11 3.34 - 25.54 4.08 0.870.285/1/2010 5.04 12.28 17.11 70.99 5.25 0.17 36.98 0.06 - 3.34 0.19 1.33 3.06 0.82 15.43 0.34 - 43.03 0.19 3.34 - 27.48 4.01 1.270.326/1/2010 4.58 12.59 20.04 74.45 6.34 0.17 37.91 0.06 - 3.34 0.28 1.45 5.06 0.93 14.62 0.39 - 45.95 0.28 3.34 - 29.07 4.01 3.290.227/1/2010 4.46 11.88 20.56 67.54 4.86 - 28.14 0.02 - 3.34 0.22 1.33 5.09 0.88 13.72 0.37 - 46.42 0.22 3.34 - 30.08 4.33 4.44 0.428/1/2010 4.18 12.80 20.41 68.09 5.01 - 28.95 0.03 - 3.34 0.05 1.33 5.12 0.93 13.94 0.37 - 43.77 0.05 3.34 - 28.34 3.67 3.25 0.439/1/2010 4.13 11.43 19.31 63.27 4.72 - 30.94 0.05 - 3.34 0.06 1.30 4.98 0.94 13.74 0.36 - 49.36 0.06 3.34 0.05 30.59 4.42 1.490.7110/1/2010 4.21 11.22 18.80 62.54 4.72 - 24.46 0.03 - 3.34 0.031.28 4.55 0.87 13.52 0.36 - 46.57 0.03 3.34 - 28.69 3.99 0.45 0.5311/1/2010 4.02 10.61 19.31 61.83 4.69 - 22.28 0.03 - 3.34 0.031.35 4.80 0.88 13.37 0.34 - 41.00 0.03 3.34 - 22.48 3.81 0.17 0.2212/1/2010 4.01 10.95 18.30 65.18 5.06 - 61.73 0.03 - 3.34 0.051.38 4.22 0.87 13.86 0.37 - 47.81 0.05 3.34 - 21.35 4.16 0.09 0.03NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 127/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeFishing Creek Development Sub-Basin - ContinuedThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateNWF-5 NWF-10 SWY-8 SWF-10 SWF-111/1/2008 - - 0.12 - -2/1/2008 - - 0.14 - -3/1/2008 - - 1.08 - -4/1/2008 - - 2.41 - -5/1/2008 - - 2.94 - -6/1/2008 - - 3.99 - -7/1/2008 - - 4.72 - -8/1/2008 - - 4.72 - -9/1/2008 - - 4.66 - -10/1/2008 - - 1.89 - -11/1/2008 - - 1.10 - -12/1/2008 - - 0.09 - -1/1/2009 - - - - -2/1/2009 - - - - -3/1/2009 - - 2.01 - -4/1/2009 - - 3.09 - -5/1/2009 - - 3.25 - -6/1/2009 - - 3.09 - -7/1/2009 - - 3.87 - -8/1/2009 - - 4.64 - -9/1/2009 - - 3.71 - -10/1/2009 - - 1.70 - -11/1/2009 - - 0.77 - -12/1/2009 - - - - -1/1/2010 0.02 - - - -2/1/2010 0.02 0.09 - - -3/1/2010 0.02 0.12 1.32 - -4/1/2010 0.19 0.40 2.32 - -5/1/2010 0.22 0.31 3.09 - -6/1/2010 0.26 0.62 4.64 - -7/1/2010 0.26 0.62 6.50 - -8/1/2010 0.26 0.59 6.96 - -9/1/2010 0.08 0.62 6.19 - -10/1/2010 0.15 0.31 3.87 - -11/1/2010 0.06 0.22 1.24 - -12/1/2010 0.02 - - - -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 137/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeGreat Falls-Dearborn Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateSRG-1 SRG-2 SWG-1 SWG-21/1/2008 0.22 1.92 0.02 -2/1/2008 0.22 1.76 0.03 -3/1/2008 0.23 1.86 0.10 -4/1/2008 0.23 1.70 0.24 -5/1/2008 0.22 1.55 0.35 -6/1/2008 0.22 1.39 0.90 -7/1/2008 0.20 1.39 1.21 -8/1/2008 0.48 1.70 0.89 -9/1/2008 0.20 1.86 0.41 -10/1/2008 0.20 1.55 0.12 -11/1/2008 0.22 1.39 0.05 -12/1/2008 0.20 1.55 0.02 -1/1/2009 0.19 1.73 0.02 -2/1/2009 0.19 1.47 0.03 -3/1/2009 0.23 2.10 0.10 -4/1/2009 0.28 1.44 0.24 -5/1/2009 0.20 1.49 0.35 -6/1/2009 0.17 2.01 0.90 -7/1/2009 0.20 1.14 1.21 -8/1/2009 0.17 1.24 0.89 -9/1/2009 0.20 1.25 0.41 -10/1/2009 0.19 1.33 0.12 -11/1/2009 