UnionCo_IBT Petition Final_05062016

Interbasin Transfer Petition
Union County Yadkin
River Water Supply
Project
Proposed Interbasin Transfer to the Rocky River
Basin
Submitted to:
North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission
Submitted by:
Union County Public Works Department North
Carolina
April 29, 2016

This page intentionally left blank.

Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Contact Page
Contact Page
Agency Lead
Division of Water Resources – Water Planning Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Kim Nimmer
Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Program Coordinator
512 N. Salisbury St.
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
919-707-9019 office
919-733 3558
[e-mail]

Applicants
Union County, North Carolina, on behalf of its Public Works department and single bulk water
customer, the Town of Wingate
Ed Goscicki, PE
Executive Director
Union County Public Works
500 North Main Street, Suite 500
Monroe, NC 28112
704-296-4212
[e-mail]

Consultant Contact
HDR
L. Kevin Mosteller, PE
Project Manager
440 South Church Street
Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-338-6802
[e-mail]

i
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Contact Page
This page intentionally left blank.

ii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Introduction
Union County (County) currently provides water to residents within the unincorporated portions
of the County, as well as all towns and villages within Union County with the exception of the
City of Monroe and Town of Marshville. Union County is a wholesale finished water supplier to
the Town of Wingate, who owns and operates their own water distribution system.
The County’s primary water supply and production is currently delivered from the Catawba River
Water Supply Project (CRWSP) in Lancaster County, SC. Additional water supply is provided
from the east from Anson County, NC. The CRWSP joint venture includes the Catawba River
Water Treatment Plant (CRWTP) which is a regional water treatment facility with a permitted
operating capacity of 36 mgd. Union County, NC, and Lancaster County Water and Sewer
District, SC, have 50 percent ownership rights of the facilities. The County has an additional 4
mgd wholesale purchase Agreement with Anson County. The County serves customers in both
the Catawba River Basin (considered Union County’s Catawba River Basin Service Area) and
the Yadkin River Basin (considered Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area).
The County is seeking to develop a Yadkin Regional Water Supply project (YRWSP) to ensure
long-term, sustainable water supply to its current, and projected, future service areas in the
Yadkin River Basin. This effort includes securing the required regulatory permits and approvals
for delivering additional water to the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area customers in the
Rocky River Basin, which is a part of the greater Yadkin River Basin. Under the current
legislative and regulatory framework, the County must obtain an interbasin transfer (IBT)
certificate for this project.
Along with unincorporated areas of the County, twelve jurisdictions in the County have the
potential to be served with water as a result of the proposed project: The Town of Waxhaw, the
Town of Mineral Springs, the Town of Weddington, the Town of Indian Trail, the Town of
Stallings, the Town of Hemby Bridge, the Town of Fairview, the Town of Unionville, the Town of
Mineral Springs, the Village of Wesley Chapel, and the Village of Lake Park are all currently
served with finished water provided by the County. As previously noted, the Town of Wingate
currently purchases water wholesale from the County, and is hereby considered a party to the
IBT Petition. No communities are anticipated to be served outside of the County’s borders;
therefore, the service area will not extend beyond the County border.
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
Union County has seen significant growth over the past two decades and is expected to
continue to have steady growth and development into the foreseeable future. In response to this
growth, the County has worked diligently to meet the increasing demands for public water
supply and other services. Further, the County has completed an extensive water supply
planning effort, and has identified opportunities to provide a long-term, sustainable water supply
solution for its citizens and community. In 2011, Union County developed a Comprehensive
Water and Wastewater Master Plan (Master Plan) (Black & Veatch, 2011) outlining water
iii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
demand projections and system infrastructure needs through the year 2030. Water demands for
the YRWSP were developed and subsequently updated from the 2011 Master Plan to reflect
more recent data and trends in population growth, per capita water use and water demand
peaking factors. The following assumptions, as further detailed in Section 3.0, were used to
develop projected future water demands for the YRWSP.
• Projected Population Growth in Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area
o 2.7% annual population growth from 2010 to 2030
o 2.4% annual population growth from 2031 to 2040
o 1.8% annual population growth from 2041 to 2050
o 1.0% annual service area growth from 2010 to 2050
• Per Capita Water Demand
o 120 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for future customer water demand
projections
o Includes all residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, process (i.e. in-plant),
and non-revenue (e.g. line flushing, water loss) water
• Water Demand Peaking Factors
o 1.70 Max Day to Annual Average Day peaking factor
o 1.22 Max Day to Maximum Month Average Day peaking factor
Population Growth
During the early part of the 2000 decade, Union County was the fastest growing county in North
Carolina and one of the top 20 fastest growing counties in the entire nation. Growth rates within
the County during this time outpaced the balance of the State’s growth rate by a factor of 3 to 4.
Union County’s proximity to the Charlotte metropolitan area and increasing job base and quality
of life were key drivers to this high population growth rate. However, since the economic
recession in the late 2000 decade, growth rates within the County have been observed at more
modest rates of 2 to 3 percent per year.
For purposes of extending the 2011 Master Plan water use projections for the YRWSP, the
overall 2.4% county-wide population growth projection approach established in the Master Plan
through the year 2030 was maintained. However, recognizing a constant county-wide annual
growth rate of 2.4% through the year 2050 is unlikely to continue, projections for the YRWSP
were updated to reflect decreasing growth rates in later decades. Additionally, recognizing that
development of the YRWSP will provide a reliable source of water for County residents in the
Yadkin River Basin Service Area, as well as the development potential which currently exists in
this portion of the County, projected population and service area growth rates in this area are
considered to be slightly higher than those for the Catawba River Basin Service Area, in the
western part of the County. As such, a 1.0% annual service area growth rate in the County’s
Yadkin River Basin Service Area has been used for future water demand projections.
Historical and projected future population growth for Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service
Area, as developed for the YRWSP, are summarized in Table ES-1.
iv
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
Table ES- 1 Union County Historical and Projected Future Service Population and Water Supply Demands
Total Union County Water System (Yadkin and Catawba River Basin Service Areas) Yadkin River Basin Service Area (Rocky River IBT Basin)
Data
Type Year
Total Population Served
Annual
Service
Population Growth
Rate
Annual
Average Day Demand 1
Max. Month Avg. Day Demand Max. Day Demand
Per Capita
Water Use (Annual Avg. Day) 1
Yadkin River Basin Service Area Population Served Annual Population
Growth Rate
Projected Annual
Service
Area Growth
Rate
Annual
Average Day Demand 2
Max. Month Avg. Day Demand 2
Max. Day Demand 2,3
Projected Actual (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) (gpcd) Projected Actual (mgd) (mgd) (mgd)
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l

D
a
t
a

(P
e
r

L
o
c
a
l

W
a
t
e
r

S
u
p
p
l
y

P
l
a
n

d
a
t
a
,

se
e

n
o
t
e
s

f
o
r

e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
s
)

1997 - 25,825 - 4.55 5.83 6.62 176 - 17,179 - - No data No data No data
2002 - 56,833 17.09% 7.34 10.53 11.34 129 - 32,839 13.84% - No data No data No data
2007 - 97,666 11.44% 12.44 17.22 23.29 127 - 44,080 6.06% - 5.57 6.77 9.47
2008 - 102,501 4.95% 10.56 13.47 21.23 103 - 45,625 3.50% - 4.82 5.59 8.20
2009 - 104,995 2.43% 11.00 12.93 17.4 105 - 46,491 1.90% - 4.76 5.91 8.10
2010 107,048 4 107,893 2.76% 11.80 14.25 20.06 109 47,123 4 47,382 1.92% - 5.10 6.23 8.67
2011 - 110,214 2.15% 11.28 14.02 17.84 102 - 48,202 1.73% - 4.99 6.12 8.48
2012 - 113,339 2.83% 11.53 13.49 17.02 102 - 49,120 1.90% - 5.14 6.00 8.73
2013 117,271 4 117,033 3.26% 11.38 13.76 16.75 97 52,550 4 50,063 1.92% - 5.00 5.70 8.50
2014 - 122,141 4.37% 12.46 15.1 18.52 102 - 51,637 3.14% - 5.45 7.75 9.27
2015 - 125,693 2.91% 13.17 17.04 20.41 105 - 52,738 2.13% - 5.47 6.78 9.29
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

Fu
t
u
r
e

2020 145,228 - 3.10% 15.2 22.8 5 27.8 5 120 6 67,767 - 2.70% 1.00% 7.4 10.2 12.5
2030 191,880 - 2.82% 20.8 30.6 5 37.3 5 120 6 97,456 - 2.70% 1.00% 10.9 15.2 18.6
2040 251,251 - 2.73% 28.0 40.5 5 49.4 5 120 6 136,149 - 2.40% 1.00% 15.6 21.7 26.4
2050 319,760 - 2.44% 36.2 52.0 5 63.4 5 120 6 179,450 - 1.80% 1.00% 20.8 28.9 35.3
Notes:
1 In addition to the annual average day demand values published in the Union County Local Water Supply Plans (LWSP), 5% process (in-plant) water demand has been assumed for historical demands as this information
has not been historically included in LWSP data, as water supplied from the CRWSP and Anson County is considered a wholesale purchase by Union County. 2 Includes the addition of 15% assumed non-revenue water (unbilled-metered, water loss and process use) to historical billed customer data for Yadkin River Basin Service Area, as historical non-revenue water data is not
available by specific water service area. 3 Historical maximum day demand for Yadkin River Basin Service Area estimated from annual average day demand using 1.7 peaking factor, in the absence of actual data for the service area. Historical peaking factors for the total Union County water system have been as high as 2.3, with values closer to 1.7 over recent years. 4 Projected population for 2010 and 2013 are based on the 2011 Union County Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan, and are shown for comparative purposes to actual historical data.
5 Includes 1.9 mgd (max day) contract supply from Union County to City of Monroe (Catawba River Basin supply); note, this demand is not included in annual average day projections as this is an intermittent use connection. 6 120 gpcd is the projected per capita water use rate used for future water supply planning purposes for new system customers. It is based on total system water demand, including revenue and non-revenue water (including in-plant process needs), as based on historical records during abnormally dry, or drought, years and with consideration of other demands on the system. This value may be compared to similar drought conditions
in 2002 and 2007, and indicates a targeted reduction (down to 120 gpcd) from the previous values as a result of ongoing water conservation and efficiency measures implemented by Union County.

v
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank.

vi
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
Per Capita Water Demand
For purposes of the YRWSP projection updates, a review of the County’s historical water use
data over the past 10-15years indicates that per capita per day unit water demands (total
system demands) have averaged approximately 100 to 130 gpcd, with slightly lower values in
the most recent years due to ongoing mandatory water restrictions, increased conservation
efforts, and more favorable climate conditions (more annual rainfall and slightly lower annual
temperature averages). As such, the water demand projections of the recently completed
Master Plan have been reduced for the updated YRWSP projections from 125 gpcd, as
indicated in the 2011 Master Plan, to reflect a lower average unit demand of 120 gpcd for future
water demands of all new system customers to be served after the Year 2012.
The use of a 120 gpcd unit demand is representative of customer demands within the County
over the last decade during historically drier years, which should be used as the basis for water
demand planning to secure a sufficient water supply to meet peak year demands. Further, this
value includes consideration for process water necessary for a new water treatment plant as
part of the proposed YRWSP, which has not previously been included in Union County’s
historical per capita demand calculations from existing water supplies since these are
considered (administratively) finished water purchases from the CRWSP and Anson County.
Historical and projected future per capita water demands for Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area, as developed for the YRWSP, are summarized in Table ES- 1.
Water Demand Peaking Factors
In years past, Union County’s maximum day to average day water peaking factors have been as
high as 2.3. The Master Plan identified the average Max Day to Average Day peaking factor
from 2004 to 2009 to be approximately 1.9, which was carried forward in Master Plan water
demand projections. In recent years, however, County-wide mandatory and voluntary irrigation
restrictions have impacted historical Max Day factors, as irrigation uses are a major driver of the
Max Day demands typically occurring during summer months. With irrigation restrictions over
the past seven years, the County has been able to achieve Max Day to Average Day peaking
factors at an average rate of approximately 1.8.
The Union County Board of Commissioners previously reached consensus in favor of
implementing demand management practices in the future to avoid the very high peaking
factors (those greater than 2.0) that have been experienced in the past. The County’s newly
adopted (May 4, 2015) Water Use Ordinance, as further discussed in in this Petition, outlines
the specific demand management initiatives now implemented within the County.
Therefore, for purposes of the YRWSP projections, the Max Day to Average Day peaking factor
for the future water demands was selected to be the actual average over the past 4 years (non-
drought years) of 1.7. An evaluation of North Carolina Division of Water Resource’s (DWR)
Local Water Supply Plans for comparable utilities within the Piedmont region of North Carolina
indicates that since 2007, average Max Day to Average Day peaking factors have ranged from
1.4 to 1.8, which further supports the 1.7 peaking factor used for YRWSP demand projections
within Union County.
vii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
Projected Future Water Demand in Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area
As summarized in Table ES- 1, water needs in the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area,
located in the Rocky River IBT Basin (Basin code 18-4), are projected to increase from a current
(2013) maximum month average daily demand of 7.7 mgd to 28.9 mgd by 2050. The projected
increase in the County’s water demand is a combined result of projected county population
growth and Union County water system service area growth.
The County’s current 5 mgd grandfathered IBT from the Catawba River Basin (through the
CRWSP) and the Anson County water supply are not capable of meeting the projected future
demand within the Rocky River IBT Basin; and therefore, the County must secure a reliable
water supply from other sources to meet its future demand in this service area. It is the intent of
the YRWSP to meet these additional future water demands by supplementing the County’s
existing grandfathered IBT from the Catawba River Basin.
Description of Proposed Action
Union County is pursuing an IBT certificate to meet the water supply needs of its current and
future residents, and on behalf of the wholesale communities served by the County. On August
12, 2013, the County submitted a Notice of Intent to the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) regarding its request for an IBT for a maximum month
average daily amount of 23 mgd (equivalent to a maximum day amount of 28 mgd) from the
Yadkin River IBT Basin (Basin code 18-1) to the Rocky River IBT Basin (Basin code 18-4), both
of which are part of the Yadkin River Basin.
While these two IBT basins are each part of the primary Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina IBT
Statute G.S. 143-215.22L considers these two IBT basins as separate, and the proposed water
transfer to be an interbasin transfer. The requested transfer amount is based on 2050 water
demand projections in the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area. The intent of this IBT is to
supplement and/or replace the County’s existing water supply sources to meet projected water
demands through 2050.
Summary of Preferred Alternative
As indicated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), (HDR, 2015), for the project,
Alternative 1A is designated as the preferred alternative after a thorough assessment of each
alternative’s ability to meet the project’s purpose and need of delivering a safe, sustainable
water supply to meet the County’s current and future water demands in their Yadkin River Basin
Service Area, as well as the associated environmental impacts, mitigation measures, technical
feasibility, financial impacts, and political and community acceptance. Alternative 1A includes
the withdrawal of water from Lake Tillery in the Yadkin River IBT Basin and the transfer of this
water into the Rocky River IBT Basin in Union County for treatment and distribution. A portion of
the water will be returned via treated wastewater effluent through the Rocky River which
empties into the Pee Dee River (Yadkin River IBT Basin) approximately five miles downstream
from the Lake Tillery dam.
Alternative 1A, in conjunction with the existing grandfathered IBT from the Catawba River Basin,
is capable of delivering the stated future 28.9 mgd maximum month (23.0 mgd from the Yadkin
viii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
River Basin, supplemented by up to 5.9 mgd from the existing Catawba supply) and 35.3 mgd
maximum day demands (28.0 mgd from the Yadkin River Basin, supplemented by up to 7.3
mgd from the existing Catawba supply) of Union County. The water modeling efforts completed
for the FEIS indicate that withdrawal from Lake Tillery has less impact on lake aesthetics and
other water withdrawal interests, including during drought conditions and hydropower
production, than withdrawal of water from other locations. The environmental impacts of
Alternative 1A are similar, or significantly less, than the other alternatives evaluated. Mitigation
measures are in place throughout the proposed service area to mitigate these environmental
impacts.
The cost of developing a water supply solution for Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service
Area is significant and represents a large future capital expenditure for the County. Alternative
1A represents one of the lowest cost project alternatives and has been determined to be a
financially feasible option for this water supply. In developing this project, Union County held
discussions with numerous entities along the Yadkin-Pee Dee River regarding potential regional
partnerships for water supply. In 2013, these discussions subsequently led to the development
of an Interlocal Intake and Transmission Agreement between Union County and the Town of
Norwood in Stanly County for water withdrawal from a new shared raw water intake in Lake
Tillery at the site of the Town of Norwood’s current intake. Regional partnership for water supply
between the Town of Norwood and Union County is an added mutual benefit of this preferred
alternative. Moreover, implementation of the preferred alternative reduces future demands for
additional water supply from the Catawba River Basin into the County’s Yadkin River Basin
service area.
Project Planning and IBT Certification Process
In working toward the development of this preferred alternative for water transfers from Lake
Tillery as part of the YRWSP, Union County seeks to ensure a long-term sustainable water
supply to their existing and future customers, and the Town of Wingate who has a wholesale
contract with the County. The following steps have been undertaken by the County to
proactively plan for future demands:
• Completed Rocky River Water Supply Feasibility Study to assess potential water
supply opportunities from the Rocky River (2004) (CH2MHill, 2004)
• Completed Union County Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan to
assess the County’s water demands, water supply, and water and wastewater
infrastructure needs (2011) (Black & Veatch, 2011)
• Completed Eastern Union County Water Supply Project Partner Assessment,
Conceptual Study, and Preliminary Permitting and Feasibility Analysis to assess
potential water supply opportunities to serve the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service
Area (2011) (HDR, 2011)
• Discussions and negotiations held with potential regional partners to develop a new
water supply for Union County from the Yadkin River Basin (2012)
• Finalized Interlocal Intake and Transmission Agreement with the Town of Norwood
for future water supply from Lake Tillery (2013)
ix
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
• Submitted a Notice of Intent to North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (NC EMC) for IBT from the Yadkin River Basin (18-1) to the Rocky River
Basin (18-4) (2013)
• Prepared a Scoping Document for submittal to the North Carolina Environmental
Review Clearinghouse(2013)
• As required by the North Carolina IBT general statute, conducted public notification
efforts and held public meetings within the source basin (2 meetings, one upstream and
downstream of the proposed intake) and receiving basin (1 meeting) of the proposed
IBT to gather input from citizens in North Carolina and South Carolina, community
organizations, and public agencies (2013)
• Updated initial water demand projections to reflect 2013 statutory changes which now
define measurement of IBT as the daily average of a maximum calendar month, based
on historical Union County Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) and the County’s 2011
Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan (2014)
• Included the updated Union County water demand projections, along with updates
for water users throughout the Yadkin River Basin in North and South Carolina, in
the evaluation of impacts conducted with the updated Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
hydrologic model (2014)
• Submitted Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to North Carolina
Environmental Review Clearinghouse for public review and comment (2015) (HDR,
2015)
• As required by North Carolina IBT general statute, worked with the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (DWR) to conduct public notification efforts and hold a
public hearing for the DEIS document (2015)
• Submitted Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to North Carolina
Environmental Review Clearinghouse for public review and comment (2016) (HDR,
2015)
• Submitted FEIS and subsequent Record of Decision (ROD) to North Carolina
Environmental Review Clearinghouse for publication (2016)
The next step in the certification process is this petition submittal to the NC EMC for an IBT
certificate followed by associated public hearings and opportunity for public comment prior to
the NC EMC ruling on the petition. This petition for an IBT certificate includes the following
elements in support of the request for IBT:
1. Background of the Union County water supply and the Requested Action
2. Description of Union County water and wastewater infrastructure
3. Present and future water supply needs of Union County and its customers including
consumptive and non-consumptive uses
4. Environmental resources discussion including water quality and quantity information for
the source reservoir and the receiving rivers and information on aquatic habitat for rare,
threatened, and endangered species
5. Water usage data, water conservation, water efficiency, and water stewardship
measures utilized by Union County
x
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
6. Alternative sources of water to avoid or minimize an increase in IBT
7. Registered water transfers and withdrawals from the source reservoir and planned
transfers or withdrawals
8. How the proposed transfer, if added to all other transfers and withdrawals within the
source basin, would not reduce the amount of water available for use to a degree that
would impair existing uses or existing and planned uses of the water
9. Future water supply needs within the Yadkin River Basin

xi
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Executive Summary
This page intentionally left blank.

xii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Contact Page ............................................................................................................................. i
Agency Lead ............................................................................................................................ i
Applicants ................................................................................................................................. i
Consultant Contact ................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................iii
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ iii
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................ iii
Population Growth .............................................................................................................. iv
Per Capita Water Demand ................................................................................................. vii
Water Demand Peaking Factors ........................................................................................ vii
Projected Future Water Demand in Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area ...... viii
Description of Proposed Action ............................................................................................ viii
Summary of Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................... viii
Project Planning and IBT Certification Process ....................................................................... ix
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Yadkin River Water Supply Project .............................................................................. 1
1.2. The Requested Action ................................................................................................. 1
1.3. Background ................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1. Union County Water Supply .................................................................................. 3
1.3.2. Guiding Legislation ............................................................................................... 4
1.3.3. Need for IBT ......................................................................................................... 5
1.3.4. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination ....................................................... 5
2.0 Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water ................................................. 9
2.1. Union County Water Treatment and Distribution Infrastructure .................................... 9
2.2. Union County Wastewater Treatment and Collection ..................................................12
2.3. The Transfer of Water .................................................................................................13
2.4. Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Uses of Water to Be Transferred .........................14
3.0 Predicted Water Demands and Uses .......................................................................16
3.1. Background ................................................................................................................16
3.2. Population Projections ................................................................................................17
3.2.1. Population Growth and Allocation ........................................................................17
xiii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
3.2.2. Population and Service Area ................................................................................17
3.3. Average Daily Water Demands ...................................................................................18
3.3.1. Per Capita Average Unit Water Demand ..............................................................18
3.3.2. Water Demand Summary – Annual Daily Average ...............................................20
3.4. Maximum Month Average Day Water Demands .........................................................20
3.4.1. Water Demand Peaking Factors ..........................................................................20
3.4.2. Water Demand Summary – Maximum Month Daily Average ................................21
3.5. Interbasin Transfer ......................................................................................................22
4.0 Environmental Resources ........................................................................................23
4.1. Water Resources ........................................................................................................23
4.1.1. Water Quantity and Water Supply ........................................................................23
4.1.2. Water Quality .......................................................................................................27
4.2. Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources ...............................................................28
4.2.1. Vertebrates ..........................................................................................................30
4.2.2. Invertebrates ........................................................................................................32
5.0 Water Demand Management and Conservation .....................................................34
5.1. Water Shortage Response Plan(s) .............................................................................34
5.1.1. Union County Water Use Ordinance ....................................................................34
5.1.2. Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project ....................35
5.1.3. Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin & Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Projects
............................................................................................................................36
5.2. Water Use Reduction Measures .................................................................................37
5.3. Water Stewardship Efforts ..........................................................................................38
5.3.1. Water Quantity Stewardship ................................................................................38
5.3.2. Water Quality Stewardship – Programs and Ordinances .....................................43
5.4. Interbasin Transfer Compliance and Monitoring Plan ..................................................44
5.4.1. Quarterly Reports ................................................................................................44
5.4.2. Annual Reports ....................................................................................................44
5.4.3. Status Reports .....................................................................................................44
5.4.4. Drought Management Reporting and Coordination ..............................................44
6.0 Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives ...............................................45
6.1. Background ................................................................................................................45
6.2. Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................47
xiv
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
6.2.1. Surface Water Supply Alternatives .......................................................................49
6.2.2. Interbasin Transfer Minimization Alternatives .......................................................54
6.3. Preferred Alternative ...................................................................................................71
7.0 Water Withdrawals from the Source Basin .............................................................74
8.0 Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer ..........................................................79
8.1. CHEOPSTM Model Platform ........................................................................................79
8.1.1. Background .........................................................................................................79
8.1.2. Scenario Name and Details - Union County YRWSP IBT.....................................80
8.1.3. Use of Model Results ...........................................................................................81
8.2. Lake Level - Aesthetics ...............................................................................................83
8.2.1. Lake Tillery ..........................................................................................................83
8.2.2. Blewett Falls Lake (downstream impoundment) ...................................................90
8.2.3. Lake Aesthetics - Summary .................................................................................97
8.3. Lake Level – Withdrawals ...........................................................................................97
8.4. Reservoir Release ......................................................................................................98
8.4.1. Lake Tillery ..........................................................................................................99
8.4.2. Blewett Falls Lake .............................................................................................. 102
8.4.3. Flow Regime below Blewett Falls Lake .............................................................. 105
8.4.4. Reservoir Releases - Summary ......................................................................... 107
8.5. Water Quantity Management (LIP Occurrence) ........................................................ 107
8.6. Hydropower .............................................................................................................. 109
9.0 Future Water Supply Needs in the Yadkin River Basin ........................................ 114
9.1. Yadkin River Basin Water Demand Growth .............................................................. 114
9.2. Yadkin River Basin Reservoir Operating Rules ......................................................... 116
9.3. Yadkin River Basin Drought Effects .......................................................................... 116
9.4. No Adverse Impact to Future Water Supply Needs ................................................... 117
10.0 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 118

xv
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
Appendices
APPENDIX A: Record of Decision – IBT Environmental Impact Statement
APPENDIX B: Water Shortage Response Plan
APPENDIX C: CHEOPS™ Modeling Results - Performance Measure Sheets
APPENDIX D: Technical Memorandum - Yadkin River Basin Future Water Demand
Projections

List of Illustrations
Illustration 1-1 Union County Yadkin River Basin Service Area Projected Water Supply and
Demand (HDR, 2015) .............................................................................................................. 2 Illustration 1-2 Union County River Basins and Water Service Planning Areas (HDR, 2015) ......... 3
Illustration 2-1 Existing Union County Water Sources and Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Black
& Veatch, 2011) ..................................................................................................................... 10 Illustration 2-2 Existing Union County Water Distribution System and Pressure Zones (HDR, 2015)
............................................................................................................................................... 11 Illustration 2-3 Union County Wastewater Service Basins (HDR, 2015) ....................................... 13 Illustration 5-1 Water Balance Results of Union County’s First (FY2014) AWWA M36 Water Audit
............................................................................................................................................... 41
Illustration 6-1 Union County, North Carolina and Surrounding Major Rivers ............................... 45 Illustration 6-2 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Reservoirs (CH2MHill, 2006) (Note: W. Kerr Scott
Reservoir not shown) ............................................................................................................. 46 Illustration 6-3 Catawba-Wateree River Basin Reservoirs (CH2MHill, 2004) ................................ 46 Illustration 6-4 Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project – Surface Water Alternatives (HDR, 2015)
............................................................................................................................................... 48 Illustration 6-5 Yadkin Regional Water Supply Preferred Alternative 1A ....................................... 72
Illustration 8-1 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record (1955-
2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ........................... 87 Illustration 8-2 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record (1955-
2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ............................. 87
Illustration 8-3 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-2003) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ...................................... 88
Illustration 8-4 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-2003) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ....................................... 88 Illustration 8-5 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-2009)
under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ...................................... 89 Illustration 8-6 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-2009)
under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ....................................... 89
Illustration 8-7 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ................. 94 Illustration 8-8 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record
(1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ................... 94 Illustration 8-9 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-
2003) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ........................... 95
Illustration 8-10 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-2003) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ............................. 95
Illustration 8-11 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-
2009) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ........................... 96
xvi
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
Illustration 8-12 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-2009) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ............................. 96
Illustration 8-13 Lake Tillery Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013)
under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections .................................... 101 Illustration 8-14 Lake Tillery Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013)
under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ..................................... 102 Illustration 8-15 Blewett Falls Lake Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ......................... 104
Illustration 8-16 Blewett Falls Lake Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ........................... 105 Illustration 8-17 Period of Record Simulated Pee-Dee River Flow for All Months at the NC/SC
border under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demands with Union County IBT Alternatives. ......................................................................................................................... 106
Illustration 8-18 Period of Record Simulated Pee-Dee River Flow for All Months at the NC/SC
border under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demands with Union County IBT Alternatives. ......................................................................................................................... 106
Illustration 8-19 Lake Tillery Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-2013)
under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections .................................... 111 Illustration 8-20 Blewett Falls Lake Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-
2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ......................... 112 Illustration 8-21 Lake Tillery Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ..................................... 112
Illustration 8-22 Blewett Falls Lake Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections ........................... 113 Illustration 9-1 Baseline Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, not Including the
Proposed Union County IBT ................................................................................................ 115 Illustration 9-2 Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, Including the Proposed Union County IBT ........................................................................................................................... 116

List of Tables
Table ES- 1 Union County Historical and Projected Future Service Population and Water Supply Demands ................................................................................................................................... v Table 2-1 Interbasin Transfer Water Balance Table – Maximum Month Average Daily Transfer
Estimates (unless noted otherwise) ....................................................................................... 15 Table 3-1 Union County Population and Water Service Area Growth Projections ........................ 18
Table 3-2 Union County Served Population Projections ............................................................... 18
Table 3-3 Union County Projected Water Demands by Decade ................................................... 20 Table 3-4 Union County Projected Water Demands by Decade ................................................... 21
Table 4-1 Surface Water Use Classifications in the Project Area.................................................. 24
Table 4-2 Aquatic Species Identified Within and Downstream of the Project Area by USFWS for Anson, Stanly and Union Counties, North Carolina ............................................................... 29
Table 5-1 Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol Water Use Reduction Requirements by LIP
Stage ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 5-2 Yadkin-Pee Dee Low Inflow Protocol Water Use Reduction Requirements by LIP Stage
............................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5-3 Proposed Union County Low Inflow Protocol Water Use Reduction Goals by LIP Stage ............................................................................................................................................... 38
Table 6-1 Summary of FEIS Temporary and Permanent Direct Impacts and Indirect Impacts for
YRWSP Alternatives (HDR, 2015) ......................................................................................... 59 Table 6-2 Union County YRWSP – Conceptual Cost Opinion (in Millions of $) for YRWSP
xvii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
Alternatives (HDR, 2015) ....................................................................................................... 70 Table 6-3 Review of Key Differentiators for Project Alternatives ................................................... 73
Table 7-1 Public Water Systems (Municipal) in the North Carolina Portion of the Yadkin River
Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 75 Table 7-2 Registered Water Withdrawals in the North Carolina Portion of the Yadkin River Basin
............................................................................................................................................... 76 Table 7-3 Permitted Water Withdrawals in the South Carolina Portion of the Yadkin River Basin (that is Pee Dee River Basin) ................................................................................................. 78
Table 8-1 Lake Tillery – Modeled Impacts to Lake Elevations (Adherence to Target Elevations) 83 Table 8-2 Lake Tillery – Average Annual Modeled Lake Elevation ............................................... 85 Table 8-3 Summary of Modeled Lake Tillery Monthly Average Lake Elevation Impacts ............... 85
Table 8-4 Blewett Falls Lake – Modeled Impacts to Lake Elevations (Adherence to Target Elevations) ............................................................................................................................. 91
Table 8-5 Lake Tillery – Average Annual Modeled Lake Elevation ............................................... 92
Table 8-6 Summary of Modeled Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Lake Elevation Impacts .... 92 Table 8-7 Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake – Modeled Impacts to Water Withdrawal Intakes.. 98
Table 8-8 Lake Tillery - Modeled Impacts to Flow Release from Lake Tillery ............................. 100
Table 8-9 Blewett Falls Lake - Modeled Impacts to Flow Release from Blewett Falls Lake ....... 103 Table 8-10 Low Inflow Protocol – Modeled Impacts to Water Quantity Management ................. 108
Table 8-11 APGI and Duke Energy Progress - Modeled Impacts to Hydropower Generation .... 110 Table 9-1 Baseline Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, not Including the Proposed Union County IBT ................................................................................................................. 115
Table 9-2 Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, Including the Proposed Union County IBT ........................................................................................................................................ 116 Acronyms
APGI Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
AWWA American Water Works Association
BFE Base flood elevation
BGPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended
C Candidate
CHEOPS™ Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning Software
CWA Clean Water Act
CRWSP Catawba River Water Supply Project
CRWTP Catawba River Water Treatment Plant
DEQ North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
E Endangered
EMC North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FSC Federal Species of Concern
GIS Geographic Information System
gpcd Gallons per capita per day
xviii
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
HPOWEB North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office GIS Service
HQW High Quality Waters
HUC Hydrologic unit code
IBT Interbasin Transfer
LIP Low Inflow Protocol
mgd Million gallons per day
MMDD Maximum month daily average demand
msl Mean sea level
NCAC North Carolina Administrative Code
NC EMC North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOI Notice of Intent to File a Petition
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPS National Park Service
POTW Publically Owned Treatment Works
SAESH Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat
SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SHPO North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
T Threatened
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TMDL Total maximum daily load
UCPW Union County Public Works Department
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UT Unnamed tributary
WQI Water Quality Index
WRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
YRWSP Yadkin River Water Supply Project

xix
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

xx
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
1.0 Introduction
1.1. Yadkin River Water Supply Project
In late 2011, Union County (County), through its Public Works Department (UCPW), completed
a Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan (Black & Veatch, 2011). This Master Plan
and subsequent water supply studies outline future needs for additional water supply in the
County’s current and future service areas, and presents alternative scenarios for securing new
water supply from the Catawba and/or Yadkin River Basins.
UCPW understands the complexities of delivering additional water supply to its customers due
to the County’s geography and development patterns (i.e., population centers, proximity to
water sources, and river basin boundaries) as well as the regulatory restrictions/hurdles that
exist for Interbasin Transfers (IBTs).
In May 2013, the County and the Town of Norwood completed an Interlocal Intake and
Transmission Agreement that provided a framework for bringing raw water supply from the
Yadkin River Basin into Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area. This service area lies
within the Rocky River IBT Basin, which is a part of the greater Yadkin River Basin.
The County is now moving forward with the Yadkin River Water Supply Project (YRWSP) to
ensure long-term, sustainable water supply to its current, and projected, future service areas in
the Yadkin River Basin. This effort includes securing the required regulatory permits and
approvals for delivering additional water to the County’s customers in the Rocky River IBT
Basin, including the evaluation of alternative scenarios that consider new water supply into this
area from various sources. Under the current legislative and regulatory framework, the County
must obtain an IBT certificate for this project.
Along with unincorporated portions of Union County, there are twelve jurisdictions in the County
that have the potential to be served with water as a result of the proposed project. The Town of
Waxhaw, the Town of Mineral Springs, the Town of Weddington, the Town of Indian Trail, the
Town of Stallings, the Town of Hemby Bridge, the Town of Fairview, the Town of Unionville, the
Town of Mineral Springs, the Village of Wesley Chapel, and the Village of Lake Park are all
currently served with finished water provided by the County. The Town of Wingate currently
purchases water wholesale from the County, and is hereby considered a party to the IBT
Petition. No communities are anticipated to be served outside of county borders; therefore the
service area will not extend beyond the County boundary.
1.2. The Requested Action
Union County has seen significant growth over the past two decades and is expected to
continue to have steady growth and development into the foreseeable future. In response to this
growth, the County has worked diligently to meet the increasing demands for public water
supply and other services. Further, the County has completed an extensive water supply
planning effort, and has identified opportunities to provide a long-term, sustainable water supply
solution for its citizens and community.
1
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
Union County is pursuing an IBT certificate to meet the water supply needs of its current and
future residents, and on behalf of the wholesale communities (Town of Wingate) served by the
County. On August 12, 2013, the County submitted a Notice of Intent to the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) regarding its request for an IBT for a maximum
month average daily amount of 23 mgd (equivalent to a maximum day amount of 28 mgd) from
the Yadkin River IBT Basin (Basin code 18-1) to the Rocky River IBT Basin (Basin code 18-4),
both of which are part of the Yadkin River Basin. While these two IBT basins are each part of
the primary Yadkin River Basin, North Carolina IBT statute considers these two IBT basins as
separate, and the proposed water transfer to be an interbasin transfer.
The requested amount is based on 2050 water demand projections in the County’s Yadkin River
Basin Service Area. The intent of this IBT is to supplement and/or replace the County’s existing
water supply sources for this service area, to meet projected water demands through 2050.
Illustration 1-1 depicts the County’s historical, current and projected future water use, including
authorized and requested IBT amounts within their Yadkin River Basin Service Area. This
illustration additionally outlines how this future water demand is anticipated to be met through
the year 2050.
Illustration 1-1 Union County Yadkin River Basin Service Area Projected Water Supply and Demand (HDR, 2015)
Moreover, the proposed transfer will reduce dependency on the County’s Catawba River IBT to
meet future water demands in the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area.
2
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
1.3. Background
1.3.1. Union County Water Supply
The Union County Water System currently serves customers in both the Catawba River IBT
Basin (Catawba River Basin Service Area) and the Rocky River IBT Basin (Yadkin River Basin
Service Area) of the Yadkin River Basin as illustrated in Illustration 1-2. The ridgeline between
the Catawba River Basin and Yadkin River Basin divides the County, with neither of these two
major rivers flowing within the County boundaries.
Illustration 1-2 Union County River Basins and Water Service Planning Areas (HDR, 2015)
The County currently holds 5 million gallons per day (mgd) authorized transfer (i.e., a
grandfathered IBT amount) of water from the Catawba River Basin to the Rocky River IBT Basin
from the State of North Carolina. This value is based upon the definition of a grandfathered IBT
as stipulated in North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02E .0401(d) where an IBT
certificate is not required to transfer water from one river basin to another up to the full capacity
of a facility to transfer water from one basin to another if the facility was existing or under
construction on July 1, 1993. The full capacity of a facility to transfer water shall be determined
as the capacity of the combined system of withdrawal, treatment, transmission, and discharge of
water, limited by the element of this system with the least capacity as existing or under
construction on July 1, 1993. The County’s 5 mgd authorized transfer from the Catawba River
Basin to the Rocky River IBT Basin is based upon the capacity of the water transfer
infrastructure which was in place within the County as of July 1, 1993, as documented in the
County’s Grandfathered IBT Worksheet prepared by CH2MHill on behalf of the County and
submitted to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) on October 19, 2000. This
authorized transfer is referred to herein as the grandfathered IBT amount.
3
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
To maintain compliance with the Catawba River Basin grandfathered IBT, the County currently
returns a portion of the transferred water back into the Catawba River Basin via the Poplin Road
wastewater pumping station. The County also has plans to build scalping infrastructure to allow
the capability to return additional water to the Catawba River Basin via the Crooked Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Additionally, the County currently holds a water purchase
agreement (which is up for renewal in 2017) with Anson County for 4 mgd of water supply that is
utilized in the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area.
Adequate water supply can be determined by comparing the existing available supply of current
sources to projected future water demands within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service
Area. Existing water supplies available to the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area include
a 5 mgd grandfathered IBT limitation for the transfer of water from the Catawba River Basin to
the Yadkin River Basin through finished water provided from the Catawba River Water
Treatment Plant in Lancaster County, South Carolina, and an additional water supply of up to 4
mgd provided through a contract with Anson County to supply finished water from the Yadkin
River Basin.
Union County’s water needs within its Yadkin River Basin Service Area are projected to exceed
available supply limits by the Year 2020 and increase from a current maximum month average
daily demand of 7.7 mgd to 28.9 mgd by the Year 2050 (equivalent to a current maximum daily
demand of 9 mgd to 35.3 mgd by 2050). The County’s current grandfathered IBT from the
Catawba River Basin through the Catawba River Water Treatment Plant and existing contract
with Anson County for finished water supply are not capable of meeting the projected future
demand within this service area. Union County is currently approaching its grandfathered IBT
limit from the Catawba River Basin, and the initial term of their existing water supply contract
with Anson County expired in 2012 and is currently under an auto-renewing cycle up for renewal
in 2017, which could be terminated by either party if notice is given to the other party.
Furthermore, the County is experiencing significant capacity limitations which exist in water
delivery infrastructure from Anson County.
While some of Union County’s projected demand is anticipated to continue to be met by the
grandfathered Catawba River Basin IBT, this limit is anticipated to be reached within the next
five years. As a result, the County must evaluate options to secure a reliable water supply from
other sources to meet its future demand in the Rocky River IBT Basin. It is for this reason that
Union County requests an IBT certificate to transfer up to 23 mgd of raw water from the Yadkin
River IBT Basin (Basin code 18-1) to the Rocky River IBT Basin (Basin code 18-4) of the Yadkin
River Basin, as calculated on a maximum month daily average demand (MMDD).
1.3.2. Guiding Legislation
Surface water transfers within North Carolina are regulated by North Carolina Statute G.S. 143-
215.22L and North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 02E .0401. Modifications to G.S.
143-215.22L made through North Carolina Session Law 2013-388 now require an interbasin
transfer (IBT) certificate from the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) for new water transfers of 2 mgd or more, calculated as a daily average of a calendar
month (maximum month average daily demand [MMDD]) and not to exceed 3 million gallons in
4
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
any one day, from one river basin to another. IBT certificates are also required if an existing
water transfer is increased by 25-percent or more above the average daily amount transferred
during the year ending July 1, 1993 if the total transfer, including the increase, is 2 mgd or more
per day. Finally, IBT certificates are also required if an existing transfer of water from one river
basin to another is increased above a “grandfathered” amount previously defined by statute and
determined by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ).
1.3.3. Need for IBT
Union County’s need for an IBT certificate to transfer water from the Yadkin River IBT Basin to
the Rocky River IBT Basin is founded on three basic conditions:
1) Union County is geographically isolated from any major water supply source (i.e. the
Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba-Wateree Rivers and surface water reservoirs). The ridge-
line between the Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba-Wateree River Basins runs directly
through Union County and, as such, these water supply sources are located outside of
the County, with the Yadkin-Pee Dee River to the east and the Catawba-Wateree River
to the west. The only existing large surface water source within Union County is the
Rocky River, forming the northern border of Union County, with Cabarrus and Stanly
Counties. However, this water source is not currently classified by the State of North
Carolina for use as a public water supply and is significantly smaller than either of the
other two rivers.
2) Projected population growth within the roughly two-thirds of the County’s land area
located in the Yadkin River Basin (Rocky River IBT Basin) necessitates that the County
have access to a reliable water supply source of sufficient quantity to serve its existing
and future customers in this service area.
3) Based on current and projected water demands in Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area (Rocky River IBT Basin), its existing 5 mgd authorized water transfer from
the Catawba River IBT Basin to the Rocky River IBT Basin is insufficient to meet both
near term and long term future water demands in this service area. .
1.3.4. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination
Throughout the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), there has been the
opportunity for public involvement through open meeting forums and public document review
and comment periods. Union County is abiding by the public involvement requirements of North
Carolina Statute G.S. 143-215.22L as part of the procedure for obtaining an IBT Certificate.
1.3.4.1. Notice of Intent and Public Scoping Meetings
Following issuance of the Notice of Intent to File a Petition (NOI) to the EMC on August 12,
2013, Union County conducted three public scoping meetings for the project. One meeting was
held in the source river basin (Yadkin River Basin) upstream of the proposed withdrawal point,
one in the source river basin downstream of the proposed withdrawal point, and one in the
receiving river basin (Rocky River Basin). The public meetings describing the project and EIS
development process were conducted as follows:
Meeting 1 – Receiving Basin
5
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
October 3, 2013, 4:30 PM
Stanly County Public Library
133 East Main Street
Albemarle, NC 28001

Meeting 2 – Source Basin (Upstream)
October 14, 2013, 5:00 PM
Rowan-Cabarrus Community College – Salisbury Campus
1333 Jake Alexander Blvd. South
Salisbury, NC 28146-1595

Meeting 3 – Source Basin (Downstream)
October 15, 2013, 5:00 PM
Northeast Technical College – Cheraw Campus
1201 Chesterfield Highway
Cheraw, SC 29520
Public notice of these meetings was published in the September 3, 2013 edition of the North
Carolina Register and additional advertisement of the meetings was provided through local and
regional newspapers, email and mailed letters, in accordance with the requirements of G.S.
143-215.22L. The purpose of each meeting was to present the project and permitting process to
the public and allow discussion to occur between the public and representatives from the
County and the engineering consultant. Exhibits, maps, project descriptions and sign-in and
comment sheets were at the meeting for use and tracking. It is noted that, at each of these
meetings, public attendance was very light. The members of the public who attended were
given the opportunity to provide written, verbal or email comments. Each meeting was voice
recorded for documentation purposes. Details of meeting notifications and any comments
received are located in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) appendices.
1.3.4.2. State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Notice of Scoping
A Notice of Scoping for the project was provided to the North Carolina State Environmental
Review Clearinghouse on November 12, 2013, in accordance with the State Environmental
Policy Act. The purpose of this scoping letter was to gather relevant comments on the proposed
action and incorporate them in the water supply alternatives evaluation and environmental
analyses which would be completed to develop the draft EIS. This notice included descriptions
of the project background, purpose and need, proposed action, area of impact, proposed
alternatives and associated figures.
Under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, this Notice of Scoping was
reviewed by the State Clearinghouse on December 30, 2013, and comments were provided by
various state resource agencies. Details of the Notice of Scoping and associated comments are
located in the FEIS appendices (HDR, 2015).
6
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
1.3.4.3. Draft EIS Public Hearing
In accordance with G.S. 143-215.22L and upon submission of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) (HDR, 2015) to the North Carolina Department of Administration State
Environmental Review Clearinghouse, notice of public hearing was provided thirty days in
advance of a public hearing held by the EMC on the draft document as follows:
Draft EIS Public Hearing
Wednesday, September 16, 2015, 6:00 PM
Norwood Community Building
247 West Turner Street, Norwood, NC 28128
This public hearing and subsequent review period followed an initial DEIS review and comment
period for (NCDEQ agencies, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in July, 2015.
Supporting environmental documents were made available for public review two weeks prior to
the public hearing on the NCDWR website, as well as through the North Carolina Department of
Administration State Environmental Review Clearinghouse. Anyone wishing to view the
environmental document and submit written comments was given an opportunity to do so.
Written comments were initially accepted by the EMC for 30 days after the hearing, through
October 16, 2015, and then subsequently extended an additional 30 days through November
16, 2015. After the public hearing the EMC prepared a record of all comments, including written
responses to those questions posed in writing. The record also includes complete copies of
scientific or technical comments related to the potential impact of the IBT. Details of the public
hearing for the DEIS and associated comments are located in FEIS appendices.
1.3.4.4. Adequacy Determination and Record of Decision
Following responses to comments and associated revisions to the DEIS, a Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) (HDR, 2015) was submitted to the NC Environmental Review
Clearinghouse for publication on January 12, 2016 and followed by a 30-day public review and
comment period, ending on February 11, 2016. Through a formal delegation of authority by the
NC EMC, approved on January 14, 2016, NCDEQ completed the Determination of Adequacy as
required by IBT statute and issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the FEIS on April 12, 2016.
A copy of the ROD is included in Appendix A of this Petition.
1.3.4.5. IBT Petition - Draft Determination Hearings
Within 90 days after submission of Union County’s Petition for an IBT Certificate, the EMC will
issue a draft determination on whether or not to grant the certificate. Within 60 days of the
issuance of this draft determination, the EMC will hold several public hearings:
 At least one in the affected area of the source river basin,
 At least one in the affected area of the receiving river basin,
 An additional hearing based on various interests of either upstream or downstream
parties potentially affected by the proposed transfer (one additional hearing is planned in
the source basin, downstream of the proposed withdrawal).

7
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Introduction
Thirty-day written notice of the public hearing will be provided and written comments on the draft
determination will be accepted for a minimum of 30 days following the last public hearing. The
EMC will prepare a record of all comments, including written responses to those questions
posed in writing. The record will also include complete copies of scientific or technical
comments related to the potential impact of the IBT. After this process, the EMC will make a
final determination as to whether or not to issue the IBT certificate.
1.3.4.6. YRWSP Public Involvement Program
In addition to abiding by the prescriptive public involvement requirements of North Carolina
Statute G.S. 143-215.22L as part of the procedure for obtaining an IBT Certificate, Union
County is funding an active public involvement program specifically for its Yadkin Regional
Water Supply project to keep stakeholders involved and informed throughout the life of the
project. Initiated during the DEIS development, this program is designed to extend through
project permitting, design, construction and startup. To-date the program has included outreach
to and speaking engagements with many neighboring communities and counties, production of
a project website (www.yadkinwater.com) and video, and distribution of educational materials
such as brochures, newsletters and frequently asked questions.

8
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water
2.0 Description of Facilities and the Transfer of
Water
2.1. Union County Water Treatment and Distribution
Infrastructure
The County’s primary water supply and production is currently delivered from the Catawba River
Water Supply Project (CRWSP) in Lancaster County, SC. Additional water supply is provided
from the east from Anson County, NC. The CRWSP joint venture includes the Catawba River
Water Treatment Plant (CRWTP) which is a regional water treatment facility with a permitted
operating capacity of 36 mgd. Union County, NC, and Lancaster County Water and Sewer
District, SC, have 50 percent ownership rights of the facilities. Both owners have current
ownership of 18 mgd capacity from the CRWTP. With the County’s ownership stake in this
plant, issues of reliability and water quality are proactively addressed by direct negotiation and
funding of necessary improvements with an owner’s share of the costs. Union County has
currently leased an additional 3 mgd of treatment capacity from Lancaster County’s capacity
allocation in the CRWTP. This additional capacity, however does not address the existing IBT
limitation in the Rocky River IBT Basin, but rather seeks to secure additional capacity to serve
Union County customers in their Catawba River Basin Service Area.
The CRWSP is currently in the planning stages of another potential expansion. Based upon
current demand projections for both owners, additional plant capacity will be needed sometime
between 2018 and 2022. Other improvements currently being permitted for construction at this
facility include a new river pump station and intake, a new 92-acre off-stream reservoir (1.094
billion gallon storage capacity), and reservoir pump station. This infrastructure is needed to
provide a drought buffer during periods of low flow in the Catawba River. An additional
expansion of this facility is expected to be needed by 2040 to provide up to 36 mgd of capacity
to Union County. Despite the planned expansions at the CRWTP, which are needed to meet the
growing demand of the County’s customers in their Catawba River Basin Service Area, such
expansions do not directly address the projected future water demand growth in the County’s
Yadkin River Basin Service Area, due to the existing 5 mgd grandfathered IBT limitation for
water transfers from the Catawba to Yadkin River Basins.
The County also has a purchase water agreement with Anson County for 4 mgd of maximum
day capacity. To-date, negotiations for an extension to this agreement and any increase in
capacity between the two counties have been unsuccessful. Water supplied from Anson County
currently serves the Town of Wingate and areas of the County with service delivery as far north
as northern Unionville and Fairview. Transmission upgrades within Union County along Hwy 74
were completed in May, 2011 to convey the full 4 mgd provided by the existing agreement.
However, physical infrastructure limitations within Anson County limit the actual flow to
approximately 3 mgd, and would require transmission enhancements within Anson County to
transfer the full 4 mgd per the agreement. Additionally, further system enhancements would be
needed within both counties to increase the capacity beyond the existing 4 mgd agreement. As
a wholesale customer of Anson County, Union County has experienced multiple periods in
9
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water
recent years of unstable water quality and insufficient supply that has impacted the reliability
and dependability of water delivery from this source.
Illustration 2-1 depicts the existing sources of finished water provided to Union County from the
CRWTP and Anson County, as well as the existing wastewater treatment facilities within Union
County which are either operated or utilized by the County. Additionally, Illustration 2-2 depicts
the existing finished water distribution network and pressure zones, respectively, within Union
County’s system.

Illustration 2-1 Existing Union County Water Sources and Wastewater Treatment Facilities (Black & Veatch, 2011)
10
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water
Illustration 2-2 Existing Union County Water Distribution System and Pressure Zones (HDR, 2015) A key objective outlined in the County’s 2011 Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master
Plan (Master Plan) (Black & Veatch, 2011) is securing additional water supply necessary to
meet the projected peak day demands with an emphasis on securing this water supply at the
lowest cost, greatest reliability, maximum contribution to satisfying the water portion of the IBT
equation, and minimal impact to the surrounding environment. While the Master Plan identified
the Catawba River as a water supply option to the County, Union County recognizes the
inherent challenges, legal and political hurdles and potential environmental affects of increasing
its grandfathered IBT from the Catawba River to serve its customers in the Yadkin River Basin
Service Area. As such, Union County has initiated the planning and permitting for the Yadkin
River Water Supply Project to secure water from the Yadkin River Basin to serve its customers
in the Yadkin River Basin Service Area. This proposed water transfer, although considered an
IBT according to state regulations, would be between two IBT basins (Yadkin River IBT Basin to
the Rocky River IBT Basin) of a major river basin (Yadkin River Basin). Such a transfer is
viewed by Union County to be a more logical and acceptable solution to meeting the current and
future water demands within this area of the County.
The Master Plan notes that leveraging the use of the Catawba River and CRWSP for the
maximum amount of supply available must also be balanced against a Yadkin-Pee Dee River
water supply strategy (e.g., Yadkin River Water Supply Project). Relying primarily on the
CRWSP would result in the majority of the County’s water being supplied from one source, one
plant, and one major transmission system. Source water coming from the Yadkin River Basin
would provide the County with some level of redundancy, a sustained water quality, and better
watershed balance in context of the IBT. Such a water supply also provides additional security
should there be drought or contamination issues associated with either supply (Catawba River
or Yadkin-Pee Dee River).
11
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water
As noted previously, the current water supply purveyor for the eastern portion of Union County’s
Yadkin River Basin Service Area is Anson County, with Union County being a wholesale
customer of finished water. There is no investment stake in the Anson County WTP and Union
County is essentially unable to influence investments and operating decisions at the plant or in
the transmission system needed to deliver the finished water to the point of interconnection with
Union County at the County line. Ideally, a secure Yadkin River Basin water strategy would
emulate a similar relationship as that with Lancaster County, SC for the CRWSP, where a joint
ownership stake exists in the water supply infrastructure and/or provides Union County more
control over capital investments and operations. Such a partnership was developed in 2013
between Union County and the Town of Norwood in Stanly County, as part of the Interlocal
Intake and Transmission Agreement.
2.2. Union County Wastewater Treatment and Collection
Wastewater conveyance and treatment has several parallel issues to the water supply and
transmission in the County. The western portion of the County is where the greater density of
the population resides and is where the larger existing wastewater treatment capacity exists. It
is also where the greatest potential for treatment capacity expansion exists. In general,
treatment plant capacity has followed where the development and resulting population
distribution and density dictated that treatment capacity should be provided. The exceptions are
several small capacity treatment facilities constructed to serve specific developments or where
school requirements dictated local treatment works that the County has inherited for operation.
County owned and operated treatment plants (and associated capacities) include Twelve Mile
Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) (6.0 mgd), Crooked Creek WRF (1.9 mgd), Olde
Sycamore WRF (0.15 mgd), Tallwood Estates WRF (0.05 mgd), and Grassy Branch WRF (0.05
mgd). Union County is currently in the process of increasing the capacity of the Twelve Mile
Creek WRF from 6.0 mgd to 12.0 mgd. Treatment capacity has also been purchased from
Charlotte Water at the McAlpine Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (3.0 mgd) which serves
the County’s Six Mile wastewater service basin in the County and from the City of Monroe
WWTP (2.65 mgd) which serves the eastside including the Towns of Marshville and Wingate
through Interlocal wastewater agreements. All capacities are presented as maximum month
average day treatment capacities.
The combined wastewater treatment capacity for publically owned water treatment works
(POTW) to which Union County currently discharges within the Rocky River IBT Basin (Crooked
Creek WRF, Olde Sycamore WRF, Tallwood Estates WRF, Grassy Branch WRF and City of
Monroe WWTP) currently equals 4.8 mgd. It is projected that by the year 2050, wastewater flow
generated in the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area and subsequently returned to
POTWs within the Rocky River IBT Basin will equal 8.8 mgd (annual average day),
necessitating additional wastewater treatment capacity, likely through expansion of existing
facilities and/or a capacity allocation increase from the City of Monroe WWTP or construction of
a new facility. As the County’s Master Plan indicates, public sewer is not anticipated to be the
solution for wastewater disposal throughout the entire County. Onsite systems will continue to
play a major role for wastewater disposal in the County. Portions of the County are desired and
12
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water
projected to remain rural in nature and would not receive public sewer, although future public
water supply to these areas is much more likely.
In order to develop population projections for areas receiving public sewer service, a “sewer
boundary” was developed for the Master Plan, which assumed sewer service would be provided
within the boundary and onsite wastewater disposal generally provided outside the boundary.
The County’s defined sewer service basins are displayed in Illustration 2-3.
Illustration 2-3 Union County Wastewater Service Basins (HDR, 2015)
2.3. The Transfer of Water
In total, Union County is requesting an IBT certificate to transfer, on an average day of a
maximum month (MMD) basis, 23 mgd out of the Yadkin River IBT Basin, into the Rocky River
IBT Basin. This transfer is accounted for based on where the water is consumed or discharged.
Under the proposed IBT, water will be withdrawn from the Yadkin River IBT Basin at Lake
Tillery, transferred through a raw water transmission pipeline into Union County, treated at a
new water treatment facility and distributed to customers within the Rocky River IBT Basin of
Union County.
Much of this water used by Union County residents in the Rocky River Basin will eventually
return to the Yadkin River Basin through treated wastewater effluent from existing Union County
wastewater treatment facilities which discharge to tributaries of the Rocky River, which
subsequently confluences with the Pee Dee River (Yadkin River Basin) below Lake Tillery.
However, since this confluence is downstream of the withdrawal point in Lake Tillery and since
water is transferred across IBT boundaries, as defined by North Carolina Statute G.S. 143-
215.22L, the entire water withdrawal is considered an IBT.
13
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water
The requested IBT amount of 23 mgd reflects an approximately 35-year planning period to the
Year 2050, to proactively address both near-term and long-term water demand and supply
needs. The IBT water balance calculation for the proposed transfer is presented in Table 2-1, on
the following page.
When evaluating all existing IBTs to/from the Yadkin River Basin, the basin receives more inflow
from water transfers from neighboring basins than it loses due to transfers out of the basin. Due
to IBTs from other neighboring river basins (e.g. Catawba River Basin), the Yadkin River Basin
has more IBT inflow (from treated wastewater effluent flow) than IBT outflow (from water
withdrawal and transfer to neighboring basins). Examples of such transfers of water from the
Catawba River Basin into the Yadkin River Basin include the City of Statesville, Town of
Mooresville, and Charlotte Water. Through the planning period to the year 2050, with the
proposed Union County IBT from the Yadkin River Basin, there is still projected to be a greater
amount of water entering this basin as inflow from IBTs than leaving the basin as outflow due to
these transfers.
2.4. Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Uses of Water to Be
Transferred
The transfer of raw water from the Yadkin River IBT Basin to the Rocky River IBT Basin, as
proposed by Union County, will be treated and used for public water supply purposes within
Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area. The uses of the transferred water include both
consumptive and nonconsumptive uses associated with public water supply. Consumptive water
use is the water removed from available supplies without being returned to a naturally occurring
surface water source, which is no longer available for reuse (such as evaporation or irrigation
infiltration). Nonconsumptive water use is water that is not consumed, but rather, discharged
back to a naturally occurring surface water source (such as treated wastewater effluent
discharge to a stream or river).
Under the current Union County categorical water use percentages, some wastewater will be
discharged to publically owned treatment works (POTW) within the Rocky Ricker IBT Basin and
is considered non-consumptive water use. Such water uses include residential and commercial
plumbing (toilets, faucets, etc.), As indicated in Table 2-1, of the 23 mgd maximum month daily
average transfer proposed by the year 2050, 8.8 mgd is projected (on an annual average day
basis) to be non-consumptive use, returned back to the receiving basin (Rocky River IBT
Basin), subsequently flowing back into the source basin (Yadkin River IBT Basin) at the
confluence of the Rocky River with the Pee-Dee River, several miles downstream of the original
water withdrawal point.
Also as indicated in Table 2-1, some water supplied from the proposed transfer will not be
returned to surface water sources within the Rocky River IBT Basin and is considered as
consumptive use. Examples of this water use include human or animal consumption, residential
and commercial landscape irrigation, certain industrial processes, and wastewater discharges to
residential septic systems. Of the 23 mgd maximum month daily average transfer proposed by
the year 2050, 14.2 mgd is projected to be consumptive use within the County’s Yadkin River
Basin Service Area, and not returned back to surface waters in the receiving basin.
14
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Description of Facilities and the Transfer of Water
Table 2-1 Interbasin Transfer Water Balance Table – Maximum Month Average Daily Transfer Estimates (unless noted otherwise)
Water System: Union County (PWSID 01-90-413) Source Basin: Yadkin River (18-1)
Receiving Basin: Rocky River (18-4)
Year
(A)
Water System (B)
Withdrawal from
Source1 (MGD) (C)
Consumptive Loss1
Wastewater
Discharge1,3
Total
Return to the Source
Basin1 (MGD)
(H)=(D)+(F)
Total
Surface Water
Transfer1 (MGD)
(I)=(C)-(H) Comments
Source Basin
(MGD) (D)
Receiving Basin5
(MGD) (E)
Source Basin
(MGD) (F)
Receiving Basin
(MGD) (G)
2010 Union County2 2.507 0.00 0.10 0.00 2.40 0.00 2.50 Cork Rule Exception applies6
2013
(BASE YEAR)
Union
County2
2.507 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 0.00 2.50 Cork Rule Exception
applies6
2015 Union
County2
3.307 0.00 0.32 0.00 2.98 0.00 3.30 Cork Rule Exception
applies6
2020 Union
County2
3.307 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 0.00 3.30 Cork Rule Exception
applies6
2030 Union County2 9.808 0.00 4.30 0.00 5.50 0.00 9.80 Assumes YRWSP operational
2040 Union County2 16.408 0.00 9.50 0.00 6.90 0.00 16.40 Assumes YRWSP operational
2050 Union
County2
23.008 0.00 14.20 0.00 8.80 0.00 23.00 Assumes YRWSP
operational
Notes:
1All numbers are expressed in million gallons per day (MGD) rounded to two decimal places.
2Union County water system includes wholesale water supply to the Town of Wingate.
3Wastewater discharge shown based on average annual daily values to more accurately reflect full magnitude of water transfer.
4Water use values shown for 2010-2015 are estimated values, based on Union County Master Plan and subsequent projections developed for the EIS document. 5Consumptive loss values indicated in the receiving basin through 2020 reflect low values as a portion of wastewater returns to the receiving basin may include
returns of supplemental water supplied to the receiving basin through Union County's existing grandfathered Catawba River IBT. 6Cork Rule Exception applies for historical and existing Anson County water sales to Union County as the withdrawal (Blewett Falls Lake) is below the Rocky River
confluence with the Pee Dee River. 7Finished water supply from Anson County to Union County, through existing purchase water agreement. 8Proposed Union County withdrawal from Lake Tillery as part of the Yadkin River Water Supply Project.
15
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Predicted Water Demands and Uses
3.0 Predicted Water Demands and Uses
3.1. Background
During the early part of the 2000 decade, Union County was the fastest growing county in North
Carolina and one of the top 20 fastest growing counties in the entire nation. Growth rates within
the County during this time outpaced the balance of the State’s growth rate by a factor of 3 to 4.
Union County’s proximity to the Charlotte metropolitan area and increasing job base and quality
of life were key drivers to this high population growth rate. However, since the economic
recession in the late 2000 decade, growth rates within the County have been observed at more
modest rates of 2 to 3 percent per year.
In preparation of the 2011 Master Plan water demand projections, data was reviewed from
Union County’s previous County planning documents, previous water and sewer Master Plans,
County planning projections including the 2025 Comprehensive Plan, State planning projections
and forecasts, regional planning projections, spatial population distributions, and corresponding
water demand and wastewater flow projections. Additionally, towns, villages and cities within the
County were engaged to share their current land use plans and describe their economic
development drivers for both the short and long term. The Master Plan used the County’s GIS
data (community data, water and sewer inventory) to spatially distribute existing population and
customers and project growth and future water demand within the County’s service areas.
Additional consideration was given to Master Plan population projections and spatial
distributions using traffic analysis zones (TAZ) which incorporate household and employment
projections developed by local/regional planning organizations. These TAZs were used for
Master Plan purposes because they are spatially distributed within topographical areas that
often correspond to watersheds and sewer service basins as boundaries are drafted around
primary and arterial roads which often follow the ridge lines. Several other factors were also
considered in the Master Plan projections including:
• County population versus public water/sewer population components,
• Capacity constraints and impacts to growth.
• Impact of the Monroe Bypass in future planning years; and,
• Potential water supply requirements of major commercial or industrial development in the eastern portion of the County.
Projections for water demands in the 2011 Master Plan were made through the 2030 decade.
For purposes of evaluating water supply needs for the Yadkin River Water Supply Project, and
subsequent water demand projections, the projection approach established in the Master Plan
has been carried forward for this evaluation. However, recognizing that projections outlined in
the Master Plan did not extend through the full evaluation period for the Yadkin River Water
Supply Project (i.e. through the Year 2050), the previous projections of the Master Plan were
extended from 2030 to 2050 for the County and updated, based on more recent historical
system data gathered since development of the Master Plan. Such projection updates have also
16
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Predicted Water Demands and Uses
been reflected in Union County’s North Carolina DWR Local Water Supply Plan, beginning with
the year 2013 report.
3.2. Population Projections
3.2.1. Population Growth and Allocation
In the development of Master Plan projections, the County’s geographic information system
(GIS) was used to spatially populate the current and future water service area boundaries for
the base year (2010) and future planning years (2015, 2020, and 2030). The Master Plan notes
that while the entire County could be considered as a future service area, there were
considerations incorporated into water service areas that respected existing and future land use
as a core basis for planning. The use of GIS-based land use evaluations also enabled the
spatial allocation of the existing and future population growth into watersheds by parcels.
Additionally, the Master Plan made considerations for future groundwater well
failures/contamination in the County, by making a specific water allocation for the transition of
certain onsite well customers to public water.
3.2.2. Population and Service Area
As part of the 2011 Master Plan, a number of local, regional and state planning organizations’
forecasts were used to develop a reasonable annual population growth rate to develop
projections. Many of those forecasts were developed in the early 2000 decade, prior to the most
recent economic recession, resulting in projections with very high rates of growth. The ongoing
economic environment since 2008 has dictated population projections that are lower, with rates
of growth that are slower.
Due to these considerations, the Master Plan utilized an overall 2.4% annual rate of population
growth for the County. However, allocation of the future population was differentially applied to
geographic regions in order to reflect the different growth drivers over time, and is consistent
with the methodology used in the County’s 2025 Comprehensive Plan. For purposes of
extending water use projections for the YRWSP, the overall 2.4% county-wide population
growth projection approach established in the Master Plan through 2030 was maintained.
However, recognizing a constant county-wide annual growth rate of 2.4% through the year 2050
is unlikely to continue, projections for the YRWSP were updated to reflect decreasing growth
rates in later decades, as indicated in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2.
Additionally, recognizing that development of the YRWSP will provide a reliable source of water
for County residents in the Yadkin River Basin Service Area, as well as the development
potential which currently exists in this portion of the County, projected population and service
area growth rates in this area are considered to be slightly higher than those for the Catawba
River Basin Service Area, in the western part of the County. The Catawba River Basin Service
Area is already relatively highly developed, in comparison to the Yadkin River Basin Service
Area, and therefore presents less opportunity for long-term sustained population growth and
continued development through the year 2050.
17
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Predicted Water Demands and Uses
Consideration has also been made in water demand projections for future water service area
expansion in both the Catawba and Yadkin River Basin Service Areas. Similar to population
growth projections, there is less potential for expansion of the County’s water service area
within the Catawba River Basin, while a more significant opportunity exists in the Yadkin River
Basin Service Area, particularly in the northeastern portion of the County. Table 3-1 and Table
3-2 summarize the population and water service area growth rates used to update and extend
the previous 2011 Master Plan projections through the year 2050 for the YRWSP.
Table 3-1 Union County Population and Water Service Area Growth Projections
Service Area Projection Decade(s) Annual Growth Rate
Catawba River Basin 2010 to 2020 2.4%
2021 to 2050 1.8%
Service area growth 0.2% Yadkin River Basin 2010 to 2030 2.7%
2031 to 2040 2.4% 2041 to 2050 1.8% Service area growth 1.0%
Table 3-2 Union County Served Population Projections
Projection Year Projected Population Served by Union County Water System
Catawba River Basin Yadkin River Basin System Total
2010 59,925 47,123 107,048 2013 64,722 52,550 117,271
2020 77,461 67,767 145,228 2030 94,424 97,456 191,880 2040 115,103 136,149 251,251
2050 140,309 179,450 319,760
3.3. Average Daily Water Demands
3.3.1. Per Capita Average Unit Water Demand
As the basis of the 2011 Master Plan projections, County data was examined to establish unit
water demand rates to convert population forecasts to water demand projections. Available
water production records and system operating records were reviewed to determine historical
average day, maximum day, and peak hour water demands. Also reviewed were metered water
sales records to identify historical customer consumption and unit water consumption. The
historical water loss component was calculated by comparing consumption and production
records. Water demand on a per capita basis is important to determine future water demands in
the system, and have similarly been employed for purposes of the YRWSP evaluations.
As stated in the 2011 Master Plan projections for water demand, the overall gallons per capita
per day (gpcd) unit demand was established at 125 gpcd (total system demand divided by
estimated persons served for residential accounts), which included irrigation demands. This
value was based upon total categorical (residential, commercial, industrial and institutional)
billed water consumption plus non-revenue water (unbilled authorized consumption used for line
flushing, hydrant testing, and other purposes, plus water losses). Master Plan demand
18
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Predicted Water Demands and Uses
projections estimated non-revenue water at 15% of the total water demand for future year
demand projections. It is noted that from 2007 to 2013, the County’s non-revenue water
averaged slightly more than 12% of the total system water demand, with 1-2% from unbilled
authorized consumption and the remainder from water losses. Union County has implemented a
schedule to conduct routine water system audits according to the AWWA M36 Water Audit
Method as a means to identify and potentially reduce non-revenue water volumes, particularly
water losses. Results of Union County’s inaugural FY2014 AWWA M36 water audit reflected a
non-revenue water loss rate of 14.9%, with 1.3% due to unbilled authorized consumption and
13.6% due to water loss. Continuation of the annual water audit program, as discussed further
in Section 5.3.1, will provide additional data, allowing Union County to better identify and
develop additional strategies to target potential reductions in its non-revenue water volumes.
For purposes of developing total system per capita demand rates for the YRWSP evaluations, it
has been assumed that in the future, the County’s water loss rate may be reduced to between
8-11% with an additional 3-5% of the total per capita demand needed for water treatment
processes at the proposed water treatment plant for the YRWSP and 1-2% needed for unbilled
authorized consumption. Note that water treatment process volumes have not typically been
included in the County’s non-revenue water calculation as this water is supplied from sources
outside the County. Thus, for purposes of establishing a total per capita demand for the
YRWSP, the 15% value previously identified in the Master Plan is dedicated to the non-revenue
portion of water production and distribution for the project, including the additional water use
necessary for treatment processes at a new Yadkin River Water Treatment Plant, proposed to
be located within Union County.
For purposes of the YRWSP projection updates, a review of the County’s historical water use
data over the past decade indicates that per capita per day unit water demands (total system
demands) have averaged between 110 to 120 gpcd, with slightly lower values in the most
recent years due to ongoing mandatory water restrictions, increased conservation efforts, and
more favorable climate conditions (more annual rainfall and slightly lower annual temperature
averages). As such, the water demand projections of the recently completed Master Plan have
been reduced for the updated YRWSP projections to reflect an average unit demand of 120
gpcd for future water demands of all new system customers to be served after the Year 2012.
The use of a 120 gpcd unit demand is representative of customer demands within the County
over the last decade during historically drier years, which should be used as the basis for water
demand planning to secure a sufficient water supply to meet peak year demands.
Additionally, the use of the top of the range of historical unit demands allows for the potential for
future industrial or commercial/institutional water uses in the demand projections. While such
future uses are difficult to quantify, a single new industry which has a large water demand for
process purposes can drive up system-wide unit demand rates. Use of the 120 gpcd unit
demand for future projections provides the flexibility to meet such future demands should they
materialize within the County.
As a portion of this 120 gpcd total system demand, residential water use per capita demand is
estimated to be between 70 and 80 gpcd, depending on the climate conditions for a particular
19
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Predicted Water Demands and Uses
year. This value is based upon historical Union County residential water use which has
averaged 65 to 70 percent of the total treated water supply since 1997. This estimated
residential per capita water demand value compares favorably with the Catawba-Wateree Water
Management Group’s 2014 Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Master Plan, which assumed a
basin-wide average residential categorical water use rate of 85 gpcd for planning purposes
(CWWMG, 2014).
Further, the County’s current residential/non-residential categorical water demand ratio is
relatively high (approximately 75% to 80% residential), given how the County has developed
over time. Based on this fact, as well as future land use plans, planned transportation corridors
and large tracts of land available within the County, it is likely that non-residential development
will occur over the next 50 years. The County’s water supply must be prepared to meet these
demands for continued economic development.
3.3.2. Water Demand Summary – Annual Daily Average
Union County water demands are expected to increase by the Year 2050, based upon
continued development (both residential and commercial) resulting from the County’s proximity
to the greater Charlotte metropolitan area, as well as future service expansion of the Union
County water system to meet the needs of current County residents without reliable water
sources. Projections indicate that specifically within the Yadkin River Basin Service Area, the
annual average daily demands will increase from 5.5 mgd in 2013 to 20.8 mgd by the Year
2050. Table 3-3 indicates the projected decadal increases in water demand for Union County’s
Catawba River and Yadkin River Basin Service Areas, on an annual average daily basis.
Detailed projections for Union County water demand are also included in the FEIS document.
Table 3-3 Union County Projected Water Demands by Decade
Planning Year
Annual Average Day Demand (mgd)
Catawba 1 Yadkin
2010 5.6 4.9
2013 6.4 5.5 2020 8.7 7.4
2030 11.0 10.9 2040 13.5 15.6
2050 16.5 20.8
Note: 1 Catawba demands (2020 to 2050) include 1.9 mgd (max day) contract
supply from Union County to City of Monroe (Catawba River Basin supply).
3.4. Maximum Month Average Day Water Demands
3.4.1. Water Demand Peaking Factors
As part of the 2011 Master Plan, Max Day to Average Day peaking factors were identified from
historical water production records. The majority – more than 80% – of the water demand in the
distribution system has historically been supplied from the Catawba River Water Supply Project
(CRWSP). A much smaller portion – less than 20% – has been supplied from Anson County.
20
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Predicted Water Demands and Uses
Using primarily CRWSP production records, peaking factors as high as 2.3 have been observed
in the system. The Master Plan identified the average Max Day to Average Day peaking factor
from 2004 to 2009 to be approximately 1.9, which was carried forward in Master Plan water
demand projections.
In recent years, however, County-wide mandatory and voluntary irrigation restrictions have
impacted historical Max Day factors, as irrigation uses are a major driver of the Max Day
demands typically occurring during summer months. With irrigation restrictions over the past
seven years, the County has been able to achieve Max Day to Average Day peaking factors at
an average rate of 1.8. These factors were observed to be higher during the last major drought
(2007-2008), and lower in more recent non-drought years. The Union County Board of
Commissioners previously reached consensus in favor of implementing demand management
practices in the future to avoid the very high peaking factors (those greater than 2.0) that have
been experienced in the past (Black & Veatch, 2011). The County’s newly adopted (May 4,
2015) Water Use Ordinance, as further discussed in Section 5.1.1 of this Petition, outlines the
specific demand management initiatives now implemented within the County.
Therefore, for purposes of the YRWSP projections, the Max Day to Average Day peaking factor
for the future water demands was selected to be the actual average over the past 4 years (non-
drought years) of 1.7. An evaluation of North Carolina Division of Water Resource’s (DWR)
Local Water Supply Plans for comparable utilities within the Piedmont region of North Carolina
indicates that since 2007, average Max Day to Average Day peaking factors have ranged from
1.4 to 1.8, which supports the 1.7 peaking factor used for YRWSP demand projections within
Union County.
Also, using the 1.7 Max Day to Average Day peaking factor for Union County, the corresponding
Max Day to Max Month Average Day peaking factor has been subsequently determined to be
1.22 for purposes of the YRWSP water demand projections.
3.4.2. Water Demand Summary – Maximum Month Daily Average
Application of peaking factors to the annual average daily water demand projections indicate
that specifically within the Yadkin River Basin Service Area, the maximum month daily average
demands will increase from 7.7 mgd in 2013 to 28.9 mgd by the Year 2050. Table 3-4 indicates
the projected decadal increases in water demand for Union County’s Catawba River and Yadkin
River Basin Service Areas, on a maximum month daily average and maximum day basis.
Detailed projections for Union County water demand are also included in the FEIS document.
Table 3-4 Union County Projected Water Demands by Decade
Planning Year
Max Month Avg. Day Demand
(mgd)
Max Day Demand
(mgd)
Catawba 1 Yadkin Catawba 1 Yadkin
2010 8.0 6.9 9.7 8.4 2013 8.9 7.7 10.8 9.4
2020 12.6 10.2 15.3 12.5 2030 15.4 15.2 18.8 18.6
2040 18.8 21.7 23 26.4
21
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Predicted Water Demands and Uses
Planning Year
Max Month Avg. Day Demand (mgd) Max Day Demand (mgd)
Catawba 1 Yadkin Catawba 1 Yadkin
2050 23.1 28.9 28.1 35.3 Note: 1 Catawba demands (2020 to 2050) include 1.9 mgd (max day) contract supply from Union County to City of Monroe (Catawba River Basin supply).
3.5. Interbasin Transfer
Of the 28.9 mgd maximum month daily average projected water demand in the County’s Yadkin
River Basin Service Area by the Year 2050, 23 mgd is projected to be served by the new Yadkin
River Water Supply Project through the proposed IBT from the Yadkin River Basin, as
requested by this Petition, while the remaining demand is projected to be met by the County’s
existing grandfathered Catawba River Basin IBT. It is important to note that, while the County’s
grandfathered IBT from the Catawba is limited to 5 mgd and the amount needed from this IBT in
2050 to meet the system demand is 5.9 mgd, because the County returns a portion of their
wastewater discharge generated in the Yadkin River Basin back to the Catawba River Basin,
the net IBT from the Catawba to the Yadkin is projected and planned to remain below the
existing 5 mgd limit.
22
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
4.0 Environmental Resources
Environmental resources are discussed in detail in the FEIS and associated ROD for the
proposed IBT. The ROD is included as Appendix A of this Petition. Of particular concern during
the evaluation of potential impacts associated with the transfer of water due to IBTs are water
quality, water quantity, and aquatic habitat resources. The discussions which follow are focused
on these environmental resources and include both the source (Yadkin River Basin (18-1) and
receiving (Rocky River (18-4)) Basin, inclusive of the proposed project area for Union County’s
YRWSP.
4.1. Water Resources
4.1.1. Water Quantity and Water Supply
4.1.1.1. Surface Water Use Classifications
DWR classifies surface waters of the state based on their existing or proposed uses. The
primary classification system distinguishes the following three basic usage categories: waters
used as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes (Classes
WS-I through WS-V), waters used for primary recreation (Class B), and Class C. Class C waters
are protected for aquatic life propagation, survival, and maintenance of biological integrity
(including fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary contact recreation, and agriculture. All
freshwaters in the state of North Carolina have a minimum classification of Class C.
Water supply surface water classifications are further classified into five categories based on the
level of protection required for the water supply and the level of development in the watershed.
Class WS-I waters offer the most protection to water supplies and are located in natural and
undeveloped watersheds in public ownership. Class WS-II waters are located in predominantly
underdeveloped watersheds where WS-I classification is not feasible. WS-III classification
applies to water supply waters where WS-I and WS-II classification is not feasible and the
watershed has low to moderate development. Class WS-IV waters are located in moderately to
highly developed watersheds where WS-I through WS-III classification is not feasible. Class
WS-V waters are generally upstream and draining to Class WS-IV waters, used by industry to
supply their employees with drinking water, or waters formerly used as water supply.
DWR assigns supplemental classifications to provide additional protection, management, or
recognition of certain waters in the state. High Quality Waters (HQWs) and Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORWs) are protected waters with excellent water quality. Waters needing
additional nutrient management due to excessive growth of vegetation are classified as Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSWs). Swamp waters (Sw) and trout waters (Tr) are also classified to
recognize or protect the water’s specific characteristics. Critical Areas (CA) are those being
defined as being within a half mile of a drinking water reservoir.
The majority of the surface waters in the project area (considered to be from the raw water
intake site in Norwood at Lake Tillery and inclusive of the raw water transmission corridor
through Stanly County and into Northern Union County, along with a new water treatment facility
and finished water distribution in Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area) are classified
23
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
as C. Two reaches of the Pee Dee River, from the mouth of the Uwharrie River to Norwood
Dam and from 0.8 mile downstream of the mouth of Savannah Creek to the Blewett Falls Dam,
are designated water supply waters, WS-IV CA, as well as Class B waters. The Pee Dee River
from the Norwood Dam to the mouth of Turkey Top Creek is designated as water supply waters,
WS-V, and Class B. The classified streams in the project area are listed in Table 4-1. In addition
to the named streams, numerous unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the classified streams are
located in the project area. A stream that is not specifically classified by DWR or DHEC is
assumed to have the same classification as the stream into which it empties, unless that
unnamed waterbody is in North Carolina and specifically described in a river basin classification
schedule.
Table 4-1 Surface Water Use Classifications in the Project Area
Name Description Class
Pee Dee River (including Lake Tillery
below normal operating levels)
From mouth of Uwharrie River to Norwood Dam WS-IV, B;
CA
Rocky River From source to Pee Dee River C
Coldwater Branch From source to Rocky River C
Gilberts Creek From source to Rocky River C
Long Creek From source to Rocky River C
Horse Branch From source to Long Creek C
Long Branch From source to Long Creek C
Murray Branch From source to Rocky River C
Alligator Branch From source to Murray Branch C
Haw Branch From source to Alligator Branch C
Hardy Creek From source to Rocky River C
Big Cedar Creek From source to Rocky River C

4.1.1.2. Surface Water Impoundments (Reservoirs and Hydropower Projects)
The project area is located in the Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba River basins. Within these
respective basins, the Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba Rivers consist of a series of regulated
surface water impoundments with primary functions of hydropower generation, water supply,
and flood control. The Yadkin-Pee Dee River consists of seven surface water impoundments
within North Carolina, while the Catawba River consists of eleven surface water impoundments
within North and South Carolina.
W. Kerr Scott Project
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir is the northernmost impoundment of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River system,
located in Wilkes County, North Carolina, near the City of Wilkesboro. This reservoir is operated
by the US Army Corps of Engineers and does not generate hydropower. The W. Kerr Scott
project is authorized for the purposes of flood control, water supply, recreation, and fish and
wildlife.
W. Kerr Scott Dam is located on the Yadkin River about five river miles upstream of Wilkesboro,
NC. The dam is about 55 miles west of Winston-Salem, NC and about 65 miles north of
24
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
Charlotte, NC. W. Kerr Scott Dam is an earthen structure having a top elevation of 1107.5 feet,
msl and an overall length of 1,750 feet. The height about the streambed is 148 feet. The
drainage area above W. Kerr Scott Dam is 367 square miles. The watershed covers parts of
Wilkes, Caldwell, and Watauga counties. W. Kerr Scott Reservoir extends about 9.7 miles up
the Yadkin River. At the normal pool elevation of 1030 feet, msl, the length of the shoreline is
about 55 miles and the reservoir covers an area of about 1,475 acres. The mean depth at
normal pool is about 28 feet, but the depth at the dam is about 65 feet. At the normal pool, there
are about 41,000 acre-feet of water stored behind W. Kerr Scott Dam (USACE, 2015).
Yadkin Hydroelectric Project
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI) operates the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) No. 2197, which is comprised of four hydroelectric stations,
dams and reservoirs along a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin River in central North Carolina. The
four reservoirs are High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows (Badin Lake) and Falls (Alcoa Power
Generating Inc., 2015).
High Rock Development
The High Rock development is located on the Yadkin River at river mile 253 in Davidson, Davie,
and Rowan counties, North Carolina. Completed in 1927, the High Rock development was the
third of the Yadkin Project developments to be built and is the most upstream of the four Yadkin
Project developments. The High Rock development consists of a dam, powerhouse, and
reservoir. High Rock Reservoir has a normal full pool area of approximately 15,180 acres and a
drainage area of 3,973 square miles. The normal full pool elevation of High Rock Reservoir is
623.9 feet (USGS datum) (Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 2015).
Tuckertown Development
The Tuckertown development is located in Rowan, Davidson, Stanly, and Montgomery counties,
North Carolina on the Yadkin River at river mile 244.3. Completed in 1962, the Tuckertown
development was the last of the Yadkin Project developments to be built. The Tuckertown
development consists of a dam, powerhouse, and reservoir. Tuckertown Reservoir has a normal
full pool area of 2,560 acres and a drainage area of 4,080 square miles. The normal full pool
elevation of Tuckertown Reservoir is 564.7 feet (USGS datum) (Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.,
2015).
Narrows Development
The Narrows development is located in Davidson, Stanly and Montgomery counties, North
Carolina on the Yadkin River at river mile 236.5. Completed in 1917, the Narrows development
was the first of the Yadkin Project developments to be built. Narrows Dam consists of a main
dam section and a bypass spillway section. Four steel penstocks convey water from the intake
section to the powerhouse. The dam impounds a reservoir (Narrows Reservoir or Badin Lake)
that has a normal full pool area of 5,355 acres and a drainage area of 4,180 square miles. The
normal full pool elevation of Narrows Reservoir is 509.8 feet (USGS datum) (Alcoa Power
Generating Inc., 2015).
Falls Development
25
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
The Falls development is located in Stanly and Montgomery counties, North Carolina on the
Yadkin River at river mile 234. Completed in 1919, the Falls development was the second of the
Yadkin Project developments to be built and is the most downstream of the four Yadkin Project
developments. The Falls development consists of a dam, a gate controlled spillway,
powerhouse and reservoir. Falls Reservoir has a normal full pool area of 204 acres and a
drainage area of 4,190 square miles. The normal full pool elevation of Falls Reservoir is 332.8
feet (USGS datum) (Alcoa Power Generating Inc., 2015).
Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project
Duke Energy Progress operates the Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project. The Tillery and
Blewett Hydroelectric Plants together comprise the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Project. These plants
are operated as an integrated unit under FERC Project License No. 2206. The Tillery and
Blewett Plants are located in the Southern Piedmont area of North Carolina.
Tillery Development
Lake Tillery is located in Montgomery and Stanly counties and is formed by the dam at the
Tillery Hydroelectric Plant on the Pee Dee River. The lake extends approximately 15 miles
upstream from the dam to APGI’s Falls Hydroelectric Development. At normal operating levels,
Lake Tillery is about 72 feet deep at the dam. The reservoir surface area is 5,260 acres at that
level (elevation 278.17), and the usable storage with 22 foot drawdown is 88,000 acre-feet
(Duke Energy, 2015). The Tillery Hydroelectric Plant is located on the Pee Dee River
approximately four miles west of Mt. Gilead, NC, 17 miles south of Narrows Reservoir and 25
miles above the Blewett Plant. The plant began service in 1928, with additions in 1960. It
features a dam 2,800 feet long and 86 feet high, that forms Lake Tillery, as well as flood-control
gates. Its four generators are capable of producing a total of 87 megawatts. By regulating the
river’s flow, the Tillery plant also helps to increase the efficiency of the Blewett Plant
downstream (Duke Energy, 2015).
Blewett Falls Development
The Blewett Falls impoundment, also known as Blewett Falls Lake, extends approximately 11
miles upstream from the dam. Construction of the Blewett Falls Development began in 1905
and was completed in June 1912. Blewett Falls Lake has a reservoir surface area of 2,866
acres at a normal pool elevation of 178.1’ msl and a usable storage capacity of 30,893 acre-
feet. The Blewett Falls development is licensed for a drawdown of 17 feet, but generally
operates with drawdowns of 2 to 4 feet (Duke Energy, 2014).
The Blewett Hydroelectric Plant is located in Richmond and Anson counties on the Pee Dee
River in Lilesville, NC, near the North Carolina/South Carolina border, and was originally
constructed to supply power to the textile industry in Rockingham, NC The plant includes a
gravity dam that is 60 feet high and 650 feet long, creating Blewett Falls Lake. It houses six
generators capable of producing a total of approximately 22 megawatts. In addition, the oil-fired
combustion turbines on the site can generate another 52 megawatts. The Blewett Hydroelectric
Plant began commercial service in 1912, with additions in 1971 (Duke Energy, 2015).
26
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
4.1.2. Water Quality
DWR and DHEC monitor water quality using physical, chemical, and biological sampling and
rates each monitored stream segment or lake with respect to its designated usage classification
(NCDENR, 2012; SCDHEC, 2012a). Biological monitoring, including benthic macroinvertebrate
(benthos) and fish samples, is particularly useful in tracking water quality trends because these
organisms reflect long-term interactions among many water quality and habitat parameters,
including factors not detected by infrequent physical and chemical sampling. The data collected
during ambient water quality monitoring supports evaluations and reporting requirements under
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Locations of monitoring sites are identified within the FEIS
appendices.
The proposed source waterbody is Lake Tillery, an impoundment on the Pee Dee River. The
best use classification assigned to the reach of the Pee Dee River that includes Lake Tillery is
WS-IV, B; CA. The receiving river is Rocky River, which has a best use classification of C.
Rocky River empties into the Pee Dee River downstream of Norwood Dam, which impounds
Lake Tillery. The reach of the Pee Dee River into which Rocky River flows is designated as WS-
V, B.
Per Section 303(d) of the CWA, if a surface water quality standard is exceeded and the
impaired waters do not have a total maximum daily load (TMDL) approved by the EPA, an
integrated reporting category of “5” is assigned to those waters, and the waters are incorporated
into the Section 303(d) list. All waters in NC are Category 5 designated due to mercury.
Additionally, several streams in the proposed YRWSP project area and/or Union County water
service area have been designated as Category 5 waters for parameters other than mercury
(NCDENR, 2012; SCDHEC, 2012a) Little Long Creek in Stanly County, NC, and a reach of
Lanes Creek extending from the Marshville Water Supply Dam (located 0.1 mile downstream of
Beaverdam Creek) to Rocky River have been designated as Category 5 due to a Fair
bioclassification resulting from benthic community sampling. Long Creek in Stanly County and a
reach of Richardson Creek extending from Watson Creek to Negro Head Creek (Salem Creek)
have been designated as Category 5 for aquatic life due to a standard violation of copper levels.
A reach of Rocky River extending from the mouth of Dutch Buffalo Creek to the mouth of Island
Creek is designated as Category 5 for aquatic life due to standard violations of copper, zinc, and
turbidity standards. If a TMDL is approved for the parameter resulting in the impairment of the
Category 5 waters, then the waterbody would be reclassified as Category 4 waters. Listed
waters are illustrated within the FEIS appendices.
Impaired waters that have an EPA-approved TMDL or other management strategy in place to
address the impairment are assigned an integrated reporting category of “4.” Two streams in the
Union County service area have been designated as Category 4 waters (NCDENR, 2012;
SCDHEC, 2012a). Duck Creek, a tributary to Goose Creek, has been designated as Category 4
for aquatic life due to a fair bioclassification based on benthic community sampling results. A
reach of Goose Creek extending from SR 1524 to Rocky River is rated as Category 4 for
aquatic life due to a standard violation of turbidity limits. A reach of Rocky River has a TMDL for
fecal coliform. However, the reach of Rocky River with the TMDL is in Iredell County and is the
county line between Mecklenburg and Cabarrus counties. The reach ends approximately 58
27
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
river miles upstream of the proposed project crossing of Rocky River and of the intake proposed
under Alternative 5. The YRWSP is not anticipated to affect or be affected by the TMDL and
associated water quality impairment.
Point-source dischargers located throughout North and South Carolina are regulated through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and may be required to
register for a permit. Two major NPDES permit holders (i.e., authorized to discharge in excess
of 1 mgd) are located in the project area (NCDENR, 2014; SCDHEC, 2014). The major
dischargers in the project area are the Twelve Mile Creek WWTP and the Crooked Creek
WWTP #2. Both facilities are owned by Union County and are currently operated by Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities. One major NPDES discharger, the City of Monroe WWTP, is located
within the project area. Minor dischargers are permitted to discharge less than 1 mgd or are not
limited. There are nine minor dischargers in the immediate vicinity of a proposed pipe corridor.
The minor dischargers include two WTPs, two WWTPs, three small domestic wastewater
discharges, and two groundwater remediation sites.
Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats (SAESH) are designated by North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) to enhance planning, siting, and impact analysis for
areas that are determined to be critical due to the presence of endangered or threatened
aquatic species populations. SAESHs have been designated for three named streams in the
Union County water service area and numerous UTs thereto. The designated streams are
Goose Creek, Duck Creek, and Waxhaw Creek and UTs to these three streams.
No wild and scenic rivers are listed in the YRWSP project area or Union County water service
area. There are no areas designated as fish nursery areas or anadromous fish spawning areas
in the vicinity of the project and water service areas. No ORWs or High Quality Waters (HQW)
are listed in the project and water service areas.
4.2. Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat and Resources
Federal law, under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, requires that any action likely to adversely affect a federally protected species be
subject to review by USFWS. Federal species of concern are not protected under the ESA.
Species not afforded protection under the ESA may receive additional protection under separate
federal laws.
The YRWSP project area is located in the portions of Stanly, and Union Counties, North
Carolina with Anson County, North Carolina located downstream of the proposed project. The
USFWS lists of federally protected species were updated July 14, 2015 for Anson County, April
2, 2015 for Mecklenburg and Stanly counties, March 25, 2015 for Union County, and February
18, 2015 for Lancaster County. As state-listed species are not afforded legal protection, species
that are listed by the state agencies only are not discussed further herein. Each species
included on the USFWS Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of
Concern, and Candidate Species list and their state and federal status are provided in Table
4-2.
28
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
Aquatic habitat for rare, threatened, and endangered species is provided by the source
waterbody and by streams traversed by the pipe corridor associated with the Preferred
Alternative. Within the source waterbody, habitat is provided for four FSCs, three of which are
designated as endangered by the state. The four species include American eel (no state
designation), yellow lampmussel, Savannah lilliput, and Carolina creekshell. Two additional
FSCs may be supported by habitat available in streams along the pipe corridor. These two
species are the Carolina darter (state Special Concern species) and brook floater (no state
designation).
Table 4-2 Aquatic Species Identified Within and Downstream of the Project Area by USFWS for Anson, Stanly and Union Counties, North Carolina
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status County of Occurrence
Vertebrates
Acipenser brevirostrum Shortnose sturgeon E E A
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic sturgeon - E A
Anguilla rostrata American eel - FSC A, S, U
Etheostoma collis collis Carolina darter SC FSC A, S, U Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse E FSC A, S 1, 4, U 1,
4
Moxostoma sp. 2 Carolina redhorse - FSC A, S
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater - FSC A, S
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe E FSC U Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel E FSC A, S 4, U
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E E U
Toxolasma pullus Savannah lilliput E FSC S 4, U Villosa vaughaniana Carolina creekshell E FSC A, S, U
Key to County of Occurrence:
A – Anson County, NC S – Stanly County, NC U – Union County, NC
Key to Federal Status: E– Endangered. A taxon “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
T – Threatened. A taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. C – Candidate. A taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing.
FSC – Federal species of concern. A species under consideration for listing, for which there is insufficient information to support listing.
BGPA – Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The bald eagle was de-listed from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife, and the primary law protecting the bald eagle became the BGPA. 1 – Historic: The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago. 2 – Probable/Potential: The species is considered likely to occur in this county based on the proximity of known records (in adjacent counties), the presence of potentially suitable habitat, or both. 3 – Obscure: The date and/or location of observation is uncertain.

29
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
Key to State Status: E – Endangered: “Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State’s flora is determined to be in jeopardy” (GS 19B 106:202.12).
T – Threatened: “Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (GS 19B 106:202.12).
SC – Special Concern: Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (GS 19B 106:202.12).
SR – Significantly Rare: Species which are rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-100 populations in the state, frequently substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease).
-L – Limited: The range of the species is limited to North Carolina and adjacent state (endemic or near endemic). These are species, which may have 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 100 populations rangewide. The preponderance of their distribution is in North Carolina, and their fate depends largely on
conservation here. -T – Throughout: These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total). 4 – Species is listed for the county by the state only. USFWS does not include the species on its list for the county. 5 – Historic: Either the element has not been found in recent surveys in the region; or it has not been surveyed
recently enough to be confident they are still present; or the occurrence is thought to be destroyed.
4.2.1. Vertebrates
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
The shortnose sturgeon, a member of the family Acipenseridae, is a small species of sturgeon
and seldom exceeds 3.3 feet in length. Shortnose sturgeon have an elongated, flattened body
and a subterminal mouth with barbells, which are suited to their bottom feeding and generally
benthic existence. The shortnose sturgeon is found sporadically in coastal rivers along the East
Coast from Canada to Florida. These are anadromous fish; however, as the adults seldom
travel from their natal river and associated estuary, each river’s population is genetically distinct.
The preferred habitat of the shortnose sturgeon is deep pools with soft substrates and
vegetated bottoms. The shortnose sturgeon spawn in fast-moving, freshwater, riverine reaches
with gravel bottoms. Current threats to habitat are from discharges, dredging, or disposal of
materials into rivers, or related development activities involving estuarine and riverine mudflats.
Shortnose sturgeon occurs in most major river systems along the eastern seaboard of the
United States. However, data are lacking for the rivers of North Carolina (NMFS and USFWS,
1998).
Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus)
Atlantic sturgeon is an estuarine-dependent fish that can reach a length of 14 feet and weight of
800 pounds. Their coloration is bluish-black to olive brown dorsally, paler sides, and a white
belly. Dermal scutes are arranged in five major rows. Atlantic sturgeon differ from shortnose
sturgeon in larger body, smaller mouth, different mouth shape, and scutes. Atlantic sturgeon are
benthic feeders, generally consuming crustaceans, worms, and mollusks. The fish are
anadromous, spawning in freshwaters and migrating to estuarine or marine waters for the
remainder of the year. The fish will travel from their natal rivers. Atlantic sturgeon generally
inhabit estuarine or nearshore marine waters not exceeding 165 feet in depth, preferring gravel
and sand substrates.
30
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
The American eel has an elongated, snakelike body with a small, pointed head. The American
eel has no pelvic fins, but has one long dorsal fin that extends more than half of the body. The
dorsal fin is continuous with the caudal and anal fin. Coloration varies with age and ranges from
yellow to olive-brown during the adult form. The adult males are dark brown and gray dorsally,
with a silver to white ventral side. Adults reach lengths up to 5 feet (Page & Burr, 1991). The
American eel is a catadromous species that spawn in the Atlantic Ocean and ascend stream
and rivers in North and South America. The American eel is found in the Atlantic Ocean, Great
Lakes, Mississippi River, the Gulf Basin, and south to South America. American eel lives in
freshwater as an adult, usually in larger rivers or lakes, primarily swimming near the bottom in
search of food. American eel hunts mainly at night and resides in crevices or other shelter to
avoid light during the day, and often buries in substrate consisting of mud, sand, or gravel
(Landau, 1992).
Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis collis)
The Carolina darter is a small fish that grows to only 2½ inches in length and is endemic to the
Piedmont of Virginia and the Carolinas. It is typically found in pools and very slow runs of small
upland creeks and rivulets. Habitats are often against the banks or in backwater areas over
beds of sand, mud, or rubble substrate covered by silt or detritus. It forages on
microcrustaceans and small insect larvae. Spawning occurs in early spring and peaks at the
end of March. The fish inhabits small streams from the Roanoke River basin in Virginia to the
Santee River system in South Carolina.
Robust redhorse (Moxostoma robustum)
The robust redhorse is a 10- to 19-inch long fish, weighing up to 10 pounds with a stout body
and thick lips. The caudal and dorsal fins are red or slate-colored, and other fins are cream or
yellow to red. Preferred habitat for this fish is medium to large creeks and rivers, usually in deep
and fast water, over gravel, rock, and boulders. Clean, silt-free, gravel beds in shallow waters
are required for breeding, which occurs during May. The name Moxostoma robustum has been
misapplied in the past to the smallfin redhorse, which is now identified as the brassy jumprock in
the genus Scartomyzon. Small populations (one or two fishes) of the true robust redhorse have
been found in the Pee Dee River in North Carolina and the Savannah River downstream of
Augusta, Georgia. A large population, and potentially the only breeding population, of the robust
redhorse is found in the Oconee River south of Milledgeville, Georgia.
Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp. 2)
The Carolina redhorse is a species of freshwater ray-finned fish in the Catostomidae family.
Species within the Catostomidae family have mouths located on the underside of the head, thick
fleshy distensible lips, and paired fins attached low on the body (Rohde, Arndt, Lindquist, &
Parnell, 1994). The Carolina redhorse is found in medium sized rivers with moderate gradient
and prefers deep pool areas along shorelines that contain woody debris. The Carolina redhorse
is only known to be present in the Pee Dee and Cape Fear River basins.
31
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
4.2.2. Invertebrates
Brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa)
The brook floater is a freshwater mussel that has a kidney-shaped shell, an abruptly curved
anterior margin, and a straight to slightly concave ventral margin. The shell of the brook floater
is firm but not thick and contains numerous short, low corrugations or ridges on the posterior
slope that tend to be oriented radially. Adult brook floaters are essentially sessile, although
passive movement downstream may occur. The brook floater typically occurs in riffles and
rapids of creeks and small rivers among rock in gravel substrates and in sandy shoals.
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni)
The Atlantic pigtoe is a freshwater mussel with a shell that reaches a length of 2.3 inches. The
mussel has a medium, rhomboidal shaped shell that has a distinctive, angular posterior ridge.
The periostracum is yellowish brown to greenish brown, and the nacre color ranges from
iridescent blue or white to salmon. The adults are essentially sessile. Some passive movement
downstream may occur. The Atlantic pigtoe inhabits relatively fast waters with high quality
riverine/large creek habitat. The Atlantic pigtoe is typically found in headwater or rural
watersheds in sand or gravel substrates below riffles.
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa)
The yellow lampmussel is a bright yellow, medium-sized freshwater mussel with an inflated shell
and smooth periostracum with rays that are restricted to the posterior slope, if present. The shell
of the yellow lampmussel is heavy with well-developed dentition. The adults of the yellow
lampmussel are essentially sessile, although some passive movement downstream may occur.
The yellow lampmussel is typically found in medium to large streams and rivers in areas with
good current and in areas underlain by sand, silt, cobble, and gravel.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
The Carolina heelsplitter is a relatively large, freshwater mussel endemic to several river
drainages in North and South Carolina. The shells are ovate to trapezoidal in shape, up to
4½ inches in length and 1½ inches in width. The outer surface is greenish brown to dark brown
with faint darker rays. The interior nacre is pearly to bluish white, grading to orange or orange
mottled in the area of the umbo. The species is reported to inhabit small to large streams and
rivers. They are usually found near stable, well-shaded stream banks in muddy sand, muddy
gravel, or mixed sand and gravel. The current range is a very fragmented, relict distribution
within the known historic range. Historically, the range included the Catawba and Pee Dee
systems in North Carolina, and the Pee Dee, Savannah and possibly the Saluda River systems
in South Carolina. Only four small populations are currently known to exist: two in Union County,
North Carolina and two in South Carolina.
Within the project study area, one population has been recently documented by USFWS. The
population is located within Goose Creek and Duck Creek, which are traversed by one project
alternative. The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) 5-Year Review: Summary and
Evaluation 2012 (USFWS) listed the Goose Creek/Duck Creek population as consisting of 10 to 17
individuals based on a 2011 survey conducted in these streams. The population was documented
32
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Environmental Resources
as declining based on the 2011 survey results. Critical habitat has been designated for the Carolina
heelsplitter within the potential construction area for the proposed project. The critical habitat
includes Goose Creek from the NC Highway 218 bridge to its confluence with Rocky River and
Duck Creek from the Mecklenburg/Union County line to its confluence with Goose Creek. The
alignment for Alternative 7 follows NC Highway 218, coinciding with the upstream most extent of
the Goose Creek critical habitat. Other project alternatives are not expected to impact this critical
habitat area.
Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus)
The savannah lilliput is a small freshwater mussel with an oval or elliptical shell and a double
posterior ridge. The ridge is usually angular but may be broadly rounded. Females have a
broader, more truncated posterior end than males of the species. The outer surface of the shell
is usually blackish but may be brownish, greenish, or olive with very fine, obscure green rays.
The inner surface of the shell is bluish white with pink to purplish iridescence at the posterior
end. This mussel has been recorded from the Neuse River in North Carolina south to the
Altamaha River in Georgia. The savannah lilliput is found in shallow water along the banks of
rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes. The savannah lilliput moves up and down the banks as the
water levels fluctuate.
Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana)
The Carolina creekshell is a freshwater mussel for which the shell morphology can be used to
determine gender. The male shell is elliptical and approximately 2.4 inches in length and the
female shell is ovate and approximately 2.2 inches in length. Male Carolina creekshells have a
gently curved ventral margin, and the female has a distinct posterior basal swelling and a
straight ventral margin. The outer shell of the Carolina creekshell is moderately shiny and
greenish yellow to dark brownish yellow with numerous continuous green rays. The inner
surface of the shell of the Carolina creekshell is shiny iridescent white or bluish white. The
anterior margin of the shell is rounded in both sexes, and the posterior end is pointed about two-
thirds of the way from the ventral margin. The Carolina creekshell is endemic to North and
South Carolina, is found in mud or sand near stream banks, and is occasionally found in
gravelly sand in the main channel of streams and medium rivers.
33
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
5.0 Water Demand Management and
Conservation
5.1. Water Shortage Response Plan(s)
5.1.1. Union County Water Use Ordinance
In 1992, Union County adopted a Water Conservation Ordinance that outlined conservation
measures required when water demand by customers connected to the Union County water
system reached a point where continued or increased demand equaled or exceeded the
treatment and/or transmission capacity of the system or portions, thereof. This ordinance was
revised and amended over the years, including 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Union County remained in a Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition, as defined by the Water
Conservation Ordinance, from 2009 until this Ordinance’s revision in early 2015. During this
time, Union County imposed mandatory water use restrictions limiting lawn irrigation to no more
than two days per week per customer. Such restrictions were imposed by Union County, while
not in a drought, primarily due to capacity concerns to meet the system’s water demand on peak
days. Such restrictions were considered to be very stringent during non-drought periods and
proved successful in reducing the County’s peak day water demands during their
implementation.
Building upon these restrictions, Union County developed a new Water Use Ordinance
(Ordinance) and an accompanying Water Shortage Response Plan to replace and improve on
the existing Water Conservation Ordinance, while setting more stringent baseline water
restrictions, as compared to the previous Water Use Ordinance. These new documents were
approved by the Union County Board of Commissioners and officially adopted on May 4, 2015.
When water demand results in a condition whereby customers cannot be supplied with
adequate water to protect their health, safety, or property, then the demand must be
substantially curtailed to relieve the water shortage. This Ordinance applies only to potable
water supplied through the Union County water system, and not to reuse or reclaimed water. In
addition to the water conservation measures outlined in the Ordinance, the County has the
authority to establish a rate structure that increases the cost of potable water commensurate
with the escalation of water shortage conditions.
The County’s Water Use Ordinance is applicable during times of drought, where raw water
supply is at risk, and when there are other capacity limitations within the County’s water
treatment and distribution system due to high demands or system emergencies. The Ordinance
has five levels of water shortage conditions, including Stage 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, which are issued
with increasing severity according to the applicable water shortage. During times of drought,
Stages for water shortage conditions are defined by set triggers for the Low Inflow Protocol (see
Section 5.1.2) and outlined in the County’s Water Shortage Response Plan. During times of
other capacity limitations, water shortage conditions are defined by triggers for system demand
as a percent of capacity, as outlined in the County’s Water Shortage Response Plan. Copies of
34
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
the County’s Water Use Ordinance and accompanying Water Shortage Response Plan may be
found in Appendix B.
Stage 0 is a newly defined stage included in the Water Use Ordinance and limits customer use
of spray irrigation systems to a maximum of 3 days per week at all times. Additionally,
customers are encouraged to adhere to a list of recommended voluntary water conservation
measures.
In a Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition, customers are encouraged to limit spray irrigation to a
maximum of 2 days per week and voluntarily conserve water through additional recommended
conservation measures. Also, in a Stage 1 Water Shortage Condition, the transport of water
outside of Union County is unlawful, with certain listed exclusions.
In a Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition, mandatory limits on spray irrigation are increased to
allow each customer a maximum of only 2 days per week. Some other outdoor water uses are
also prohibited, such as filling new swimming pools and residential vehicle washing, while
others are encouraged to be limited, including flushing and hydrant testing or the use of water
for dust control.
In the event of a Stage 3 Water Shortage Condition and in addition to the voluntary and
mandatory guidelines already in effect, each customer would be permitted to use spray irrigation
a maximum of 1 day per week. It would also be unlawful to wash public buildings, sidewalks and
streets, use water for construction dust control, conduct non-essential water system
flushing/hydrant testing, fill any swimming pools/ponds or serve drinking water in food
establishments except upon request.
If a Stage 4 Water Shortage Condition is declared, in addition to the restrictions set forth under
other stages, water use is further restricted to make it unlawful to use water outside a structure
for any purpose other than responding to a fire emergency. Certain exclusions to the restrictions
for each stage exist.
It is important to note that the Water Use Ordinance includes provisions of the Low Inflow
Protocols (LIP) as described in the proceeding sections, but is generally more restrictive than
the LIPs, particularly with regards to baseline water use restrictions when not in drought. The
purpose of this Ordinance is two-fold in addressing potential water shortages related to capacity
limitations and drought.
5.1.2. Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project
In addition to the Water Use Ordinance, Union County is a party to the 2006 Comprehensive
Relicensing Agreement with Duke Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) which requires adherence to the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) for the Catawba-Wateree
Hydroelectric Project by owners of large public water supply intakes located in the reservoirs
and main stem of the Catawba River. As joint owner of the Catawba River Water Treatment
Plant in Lancaster County, South Carolina, Union County must abide by the restrictions set forth
in the LIP during drought conditions. The purpose of this LIP is to establish procedures for
reductions in water use during periods of low inflow to the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric
35
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
Project. The LIP was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water quantity will
share the responsibility to establish priorities and to conserve the limited water supply (Duke
Energy, 2015).
The following table summarizes the required water use reduction goals applicable to Union
County, based on water use restrictions for customers, as defined by the LIP for the Catawba-
Wateree Hydroelectric Project. Increasing LIP stages correspond to worsening drought
conditions as outlined in the LIP.
Table 5-1 Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol Water Use Reduction Requirements by LIP Stage
LIP Stage Water Use Reduction Requirement
Normal Normal Conditions; no water use reduction required Stage 0 Low Inflow Watch; no water use reduction required
Stage 1 Request voluntary water use restrictions in accordance with Water Use Ordinance; water use reduction goal of 3-5% from the amount that would otherwise be
expected.
Stage 2 Require mandatory water use restrictions in accordance with Water Use Ordinance; water use reduction goal of 5-10% from the amount that would
otherwise be expected.
Stage 3 Require increased mandatory water use restrictions in accordance with Water Use Ordinance; water use reduction goal of 10-20% from the amount that would
otherwise be expected.
Stage 4 Require emergency water use restrictions in accordance with Water Use Ordinance and restrict all outdoor water use; water use reduction goal of 20-30%
from the amount that would otherwise be expected.
5.1.3. Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin & Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric
Projects
The fundamental goal of this LIP, developed as part of the 2007 Relicensing Settlement
Agreement for the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, is to take staged actions in the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin needed to delay the point at which available water storage in the Yadkin
Hydroelectric Project (operated by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI), FERC No. 2197) and
the Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project (operated by Duke Energy Progress, FERC No.
2206) reservoirs is fully depleted while maintaining downstream flows. This LIP is intended to
provide additional time to increase the probability that precipitation will restore streamflow and
reservoir water elevations to normal ranges. The amount of additional time that is gained during
implementation of this LIP depends on the diagnostic accuracy of the trigger points, the amount
of regulatory flexibility available to operate the projects, and the effectiveness of the projects’
operators and the water users in working together to implement required actions and achieve
significant water use reductions. It is assumed that water users in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin not subject to the LIP must comply with all applicable State and local drought response
requirements (Duke Energy, 2014).
If granted an IBT certificate to transfer water from one of the reservoirs of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin governed by the LIP, Union County would also be required to abide by such LIP
requirements. Any designated owner or joint-owner of raw water intake and pumping facilities
which withdraw from storage in one of the hydroelectric projects’ reservoirs and have an
instantaneous withdrawal capacity of one million gallons per day or more are required to abide
36
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
by the LIP requirements, as stipulated in the LIP for the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee
Hydroelectric Project. The following table summarizes the required water use reduction goals
which would be applicable to Union County, based on water use restrictions for customers, as
defined by the LIP for the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Projects. Increasing LIP
stages correspond to worsening drought conditions as outlined in the LIP.
Table 5-2 Yadkin-Pee Dee Low Inflow Protocol Water Use Reduction Requirements by LIP Stage
LIP Stage Water Use Reduction Requirement
Normal Normal Conditions; no water use reduction required
Stage 0 Low Inflow Watch; no water use reduction required
Stage 1 Request voluntary water use restrictions in accordance with Water Use Ordinance; water use reduction goal approximately 5% from the amount that would otherwise
be expected.
Stage 2 Require mandatory water use restrictions in accordance with Water Use Ordinance; water use reduction goal of approximately 10% from the amount that
would otherwise be expected.
Stage 3 Require emergency water use restrictions in accordance with Water Use Ordinance; water use reduction goal of approximately 20% from the amount that
would otherwise be expected. Stage 4 Coordinate with the Yadkin Drought Management Advisory Group (YAD-DMAG) and DWR to determine if additional water use reduction measures can be
implemented.
5.2. Water Use Reduction Measures
These three existing water conservation and demand management ordinances and protocols,
all relatively recently adopted and applicable to Union County, require stringent water use
reduction measures. For example, the County has recently revised their Water Conservation
Ordinance to a new Water Use Ordinance that permanently limits outdoor landscape watering
and lawn irrigation to three (3) days per week during normal climate conditions in an effort to
maintain the lower peak day demands that the County has experienced following the 2006-2008
drought. Upon its adoption by the County Board of Commissioners, such baseline water use
restrictions are now some of the most stringent in North Carolina. Based on an analysis of
historical water usage, the Water Use Ordinance exceeds the reduction goals included in the
Catawba-Wateree LIP.
If granted an IBT certificate for water transfers from the Yadkin River IBT Basin to the Rocky
River IBT Basin of the Yadkin River Basin, Union County would be subject to two LIPs: the
Catawba-Wateree LIP and the Yadkin-Pee Dee LIP. The triggers for varying stages of drought
differ somewhat for each LIP. However, as Union County will be subject to both LIPs, its Water
Use Ordinance and Water Shortage Response Plan will defer to the most stringent drought
stage in effect at the time, once the YRWSP is operational. For example, if the Yadkin-Pee Dee
LIP is in Stage 2, but at the same time, the Catawba-Wateree LIP is in Stage 1, Union County
will recognize Stage 2 conditions throughout the County as part of its Water Use Ordinance and
Water Shortage Response Plan.
While very similar in their water use reduction goals for corresponding stages of drought, there
are several slight differences. Whereas the Catawba-Wateree LIP provides a target range for
37
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
water use reductions from Stages 1 through 4, the Yadkin-Pee Dee LIP provides a set reduction
goal for each Stage, which is generally the upper bound of the reduction goal ranges outlined in
the Catawba-Wateree LIP.
Since the Union County water system serves customers within both the Catawba and Yadkin
River Basins, it is committed to promoting a consistent message related to water use reduction
measures during times of drought in order to comply with both the Catawba-Wateree and
Yadkin-Pee Dee LIPs. Such coordination of messages throughout the water system will also be
important to effectively link both LIPs with the County’s Water Use Ordinance. As such, the
water use reduction goals outlined in Table 5-3are recommended for the entirety of the Union
County water system, and represent the upper threshold of both LIPs by stage.
Table 5-3 Proposed Union County Low Inflow Protocol Water Use Reduction Goals by LIP Stage
LIP
Stage
Union County Water
Shortage Condition
Water Use Reduction
Type
Water Use
Reduction Goal
Normal - None N/A Stage 0 - None N/A
Stage 1 Stage 1 Voluntary 5%
Stage 2 Stage 2 Mandatory 10% Stage 3 Stage 3 Emergency Mandatory 20%
Stage 4 Stage 4 Emergency Mandatory >20%
While such reduction goals are not expected to reduce the overall projected water demand for
Union County’s Yadkin River Water Supply Project and subsequent IBT, these conservation
measures are intended to help reduce maximum day and maximum month peaking factors that
may be experienced during future droughts, and avoid the high peaking factors that were
previously experienced by the County during the 2006-2009 drought. Adherence to the LIPs and
County Ordinance will help ensure the average annual day to max day peaking factor used as
the basis of projections for the Yadkin River Water Supply Project remain at or below 1.7.
Additionally, these goals seek to promote a collaborative environment between Union County
and other water users within both the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins during periods of low
inflow to both basins.
The Union County water demand projections previously discussed in Section 3.0 have been
based upon historical water use data and peaking factors since the 2006-2008 drought. As
such, they are developed upon data generated while the County maintained mandatory water
use restrictions under the Stage 2 Water Shortage Condition. Inherently, the effect of water
conservation and demand management is already built into the water demand projections
established as part of the YRWSP.
5.3. Water Stewardship Efforts
5.3.1. Water Quantity Stewardship
In addition to the County’s Water Use Ordinance and use of the LIP for water conservation and
demand management during water shortage conditions, Union County has also implemented a
38
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
series of programs focused on water stewardship with a primary focus on the County’s
commitment to water conservation and efficiency. Examples of these County initiatives include:
• Tiered billing rates (inclining block rate structure)
• Water use restrictions through the Water Use Ordinance
• AWWA M36 water audit program
• Meter replacement and testing program
• Leak detection program
• Public education and awareness program
• Involvement in basin-wide regional water supply planning initiatives
Tiered Billing Rates
Union County utilizes what is known as an “inclining block rate structure” in its gallonage charge
for billing of water and wastewater customers. In this structure, for each increasing “block” of
consumption the customer is charged at a higher rate, so the more water used there is a higher
rate paid for that water. Union County’s rate consists of five blocks, or tiers, of water
consumption. Tier one is for the first 3,000 gallons/month of usage, Tier two, is for the next
4,000 gallons of usage (3,001 to 7,000 gallons), Tier Three for the next 3,000 gallons (7,001 to
10,000 gallons), Tier Four for the next 5,000 gallons (10,001 to 15,000 gallons) and Tier Five,
for all consumption above 15,000 gallons, per month (Union County, 2016).
This inclining rate structure is designed to promote water conservation and to also have those
customers that use the most water pay their proportionate share of the cost of providing the
infrastructure necessary to meet these higher levels of demand. The County’s tiered rates apply
to individually-metered residential customers including conventional single-family homes and
apartments, condominiums and townhouse that have individually metered residential units.
Sewer usage is not separately metered; it is based upon customer water consumption.
Residential sewer usage is capped at 12,000 gallons/month (Union County, 2016).
Water Use Ordinance and Water Shortage Response Plan
As detailed in Section 5.1.1, on May 4, 2015, the Union County Board of County Commissioners
approved a new Water Use Ordinance and Water Shortage Response Plan. The Water Use
Ordinance maintains and protects the public health, safety and welfare by establishing long-
term demand management strategies to effectively manage a limited resource by requiring
efficient and responsible use of water within Union County. The Ordinance also establishes
measurements and procedures for reducing potable water use during times of water shortage
resulting from drought, capacity limitations, and system emergencies.
AWWA M36 Water Audit Program
Union County recently began a process to conduct annual water system audits according to the
AWWA M36 Water Audit Method as a means to identify and potentially reduce “Non-revenue”
Water volumes, particularly water losses. Since implemented in fiscal year 2014, the intent of
these routine water audits is to quantify the components of County’s “Revenue Water” and
“Non-Revenue Water” and identify ways to reduce apparent and real losses.
39
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
According to AWWA, “Non-Revenue Water” reflects the distributed volume of water that is not
reflected in customer billings. Non-revenue Water, however, is specifically defined as the sum of
Unbilled Authorized Consumption (water for firefighting, flushing, etc.) plus Apparent Losses
(customer meter inaccuracies, unauthorized consumption and systematic data handling errors)
plus Real Losses (system leakage and storage tank overflows). In this way, the term "Non-
revenue Water” includes the sum of the varied and disparate types of losses and authorized
unbilled consumption typically occurring in water utilities (AWWA, 2012).
The goal of Union County’s water audit program is to identify the most effective water loss
management practices, from options such as resolving potential customer billing and metering
errors and reducing unauthorized water use, to potentially more complex measures such as
system leak identification and repair, where the audit indicates this to be a beneficial water loss
management solution.
As reflected in results from Union County’s first (FY2014) water audit indicated that, for the July,
2013 to June, 2014 time period, the County’s revenue water (billed authorized consumption)
represented 85.1% of the total Union County water supply. Non-revenue water (unbilled
authorized consumption, apparent losses, and real losses) represented 14.9% of the Union
County water supply. Of this non-revenue water, unbilled authorized consumption (unbilled
metered consumption and unbilled unmetered consumption) equaled 1.3% and water losses
(apparent and real) equaled 13.6% of the Union County water supply. Of the water losses,
apparent losses (unauthorized consumption, customer metering inaccuracies and systematic
data handling errors) represented 1% and real losses (leakage on mains, tanks or service
connections) represented 12.6% of the Union County Water Supply.
Data is currently being evaluated as part of the audit for FY2015, which will be completed later
in 2016. With additional years of audit data, it will be possible for Union County to identify trends
and sources of water losses and implement strategies to effectively reduce both real and
apparent losses to the lower target levels previously identified in Section 3.3.1.
40
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation

Illustration 5-1 Water Balance Results of Union County’s First (FY2014) AWWA M36 Water Audit
Meter Testing and Replacement Program
Union County has received Board approval to initiate a large meter testing and replacement
program, with the intent of identifying and replacing aging and/or malfunctioning water meters
for its customers. The goal of this program is three-fold: to improve accuracy of its customer
billing; to expedite the meter reading process; and to reduce apparent water loss rates resulting
from metering errors. The initial large meter testing work is scheduled to be conducted before
the end of FY16 and will include professional services in the field testing of water meters 2-
inches or greater in size (6-inch max), documentation of all test results, and recommendations
of repairs needed to restore meters to accuracy limits defined by the American Water Works
Association. Results of this testing will then allow Union County to make necessary repairs to or
replace malfunctioning meters.
Leak Detection Program
Union County is currently in the process of developing a leak detection program. Since the
County is at an early stage of this development and has only performed an AWWA Water Audit
on two years’ worth of data, the County is currently gathering the baseline data to evaluate what
percentage of its water loss is from real loss or apparent loss. Once the County has several
years of additional water audit data, it will be possible to distinguish the overall water loss
between apparent losses from data handling errors and meter inaccuracies and real losses due
to system leakage. Once additional data is obtained from the audit program, it will be possible
for Union County to determine if an effectively deployed leak detection program will significantly
reduce real water losses and the most effective leak detection measures to employ.
41
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
Public Education and Awareness Program
Union County actively communicates with its customers informative brochures and inserts
included in customer bills and through County website content. Theses public education and
awareness measures raise awareness among Union County customers as to the value of water
and the need for water use efficiency by providing information about measures to reduce water
consumption through conservation techniques and County ordinances.
Information included in these public education and awareness publications typically includes
reminders about Union County’s Water Use Ordinance restrictions on outdoor spray irrigation to
a maximum of three days per week during normal conditions and less days during drought
conditions, along with the applicable irrigation schedule by customer billing cycle. Additionally,
these publications include recommendations for ways customers can conserve water outdoors
(e.g. drought-tolerant landscaping, water-wise irrigation techniques, etc.) and indoors (e.g. low-
flow plumbing fixtures, laundry and dish washing techniques, etc.).
Basin-wide Regional Water Supply Planning
Union County is an active member of both the Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group
(CWWMG) and the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Association (YPDRBA) and is actively
participating in planning for the potential formation of a Yadkin-Pee Dee Water Management
Group.
Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group (CWWMG)
Incorporated in late 2007, this 501(c)(3) non-profit group came out of the three and one-half
year stakeholder process associated with Duke Energy’s re-licensing of the Catawba-Wateree
Hydro Project, part of a Comprehensive Re-licensing Agreement (CRA) that defines how the
basin will be managed for the next 40 to 50 years. The CWWMG has 19 members; one member
representing each of the 18 public water utilities in North and South Carolina which operate
large water intakes on either a reservoir in the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project or on the
main stem of the river, and one member representing Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke
Energy). CWWMG members meet regularly to formulate strategies and projects to help
understand and address the basin’s water challenges. The CWWMG exists to identify, fund, and
manage projects that help extend and enhance the capacity of the Catawba-Wateree River to
meet human water needs (water supply, power production, industry, agriculture, and commerce)
while maintaining the ecological health of the waterway (CWWMG, 2016). The focus of this
group is primarily on water supply issues.
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Association (YRDRBA)
The Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Association is an advocacy group dedicated to preserving and
improving water quality in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River and its tributaries so that they remain a
viable water-supply source. To accomplish this, the association works to present a collective
voice by pooling financial resources and expertise in a sustainable and cost-effective manner;
engage members and stakeholders in activities that enhance and preserve water quality in the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin; collect and analyze information and develop, evaluate and
implement strategies to reduce, control and manage pollutant discharge; and work in
42
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
cooperation with stakeholders to provide technical, management, regulatory and legal
recommendations regarding the implementation of cost-effective strategies and appropriate
effluent limitations on discharges into the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. The association was formed in
1998 to give wastewater dischargers in the basin a unified voice in dealing with state agencies
that affect the basin and its waters. As such, membership is restricted to entities that hold
permits to discharge treated wastewater into the Yadkin/Pee Dee River or its tributaries.
Currently there are 29 members -- 25 public and four private. The focus of this group is primarily
on water issues related to wastewater discharge (YRDRBA, 2016).
Yadkin-Pee Dee Water Management Group
Within the last year, the concept of developing another group within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin, focused more directly on issues related to water supply, has been gaining traction among
public water utilities throughout the basin. Initial planning meetings have been ongoing to
establish such a group. Union County has been actively participating in these planning
meetings.
5.3.2. Water Quality Stewardship – Programs and Ordinances
Existing local, state, and federal programs and ordinances are in place to mitigate the potential
for direct and indirect impacts from the proposed IBT and associated construction activities,
particularly with regards to water quality. Such ordinances, as detailed in the FEIS, pertain to
stormwater, floodplain, riparian buffer, erosion and sedimentation control, wetland protection,
open space and parks, water use, land use, historic preservation, tree preservation, endangered
species protection, and regional transportation planning measures.
In late 2014, Union County adopted a new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) (Union
County, 2014) that serves to update its previous Land Use Ordinance. The latest version of the
draft UDO document was adopted in October, 2014 with additional amendments approved in
November, 2014. Included in the UDO are new riparian buffer regulations in the Twelve Mile
Creek WRF service area and measures to protect and preserve existing communities of
Schweinitz’s Sunflower and their habitats.
Ten of the communities implement regulations that limit fill within the floodplain to the minimum
level designated by FEMA. Three communities implement floodplain regulations that are more
protective than FEMA minimum standards: unincorporated Union County, Lake Park, and
Hemby Bridge. For two of these communities, Union County and Hemby Bridge, fill is not
allowed within the floodplain except for essential services such as utilities and roadways. Lake
Park allows fill in the floodplain as long as all living spaces are elevated three feet above the
base flood elevation (BFE).
Union County and the Towns of Fairview, Hemby Bridge, Indian Trail, and Stallings all have
portions of their jurisdictions located in the Goose Creek watershed. The Goose Creek
watershed provides habitat for a federally listed endangered species, the Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata). NCDEQ administers a site-specific water quality management plan for
the Goose Creek watershed per 15A NCAC 02B .0600-.0609 for the maintenance and recovery
of water quality in the watershed to sustain and protect the listed species. These regulations
43
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Demand Management and Conservation
include stormwater control requirements, a prohibition on new NPDES discharges in the
watershed, and riparian buffers. The Goose Creek Management regulations were included in
the analysis of mitigation measures for those jurisdictions located in the Goose Creek
watershed.
5.4. Interbasin Transfer Compliance and Monitoring Plan
The proposed compliance and monitoring plan for the requested interbasin transfer certificate
includes the following four elements, which are described in the sections below:
• Quarterly Reports
• Annual Reports
• Status Reports
• Drought Management Reporting and Coordination (reference Section 5.1)
The details of monitoring and compliance will be specified in a Compliance and Monitoring Plan
approved by DWR.
5.4.1. Quarterly Reports
At the end of each quarter, Union County will calculate the daily IBT amounts for that quarter
and provide this information to DWR in quarterly reports. The reports will be submitted to DWR
within 30 days of the end of the month following the completion of each quarter. Union County
will submit four quarterly reports to DWR each year.
5.4.2. Annual Reports
At the end of each calendar year, the monthly IBT reports will be summarized in an annual
report to DWR. The annual report will also document compliance with conditions, if any, that the
EMC includes in the IBT certificate.
5.4.3. Status Reports
At the end of each calendar year, if requested by DWR, Union County will provide status reports
on specific measures or other activities discussed in the EIS or IBT petition. DWR will identify
the specific measures/activities to be addressed.
5.4.4. Drought Management Reporting and Coordination
Drought management reporting and coordination will be in compliance with the provisions
outlined in the LIPs, as discussed in Section 5.1, and in coordination with both the CW-DMAG
and YAD-DMAG and DWR.
44
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
6.0 Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer
Alternatives
6.1. Background
The Union County water and sanitary sewer service areas are located within the Catawba River
Basin and the Rocky River IBT Basin of the Yadkin River Basin. While the County’s service
areas are within the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins, neither of the rivers’ main stems flow
through the County as indicated in Illustration 6-1. The Rocky River forms the northern border of
the County, but is not currently classified by the State of North Carolina for water supply uses.

Illustration 6-1 Union County, North Carolina and Surrounding Major Rivers
Union County’s location between the two major rivers (Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba), and
federally regulated (through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)) surface water
reservoirs along each river, logically make them the primary sources for potential future water
supply within Union County. Illustration 6-2 depicts the FERC regulated reservoirs along the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River, operated by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) and Duke Energy
Progress. Illustration 6-3 depicts the FERC regulated reservoirs along the Catawba River,
operated by Duke Energy, Carolinas LLC.

45
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Illustration 6-2 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Reservoirs (CH2MHill, 2006) (Note: W. Kerr Scott Reservoir not shown)

Illustration 6-3 Catawba-Wateree River Basin Reservoirs (CH2MHill, 2004)
(Narrows Reservoir)
46
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
As previously discussed and depicted in Illustration 1-2, Union County currently has two water
service areas: the Catawba River Basin Service Area and the Yadkin River Basin Service Area.
Union County is currently seeking to secure a reliable water supply to serve projected near-term
and long-term future customer demand in its Yadkin River Basin Service Area within the Rocky
River IBT Basin. Water transfers into the Rocky River IBT Basin from either the Yadkin River
IBT Basin or from the Catawba River IBT Basin will necessitate an interbasin transfer certificate
from the State of North Carolina.
Both the Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba Rivers are potential water supply sources to help
eliminate the County’s projected water supply deficit in its Yadkin River Basin Service Area
(Rocky River IBT Basin). Both raw water and finished water alternatives have been identified to
address the projected 23 mgd (based on maximum month daily demands) water supply shortfall
in this service area by the year 2050. Alternatives for raw water would require raw water intake,
pumping, transmission and treatment infrastructure. Alternatives for finished water would require
infrastructure for finished water transmission and wholesale purchase agreements with regional
water suppliers.
6.2. Alternatives Analysis
The general categories of alternatives for the Union County YRWSP include identifying water
supplies in the receiving basin (Rocky River IBT Basin), identifying water supplies in the other
neighboring basins (Yadkin River IBT Basin or Catawba River IBT Basin), managing water
demand, and returning water to the source basin. These alternatives were selected to meet the
requirements of the IBT rules (NCGS 143‐215.22L) and consider comments received during the
initial scoping process. Alternatives were screened, based on their ability to meet 2050 water
supply needs, environmental considerations, and cost considerations.
Twelve (12) alternatives for Union County’s Yadkin River Water Supply Project, including the No
Action Alternative, were identified and evaluated within the FEIS. A total of eight (8) potential
surface water alternatives were identified. Additional non-surface water alternatives were also
identified as potential measures for minimizing the requested interbasin transfer, and are also
explored within the FEIS. The surface water supply alternatives which have been evaluated and
their relative locations are shown in Illustration 6-4.
The following Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 include a summary of both Surface Water Supply and
Interbasin Transfer Minimization alternatives evaluated as part of the FEIS. Table 6-1 and Table
6-2, which follow these alternative descriptions, provide a summary if temporary and permanent
direct impacts and indirect impacts for the YRWSP alternatives and a conceptual cost opinion
for YRWSP alternatives, respectively. As detailed in the FEIS, existing local, state, and federal
programs and ordinances will mitigate the potential for direct and indirect impacts from the
proposed action. Stormwater, floodplain, riparian buffer, erosion and sedimentation control,
wetland protection, open space and parks, water use, land use, historic preservation, tree
preservation, endangered species protection, and regional transportation planning measures
are addressed by such programs and ordinances.

47
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Illustration 6-4 Yadkin Regional Water Supply Project – Surface Water Alternatives (HDR, 2015)
48
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
6.2.1. Surface Water Supply Alternatives
6.2.1.1. Alternative 1A
Description
• Pee Dee River raw water supply from Lake Tillery (23 mgd IBT from the Yadkin River
IBT Basin to the Rocky River IBT Basin) with a new water treatment plant in Union
County.
• Raw water transmission alignment from Lake Tillery to the new water treatment plant in
northern Union County primarily following road Right-of-Ways.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or less than other alternatives
due to shorter length of required raw water transmission main for the project.
• Cost – As indicated in Table 6-2, at $239.7M, this alternative represents the lowest cost
alternative of those evaluated, with the exception of Alternative 5 (see further discussion
of this alternative for its limitations).
This alternative meets the 2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s
Yadkin River Basin Service Area. As described in the FEIS document, the environmental
impacts of Alternative 1A are similar, or significantly less, than the other alternatives evaluated.
Alternative 1A represents one of the lowest cost project alternatives and has been determined
to be a financially feasible option for this water supply.
6.2.1.2. Alternative 1B
Description
• Pee Dee River raw water supply from Lake Tillery (23 mgd IBT from the Yadkin River
IBT Basin to the Rocky River IBT Basin) with a new water treatment plant in Union
County.
• Raw water transmission alignment from Lake Tillery to new WTP in northern Union
County primarily following power utility easements.
Summary:
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
49
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Alternative 1A, primarily due to a longer length of required raw water transmission main
for the project.
• Cost – As indicated in Table 6-2, this alternative is similar in cost to Alternative 1A, with
slightly higher costs due to longer raw water transmission alignment length.
As described in the FEIS document, the environmental impacts of Alternative 1B are similar to
the other alternatives evaluated. Alternative 1B represents one of the lowest cost project
alternatives and has been determined to be a financially feasible option for this water supply.
6.2.1.3. Alternative 2A
Description
• Yadkin River raw water supply from Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) (23 mgd IBT from
Yadkin River IBT Basin to Rocky River IBT Basin) with a new water treatment plant in
Union County.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
Alternative 1A, primarily due to a longer length of required raw water transmission main
for the project.
• Cost - As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $294.1M, this alternative is 23% more
costly than Alternative 1A.
6.2.1.4. Alternative 2B
Description
• Yadkin River raw water supply from Tuckertown Reservoir (23 mgd IBT from Yadkin
River IBT Basin to Rocky River IBT Basin) with a new water treatment plant in Union
County.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
Alternative 1A, primarily due to a longer length of required raw water transmission main
for the project.
• Cost - As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $294.0M, this alternative is 23% more
costly than Alternative 1A.
50
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
6.2.1.5. Alternative 3A
Description:
• Pee Dee River raw water supply from Blewett Falls Lake (14.2 mgd IBT from Yadkin
River IBT Basin to Rocky River IBT Basin) with a new water treatment plant in Union
County.
• Raw water transmission alignment from Blewett Falls Lake to new WTP in northern
Union County primarily following power and natural gas utility easements.
• 23 mgd maximum month average withdrawal, of which 14.2 mgd is considered an IBT
due to the Cork Rule Exception, because of the projected future volume of Union County
treated wastewater effluent which discharges within the Rocky River IBT Basin and
ultimately returns to the Yadkin River Basin at the confluence of the Rocky River and
Pee-Dee River several miles upstream of Blewett Falls Lake.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
Alternative 1A, primarily due to a longer length of required raw water transmission main
for the project.
• Cost - As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $282.2M, this alternative is 18% more
costly than Alternative 1A.
6.2.1.6. Alternative 3B
Description
• Pee Dee River raw water supply from Blewett Falls Lake (14.2 mgd IBT from Yadkin
River IBT Basin to Rocky River IBT Basin) with a new water treatment plant in Union
County.
• Raw water transmission alignment from Blewett Falls Lake to new WTP in eastern Union
County primarily following US-74 Right-of-Way.
• 23 mgd maximum month average withdrawal, of which 14.2 mgd is considered an IBT
due to the Cork Rule Exception, because of the projected future volume of Union County
treated wastewater effluent which discharges within the Rocky River IBT Basin and
ultimately returns to the Yadkin River Basin at the confluence of the Rocky River and
Pee-Dee River several miles upstream of Blewett Falls Lake.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
51
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
Alternative 1A, primarily due to a longer length of required raw water transmission main
for the project.
• Cost – As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $248.1M, this alternative is similar in
cost to Alternative 1A, with a 4% higher cost.
6.2.1.7. Alternative 4
Description
• Raw water supply from the main stem of the Pee Dee River (14.2 mgd IBT from Yadkin
River IBT Basin to Rocky River IBT Basin) with a new water treatment plant in Union
County.
• 23 mgd maximum month average withdrawal, of which 14.2 mgd is considered an IBT
due to the Cork Rule Exception, because of the projected future volume of Union County
treated wastewater effluent which discharges within the Rocky River IBT Basin and
ultimately returns to the Yadkin River Basin at the confluence of the Rocky River and
Pee-Dee River several miles upstream of proposed Pee Dee River withdrawal point for
this alternative.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
Alternative 1A, primarily due to a longer length of required raw water transmission main
and need for construction of a terminal water storage reservoir for the project due for this
run-of-river intake option.
• Cost - As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $322.2M, this alternative represents the
second highest cost of those evaluated, due to the water withdrawal infrastructure and
terminal reservoir for water storage needed for this run-of-river intake option. This
alternative is 34% more costly than Alternative 1A.
6.2.1.8. Alternative 5
Description
• Raw water supply from the Rocky River within Union County (23 mgd maximum
month average withdrawal; non-IBT alternative) with a new water treatment plant in
Union County.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Does not meet need. The Rocky River is currently
classified as a Class C water resource and would need to be re-classified to Water
52
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Supply (WS) status before being utilized as a municipal water source. Further, the Rocky
River has an insufficient flow to meet the Union County YRWSP water demands. Union
County’s 23 mgd water demand exceeds 20% of the 7Q10 flow (equal to 4.6 cfs or 2.9
mgd) within the river by 793%, indicating insufficient flow to support the proposed
withdrawal.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Due to limited flow and shallow depths within the Rocky River, a low profile dam is likely
needed to ensure adequate depth for the raw water intake. Upstream inundation due to
this impoundment may have adverse impacts on multiple environmental resources.
Alternately, if a collector well type intake were used, adverse impacts to groundwater
resources in the surrounding area are likely to occur.
• Cost – While this alternative represents the lowest cost alternative at $190.6M, as
indicated in Table 6-2, the alternative does not meet the project needs due to flow
limitations of the Rocky River. This alternative is estimated to be 21% less costly than
Alternative 1A. The lower cost is representative of a significantly shorter raw water
transmission main length.
6.2.1.9. Alternative 6
Description
• Expansion of the Catawba River Water Supply Project (CRWSP) (modification to
existing grandfathered IBT amount for a larger IBT (21.6 mgd) from the Catawba River
Basin to the Rocky River IBT Basin of the Yadkin River Basin).
• 28.9 mgd maximum month average withdrawal, of which 21.6 mgd is considered an IBT
due to the Cork Rule Exception, because of the projected future volume of Union County
treated wastewater effluent from the County’s Twelve Mile Water Reclamation Facility
which ultimately returns to the Catawba River Basin at the confluence of Twelve Mile
Creek and the Catawba River just upstream of CRWSP withdrawal point.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts – Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental
effects, as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
Alternative 1A, primarily due more adverse impacts to surface water resources within the
Catawba River IBT Basin for this alternative, as compared to those alternatives from the
Yadkin River IBT Basin.
• Cost - As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $252.0M, this alternative is 5% more
costly than Alternative 1A, for CRWSP expansion solely to meet the needs of Union
County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area.
53
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
6.2.1.10. Alternative 7
Description
• Interconnection with Charlotte Water (21.6 mgd IBT from Catawba River Basin to the
Rocky River IBT Basin of the Yadkin River Basin).
• 16.6 mgd proposed finished water purchase from Charlotte Water.
• 12.3 mgd proposed supply from Union County’s existing CWRSP water source.
• 28.9 mgd combined maximum month average supply, of which 21.6 mgd is considered
an IBT due to the Cork Rule Exception, because of the projected future volume of Union
County treated wastewater effluent from the County’s Twelve Mile Water Reclamation
Facility which ultimately returns to the Catawba River Basin at the confluence of Twelve
Mile Creek and the Catawba River just upstream of CRWSP withdrawal point.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Meets purpose and need. This alternative meets the
2050 water demand needs for the YRWSP within Union County’s Yadkin River Basin
Service Area.
• Environmental impacts –Table 6-1 summarizes and quantifies the environmental effects,
as presented in the FEIS, of this alternative, as compared with other alternatives.
Impacts, as shown in this table, are generally similar to or slightly greater than
Alternative 1A, primarily due more adverse impacts to surface water resources within the
Catawba River IBT Basin for this alternative, as compared to those alternatives from the
Yadkin River IBT Basin. Adverse impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter population in the
Goose Creek critical habitat area are also possible due to the proposed transmission
alignment of this alternative.
• Cost - As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $261.1M, this alternative is 9% more
costly than Alternative 1A.
6.2.2. Interbasin Transfer Minimization Alternatives
6.2.2.1. Alternative 8
Description
• Minimize IBT through raw water supply using municipal groundwater withdrawal
within Union County with a new water treatment plant in Union County.
• 23 mgd maximum month average day water withdrawal from groundwater sources in
Union County.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Does not meet need in a practical manner. Limited
numbers of high productivity wells within the County’s geologic formations mean that the
County would require an extensive network of groundwater wells of average production.
Due to the required spacing of individual wells, the amount of land (presumably existing
agricultural land) and cost required to develop such an extensive network of wells (of up
to 560 wells) is not preferred to other surface water alternatives as a result of the
potential site development impacts of this alternative. Even the use of groundwater to
54
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
supplement surface water supplies does not justify the cost and land impacts that would
be necessary to develop groundwater as a reliable source of water supply for Union
County.
• Environmental impacts - Table 6-1 summarizes the environmental effects of this
alternative as presented in the FEIS. To meet the demand, the potential development
area needed for groundwater well network is estimated to be up to 28,300 acres,
potentially resulting in significant environmental impacts due to the large impact area.
Additionally, groundwater in various areas of Union County, particularly in the northern
portions of the Rocky River IBT Basin has been determined to contain concentrations of
arsenic, radon and nitrate above the US EPA and State of North Carolina limitations.
• Cost – As indicated in Table 6-2, at an estimated $294.6M, this alternative represents
one of the higher cost project alternatives and is 23% more costly than Alternative 1A.
Groundwater used for large scale public supply purposes in the County would likely
require water treatment to a similar level as surface water sources to remove potential
contaminants. Therefore, it is estimated that water treatment for groundwater would
require similar facilities and costs as those proposed for surface water alternatives.
6.2.2.2. Alternative 9
Description
• Water demand management/conservation
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Does not meet need.
• Union County currently employs a robust water demand management/conservation
program, as indicated in using strategies previously described in Section 5.0
• The Union County water demand projections previously discussed in Section 3.0 have
been based upon historical water use data and peaking factors following the 2006-2009
drought. As such, they were developed upon data generated while the County
maintained mandatory water use restrictions. Inherently, the effect of water conservation
and demand management is already built into the water demand projections established
for this project.
• Further options, beyond those already in place or being implemented by the County, for
reducing water demand of the requested IBT through conservation and demand
management would be difficult to identify, quantify and ultimately implement as part of
this Alternative.
6.2.2.3. Alternative 10
Description
• Direct potable reuse
• Up to 4.6 mgd water supply from Direct Potable Reuse to supplement 23 mgd maximum
month average day water demands.
• 18.4 mgd surface water supply still required to meet 2050 projected water demands.

55
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Does not meet need. North Carolina Session Law
SL2014-113 establishes a public policy of the State that supports the reuse of treated
wastewater or reclaimed water, under a very specific set of circumstances, and if a
reclaimed water system is permitted and operated under G.S. 143-215.1. However,
SL2014-113 also indicates that there are additional rules yet to be established or
adopted by the EMC regarding water reuse, particularly direct distribution of reclaimed
water as potable water, as identified in section 143-355.5.b. While water reuse may be a
beneficial water source in the future for some areas of the state with limited water
resources under limited conditions, it is not a reasonable alternative for Union County,
given projected water demands and the availability of surface water from the neighboring
Yadkin-Pee Dee River and its reservoirs. Additionally, SL2014-113 permits only 20% of
the total water volume to be reclaimed water. As such this option would only serve as a
small supplement (up to 4.6 mgd of the 23 mgd needed supply) to the surface water
needs which would be required to meet Union County’s water demands, resulting in an
18.4 mgd IBT.
• Environmental impacts - The provision, under criteria outlined in SL2014-113 for water
reuse, for a constructed pretreatment mixing basin of sufficient size to mix raw water
with reclaimed water (limited to 20% of the total water volume) would have
environmental impacts beyond those of the other traditional surface water supply
alternatives evaluated.
• Cost - It is important to note that criteria outlined in SL2014-113 for water reuse would
require an extensive capital and operational investment for Union County. Advanced
water treatment technology for direct potable reuse, along with the remaining need for
developing a surface water supply and treatment facility as part of this alternative would
likely represent the most significant cost for any of the alternatives. Actual costs for this
alternative were not developed due to lack of rules regarding direct potable reuse within
the current water reuse legislation, making this alternative infeasible.
6.2.2.4. Alternative 11
Description
• Indirect Potable Reuse - Water returns (treated wastewater effluent) from the Rocky
River IBT Basin back to the Yadkin River IBT Basin.
• Return up to 6.6 mgd annual average day of Union County’s treated wastewater effluent
from the City of Monroe WWTP back to the headwater of Lake Tillery, to take advantage
of the Cork Rule Exception (water returned upstream of withdrawal point) to minimize
required IBT.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Does not meet need in a practical manner. The 2050
wastewater flow projection of 6.6 mgd is only 40% of the 16.5 mgd average daily water
need and only 29% of the 23 mgd maximum month average day water need for the
YRWSP. The use of IPR in Union County would serve only to partially reduce (not
56
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
eliminate) the total amount of the IBT from the Yadkin River IBT Basin to the Rocky
River IBT Basin, resulting in a 16.4 mgd IBT.
• Environmental impacts - Table 6-1 summarizes the environmental effects of this
alternative as presented in the FEIS. Evaluation of potential discharges to major feeder
streams to Lake Tillery (Mountain Creek and Jacob’s Creek) indicate that estimated
7Q10 flows are zero or near zero, which would limit the ability to permit a new discharge
into these waters. Additionally, assimilative capacity concerns are an issue for large
wastewater discharges into such tributary streams. However, any benefits afforded to
water quantity (due to IBT reduction) in Lake Tillery are likely to be outweighed by water
quality and environmental impacts of a new wastewater discharge and associated
sanitary sewer transmission infrastructure required as part of this alternative.
• Cost – As indicated in Table 6-2, this alternative represents the highest cost alternative
at $377.2M, significantly greater than others evaluated for this project and 57% higher
than Alternative 1A. This is due to the required surface water supply infrastructure
coupled with wastewater outfall infrastructure from Union County to the headwater
streams of Lake Tillery.
6.2.2.5. Alternative 12
Description
• No Action Alternative
• The No Action Alternative (NAA) would not involve additional public water supply by
Union County Public Works to the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area within the
Rocky River IBT Basin.
• While the Union County Public Works water supply would not increase under this
alternative, the County’s population within this service area is still projected to increase,
driven by economic growth and development within the region.
• Without a reliable water supply source for the Yadkin River Basin Service Area, future
water supply within this area would have to be supplied either from the existing Catawba
River Water Supply Project, through groundwater wells, or service connections to other
water systems within the Rocky River IBT Basin.
Summary
• Ability to meet water demands – Does not meet need.
• Meeting the water supply demands for future population growth in the Yadkin River
Basin Service Area through the Catawba River Water Supply Project is not possible
under the limitations of the County’s existing grandfathered 5 mgd Catawba River Basin
to the Yadkin River Basin.
• Supporting such projected population growth through individual private groundwater well
installations would place an additional strain on the current groundwater supply within
the County.
• Neighboring systems in the Rocky River IBT Basin do not have the physical capacity to
provide Union County with an adequate supply of water to meet current or future
demands in the County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area.
57
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
• An inability for Union County to provide reliable public water supply service to the Yadkin
River Basin Service Area could result in a need to impose population growth and
property development moratoria within the County due to limitations of County services
(i.e. water service). The negative effects of such moratoria, as evidenced in other areas
where they have been implemented, are often significant and long lasting, slowing or
stalling the economic growth of the area and leading to the loss of jobs and businesses.
58
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Table 6-1 Summary of FEIS Temporary and Permanent Direct Impacts and Indirect Impacts for YRWSP Alternatives (HDR, 2015)
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Topography and Geology
Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor from pipe installation
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor from grading for construction of WTP
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Direct, Permanent No impacts Minor from grading for
raw water intake, pump station and access road
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor from grading for
WTP, raw water intake, pump station and access road
Same as Alternative 1A Minor from grading for low-head dam, raw water intake, pump station and access road
Minor from grading for raw water intake and WTP expansion, pump station, and access road
Minor from grading for pump station and access road
Minor from grading for WTP and groundwater well installation
Minor from grading for discharge, pump station and access road
Minor from grading for WTP
Same as WTP A Same as WTP A
Indirect Same as Alternative
1A
Minor from new development
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Soils Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor from:
o Impacts from land clearing, excavation
and grading
o Fuel, oil, and other emissions
from construc-tion vehicles
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Direct, Permanent No impacts Minor from construction of raw water intake, pump station, and access road
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor from construction of WTP, raw water intake, pump station, and access road
Same as Alternative 1A Minor from construction of low-head dam, raw water intake, pump station, and access road
Minor from construction of raw water intake and WTP expansion, pump station, and access road
Minor from construction of pump station and access road
Minor from construction of WTP and groundwater well installation
Minor from construction of discharge, pump station, and access road
Minor from construction of WTP
Same as WTP A Same as WTP A
Indirect Same as
Alternative 1A
Minor from new development
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Land Use Direct, Temporary No impacts
No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
Direct, Permanent No impacts Moderate from conversion of wooded/ undeveloped areas and residential,
commercial, and agricultural uses to permanent
utility use
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
59
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Land Use (con’t)
Indirect Same as Alternative
1A
Minor from new
development

Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Public Lands and Scenic,
Recreational Areas, and State Natural Areas
Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor to 5.3 miles of bike routes and 7.2 acres of other areas from
transmission line
Minor to 0.3 mile of bike routes and 6.5 acres of other areas
from transmission line
Minor to 14.0 miles of bike routes and 5.6 acres of other areas
from transmission line
Minor to 14.0 miles of bike routes and 9.4 acres of other areas
from transmission line
Minor to 46.5 acres from transmission line
Minor to 15.5 acres from transmission line
Minor to 0.5 acre from transmission line
Minor to 5.5 acres from transmission line
No impacts Minor to 0.6 acre from transmission line
Impacts from well field are not known
Minor to10.6 miles of bike routes and 8.4 acres of other areas
from transmission line
No impacts No impacts Minor to 7.2 acres from transmission line
Direct, Permanent No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts Minor to 0.5 acre of Pee Dee River State Game Land from pump station and access road
Minor to 0.8 acre of Pee Dee River State Game Land from pump station and access road
No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
Indirect Same as
Alternative 1A
Minor from
conversion of adjacent land uses
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Prime or Unique Agricultural Land
Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor to 18.9 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 22.8 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 30.8 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 23.1 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 25.4 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 6.2 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 25.5 acres from
pipe installation
No impacts Minor to 41.4 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 4.8 acres from
pipe installation
Minor to 5.2 acres from
pipe installation

Minor to 41.9 acres from
pipe installation
No impacts Minor to 2.5 acres from
pipe installation

Minor to 3.6 acres from
pipe installation

Direct, Permanent No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts Minor to less than 0.1 acre from pump station and access road
No impacts Impact from WTP is not known
Minor to 0.9 acre from access road
No impacts No impacts No impacts Impacts from WTP and well field are not known
No impacts No impacts Impacts from WTP is not known
Impacts from WTP is not known
Indirect Same as Alternative 1A
Minor from conversion of agricultural land to residential and commercial use
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value
Direct, Temporary No impacts

ᴑ No impacts to historic
sites
ᴑ Impacts to archaeological
resources unknown, but unlikely
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
60
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value (con’t)
Direct, Permanent No impacts ᴑ No impacts to historic
sites
ᴑ Impacts to archaeological
resources unknown but unlikely
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Indirect Same as
Alternative 1A
Minor from
new development

Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Air Quality Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor from increase in airborne
particulates during project construction
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Direct, Permanent No impacts Negligible from intermittent generator operation
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Indirect Same as Alternative 1A
Minor from new development

Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Noise Levels Direct,
Temporary
No
impacts
Minor
nuisance noise associated with project construction
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Direct, Permanent No impacts Negligible from intermittent generator operation
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Indirect Same as Alternative 1A
Negligible from increased overall noise in service area
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
61
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Floodways and 100 year
Floodplains
Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor impacts from
construction to 13.5 acres of 100-year floodplain

Minor impacts from
construction to 32.2 acres of 100-year floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to:
ᴑ 1.6 acres
of floodway
ᴑ 21.2 acres of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to:
ᴑ 1.0 acre of
floodway
ᴑ 19.9 acres of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to 86.9 acres of 100-year floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to:
ᴑ 6.7 acres
of floodway
ᴑ 49.3 acres of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to 33.4 acres of 100-year floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to 1.7 acres of 100-year floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to:
ᴑ 0.6 acre of
floodway
ᴑ 7.6 acres of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to:
ᴑ 0.2 acre of
floodway
ᴑ 4.7 acres of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to 0.2 acre of 100-year floodplain
Minor impacts from
construction to:
ᴑ 0.6 acre of
floodway
ᴑ 28.1 acres of 100-year
floodplain
No impacts No impacts Minor impacts from
construction to 0.8 acre of 100-year floodplain
Direct, Permanent No impacts Minor impacts to 0.1 acre of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts to 0.1 acre of
100-year floodplain
Minor impacts to 0.3 acre of 100-year
floodplain
No impacts Minor impacts to 2.0 acres of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts to 2.0 acres of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts to 0.2 acre of 100-year
floodplain
Minor impacts to 0.5 acre of 100-year
floodplain
No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
Indirect Same as Alternative
1A
Negligible from:
ᴑ Potential loss of 100-year floodplain from development
ᴑ Topography changes from development
ᴑ Isolation of floodplain due to stream
channel entrenchment
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Wetlands Direct, Temporary No impacts No impacts Minor impacts to 7.5 acres of forested wetland from transmission line
Minor impacts to 0.6 acre of forested wetland from transmission line
Minor impacts to 0.6 acre of forested wetland from transmission line
Minor impacts from transmission line to:
ᴑ 44.8 acres of forested wetland
ᴑ 8.7 acres of non-forested wetland
Minor impacts from transmission line to:
ᴑ 2.8 acres of forested wetland
ᴑ 0.5 acre of non-forested wetland
No impacts No impacts Minor impacts from transmission line to:
ᴑ 0.5 acre of forested wetland
ᴑ 0.1 acre of non-forested wetland
Minor impacts from
transmission line to 0.1 acre of forested wetland
No impacts from
transmission line
Impacts from
well field are not known
Minor impacts to 0.9 acre of
forested wetland from transmission line
No impacts No impacts No impacts
Direct, Permanent No impacts No impacts Minor impacts to 0.5 acre of forested wetland from transmission line
No impacts No impacts Minor impacts to 3.2 acres of forested wetland from transmission line
No impacts No impacts ᴑ No impacts associated with transmission line or pump station.
ᴑ Impacts due to low-head dam unknown
Minor impacts to less than 0.1 acre of forested wetland from transmission line
No impacts Minor impacts expected, but not quantified
No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
62
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Wetlands (con’t) Indirect Same as Alternative
A1
Minor from:
ᴑ Wetland loss via development
ᴑ Loss of habitat and fragmentation
ᴑ Loss of wetland function from pollutant
loading
Same as Alternative A1
Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1 Same as Alternative A1
Surface Water Resources Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 2,848 feet of perennial streams from
11 crossings
ᴑ 11,014 feet of intermittent
streams from 20 crossings
ᴑ 0.3 acre of
buffer
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 5,857 feet of perennial streams from
14 crossings
ᴑ 10,598 feet of
intermittent streams
from 31
crossings
ᴑ 1.7 acre of buffer
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 2,339 feet of perennial streams from
11 crossings
ᴑ 9,498 feet of intermittent
streams from 22 crossings
ᴑ 1.0 acre of
buffer
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 1,914 feet of perennial streams from
9 crossings
ᴑ 9,572 feet of intermittent
streams from 27 crossings
ᴑ 0.9 acre of
buffer
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 5,242 feet of perennial streams from
20 crossings
ᴑ 8,194 feet of intermittent
streams from 22 crossings
ᴑ 4.1 acres
of buffer
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 4,634 feet of perennial streams from
16 crossings
ᴑ 7,683 feet of intermittent
streams from 24 crossings
ᴑ 8.2 acres
of buffer
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 1,715 feet of perennial streams from
7 crossings
ᴑ 6,979 feet of intermittent
streams from 14 crossings
ᴑ 11.6 acres
of buffer
Minor from transmission line to 1,343
feet of intermittent streams from 3 crossings
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 1,509 feet of perennial streams from
7 crossings
ᴑ 3,913 feet of intermittent
streams from 18 crossings
ᴑ 3.8 acres
of buffer
ᴑ No impacts due to use of trenchless
construction methods for installation of the installation
line across 2 perennial streams and 7 intermittent streams
ᴑ 6.4 acres of buffer
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 407 feet of perennial streams from
2 crossings
ᴑ 1,530 feet of intermittent
streams from 5 crossings
Minor from transmission line to:
ᴑ 4,508 feet of perennial streams from
18 crossings
ᴑ 17,449 feet of intermittent
streams from 25 crossings
ᴑ 3.7 acres
of buffer
No impacts Minor from transmission line to 1,438
feet of intermittent streams from 5 crossings
Minor from transmission line to 3,426
feet of intermittent streams from 11 crossings
Direct, Permanent No impacts Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Pee Dee River from raw water intake
ᴑ Less than 0.1 acre of buffer from raw water intake and transmission line
Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Pee Dee River for raw water intake
ᴑ 0.1 acre of buffer
Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Yadkin River for raw water intake
ᴑ 0.1 acre of buffer
Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Yadkin River for raw water intake
ᴑ 0.1 acre of buffer
Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Pee Dee River for raw
water intake
ᴑ 0.2 acre of buffer

Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Pee Dee River for raw
water intake
ᴑ 0.3 acre of buffer
Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Pee Dee River for raw
water intake
ᴑ 0.6 acre of buffer
ᴑ Minor
impacts to 100 feet of Rocky River for raw water intake and
low-head dam or Ranney wells
ᴑ Unknown impacts to 6,000 feet of Rocky River due to low-
head dam effects
Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Catawba River for raw water intake expansion
ᴑ 0.2 acre of buffer
Minor impacts to 0.3 acre of buffer
No impacts Minor to:
ᴑ 50 feet of Pee Dee River for discharge
ᴑ 0.2 acre of buffer
No impacts No impacts No impacts
63
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Surface Water Resources
(con’t)
Indirect Same as Alternative
1A
Minor from:
ᴑ Water quality degradation due to
increase in stormwater runoff
ᴑ Alteration of natural hydrography
ᴑ Alteration of channel morphology
ᴑ Increased natural utilization of buffers due to increase in stormwater
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Surface Water Quantity and Quality
Lake Levels - Aesthetics No Impacts Negligible to minor direct, permanent
impacts to lake levels due to lower average lake elevations
Same as Alternative 1A
Minor to moderate direct,
permanent impacts to lake levels from water withdrawals
Minor to moderate direct,
permanent impacts to lake levels from water withdrawals
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor direct, permanent impacts to
lake levels due to lower average lake elevations
Minor to moderate direct,
permanent impacts to lake levels due to lower average lake elevations
Extent of impacts unknown;
groundwater withdrawal likely to impact surface water through groundwater-surface water interaction, similar to
Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A No impacts No impacts No impacts
Lake Levels – Water Withdrawals
No Impacts Negligible impact to water withdrawals based on
restricted operation at lake located intakes
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor impact to water withdrawals based on restricted
operation at lake located intakes
Minor impact to water withdrawals based on restricted
operation at lake located intakes
Extent of impacts unknown; groundwater withdrawal
likely to impact surface water through groundwater-
surface water interaction, similar to Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A No impacts No impacts No impacts
64
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Surface Water Quantity and
Quality (con’t)
Reservoir Outflows No Impacts Negligible to minor direct,
permanent impacts due to increased days below specified reservoir release values
Same as Alternative
1A
Minor to moderate direct, permanent impacts due to increased days below specified reservoir
release values
Minor to moderate direct, permanent impacts due to increased days below specified reservoir
release values
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Negligible impact to
reservoir outflows based on days below specified reservoir release values
Negligible to minor direct,
permanent impacts due to increased days below specified reservoir release values
Extent of impacts unknown; groundwater withdrawal likely to impact surface water through groundwater-surface water interaction, similar to Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A No impacts No impacts No impacts
Water Quantity Mgmt
No Impacts Negligible impact to water quantity management,
based on time in LIP stages
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor impact to water quantity management,
based on increased time in more severe LIP stages
Minor to moderate impact to water quantity
management, based on increased time in more severe LIP
stages
Extent of impacts unknown; groundwater
withdrawal likely to impact surface water through
groundwater-surface water interaction, similar to Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A No impacts No impacts No impacts
Hydropower
Generation
No
Impacts
Negligible to
minor direct, permanent impacts to lake levels due to lower average lake elevations
Same as
Alternative 1A
Minor to
moderate direct, permanent impacts to lake levels from water withdrawals
Minor to moderate direct, permanent impacts to lake levels from water withdrawals
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor direct, permanent impacts to lake levels due to lower average lake elevations
Minor to moderate direct, permanent impacts to lake levels due to lower
average lake elevations
Extent of impacts unknown; groundwater withdrawal likely to impact
surface water through groundwater-surface water interaction,
similar to Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A No impacts No impacts No impacts
Groundwater Resources Direct, Temporary No impacts Negligible from construction of transmission line, raw water intake, pump
station and access road
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Negligible from construction of transmission line, WTP,
raw water intake, pump station and access road
Same as Alternative 1A Negligible from construction of transmission line, low-head
dam, raw water intake, pump station and access road
Negligible from construction of transmission line, raw
water intake and WTP expansion, pump station, and access
road
Negligible from construction for transmission line, pump
station, and access road
Negligible from construction of transmission line, WTP,
and groundwater well installation
Negligible from construction of transmission line,
discharge, pump station, and access road
Negligible from construction of WTP
Negligible from construction of WTP and transmission line
Negligible from construction of WTP and transmission line
Direct, Permanent No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts Moderate if Ranney well option is selected
Moderate if Ranney well option is selected
No impacts No impacts Major from extraction of 28 mgd of raw water from 1,295
wells
No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
65
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Groundwater Resources
(con’t)
Indirect Same as Alternative
1A
Minor from:
ᴑ Potential for contamination leading to
reduction in use for drinking water
ᴑ Reduction in groundwater inflow contribution to stream base flow, particularly during droughts
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Shellfish or Fish and Habitats Direct, Temporary No impacts Minor from erosion and sedimentation during construction
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Negligible from erosion and sedimentation during construction
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 7 Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Direct, Permanent No impacts Minor from raw water intake
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Minor from low-head dam and raw
water intake
Same as Alternative 1A No impacts Anticipated to be negligible from
infrastructure footprint
Minor from discharge No impacts Same as Alternative 8 Same as Alternative 8
Indirect Same as Alternative 1A
Minor from:
ᴑ Aquatic habitat degradation
ᴑ Change in stream morphology
ᴑ Reduction in aquatic diversity
ᴑ Reduction in long-term population sustainability
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Forest
Resources
Direct,
Temporary
No
impacts
Minor impacts
to 130 acres for transmission corridor
Minor
impacts to 226 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts
to 129 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts
to:
ᴑ 126 acres for
transmission corridor
ᴑ 1 acre for
access road
Minor impacts
to:
ᴑ 325 acres for
transmission corridor
ᴑ Less than
1 acre for access road
Minor impacts
to:
ᴑ 116 acres for
transmission corridor
ᴑ Less than
1 acre for access road
Minor impacts
to 121 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts
to 4 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts
to 56 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts
to 34 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts
to 14 acres for transmission corridor
Impacts from WTP and well field are not known
Minor impacts
to 163 acres for transmission corridor
No impacts Minor impacts
to 18 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts
to 27 acres for transmission corridor
66
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Forest Resources
(con’t)
Direct, Permanent No impacts Minor impacts to 11 acres for
transmission corridor
Minor impacts to 18
acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts to 1 acre for
transmission corridor
Minor impacts to:
ᴑ 9 acres for transmission corridor
ᴑ Less than 0.5 acre for pump station
ᴑ Less than 0.5 acre for access road
Minor impacts to:
ᴑ 27 acres for transmission corridor
ᴑ Less than 0.5 acre for pump station
ᴑ Less than 0.5 acre for access road
Minor impacts to:
ᴑ 3 acres for transmission corridor
ᴑ Less than 0.5 acre for pump station
ᴑ Less than 0.5 acre for access road
ᴑ Impacts not known for WTP
Minor impacts to:
ᴑ 11 acres for transmission corridor
ᴑ Less than 0.5 acre for pump station
Minor impacts to less than 0.5 acre for transmission corridor
Minor impacts to 7 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts to 3 acres for transmission corridor
Minor impacts to:
ᴑ 1 acre for transmission corridor
ᴑ Impacts not known for WTP or well field
Minor impacts to 13 acres for transmission corridor
Impacts not known for WTP
Minor impacts to:
ᴑ 1 acre for transmission corridor
ᴑ Impacts not known for WTP
Minor impacts to:
ᴑ 2 acres for transmission corridor
ᴑ Impacts not known for WTP
Indirect Same as
Alternative 1A
Minor from:
ᴑ Conversion to other land uses
ᴑ Habitat fragmentation
ᴑ Potential reduction in air quality
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Same as
Alternative 1A
Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
Direct, Temporary No impacts ᴑ Minor during construction in project areas
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are unknown
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Direct, Permanent No impacts ᴑ Minor with less than 30 percent of the total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with 30 percent and fifth largest impact on wildlife habitat based on the percentage
of total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or
endangered species are unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 25 percent of the total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 20 percent of the total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with 36 percent and second largest impact on wildlife habitat based on percentage of total project
corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with 37 percent and largest impact on wildlife habitat based on percentage of total project
corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with 35 percent and fourth largest impact on wildlife habitat based on percentage of total project
corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 25 percent of total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with 35 percent and third largest impact on wildlife habitat based on percentage of total project
corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 25 percent of total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 20 percent of total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 25 percent of total project corridor located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are
unknown
ᴑ Minor with 30 percent of total WTP area located on forested land
ᴑ Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species are unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 30 percent of total project corridor and 65 percent of the total WTP area located on forested
land
ᴑ Potential impacts to
threatened or endangered species are unknown
ᴑ Minor with less than 35 percent of total project corridor and less than 30 percent of total WTP area located
on forested land
ᴑ Potential
impacts to threatened or endangered species are unknown
67
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Wildlife and Natural
Vegetation (con’t)
Indirect Same as Alternative
1A
Minor from:
ᴑ Reduction in habitat
ᴑ Habitat fragmentation
ᴑ Reduction
in species diversity and tolerance
ᴑ Reduction in long-term population sustainability
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Environmental Justice Direct, Temporary No impacts No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
ᴑ No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
ᴑ Minor dis-proportionate impacts from 9.4 miles of pipe corridor
traversing 3 block groups with minority populations greater than
50 percent
ᴑ No disproportion
ate impacts to low-income populations
Minor dis-pro-portionate impacts as 10 of 15 block groups in
which pipe corridor is located are comprised of minority
populations greater than 50 percent
ᴑ No disproportionate impacts to low-income populations
ᴑ No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
ᴑ No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
ᴑ Minor dis-proportionate impacts from well field having two
block groups with minority populations greater than 50 percent
ᴑ No disproportionate impacts to
low-income populations
Minor dis-proportionate impacts from pipe corridor traversing
one block group comprised of minority population
greater than 50 percent
ᴑ No
disproportionate impacts to low-income populations
No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
No dis-proportionate impacts to minority or low-income
populations
Direct, Permanent No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
Indirect No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts No impacts
Introduction of Toxic Substances
Direct, Temporary Same as Alternative 1A
Minor from increase in storage and use of hazardous and toxic
materials, and generation and disposal of hazardous waste during construction activities
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
68
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Environmental Resource Duration of Impact
Alternative 1
No-Action (12) 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 11 WTP A WTP B WTP C
Introduction of Toxic
Substances (con’t)
Direct, Permanent Same as Alternative
1A
Minor from increase in
storage and use of hazardous and toxic materials, and generation and disposal of hazardous waste during operations
Same as Alternative
1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Indirect Same as Alternative 1A
Minor from:
ᴑ Increase in likelihood of contamination
ᴑ Impacts to human health
Same as Alternative 1A
Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A Same as Alternative 1A
Total Project Cost $239.7 M Costs similar to Alternative 1A
$294.1 M $294.0 M $282.2 M $248.9 M $332.2 M $190.6 M $252.0 M $261.1 M $294.6 M $377.2 M
1 It should be noted Alternative 9 is located exclusively within areas currently in use as water treatment facilities. This alternative does not require new infrastructure or the use of land outside of the treatment facilities, so direct impacts to natural resources are not anticipated. As such, a discussion of direct impacts for Alternative 9 is not provided. Alternative 10, direct potable reuse, is also not assessed in this evaluation due to this alternative being eliminated from consideration based on current regulatory framework.