0.19 1.83 0.05 -12/1/2009 0.22 2.17 0.02 -1/1/2010 0.19 2.01 0.02 -2/1/2010 0.22 2.23 0.03 -3/1/2010 0.19 1.79 0.10 -4/1/2010 0.17 1.41 0.24 -5/1/2010 0.20 1.39 0.35 -6/1/2010 0.19 1.14 0.90 -7/1/2010 0.26 1.24 1.21 -8/1/2010 0.19 1.10 0.89 -9/1/2010 0.23 1.08 0.41 -10/1/2010 0.22 1.08 0.12 -11/1/2010 0.22 0.93 0.05 -12/1/2010 0.20 1.08 0.02 -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 147/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeRocky Creek-Cedar Creek Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateSRC-1 SRC-2 SWC-1 SWC-21/1/2008 0.71 0.39 0.01 -2/1/2008 0.73 0.39 0.01 -3/1/2008 0.77 0.43 0.04 -4/1/2008 0.73 0.34 0.11 -5/1/2008 0.67 0.28 0.16 -6/1/2008 0.56 0.26 0.40 -7/1/2008 0.53 0.28 0.55 -8/1/2008 0.65 0.40 0.40 -9/1/2008 0.57 - 0.18 -10/1/2008 0.50 0.31 0.05 -11/1/2008 0.51 0.31 0.02 -12/1/2008 0.67 0.39 0.01 -1/1/2009 0.62 0.40 0.01 -2/1/2009 0.53 0.40 0.01 -3/1/2009 0.76 0.54 0.04 -4/1/2009 0.73 0.46 0.11 -5/1/2009 0.59 0.29 0.16 -6/1/2009 0.67 0.32 0.40 -7/1/2009 0.53 0.29 0.55 -8/1/2009 0.51 0.28 0.40 -9/1/2009 0.50 0.32 0.18 -10/1/2009 0.50 0.34 0.05 -11/1/2009 0.59 0.46 0.02 -12/1/2009 0.73 0.63 0.01 -1/1/2010 0.70 0.65 0.01 -2/1/2010 0.76 0.54 0.01 -3/1/2010 0.68 0.40 0.04 -4/1/2010 0.56 0.32 0.11 -5/1/2010 0.65 0.36 0.16 -6/1/2010 0.99 0.31 0.40 -7/1/2010 0.57 0.36 0.55 -8/1/2010 1.16 0.48 0.40 -9/1/2010 0.74 0.26 0.18 -10/1/2010 0.68 0.23 0.05 -11/1/2010 0.63 0.26 0.02 -12/1/2010 0.73 0.28 0.01 -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 157/28/2014
Appendix AWater Use (cfs) by NodeWateree Development Sub-BasinThis workbook is created from CWWMG workbook of flows and withdrawals by node "CWWMG Water Supply Analysis.xlsm".DateSWW-1 SWW-2 SWW-3 SWW-4 SWW-51/1/2008 2.92 2.66 - 0.00 -2/1/2008 3.06 2.66 - 0.01 -3/1/2008 3.19 2.88 - 0.02 -4/1/2008 3.43 2.99 - 0.05 -5/1/2008 3.71 3.81 - 0.07 -6/1/2008 4.49 4.27 - 0.17 -7/1/2008 4.02 3.87 - 0.23 -8/1/2008 3.64 3.53 - 0.17 -9/1/2008 3.60 3.26 - 0.08 -10/1/2008 3.20 3.19 - 0.02 -11/1/2008 2.99 2.77 - 0.01 -12/1/2008 2.97 2.58 - 0.00 -1/1/2009 2.92 2.72 - 0.00 -2/1/2009 2.92 2.60 - 0.01 -3/1/2009 3.17 2.49 - 0.02 -4/1/2009 3.09 3.09 - 0.05 -5/1/2009 3.17 3.59 - 0.07 -6/1/2009 3.51 3.88 - 0.17 -7/1/2009 3.85 3.78 - 0.23 -8/1/2009 3.65 3.64 - 0.17 -9/1/2009 3.76 3.40 - 0.08 -10/1/2009 3.37 2.72 - 0.02 -11/1/2009 2.88 2.51 - 0.01 -12/1/2009 2.92 2.46 - 0.00 -1/1/2010 3.05 2.69 - 0.00 -2/1/2010 3.03 2.48 - 0.01 -3/1/2010 2.88 2.35 - 0.02 -4/1/2010 3.62 3.13 - 0.05 -5/1/2010 3.90 3.53 - 0.07 -6/1/2010 3.90 3.79 - 0.17 -7/1/2010 4.07 3.59 - 0.23 -8/1/2010 3.87 3.34 - 0.17 -9/1/2010 4.10 3.60 - 0.08 -10/1/2010 3.65 3.02 - 0.02 -11/1/2010 3.22 2.43 - 0.01 -12/1/2010 3.23 2.86 - 0.00 -NR = North Carolina Return Node NW = North CarolinaWithdrawal NodeSR = South Carolina Return Node SW = South Carolina Withdrawal NodeNODE IDW-R_Nodes_Historical.xlsxA - 167/28/2014