69
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Table 6-2 Union County YRWSP – Conceptual Cost Opinion (in Millions of $) for YRWSP Alternatives (HDR, 2015)
Project Cost Item ALTERNATIVE1
1A 2A 2B 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2
Raw Water Intake & Pump
Station $7.9 $7.9 $7.9 $7.9 $7.9 $8.2 $19.9 $10.2 $9.1 $155.4 NA NA See Alt 1
Raw Water Transmission $152.7 $206.5 $206.4 $194.9 $162.4 $203.0 $49.3 - $16.9 $61.6 NA NA See Alt 1
Raw Water Transmission - Land $1.8 $2.4 $2.4 $2.1 $1.7 $2.2 $0.6 - - $0.7 NA NA See Alt 1
Terminal Reservoir - - - - - $30.7 $42.2 - - NA NA -
Terminal Reservoir – Land - - - - - $0.8 $1.3 - - - NA NA -
Water Treatment Plant $76.6 $76.6 $76.6 $76.6 $76.6 $76.6 $76.6 $60.4 $65.0 $76.6 NA NA See Alt 1
Water Treatment Plant – Land $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.3 $0.7 $0.7 - - $0.3 NA NA See Alt 1
Finished Water Transmission to WTP Site
C/D (excluding land) 3
- - - - - - - $181.4 $170.1 NA NA -
Wastewater Returns to Tillery - - - - - - - - - - NA NA $137.5
TOTAL $239.7 $294.1 $294.0 $282.2 $248.9 $322.2 $190.6 $252.0 $261.1 $294.6 NA NA $377.2
Ranking by Cost
(Lowest to Highest) 2 8 7 6 3 9 1 4 5 6 NA NA 10
Notes: 1Alternative Cost Descriptions:
- Alternative 1A - Water supply from Lake Tillery with transmission to WTP Site Area C (note - Alternative 1B project cost is similar, but raw water transmission costs and land are higher due to increased length of alignment)
- Alternative 2A - Water supply from Narrows Reservoir with transmission to WTP Site Area C
- Alternative 2B - Water supply from Tuckertown Reservoir with transmission to WTP Site Area C
- Alternative 3A - Water supply from Blewett Falls Lake with transmission to WTP Site Area C
- Alternative 3B - Water supply from Blewett Falls Lake with transmission to WTP Site Area D
- Alternative 4 - Water supply from Pee Dee River with transmission to WTP Site Area C
- Alternative 5 - Water supply from Rocky River with transmission to WTP Site Area C
- Alternative 6 - Water supply from Catawba River Water Supply Project (Catawba River)
- Alternative 7 - Water supply from Charlotte Water (Mountain Island Lake) and Catawba River Water Supply Project (Catawba River)
- Alternative 8 - Water supply from groundwater with transmission to WTP Site Area D
- Alternative 9 - Water demand management / conservation
- Alternative 10 - Direct potable reuse
- Alternative 11 - Wastewater returns to Lake Tillery (total cost shown includes Alternative 1 water supply plus Alternative 11 costs
2 Wastewater returns to Lake Tillery is an additive cost to the selected water supply alternatives. For comparison, it has been added to Alternative 1.
3 Costs determined for Alternatives 6 & 7 to provide a basis of comparison against the other alternatives.
70
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
6.3. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1A, as depicted in Illustration 6-5 on the proceeding page, was determined to be the
Preferred Alternative after a thorough FEIS assessment of each alternative’s ability to meet the
project’s purpose and need of delivering a safe, sustainable water supply to meet the County’s
current and future water demands in their Yadkin River Basin Service Area, as well as the
associated environmental impacts, mitigation measures, technical feasibility, financial impacts,
and political and community acceptance. Alternative 1A includes the withdrawal of water from
Lake Tillery in the Yadkin River IBT Basin and the transfer of this water into the Rocky River IBT
Basin in Union County for treatment and distribution. A portion of the water will be returned via
treated wastewater effluent through the Rocky River which discharges into the Pee Dee River
(Yadkin River IBT Basin) approximately five miles downstream from the Lake Tillery dam.
Alternative 1A, in conjunction with the existing grandfathered IBT from the Catawba River Basin,
is capable of delivering the stated 28.9 mgd maximum month average day projected 30-year
demands (23.0 mgd from the Yadkin River Basin, supplemented by up to 5.9 mgd from the
existing Catawba supply) and 35.3 mgd maximum day demands (28.0 mgd from the Yadkin
River Basin, supplemented by up to 7.3 mgd from the existing Catawba supply) of Union
County. The water modeling efforts completed for this EIS indicate that withdrawal from Lake
Tillery has less impact on lake aesthetics, other water withdrawal interests (including during
drought conditions), and hydropower production than withdrawal of water from other locations.
Further, as described in the FEIS document, the environmental impacts of Alternative 1A are
similar, or significantly less, than the other alternatives evaluated.
An evaluation of project costs is summarized in Table 6-2. The cost of developing a water
supply solution for Union County’s Yadkin River Basin Service Area is significant and represents
a large future capital expenditure for the County. As illustrated in Table 6-2, Alternative 1A
represents one of the lowest cost project alternatives and has been determined to be a
financially feasible option for this water supply. In developing this project, Union County held
discussions with numerous entities along the Yadkin-Pee Dee River regarding potential
partnerships for water supply. Of all those contacted, the Town of Norwood was the only
political jurisdiction who expressed a desire to participate in a partnership with mutual benefits
for both parties. Currently, Union County and the Town of Norwood have an Interlocal Intake
and Transmission Agreement in place for water withdrawal from a common raw water intake in
Lake Tillery at the site of the Town of Norwood’s current intake. The progress realized on water
supply regionalization between the Town of Norwood and Union County makes this the most
politically acceptable alternative, as well.

71
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Illustration 6-5 Yadkin Regional Water Supply Preferred Alternative 1A
72
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Supply and Interbasin Transfer Alternatives
Table 6-3, below, provides a brief, practical review of the key differentiators between
alternatives and the rationale for selecting the Preferred Alternative. Summaries are based upon
information highlighted in Section 6.2, Table 6-1, Table 6-2, and as detailed in the FEIS for the
project. As illustrated and summarized in this table, Alternative 1A is recommended as the
Preferred Alternative for Union County’s Yadkin River Water Supply Project.
Table 6-3 Review of Key Differentiators for Project Alternatives
Alt. Description Key Differentiators in Comparison to Alternative 1
1A Lake Tillery to
Union County Preferred Alternative
1B Lake Tillery to Union County  Longer raw water transmission lengths with greater environmental impacts.
 More costly than Preferred Alternative (longer transmission main). 2A, 2B Narrows
Reservoir (2A) or Tuckertown
Reservoir (2B) to Union County
 More significant consequences for water interests in the Yadkin River
Basin including lake elevations, reservoir discharges, hydropower generation and surface water quality.
 Less politically acceptable.
 Longer raw water transmission lengths.
 More costly than Preferred Alternative (23% more). 3A, 3B Blewett Falls
Reservoir to Union County via
Alternative Transmission
Routes (3A, 3B)
 More significant consequences for water interests in the Yadkin River
Basin including reservoir discharges during drought periods.
 Less politically acceptable.
 Longer raw water transmission lengths.
 More costly than Preferred Alternative (18% and 4% more,
respectively). 4 Pee Dee River to
Union County
 More significant environmental consequences associated with raw
water storage (i.e. terminal reservoir).
 Source water not classified for public drinking water supply by NC.
 More costly than Preferred Alternative (34% more) 5 Rocky River to
Union County
 May not meet the purpose and need for overall water demand.
 Source water not classified as a drinking water source by NC.
 More significant environmental consequences associated with raw
water collection (i.e. low head dam) and storage (i.e. terminal reservoir). 6 Catawba River to
Union County via Existing Catawba
River Water Supply Project
 Places additional demands on existing high-demand surface waters.
 More significant environmental consequences for surface water quantity and quality interests in the Catawba River Basin.
 Likely would not be acceptable from a political/community perspective.
 More costly than Preferred Alternative (5% more).
7 Catawba River to Union County via
Charlotte Water’s Mountain Island
Lake Withdrawal
 Places additional demands on existing high-demand surface waters.
 More significant environmental consequences for surface water quantity
and quality interests in the Catawba River Basin.
 Likely would not be acceptable from a political/community perspective.
 More costly than Preferred Alternative (9% more). 8 Groundwater
Supply
 Potentially has more significant environmental consequences
associated with magnitude of groundwater well system.
 Requires extensive, prohibitive land acquisition to meet purpose & need
 More costly than Preferred Alternative (23% more). 9 Water Demand
Management and Conservation
 Does not meet the purpose and need (i.e., will not supply projected
water demand).
 Demand management and conservation reflected in historical water
demand and future projections for Union County.
73
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Withdrawals from the Source Basin
Alt. Description Key Differentiators in Comparison to Alternative 1
10 Direct Potable
Reuse
 Does not meet the purpose and need (i.e., will not supply projected
water demand). While regulatory framework was recently (2014) created to make this alternative possible in North Carolina, rules
governing direct distribution of reclaimed water as potable water have not yet been established.
 Likely cost prohibitive and not accepted politically or by the community. 11 Alternative 1 with
Wastewater Returns to Lake
Tillery
 Has greater environmental consequences associated with wastewater
return transmission mains and treated effluent discharge to Lake Tillery.
 Provides little additional environmental benefits.
 Is cost prohibitive from a capital cost perspective (57% more costly than Preferred Alternative); long-term cost and environmental impacts from
continuous pumping of wastewater effluent. 12 No Action
Alternative
 Does not meet purpose and need.
 Development and population growth within the County will continue to occur, but with less planning and mitigation.
 Additional strains put on other water supply sources (e.g. groundwater).
7.0 Water Withdrawals from the Source Basin
The Yadkin-Pee Dee River stretches from its headwaters near Blowing Rock, North Carolina, to
Winyah Bay, east of Georgetown, South Carolina, where it discharges to the Atlantic Ocean.
The extent of the watershed includes a small portion of Carroll County and Patrick County in
Virginia, with the majority of the basin extending through North and South Carolina. In North
Carolina, the watershed is known as the Yadkin River Basin, and known as the Pee Dee River
Basin in South Carolina. Water uses from these watersheds include many public water systems
and registered water withdrawals (industrial, thermal electric power, etc.) along with other uses
such as agriculture.
In accordance with the requirements of G.S. 143-215.22L, Table 7-1 lists the North Carolina
registered systems as provided by DWR. Additionally, these water uses have been included
within the CHEOPSTM model used for evaluation of water resource impacts as part of the FEIS
and as described in Section 8.1 of this Petition.
Table 7-1 lists the public water systems while Table 7-2 lists all registered water withdrawals in
the North Carolina portion of the Yadkin River Basin (18-1), based on data provided by DWR.
There are no known withdrawals within the small portion of the basin in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. However, in South Carolina there are several known public water systems and
withdrawals within the basin which utilize the Pee Dee River for water supply, as listed in Table
7-3.
Currently, there is one existing NC IBT certificate for regulated water transfers from the Yadkin
River Basin. The Cities of Concord and Kannapolis have an IBT certificate to transfer a
maximum of 10 mgd from the Yadkin River basin to the Rocky River basin.
74
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Withdrawals from the Source Basin
Other public water systems which currently utilize Lake Tillery (proposed Union County water
supply source as part of this IBT) as a water supply source include Montgomery County and the
Town of Norwood.
Table 7-1 Public Water Systems (Municipal) in the North Carolina Portion of the Yadkin River Basin
Public Water
System ID
System Name Stream Reservoir Source County
03-04-010 Anson County Pee Dee River Blewett Falls Lake Anson
01-84-010 City of Albemarle Yadkin River
Narrows Reservoir
(Badin Lake) Stanly 01-84-010 City of Albemarle Yadkin River Tuckertown Reservoir Stanly
01-80-065 City of Kannapolis Second Creek - Rowan 02-85-010 City of King Yadkin River - Stokes
02-29-010 City of Lexington Abbotts Creek Lake Thom-A-Lex Davidson 02-29-010 City of Lexington Leonards Creek City Lake Davidson
02-86-010 City of Mount Airy Lovills Creek Allred Mill Reservoir Surry
02-86-010 City of Mount Airy Stewarts Creek
James K. Boyd
Reservoir Surry 02-86-025 City of Pilot Mountain Toms Creek - Surry
03-77-015 City of Rockingham - City Pond Richmond 03-77-015 City of Rockingham - Roberdel Lake Richmond
01-80-010 City of Salisbury Yadkin/S. Yadkin River Rowan 02-29-020 City of Thomasville Abbots Creek Lake Thom-A-Lex Davidson
03-04-020 City of Wadesboro Jones Creek City Pond Anson 02-34-010 City of Winston-Salem Salem Creek Salem Lake Forsyth
02-34-010 City of Winston-Salem Yadkin River W. Kerr Scott Reservoir Forsyth
02-29-025 Davidson Water, Inc. Yadkin River - Davidson 02-30-015 Davie County Yadkin River - Davie
03-77-010 Hamlet Water System - Hamlet Water Lake Richmond 03-62-010 Montgomery County Pee Dee River Lake Tillery Montgomery
03-77-109 Richmond County Pee Dee River Blewett Falls Lake Richmond 02-29-030 Town of Denton Yadkin River Tuckertown Reservoir Davidson
02-86-020 Town of Elkin Elkin Creek Elkin Reservoir Surry 02-86-020 Town of Elkin Yadkin River - Surry
02-99-010 Town of Jonesville Yadkin River - Yadkin 01-80-038 Town of Landis Below Lake Corriher Town Reservoir Rowan
01-80-038 Town of Landis Flat Rock Branch Lake Corriher Rowan 01-80-038 Town of Landis Grants Creek tributary Lake Wright Rowan
01-97-010 Town of North Wilkesboro Reddies River - Wilkes
01-84-015 Town of Norwood Pee Dee River Lake Tillery Stanly 01-97-025 Town of Wilkesboro Yadkin River - Wilkes
02-99-015 Town of Yadkinville South Deep Creek Yadkinville Reservoir Yadkin

75
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Withdrawals from the Source Basin
Table 7-2 Registered Water Withdrawals in the North Carolina Portion of the Yadkin River Basin
ID Facility Name Use Type Use Sub-Type County
0057-0011 Buck Steam Station Industrial Energy Rowan 0171-0001 Sapona Country Club Industrial Energy Davidson
0199-0000 Cabarrus Quarry Energy Thermal-electric Cabarrus 0199-0006 Gold Hill Quarry Recreation Golf course Cabarrus
0199-0010 Smith Grove Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Davie 0199-0012 North Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Forsyth
0199-0013 East Forsyth Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Forsyth 0199-0019 Clear Creek Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Mecklenburg
0199-0020 Rockingham Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Richmond 0199-0024 115 Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Wilkes
0199-0027 Elkin Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Surry 0219-0010 Bakers Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Union
0219-0012 Bonds Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Cabarrus 0219-0019 Salem Stone Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Forsyth
0219-0021 Thomasville Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Davidson 0219-0027 Kannapolis Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Rowan
0219-0030 Mallard Creek Quarry Mining Mineral extraction Mecklenburg 0338-0001 Monroe Plant Mining Mineral extraction Union
0378-0063 Windsor Chase Mining Mineral extraction Mecklenburg
0378-0070
Lamplighter Village
East Industrial
Metal/Plastic / Fiberglass
manufacturing Mecklenburg 0378-0079 Country Hills Public Water Supply Drinking water Mecklenburg
0378-0086 Country Club Annex Public Water Supply Drinking water Forsyth 0378-0087 Grandview Public Water Supply Drinking water Forsyth
0420-0003 Hedrick Mine Public Water Supply Drinking water Anson
0013-0001
Salem Glen Country
Club Public Water Supply Drinking water Davidson 0019-0001 Tanglewood Park Mining Mineral extraction Forsyth
0001-0001 Louisiana Pacific Corporation Recreation Golf course Wilkes
0600-0001 Laurelmor Recreation Golf course Watauga
0639-0001
Cedarbrook Country
Club, Inc. Industrial Surry 0647-0001 Oak Valley Golf Club Recreation Golf course Davie
0678-0001 Stone Mountain Golf Club Inc. Recreation Golf course Wilkes
0692-0001 Fox Den Country Club, LLC Recreation Golf course Iredell
0702-0001 Old North State Club Recreation Golf course Stanly 0705-0001 True Elkin, Inc. Recreation Golf course Surry
0236-0001 Willow Creek Golf Club Recreation Golf course Davidson
0761-0001
Meadowlands Golf
Club Industrial Davidson 0378-0105 Bradfield Farms Recreation Golf course Mecklenburg
0378-0106 Heathfield Recreation Golf course Mecklenburg 0378-0107 Larkhaven Public Water Supply Drinking water Mecklenburg
0218-0019 Allen Woods Village Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0038 Bannertown Hills Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0061 Bostian Heights Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan
0786-0001
Blue Ridge Tissue
Corp - Patterson Mill Public Water Supply Drinking water Caldwell 0218-0075 British Woods Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0115 Colonial Woods Industrial Wood/Paper products Surry
76
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Withdrawals from the Source Basin
ID Facility Name Use Type Use Sub-Type County
0218-0119
Copperfield/Reston
Woods Public Water Supply Drinking water Yadkin 0218-0139 Crestview (Rowan) Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan
0218-0143 Cross Creek Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0149 Dearon Village Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0152 Deerfield (Surry) Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0165 Eagle Landing Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan
0218-0182 Farm (The) Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0220 Green Heights Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0789-0001 Piney Point Golf Club Public Water Supply Drinking water Stanly 0218-0228 Greenwood - Surry Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0256 Hickory Creek - Surry Recreation Golf course Surry 0218-0261 Hillcrest Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0268 Hollows, The Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0282 Hunting Creek Public Water Supply Drinking water Yadkin
0218-0287 Inglewood Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0292 Janets Retreat Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0305 Kimberly Courts Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan 0218-0309 Knollview Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan
0218-0356 Meadow View Estates Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0367 Mill Creek Public Water Supply Drinking water Yadkin
0218-0372 Mitchell Bluff Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0382 Mountain View Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0407 Old Farm Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan 0218-0440 Pine Lakes Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0441 Pine Meadows Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan 0218-0461 Reeves Woods Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0510 Shade Tree Acres Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan 0218-0525 Snow Hill Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0253-0001 Sandhill Turf Inc. Public Water Supply Drinking water Montgomery 0218-0535 South Ridge Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0545 Spencer Forest Agricultural Sod/Turf production Rowan 0218-0554 Springfield Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0563 State Road Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0575 Stonington Public Water Supply Drinking water Forsyth
0218-0604 Timberlake - Surry Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0627 Walnut Tree Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0632 Wedgewood Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0639 Westcliff Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan
0218-0641 Westhaven MHP Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan 0218-0643 Westridge Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0218-0645 Westwood MHP Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan 0218-0657 Willow Creek - Stokes Public Water Supply Drinking water Stokes
0218-0665 Windgate Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0668 Windmill Ridge Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan
0218-0673 Woodbridge - Surry Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry 0218-0675 Woodcreek Public Water Supply Drinking water Surry
0802-0001 Warrior Golf Club Public Water Supply Drinking water Rowan
0810-0001
Bermuda Run Country
Club Public Water Supply Drinking water Davie
0187-0003
High Rock
Powerhouse Recreation Golf course Stanly
0187-0004
Tuckertown
Powerhouse Recreation Golf course Montgomery 0187-0005 Narrows Powerhouse Energy Thermal-electric Stanly
77
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Water Withdrawals from the Source Basin
ID Facility Name Use Type Use Sub-Type County
0187-0006 Falls Powerhouse Energy Thermal-electric Stanly
0356-0004 Norman Sand Company Energy Thermal-electric Montgomery
0006-0006 Rowan Loop Energy Thermal-electric Rowan 0006-0007 Davidson Loop Mining Mineral extraction Davidson
0422-0002 Interface, Inc. Energy Temporary pipeline testing Surry
0057-0021 Buck Combined Cycle Station Energy Temporary pipeline testing Rowan

Table 7-3 Permitted Water Withdrawals in the South Carolina Portion of the Yadkin River Basin (that is Pee
Dee River Basin)
ID System/Facility Name County
13GC001 South Carolina Department of Parks Recreation & Tourism Chesterfield 13GC003 White Plains Country Club Chesterfield
13IN002 Hanson Aggregates Southeast LLC Chesterfield 13MI003 Hanson Aggregates Southeast LLC Chesterfield
SDWIS Town of Cheraw Chesterfield 16IN004 Galey & Lord Industries LLC Darlington
16IN005 Sonoco Products Company Darlington 16IN006 Nucor Corporation Darlington
16PN001 Progress Energy Company Inc. Darlington 21GC001 Florence Country Club Florence
21IN001 Rocktenn CP LLC Florence SDWIS City of Florence Florence
26GC007 Dunes Golf & Beach Club Horry SDWIS City of Georgetown Georgetown
26GC011 National Golf Management LLC Horry 26GC014 GGG of Myrtle Beach LLC Horry
26GC017 Burroughs & Chapin Company Inc. Horry 26GC019 Myrtle Beach Farms Horry
26GC029 River Hills Golf & Country Club Horry 26GC030 River Oaks Golf Plantation LLC Horry
26GC032 Shaftsbury Glen Golf and Fish Club Horry 26GC039 GGG of Myrtle Beach LLC Horry
26GC040 National Golf Management LLC Horry 26GC049 Arrowhead Country Club Horry
26GC058 Signature Golf LLC Horry 26GC061 BRCG LLC Horry
26GC064 Fife Golf Management LLC Horry 26GC067 National Golf Management LLC Horry
26PT001 Santee Cooper Horry 26WS009 Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority Horry
26WS053 Grand Strand Water & Sewer Authority Horry 34IN005 Domtar Paper Company LLC Marlboro
34MI001 Hanson Aggregates Southeast LLC Marlboro SDWIS City of Bennettsville Marlboro

78
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
8.0 Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
8.1. CHEOPSTM Model Platform
8.1.1. Background
As part of the technical evaluations conducted for Union County’s YRWSP, the County and
Duke Energy contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) to update an
existing operations model of the Yadkin River Basin in North Carolina. The existing water
quantity / hydro operations model was originally developed to support the Yadkin–Pee Dee
Hydroelectric Project (No. 2206) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing
using the CHEOPS™ (Computerized Hydro Electric Operations Planning Software) platform
and included the six hydroelectric developments on the Yadkin–Pee Dee River from High Rock
reservoir through Blewett Falls reservoir, all in North Carolina (HDR, 2014b).
CHEOPSTM is 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 Progress-owned Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project,
FERC No. 2206, which includes the Tillery and Blewett Falls Developments, and the upstream
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI)-owned Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2197,
which includes the High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows, and Falls Developments. The relicensing
operations model has been updated as part of this EIS to include the most-upstream reservoir,
W. Kerr Scott, owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (HDR, 2014a).
The seven aforementioned Duke Energy Progress, APGI, and USACE facilities are collectively
referred to herein as “the system.” This expanded model is intended to be used as a tool to
assist in evaluating water quantity distribution between the seven reservoirs due to changes in
model inputs including various operational modifications and possible interbasin transfers (IBT)
(HDR, 2014b). Such evaluations have been performed by reviewing relative changes between
proposed operational modifications (YRWSP alternatives) within the system. The Yadkin-Pee
Dee Basin CHEOPSTM model was specifically used as part of the FEIS to evaluate the direct
effects of the proposed water withdrawals for Alternatives 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5 and 11 on water
quantity, and support subsequent analysis on water quality.
While Duke Energy Progress relied on the CHEOPSTM model platform during their FERC
relicensing for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Project, APGI relied on the OASISTM
model platform for water supply evaluations associated with FERC relicensing of their Yadkin
Hydroelectric Project. The OASISTM platform is similar to that of CHEOPSTM. However, the
CHEOPSTM model was used for purposes of this IBT evaluations due-in-part to recent hydrology
updates made to the model through 2013 to include the most recent drought during 2006-2009,
and incorporation of both the APGI and Duke Energy Progress system operating rules defined
in their FERC relicensing applications and settlement agreements.
While the CHEOPSTM model was initially constructed for Duke Energy Progress’ (formerly
Progress Energy) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing process for its
79
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project, the following updates were completed for this IBT
process and used by Union County for evaluation of alternatives in the FEIS:
• A 59-year hydrological record from 1955 through 2013.
• Inflow adjustments based on historical reservoir operations, modified to eliminate
negative inflow values from the data set.
• Inclusion of net daily evaporation from reservoirs.
• Basin-wide water withdrawals and return flow projections for all users through 2060 were
developed specifically for the Union County YRWSP FEIS evaluations. The evaluations
for the FEIS are based on current (Year 2012) and future (Year 2050) water demands,
as 2050 is the projection period used for Union County’s YRWSP. However, basin-wide
water demand projections were also extended an additional ten years to 2060 for
updating the CHEOPSTM model to provide an approximate 5-decade projection period to
allow flexibility for potential future uses of the model.
• Inclusion of the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) for the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Projects for procedures on how the Yadkin-Pee Dee River reservoir
system, as a whole, will be operated when inflow into the reservoirs is not enough to
meet normal water demands while also maintaining lake levels within their normal
ranges.
A detailed Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin CHEOPSTM Operations Model Study Model Logic and
Verification Report may be found in FEIS appendices. It is also noted that, for purposes of the
FEIS, surface water alternatives in the Catawba River Basin were also evaluated using a similar
CHEOPSTM model for that basin. Similar detailed information on the Catawba-Wateree Basin
CHEOPSTM model may also be found in the FEIS appendices.
8.1.2. Scenario Name and Details - Union County YRWSP IBT
While all surface water supply alternatives were modeled using the CHEOPSTM platform, for the
alternatives evaluation included the FEIS, the following list describes the modeling scenario
runs which are applicable for the proposed Union County IBT from Lake Tillery (Alternative 1)
and the baseline conditions to which the alternative is to be compared.
• BLY-2012 (Yadkin Baseline-2012)
o Existing 5 mgd (net) Union County grandfathered Catawba IBT from Catawba
River, withdrawn at CRWTP between Lake Wylie and Fishing Creek Reservoir
o No additional IBT for Union County’s YRWSP
o Current (Year 2012) basin-wide water demands (withdrawals/returns)
• BLY-2050 (Yadkin Baseline-2050)
o Existing 5 mgd (net) Union County grandfathered Catawba IBT from Catawba
River, withdrawn at CRWTP between Lake Wylie and Fishing Creek Reservoir
o No additional IBT for Union County’s YRWSP
o Future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands (withdrawals/returns)
o Includes future impact of climate change in future years resulting in an increased
temperature of 2.3 deg F (0.6 deg F increase per decade) and lake surface
evaporation increases of 7.8% (equivalent to an increase of 2% per decade), as
80
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
compared to the 2012 baseline. This impact is consistent with the climate change
impact considered by the Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group in
preparation of the Catawba-Wateree Water Supply Master Plan baseline
planning scenario, and is consistent with modeled climate change scenarios for
this region of the United States.
• A1-2012 (Alternative 1-2012)
o 23 mgd (maximum month daily average demand (MMDD)) IBT (net) from Pee
Dee River, withdrawn at Lake Tillery
o Current (Year 2012) basin-wide water demand (withdrawals/returns) with Union
County YRWSP projected Year 2050 IBT
o Used to compare effects of Alternative 1 to BLY-2012 (Yadkin Baseline-2012)
scenario under current basin-wide water demand.
• A1-2050 (Alternative 1-2050)
o 23 mgd (MMDD) IBT (net) from Pee Dee River, withdrawn at Lake Tillery
o Future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demand (withdrawals/returns) with Union
County YRWSP projected Year 2050 IBT
o Used to compare effects of Alternative 1 to BLY-2050 (Yadkin Baseline-2050)
scenario under future projected basin-wide water demand.
o Includes future impact of climate change identified in scenario BLY-2050.
8.1.3. Use of Model Results
The model results were used to analyze impacts of the proposed surface water supply
alternatives for the Union County YRWSP on specific parameters. Model results were analyzed
for the following parameters:
• Lake Levels
o Aesthetics
 Effect of IBT alternatives on lake aesthetics, based on lake elevation
o Water Withdrawal
 Effect of IBT alternatives on water supply/withdrawal by other water
users, based on lake elevation and storage.
• Reservoir Outflows (Downstream releases)
o Effect of IBT alternatives on reservoir outflow for each of the reservoirs in the system
• Water Quantity Management (LIP Occurrence)
o Effect of IBT alternatives on system-wide occurrence of various LIP levels
• Hydropower Generation
o Effect of IBT alternatives on Duke Energy Progress and APGI hydropower
generation
81
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Three distinct hydrologic periods were analyzed within the model for each scenario, and
included the following:
• Full Period of Record (59-year hydrology, 1955-2013)
• Drought 1 (5-year low inflow period (Drought of Record), 1999-2003)
• Drought 2 (4-year low inflow period; most recent significant drought), 2006-2009)
Under these parameters, the results of the modeling are summarized in a set of Performance
Measure Sheets (PMS) for comparison purposes to assess the impacts of IBT quantity on the
system and its reservoirs, as compared to “baseline” conditions under both current and future
water demands throughout the Yadkin River Basin. This assessment and development of
performance metrics were based on HDR’s recently enhanced CHEOPSTM model and the
operating agreements used as the basis for the FERC license applications for the Yadkin and
Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Projects filed with FERC in April 2006, and the Comprehensive
Settlement Agreements for the relicensing of the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric
Projects dated February, 2007 and June, 2007, respectively.
The original concept of the PMS was developed during the relicensing process for the Duke
Energy Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. Since the 11 reservoirs and numerous diverse
stakeholders to the system all had different metrics of interest and differing opinions on how to
rate differences between operating regimes (as computed and measured as output to model
scenarios), the PMS concept was developed. In this concept, each reservoir basin is evaluated
with general criteria such as reservoir elevations, outflows, powerhouse generation, and time
spent in Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) stages. Since recreational boaters and parties who withdraw
water for consumptive uses have different criteria, general categories were developed. These
different categories allow for the setting of the elevation or flow of interest, and the variance
around that value which is considered acceptable, moderately acceptable, or not acceptable.
Each stakeholder in the relicensing process had an opportunity to participate in the identification
of categories and setting of the metric values to best represent their interests.
Additional experience in the PMS development process was gained during the Keowee-
Toxaway relicensing for Duke Energy’s Jocassee, and Keowee hydroelectric developments.
During this relicensing process, stakeholder inputs were sought and utilized in measuring the
impacts from one operating regime to another.
During the Union County IBT model development process, HDR worked with Union County,
Duke Energy and NCDWR representatives to identify likely metrics and conditions which may
be of concern to stakeholders. The metrics of this PMS contain the licensed flow/discharge
requirements, amount of time spent at or near the maximum pool elevation(s), target
elevation(s), minimum elevation(s) and critical elevation(s), amount of time spent in LIP stages,
and hydropower generation.
The results summarized in the following sections of this Petition are for the purposes of
comparing the potential impacts of the proposed Union County IBT from Lake Tillery to the
baseline conditions under both current (2012) and projected future (2050) water demands
82
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
throughout the Yadkin River Basin. Further, the PMS reflecting results and comparisons of all
surface water alternatives evaluated as part of the FEIS, for both Yadkin and Catawba River
Basins, may be found in Appendix C of this Petition. Additional modeling output may also be
referenced within the FEIS and its associated appendices.
8.2. Lake Level - Aesthetics
Often of important consideration to lakeside property owners and parties with recreational
interests for particular lakes is the effect of water withdrawals on lake elevations and,
subsequently, lake aesthetics. Given this consideration, the effect of each Union County surface
water supply alternative from the Yadkin River Basin was evaluated in CHEOPSTM for their
effect on lake elevations, relative to the operating rule/guide curve, full pond elevation, and/or
normal minimum elevation for a particular reservoir, as a percentage of time the end of day
elevations are within a particular range of the reservoir rule/guide curve or full pond elevation.
8.2.1. Lake Tillery
Percent of Time Adherence to Target Elevation
Table 8-1 indicates the modeled impacts to Lake Tillery elevations as the result of Union
County’s proposed IBT withdrawal from the lake based on current (Year 2012) basin-wide water
demands (ALT 1 - 2012 with Union IBT as compared to Baseline 2012) and projected future
(Year 2050) basin-water water demands (ALT 1 - 2050 with Union IBT as compared to Baseline
2050). The specific performance measures evaluated includes the percent of time the end of
day reservoir levels were within a given range of their full pond, normal winter minimum, and
normal summer minimum elevations, as indicated in the table, for the POR, Drought 1 and
Drought 2 time periods.
Results of these performance measures indicate no modeled impact of the proposed Union
County IBT under current (Year 2012) basin-wide water demands for the POR, Drought 1 or
Drought 2 periods. Results of these performance measures do indicate slight negative impacts
of the proposed Union County IBT under projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water
demands for adherence to the full pond elevation and normal summer minimum elevation during
the Drought 1 time period, only.
Table 8-1 Lake Tillery – Modeled Impacts to Lake Elevations (Adherence to Target Elevations)
Performance
Measures
Criterion 1
% of time
end of day reservoir
level within:
Modeled
Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline
2012
ALT 1 -
2012 with Union IBT
Baseline
2050
ALT 1 -
2050 with Union IBT
Adherence to reservoir full
pond elevation (EL 278.2 ft.
msl)
(Jan. 1 to Dec. 31)
+/- 1 ft of full pond
POR 100% 100% 100% 100% D1 100% 100% 100% 98%
D2 99% 99% 99% 99%
+/- 2 ft of full
pond
POR 100% 100% 100% 100% D1 100% 100% 100% 100%
D2 100% 100% 100% 100%
+/- 3 ft of full
pond
POR 100% 100% 100% 100%
D1 100% 100% 100% 100% D2 100% 100% 100% 100%
83
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Performance Measures
Criterion 1 % of time
end of day reservoir
level within:
Modeled Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline 2012
ALT 1 -
2012 with Union IBT
Baseline 2050
ALT 1 -
2050 with Union IBT
Adherence to
reservoir normal winter
min. elevation (EL 273.2 ft.
msl)
(Dec. 16 to Feb. 28)
+/- 1 ft of normal min.
elevation
POR 0% 0% 0% 0% D1 0% 0% 0% 0%
D2 0% 0% 0% 0%
+/- 2 ft of normal min.
elevation
POR 0% 0% 0% 0% D1 0% 0% 0% 0%
D2 0% 0% 0% 0% +/- 3 ft of
normal min. elevation
POR 0% 0% 0% 0%
D1 0% 0% 0% 0% D2 0% 0% 0% 0%
Adherence to
reservoir normal
summer min. elevation (EL
275.7 ft. msl)
(Mar. 1 to Dec. 15)
+/- 1 ft of
normal min. elevation
POR 0% 0% 0% 0%
D1 1% 1% 1% 2% D2 0% 0% 0% 0%
+/- 2 ft of normal min.
elevation
POR 37% 37% 37% 37% D1 37% 37% 38% 39%
D2 38% 38% 38% 38%
+/- 3 ft of normal
min.elevation
POR 100% 100% 100% 100% D1 100% 100% 100% 100%
D2 100% 100% 100% 100% Notes: 1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise: a) If an hourly criteria occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour; b) If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day. Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided
between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined in terms of percents and averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record, etc.) 2 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 3 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario.

Actual Lake Elevation Impact
As indicated in Table 8-2, model results do not indicate a distinguishable difference in annual
average Lake Tillery elevations for the Period of Record (POR, 1955-2013), Drought 1 (1999-
2003) and Drought 2 (2006-2009) periods as compared to the baseline operations with current
basin-wide water demands. Modeling additionally indicates that with the 2050 demands of the
Union County IBT, there is no distinguishable difference in annual average Lake Tillery
elevations for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods when compared to the baseline
operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands.

84
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Table 8-2 Lake Tillery – Average Annual Modeled Lake Elevation
Modeled
Period 1
Scenario Result Comparison – Annual Average Lake Elevation (ft msl) 2
Baseline 2012 ALT 1 - 2012 with Union IBT Baseline 2050 ALT 1 - 2050 with Union IBT
POR 278.0’ 278.0’ 278.0’ 278.0’
D1 278.0’ 278.0’ 278.0’ 278.0’ D2 278.0’ 278.0’ 278.0’ 278.0’
Notes: 1 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 2 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario.
However, some impacts are observed in the monthly average Lake Tillery elevations. A
summary description of these lake elevation impacts is also included in Table 8-3. Illustrations
8-1 through 8-6 graphically summarize the modeled Lake Tillery monthly average lake elevation
impacts.
Table 8-3 Summary of Modeled Lake Tillery Monthly Average Lake Elevation Impacts
Illustration Description Summary of Impacts
8-1 Period of Record
(1955-2013) under Current (2012) Basin-
Wide Water Demand Projections
No detectable impact to average monthly lake elevations
throughout the Period of Record due to proposed Union County IBT when added to current (2012) basin-wide water demands.
8-2 Period of Record
(1955-2013) under
Future (2050) Basin-
Wide Water Demand
Projections
A single detectable impact to monthly lake elevations throughout the Period of Record due to proposed Union County IBT when
added projected future (2050) basin-wide water demands. This event is during the 2002 Drought of Record and indicates a
maximum impact of 9-inches during a single month (August, 2002). The impact is largely due to the additional projected
future basin-wide water demands (including potential future power generating facilities) and climate change, coupled with the
proposed Union County IBT, and modeled as occurring during the most intense part of the Drought of Record when the system
is most stressed. Despite the impacts, the modeled average monthly lake elevation during August, 2002 is EL 276.95’ msl,
remaining 1’-3” above the Lake Tillery normal summer minimum elevation (EL 275.7’ msl), and well within the summer operating
rules for the lake. 8-3 Drought 1 (1999-
2003) under Current (2012) Basin-Wide
Water Demand Projections
No detectable impact to average monthly lake elevations
throughout Drought 1 due to proposed Union County IBT when added to current (2012) basin-wide water demands.
85
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration Description Summary of Impacts
8-4 Drought 1 (1999-
2003) under Future (2050) Basin-Wide
Water Demand Projections
A single detectable impact to monthly lake elevations throughout
Drought 1 (1999-2003) due to proposed Union County IBT when added to projected future (2050) basin-wide water demands.
This event is during the 2002 Drought of Record and indicates a maximum impact of 9-inches during the month of August, 2002.
Elevation impacts of 1-inch, 9-inches, and 3-inches are noted during this drought from July through September, 2002,
respectively, with an additional 1-inch impact in December, 2002. Impacts are largely due to the large additional projected
future basin-wide water demands (including potential future power generating facilities) and climate change, coupled with the
proposed Union County IBT, and modeled as occurring during the most intense part of the Drought of Record when the system
is most stressed. Despite the impacts, the modeled average monthly lake elevation during August, 2002 is EL 276.95’ msl,
remaining 1’-3” above the Lake Tillery normal summer minimum elevation (EL 275.7’ msl), and well within the summer operating
rules for the lake. 8-5 Drought 2 (2006-
2009) under Current (2012) Basin-Wide
Water Demand Projections
No detectable impact to average monthly lake elevations
throughout Drought 2 due to proposed Union County IBT when added to current (2012) basin-wide water demands.
8-6 Drought 2 (2006-2009) under Future
(2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand
Projections
No detectable impact to average monthly lake elevations throughout Drought 2 due to proposed Union County IBT when
added to projected future (2050) basin-wide water demands.

86
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-1 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Illustration 8-2 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
Red plot line may be difficult / impossible
to discern during certain periods as blue
line is on top, indicating similar results
between scenarios
Under projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water
demands and climate change considerations, this
event is modeled as during the most intense part of the
2002 Drought of Record and indicates a maximum
impact of 9-inches (compared to baseline) during the
month of August, 2002. Elevation remains above the
lake’s normal summer minimum elevation.
87
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-3 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-2003) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Illustration 8-4 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-2003) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult / impossible
to discern during certain periods as blue
line is on top, indicating similar results
between scenarios.
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
Under projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide
water demands and climate change
considerations, this event is modeled during the
most intense part of the 2002 Drought of Record
and indicates a maximum impact of 9-inches
(compared to baseline) during the month of
August, 2002. Elevation remains above the lake’s
normal summer minimum elevation.
88
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-5 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-2009) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections

Illustration 8-6 Lake Tillery Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-2009) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
89
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Impact to Recreational Facilities – Public Boat Ramps
The five following public boat access areas are located on Lake Tillery: Swift Island, Stony
Mountain, Norwood, Lilly’s Bridge, and Morrow Mountain State Park. As a result of Duke
Energy’s merger with Progress Energy, Duke Energy Progress only has ramp elevation
information for the Norwood access area, based on recent survey data. The ramps at Norwood
become unusable at 3.4’ feet below full pond (unusable at EL 274.8’ msl). The bottom of this
ramp is at EL 271.8 msl’, or about 6.4’ below full pond. Generally, the other ramps on Lake
Tillery become unusable when there is approximately 3 feet and less water depth at the end of
the ramp. Duke Energy Progress indicates all boat ramps remain accessible down to the normal
summer minimum lake operating level of EL 275.7’ msl or below during the recreation season.
As indicated in the modeling results in the preceding sections, the lowest modeled lake
elevation is EL 276.95’ msl, remaining 1’-3” above the Lake Tillery normal summer minimum
elevation (EL 275.7’ msl), well within the summer operating rules for the lake, and over two feet
above the usable level for the Norwood access area. As all ramps are accessible down to the
normal summer minimum lake elevation or below, no impacts to public boat access areas on
Lake Tillery are expected as a result of the proposed Union County IBT.
8.2.2. Blewett Falls Lake (downstream impoundment)
Percent of Time Adherence to Target Elevation
Table 8-4 indicates the modeled impacts to Blewett Falls Lake elevations as the result of Union
County’s proposed IBT withdrawal from Lake Tillery, upstream, based on current (Year 2012)
basin-wide water demands (ALT 1 - 2012 with Union IBT as compared to Baseline 2012) and
projected future (Year 2050) basin-water water demands (ALT 1 - 2050 with Union IBT as
compared to Baseline 2050). The specific performance measures evaluated includes the
percent of time the end of day reservoir levels were within a given range of their full pond,
normal winter minimum, and normal summer minimum elevations, as indicated in the table, for
the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 time periods.
Results of these performance measures indicate slight negative impacts of the proposed Union
County IBT under current (Year 2012) basin-wide water demands for the POR and Drought 1
periods for adherence to the full pond elevation, but no impact for the normal winter or normal
summer minimum elevations. Results of these performance measures also indicate slight
negative impacts of the proposed Union County IBT under projected future (Year 2050) basin-
wide water demands for adherence to the full pond, normal winter minimum, and normal
summer minimum elevations.
It is important to note, however, that modeling (as presented in the FEIS) indicates any of the
proposed Union County withdrawal alternatives (including the non-IBT Alternative 5 Rocky River
withdrawal) from Duke Energy Progress’ Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project or tributaries
flowing to Blewett Falls Lake would have some impact on the elevation of Blewett Falls Lake,
based on the operational rules related to system inflow for the hydropower project.

90
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Table 8-4 Blewett Falls Lake – Modeled Impacts to Lake Elevations (Adherence to Target Elevations)
Performance Measures
Criterion 1 % of time end of day
reservoir level within:
Modeled Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline
2012
ALT 1
2012 with Union IBT
Baseline
2050
ALT 1
2050 with Union IBT
Adherence to
reservoir full pond elevation
(EL 178.1 ft. msl)
(Jan 1 to Dec.
31)
+/- 1 ft of full
pond
POR 10% 10% 10% 10%
D1 7% 7% 6% 6% D2 6% 6% 7% 7%
+/- 2 ft of full pond
POR 76% 75% 76% 76%
D1 81% 80% 77% 76% D2 79% 79% 79% 78%
+/- 3 ft of full pond
POR 81% 81% 81% 81% D1 86% 86% 82% 81%
D2 83% 83% 84% 83%
Adherence to reservoir
normal min. elevation (EL
172.1 ft. msl) (Jan 1 to Dec.
31)
+/- 1 ft of normal min.
elevation
POR 0% 0% 0% 1% D1 1% 1% 2% 4%
D2 0% 0% 0% 0% +/- 2 ft of
normal min. elevation
POR 10% 10% 10% 10%
D1 8% 8% 12% 12% D2 11% 11% 10% 11%
+/- 3 ft of
normal min.elevation
POR 23% 23% 23% 23%
D1 18% 18% 22% 23% D2 21% 21% 21% 21%
Notes: 1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise: a) If an hourly criteria occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour; b) If a daily criterion occurs for
5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day. Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined in terms of percents and averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full
period of record, etc.) 2 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 3 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative
1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario.
Actual Lake Elevation Impact
As indicated in Table 8-5, with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT, model results do not
indicate a distinguishable difference in actual annual average Blewett Falls Lake elevations for
the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods when compared to the baseline operations with
current basin-wide water demands. However, with the 2050 demands of the Union County IBT,
annual average Blewett Falls Lake elevations for the Drought 1 period would be 1-inch lower, as
compared to baseline operations with future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands.

91
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Table 8-5 Lake Tillery – Average Annual Modeled Lake Elevation
Modeled
Period 1
Scenario Result Comparison – Annual Average Lake Elevation (ft msl) 2
Baseline 2012 ALT 1 - 2012 with Union IBT Baseline 2050 ALT 1 - 2050 with Union IBT
POR 176.5’ 176.5’ 176.5’ 176.5’
D1 176.6’ 176.6’ 176.4’ 176.3’ D2 176.5’ 176.5’ 176.5’ 176.5’
Notes: 1 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 2 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario.
However, it is important to note that, as presented in the FEIS, modeling indicates the proposed
Union County withdrawal alternatives (including the non-IBT Alternative 5 Rocky River
withdrawal) from Duke Energy Progress’ Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project or tributaries
flowing to Blewett Falls Lake would have a similar effect on the annual average elevation of
Blewett Falls Lake, based on the operational rules related to system inflow for the hydropower
project. Furthermore, during both the POR and Drought 2 periods, there are no modeled
differences in average lake elevations for the Union County IBT as compared to the baseline
condition.
Impacts are also observed in the modeled monthly average Blewett Falls Lake elevations as
summarized in Table 8-6 and graphically reflected in Illustrations 8-7 through 8-12.
Table 8-6 Summary of Modeled Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Lake Elevation Impacts
Illustration Description Summary of Impacts
8-7 Period of Record (1955-2013) under
Current (2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand
Projections
No detectable impact to average monthly lake elevations throughout the Period of Record due to proposed Union County
IBT when added to current (2012) basin-wide water demands.
8-8 Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Several small, but detectable, impacts to monthly lake elevations throughout the Period of Record due to proposed Union County IBT when added to projected future (2050) basin-wide water demands. At the lowest modeled lake elevation, occurring in August, 2002, there is an approximate impact of 3-inches due to the proposed Union County IBT, as compared to baseline conditions (EL 172.1’ msl
compared to EL 172.4’, respectively). Impacts are largely due to the
large additional projected future basin-wide water demands
(including potential future thermal power generating facilities) and
climate change, coupled with the proposed Union County IBT.
Despite the impacts, the minimum modeled average monthly lake
elevation, occurring during August, 2002, is EL 172.1’ msl, which is
equal to the Blewett Falls Lake normal minimum elevation, and within the normal operating rules for the lake. 8-9 Drought 1 (1999-
2003) under Current (2012) Basin-Wide
Water Demand Projections
No detectable impact to average monthly lake elevations
throughout Drought 1 due to proposed Union County IBT when added to current (2012) basin-wide water demands.
92
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration Description Summary of Impacts
8-10 Drought 1 (1999-
2003) under Future (2050) Basin-Wide
Water Demand Projections
Several small, but detectable, impacts to monthly lake elevations
throughout Drought 1 (1999-2003) due to proposed Union County IBT when added to projected future (2050) basin-wide water
demands. At the lowest modeled lake elevation, occurring in August, 2002, there is an approximate impact of 3-inches due to
the proposed Union County IBT, as compared to baseline conditions (EL 172.1’ msl compared to EL 172.4’, respectively).
Impacts are largely due to the large additional projected future basin-wide water demands (including potential future thermal
power generating facilities) and climate change, coupled with the proposed Union County IBT, and modeled as occurring during the
most intense part of the Drought of Record, when the system is most stressed. Despite the impacts, the minimum modeled
average monthly lake elevation, occurring during August, 2002, is EL 172.1’ msl, which is equal to the Blewett Falls Lake normal
minimum elevation, and within the normal operating rules for the lake.
8-11 Drought 2 (2006-2009) under Current
(2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand
Projections
No detectable impact to average monthly lake elevations throughout Drought 2 due to proposed Union County IBT when
added to current (2012) basin-wide water demands.
8-12 Drought 2 (2006-
2009) under Future (2050) Basin-Wide
Water Demand Projections
Two small, but detectable, impacts to average monthly lake
elevations throughout Drought 2 due to proposed Union County IBT when added to future (2050) basin-wide water demands.
These impacts occur from August to October, 2007 (approximate 4-inch impact) and in August of 2008 (approximate 2 inch
impact). Impacts are largely due to the large additional projected future basin-wide water demands (including potential future
thermal power generating facilities), coupled with the proposed Union County IBT. It is important to note that there is no
difference in the lowest modeled lake elevation (EL. 174.1’ msl) during this Drought 2 period (occurring in March, 2009) between
the baseline and proposed Union County IBT scenarios, and the lake remains 2 feet above its normal minimum level.

93
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-7 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections

Illustration 8-8 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern during certain
periods as blue line is on top, indicating
similar results between scenarios.
94
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-9 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-2003) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections

Illustration 8-10 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 1 (1999-2003) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
Red plot line may be difficult / impossible to
discern during certain periods as blue line is on
top, indicating similar results between scenarios.
Under projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water
demands and climate change considerations, this
event is modeled during the most intense part of the
2002 Drought of Record and indicates a maximum
impact of 3-inches (compared to baseline) during the
month of August, 2002. Elevation remains at or
above the lake’s normal minimum elevation.
95
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-11 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-2009) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Illustration 8-12 Blewett Falls Lake Monthly Average Modeled Lake Elevations – Drought 2 (2006-2009) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern during certain
periods as blue line is on top, indicating
similar results between scenarios.
Under projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands and
climate change considerations, two small, but detectable, impacts
to average monthly lake elevations are modeled during the Drought
2 period and occur from Aug. to Oct. 2007 (approx.4-inch impact)
and in Aug. 2008 (approximate 2 inch impact). However, it is
important to note that there is no difference in the lowest modeled
lake elevation (EL. 174.1’ msl) during this Drought 2 period.
Elevation remains above the lake’s normal minimum elevation.
Red plot line may be difficult / impossible to
discern during certain periods as blue line is on
top, indicating similar results between scenarios.
96
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Impact to Recreational Facilities – Public Boat Ramps
The two following public boat access areas are located on Blewett Falls Lake: Pee Dee Access
Area, Grassy Island. As a result of Duke Energy’s merger with Progress Energy, Duke Energy
Progress does not have specific usable boat ramp elevations for these facilities based on
survey data. However, the ramps on Blewett Falls Lake generally become unusable when there
is approximately 3 feet and less water depth at the end of the ramp. Duke Energy Progress
indicates all boat ramps remain accessible down to the normal minimum lake operating level of
EL 172.1’ msl or below during the recreation season.
As indicated in the modeling results in the preceding sections, the lowest modeled lake
elevation is EL 172.1’ msl, which is equal to the Blewett Falls Lake normal minimum elevation,
and within the normal operating rules for the lake. As all ramps are accessible down to the
normal minimum lake elevation or below, no impacts to public boat access areas on Blewett
Falls Lake are expected as a result of the proposed Union County IBT.
8.2.3. Lake Aesthetics - Summary
As indicated in the results tables and illustrations presented in the preceding sections, the
CHEOPSTM modeling results for the proposed Union County IBT water withdrawals from Lake
Tillery show few negative impacts on Duke Energy Progress operated lake (Lake Tillery or
Blewett Falls Lake) elevations, when compared to the respective baseline scenario. Small
reductions in elevations were noted in these reservoirs for small percentages of time, typically
resulting in annual average elevation differences less than ¼ -inch, even with the higher Year-
2050 basin-wide water use projections and during extreme drought periods. Similarly, the
maximum monthly average lake elevation impact was modeled to be approximately 9-inches at
Lake Tillery and 3-inches at Blewett Falls Lake during the most extreme modeled drought
conditions, with both lakes remaining at or above their normal minimum elevations during these
periods. Additionally, no impacts to public boating access areas are expected as a result of the
proposed Union County IBT.
8.3. Lake Level – Withdrawals
Of important consideration to owners of water supply intakes in the Yadkin River Basin lake
system is the effect of water withdrawals on lake elevations related to operability of these
intakes. In times of reduced system inflow (i.e. droughts), water supply intakes may be
vulnerable to inoperability (not being able to take in water from the source) or reduced
operability because of falling lake levels. Additional water withdrawals within the lake system
increase outflows from the system and can subsequently exacerbate the effect of low lake
levels on intake operability.
Given this consideration, the effect of each Union County surface water supply alternative from
the Yadkin River Basin was evaluated in CHEOPSTM for their effect on lake elevations, relative
to the critical intake elevations in each reservoir. The critical intake is defined as the highest
intake in each reservoir, which represents the first intake that could be exposed due to falling
lake levels during times of low inflow. This evaluation was completed to determine if any of the
IBT alternatives negatively affected lake levels such that other water supply intakes were
jeopardized.
97
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Modeling results indicate there to be no impacts to water supply intakes due to restricted intake
operation to any of the Yadkin River Basin intakes due to Union County’s proposed IBT, as
compared to the baseline scenarios for both current and future projected basin-wide water use.
Furthermore, under no instance were there any days in which modeled lake elevations were low
enough to restrict water supply intake operation on any reservoir. Additionally, minimum
modeled lake elevations remain well above all existing lake intakes.
Table 8-7 Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake – Modeled Impacts to Water Withdrawal Intakes
Performance Measures Criterion 1 Modeled Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline 2012
ALT 1
2012 with Union IBT
Baseline 2050
ALT 1
2050 with Union IBT
LAKE TILLERY
Restricted operation at
lake-located intakes (Jan. 1 to Dec.
31)
# days
reservoir
elevation < critical level (268.2 ft. msl)
for shallowest public water supply and
hydropower intake operation
POR 0 0 0 0
D1 0 0 0 0
D2 0 0 0 0
BLEWETT FALLS LAKE
Restricted operation at
lake-located intakes
(Jan. 1 to Dec.
31)
# days reservoir
elevation < critical level
(168 ft. msl) for shallowest
public water supply intake
operation
POR 0 0 0 0
D1 0 0 0 0
D2 0 0 0 0
Notes: 1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise: a) If an hourly criteria occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour; b) If a daily criterion occurs for
5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day. Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined in terms of percents and
averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record, etc.) 2 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 3 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative
1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario.
8.4. Reservoir Release
For ecological considerations and certain recreational interests in the Yadkin River Basin the
effect of water withdrawals on reservoir discharges (downstream releases) from these lakes is
of importance. In times of reduced system inflow (i.e. droughts), the ecological health or
recreational uses (e.g. kayaking or canoeing) of the waterway can be negatively affected.
98
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
During normal periods (i.e. normal inflow), both the APGI and Duke Energy Progress
hydroelectric projects are required to make certain downstream releases from the reservoirs
under the operating agreements between the two entities and as required under their respective
FERC licenses. During periods of reduced inflow to the system, the LIP specifies reductions to
these release requirements, based on particular drought stages, while seeking to provide
discharges at a level sufficient to maintain the ecological health of the waterway. However,
additional water withdrawals within the lake system may subsequently result in reservoir
discharges lower than those required under the FERC licenses for the operation of the lake
system.
Given this consideration, the effect of each Union County surface water supply alternative from
the Yadkin River Basin was evaluated in CHEOPSTM for their effect on discharges, relative to
the required downstream releases from these reservoirs. This evaluation was completed to
determine if any of the IBT alternatives negatively affected downstream releases such that the
waterway’s ecological health and certain recreational interests would be jeopardized, as
compared to the baseline conditions within the Yadkin River Basin without the proposed IBT.
8.4.1. Lake Tillery
Table 8-8 indicates the modeled impacts to flow releases from Lake Tillery as the result of
Union County’s proposed IBT withdrawal from the lake based on current (Year 2012) basin-wide
water demands (ALT 1 - 2012 with Union IBT as compared to Baseline 2012) and projected
future (Year 2050) basin-water water demands (ALT 1 - 2050 with Union IBT as compared to
Baseline 2050). The specific performance measure criterion evaluated include the continuous
minimum flow release for fish spawning, continuous minimum flow, and lowest daily average
flow, in accordance with the reservoir operating criteria and as indicated in the table, for the
POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 time periods.
Under both current (Year 2012) and projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands,
some impacts on downstream releases from Lake Tillery were observed under the proposed
Union County IBT during the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods, as more days were spent
below the spring spawning and continuous minimum flow release targets, compared to the
baseline. However, in no case does the lowest modeled daily average flow drop below the 330
cfs minimum flow level for the reservoir. As reflected in Table 8-8, these impacts are generally
found to be several days more for the continuous minimum flows and several cfs less for the
lowest daily average flow with a proposed Union County IBT withdrawal from the Yadkin River
Basin.
In the CHEOPSTM model and in actual operation, under any required operating parameter for
Blewett Falls will be supported by Tillery since they are the same FERC licensee. An example is
when the total Blewett Falls outflows (continuous flow requirement, withdrawals and losses due
to evaporation and leakage) cannot be met on any given day from the sum of Blewett Falls
usable storage and inflows, Tillery will be scheduled to release sufficient flow to allow Blewett
Falls to make the required release without having to violate its minimum elevation rule. Thus,
when inflows to Blewett Falls are reduced due to withdrawals from the Rocky River, Tillery may
99
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
need to release additional flows during low flow periods to ensure Blewett Falls’ outflows are
met.
Table 8-8 Lake Tillery - Modeled Impacts to Flow Release from Lake Tillery
Performance
Measure Criterion 1 Modeled Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline 2012 ALT 1
2012 with
Union IBT
Baseline 2050 ALT 1
2050 with
Union IBT
Flow Release From Lake
Tillery
# days ≤ 725
cfs
continuous min.flow (8
consecutive
weeks) for fish
spawning
(Mar. 15 to May 15)
POR 2,141 2,156 2,164 2,161
D1 218 218 220 221
D2 205 207 210 210
# days ≤ 330 cfs
continuous min.flow
(Jan.1 to
Dec. 31)
POR 14,000 14,023 14,122 14,133
D1 1,326 1,327 1,326 1,326
D2 1,072 1,073 1,074 1,076
Lowest daily average flow
(cfs)
(Jan. 1 to Dec. 31)
POR 708 679 380 330
D1 751 725 380 330
D2 927 906 866 845
Notes: 1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise: a) If an hourly criteria occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour; b) If a daily criterion occurs for
5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day. Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined in terms of percents and
averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record, etc.) 2 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 3 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative
1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario.
100
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-13 and Illustration 8-14 reflect the reservoir discharge flow exceedance curves
(percent of time at a particular discharge flow) for Lake Tillery throughout the Period of Record
(1955-2013) for current (Year 2012) and projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water
demands, respectively, under baseline conditions (blue lines) and with the Union proposed
County IBT (red lines). As indicated by both graphs, there is no distinguishable difference in the
discharge flow exceedance values for the Union County IBT, as compared to the baseline
conditions (lines overlap).
Illustration 8-13 Lake Tillery Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current
(Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
101
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-14 Lake Tillery Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
8.4.2. Blewett Falls Lake
Table 8-9 indicates the modeled impacts to flow releases from Blewett Falls Lake as the result
of Union County’s proposed IBT withdrawal from the upstream Lake Tillery based on current
(Year 2012) basin-wide water demands (ALT 1 - 2012 with Union IBT as compared to Baseline
2012) and projected future (Year 2050) basin-water water demands (ALT 1 - 2050 with Union
IBT as compared to Baseline 2050). The specific performance measure criterion evaluated
include the seasonal continuous flow targets, critical flow, LIP continuous flow target, and lowest
daily average flow, in accordance with the reservoir operating criteria and as indicated in the
table, for the POR, Drought 1 and Drought 2 time periods.
Similar to the modeled impacts in discharges from Lake Tillery, some impacts to downstream
releases were observed in Blewett Falls Lake under the proposed Union County IBT during the
POR, Drought 1, and Drought period, under both current (Year 2012) and projected future (Year
2050) basin-wide water demand scenarios, as several more days were spent below the normal
continuous flow targets throughout the year. However, in no case does the lowest modeled daily
average flow drop below the 925 cfs critical flow level for the reservoir. Additionally, under
current (Year 2012) basin-wide water demand, modeling indicates the proposed Union County
IBT to provide a slight benefit to the continuous flow targets, with less days below the targets
during some of the evaluation periods (POR, Drought 1, and/or Drought 2), as compared to the
baseline scenario.
In general, all surface water alternatives from the Yadkin River Basin (including the Rocky River
IBT Basin) evaluated as part of the FEIS resulted in some impact to Blewett Falls release
targets based on the operational rules for the reservoir and hydropower operation. Even
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
102
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
withdrawals from the Rocky River would result in a similar impact to Blewett Falls’ releases due
to reduced inflow (from the Rocky River) to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project
reservoirs. Of important note, impacts to flow release targets from Blewett Falls Lake, under the
proposed IBT withdrawal from Lake Tillery, are slightly less during times of drought than any of
the other surface water alternatives evaluated in the Yadkin River Basin.
Table 8-9 Blewett Falls Lake - Modeled Impacts to Flow Release from Blewett Falls Lake
Performance
Measure Criterion 1 Modeled
Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline 2012 ALT 1
2012 with
Union IBT
Baseline 2050 ALT 1
2050 with
Union IBT
Flow Release From Blewett
Falls Lake
# days ≤ 2,400 cfs continuous flow
target
(2/1 to 5/15)
POR 1,995 2,002 2,060 2,067
D1 284 284 285 285
D2 277 276 277 277
# days ≤ 1,800 cfs
continuous flow target
(5/16 to 5/31)
POR 508 508 528 531
D1 64 64 65 65
D2 57 56 57 57
# days ≤ 1,200 cfs
continuous flow target
(6/1 to 6/31)
POR 7,903 7,866 8,084 8,098
D1 837 832 850 852
D2 683 683 694 696
# days ≤ critical
flow (925 cfs instantaneous
flow)
(1/1 to 12/31)
POR 19 19 22 23
D1 19 19 22 23
D2 0 0 0 0
# days < LIP
continuous flow target (1/1 to 12/31)
POR 0 0 0 0
D1 0 0 0 0
D2 0 0 0 0
Lowest daily average flow (cfs)
(1/1 to 12/31)
POR 940 937 925 925
D1 940 937 925 925
D2 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Notes: 1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise: a) If an hourly criteria occurs during the
average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour; b) If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day. Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined in terms of percents and averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record, etc.) 2 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 3 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as
compared to the baseline scenario.
103
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-15 and Illustration 8-16 reflect the reservoir discharge flow exceedance curves
(percent of time at a particular discharge flow) for Blewett Falls Lake throughout the Period of
Record (1955-2013) for current (Year 2012) and projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water
demands, respectively, under baseline conditions (blue lines) and with the Union County
proposed IBT (red lines). As indicated by both graphs, there is no distinguishable difference in
the discharge flow exceedance values for the Union County IBT, as compared to the baseline
conditions (lines overlap).
Illustration 8-15 Blewett Falls Lake Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
104
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-16 Blewett Falls Lake Discharge Flow Exceedance Curve – Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
8.4.3. Flow Regime below Blewett Falls Lake
While the CHEOPSTM modeling includes each reservoir in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin from
W. Kerr Scott downstream to Blewett Falls Lake, it does not directly model water quantity below
the Blewett Falls dam. However, it is important to evaluate the potential impacts of IBT
alternatives on the flow regime below Blewett Falls Lake, for purposes of this EIS evaluation.
Therefore, as part of the modeling effort, CHEOPSTM model developers also developed an
Excel-based post-processing routine for the riverine section of the Pee Dee River downstream
of Blewett Falls Lake to the North Carolina – South Carolina State Line. This post-processing
routine evaluates the impacts of each alternative to flow in the river at the North Carolina –
South Carolina border, taking into consideration flow discharge from Blewett Falls Lake, flow
accretion in the riverine section, as well as water withdrawals and discharges from other water
users along this extent of the river.
From the results of this evaluation, the following flow duration (exceedance) curves were
developed to compare the IBT alternatives to the baseline conditions for both current (Year
2012) and projected future (Year 2050) baseline conditions for the POR under current basin-
wide water demands (Illustration 8-17), POR under future basin-wide water demands
(Illustration 8-18).
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
105
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-17 Period of Record Simulated Pee-Dee River Flow for All Months at the NC/SC border under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demands with Union County IBT Alternatives.
Illustration 8-18 Period of Record Simulated Pee-Dee River Flow for All Months at the NC/SC border under
Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demands with Union County IBT Alternatives.
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue line is
on top, indicating similar results
between scenarios.
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue line is
on top, indicating similar results
between scenarios.
106
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Review of these duration curves indicate that under both current (Year 2012) and projected
future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands (Illustration 8-17 and Illustration 8-18,
respectively), there are no distinguishable impacts to the flow regime downstream of Blewett
Falls Lake as a result of the proposed Union County IBT.
8.4.4. Reservoir Releases - Summary
As indicated in the results tables and illustrations presented in the preceding sections, the
CHEOPSTM modeling results for the proposed Union County IBT water withdrawals from Lake
Tillery show few negative impacts on downstream releases from Duke Energy Progress
operated lakes (Lake Tillery or Blewett Falls Lake), when compared to the respective baseline
scenario. Some increases in number of days with modeled flow at or below a specific flow
threshold and decreases in lowest modeled average daily flows were noted as a result of the
proposed Union County IBT when compared to the baseline scenario. However, under certain
criteria, some benefits to flow releases were also modeled as a result of the proposed Union
County IBT withdrawal from Lake Tillery and as a function of the system operating rules for the
Yadkin-Pee Dee hydroelectric project. Additionally, under no condition does the average daily
modeled flow release drop below the critical or minimum flow value for either reservoir.
Furthermore, evaluation of the flow regime below the Blewett Falls development, as analyzed at
the North Carolina – South Carolina border, indicate no distinguishable impacts to flow below
Blewett Falls Lake resulting from the proposed Union County IBT withdrawal from Lake Tillery.
8.5. Water Quantity Management (LIP Occurrence)
In addition to water quantity metrics related to lake elevations, water supply intake operation
and reservoir discharges; water quantity management metrics were also evaluated to determine
if proposed Union County IBT alternatives would impact the occurrence of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP). Metrics evaluated included the percent of time in Normal Conditions
(non-drought periods with no LIP in effect), number of years attaining particular LIP Stages (0 to
4), and number of years with more than 60 days in particular LIP Stages. The results of this
analysis indicate that, based on these criteria, there is no detectable impact to LIP occurrence
due to the proposed Union County IBT, as compared to the baseline conditions.
As indicated in Table 8-10, under current (Year 2012) basin-wide water demands, over the
POR, the system is in Normal Conditions 99% of the time (out of 21,550 possible days) for both
the baseline conditions and also with the proposed Union County IBT. Additionally, over the
POR, there is only a single year in which LIP Stages 0, 1, 2 and 3 are attained and remain in a
particular stage for more than 60 days. Stage 4 is not attained under either the baseline case or
with the proposed Union County IBT. During the Drought 1 Drought of Record period, under the
baseline case and also with the proposed Union County IBT, the system is in Normal Conditions
88% of the five year period (out of 1,826 possible days) and in LIP Stages 0 to 3 12% of the
period. During the Drought 2 period, under the baseline case and also with the proposed IBT,
the system is in Normal Conditions 100% of the period (out of 1,461 possible days) with no LIP
Stage declared.
As indicated in Table 8-10, under projected future (Year 2050) basin-wide water demands, over
the POR, the system is in Normal Conditions 99% of the time for both the baseline conditions
107
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
and proposed Union County IBT. Additionally, over the POR, there are two years in which LIP
Stage 0 is attained and only a single year in which Stages 1, 2 and 3 are attained and remain in
a particular stage for more than 60 days. Stage 4 is not attained under any of the baseline case
or proposed IBT. During the Drought 1 Drought of Record period, under both the baseline case
and proposed Union County IBT, the system is in Normal Conditions 87% of the five year period
and in LIP Stages 0 to 3 13% of the period (representing a difference of 1% from the current
basin-wide water demand baseline case identified in the previous paragraph). During the
Drought 2 period, under the baseline case and proposed Union County IBT, the system is in
Normal Conditions 100% of the period with no LIP Stage declared.
Table 8-10 Low Inflow Protocol – Modeled Impacts to Water Quantity Management
Performance
Measure Criterion 1 Modeled
Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline 2012
ALT 1
2012 with
Union IBT
Baseline 2050
ALT 1
2050 with
Union IBT
LIP Drought
Stage 4
(Jan. 1 to Dec.
31)
% of time in Normal
Conditions
POR 99% 99% 99% 99%
D1 88% 88% 87% 87%
D2 100% 100% 100% 100%
# years attaining LIP
Stage 0
POR 1 1 2 2
D1 1 1 2 2
D2 0 0 0 0
# years with
more than 60 days in LIP
Stage 0
POR 1 1 1 1
D1 1 1 1 1
D2 0 0 0 0
# years
attaining LIP Stage 1
POR 1 1 1 1
D1 1 1 1 1
D2 0 0 0 0
# years with more than 60
days in LIP Stage 1
POR 1 1 1 1
D1 1 1 1 1
D2 0 0 0 0
# years attaining LIP
Stage 2
POR 1 1 1 1
D1 1 1 1 1
D2 0 0 0 0
# years with
more than 60 days in LIP
Stage 2
POR 1 1 1 1
D1 1 1 1 1
D2 0 0 0 0
# years attaining LIP Stage 3
POR 1 1 1 1
D1 1 1 1 1
D2 0 0 0 0
# years with more than 60 days in LIP
Stage 3
POR 0 0 0 0
D1 0 0 0 0
D2 0 0 0 0
108
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Performance Measure Criterion 1 Modeled Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline 2012
ALT 1
2012 with Union IBT
Baseline 2050
ALT 1
2050 with Union IBT
LIP Drought
Stage 4
(Jan. 1 to Dec.
31) (con’t)
# years attaining LIP
Stage 4
POR 0 0 0 0
D1 0 0 0 0
D2 0 0 0 0
# years with more than 60
days in LIP Stage 4
POR 0 0 0 0
D1 0 0 0 0
D2 0 0 0 0
Notes: 1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise: a) If an hourly criteria occurs
during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour; b) If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day. Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided
between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined in terms of percents and averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record, etc.) 2 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 3 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union
County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario. 4 LIP - Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Projects (Alcoa and Duke
Energy Progress)
8.6. Hydropower
Impacts of each proposed Union County IBT alternative from the Yadkin River Basin on
hydropower generation were also evaluated. Impacts to APGI’s Yadkin Hydroelectric Project,
consisting of hydroelectric generating stations on High Rock Lake, Tuckertown Reservoir,
Narrows Reservoir and Falls Reservoir, and Duke Energy Progress’ Yadkin-Pee Dee
Hydroelectric Project, consisting of hydroelectric generating stations on Lake Tillery and Blewett
Falls Lake were evaluated through the CHEOPSTM model. Impacts to average hydropower
megawatts produced per year and the average equivalent number of homes per year that could
be powered by each hydro project were evaluated. Increases in system water withdrawals can
reduce the available water storage by which APGI and Duke Energy Progress are able to
access from the reservoirs they operate, in order to produce hydropower. Such reductions to
hydropower production would result in slight increases in fossil-based power generation to
continue meeting energy demands. As such, this is an important metric to evaluate in the
comparison of IBT alternatives for Union County.
As indicated in Table 8-11, under both current (Year 2012) and projected future (Year 2050)
basin-wide water demands, some impacts on hydropower generation in Duke Energy
Progress’s Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project were noted in the model analysis, for a
proposed Union County IBT withdrawal from Lake Tillery. The IBT results in decreased
hydropower generation for the Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project, as compared to baseline
conditions, by approximately 0.5% under both the current and future basin-wide water demands
for the Period of Record and less than 1% during Drought 1 and Drought 2 periods. It should be
noted that for any of the withdrawal alternatives from the Yadkin River Basin, as evaluated in
109
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
the FEIS, including those from APGI operated reservoirs, Duke Energy Progress operated
reservoirs, or tributaries thereto, some decrease in hydropower generation capacity for the
Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project is expected due to decreased inflow from APGI
reservoirs and tributaries to Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake (including the Rocky River) or
increased outflow (withdrawals) from the Duke Energy Progress lakes.
Table 8-11 APGI and Duke Energy Progress - Modeled Impacts to Hydropower Generation
Performance
Measures Criterion 1 Modeled
Period 2
Scenario Result Comparison 3
Baseline 2012
ALT 1
2012 with Union IBT
Baseline 2050
ALT 1
2050 with Union IBT
APGI Effect on APGI
hydropower generation
(Jan. 1 to Dec.
31)
Avg. MWh/yr
of hydropower produced
POR 835,503 835,505 828,305 828,308
D1 626,889 626,890 620,372 620,382
D2 620,402 620,404 612,821 612,822
Avg.
equivalent # homes/year
powered by the hydro
project 4
POR 63,296 63,296 62,750 62,751
D1 47,492 47,492 46,998 46,999
D2 47,000 47,000 46,426 46,426
Duke Energy
Progress Effect on Duke
Energy Progress
hydropower generation
(Jan. 1 to Dec.
31)
Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower
produced
POR 339,230 337,799 332,093 330,410
D1 251,980 250,468 244,544 242,766
D2 249,888 248,386 242,354 240,548
Avg.
equivalent # homes/ year
powered by the hydro
project 4
POR 25,699 25,591 25,159 25,031
D1 19,089 18,975 18,526 18,391
D2 18,931 18,817 18,360 18,223
Notes: 1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise: a) If an hourly criteria occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour; b) If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day. Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided
between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined in terms of percents and averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record, etc.) 2 POR = Period of Record (1955-2013); D1 = Drought 1 (1999-2003); D2 = Drought 3 (2006-2009) 3 For scenario results comparison, black values indicate no modeled change/impact for Alternative 1 (Union County
IBT) as compared to baseline scenario; red values indicate modeled negative impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario; green values indicate modeled positive impact for Alternative 1 (Union County IBT) as compared to the baseline scenario. 4 Calculated by [(Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario]. Power produced by the hydro projects is actually supplied to the electric system grid and is used by electric customers (including residential, industrial and commercial customers), as is power produced at other Duke Energy Progress and/or
APGI generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes per year is intended to simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro projects more understandable to stakeholders and to put a perspective around potential differences in hydropower production between various scenarios. This measure does not imply
that any number of homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
110
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
The generation comparison histograms, as depicted in the following illustrations (Illustration
8-19 through Illustration 8-22), generally reflect the differences between the baseline conditions
and with the proposed Union County IBT for both Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake
hydropower generation over the Period of Record or during the Drought 1 and Drought 2
periods. These graphs indicate slightly lower hydropower generation at both facilities throughout
the Period of Record for the Union County IBT (red lines) as compared to the baseline
conditions (blue lines) for both current (2012) and future (2050) basinwide water demands.
Illustration 8-19 Lake Tillery Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
111
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-20 Blewett Falls Lake Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-2013) under Current (Year 2012) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Illustration 8-21 Lake Tillery Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
112
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Impacts Analysis for the Proposed Transfer
Illustration 8-22 Blewett Falls Lake Annual Hydropower Generation - Period of Record (1955-2013) under Future (Year 2050) Basin-Wide Water Demand Projections
Red plot line may be difficult /
impossible to discern as blue
line is on top, indicating similar
results between scenarios.
113
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Future Water Supply Needs in the Yadkin River Basin
9.0 Future Water Supply Needs in the Yadkin
River Basin
Future water supply needs in the Yadkin River Basin including public water supply, agricultural,
industrial, recreational and hydropower uses are included in the updated CHEOPSTM model
used for the FEIS analysis supporting Union County’s IBT request.
9.1. Yadkin River Basin Water Demand Growth
To account for this projected population, economic and water demand growth throughout the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, the CHEOPSTM water quantity modeling for the proposed Union
County IBT evaluated two conditions for water use through the basin: 1) Basin-wide water
demands under current (Year 2012) water use and 2) Basin-wide water demands under future
(Year 2050) water use. In doing this, potential impacts of the Union County IBT were able to be
assessed, both now and in the future, while accounting for projected future increases in water
needs by other entities which may currently withdraw water from Yadkin-Pee Dee River and its
impounded reservoirs or others who may have needs for water in the future. The basis for the
water demand projections, using North Carolina Local Water Supply Plans, state and federal
population growth data and other sources, is summarized in the FEIS and described in detail in
FEIS appendices.
Consideration for competing water demands in the Yadkin system was made as long term
future water demands were considered as part of the modeling effort for the FEIS. Basin-wide
water withdrawals and return flows for all users, by decade through the year 2060, were
developed specifically for the Union County YRWSP FEIS evaluations. The evaluations are
based on current (Year 2012) and future (Year 2050) water demands, as 2050 is the projection
period used for Union County’s YRWSP. However, basin-wide water demand projections were
also extended an additional ten years to 2060 for updating the CHEOPSTM model to provide an
approximate 5-decade projection period to allow flexibility for potential future uses of the model.
The basin-wide water demands used for this modeling effort are based on the projections
developed by HDR as part of the CHEOPSTM update for the FEIS. Projections of water
demands included municipal water supply, power plant cooling, agricultural/irrigation, and
industry. These demands include other IBTs that are certified, grandfathered, or anticipated but
not certified. The model requires that withdrawals be supplied as annual average withdrawal
values. Since the withdrawal is not the same for every day of the year, the annual average
values are adjusted to produce monthly use patterns and thus simulate seasonal water use
patterns. In the CHEOPSTM model, each withdrawal’s monthly distribution is based on the
historical pattern for that water user. Details on the methodology and results for the basin-wide
water supply projections for water supply modeling are summarized in a Technical
Memorandum included as Appendix D of this Petition.
Illustration 9-1 and Table 9-1 provide a summary of the baseline water use projections for the
Yadkin River Basin, as presented in the Technical Memorandum in Appendix D. These figures
indicate a projected growth in annual average day net water withdrawals (withdrawals minus
114
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Future Water Supply Needs in the Yadkin River Basin
returns) from 73.7 mgd for the Base Year (2012) to 150.5 mgd by the year 2050. A slight
reduction in net withdrawals from 2050 to 2060 is also indicated, primarily due to projected
wastewater return volumes increasing more rapidly than water withdrawal rates during that time
period primarily due to transfers from neighboring river basins into the Yadkin River Basin.
Large increases in water withdrawals shown in future years are the result of water use for future
power generating facilities in the Yadkin River Basin. It is noted that these values shown for the
baseline water use within the Yadkin River Basin do not include the proposed Union County
IBT.

Illustration 9-1 Baseline Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, not Including the Proposed Union County IBT

Table 9-1 Baseline Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, not Including the Proposed Union County IBT
Water Use Type Projected Annual Average Day Water Use (in mgd)
Base Year (2012)
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Withdrawals 191.0 203.2 223.5 232.6 245.1 327.5 341.4
Returns 117.3 122.7 133.2 147.9 161.1 176.9 194.2
Net Withdrawals 73.7 80.5 90.3 84.7 84.0 150.5 147.2

Illustration 9-2 and Table 9-2 provide a summary of the water use projections for the Yadkin
River Basin, inclusive of the proposed Union County IBT, as presented in the Technical
Memorandum in Appendix D. These figures indicate a projected growth in annual average day
net water withdrawals (withdrawals minus returns) from 73.7 mgd for the Base Year (2012) to
160.7 mgd by the year 2050. A slight reduction in net withdrawals from 2050 to 2060 is also
indicated, primarily due to projected wastewater return volumes increasing more rapidly than
water withdrawal rates during that time period, primarily due to transfers from neighboring river
basins into the Yadkin River Basin. Large increases in water withdrawals shown in future years
are the result of water use for future power generating facilities in the Yadkin River Basin.
115
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Future Water Supply Needs in the Yadkin River Basin

Illustration 9-2 Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, Including the Proposed Union County IBT
Table 9-2 Projected Water Use in the Yadkin River Basin, Including the Proposed Union County IBT
Water Use Type Projected Annual Average Day Water Use (in mgd)
Base Year
(2012)
2015 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
Withdrawals 191.0 203.2 223.5 239.7 256.9 343.9 360.3
Returns 117.3 122.7 133.2 147.9 161.1 176.9 194.2
Net Withdrawals 73.7 80.5 90.3 91.8 95.8 167.0 166.1

9.2. Yadkin River Basin Reservoir Operating Rules
The system operating rules defined in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing
applications and Settlement Agreements for the two Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin hydropower
projects, including the Alcoa (APGI) operated Yadkin Hydroelectric Project and Duke Energy
Progress operated Yadkin-Pee Dee Hydroelectric Project, are incorporated into the CHEOPSTM
model used as part of the extensive water quantity modeling completed for the FEIS. These
operating rules define the required operational parameters for reservoirs between High Rock
Lake and Blewett Falls Lake, with consideration given to minimum lake levels, required
downstream releases and operations during periods of normal, high and low inflow. For
operation of the reservoirs during low inflow periods (drought), the modeling specifically
incorporates the approved basin-wide drought plan, the Low Inflow Protocol.
9.3. Yadkin River Basin Drought Effects
The modeling for the FEIS evaluated each Union County water supply alternative from the
Yadkin River Basin under these defined reservoir operating rules, for the full period of hydrology
from 2055 to 2013, with consideration given to two very significant drought periods (1999 to
2003 (Drought of Record) and 2006 to 2009). Furthermore, the effect of potentially more severe
future droughts was also evaluated as part of the water quantity modeling effort through the
116
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Future Water Supply Needs in the Yadkin River Basin
incorporation of future climate change impacts to surface water by modeling increased reservoir
evaporation due to future increasing temperatures.
Modeling of the project alternatives as part of the FEIS for the projected future Year 2050
includes consideration for the future impact of climate change resulting in an increased
temperature of 2.3 deg F (0.6 deg F increase per decade) and lake surface evaporation
increases of 7.8% (equivalent to an increase of 2% per decade), as compared to the 2012
baseline. This impact is consistent with the climate change impact considered by the Catawba-
Wateree Water Management Group in preparation of the Catawba-Wateree Water Supply
Master Plan baseline planning scenario, and is consistent with modeled climate change
scenarios for this region of the United States. (HDR, 2015)
Modeling results incorporating these factors, as previously discussed and quantified in Section
8.0, indicates that, under the proposed Union County withdrawal, there currently is and will
continue to be sufficient available water for release from Lake Tillery to maintain Blewett Falls
Lake levels and releases below the dam, without negatively impacting upstream water sources.
9.4. No Adverse Impact to Future Water Supply Needs
Through the incorporation of future basin-wide water demand projections for current and
potential future water withdrawers and returners to the Yadkin River Basin, under a variety of
inflow conditions, the FEIS effectively evaluates the impact of Union County’s proposed IBT,
with due consideration given to other projected future water uses throughout the basin to
conclude that all users modeled are able to meet current and future water supply needs from
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River and its associated reservoirs through the period of study for this
document.
Results show that the river basin, given its large size and water storage, is able to meet future
water needs through the planning period. Analysis conducted to evaluate the IBT request and
presented in the FEIS and associated ROD support this conclusion.
117
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Literature Cited
10.0 Literature Cited

Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (2015). Falls Reservoir. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Alcoa
Power Generating Inc., Yadkin Division:
http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/info_page/falls.asp
Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (2015). High Rock. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Alcoa
Power Generating Inc., Yadkin Division:
http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/info_page/high_rock.asp
Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (2015). Narrows Reservoir. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from
Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Yadkin Division:
http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/info_page/narrows.asp
Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (2015). The Yadkin Project. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from
Alcoa Power Generating Inc., Yadkin Division:
http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/info_page/yadkin_project.asp
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (2015). Tuckertown. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Alcoa
Power Generating Inc., Yadkin Division:
http://www.alcoa.com/yadkin/en/info_page/tuckertown.asp
Black & Veatch. (2011). Union County, NC Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Master Plan.
Charlotte, NC: Black & Veatch Holidng Company.
CH2MHill. (2004). Rocky River Water Supply Feasibility Study. Charlotte: CH2MHill.
CH2MHill. (2006). Environmental Impact Statement for the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis
Proposed Interbasin Transfers to the Rocky River Basin. Charlotte: CH2MHill.
CWWMG. (2014). Water supply master plan. Charlotte, NC: Catawba-Wateree Water
Management Group.
CWWMG. (2016, April 08). About CWWMG. Retrieved April 08, 2016, from CWWMG Web site:
http://www.catawbawatereewmg.org/about-cwwmg/
Duke Energy. (2014). Relicensing Documents. Retrieved September 25, 2014, from Duke
Energy Yadkin_Pee Dee River Project: http://www.duke-energy.com/lakes/yadkin-
peedee/relicensing-documents.asp
Duke Energy. (2015). About the Catawba-Wateree. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from
Catawba-Wateree Relicensing: http://www.duke-energy.com/catawba-wateree-
relicensing/about-cw.asp
118
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Literature Cited
Duke Energy. (2015). Blewett Hydroelectric Plant. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Duke
Energy Conventional Hydro Plants: https://www.duke-energy.com/power-
plants/hydro/blewett.asp
Duke Energy. (2015). Lake Tillery . Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Duke Energy Shoreline
Management: https://www.duke-energy.com/shoreline-management/lake-tillery.asp
Duke Energy. (2015). Tillery Hydroelectric Plant. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from Duke
Energy Conventional Hydro Plants: https://www.duke-energy.com/power-
plants/hydro/tillery.asp
HDR. (2011). Eastern Union County Water Supply Project Partner Assessment, Conceptual
Study and Preliminary Permitting and Feasibility Analysis - Executive Summary.
Charlotte: HDR.
HDR. (2014a). Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project Operations Model - Model Logic and
Verification Report. Charlotte.
HDR. (2014b). Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin Operations Model Study - Model Logic and Verification
Report. Charlotte.
HDR. (2015). Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Union County Yadkin River Water
Supply Project Proposed Interbasin Transfer to the Rocky River Basin. Charlotte: HDR.
HDR. (2015). Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Union County Yadkin River Water
Supply Project Proposed Interbasin Transfer to the Rocky River Basin. Charlotte: HDR.
Landau, M. (1992). Introduction to aquaculture. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
NCDENR. (2012). North Carolina integrated report for 2012. NCDENR, North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. (2014). List of active individual permits, NPDES wastewater permitting and
compliance program. Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Page, L., & Burr, B. (1991). A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Rohde, F. C., Arndt, R. G., Lindquist, D. G., & Parnell, J. F. (1994). Freshwater fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: The University of North
Carolina Press.
SCDHEC. (2012a). State of South Carolina integrated report for 2012: Part I: section 303(d) list
of impaired waters. Retrieved from
http://www.scdhec.gov/HomeAndEnvironment/Docs/tmdl_12-303d.pdf
119
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Literature Cited
SCDHEC. (2014). Geographic information system [GIS] database. NPDES permits. Columbia,
SC. Retrieved from
http://www.scdhec.gov/HomeAndEnvironment/maps/GIS/GISDataClearinghouse/
Union County. (2014). Unified development ordinance with amendments through November
2014. Monroe, NC.
Union County. (2016, April 08). Public Works Customer Service. Retrieved April 08, 2016, from
Union County web site:
http://www.co.union.nc.us/LivingHere/PublicWorks/CustomerService.aspx#3727112-
understanding-your-bill
USACE. (2015). Wilmington District Water Management. Retrieved December 15, 2015, from
W. Kerr Scott Damn Description Text: http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/WKSDESC.TXT
YRDRBA. (2016, April 08). About the Association. Retrieved April 08, 2016, from YRDRBA Web
site: https://www.yadkinpeedee.org/about-the-association

120
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices

Appendices

Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
A
A
APPENDIX A: Record of
Decision – IBT Environmental
Impact Statement

A-1
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

A-2
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
B
B
APPENDIX B: Water
Shortage Response Plan

B-1
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

B-2
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 1
Section 1.0 - Purpose
The purpose of this Water Shortage Response Plan (“Plan”) is to maintain and protect the
public health, safety and welfare of Union County (“County”) residents by establishing short
and long-term demand management strategies to effectively manage the limited resource of
the water supply in the County. This Plan aids in effectively managing the water supply in the
County by requiring efficient and responsible use of water within the County and by
establishing measures and procedures for reducing potable water use during times of water
shortage resulting from drought, capacity limitations, and system emergencies.
The water demand management strategies set forth in this Plan reduce the rate of increase in
overall water use through year-round water conservation practices that maximize the County’s
existing and planned water supply sources and reduce seasonal peak day demands that result
in the need for costly expansion of water treatment, storage, and transmission facilities. The
implementation of voluntary and mandatory water reduction measures within the Union
County water utility service area extends the available water supply with regard for domestic
water use, sanitation and fire protection, and minimizes the adverse impacts in the event a
water shortage is declared.
This Plan is also designed to be in accordance with the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol
(“CW-LIP”) for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The CW-LIP was developed pursuant to the
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement for the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project (FERC Project
No. 2232) dated December 22, 2006 (the “Relicensing Agreement”), to which Union County is a
party. The Relicensing Agreement establishes the CW-LIP as the agreed-upon methodology to
deal with water shortages during periods of drought. Thus, Union County, as a signatory to the
Relicensing Agreement, is required to comply with the CW-LIP. The CW-LIP establishes a policy
for how Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, regional water users, and other stakeholders will operate
water systems during periods of drought by progressing through a series of staged water use
restrictions during worsening drought conditions. The goal of the CW-LIP is to delay the point
at which the Catawba River’s usable water storage is fully depleted and to provide additional
time to allow precipitation to restore stream flow, reservoir levels and groundwater levels to
normal ranges.
As a publicly owned water system, the operation of the County’s water utility system is subject
to N.C.G.S. § 143-355(l) and N.C.G.S. § 143-355.2, requiring an approved Water Shortage
Response Plan as part of the Local Water Supply Plan. A Water Shortage Response Plan must
include specific requirements as set forth in rules governing water use during droughts and
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 2
water emergencies (15A NCAC § 02E.0607) and Article 38 of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina
General Statutes. The Union County Water Use Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) authorizes the
implementation of this Plan and incorporates this Plan into the Ordinance.
Section 2.0 - Applicability
The provisions of this Plan apply to all persons, customers, and property utilizing water supplied
through the County’s water system; however, it does not apply to reuse or reclaimed water.
This Plan also does not apply to private drinking water wells, as that term is defined in N.C.G.S.
§ 87-85, or ponds.
Section 3.0 - Definitions
Bona Fide Farm Use means water uses for the production and activities relating or incidental to
the production of crops, grains, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy,
livestock, poultry, and all other forms of agriculture, as defined in N.C.G.S. § 106-581.1.
County means Union County, North Carolina
County Manager means, for the purposes of this Plan, the person currently occupying the
position of Union County Manager (which includes a County Manager with an acting or interim
designation), or in the absence of such a person, the Executive Director of Public Works.
Customer means a person, company, organization, or any other entity (individuals,
corporations, partnerships, associations, and all other legal entities) using water supplied by the
County’s water utility, or in whose name an account for water utility service is maintained by
the County.
CW-LIP means the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba River Basin, as
developed pursuant to the Relicensing Agreement.
Duke Energy means Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and any successor in interest entity.
Essential Water Use means the use of water necessary for firefighting, health, and safety, and
sustaining human and animal life. Specifically, for certain types of water uses set forth below,
the following is considered Essential Water Use:
a. Domestic Use- Water use necessary to sustain human life and the lives of domestic
pets, as well as to maintain minimum standards of hygiene and sanitation.
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 3
b. Commercial Use- Water use integral to the production of goods and/or services by
any establishment having profit as its primary aim, except as otherwise specifically
prohibited by this Plan.
c. Industrial Use- Water use in processes designed to convert materials of lower value
into forms having greater usability and value, except as otherwise specifically
prohibited by this Plan.
d. Institutional Use- Water use by government; public and private educational
institutions; churches and places of worship; water utilities; and other public
organizations, except as otherwise specifically prohibited by this Plan.
e. Health Care Facility Use- Water use in patient care and rehabilitation, including
swimming pools used for patient care and rehabilitation, in nursing homes, and
other care facilities.
f. Public Use- Water use for firefighting, including testing and drills by a fire
department if performed in the interest of public safety; water system operations;
and water necessary to satisfy federal, state, and local public health, safety, or
environmental protection requirements.
g. Correctional Facility Use- Water use necessary to sustain human life and to maintain
minimum standards of hygiene and sanitation.
MGD means million gallons per day.
Non-Essential Water Use means any use of water that does not meet the definition of Essential
Water Use.
Ordinance means the current Union County Water Use Ordinance.
Plan means this Water Shortage Response Plan.
Rate Ordinance means the Ordinance Setting Charges, Fees, Rates and Deposits for Customers
Served by the Union County Water and Sewer System.
Relicensing Agreement means the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement for the Catawba-
Wateree Hydro Project (FERC Project No. 2232) dated December 22, 2006.
Spray Irrigation System means a system of application of water to landscaping by means of a
device, other than a hand-held hose or watering container, which projects water through the
air in the form of particles or droplets.
UCPW means the Union County Public Works Department.
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 4
US Drought Monitor means a website hosted and maintained by the National Drought
Mitigation Center that indicates what parts of the country are in a drought and the severity of
such droughts.
Section 4.0. - Declaration and Implementation
The County Manager, upon notification from the Executive Director of Public Works of a water
shortage as described in this Plan and the Ordinance, is authorized by the Ordinance to declare
a water shortage, designate a water shortage stage, and implement the water use reduction
measures or restrictions corresponding with such a stage, as such measures and restrictions are
outlined in this Plan and the Ordinance. The County Manager, the Executive Director of Public
Works, and UCPW are responsible for the implementation of this Plan.
Current Contact Information:
County Manager Executive Director of Public Works
Ms. Cynthia Coto, ICMA-CM Mr. Edward Goscicki, PE
500 North Main Street, Suite 918 500 North Main Street, Suite 600
Monroe, NC 28112 Monroe, NC 28112
Phone: [phone] Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] Email: [e-mail]
Section 5.0. - Notification
When a water shortage has been declared, and whenever the water shortage stage changes,
the County Manager will notify the Board of County Commissioners at its next regular meeting.
At a minimum, the following notification options will be used to notify Customers of required
response measures when a water shortage stage is declared or changed (based upon the new
stage):
Stages 0 and 1
• County website (www.co.union.nc.us)
• County employee email announcements
• Social media
• Utility bill inserts
Stage 2
• County website (www.co.union.nc.us)
• County employee email announcements
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 5
• Social media
• Utility bill inserts
• Press releases to local television, radio, and/or print media
Stages 3 and 4
• County website (www.co.union.nc.us)
• County employee email announcements
• Social media
• Utility bill inserts
• Press releases to local television, radio, and/or print media
• Reverse 911 Notification System, if such system is currently available to UCPW
Additional means of notification may be used including, but not limited to,:
• Independent mailings to Customers outside of utility bills
• Take-home fliers at Union County Public Schools
• County vehicle magnets
Section 6.0 - Determination of a Water Shortage
A water shortage is a condition that exists when the demands and requirements of water
Customers served by the Union County water system cannot be satisfied without depleting the
available supply of treated water or the available water supply to or below a critical level; i.e.,
the level at which water is available for Essential Water Use.
Providing a reliable supply of water requires being prepared for water shortages of varying
severity and duration, which may be caused by conditions such as drought, exceeding plant
capacity, water quality problems, or disruptions in facility operations. For this Plan, water
shortage conditions specific to the County have been categorized into three types: Resource
Limitations, Capacity Limitations, and System Emergencies.
Prescribed indicators determine the severity or stage of a water shortage. These indicators are
based on the ability of the County to meet water demands and are influenced by several
components of the County’s water supply system: the water source, raw water intake and
pipeline, treatment plant, storage tanks, and distribution system. When a specific indicator’s
criterion is met, the corresponding water shortage stage is recommended and declared.
In determining a water shortage stage and the corresponding restrictions, consideration will be
given, as applicable, to water shortage levels and available sources of supply, available usable
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 6
storage on hand, draw-down rates, the projected supply capability, outlook for precipitation,
daily water use patterns, and availability of water from other sources.
A summary of indicators for five water shortage stages, from a Stage 0 Water Shortage (year-
round water conservation) to a Stage 4 Water Shortage (water shortage emergency), are
summarized for each type of water shortage in the following sections. These water shortage
stages are intended to achieve system-wide water use reductions. If multiple indicators are
met for more than one type of water shortage stage, the more severe of the indicators
provided will determine the stage to be declared. For example, if Duke Energy, through the
CW-LIP, declares a Stage 1 Water Shortage and other conditions cause the County to be in a
Stage 2 Water shortage, then a Stage 2 Water Shortage will be declared until the County
recovers from the Stage 2 Water Shortage or a more severe stage is declared.
It is possible that water shortage stages may not necessarily be implemented sequentially if
water supply and/or demand conditions worsen rapidly. Likewise, recovery of water shortage
stages may not always occur sequentially, depending on how quickly supply and/or demand
conditions improve.
Section 6.1 - Resource Limitations
The County receives approximately 80% of its water from the Catawba River, which is
dependent primarily on rainfall for replenishment. This leaves the County vulnerable to
extended deficiencies in precipitation, known as drought, which can deplete the reservoirs
along the Catawba River and impact the amount of water available for the County to withdraw.
Drought can also have a significant impact on the lifestyle, ecology, and agriculture of a region.
It is important in times of drought, when Customers often use more water than average, for the
County to more closely monitor and control water usage to ensure the adequate short-term
availability of water as well as to protect the environment.
CW-LIP
As a joint-owner of a large water intake located on the main stem of the Catawba River, Union
County participated in Duke Energy’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing
process for the Catawba River and became a signatory stakeholder for the Relicensing
Agreement. The Relicensing Agreement established rules and guidelines for how the Catawba-
Wateree River system will be operated for the next fifty years, ending in year 2058. One major
element of the Relicensing Agreement is the implementation of the CW-LIP, which establishes a
policy for how Duke Energy and other Catawba River stakeholders will operate during periods
of drought. This CW-LIP requires regional water users to move through a series of staged water
use restrictions during worsening drought conditions. The goal of the CW-LIP is to delay the
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 7
point at which the Catawba-Wateree River system’s usable water storage is fully depleted and
provide additional time to allow precipitation to restore stream flow, reservoir levels, and
groundwater levels to normal ranges. As a signatory stakeholder, Union County has agreed to
comply with the prescribed requirements defined in the CW-LIP.
The CW-LIP describes indicators defined by worsening hydrologic conditions. These indicators
use specific measurements to determine the various water shortage stages of low inflow
conditions or water shortages. A summary of indicators for the various water shortage stages is
provided in the table below. When Duke Energy declares a water shortage stage based on the
CW-LIP indicators, the County shall also declare the same stage, or a more severe stage if other
conditions apply in the County.
CW-LIP Indicators
1 The ratio of Remaining Usable Storage to Total Usable Storage at a given point in time.
2 The sum of the rolling 6-month average for the Monitored United States Geological Survey (“USGS”)
Streamflow Gages as a percentage of the period of record rolling average for the same historical 6-
month period for the Monitored USGS Streamflow Gages.
3 Stage 0 is triggered when any two of the three indicator points are reached.

During recovery from a water shortage stage, the progression of stages will be reversed. All
three indicator points identified on the above table for the lower water shortage stage must be
met or exceeded before returning to that lower stage (except as indicated in the table above
regarding a Stage 0 Water Shortage).
North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council
The North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council (“NCDMAC”) has statutory authority
and is responsible for issuing drought advisories tailored to local conditions. The NCDMAC can
issue drought classification and response actions by county. If the US Drought Monitor of North
Stage Storage Index 1
US Drought
Monitor 3-Month
Numeric Average

Stream Gage 6-Month
Rolling Average as a
percent of the Historical
Average2
03 90% < SI < 100% TSI DM ≥ 0 ≤ 85%
1 75% < SI ≤ 90% TSI and DM ≥ 1 or ≤ 78%
2 57% < SI ≤ 75% TSI and DM ≥ 2 or ≤ 65%
3 42% < SI ≤ 57% TSI and DM ≥ 3 or ≤ 55%
4 SI ≤ 42% TSI and DM ≥ 4 or ≤ 40%
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 8
Carolina shows more than one drought designation in a county, the drought classification for
the county is the highest drought designation that applies to at least twenty five percent (25%)
of the land area of the county.
The NCDMAC may recommend a drought designation for a county that is different from the
designation based on the U.S. Drought Monitor of North Carolina if the depiction of drought
does not accurately reflect localized conditions. In recommending a drought designation that
differs from the U.S. Drought Monitor designation, NCDMAC will consider stream flows, ground
water levels, the amount of water stored in reservoirs, weather forecasts, the time of year and
other factors that are relevant to determining the location and severity of drought conditions.
The NCDMAC makes recommendations that the County will take into consideration. When the
NCDMAC declares a water shortage stage, the County shall also declare the same stage, or a
more severe stage, if other conditions apply in the County.
Section 6.2 - Capacity Limitations
A water treatment plant’s capacity is designed to meet the distribution system’s anticipated
maximum daily demand at a relatively constant flow rate with storage tanks in the distribution
system intended to handle fluctuations in demand throughout the day. Customer demand for
potable water will also fluctuate seasonally, often using more water in the spring and summer
to promote lawn and other plant growth. Sometimes a combination of dry weather and high
temperatures occurring during the summer can lead to unexpectedly high Customer demand.
For example, during the drought of record in 2007, the County’s demand exceeded the
treatment capacity at the Catawba River Water Treatment Plant for several days during a two-
week period.
The County continues to grow and connect new Customers to the water distribution system;
however, adding additional capacity to a water treatment plant is a slow and expensive
process. To ensure the County’s ability to meet Customer demand for both Essential Water Use
and Non-Essential Water Use, the County must declare water shortage stage if the water
demand is nearing available treatment capacity on a regular basis.
The water shortage stage, and duration of such a stage, will depend on the extent to which
Customer water demands approach or exceed Union County’s capacity to meet those demands
and how much the water use restrictions successfully reduce short-term demands. If the daily
demands of the water system exceed a specified percentage of total available capacity for a
specified period of time as described in the table below, the corresponding water shortage
stage shall be declared.

UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 9
Capacity Limitation Indicators

When the recovery criteria shown in the table below for that water shortage stage have been
met, the Public Works Executive Director will advise that the County Manager declare a
reduced stage with the corresponding water use restrictions. It may be possible to reduce by
more than one water shortage stage if the necessary recovery criteria have been met for
intermediate stages.
Recovery from Capacity Limitations
Section 6.3 - System Emergencies
The integrity of the water supply, treatment facilities, and distribution system are critical to
meeting the potable water demands of the County. If there are major disruptions to any of
Stage Union County
Designation Daily Demand
0 Year-Round Water
Conservation
1 Moderate Water
Shortage
Demand > 80% of available capacity for the average of a 7
day period
2 Severe Water Shortage Demand > 90% of available capacity for the average of a 7
day period
3 Extreme Water
Shortage
Demand > 100% of available capacity for the average of a 7
day period
4 Exceptional Water
Shortage
If demand continues to exceed available capacity such that
an Extreme Water Shortage (Stage 3) is in effect due to such
capacity limitations for thirty (30) consecutive days
Stage Union County Designation Recovery
0 Year-Round Water
Conservation
1 Moderate Water Shortage Below 80% of available capacity for 90 consecutive days
2 Severe Water Shortage Below 85% of available capacity for 60 consecutive days
3 Extreme Water Shortage Below 90% of available capacity for 30 consecutive days
4 Exceptional Water Shortage Below 95% of available capacity for 30 consecutive days
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 10
these components, it may be necessary to initiate water restrictions to ensure that basic needs
are met. Such events include, but are not limited to:
• Water source contamination
• Water treatment plant disruptions
• Water distribution system disruptions
System emergencies typically require an immediate response and may require a major
reduction of water use in a short period of time. Because each emergency event is different
and varies in degree of severity and duration, no pre-determined water shortage stage can be
identified for every event.
If the Executive Director of Public Works determines a system emergency condition exists that
warrants the need to implement a water shortage stage, he/she will recommend to the County
Manager a stage and associated water use restrictions that are deemed necessary and
appropriate given the nature, extent, and expected duration of the emergency condition. The
County Manager may declare a water shortage stage and associated water use restrictions that
are deemed necessary and appropriate for the emergency condition.
As additional information becomes available regarding the system emergency, the water
shortage stage initially declared may be quickly modified or resolved. When the factors
determining the water shortage conditions have improved, the Executive Director of Public
Works will recommend that the County Manager declare a reduced water shortage stage. The
County Manager may then declare a reduced water shortage stage and associated water use
restrictions that are deemed necessary and appropriate for the changed conditions.
As joint-owners of the Catawba River Water Treatment Plant, Union County and Lancaster
County Water & Sewer District are developing the “Raw Water Intake Contingency Plan for the
Union-Lancaster Catawba River Water Treatment Plant”. The purpose of the raw water intake
contingency plan is to mitigate disruptions in the quality or quantity of available source water
or integrity of the raw water intake structure with minimal impacts to both distribution
systems. These measures will reduce the County’s vulnerability to raw water concerns and also
reduce raw water-related incidents requiring a declaration of a system emergency water
shortage.
Section 7.0 - Water Shortage Stage Measures and Restrictions
To ensure that water demand is reduced to a sustainable level after the declaration of a water
shortage stage, water use measures and restrictions need to be enforced. Regardless of the
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 11
type of water shortage, each stage requires the same estimated reduction in demand so each
stage has one set of corresponding actions that will be taken to conserve water. The water use
measures and restrictions corresponding to each water shortage stage are set forth in the
sections below.
Section 7.1 - Year-Round Water Conservation (Stage 0 Water Shortage)
This water shortage stage is intended to manage the County’s long-term water resources by
promoting water use efficiency. In the past, the County water system has experienced a high
water demand peaking factor, measured as a ratio between the highest demand day of the
year and the average demand over the entire year. This is reflective of the County’s above
average proportion of residential users and high irrigation use when compared with other
utilities.
In 2008, the County’s peaking factor exceeded 2.0. While Customers were under no water
restrictions and had unlimited water use available, the County experienced several days in May
2007 with the daily demand exceeding the maximum capacity of 18 million MGD from the
Catawba River Water Treatment Plant. The highest daily usage measured was 21.3 MGD. A
water treatment plant is designed to meet an anticipated maximum day demand; however, this
volume should only be needed or approached a few days per year. By reducing the maximum
day demand, the County can push back the time frame when additional source water is needed
and the water treatment plant needs to be expanded. Developing a new water source and the
construction of new treatment process units or a new water treatment plant are very
expensive, so rate increases corresponding with financing new infrastructure can be reduced by
delaying their development.
As a part of the 2011 Comprehensive Water & Wastewater Master Plan, the County
determined that steps would need to be taken to limit this water demand peaking factor to 1.7
to ensure adequate water supply in the future and to bring the County in line with peer water
system utilities in North Carolina. Without water use restrictions, the County’s water system
will continue to have days where the maximum day demand exceeds the water treatment plant
capacity, especially during periods of hot and dry weather. Additionally, these high demands
place stress on the distribution system.
Therefore, this Plan and the Ordinance establish the implementation of mandatory and
voluntary year-round water use restrictions and water conservation measures. These water
use restrictions and water conservation measures are in effect under normal conditions and will
serve as Stage 0 Water Shortage restrictions (Stage 0 Water Shortage is the minimum water
shortage stage that will always be in effect in the County if there is no declaration of a
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 12
heightened stage). When a Stage 0 Water Shortage is in place, all Customers shall be required
to adhere to the following mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Customer Spray Irrigation System use shall be limited to three (3) days per week.
• Customers shall at all times comply with the Spray Irrigation System schedule for use set
forth in Section 7.7 of this Plan.

Limiting Spray Irrigation System use to 3 days per week is sufficient to meet the irrigation needs
of lawns and other plants and reduces the likelihood of accidental over-watering. Those
Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld watering methods are still allowed to water
any day and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees and
flowers are permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation of their commercial
stock.
In addition to the mandatory maximum of three (3) days per week for Spray Irrigation System
use schedule, voluntary water conservation practices are also encouraged year-round at this
water shortage stage. These voluntary measures, which are encouraged, but not required, are
described below:
Voluntary Water Conservation Measures
a. Use flow-restrictive, water-saving devices and methods. Faucets should not be left
running while shaving, brushing teeth, or washing dishes. Showers should be limited to
no more than five (5) minutes and baths should be avoided if not medically necessary.
Toilets should be flushed after multiple usages.
b. Limit the use of clothes and dish washing machines to running only full loads.
c. Inspect and repair all leaks and defective components of water delivery systems in any
structures (faucets, toilets, equipment, etc.) in a timely manner.
d. Reuse household water to water plants.
Section 7.2 - Moderate Water Shortage (Stage 1 Water Shortage)
At this water shortage stage, the County has concern about the available water supply and
Customers are encouraged to adopt water saving measures intended to reduce overall water
use. The primary purpose of this water shortage stage is to increase education and awareness
of the limited water resources and to encourage additional voluntary water conservation
measures to reduce the need for further mandatory restrictions. In the event a Stage 1 Water
Shortage is declared, all Customers shall comply with the following mandatory water use
restrictions:
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 13
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Comply with all Stage 0 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions.
• The transport of water from within the County to outside of the County where such
water has been drawn by tanker truck from a hydrant of the County water utility system
is prohibited; provided, however, that transport outside of the County shall be allowed
for emergency fire protection and Bona Fide Farm Uses.

Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld watering methods are still allowed to water
any day and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees and
flowers are permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation of their commercial
stock.
In addition to the mandatory water use restrictions, additional voluntary water conservation
measures are also encouraged at this water shortage stage. These voluntary measures, which
are encouraged, but not required, are described below:
Voluntary Water Conservation Measures
a. Implement all Voluntary Water Conservation Measures set forth for a Stage 0 Water
Shortage.
b. Limit Spray Irrigation System use to no more than two (2) days per week, using the
designated schedule as set forth in Section 7.7 of this Plan.
c. Use spring-activated nozzles when watering lawns and gardens by hand with a hose.
d. Limit residential vehicle, or any other type of mobile equipment, washing to the
designated Spray Irrigation System use days set forth in Section 7.7 of this Plan.

Section 7.3 – Severe Water Shortage (Stage 2 Water Shortage)
This water shortage stage reflects an increase in concern over water supply leading to
additional mandatory restrictions. Moving to this water shortage stage is intended to bring
Customers’ and UCPW employees’ attention to the increasing severity of the water shortage.
Additional mandatory restrictions are necessary when voluntary measures are not effective in
the previous water shortage stages in reducing water system demand. In the event a Stage 2
Water Shortage is declared, all Customers shall comply with the following mandatory water use
restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Comply with all Stage 1 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions.
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 14
• Limit Spray Irrigation System use to no more than two (2) days per week and only
between the hours of 12:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m., on the
days identified in Section 7.7 of this Plan.
• Eliminate personal vehicle washing unless using a commercial carwash.
• Eliminate the filling of new swimming pools and fountains (unless considered Essential
Water Use as defined herein).
• Eliminate public building, sidewalk, and street washing activities (unless considered
Essential Water Use as defined herein).
• Limit construction uses of water (e.g. dust control).
• Limit flushing and hydrant testing programs, except as necessary to maintain water
quality or in other special circumstances.

Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld watering methods are still allowed to water
any day and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees, and
flowers are permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation of their commercial
stock.

Unless otherwise declared as mandatory at this state, Customers are encouraged, but not
required, to implement voluntary water conservation measures set forth in this Plan for a Stage
1 Water Shortage.
Section 7.4 - Extreme Water Shortage (Stage 3 Water Shortage)
This water shortage stage is a point at which the County is greatly concerned about the current
and future supply of water. Immediate additional water conservation measures and water use
restrictions are essential to avoid major restrictions or water rationing. This can be of particular
concern during a severe drought with no significant predicted rainfall. It is important for UCPW
employees and Customers to understand the rare nature of the situation and to react
accordingly. At this water shortage stage, mandatory requirements become more restrictive in
an effort to lessen the impacts of worsening conditions and delay or prevent a water shortage
emergency. In the event a Stage 3 Water Shortage is declared, all Customers shall comply with
the following mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Comply with all Stage 2 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions, unless a
more stringent requirement is imposed below.
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 15
• Limit Spray Irrigation System use to no more than one (1) day per week and only
between the hours of 12:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m., on the
day identified in Section 7.7 of this Plan.
• Eliminate the filling of all swimming pools, hot tubs, fountains, and decorative ponds
(except when necessary to support aquatic life or considered Essential Water use as
defined herein).
• Eliminate construction uses of water (e.g. dust control).
• Eliminate flushing and hydrant testing programs, except as necessary to maintain water
quality or in other special circumstances.
• Eliminate the serving of drinking water from the County water system in restaurants,
cafeterias, and other food establishments (except upon patron request).
• Eliminate variances for landscape irrigation.
Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld watering methods are still allowed to water
any day and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees, and
flowers are permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation, but only in
amounts necessary to prevent the loss of their commercial stock.
In addition to the mandatory water use restrictions, additional voluntary water conservation
practices are also encouraged at this water shortage stage. These voluntary measures, which
are encouraged, but not required, are described below:
Voluntary Water Conservation Measures
a. Implement all Voluntary Water Conservation Measures set forth for a Stage 2 Water
Shortage.
b. Encourage industrial/manufacturing process changes that reduce water use.
Section 7.5 - Exceptional Water Shortage (Stage 4 Water Shortage)
This water shortage stage involves severe water use restrictions and is reserved for situations
where the public water supply is threatened and the County must act to ensure there is an
adequate supply for Essential Water Use. This water shortage stage brings attention to the
exceptionally serious nature of the water shortage and includes rapid notifications listed in
Section 5.0 of this Plan. UCPW and other County staff will prepare to implement emergency
plans to respond to water outages according to the County’s Emergency Response Plan. In the
event a Stage 4 Water Shortage is declared, all Customers shall comply with the following
mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 16
• Comply with all Stage 3 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions, unless a
more stringent requirement is imposed below.
• Prohibit all Non-Essential Water Use (including the prohibition of all residential
irrigation, irrigation of commercial stock, and filling of ponds to sustain aquatic life).
• Prohibit the use of water outside a structure for any use other than a fire emergency.
• Require the use of disposable utensils and plates at all restaurants, cafeterias, and other
food establishments.
In addition to the mandatory water use restrictions, additional voluntary water conservation
practices are also encouraged at this water shortage stage. These voluntary measures, which
are encouraged, but not required, are described below:
Voluntary Water Conservation Measures
a. Implement all Voluntary Water Conservation Measures set forth for a Stage 3 Water
Shortage.
b. Continue to encourage industrial/manufacturing process changes that reduce water
use. The County will prioritize and meet with large commercial and
industrial/manufacturing large water customers to discuss strategies for water use
reduction measures.
Section 7.6- Additional Water Use Regulation Authority
Pursuant to the Ordinance, the County Manager, acting in the best interests of the health,
safety, and welfare of the citizens of Union County, may further regulate water usage on the
following bases: (i) time of day; (ii) day of week; (iii) Customer type, including, without
limitation, residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses; and (iv) physical attribute,
such as address.
Section 7.7 - Irrigation Schedules
A Customer is only permitted to use a Spray Irrigation System on the designated irrigation
day(s) assigned to them as set forth in the table below. The Customer’s billing cycle number
(corresponding with the table below) can be found on the Customer bill.

UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 17

Billing Cycle
Stages 0 and 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
3-day per week 2-day per week 1-day
1 Mon-Wed-Sat Mon-Wed Wed
2 Sun-Tue-Thu Sun-Thu Sun
3 Mon-Thu-Sat Mon-Thu Thu
4 Tue-Thu-Sat Tue-Thu Tue
5 Sun-Wed-Fri Sun-Wed Sun
6 Mon-Wed-Sat Mon-Wed Mon
7 Sun-Wed-Fri Sun-Wed Wed
8 Sun-Tue-Fri Tue-Fri Tue
9 Sun-Tue-Fri Tue-Fri Fri
10 Mon-Thu-Sat Mon-Thu Mon

Section 7.8- Water Conservation Rates
During a declared water shortage due to resource or capacity limitations, water rates increase
to ensure adequate operating revenue and to encourage conservation. Rate increases are not
utilized in response to a system emergency water shortage condition.
The County utilizes an increasing block rate structure for residential and irrigation water usage.
The rates for all user types are defined in the Rate Ordinance. The Rate Ordinance increases all
water usage rates during certain water shortage stages. The current rates are shown in the
table below; however, the rates are only shown to be illustrative. Customers will be charged
the rates established in the then current Rate Ordinance corresponding to the water shortage
stage in effect at the time bills are rendered. If a system emergency occurs while in a water
shortage situation, the rates applied shall be those corresponding to the current water shortage
response due to resource or capacity limitations.

UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 18

Section 8.0 - Enforcement and Penalties
Compliance with the provisions of this Plan is required and authorized by the Ordinance and
enforced by personnel of UCPW, independent contractors engaged by UCPW for such purpose,
and such other personnel as designated by the County Manager. Enforcement measures and
procedures, issuance of violations, and penalties for violation of the water restrictions put in
place are further prescribed in the Ordinance. Customers are responsible for any use of water
that passes through their service connection. Knowledge of the prevailing restrictions and
proper functioning of an automatic Spray irrigation System is the responsibility of the property
owner and resident. Any Customer who violates, or permits the violation of, any mandatory
water restriction set forth in this Plan or the Ordinance is subject to civil penalties and/or
termination of service. Civil penalties for such violations are set forth in the table below.
Customers who violate conditions of a variance are also subject to the enforcement penalties.

UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 19
*Includes termination of service
Each day that a violation of a mandatory water restriction occurs or continues to occur after
delivery of notice will be considered a separate and distinct violation. Violations will be
accumulated by Customers on a calendar year basis for purposes of accrual of civil penalties.
The Customer shall remain liable for payment of all civil penalties regardless of when accrued.
Violations of any mandatory water use restrictions of any water shortage stage shall
accumulate with violations of other stages. Should a Customer move, or cease and renew
service, during a calendar year, the Customer’s violations shall continue to accumulate as if
such move or cessation had not occurred.
Further information and detail regarding enforcement of civil penalties, termination of service,
and procedures related thereto are contained in the Ordinance.
Section 9.0 - Appeals
A Customer who receives a notice of violation indicating that the Customer is subject to a civil
penalty or the Customer’s water service is subject to termination may appeal the violation or
pending termination by filing a written notice of appeal in accordance with the procedures and
requirements set forth in the Ordinance. The consideration and resolution of all appeals will
also be in accordance with the Ordinance.
Stage Union County
Designation
1st
Violation
2nd
Violation
3rd
Violation
4th
Violation
5th and
Additional
Violations
0 Year-Round Water
Conservation Warning Warning $250 $500* $1000*
1 Moderate Water Shortage Warning $100 $500 $500* $1000*
2 Severe Water Shortage Warning $200 $500 $500* $1,000*
3 Extreme Water Shortage $100 $500 $750 $1000* $1,500*
4 Exceptional Water
Shortage $200 $500 $1,000 $1,000* $2,000*
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 20
Section 10.0 - Variances
UCPW is authorized to issue variances in accordance with this Plan and the Ordinance,
permitting any Customer satisfying the requirements of this Plan and the Ordinance to use
water for a purpose that would otherwise be prohibited by water use restrictions then in effect.
UCPW may issue variances during Stage 0, Stage 1 and Stage 2 provided that each of the
following conditions is satisfied: (i) the Customer applies for a variance using forms provided by
UCPW; (ii) the Customer pays a variance registration fee in such amount as determined by the
Executive Director of Public Works, not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00); (iii) the application
pertains to a new lawn and/or landscape installed incident to new construction, or to newly
installed replacement sod, complete reseeding, or natural ground cover within the parameters
of an established lawn; (iv) if pertaining to new lawn and/or landscape installed incident to new
construction, the Customer applies for a variance either before issuance of a certificate of
occupancy or within ninety (90) days after issuance of a certificate of occupancy relative to this
new construction; and (v) the Customer submits with the application such supporting
documentation as required by UCPW to substantiate that these conditions have been satisfied.
Upon receipt of a variance from UCPW, the Customer may be permitted to water such newly
installed lawn and/or landscape, or such newly installed replacement sod, complete reseeding,
or natural ground cover, for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days from the date of
issuance of the variance. During the period that the variance is in effect, the Customer shall
post signage provided by UCPW to signify the Customer’s temporary exempt status from water
use restrictions otherwise in effect. The Customer shall post such sign within two (2) feet of the
driveway entrance. In any variance issued, UCPW may impose such conditions and restrictions
as are appropriate to require that water used from the County water system be minimized to
the extent practical.
Variances issued shall terminate upon the earlier occurrence of the following: (i) forty-five (45)
days from the date of issuance; or (ii) declaration by the County Manager of a Stage 3 or State 4
Water Shortage. In addition, the County Manager may, upon the recommendation of the
Executive Director of Public Works, direct that UCPW cease issuance of new variances in the
event it is determined that further issuance will likely result in increased demand that will equal
or exceed the treatment and/or transmission capacity of the system or portions thereof.
Any Customer receiving a variance who violates the terms thereof shall be subject to a civil
penalty set forth in this Plan and the Ordinance and to revocation of the variance. Any person
who has violated the terms of any variance or any mandatory water use restrictions imposed
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 21
pursuant to this Plan or the Ordinance may be denied a variance, notwithstanding any provision
of this Plan or the Ordinance to the contrary.
Section 11.0- Maintenance of Spray Irrigation Systems
The County recognizes that irrigation systems utilizing water from the County water system
should be properly maintained in order to maximize efficiency and prevent waste. Additionally,
the County recognizes that such maintenance may occur on days and at such times as would
otherwise be prohibited under the Ordinance and this Plan. However, during the period that a
Stage 2 or Stage 3 Water Shortage is in effect, an existing Spray Irrigation System may be
operated on such days and at such times as would otherwise be prohibited, provided that the
requirements for such irrigation system maintenance set forth in the Ordinance are met. The
allowance for such operations, issuance of violations and penalties, and appeals are provided
for in the Ordinance.
Section 12.0- Plan Evaluation and Effectiveness
The effectiveness of this Plan will be determined by measuring system-wide water use
reductions during declared water shortage stages. In addition to water supply and usage, the
frequency of implementing water shortage stages within the parameters set forth in the Plan
will also be evaluated. If the frequency of implementation of water shortage stages is found to
be too great, or if the duration is found to be excessive, then modifications to the Plan, or
adjustments to the water supply infrastructure will be considered and proposed. The number
of citations issued during a water shortage may also be used to determine if the level and
severity of citations is sufficient to achieve the water usage reductions necessary.
All mandatory drought response activities undertaken by the participating members of the
Catawba Wateree Drought Management Group, as written in the CW-LIP, will also serve as an
expansive and detailed examination of the effectiveness of measures enacted. The table below
indicates the potential expected reduction from normal use, or the amount that would
otherwise be expected, for each water shortage stage as defined in the CW-LIP in effect as of
the adoption date of this Plan.

UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 22

Water Use Reduction Goals from the CW-LIP
Stage Percent Reduction Goals
0
1 3-5%
2 5-10%
3 10-20%
4 30% or more

For the purposes of determining “normal water use”, consideration may be given to one or
more of the following:
• Historical maximum daily, weekly, and monthly flows during drought conditions.
• Increased customer base (e.g. population growth, service area expansion) since the
historical flow comparison.
• Changes in major water users (e.g. industrial shifts) since the historical flow comparison.
• Climatic conditions for the comparison period.
• Changes in water use since the historical flow comparison.
• Other system specific considerations.
The County has implemented a more aggressive approach than the CW-LIP by implementing a
year-round, three (3) days per week Spray Irrigation System use schedule (Stage 0 Water
Shortage restriction). The reduction goals listed above are compared to unrestricted water use
and are not in addition to the reductions expected from year-round water conservation
measures.
Section 13.0 - Public Review and Revisions of Plan
This Plan, as well as the Ordinance, will be reviewed and revised as needed to adapt to new
circumstances affecting water supply and demand, following implementation of emergency
restrictions. Review will be conducted at a minimum of every five years in conjunction with
updating the County’s Local Water Supply Plan.
Adoption of this Plan, or revisions thereto, will follow the normal processes for approval at a
meeting of the Union County Board of Commissioners. The proposed Plan, or revisions thereto,
will be publicized in advance on the County’s website, as well as be publicized online as part of
the meeting agenda at which adoption of this Plan, or revisions thereto, will be considered for
UNION COUNTY
Water Shortage Response Plan

Page 23
adoption. The public will then have the opportunity to comment on revisions to the Plan
through written comment submitted to UCPW or during the public comment period at the
Board of Commissioners’ meeting.
The public will also have the option to review and comment on the provisions of the Plan at any
time. The Plan will be available online through the County’s website for the public to view, as
well as on file in the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners’ office. The public may send
comments to the contact person as set forth on the County’s website along with this Plan.
Section 14.0 - Effective Date
This Water Shortage Response Plan is effective upon adoption by the Union County Board of
Commissioners on this the 4th day of May, 2015.

This page intentionally left blank.
UNION COUNTY

Page 1
Union County Water Use Ordinance
May 4, 2015

UNION COUNTY

Page 2

Article I. Purpose
BE IT ORDAINED by the Union County Board of Commissioners that the purpose of this Ordinance is to
maintain and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of Union County (“County”) residents by
establishing short and long-term demand management strategies to effectively manage the limited
resource of the water supply in the County. This Ordinance effectively manages the water supply in the
County by requiring efficient and responsible use of water within the County and by establishing
measures and procedures for reducing potable water use during times of water shortage resulting from
drought, capacity limitations, and system emergencies.
The water demand management strategies set forth in this Ordinance reduce the rate of increase in
overall water use through year-round water conservation practices that maximize the County’s existing
and planned water supply sources and reduce seasonal peak day demands that result in the need for
costly expansion of water treatment, storage, and transmission facilities. The implementation of
voluntary and mandatory water reduction measures within the County water service area extends the
available water supply with regard for domestic water use, sanitation and fire protection, and minimizes
the adverse impacts in the event a water shortage is declared.
This Ordinance is also designed to be in accordance with the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol
(“CW-LIP”) for the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The CW-LIP was developed pursuant to the
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement for the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project (FERC Project No. 2232)
dated December 22, 2006 (the “Relicensing Agreement”), to which Union County is a party. The
Relicensing Agreement establishes the CW-LIP as the agreed-upon methodology to deal with water
shortages during periods of drought. Thus, Union County, as a signatory to the Relicensing Agreement,
is required to comply with the CW-LIP. The CW-LIP establishes a policy for how Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC, regional water users, and other stakeholders will operate water systems during periods of drought
by progressing through a series of staged water use restrictions during worsening drought conditions.
The goal of the CW-LIP is to delay the point at which the Catawba River’s usable water storage is fully
depleted and to provide additional time to allow precipitation to restore stream flow, reservoir levels,
and groundwater levels to normal ranges.
The Union County Water Shortage Response Plan (“WSRP”), adopted by the Union County Board of
Commissioners on May 4, 2015, is hereby adopted and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference.
The WSRP is also made an exhibit to this Ordinance. An official copy of the WSRP shall be available for
public inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Union County Board of Commissioners. If there is any
conflict between the WSRP and this Ordinance, the provisions of this Ordinance shall control.
UNION COUNTY

Page 3
Article II. Applicability
The provisions of this Ordinance apply to all persons, customers, and property utilizing water supplied
through the County’s water utility system; however, it does not apply to reuse or reclaimed water.
Water uses from private drinking water wells, as that term is defined in N.C.G.S. § 87-85 and ponds are
not regulated by this Ordinance. This Ordinance also supersedes the Union County Water Conservation
Ordinance originally adopted by the Union County Board of Commissioners on July 13, 1992, as
subsequently amended and/or restated by any amendments or restatements thereto.
Article III. Definitions
Bona Fide Farm Use means water uses for the production and activities relating or incidental to the
production of crops, grains, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy, livestock, poultry,
and all other forms of agriculture, as defined in N.C.G.S. § 106-581.1.
County means Union County, North Carolina.
County Manager means, for the purposes of this Ordinance, the person currently occupying the position
of Union County Manager (which includes a County Manager with an acting or interim designation), or
in the absence of such a person, the Executive Director of Public Works.
Customer means a person, company, organization, or any other entity (individuals, corporations,
partnerships, associations, and all other legal entities) using water supplied by the County’s water utility,
or in whose name an account for water utility service is maintained by the County.
CW-LIP means the Catawba-Wateree Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba River Basin, as developed
pursuant to the Relicensing Agreement.
Essential Water Use means the use of water necessary for firefighting, health, and safety, and sustaining
human and animal life. Specifically, for certain types of water uses set forth below, the following is
considered Essential Water Use:
a. Domestic Use- Water use necessary to sustain human life and the lives of domestic pets, as
well as to maintain minimum standards of hygiene and sanitation.
b. Commercial Use- Water use integral to the production of goods and/or services by any
establishment having profit as its primary aim, except as otherwise specifically prohibited by
this Ordinance.
c. Industrial Use- Water use in processes designed to convert materials of lower value into
forms having greater usability and value, except as otherwise specifically prohibited by this
Ordinance.
d. Institutional Use- Water use by government; public and private educational institutions,
churches and places of worship; water utilities; and other public organizations; except as
otherwise specifically prohibited by this Ordinance.
UNION COUNTY

Page 4
e. Health Care Facility Use- Water use in patient care and rehabilitation, including swimming
pools used for patient care and rehabilitation, in nursing homes, and other care facilities.
f. Public Use- Water use for firefighting, including testing and drills by a fire department if
performed in the interest of public safety; water system operations; and water necessary to
satisfy federal, state, and local public health, safety, or environmental protection
requirements.
g. Correctional Facility Use- Water use necessary to sustain human life and to maintain
minimum standards of hygiene and sanitation.
Non-Essential Water Use means any use of water that does not meet the definition of Essential Water
Use.
Ordinance refers to this Union County Water Use Ordinance.
Rate Ordinance means the Ordinance Setting Charges, Fees, Rates and Deposits for Customers Served by
the Union County Water and Sewer System.
Relicensing Agreement means the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement for the Catawba-Wateree
Hydro Project (FERC Project No. 2232) dated December 22, 2006.
Spray Irrigation System means a system of application of water to landscaping by means of a device,
other than a hand-held hose or watering container, which projects water through the air in the form of
particles or droplets.
UCPW means the Union County Public Works Department.
WSRP means the Water Shortage Response Plan adopted by the Union County Board of Commissioners
on May 4, 2015.
Article IV. Declaration of a Water Shortage
In the event that a water shortage of any degree occurs, as such an event triggering a water shortage is
set forth in this Ordinance and the WSRP, the Executive Director of Public Works shall notify the County
Manager of said water shortage. The County Manager is authorized by this Ordinance to declare a
water shortage, designate a water shortage stage, and implement the water use reduction measures or
restrictions corresponding with such a stage, as such water use reduction measures or restrictions are
outlined in this Ordinance. The County Manager shall report the declaration of a water shortage, as well
as the water shortage stage, to the Board of Commissioners at its next regular meeting.
In designating any water shortage stage pursuant to this Ordinance, the County Manager may limit the
applicability of the requirements of this Ordinance to certain sections of the County, whether by
township or other description, as appropriate.
The declaration of a water shortage and designation of a water shortage stage becomes effective
immediately upon issuance by the County Manager, unless otherwise stated in such declaration. When
UNION COUNTY

Page 5
a water shortage stage is declared or changed, the stage shall remain in effect until reduced or
rescinded by the County Manager, upon recommendation of the Executive Director of Public Works,
when it is deemed that the condition(s) which caused the water shortage has abated. Any declaration
of a water shortage, or any designated change in a water shortage stage, shall be promptly and
extensively publicized in a manner corresponding with the updated and current designated stage, in the
manner of notification set forth in the WSRP.
Article V. Determination of a Water Shortage
A water shortage refers to a condition that exists when the demands and requirements of water
Customers served by the Union County water system cannot be satisfied without depleting the available
supply of treated water or the available water supply to or below a critical level; i.e., the level at which
water is available for Essential Water Use. Conditions contributing to a water shortage may include, but
are not limited to, the following:
• Resource Limitations
• Capacity Limitations
• System Emergencies
A water shortage stage is determined by the criteria set forth in the WSRP, or as otherwise provided in
this Ordinance.
Article VI. Water Shortage Stage Measures and Restrictions
A. Year-Round Water Conservation (Stage 0 Water Shortage)
This Ordinance establishes the implementation of mandatory and voluntary year-round water use
restrictions and conservation measures. These water use restrictions and water conservation measures
are in effect under normal conditions and will serve as Stage 0 Water Shortage restrictions (Stage 0
Water Shortage is the minimum water shortage stage that will always be in effect in the County if there
is no declaration of a heightened stage). In the event a Stage 0 Water Shortage is in place, all
Customers shall be required to adhere to the following mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Customer Spray Irrigation System use shall be limited to three (3) days per week.
• Customers shall at all times comply with the Spray Irrigation System schedule for use set forth in
the declaration of water shortage stage and in the WSRP.
Those Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld water methods are still allowed to water any day
and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees, and flowers are
permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation of their commercial stock.
Voluntary water conservation measures for this water shortage stage, as described in the WSRP, shall
also be encouraged, but not required.
UNION COUNTY

Page 6
B. MODERATE Water Shortage (Stage 1 Water Shortage)
In the event a Stage 1 Water Shortage is declared, all Customers shall be required to adhere to the
following mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Comply with all Stage 0 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions.
• The transport of water from within the County to outside of the County where such water has
been drawn by tanker truck from a hydrant of the County water utility system is prohibited;
provided, however, that transport outside of the County shall be allowed for emergency fire
protection and Bona Fide Farm Uses.
Those Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld water methods are still allowed to water any day
and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees, and flowers are
permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation of their commercial stock.
Voluntary water conservation measures, as described for this water shortage stage in the WSRP, shall
also be encouraged, but not required.
C. SEVERE Water Shortage (Stage 2 Water Shortage)
In the event a Stage 2 Water Shortage is declared, all Customers shall be required to adhere to the
following mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Comply with all Stage 1 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions.
• Limit Spray Irrigation System use to no more than two (2) days per week and only between the
hours of 12:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m., on the days identified in the
WSRP
• Eliminate personal vehicle washing unless using a commercial carwash.
• Eliminate the filling of new swimming pools and fountains (unless considered Essential Water
Use as defined herein).
• Eliminate public building, sidewalk, and street washing activities (unless considered Essential
Water Use as defined herein).
• Limit construction uses of water (e.g. dust control)
• Limit flushing and hydrant testing programs, except as necessary to maintain water quality and
in other special circumstances.

Those Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld water methods are still allowed to water any day
and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees, and flowers are
permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation of their commercial stock.
UNION COUNTY

Page 7
Unless otherwise declared mandatory, Customers are encouraged, but not required, to implement
voluntary water conservation measures set forth for a Stage 1 Water Shortage in the WSRP.
D. EXTREME Water Shortage (Stage 3 Water Shortage)
In the event a Stage 3 Water Shortage is declared, all Customers shall be required to adhere to the
following mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Comply with all Stage 2 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions, unless a more
stringent requirement is imposed below.
• Limit Spray Irrigation System use to no more than one (1) day per week and only between the
hours of 12:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 a.m., on the day identified in the
WSRP.
• Eliminate the filling of all swimming pools, hot tubs, fountains, and decorative ponds (except
when necessary to support aquatic life or considered Essential Water Use as defined herein).
• Eliminate construction uses of water (e.g. dust control)
• Eliminate flushing and hydrant testing programs, except as necessary to maintain water quality
and in other special circumstances.
• Eliminate the serving of drinking water from the County water system in restaurants, cafeterias,
and other food establishments (except upon patron request).
• Eliminate variances for landscape irrigation.

Those Customers using drip irrigation or any handheld water methods are still allowed to water any day
and time. Customers regularly engaged in the sale of plants, shrubbery, trees, and flowers are
permitted to use water by any method at any time for irrigation of their commercial stock, but only in
amounts necessary to prevent the loss of their commercial stock.
Voluntary water conservation measures, as described for this water shortage stage in the WSRP, shall
also be encouraged, but not required.
E. EXCEPTIONAL Water Shortage (Stage 4 Water Shortage)
In the event a Stage 4 Water Shortage is declared, all Customers shall be required to adhere to the
following mandatory water use restrictions:
Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
• Comply with all Stage 3 Water Shortage Mandatory Water Use Restrictions, unless a more
stringent requirement is imposed below.
• Prohibit all Non-Essential Water Use as defined herein (including the prohibition of all
residential irrigation, irrigation of commercial stock, and filling of ponds to sustain aquatic life).
• Prohibit the use of water outside a structure for any use other than a fire emergency.
UNION COUNTY

Page 8
• Require the use of disposable utensils and plates at all restaurants, cafeterias, and other food
establishments.
Voluntary water conservation measures, as described for this water shortage stage in the WSRP, shall
also be encouraged, but not required.
Article VII. Additional Water Use Regulation Authority
The County Manager, acting in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of
Union County, may further regulate water usage on the following bases: (i) time of day; (ii) day of week;
(iii) Customer type, including, without limitation, residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional
uses; and (iv) physical attribute, such as address.
Article VIII. Water Conservation Rates
During a declared water shortage due to resource or capacity limitations, water rates increase to ensure
adequate operating revenue and to encourage conservation. Rate increases are not utilized in response
to a system emergency water shortage condition. The rates for all user types are defined in the Rate
Ordinance. Customers will be charged the rates established in the then current Rate Ordinance
corresponding to the water shortage stage in effect at the time bills are rendered. If a system
emergency occurs while in a water shortage situation, the rates applied shall be those corresponding to
the current water shortage response due to resource or capacity limitations.
Article IX. Compliance Required in the Event of Water Supply Shortage
In addition to any other violation of law prescribed in this Ordinance, if the County Manager declares a
water shortage stage as described in this Ordinance, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or
corporation to use or permit the use of water from the County water system in a manner inconsistent
with the provisions of this Ordinance.
Article X. Enforcement and Penalties
A. Compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be enforced by UCPW personnel,
independent contractors engaged by UCPW for such purpose, and such other personnel as
designated by the County Manager.

B. The use of water from the County water system by a Customer in violation of any mandatory water
use restriction at any water shortage stage imposed pursuant to this Ordinance is unlawful. Further,
the refusal or failure of a Customer or other person acting on the Customer's behalf to cease
immediately a violation of a water use restriction, after being directed to do so by a person
authorized to enforce the provisions of this Ordinance, is unlawful. Each Customer is responsible for
any use of water that passes through the service connection associated with the Customer's account
or otherwise passes through the Customer's private water system.

UNION COUNTY

Page 9
C. Any Customer who violates, or permits the violation of, any mandatory water use restriction
imposed pursuant to this Ordinance shall be subject to civil penalties and/or termination of service
as follows in the table below:

*Includes termination of service
Each day that a violation of a mandatory water use restriction occurs or continues to occur after
delivery of notice pursuant to subarticle (H) below shall be considered a separate and distinct
violation.

D. Violations shall be accumulated by Customers on a calendar year basis for purposes of accrual of
civil penalties. For example, a second violation of a Stage 1 Water Shortage water use restriction by
a Customer during a calendar year shall result in a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100), but
the next subsequent violation, if incurred by that same Customer during the following calendar year,
shall result in a warning for a first violation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Customer shall
remain liable for payment of all civil penalties regardless of when accrued. Violations of any
mandatory water use restrictions of any water shortage stage shall accumulate with violations of
other stages. Should a Customer move, or cease and renew service, during a calendar year, the
Customer's violations shall continue to accumulate as if such move or cessation had not occurred.

E. Each civil penalty associated with a first, second, or third violation and assessed against a Customer
pursuant to this Ordinance shall be added to the Customer's water bill and shall be paid in the same
manner as the payment of water bills. A Customer’s partial payment of a water bill shall be applied
first to satisfaction of the civil penalties. Failure to pay all or any portion of a water bill, including
Stage Union County
Designation
1st
Violation
2nd
Violation
3rd
Violation
4th
Violation
5th and
Additional
Violations
0 Year-Round Water
Conservation Warning Warning $250 $500* $1000*
1 Moderate Water
Shortage Warning $100 $500 $500* $1000*
2 Severe Water
Shortage Warning $200 $500 $500* $1,000*
3 Extreme Water
Shortage $100 $500 $750 $1000* $1,500*
4 Exceptional
Shortage Emergency $200 $500 $1,000 $1,000* $2,000*
UNION COUNTY

Page 10
any civil penalty assessed pursuant to this Ordinance, by the due date indicated on the bill may
result in the termination of water service.

F. Each civil penalty associated with a fourth or subsequent violation and assessed against a Customer
pursuant to this Ordinance shall be added to the Customer’s water bill, but shall be payable within
ten (10) calendar days of delivery of notice of violation. Failure to pay all or any portion of a civil
penalty associated with a fourth or subsequent violation assessed pursuant to this Ordinance by the
tenth day following delivery of the notice of violation shall result in termination of water service,
unless such action is stayed pending appeal.

G. The violation of any water use restriction or provision of this Ordinance may be enforced by all
remedies authorized by law for noncompliance with County ordinances, including without limitation
the assessment of a civil penalty and action for injunction, order of abatement or other equitable
relief; provided, however, that no violation of any water use restriction or provision of this
Ordinance shall be a basis for imposing any criminal remedy. The Board of Commissioners may
release billing information, as such term is defined in N.C.G.S. 132-1.1(c), of Customers who violate,
or have violated, the provisions of this Ordinance, when the Board in its sole discretion and acting
pursuant to N.C.G.S. 132-1.1(c)(2), determines that the release of such billing information during
times of mandatory water conservation is necessary to assist the County to maintain the integrity
and quality of services it provides.

H. UCPW shall send notice of first, second, and third violations to the Customer by regular U.S. mail at
the Customer’s billing address on file with UCPW. Such notice shall be deemed to have been
delivered three days from the date mailed. In the event of a fourth or subsequent violation, UCPW
shall send notice of the violation and intent to terminate water service by regular U.S. mail and by
certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Customer’s billing address on file with UCPW. Such
notice shall be deemed to have been delivered on the earlier of (i) three days from the date of
mailing by regular U.S. mail, or (ii) the date indicated on the return receipt.

I. The notice of violation shall specify the following:

1. The nature of the violation and the date and time it occurred;
2. The method by which payment of any civil penalty may be paid, including a statement indicating
that it will be included on the Customer’s next water bill;
3. A warning that additional or continued violations may result in increased penalties, including
termination of water service;
4. A warning that failure to pay a water bill, including any civil penalty assessed pursuant to this
Ordinance, may result in termination of water service;
5. The telephone number at UCPW where the Customer may direct any questions or comments;
and
UNION COUNTY

Page 11
6. Information indicating the manner in which the Customer may appeal a violation or a pending
termination pursuant to Article XII of this Ordinance.
Article XI. Termination of Service
In addition to the payment of any civil penalty assessed pursuant to Article X of this Ordinance, a
Customer shall be subject to termination or restriction of water service following four (4) or more
violations of any water use restrictions or other provision imposed pursuant to this Ordinance. Water
service will not be restored at such service connection until the Customer pays all the Customer's
outstanding obligations, including, without limitation, all charges for water service, all civil penalties and
other fees charged in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, and the current disconnect
processing fee. In the event water service is terminated a second time for violations pertaining to use of
water obtained by the Customer through an irrigation meter, service to such irrigation meter shall
remain terminated for the remainder of the calendar year. A Customer may appeal such a termination
of service pursuant to Article XII of this Ordinance.
Article XII. Appeals
A Customer who receives a notice of violation for a first, second, or third violation may appeal the
violation by written notice to UCPW indicating through supporting documentation the factual basis for
the Customer’s position that either (i) the violation was issued in error, or (ii) the Customer had no
opportunity to prevent the violation. The appeal must be delivered to UCPW at the specified address
within fifteen (15) calendar days of delivery of the notice of violation. The Executive Director of Public
Works or his/her designee shall conduct such review of the appeal as may be necessary to determine
whether the documentation provided by the Customer supports the Customer’s assertion that the
violation was issued in error or the Customer had no opportunity to prevent the violation. The
Executive Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall respond in writing within twenty (20)
business days of receipt of the appeal.
A Customer who receives a notice of violation for a fourth or subsequent violation of the Ordinance
indicating that the Customer’s water service is subject to termination pursuant to this Article may
appeal the pending termination of water service by filing a written notice of appeal with the Executive
Director of Public Works, or in absence, his or her designee. The notice of appeal must be delivered to
UCPW at the specified address within ten (10) calendar days from delivery of the notice of violation and
must include a copy of the notice of violation being appealed. A hearing shall be held on such appeal
within ten (10) business days of UCPW’s receipt of the notice of appeal, or by such other date as
mutually agreed upon by UCPW and the Customer.
Article XIII. Variances

A. UCPW is authorized to issue variances in accordance with this Article permitting any Customer
satisfying the requirements of this Article to use water for a purpose that would otherwise be
prohibited by water use restrictions then in effect.
UNION COUNTY

Page 12

B. UCPW may issue variances during Stage 0, Stage 1 and Stage 2 provided that each of the following
conditions is satisfied: (i) the Customer applies for a variance using forms provided by UCPW; (ii) the
Customer pays a variance registration fee in such amount as determined by the Executive Director
of Public Works, not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00); (iii) the application pertains to a new lawn
and/or landscape installed incident to new construction, or to newly installed replacement sod,
complete reseeding, or natural ground cover within the parameters of an established lawn; (iv) if
pertaining to new lawn and/or landscape installed incident to new construction, the Customer
applies for a variance either before issuance of a certificate of occupancy or within ninety (90) days
after issuance of a certificate of occupancy relative to this new construction; and (v) the Customer
submits with the application such supporting documentation as required by UCPW to substantiate
that these conditions have been satisfied.

C. Upon receipt of a variance from UCPW, the Customer may be permitted to water such newly
installed lawn and/or landscape, or such newly installed replacement sod, complete reseeding, or
natural ground cover, for a period not to exceed forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance of the
variance. During the period that the variance is in effect, the Customer shall post signage provided
by UCPW to signify the Customer’s temporary exempt status from water use restrictions otherwise
in effect. The Customer shall post such sign within two (2) feet of the driveway entrance. In any
variance issued pursuant to this Article, UCPW may impose such conditions and restrictions as are
appropriate to require that water used from the County water system be minimized to the extent
practical.

D. Variances issued pursuant to this Article shall terminate upon the earlier occurrence of the
following: (i) forty-five (45) days from the date of issuance; or (ii) declaration by the County
Manager of a Stage 3 or State 4 Water Shortage. In addition, the County Manager may, upon the
recommendation of the Executive Director of Public Works, direct that UCPW cease issuance of new
variances in the event it is determined that further issuance will likely result in increased demand
that will equal or exceed the treatment and/or transmission capacity of the system or portions
thereof.

E. Any Customer receiving a variance pursuant to this Article who violates the terms thereof shall be
subject to a civil penalty pursuant to Article X(C) of this Ordinance and to revocation of the variance.
Any person who has violated the terms of any variance issued pursuant to this Article or any
mandatory water use restrictions imposed pursuant to this Ordinance may be denied a variance,
notwithstanding any provision of this Article to the contrary.
UNION COUNTY

Page 13
Article XIV. Irrigation Systems Requirements
A. All non-residential accounts shall have a separate service for irrigation which is metered
separately. All residential properties platted and recorded after July 1, 2009, are required by
N.C.G.S. § 143-355.4 to have a separate meter for in-ground irrigation systems.

B. Irrigation systems shall not be allowed to operate during periods of rainfall.

C. All automatic Spray Irrigation Systems with a timer shall be equipped with rain sensors as
approved by Union County. Rain sensors shall be activated to prevent the Spray Irrigation
System from operating after one fourth (1/4) inch of rain has fallen.
Article XV. Maintenance of Spray Irrigation Systems
A. The County recognizes that irrigation systems utilizing water from the County water system
should be properly maintained in order to maximize efficiency and prevent waste. Additionally,
the County recognizes that such maintenance may occur on days and at such times as would
otherwise be prohibited under this Ordinance and the WSRP. However, during the period that a
Stage 2 or Stage 3 Water Shortage is in effect, existing irrigation systems may be operated on
such days and at such times as would otherwise be prohibited, provided that all of the following
requirements are satisfied.
1. Such operation must be incident to bona fide maintenance and/or repair of an existing
irrigation system performed by a professional irrigation contractor in the business of
performing such work. UCPW may require registration of such contractors, and may
require on a given project that the contractor establish, to the satisfaction of UCPW, the
need for such maintenance or repair.
2. The irrigation contractor shall post signage provided by UCPW at the drive entrance to
the property during such time, and only such time, that maintenance and/or repair
services are being provided. Such signs shall be at all times the property of UCPW, and
UCPW may charge a reasonable fee for provision of signs. The irrigation contractor shall
not transfer, loan, or otherwise allow use of UCPW signs by anyone other than
employees of the irrigation contractor and shall immediately report any lost or stolen
signs to UCPW.
3. The irrigation contractor shall remain on-site at all times while the irrigation system is in
operation for maintenance and/or repair.

B. Any irrigation contractor who violates the requirements of this Article shall be subject to a civil
penalty in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500) and shall forfeit the opportunity afforded
pursuant to this Article to provide maintenance and/or repair of irrigation systems during dates
UNION COUNTY

Page 14
and times that watering is prohibited by a Stage 2 or Stage 3 Water Shortage declaration. In the
event an irrigation contractor fails to comply with these requirements, UCPW shall send notice
of violation indicating imposition of the civil penalty and demanding return of the UCPW signs
assigned to him. Such notice shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the
contractor’s billing address on file with UCPW.

C. An irrigation contractor who receives a notice of violation may appeal such decision by filing a
written notice of appeal with the Executive Director of Public Works, or his or her designee. The
notice of appeal must be delivered to the Executive Director of Public Works or his/her designee
within ten (10) calendar days from delivery of the notice of violation and must include a copy of
the notice of violation being appealed. A hearing shall be held on such appeal within ten (10)
business days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or by such other date as mutually agreed upon
by the Executive Director of Public Works, or his/her designee, and the contractor.
Article XVI. Severability
If any article, section, subdivision, subarticle, clause, or provision of this Ordinance shall be adjudged
invalid, such adjudication shall apply only to such article, section, subdivision, subarticle, clause, or
provision so adjudged, and the remainder of this Ordinance may be declared valid once effective.
Article XVII. Effective Date
This Ordinance is effective upon adoption by the Union County Board of Commissioners on this the 4TH
day of May, 2015.

Wingate Water Shortage Response Plan
Water Shortage Response Plan
Town of Wingate, North Carolina
September 20, 2010

The procedures herein are written to reduce potable water demand and supplement
existing drinking water supplies whenever existing water supply sources are inadequate
to meet current demands for potable water.

I. Authorization

The Wingate Town Administrator shall enact the following water shortage response
provisions whenever the trigger conditions outlined in Section IV are met. In his or her
absence, the Public Works Director will assume this role.

Mr. Dryw Blanchard
Wingate Town Administrator
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mr. James Jones
Town of Wingate Public Works Director
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

II. Notification

The following notification methods will be used to inform water system employees and
customers of a water shortage declaration: employee e-mail announcements, notices at
municipal buildings, notices in water bills and on the Town of Wingate website
http://wingate.govoffice.com/. Required water shortage response measures will be
communicated through PSA announcements on local radio and cable stations, and on
the Town of Wingate website. Declaration of emergency water restrictions or water
rationing will be communicated to all customers by telephone through use of reverse
911.

III. Levels of Response

Five levels of water shortage response are outlined in the table below. The five levels of
water shortage response are: voluntary reductions, mandatory reductions I and II,
emergency reductions and water rationing. A detailed description of each response
level and corresponding water reduction measures follow below.

NC Division of Water Resources
http://www.ncwater.org
1
Wingate Water Shortage Response Plan

Stage Response Description
1 Voluntary
Reductions
Water users are encouraged to reduce their water use and
improve water use efficiency; however, no penalties apply for
noncompliance. Water supply conditions indicate a potential
for shortage.
2 Mandatory
Reductions I
Water users must abide required water use reduction and
efficiency measures; penalties apply for noncompliance.
Water supply conditions are significantly lower than the
seasonal norm and water shortage conditions are expected to
persist.
3 Mandatory
Reductions II
Same as in Stage 2
4 Emergency
Reductions
Water supply conditions are substantially diminished and
pose an imminent threat to human health or environmental
integrity.
5 Water
Rationing
Water supply conditions are substantially diminished and
remaining supplies must be allocated to preserve human
health and environmental integrity.

In Stage 1, Voluntary Reductions, all water users will be asked to reduce their normal
water use by 5%. Customer education and outreach programs will encourage water
conservation and efficiency measures including: irrigating landscapes at a minimum of
two days per week, a maximum of one inch per week; preventing water waste, runoff
and watering impervious surfaces; washing only full loads in clothes and dishwashers;
using spring-loaded nozzles on garden hoses; and identifying and repairing all water
leaks.

In Stage 2, Mandatory Reductions I, all customers are expected to reduce their water
use by 10% in comparison to their previous month’s water bill. In addition to continuing
to encourage all voluntary reduction actions, the following restrictions apply: irrigation is
limited to a half inch per week between 8PM and 8AM one day a week; outdoor use of
drinking water for washing impervious surfaces is prohibited; and all testing and training
purposes requiring drinking water (e.g. fire protection) will be limited.

In Stage 3, Mandatory Reductions II, customers must continue actions from all previous
stages and further reduce water use by 20% compared to their previous month’s water
bill. All outdoor water use is banned. Prioritize and meet with commercial and industrial
large water customers and meet to discuss strategies for water reduction measures
including development of an activity schedule and contingency plans. Additionally, in
Stage 3, a drought surcharge of 1.5 times the normal water rate applies.

In Stage 4, Emergency Reductions, customers must continue all actions from previous
stages and further reduce their water use by 25% compared to their previous month’s
NC Division of Water Resources
http://www.ncwater.org
2
Wingate Water Shortage Response Plan
water bill. A ban on all use of drinking water except to protect public health and safety is
implemented and drought surcharges increase to 2 times the normal water rate.

The goal of Stage 5, Water Rationing, is to provide drinking water to protect public
health (e.g. residences, residential health care facilities and correctional facilities). In
Stage 5, all customers are only permitted to use water at the minimum required for
public health protection. Firefighting is the only allowable outdoor water use and pickup
locations for distributing potable water will be announced according to Wingate’s
Emergency Response Plan. Drought surcharges increase to 5 times the normal water
rate.

IV. Triggers

Wingate is provided water solely by purchase from the Union County. When Union
County declares a water shortage Wingate is required to do so as well. During this time
Wingate Public Works Director will stay in close contact with Union County and follow
their triggers.

Return to Normal

When water shortage conditions have abated and the situation is returning to normal,
water conservation measures employed during each phase should be decreased in
reverse order of implementation. Permanent measures directed toward long-term
monitoring and conservation should be implemented or continued so that the
community will be in a better position to prevent shortages and respond to recurring
water shortage conditions.

V. Enforcement

The provisions of the water shortage response plan will be enforced by Town of
Wingate Public Works department and police personnel. Violators may be reported to
the Town’s phone line or the e-mail contact listed on the town’s website. Citations are
assessed according to the following schedule depending on the number of prior
violations and current level of water shortage.

Water Shortage Level First Violation Second Violation Third Violation
Voluntary Reductions N/A N/A N/A
Mandatory Reductions
(Stages 2 and 3)
Warning $250 Discontinuation of
Service
Emergency Reductions $250 Discontinuation of
Service
Discontinuation of
Service
Water Rationing $500 Discontinuation of
Service
Discontinuation of
Service

Drought surcharge rates are effective in Stages 3, 4 and 5.
NC Division of Water Resources
http://www.ncwater.org
3
Wingate Water Shortage Response Plan
NC Division of Water Resources
http://www.ncwater.org
4

VI. Public Comment

Customers will have multiple opportunities to comment on the provisions of the water
shortage response plan. First, a draft plan will be will be available at Town Hall for
customers to view. A notice will be included in customer water bill notifying them of
such. Also a draft plan will be published on the Town of Wingate website. Notice will be
printed in all customer water bills to collect comments on the draft. All subsequent
revisions to the draft plan will be published at least 30 days prior to an adoption vote by
Wingate’s Town Commissioners.

VII. Variance Protocols

Applications for water use variance requests are available from the Town of Wingate
website and Town Public Works Office. All applications must be submitted to the Public
Works Office for review by the Public Works Director or his or her designee. A decision
to approve or deny individual variance requests will be determined within two weeks of
submittal after careful consideration of the following criteria: impact on water demand,
expected duration, alternative source options, social and economic importance, purpose
(i.e. necessary use of drinking water) and the prevention of structural damage.

VIII. Effectiveness

The effectiveness of the Wingate water shortage response plan will be determined by
comparing the stated water conservation goals with observed water use reduction data.
Other factors to be considered include frequency of plan activation, any problem periods
without activation, total number of violation citations, desired reductions attained and
evaluation of demand reductions compared to the previous year’s seasonal data.

IX. Revision

The water shortage response plan will be reviewed and revised as needed to adapt to
new circumstances affecting water supply and demand, following implementation of
emergency restrictions, and at a minimum of every five years in conjunction with the
updating of our Local Water Supply Plan. Further, a water shortage response planning
work group will review procedures following each emergency or rationing stage to
recommend any necessary improvements to the plan to Wingate’s Town
Commissioners. The Town of Wingate Public Works Director is responsible for initiating
all subsequent revisions.
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
C
C
APPENDIX C: CHEOPS™
Modeling Results -
Performance Measure Sheets

C-1
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

C-2
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
31
32
33
34
37
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
49
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
105
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
117
119
120
121
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
137
139
140
141
143
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
Lake James (including the Catawba River Bypassed Reach, Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach and the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach) (1999-2003)(1999-2003)(1999-2003)(1999-2003)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 387 350 387 387
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 506 504 506 506
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 39% 33% 39% 38%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 34% 28% 34% 34%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 26% 21% 26% 25%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 112 129 112 116
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 93.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 43 65 43 49
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
92.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 6 21 6 6
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<93.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 51 88 52 61
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 10% 12% 10% 10%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 61 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 275.35) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 15 95 95 95 95
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 16% 11% 16% 15%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 39% 30% 39% 36%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 42% 30% 42% 40%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 20% 24% 20% 21%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 13 13 13 13
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 175 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 72% 74% 72% 72%
Lake Rhodhiss
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 526 636 522 521
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 721 882 715 728
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 81% 79% 80% 79%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 71% 68% 71% 70%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 63% 58% 63% 61%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 34 48 35 37
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 18 30 18 20
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 107 129 107 115
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 19% 14% 14%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 89.4 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 79.1 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 24% 21% 24% 25%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 32% 29% 32% 33%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 31% 28% 31% 32%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 4 4 4 4
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lake Hickory (Including the Oxford Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 296 548 270 265
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 833 1,134 798 752
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 83% 74% 83% 79%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 74% 69% 74% 71%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 62% 54% 62% 60%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 42 56 43 46
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 225 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 44% 48% 44% 44%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 7 14 7 10
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 120 149 121 125
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 14% 14% 14%
R101, R111, R121, R124, R127,
HOWQ44
Maximize days/yr of boating opportunities in the regulated river
reach
Avg. days/yr of daytime flows 2500, 5500 cfs released from the
hydro development for at least 2 hrs/day during higher use months
(Note 20)1-Mar 31-Oct 25 108 125 110 110
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 94 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 73 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 230) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 25 120 107 120 120
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 17% 19%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 31% 28% 33% 32%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 30% 30% 33% 32%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lookout Shoals Lake (including the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 494 697 534 776
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 1,099 1,259 1,267 1,331
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 87% 81% 86% 86%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 79% 82% 78% 77%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 74% 65% 74% 70%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 29 44 30 34
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 92.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 1 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
92.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 1 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 81 112 83 94
Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 10% 13% 10% 10%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 74.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 72.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 17% 16% 18%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 27% 27% 26% 28%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 25% 24% 23% 25%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 66 64 66 66
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
144
145
146
147
150
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
168
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
198
200
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
212
214
215
216
217
218
219
224
225
226
227
228
233
234
235
236
237
242
243
244
245
247
249
251
252
254
255
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Lake Norman
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 132 4 152 155
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 73% 54% 73% 73%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 73% 58% 72% 72%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 63% 37% 63% 60%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 25 71 26 27
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 26 79 28 28
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<95.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 18 79 24 28
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 19% 14% 15%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 85 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (< 75
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 65 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 23% 25% 23% 23%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 96% 79% 94% 93%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 63% 65% 63% 65%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Mt Island Lake (including the Mt Island Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 305 277 302 291
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 462 525 451 397
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 63% 34% 65% 63%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 51% 25% 53% 49%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 38% 17% 38% 34%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 79 136 77 83
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 91.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<96.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 160 274 158 169
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 17% 17% 17%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 94.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 1 1 1
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 88 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 30% 26% 31% 33%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 72% 88% 72% 75%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 63% 84% 63% 67%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 8 6 8 8
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 97 105 99 101
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 187 189 162 173
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 74% 67% 75% 73%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 52% 50% 53% 52%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 63% 61% 63% 63%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 33% 30% 33% 32%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 79 83 79 80
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 92 96 92 93
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 150 157 149 153
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 212 224 213 216
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
WQ189
Maximize low flows to maintain waste assimilation capacity of the
regulated river reach.
Percent of days at or above approximate 7Q10 flow (450 cfs) released
from the hydro development (RM 139.63) (Note 9)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 860 720 860 860
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 25% 26% 25% 25%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 74% 67% 74% 73%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 36% 37% 35% 36%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 20% 26% 19% 20%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 13% 14% 13% 13%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 907,563 856,993 903,277 903,657
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 68,755 64,924 68,430 68,459
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $484,362 $460,278 $482,315 $483,042
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
135
136
137
138
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)(1999-2003)(1999-2003)(1999-2003)(1999-2003)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 97 105 99 101
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 187 189 162 173
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 74% 67% 75% 73%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 52% 50% 53% 52%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 63% 61% 63% 63%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 33% 30% 33% 32%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 79 83 79 80
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 92 96 92 93
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 150 157 149 153
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 212 224 213 216
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 860 720 860 860
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 25% 26% 25% 25%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 74% 67% 74% 73%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 36% 37% 35% 36%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 20% 26% 19% 20%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 215 388 207 231
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 515 740 484 558
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 96% 95% 96% 96%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 98% 97% 98% 98%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 95% 95% 95% 95%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 2 1 2 1
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 11 11 11 11
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 12% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 95 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
90.8 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 12% 13%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 2 2 3 1
Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir (including the Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach and the Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 380 580 519 526
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 933 1,237 1,095 1,145
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 89% 89% 90% 89%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 92% 93% 92% 91%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 90% 91% 90% 90%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 3 3 4 2
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 39 37 39 39
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
97.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 37 35 37 38
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<98.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 56 55 57 58
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 18% 17% 17%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 87.2 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 23% 22% 23% 23%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 23% 21% 23% 23%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 32 26 31 30
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 2 0 1
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 329 373 214 264
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 614 811 557 598
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 95% 95% 96% 95%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 95% 95% 96% 96%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 94% 94% 95% 94%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 0 0 0 0
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 23 21 22 22
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
96.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 1 2 1 1
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 16 13 14 16
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 80.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 13% 15% 14% 14%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 15% 15% 16%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 2 2 2
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 3 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
139
140
141
142
145
147
148
149
150
151
157
158
159
160
161
164
165
166
169
170
171
173
175
177
178
179
181
182
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Lake Wateree (including the Wateree Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 322 356 329 357
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 953 990 1,025 933
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 59% 52% 58% 56%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 76% 64% 75% 74%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 86% 80% 86% 85%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 8 18 8 8
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1200 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 16 35 16 17
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
93.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 29 55 30 31
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 10% 12% 10% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 74.54) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 53 930 807 930 930
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 10% 12% 10% 11%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 98% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 16% 18% 17% 16%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 16 15 16 16
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 13% 14% 13% 13%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 907,563 856,993 903,277 903,657
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 68,755 64,924 68,430 68,459
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8) 1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $484,362 $460,278 $482,315 $483,042
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 4 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Notes
Notes
1 CIS # are the Composite Interest Statement numbers taken from Rev 3 of the Composite Interest Statement document
dated 10/27/04 for the interests that are both (1) directly related to water quantity management and (2) reasonably measurable using CHEOPS.
The following CIS #'s represent interests that are directly related to water quantity, but that will be dealt with differently as noted,
and therefore will not be tabulated individually:
CIS #Composite Interest Statement (Rev 3 - 10/27/04)
FA16 Provide run-of-river flows through every dam. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA36 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA38 Restore run-of-river flows to the Great Falls. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R125 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R126 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
HOWQ51 LIP design determines if interest is met.
HOWQ52 LIP design determines if interest is met.
2 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criterion occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
3 Critical lake elevations per Attachment F of Draft AIP dated 10/15/04.
4 See App. C of Draft Reservoir Level Study Report dated 11/10/04 for average monthly lake levels during post-Cowans Ford era.
Areas within the lakes are considered boatable if the water depth is greater than or equal to 3 ft.
Lake surface areas are determined using Area-Volume Curves (i.e., a set of curves for each lake that
graph both lake surface area and lake volume verses water depth).
5 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
6 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
7 Developed areas include areas with roads, houses and other man-made structures.
8 Includes lost hydropower generation due to unplanned spilling of water at hydro station dams.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
9 Includes lost hydropower due to minimum flow and recreation flow releases that bypass the hydro station and public water supply and industrial withdrawals.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
10 Normalized dollar value of hydropower generated in a given year =
[ (MWH x market value for each hour)]/(Highest hourly market price in that year)
11 Flow rates needed to provide for basic navigation. These flow rates are determined by the Instream Flow Study
and/or the Recreation Flow Study. In SC, the flow rates are based on meeting SCDNR's navigation criteria.
In NC, the flow rates are based on Rec 02 studies.
12 7Q10 Flow rate = Lowest average flow rate over a 7-day period that statistically is likely to occur once every 10 years.
The approximate 7Q10 flow rates listed in this document are from Table 6.1-1, Summary of Catawba-Wateree Project
Hydrology as shown in Duke Power's First Stage Consultation Document dated 2003.
13 Absolute Lake level variation is determined from hourly checks against the measure using 15-minute reservoir data averaged per hour.
The number of hours that exceed the starting reservoir elevation are recorded for each 14 day period between the start and end date.
The starting elevation (midnight reservoir elevation) is reset each 14-day period and the total hourly count for all test periods is recorded for each scenario.
14 Calculated by (Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario
The MISC of 3000 homes per year is roughly 2% of the average equivalent homes/yr under the Baseline conditions.
15 Lowest 7-day average flow rate is determined from a rolling 7-day average of the average daily flow (cfs).
Where a average daily flow rate is determined from 15-minute flow (cfs) data averaged per 24 hour-day.
16 Habitat flows were estimates based on field experience with the subject reaches.
17 Floodplain Ecology inundation and maintenance flows for the river reach below Lake James were based on summary results presented
in "Assessment of Hydraulic Geometry and Channel-Maintaining Discharges in the Catawba River Below Lake James", October 2001.
18 Floodplain Ecology inundation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
19 Maintenance flows for the river reach below Wylie and Wateree were based on geomorphic bankfull estimates for IFIM cross sections
Wylie Cross section at River Mile 137.5
Wateree Cross section at River Mile 67.6
20 Recreation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
21 Flooding flows are initial estimates based on the full hydraulic turbine capacity discharge plus
Oxford- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Lookout- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
Wylie- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Wateree- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
*Exception Lake James Bank full estimates per reference in Note 17
22
being measured by a particular Criterion.
Tie the low inflow protocol to both water conservation and energy
conservation.
Assure that the low inflow protocol fully protects aquatic resources,
water quality, and recreation.
Disposition
Mimic day, month, and annual natural flow patterns including
natural floods in riverine and bypass areas.
Provide predictable recreation releases on bypass sections
including the Great Falls bypass.
Provide predictable recreation releases on river sections (i.e., allow
recreation users to plan ahead for river use).
c. Adjustments to the MISC numbers (up or down) have also been made depending on the desires of the stakeholders that primarily have the interests that are
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each Criterion is defined in terms of
percents and averages/yr so that the same Criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record,
etc.)
MISC = Minimum Increment of Significant Change. The MISC has the same units (i.e., days, days/yr, percent, etc.) as does the Criterion on that same row of the
spreadsheet. If the output of two scenarios for a particular Criterion does not differ by more than the MISC, then there is no significant difference between those
two scenarios as far as the Criterion in question is concerned. The following guidelines were used to establish the MISC numbers:
a. As a general rule, MISC numbers are set at 10% of the possible total for that Criterion considering the Start/Stop dates.
b. MISC numbers for Criterion that have the most negative outcomes if reached are typically set at less than 10% of the possible total for that Criterion.
Power produced by the hydro project is actually supplied to Duke Power's electric system grid and is used by Duke Power's electric customers (including
residential, industrial and commercial customers), as is power produced at other Duke Power generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes
per year is intended to simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro project more understandable to stakeholder team members and to put a
perspective around potential differences in hydropower production between various operational scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of
homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
CHEOPS Measures 5 Revised 1/17/05

This page intentionally left blank.
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
31
32
33
34
37
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
49
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
105
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
117
119
120
121
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
137
139
140
141
143
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
Lake James (including the Catawba River Bypassed Reach, Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach and the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach) (1999-2003) (1999-2003) (1999-2003)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 350 340 350
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 504 503 504
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 33% 33% 47%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 28% 28% 39%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 21% 21% 25%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 129 128 120
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 93.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 65 73 51
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 92.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 21 21 33
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<93.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 88 93 88
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 61 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 275.35) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 15 95 95 95
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 11% 12% 12%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 30% 29% 34%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 30% 31% 35%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 24% 25% 23%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 13 13 13
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 175 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 74% 73% 72%
Lake Rhodhiss
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 636 660 527
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 882 921 741
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 79% 78% 83%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 68% 66% 71%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 58% 57% 60%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 48 49 44
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 30 31 31
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 129 132 121
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 19% 16%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 89.4 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 79.1 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 21% 20%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 29% 30% 30%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 28% 28% 29%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 4 4 4
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lake Hickory (Including the Oxford Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 548 568 335
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 1,134 1,175 867
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 74% 69% 81%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 69% 62% 73%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 54% 51% 56%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 56 58 54
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 225 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 48% 48% 46%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 14 14 14
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 149 156 143
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 14% 14%
R101, R111, R121, R124, R127,
HOWQ44
Maximize days/yr of boating opportunities in the regulated river
reach
Avg. days/yr of daytime flows 2500, 5500 cfs released from the
hydro development for at least 2 hrs/day during higher use months
(Note 20)1-Mar 31-Oct 25 125 127 119
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 94 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 73 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 230) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 25 107 103 120
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 20% 18%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 28% 30% 27%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 30% 32% 28%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lookout Shoals Lake (including the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 697 1,135 556
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 1,259 1,646 1,341
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 81% 72% 84%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 82% 71% 82%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 65% 60% 63%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 44 48 48
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 92.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 1 1 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 92.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 1 1 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 112 128 123
Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 13% 14% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 74.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 72.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 20% 16%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 27% 30% 27%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 24% 28% 23%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 64 65 64
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
144
145
146
147
150
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
168
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
198
200
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
212
214
215
216
217
218
219
224
225
226
227
228
233
234
235
236
237
242
243
244
245
247
249
251
252
254
255
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Lake Norman
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 4 6 4
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 54% 52% 67%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 58% 57% 74%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 37% 36% 43%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 71 70 56
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 79 76 57
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<95.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 79 75 41
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 19% 15%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 85 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (< 75
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 65 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 25% 25% 28%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 79% 80% 89%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 65% 66% 70%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Mt Island Lake (including the Mt Island Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 277 277 277
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 525 769 294
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 34% 34% 34%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 25% 25% 25%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 17% 17% 15%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 136 135 131
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 91.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<96.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 274 273 265
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 17% 17%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 94.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 1 1
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 88 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 26% 25% 29%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 88% 88% 90%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 84% 84% 85%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 6 8 8
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 105 106 110
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 189 209 203
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 67% 68% 60%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 50% 50% 44%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 61% 61% 57%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 30% 30% 27%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 83 86 88
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 96 99 101
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.5
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 157 160 163
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 224 224 231
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
WQ189
Maximize low flows to maintain waste assimilation capacity of the
regulated river reach.
Percent of days at or above approximate 7Q10 flow (450 cfs) released
from the hydro development (RM 139.63) (Note 9)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 720 720 860
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 26% 25% 26%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 67% 67% 65%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 37% 37% 38%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 26% 26% 28%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 14% 14% 14%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 856,993 852,000 845,071
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 64,924 64,545 64,021
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $460,278 $457,668 $456,304
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
135
136
137
138
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)(1999-2003) (1999-2003) (1999-2003)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 105 106 110
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 189 209 203
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 67% 68% 60%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 50% 50% 44%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 61% 61% 57%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 30% 30% 27%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 83 86 88
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 96 99 101
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.5
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 157 160 163
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 224 224 231
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 720 720 860
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 26% 25% 26%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 67% 67% 65%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 37% 37% 38%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 26% 26% 28%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 388 355 215
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 740 677 581
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 95% 95% 96%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 97% 97% 98%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 95% 95% 95%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 1 2 2
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 11 12 12
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 12%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 95 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
90.8 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 12%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 2 2 3
Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir (including the Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach and the Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 580 528 518
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 1,237 1,134 1,069
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 89% 89% 90%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 93% 92% 93%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 91% 91% 92%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 3 3 3
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 37 38 36
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 97.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 35 36 32
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<98.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 55 55 52
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 87.2 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 22% 21% 20%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 21% 20%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 26 27 27
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 2 1 0
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 373 437 430
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 811 730 727
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 95% 94% 94%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 95% 95% 95%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 94% 94% 94%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 0 0 0
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 21 23 23
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 96.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 2 2 1
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 13 17 14
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 6% 6% 6%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 80.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 14% 13%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 15% 14%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 2 2 1
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 3 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
139
140
141
142
145
147
148
149
150
151
157
158
159
160
161
164
165
166
169
170
171
173
175
177
178
179
181
182
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Lake Wateree (including the Wateree Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 356 384 355
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 990 1,025 923
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 52% 50% 71%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 64% 63% 83%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 80% 79% 90%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 18 19 5
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1200 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 35 38 11
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 93.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 55 56 22
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 10%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 74.54) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 53 807 807 896
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 11% 7%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 98% 99% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 19% 13%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 15 15 16
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 14% 14% 14%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 856,993 852,000 845,071
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 64,924 64,545 64,021
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8) 1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $460,278 $457,668 $456,304
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 4 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Notes
Notes
1 CIS # are the Composite Interest Statement numbers taken from Rev 3 of the Composite Interest Statement document
dated 10/27/04 for the interests that are both (1) directly related to water quantity management and (2) reasonably measurable using CHEOPS.
The following CIS #'s represent interests that are directly related to water quantity, but that will be dealt with differently as noted,
and therefore will not be tabulated individually:
CIS #Composite Interest Statement (Rev 3 - 10/27/04)
FA16 Provide run-of-river flows through every dam. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA36 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA38 Restore run-of-river flows to the Great Falls. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R125 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R126 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
HOWQ51 LIP design determines if interest is met.
HOWQ52 LIP design determines if interest is met.
2 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criterion occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
3 Critical lake elevations per Attachment F of Draft AIP dated 10/15/04.
4 See App. C of Draft Reservoir Level Study Report dated 11/10/04 for average monthly lake levels during post-Cowans Ford era.
Areas within the lakes are considered boatable if the water depth is greater than or equal to 3 ft.
Lake surface areas are determined using Area-Volume Curves (i.e., a set of curves for each lake that
graph both lake surface area and lake volume verses water depth).
5 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
6 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
7 Developed areas include areas with roads, houses and other man-made structures.
8 Includes lost hydropower generation due to unplanned spilling of water at hydro station dams.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
9 Includes lost hydropower due to minimum flow and recreation flow releases that bypass the hydro station and public water supply and industrial withdrawals.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
10 Normalized dollar value of hydropower generated in a given year =
[ (MWH x market value for each hour)]/(Highest hourly market price in that year)
11 Flow rates needed to provide for basic navigation. These flow rates are determined by the Instream Flow Study
and/or the Recreation Flow Study. In SC, the flow rates are based on meeting SCDNR's navigation criteria.
In NC, the flow rates are based on Rec 02 studies.
12 7Q10 Flow rate = Lowest average flow rate over a 7-day period that statistically is likely to occur once every 10 years.
The approximate 7Q10 flow rates listed in this document are from Table 6.1-1, Summary of Catawba-Wateree Project
Hydrology as shown in Duke Power's First Stage Consultation Document dated 2003.
13 Absolute Lake level variation is determined from hourly checks against the measure using 15-minute reservoir data averaged per hour.
The number of hours that exceed the starting reservoir elevation are recorded for each 14 day period between the start and end date.
The starting elevation (midnight reservoir elevation) is reset each 14-day period and the total hourly count for all test periods is recorded for each scenario.
14 Calculated by (Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario
The MISC of 3000 homes per year is roughly 2% of the average equivalent homes/yr under the Baseline conditions.
15 Lowest 7-day average flow rate is determined from a rolling 7-day average of the average daily flow (cfs).
Where a average daily flow rate is determined from 15-minute flow (cfs) data averaged per 24 hour-day.
16 Habitat flows were estimates based on field experience with the subject reaches.
17 Floodplain Ecology inundation and maintenance flows for the river reach below Lake James were based on summary results presented
in "Assessment of Hydraulic Geometry and Channel-Maintaining Discharges in the Catawba River Below Lake James", October 2001.
18 Floodplain Ecology inundation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
19 Maintenance flows for the river reach below Wylie and Wateree were based on geomorphic bankfull estimates for IFIM cross sections
Wylie Cross section at River Mile 137.5
Wateree Cross section at River Mile 67.6
20 Recreation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
21 Flooding flows are initial estimates based on the full hydraulic turbine capacity discharge plus
Oxford- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Lookout- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
Wylie- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Wateree- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
*Exception Lake James Bank full estimates per reference in Note 17
22
being measured by a particular Criterion.
Tie the low inflow protocol to both water conservation and energy
conservation.
Assure that the low inflow protocol fully protects aquatic resources,
water quality, and recreation.
Disposition
Mimic day, month, and annual natural flow patterns including
natural floods in riverine and bypass areas.
Provide predictable recreation releases on bypass sections
including the Great Falls bypass.
Provide predictable recreation releases on river sections (i.e., allow
recreation users to plan ahead for river use).
c. Adjustments to the MISC numbers (up or down) have also been made depending on the desires of the stakeholders that primarily have the interests that are
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each Criterion is defined in terms of
percents and averages/yr so that the same Criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record,
etc.)
MISC = Minimum Increment of Significant Change. The MISC has the same units (i.e., days, days/yr, percent, etc.) as does the Criterion on that same row of the
spreadsheet. If the output of two scenarios for a particular Criterion does not differ by more than the MISC, then there is no significant difference between those
two scenarios as far as the Criterion in question is concerned. The following guidelines were used to establish the MISC numbers:
a. As a general rule, MISC numbers are set at 10% of the possible total for that Criterion considering the Start/Stop dates.
b. MISC numbers for Criterion that have the most negative outcomes if reached are typically set at less than 10% of the possible total for that Criterion.
Power produced by the hydro project is actually supplied to Duke Power's electric system grid and is used by Duke Power's electric customers (including
residential, industrial and commercial customers), as is power produced at other Duke Power generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes
per year is intended to simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro project more understandable to stakeholder team members and to put a
perspective around potential differences in hydropower production between various operational scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of
homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
CHEOPS Measures 5 Revised 1/17/05

This page intentionally left blank.
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
31
32
33
34
37
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
49
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
105
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
117
119
120
121
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
137
139
140
141
143
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
Lake James (including the Catawba River Bypassed Reach, Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach and the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach) (2006-2009)(2006-2009)(2006-2009)(2006-2009)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 278 81 102 102
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 434 387 431 432
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 50% 32% 50% 50%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 60% 40% 60% 60%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 51% 41% 51% 51%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 74 81 74 74
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 93.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 44 57 44 44
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
92.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 40 49 39 39
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<93.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 59 74 60 60
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 13% 26% 13% 13%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 61 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 275.35) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 15 95 95 95 95
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 11% 12% 11% 11%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 61% 57% 61% 61%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 49% 48% 49% 49%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 8% 7% 8% 8%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 10 7 10 10
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 175 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 60% 64% 60% 60%
Lake Rhodhiss
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 28 272 36 28
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 126 377 99 155
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 77% 77% 76% 75%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 82% 79% 82% 80%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 70% 71% 70% 69%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 24 25 23 24
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 25 23 25 26
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 82 79 81 83
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 89.4 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 79.1 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 19% 21% 22%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 26% 25% 26% 27%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 26% 24% 25% 26%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 7 7 7 7
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lake Hickory (Including the Oxford Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 115 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 162 156 168 154
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 67% 74% 67% 67%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 73% 78% 73% 73%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 64% 68% 64% 64%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 26 26 26 26
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 225 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 29% 29% 29% 29%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 6 4 6 7
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 114 100 114 114
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 14% 14% 14%
R101, R111, R121, R124, R127,
HOWQ44
Maximize days/yr of boating opportunities in the regulated river
reach
Avg. days/yr of daytime flows 2500, 5500 cfs released from the
hydro development for at least 2 hrs/day during higher use months
(Note 20)1-Mar 31-Oct 25 69 69 69 68
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 94 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 73 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 230) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 25 103 100 103 103
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 23% 20% 24% 23%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 28% 28% 28% 28%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 27% 27% 27% 27%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lookout Shoals Lake (including the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 120 114 118 121
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 299 273 298 298
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 81% 86% 83% 82%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 88% 87% 90% 89%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 74% 75% 74% 74%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 28 28 28 28
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 92.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 3 5 3 4
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
92.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 9 11 9 10
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 84 78 83 84
Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 13% 15% 13% 14%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 74.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 72.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 16% 15% 16% 16%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 20% 20% 21%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 19% 19% 20%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 60 56 60 60
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 2 2 2 2
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
144
145
146
147
150
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
168
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
198
200
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
212
214
215
216
217
218
219
224
225
226
227
228
233
234
235
236
237
242
243
244
245
247
249
251
252
254
255
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Lake Norman
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 52% 26% 52% 51%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 66% 36% 66% 66%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 54% 38% 53% 53%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 50 60 50 51
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 36 54 37 38
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 23 0 6
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<95.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 69 76 69 70
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 23% 21% 21%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 85 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (< 75
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 65 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 23% 12% 12%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 82% 79% 82% 81%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 67% 66% 67% 66%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 5 0 4 4
Mt Island Lake (including the Mt Island Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 130 107 167 172
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 66% 65% 66% 65%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 72% 71% 72% 72%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 63% 62% 63% 63%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 55 57 55 55
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 91.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<96.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 114 116 114 113
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 17% 17% 17%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 94.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 88 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 22% 21% 21% 21%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 40% 41% 40% 40%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 38% 38% 38% 38%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 10 10 10 10
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 60% 72% 61% 58%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 64% 62% 64% 61%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 81% 78% 81% 78%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 57% 55% 57% 56%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 33 35 33 33
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 36 36 36 36
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 64 64 63 64
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 113 122 112 116
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
WQ189
Maximize low flows to maintain waste assimilation capacity of the
regulated river reach.
Percent of days at or above approximate 7Q10 flow (450 cfs) released
from the hydro development (RM 139.63) (Note 9)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 720 700 720 720
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 25% 27% 25% 27%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 34% 39% 34% 35%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 12% 11% 12% 12%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 1 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 5% 4% 5% 5%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 17% 20% 17% 17%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 931,212 851,315 926,057 926,215
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 70,546 64,494 70,156 70,168
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $484,378 $445,738 $481,776 $481,609
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
135
136
137
138
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)(2006-2009)(2006-2009)(2006-2009)(2006-2009)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0 0
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 60% 72% 61% 58%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 64% 62% 64% 61%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 81% 78% 81% 78%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 57% 55% 57% 56%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 33 35 33 33
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 36 36 36 36
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 64 64 63 64
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 113 122 112 116
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 720 700 720 720
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 25% 27% 25% 27%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 85% 85% 85% 85%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 34% 39% 34% 35%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 12% 11% 12% 12%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 1 0 0
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 245 91 306 195
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 684 402 661 578
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 90% 94% 90% 90%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 98% 98% 98% 98%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 92% 93% 92% 92%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 2 2 1 2
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 18 15 18 18
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 16% 15% 16% 17%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 95 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
90.8 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir (including the Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach and the Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 591 511 668 617
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 818 801 983 911
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 86% 88% 87% 86%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 94% 95% 95% 94%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 90% 90% 90% 89%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 4 5 5 5
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 24 21 23 25
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
97.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 39 37 38 42
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<98.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 58 54 57 59
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 18% 19% 20%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 87.2 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 22% 20% 22% 22%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 22% 20% 22% 22%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 25 27 25 27
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 201 321 311 300
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 564 593 683 630
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 90% 93% 90% 90%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 97% 97% 97% 97%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 90% 92% 91% 90%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 0 0 0 0
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 20 13 19 19
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
96.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 1 2 1 1
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 23 20 23 23
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 80.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 18% 19% 18%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 18% 20% 20%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 3 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
139
140
141
142
145
147
148
149
150
151
157
158
159
160
161
164
165
166
169
170
171
173
175
177
178
179
181
182
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Lake Wateree (including the Wateree Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 23 157 10 2
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 142 252 121 100
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 66% 64% 67% 66%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 77% 66% 76% 75%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 88% 74% 82% 88%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 14 44 13 14
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1200 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 29 68 26 29
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
93.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 36 91 36 36
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 11% 13% 11% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 74.54) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 53 807 800 807 807
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 5% 3% 12% 5%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 99% 97% 99% 99%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 19% 21% 21%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 13 11 13 13
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 5% 4% 5% 5%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 17% 20% 17% 17%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 931,212 851,315 926,057 926,215
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 70,546 64,494 70,156 70,168
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8) 1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $484,378 $445,738 $481,776 $481,609
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 4 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Notes
Notes
1 CIS # are the Composite Interest Statement numbers taken from Rev 3 of the Composite Interest Statement document
dated 10/27/04 for the interests that are both (1) directly related to water quantity management and (2) reasonably measurable using CHEOPS.
The following CIS #'s represent interests that are directly related to water quantity, but that will be dealt with differently as noted,
and therefore will not be tabulated individually:
CIS #Composite Interest Statement (Rev 3 - 10/27/04)
FA16 Provide run-of-river flows through every dam. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA36 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA38 Restore run-of-river flows to the Great Falls. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R125 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R126 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
HOWQ51 LIP design determines if interest is met.
HOWQ52 LIP design determines if interest is met.
2 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criterion occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
3 Critical lake elevations per Attachment F of Draft AIP dated 10/15/04.
4 See App. C of Draft Reservoir Level Study Report dated 11/10/04 for average monthly lake levels during post-Cowans Ford era.
Areas within the lakes are considered boatable if the water depth is greater than or equal to 3 ft.
Lake surface areas are determined using Area-Volume Curves (i.e., a set of curves for each lake that
graph both lake surface area and lake volume verses water depth).
5 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
6 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
7 Developed areas include areas with roads, houses and other man-made structures.
8 Includes lost hydropower generation due to unplanned spilling of water at hydro station dams.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
9 Includes lost hydropower due to minimum flow and recreation flow releases that bypass the hydro station and public water supply and industrial withdrawals.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
10 Normalized dollar value of hydropower generated in a given year =
[ (MWH x market value for each hour)]/(Highest hourly market price in that year)
11 Flow rates needed to provide for basic navigation. These flow rates are determined by the Instream Flow Study
and/or the Recreation Flow Study. In SC, the flow rates are based on meeting SCDNR's navigation criteria.
In NC, the flow rates are based on Rec 02 studies.
12 7Q10 Flow rate = Lowest average flow rate over a 7-day period that statistically is likely to occur once every 10 years.
The approximate 7Q10 flow rates listed in this document are from Table 6.1-1, Summary of Catawba-Wateree Project
Hydrology as shown in Duke Power's First Stage Consultation Document dated 2003.
13 Absolute Lake level variation is determined from hourly checks against the measure using 15-minute reservoir data averaged per hour.
The number of hours that exceed the starting reservoir elevation are recorded for each 14 day period between the start and end date.
The starting elevation (midnight reservoir elevation) is reset each 14-day period and the total hourly count for all test periods is recorded for each scenario.
14 Calculated by (Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario
The MISC of 3000 homes per year is roughly 2% of the average equivalent homes/yr under the Baseline conditions.
15 Lowest 7-day average flow rate is determined from a rolling 7-day average of the average daily flow (cfs).
Where a average daily flow rate is determined from 15-minute flow (cfs) data averaged per 24 hour-day.
16 Habitat flows were estimates based on field experience with the subject reaches.
17 Floodplain Ecology inundation and maintenance flows for the river reach below Lake James were based on summary results presented
in "Assessment of Hydraulic Geometry and Channel-Maintaining Discharges in the Catawba River Below Lake James", October 2001.
18 Floodplain Ecology inundation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
19 Maintenance flows for the river reach below Wylie and Wateree were based on geomorphic bankfull estimates for IFIM cross sections
Wylie Cross section at River Mile 137.5
Wateree Cross section at River Mile 67.6
20 Recreation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
21 Flooding flows are initial estimates based on the full hydraulic turbine capacity discharge plus
Oxford- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Lookout- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
Wylie- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Wateree- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
*Exception Lake James Bank full estimates per reference in Note 17
22
being measured by a particular Criterion.
Tie the low inflow protocol to both water conservation and energy
conservation.
Assure that the low inflow protocol fully protects aquatic resources,
water quality, and recreation.
Disposition
Mimic day, month, and annual natural flow patterns including
natural floods in riverine and bypass areas.
Provide predictable recreation releases on bypass sections
including the Great Falls bypass.
Provide predictable recreation releases on river sections (i.e., allow
recreation users to plan ahead for river use).
c. Adjustments to the MISC numbers (up or down) have also been made depending on the desires of the stakeholders that primarily have the interests that are
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each Criterion is defined in terms of
percents and averages/yr so that the same Criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record,
etc.)
MISC = Minimum Increment of Significant Change. The MISC has the same units (i.e., days, days/yr, percent, etc.) as does the Criterion on that same row of the
spreadsheet. If the output of two scenarios for a particular Criterion does not differ by more than the MISC, then there is no significant difference between those
two scenarios as far as the Criterion in question is concerned. The following guidelines were used to establish the MISC numbers:
a. As a general rule, MISC numbers are set at 10% of the possible total for that Criterion considering the Start/Stop dates.
b. MISC numbers for Criterion that have the most negative outcomes if reached are typically set at less than 10% of the possible total for that Criterion.
Power produced by the hydro project is actually supplied to Duke Power's electric system grid and is used by Duke Power's electric customers (including
residential, industrial and commercial customers), as is power produced at other Duke Power generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes
per year is intended to simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro project more understandable to stakeholder team members and to put a
perspective around potential differences in hydropower production between various operational scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of
homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
CHEOPS Measures 5 Revised 1/17/05

This page intentionally left blank.
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
31
32
33
34
37
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
49
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
105
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
117
119
120
121
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
137
139
140
141
143
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
Lake James (including the Catawba River Bypassed Reach, Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach and the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach) (2006-2009) (2006-2009) (2006-2009)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 81 102 102
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 387 431 430
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 32% 26% 26%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 40% 35% 35%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 41% 39% 39%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 81 83 97
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 93.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 57 57 59
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 92.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 49 49 52
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<93.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 74 75 77
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 26% 26% 28%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 61 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 275.35) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 15 95 95 95
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 9%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 57% 56% 48%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 48% 48% 39%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 7% 8% 8%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 7 7 7
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 175 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 64% 64% 64%
Lake Rhodhiss
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 272 428 282
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 377 586 392
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 77% 72% 72%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 79% 75% 75%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 71% 69% 69%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 25 27 28
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 23 24 25
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 79 86 85
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 19%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 89.4 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 79.1 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 20% 20%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 25% 26% 25%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 24% 25% 25%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 7 7 7
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lake Hickory (Including the Oxford Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 115 87 267
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 156 241 332
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 74% 69% 67%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 78% 72% 72%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 68% 66% 65%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 26 29 30
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 225 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 29% 31% 30%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 4 5 5
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 100 109 99
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 14% 14%
R101, R111, R121, R124, R127,
HOWQ44
Maximize days/yr of boating opportunities in the regulated river
reach
Avg. days/yr of daytime flows 2500, 5500 cfs released from the
hydro development for at least 2 hrs/day during higher use months
(Note 20)1-Mar 31-Oct 25 69 74 73
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 94 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 73 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 230) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 25 100 100 133
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 20% 20%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 28% 29% 28%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 27% 28% 27%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lookout Shoals Lake (including the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 114 668 424
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 273 901 651
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 86% 79% 80%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 87% 82% 82%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 75% 73% 73%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 28 30 31
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 92.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 5 5 5
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 92.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 11 11 12
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 78 84 85
Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 15% 15%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 74.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 72.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 16% 15%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 22% 21%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 21% 20%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 56 56 56
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 2 2 2
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
144
145
146
147
150
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
168
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
198
200
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
212
214
215
216
217
218
219
224
225
226
227
228
233
234
235
236
237
242
243
244
245
247
249
251
252
254
255
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Lake Norman
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 26% 25% 25%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 36% 25% 25%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 38% 34% 31%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 60 68 68
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 54 70 70
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 23 23 27
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<95.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 76 76 77
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 23% 23% 23%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 85 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (< 75
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 65 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 23% 18% 18%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 79% 79% 79%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 66% 62% 62%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Mt Island Lake (including the Mt Island Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 107 105 82
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 65% 57% 55%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 71% 65% 64%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 62% 59% 59%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 57 60 61
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 91.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<96.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 116 124 125
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 17% 17%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 94.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 88 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 22% 21%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 41% 44% 45%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 38% 41% 42%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 10 10 10
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 72% 69% 68%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 62% 55% 52%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 78% 72% 69%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 55% 52% 51%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 35 37 39
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 36 39 42
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.5
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 64 67 70
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 122 132 137
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
WQ189
Maximize low flows to maintain waste assimilation capacity of the
regulated river reach.
Percent of days at or above approximate 7Q10 flow (450 cfs) released
from the hydro development (RM 139.63) (Note 9)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 700 700 700
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 27% 29% 29%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 85% 85% 85%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 39% 41% 41%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 11% 11% 11%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 20% 19% 19%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 851,315 851,726 850,945
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 64,494 64,525 64,465
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $445,738 $445,079 $445,517
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
135
136
137
138
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)(2006-2009) (2006-2009) (2006-2009)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 0 0 0
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 72% 69% 68%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 62% 55% 52%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 78% 72% 69%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 55% 52% 51%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 35 37 39
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 36 39 42
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.5
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 64 67 70
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 122 132 137
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 700 700 700
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 27% 29% 29%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 85% 85% 85%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 39% 41% 41%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 11% 11% 11%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 0 0
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 91 68 80
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 402 306 390
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 94% 94% 94%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 98% 98% 98%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 93% 93% 93%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 2 1 2
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 15 14 14
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 15% 15%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 95 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
90.8 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 15% 15%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 1
Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir (including the Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach and the Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 511 624 521
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 801 992 852
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 88% 88% 89%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 95% 95% 95%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 90% 90% 90%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 5 5 5
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 21 21 21
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 97.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 37 39 36
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<98.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 54 55 54
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 17% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 87.2 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 21% 21%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 20% 20% 20%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 27 25 26
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 321 228 347
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 593 546 663
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 93% 94% 93%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 97% 97% 97%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 92% 92% 91%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 0 0 0
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 13 13 15
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 96.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 2 1 1
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 20 19 20
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 6% 6% 6%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 80.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 18%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 18% 19%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 3 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
139
140
141
142
145
147
148
149
150
151
157
158
159
160
161
164
165
166
169
170
171
173
175
177
178
179
181
182
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Lake Wateree (including the Wateree Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 157 157 158
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 252 252 254
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 64% 64% 65%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 66% 66% 67%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 74% 73% 74%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 44 44 44
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1200 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 68 68 68
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 93.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 91 91 91
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 13% 13% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 74.54) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 53 800 800 800
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 3% 3% 2%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 97% 95% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 16% 19%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 11 11 11
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 20% 19% 19%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 851,315 851,726 850,945
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 64,494 64,525 64,465
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8) 1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $445,738 $445,079 $445,517
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 4 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Notes
Notes
1 CIS # are the Composite Interest Statement numbers taken from Rev 3 of the Composite Interest Statement document
dated 10/27/04 for the interests that are both (1) directly related to water quantity management and (2) reasonably measurable using CHEOPS.
The following CIS #'s represent interests that are directly related to water quantity, but that will be dealt with differently as noted,
and therefore will not be tabulated individually:
CIS #Composite Interest Statement (Rev 3 - 10/27/04)
FA16 Provide run-of-river flows through every dam. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA36 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA38 Restore run-of-river flows to the Great Falls. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R125 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R126 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
HOWQ51 LIP design determines if interest is met.
HOWQ52 LIP design determines if interest is met.
2 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criterion occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
3 Critical lake elevations per Attachment F of Draft AIP dated 10/15/04.
4 See App. C of Draft Reservoir Level Study Report dated 11/10/04 for average monthly lake levels during post-Cowans Ford era.
Areas within the lakes are considered boatable if the water depth is greater than or equal to 3 ft.
Lake surface areas are determined using Area-Volume Curves (i.e., a set of curves for each lake that
graph both lake surface area and lake volume verses water depth).
5 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
6 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
7 Developed areas include areas with roads, houses and other man-made structures.
8 Includes lost hydropower generation due to unplanned spilling of water at hydro station dams.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
9 Includes lost hydropower due to minimum flow and recreation flow releases that bypass the hydro station and public water supply and industrial withdrawals.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
10 Normalized dollar value of hydropower generated in a given year =
[ (MWH x market value for each hour)]/(Highest hourly market price in that year)
11 Flow rates needed to provide for basic navigation. These flow rates are determined by the Instream Flow Study
and/or the Recreation Flow Study. In SC, the flow rates are based on meeting SCDNR's navigation criteria.
In NC, the flow rates are based on Rec 02 studies.
12 7Q10 Flow rate = Lowest average flow rate over a 7-day period that statistically is likely to occur once every 10 years.
The approximate 7Q10 flow rates listed in this document are from Table 6.1-1, Summary of Catawba-Wateree Project
Hydrology as shown in Duke Power's First Stage Consultation Document dated 2003.
13 Absolute Lake level variation is determined from hourly checks against the measure using 15-minute reservoir data averaged per hour.
The number of hours that exceed the starting reservoir elevation are recorded for each 14 day period between the start and end date.
The starting elevation (midnight reservoir elevation) is reset each 14-day period and the total hourly count for all test periods is recorded for each scenario.
14 Calculated by (Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario
The MISC of 3000 homes per year is roughly 2% of the average equivalent homes/yr under the Baseline conditions.
15 Lowest 7-day average flow rate is determined from a rolling 7-day average of the average daily flow (cfs).
Where a average daily flow rate is determined from 15-minute flow (cfs) data averaged per 24 hour-day.
16 Habitat flows were estimates based on field experience with the subject reaches.
17 Floodplain Ecology inundation and maintenance flows for the river reach below Lake James were based on summary results presented
in "Assessment of Hydraulic Geometry and Channel-Maintaining Discharges in the Catawba River Below Lake James", October 2001.
18 Floodplain Ecology inundation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
19 Maintenance flows for the river reach below Wylie and Wateree were based on geomorphic bankfull estimates for IFIM cross sections
Wylie Cross section at River Mile 137.5
Wateree Cross section at River Mile 67.6
20 Recreation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
21 Flooding flows are initial estimates based on the full hydraulic turbine capacity discharge plus
Oxford- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Lookout- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
Wylie- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Wateree- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
*Exception Lake James Bank full estimates per reference in Note 17
22
being measured by a particular Criterion.
Tie the low inflow protocol to both water conservation and energy
conservation.
Assure that the low inflow protocol fully protects aquatic resources,
water quality, and recreation.
Disposition
Mimic day, month, and annual natural flow patterns including
natural floods in riverine and bypass areas.
Provide predictable recreation releases on bypass sections
including the Great Falls bypass.
Provide predictable recreation releases on river sections (i.e., allow
recreation users to plan ahead for river use).
c. Adjustments to the MISC numbers (up or down) have also been made depending on the desires of the stakeholders that primarily have the interests that are
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each Criterion is defined in terms of
percents and averages/yr so that the same Criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record,
etc.)
MISC = Minimum Increment of Significant Change. The MISC has the same units (i.e., days, days/yr, percent, etc.) as does the Criterion on that same row of the
spreadsheet. If the output of two scenarios for a particular Criterion does not differ by more than the MISC, then there is no significant difference between those
two scenarios as far as the Criterion in question is concerned. The following guidelines were used to establish the MISC numbers:
a. As a general rule, MISC numbers are set at 10% of the possible total for that Criterion considering the Start/Stop dates.
b. MISC numbers for Criterion that have the most negative outcomes if reached are typically set at less than 10% of the possible total for that Criterion.
Power produced by the hydro project is actually supplied to Duke Power's electric system grid and is used by Duke Power's electric customers (including
residential, industrial and commercial customers), as is power produced at other Duke Power generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes
per year is intended to simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro project more understandable to stakeholder team members and to put a
perspective around potential differences in hydropower production between various operational scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of
homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
CHEOPS Measures 5 Revised 1/17/05

This page intentionally left blank.
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
31
32
33
34
37
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
49
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
105
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
117
119
120
121
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
137
139
140
141
143
144
145
146
147
150
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
Lake James (including the Catawba River Bypassed Reach, Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach and the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach) (1929-2010)(1929-2010)(1929-2010)(1929-2010)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 6,084 6,959 7,168 5,946
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 13,467 13,934 14,234 13,616
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 36% 32% 38% 36%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 40% 35% 41% 40%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 35% 32% 36% 34%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 83 90 82 85
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 93.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 16 20 16 16
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
92.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 6 8 6 6
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<93.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 20 26 20 21
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 26% 14% 14%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 61 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 275.35) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 15 75 75 75 75
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 16% 17% 17%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 55% 52% 56% 55%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 57% 54% 57% 57%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 6% 7% 6% 6%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 316 296 321 313
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 9 10 9 9
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 175 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 62% 63% 61% 62%
Lake Rhodhiss
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 9,319 9,387 9,532 9,040
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 19,930 19,789 19,978 19,849
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 56% 55% 58% 56%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 56% 53% 58% 56%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 54% 52% 55% 53%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 18 22 18 18
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 4 7 4 4
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 125 133 122 126
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 19% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 89.4 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 79.1 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 45% 45% 43% 45%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 52% 52% 51% 52%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 51% 51% 50% 51%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 305 304 312 303
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 25 25 25 25
Lake Hickory (Including the Oxford Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 4,643 5,724 5,262 4,715
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 15,571 16,889 15,935 15,772
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 53% 52% 55% 53%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 54% 51% 55% 54%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 50% 48% 51% 50%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 21 24 20 21
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 225 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 39% 40% 39% 39%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 1 2 1 1
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 146 153 141 147
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 14% 14% 14%
R101, R111, R121, R124, R127,
HOWQ44
Maximize days/yr of boating opportunities in the regulated river
reach
Avg. days/yr of daytime flows 2500, 5500 cfs released from the
hydro development for at least 2 hrs/day during higher use months
(Note 20)1-Mar 31-Oct 25 143 148 141 143
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 94 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 73 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 230) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 25 103 100 103 103
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 43% 43% 42% 43%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 54% 53% 52% 53%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 53% 53% 52% 53%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 1 0 0
Lookout Shoals Lake (including the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 13,758 14,937 13,306 14,108
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 26,946 26,964 26,019 27,259
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 66% 65% 68% 67%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 65% 63% 67% 65%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 62% 61% 64% 62%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 26 29 25 27
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 92.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
92.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 1 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 117 123 113 118
Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 13% 15% 13% 14%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 74.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 72.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 37% 36% 35% 37%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 49% 49% 47% 49%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 46% 47% 44% 46%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1,628 1,569 1,673 1,625
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 59 59 59 59
Lake Norman
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 2,178 2,155 2,534 2,178
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 3,400 3,360 3,984 3,420
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 50% 45% 51% 49%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 61% 54% 62% 60%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 46% 41% 47% 46%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 32 38 31 32
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 15 22 16 15
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 1 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<95.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 25 32 25 26
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 23% 21% 21%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 85 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
163
164
165
166
168
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
198
200
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
212
214
215
216
217
218
219
224
225
226
227
228
233
234
235
236
237
242
243
244
245
247
249
251
252
254
255
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (< 75
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 65 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 37% 38% 37% 37%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 94% 92% 94% 93%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 82% 82% 82% 82%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 10 6 11 10
Mt Island Lake (including the Mt Island Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 9,300 9,689 9,447 9,120
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 19,984 20,459 20,843 20,055
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 43% 37% 43% 43%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 43% 36% 44% 44%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 43% 37% 43% 42%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 60 77 59 61
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 91.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
91.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<96.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 128 161 125 130
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 30% 17% 17%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 94.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 4 32 5 4
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 88 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 2 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 43% 41% 42% 43%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 71% 75% 71% 71%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 60% 65% 59% 60%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 256 224 274 253
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 29 28 32 28
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 2,652 3,104 2,941 2,779
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 8,709 8,920 9,051 8,795
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 43% 41% 45% 43%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 41% 37% 42% 40%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 58% 55% 59% 57%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 38% 35% 40% 38%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 27 33 26 26
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 32 40 31 32
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 40 52 40 40
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 172 182 168 173
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 21% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 20 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 20 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
WQ189
Maximize low flows to maintain waste assimilation capacity of the
regulated river reach.
Percent of days at or above approximate 7Q10 flow (450 cfs) released
from the hydro development (RM 139.63) (Note 9)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 720 700 720 720
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 50% 49% 49% 50%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 95% 92% 95% 95%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 60% 60% 59% 60%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 4% 6% 4% 4%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 3 3 1
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 8% 9% 9% 8%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 1,393,697 1,331,102 1,385,359 1,388,625
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 105,583 100,841 104,951 105,199
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $752,115 $719,510 $745,446 $749,502
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
145
147
148
149
150
151
157
158
159
160
161
164
165
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)(1929-2010)(1929-2010)(1929-2010)(1929-2010)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 2,652 3,104 2,941 2,779
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 8,709 8,920 9,051 8,795
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 43% 41% 45% 43%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 41% 37% 42% 40%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 58% 55% 59% 57%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 38% 35% 40% 38%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 27 33 26 26
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note
14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 32 40 31 32
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 40 52 40 40
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 172 182 168 173
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 18% 21% 18% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 20 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 20 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 720 700 720 720
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 50% 49% 49% 50%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 95% 92% 95% 95%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 60% 60% 59% 60%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 4% 6% 4% 4%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 3 3 1
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 10,551 10,640 10,554 10,385
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 21,620 21,470 21,142 21,247
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 75% 74% 76% 75%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 76% 74% 76% 76%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 75% 74% 76% 75%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 9 10 9 9
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
95.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 65 66 62 64
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 17% 19% 17% 18%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 95 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 1 2
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
90.8 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 40% 40% 38% 40%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 6 13 8 11
Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir (including the Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach and the Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 22,310 20,980 20,788 22,398
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 33,862 32,564 32,005 34,348
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 74% 75% 75% 74%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 78% 78% 79% 78%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 76% 76% 77% 76%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 8 8 8 8
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 96 96 94 96
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
97.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 85 84 83 84
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<98.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 139 139 136 139
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 22% 21% 22%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 87.2 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 51% 51% 49% 51%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 50% 51% 49% 50%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 703 685 723 701
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 6 11 9 6
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 10,432 10,317 10,358 10,222
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 20,959 20,194 20,772 20,765
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 72% 71% 73% 72%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 73% 72% 74% 73%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 71% 71% 73% 71%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 0 1 0 1
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 103 105 100 103
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
96.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 2 2 2 2
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 74 74 70 74
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 7% 7% 7% 7%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 80.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 47% 48% 46% 48%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 49% 50% 47% 49%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 39 38 36 39
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 3 3 3 3
Lake Wateree (including the Wateree Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 945 1,173 951 960
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 6,515 7,277 6,908 6,547
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 85% 84% 85% 84%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 90% 89% 90% 90%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 95% 93% 94% 94%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 3 5 3 3
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1200 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 6 9 6 6
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (<
93.0 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-
Cowans Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 12 17 12 12
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 11% 13% 11% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
CHEOPS Measures 3 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
A B C D E F G H I J
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2012 UC-Base_2050
UC-
Alt6_UC2050_2012
UC-
Alt7_UC2050_2012
166
169
170
171
173
175
177
178
179
181
182
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 74.54) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 53 807 800 807 807
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 13% 13%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7)Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 390 379 402 382
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 18 19 18 18
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 8% 9% 9% 8%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 1,393,697 1,331,102 1,385,359 1,388,625
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 105,583 100,841 104,951 105,199
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8) 1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $752,115 $719,510 $745,446 $749,502
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 4 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet NotesNotes
1 CIS # are the Composite Interest Statement numbers taken from Rev 3 of the Composite Interest Statement document
dated 10/27/04 for the interests that are both (1) directly related to water quantity management and (2) reasonably measurable using CHEOPS.
The following CIS #'s represent interests that are directly related to water quantity, but that will be dealt with differently as noted,
and therefore will not be tabulated individually:
CIS #Composite Interest Statement (Rev 3 - 10/27/04)
FA16 Provide run-of-river flows through every dam. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA36 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA38 Restore run-of-river flows to the Great Falls. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R125 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R126 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
HOWQ51 LIP design determines if interest is met.
HOWQ52 LIP design determines if interest is met.
2 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criterion occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
3 Critical lake elevations per Attachment F of Draft AIP dated 10/15/04.
4 See App. C of Draft Reservoir Level Study Report dated 11/10/04 for average monthly lake levels during post-Cowans Ford era.
Areas within the lakes are considered boatable if the water depth is greater than or equal to 3 ft.
Lake surface areas are determined using Area-Volume Curves (i.e., a set of curves for each lake that
graph both lake surface area and lake volume verses water depth).
5 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
6 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
7 Developed areas include areas with roads, houses and other man-made structures.
8 Includes lost hydropower generation due to unplanned spilling of water at hydro station dams.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
9 Includes lost hydropower due to minimum flow and recreation flow releases that bypass the hydro station and public water supply and industrial withdrawals.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
10 Normalized dollar value of hydropower generated in a given year =
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each Criterion is defined in terms of
percents and averages/yr so that the same Criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record,
etc.)
Tie the low inflow protocol to both water conservation and energy
conservation.
Assure that the low inflow protocol fully protects aquatic resources,
water quality, and recreation.
Disposition
Mimic day, month, and annual natural flow patterns including
natural floods in riverine and bypass areas.
Provide predictable recreation releases on bypass sections
including the Great Falls bypass.
Provide predictable recreation releases on river sections (i.e., allow
recreation users to plan ahead for river use).
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revised 1/17/05
Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Notes[ (MWH x market value for each hour)]/(Highest hourly market price in that year)
11 Flow rates needed to provide for basic navigation. These flow rates are determined by the Instream Flow Study
and/or the Recreation Flow Study. In SC, the flow rates are based on meeting SCDNR's navigation criteria.
In NC, the flow rates are based on Rec 02 studies.
12 7Q10 Flow rate = Lowest average flow rate over a 7-day period that statistically is likely to occur once every 10 years.
The approximate 7Q10 flow rates listed in this document are from Table 6.1-1, Summary of Catawba-Wateree Project
Hydrology as shown in Duke Power's First Stage Consultation Document dated 2003.
13 Absolute Lake level variation is determined from hourly checks against the measure using 15-minute reservoir data averaged per hour.
The number of hours that exceed the starting reservoir elevation are recorded for each 14 day period between the start and end date.
The starting elevation (midnight reservoir elevation) is reset each 14-day period and the total hourly count for all test periods is recorded for each scenario.
14 Calculated by (Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario
The MISC of 3000 homes per year is roughly 2% of the average equivalent homes/yr under the Baseline conditions.
15 Lowest 7-day average flow rate is determined from a rolling 7-day average of the average daily flow (cfs).
Where a average daily flow rate is determined from 15-minute flow (cfs) data averaged per 24 hour-day.
16 Habitat flows were estimates based on field experience with the subject reaches.
17 Floodplain Ecology inundation and maintenance flows for the river reach below Lake James were based on summary results presented
in "Assessment of Hydraulic Geometry and Channel-Maintaining Discharges in the Catawba River Below Lake James", October 2001.
18 Floodplain Ecology inundation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
19 Maintenance flows for the river reach below Wylie and Wateree were based on geomorphic bankfull estimates for IFIM cross sections
Wylie Cross section at River Mile 137.5
Wateree Cross section at River Mile 67.6
20 Recreation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
21 Flooding flows are initial estimates based on the full hydraulic turbine capacity discharge plus
Oxford- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Lookout- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
Wylie- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Wateree- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
*Exception Lake James Bank full estimates per reference in Note 17
22 MISC = Minimum Increment of Significant Change. The MISC has the same units (i.e., days, days/yr, percent, etc.) as does the Criterion on that same row of
the spreadsheet. If the output of two scenarios for a particular Criterion does not differ by more than the MISC, then there is no significant difference between
Power produced by the hydro project is actually supplied to Duke Power's electric system grid and is used by Duke Power's electric customers (including
residential, industrial and commercial customers), as is power produced at other Duke Power generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes
per year is intended to simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro project more understandable to stakeholder team members and to put a
perspective around potential differences in hydropower production between various operational scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of
homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revised 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
18
19
20
21
22
27
28
31
32
33
34
37
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
49
52
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
99
100
101
102
105
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
117
119
120
121
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
137
139
140
141
143
144
145
146
147
150
152
153
154
155
156
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
Lake James (including the Catawba River Bypassed Reach, Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach and the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach) (1929-2010) (1929-2010) (1929-2010)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 6,959 7,068 7,006
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 13,934 14,017 13,653
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 32% 32% 34%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 35% 35% 36%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 32% 32% 32%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 90 90 89
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 93.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 20 21 20
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 92.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 8 8 9
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<93.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 26 27 26
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 26% 26% 28%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 61 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 275.35) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 15 75 75 75
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 16% 16% 16%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 52% 52% 52%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 54% 54% 54%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 7% 7% 7%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 296 298 297
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 10 10 10
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 175 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 63% 63% 62%
Lake Rhodhiss
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 9,387 9,512 8,792
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 19,789 20,000 19,080
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 55% 55% 56%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 53% 53% 54%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 52% 52% 52%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 22 22 22
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 7 7 7
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 133 133 132
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 19% 19%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 89.4 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 79.1 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 45% 45% 44%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 52% 52% 51%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 51% 51% 50%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 304 302 304
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 25 25 26
Lake Hickory (Including the Oxford Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 5,724 5,811 5,575
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 16,889 16,946 15,965
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 52% 52% 54%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 51% 50% 52%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 48% 48% 48%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 24 25 24
FA22, FA31, FA34, FA35, FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach
Percent of hours at or below 225 cfs released from the hydro
development (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 40% 40% 40%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 94.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 2 2 2
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 153 153 151
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 14% 14% 14%
R101, R111, R121, R124, R127,
HOWQ44
Maximize days/yr of boating opportunities in the regulated river
reach
Avg. days/yr of daytime flows 2500, 5500 cfs released from the
hydro development for at least 2 hrs/day during higher use months
(Note 20)1-Mar 31-Oct 25 148 149 146
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 94 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 73 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 230) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 25 100 100 120
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 43% 43% 43%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 53% 53% 53%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 53% 53% 52%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1 1 1
Lookout Shoals Lake (including the Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 14,937 15,518 14,199
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 26,964 27,835 26,962
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 65% 65% 66%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 63% 63% 64%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 61% 60% 61%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 29 30 30
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 92.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 92.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 1 1 1
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 123 124 123
Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 15% 15% 15%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 74.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 72.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 36% 36% 36%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 2 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 49% 49% 48%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 47% 46% 46%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 1,569 1,572 1,592
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 59 59 59
Lake Norman
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 2,155 2,155 2,158
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 3,360 3,368 3,464
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 45% 45% 46%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 54% 53% 55%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 41% 41% 41%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 38 39 38
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 22 23 22
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet James to Wylie
1
2
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
168
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
198
200
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
212
214
215
216
217
218
219
224
225
226
227
228
233
234
235
236
237
242
243
244
245
247
249
251
252
254
255
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 1 1 1
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<95.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 32 32 30
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 23% 23% 23%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 85 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (< 75
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 65 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 38% 38% 38%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 92% 92% 92%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 82% 82% 82%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 6 6 7
Mt Island Lake (including the Mt Island Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 9,689 9,417 8,596
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 20,459 21,246 19,489
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 37% 36% 37%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 36% 36% 37%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 37% 37% 37%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 77 76 77
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 91.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 91.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<96.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 161 159 161
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 30% 30% 32%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 94.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 32 32 34
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 88 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 2 2 5
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 41% 41% 41%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 96.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 75% 75% 75%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 65% 65% 65%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 224 224 235
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 28 28 29
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 3,104 3,035 3,101
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 8,920 9,253 8,969
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 41% 41% 41%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 37% 37% 37%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 55% 54% 54%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 35% 35% 35%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 33 33 35
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 40 42 43
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.5
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 52 53 55
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 182 182 182
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 21% 23%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 20 19 25
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 20 19 25
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
WQ189
Maximize low flows to maintain waste assimilation capacity of the
regulated river reach.
Percent of days at or above approximate 7Q10 flow (450 cfs) released
from the hydro development (RM 139.63) (Note 9)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 700 700 700
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 49% 49% 48%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 92% 93% 92%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 60% 60% 59%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 6% 6% 7%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 3 1 1
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 5% 5% 5%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 9% 9% 10%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 1,331,102 1,326,906 1,323,722
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 100,841 100,523 100,282
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $719,510 $717,244 $714,937
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
3
4
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
20
21
22
23
24
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
45
47
48
50
51
52
53
54
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
74
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
87
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
102
104
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
116
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
145
147
148
149
150
151
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
Lake Wylie (including the Wylie Regulated River Reach)(1929-2010) (1929-2010) (1929-2010)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 3,104 3,035 3,101
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 8,920 9,253 8,969
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 41% 41% 41%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 37% 37% 37%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 97 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 55% 54% 54%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 35% 35% 35%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 33 33 35
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1080 cfs at Node 1 (RM 139.63) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 40 42 43
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.5
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 52 53 55
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 182 182 182
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 21% 21% 23%
Water User Interests
HOWQ43, HOWQ53, HOWQ54,
HOWQ55, HOWQ56, HOWQ57,
HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
92.6 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 20 19 25
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 20 19 25
Days below critical level for shallowest thermal power station operation
(< 90 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 139.63) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 45 700 700 700
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 49% 49% 48%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 92% 93% 92%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 60% 60% 59%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 6% 6% 7%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 3 1 1
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 10,640 10,830 10,878
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 21,470 21,322 21,431
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 74% 74% 75%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 74% 74% 74%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 74% 74% 75%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 10 10 10
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 95.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 0 0 0
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 95.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 66 67 65
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 19% 19% 19%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 95 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for shallowest industrial intake operation (<
90.8 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 77.9 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 40% 40% 40%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 97.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 99% 99% 99%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 13 14 13
Great Falls-Dearborn Reservoir (including the Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach and the Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 20,980 20,113 19,939
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 32,564 31,652 31,352
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 75% 75% 75%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 78% 78% 78%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 76% 76% 77%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 8 8 8
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 96 96 94
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 97.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 84 83 81
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<98.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 139 138 137
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 22% 22% 22%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 87.2 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 51% 51% 51%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 51% 51% 50%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 685 686 687
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 11 7 8
Cedar Creek Reservoir
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 10,317 10,585 10,145
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 20,194 20,241 20,064
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 71% 71% 72%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 72% 72% 73%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 71% 71% 71%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 1 0 1
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 98.5 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 105 105 103
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 96.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 2 2 2
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 74 75 73
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 7% 7% 7%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 80.3 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 48% 48% 47%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 100% 100% 100%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 50% 50% 49%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 38 35 34
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 3 3 3
Lake Wateree (including the Wateree Regulated River Reach)
Fish & Aquatic Interests
FA22 Minimize lake level variation during spawning season
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=2 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 1,173 1,181 1,147
Incidents of absolute lake level drops >=1 ft over 14 day-period (Note
10)1-Mar 31-May 85 7,277 7,010 6,911
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Mar 31-Jul 10% 84% 84% 85%
FA22 Maximize days of lake levels supporting littoral habitat Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft during the growing season 1-Apr 30-Sep 10% 89% 88% 90%
Percent of time of lake levels >= 98 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 93% 93% 94%
FA22 Minimize days of littoral habitat loss Incidents/yr of lake levels <= 96 ft for at least 2 consecutive days 1-Jan 31-Dec 10 5 5 4
FA22, FA25, FA31, FA34, FA35,
FA39 Provide for aquatic habitat in the regulated river reach Percent of hours at or above 2000 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
Percent of hours at or above 1200 cfs at Node 1 (RM 74.54) (Note 14)1-Jan 31-Dec 10%
CHEOPS Measures 3 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Hydrology Condition / Period = _______________ CHEOPS Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheet Wylie to Wateree
1
2
A B C D E F G H I
CIS # (Note 1)Performance Measures Criterion (Note 2)Start Date End Date
MISC
(note 22)UC-Base_2050 UC-Alt6_2050 UC-Alt7_2050
157
158
159
160
161
164
165
166
169
170
171
173
175
177
178
179
181
182
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Recreation Interests
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of restricted lake boat launching
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for highest public boat ramp
(< 96.0 ft) during higher use months 1-Mar 31-Oct 25 9 9 7
Avg. days/yr lake level below critical level for public boat ramps (< 93.0
ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 0 0 0
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize days/yr of potentially restricted dock access
Avg. days/yr lake level below lowest avg. monthly level in post-Cowans
Ford era (<97.0 ft) (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 3 17 17 14
R111, R122, R127, R145 Minimize reservoir area with restricted lake navigation
Percent of the lake's full pond surface area that is not boatable when
lake level is at the lowest average monthly elevation (Note 4)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 13% 13% 11%
Water User Interests
HOWQ53, HOWQ54, HOWQ55,
HOWQ56, HOWQ57, HOWQ58 Minimize days of restricted operation at lake-located intakes
Days below critical level for shallowest public water supply intake
operation (< 92.5 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Days below critical level for hydro unit operation (< 74 ft) (Note 3)1-Jan 31-Dec 1 0 0 0
Lowest 7-day average flowrate (cfs) released from the hydro
development (RM 74.54) for the evaluation period (Note 12)1-Jan 31-Dec 53 800 800 800
Other Interests
HOWQ46 Maximize days of near "full pool" lake levels
Percent of days lake level within +/- 1 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 1 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 4% 4% 4%
Percent of days lake level within +/- 3 ft of existing maximum guide
curve (i.e. 98.0 ft +/- 3 ft.)1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 99% 99% 99%
Maximize adherence to lake level target Percent of days lake level within +/- 2 ft of target 1-Jan 31-Dec 5% 12% 12% 12%
Percent of days lake level < Normal Minimum Elevation 1-Jan 31-Dec 10% 0% 0% 0%
HOWQ47, HOWQ48, HOWQ49 Minimize days of flooding of developed areas (Note 7) Days lake level above 100.2 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 379 379 383
Days lake level above 103 ft 1-Jan 31-Dec 1 19 19 20
Total Project Hydropower & Water Quantity Management
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ42,
HOWQ58 Minimize inefficiencies in using water stored for generation Percent of hydropower generation lost due to unplanned spills (Note 8)1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 5% 5% 5%
Percent of hydropower generation lost due to other non-power
generation uses (Note 9) 1-Jan 31-Dec 1% 9% 9% 10%
FA40, HOWQ41, HOWQ58 Maximize hydropower generation Avg. MWH/yr of hydropower produced 1-Jan 31-Dec 31,000 1,331,102 1,326,906 1,323,722
Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the
Hydro Project (Note 11)1-Jan 31-Dec 2,500 100,841 100,523 100,282
HOWQ58, HOWQ41,HOWQ45 Maximize hydropower value Avg. hydro generation value in Normalized Dollars/yr (Note 8) 1-Jan 31-Dec $20,000 $719,510 $717,244 $714,937
Background Performance Measure has improved vs. the Baseline Scenario
Background Performance Measure has declined vs. the Baseline Scenario
White Background There is no significant difference between the scenario and the Baseline Scenario by definition of MISC
CHEOPS Measures 4 Revision 0 Dated 1/17/05
Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet NotesNotes
1 CIS # are the Composite Interest Statement numbers taken from Rev 3 of the Composite Interest Statement document
dated 10/27/04 for the interests that are both (1) directly related to water quantity management and (2) reasonably measurable using CHEOPS.
The following CIS #'s represent interests that are directly related to water quantity, but that will be dealt with differently as noted,
and therefore will not be tabulated individually:
CIS #Composite Interest Statement (Rev 3 - 10/27/04)
FA16 Provide run-of-river flows through every dam. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA36 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
FA38 Restore run-of-river flows to the Great Falls. Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R125 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
R126 Scenario design readily identifies whether or not interest is met.
HOWQ51 LIP design determines if interest is met.
HOWQ52 LIP design determines if interest is met.
2 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criterion occurs during the average of four contiguous 15-minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1-hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
3 Critical lake elevations per Attachment F of Draft AIP dated 10/15/04.
4 See App. C of Draft Reservoir Level Study Report dated 11/10/04 for average monthly lake levels during post-Cowans Ford era.
Areas within the lakes are considered boatable if the water depth is greater than or equal to 3 ft.
Lake surface areas are determined using Area-Volume Curves (i.e., a set of curves for each lake that
graph both lake surface area and lake volume verses water depth).
5 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
6 Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Trigger Point considerations.
7 Developed areas include areas with roads, houses and other man-made structures.
8 Includes lost hydropower generation due to unplanned spilling of water at hydro station dams.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
9 Includes lost hydropower due to minimum flow and recreation flow releases that bypass the hydro station and public water supply and industrial withdrawals.
This measure does not include energy losses from evaporation, dam leakage or groundwater recharge.
10 Normalized dollar value of hydropower generated in a given year =
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each Criterion is defined in terms of
percents and averages/yr so that the same Criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1-yr, 3-yr, full period of record,
etc.)
Tie the low inflow protocol to both water conservation and energy
conservation.
Assure that the low inflow protocol fully protects aquatic resources,
water quality, and recreation.
Disposition
Mimic day, month, and annual natural flow patterns including
natural floods in riverine and bypass areas.
Provide predictable recreation releases on bypass sections
including the Great Falls bypass.
Provide predictable recreation releases on river sections (i.e., allow
recreation users to plan ahead for river use).
CHEOPS Measures 1 Revised 1/17/05
Stakeholder Interest Evaluation Spreadsheet Notes[ (MWH x market value for each hour)]/(Highest hourly market price in that year)
11 Flow rates needed to provide for basic navigation. These flow rates are determined by the Instream Flow Study
and/or the Recreation Flow Study. In SC, the flow rates are based on meeting SCDNR's navigation criteria.
In NC, the flow rates are based on Rec 02 studies.
12 7Q10 Flow rate = Lowest average flow rate over a 7-day period that statistically is likely to occur once every 10 years.
The approximate 7Q10 flow rates listed in this document are from Table 6.1-1, Summary of Catawba-Wateree Project
Hydrology as shown in Duke Power's First Stage Consultation Document dated 2003.
13 Absolute Lake level variation is determined from hourly checks against the measure using 15-minute reservoir data averaged per hour.
The number of hours that exceed the starting reservoir elevation are recorded for each 14 day period between the start and end date.
The starting elevation (midnight reservoir elevation) is reset each 14-day period and the total hourly count for all test periods is recorded for each scenario.
14 Calculated by (Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario
The MISC of 3000 homes per year is roughly 2% of the average equivalent homes/yr under the Baseline conditions.
15 Lowest 7-day average flow rate is determined from a rolling 7-day average of the average daily flow (cfs).
Where a average daily flow rate is determined from 15-minute flow (cfs) data averaged per 24 hour-day.
16 Habitat flows were estimates based on field experience with the subject reaches.
17 Floodplain Ecology inundation and maintenance flows for the river reach below Lake James were based on summary results presented
in "Assessment of Hydraulic Geometry and Channel-Maintaining Discharges in the Catawba River Below Lake James", October 2001.
18 Floodplain Ecology inundation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
19 Maintenance flows for the river reach below Wylie and Wateree were based on geomorphic bankfull estimates for IFIM cross sections
Wylie Cross section at River Mile 137.5
Wateree Cross section at River Mile 67.6
20 Recreation flows are initial estimates to be reviewed by the appropriate RC.
21 Flooding flows are initial estimates based on the full hydraulic turbine capacity discharge plus
Oxford- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Lookout- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
Wylie- One gate full open at reservoir = 100
Wateree- Discharge over spillway at reservoir = 103
*Exception Lake James Bank full estimates per reference in Note 17
22 MISC = Minimum Increment of Significant Change. The MISC has the same units (i.e., days, days/yr, percent, etc.) as does the Criterion on that same row of
the spreadsheet. If the output of two scenarios for a particular Criterion does not differ by more than the MISC, then there is no significant difference between
Power produced by the hydro project is actually supplied to Duke Power's electric system grid and is used by Duke Power's electric customers (including
residential, industrial and commercial customers), as is power produced at other Duke Power generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes
per year is intended to simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro project more understandable to stakeholder team members and to put a
perspective around potential differences in hydropower production between various operational scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of
homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
CHEOPS Measures 2 Revised 1/17/05
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir (1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
Elevation - Aesthetics
1 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
2 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
3 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
4 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes (future)
Number of days reservoir elevation below operational minimum 
elevation for withdrawal pool  (EL 1000.0 ft. msl)1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
High Rock Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
5 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
6 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
7 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
8 Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (613.9 ft. msl) for 
shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec9292929292929292
9 Number of days reservoir elevation below level (613.4 ft. msl) for  
proposed new shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec8787878787878787
Flow
10 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 829 829 828 829 829 829 829 829
11 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average max. flow 16‐May 31‐May 186 186 186 186 186 186 186 186
12 Number of days at or below 1,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan00000000
13 Number of days below 770 cfs critical daily average max. flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,445 1,445 1,440 1,418 1,445 1,445 1,445 1,445
14 Number of days below LIP daily average max. flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 4,547 4,547 4,548 4,402 4,547 4,547 4,547 4,547
15 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec3030303030303030
Tuckertown Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
16 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 97% 97% 97% 95% 97% 97% 97% 97%
17 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
18 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%
19 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec0%0%0%2%0%0%0%0%
20 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 11% 11% 11% 13% 11% 11% 11% 11%
21 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
22 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (560.7 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec222662222
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 564.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir guide curve (EL 
1030.0 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir operating rule curve
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 561.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Flow Release From High Rock Lake
Page 1 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Elevation - Aesthetics
23 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 62% 62% 55% 62% 62% 62% 62% 62%
24 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 98% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%
25 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
26 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec3%3%4%3%3%3%3%3%
27 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec8%8%9%8%8%8%8%8%
28 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 9% 9% 11% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
29 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (486.8 ft. msl)for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Falls Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
30 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38%
31 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58% 58%
32 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 68% 68% 67% 68% 68% 68% 68% 68%
33 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%
34 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48%
35 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
36 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (322.8 ft. msl) for 
shallowest water supply intake (hydropower) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Flow
37 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 783 783 790 792 783 783 783 783
38 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average flow 16‐May 31‐May 201 201 209 210 201 201 201 201
39 Number of days at or below 1,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan00000000
40 Number of days below critical flow (770 cfs daily average flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
41 Number of days below LIP daily average flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
42 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770
Flow Release From Falls Reservoir
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 509.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 332.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 504.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 328.8 ft. msl)
Page 2 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Lake Tillery
Elevation - Aesthetics
43 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
44 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
45 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
46 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
47 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
48 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
49 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
50 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37%
51 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Flow
52 Number of days at or below 725 cfs continuous minimum flow (8 
consecutive weeks) for fish spawning 15‐Mar 15‐May 2,141 2,156 2,185 2,185 2,143 2,143 2,143 2,144
53 Number of days at or below 330 cfs continuous minimum flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 14,000 14,023 14,067 14,046 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,007
54 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 708 679 662 662 708 708 708 689
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
55 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (268.2 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply and hydropower intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Blewett Falls Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
56 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
57 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 76% 75% 76% 76% 75% 75% 75% 76%
58 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81%
59 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
60 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
61 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
62 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (168 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Flow
63 Number of days at or below 2,400 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Feb 15‐May 1,995 2,002 2,005 2,007 2,004 2,004 2,004 2,003
64 Number of days at or below 1,800 cfs continuous flow target 16‐May 31‐May 508 508 508 510 510 510 510 508
65 Number of days at below 1,200 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Jun 31‐Jan 7,903 7,866 7,870 7,860 7,985 7,985 7,985 7,913
66 Number of days at or below critical flow (925 cfs instantaneous flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec1919191919191919
67 Number of days below LIP continuous flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
68 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 940 937 941 941 937 937 937 937
Flow Release From Blewett Falls Lake
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal winter 
minimum elevation (EL 273.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 178.1 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal summer 
minimum elevation (EL 275.7 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Lake Tillery
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 172.1 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 278.2 ft. msl)
Page 3 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Water Quantity Management
69 Percent of time in Normal Conditions 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
70 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
71 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
72 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
73 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
74 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
75 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
76 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
77 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
78 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
79 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Alcoa Hydropower
80 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 835,503 835,505 832,111 831,311 835,502 835,502 835,502 835,504
81 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 63,296 63,296 63,039 62,978 63,296 63,296 63,296 63,296
Duke Energy-Progress Hydropower
82 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 339,230 337,799 337,835 337,862 338,910 338,910 338,910 338,256
83 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 25,699 25,591 25,594 25,596 25,675 25,675 25,675 25,625
LIP Drought Stage (Note 2)
Effect on Alcoa hydropower generation
Effect on Duke Energy hydropower generation
Page 4 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir (1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
Elevation - Aesthetics
1 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96%
2 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
3 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
4 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes (future)
Number of days reservoir elevation below operational minimum 
elevation for withdrawal pool  (EL 1000.0 ft. msl)1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
High Rock Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
5 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82%
6 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88%
7 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
8 Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (613.9 ft. msl) for 
shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec9292929292929292
9 Number of days reservoir elevation below level (613.4 ft. msl) for  
proposed new shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec8787878787878787
Flow
10 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 172 172 170 171 172 172 172 172
11 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average max. flow 16‐May 31‐May4141414141414141
12 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan00000000
13 Number of days below 770 cfs critical daily average max. flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec9090906690909090
14 Number of days below LIP daily average max. flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 789 789 787 673 789 789 789 789
15 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 339 339 339 339 339 339 339 339
Tuckertown Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
16 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 82% 82% 82% 72% 82% 82% 82% 82%
17 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 96% 96% 96% 82% 96% 96% 96% 96%
18 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%
19 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 4% 4% 4% 16% 4% 4% 4% 4%
20 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 26% 26% 27% 35% 26% 26% 26% 26%
21 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
22 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (560.7 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000640000
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir guide curve (EL 
1030.0 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir operating rule curve
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 564.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 561.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Flow Release From High Rock Lake
Page 5 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Elevation - Aesthetics
23 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 41% 41% 36% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%
24 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 95% 95% 83% 93% 95% 95% 95% 95%
25 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
26 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec4%4%6%4%4%4%4%4%
27 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 8% 15% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8%
28 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 13% 13% 26% 15% 13% 13% 13% 13%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
29 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (486.8 ft. msl)for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Falls Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
30 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
31 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 39% 39% 38% 39% 39% 39% 39% 39%
32 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 46% 46% 45% 46% 46% 46% 46% 46%
33 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 55% 55% 56% 56% 55% 55% 55% 55%
34 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66%
35 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
36 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (322.8 ft. msl) for 
shallowest water supply intake (hydropower) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Flow
37 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 169 169 174 174 169 169 169 169
38 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average flow 16‐May 31‐May4141414141414141
39 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan00000000
40 Number of days below critical flow (770 cfs daily average flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
41 Number of days below LIP daily average flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
42 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 509.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 504.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 332.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 328.8 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Falls Reservoir
Page 6 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Lake Tillery
Elevation - Aesthetics
43 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
44 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
45 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
46 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
47 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
48 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
49 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
50 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37%
51 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Flow
52 Number of days at or below 725 cfs continuous minimum flow (8 
consecutive weeks) for fish spawning 15‐Mar 15‐May 218 218 222 218 218 218 218 218
53 Number of days at or below 330 cfs continuous minimum flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,326 1,327 1,331 1,329 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,327
54 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 751 725 751 751 751 751 751 733
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
55 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (268.2 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply and hydropower intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Blewett Falls Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
56 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%
57 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 81% 80% 82% 82% 79% 79% 79% 80%
58 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 86% 86% 86% 86% 86% 86% 86% 86%
59 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
60 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec8%8%8%8%8%8%8%8%
61 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18% 18%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
62 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (168 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Flow
63 Number of days at or below 2,400 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Feb 15‐May 284 284 287 287 283 283 283 285
64 Number of days at or below 1,800 cfs continuous flow target 16‐May 31‐May6464646464646464
65 Number of days  at below 1,200 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Jun 31‐Jan 837 832 834 832 841 841 841 836
66 Number of days at or below critical flow (925 cfs instantaneous flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec1919191919191919
67 Number of days below LIP continuous flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
68 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 940 937 941 941 937 937 937 937
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal winter 
minimum elevation (EL 273.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal summer 
minimum elevation (EL 275.7 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Lake Tillery
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 172.1 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Blewett Falls Lake
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 278.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 178.1 ft. msl)
Page 7 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Water Quantity Management
69 Percent of time in Normal Conditions 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88%
70 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
71 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
72 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
73 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
74 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
75 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
76 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec11111111
77 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
78 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
79 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Alcoa Hydropower
80 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 626,889 626,890 623,456 622,811 626,889 626,889 626,889 626,890
81 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 47,492 47,492 47,232 47,183 47,492 47,492 47,492 47,492
Duke Energy-Progress Hydropower
82 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 251,980 250,468 250,553 250,579 251,663 251,663 251,663 251,002
83 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 19,089 18,975 18,981 18,983 19,065 19,065 19,065 19,015
LIP Drought Stage (Note 2)
Effect on Alcoa hydropower generation
Effect on Duke Energy hydropower generation
Page 8 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir (2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
Elevation - Aesthetics
1 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
2 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
3 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
4 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes (future)
Number of days reservoir elevation below operational minimum 
elevation for withdrawal pool  (EL 1000.0 ft. msl)1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
High Rock Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
5 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%
6 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
7 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
8 Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (613.9 ft. msl) for 
shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
9 Number of days reservoir elevation below level (613.4 ft. msl) for  
proposed new shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Flow
10 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 100 100 101 101 100 100 100 100
11 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average max. flow 16‐May 31‐May1818181818181818
12 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan00000000
13 Number of days below 770 cfs critical daily average max. flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec8484797984848484
14 Number of days below LIP daily average max. flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 496 496 499 472 496 496 496 496
15 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec3030303030303030
Tuckertown Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
16 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 93% 93% 93% 87% 93% 93% 93% 93%
17 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100%
18 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
19 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
20 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 16% 16% 16% 22% 16% 16% 16% 16%
21 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
22 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (560.7 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Evaluate adherence to reservoir guide curve (EL 
1030.0 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir operating rule curve
Flow Release From High Rock Lake
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 564.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 561.7 ft. msl)
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Page 9 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Elevation - Aesthetics
23 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 46% 46% 37% 45% 46% 46% 46% 46%
24 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 91% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100%
25 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
26 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec5%5%6%6%5%5%5%5%
27 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 8% 10% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8%
28 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 8% 18% 12% 8% 8% 8% 8%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
29 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (486.8 ft. msl)for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Falls Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
30 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 24% 24% 22% 22% 24% 24% 24% 24%
31 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 44% 44% 42% 43% 44% 44% 44% 44%
32 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 54% 54% 52% 53% 54% 54% 54% 54%
33 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 48% 48% 50% 50% 48% 48% 48% 48%
34 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 62% 62% 63% 63% 62% 62% 62% 62%
35 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 78% 78% 79% 79% 78% 78% 78% 78%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
36 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (322.8 ft. msl) for 
shallowest water supply intake (hydropower) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Flow
37 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Feb 15‐May9494929194949494
38 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average flow 16‐May 31‐May2323262623232323
39 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan00000000
40 Number of days below critical flow (770 cfs daily average flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
41 Number of days below LIP daily average flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
42 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Flow Release From Falls Reservoir
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 509.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 504.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 332.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 328.8 ft. msl)
Page 10 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Lake Tillery
Elevation - Aesthetics
43 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
44 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
45 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
46 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
47 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
48 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
49 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
50 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38%
51 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Flow
52 Number of days at or below 725 cfs continuous minimum flow (8 
consecutive weeks) for fish spawning 15‐Mar 15‐May 205 207 208 207 207 207 207 207
53 Number of days at or below 330 cfs continuous minimum flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,072 1,073 1,073 1,077 1,072 1,072 1,072 1,072
54 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 927 906 927 927 927 927 927 917
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
55 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (268.2 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply and hydropower intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Blewett Falls Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
56 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%
57 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 79% 79% 80% 80% 79% 79% 79% 79%
58 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 83% 83% 84% 84% 83% 83% 83% 83%
59 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
60 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11%
61 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 21% 21% 20% 20% 21% 21% 21% 21%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
62 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐located 
intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (168 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Flow
63 Number of days at or below 2,400 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Feb 15‐May 277 276 276 276 277 277 277 277
64 Number of days at or below 1,800 cfs continuous flow target 16‐May 31‐May5756565656565656
65 Number of days  at below 1,200 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Jun 31‐Jan 683 683 684 684 688 688 688 684
66 Number of days at or below critical flow (925 cfs instantaneous flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
67 Number of days below LIP continuous flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
68 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 278.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal winter 
minimum elevation (EL 273.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal summer 
minimum elevation (EL 275.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 178.1 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 172.1 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Blewett Falls Lake
Flow Release From Lake Tillery
Page 11 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012
A1 2012
UC2050
A2A 2012
UC2050
A2B 2012
UC2050
A3 2012
UC2050
A4 2012
UC2050
A5 2012
UC2050
A11 2012
UC2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Current (Year 2012) Yadkin Basin Water Demands with Union 
County Future (Year 2050) Demands ‐ Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Water Quantity Management
69 Percent of time in Normal Conditions 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
70 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
71 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
72 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
73 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
74 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
75 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
76 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
77 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
78 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
79 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec00000000
Alcoa Hydropower
80 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 620,402 620,404 616,761 615,945 620,401 620,401 620,401 620,403
81 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 47,000 47,000 46,724 46,663 47,000 47,000 47,000 47,000
Duke Energy-Progress Hydropower
82 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 249,888 248,386 248,666 248,677 249,549 249,549 249,549 248,843
83 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 18,931 18,817 18,838 18,839 18,905 18,905 18,905 18,852
LIP Drought Stage (Note 2)
Effect on Alcoa hydropower generation
Effect on Duke Energy hydropower generation
Page 12 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Notes
1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criteria occurs during the average of four contiguous 15‐minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1‐hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
2 LIP ‐ Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin and Yadkin‐Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Projects (Alcoa and Duke Energy Progress)
3 Calculated by [(Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario]
4
21,550 days (59 years * 365.25 days/year)
2,068,776 15‐minute time steps (59 years * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day * 4 time steps/hour) 
5
1,826 days (5 years * 365.25 days/year)
175,320 15‐minute time steps (5 years * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day * 4 time steps/hour) 
6
1,461 days (4 years * 365.25 days/year)
140,256 15‐minute time steps (4 years * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day * 4 time steps/hour) 
2006 thru 2009 Drought, inclusive (4 years)
1999 thru 2003 Drought, inclusive (5 years)
1955 thru 2013, inclusive (59 years)
Power produced by the hydro projects is actually supplied to the electric system grid and is used by electric customers (including residential, industrial and commercial 
customers), as is power produced at other Duke Energy Progress and/or APGI generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes per year is intended to 
simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro projects more understandable to stakeholders and to put a perspective around potential differences in 
hydropower production between various scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined 
in terms of percents and averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1‐yr, 3‐
yr, full period of record, etc.)
Page 13 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 1:04 PM

This page intentionally left blank.
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir (1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
(1955‐2013) 
(Note 4)
Elevation - Aesthetics
1 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
2 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
3 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
4 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes (future)
Number of days reservoir elevation below operational minimum 
elevation for withdrawal pool  (EL 1000.0 ft. msl)1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
High Rock Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
5 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%
6 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
7 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
8 Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (613.9 ft. msl) 
for shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec929595959595959595
9 Number of days reservoir elevation below level (613.4 ft. msl) for  
proposed new shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec879292929292929292
Flow
10 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 829 833 833 835 836 833 833 833 833
11 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average max. flow 16‐May 31‐May 186 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190
12 Number of days at or below 1,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan000000000
13 Number of days below 770 cfs critical daily average max. flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,445 1,416 1,416 1,408 1,392 1,416 1,416 1,416 1,416
14 Number of days below LIP daily average max. flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 4,547 4,594 4,594 4,596 4,432 4,594 4,594 4,594 4,594
15 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec303030303030303030
Tuckertown Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
16 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 97% 96% 96% 96% 94% 96% 96% 96% 96%
17 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 99% 99% 99% 97% 99% 99% 99% 99%
18 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%
19 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec0%1%1%1%3%1%1%1%1%
20 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 11% 12% 12% 12% 14% 12% 12% 12% 12%
21 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
22 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (560.7 ft. msl) 
for shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec22217842222
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 564.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir guide curve (EL 
1030.0 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir operating rule 
curve
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 561.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Flow Release From High Rock Lake
Page 1 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Elevation - Aesthetics
23 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 62% 56% 56% 53% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56%
24 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 98% 98% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
25 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%
26 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec3%3%3%4%4%3%3%3%3%
27 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 9% 9% 10% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
28 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 9% 10% 10% 12% 11% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
29 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (486.8 ft. 
msl)for shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Falls Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
30 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 38% 38% 38% 38% 37% 38% 38% 38% 38%
31 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 58% 58% 58% 57% 57% 58% 58% 58% 58%
32 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 68% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%
33 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 35% 35% 35% 36% 36% 35% 35% 35% 35%
34 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 48% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49% 49%
35 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
36 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (322.8 ft. msl) 
for shallowest water supply intake (hydropower) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec011011111
Flow
37 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 783 788 788 804 805 788 788 788 788
38 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average flow 16‐May 31‐May 201 205 205 216 215 205 205 205 205
39 Number of days at or below 1,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan000000000
40 Number of days below critical flow (770 cfs daily average flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
41 Number of days below LIP daily average flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
42 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770
Flow Release From Falls Reservoir
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 509.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 332.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 504.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 328.8 ft. msl)
Page 2 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Lake Tillery
Elevation - Aesthetics
43 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
44 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
45 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
46 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
47 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
48 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
49 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
50 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37%
51 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Flow
52 Number of days at or below 725 cfs continuous minimum flow (8 
consecutive weeks) for fish spawning 15‐Mar 15‐May 2,141 2,164 2,161 2,189 2,191 2,166 2,166 2,166 2,162
53 Number of days at or below 330 cfs continuous minimum flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 14,000 14,122 14,133 14,174 14,174 14,115 14,115 14,115 14,128
54 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 708 380 330 380 380 330 330 330 330
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
55 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (268.2 ft. msl) 
for shallowest public water supply and hydropower intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Blewett Falls Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
56 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
57 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76%
58 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81% 81%
59 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec0%0%1%0%0%1%1%1%1%
60 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
61 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23% 23%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
62 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (168 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Flow
63 Number of days at or below 2,400 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Feb 15‐May 1,995 2,060 2,067 2,065 2,065 2,076 2,076 2,076 2,076
64 Number of days at or below 1,800 cfs continuous flow target 16‐May 31‐May 508 528 531 525 527 532 532 532 534
65 Number of days at or below 1,200 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Jun 31‐Jan 7,903 8,084 8,098 8,094 8,089 8,244 8,244 8,244 8,152
66 Number of days at or below critical flow (925 cfs instantaneous flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec192223222223232323
67 Number of days below LIP continuous flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
68 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 940 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925
Flow Release From Blewett Falls Lake
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal winter 
minimum elevation (EL 273.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 178.1 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal summer 
minimum elevation (EL 275.7 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Lake Tillery
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 172.1 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 278.2 ft. msl)
Page 3 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Period of Record (1955‐2013)
Water Quantity Management
69 Percent of time in Normal Conditions 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
70 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec122222222
71 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
72 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
73 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
74 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
75 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
76 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
77 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
78 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
79 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Alcoa Hydropower
80 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 835,503 828,305 828,308 824,956 824,142 828,306 828,306 828,306 828,307
81 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 63,296 62,750 62,751 62,497 62,435 62,750 62,750 62,750 62,751
Duke Energy-Progress Hydropower
82 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 339,230 332,093 330,410 330,439 330,450 331,566 331,566 331,566 330,855
83 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 25,699 25,159 25,031 25,033 25,034 25,119 25,119 25,119 25,065
LIP Drought Stage (Note 2)
Effect on Alcoa hydropower generation
Effect on Duke Energy hydropower generation
Page 4 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir (1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
(1999‐2003)
(Note 5)
Elevation - Aesthetics
1 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96%
2 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
3 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
4 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes (future)
Number of days reservoir elevation below operational minimum 
elevation for withdrawal pool  (EL 1000.0 ft. msl)1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
High Rock Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
5 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 82% 81% 81% 80% 80% 81% 81% 81% 81%
6 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 88% 87% 87% 87% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87%
7 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 90% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
8 Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (613.9 ft. msl) 
for shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec929595959595959595
9 Number of days reservoir elevation below level (613.4 ft. msl) for  
proposed new shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec879292929292929292
Flow
10 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 172 173 173 176 176 173 173 173 173
11 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average max. flow 16‐May 31‐May414141414141414141
12 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan000000000
13 Number of days below 770 cfs critical daily average max. flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec907575695775757575
14 Number of days below LIP daily average max. flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 789 784 784 780 649 784 784 784 784
15 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 339 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375
Tuckertown Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
16 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 82% 76% 76% 76% 69% 76% 76% 76% 76%
17 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 96% 90% 90% 90% 79% 90% 90% 90% 90%
18 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 98% 98% 97% 87% 98% 98% 98% 98%
19 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 4% 10% 10% 10% 19% 10% 10% 10% 10%
20 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 26% 32% 32% 32% 35% 32% 32% 32% 32%
21 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
22 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (560.7 ft. msl) 
for shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec00015820000
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir guide curve (EL 
1030.0 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir operating rule 
curve
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 564.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 561.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Flow Release From High Rock Lake
Page 5 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Elevation - Aesthetics
23 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 41% 36% 36% 33% 35% 36% 36% 36% 36%
24 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 95% 85% 85% 75% 80% 85% 85% 85% 85%
25 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 97% 97% 86% 94% 97% 97% 97% 97%
26 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 4% 4% 4% 10% 6% 4% 4% 4% 4%
27 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 12% 12% 22% 14% 12% 12% 12% 12%
28 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 13% 23% 23% 33% 28% 23% 23% 23% 23%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
29 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (486.8 ft. 
msl)for shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Falls Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
30 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%
31 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 39% 38% 38% 37% 37% 38% 38% 38% 38%
32 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 46% 45% 45% 44% 44% 45% 45% 45% 45%
33 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 55% 56% 56% 58% 58% 56% 56% 56% 56%
34 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 66% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%
35 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 78% 78% 78% 79% 79% 78% 78% 78% 78%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
36 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (322.8 ft. msl) 
for shallowest water supply intake (hydropower) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Flow
37 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 169 176 176 181 179 176 176 176 176
38 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average flow 16‐May 31‐May414141414141414141
39 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan000000000
40 Number of days below critical flow (770 cfs daily average flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
41 Number of days below LIP daily average flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
42 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770 770
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 509.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 504.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 332.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 328.8 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Falls Reservoir
Page 6 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Lake Tillery
Elevation - Aesthetics
43 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 98% 98% 98% 98%
44 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
45 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
46 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
47 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
48 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
49 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec1%1%2%1%1%2%2%2%2%
50 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 37% 38% 39% 38% 38% 39% 39% 39% 39%
51 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Flow
52 Number of days at or below 725 cfs continuous minimum flow (8 
consecutive weeks) for fish spawning 15‐Mar 15‐May 218 220 221 222 219 220 220 220 220
53 Number of days at or below 330 cfs continuous minimum flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,333 1,331 1,326 1,326 1,326 1,328
54 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 751 380 330 380 380 330 330 330 330
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
55 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (268.2 ft. msl) 
for shallowest public water supply and hydropower intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Blewett Falls Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
56 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec7%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%6%
57 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 81% 77% 76% 77% 77% 76% 76% 76% 76%
58 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 86% 82% 81% 82% 82% 81% 81% 81% 81%
59 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec1%2%4%2%2%4%4%4%4%
60 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 12% 12% 11% 11% 12% 12% 12% 12%
61 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 18% 22% 23% 22% 22% 23% 23% 23% 23%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
62 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (168 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Flow
63 Number of days at or below 2,400 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Feb 15‐May 284 285 285 287 286 286 286 286 286
64 Number of days at or below 1,800 cfs continuous flow target 16‐May 31‐May646565646465656565
65 Number of days at or below 1,200 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Jun 31‐Jan 837 850 852 850 851 862 862 862 859
66 Number of days at or below critical flow (925 cfs instantaneous flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec192223222223232323
67 Number of days below LIP continuous flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
68 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 940 925 925 925 925 925 925 925 925
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal winter 
minimum elevation (EL 273.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal summer 
minimum elevation (EL 275.7 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Lake Tillery
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 172.1 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Blewett Falls Lake
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 278.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 178.1 ft. msl)
Page 7 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 1 (1999‐2003)
Water Quantity Management
69 Percent of time in Normal Conditions 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 88% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87% 87%
70 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec122222222
71 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
72 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
73 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
74 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
75 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
76 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec111111111
77 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
78 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
79 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Alcoa Hydropower
80 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 626,889 620,372 620,382 617,134 616,463 620,379 620,379 620,379 620,380
81 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 47,492 46,998 46,999 46,753 46,702 46,998 46,998 46,998 46,999
Duke Energy-Progress Hydropower
82 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 251,980 244,544 242,766 242,958 243,018 243,948 243,948 243,948 243,177
83 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 19,089 18,526 18,391 18,406 18,410 18,481 18,481 18,481 18,422
LIP Drought Stage (Note 2)
Effect on Alcoa hydropower generation
Effect on Duke Energy hydropower generation
Page 8 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir (2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
(2006‐2009)
(Note 6)
Elevation - Aesthetics
1 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%
2 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
3 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
guide curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
4 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes (future)
Number of days reservoir elevation below operational minimum 
elevation for withdrawal pool  (EL 1000.0 ft. msl)1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
High Rock Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
5 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 91% 91% 91% 90% 90% 91% 91% 91% 91%
6 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 95% 95% 95% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% 95%
7 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
operating curve 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 98% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
8 Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (613.9 ft. msl) 
for shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
9 Number of days reservoir elevation below level (613.4 ft. msl) for  
proposed new shallowest water supply intake (power) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Flow
10 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Feb 15‐May 100 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101
11 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average max. flow 16‐May 31‐May181919191919191919
12 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average max. flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan000000000
13 Number of days below 770 cfs critical daily average max. flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec847272727272727272
14 Number of days below LIP daily average max. flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 496 527 527 527 497 527 527 527 527
15 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec303030303030303030
Tuckertown Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
16 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 93% 88% 88% 89% 85% 88% 88% 88% 88%
17 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 95% 95% 95% 92% 95% 95% 95% 95%
18 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100%
19 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec0%5%5%5%8%5%5%5%5%
20 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 16% 20% 20% 19% 23% 20% 20% 20% 20%
21 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
22 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (560.7 ft. msl) 
for shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Evaluate adherence to reservoir guide curve (EL 
1030.0 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir operating rule 
curve
Flow Release From High Rock Lake
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 564.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 561.7 ft. msl)
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Page 9 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Elevation - Aesthetics
23 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 46% 39% 39% 34% 38% 39% 39% 39% 39%
24 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 93% 93% 90% 92% 93% 93% 93% 93%
25 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
26 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec5%5%5%6%6%5%5%5%5%
27 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 9% 9% 13% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
28 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 8% 15% 15% 19% 16% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
29 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (486.8 ft. 
msl)for shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Falls Reservoir
Elevation - Aesthetics
30 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 24% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22%
31 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 44% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%
32 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 54% 52% 52% 50% 50% 52% 52% 52% 52%
33 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 48% 50% 50% 52% 52% 50% 50% 50% 50%
34 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 62% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% 64%
35 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 78% 79% 79% 80% 80% 79% 79% 79% 79%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
36 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (322.8 ft. msl) 
for shallowest water supply intake (hydropower) operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Flow
37 Number of days at or below 2,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Feb 15‐May949191979791919191
38 Number of days at or below 1,500 cfs daily average flow 16‐May 31‐May232525272725252525
39 Number of days  at or below 1,000 cfs daily average flow 1‐Jun 31‐Jan000000000
40 Number of days below critical flow (770 cfs daily average flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
41 Number of days below LIP daily average flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
42 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Flow Release From Falls Reservoir
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 509.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 504.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 332.8 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 328.8 ft. msl)
Page 10 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Lake Tillery
Elevation - Aesthetics
43 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%
44 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
45 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
46 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
47 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
48 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 16‐Dec 28‐Feb0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
49 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
50 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38%
51 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Mar 15‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Flow
52 Number of days at or below 725 cfs continuous minimum flow (8 
consecutive weeks) for fish spawning 15‐Mar 15‐May 205 210 210 212 213 210 210 210 210
53 Number of days at or below 330 cfs continuous minimum flow 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,072 1,074 1,076 1,075 1,075 1,075 1,075 1,075 1,076
54 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 927 866 845 866 866 866 866 866 856
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
55 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (268.2 ft. msl) 
for shallowest public water supply and hydropower intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Blewett Falls Lake
Elevation - Aesthetics
56 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec6%7%7%6%6%7%7%7%7%
57 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 79% 79% 78% 79% 79% 78% 78% 78% 78%
58 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir full 
pond 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 83% 84% 83% 84% 84% 83% 83% 83% 83%
59 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 1 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
60 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 2 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 11% 10% 11% 11% 10% 11% 11% 11% 11%
61 Percent of time end of day reservoir level within +/‐ 3 ft of reservoir 
normal minimum elevation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21% 21%
Elevation - Water Withdrawal
62 Evaluate days of restricted operation at lake‐
located intakes
Number of days reservoir elevation below critical level (168 ft. msl) for 
shallowest public water supply intake operation 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Flow
63 Number of days at or below 2,400 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Feb 15‐May 277 277 277 277 277 279 279 279 279
64 Number of days at or below 1,800 cfs continuous flow target 16‐May 31‐May575757575757575757
65 Number of days at or below 1,200 cfs continuous flow target 1‐Jun 31‐Jan 683 694 696 694 695 701 701 701 699
66 Number of days at or below critical flow (925 cfs instantaneous flow) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
67 Number of days below LIP continuous flow target 1‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
68 Lowest daily average flow (cfs) 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 278.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal winter 
minimum elevation (EL 273.2 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal summer 
minimum elevation (EL 275.7 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir full pond elevation 
(EL 178.1 ft. msl)
Evaluate adherence to reservoir normal minimum 
elevation (EL 172.1 ft. msl)
Flow Release From Blewett Falls Lake
Flow Release From Lake Tillery
Page 11 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Line
Number Performance Measures Criterion (Note 1) Start Date End Date BLY 2012 BLY 2050 A1 2050 A2A 2050 A2B 2050 A3 2050 A4 2050 A5 2050 A11 2050
Model ScenarioPerformance Measures Sheet ‐ Future (Year 2050) Yadkin Basin Water Demands
Drought 2 (2006‐2009)
Water Quantity Management
69 Percent of time in Normal Conditions 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
70 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
71 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 01‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
72 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
73 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 11‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
74 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
75 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 21‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
76 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
77 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 31‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
78 Number of years attaining LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
79 Number of years with more than 60 days in LIP Stage 41‐Jan 31‐Dec000000000
Alcoa Hydropower
80 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 620,402 612,821 612,822 609,284 608,443 612,821 612,821 612,821 612,822
81 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 47,000 46,426 46,426 46,158 46,094 46,426 46,426 46,426 46,426
Duke Energy-Progress Hydropower
82 Avg. MWh/yr of hydropower produced 1‐Jan 31‐Dec 249,888 242,354 240,548 240,586 240,548 241,745 241,745 241,745 241,022
83 Average equivalent # of homes per year that could be powered by the 
hydro project (Note 3)1‐Jan 31‐Dec 18,931 18,360 18,223 18,226 18,223 18,314 18,314 18,314 18,259
LIP Drought Stage (Note 2)
Effect on Alcoa hydropower generation
Effect on Duke Energy hydropower generation
Page 12 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM
Yadkin CHEOPS Model Performance Measures Sheet
Notes
1 For criterion that measure on an hourly or daily basis, unless stated otherwise:
a. If an hourly criteria occurs during the average of four contiguous 15‐minute periods, then it counts as 1 hour.
b. If a daily criterion occurs for 5 contiguous 1‐hour periods, then it counts as 1 day.
2 LIP ‐ Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin and Yadkin‐Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Projects (Alcoa and Duke Energy Progress)
3 Calculated by [(Total Scenario MWh / 13.2 MWh per home) / the # of years in the scenario]
4
21,550 days (59 years * 365.25 days/year)
2,068,776 15‐minute time steps (59 years * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day * 4 time steps/hour) 
5
1,826 days (5 years * 365.25 days/year)
175,320 15‐minute time steps (5 years * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day * 4 time steps/hour) 
6
1,461 days (4 years * 365.25 days/year)
140,256 15‐minute time steps (4 years * 365.25 days/year * 24 hours/day * 4 time steps/hour) 
2006 thru 2009 Drought, inclusive (4 years)
1999 thru 2003 Drought, inclusive (5 years)
1955 thru 2013, inclusive (59 years)
Power produced by the hydro projects is actually supplied to the electric system grid and is used by electric customers (including residential, industrial and commercial 
customers), as is power produced at other Duke Energy Progress and/or APGI generating stations. This criterion of average equivalent homes per year is intended to 
simply make the total energy production potential of the hydro projects more understandable to stakeholders and to put a perspective around potential differences in 
hydropower production between various scenarios. This measure does not imply that any number of homes will go without power if a particular scenario is chosen.
Also, daytime flows are assumed to be flows provided between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. To the extent possible, each criterion is defined 
in terms of percents and averages/yr so that the same criterion is useful regardless of the length of the hydrology period (i.e., 1‐yr, 3‐
yr, full period of record, etc.)
Page 13 of 13 Printed 10/1/2014, 12:59 PM

This page intentionally left blank.
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
D
D
APPENDIX D: Technical
Memorandum - Yadkin River
Basin Future Water Demand Projections

D-1
Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project | Interbasin Transfer Petition
Appendices
This page intentionally left blank.

D-2

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
1

Technical Memorandum
PROJECT: Union County Yadkin River Water Supply Project – Permitting and Preliminary
Engineering
DATE: October 23, 2014
SUBJECT: Water Supply Projections for Water Supply Modeling – Basis and Results

BACKGROUND
As part of the comprehensive evaluation for securing a reliable water supply to serve customers in its
Yadkin River Basin service area, the Union County Public Works Department (UCPW) has authorized
HDR to provide Permitting and Preliminary Engineering assistance for the County’s Yadkin River Water
Supply Project (YRWSP). One of the tasks is to provide technical evaluations to support these permitting
efforts. As part of these evaluations, HDR will develop a water supply model for a portion of the Yadkin
River Basin (Basin). This modeling effort requires net withdrawal (withdrawals minus returns) projections
for water use within each watershed of the Basin. Those using the Yadkin River Basin for water supply
purposes can generally be grouped into the following major categories:
Public Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities – Municipal and other utility agencies with
systems that withdraw and treat water for public consumption and residential, commercial, and
industrial use, as well as those systems that treat wastewater and return it to a surface water
source.
Direct Industrial – These industrial users have direct withdrawals and/or returns from surface
water sources and utilize water in their manufacturing processes.
Thermal-Electric Power – The thermal-electric power facilities within the Basin that use water for
cooling and other energy production needs.
Agricultural and Irrigation – Agricultural and irrigation (A&I) users include farms, golf courses,
and other facilities that use water for livestock production, irrigation, and other purposes.
For the purposes of the water quantity model, the Basin was delineated into seven incremental
watersheds. Additionally, an eighth watershed, from below Blewett Falls Lake to the North Carolina –
South Carolina state line, is being evaluated for water use outside of the water quantity model through a
post-processing routine. These watersheds are listed below from the most upstream reservoir to the most
downstream reservoir in the Yadkin Basin.
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir
High Rock Lake
Tuckertown Reservoir
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
2

Falls Reservoir
Lake Tillery
Blewett Falls Lake
Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake to NC-SC state line (evaluated through post-processing
routine)
The boundaries of the Basin and watershed locations being used in the modeling effort are provided in
Figure 1. As can be seen from the map, only a very small portion of the Basin being modeled is located
within South Carolina. The area of the Basin within South Carolina was examined through aerial mapping
sources and there appears to be no major water users in that area. Additionally, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
website was evaluated for the portion of Chesterfield County within the Basin, and there are no
discharges in that area. The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Controls
(SCDHEC) was also contacted to determine if any withdrawals or returns exist in that portion of the state,
and concurred that there are none. Based on this evaluation, South Carolina was not included in the
evaluation of water uses for modeling purposes, with the exception of the A&I category, as described
below.
As shown in Figure 1, there is a model subbasin within North Carolina (“Downstream of Blewett Falls
Lake”) that appears to lie outside the Yadkin River Basin. However, Figure 2 shows how this subbasin
area is in fact included in the Yadkin River Basin, as part of the Lower Pee Dee River Basin, according to
the subbasin delineations published by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). This sub-basin is below the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) regulated reservoirs and thus was considered in the modeling effort through a post-
processing routine.
Also shown on Figure 1 is a small portion of the Basin is within the Commonwealth of Virginia. The area
shown is rural, and no major water users have been identified within this area; therefore, Virginia was not
included in the evaluation of water use, except for the A&I category.
This document summarizes the entities being evaluated, the sources for historical data, the methodology
for developing water supply projections to determine net withdrawals for each watershed in the CHEOPS
water quantity model for the Basin, and the results of the water supply projections.
PROJECTION METHODOLOGY
The proceeding sections describe how historical data was gathered and projections developed for each of
the four water user categories. In compiling the list of current users, the focus was on those users that
currently withdraw or return from a surface water source an average annual daily rate of 100,000 gpd or
more from the Basin. While numerous users may withdraw or return water at rates less than 100,000
gpd, their impact on net withdrawal from the watersheds of each reservoir was considered insignificant for
the long-term water quantity modeling effort. Also, the net withdrawal produced by these users would be
very small relative to the overall net withdrawal resulting from the users documented in the projections.

For the North Carolina users, several databases were provided by the North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). The databases included
information from the Local Water Supply Plans (1997 to 2012), Water Withdrawal and Transfer

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
3

Registrations (1999 to 2012), and NPDES discharge data (1997 to 2014). This data was used to
determine the appropriate entities to include in the evaluation, intake and discharge locations, and to
obtain monthly historical water use data.
The historical water use data in the NDDWR databases was not used directly as a model input. Rather,
the historical databases were aggregated into one Excel reference file, which was used to compile the
model input values for both historical and projected flows. For historical flows, gaps in the data (missing
months) were filled in by interpolating between known data points. For projection values, the average
value from 2010 to 2012 in a given month was used as the basis (“Base Year”) for making projections.
Water withdrawal and returns were projected to the year 2060.
In the databases received by NCDWR, the data is separated by subbasin. However, these subbasin
divisions are different than those watersheds being used for the water quantity model. Figure 2 shows
the modeling watersheds with the NCDWR subbasins overlaid for reference. Figure 3 shows all of the
water users being considered in this evaluation, with the modeling watersheds and County boundaries
shown for reference. The entity list with the name of the facilities is also shown on Figure 3.

Santee
Upper Pee Dee (Yadkin)
Lower Pee Dee
RoanokeKanawha
Cape Fear
Santee
Overall Basin Map with Modeling SubbasinsFigure 1
Union County | Yadkin River Water Supply Project - Permitting and Preliminary Engineering | Basis of Water Supply Projection
\\cltsmain\gis_data\GIS\Projects\000240_UnionCounty\0214323_UCYRWSPPermit-PrelimEng\map_docs\mxd\Technical Memo figures\TM_Figure_1_rev.mxd | Last Updated: 10.15.2014
Legend
Overall River Basins
Subbasins
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir
High Rock Lake
Tuckertown Reservoir
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Falls Reservoir
Lake Tillery
Blewett Falls Lake
Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake
.
18-1Yadkin River
18-4Rocky River
18-2South Yadkin River
18-3Uwharrie River
Modeling Subbasins with NCDWR Subbasins OverlaidFigure 2
Union County | Yadkin River Water Supply Project - Permitting and Preliminary Engineering | Basis of Water Supply Projection
\\cltsmain\gis_data\GIS\Projects\000240_UnionCounty\0214323_UCYRWSPPermit-PrelimEng\map_docs\mxd\Technical Memo figures\TM_Figure_2_rev.mxd | Last Updated: 10.15.2014
Legend
NCDWR Subbasins
Subbasins
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir
High Rock Lake
Tuckertown Reservoir
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Falls Reservoir
Lake Tillery
Blewett Falls Lake
Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake
.
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(89
88
87
86 85
84
83
81
78
75
93
71
67
66
64 63
62
60
59
58
56
55
52
45
34
16
13
11
92
09
04
01
88b
77c
77a
76d
76c76b76a
74a
73b73a72b72a
70c
70b
69b
69a
68a
65c65b65a
61b61a
46b
40b
35b
30f
30e
30d
30b
28d
28c
27b
25f
25e
25d
25c
25b
25a
24b
24a
23c 23b
23a
90c90b90a
21c
21b21a
20d
20b
19c
19a
18b
17c17b
91b 91a
15d15b 14d
14c
14a
94c
08b
05c
05b
03e
03d
42
02
74b
70a
68b
46a
40a
35c
35a 30g
30c
30a
28b
28a
27a
22b22a
20c
20a
19b
18a
17a
15a
14b
94b94a
08a
03c03b03a76a(F)
York County
Wilkes County
Union County
Randolph County
Fairfield County
Kershaw County
Iredell County
Surry County
Guilford County
Chesterfield County
Anson County
Chester County
Rowan County
Davidson County
Lee County
Stokes County
Lancaster County
Darlington County
Ashe County
Stanly County
Patrick CountyGrayson County
Forsyth County
Rockingham County
Henry County
Mecklenburg County
Richmond County
Marlboro County
Catawba County
Montgomery County
Richland County
Gaston County
Newberry County
Carroll County
Florence County
Yadkin County
Union County
Caldwell County
Cabarrus County
Cleveland County
Lincoln County
Davie County
Moore County
Alexander County
Burke County
Cherokee County
Alleghany County
Smyth County
Lexington County Sumter County
Watauga County
Saluda County Water-Using Entities Considered in the Current StudyFigure 3
Union County | Yadkin River Water Supply Project - Permitting and Preliminary Engineering | Basis of Water Supply Projection
\\cltsmain\gis_data\GIS\Projects\000240_UnionCounty\0214323_UCYRWSPPermit-PrelimEng\map_docs\mxd\Technical Memo figures\TM_Figure_3_rev.mxd | Last Updated: 11.14.2014
Legend
Water-Using Facilities
!(Water-Withdrawing Facilities
!(Water-Returning Facilities
Subbasins
W. Kerr Scott Reservoir
High Rock Lake
Tuckertown Reservoir
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake)
Falls Reservoir
Lake Tillery
Blewett Falls Lake
Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake
.
ID No.Entity Facility ID No.Entity Facility ID No.Entity Facility ID No.Entity Facility01Allegheny Technologies, Inc ATI Allvac Monroe Plant 23a City of Statesville City of Statesville WTP (S. Yadkin River)45 PPG Ind. Fiber Glass Products PPG Industries Fiber Glass Products 73a Town of Yadkinville Yadkinville WTP02Aluminum Company Of America Badin Works 23b City of Statesville Fourth Creek WWTP 46a/b Performance Fibers, Inc Salisbury Facility 73b Town of Yadkinville Yadkinville WWTP03a-e Anson County Anson County Filtration Plant 23c City of Statesville Third Creek WWTP 52 Stanly County West Stanly WWTP 74a True Textiles, Inc True Elkin, Inc.04 Aqua North Carolina, Inc Country Wood WWTP 24a City of Thomasville City of Thomasville WTP 55 Teledyne Allvac Monroe Plant 74b True Textiles, Inc 304 East Main Street Plant05bAsheboroW. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Lucas)24b City of Thomasville Hamby Creek WWTP 56 The Fork, LLC The Fork, LLC 75 Tyson Foods, Inc Harmony Plant05cAsheboroW. L. Brown Jr WTP (Lake Reese)25a City of Winston-Salem Archie Elledge WWTP 58 Town of Bermuda Run Bermuda Run WWTP 76a Union County Public Works Crooked Creek WWTP #208a/b Blue Ridge Tissue Corp Patterson Mill 25b City of Winston-Salem Muddy Creek WWTP 59 Town of Biscoe Biscoe WWTP 76b Union County Public Works Hunley Creek WWTP09Bradfield Farms Water Company Bradfield Farms WWTP 25c/e City of Winston-Salem P. W. Swann WTP 60 Town of Boonville Boonville WWTP 76c Union County Public Works Grassy Branch WWTP11Carolina Water Service Inc of NC Hemby Acres WWTP 25d City of Winston-Salem R. A. Thomas WTP 61a Town of Denton Denton WP 76d Union County Public Works Tallwood Estates WWTP13CMUDMallard Creek WWTP 25f City of Winston-Salem R.W. Neilson WTP 61b Town of Denton Denton WWTP 77a WSA of Cabarrus County Mt. Pleasant WTF14aCity of Albemarle Long Creek WWTP 27a Davidson Water Inc C. O. Pickle WP 62 Town of Dobson Dobson WWTP 77c WSA of Cabarrus County Rocky River WWTP (WSACC)14b/c City of Albemarle Tuckertown WTP 27b Davidson Water Inc Davidson Water WTP 63 Town of Elkin Elkin Municipal WTP 78 Wayne Farms LLC Bruckie Ashburn Dobson Plant14dCity of Albemarle US 52 HWY WTP 28a Davie County Cooleemee WTP 64 Town of Jonesville Jonesville WP 81 Yadkin Valley Sewer Authority, Inc Yadkin Valley S.A. WWTP15a/b City of Concord Coddle Creek WTP 28b/c Davie County Sparks Road WTP 65a Town of Mocksville Hugh A. Lagle WTP 83 Carolina Stalite Company Carolina Stalite Company15dCity of Concord Hillgrove WTP (Lake Fisher)28d Davie County Cooleemee WWTP 65b Town of Mocksville Bear Creek WWTP 84 City of Charlotte Cabarrus Woods WWTP16City of High Point Westside WWTP 30a Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Buck Steam Station 65c Town of Mocksville Dutchman Creek WWTP 85 Norfolk Southern Railway Company Linwood Yard17a/b/c City of Kannapolis City of Kannapolis WTP 30b Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Buck Combined Cycle Station 66 Town of Mooresville Rocky River WWTP 86 Town of Cleveland Cleveland WWTP18a/b City of King City of King WTP 30c Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Smith Energy Complex 67 Town of Mount Gilead Mount Gilead WWTP 87 Energy United Water Energy United Water WTP19aCity of Lexington Lexington Regional WWTP 30d Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Combined Cycle Station #1 68a Town of North Wilkesboro North Wilkesboro WP 88/88b Richmond County Richmond County WTP19bCity of Lexington Lexington WTP #1 & 2 30e Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Combined Cycle Station #2 68b Town of North Wilkesboro Thurman Street WWTP 89 Wilkes County Wilkes County WTP (Future)19c City of Lexington Lexington WTP (Lake Thom-A-Lex)30f Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Nuclear Plant #1 69a Town of Norwood Norwood WTP 90a City of Rockingham Rockingham WWTP20a/b City of Monroe John Glenn WTP 30g Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Additional Nuclear Plant #2 69b Town of Norwood Norwood WWTP 90b/c City of Rockingham Rockingham WTP20c/d City of Monroe Monroe WWTP 34 Greater Badin W&SD Badin WWTP 70a/b Town of Pilot Mountain Pilot Mountain WTP 91a City of Hamlet Hamlet WTP21aCity of Mount Airy F. G. Doggett WTP 35a/b/c Hedrick Industries Aquadale Quarry 70c Town of Pilot Mountain Pilot Mountain WWTP 91b City of Hamlet Hamlet WWTP21bCity of Mount Airy Mount Airy WWTP 40a Louisiana Pacific Corporation Lousiana Pacific Corporation 71 Town of Troy Troy WWTP 92 Burlington Industries LLC Richmond Plant21cCity of Mount Airy S. L. Spencer WTP 40b Louisiana Pacific Corporation LP Roaring River WWTP 72a Town of Wilkesboro Cub Creek WWTP 93 Town of Wadesboro Town of Wadesboro WTP22aCity of Salisbury Salisbury WTP 42 Montgomery County Montgomery County WTP 72b Town of Wilkesboro Wilkesboro WFP 94a/b/c B.V. Hedrick Gravel And Sand Co.Hedrick Mine (Pump House 1/2/3)22b City of Salisbury Salisbury-Rowan WWTP

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
7

Public Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities
Historical Data Source: Databases provided by NCDWR. Monthly withdrawal and discharge data
for each year from 2007-2012 were analyzed to determine annual averages. Monthly coefficients
based on the monthly average divided by the annual average were calculated using the historical
data record of each entity for use in the water quantity model.
Projection Methodology
o Projections for water withdrawals were based on the projected annual growth rate (AGR)
of the County being served for the majority of the entities. The projected AGR takes into
account historical population data for the state from the 2010 Census and population
projections prepared by the North Carolina State Office of Budget and Management. For
larger entities in the basin, the projections from the Local Water Supply Plans were used.
This alternate methodology was chosen because growth was assumed to occur in the
larger cities at a faster rate than the overall County AGR. Local Water Supply Plan
projections were not used for all withdrawal entities because some entities’ projections
appeared intuitively incorrect – either overly aggressive (i.e., growth rates far exceeding
historic values) or overly conservative (i.e., negative growth rates). Using the Census
AGR values (or if the Census AGR was low, a minimum AGR of 0.25%) for these entities
provided a reasonable growth projection without giving undue weight to any one entity’s
projections. The notes in each of the detailed entity sheets denote whether an AGR
projection or a Local Water Supply Plan projection was used for that entity.
o For water treatment plant backwash returns, the average historical backwash return as a
percentage of water use from 2010 to 2012 was applied to the water withdrawal
projections.
o The wastewater treatment plant projections for returns were based on the projected
annual growth rate for the County being served or the average historical return as a
percentage of water use from 2010 to 2012 applied to the water withdrawal projections,
depending on the methodology used for the withdrawal projections.
Direct Industrial
Historical Data Source – Databases provided by NCDWR. Monthly withdrawal and discharge
data for each year from 2007-2012 were analyzed to determine annual averages. Monthly
coefficients based on the monthly average divided by the annual average were calculated using
the historical data record of each entity for use in the water quantity model.
Projection Methodology – The projections for industrial withdrawals and returns were based on
the specific industry and the gross state product (GSP) for that industrial sector. Historical data
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis from 1997-2012 was used to calculate a long term GSP
growth percentage for the specific industry sector. The overall GSP growth percentage for
industry in North Carolina was also used as a reference. If the industrial sector showed a
negative GSP growth percentage, a zero percentage growth was assigned in the projections to
be conservative. An estimate for future industry was also added to the projections. This
assumed 0.5 MGD per year in the smaller basins (Tuckertown Reservoir, Badin Lake and Falls
Reservoir), 1 MGD per year in the larger basins (High Rock Lake, Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls
Lake) and no future industry in the W. Kerr Scott Reservoir basin.

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
8

Thermal Electric Power
The only thermal-electric power facility in the Basin that meets the criteria for water supply
evaluation outlined in this document is Duke Energy’s Buck Combined Cycle facility. Duke
Energy provided historical use and projections for this facility. The Smith Energy Complex (Duke
Energy combined cycle facility) also receives water from the Yadkin basin through the Richmond
County water system. Historical data for the Smith Energy Complex was received from
Richmond County and projections were provided by Duke Energy. Future power facility
projections were also provided by Duke Energy. These included two potential future additional
combined cycle stations, one in High Rock Lake and one in an upstream tributary of High Rock
Lake, and two potential future nuclear plants, one in Blewett Falls Lake and one in Lake Tillery.
Agricultural and Irrigation (A&I)
Historical Data Source: Data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in five-year
increments for North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, on a per-county basis (USGS, 2014).
The USGS data provided crop plus golf (combined) and livestock surface water withdrawals
between 1990 and 2000. In 2005, water usage data were further disaggregated into separate
crop, livestock, and golf course surface water withdrawal categories.
Projection Methodology: A&I users required a multi-step process to project usage within the
Basin. Data on specific agricultural and irrigation withdrawals are limited. Therefore, the
following approach was used to forecast A&I usage. It should be noted that the A&I forecasts
incorporate four main assumptions.
o A&I water withdrawals are completely consumptive (i.e., no surface returns). The majority of
A&I water used for irrigation and livestock is consumed and is not returned to the Basin.
o A&I water withdrawals for a given county are consumed uniformly over that county’s land
area. In the absence of more detailed land use data, A&I water use is assumed to be
distributed equally throughout the county.
o The percentage of a county’s land area within a particular reservoir’s watershed is
commensurate with the percentage of that county’s total A&I water withdrawal taken from that
watershed. For example, if 25 percent of a county’s land area resides within a particular
watershed, it was assumed 25 percent of that county’s A&I water demand is satisfied by the
reservoir associated with that watershed. In the absence of more detailed land use data and
changing land use in the Basin, this approach was used.
o Private irrigation by individual residential properties directly from Project reservoirs is
considered to represent a negligible impact on the net withdrawals from the Project
reservoirs. While there may be numerous residential irrigation users, their average daily
withdrawals are relatively small relative to other user types in this evaluation. Additionally,
because these properties are adjacent, or nearly adjacent, to the reservoirs, much of the
water withdrawn is likely transferred into the groundwater and feeds back into the reservoirs.

Projections were completed for each watershed within the Basin. For example, A&I usage was
calculated for Lake Tillery separately from Blewett Falls Lake. A GIS database was developed to
determine the percentage of each county that lies in each watershed within the Basin.

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
9

The water withdrawal trends for A&I were evaluated from 1990 through 2005. The A&I water use
reported in the USGS database varies considerably between reporting years, and no definitive
trend in water use (increase or decrease) exists. Therefore, the use of an AGR for water use
projections is not relevant for the A&I category. Instead, to forecast A&I water withdrawals for
each county, the greatest water withdrawal from the 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005 USGS datasets
was selected as the county water use for all future A&I consumption, by category. For each
category (golf, crop, and livestock), these values were multiplied by the percentage of each
county that lies within each reservoir’s watershed. This value serves as the basis for A&I water
use projections for each watershed, and is the same value for each projection decade (i.e., no
increase or decrease in A&I water use over the Study Period).

A monthly coefficient was established for the A&I water withdrawals to account for irrigation use
trends during the irrigation season of each year. North Carolina Agricultural Use Data from 2009-
2011 was used from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Data
for irrigation and livestock withdrawals, not including aquaculture, was used. The monthly
coefficient was developed by taking the 2009-2011 average monthly withdrawals divided by the
total average yearly withdrawals for those years.

RESULTS
The following summarizes the withdrawals, returns and net withdrawal projections for the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin using the methodology described above. The first set of results is summarized based on
each of the major user categories for the entire basin. Figure 4 shows the projections for the Public
Water Supplies and Wastewater Utilities. As this figure shows, the withdrawals and returns grow at a
similar rate to 2060, resulting in the net withdrawal remaining fairly constant through the projection period.
One of the reasons for this is there are several entities that withdraw water from outside of the basin, but
return it within the basin. Also, for those entities that the wastewater returns were projected based on the
average return as a percentage of water use, the percentages were fairly high, with many exceeding
90%. This could be indicative of systems with high inflow and infiltration in the collection system.

Figure 4
Drought
0
50
100
150
200
250
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

F
l
o
w

(
M
G
D
)
Yadkin River Water Supply Study
for All Subbasins for Public Water/Wastewater Utilities (Baseline)
Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
10

Figure 5 provides the projections for the Direct Industrial category. All but one of the existing industries
had a negative GSP for the industrial sector. Zero percent growth was used for these industries, as
shown by the constant projections. The future industrial flows were added in 2020, thus the increase to
industrial flows shown at that time. The irregular shape of the historical data in years 2007 to 2012 is
driven by the Hedrick Mine in the Downstream of Blewett Falls Lake subbasin; Hedrick’s flows fluctuated
greatly during that time period.

Figure 5

Figure 6 shows the projections for the Power category. All power use is shown as a net withdrawal.
These projections include an additional combined cycle plant in the time frame of 2020 to 2049 and an
additional combined cycle plant and two nuclear plants in 2050.

Figure 6

Drought-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

F
l
o
w

(
M
G
D
)
Yadkin River Water Supply Study
for All Subbasins for All Categories - Industrial (Baseline)
Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals
Drought
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d

F
l
o
w

(
M
G
D
)
Yadkin River Water Supply Study
for All Subbasins for All Categories - Power (Baseline)
Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
11

Figure 7 shows the results of the Agricultural and Irrigation (A&I) projections. All A&I use was considered
a net withdrawal. The AI& projections were developed based on a constant net withdrawal over the
projection period using the greatest withdrawal data from the USGS data as the basis.

Figure 7

Drought
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
Pro
j
e
c
t
e
d

F
l
o
w

(
M
G
D
)
Yadkin River Water Supply Study
for All Subbasins for All Categories - Agricultural/Irrigation (Baseline)
Withdrawals Returns Net Withdrawals

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
12

Figure 8 provides the withdrawals, returns and net withdrawals for all categories by subbasin for the Base
Year, which is the average of 2010 to 2012.

Figure 8

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
13

Figure 9 provides the withdrawals, returns and net withdrawals for all categories by subbasin in 2060.

Figure 9

Water Supply Projections – Basis and Results
14

SUMMARY
The projected net withdrawals depicted in Figure 8 and Figure 9, above, are driven by a series of
circumstances and assumptions captured in the model. One circumstance is the high rate of return
exhibited by public water and wastewater utilities - many entities return more than 90% of the water that
they withdraw. This value is higher than typical, but can be partially explained by high inflow and
infiltration (I&I) in the wastewater collection systems. Additionally, there is significant inter-basin transfer
(IBT) occurring from the Catawba River Basin to the Yadkin River Basin. This inflates the return flow
values and creates the appearance of higher-than-actual rates of return for some public utilities. Finally,
the rural nature of the Yadkin River Basin means there are few large municipalities or industries to
withdraw water for consumptive use (e.g. lawn irrigation); this reduces the net withdrawals compared to
more highly-developed basins in the state.
One factor that drives the projections toward higher consumptive use is the increase in projected
withdrawals for power facilities beginning in the base year and increasing step-wise through 2060 as new
facilities come online. Power utilities within the region project the need for these new facilities to meet
increasing base load power demands throughout their service areas as future population increases.
These power facility flows represent a large fraction of the projected withdrawals in 2060 for the Lake
Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake basins, and a smaller but still significant fraction of the 2060 High Rock
Lake basin withdrawals.

440 S Church Street, Suite 1000
Charlotte, NC 28202-2075
704.338.6700
hdrinc.com
© 2016 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved