FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE 

Office of 

Energy 

Projects 

F

July 2009 ederal En

Regulator

Commissi

ergy

y

on

FERC/FEIS-0228F

CATAWBA-WATEREE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT – FERC 

PROJECT NO. 2232 

NORTH AND SOUTH CAROLINA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS 

888 FIRST STREET, NE 

WASHINGTON, DC 20426 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
FERC/FEIS-0228F 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE 

Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project—FERC Project No. 2232 

North Carolina and South Carolina 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Division of Hydropower Licensing 

888 First Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20426 

July 2009 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
COVER SHEET 

a. Title: Relicensing the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Project No. 

P-2232 

b. Subject: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

c. Lead Agency: FERC 

d. Abstract: The Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project is located on the 

Catawba and Wateree rivers in Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, Catawba, 

Alexander, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Lincoln, and Gaston Counties, North 

Carolina, and York, Lancaster, Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw Counties 

in South Carolina. There are no federal lands affected by the project. 

e. Contact: Environmental Staff 

 Sean Murphy Mark Pawlowski 

 Federal Energy Regulatory Federal Energy Regulatory 

 Commission Commission 

 Office of Energy Projects Office of Energy Projects 

 888 First Street, NE 888 First Street, NE 

 Washington, DC 20426 Washington, DC 20426 

 (202) 502-6145 (202) 502-6052 

f. Transmittal: This final environmental impact statement prepared by the 

staff on the hydroelectric license application filed by Duke Power 

Company, LLC, doing business as Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC for the 

new license for the existing Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project 

(FERC No. P-2232) is being made available to the public on or about July, 

2009, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.1

 1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 

4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, 

August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, §4(b), September 13, 1982).

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
FOREWORD 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), pursuant to the Federal 

Power Act (FPA)2

 and the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act,3 is authorized to issue 

licenses for up to 50 years for the construction and operation of non-federal hydroelectric 

development subject to its jurisdiction, on the necessary conditions: 

That the project...shall be such as in the judgment of the Commission will be best 

adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing a waterway or 

waterways for the use or benefit of interstate or foreign commerce, for the 

improvement and utilization of water-power development, for the adequate 

protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related 

spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses, including 

irrigation, flood control, water supply, and recreational and other purposes 

referred to in section 4(3)...4

The Commission may require such other conditions not inconsistent with the FPA as may 

be found necessary to provide for the various public interests to be served by the project.5

Compliance with such conditions during the licensing period is required. The Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure allow any person objecting to a licensee’s compliance or 

noncompliance with such conditions to file a complaint noting the basis for such objection for 

the Commission’s consideration.6

 2 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) §791(a)-825r, as amended by the Electric Consumers 

Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986) and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public 

Law 102-486 (1992), and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 (2005).

3 Public Law 95-91, 91 Stat. 556 (1977).

4 16 U.S.C. §803(a) (2008).

5 16 U.S.C. §803(g) (2008).

6 18 CFR §385.206 (2008).

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x 

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ xii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................... xix 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... xxiii 

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION.......................................................................... 1

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION.................................................................................................. 1

1.2 NEED FOR POWER....................................................................................................... 3

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................ 3

1.3.1 Federal Power Act..................................................................................................... 6

1.3.1.1 Section 10 (a) Comprehensive Development Standard..................................... 6

1.3.1.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions...................................................................... 6

1.3.1.3 Section 10(j) Recommendations........................................................................ 6

1.3.2 Clean Water Act........................................................................................................ 6

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................... 6

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act................................................................................. 7

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act........................................................................... 7

1.4 SCOPING ........................................................................................................................ 8

1.5 INTERVENTIONS.......................................................................................................... 9

1.6 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE.................................................................... 10

1.6.1 Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice ............................................................. 10

1.6.2 Comprehensive Relicensing Agreements............................................................... 10

2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 17

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE..................................................................................... 17

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ....................................................................................... 17

2.1.1.1 Bridgewater Development............................................................................... 17

2.1.1.2 Rhodhiss Development.................................................................................... 18

2.1.1.3 Oxford Development ....................................................................................... 18

2.1.1.4 Lookout Shoals Development ......................................................................... 19

2.1.1.5 Cowans Ford Development ............................................................................. 19

2.1.1.6 Mountain Island Development ........................................................................ 19

2.1.1.7 Wylie Development......................................................................................... 20

2.1.1.8 Fishing Creek Development ............................................................................ 20

2.1.1.9 Great Falls and Dearborn Developments......................................................... 20

2.1.1.10 Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments................................................ 22

2.1.1.11 Wateree Development ..................................................................................... 22

2.1.2 Existing Project Operations .................................................................................... 23

2.1.2.1 Bridgewater Development............................................................................... 23

2.1.2.2 Rhodhiss Development.................................................................................... 24

2.1.2.3 Oxford Development ....................................................................................... 24

2.1.2.4 Lookout Shoals Development ......................................................................... 24

2.1.2.5 Cowans Ford Development ............................................................................. 25

2.1.2.6 Mountain Island Development ........................................................................ 25

2.1.2.7 Wylie Development......................................................................................... 26

2.1.2.8 Fishing Creek Development ............................................................................ 26

v 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
2.1.2.9 Great Falls and Dearborn Developments......................................................... 27

2.1.2.10 Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments................................................ 27

2.1.2.11 Wateree Development ..................................................................................... 27

2.1.3 Project Safety.......................................................................................................... 28

2.1.4 Existing Project Boundaries.................................................................................... 28

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSALS (SETTLEMENTS)....................................................... 28

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities...................................................................................... 28

2.2.2 Proposed Operations............................................................................................... 29

2.2.2.1 Required Minimum Flows............................................................................... 29

2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures......................................................................... 35

2.2.3.1 Proposed License Articles............................................................................... 35

2.2.3.2 Not Proposed License Articles........................................................................ 45

2.2.4 Proposed Project Boundaries.................................................................................. 56

2.3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL......................................... 56

2.3.1 Mandatory Conditions ............................................................................................ 56

2.3.1.1 Water Quality Certification ............................................................................. 56

2.3.1.2 Section 18 Agency Fishway Prescriptions...................................................... 57

2.3.1.3 Section 18 Applicant’s Alternative Fishways Prescriptions............................ 57

2.3.1.4 Endangered Species Act.................................................................................. 57

2.3.2 Other Recommendations by Agencies and Interested Parties ................................ 58

2.3.2.1 Section 10(j) Recommendations...................................................................... 58

2.3.3 Staff’s Modification to the Proposed Actions......................................................... 58

2.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED 

STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 60

2.4.1 Federal Government Takeover ............................................................................... 60

2.4.2 Non-Power License................................................................................................. 60

2.4.3 Project Retirement .................................................................................................. 60

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................................................................... 61

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CATAWBA-WATEREE RIVER BASIN ....... 61

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES .......................................................... 62

3.2.1 Geographic Scope ................................................................................................... 63

3.2.2 Temporal Scope ...................................................................................................... 63

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 63

3.3.1 Geology and Soils................................................................................................... 63

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 63

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects..................................................................................... 65

3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................... 67

3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.......................................................................... 68

3.3.2 Water Resources..................................................................................................... 68

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................................... 68

3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity ................................................................................................ 68

3.3.2.1.2 Water Use........................................................................................................ 95

3.3.2.1.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 99

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 107

3.3.2.2.1 Water Quantity .............................................................................................. 107

3.3.2.2.2 Water Use...................................................................................................... 123

vi 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
3.3.2.2.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................ 129

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 135

3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................ 137

3.3.3 Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................ 137

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 137

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 157

3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 179

3.3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................ 181

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources ............................................................................................ 183

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 183

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 198

3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 209

3.3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................ 213

3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................... 214

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 214

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 219

3.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................ 227

3.3.6 Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 227

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 227

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 231

3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................ 234

3.3.7 Recreational Resources......................................................................................... 234

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 234

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 283

3.3.7.3 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 330

3.3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................ 331

3.3.8 Land Use and Aesthetics....................................................................................... 331

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 331

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 349

3.3.8.3 Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 372

3.3.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects........................................................................ 373

3.3.9 Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................................... 374

3.3.9.1 Affected Environment ................................................................................... 374

3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects................................................................................... 380

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE................................................................................... 383

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .... 383

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM USES .. 384

4. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 385

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE BRIDGEWATER 

DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 385

4.1.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 387

4.1.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 387

4.1.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 388

4.1.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 388

4.1.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 388

4.2 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT . 393

vii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
4.2.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 394

4.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 394

4.2.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 395

4.2.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 395

4.2.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 395

4.3 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE OXFORD DEVELOPMENT..... 399

4.3.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 400

4.3.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 400

4.3.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 401

4.3.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 401

4.3.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 401

4.4 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE LOOKOUT SHOALS 

DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 405

4.4.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 406

4.4.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 406

4.4.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 407

4.4.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 407

4.4.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 407

4.5 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE COWANS FORD 

DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 411

4.5.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 412

4.5.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 413

4.5.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 413

4.5.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 413

4.5.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 413

4.6 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE MOUNTAIN ISLAND 

DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 417

4.6.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 418

4.6.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 418

4.6.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 419

4.6.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 419

4.6.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 419

4.7 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE WYLIE DEVELOPMENT......... 423

4.7.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 424

4.7.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 424

4.7.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 425

4.7.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 425

4.7.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 425

4.8 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE FISHING CREEK 

DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 430

4.8.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 431

4.8.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 431

4.8.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 432

4.8.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 432

4.8.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 432

viii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
4.9 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE GREAT FALLS AND DEARBORN 

DEVELOPMENTS...................................................................................................... 436

4.9.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 437

4.9.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 438

4.9.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 438

4.9.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 438

4.9.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 438

4.10 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE ROCKY CREEK AND CEDAR 

CREEK DEVELOPMENTS........................................................................................ 442

4.10.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 443

4.10.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 443

4.10.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 444

4.10.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 444

4.10.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 444

4.11 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE WATEREE DEVELOPMENT .. 448

4.11.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 449

4.11.1.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................... 449

4.11.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal...................................................................................... 450

4.11.1.3 Staff Alternative ............................................................................................ 450

4.11.2 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 450

4.12 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE CATAWBA-WATEREE PROJECT

 455

4.12.1 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................. 456

4.12.1 No-Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 457

4.12.2 Applicant’s Proposal............................................................................................. 457

4.12.3 Staff Alternative.................................................................................................... 457

4.12.4 Cost of Environmental Measures.......................................................................... 458

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 463

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE463

5.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FISH AND 

WILDLIFE AGENCIES.............................................................................................. 494

5.3 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS .............................................. 500

6.0 LITERATURE CITED................................................................................................ 503

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................ 511

APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................ .A-1 

APPENDIX B ..............................................................................................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C ..............................................................................................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................. D-1 

ix 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. General vicinity of the Catawba-Wateree Project. ................................................. 2

Figure 2. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) facilities flow diagram. ................................ 69

Figure 3. Flow duration curves for project developments (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). . 71

Figure 4. Lake James existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)........................ 74

Figure 5. Lake Norman existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). ................... 74

Figure 6. Lake Wateree existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). ................... 75

Figure 7. Lake James water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal (1993), 

and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)............................................ 79

Figure 8. Lake Rhodhiss water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). .............................. 80

Figure 9. Lake Hickory water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). .............................. 80

Figure 10. Lake Norman water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). .............................. 81

Figure 11. Lake Wylie water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal (1993), 

and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)............................................ 83

Figure 12. Lake Wateree water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). .............................. 85

Figure 13. Number of days that the water surface elevation in Lake Wateree was above 

228.5 ft (3 ft above full pond) (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................. 86

Figure 14. Water surface elevation at Wateree dam with varying discharge conditions 

(March 2003 storm) (100 ft is full pond at elevation of 225.5 ft) (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2007)...................................................................................................... 114

Figure 15. Water withdrawals and returns in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007)............................................................................................ 124

Figure 16. Current net water use in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (in mgd) and percent 

of total (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)................................................................ 125

Figure 17. Projected net water use in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin in 2058 (in mgd) and 

percent of total (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). .................................................. 125

Figure 18. Current versus projected 2058 net water use (net outflow) (Source: Duke Energy, 

2007). .................................................................................................................. 128

Figure 19. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Bridgewater Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 239

Figure 20. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Bridgewater regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 240

Figure 21. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Rhodhiss Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). ........................................................................... 242

Figure 22. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Oxford Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) ............................................................................ 245

Figure 23. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Lookout Shoals Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 247

Figure 24. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Cowans Ford Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 250

x 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 25. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Mountain Island Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 252

Figure 26. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wylie Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). ........................................................................... 256

Figure 27. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wylie regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 257

Figure 28. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Fishing Creek Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 259

Figure 29. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

recreational facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).......................................... 261

Figure 30. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wateree Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). ........................................................................... 264

Figure 31. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wateree regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................. 265

xi 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements.......................................................... 4

Table 2. Minimum continuous flows except when operating under the Low Inflow 

Protocol or Hydro Project Maintenance and Emergency Protocol....................... 29

Table 3. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) proposed recreational flows and schedule. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2006a)............................................................................. 31

Table 4. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) proposed license articles. (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2006a)...................................................................................................... 35

Table 5. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) not proposed license articles. (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2006a)...................................................................................................... 46

Table 6. Reservoir characteristics for the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................................................. 72

Table 7. Target reservoir water surface elevations (ft msl) for Catawba-Wateree Project. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) .............................................................................. 73

Table 8. Existing License discharge requirements for Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) .............................................................................. 76

Table 9. Rates of inflow (cfs) to Lake James that are equaled or exceeded given 

percentages of time.1 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)........................................... 79

Table 10. Rates of inflow (cfs) to Lake Wylie that are equaled or exceeded given 

percentages of time .1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).......................................... 82

Table 11. Rates of inflow (cfs) to Lake Wateree that are equaled or exceeded given 

percentages of time.1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)........................................... 85

Table 12. Critical intake elevation and water user type for each project reservoir. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................................................. 89

Table 13. Baseline safe yield value range obtained from critical intake constraints lowinflow period 1998-2003 simulations based on existing license conditions. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). ............................................................................. 90

Table 14. Safe yield value range obtained from critical intake level constraints low-inflow 

period 1949-1959 simulations based on existing license conditions. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................................................. 91

Table 15. Critical constraint elevation summaries. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)............. 93

Table 16. Safe yield value range obtained from critical intake level constraint low-inflow 

periods 1998-2003 and 1949-1959 simulations based on proposed license 

conditions (mutual gains). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)................................... 94

Table 17. Safe yield value range obtained from critical boat access constraints, low-inflow 

periods 1998-2003 and 1949-1959 simulations based on proposed license 

conditions (mutual gains). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)................................... 95

Table 18. Summary of major water withdrawals 1 from the Catawba-Wateree Project 

(P-2232). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) ............................................................. 96

Table 19. Current and projected net water withdrawals from project reservoirs. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007).............................................................................................. 98

Table 20. Critical lake level elevations.1 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) ............................. 99

Table 21. Selected water quality criteria. (Sources: N.A.C. subchapter 2B, 2008; South 

Carolina Regulation 61-68, 2008)....................................................................... 101

xii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 22. Existing1

 and proposed draw-downs, maximum reservoir fluctuation, and usable 

storage (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)................................................................ 110

Table 23. Projected annual average withdrawal, return, and net water use by watershed (in 

mgd). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007)................................................................. 126

Table 24. Dimensional characteristics of Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007)............................................................................................ 137

Table 25. Summary of aquatic habitat available between normal maximum and normal 

minimum water surface elevation in Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2005b) .......................................................................... 139

Table 26. Summary of flows and length of riverine reaches associated with each 

development in the Catawba-Wateree Project. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 141

Table 27. Description of primary substrate and aquatic habitat of riverine and bypassed 

reaches in the Catawba-Wateree Project from the instream flow study. (Source: 

DTA, 2005a)....................................................................................................... 142

Table 28. Sixteen freshwater mussel species collected in the vicinity of 11 relicensing 

developments on the Catawba-Wateree River basins. Mussels listed were 

collected live during the 2004 surveys. (AES, 2005) ........................................ 144

Table 29. Summary of proposed minimum continuous flow (cfs) alternatives to support 

anadromous fish spawning and maturation in the Wylie regulated river reach.. 159

Table 30. Summary of proposed minimum continuous flow (cfs) alternatives to support 

anadromous fish spawning and maturation in the Wateree regulated river reach.

............................................................................................................................. 159

Table 31. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA 

and alternative flow scenarios recommended by AR/CCL and CR for the Wylie 

regulated river reach. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a)....................................... 162

Table 32. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA 

and alternative flow scenarios recommended by FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and 

AR/CCL for the Wateree regulated river reach. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a)

............................................................................................................................. 163

Table 33. Summary of proposed minimum continuous flow (cfs) alternatives to support 

anadromous fish spawning and maturation in the Great Falls Long bypassed 

reach.................................................................................................................... 167

Table 34. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA 

and alternative flow scenarios recommended by AR/CCL and CR for the Great 

Falls Long bypassed reach.................................................................................. 169

Table 35. Schedule for implementation of FWS fish passage prescriptions. ..................... 177

Table 36. Wetland types and acreages associated with Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs 

and tailraces. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) ..................................................... 186

Table 37. RTE plant species documented in the Catawba-Wateree Project area. (Source: 

Gaddy, 2005)....................................................................................................... 190

Table 38. RTE terrestrial wildlife species identified in the Catawba-Wateree Project area.

............................................................................................................................. 194

Table 39. Summary of weighted useable area analysis for sturgeon spawning based on 

Revised CRA and alternative flow scenarios recommended by FWS, NOAA 

Fisheries, and American Rivers/ Coastal Conservation League for the Wateree 

regulated river reach. .......................................................................................... 224

xiii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 40. Recreational facilities at the Bridgewater Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)..... 237

Table 41. Recreational facilities at the Rhodhiss Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)..... 241

Table 42. Recreational facilities at the Oxford Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)..... 243

Table 43. Recreational facilities at the Lookout Shoals Development of the CatawbaWateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 246

Table 44. Recreational facilities at the Cowans Ford Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)..... 248

Table 45. Recreational facilities at the Mountain Island Development of the CatawbaWateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 251

Table 46. Recreational facilities at the Wylie Development of the Catawba-Wateree Project 

(P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)................. 253

Table 47. Recreational facilities at the Fishing Creek Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)..... 258

Table 48. Recreational facilities at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 

2006; staff).......................................................................................................... 260

Table 49. Recreational facilities at the Wateree Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)..... 262

Table 50. Recreational Use at the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2007)...................................................................................................... 266

Table 51. Estimate of recreational visitation at public recreation areas based on traffic 

counter data by month at the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study 

Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)............................................................ 268

Table 52. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Bridgewater Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 271

Table 53. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Rhodhiss Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)

............................................................................................................................. 272

Table 54. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Oxford Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)

............................................................................................................................. 274

Table 55. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Lookout Shoals Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 275

Table 56. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Cowans Ford Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

and staff) ............................................................................................................. 276

Table 57. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Mountain Island Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 

2006; staff).......................................................................................................... 277

xiv 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 58. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Wylie Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)278

Table 59. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Fishing Creek Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 280

Table 60. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments. (Source: Study Team/Resource 

Committee, 2006; staff) ...................................................................................... 281

Table 61. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Wateree Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff)

............................................................................................................................. 282

Table 62. Bridgewater Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a) ................................................................................................................. 287

Table 63. Oxford Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a)

............................................................................................................................. 287

Table 64. Wylie Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a)

............................................................................................................................. 288

Table 65. Great Falls and Dearborn Developments recreational flow schedule. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2006a) .......................................................................................... 289

Table 66. Wateree Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a)

............................................................................................................................. 289

Table 67. Proposed recreation measures at the Bridgewater Development to be included in 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 303

Table 68. Proposed recreation measures at the Rhodhiss Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 304

Table 69. Proposed recreation measures at the Oxford Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 305

Table 70. Proposed recreation measures at the Lookout Shoals Development to be included 

in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) ........................................................................................................ 306

Table 71. Proposed recreation measures at the Cowans Ford Development to be included in 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 307

Table 72. Proposed recreation measures at the Mountain Island Development to be included 

in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) ........................................................................................................ 308

Table 73. Proposed recreation measures at the Wylie Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 309

Table 74. Proposed recreation measures at the Fishing Creek Development to be included in 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 310

xv 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 75. Proposed recreation measures at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments to 

be included in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2006a; staff)........................................................................................... 311

Table 76. Proposed recreation measures at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

to be included in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2006a; staff)................................................................................. 312

Table 77. Proposed recreation measures at the Wateree Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 312

Table 78. CRA recreation measures at the Bridgewater Development to be excluded from 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 319

Table 79. Proposed recreation measures at the Rhodhiss Development to be excluded from 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 321

Table 80. Proposed recreation measures at the Lookout Shoals Development to be excluded 

from the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) ........................................................................................................ 322

Table 81. Proposed Recreation measures at the Cowans Ford Development to be excluded 

from the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) ........................................................................................................ 322

Table 82. Proposed recreation measures at the Wylie Development to be excluded from the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 324

Table 83. Proposed recreation measures at the Fishing Creek Development to be excluded 

from the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) ........................................................................................................ 325

Table 84. Proposed recreation measures at the Wateree Development to be excluded from 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff).................................................................................................................... 326

Table 85. Percent land use in the North Carolina and South Carolina portions of the 

Catawba Wateree River Watershed. (Sources: North Carolina DWQ, 2004; 

South Carolina DHEC, 2006) ............................................................................. 332

Table 86. Summary of Shoreline Classifications Proposed for the Revised SMP for the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) ................. 340

Table 87. Summary of proposed modifications to the Shoreline Management Guidelines. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) ............................................................................ 344

Table 88. Comparison between the 2003 classifications and the proposed classifications. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) ............................................................................ 352

Table 89. Proposed shoreline classifications by development (percentage). (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2007)...................................................................................................... 354

Table 90. Conveyances of non-project land included in the Revised CRA........................ 368

Table 91. Proposed conveyances of project lands. ............................................................. 369

Table 92. Counties associated with the Catawba-Wateree Development........................... 374

Table 93. 2000 and 2006 population size by county within the Catawba-Wateree Project.

............................................................................................................................. 375

xvi 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 94. Demographic breakdown (percent of total population in 2006) of CatawbaWateree Project area. (Source: USCB, 2000 and 2006)................................... 377

Table 95. 2006 economic and employment data of the Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

(Source: USCB, 2000 and 2006). ...................................................................... 379

Table 96. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Bridgewater Development. 386

Table 97. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Bridgewater Development (Source: Staff).......................... 387

Table 98. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by staff for the 

Bridgewater Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff)..................... 389

Table 99. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Rhodhiss Development. .... 393

Table 100. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Rhodhiss Development (Source: Staff). ............................. 394

Table 101. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Rhodhiss 

Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff).......................................... 396

Table 102. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Oxford Development......... 399

Table 103. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Oxford Development (Source: Staff).................................. 400

Table 104. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Oxford 

Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff).......................................... 402

Table 105. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Lookout Shoals Development.

............................................................................................................................. 405

Table 106. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Lookout Shoals Development (Source: Staff). ................... 406

Table 107. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Lookout 

Shoals Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff).............................. 408

Table 108. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Cowans Ford Development.

............................................................................................................................. 411

Table 109. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Cowans Ford Development (Source: Staff)........................ 412

Table 110. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Cowans 

Ford Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff)................................. 414

Table 111. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Mountain Island Development.

............................................................................................................................. 417

Table 112. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Mountain Island Development (Source: Staff)................... 418

Table 113. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Mountain 

Island Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff)............................... 420

Table 114. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Wylie Development. ......... 423

Table 115. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Wylie Development (Source: Staff).................................... 424

xvii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 116. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Wylie 

Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff).......................................... 426

Table 117. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Fishing Creek Development.

............................................................................................................................. 430

Table 118. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Fishing Creek Development (Source: Staff)....................... 431

Table 119. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Fishing 

Creek Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff)............................... 433

Table 120. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments. .................................................................................................... 436

Table 121. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments (Source: Staff). .. 437

Table 122. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Great 

Falls and Dearborn Developments for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) ........ 439

Table 123. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Developments. .................................................................................................... 442

Table 124. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments (Source: Staff).

............................................................................................................................. 443

Table 125. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Rocky 

Creek and Cedar Creek Developments for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff).. 445

Table 126. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Wateree Development....... 448

Table 127. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Wateree Development (Source: Staff)................................ 449

Table 128. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the Wateree 

Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff).......................................... 451

Table 129. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Catawba-Wateree Project.. 455

Table 130. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Catawba-Wateree Project (Source: Staff)........................... 457

Table 131. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental 

measures proposed by Duke Energy and recommended by Staff for the CatawbaWateree Project for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) ..................................... 459

Table 132. Summary of existing recreation access areas and Duke Energy or staff proposed 

new recreation access areas to be included in the Catawba-Wateree project 

boundary. (Source: Staff).................................................................................. 485

Table 133. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the 

Catawba-Wateree Project. (Source: Staff)........................................................ 495

xviii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AAII Access Area Improvement Initiative 

ADA Americans With Disabilities Act 

AES Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. 

AIP Agreement in Principle 

APE area of potential effects 

AR/CCL American Rivers/Coastal Conservation League 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BO Biological Opinion 

°C degrees Celsius 

CA critical area 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CHEOPS Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software 

CIN Catawba Indian Nation 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CR Catawba Riverkeeper 

CRA Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement 

Cultural Committee Cultural Resources Resource Committee 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DMAG Drought Management Advisory Group 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DTA Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc. 

EBCI Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

FPA Federal Power Act 

ft Foot or Feet 

FTC Fisheries Technical Committee 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

FWQIP flow and water quality implementation plan 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

HDR HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas 

HEP Habitat Enhancement Program 

HPMP historic properties management plan 

HSI Habitat Suitability Index 

IBI Index of Biological Integrity 

xix 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
in. inch(es) 

kg/km kilogram(s) per kilometer 

kV kilovolt(s) 

kWh kilowatt hour(s) 

Lake Policy Lake Use Policy Statements 

LIP Low Inflow Protocol 

MEP Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

mg/l milligram(s) per liter 

mgd million gallon(s) per day 

ml milliliter(s) 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

msl mean sea level 

MW megawatt 

MWh megawatt-hours 

NA not applicable 

N.AC. North Carolina Administrative Code 

National Register or 

historic properties National Register of Historic Places 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NERC North American Electric Reliability Council 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA Fisheries U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service 

North Carolina DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

North Carolina DFR North Carolina Division of Forest Resources 

North Carolina DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation 

North Carolina DPR North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

North Carolina DWQ North Carolina Department of Water Quality 

North Carolina DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources 

North Carolina HEP North Carolina Habitat Enhancement Program 

North Carolina NHP North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 

North Carolina SHPO North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer 

North Carolina WF North Carolina Wildlife Federation 

North Carolina WRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 

NPS National Park Service 

NTU nephelometric turbidity units 

O&M operation and maintenance 

PA programmatic agreement 

PM&E proposed mitigation and enhancement 

Revised CRA Revised Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement 

RM river mile(s) 

RMP recreation management plan 

RTE rare, threatened, and endangered 

RV recreational vehicle 

SC State Concern 

xx 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
SERC Southeastern Electric Reliability Council 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMG shoreline management guidelines 

SMP shoreline management plan 

South Carolina DAH South Carolina Department of Archives and History 

South Carolina DHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

South Carolina DNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

South Carolina DPRT South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism 

South Carolina HEP South Carolina Habitat Enhancement Program 

South Carolina SHPO South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer 

South Carolina WF South Carolina Wildlife Federation 

sq mi square mile(s) 

T&T trap and transport 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office 

TIPSMP Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

TS&T trap, sort, and transport 

μg/l microgram(s) per liter 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WQC water quality certificate 

WQMP water quality monitoring plan 

WUA weighted usable area 

xxi 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
This page intentionally left blank. 

xxii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluates the potential effects on the 

environment associated with relicensing the 11 reservoirs and 13 developments that make up the 

839-megawatt (MW) Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project No. 2232 (the project). The 

Catawba River joins several creeks including Big Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River 

which flows to its confluence with the Congaree River. The project is located on the Catawba 

River7 in the counties of Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, Catawba, Alexander, Iredell, 

Mecklenburg, Lincoln, and Gaston in North Carolina, and the counties of York, Lancaster, 

Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw in South Carolina. The current license expired on August 31, 

2008. Since that time, the project has operated under an annual license. 

On August 29, 2006, Duke Power Company, LLC, doing business as Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy or the applicant) filed a new license application with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) for the Catawba-Wateree Project 

using the Traditional Licensing Process. A supplement and clarification to the application was 

filed on March 8, 2007. 

On December 28, 2006, Duke Energy filed the Catawba-Wateree Revised 

Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement (Revised CRA), which replaced the CRA filed 

August 29, 2006, with the application. Duke Energy requested that the measures included in the 

Revised CRA be considered by the Commission as their proposed action, which Commission 

staff did in its scoping documents. Duke’s proposed measures include reconstruction of the 

Bridgewater Development powerhouse (associated with the seismic remediation activities), 

significant operational changes, and measures for the protection and enhancement of 

environmental resources, including increased minimum flows, measures to improve aquatic 

habitat and protect threatened and endangered species, and measures to maintain and enhance 

recreational opportunities. 

The Commission staff initiated the public scoping process for the project on February 28, 

2007, with the release of Scoping Document 1. Based on the verbal comments received during 

scoping meetings and written comments received throughout the scoping process, the staff issued 

Scoping Document 2 on February 28, 2008. The DEIS was issued on March 9, 2009 and staff 

held public meetings on April 21 and 22, 2009 to gather public comments on the DEIS. The 

Commission received comments on the DEIS from 60 citizens, non-governmental organizations 

and agencies. The comments on the DEIS and staff’s responses are found in Appendix D. 

In this final EIS, we analyze and evaluate the environmental effects of continued project 

operation and recommend conditions for inclusion in a new license for the project. For any 

license issued, the Commission must determine that the project will be best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway. In addition to the power and 

development purposes for which the license is issued, the Commission must give equal 

consideration to energy conservation and the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife, 

aesthetics, cultural resources, and recreational opportunities. This final EIS reflects the staff’s 

consideration of these factors for the project. 

 7

 The Catawba River and Big Wateree Creek both feed into Lake Wateree and form the 

Wateree River. 

xxiii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
 In addition to a no-action alternative, under which Duke Energy would continue to 

operate as it does now, we consider two alternatives: (1) the applicant’s proposal; and (2) the 

applicant’s proposal with additional measures recommended by staff (staff alternative). 

Duke Energy’s Proposal

Under the applicant’s proposed action for the project, Duke Energy would: 

• protect water supplies during drought conditions with the development of a Low Inflow 

Protocol; 

• modify developments to help meet state water quality standards, including aquatic habitat 

flow releases, dissolved oxygen compliance, implementation schedules, mitigation plans, 

and monitoring plans; 

• define reservoir normal target levels and normal minimum and maximum ranges; 

• increase minimum continuous flows in order to improve aquatic habitat; 

• participate in formal protection plans for federal and state listed species including rocky 

shoals spider lily, Schweinitz’s sunflower, dwarf-flowered heartleaf, bald eagle, wood 

stork, American alligator, shortnose sturgeon, and freshwater mussels; 

• develop and implement a protection plan for heron rookeries; 

• implement a historic properties management plan; 

• implement recreational flow releases and develop a schedule during annual meetings for 

recreational flows; 

• develop a recreation management plan (RMP), develop and enhance recreational 

facilities, and expand the existing project boundary, where necessary, to include all of the 

new recreation access areas and enhancements recommended for inclusion in the project 

boundary and the entire Duke Energy-owned recreation access areas; 

• file a biennial report with the Commission on the progress made on the RMP recreation 

enhancements for the first 20 years of the new license; 

• complete a review of the project’s recreation needs 20 years following the issuance of a 

new license and repeat every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license and 

file with the Commission a supplement to the RMP; 

• enhance public information systems; 

• modify shoreline management classifications, lake use restrictions, and Shoreline 

Management Guidelines to implement the revised shoreline management plan (SMP); 

• review and update the SMP at 10 years following license issuance and every 10 years 

thereafter for the term of the new license, in consultation with a workgroup consisting of 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), North 

Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), South Carolina Department of Parks, 

Recreation, and Tourism (DPRT), South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

(DNR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), local governments, and other interested 

parties, and update and file revised shoreline classification maps coincident with filing 

the revised SMP; and 

xxiv 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• develop instream flow mitigation packages, in locations where the new minimum 

continuous flows would fall short of resource agency goals for aquatic habitat. 

These environmental measures are described in detail in table 4 in section 2.2.3.1, 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) proposed license articles, of this final EIS. 

Staff Alternative

Under the staff alternative, the project would be operated as proposed by Duke Energy, 

but would include additional measures identified by staff. These measures include the following: 

• install a bladder dam modification of Wateree dam to improve management of flood 

events; 

• maintain reservoir elevations within newly established normal minimum and normal 

maximum elevations unless operating in the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol and implement the elevations within 60 days of the issuance of a 

new license; 

• invite the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and FWS 

agencies to consult with the Drought Management Advisory Group; 

• consult with NOAA Fisheries on Maintenance and Emergency Protocol implementation; 

• establish a fisheries technical advisory group of stakeholders to monitor and review data 

on status of fish populations including evaluating appropriate mitigation for fish losses 

resulting from abnormal conditions; 

• reassess the Cowans Ford Development for eligibility for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places when the development reaches 50 years of age in 2015; 

• provide one additional recreational enhancement that would be included in the project 

boundary and in the RMP: Lake Cornelius Informal Access; 

• when developing the RMP, notify and attempt to consult with, at a minimum, the entire 

relicensing Recreation Resources Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, North Carolina 

WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, Burke County, York County, 

American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, 

Lake Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League). 

• include in the development and consultation process for the RMP, consultation regarding 

the need for and feasibility of including wildlife viewing facilities at Duke Energy-owned 

public access areas that are or will be within the project boundary. Where determined to 

be needed and feasible, include site designs and a schedule for implementing those 

wildlife viewing areas in the RMP; 

• file biennial reports for the term of any new license in addition to the first 20 years to 

document the progress made on completing the recreation enhancements under 

supplements to the RMP; 

• review of the project’s recreation needs 20 years following the issuance of a new license 

and repeated every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license, consult with, 

at a minimum, the parties of the relicensing Recreation Resources Committee (i.e., North 

xxv 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Carolina DNR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, 

Burke County, York County, American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, CatawbaWateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal 

Conservation League) who chose to participate in the development of the RMP. 

• provide public information related to river flow in a manner that provides the most up-todate information possible; 

• implement the Commission-approved public safety plan; and 

• include all Duke Energy-owned islands located in the project reservoirs within the project 

boundary. 

Staff’s additional recommended measures are described in section 5.1, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative of this final EIS. 

Under section 18 of the Federal Power Act, FWS filed preliminary fishway prescriptions 

that were developed in collaboration with the applicant. FWS and the applicant entered a 

settlement agreement known as the Santee River Basin Accord, which addresses diadromous fish 

protection, restoration, and enhancement in the Santee River Basin, tributaries of which include 

the Catawba and Wateree Rivers. FWS states that the prescription for fishways, the Santee River 

Basin Accord, and the Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan (2001) 

are consistent, complementary, and mutually supportive. We discuss the proposed, preliminary, 

and alternative fish passage measures in section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, of this final EIS.

Also under section 18, NOAA Fisheries reserved its authority to provide fishway 

prescriptions at such times as it may subsequently determine are necessary to provide for safe, 

timely, and effective upstream passage of diadromous fish through Catawba-Wateree Project 

facilities. 

We conclude that the measures proposed by Duke Energy under the terms of the Revised 

CRA, along with additional staff recommended measures, would adequately protect and enhance 

existing water use, water quality, fish and wildlife, land use, aesthetics, recreational resources, 

and cultural resources. 

The no-action alternative is the existing project which generates an average of 1,483,304 

megawatt-hours (MWh) annually, valued at $83,603,469 (56.36 mills per kilowatt hour 

[mills/kWh]). The annual cost of producing this energy is $56,206,480 (37.89 mills/kWh) 

leaving a net annual benefit of $27,396,989. 

Under Duke Energy’s proposal, the project would generate about 1,320,140 MWh 

annually, valued at $76,554,784 (57.99 mills/kWh). The annual cost of producing this energy 

would be $66,113,380 (50.08 mills/kWh) leaving a net annual benefit of $10,441,404. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 1,320,140 MWh of electricity 

annually, have an annual power value of $76,554,784 (57.99 mills/kWh), and have total annual 

costs of $62,923,490 (47.67 mills/kWh). As proposed, the staff alternative would result in an 

annual net benefit of $13,628,294. 

The Revised CRA includes several measures that Duke did not propose as license 

articles, but were considered for possible inclusion as license articles. Duke also proposed 

several measures that are not included in the staff alternative because they would fall outside of 

xxvi 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the Commission’s authority or do not meet the requirements of Commission policy to be 

included as license measures. Therefore the staff alternative does not include some of Duke’s 

proposals which resulted in the higher net annual benefit of the staff alternative. 

Based on our independent analysis of the project, including our consideration of all 

relevant economic and environmental concerns, we conclude that the proposed Catawba-Wateree 

Project, with staff’s modifications and additional measures, would be best adapted to a 

comprehensive plan for use, conservation, and development of the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin. 

xxvii 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
xxviii 

This page intentionally left blank. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

On August 29, 2006, Duke Power Company, LLC, doing business as Duke Energy 

Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy or the applicant) filed an application for a new license for the 

Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (the project) with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC or the Commission) under the Traditional Licensing Process. The existing 

license for the project was issued in 1958 and expired on August 31, 2008. A supplement and 

clarification to the application was filed on March 8, 2007. 

The project is located on the Catawba River in the counties of Burke, McDowell, 

Caldwell, Catawba, Alexander, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Lincoln, and Gaston in North Carolina, 

and the counties of York, Lancaster, Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw in South Carolina. The 

Catawba River joins Big Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River (figure 1). The project is 

composed of 13 hydroelectric stations and 11 reservoirs located on a 225-mile stretch of the 

Catawba River and project operations influence a 75-mile stretch of the Wateree River 

downstream from Lake Wateree to its confluence with the Congaree River (figure 1). The 

Santee River is formed by the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree Rivers. The project has a 

drainage area of 4,750 square miles (sq mi) and is capable of generating up to 831 megawatts 

(MW) of hydroelectric power, and providing cooling water for more than 8,100 MW of nuclear 

and fossil-fueled power generation. There are no federal or tribal lands affected by the project. 

1.1 PURPOSE OF ACTION 

The Commission must decide whether to relicense the project and what conditions should 

be placed on any license issued. In deciding whether to authorize the continued operation of 

hydroelectric projects and related facilities in compliance with the Federal Power Act (FPA)8

and other applicable laws, the Commission must give equal consideration to the power and 

developmental purposes for which licenses are issued (e.g., flood control, irrigation, and water 

supply), as well as the purposes of energy conservation; the protection of, mitigation of damage 

to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat); the 

protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation of other aspects of environmental 

quality. 

In this final environmental impact statement (EIS), we, the staff, assess the environmental 

and economic effects of (1) continuing to operate the projects as they are currently operated (noaction alternative); (2) operating the projects with the environmental measures proposed in the 

Revised Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement (Revised CRA); and (3) operating the projects, 

as proposed in the Revised CRA, with additional or modified environmental measures 

recommended by staff. 

 8

 16 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§791(a)-825(r), as amended by the Electric Consumers 

Protection Act of 1986, Public Law 99-495 (1986), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public 

Law 102- 486. 

1 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 1. General vicinity of the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

2 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
This final EIS addresses the following major issues: the potential effects of the proposed 

actions and alternatives, particularly the effects of project operations (including reservoir level 

fluctuations and minimum flows) on sedimentation, flood elevations, river flows, water quality, 

aquatic resources, terrestrial resources, threatened and endangered species, cultural and 

recreational resources, land use, aesthetics, and socioeconomic resources. 

1.2 NEED FOR POWER 

The Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project would provide hydroelectric generation to 

meet part of North and South Carolina’s power requirements, resource diversity, and capacity 

needs. The project has an installed capacity of 839 MW and generates approximately 

1,483,304 megawatt-hours (MWh) per year. 

The project is located within the Southeastern Electric Reliability Council (SERC) region 

of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). NERC annually provides public 

information relative to projected increases in capacity demand and energy demand for 10 years 

out. NERC’s most recent reliability report (October 2007) indicates that the capacity demand 

grew at an annual average of 2.4 percent for the previous 7 years including membership 

additions to SERC in 2006 and 2007. Without the impact of new membership in 2006 and 2007, 

the growth rate for the region was 1.7 percent annually. The forecast annual growth rate in 

energy usage for the SERC region over the next 10 years is 1.9 percent. 

We conclude that the power from the project would continue to help meet a need for 

power in the SERC region in both the short and long term. The project provides low-cost power 

that displaces non-renewable, fossil-fired generation and contributions to a diversified generation 

mix. Displacing the operation of fossil-fueled facilities may avoid some power plant emissions 

and create an environmental benefit. 

1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

A license for the project is subject to requirements under the FPA and other applicable 

statutes. The major regulatory and statutory requirements are summarized in table 1 and 

described below. 

3 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 1. Major statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Requirement Agency Status 

Section 10(a) of the FPA 

(comprehensive 

development) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS); U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration’s National 

Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries); U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service (Forest 

Service); North Carolina 

Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources 

(DENR); South Carolina 

Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) 

Section 18 of the FPA 

(fishway prescriptions) FWS, NOAA Fisheries 

FWS and the applicant entered a 

settlement agreement known as 

the Santee River Basin Accord on 

April 9, 2008. NOAA Fisheries 

reserves its authority to make 

prescriptions in the future. 

Section 10(j) of the FPA 

FWS, NOAA Fisheries, 

North Carolina DENR, 

Department of Water 

Quality (DWQ); South 

Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental 

Control (DHEC) 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

(water quality certification) 

North Carolina DENR, 

DWQ; South Carolina 

DHEC 

Duke Energy filed a request for 

section 401 water quality 

certification with North Carolina 

DWQ and South Carolina DHEC 

on June 6, 2008. North Carolina 

DWQ 401 certificate was filed on 

December 15, 2008. The South 

Carolina DHEC 401 certificate 

was filed on May 20, 2009. 

4 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Requirement Agency Status 

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) Consultation NOAA Fisheries, FWS 

Informal consultation with FWS 

was completed for dwarf-flowered 

heartleaf, Carolina heelsplitter, 

wood stork, American alligator, 

and bog turtle on May 27, 2009. 

FWS is expected to provide its 

biological opinion (BO) on 

Schweinitz’s sunflower by August 

6, 2009. NOAA Fisheries is 

expected to provide concurrence 

on the staff determination for 

shortnose sturgeon. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (FWCA) 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior (DOI), FWS, 

NOAA Fisheries, North 

Carolina DENR, South 

Carolina DNR 

Covered by 10(j) consultations. 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) Consistency 

North Carolina DENR, 

South Carolina DHEC 

Project is not within the states’ 

defined Coastal Zone. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) 

North Carolina State 

Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO), South 

Carolina SHPO 

To meet the requirements of 

section 106, the Commission 

intends to execute a Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) for the protection 

of historic properties from the 

effects of the continued operation 

of the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

The Commission intends to 

execute the PA with the North 

Carolina and South Carolina 

SHPOs, and invite the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation 

to participate. The Commission 

would also invite the Catawba 

Indian Nation (CIN), the Eastern 

Band of Cherokee Indians 

(EBCI), and Duke Energy to be 

concurring parties to the PA. 

5 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
1.3.1 Federal Power Act 

1.3.1.1 Section 10 (a) Comprehensive Development Standard 

Section 10(a) provides assurance that the project proposed for licensing is best adapted to 

a comprehensive plan for developing the applicable waterway(s) for beneficial public purposes. 

The Commission considers comprehensive plans prepared by federal and state entities, and the 

recommendations of federal and state resource agencies, Indian tribes, and the public during the 

licensing process, including comprehensive plans that are resource-specific. 

1.3.1.2 Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission shall require construction, operation, 

and maintenance by an applicant of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretaries of 

Commerce or the Interior. 

1.3.1.3 Section 10(j) Recommendations 

Under section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission 

must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and 

wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, or enhancement of fish and wildlife resources 

affected by the project. The Commission is required to include these conditions unless it 

determines that they are inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of the FPA or other 

applicable law. Before rejecting or modifying an agency recommendation, the Commission is 

required to attempt to resolve any such inconsistency with the agency, giving due weight to the 

recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agency. 

1.3.2 Clean Water Act 

Under the section 401 of the CWA, a license applicant must obtain certification from the 

appropriate state pollution control agency verifying compliance with the CWA. On June 6, 

2008, Duke Energy filed a request for section 401 water quality certification with North Carolina 

DWQ and South Carolina DHEC. 

The North Carolina DWQ 401 certificate was filed with the Commission on December 

15, 2008. The South Carolina DHEC 401 certificate was filed with the Commission on May 20, 

2009. Both certificates are consistent with the CRA and do not include additional measures. 

1.3.3 Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. 

FWS lists several species known to occur or potentially occurring within the CatawbaWateree Project area that are federally listed as endangered or threatened and, therefore, 

protected under the ESA. Species listed as endangered include Schweinitz’s sunflower, wood 

stork, shortnose sturgeon, and Carolina heelsplitter. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf and the American 

alligator are listed as threatened under the ESA. No critical habitat has been designated for 

federal listed species within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Our analysis of Catawba-Wateree Project effects on these species are presented in 

section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

6 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
We conclude that relicensing the Catawba-Wateree Project, with fish and wildlife habitat 

protection and enhancement measures proposed in the Revised CRA, is likely to adversely affect 

Schweinitz’s sunflower during periodic flooding and spill events (see section 3.3.5, Threatened 

and Endangered Species). American alligator, wood stork, shortnose sturgeon, and Carolina 

heelsplitter have historic or limited occurrence in the Catawba-Wateree Project area; project 

operations as proposed would provide potential enhancement of habitat for these species and 

result in a potential beneficial effect. We conclude that relicensing the Catawba-Wateree 

Project, with fish and wildlife habitat protection and enhancement measures proposed in the 

Revised CRA, would not be likely to adversely affect the remaining federally listed species. 

We requested FWS and NOAA Fisheries concurrence with our conclusions by letters 

dated March 23, 2009. FWS concurred with our determinations for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf, 

Carolina heelsplitter, wood stork, American alligator, bog turtle, and critical habitat on May 27, 

2009 (letter from Brian Cole, Field Supervisor, FWS, Asheville, North Carolina, to K.D. Bose, 

Secretary, FERC, Washington, D.C.). FWS is expected to provide its BO for Schweinitz’s 

sunflower by August 6, 2009, as requested. To date, NOAA Fisheries has not filed a response 

regarding staff’s determination for shortnose sturgeon. 

1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act 

Under section 307(c)(3)(A) of the CZMA, 16 U.S.C. §1456(3)(A), the Commission 

cannot issue a license for a project within or affecting a state’s coastal zone unless the state 

CZMA agency concurs with the license applicant’s certification of consistency with the state’s 

CZMA program, or the agency’s concurrence is conclusively presumed by its failure to act 

within 180 days of its receipt of the applicant’s certification. 

The Catawba-Wateree Project area is not located within the South Carolina Coastal Zone 

or the North Carolina Coastal Zone as designated in the South Carolina Code of Laws, section 

48-39-10 (South Carolina Legislature, 2008) and the North Carolina Administrative Code, 

Title 15A, Chapter 7, nor does it affect resources within the designated coastal zone boundaries. 

1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires that every federal agency “take into account” how 

each of its undertakings could affect historic properties. Historic properties are districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, traditional cultural properties, and objects significant in American history, 

architecture, engineering, and culture that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places (National Register or historic properties). 

As described in section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources, Duke Energy proposes to implement 

the Historic Properties Management Plan for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC 

#2232) North and South Carolina (HPMP), which was filed with the license application, to 

protect historic properties in the Catawba-Wateree Project’s area of potential effects (APE). To 

meet the requirements of section 106, the Commission would execute a PA for the protection of 

historic properties from the effects of the continued operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

The terms of the PA would ensure that Duke Energy address any adverse effects to historic 

properties identified within the project’s APE through the HPMP, along with any staff 

recommendations. 

7 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
1.4 SCOPING 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping process was completed as part 

of the Traditional Licensing Process. To support and assist the environmental review, the 

Commission formally initiated the public scoping process for the project on February 28, 2007, 

with the release of Scoping Document 1. The Commission held four public scoping meetings to 

receive comments on the project. Evening meetings were held in Morganton, North Carolina; 

Mooresville, North Carolina; Rock Hill, South Carolina; and Camden, South Carolina, on March 

26 through 29, 2007, to receive oral comments on the project. A fifth meeting was held during 

the day on March 28, 2007, in Rock Hill to focus on resource agency concerns. Any person who 

was unable to attend a public scoping meeting, or desired to provide further comment, was 

encouraged to submit written comments and information to the Commission by April 30, 2007. 

In addition to the comments received at the scoping meetings, the following entities filed written 

comments on Scoping Document 1: 

Commenting entity Date of filing 

Katawba Valley Land Trust January 4, 2007 

South Carolina Department of Archives and History (DAH) April 9, 2007 

North Carolina Wildlife Federation (WF) April 16, 2007 

Bowater, Inc. April 25, 2007 

American Whitewater April 26, 2007 

DOI, Office of the Solicitor, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and FWS April 27, 2007 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC April 30, 2007 

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism 

(DPRT), Recreation, Planning, and Engineering Office April 27, 2007 

Catawba County, North Carolina April 27, 2007 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) April 30, 2007 

South Carolina DNR April 30, 2007 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League April 30, 2007 

Lancaster County Water & Sewer District and Union County, North 

Carolina April 30, 2007 

City of Morganton, North Carolina April 30, 2007 

Catawba Regional Council of Governments April 30, 2007 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) May 1, 2007 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition May 1, 2007 

In Scoping Document 1, we requested clarification of preliminary issues concerning the 

project and identification of any new issues to be addressed in the EIS, as well as any 

information that would assist in an accurate and comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

licensing the project. On April 30, 2007, Duke Energy filed its comments on Scoping 

8 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Document 1, which consisted of clarifications and corrections of factual errors, and its reply to 

comments made during the scoping process. 

Based on the verbal comments received during scoping meetings and written comments 

received throughout the scoping process, the Commission issued Scoping Document 2 on 

February 28, 2008. Scoping Document 2 serves as the current guide to the issues and 

alternatives considered in this final EIS. 

1.5 INTERVENTIONS 

On November 9, 2006, the Commission issued a notice accepting the Duke Energy 

license application and setting a deadline of 60 days from the date of the notice, for filing 

protests and motions to intervene. The following entities filed motions to intervene: 

Intervenor Date of filing 

Jackson County, Macon County, the Town of Franklin, and the 

Friends of Lake Glenville Association, Inc. October 12, 2006 

Tony Dotson and Susan Johnson October 27, 2006 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition November 12, 2006 

South Carolina DNR November 29, 2006 

DOI December 1, 2006 

American Whitewater Association December 6, 2006 

North Carolina WRC December 14, 2006 

North Carolina DENR December 20, 2006 

South Carolina DPRT December 21, 2006 

Lake Wateree Association January 4, 2007 

Wateree Homeowners Association January 4, 2007 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League January 5, 2007 

NOAA Fisheries January 8, 2007 

Catawba County, North Carolina January 8, 2007 

Bowater, Inc. January 8, 2007 

Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation January 8, 2007 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina January 8, 2007 

Foothills Conservancy January 8, 2007 

Lancaster County Water & Sewer District January 8, 2007 

Town of Cornelius, North Carolina January 8, 2007 

North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation May 21, 2008 

9 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
On June 3, 2008, the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation filed a withdrawal 

of their motion to intervene. 

1.6 CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE 

1.6.1 Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice 

On April 7, 2008, the Commission issued a notice that the project was ready for 

environmental analysis and solicited comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and 

prescriptions to be filed within 60 days of the date of the notice. The following entities filed 

comments and recommendations: 

Commenting entity Date of filing 

Community of Lake James, Inc. April 8, 2008 

Jean McKinley (U.S. Representative Patrick McHenry and U.S. 

Senator Elizabeth Dole, on behalf of Jean McKinley) April 10, 2008 

Community of Lake James, Inc. May 23, 2008 

North Carolina DENR June 3, 2008 

North Carolina WRC June 5, 2008 

DOI June 6, 2008 

Town of Cornelius, North Carolina June 6, 2008 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League June 6, 2008 

Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation July 11, 2008 

Community of Lake James, Inc. July 12, 2008 

DOI July 16, 2008 

Community of Lake James, Inc. August 12, 2008 

The following entities filed preliminary terms and conditions: 

Commenting entity Date of filing 

DOI June 4, 2008 

NOAA Fisheries June 5, 2008 

1.6.2 Comprehensive Relicensing Agreements 

In the Notice of Settlement Agreement and Soliciting Comments issued September 13, 

2006, the Commission set a deadline of 60 days after the CRA filing date for comments, and 

75 days after the CRA filing date for reply comments. The following entities filed comments or 

reply comments on the CRA: 

Commenting entities on the CRA Date of filing 

Mitchell J. Williams September 12, 2006 

10 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Commenting entities on the CRA Date of filing 

Kershaw County, South Carolina September 13, 2006 

Sarah Williams September 14, 2006 

Centralia Council of Governments September 18, 2006 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition October 9, 2006 

North Carolina WRC October 10, 2006 

Tony Dotson October 12, 2006 

Town of Valdese, North Carolina October 13, 2006 

Sarah Williams October 23, 2006 

Carolina Canoe Club, Inc. October 24, 2006 

South Carolina DPRT October 24, 2006 

NOAA Fisheries October 26, 2006 

South Carolina DNR October 26, 2006 

Town of Cornelius, North Carolina October 27, 2006 

DOI October 27, 2006 

American Rivers and the Costal Conservation League October 30, 2006 

Burke County, North Carolina October 30, 2006 

Lancaster Water & Sewer District and Union County, North Carolina October 30, 2006 

North Carolina WF October 30, 2006 

North Carolina DENR October 30, 2006 

Iredell County, North Carolina November 1, 2006 

City of Rock Hill, South Carolina November 9, 2006 

Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority November 9, 2006 

City of Conover, North Carolina November 10, 2006 

City of Hickory, North Carolina November 10, 2006 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina November 13, 2006 

City of Morganton, North Carolina November 13, 2006 

Foothills Conservancy November 13, 2006 

Lancaster Water & Sewer District and Union County, North Carolina November 13, 2006 

North Carolina DENR November 13, 2006 

Catawba County, North Carolina November 14, 2006 

154 Individual Wateree Reservoir Residents September 9 – 29, 2006 

11 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
In letters filed by 154 individuals in South Carolina, the county of Kershaw, and Mitchell 

J. Williams, requests were made for the Committee to carefully consider the increased risk of 

flooding in the Wateree reservoir that would result from the changes proposed in the CRA. The 

town of Cornelius was concerned with a lack of recreational opportunities and safety measures to 

match projected growth for the area. 

NOAA Fisheries, American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League, and DOI 

(representing FWS) expressed several concerns, including: (1) proposed minimum continuous 

flows do not provide sufficient aquatic habitat, (2) proposed mitigation packages are ineffective, 

(3) protection of federal and state listed species is incomplete and based on flawed studies, and 

(4) water quality concerns are not met. After these comments had been filed, the governments of 

Charlotte, Rock Hill, Valdese, Hickory, Morganton, Conover, Lancaster County, Union County, 

and Catawba County, along with North Carolina DENR, filed reply comments in answer to the 

listed concerns, urging the acceptance of the CRA as submitted. 

On December 28, 2006, Duke Energy filed the Revised CRA, which was accepted by a 

majority of participants in the stakeholder track of the licensing process. The Revised CRA was 

signed by representatives of the federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 

individuals listed below. 

Signatories to the Revised CRA 

Agencies 

North Carolina Division of Forest Resources 

North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation 

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) 

North Carolina DWQ 

North Carolina WRC 

South Carolina DAH 

South Carolina DNR 

South Carolina DPRT 

Indian Tribes 

CIN 

CIN Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) 

Other Governmental Entities 

Alexander County, North Carolina 

Burke County, North Carolina 

Caldwell County, North Carolina 

Catawba County, North Carolina 

12 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Signatories to the Revised CRA 

Catawba Regional Council of Governments 

Centralina Council of Governments 

City of Belmont, North Carolina 

City of Camden, North Carolina 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina 

City of Gastonia, North Carolina 

City of Hickory, North Carolina 

City of Morganton, North Carolina 

City of Mount Holly, North Carolina 

City of Rock Hill, South Carolina 

Gaston County, North Carolina 

Iredell County, North Carolina 

Kershaw County, South Carolina 

Lincoln County, North Carolina 

McDowell County, North Carolina 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina 

Town of Davidson, North Carolina 

Town of Great Falls, South Carolina 

Town of Valdese, North Carolina 

Union County, North Carolina 

Western Piedmont Council of Governments 

York County, South Carolina 

Nongovernmental Entities 

Bowater, Inc. 

Carolina Canoe Club 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition 

Chester Metropolitan District 

Crescent Resources, LLC 

Duke Energy Corporation 

Duke Power Company, LLC 

Great Falls Hometown Association 

13 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Signatories to the Revised CRA 

Harbortowne Marina 

International Paper 

Lake James Homeowners 

Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority 

R & N Marina 

South Carolina Electric and Gas 

Springs Global US Inc. 

Wateree Homeowners Association – Fairfield County 

Conservation Groups 

American Whitewater 

Area II Soil & Water Conservation Districts 

Catawba Lands Conservancy 

Catawba Valley Heritage Alliance 

Foothills Conservancy 

Kershaw County Conservation District 

Lake Wateree Association 

Lake Wylie Marine Commission 

Mountain Island Lake Association 

Mountain Island Lake Marine Commission 

North Carolina WF 

South Carolina WF 

Trout Unlimited 

Trout Unlimited, Inc. 

York County Culture and Heritage Commission 

Individuals 

William B. Cash 

Shirley M. Greene 

Frank J. Hawkins 

Timothy D. Mead 

Merlin F. Perry 

Joseph W. Zdenek 

14 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The Revised CRA replaces a CRA filed August 29, 2006, and an Agreement In Principle 

(AIP) filed on April 13, 2006, and resolves outstanding issues associated with the relicensing of 

the project. Major issues covered in the Revised CRA include: 

• protection of water supplies during drought conditions with the development of a Low 

Inflow Protocol; 

• station modifications to help meet state water quality standards, including aquatic habitat 

flow releases, dissolved oxygen compliance, implementation schedules, mitigation plans, 

and monitoring plans; 

• definition of reservoir normal target levels and normal minimum and maximum ranges; 

• increase in minimum continuous flows in order to improve aquatic habitat; 

• participation in formal protection plans for federal and state listed species including rocky 

shoals spider lily, Schweinitz’s sunflower, dwarf-flowered heartleaf, bald eagle, wood 

stork, shortnose sturgeon, and mussels; 

• implementation of an HPMP; 

• dedication of scheduled recreational flows; 

• development and enhancement of recreational facilities; 

• enhancement of public information systems; 

• modifications to shoreline management classifications, lake use restrictions, and 

shoreline management guidelines; and 

• development of instream flow mitigation packages in locations where the new minimum 

continuous flows would fall short of resource agency goals for aquatic habitat. 

We consider the Revised CRA to represent the proposed action for this project. 

15 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
16 

This page intentionally left blank. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
2.0 PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 

This section describes each of the alternatives analyzed in detail in this EIS and 

summarizes the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. The three 

alternatives analyzed in detail included the applicant’s proposals as described in the Revised 

CRA (proposed actions), the applicant’s proposals with additional staff-recommended measures 

(staff alternatives), and the no-action alternative, which is the baseline against which the other 

alternatives are compared. 

2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms 

and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or 

enhancement measures would be implemented. We use this alternative to establish baseline 

environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives and to judge the benefits and 

costs of any measures that might be required under a new license. 

2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities 

The existing project consists of 13 developments and 11 impoundments on the CatawbaWateree River as it flows through North and South Carolina. In North Carolina, in upstream to 

downstream order, are Bridgewater (Lake James), Rhodhiss (Lake Rhodhiss), Oxford (Lake 

Hickory), Lookout Shoals (Lookout Shoals Lake), Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman), and Mountain 

Island (Mountain Island Lake). In South Carolina, in upstream to downstream order, are Wylie 

(Lake Wylie), Fishing Creek (Fishing Creek reservoir), Great Falls and Dearborn (Great Falls 

reservoir), Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek (Cedar Creek reservoir), and Wateree (Lake Wateree). 

The project encompasses more than 300 river miles (RM) as measured from the confluence of 

the Wateree and Congaree Rivers, and a total of 81,688 reservoir surface acres at full pond. 

Descriptions of each development are presented in sections 2.1.1.1 through 2.1.1.11. Existing 

project operations for each development are presented in sections 2.1.2.1 through 2.1.2.11. 

State Route 1233 (Powerhouse Road) runs through the Bridgewater Development, across 

the crest of the Linville and Paddy Creek dams and across a bridge over the Linville-Paddy 

Creek spillway. No other public-access roads are within the project boundaries. No primary 

transmission lines exist within the project boundary. Land resources and uses in the CatawbaWateree Project area of influence vary greatly and do not include any federal or tribal lands. 

2.1.1.1 Bridgewater Development 

The Bridgewater Development is the uppermost development at RM 279.6 and includes 

three dams that form Lake James: Linville, Paddy Creek, and Catawba (Figure A-1). The 

Linville and Paddy Creek dams are semi-hydraulic fill earthen embankments, and the Catawba 

dam is a combination of semi-hydraulic fill earthen embankments and concrete gravity. Linville 

dam is 160 feet (ft) high and 1,325 ft long, Paddy Creek dam is 165 ft high and 1,610 ft long, and 

Catawba dam is 120 ft high and 3,155 ft long. There are two spillways, one for the Catawba dam 

and one located midway between the Linville and Paddy Creek dams. The Catawba spillway is 

an uncontrolled concrete gravity ogee spillway about 300 ft wide. The Linville-Paddy Creek 

spillway is a 430-ft-wide low overflow weir, without crest control, with a paved channel 

17 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
extending about 464 ft downstream. The 6,754-acre reservoir has a full pond elevation of 

1,200 ft mean sea level (msl) and a usable storage capacity of 57,349 acre-feet. A trapezoidalshaped canal connects the Catawba River arm of the reservoir with the Paddy Creek and Linville 

River arms to form Lake James. The canal has an excavated bottom width of 30 ft, and is about 

216 ft wide at elevation 1,200 ft msl. The intake and powerhouse for this development are 

located at the Linville dam on the right abutment. The reinforced concrete intake tower is 

founded on an excavated rock shelf at elevation 1,070 ft msl), and has three 18-ft-wide by 22-fthigh openings with structural steel trash racks. The tower is connected with the powerhouse by a 

tunnel about 900 ft long. The powerhouse contains two vertical Francis turbine-generator units 

with a total installed capacity of 20 MW. As part of a dam safety seismic remediation project 

being implemented at the Bridgewater Development, the current powerhouse will be demolished 

and replaced with a new powerhouse that will have an installed capacity of 27.7 MW. 

The two bypassed reaches associated with this development are the Catawba River 

bypassed reach and the Paddy Creek bypassed reach. The Catawba River bypassed reach (also 

known as Old Catawba River) starts at the Catawba dam and runs about 5.65 miles to the 

confluence with the Linville River. The Paddy Creek bypassed reach starts at the Paddy Creek 

dam and runs about 0.64 mile to the confluence with the Catawba River bypassed reach. There 

are no required flows for the bypassed channels. 

The power generated at the site is conveyed to two step-up transformers located in the 

switchyard directly behind the powerhouse (within the project boundary) via 100-ft-long 

generator leads. The power is then connected to a Duke Energy Carolinas’ 100-kilovolt (kV) 

transmission system. 

2.1.1.2 Rhodhiss Development 

The Rhodhiss Development is located 32 RM downstream from the Bridgewater 

Development at RM 248.00 (Figure A-2). The Rhodhiss dam is composed of rolled earth 

embankments and concrete gravity with an ungated mass-concrete ogee spillway. The dam 

measures 72 ft high and 1,517 ft long, and the spillway is about 800 ft long with a crest elevation 

of 995.1 ft msl. The 2,724-acre reservoir (Lake Rhodhiss) has a full pond elevation of 995.1 ft 

msl and a usable storage capacity of 7,097 acre-feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral 

structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are three separate intakes, one 

for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks measuring 15.5 ft wide 

by 21.5 ft high. The powerhouse contains three vertical Francis turbine-generator units with a 

total installed capacity of 28.4 MW. The power generated at the site is conveyed to three step-up 

transformers located in the switchyard immediately adjacent to the powerhouse located within 

the project boundary. The 44-kV power is further transmitted to the Rhodhiss Tie substation 

some 916 ft away, for distribution and transmission. The distribution and transmission is 

controlled by Duke Energy Carolinas. 

2.1.1.3 Oxford Development 

The Oxford Development is located at RM 230.00 and includes the dam forming Lake 

Hickory (Figure A-3). The dam is concrete gravity and rolled earth with a concrete ogee 

spillway. The dam measures 133 ft high and 1,336 ft long, and the main spillway is about 550 ft 

long with a crest elevation of 910 ft msl. An emergency spillway was constructed in 2003 by 

removing the top 14 ft from the left bulkhead. The main spillway has 10 Stoney-type vertical lift 

gates, 25 ft by 45 ft. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from 

18 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
reinforced and mass concrete. The 4,072-acre reservoir (Lake Hickory) has a full pond elevation 

of 935 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 9,834 acre-feet. There are two separate intakes, 

one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks measuring 15.5 ft 

wide by 21.5 ft high. The powerhouse contains two vertical Francis turbine-generator units with 

a total installed capacity of 35.7 MW. 

The power generated at the site is conveyed to two step-up transformers located in the 

switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse (within the project boundary) via 40-ft-long generator 

leads. The power is then connected to the Duke Energy Carolinas 100-kV transmission system. 

2.1.1.4 Lookout Shoals Development 

The Lookout Shoals Development is located at RM 220.3 (Figure A-4). The dam is 

concrete gravity and semi-hydraulic earth fill with an ungated concrete ogee spillway. The dam 

measures 88 ft high and 2,731 ft long, and the spillway is about 933 ft long with a crest elevation 

of 838.1 ft msl. The 1,155-acre reservoir (Lookout Shoals Lake) has a full pond elevation of 

838.1 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 2,138 acre-feet. The intake and powerhouse are 

integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are four separate 

intakes, one for each of the three main turbines and a fourth for the two junior turbines. Each 

intake has one set of structural steel trash racks measuring 18 ft wide by 22 ft high, and 7 ft wide 

by 14 ft high for the main and junior intakes, respectively. The powerhouse contains three large 

vertical Francis turbine-generator units and two small vertical Francis turbine-generator units 

with a total installed capacity of 25.7 MW. 

The power generated at the site is conveyed to two step-up transformers located in the 

switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse (within the project boundary) via 130-ft-long generator 

leads. The 100-kV power is further transmitted to the Lookout Tie substation some 1,081 ft 

away, for distribution and transmission by Duke Energy Carolinas. 

2.1.1.5 Cowans Ford Development 

The Cowans Ford Development, the largest development in the project, is located at 

RM 186.9, and forms Lake Norman (Figure A-5). The dam is concrete gravity and rolled earth 

with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 130 ft high and 8,738 ft long, and the spillway 

is about 465 ft long with a crest elevation of 732 ft msl and 760 ft msl on top of the closed gates. 

The spillway has 11 Taintor gates, 28 ft high by 35 ft wide. The 32,339-acre reservoir (Lake 

Norman) has a full pond elevation of 760 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 298,142 acrefeet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass 

concrete. There are four separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has three sets of 

trash gates measuring 17.7 ft wide by 49 ft high. The powerhouse contains four adjustable-blade 

Kaplan propellers with a total installed capacity of 332.5 MW. The power generated at the site is 

conveyed to two step-up transformers located on top of the powerhouse. The 230-kV power is 

further transmitted to the McGuire switching station some 1.67 miles, for distribution and 

transmission by Duke Energy Carolinas. 

2.1.1.6 Mountain Island Development 

The Mountain Island Development is located at RM 171.5 (Figure A-6). The dam is 

concrete gravity and semi-hydraulic fill earth with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 

140 ft high and 670 ft long, and the spillway is about 997 ft long with a crest elevation of 647.5 

ft msl. A 0.7-mile bypassed reach is located beneath the spillway. There are no required flows 

19 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
for the bypassed channels. The 3,117-acre reservoir (Mountain Island Lake) has a full pond 

elevation of 647.5 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 10,146 acre-feet. The intake and 

powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are 

four separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of trash gates measuring 

15.5 ft wide by 21.5 ft high. The powerhouse contains four vertical Francis turbine-generator 

units with a total installed capacity of 55.1 MW. The power generated at the site is conveyed to 

four step-up transformers located on a deck at generator floor level immediately downstream 

from the powerhouse. The 44-kV power is then connected to the Duke Energy Carolinas 

distribution and transmission system. 

2.1.1.7 Wylie Development 

The Wylie Development is located at RM 143.5 (Figure A-7). The dam is concrete 

gravity and rolled earth with a concrete ogee spillway that consists of two gated sections 

separated by a curved, uncontrolled section. The gated section on the right is about 355 ft long, 

the uncontrolled section is 157 ft, and the left gated section is 265 ft. The dam measures 119 ft 

high and 3,165 ft long, and the spillway is about 793 ft long with a crest elevation of 539.4 ft msl 

across the gated sections and 569.4 ft msl across the uncontrolled section. The spillway has 11 

steel, Stoney-type floodgates, 30 ft by 45 ft. The 12,177-acre reservoir (Lake Wylie) has a full 

pond elevation of 569.4 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 40,145 acre-feet. The intake and 

powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are 

four separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of trash gates measuring 

17.7 ft wide by 24.8 ft high. The powerhouse contains four vertical Francis turbine-generator 

units with a total installed capacity of 69 MW. 

The power generated at the site is conveyed to four step-up transformers located in the 

switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse located within the project boundary. The 44-kV 

transmission system is operated by Duke Energy Carolinas. 

2.1.1.8 Fishing Creek Development 

The Fishing Creek Development is located at RM 104.0 (Figure A-8). The dam is 

concrete gravity with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 97 ft high and 1,770 ft long, 

and the spillway is about 1,210 ft long with a crest elevation of 392.2 ft msl and 417.2 ft msl at 

the top of its gates. The spillway has 22 steel, Stoney-type floodgates, 25 ft by 45 ft. The 3,431-

acre reservoir (Fishing Creek) has a full pond elevation of 417.2 ft msl and a usable storage 

capacity of 11,159 acre-feet. There are five separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake 

has one set of trash gates measuring 26 ft wide by 20 ft high. The intake and powerhouse are 

integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. The powerhouse contains 

five vertical Francis turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 48.1 MW. 

The power generated at the site is conveyed to two step-up transformers located in the 

switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse (within the project boundary) via 100-ft-long generator 

leads. The 100-kV transmission system is operated by Duke Energy Carolinas. 

2.1.1.9 Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments are located at RM 101.5, only 3 miles 

downstream from the Fishing Creek dam (Figure A-9). The Great Falls-Dearborn dam is 

concrete gravity with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 103 ft high and 835 ft long. 

There are two bypassed reaches associated with Great Falls and Dearborn. The Great Falls Long 

20 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
bypassed reach (Great Falls diversion dam side) is about 2.25 miles long, and runs along the east 

side of Mountain Island. The Great Falls Short bypassed reach (Great Falls headworks) is about 

0.75 mile long, runs east and parallel to the canal spillway, and empties into the north end of 

Cedar Creek reservoir. The development also includes two large islands: Mountain Island and 

Big Island. Mountain Island separates the Great Falls reservoir from the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach, and Big Island separates the Great Falls-Dearborn canal spillway from Cedar 

Creek reservoir. 

The Great Falls-Dearborn diversion dam is located about 1,500 ft downstream of the 

Fishing Creek dam. The diversion spillway is 1,500 ft long with a crest elevation of 355.8 ft msl. 

It diverts the flow of the Catawba River to a canal parallel to and west of the original Catawba 

River channel. The new canal flows into the Great Falls reservoir, and the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach follows the original path of the river. The canal headworks, located 1.4 miles 

upstream of the Great Falls-Dearborn dam, mark the boundary between the Great Falls reservoir 

and the canal that feeds water to the Great Falls and Dearborn powerhouses. The headworks 

include a trash rack structure for the canal intake and two mass concrete overflow spillways. 

The main spillway is upstream of the headworks, and the canal spillway is immediately 

downstream of the headworks. The canal spillway is equipped with flashboards, and the 

elevation of the top of the flashboards, 355.8 ft msl, is the same elevation as the crest of the main 

spillway. Flow into the canal leading to the powerhouse is regulated by submerged openings in 

the canal intake structure. Floodwater is released to the Catawba River by these two spillways 

and the upstream diversion spillway. The 353-acre reservoir (Great Falls reservoir) has a full 

pond elevation of 355.8 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 1,966 acre-feet. 

The Great Falls intake and bulkhead are integral structures constructed from reinforced 

and mass concrete. There are nine separate intakes: one for each turbine, and one for the exciter 

unit. Each intake has a set of structural steel trash racks, eight 16-ft-wide by 18.5-ft-high oval 

openings and one 6-ft-wide by 9-ft-high oval for the turbines and exciter, respectively. The 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments consist of two powerhouses, with the Great Falls 

powerhouse on the west side of the river and the Dearborn powerhouse on the east side. The 

Great Falls powerhouse contains eight horizontal-shaft Francis turbine-generator units with a 

total installed capacity of 24.0 MW. The Dearborn intake and powerhouse are integral 

structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are three separate intakes, one 

for each turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks, 15.5 ft wide by 21.5 ft 

high. The powerhouse contains three vertical Francis turbine-generator units with an installed 

capacity of 42.0 MW. 

The power generated at Great Falls is conveyed to four step-up transformers located in a 

building situated over the tailrace just downstream from the main generator room located within 

the powerhouse area. The 44-kV power is further transmitted to the Great Falls switching station 

some 200 ft downstream of the powerhouse for distribution and transmission by Duke Energy 

Carolinas. 

The power generated at Dearborn is conveyed to two 100-kV step-up transformers and 

one 44-kV step-up transformer located on a deck at generator floor level immediately 

downstream of the generator room located within the powerhouse area. The two 443-ft-long 

100-kV transmission lines and the 402-ft-long 44-kV transmission line transmit power to the 

Great Falls Switching Station. All lines are operated by Duke Energy Carolinas. 

21 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
2.1.1.10 Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments are located at RM 99.3 immediately 

downstream of the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments (Figure A-10). The dam is concrete 

gravity with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 69 ft high and 1,219 ft long, and the 

U-shaped spillway is about 1,145 ft long with a crest elevation of 284.4 ft msl and 295.4 ft msl at 

the top of its gates. The U-shaped spillway has two Stoney-type floodgates, 25 ft by 45 ft. The 

developments consist of two powerhouses: the Rocky Creek powerhouse on the east side of the 

river and the Cedar Creek powerhouse on the west side. The Rocky Creek intake and bulkhead 

are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are nine separate 

intakes: one for each turbine, and one for the exciter unit. Each intake has a set of structural 

steel trash racks, eight 18-ft-wide by 21.5-ft-high oval openings and one 6-ft-wide by 9-ft-high 

oval for the turbines and exciter, respectively. The Rocky Creek powerhouse contains eight 

horizontal-shaft Francis turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity of 25.8 MW. The 

Cedar Creek intake and powerhouse are integral structures, constructed from reinforced and 

mass concrete. There are three separate intakes, one for each turbine. Each intake has two sets 

of structural steel trash racks measuring 17.8 ft wide by 24.8 ft high. The Cedar Creek 

powerhouse contains three vertical Francis turbine-generator units with a total installed capacity 

of 43.0 MW. The 748-acre reservoir (Cedar Creek reservoir) has a full pond elevation of 

284.4 ft msl and a usable storage capacity of 2,190 acre-feet. 

The power generated at Rocky Creek is conveyed to four step-up transformers located in 

a building situated over the tailrace just downstream from the main generator room located 

within the powerhouse area. The 44-kV power is further transmitted by Duke Energy Carolinas 

for distribution and transmission to the Great Falls switching station. 

The power generated at Cedar Creek is conveyed to three step-up transformers located in 

the switchyard adjacent to the powerhouse located within the project boundary. The 6.6-kV 

power is stepped up to 100 kV where it is then transmitted to the Great Falls switching station for 

distribution and transmission by Duke Energy Carolinas. 

2.1.1.11 Wateree Development 

The Wateree Development is located at RM 76.9 (Figure A-11). The dam is concrete 

gravity and semi-hydraulic fill earth with a concrete ogee spillway. The dam measures 76 ft high 

and 1,753 ft long, and the spillway is about 1,450 ft long with a crest elevation of 225.5 ft msl. 

The 13,025-acre reservoir (Lake Wateree) has a full pond elevation of 225.5 ft msl and a usable 

storage capacity of 65,568 acre-feet. The intake and powerhouse are integral structures, 

constructed from reinforced and mass concrete. There are five separate intakes, one for each 

turbine. Each intake has two sets of structural steel trash racks, five 18-ft-wide by 22-ft-high and 

five 12-ft-wide by 22-ft-high. The powerhouse contains five vertical Francis turbine-generator 

units with a total installed capacity of 82 MW. The power generated at the site is conveyed to 

five step-up transformers located on an extension of the generator floor over the draft tubes 

(within the powerhouse area) via 100-ft-long generator leads. The 100-kV power is further 

transmitted to the Great Falls switching station for distribution and transmission by Duke Energy 

Carolinas. 

22 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
2.1.2 Existing Project Operations 

The Catawba-Wateree Project’s hydroelectric operations are under the control of Duke 

Energy’s hydroelectric operations center known as Hydro Central, which uses computer-based 

tools to monitor project operations and watershed inflow. The generating facilities of the project 

are currently operated to meet the peak and load-following energy demands of Duke Energy’s 

transmission and distribution systems in coordination with their other generating facilities 

(including fossil-fueled and nuclear-fueled generating facilities). Consistent with meeting 

electrical demands, the project developments are operated to achieve development-specific 

downstream flow requirements, including the minimum average daily flow license requirement 

that provides a minimum daily flow; and development-specific continuous minimum flow 

releases. Operations of project developments are in accordance with the reservoir level guide 

curves which are not required by the current license. 

Although not a requirement of the existing license and in addition to regular project 

operations, the reservoirs of the Bridgewater, Cowans Ford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments 

have been part of a voluntary Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program. The Spring Lake Level 

Stabilization Program limits the fluctuation of reservoir levels during a 3-week spring fishspawning period to support fish spawning in the reservoirs. The spring spawning period is 

initiated by a sequence of four consecutive noontime forebay temperature readings of at least 

65 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) or observed bass spawning in Lake Wateree. Once initiated, the 

reservoir level is maintained within a range of 1 ft below and 2 ft above the level on the day of 

the fourth 65°F temperature reading. The level is maintained within the limits for 3 weeks. The 

initiation of the Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program at the other Catawba-Wateree Project 

reservoirs participating in the program is keyed to the start date on Lake Wateree and shifts 

according to the following schedule: for Lake Wylie the 3 week Spring Lake Level Stabilization 

Program begins 2 days after it starts on Lake Wateree; 8 days after it starts on Lake Wateree it 

begins on Lake Norman; and on Lake James it starts 14 days after it begins on Lake Wateree. 

Each reservoir level is maintained for a period of 3 weeks once the program has been initiated. 

2.1.2.1 Bridgewater Development 

The normal operating target elevation for Lake James varies during the year from a low 

elevation of 1,192 ft on March 1 to a high elevation of 1,198 ft msl from June through 

September 1. The full pond water surface elevation is 1,200 ft. At any given time, the reservoir 

level may fluctuate within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal 

operating target elevation. 

In addition to operating for peak demand, the Bridgewater Development operations are 

conducted to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range; the number of units 

and daily duration of operation are adjusted based on demand and reservoir level. One unit is 

run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 10 MWh to provide the minimum 

average daily flow license requirement of 66 cubic feet per second (cfs). The development 

currently has a license requirement for a continuous flow of 25 cfs that is met through wicket 

gate leakage during times of non-generation. There are no required releases into the bypassed 

portions of the original Catawba River channel. Generation from the Bridgewater Development 

is dispatched primarily for peaking energy needs. In addition to providing for Bridgewater 

powerhouse’s generating demands, the reservoir’s large storage capacity is used to augment the 

23 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
much smaller storage capacities of the downstream Rhodhiss, Oxford, and Lookout Shoals 

Developments. 

2.1.2.2 Rhodhiss Development 

The normal operating target elevation for Rhodhiss reservoir is 992.1 ft msl with the full 

pond water surface elevation at 995.1 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within 

a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation. 

Municipal water withdrawals from Lake Rhodhiss include the towns of Valdese, Lenoir, and 

Granite Falls, North Carolina, and details of withdrawals are found in section 3.3.2, Water 

Resources. 

Like Bridgewater, the Rhodhiss Development operates to maintain the reservoir level 

within its normal operating range and to provide flows for its minimum average daily flow 

license requirement. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 

21 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow requirement of 225 cfs. The development 

currently has a license requirement for a continuous flow of 40 cfs that is met through wicket 

gate leakage during times of non-generation. 

2.1.2.3 Oxford Development 

The normal operating target elevation for Oxford reservoir is 932 ft msl with the full 

pond water surface elevation at 935 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a 

normal operating range from 0.5 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation. 

Municipal water withdrawals from Lake Hickory include the towns of Longview and Hickory, 

North Carolina. 

Oxford generates electricity to meet peak demand and to maintain the reservoir level 

within its normal operating range. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, 

generating about 35 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 

261 cfs. The development currently has a license requirement for a continuous flow of 40 cfs 

that is met through wicket gate leakage during times of no power generation. The Oxford 

generating units have black start capability, which enables operation of the station’s floodgates 

even under emergency conditions. 

2.1.2.4 Lookout Shoals Development 

The normal operating target elevation for Lookout Shoals reservoir is 836.1 ft msl with 

the full pond water surface elevation at 838.1 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary 

within a normal operating range from 1.5 ft below to 1 ft above the normal operating target 

elevation. The city of Statesville, North Carolina, has an intake on Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Lookout Shoals Development is operated to provide electricity and to maintain its 

reservoir level within its normal operating range. Minimum release requirements are met by 

operating one of two former exciter units that have been converted to small generating units. 

One exciter unit is run at efficiency load 24 hours a day, generating about 9 MWh each day 

while meeting the current license continuous release requirement of 60 cfs. One of the three 

large units is run each day, generating 31 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license 

requirement of 278 cfs. Additional generation from the three large units at Lookout Shoals is 

dispatched primarily for peaking energy needs. 

24 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
2.1.2.5 Cowans Ford Development 

The normal operating target elevation for the Cowans Ford reservoir varies during the 

year from elevation 752 ft msl in March to 758 ft msl from June through September with a full 

pond water surface elevation of 760 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may fluctuate 

within the normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target 

elevation. 

Duke Power’s Marshall Steam Station and McGuire Nuclear Station are located on the 

Cowans Ford reservoir. The reservoir level may not be drawn down more than 15 ft below full 

pond, which is elevation 745 ft msl, without violating Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits set 

for the McGuire Nuclear Station. Thermal effects further limit the draw-down to 750 ft, 10 ft 

below full pond. In addition, there is an underwater weir in front of the Cowans Ford 

powerhouse intakes with a crest elevation of 725 ft, which presents a physical limitation on the 

draw-down of the reservoir. There are a number of public water supply withdrawals on Lake 

Norman including Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department; Lincoln County, North 

Carolina; and the city of Mooresville, North Carolina. 

Cowans Ford Development operates to provide electricity during peak energy demands 

and to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range. One unit is run at 

efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 44 MWh to meet the minimum average 

daily flow license requirement of 311 cfs. In addition, the development currently has a license 

requirement to maintain a continuous flow of 80 cfs that is met through wicket gate leakage 

when the facility is not generating electricity. 

The Cowans Ford Development is the largest development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project, and its reservoir, Lake Norman, has the largest storage capacity of this project. In 

addition to meeting its own requirements as described above, Lake Norman’s large storage 

capacity is used to augment generation flows for the downstream Catawba-Wateree 

developments. Too much water released in too short a period of time would cause Mountain 

Island downstream of Cowans Ford to spill; therefore, when Cowans Ford generates, care must 

be taken not to overwhelm the Mountain Island Development and cause excessive spill. 

2.1.2.6 Mountain Island Development 

The normal operating target elevation for the Mountain Island reservoir is 643.5 ft msl, 

with 647.5 ft being the full pond water surface elevation. At any given time, the reservoir level 

may vary within a normal operating range from 0.5 ft below to 3.5 ft above the normal operating 

target elevation. The water level in Mountain Island reservoir is managed to provide sufficient 

storage in the impoundment such that the operation of Cowans Ford located immediately 

upstream does not result in spillage at the Mountain Island dam. Consequently, Mountain Island 

often starts generation, thus reducing reservoir water level in anticipation of Cowans Ford 

generating. Duke Power’s Riverbend Steam Station is located on the Mountain Island reservoir, 

and its minimum lake level requirement limits the Mountain Island draw-down to 641.8 ft. 

Municipal water withdrawals from Mountain Island Lake include the Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

Utilities Department; the city of Gastonia, North Carolina; and the town of Mount Holly, North 

Carolina. 

Duke Energy operates its generators at Mountain Island to provide electricity during peak 

energy demand and to maintain the reservoir level within its normal operating range. One unit is 

25 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 33 MWh to meet the minimum 

average daily flow license requirement of 314 cfs. The development currently has a license 

requirement for a continuous flow of 80 cfs that is met through wicket gate leakage when the 

facility is not generating electricity. These releases are made into the tailrace channel below the 

powerhouse, which flows into the downstream reservoir. 

2.1.2.7 Wylie Development 

The normal operating target elevation for Wylie reservoir is 566.4 ft msl with the full 

pond water surface elevation at 569.4 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within 

a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation. 

Duke Power’s Catawba Nuclear Station and Allen Steam Station are located on the reservoir. In 

addition, the municipal withdrawals for Belmont, North Carolina, and Rock Hill, South Carolina, 

are located on Lake Wylie. 

Wylie Development generates electricity on a daily basis to provide flow for the benefit 

of downstream industrial water users (approximately 700 cfs) and to maintain the reservoir level 

within its normal operating range. Any additional electrical generation from the Wylie 

Development is used to meet peak energy demands. One unit is run at efficiency load at least 

once each day, generating about 49 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license 

requirement of 411 cfs. The Wylie generating units have black start capability, which enables 

operation of the station’s floodgates even under emergency conditions. The city of Rock Hill, 

South Carolina; the town of Fort Mill, South Carolina; the water department of Union County, 

North Carolina; and the water department of Lancaster County, South Carolina, all have intakes 

on the river downstream of the development. 

2.1.2.8 Fishing Creek Development 

The normal operating target elevation for the Fishing Creek reservoir is 414.2 ft msl with 

the full pond water surface elevation at 417.2 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary 

within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target 

elevation. Chester Metropolitan Water and Sewer District withdraws water from the reservoir of 

the Fishing Creek Development. 

Fishing Creek generates electricity to maintain the reservoir level within its normal 

operating range. One unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating about 

46 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement for a flow of 440 cfs. In 

addition, the Fishing Creek powerhouse releases into the upper end of the reservoir for the 

downstream developments at Great Falls and Dearborn. The structures that contain this 

downstream reservoir include a Great Falls diversion dam immediately downstream of Fishing 

Creek and the Great Falls headworks farther downstream. In order not to cause a spill from the 

downstream development, the Fishing Creek tailrace elevation cannot exceed the top of the 

diversion dam or downstream headworks. This tailrace elevation limitation and the flow-through 

rate of the downstream generating facility result in a maximum run time of about 6 hours at five 

units’ flow to avoid downstream spilling. Once this generating limit is reached, the output has to 

be reduced to four units’ output for 2 hours before returning the fifth unit to operation. 

Consistent with these tailrace limitations, the flow from the Fishing Creek Development is used 

to refill the reservoirs for the next four downstream developments (Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky 

Creek, and Cedar Creek) prior to their generating runs. This practice results in more efficient use 

of the generating capabilities of the four downstream developments. After the above-listed 

26 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
operational constraints are satisfied, all remaining Fishing Creek generation is dispatched 

primarily for peaking energy needs. The generating units at Fishing Creek have black start 

capability, which enables operation of the station’s floodgates even under emergency conditions. 

2.1.2.9 Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

The normal operating target elevation for the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments’ 

reservoir is 353.3 ft msl with the full pond water surface elevation of 355.8 ft. At any given 

time, the reservoir level may vary within a normal operating range from 3.5 ft below to 2 ft 

above the normal operating target elevation. No municipal water withdrawal facilities are 

located on the reservoir. 

Great Falls and Dearborn operate to provide electrical generation primarily to maintain 

the reservoir level within its normal operating range and for peak energy demand. Since the 

three units at the Dearborn powerhouse are more efficient than the eight units at the Great Falls 

powerhouse, the Great Falls units are only run to avoid spilling or during periods of high peaking 

energy demand. One Dearborn unit is run at efficiency load at least once each day, generating 

about 53 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license requirement of 444 cfs flow. 

2.1.2.10 Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

The normal operating target elevation for the reservoir is 281.9 ft msl with the full pond 

water surface elevation at 284.4 ft. At any given time, the reservoir level may vary within a 

normal operating range from 1 ft below to 2 ft above the normal operating target elevation. No 

municipal water withdrawal facilities are located on the reservoir for the Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek Developments. 

The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments generate electricity to maintain the 

reservoir level within its normal operating range, to provide required flow under the minimum 

average daily flow license requirement, and to provide electricity to meet peak energy demands. 

Since the three units at the Cedar Creek powerhouse are more efficient than the eight units at the 

Rocky Creek powerhouse, the Rocky Creek units are only run to avoid spilling or during periods 

of high peaking energy demand. One Cedar Creek unit is run at efficiency load at least once 

each day, generating about 40 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow requirement of 

445 cfs. The generating units at the Cedar Creek powerhouse have black start capability, which 

enables operation of the station’s floodgates even under emergency conditions. 

2.1.2.11 Wateree Development 

The normal operating target elevation for the Wateree reservoir varies during the year 

from elevation 220.5 ft in December and January to 222.5 ft msl for most of the year excepting a 

3-week fill period in January to February and a 6-week draw-down period in November to 

December. Full pond water surface elevation for the Wateree reservoir is 225.5 ft. At any given 

time, the reservoir level may fluctuate within a normal operating range from 2 ft below to 2 ft 

above the normal operating target elevation. The city of Camden and the Lugoff-Elgin Water 

Authority in South Carolina have municipal water withdrawal facilities on the reservoir. 

The Wateree Development maintains its reservoir level within its normal operating range 

by generating electricity as needed. Additionally, one unit is operated at efficiency load at least 

once each day, generating about 60 MWh to meet the minimum average daily flow license 

requirement of 446 cfs. In the spring, the station continuous release is increased to support fish 

spawning as part of the voluntary Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program. From March 15 to 

27 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
May 31, the station releases a continuous flow that results in electrical generation of about 

312 MWh per day. The continuous release to support fish spawning is sometimes reduced 

depending on water availability. Additional daily voluntary releases are made as needed 

throughout the year to support several large industrial water users downstream including a large 

steam-electric generating station. Except for continuous releases, generation from the Wateree 

Development is dispatched primarily for peaking energy needs. 

2.1.3 Project Safety 

The Catawba-Wateree Project has been operating for almost 50 years under the existing 

license and, during this time, staff has conducted operational inspections focusing on the 

continued safety of the structures, identification of unauthorized modifications, efficiency and 

safety of operations, compliance with the terms of the licenses, and proper maintenance. In 

addition, the project has been inspected and evaluated every 5 years by an independent 

consultant, and a consultant’s safety report has been submitted for Commission review. 

As part of the relicensing process, the staff would evaluate the continued adequacy of the 

proposed project’s facilities under new licenses. Special articles would be included in any 

licenses issued, as appropriate. Staff would continue to inspect the project during the new 

license terms to ensure continued adherence to Commission-approved plans and specifications, 

special license articles relating to construction (if any), operation and maintenance, and accepted 

engineering practices and procedures. 

2.1.4 Existing Project Boundaries 

The project boundary generally follows the normal full pond elevation of each of the 

11 project reservoirs. The 55 project-related recreational facilities at the reservoirs are included 

in the project boundary and represent a total area of 1,992 acres. 

2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSALS (SETTLEMENTS) 

2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities 

The applicant does not propose to add new hydroelectric generating capacity to the 

Catawba-Wateree Project; however, there are physical and operational modifications proposed 

for five of the developments to support the implementation of the Revised CRA. Operational 

modifications are discussed in section 2.2.2, Proposed Operations. Physical modifications to 

support the implementation of the Revised CRA include: (1) the installation of flow compliance 

gauges at Bridgewater, Oxford, and Great Falls and Dearborn; (2) the installation of aerating 

runners at Rhodhiss (Unit 3), Oxford (on one existing unit), Wylie, and Wateree; (3) the 

installation of dissolved oxygen monitors at all 11 developments; and (4) the installation of 

groundwater compliance monitors at 7 of the developments. In addition, the following would be 

installed: a minimum flow release valve at the Catawba dam (Bridgewater Development), a 

minimum flow release valve at the Oxford Development, a minimum flow aerating turbine at 

Wylie, and a minimum flow aerating turbine at Wateree. The Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments would undergo modifications to the Great Falls diversion dam and Great Falls 

headworks, and the Wateree Development would have a portion of the dam crest removed to 

support the installation of a bladder dam. 

28 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
In addition to these modifications, a new powerhouse at the Bridgewater Development is 

being constructed as part of seismic modifications to the Linville dam. 

2.2.2 Proposed Operations 

Duke Energy proposes to operate the project similarly to its current operation with the 

following changes. 

2.2.2.1 Required Minimum Flows 

Except when operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the Hydro Project Maintenance 

and Emergency Protocol as described in chapter 3, minimum continuous flows from the 

Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Falls, Dearborn, and Wateree Developments 

would be proposed as shown in table 2. 

Table 2. Minimum continuous flows except when operating under the Low Inflow 

Protocol or Hydro Project Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Minimum continuous flows 

Development(s)/location Date Minimum continuous 

flows (cfs) 

Jan – Mar 145 

Apr – Jul 95 

Aug – Nov 75 

Bridgewater Development/Bridgewater 

Tailrace 

Dec 145 

Jan – Jun 75 

Jul – Nov 50 Bridgewater Development/Catawba River 

Bypassed Reach 

Dec 75 

Oxford Development/NA1 Jan – Dec 150 

Lookout Shoals Development/NA Jan – Dec 80 

Wylie Development/NA Jan – Dec 1,100 

Jan – Feb 14 450 

Feb 15 – May 15 850 Great Falls and Dearborn Developments/ 

Long Bypassed Reach 

May 16 – Dec 450 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments/ 

Short Bypassed Reach Jan – Dec 100 

29 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Minimum continuous flows 

Development(s)/location Date Minimum continuous 

flows (cfs) 

Jan – Feb 14 930 

Feb 15 – Feb 29 2,400 

Mar – Apr 2,700 

May 1 – May 15 2,400 

May 16 – May 31 1,250 

Wateree Development/NA 

Jun – Dec 930 

1

 Not applicable. 

In addition, Duke Energy proposes to maintain the following minimum average daily 

flow unchanged from the current license requirements: 225 cfs from the Rhodhiss Development; 

311 cfs from the Cowans Ford Development; 314 cfs from the Mountain Island Development; 

440 cfs from the Fishing Creek Development; and 445 cfs from the Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek Developments. 

Recreational Flows 

Duke Energy proposes to provide recreational flows from the Bridgewater, Oxford, 

Wylie, and Wateree Developments and into the Great Falls Long and Short bypassed reaches in 

accordance with the schedule included in table 3, extracted from the Revised CRA. 

30 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 3. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) proposed recreational flows and schedule. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2006a) 

Recreational flows 

Dates 

(inclusive) Days/description Flows 

(≥ cfs) 

Hour 

start Hour end 

Apr 1 – 

Apr 30 

Last full weekend – 

Saturday and Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

May 1 – 

Jul 15 

Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Memorial Day 

and Independence Day 

900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Jun 1 – 

Jul 31 Wednesday and Thursday 900 4:30 PM 6:30 PM 

Jul 16 – 

Aug 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Sep 1 – 

Sep 30 

Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Labor Day 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Bridgewater 

Development 

Recreational 

Flow Schedule 

Oct 1 – 

Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Dates 

(inclusive) Days/description Flows 

(≥ cfs) 

Hour 

start Hour end 

May 1 – 

Sep 30 

Each Saturday and Sunday 

plus Memorial, 

Independence, and Labor 

Days 

2,600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Oxford 

Development 

Recreational 

Flow Schedule 

Oct 1 – 

Oct 31 First 4 Saturdays 2,600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

31 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recreational flows 

Dates 

(inclusive) Days/description Flows 

(≥ cfs) 

Hour 

start Hour end 

Apr 1 – 

Apr 30 

Last full weekend – 

Saturday and Sunday 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

May 1 – 

Jun 15 

Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Memorial Day 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Jun 16 – 

Jul 15 

Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Independence 

Day 

6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Jul 16 – 

Aug 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Sep 1 – 

Sep 30 

Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Labor Day 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Wylie 

Development 

Recreational 

Flow Schedule 

Oct 1 – 

Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Dates 

(inclusive) Days/description Flows 

(≥ cfs) 

Hour 

start Hour end 

Two Saturdays per month 2,940 

Great Falls 

and Dearborn 

– Long 

Bypassed 

Reach 

Mar 1 – 

Oct 31 A total of 4 Sundays 2,940 

10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Mar 1 – 

Apr 30 

One Saturday per month to 

correspond with Long 

Bypassed releases 

2,860 

Great Falls 

and Dearborn 

– Short 

Bypassed 

Reach May 1 – 

Oct 31 

Two weekends (Saturday 

and Sunday) per month 2,860 

10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Dates 

(inclusive) Days/description Flows 

(≥ cfs) 

Hour 

start Hour end 

Apr 1 – 

Apr 30 

Last full weekend – 

Saturday and Sunday 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

May 1 – 

Jul 31 

Each Saturday and Sunday 

plus Memorial and 

Independence Days 

2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Sep 1 – 

Sep 30 

Each Saturday and Sunday 

plus Labor Day 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Wateree 

Development 

Recreational 

Flow Schedule 

Oct 1 – 

Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

32 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Bridgewater Development 

Duke Energy would provide flow releases at the Bridgewater Development to support 

float angling and paddling. Scheduled recreational flows should be divided about equally 

between flow releases for float angling and flow releases for paddling. The flows for float 

angling at the Bridgewater Development would be provided as close as feasible to 900 cfs, 

without exceeding 1,200 cfs, and the flows for paddling would be at least 900 cfs. Scheduling of 

specific dates each year that are focused on float angling or paddling would be determined at the 

annual recreational flow schedule planning meeting. At the Bridgewater Development, Duke 

Energy would provide up to 10 additional hours of recreational flow releases per calendar year in 

addition to the recreational flow releases identified in table 3. Flows would be provided in 

increments of no less than 1 hour each of 900 to 1,200 cfs. If the applicant is not operating in 

accordance with the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol and needs to operate the Bridgewater 

Development to release more than 1,200 cfs for three or more hours during any of the scheduled 

flow release periods to support float angling, then Duke Energy would endeavor in good faith to 

add equivalent hours of replacement recreational flow releases for float angling at the 

Bridgewater Development within the same calendar year. 

Oxford Development 

At the Oxford Development, Duke Energy would provide up to 10 additional hours of 

recreational flow releases per calendar year in addition to the recreational flow releases identified 

in table 3. Flows would be provided in increments of no less than 1 hour each of at least 

2,600 cfs. Scheduling for additional recreational flow releases would be determined at the 

annual recreational flow schedule planning meeting. 

Wylie Development 

In addition to the scheduled recreational flow releases, Duke Energy would provide a 

release of 1,300 cfs for 6 hours prior to the scheduled start times for the recreational flow release 

from May 1 to July 15, inclusive, to ensure suitable water levels at Landsford Canal State Park. 

Duke Energy also would provide up to 10 additional hours of recreational flow releases per 

calendar year, in increments of no less than 1 hour each of 3,000 cfs. Scheduling for additional 

recreational flow releases would be determined at the annual recreational flow schedule planning 

meeting. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

Duke Energy would provide up to 10 additional hours of recreational flow releases per 

calendar year, in increments of no less than 1 hour each, of at least 2,860 cfs at the Great Falls 

Short bypassed reach and at least 2,940 cfs at the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. Scheduling 

for additional recreational flow releases would be determined at the annual recreational flow 

schedule planning meeting. 

Wateree Development 

Duke Energy would provide up to 10 additional hours of recreational flow releases per 

calendar year, in increments of no less than 1 hour each, of at least 2,760 cfs. Scheduling for 

additional recreational flow releases would be determined at the annual recreational flow 

schedule planning meeting. 

33 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The flows and schedules for the recreational flow releases identified in the tables for 

identified developments may be temporarily modified if Duke Energy is operating in accordance 

with the Commission-approved Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol. Duke Energy would notify the Commission, the resource agencies, and other 

interested parties of any modifications necessary in accordance with either operational protocol. 

Wylie High Inflow Protocol 

In order to provide additional protection and enhancement of aquatic habitat downstream 

of the Wylie Development when above-average inflow is available, Duke Energy proposes to 

increase the minimum continuous flow from 1,100 to 1,300 cfs from February 15 through 

May 15. The increase would occur if the median flows at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

streamflow gages on the Catawba River (USGS #02137727), Johns River (USGS #02140991), 

and South Fork Catawba River (USGS #02145000) are at or above 105 percent of the 3-month 

(November to January) median flows for the periods of record for these gages. If, when 

operating in the Wylie High Inflow Protocol, the February median flow for any one of these 

three streamflow gages is below the February median flow for the period of record of that gage, 

then the minimum flow requirement for the Wylie Development would be reduced on April 1 to 

1,100 cfs. Duke Energy may suspend the Wylie High Inflow Protocol if operating under the 

Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Reservoir Elevations 

Duke Energy would meet operating elevations for each reservoir except as provided 

under the Low Inflow Protocol, Maintenance and Emergency Protocol, or Spring Reservoir 

Level Stabilization Program. Reservoir elevations as proposed for each development in the 

proposed license articles are presented in table 4. The Low Inflow and Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol are included in appendices C and D of the Revised CRA (Duke Energy, 

2006a). 

Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program 

Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree would continue to participate 

in the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program. This program would limit the fluctuation 

of the reservoir level during the 3-week spring fish spawning period to support fish spawning in 

the reservoir, unless operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol. The program would initiate at each reservoir when (a) surface water 

temperatures reach 65°F for four consecutive days, (b) bass spawning is observed in the reservoir 

by an applicant representative, or (c) a Resource Agency representative notifies the applicant that 

bass spawning has been observed in the reservoir, whichever happens first. Once initiated, the 

reservoir level is maintained within a range of 1 ft below and 2 ft above the level at the time 

when the program is triggered. The level is maintained within the limits for 3 weeks. The only 

significant difference between the current voluntary program and the proposed Spring Reservoir 

Level Stabilization Program is that the program would trigger for each reservoir individually. 

Currently, the program initiates based on conditions at Lake Wateree, and stabilization in the 

other reservoirs initiates at set intervals after that point. 

34 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures 

2.2.3.1 Proposed License Articles 

Under the Revised CRA, Duke Energy proposes to continue operating the project with 

the proposed protection and enhancement measures summarized in table 4. 

Table 4. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) proposed license articles. (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2006a) 

35 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Operate reservoirs at or above the normal minimum 

elevations given below, except as needed to maintain 

minimum flows or as provided under the Low Inflow 

Protocol, Maintenance and Emergency Protocol, or Spring 

Reservoir Level Stabilization Program: 

WQQ 1.0 Reservoir 

Elevations 

Reservoir Month Normal 

min. (ft) 

Normal 

target 

(ft) 

Normal* 

max. (ft) 

Lake James 

(Full Pond: 

1,200.0 ft msl) 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May-Oct 

Nov-Dec 

93.00 

92.00 

92.00 

92.00 

95.00 

93.00 

96.00 

94.00 

95.00 

96.00 

98.00 

96.00 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Lake Rhodhiss 

(Full Pond: 

995.1 ft msl) 

Jan-Dec 94.00 97.00 100 

Lake Hickory 

(Full Pond: 

935.0 ft msl) 

Jan-Feb 

Mar-Dec 

94.00 

94.00 

96.00 

97.00 

100 

100 

Lookout Shoals 

Lake (Full Pond: 

838.1 ft msl) 

Jan-Dec 94.00 97.00 100 

Lake Norman 

(Full Pond: 

760.0 ft msl) 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May-Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

93.00 

91.00 

92.26 

93.65 

95.00 

93.98 

93.00 

96.00 

94.00 

95.26 

96.65 

98.00 

97.00 

96.00 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Mountain Island 

Lake (Full Pond: 

647.5 ft msl) 

Jan-Dec 94.30 96.00 100 

Reservoir Month Normal 

min. (ft) 

Normal 

target 

(ft) 

Normal* 

max. (ft) 

Lake Wylie 

Reservoir 

(Full Pond: 

569.4 ft msl) 

Jan-Dec 94.00 97.00 100 

36 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
* 100 ft = Full Pond 

Fishing Creek 

Reservoir 

(Full Pond: 

417.2 ft msl) 

Jan-Dec 95.00 98.00 100 

Great Falls 

Reservoir 

(Full Pond: 

355.8 ft msl) 

Jan-Dec 95.00 97.50 100 

Cedar Creek 

Reservoir 

(Full Pond: 

284.4 ft msl) 

Jan-Dec 96.00 97.50 100 

Lake Wateree 

Reservoir 

(Full Pond: 

225.5 ft msl) 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar-Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

93.00 

93.00 

94.00 

93.00 

93.00 

94.50 

95.00 

97.00 

97.00 

95.00 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

Implement the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program 

at Lakes James, Wylie, Norman, and Wateree, unless 

operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol. 

Begin stabilization period for each reservoir when (a) surface 

water temperatures reach 65°F for four consecutive days, 

(b) bass spawning is observed in the reservoir by an applicant 

representative, or (c) a resource agency representative 

notifies the applicant that bass spawning has been observed 

in the reservoir, whichever happens first. 

Observe surface water temperatures in at least one location at 

each reservoir in the program. 

Maintain the water level in the subject reservoir within a 

range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the elevation at the time that 

the stabilization period is triggered. 

WQQ 2.0 

Spring Reservoir 

Level 

Stabilization 

Program 

Stabilize the subject reservoir for 3 weeks once initiated. 

WQQ 3.0 Low Inflow 

Protocol 

Operate in accordance with the Low Inflow Protocol 

included as appendix C of the Revised CRA. 

37 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
38 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
WQQ 4.0 

Maintenance and 

Emergency 

Protocol 

Operate in accordance with the Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol included as appendix D of the Revised CRA. 

WQQ 5.0 

Flow and 

Reservoir 

Elevation 

Monitoring and 

Reporting 

By June 30 of each full calendar year for the term of the 

new license, file a report with the Commission to verify 

compliance with reservoir elevations, Spring Reservoir Level 

Stabilization Program, recreational flows, minimum flows, 

and the Wylie High Inflow Protocol as set forth in the new 

license. 

WQQ 5.1 

Funding for 

USGS Stream 

Gages 

Fund the installation of one new USGS streamflow gage to 

be located on the Linville River, between the Linville dam 

and the confluence of the Linville and Catawba River, just 

downstream of the Bridgewater Development. In addition, 

provide funding for the annual maintenance cost of the new 

gage and six additional gages for the term of the new license. 

Provide releases that improve aquatic habitat according to the 

schedules for affected developments. 

Provide minimum continuous flows from the Bridgewater, 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Falls, Dearborn, and 

Wateree Developments as described in section 2.2.2.1, 

Required Minimum Flows. WQQ 8.0 

Minimum Flows 

for Aquatic 

Habitat 

Provide minimum average daily flows from the Rhodhiss, 

Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing Creek, Rocky Creek 

and Cedar Creek Developments as described in 

section 2.2.2.1, Required Minimum Flows. 

Increase the minimum continuous flow from the Wylie 

Development from 1,100 to 1,300 cfs from February 15 

through May 15 if the median flows at the USGS streamflow 

gages on the Catawba River (#02137727), Johns River 

(#02140991), and South Fork Catawba River (#02145000) 

are at or above 105 percent of the 3-month (November to 

January) median flows for the periods of record for these 

gages. 

While operating under the Wylie High Inflow Protocol, if the 

February median flow for any of these three gages is below 

the median February flow for the period of record of that 

gage, then the minimum continuous flow will be dropped 

back to 1,100 cfs on April 1. 

WQQ 8.2 Wylie High 

Inflow Protocol 

The applicant may suspend the Wylie High Inflow Protocol if 

it is operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

39 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
WQQ 10.1 

Flows Supporting 

Public Water 

Supply and 

Industrial 

Processes 

Provide the following flow releases to support downstream 

withdrawal requirements. (Flows may be modified when 

operating under the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol or 

stage 4 of the Low Inflow Protocol) 

Development Required 

flow (cfs) Water user RM 

Bridgewater 90 continuous 

minimum City of Morganton 264.0 

619 weekly 

average 

CharlotteMecklenburg 

Utilities 

137.6 

619 weekly 

average City of Rock Hill 137.0 

619 weekly 

average 

Celanese Acetate 136.0 

619 weekly 

average 

Nations Ford 

Chemical 135.0 

Up to 71 

above 

existing flow 

Union and Lancaster 

Counties 122.0 

600 

continuous 

minimum 

Bowater Pulp and 

Paper Mill 120.0 

Wylie 

1,000 

minimum 

Bowater Pulp and 

Paper Mill for 

continuous 

16 hours/day 

120.0 

800 

continuous 

minimum 

International Paper 

Facility 17.0 

Wateree 

800 

continuous 

minimum 

South Carolina 

Electric and Gas 

Company 

12.0 

WQQ 16.0 

Annual 

Recreational 

Flow Schedule 

Planning 

Convene an annual recreational flow schedule planning 

meeting with North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, 

South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, and other 

entities with recreational experience and expertise to make 

improvements to the recreational flow release schedule, 

establish a schedule for additional recreational flows, and 

identify potential dates for replacement flows. 

40 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
WQQ 16.1 

– 16.11 

Recreational 

Flow Releases 

Provide recreational flows from the Bridgewater, Oxford, 

Wylie, and Wateree Developments and into the Great Falls 

Long and Short bypassed reaches as outlined in section 

2.2.2.1, Required Minimum Flows, unless operating under the 

Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol 

WQQ 6.0 

Compliance with 

Water Quality 

Standards 

Develop and file a water quality monitoring plan (WQMP) to 

monitor compliance with water quality requirements, and file 

an annual report with the Commission to verify compliance 

with any applicable 401 Water Quality Certifications for the 

previous calendar year. 

WQQ 7.0 

Flow and Water 

Quality 

Implementation 

Plan 

Develop and file a flow and water quality implementation 

plan (FWQIP) for completing the modifications necessary to 

satisfy the flow and water quality requirements at project 

developments, to be prepared in consultation with FWS, 

NOAA Fisheries, North Carolina DENR, North Carolina 

WRC, South Carolina DNR, and South Carolina DHEC. 

SMP 18.0 

Shoreline 

Management Plan 

(SMP) 

Implement the revised SMP as filed with the application for 

new license (Book 5), with the understanding that the 

applicant has the right to make changes in order to protect 

newly discovered resources including archaeological or 

historical sites, threatened or endangered species, special 

concern species, or correct errors. 

SMP 18.1 

Review and 

Update 

Procedures 

File a revised SMP every 10 years after the issuance of the 

new license for the term of the license, to be prepared in 

consultation with FWS, North Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, 

local governments, and other interested parties. 

CR 12.0 

Historic 

Properties 

Management Plan 

Implement the HPMP as filed with the application for new 

license (Book 4). 

CR 12.3 Bridgewater 

Development 

Offer to lease an island to the North Carolina Division of 

Parks and Recreation (DPR) for management as part of Lake 

James State Park. 

CR 12.7 Fishing Creek 

Development 

Offer to lease sites to South Carolina DPRT for the term of 

the new license. 

41 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
FWBR 

11.0 

Federal 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species 

Protection Plans 

Implement the Federal Threatened and Endangered Species 

Protection Plans for Schweinitz’s sunflower, dwarf-flowered 

heartleaf, bald eagle, wood stork, American alligator, 

shortnose sturgeon, and freshwater mussels as filed with the 

application for new license (Books 2 and 3). The applicant 

would also annually update the list of threatened and 

endangered species, after consultation with FWS, North 

Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, and South Carolina 

DNR. 

REC 13.0 

Recreation 

Management Plan 

(RMP) 

Develop and file an RMP that describes the implementation 

of the measures identified in article 14.0 and proposes a 

schedule in 5-year increments. For the first 20 years 

following the issuance of the new license, file with the 

Commission a biennial report of the progress made by the 

licensee on completing the measures in the RMP. 

REC 14.0 

Recreation 

Facility 

Enhancements 

Specific recreational sites and elements at each site are 

described in detail in section 3.3.7, Recreational Resources. 

Bridgewater Development 

Develop restrooms, shade trees, trails, picnic facilities, 

primitive camping sites, canoe/kayak access sites, boat 

ramps, or other improvements to Black Bear Access Area, 

New Linville Access Area, Linville Canoe/Kayak Access 

Area, Bridgewater Access Area, and Muddy Creek.

Offer North Carolina DENR nominal-cost lease for the term 

of the new license for the Lake James State Park 

management zone along the shoreline adjoining the state 

park, including three islands. 

Develop a 10-acre pocket park near the Linville dam with 

parking facilities, picnic facilities, photographic overlooks, 

and a bank fishing trail.

Rhodhiss Development 

Develop restrooms, parking, a boat ramp, or trails at the 

Corpening Bridge, Sawmills Veterans Park, Rhodhiss 

Access Area, and Castle Bridge Area. 

Evaluate the condition of the existing portage trail and 

signage at the Rhodhiss dam canoe portage and develop 

needed improvements.

42 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Oxford Development 

Develop restrooms, parking, swimming areas, trails, 

canoe/kayak access, primitive campground, or other 

improvements at the Wittenburg Access Area, Dusty Ridge 

Access Area, Lovelady Access Area, Long Shoals Access 

Area, Oxford Access Area, Oxford Tailrace Fishing Area, 

and Oxford dam canoe portage.

Lookout Shoals Development 

Develop parking, restrooms, public fishing area, portage trail 

or other improvements at the Upper Lookout Shoals Access 

Area, Riverbend Park/Upper Lookout Shoals Trail, Lookout 

Shoals Access Area, Lookout Shoals Tailrace Fishing Area, 

and Lookout Shoals dam canoe portage.

Cowans Ford Development 

Develop picnic facilities, parking, trails, shade trees, 

swimming areas, portage trail, or other improvements at 

Beatty’s Ford Access Area, Hagers Creek Access Area, 

Stumpy Creek Access Area, Little Creek Access Area, Island 

Point Access Area, and Cowans Ford dam portage and 

overlook. 

Offer North Carolina DENR nominal-cost lease for the term 

of the new license for the Lake Norman State Park 

management zone along the shoreline adjoining the state 

park, including one island.

Mountain Island Development 

Develop canoe/kayak access, parking, restrooms, swimming 

area, fishing pier, or other improvements at the Highway 73 

Access Area, Lucia Access Area, Riverbend Access Area, 

and Mountain Island dam canoe portage.

Wylie Development 

Develop canoe/kayak access, parking, trails, picnic facilities, 

restrooms, a fishing pier, or other improvements at 

Dutchmans Creek Access Area, South Point Access Area, 

Buster Boyd Access Area, Allison Creek Access Area, Rock 

Hill Park, and Fort Mill Access Area. 

Offer an Access Area Improvement Initiative (AAII) lease of 

the 37-acre Saddler Island to the U.S. National Whitewater 

Center for individual and group environmental education and 

outdoor recreation programming.

43 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Fishing Creek Development 

Develop parking, picnic facilities, a fishing pier, boat docks, 

bank fishing trail, or other improvements at Springs Park, 

Fishing Creek Access Area, and Fishing Creek Tailrace 

Fishing Area. The existing Cane Creek Access Park will be 

relocated to an 18-acre portion of Springs Park.

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

Develop canoe/kayak access, restrooms, parking, portage 

trail, or other improvements at the Highway 200 Bridge 

Access Area, Great Falls diversion dam portage, Great Falls 

headworks portage, Great Falls headworks to Cedar Creek 

reservoir portage, and Lower Great Falls reservoir 

canoe/kayak launch. 

Evaluate the safety concerns associated with boating near the 

Great Falls diversion dam, the Great Falls headworks, and 

the Great Falls-Dearborn dam. Determine the need for 

constructing boating safety devices and report conclusions to 

the Commission along with a revised public safety plan if 

necessary.

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

Acquire 1 acre of property and develop a canoe/kayak access 

facility with 10 gravel parking spaces at the Mud Cat Inn 

Access Area. 

Offer an AAII lease of the islands associated with the 

Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek 

Developments to South Carolina DPRT to establish and 

maintain a new state park centered on the Dearborn Armory 

site.

Wateree Development 

Develop picnic facilities, pier fishing, restrooms, trails, 

parking, swimming area, or other improvements at Wateree 

Creek Access Area, Molly Creek Park, Colonels Creek 

Access Area, Taylors Creek Access Area, and Lugoff Access 

Area. 

Offer South Carolina DENR nominal-cost lease for the term 

of the new license for the Lake Wateree State Park 

management zone along the shoreline adjoining the state 

park. 

44 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
REC 15.0 – 

15.1 

Recreation 

Planning 

Review the project’s recreation needs 20 years after the 

issuance of the new license and every 10 years afterwards for 

the term of the new license. File a supplement to the RMP to 

describe any additional activities or facilities to be 

developed, in consultation with North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, and South 

Carolina DNR. 

Provide the following information on the internet: normal 

minimum elevation, normal maximum information, normal 

target elevation, actual reservoir level, recent reservoir level 

history, 13-month reservoir level history, projections, points 

of contact for additional information, and special messages. 

Provide the following information on the telephone: special 

messages and actual levels for each project reservoir via a 

toll-free telephone system. 

Provide the Annual Scheduled Flow Release Calendar on the 

project’s website showing all scheduled flow releases from 

the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments 

and into the Great Falls bypassed reaches. 

REC 17.0 – 

17.3 

Public 

Information to 

Support 

Recreational Use 

of the Project 

Provide 2-day flow release forecasts on the website and tollfree telephone system for the Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree 

Developments and the Great Falls bypassed reaches. 

Provide 3-day flow release forecasts on the website and tollfree telephone system for the Bridgewater Development. 

2.2.3.2 Not Proposed License Articles 

The proposed protection and enhancement measures shown in Table 5 are not currently 

license articles, but will be considered for possible inclusion as license articles. 

45 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 5. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) not proposed license articles. (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2006a) 

Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

If inflows are sufficient, implement a Spring Stable Flow 

Periods Protocol in the Wateree Development. The applicant 

will endeavor in good faith to provide two 10-day periods of 

stable flows from the Wateree Development, unless 

operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance 

and Emergency Protocol. The first period shall be between 

February 15 and April 1, and the second period shall be 

between April 1 and May 15. 

Suspend the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program if 

necessary to provide stable flows. 

Provide South Carolina DNR, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries 

with an annual report documenting flow releases from the 

Wateree Development between February 15 and May 15. 

WQQ 8.3 Wateree Spring 

Stable Flows 

Ten years after the FWQIP modifications are implemented, 

the applicant will consult with FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and 

South Carolina DNR on an amendment to the proposed 

license article, if needed, for the Wateree Spring Stable Flow 

Periods. 

Provide conservation easements on 28.6 bank miles of 

stream in North Carolina and 5.5 bank miles of stream in 

South Carolina in exchange for reduced releases in the 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, and Great Falls Long and 

Short bypassed regulated river reaches and no releases in the 

Paddy Creek, Mountain Island, and Wateree bypassed 

reaches. 

WQQ 9.0 Flow Mitigation 

Package 

Within 1 year of issuance of the new license, the applicant 

would provide a one-time contribution of $1 million to South 

Carolina DNR to create the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric 

Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Fund. 

Prepare a quality assurance project plan as part of any 

section 401 water quality certifications to describe the 

processes and procedures to be used to ensure accuracy of 

WQQ 6.1 water quality data. 

Additional Water 

Quality 

Monitoring and 

Compliance 

Report Develop a groundwater monitoring plan for inclusion in the 

Low Inflow Protocol that includes determination of and 

funding for new groundwater wells. 

46 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Initiate interim measures for providing aquatic flow or 

dissolved oxygen enhancement as identified in the FWQIP, 

to be continued until the physical modifications specified in 

the FWQIP are complete. WQQ 7.1 

Additional Flow 

and Water 

Quality 

Implementation 

Plan Agreements 

Document any chronic noncompliance with the section 401 

water quality certification in the annual water quality 

compliance report, if it occurs as a result of project 

operations. 

Any entities wishing to close or abandon large water intakes 

within the project will be required to find another entity to 

take over the intake or to file a plan for its removal or 

retirement. 

Any application for the expansion, modification, 

replacement, or addition of water intakes must receive 

comments from the applicant within 90 days of submission. 

All large intake owners must report annually their average 

monthly water withdrawals and returns to the project. The 

applicant will maintain a database of this information. 

WQQ 10.2 Water Use 

Agreements 

Easements and permits will continue to be the mechanism 

for granting approval for the use of project property. 

Following periods of high inflow between February 1 and 

May 31 that create spill conditions, the applicant must 

endeavor in good faith to gradually reduce flood plain 

inundation in the Wateree regulated river reach to 

approximate natural inflow conditions until the Lake 

Wateree water level returns to 1 ft above or below the 

normal target elevation, unless operating under Maintenance 

and Emergency Protocol or Low Inflow Protocol. 

WQQ 8.4 Wateree Flood 

Plain Inundation 

Ten years after the FWQIP modifications are implemented, 

the applicant will consult with FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and 

South Carolina DNR on a proposed license article for the 

Wateree flood plain inundation. 

WQQ 19.4 Wateree Flooding 

Contingent upon the issuance of a 50-year license, the 

Wateree dam will be modified to improve the management 

of flooding events by removing a section of existing concrete 

from the dam’s crest and installing a bladder dam of 

sufficient height and length to provide 10,000 cfs of flow 

release capacity with the reservoir at full pond elevation. 

47 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

FWBR 11.1 

State Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species 

Protection Plans 

In addition to the species protection plans for threatened and 

endangered species, file species protection plans for the 

following: rocky shoals spider lily; Rafinesque’s big-eared 

bat; mussels—creeper, Eastern floater, paper pondshell, 

Eastern creekshell, notched rainbow, brook floater, rayedpink fatmucket; flat and snail bullheads; robust redhorse; and 

heron rookeries. 

FWBR 11.2 Fish and Wildlife 

Enhancements 

Provide a one-time contribution of $1 million each to North 

Carolina Habitat Enhancement Program (HEP), South 

Carolina HEP, or both, provided that the existing HEP 

memorandum of agreement is extended without modification 

in North Carolina, South Carolina, or both to cover the term 

of the new license. 

SMP 18.2 

Implementing 

Shoreline 

Management 

Plan and 

Guidelines 

Changes 

File an SMP consisting of shoreline management guidelines 

(SMG) and shoreline classification maps with the applicant’s 

application for a new license for the project. The applicant 

would begin implementing the revised SMP on September 1, 

2006. 

SMP 18.3 SMP Workgroup 

During the first full calendar year following issuance of the 

new license and the closure of all rehearing and 

administrative challenge periods related to shoreline and land 

management, and annually thereafter for the term of the new 

license, convene a workgroup of interested stakeholders for a 

status-review meeting to discuss implementation of the SMP 

including SMP classification mapping and SMP permitting 

criteria. 

SMP 18.4 

Evaluation of 

SMP 

Effectiveness 

Beginning in the first full calendar year following the 

issuance of the new license and the closure of all rehearing 

and administrative challenge periods related to shoreline and 

land management, and prior to the close of the second annual 

status-review meeting, consult with the SMP Workgroup, 

and prepare a basic study methodology and list of baseline 

review parameters with which to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the SMG permitting criteria in protecting nearshore and 

riparian habitats. Nine years after the first consultation and 

every 10 years thereafter for the term of the new license, 

complete the SMG effectiveness evaluation as a part of the 

SMP and RMP update cycles. 

48 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

SMP 18.5 

Coordination of 

20-year SMG and 

RMP Updates 

Complete the 20-year shoreline classifications map update 

and consider changes to the SMP, pursuant to the proposed 

SMP review and update procedures license article, 

simultaneously with the recreation use and needs assessment 

pursuant to the proposed recreation planning license article. 

SMP 18.6 Memorandum of 

Understanding 

In September 2006, begin contacting local counties and the 

states of North and South Carolina with an offer to jointly 

develop a voluntary memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

substantially in the form of the MOU template in appendix K 

of the Revised CRA. 

Complete the construction of all public recreation facilities 

required under the Revised CRA during the first 20 years 

following the Commission’s approval of the RMP. 

Negotiate an agreement with North Carolina WRC for the 

maintenance of boat launching, public fishing areas, and 

parking facilities at the applicant’s access areas in North 

Carolina, similar to the existing agreement, which will expire 

on August 31, 2008. 

Evaluate the need and feasibility of including wildlife 

viewing facilities at appropriate applicant-owned public 

access areas. 

Ensure that the shoreline of all applicant-owned access areas 

remains open for bank fishing, except for areas where it is 

restricted for safety reasons, management problems, or to 

avoid conflicts with other access area users. 

REC 13.1 – 

13.12 

Additional 

Recreation Plan 

Agreements 

Perform a cultural resources field evaluation of any property 

identified for the North Bend Recreation Land, North Bend 

Access Area, Catawba-Linville River Confluence Recreation 

Land, Paddy Creek Recreation Land, or Overmountain 

Victory National Historic Trail prior to its conveyance to the 

state of North Carolina. The evaluation will be performed in 

consultation with the DOI, Burke County, North Carolina 

SHPO, North Carolina DENR, and North Carolina WRC. 

49 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Ensure that all applicant-owned islands located on the 

project reservoirs or in the regulated river reaches will 

remain open for the term of the new license for any 

permissible day-use public recreation activity such as 

fishing, picnicking, or hiking, except for islands that are 

specifically designated otherwise, or islands that are 

restricted by state or local public health, safety or law 

enforcement protection, wildlife protection, or islands that 

the applicant determines should be off limits due to issues 

related to cultural resource protection, wildlife protection or 

safety, or security or management concerns. Camping is 

authorized only on specific applicant-owned islands as noted 

in the applicant’s SMG or RMP, or as specifically provided 

in any AAII lease. 

Provide appropriate signage at applicant-owned access areas 

and trails. 

Ensure that all facilities constructed at the applicant-owned 

access areas comply with Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) requirements. 

A total of 3,450 acres of land owned by Crescent Resources, 

LLC is expected to be purchased by entities other than the 

applicant, with support from Duke Energy in accordance 

with the Revised CRA. These land areas are being 

purchased for public recreation purposes, or for permanent 

land conservation uses, or both. 

All lands identified to be acquired from Crescent Resources, 

LLC by other entities with support from Duke Energy would 

be under purchase option by December 31, 2007, and the 

purchase completed by August 1, 2009. 

File all AAII lease requests for applicant-owned access areas 

that are within the FERC project boundaries with the 

Commission for approval. 

A plan to address waterfowl hunting in the Catawba River in 

the vicinity of the North Bend Recreation Land, North Bend 

Access Area, Catawba-Linville River Confluence Recreation 

Land, and the Paddy Creek Recreation Land has been 

developed by Duke Energy, North Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, and North Carolina WF. 

50 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Bridgewater Development 

Support efforts by McDowell County to obtain trail 

easements to connect the Black Bear Access Area to the 

Lake James Loop Trail, and provide $500,000 to either 

Burke County or North Carolina DENR to construct up to 

5 miles of the Lake James Loop Trail. 

Transfer or cause to be transferred 550 acres of property 

adjoining the Bridgewater regulated river reach, 420 acres 

adjoining the Catawba River downstream of the Bridgewater 

Development, and 275 acres downstream of the Paddy Creek 

and Linville dams to North Carolina DENR for public 

recreation and permanent conservation. 

Transfer 10 acres of property at the second Powerhouse 

Road bridge to North Carolina WRC. 

Provide up to $225,000 to North Carolina WRC, $125,000 to 

the city of Morganton, $600,000 to Burke County or North 

Carolina DENR, and $65,000 to the town of Glen Alpine to 

develop and maintain various recreational improvements, 

including a trailered boat access, fishing area, parking area, 

and a section of the Overmountain Victory National Historic 

Trail. 

Rhodhiss Development 

Acquire 50 to 100 acres of land along Wilson Creek and 

offer it to Caldwell County through the AAII. If leased, 

develop bank fishing and picnic facilities, and fund the 

installation of a USGS streamflow gage on Wilson Creek if 

the County agrees to pay for annual maintenance. 

Provide $125,000 to Caldwell County to develop 

recreational enhancements. 

REC 14.0 

Recreation 

Facility 

Enhancements 

Support the acquisition of up to 2,882 acres of property by 

the Foothills Conservancy or North Carolina WRC for public 

recreation and permanent conservation. 

Lookout Shoals Development 

Provide up to $220,000 to Catawba County or North 

Carolina DENR to support easement, acquisition, and 

development of a 50-ft-wide, 1.5-mile-long trail between 

Catawba County’s Riverbend Park and the new Upper 

Shoals Access Area. 

51 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Cowans Ford Development 

Offer an AAII lease to the town of Catawba or other public 

entity for property on the south side of Lyle Creek near 

Hunsucker Park. If the lease is accepted, develop picnic 

facilities, trail, boat access, and parking. 

Support Catawba County’s acquisition of up to 600 acres of 

property at the mouth of Mountain Creek. If the property is 

not acquired by the County, the applicant will acquire 20 to 

30 acres and develop recreational enhancements including 

restrooms, fishing pier, and parking. 

Provide technical assistance to facilitate bicycle route 

crossings of the FERC project boundaries and use of the 

applicant’s access areas along the proposed Lake Norman 

bike route. 

Provide $130,000 to the town of Davidson to develop 

recreational enhancements including canoe/kayak launch and 

fishing pier. 

Mountain Island Development 

Provide trails, planning, and assistance to state and local 

governments to connect existing multi-use trail systems in 

the vicinity of Mountain Island Lake. 

Wylie Development 

Provide $435,000 to Mecklenburg, North Carolina, $165,000 

to CIN THPO, and $265,000 to South Carolina DPRT for the 

development of recreational enhancements, including 

parking areas and canoe/kayak access. 

Offer AAII leases or other leases to York County and South 

Carolina DPRT for various small parcels of land for marine 

law enforcement, sections of trail (to be developed), a 

recreational vehicle park, and additions to Landsford Canal 

State Park. 

Retain ownership of Simpson Island for the term of the new 

license. If York County acquires and develops a park on 

land adjoining the island, offer an AAII lease and provide up 

to $265,000 to York County for recreational enhancements 

on the land adjoining the island. 

52 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Fishing Creek Development 

Provide up to $215,000 to an entity that will provide 1 to 

5 acres of suitable property for a new trailered boat access 

area near the existing Highway 9 Access Area. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

Provide up to $1 million to support the development and 

management of the new state park on Dearborn Island if 

South Carolina DPRT enters into an AAII lease for the Great 

Falls and Cedar Creek Islands. Also offer a nominal-cost 

lease with South Carolina DPRT for the Great Falls/Heritage 

Tract complex lake management zone. 

Wateree Development 

Provide up to $900,000 to Kershaw County or other 

governmental entities to construct boat ramps, parking, and a 

swimming area on the east side of Lake Wateree. 

Transfer 800 acres of land adjoining the Heritage Tract to 

South Carolina DNR for public recreation and permanent 

conservation. 

REC 17.4 – 

17.9 

Additional Public 

Information 

Provide the following information in addition to that 

proposed in the public information license article: 

explanation that reservoir levels can vary depending on the 

location on the reservoir; deviations in reservoir level other 

than those described in the Low Inflow Protocol and 

Maintenance And Emergency Protocol; updates to the nearterm flow forecast; frequently updated approximate times for 

flow release arrival and recession at Watermill Road Access 

Area, Morganton Greenway, Rock Hill River Park, Catawba 

Indian Reservation, Landsford Canal State Park, and 

Highway 1/Highway 601 Landing; links to USGS websites 

for applicable streamflow gages and groundwater monitoring 

wells; and adjustment of available data when operating under 

Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol. 

53 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

REC 17.10 

Additional Public 

Recreational 

Facility 

Information 

Provide information to the public to support safe and 

effective use of public recreation facilities at the project, 

including signage at project access areas. Information will 

include maps, descriptions, schedules, safety messages, 

contact information, and links to weather service and state 

resource agency fishing, hunting, and boating regulations 

websites. 

REC 17.11 Historic Canoe 

Trail Map 

Develop a historic canoe trail map of the South Carolina 

portion of the Catawba River in consultation with CIN 

THPO, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DAH, local 

governments, and others. 

Provide public information in English and universal signage 

unless otherwise specified. 

Provide annual media advisory for newspapers to promote 

public awareness of the project website and toll-free phone 

line. 

Make biennial recreational activities status reports and FERC 

Form 80 reports available on the applicant’s website. 

Make meeting summaries for the Catawba-Wateree Drought 

Management Advisory Group available on the website. 

REC 17.12 

– 17.16 

Miscellaneous 

Requirements 

At least every 5 years, review use of phone and web-based 

communication to determine if new, commonly accepted, 

reliable, and cost-effective technologies should be added or 

replace communications tools. 

REC 17.17 Emergency 

Notification 

Provide links with advisory topic titles to local and state 

government and marine commission websites that provide 

advisories related to reservoir or river-related issues, when 

requested. 

Maintain appropriate warning devices for project structures, 

in accordance with its FERC public safety plans. Plans may 

be modified from time to time throughout the term of the 

new license. 

Install signage written in Spanish in the tailrace areas 

warning of the potential for rapidly rising water. 

REC 17.18 

– 17.23 

Enhancements to 

the FERC Public 

Safety Plans 

Modify existing horns or install new horns at the 

Bridgewater and Oxford Developments to improve warnings 

of changes in river flow due to hydro station operation. 

54 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Fund, install, and maintain the warning system in the vicinity 

of Catawba County’s Riverbend Park as part of the FERC 

public safety plan. Consult with the park staff, revise its 

public safety plan, and submit it to the Commission for 

approval, prior to making physical changes. 

Revise public safety plans to incorporate Spanish signage 

and warning system improvements at the Bridgewater and 

Oxford Developments and submit to the Commission for 

approval. 

Design and install all signage at project access areas 

consistent with the applicant’s Access Area Signage Program 

Guidelines. 

Provide $4 million to North Carolina WRC, North Carolina 

DENR, or both to support purchase of agency-selected land 

in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for public recreation, 

gamelands, or compatible permanent conservation. 

REC 19.0 

Land 

Conservation 

Support 

Provide $5.32 million to South Carolina DNR or South 

Carolina DPRT to support the purchase of agency-selected 

land in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for public 

recreation, game management, or compatible permanent 

conservation. 

REC 19.1 Facility 

Exclusion Zones 

North Carolina WRC and South Carolina DNR will jointly 

evaluate each of the project dams and powerhouses to 

consider the user safety and project security issues associated 

with public use of the area in the immediate vicinity of these 

structures. The evaluation will determine where suitable 

exclusion zones within all or a portion of this area at each 

location can be developed to improve recreational safety and 

security. 

REC 19.2 Trash and Debris 

Management 

Minimize the amount of non-biodegradable trash and large 

woody floating debris in project reservoirs by sponsoring an 

annual cleanup event, installing a trashrake at Fishing Creek 

Development, and ensuring that non-biodegradable trash and 

large woody debris are disposed properly. 

REC 19.3 Aquatic Weed 

Management 

Work cooperatively with partners to manage invasive aquatic 

weeds in project reservoirs by providing scientific and 

technical assistance. 

55 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Article 

Proposed 

in Revised 

CRA 

Measure Elements 

Establish permanent conservation easements on the roughly 

12.5 total bank miles of selected tributaries to the Johns 

River and contribute an additional $1.5 million for land 

conservation. 

Establish permanent conservation easements on 5.5 bank 

miles of selected portions of McDowell Creek, Cedar Creek, 

and Rocky Creek and their tributaries, and contribute an 

additional $1.5 million for land conservation. Establish 

permanent conservation easements, restrictive covenants, or 

a combination of the two for 4.7 miles on the east shoreline 

of Lake Wateree. 

REC 19.4 

Additional 

Resource 

Enhancements in 

the Event of a 

50-Year License 

Modify Lake Wateree dam to improve its ability to manage 

flooding events by removing a portion of the existing 

concrete from the dam’s crest and installing a bladder dam. 

If the dam modification does not occur, distribute $4 million 

between the HEP fund and the Catawba-Wateree Basin 

Water Management Group fund. 

2.2.4 Proposed Project Boundaries 

Under the new license, Duke Energy proposes to include all of the existing and proposed 

project-related recreation areas in the project boundary for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The 

proposed boundary would include all of the facilities located within the project-related recreation 

areas as shown on the recreation area maps filed on October 20, 2006, in the Revised CRA. 

Tiles 1 through 10 of the Catawba-Wateree Public Recreation Amenities and Other Key Land 

Areas show the locations of these recreational facilities. 

2.3 MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL 

2.3.1 Mandatory Conditions 

2.3.1.1 Water Quality Certification 

Under section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1341), the Commission may not issue a 

license for a hydroelectric project unless the state certifying agency has either issued a water 

quality certification for the project or has waived certification by failing to act on a request for 

certification within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 1 year. Duke Energy filed a 

request for certification with North Carolina DWQ and South Carolina DHEC on June 6, 2008. 

56 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
2.3.1.2 Section 18 Agency Fishway Prescriptions 

Section 18 of the FPA states that the Commission shall require the construction, 

maintenance, and operation by a license of such fishways as the Secretaries of NOAA Fisheries 

and DOI may prescribe. 

FWS provided preliminary fishway prescriptions by letter filed on June 4, 2008, for the 

Catawba-Wateree Project pursuant to section 18 of the FPA. FWS reserves the authority to 

prescribe fishways for existing riverine fish species, any fish species (including American shad, 

blueback herring, American eel, shortnose sturgeon, and Atlantic sturgeon) to be managed, 

enhanced, protected, or restored in the Santee River Basin during the term of the license. 

FWS developed the preliminary prescription for fishways in collaboration with the 

applicant. FWS and the applicant entered a settlement agreement know as the Santee River 

Basin Accord on April 9, 2008. The accord is a collaboration among utilities with licensed 

hydroelectric projects and federal and state natural resource agencies to address diadromous fish 

protection, restoration, and enhancement in the Santee River Basin. FWS states that the 

prescription for fishways, the Santee River Basin Accord, and the Santee-Cooper Basin 

Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan (2001) are consistent, complementary, and mutually 

supportive. Activities developed in the accord are contained in a diadromous fish restoration 

plan that will enhance fishway prescription measures employed to restore diadromous fish 

species in the Santee River Basin. Included in the diadromous fish restoration plan are fish 

passage measures, enhancement activities, and supporting studies to be accomplished during the 

term of the new license. Target species include American shad, blueback herring, and American 

eel. Implementation of the diadromous fish restoration plan will be supported by FWS, South 

Carolina DNR, North Carolina WRC, and a technical committee. 

Fish passage prescriptions pursuant to Section 18 and consultations pursuant to the ESA 

that specifically apply to shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon fall under NOAA Fisheries 

responsibility. In a letter dated June 5, 2008, NOAA Fisheries reserved its authority under 

section 18 of the FPA, as amended, to prescribe fishways, or such additional fishways, or to 

modify existing fishways at those locations and at such times as it may subsequently determine 

are necessary to provide for safe, timely, and effective upstream passage of diadromous fish 

through Catawba-Wateree Project facilities. 

2.3.1.3 Section 18 Applicant’s Alternative Fishways Prescriptions 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides parties to the Catawba-Wateree relicensing 

proceeding the opportunity to propose alternatives to preliminary prescriptions. 

The applicant presented alternative designs and approaches to fish passage at the 

Catawba-Wateree Project in their document Fish Passage Assessment, January (2005). 

Alternatives designs and approaches presented by the applicant were reviewed and considered by 

FWS during the development of the preliminary prescriptions that were filed on June 4, 2008. 

2.3.1.4 Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or cause the destruction 

or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species. FWS lists several species known 

to occur or potentially occurring within the Catawba-Wateree Project area that are federally 

listed as endangered or threatened and, therefore, protected under the ESA. Species protection 

57 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
plans for these species have been written or updated and would be implemented within 60 days 

of the issuance of the license for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The species protection plans 

have specific methods for monitoring each species, and determination of the effectiveness of 

management and conservation measures proposed for each species, including annual 

communication and consultation with the appropriate state and federal agencies. Our analysis of 

Catawba-Wateree Project effects on these species are presented in section 3.3.5, Threatened and 

Endangered Species. 

2.3.2 Other Recommendations by Agencies and Interested Parties 

2.3.2.1 Section 10(j) Recommendations 

Under the provisions of section 10(j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the 

Commission must include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state 

fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife 

resources affected by the project’s operations. Additionally, section 10(j) states that, whenever 

the Commission concludes that any fish and wildlife agency recommendation is inconsistent 

with the purpose and the requirements of the FPA or other applicable laws, the Commission and 

agency must attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving weight to the recommendations, 

expertise, and statutory responsibility of the agency. 

NOAA Fisheries included 10(j) recommendations in their comments in response to the 

Commission’s ready for environmental analysis notice issued on April 7, 2008. NOAA Fisheries 

thinks the following recommendations are necessary: Low Inflow Protocol; Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol; FWQIP; minimum flows for aquatic habitat; and the establishment of a 

Catawba-Wateree Project Fisheries Technical Committee and annual coordination meetings. 

Details of these proposed mitigation and enhancement (PM&E) measures are located in 

section 5.0, Conclusions and Recommendations, which summarizes our recommendations for 

adoption under the staff alternative. 

North Carolina WRC filed comments and recommendations pursuant to section 10(j) of 

the FPA stating that they recommend the following specific proposed license articles found in 

appendix A of the Revised CRA as their terms and conditions: reservoir elevations; Spring 

Reservoir Level Stabilization Program; minimum flows; FWQIP; Low Inflow Protocol for the 

Catawba-Wateree Project; Maintenance and Emergency Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project; WQMP; flow and reservoir elevation monitoring; funding for USGS streamflow gages; 

federal threatened and endangered species protection plans; SMP; and SMP review and update 

procedures. Detail of the PM&E measures are located in section 5.0, Conclusions and 

Recommendations, which summarizes our recommendation for adoption under the staff 

alternative. 

2.3.3 Staff’s Modification to the Proposed Actions 

After evaluating the proposed actions, including the terms, conditions, and 

recommendations filed by agencies and interested parties under sections 10(a), 10(j), and 18 of 

the FPA, we considered what, if any, additional measures would be necessary or appropriate for 

the continued operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project. In addition to the applicant’s proposed 

project-related environmental measures, we evaluate the following staff-identified measures for 

the Catawba-Wateree Project: 

58 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• install a bladder dam modification at Wateree dam designed as recommended in the 

Revised CRA; 

• achieve normal target elevations and maintain reservoir levels within newly established 

normal minimum and normal maximum elevations unless operating in the Low Inflow 

Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol to be implemented within 60 days 

of the issuance of a new license; 

• add NOAA Fisheries and FWS as consultants for the Drought Management Advisory 

Group; 

• consult with NOAA Fisheries on Maintenance and Emergency Protocol implementation; 

• establish an advisory group in which representatives of Duke Energy consult with federal 

and state resource managers and other stakeholders to evaluate and recommend 

appropriate mitigation for fish losses resulting from abnormal conditions; 

• reassess the Cowans Ford Development for eligibility for listing on the National Register 

when the development reaches 50 years of age in 2015. The reassessment would occur as 

part of the process of review for the HPMP; 

• provide one additional recreational enhancement that would be included in the project 

boundary and in the RMP: (1) Lake Cornelius Informal Access; 

• for the development of the RMP, notify and attempt to consult with, at a minimum, the 

entire relicensing Recreation Resources Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, Burke County, York 

County, American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing 

Coalition, Lake Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League); 

• during the development and consultation process for the RMP, also consult regarding the 

need for and feasibility of including wildlife viewing facilities at Duke Energy-owned 

public access areas that will be within the project boundary. Where determined to be 

needed and feasible, include site designs and a schedule for implementing those wildlife 

viewing areas in the RMP; 

• file biennial reports for the entire term of any new license in addition to the first 20 years 

to document the progress made on completing the recreation enhancements under 

supplements to the RMP; 

• for the review of the project’s recreation needs 20 years following the issuance of a new 

license and repeated every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license, 

consult with, at a minimum, the parties of the relicensing Recreation Resources 

Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, 

South Carolina DNR, Burke County, York County, American Whitewater, Carolina 

Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake Wylie Covekeeper, and 

South Carolina Coastal Conservation League) who chose to participate in the 

development of the RMP; 

• provide public information related to river flow in a manner that provides the most up-todate information possible; 

59 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
60 

• implement the Commission-approved public safety plan; and 

• include all Duke Energy-owned islands located in the project reservoirs within the project 

boundary. 

2.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED STUDY 

2.4.1 Federal Government Takeover 

We do not consider federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative for the CatawbaWateree Project. Federal takeover of the Catawba-Wateree Project would require Congressional 

approval. While that fact alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there 

is currently no evidence showing that a federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. 

No federal agency has suggested that federal takeover would be appropriate, and no federal 

agency has expressed an interest in operating the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

2.4.2 Non-Power License 

A non-power license is a temporary license the Commission would terminate whenever it 

determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority and supervision 

over the lands and facilities covered by the non-power license. At this time, no agency has 

suggested a willingness or ability to do so. No party has recommended a non-power license for 

the Catawba-Wateree Project, and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no 

longer be used to generate power. Thus, we do not consider a non-power license a realistic 

alternative to relicensing in this circumstance. 

2.4.3 Project Retirement 

Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either 

alternative would require denying the relicense application and surrender or termination of the 

existing license with appropriate conditions. The Catawba-Wateree Project provides a viable, 

safe, and clean renewable source of power to the region. Catawba-Wateree Project retirement 

would remove this source of power. No party has suggested project retirement, and we have no 

basis for recommending it. Therefore, project retirement is not a reasonable alternative to the 

relicensing of the Catawba-Wateree Project with the appropriate enhancement measures. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting in the CatawbaWateree Project vicinity and any environmental resources that could be cumulatively affected 

by relicensing the project. Then, we address each affected environmental resource. Figures 

presenting each development, found in appendix A, also show land use and unique natural 

resources. For each resource, we first describe the existing conditions as a baseline against 

which to measure the effects of the proposed project and any alternative actions. After the 

existing conditions description, we then describe the environmental effects of the proposed 

project, including the proposed measure(s) discussed in section 2.2.3, Proposed Environmental 

Measures. Unless otherwise identified, the source of our information is the license application 

for the Catawba-Wateree Project (Duke Energy, 2007). We provide citations for information 

obtained from other sources including subsequent filings related to the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CATAWBA-WATEREE RIVER BASIN 

The Catawba-Wateree Project lies on the east side of the Blue Ridge Mountains in North 

and South Carolina and is located along an approximately 300-mile-long stretch of the Catawba 

River, which is a major tributary of the Wateree River. The Catawba River begins in western 

North Carolina and flows generally from northwest to southeast from its headwaters in the steep, 

mountainous Blue Ridge Province through the Piedmont Province. The Catawba River joins Big 

Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River in the Coastal Plain physiogeographic region of South 

Carolina. The drainage basin is relatively narrow, ranging from 11 to 39 miles wide (average 

27 miles) and has a watershed of approximately 4,750 sq mi. 

The Catawba-Wateree Project area and the surrounding region can be characterized 

generally as rolling hills, with elevations ranging from 1,200 ft msl at the Bridgewater 

Development, to approximately 80 ft msl at the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree Rivers, 

which is the downstream terminus of the project’s operational influence. 

The Blue Ridge scarp varies in elevation from 1,200 to 2,500 ft in the upper drainages of 

the Catawba-Wateree Project at the Bridgewater Development and is the eastern boundary of the 

Blue Ridge physiogeographic province. The Blue Ridge is a mountain plateau bounded by two 

mountain chains. The Blue Ridge Mountains on the east range from 3,000 to 4,000 ft in 

elevation, although a few peaks reach almost 6,000 ft. On the western boundary are the Unaka 

and Great Smoky Mountains with elevations that range from 3,000 to 6,000 ft. Transverse ridges 

and broad valley floors are located between the two mountain chains. In this region of the 

watershed, the majority of the Catawba-Wateree Project area is generally characterized by oakhickory forests and valleys interspersed with scattered homes and small farms; although it is 

predominantly rural, development in this region of the watershed is increasing. 

The Piedmont Province is located between the Blue Ridge scarp to the west and the Fall 

Line to the east, descending gradually in elevation to 600 to 800 ft at the Fall Line. The terrain is 

composed of gently rolling, well-rounded hills, and long, low ridges. The Piedmont was 

intensively farmed in the past, and former agricultural fields are in various stages of succession 

or have been converted to managed pine plantations. The Piedmont portion of the watershed is 

more extensively developed than the Blue Ridge scarp region. Considerable development is 

centered around the city of Charlotte, with additional development clustered in and around the 

61 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
cities of Morganton, Hickory, Mooresville, and Gastonia in North Carolina, and Rock Hill and 

Lancaster in South Carolina. All of the major structures of the Catawba-Wateree Project lie 

within the Piedmont Province. 

The Coastal Plain meets the Piedmont along the Fall Line where soft sedimentary rocks 

of the Coastal Plain intersect with the harder, crystalline rocks of the higher elevation Piedmont. 

Along the Catawba River, the Fall Line occurs at the Wateree Development, and the Coastal 

Plain lies south and east of the Wateree Development. The Coastal Plain contains the majority 

of the Wateree regulated river reach to the confluence with the Congaree River. From this point 

downstream, the Catawba River passes through a relatively short stretch of the Carolina 

Sandhills region before it continues into the lower elevations of the Coastal Plain. In general, 

topography within the Coastal Plain is relatively flat, resulting in slow-flowing streams and poor 

drainage. The lower portion of the watershed supports some development, but is generally more 

rural in character than the Piedmont region. 

The forested areas bordering Catawba-Wateree developments have been logged or 

burned at least once and consist of secondary growth. Land use within the Catawba River Basin 

varies greatly, but is generally a mix of timber harvesting, forest, agricultural, and developed 

lands. Large scale residential development, or commercial development, or both have occurred 

at the Cowans Ford, Wylie, Fishing Creek, and Wateree Developments. 

Based on average meteorological data for Charlotte, North Carolina, and Columbia, 

South Carolina, the Catawba River Basin region has hot summers and cool winters with 

precipitation distributed evenly throughout the year (rssWeather, 2008a and 2008b). Summer 

high temperatures are normally near or above 90°F, and winter high temperatures near 55°F. 

Low temperatures are generally near 70°F in the summer and 35°F during the winter. Average 

monthly precipitation ranges from 3 to 4 inches (in.) in Charlotte, North Carolina, to 3 to 6 in. in 

Columbia, South Carolina. There is not a distinct dry or wet season, although fall is normally the 

driest period of the year. On occasion in the summer or fall, hurricanes or their remnants from 

the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico can produce high rainfall events that result in high 

flows. 

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the 

NEPA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] §1508.7), an action may cause cumulative 

impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space or time with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and 

other land and water development activities. 

The Catawba-Wateree Project is operated as a coordinated, “stair-step” system and flows 

released from the upstream Catawba-Wateree Project developments in turn influence the water 

level, quality, and aquatic resources of the downstream developments. This influence is felt 

throughout the length of the Catawba-Wateree Project to the confluence with the Congaree River 

in South Carolina. Operations are primarily based on prevailing hydrologic conditions, license 

requirements, and regional power needs. 

62 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Based on information in the license application, agency comments, other filings related to 

the Catawba-Wateree Project, and preliminary staff analysis, we identified the following 

resources that have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the continued operation of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, in combination with other activities: water, geology and soils, aquatic 

resources, fisheries, recreational, and land use and aesthetics. 

3.2.1 Geographic Scope 

The geographic scope of analysis defines the physical limits of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project and encompasses the project boundary (the main stem of the Catawba and Wateree 

Rivers and lands adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project) including all mainstem reaches 

between project developments and the 77 miles of the Wateree River downstream of the Wateree 

development to the confluence with the Congaree River. We chose this geographic scope 

because this reach of the Catawba and Wateree Rivers encompasses the entire set of project 

facilities, plus those reaches of the river and other facilities on the river that affect or are affected 

by the operation of this project. 

 3.2.2 Temporal Scope 

The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the EIS includes a discussion of past, 

present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. 

Based on the terms of the new license requested by Duke, the temporal scope looks 50 years into 

the future, concentrating on the effects on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The historical discussion is limited by the amount of information available for each 

resource. 

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

3.3.1 Geology and Soils 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Geology 

From northwest to southeast, the geologic belts crossing the Catawba-Wateree drainage 

basin are Blue Ridge, Chauga, Inner Piedmont, Kings Mountain, Charlotte, and Carolina slate 

belts. Inner Piedmont, Charlotte, and Carolina slate belts underlie the major structures and 

reservoirs of the majority of the Catawba-Wateree Project. Sediments of the Coastal Plain 

overlap the Carolina slate belt south and east of the Wateree Development and underlie the 

majority of the Wateree regulated river reach to the Congaree River. 

The Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, and Lookout Shoals Developments are located 

within the Inner Piedmont belt in North Carolina. The western and northwestern reaches of Lake 

James are underlain by rocks of the Chauga and Blue Ridge belts. Rock units mapped in the 

vicinity of the developments include a variety of medium- to coarse-grained types that include 

granitic gneiss, augen gneiss, biotite gneiss, mica schist, garnet mica schist, sillimanite-mica 

schist, Toluca granite, amphibolite, ultramafic rocks, quartz-feldspar gneiss, and pegmatite. 

Alluvium in the Bridgewater and Lookout Shoals Developments consists of sand and silt 

deposits in the flood plains of major streams. 

63 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky 

Creek, and Cedar Creek Developments are located in South Carolina within the Charlotte belt, 

with the exception of the northern reaches of Lake Norman, which is underlain by rocks of the 

Kings Mountain belt. Rock units mapped in the vicinity of the developments include granite, 

granitic gneiss, metagranite, diorite, gabbro, ultramafic rocks, mafic dikes (diabase), gabbro, 

metagabbro, metadiorite, meta-quartz monzonite, metatonalite, and felsic and mafic 

metavolcanics. 

The Wateree Development is located in South Carolina within the Carolina slate belt. 

Rocks in the vicinity are felsic and mafic tuffs, argillite, flood plain deposits, and the Middendorf 

formation of the Coastal Plain Province. 

Details on the geology found within each development are included in the license 

application (Duke Energy, 2007). 

Seismicity 

Historically, earthquakes have occurred within all three physiogeographic provinces. 

Within the Blue Ridge Province, three major earthquakes have occurred: Giles County, 

Virginia; Skyland, North Carolina; and Mitchell County, North Carolina in 1897, 1916, and 

1926, respectively. Microearthquakes related to seismic activity in an epicentral zone related to 

an 1897 Giles County, Virginia, earthquake continue to the present. Most activity is located at 

mid-crust depths of approximately 5 to 9 miles. 

Earthquakes in the Piedmont Province have occurred in central Virginia and South 

Carolina, though South Carolina has been seismically less active than Virginia. The largest 

earthquakes in the Piedmont occurred in 1861 in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, and in Union 

County, South Carolina, in 1913. Seismic activity in the Piedmont occurs at shallow depths in 

the upper crust from near surface to approximately 9 miles, with an average of 5 miles. 

The Coastal Plain Province has experienced one major earthquake: the Charleston, South 

Carolina, earthquake of 1886. Only a few scattered earthquakes have occurred outside of 

Charleston. 

Soils on slopes can be subject to flow or settling (liquefaction) during major earthquakes 

causing structures on the soils to move or fail. Generally, only alluvial soils are susceptible to 

liquefaction associated with earthquakes. The southeastern United States has experienced 

induced seismic activity related to Piedmont reservoirs and liquefaction. Although no reservoirinduced seismicity has occurred at any of the lakes or reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree Project, 

several semi-hydraulic embankment structures at the Bridgewater, Lookout Shoals, Mountain 

Island, and Wateree Developments are partially underlain by alluvial soils. Stability berms have 

been constructed at the Wateree and Bridgewater Developments. Lookout Shoals and Mountain 

Island Developments will be scheduled for future analysis and stability construction projects if 

the embankments at the developments do not meet the Commission’s criteria. The structures of 

remaining developments have no risk due to liquefaction. The current or future seismic stability 

construction for the applicable Catawba-Wateree projects is not a part of the analysis for this 

license application and is not addressed further in this document. 

Soils 

In general, soils within the Catawba-Wateree Project are well-drained, clayey or loamy 

soils and subsoils formed from the weathering of metamorphic or igneous rocks such as granite, 

64 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
gneiss, and schist. Appendix C provides a list of dominant soil types within each development, 

their composition, and their erosion factors. Most soil types are found in uplands with gentle to 

steep sloped topography or ridges. The Middle Catawba River Basin is characterized by flatter 

terrain, highly erodible soils, and moderate river gradients. The Wateree Development and the 

Wateree regulated river reach are within the Carolina slate belt and have clayey soils that are 

primarily derived from slate, or alluvial deposits, or both on the flood plain. These soils and 

soils along streams and drainages are generally poorly drained. 

The Bridgewater, Cowans Ford, and Wylie Developments have recently seen a steady 

increase in the number of non-project-related leases and docks built along the shoreline. 

Analysis of cultural resources has revealed severe erosion along the island shorelines in Lake 

James and Lake Wylie. 

Reservoir Sedimentation 

Historically, the river has carried a heavy sediment load, as evidenced by the numerous 

mid-channel islands found in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain sections of the river. Land use has 

been a major factor in affecting the sediment yield of the river. The undeveloped, forested 

watershed draining to Lake James in the Bridgewater Development has typically exhibited the 

lowest sediment yields. Increased agricultural land use in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain creates 

a greater sediment yield to the Catawba River in those regions. More erodible, alluvial soils of 

the Coastal Plain exacerbate sediment loading in the southern section of the river where the 

Wateree Development, as the lowest reservoir in the system, typically has the highest sediment 

yield. 

Each of the 11 reservoirs along the Catawba-Wateree Project operates as a silt trap, 

disrupting the normal stream sediment continuity. Downstream of each dam, the upper 

tailwaters are typically scoured, with sand and fine sediment carried downstream and deposited 

in the lower riverine stretches of the next downstream impoundment. Lake James is an 

exception due to low seepage flows, frequent beaver dams, and sedimentation occurring 

downstream of the dam. Despite the sediment trapping action of the dams, the Catawba River 

has been stable over the project’s existence, exhibiting only localized aggradation (sediment 

deposition) or degradation (stream bed erosion). The high sediment yield from Piedmont and 

Coastal Plain watersheds prevents excess erosion and lowering of the river profile. Dam 

operations have typically provided adequate flows to maintain stable channel morphology. 

Some dredging operations have occurred around public water intake structures outside of 

the project boundaries. 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects 

Geology 

Because the issuance of a new license would not involve new construction or grounddisturbing activities, we have not identified substantive issues related to geology. Seismic 

stability construction projects have occurred or may occur at developments within the CatawbaWateree Project, and analysis of those activities occurs outside of the relicensing process. 

Shoreline Erosion 

A 4-ft winter draw-down has been proposed for the Bridgewater Development and a 

2.5-ft winter draw-down has been proposed for the Wateree Development as part of the new 

65 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
guide curves for reservoir water level and storage management. Sediments exposed during the 

draw-down are susceptible to erosion when exposed to wind and wave action. 

Our Analysis 

The SMP and North Carolina’s 50-ft buffer rule, which requires maintaining and 

protecting existing 50-ft-wide vegetated riparian (shoreline) areas along the mainstem Catawba 

River below Lake James and around the seven lakes in North Carolina, would minimize nonproject-related erosion of shorelines and resulting sedimentation of the reservoirs. The planned 

winter draw-downs have the potential to expose non-vegetated shorelines in the lake. These 

non-vegetated shorelines are susceptible to erosion, and routine monitoring is recommended. 

Boat traffic and recreational use would be low during the typical winter draw-down period as set 

in the reservoir guides for normal minimum reservoir elevation. Exposed shoreline soil would 

be subject to wind-wave erosion, but has not been identified as a significant problem during the 

long history of project operations. Maintaining discharge rates within the normal operational 

generating range during draw-down should minimize downstream bank erosion, which would 

not be expected to be different than observed during the operating history of the project. 

Avoiding winter draw-downs, while appropriate at some reservoirs, would have a drastic impact 

on hydropower operations and other components of the Revised CRA, in this case. We conclude 

that maintaining draw-down rates within the normal generating range and a shoreline monitoring 

plan would provide adequate protection from shoreline erosion. Where erosion appears, a more 

detailed site-specific investigation should be undertaken, and if necessary, an erosion repair and 

control plan should be developed. 

Sediment Deposition 

Duke Energy’s model of the reservoir system, which we discuss in section 3.3.2.2., Water 

Resources Environmental Effects, shows that the current rate of sedimentation of project 

reservoirs would not adversely affect project operations during the next 50-years. Duke Energy 

has proposed in the Revised CRA, but not as license articles, to provide the following measures 

in order to protect water quality and aquatic resources, but they would also contribute to a 

reduction in reservoir sedimentation. 

• Provide $9.32 million for North Carolina and South Carolina resource agencies to 

purchase land in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for public recreation, gamelands, or 

permanent conservation. 

• Contribute $154,000 annually through the Water Management Group to a water quality 

and quantity improvement fund, which can include sedimentation reduction projects. 

• Protect 34 bank miles of the Johns, Linville and Catawba Rivers by providing 100-ft 

riparian buffers as perpetual conservation easements. 

• Provide $1 million of funding to each state’s HEP that can be used for land conservation. 

Duke Energy has also teamed with the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative to 

reduce sediment loads to Lake Rhodhiss. 

Our Analysis 

The applicant is involved in efforts that could help reduce sediment loads to the 

impoundments. The measures proposed by Duke Energy primarily for water quality and aquatic 

66 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
resources protection would provide minor ancillary benefits for erosion and sediment control. 

Otherwise, there is little that Duke Energy can do independently or directly to reduce 

sedimentation because the sources are largely outside of the project boundary. Duke’s modeling 

indicates that sedimentation rates are not a threat to the uses outlined in the Revised CRA. If 

sedimentation affects safe yield for water suppliers in the future, the Water Management Group 

and CHEOPS model9 provide effective tools for addressing the issue. 

River Bank Erosion 

Bank erosion has been raised as an issue downstream of the Wylie and Wateree 

Developments. Downstream of Lake Wylie, stream banks along tribal lands owned by CIN are 

described by DOI as undercut and destabilized. Duke Energy has proposed continuous minimum 

seasonal flow and pulsing operations at the Wylie dam for recreational flows. Pulsing operations 

have the potential to increase stream bank erosion due to fluctuating river flows, velocities, and 

water level. DOI considers, “continued project operations without concurrent protection of these 

federal lands...a gradual, inevitable taking of Indian Lands.” DOI has requested that Duke 

Energy consult with CIN and BIA to develop a stream bank erosion study and management plan 

within 1 year of license issuance or effective date, whichever is later. DOI recommends that the 

plan require stream bank stabilization and restoration measures by Duke Energy to a degree 

acceptable to CIN and BIA. 

The South Carolina SHPO has reported on active erosion at several historic Native 

American sites. The most important of these is the Mulberry Site, a privately owned historic 

village and complex of mounds listed in the National Register, which is located downstream of 

the Lake Wateree dam. We discuss Duke Energy’s proposed mitigation for the Mulberry Site, in 

section 3.3.7, Cultural Resources. 

Our Analysis 

The existing operations of the Catawba-Wateree Project are not directly or adversely 

altering downstream river morphology. Recreational flows proposed for the Wylie and Wateree 

Developments could adversely affect stream bank erosion at the sites discussed above; however, 

the proposed recreational flows are well within the historic range of operational releases and 

storm flows that will continue to affect a system which has adapted to river level fluctuations 

over the past 70 years. Continuous minimum flows proposed for the new license will serve as a 

buffer, reducing the difference between base flows and routine peak flows for both generation 

and recreation. We conclude that site-specific bank restoration and stabilization would be a 

more effective means to reduce significant erosion compared to the cost and loss of system 

storage capacity associated with ramping procedures that have been proposed. 

3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects 

Sedimentation of reservoirs will continue throughout the period of the new license for the 

Catawba-Wateree Project. Development and urbanization within the Catawba-Wateree 

watershed, particularly along shorelines of reservoirs, rivers, and their tributaries, will continue 

to have the potential to increase sediment yield where erosion of disturbed, unvegetated, erodible 

 9 CHEOPSTM (Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software) is a 

proprietary software program that assesses the effects of simulated hydroelectric project 

operating conditions on flows and reservoir levels.

67 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
soils occurs in association with human activities. The applicant is a participant in several efforts 

(described above) that may result in modest reductions in sediment delivery. 

3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Erosion of shoreline soils resulting from wind-driven waves and high rainfall that will 

occur as isolated meteorological events will continue. Implementation and enforcement of the 

SMP will lessen shoreline erosion through improved shoreline protection by means of vegetated 

buffers and development restrictions. To some degree this process is unavoidable given the 

nature of hydropower operations. Because this process can be ubiquitous, only the significant 

erosion problems identified through monitoring are likely to be addressed. Much of the 

sedimentation affecting the reservoirs will be unavoidable given the complexity and cost of 

addressing the problem and the fact that most of the sediment originates from outside of the 

project boundary. 

3.3.2 Water Resources 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment 

3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity 

The Catawba-Wateree Project uses water from the Catawba River and Wateree River 

Basins to generate electricity (see figures 1 and 2). The Catawba River drains a portion of the 

eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains in western North Carolina and some of the Piedmont 

area of North Carolina and South Carolina, including most of the urban area of Charlotte, North 

Carolina. The Catawba River merges with several creeks south of Great Falls, South Carolina, 

to form the Wateree River, which drains the sand hills and upper Coastal Plain of South 

Carolina. The total project drainage area at the furthest downstream development, Wateree, 

is 4,750 sq mi. Below the Wateree Development, the Wateree River flows for 77 miles to the 

confluence of the Congaree River, which flows into the headwaters of Lake Marion on the 

Cooper River, which flows to the Atlantic Ocean. Flow at each development is highly 

influenced by the flow at the upstream development, as illustrated by the flow duration curves in 

figure 3. 

Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of the 11 project reservoirs considered in this EIS. 

There are no existing license restrictions for water surface elevations in any of the reservoirs. 

Within the limitations of available streamflow, Duke Energy operates the reservoirs in 

accordance with voluntary guide curves, which are constant throughout the year for most 

reservoirs (see table 7) but vary seasonally at Lake James (figure 4), Lake Norman (figure 5), 

and Lake Wateree (figure 6). Minimum flow requirements under the existing license are 

summarized in table 8. 

68 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 2. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) facilities flow diagram.

69 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 2. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) facilities flow diagram (continued). 

70 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 3. Flow duration curves for project developments (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

71 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 6. Reservoir characteristics for the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke Energy, 200

Lake/reservoir 

River 

mile of 

dam1

Drainage 

area 

(sq mi) 

Normal 

maximum 

water 

surface 

elevation 

(ft USGS) 

Normal 

minimum 

water 

surface 

elevation 

(ft USGS) 

Surface 

area2

(acres) 

Average 

and 

maximum 

depths (ft) 

James 279.60 380 1,200.0 1,190.0 6,754 44/141 Rhodhiss 248.00 1,090 994.1 990.1 2,724 21/48 

Hickory 230.00 1,310 934.0 931.5 4,072 31/85 

Lookout Shoals 220.30 1,450 837.1 834.6 1,155 25/79 

Norman 186.90 1,790 760.0 750.0 32,339 33/110 

Mountain Island 171.50 1,860 647.0 643.5 3,117 18/58 

Wylie 143.50 3,020 568.4 564.4 12,177 23/93 

Fishing Creek 104.80 3,810 416.2 412.2 3,431 24/90 

Great Falls 101.50 4,100 355.3 349.8 353 5/75 

Cedar Creek 99.30 4,360 283.9 280.9 748 29/35 

Wateree 76.85 4,750 224.5 218.5 13,025 23/64 

1 Measured from the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree Rivers. 2 At normal maximum water surface elevation. 3 Between normal maximum and normal minimum water surface elevations. 

72 
Table 7. Target reservoir water surface elevations (ft msl) for Catawba-Wateree Project. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir Full pond 

elevation 

Normal 

minimum 

Normal 

target 

Normal 

maximum 

James See figure 4 

Rhodhiss 995.1 990.1 992.1 994.1 

Hickory 935.0 931.5 932.0 934.0 

Lookout Shoals 838.1 834.6 836.1 837.1 

Norman See figure 5 

Mountain Island 647.5 643.5 644.5 647.0 

Lake Wylie 569.4 564.4 566.4 568.4 

Fishing Creek 417.2 412.2 414.2 416.2 

Great Falls 355.8 349.6 353.3 355.3 

Cedar Creek 284.4 280.9 281.9 283.9 

Wateree See figure 6 

73 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 4. Lake James existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Figure 5. Lake Norman existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

74 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 6. Lake Wateree existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

75 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 8. Existing License discharge requirements for Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke 

Development(s) Reach Length (miles) Minimum flow (cfs) Duke Energy’s mechanis

requirement 

Bridgewater Linville/Catawba River 13.8 25 continuous 

66 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Catawba Bypassed 

Reach 

5.6 NA 

Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach 

0.5 NA 

Rhodhiss Tailwater/backwater -- 40 continuous 

225 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Oxford Tailwater 2.8 40 continuous 

261 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Lookout Shoals Tailwater 0.3-1.3 1 60 continuous 

278 daily average 

one small generating unit rone unit run at efficiency l

Cowans Ford Tailwater/backwater -- 80 continuous 

311 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Mountain Island Tailwater/backwater -- 80 continuous 

314 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Bypass 0.6 NA 

Wylie Tailwater/regulated 

reach 

25.6 411 daily average2 one unit run at efficiency l

Lansford Canal 1.4 NA 

Fishing Creek Tailwater/backwater -- 440 daily average one unit run at efficiency l

76 
77 

Development(s) Reach Length (miles) Minimum flow (cfs) Duke Energy’s mechanis

requirement 

Great Falls and Dearborn 

Tailwater/backwater -- 444 daily average one unit run at efficiency l

Great Falls Long 

Bypassed Reach 

2.2 NA 

Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach 

0.8 NA 

Cedar Creek and Rocky Creek 

Tailwater/backwater -- 445 daily average one unit run at efficiency l

Wateree Tailwater/regulated 

reach 

76.8 446 daily average3 one unit run at efficiency l

Spillway channel bypass 

0.4 NA 

1 Depending on Lake Norman draw-down. 2 Duke Energy also voluntarily provides 700 cfs continuous flow for industrial users. 3 Duke Energy also voluntarily provides 200 cfs continuous flow, March 15 – May 31, to support fish spawning. NA = not applicable, i.e., no existing license requirement. 
Lake James, the uppermost reservoir, is one of four storage reservoirs in the project, 

Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree being the other three. Duke Energy operates the 

Bridgewater Development in a store-and-release mode to meet reservoir elevation targets in 

Lake James (see the guide curves in figure 4 and table 8) and to provide flow to meet elevation 

targets in downstream reservoirs, particularly Lakes Rhodhiss, Hickory, and Lookout Shoals. 

Under the Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program, Duke Energy voluntarily attempts to 

maintain water levels in Lake James during the spring spawning period for bass within a range of 

1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of the program. Duke Energy initiates the 

program on Lake James 14 days after the program begins on Lake Wateree and continues the 

program for 3 weeks. Figure 7 shows water level elevations in Lake James for a dry year, 1986, 

normal year, 1993, and wet year, 1983, as selected for hydrologic modeling conducted by Duke 

Energy. Table 9 provides monthly inflow exceedances for the Bridgewater Development; that is, 

the percent of time during a month that flows exceed a given rate (cfs). Water released from the 

Bridgewater powerhouse travels about 0.85 mile down the Linville River before entering the 

Catawba River, which then flows for about 13 miles to Lake Rhodhiss. 

Rhodhiss dam is 32 miles downstream from Linville dam. Sixty-five percent of the 

drainage area to Lake Rhodhiss enters the system below the Bridgewater Development. Flow to 

the Rhodhiss Development is proportionately higher, therefore, than flow to the Bridgewater 

Development (see figure 3). Lake Rhodhiss is a long, narrow reservoir with limited storage 

capacity; figure 8 displays water elevations in representative years. Water released from the 

Rhodhiss Development flows directly into Lake Hickory and provides about 87 percent of the 

lake’s inflow. Lake Hickory is also a long, narrow reservoir with limited storage capacity; 

typical operating elevations are displayed in figure 9. Water released from the Oxford 

Development flows for 2 miles in the Catawba River before entering the headwaters of Lookout 

Shoals Lake. Inflow to Lookout Shoals Lake consists primarily of the outflow of the Oxford 

Development, which controls 90 percent of the Lookout Shoals drainage area. Discharge from 

Lookout Shoals flow 0.3 -1.3 miles to the head of Lake Norman depending on the water surface 

elevation in Lake Norman. 

Lake Norman is the largest project reservoir, with a usable storage capacity that exceeds 

the combined capacities of all the other reservoirs. Releases from Cowans Ford Development, 

therefore, are used to augment generation flows for downstream project developments. About 

85 percent of the inflow to Lake Norman comes from the Lookout Shoals discharge. Under the 

existing guide curves for Lake Norman, the normal operating target elevation is highest during 

the summer, after which it drops gradually throughout the fall to the beginning of the winter 

draw-down on December 1 (figure 5). The target elevation then drops by 4 ft throughout the 

winter to March 1, providing storage for spring runoff. Under the voluntary Spring Lake Level 

Stabilization Program, Duke Energy maintains water levels in Lake Norman during the spring 

spawning period for bass within a range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of 

the program. Duke Energy initiates the program on Lake Norman 8 days after the program 

begins on Lake Wateree and continues it for 3 weeks. Figure 10 shows water surface elevations 

on Lake Norman in representative years. Water released from the Cowans Ford dam or 

powerhouse flows directly into the tailrace of Mountain Island Lake. 

78 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 7. Lake James water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal (1993), 

and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Table 9. Rates of inflow (cfs) to Lake James that are equaled or exceeded given 

percentages of time.1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Month 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 

January 1,314 878 626 452 344 

February 1,430 973 687 513 382 

March 1,571 1,046 749 562 429 

April 1,481 999 720 540 419 

May 1,088 795 586 449 339 

June 946 670 498 363 266 

July 764 565 415 307 224 

August 793 533 391 288 201 

September 767 486 354 254 181 

October 989 562 366 249 168 

November 983 637 429 309 225 

December 1,048 734 530 375 273 

1

 For 1930 through 2000. 

79 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 8. Lake Rhodhiss water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Figure 9. Lake Hickory water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

80 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 10. Lake Norman water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

81 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Inflow to Mountain Island Lake is highly regulated by the Cowans Ford Development, 

which controls 96 percent of its drainage area. Water is released from the Mountain Island 

powerhouse into the tailrace channel constructed in a secondary channel of the Catawba River. 

The Mountain Island Development controls about 62 percent of the drainage area of the Wylie 

Development, with Dutchman’s Creek, South Fork Catawba, Crowders Creek, and Allison Creek 

and other minor tributaries draining the incremental area. Table 10 provides monthly inflow 

exceedance statistics, and figure 11 shows water surface elevations on Lake Wylie in 

representative years. Duke Energy maintains water levels in Lake Wylie during the spring 

spawning period for bass within a range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of 

the voluntary Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program. Duke Energy initiates the program on 

Lake Wylie 2 days after the program begins on Lake Wateree and continues it for 3 weeks. 

Water is released from Lake Wylie to the Catawba River about 25 miles above the headwaters of 

the Fishing Creek Development. 

Table 10. Rates of inflow (cfs) to Lake Wylie that are equaled or exceeded given 

percentages of time .1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Month 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 

January 9,469 6,901 4,797 2,559 1,218 

February 9,846 7,614 5,140 2,718 1,324 

March 10,107 7,488 5,132 2,837 1,177 

April 10,006 7,358 4,487 2,196 994 

May 7,696 5,459 3,579 1,691 840 

June 6,720 4,774 3,162 1,392 835 

July 5,951 4,071 2,420 1,124 756 

August 6,050 4,149 2,468 1,173 800 

September 5,783 3,911 2,053 1,073 556 

October 6,796 4,357 2,221 1,132 597 

November 6,686 4,712 2,598 1,223 756 

December 7,458 5,437 3,212 1,688 922 

1

 For 1930 through 2000. 

82 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 11. Lake Wylie water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal (1993), 

and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Sugar Creek, Twelve Mile Creek, Waxhaw Creek, Cane Creek, and other minor 

tributaries drain the 21 percent of Fishing Creek Development drainage area that is not controlled 

by Lake Wylie. Duke Energy operates the generating units at Fishing Creek Development 

primarily to refill the two downstream reservoirs for the Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, 

and Cedar Creek Developments, before their generating runs begin, but the units in the Fishing 

Creek powerhouse also must be balanced to avoid overfilling and spilling from the 

Developments. After meeting these operational constraints, Duke Energy operates the Fishing 

Creek units for peaking supply. Water is released from the Fishing Creek powerhouse directly 

into Great Falls reservoir, which is the smallest project reservoir. Releases from the Dearborn 

and Great Falls powerhouses enter directly into the Cedar Creek reservoir. The diversion dam at 

the upstream end of Great Falls reservoir creates the Great Falls long bypass east of Mountain 

Island. The headworks structure, located in the middle of the reservoir, creates the Great Falls 

short bypass reach west of the island. The existing license has no requirement for releases to 

these two bypassed reaches. 

Lake Wateree is the second largest project reservoir and is the last (most downstream) of 

the 11 reservoirs that compose the Catawba-Wateree River system. Normal operation is 

characterized by a high reservoir level from late winter to mid fall and a modest winter drawdown (figure 6). Under the Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program, Duke Energy voluntarily 

attempts to maintain water levels in Lake Wateree during the spring spawning period for bass 

within a range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of the program. Duke Energy 

initiates the program on the fourth consecutive day of a noontime forebay temperature of at least 

83 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
65°F and continues the program for 3 weeks. Figure 12 shows water surface elevations in 

representative dry, normal, and wet years. Table 11 lists monthly inflow exceedances. 

High intensity rainfall events have been shown to cause Lake Wateree to rise above the 

normal full reservoir elevation (225.5 ft). Water can be discharged from Lake Wateree through 

the five turbine-generators, which have a total maximum hydraulic capacity of 15,880 cfs, and 

the uncontrolled overflow spillway. Discharge through the overflow spillway occurs when the 

water surface elevation reaches full pond at 225.5 ft and increases as lake level rises above that 

elevation. Operations Study 02—Reservoir Level Study (Duke Energy, 2005a) assembled and 

evaluated historic lake levels. These data show that Lake Wateree exceeds full pond 

infrequently and that the frequency of higher water surface levels has decreased over time. The 

historic peak lake level at Wateree was approximately 9 ft above full pond in 1929. The recent 

peak reservoir elevation was 8 ft above full pond, which occurred in 1989 during Hurricane 

Hugo. Lake levels have never exceeded Duke Energy’s flood easement of 235.5 ft (10.0 ft 

above full pond). 

The potential for such occurrences is exacerbated if the rainfall events occur within the 

portion of the Catawba watershed downstream of Lake Wylie because the five developments 

between Wylie and Wateree have limited storage capacity and very short residence times. Lake 

Norman and Lake James are the only reservoirs with significant storage capacity in the upper 

Catawba-Wateree River Basin upstream of Lake Norman. The increased system storage 

capacity created by construction of the Cowans Ford Development impounding of Lake Norman 

in 1963 resulted in partial mitigation of high water events at Lake Wateree. Lake Norman more 

than doubled the usable storage capacity in project reservoirs upstream of Lake Wateree. The 

influence of storage at Lake Norman on high water events is demonstrated by comparing the 

percentage of time that lake levels exceeded full pond in the data record for 1929-1963 to the 

data representing 1963-2003. Since 1963, levels at Lake Wateree have exceeded full pond 

approximately 3 percent of the time, whereas prior to 1963, this level was exceeded 

approximately 10 percent of the time. 

Historically, development has occurred within the lower portion of the flood easement 

that was established by Duke Energy on Lake Wateree. Much of this shore zone, particularly in 

the lower portion of Lake Wateree, has minimal topographic relief and, therefore, is prone to 

flooding during periodic major storm events. 

The analysis of the effects of proposed operating scenarios on flows and flow balance 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project is based on historic data for water withdrawals and 

discharges within the basin and the effects of projected regional population growth on water 

withdrawals. The Attorney General and Counsel for the State of South Carolina commented that 

the new license could not limit anyone’s rights to seek an equitable apportionment of the river 

and that a suit (South Carolina v. North Carolina, No. 138, originally filed June 7, 2007) is 

pending before the Supreme Court related to apportionment of withdrawals from the Catawba 

River Basin between the two states. Water use rights are not within the purview of this 

relicensing procedure; however, FERC does recognize the right of the states, other entities, or 

individuals to challenge water rights through appropriate venues. 

84 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 12. Lake Wateree water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

(1993), and wet (1983) years (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Table 11. Rates of inflow (cfs) to Lake Wateree that are equaled or exceeded given 

percentages of time.1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Month 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 

January 15,064 10,867 7,054 4,272 2,012 

February 14,872 11,738 7,685 4,878 2,651 

March 15,586 12,222 7,974 4,694 2,543 

April 14,897 10,771 6,537 3,514 1,622 

May 9,449 6,591 4,281 2,204 944 

June 8,817 5,990 4,032 1,955 995 

July 7,752 5,313 3,282 1,568 841 

August 8,088 5,595 3,500 1,702 883 

September 7,574 5,263 2,874 1,450 661 

October 9,587 5,603 3,082 1,519 723 

November 9,464 6,241 3,727 1,836 863 

December 10,871 7,417 4,696 2,550 1,216 

1

 For 1930 through 2000. 

85 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 13. Number of days that the water surface elevation in Lake Wateree was above 

228.5 ft (3 ft above full pond) (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

CHEOPS Operations Model 

CHEOPSTM (Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software) is a software 

tool for evaluating a wide range of physical changes and operational constraints associated with 

relicensing or upgrading single and multiple-development hydroelectric projects. CHEOPS has 

been applied to accurately evaluate physical and operational changes considered during the 

relicensing of more than 25 hydroelectric projects. The model was developed for use as a 

decision support tool; that is, it is most applicable for comparison of alternative operating 

scenarios under a defined set of conditions. One of the strengths of CHEOPS is that the model is 

tailored to meet the unique characteristics and demands of the particular system being evaluated. 

Because each project is unique, the ability of the model to accurately simulate proposed physical 

and operational modifications needs to be verified by comparison of simulated operation to 

historic project data. The Operations 01—CHEOPS Model report describes the analyses that 

were conducted to test the model’s ability to simulate operation of the 11 reservoirs and 

13 powerhouses that make up the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

The Catawba-Wateree Model was custom configured for the project based on specific 

project constraints, such as environmental and recreational releases, target reservoir elevations, 

municipal and industrial water withdrawals, and powerhouse equipment hydraulic capacity. The 

model was designed to be capable of simulating the complex interaction between the hydrology, 

hydraulics, reservoir elevation operating limits, minimum flows, variable turbine unit 

efficiencies, and the cumulative effects of project operations on the natural flow regimen and 

86 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
proposed operational alternatives associated with the requirements of 18 C.F.R §4.51, Exhibit E. 

Prior to use in the stakeholder and negotiation process leading to the Revised CRA, the model 

was verified to demonstrate that it is capable of providing realistic results associated with the 

cumulative effects of project operations on the natural flow regimen. The Water Resources 

Workgroup including agency representatives, stakeholders, and Duke Energy worked together to 

monitor the setup and testing of the model and selection of historic input data for the CatawbaWateree Project. The consultation worksheet documents this group’s review, input during 

development of the model, and preparation and acceptance of the final Operations 01—CHEOPS 

Model report. 

The objective of calibration and verification of the model is to reasonably characterize 

current operations, not perfectly match or mimic historical operations. Comparison of model 

results with historical data provides a basis for evaluation of the model’s ability to react in a 

manner consistent with “real” operations. The caveat to all these comparisons is that it is 

impossible to account for the multitude of outside influences and conditions that combined to 

determine the historic operational decisions or the degree of error and uncertainty in the input or 

historical data. The goal of verification of the Catawba-Wateree model was to demonstrate the 

ability of the model to produce results that were within approximately 5 percent of historic 

generation data on an annual basis. The qualitative component of the verification process is to 

compare the hydrographs of modeled results to historic data to verify whether the model 

provides a reasonable representation of project operations at each development and throughout 

the year (e.g., the timing, magnitude and duration of operations). 

The validation was conducted by comparing the model simulation of power generation 

for three specific historic years and the average of 1974 to 2003 historic data with the individual 

plant and total Catawba-Wateree Project historic generation data. Calendar year 1993 was 

selected as a representative normal year, 1983 as a wet year, and 1986 as a dry year based on a 

hydrologic ranking of the 1929 to 2003 CHEOPS inflow data set. For the 1983, 1986, and 1993 

scenarios, the simulated differences in system-wide annual generation were 5.54, 5.48, and 

3.26 percent, respectively. Thus, the fits to the historic data for the normal and dry year were 

only approximately 0.5 percent above the 5 percent goal for validation and the wet year was well 

within the validation goal. The Water Resources Workgroup found this validation to adequately 

demonstrate the applicability of the model for analysis and simulation of the effects of alternative 

operating scenarios on Catawba-Wateree Project water storage and balance. After review of the 

record and calibration/validation process, staff concurs with this finding. 

The Operations 01—CHEOPS Model report concluded that model verification results 

indicate the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Model provides a good overall comparison to historic 

data, verifies that it reasonably characterizes project operations, and is adequate for use in 

evaluating the impacts of operating scenarios considered in the relicensing proceedings. 

After verification, the CHEOPS model was used in Operations 04—Water Supply Study

(HDR, 2006) to estimate the safe yield of each of the project reservoirs given the operational 

constraints and flow requirements detailed in the Revised CRA. The model used regional 

growth projections and estimates of increased water use to assess the capacity of the system to 

support expanding water use in conjunction with other downstream release requirements. Safe 

yield is used to describe the amount of water theoretically available at a given location in a 

watershed and is a commonly used measure of the dependability of a water supply source. The 

safe yield of a water supply source depends on many factors, including the availability of water; 

87 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
storage, diversion, and the water supply infrastructure system; operation of the infrastructure 

system; and level of certainty of the system demand. 

CHEOPS used the operating depth of the shallowest water supply intake in each reservoir 

as the critical reservoir level elevation (table 12); that is, the lowest elevation to which the 

reservoir can be drawn down without adversely affecting the capacity of any major water intake. 

To estimate safe yield, a water budget was calculated that allocated and accounted for all 

significant sources and uses of water, given the constraints imposed by the system infrastructure 

and operations. Safe yield analyses were completed for several operating scenarios including the 

following. 

• Baseline Safe Yield—This analysis calculated safe yields for the project’s reservoirs 

using current operating conditions in Duke Energy’s existing FERC license, other 

agreements honored by Duke Energy, and other relevant operating practices. 

• Mutual Gains Safe Yield—This analysis calculated safe yields for the project’s 

reservoirs using the mutual gains operating conditions (dated November 28, 2006) 

negotiated during the relicensing stakeholder consultation process and outlined in the 

Revised CRA. The mutual gains operating conditions are the basis of the operating 

parameters and constraints proposed in the license application, including, but not limited 

to: 

- downstream flow requirements from each reservoir for protection and enhancement 

of aquatic resources and recreation, 

- proposed normal minimum and target reservoir elevations, 

- and implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol. 

88 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 12. Critical intake elevation and water user type for each project reservoir. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir 

Critical reservoir elevation 

(ft) and feet below full pool First controlling type 

James 1,161 (39 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Rhodhiss 984.5 (10.6 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Hickory 929 (6 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Lookout Shoals Lake 813 (25.1 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Norman 750 (10 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Mountain Island 641.8 (5.7 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Wylie 562 (7.4 ft below full pond) Industrial Intake 

Fishing Creek 412.2 (5 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Great Falls 343 (12.8 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Cedar Creek 264.7 (19.7 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Wateree 218 (7.5 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

The reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree Project are generally operated as an integrated 

system. In simple terms, increased demand on a downstream reservoir results in water being 

released from a number of upstream reservoirs to keep system water levels in a reasonably 

balanced state. The model also serves as a tool to assess the ability of the system to balance 

power, industrial, agricultural, and public water system demands while supporting stream flows 

for recreation and aquatic resources included in the proposed license articles over the duration of 

the license. To assess the ability to maintain this balance under conditions that would require 

implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol, historic low flow conditions for these model runs 

were extracted from the hydrologic period of record; selected periods were 1998-2003 and 1949-

1959. The period of record included verified flow data from USGS gage stations in the basin 

available at the time these analyses were performed. Preliminary data not verified by USGS 

were not appropriate for use; the subsequent drought of record in 2007-2008 did not become part 

of the verified record until the operational analyses, the Agreement in Principle, and the Revised 

CRA were competed. Although the historic flow record used for calibration and validation of 

the model does not include a drought of the duration of the 2007-2008 drought, this does not 

impair the usefulness of the model for comparative analysis of project operations. 

The CHEOPS model produced project simulations in 10-year time steps from 2008 to 

2078; at each time step a determination was made as to whether any critical constraint was 

violated for each reservoir. The safe yield for a given reservoir is estimated at the time-step prior 

to that at which a critical constraint is reached and cannot be balanced out using upstream water 

surplus. Through this incremental process the model simulates the future time increment at 

which water demand associated with regional growth projections surpasses the storage capacity 

for each reservoir given other specified system constraints. 

89 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Baseline Safe Yield 

The lower end of the safe yield value range was determined as the withdrawal flows that 

were modeled in the 10-year time-step just prior to the simulated draw-down that caused a 

violation of the critical reservoir level. The upper end of the safe yield value range was the 

withdrawal flow that was modeled in the 10-year time-step when a reservoir violation was 

projected. For example, Mountain Island Lake had a no critical intake constraint violation in 

2038, while the 2048 simulation predicted violations of critical intake constraints. The 2038 

time-step and associated reservoir water demand (192 mgd) was determined as the safe yield for 

this reservoir under baseline conditions. The safe yield values obtained from two low inflow 

period simulations under the critical intake constraint scenario are presented in tables 13 and 14. 

Table 13. Baseline safe yield value range obtained from critical intake constraints lowinflow period 1998-2003 simulations based on existing license conditions. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year 

(mgd)1 (cfs)1

James 2058-20682 36-40 56-62 

Rhodhiss 2058-20682 44-47 68-73 

Hickory 2058-20682 44-49 68-76 

Lookout Shoals 2058-20682 12-13 19-21 

Norman 2038-2048 133-169 206-261 

Mountain Island 2038-2048 192-207 297-320 

Wylie > 2078 > 189 > 292 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 225 > 348 

Great Falls > 2078 > 3 > 5 

Cedar Creek > 2078 > 1 > 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

1

 Withdrawal flows associated with years given may not match exactly with flows outlined in 

section 3 and appendix C of the license application. Baseline safe yield analysis was 

completed in January 2005, prior to minor updates of the withdrawal/return projections. 

2

 Pending failure to support downstream reservoirs. 

90 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 14. Safe yield value range obtained from critical intake level constraints low-inflow 

period 1949-1959 simulations based on existing license conditions. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year 

(mgd)1 (cfs)1

James 2048-2058 32-34 50-53 

Rhodhiss 2048-2058 40-44 62-68 

Hickory 2048-2058 37-44 57-68 

Lookout Shoals 2048-2058 12 19 

Norman > 2078 > 223 > 346 

Mountain Island 2048-2058 207-224 320-347 

Wylie 2068-2078 171-189 265-292 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 225 > 348 

Great Falls 2058-2068 2-3 3-5 

Cedar Creek 2058-2068 1 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

1

 Withdrawal flows associated with years given may not match exactly with flows outlined in 

section 3 and appendix C of the license application. Baseline safe yield analysis was 

completed in January 2005, prior to minor updates of the withdrawal/return projections. 

The Water Supply Study baseline safe yield analysis presented the following conclusions. 

• Low inflow periods 1949-1959 and 1998-2003 are the key droughts in the hydrologic 

period of record for determination of safe yield. 

• Upstream reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree Project are integrally linked to supplying 

downstream reservoirs during periods of drought, given the relative size of the reservoirs 

and their location relative to water withdrawals and net outflows. 

• Using the water demand based on regional growth projections, the safe yield ranges are 

most limiting for Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman; yields are approximately 

133-169 mgd and 192-207 mgd, respectively. These values equate to water use projected 

to occur between years 2038 and 2048, and represent the earliest time at which one of the 

project reservoirs can no longer meet increasing net outflows. 

• Other reservoirs have safe yield values that would support projected net outflows beyond 

the year 2038. 

• Fishing Creek reservoir, Great Falls reservoir, Cedar Creek reservoir, and Lake Wateree 

did not exceed safe yield estimates within the simulation period. 

91 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Mutual Gains Safe Yield Analysis 

The baseline safe yield analysis was performed, in part, to establish a benchmark for 

comparison to alternative project operations and to the final proposed license conditions (mutual 

gains safe yield values). The mutual gains safe yield analysis focused on determining safe yields 

for each of the project’s reservoirs under the proposed license conditions; that is, a simulation of 

how Duke Energy would operate the system under its new FERC license, assuming acceptance 

by the Commission of the operating conditions proposed in the license application. 

This simulation was used to assess the project’s capacity to support regional water supply 

during extended drought periods over the next 50 years, the duration of the license requested by 

Duke Energy. Under the proposed operating conditions, Duke Energy would manage the system 

to maintain a new set of target, normal minimum, and normal maximum water surface elevation 

for each reservoir. During periods of low inflow, Duke Energy would work to maintain storage 

in the system, and, as reservoir levels drop, water from upstream reservoirs would be transferred 

downstream to maintain minimum reservoir elevations for as long as possible similar to existing 

operating protocols. Unlike the existing license, the proposed Low Inflow Protocol allows for 

minimum reservoir elevations to be adjusted for more effective management of water storage 

inventory throughout the project as low inflow or drought conditions continue to worsen. 

Two safe yield reservoir constraints were modeled. 

• Critical Intake Elevation—The first constraint was similar to the baseline scenario 

establishing the location of the shallowest water intake in each of the project’s reservoirs 

as the critical reservoir elevation. The available water storage inventory can be utilized 

until that level is reached, thereby defining the safe yield value for that reservoir. 

• Critical Boat Access—The second scenario used access to public boat ramps in each of 

the reservoirs for recreational use as the critical constraint. This scenario is very 

conservative given the relatively shallow location of most boat ramps compared to water 

supply intakes. The critical boat access levels were defined as the level that maintains 

two Duke Energy-owned access areas open on larger lakes, and one open on smaller 

lakes. 

Table 15 summarizes the critical constraints based on intake location and boat access and 

indicates the percentage of total storage available based on the critical intake constraint 

elevations. 

92 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 15. Critical constraint elevation summaries. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir 

Critical intake 

constraint elevation 

(feet relative to 

local datum)1

Estimated 

percentage of total 

available storage 

provided based on 

critical intake 

constraint2

Critical boat access 

constraint elevation 

(feet relative to 

local datum) 

James 61.0 25% 92.0 

Rhodhiss 89.4 2% 91.0 

Hickory 94.0 3% 91.0 

Lookout Shoals 74.9 2% 92.0 

Norman 90.0 40% 91.0 

Mountain Island 94.3 2% 91.0 

Wylie 92.6 10% 95.5 

Fishing Creek 95.0 2% 95.0 

Great Falls 87.2 1% 87.23

Cedar Creek 80.3 2% 96.0 

Wateree 92.5 11% 93.0 

Total 100% 

1

 All elevations listed are measured in feet relative to the full pond contour with 100.00 ft 

corresponding to full pond. 

2

 Total available storage estimated at 707,000 acre-feet. 

3

 Hydro operations limitation. 

The same low inflow periods used for the baseline analysis were used to determine the 

critical reservoir level exceedances and safe yield results for the mutual gains analysis. Table 16 

outlines the safe yield values for critical intake levels that were derived from this analysis and the 

corresponding period in the future when projected demand would exceed safe yield. This 

simulation predicts that the safe yield for reservoirs from Lake James downstream to Lake Wylie 

would be exceeded between 2058 and 2068. 

93 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 16. Safe yield value range obtained from critical intake level constraint low-inflow 

periods 1998-2003 and 1949-1959 simulations based on proposed license 

conditions (mutual gains). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year (mgd) (cfs) 

James 2048 – 2058 32 – 34 50 – 53 

Rhodhiss 2048 – 2058 40 – 44 62 – 68 

Hickory 2048 – 2058 37 – 44 57 – 68 

Lookout Shoals 2048 – 2058 12 19 

Norman 2048 – 2058 169 – 179 261 – 277 

Mountain Island 2048 – 2058 207 – 224 320 – 347 

Wylie 2068 – 2078 141 – 155 218 – 240 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 238 > 368 

Great Falls > 2078 > 3 > 4 

Cedar Creek > 2078 > 1 > 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

The two low inflow periods were also used to simulate safe yield results under the mutual 

gains operating conditions using very conservative critical boat access constraints. This 

simulation indicated early and frequent violation of the boat access constraint at many of the 

reservoirs. Using projected 2008 net outflows in the model, the following five reservoirs 

immediately violated the boat access constraint level for both simulated low inflow periods: 

• Lake James, 

• Lake Hickory, 

• Mountain Island Lake, 

• Lake Wylie, and 

• Cedar Creek reservoir. 

These widespread reservoir violations are a function of the elevation of the boat access 

constraint levels relative to the proposed normal minimum lake levels. Table 15 summarizes the 

critical boat access constraint elevation for each reservoir; several of the reservoirs have 

relatively high boat access constraint elevations. In particular, Lake Wylie’s critical boat access 

constraint elevation is 95.5 ft (relative to local datum), which is above the normal minimum 

elevation for this reservoir. In this simulation, the relatively large requirement for downstream 

flow releases from Lake Wylie and a relatively high boat access constraint stresses the storage 

capacity for most of the upper basin reservoir system. Other reservoirs in the system also 

approach critical levels attempting to meet downstream water demands or maintaining relatively 

94 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
high critical boat access constraint elevations. Based on this analysis, table 17 presents the safe 

yield values associated with the boat access constraint levels. It can be assumed that under 

drought conditions, access for recreational boating in selected reservoirs might provide an early 

trigger for water management decisions; however, boat access at these developments would be a 

minor secondary concern relative to critical intake constraints during a drought. 

Table 17. Safe yield value range obtained from critical boat access constraints, low-inflow 

periods 1998-2003 and 1949-1959 simulations based on proposed license 

conditions (mutual gains). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year 

(mgd) (cfs) 

James < 2008 < 12 < 19 

Rhodhiss > 2078 > 52 > 80 

Hickory < 2008 < 17 < 26 

Lookout Shoals > 2078 > 15 > 23 

Norman 2068-2078 202-223 312-346 

Mountain Island < 2008 < 131 < 203 

Wylie < 2008 < 95 < 147 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 238 > 368 

Great Falls > 20781 > 3 > 5 

Cedar Creek < 2008 < 1 < 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

1

 No critical boat access constraint elevation. 

3.3.2.1.2 Water Use 

While water in the project reservoirs is used primarily for hydropower production, the 

reservoirs also are used to provide water withdrawals for municipal and industrial purposes. 

In 2006, Duke Energy reported that 1.3 million people rely on the system for their 

domestic water, and in 2009 the Centralina Council of Governments estimated that the figure had 

increased to 1.68 million. Table 18 summarizes the major water withdrawals from the CatawbaWateree Project reservoirs. Other users withdraw water for agriculture and recreational uses. 

Some of the water withdrawn for municipal or industrial water supply is returned to the project 

reservoirs as discharges from wastewater treatment plants, and the water withdrawn for power 

plant cooling is returned to the reservoirs minus losses from evaporative cooling. Net water 

withdrawal (the difference between water withdrawals and return flows) from project reservoirs 

is projected to increase by 178 percent by 2058 (table 19). Each reservoir has municipal, 

industrial, or power plant intakes as well as the project hydroelectric intakes. Table 20 lists the 

95 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
critical water surface elevations for the shallowest intake in each reservoir. When lake levels fall 

below these critical elevations, one of the major uses would be restricted or shut down. 

Table 18. Summary of major water withdrawals 1 from the Catawba-Wateree Project 

(P-2232). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Water User Type Source of 

withdrawal 

Maximum 

instantaneous 

withdrawal 

capacity 

(million 

gallons per day 

[mgd]) 

Town of Granite Falls, North 

Carolina Municipal Lake Rhodhiss 2.5 

City of Lenoir, North Carolina Municipal Lake Rhodhiss 12 

Town of Valdese, North Carolina Municipal Lake Rhodhiss 12 

City of Hickory, North Carolina Municipal Lake Hickory 32 

Town of Longview, North 

Carolina Municipal Lake Hickory 2 

City of Statesville, North Carolina Municipal Lookout Shoals Lake 15 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina 

(North Mecklenburg Water 

Treatment Plant) 

Municipal Lake Norman 1082

Duke Energy’s Marshall Steam 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Norman 1,463 

Duke Energy’s McGuire Nuclear 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Norman 2,908 

The Pointe Golf Club Landscape 

Irrigation Lake Norman 1 

The Peninsula (Homeowner’s 

Association – golf course) 

Landscape 

Irrigation Lake Norman 13

Cowans Ford Country Club Landscape 

Irrigation Lake Norman 13

Lincoln County, North Carolina Municipal Lake Norman 12 

Town of Mooresville, North 

Carolina Municipal Lake Norman 124 

96 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Water User Type Source of 

withdrawal 

Maximum 

instantaneous 

withdrawal 

capacity 

(million 

gallons per day 

[mgd]) 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina 

(Franklin and Vest Water 

Treatment Plant) 

Municipal Mountain Island Lake 3305

City of Gastonia, North Carolina Municipal Mountain Island Lake 75 

City of Mount Holly, North 

Carolina Municipal Mountain Island Lake 13.5 

Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Mountain Island Lake 622.1 

American & Efird, Inc. Industrial Lake Wylie 3.45 

Clariant Corporation Industrial Lake Wylie 4.75 

City of Belmont, North Carolina Municipal Lake Wylie 10 

City of Rock Hill, South Carolina Municipal Lake Wylie 30 

Duke Energy’s Allen Steam 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Wylie 784 

Duke Energy’s Catawba Nuclear 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Wylie 231 

Siemens Westinghouse Industrial Lake Wylie 21.6 

Springs Industries’ Grace 

Complex Industrial Fishing Creek 18 

Chester Metropolitan District Municipal Fishing Creek 15 

City of Camden, South Carolina Municipal Lake Wateree 12 

Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority Municipal Lake Wateree 10 

1 Withdrawals of 1 mgd or greater.

2

 When withdrawals reach an average of 36 mgd, a plan to evaluate the effects of lower lake 

levels caused by the water withdrawals approved in this order is required to be filed with the 

Commission. 

3 Assigned value of 1 mgd by Duke Energy. 

4

 The Town of Mooresville recently entered into an agreement with Duke Energy to resolve 

litigation. While the agreement does not establish a limitation or cap on Mooresville’s 

withdrawals, the agreement automatically terminates if the gross annual average daily rate 

exceeds 18 mgd. 

5 Restricted to 165 mgd during drought conditions. 

97 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 19. Current and projected net water withdrawals from project reservoirs. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir Current (mgd) Projected for 

2058 (mgd) 

Percent 

Increase (%) 

James 2.0 19.4 870 

Rhodhiss 11.7 20.0 71 

Hickory 12.1 28.0 131 

Lookout Shoals 0.4 10.8 2,600 

Norman 57.9 175.0 202 

Mountain Island 95.1 205.3 116 

Wylie 47.8 66.4 39 

Fishing Creek -61.9 -96.0 -55 

Great Falls 0.4 -6.8 -1,800 

Cedar Creek -0.3 -2.5 -733 

Wateree 5.7 55.8 879 

Total 170.9 475.4 178 

Note: Negative net withdrawal indicates return flow exceeds withdrawal and reservoir is a net 

receiver of flow. 

98 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 20. Critical lake level elevations.1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Depth Below Full Pond (ft) 

Reservoir Full Pond 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Municipal 

Intake2

Industrial 

Intake2

Power 

Production3

Critical Lake 

Elevation (ft) 4

James 1,200.0 --- --- 39.0 1,161.0 

Rhodhiss 995.1 10.6 --- 20.9 984.5 

Hickory 935.0 6.0 --- 27.0 929.0 

Lookout Shoals 838.1 25.1 --- 27.1 813.0 

Norman 760.0 15.0 25.0 10.0 750.0 

Mountain Island 647.5 12.0 --- 5.7 641.8 

Wylie 569.4 8.0 7.4 10.0 562.0 

Fishing Creek 417.2 5.0 9.2 22.1 412.2 

Great Falls 355.8 --- --- 12.8 343.0 

Cedar Creek 284.4 --- --- 19.7 264.7 

Wateree 225.5 11.5 --- 26.0 214.0 

1 As of November 2004. 

2

 Draw-down depth below which at least one intake of the particular type on the lake begins to 

have its operations restricted. 

3

 Draw-down depth below which power production facilities (either hydroelectric stations, 

fossil-fueled stations, or nuclear-fueled stations) cannot operate. 

4

 Water surface elevation at which one of the uses would be shut down or restricted. 

3.3.2.1.3 Water Quality 

Water Quality Standards 

The North Carolina DWQ regulates water quality under the North Carolina 

Administrative Code (N.A.C.) subchapter 2B (15A N.A.C. 02B.0100, .0200, and .0300), and 

South Carolina regulates water quality under South Carolina Regulation 61-68. All surface 

waters are assigned classifications, which determine the water quality standards that apply to 

support designated best uses. 

There are four primary classes of water within the North Carolina portion of the project 

area, C, B, WS-IV, and WS-V, and one supplemental class, Tr. Class C waters are designated as 

the best uses of aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including 

fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture, and any other usage except for 

primary recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing 

purposes. Class B waters have the designated beneficial uses of primary recreation, which 

includes swimming on a frequent or organized basis, and the best usages specified for Class C 

99 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
waters. The study area includes two classes for water supply (WS-IV and WS-V). The best uses 

for WS-IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food-processing 

purposes. WS-V waters are protected as water supplies that are generally upstream and draining 

to Class WS-IV waters, or waters previously used for drinking water supply purposes, or waters 

used by industry to supply their employees, but not municipalities or counties, with a raw 

drinking water supply source. Class Tr waters are freshwaters protected for natural trout 

propagation and survival of stocked trout. Classifications for surface waters in the project area 

within North Carolina include: 

• C – Catawba River from the dam at Old Fort Finishing Plant water supply intake to North 

Fork Catawba River; 

• B – Catawba River from North Fork Catawba River to Bridgewater dam; Catawba River 

from Johns River to Oxford dam; Catawba River from Elk Shoal Creek to Lookout 

Shoals dam; Catawba River from Lyle Creek to Cowans Ford dam; Catawba River from 

the water intake at the River Bend Steam Station to Mountain Island dam; Catawba River 

from the Interstate 85 bridge to the North Carolina/South Carolina state line; 

• Tr – Catawba River from 0.6 mile upstream of Muddy Creek to 0.7 mile upstream of 

Canoe Creek10; and 

• WS-IV or WS-V – Catawba River from North Fork Catawba River to the North 

Carolina/South Carolina state line. 

North Carolina recently applied revised water quality standards to certain segments of the 

Linville and Catawba Rivers downstream of the Catawba River dam and Bridgewater 

powerhouse to reflect the designated use as trout waters (Tr). Subsequent to completion of the 

draft EIS for the Catawba-Wateree Project, EPA issued a partial approval (March 18, 2009) of 

the proposed classification; EPA approved the Tr use designation for these reaches, but 

disapproved a seasonal exemption for dissolved oxygen (DO). EPA’s partial approval 

recognized that the new powerhouse proposed at the Linville dam and the aerating valve 

proposed for the Catawba River dam have been proposed to provide a mechanism to ensure 

compliance with the DO standard for the Tr designation in the Linville and Catawba Rivers year 

round without an exemption. As a result, portions of the Catawba and Linville Rivers now are 

subject to higher DO standards of 6.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l). However, these new and 

higher standards do not apply until approximately 1 mile downstream of the Bridgewater 

powerhouse. North Carolina DWQ has indicated that the applicable standards for the Linville 

River at the point that the water is released from the Bridgewater powerhouse are 4.0 mg/l 

minimum instantaneous and 5.0 mg/l minimum daily average. 

In addition to these classes, the water quality regulations designate a critical area (CA) 

around certain WS waters. These are the areas adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir 

where risk associated with poor water quality is greater than from the remaining portions of the 

watershed. The requirements for CA designation generally focus on limiting land use within 

0.5 mile upstream, and draining to a water supply rather than setting numeric criteria for water 

quality parameters. 

 10 This reach of the Catawba River was re-classified as Tr by North Carolina DWQ in 

March 2008, after submittal of the Duke Energy application and received EPA approval in 

March 2009.

100 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
There is only one class of water within the South Carolina portion of the project area, 

FW. Class FW waters are freshwaters that are suitable for primary and secondary contact 

recreation, and for fishing and the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic 

community of fauna and flora. This class is suitable also as a source for drinking water supply 

after conventional treatment and for industrial and agricultural uses. 

Table 21 summarizes selected water quality criteria that are applicable to Class B, C, WS, 

and Tr waters in North Carolina and FW waters in South Carolina. Each of these parameters has 

been identified as the cause for impaired water quality at one or several locations within the 

project. 

Table 21. Selected water quality criteria. (Sources: N.A.C. subchapter 2B, 2008; South 

Carolina Regulation 61-68, 2008) 

Parameter North Carolina1 South Carolina2

Temperature 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≤2.8 degrees 

Celsius (°C) above natural 

temperature, and ≤29.0°C for 

mountain and upper Piedmont 

waters (Lake James, or ≤32.0°C for 

lower Piedmont waters 

Class Tr: ≤20.0°C and ≤0.5°C 

above natural temperature 

≤32.2°C and ≤2.8°C above natural 

temperature at all times for streams 

and as a weekly average for lakes 

Total dissolved 

gas 

≤110 percent of saturation --- 

Dissolved 

oxygen 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≥5.0 mg/l as 

daily average and ≥4.0 mg/l as 

instantaneous 

Class Tr: ≥6.0 mg/l at all times 

≥5.0 mg/l as daily average and 

≥4.0 mg/l as instantaneous 

pH 

Normal for waters in the area, 

generally between 6.0 and 9.0 

standard units 

6.0 to 8.5 

Chlorophyll-a 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≤40 

micrograms per liter (μg/l) 

Class Tr: ≤15 μg/l 

≤40 μg/l 

Turbidity 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≤25 

nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) 

in reservoirs, ≤50 NTU in streams 

Class Tr: ≤10 NTU 

≤25NTU in reservoirs, ≤50 NTU in 

streams 

Copper 7 μg/l action level 

≤2.9 μg/l (chronic exposure of 

aquatic organisms) and ≤3.8 μg/l 

(acute exposure) 

101 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Parameter North Carolina1

 South Carolina2

Mercury ≤0.012 μg/l 

≤0.91 μg/l (chronic exposure of 

aquatic organisms) and ≤1.6 μg/l 

(acute exposure) 

Fecal coliform 

Class C: Geometric mean of 

≤200/100 milliliters (ml) (membrane 

filtration) based on at least 5 

consecutive samples during any 

30-day period, and >400/100 ml in 

no more than 20 percent of the 

samples examined during such 

period; violations of the fecal 

coliform standard are expected 

during rainfall events and, in some 

cases, this violation is expected to be 

caused by uncontrollable non-point 

source pollution. 

Class B: Geometric mean of 

≤200/100 ml (membrane filtration) 

based upon at least 5 consecutive 

samples examined during any 30-

day period, and >400/100ml in no 

more than 20 percent of the samples 

examined during such period. 

Geometric mean of ≤200/100 ml 

(membrane filtration) based on 

5 consecutive samples during any 

30-day period, and >400/100 ml in 

no more than 10 percent of the 

samples examined during any 

30-day period. 

Total nitrogen --- ≤1.50 mg/l 

Ammonia 

nitrogen --- 

Criteria are pH and temperature 

dependent; equations to calculate 

site-specific criteria are given in the 

regulations. 

Nitrate nitrogen Class WS only: ≤10.0 mg/l --- 

Total phosphorus --- ≤0.06 mg/l 

Total dissolved 

solids Class WS only: ≤500 mg/l --- 

Total hardness Class WS only: ≤100 mg/l as 

CaCO3

--- 

1 Criteria applicable to Class C (Aquatic Life), Class B (Primary Recreation), and Class WS 

(Water Supply) unless otherwise noted 

2 Criteria applicable to Class FW (Fresh Water) 

102 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
General Water Quality 

Reservoir water quality is determined by several factors including the water quality of 

inflows, hydraulic retention times, reservoir depth, depth at which water is withdrawn in a 

reservoir, and industrial and power plant withdrawals or discharges. Natural thermal 

stratification varies substantially among developments; it is strong in four reservoirs (Lake 

James, Lake Hickory, Lake Norman, and Cedar Creek reservoir), moderate in one reservoir 

(Lake Wateree), and weak or negligible in the other reservoirs, which have short retention times. 

North Carolina DWQ (2008b) sampled five project lakes in 2007: Lake James, Lake 

Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lake Norman, and Lake Wylie. Surface water temperature in Lake 

James exceeded the state criterion for mountain lakes in the summer when air temperatures are 

high. Although nutrient concentrations in Lake James were elevated relative to other mountain 

lakes, and chlorophyll-a concentrations exceeded the state standard for trout waters on occasion, 

the lake had oligotrophic, low productivity conditions. Lake Rhodhiss had elevated nutrient 

concentrations and eutrophic, high productivity conditions. Algal blooms dominated by bluegreen algae occurred in the upper arm of the lake and near the dam in the summer. Lake Hickory 

had low to moderate nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations and mesotrophic, moderate 

productivity conditions. Algal blooms, dominated by euglenoid algae, were present in the lower 

end of the reservoir from July through September. Although Lake Norman had elevated 

concentrations of nitrate nitrogen, it had low concentrations of other nutrients, moderate to low 

concentrations of chlorophyll-a, and oligotrophic, low productivity conditions. Lake Wylie had 

elevated nutrient concentrations, mild to severe algal blooms throughout the summer, and 

eutrophic, high productivity conditions. 

North Carolina DWQ (2007) listed Lake Rhodhiss from the Johns River to the Rhodhiss 

dam as water-quality limited on the 2006 303(d) list. The list specified high pH values as the 

impairment but gave the source of impairment as unknown. In the 2007 lake assessment report, 

North Carolina DWQ (2008b) considered high algal activity as the source of elevate pH. In the 

draft 303(d) list for 2008, North Carolina DWQ (2008a) proposes to list three additional 

segments of project waters: the backwaters of Lake James from the dam at the Old Fort 

finishing plant water supply intake to the North Fork Catawba River for violations of the state’s 

turbidity criterion; Lake Wylie from Mountain Island dam to the Interstate 85 bridge for pH 

values below the state criterion; and the South Fork Catawba River arm of Lake Wylie for 

violations of the state’s turbidity criterion. North Carolina DWQ (2008c) has not scheduled total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) studies for any segments of the Catawba River. 

South Carolina DHEC (2005) made the following findings about water quality conditions 

in the Catawba River basin based on sampling data from 1998 and 2002: 

• Nutrient concentrations in Lake Wylie were decreasing, which suggested improving 

water quality conditions. 

• Cedar Creek reservoir, Fishing Creek reservoir, and Lake Wateree had elevated 

concentrations of total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a, possibly indicating eutrophic, high 

productivity conditions. 

• DO concentrations were below state standards in Cedar Creek reservoir and decreasing at 

the Wateree dam. Downstream of the Wateree dam, DO concentrations were below the 

103 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
state criterion, but they were increasing over the assessment period, suggesting improving 

conditions. 

South Carolina DHEC (2008a) listed specific sampling stations in Lake Wylie, Fishing 

Creek reservoir, Cedar Creek reservoir, Great Falls reservoir, and Lake Wateree as water-quality 

limited on the 2008 303(d) list. The list specified fecal coliform and copper as causes of 

impairment in Lake Wylie; total nitrogen, total phosphorus, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, and pH as 

causes in Fishing Creek reservoir; total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity as causes in 

Great Falls reservoir; DO, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, turbidity, and copper 

as causes in Cedar Creek reservoir; and DO, total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, turbidity, and pH as 

causes in Lake Wateree. South Carolina DHEC (2008a) listed the Wateree River downstream of 

the Wateree dam as water-quality limited because of high mercury concentrations and low DO. 

To address the 303(d) listings for phosphorus in Fishing Creek and Cedar Creek reservoirs, 

South Carolina DHEC began TMDL studies for each reservoir in 2005 (South Carolina DHEC, 

2008b). South Carolina DHEC also began TMDL studies in 2005 for Lake Wateree to address 

listings for phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and pH. These TMDL studies plus future studies for the 

other causes of impairment are scheduled for completion in 2008 through 2020 (South Carolina 

DHEC, 2008a). 

Water quality conditions were identified as the cause of one fish kill in project waters 

during the period 2003 through 2007 (North Carolina DWQ, 2008d). In the summer of 2004, 

low concentrations of DO resulted in fish kills in Lake Norman, totaling 2,500 striped bass. 

North Carolina DWQ concluded that the fish were trapped in the low DO waters of the 

hypolimnion during thermal stratification of the lake. 

North Carolina DWQ (2002, 2003) identified 13 monitoring stations in the Catawba 

River Basin with elevated fecal coliform levels, which were attributed to urbanization. None of 

the sites are on waters classified for primary recreational contact, however, and all of the sites are 

on tributaries to the Catawba River, not in the project reservoirs or the main stem of the Catawba 

River influenced by the project. South Carolina DHEC (2005) found that recreation uses were 

not supported or only partially supported because of high fecal coliform concentrations in the 

Crowders Creek arm of Lake Wylie, the Catawba River downstream of the Wylie dam, and the 

Rocky Creek arm of Cedar Creek reservoir. 

North Carolina DWQ (2003, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008d) did not list metals as a cause 

for impairment in any project waters or report high metals concentrations in its basin and lake 

assessments. North Carolina has issued a statewide fish advisory for the consumption of fish 

because of high mercury concentrations, but there are no site-specific advisories in project waters 

(North Carolina WRC, 2008a). South Carolina DHEC (2005) found copper concentrations 

above the state criterion (see table 21) at a site in the upper region of Lake Wylie; the state 

removed this site from the 303(d) list in 2008 because copper concentrations had fallen below 

the water quality standard, but another site near the dam remained on the list because of high 

copper concentrations (South Carolina DHEC, 2008a). Additionally, copper concentrations 

exceeded the state criterion at a station on the Catawba River about halfway between Wylie dam 

and the headwaters of Fishing Creek reservoir (South Carolina DHEC, 2005). No source was 

identified for these elevated copper concentrations. South Carolina DHEC (2008c) issued a fish 

consumption advisory for bowfin (mudfish) and flathead catfish in the Wateree River below the 

Wateree dam because of high mercury concentrations in fish tissue from the river. 

104 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Tailwaters 

Duke Energy conducted studies to evaluate water temperature, pH, and DO conditions in 

project tailwaters. Studies included continuous monitoring of temperature and DO starting in 

1995 (Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Wylie, 

Fishing Creek, and Wateree), 1996 (Great Falls, Dearborn, and Cedar Creek), or 1997 (Rocky 

Creek) and ending in 2004 (Duke Energy, 2007). 

Duke Energy’s studies showed that temperatures remain cooler than the 32°C criterion in 

all project tailraces. The coldwater release from the Bridgewater powerhouse has allowed a 

coldwater fishery to develop in the Catawba River below the dam, and this reach was classified 

as a trout stream in March 2008. During summers with high flows, however, high reservoir 

inflows deplete the cold water reserve in Lake James, and water temperature in the tailwaters in 

late fall may exceed the 20°C standard for trout waters by a few degrees. 

Tailrace pH was below the upper criterion, 9.0 in North Carolina and 8.5 in South 

Carolina, in all project tailraces, and it was above the lower criterion, 6.0 in both states, in the 

tailraces below the Oxford, Cowans Ford, Fishing Creek, Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, 

Cedar Creek, and Wateree Developments. At the Rhodhiss Development, tailrace pH was below 

the lower criterion 2.2 percent of the time, and at the other developments, tailrace pH was below 

the lower criterion less than 0.5 percent of the time. Duke attributes low pH values, which 

tended to occur in summer and early fall, to the release of carbon dioxide from biological 

decomposition in the deeper reservoir waters and the discharge of deeper water through the 

turbine intakes. 

The downstream water releases from each development exhibit the same general seasonal 

trends over the 10-year monitoring period as the lakes and reservoirs: highest DO concentrations 

in January or February and lowest in July and August. During the warmer periods when many of 

the reservoirs are stratified (usually May through November), DO concentrations downstream of 

the dams and powerhouses were often less than the North and South Carolina (5.0 mg/l daily 

average) state standards. 

The Bridgewater tailrace experiences DO concentrations less than 4 mg/l, 29 percent of 

the time from May 1 through November 30 as a direct result of drafting low-DO water from 

deeper areas at the turbine intakes in Lake James. Years with higher winter and spring flows 

tend to have lower tailrace DO concentrations because of higher nutrient and organic loadings 

from the upstream watershed. Warm fall weather can delay lake mixing, which can extend the 

low-DO period further into the fall. DO increases rapidly downstream when there is no 

generation. High generation flows push low-DO water farther downstream, reaching about 

7 miles in the worst cases. There is no supplemental aeration capability at the existing 

Bridgewater powerhouse, but the three turbines to be installed in the new powerhouse will have 

aeration capability. 

There are two bypassed reaches below Lake James: the Catawba River bypassed reach 

and the Paddy Creek bypassed reach. Both bypassed reaches merge with flows from Muddy 

Creek before joining the Linville River downstream of the Bridgewater powerhouse. Tributaries 

to these bypassed reaches contribute water of good quality, but the reaches are not currently 

meeting state water use designations for support of aquatic life because of limited flow resulting 

from the hydrologic modification created by the development. Overall, the water quality of the 

bypassed reaches is good. Concentrations of most constituents are typical of streams draining 

105 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the upper Piedmont (i.e., near saturated DO). Coldwater releases from the Bridgewater 

powerhouse have enabled the establishment of a downstream trout fishery in the Linville River. 

During low flows and no generation at the Bridgewater powerhouse, DO increases moving 

downstream from the dam. Conversely, when turbine flow is high, low DO from the Linville 

dam releases extends farther downstream. However, even at high turbine flow, DO is typically 

at least 5 mg/l to about 7 miles below the dam. 

DO concentrations in the Rhodhiss tailrace are highly variable because of the deep-water 

withdrawal from a reservoir with a moderate retention time, 21 days, and a highly productive 

algal community from enriched conditions. DO concentrations are less than 4 mg/l, 13 percent 

of the time in May through November. When there is no generation, bottom water with low DO 

leaks through the turbines. As turbine flows increase, the withdrawal zone extends into the 

upper layers of the lake, resulting in higher DO concentrations. Rhodhiss Unit 2 has stay vane11

aeration capability. 

The Oxford tailrace shows low DO concentrations of less than 4 mg/l, 29 percent of the 

time from May through November. The Oxford turbines withdraw water from the middle depths 

of Lake Hickory, where DO concentrations are highly variable because of algal activity in the 

surface water, daily mixing, and flow-through of the discharge from Lake Rhodhiss. Both 

turbines at the Oxford Development have hub-venting12 capability, which has been used 

intermittently for DO enhancement. 

DO concentrations in the Lookout Shoals tailrace are typically higher than those in the 

upstream Oxford Development because of a short retention time and lack of stratification in 

Lookout Shoals Lake. In May through November, tailrace DO is below 4 mg/l, 8 percent of the 

time. There is no supplemental aeration capability at the Lookout Shoals powerhouse. The 

length of the affected regulated reach between Lookout Shoals and Lake Norman varies from 

0.3 to 1.3 miles depending on the draw-down level of Lake Norman downstream. 

The Cowans Ford tailrace has DO concentrations less than 4 mg/l only 1 percent of the 

time from May through November. DO in the tailrace is relatively high because the withdrawal 

zone is restricted to the top 10 meters of the lake by a skimmer weir upstream of the intakes. 

There is no supplemental aeration capability at the Cowans Ford powerhouse. 

Water quality in Mountain Island Lake is highly influenced by the discharge from the 

Cowans Ford Development. Consequently, DO concentrations in the Mountain Island tailrace 

also are below 4 mg/l only 1 percent of the time from May through November. Mountain Island 

Lake discharges directly into Lake Wylie and has a short 0.6-mile bypassed reach. Between 

May and November the daily average DO concentrations typically meet water quality standards 

approximately 87 percent of the time. There is no supplemental aeration capability at the 

Mountain Island powerhouse. 

The Wylie Development releases water with DO below 4 mg/l, 29 percent of the time 

from May through November. DO may remain below 4 mg/l for up to 6 miles below Wylie 

 

11 Stay vanes are fixed metal vanes fitted to the inner periphery of the scroll case that 

guide the water from the scroll case to the turbine runner.

12 Hub venting is an air flow enhancing measure that draws air into the turbines and 

mixes it with the water.

106 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
dam, after which it improves because of re-aeration and photosynthesis by aquatic plants. Wylie 

turbines 2 and 3 have hub-venting capability, unit 1 has minimal aeration capability, and unit 4 

has no venting capability. The 25.6-mile river reach from Lake Wylie to Fishing Creek reservoir 

is one of the longest free-flowing reaches in the project area. DO in the regulated reach 

immediately downstream of the Wylie Development primarily is controlled by Wylie power 

generation; progressively downstream, DO is primarily affected by photosynthesis and 

respiration of extensive aquatic vegetation. DO concentrations are frequently not in compliance 

with South Carolina water quality standards. 

DO concentrations in the Fishing Creek tailrace fall below 4 mg/l, 13 percent of the time 

from May through November. Highly variable DO concentrations are attributed by Duke Energy 

to high loadings of organics and nutrients from wastewater discharges, high algal productivity, 

non-point source runoff, and short retention time and weak stratification in the reservoir. Fishing 

Creek units 1, 2, and 3 have minimal aerating capability, and units 4 and 5 have none. Great 

Falls reservoir has a very short retention time, 1 day, and is highly influenced by the discharge 

from Fishing Creek reservoir. Fishing Creek reservoir discharges directly to the Great Falls 

reservoir downstream. 

Releases from the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, however, have lower DO 

than those from the Fishing Creek Development because of continued biological decomposition 

in Great Falls reservoir. DO concentrations in the Great Falls tailrace are below 4 mg/l, 

29 percent of the time from May through November. There is no supplemental aeration 

capability at the Great Falls powerhouse. South Carolina DHEC has no long-term monitoring 

sites on Great Falls reservoir and has not assessed water quality in Great Falls reservoir. Great 

Falls and Dearborn powerhouses discharge directly into Cedar Creek reservoir. Releases from 

the Great Falls powerhouse flow directly into Cedar Creek reservoir, which also has a short 

retention time of 2 days. DO concentrations in the Cedar Creek tailrace fall below 4 mg/l, 

18 percent of the time from May through November. Cedar Creek units 2 and 3 have some 

aeration capability. 

DO concentrations in the release from Lake Wateree are influenced by high nutrient and 

organic loadings to the reservoir from Cedar Creek reservoir, high biological productivity in the 

surface waters and decomposition of organic matter in the bottom waters, stable thermal 

stratification during the summer, and a moderate retention time of 29 days. The Wateree tailrace 

is reported to have DO below 4 mg/l, 31 percent of the time from May through November. 

Wateree turbines 1 and 3 have auto-venting runners that provide good aeration, but the other 

units have limited venting capability. The Wateree River below the Wateree dam is the longest 

riverine reach (79 miles) downstream of Lake James and the Bridgewater Development. 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects 

 3.3.2.2.1 Water Quantity 

The Catawba-Wateree Project Revised CRA covers a wide range of measures related to 

water use, reservoir level management, proposed minimum streamflow schedules, a Low Inflow 

Protocol, and a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol for project-influenced reaches and 

reservoirs. Because measures related to streamflow primarily pertain to protecting and 

enhancing aquatic and riparian habitat and recreational opportunities, we discuss these measures 

in sections 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects; 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, 

Environmental Effects; and 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects. In this 

107 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
section we discuss the effects of the proposed project operations on current and future water 

uses, reservoir water level regimes, the ability to meet minimum streamflow requirements, and 

the needs of project operations, as well as measures to ensure compliance with the proposed 

minimum streamflow schedules and water level regimes. In addition, in this section we discuss 

the effects of project operations on shoreline flooding in the Wateree reservoir. 

Reservoir Level Fluctuations 

Duke Energy proposes to endeavor to meet normal target elevations at all the reservoirs, 

which is not required by the existing license (see Revised CRA proposed license article WQQ 

1.0 listed in table 4 in section 2.2.3.1). It also proposes to operate each reservoir within a range 

between full pond and the normal minimum unless operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or 

the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Under the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program (see Revised CRA proposed 

license article WQQ 2.0 in table 4), Duke Energy proposes to limit the operating range for 

3 weeks during bass spawning season between 2 ft above and 1 ft below the observed level at the 

beginning of the stabilization period; this proposal formalizes the voluntary program presently in 

effect at Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree. Because the purpose of this 

program would be to enhance littoral fish spawning habitat, and it would operate well within 

Duke Energy’s proposed operating guides, we discuss it further in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic 

Resources, Environmental Effects. 

No stakeholders or the public proposed alternative operating guides, although there were 

comments about flood elevations at Lake Wateree, which we discuss below in Lake Wateree 

Flooding, and critical elevations for Lake James, which we discuss below in Low Inflow 

Protocol. The Catawba Riverkeepers commented that Duke Energy’s proposed normal target 

elevations would not be enforceable and that the proposed maximum draw-downs at some of the 

reservoirs are lower than the existing maximum draw-downs. 

Our Analysis 

Reservoir operating guides are tools to help manage reservoir operations that affect 

reservoir levels. The goal is to maintain water levels as close as possible to the normal target 

elevation, but within an envelope bound by the normal minimum and normal maximum (full 

pond) elevations. Table 22 compares Duke Energy’s proposed operating guides to the voluntary 

guides under which it has operated historically. The table also compares maximum draw-down 

fluctuations and usable storage area in each of the project reservoirs. 

Under Duke Energy’s proposal, normal maximum operating elevation would increase 

compared to the existing license to full pond year-round at all project reservoirs, and normal 

minimum would change at all reservoirs except Fishing Creek. Duke Energy expects that daily 

reservoir elevation fluctuations would increase over current conditions because the requirements 

for minimum continuous flow discharges, which we discuss below in Minimum Flow Releases, 

would necessitate discharging water throughout the day that under the existing license would be 

held for generation to meet daily peak system demand. These daily fluctuations would still occur 

with a lower limit at the normal minimum. 

Duke Energy modeled the ability to operate the project with these proposed reservoir 

operating guides plus continuous minimum flow releases and other water use requirements, 

which we describe in the section, Water Balance Simulation Modeling. The model (CHEOPS) 

108 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
109 

has been reviewed and accepted by the major federal, state, and local stakeholders and has been 

applied previously for evaluation of a variety of hydro project operations. The calibrated and 

validated model was an appropriate and adequate tool for assessment of various operating and 

flow scenarios evaluated by Duke Energy and the stakeholders during the consultation process 

that resulted in the Revised CRA. We conclude that the reservoir operating guides proposed by 

Duke Energy are reasonable and achievable and a good balance between often conflicting 

demands. 

The Revised CRA proposes an enforceable compliance requirement to maintain 

reservoirs between the normal minimum and normal maximum elevation at all times except 

when operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Staff recommends that this condition be incorporated as a requirement in the new license. In 

Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring and Reporting below, we discuss requirements for 

reporting reservoir elevations that will ensure that the Commission and resource agencies are 

able to assess Duke Energy’s compliance with these proposed license conditions. 

Duke Energy also commits in the Revised CRA to endeavor in good faith to operate as 

close to the normal target elevation as possible while operating within the normal target range. 

This condition is not an enforceable condition that can be included in the new license. It is not 

operationally feasible, particularly at reservoirs with seasonal normal target levels, to maintain 

normal target lake elevations on average over an extended period of time given the variability in 

inflow hydrology and other operating conditions proposed in the new license. The goal to 

operate as close as possible to the normal target elevation is a commitment to lake stakeholders, 

but will not be included as a new license article. 

Reservoir level management affects aquatic, terrestrial, and recreational resources, which 

we discuss in sections 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects; 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial 

Resources, Environmental Effects; and 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 22. Existing1 and proposed draw-downs, maximum reservoir fluctuation, and usable storage (Source: 

Normal maximum 

draw-down (ft) 

Normal target 

draw-down (ft) 

Normal minimum 

draw-down (ft) 

Maximum 

fluctuation (ft) 

Reservoir Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed EJames 4 to 10 5 to 8 2 to 8 2 to 6 0 to 6 0 10 8 5Rhodhiss 5 6 3 3 1 0 4 6 

Hickory 3.5 6 3 3 to 4 1 0 2.5 6 

Lookout Shoals 

3.5 6 2 3 1 0 2.5 6 

Norman 4 to 10 5 to 9 2 to 8 2 to 6 0 to 6 0 10 9 2Mountain Island 

4 5.7 3 4 0.5 0 3.5 6 1

Wylie 5 6 3 3 1 0 4 6 4

Fishing Creek 

5 5 3 2 1 0 4 5 1

Great Falls 6 5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0 5.5 5 

Cedar Creek 3.5 4 2.5 2.5 0.5 0 3 4 

Wateree 5 to 7 6 to 7 3 to 5 3 to 5.5 1 to 3 0 6 7 6

1 The existing license has no limitations on reservoir levels; Duke Energy voluntarily operates under these exis

guides. 

110 
Minimum Flows for Aquatic Life 

Reservoir level management is also tied directly into the ability to meet minimum flow 

requirements. See section 2.2.2.1 for proposed minimum continuous flows and minimum 

average daily flows outlined in the Revised CRA. See section 3.3.3.2 for alternative minimum 

flows proposed by DOI, NOAA Fisheries, American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation 

League jointly, and the Catawba Riverkeeper. The Lancaster County Water and Sewer District 

in Union County, North Carolina, commented that these alternative minimum flows could result 

in earlier triggering of the Low Inflow Protocol at the beginning of a period of low inflow, which 

could result in more frequent drought restrictions on its customers. The proponents of additional 

flows for diadromous fish responded to the District’s comments by stipulating that the proposed 

flows would not be required if they would induce a Stage 0 condition of the Low Inflow 

Protocol. In their recommendations filed after the Commission’s ready for environmental 

analysis notice, however, these proponents did not include this stipulation. South Carolina 

DHEC concluded in the 401 WQC that delivering minimum flows on a continuous basis rather 

than as a daily average will help ensure that suitable DO levels are maintained in the future to the 

benefit of the aquatic resources. 

Our Analysis 

In our analysis of the proposed minimum instream flows and alternatives for fish in 

section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects, we conclude that Duke Energy’s 

proposal is appropriate and adequate to support existing aquatic resources. The negotiation of 

minimum instream flows at each development proposed by the Aquatic Resources Committee 

relied on the CHEOPS model to assess the effects of instream flow options on the system 

balance of water among the project developments. The stepwise process of this analysis is 

documented in the consultation record for the aquatic resources, book 2 of the license 

application. Beginning with the goal of 80 percent of the estimated maximum habitat available 

at unregulated flows (without the project), recommended flows were tested for sustainability 

using CHEOPS simulation runs; flow recommendations were adjusted as necessary until 

sustainable flows as close to the goal as possible were identified. 

After review of the consultation record and the CHEOPS model simulations, we conclude 

that the recommended minimum flows in the Revised CRA are sustainable through 2048 to 2058 

under critical extended low inflow periods typical of the hydrologic record since 1930. The 

higher flows recommended by some non-agency stakeholders and proposed for the future by 

NOAA Fisheries for anadromous fish spawning at several of the lower basin developments upset 

the system water balance simulated through CHEOPS. However, at such time as fish passage 

facilities provide access to these reaches for anadromous species, the need for and ability of the 

system to provide higher flows can be re-evaluated based on experience with the flow conditions 

included in the new license. FERC’s standard reopening procedure can be used if necessary at 

that time to address a need for additional minimum flows in these reaches. 

The ability to meet these minimum flows may be compromised during extended periods 

of severe low inflow when regional growth and associated water demand projected beyond the 

year 2048 may tax the ability of operating protocols to balance and maintain system storage 

capacity. The Revised CRA provides a mechanism for temporary variance from continuous 

minimum flows when conditions trigger implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol or 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Annual reporting by Duke Energy and review by the 

111 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Commission and resource agencies provide the means to ensure that minimum flows for aquatic 

resources are satisfied and to evaluate the operational experience managing the interaction of 

various competing system demands and flows that were simulated using CHEOPS. 

Recreational Flows 

The Revised CRA proposes a schedule of augmented releases to support recreational 

paddling and float angling and a system for communication of information related to recreational 

releases from the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments and into the Great 

Falls Long and Short bypassed reaches. These releases are scheduled for daylight hours on 

selected days of the week beginning in March, April, or May, depending on the development, 

and running through October. See table 3 in section 2.2.2.1 for Duke Energy’s proposed 

recreational flows. We evaluate recreational flows in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, 

Environmental Effects, and the potential effects of these flows on aquatic resources in section 

3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects. 

Our Analysis 

Similar to continuous minimum flows for aquatic resources, the effect of recreational 

flow proposals on system water balance and operations were tested using the CHEOPS model. 

The ability to manage reservoir capacity at target water levels in conjunction with minimum 

flows and proposed recreational releases was verified with CHEOPS. This model was an 

appropriate and adequate tool for assessment of various operating and flow scenarios evaluated 

by the licensee and stakeholders during the consultation process that resulted in the Revised 

CRA. We are satisfied that the CHEOPS model is a reliable tool for simulation of the balance of 

proposed recreational flows with other water uses proposed in the Revised CRA. The model 

simulations indicate that system storage and proposed operating protocols would allow Duke 

Energy to meet projected water demand and satisfy downstream flow requirements for recreation 

and aquatic resources through at least the year 2048 under extended low inflow conditions 

typical of the hydrologic record since 1930. During periods of drought or emergency 

maintenance, the capacity to provide the recreational flows may be compromised; the Revised 

CRA provides a mechanism for temporary waiver of recreational flow releases when conditions 

trigger implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Lake Wateree Flooding 

High water concerns identified by property owners on Lake Wateree included the 

following issues: 

• flooding of roads resulting in emergency access restriction; 

• damage to structures, land, septic systems, and other items; 

• damage to docks and the interruption of recreational opportunities; and 

• shoreline erosion. 

To provide proposed minimum continuous flows and aeration technology to improve DO 

below the Wateree Development, Duke Energy has proposed to replace one existing turbine with 

a smaller unit which will have less hydraulic capacity than the existing unit. The proposed 

bladder dam is designed to more than offset this loss in hydraulic capacity. The bladder dam 

also provides greater flexibility for management of flow during high water events at Lake 

112 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Wateree. The Revised CRA proposes a 10,000 cfs (4-ft deep by 300- to 400-ft wide) bladder 

dam for the Wateree spillway at a cost of $6,000,000. Based on the analysis (Duke Energy, 

2006b) of the significant 2003 flood event presented in Figure 14, it appears that the 10,000-cfscapacity bladder dam would have reduced the peak flood elevation at the Wateree dam from 

4.9 ft above to full pond to approximately 4 ft above, and would have reduced the time that water 

surface elevation exceeded 3 ft above full pond from 20.5 to 15 hours. 

In its response to the Commission’s additional information request (dated June 27, 2008), 

Duke Energy indicated that simulation of flood conditions for a 50-year period demonstrates that 

existing conditions result in 257 days (5.1 days per year on average) above full pond and 9 days 

(less than 1 day every 5 years) greater than 3 ft above full pond. The reduction in turbine 

capacity (to provide aeration and minimum downstream flows) without additional discharge 

capacity over the 50-year simulation would result in 653 days (13 days per year) above full pond 

and 28 days (less than 1 day per year) greater than 3 ft above full pond. By comparison, the 

operating conditions in the Revised CRA with a 10,000-cfs-capacity bladder dam over the 

50-year simulation would result in 157 days (3.1 days per year) above full pond and 10 days 

greater than 3 ft above full pond (1 day every 5 years), a negligible change from existing 

conditions. 

Based on hydraulic/hydrologic modeling, Operations 08—Wateree High Water Level 

Management Study (Duke Energy, 2006b) concluded that no reasonable adjustments to current 

operational practices would result in substantial mitigation of high water levels associated with 

major storm events in the watershed. The model simulation demonstrated that a lower water 

elevation at the beginning of inflow from a storm event would not significantly lower the peak 

level of high water events. This is due to the relatively small storage volume that can be created 

as compared to the volume of inflow during high intensity rainfall events. The effectiveness of 

operational changes is also made more difficult by the inherent uncertainty in meteorological 

forecasting which limits reaction time to adjust lake levels in anticipation of inflow. 

To create temporary additional storage in Lake Wateree (or upstream reservoirs) to assist 

in controlling high water events, lake levels would have to be lowered prior to increased inflows. 

Maintaining lower lake levels long term is not considered a viable option given the impacts to 

recreation, water supply, and aquatic species. Lowering lake levels in anticipation of intense 

rainfall and high water is dependent on meteorological forecasting and the associated uncertainty 

of forecasting tools. Such forecasting does not provide sufficient lead time to make lake level 

adjustments with the certainty that the forecast would be accurate and the decision to lower lake 

levels correct. Changes in the operation of upstream hydroelectric developments are also 

dependent on rainfall forecast. If rain is primarily centered in the Lower Catawba River Basin 

downstream of Lake Wylie, limited storage exists and operational options are even more limited. 

Discharges for Lake Wateree are limited to powerhouse releases through the turbinegenerator units and spillway discharges after the lake level reaches full pond at 225.5 ft. Normal 

operating procedure is to maximize powerhouse discharge to prevent water levels in excess of 

full pond. The Revised CRA proposes to replace one of the existing turbine runners with a 

smaller runner in order to provide aeration and more efficiently provide the minimum continuous 

flows for aquatic resources. This change is likely to result in no more than a 10 percent 

reduction in the maximum hydraulic capacity of 15,900 cfs at the Wateree powerhouse. At a 

flood elevation of 228.5 ft, 3 ft above full pond, the estimated spillway capacity at Wateree is 

113 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
24,331 cfs; thus, the total discharge capacity at 228.5-ft lake elevation is 40,231 cfs. The 

decreased capacity as a result of the downsized turbine capacity would be less than 5 percent. 

A broad range of options to provide additional discharge capacity was evaluated by the 

Wateree High Water Level Management Study Team in the Operations 08 studies. The Wateree 

Development hydraulic/hydrologic model (Duke Energy, 2006b) indicated that an increased 

capacity of 40,000 cfs would be necessary to significantly mitigate most flooding above 228.5 ft; 

that is, nearly doubling the discharge capacity at 228.5 ft. The additional capacity would both 

reduce the maximum lake elevation as well as the decrease the duration that the lake is above full 

pond (Figure 14). The Operations Resource Committee charged with integrating alternatives for 

alleviating Lake Wateree flooding with other operational requirements and constraints, reached 

the consensus that the cost for the additional 40,000 cfs capacity ($9,600,000) was not justified 

by the low frequency of flood events that exceed the 228.5-ft lake elevation (less than 1 day per 

year on average), but were well below the 10-ft flood easement. 

Figure 14. Water surface elevation at Wateree dam with varying discharge conditions 

(March 2003 storm) (100 ft is full pond at elevation of 225.5 ft) (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2007). 

Duke proposed an alternative to support road upgrades to improve access and egress for 

residents and emergency responders during flood events. Stakeholders identified 18,500 ft of 

road segments between 225.5 and 228.5 ft that could be raised to 230.0 ft in order to reduce 

flooding; the estimated cost for these infrastructure upgrades exceeded $3,435,000, without 

additional costs for purchase of easements and restoration of private property following 

construction. Upgrading and raising public roads would reduce the frequency and duration that 

these segments are flooded; however, the frequency and duration of flooding of private property, 

114 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
structures, and septic systems lower than 228.5 ft would not be alleviated. Given the relative 

costs of road reconstruction and other damage to private property from flooding versus 

construction of a 10,000-cfs bladder dam, the stakeholders concluded that the reduction in 

frequency and duration of flooding associated with the bladder dam was a more cost-effective 

measure for mitigation of flooding effects on property and infrastructure. 

Comments submitted by residents during the public review of the Revised CRA 

suggested that flood gates be examined as an alternative to the bladder dam. There are a wide 

variety of flood gate designs that could be considered and may be more or less cost effective at a 

given location; a variety of these structures were evaluated by Duke Energy. A bladder dam acts 

as one of several flood-gate-type designs that were considered (Duke Energy, 2006b) and was 

selected as most appropriate to address the Lake Wateree flooding issues. Other commentors 

suggested lowering the entire spillway by 2-3 ft. American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation 

League commented that the bladder dam should be used to enhance spawning and flood plain 

health. A number of commentors requested that the capacity of the bladder dam be increased 

from 10,000 to 40,000 cfs as evaluated by the Wateree High Water Level Management Study 

Team. Many comments were filed supporting the installation of the bladder dam contingent on 

issuance of a 50-year license as stipulated in the CRA. 

Our Analysis 

The flood elevation has never risen above the applicant’s 10-ft flood easement. Also, the 

applicant’s proposal improves upon the existing condition in terms of flooding while overcoming 

a reduction in hydraulic capacity associated with providing for downstream minimum flows. 

For these reasons and our analysis of the alternatives below we conclude that the proposal in the 

Revised CRA for construction of a 10,000-cfs bladder is an effective mechanism to offset the 

lost hydraulic capacity associated with the smaller turbine, will reduce the height and duration of 

major flooding events, and will eliminate some minor flooding events. 

It should be understood that the purpose and design of the bladder dam will be to offset 

lost hydraulic capacity and provide greater flexibility for management of high water levels in 

Lake Wateree. Consequently, based on historic records, the use of this structure will be 

relatively infrequent, of short duration, and thus, generally not an effective tool for habitat 

management or enhancement downstream. Depending on the timing and duration of high water 

events, water discharged through the bladder dam may contribute to flood plain inundation, but 

will not be a reliable method for downstream discharge. Discharges through the bladder dam 

also will not be adequate to sustainably enhance habitat in the bypassed reach below the Wateree 

spillway. Though staff concludes that the 10,000-cfs bladder is an appropriate measure, 

Commission policy is to analyze projects only for 30-year terms in NEPA documents, and staff 

does not pre-determine the duration of the license before it is issued and cannot link any measure 

to granting a license of a specific term. 

Although lowering the entire spillway would significantly reduce flooding, this option is 

not practical. This approach would significantly reduce the water storage inventory in Lake 

Wateree, thus reducing the ability to meet downstream flow requirements for aquatic resources 

and recreation; reduce hydraulic head and generating capacity; reduce recreational access to 

Lake Wateree; and require significant upgrades to maintain access from public and private 

docks, piers, and boat access points. 

115 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The 40,000-cfs bladder also would mitigate many of the problems. This proposal was not 

supported by the Operations Resource Committee advising the applicant on the matter because 

of the cost estimate of $9,600,000. Staff also concludes that adding an additional 50 percent to 

the project component cost to further improve upon the existing condition is not appropriate. 

Given the reductions in frequency and duration of flooding that can be attained with the 

proposed 10,000-cfs bladder dam compared to the public infrastructure upgrades within the 

existing flood easement, it is our conclusion that the proposal for high water management via the 

increased discharge capacity provided by a 10,000-cfs bladder dam provides an adequate and 

reasonable effort toward mitigation of effects of the occasional flood events, particularly those 

events that occur more frequently below a height of 3 ft above full pond. 

Duke Energy has a 10-ft vertical flood easement around Lake Wateree; however, the 

project boundary at Lake Wateree is at full pool elevation of 225.5 ft msl. Lands outside the 

project boundary are under the purview of planning and zoning efforts conducted by local 

jurisdictions and are outside the Commission’s authority. Local government zoning ordinances 

prevent the building of homes within the flood easement. 

Wateree Development Discharge 

Regulated releases coinciding with annual spring flooding events at the Wateree dam 

result in a lateral expansion of inundation on the flood plain downstream of the dam, beginning 

when the discharge exceeds 6,000 cfs. The Revised CRA contains two non-license conditions 

for enhancing flood plain habitat, Wateree Spring Stable Flows and the Wateree Flood Plain 

Inundation. See table 5 in section 2.2.3.2, Not Proposed License Articles, for descriptions of 

these conditions. The purpose of these conditions is to improve flood plain habitat for 

anadromous fish spawning, wetlands, and terrestrial species, and we discuss the effects of these 

conditions on those resources in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects, and 

section 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects. In this section we discuss the 

effects of these conditions on project water flow. 

Under the Spring Stable Flows Protocol, when inflows are adequate without 

unreasonably affecting the project operations, the Revised CRA proposes to provide two 

10 consecutive day periods of sustained flows to stabilize and gradually reduce water levels in 

the Wateree River and its flood plain downstream of the Wateree dam. The first of these two 

periods will be between February 15 and April 1, and the second period between April 1 and 

May 15. If operational conditions require a flow change during one of these 10-day periods, 

Duke Energy would attempt to maintain the new flow for at least 8 consecutive hours before any 

further change is made. Under the Wateree Flood Plain Inundation Protocol, when high natural 

inflow during the spring (February 1 to May 31) causes spill conditions at the Wateree dam, 

Duke Energy, in good faith, would attempt to approximate natural flow conditions until the 

reservoir is within 1 ft above or below the normal target elevation; 95 ft in February and 97 ft in 

March to May. The objective of these two protocols would be to simulate the natural 

hydrograph of the river during spring high-flow in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin; i.e., 

inundation of the downstream flood plain to enhance bottomland hardwood resources followed 

by a gradual decline in the river stage over a period of time, rather than the sharp drop in river 

level more commonly associated with discontinuing turbine discharges over a short time interval. 

This hydrograph would open and enhance inundated flood plain habitat for use by various 

aquatic, avian, and terrestrial species and create a more natural rate of dewatering of this 

116 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
complex habitat. During periods of drought or emergency maintenance, when the system’s 

capacity to provide flow stability and natural hydrograph conditions may be compromised, the 

Revised CRA provides for a mechanism for relief from these goals under the Low Inflow 

Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. The protocols also set priorities allowing 

suspension of the Reservoir Level Stabilization Program if necessary to achieve the flood plain 

inundation and flow stabilization downstream. 

Because the volume of water available at the Wateree dam and the extent of inundation 

are dependent on seasonal weather patterns in both the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and the 

Congaree River Basin, the Revised CRA recommends a flexible approach to attaining the flood 

plain habitat and function objectives. Terrestrial 02—Wateree River Flood Plain Inundation 

Study Report (Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc. [DTA], 2006) states that the extent of 

inundation for a given release at the Wateree dam increases as the discharge in the Congaree 

River increases and the lower Wateree River exhibits a backwater effect. The greatest backwater 

effect occurs at releases at the Wateree dam reach 25,000 cfs with concurrent flows in the 

Congaree River at approximately 40,000 cfs (which are outside of the control of the licensee). 

Duke Energy proposes that neither of these conditions be included as license articles, but 

that based on a decade of operating experience and consultation with the involved agencies and 

other stakeholders, enforceable license articles may be drafted as an amendment to the license in 

10 years. 

Our Analysis 

The ability to meet the goals of flood plain inundation is highly dependent upon weather 

conditions in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, natural inflows, and regulated flows into the 

Wateree Development. The various Revised CRA conditions affecting inflow and discharge of 

water at Lake Wateree create a complex set of goals that encompass minimum continuous 

releases, flood plain inundation, lake level stabilization, and lake flood-management. Staff finds 

that the flexibility of an adaptive management type approach is appropriate to implement these 

programs and optimize the success of each. This can be accomplished through the reporting and 

consultation process described in the Revised CRA. The Fisheries Technical Committee 

proposed by NOAA Fisheries could serve as a vehicle for this review and coordination. We 

agree that a 10-year period is appropriate to test and refine these protocols within the operating 

constraints and uncertainties of weather prediction. Based on that experience the license can be 

reopened, if necessary, to incorporate enforceable articles to manage flood plain inundation and 

spring stable flows from Wateree. 

Low Inflow Protocol 

Duke Energy proposes that the Low Inflow Protocol contained in the Revised CRA be 

incorporated in the license. The Low Inflow Protocol would provide a formal set of procedures 

to conserve and protect water resources and storage capacity on the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin during extended low inflow periods or droughts. These procedures would be based on 

weather and watershed inflow triggers that would advance through four stages of conservation 

and management as the duration and severity of drought conditions increase. Inclusion of 

multiple parameters as criteria to trigger activation and progression through the stages of the 

Low Inflow Protocol ensure that variable conditions in the watershed are taken into account such 

that the stages of the Low Inflow Protocol are not triggered prematurely or delayed too long. 

The Low Inflow Protocol was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water 

117 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
quantity would share the responsibility to establish priorities and conserve the limited water 

resource. During periods when inflow is not adequate to meet all of the normal demands for 

water and maintain normal target reservoir levels, Duke Energy would progressively reduce 

hydro generation. If hydrologic conditions worsen until specific trigger points are reached, Duke 

Energy would declare a Stage 0 Low Inflow Watch and begin meeting with the applicable 

agencies and water users to discuss the Low Inflow Protocol. If hydrologic conditions continue 

to worsen, Duke Energy would declare subsequent stages of a Low Inflow Condition as defined 

in the protocol. Each progressive stage of the Low Inflow Condition would require greater 

reductions in hydro station releases and water withdrawals and allow additional use of available 

water storage inventory within the developments. Progressively more rigorous voluntary steps 

are defined at each stage to promote conservation and reduction of usage of public water supplies 

and industrial users. Waivers would be provided for the prioritization, reduction, or elimination 

of the normal operating requirements for spring reservoir stabilization, recreational flows, 

continuous minimum flows for aquatic resources, flows for flood plain inundation, and spring 

downstream flow stabilization as drought conditions worsen. The goal of the staged Low Inflow 

Protocol would be to take actions needed in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to delay the point 

at which the project’s usable water storage inventory is fully depleted. The Low Inflow Protocol 

also provides procedures for recovery of the system when the drought conditions that initiated 

the Low Inflow Protocol end. 

The Low Inflow Protocol would establish the Drought Management Advisory Group to 

meet at least annually throughout the life of the license to discuss river flows and water user data 

and to review and revise the protocol at 5-year intervals or more frequently, if necessary, based 

on experience with the effectiveness of the protocol and responsiveness of the system . Under 

the Revised CRA, members of the advisory group would include Duke Energy, North Carolina 

DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DHEC, USGS, and owners 

of large water intakes on project reservoirs, the main stems of the Catawba and Wateree Rivers, 

and tributaries in the Catawba-Wateree Basin above the Wateree dam. 

DOI and NOAA Fisheries recommend implementation of the Revised CRA Low Inflow 

Protocol, and NOAA Fisheries requested that it be added to the Drought Management Advisory 

Group. The Community of Lake James requested revisions to the Low Inflow Protocol 

including changes to target storage index, more consistent water restrictions, higher water use 

reduction targets, and expanded membership on the Drought Management Advisory Group. 

Suzanne Johnson recommends revisions to increase Lake James elevations, cap inter-basin 

transfers, and protect wells. George Johnson questions the validity of the CHEOPS model in 

predicting future low-inflow events because of understated population growth, more-severe 

droughts resulting from climate change, and underestimation of inter-basin transfers. He 

recommends raising critical intake elevations at Lake James and lowering them at other 

reservoirs and increasing water use reduction targets or replacing them with water supply targets. 

The Lake James Environmental Association and Community of Lake James 

recommended that earlier, mandatory, and more restrictive conservation measures be included in 

the Low Inflow Protocol. Comments indicate that there is a perception that moving critical 

intakes to increase the useable storage capacity in Lake Norman will enhance the ability to hold 

more water longer and thus reduce draw-down of Lake James during droughts and 

implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol. These groups also recommended inclusion of 

energy conservation measures in the Low Inflow Protocol to reduce water usage associated with 

118 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
power production. The Catawba-Wateree Project is typically operated for hydroelectric power 

generation to meet peak load demand; when the Low Inflow Protocol is implemented, hydro 

power generation from the project is progressively reduced to preserve storage. This reduction 

in generating capacity is met by other sources on the power grid and by implementing 

communication and educational measures to encourage their customers to conserve electric and 

reduce usage during periods of peak load; thus, electric conservation is an inherent part of the 

Low Inflow Protocol. 

South Carolina DNR recommended relocating the critical intakes to a deeper location at 

Lakes Wylie and Wateree to increase the useable storage available to the Catawba-Wateree 

River Basin within South Carolina. The Attorney General and Counsel for the State of South 

Carolina commented that the CHEOPS model and the Low Inflow Protocol are flawed and 

should be re-evaluated because the model did not predict the longevity of the recent severe 2007-

2008 drought and, thus, should not be relied on for review under NEPA. 

Our Analysis 

Elements and triggers of the Low Inflow Protocol were incorporated into the CHEOPS 

model simulations. After review of water supply intake information, we find that the critical 

lake elevation inputs used in the CHEOPS model are appropriate for evaluation of the system 

water balance constraints and the Low Inflow Protocol. Growth and water demand inputs to the 

model are based on projections from recent available Census data. The CHEOPS model was 

used during the stakeholder consultation process as a tool for evaluating and balancing multiple 

demands on the system for the limited water resources in the Catawba-Wateree Basin. Model 

tools such as CHEOPS are most valuable for evaluation of relative benefits and costs of 

alternative operating scenarios and “what if” management assessments. The ability and accuracy 

of a model to predict future conditions is as good as the available data used to calibrate the 

model; in this case the 51-year record for the basin is a valid and adequate database to use in this 

process. The fact that the model predicted only 4 months of Stage 3 drought is a function of 

longer drought periods being very infrequent in the 51-year dataset. The fact that an unusual, 

more severe condition arose in 2007-2008 reflects the variability of natural weather records. 

This drought event occurred after the model calibrations and alternatives analyses had been 

completed as part of the stakeholder negotiation. The relicensing process and the environmental 

review under NEPA are both conducted under well-defined schedule constraints. USGS flow 

data from the full period of this drought were preliminary and incomplete within the analysis 

timeframes for this relicensing process. Staff finds that the calibrated and validated CHEOPS 

model is an adequate and useful tool for evaluation of the Low Inflow Protocol and system water 

balance. The Low Inflow Protocol provides flexibility for the licensee and the Drought 

Management Advisory Group to review and revise the protocols as needed and as dictated by 

experience with the protocols during droughts. Proposed future revisions to the Low Inflow 

Protocol would be subject to review by South Carolina DHEC under the section 401 certification 

and by the Commission for inclusion in the license terms. We expect that the feasibility of any 

proposed modification to the Low Inflow Protocol that affects storage, inflow, or water releases 

would need to be tested through the CHEOPS model. Staff finds that to be an appropriate 

opportunity to update the database and model calibration to include the most recent validated 

USGS flow data which would cover the 2007-2008 drought of record. It should also be noted 

that, as proposed, the Low Inflow Protocol does not rely on the CHEOPS model predictions for 

119 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
implementation during a drought; rather, triggers for each stage of a drought and associated 

actions are contingent on real-time information and data related to inflow and storage. 

The CHEOPS model simulations indicate that the Low Inflow Protocol in combination 

with other proposed downstream flow requirements in the license application can be effective for 

managing water storage inventory in the project reservoirs. Comparison of simulations for 

existing baseline conditions and proposed new license conditions demonstrate that safe yield 

limits during low inflow periods would be sustained throughout the system for approximately 

10 years longer under the proposed conditions with the Low Inflow Protocol in place. Under 

existing baseline conditions, safe yields would be exceeded between 2038 and 2048, while under 

proposed license conditions, safe yields would be exceeded between 2048 and 2058 at some 

reservoirs in the upper Catawba-Wateree Basin. The number of days per year when critical 

reservoir levels for public water supply would be violated would be reduced if the Low Inflow 

Protocol were implemented under the proposed new license conditions. 

Lake James has the only significant usable water storage capacity in the upper CatawbaWateree River Basin above Lake Norman, which has more than five times the storage capacity 

of Lake James. Lakes Rhodhiss, Oxford, and Lookout Shoals have relatively short residence 

times and minimal storage, relying on storage in Lake James to maintain minimum continuous 

flows and reservoir target levels. Under the new license, reservoir normal maximum level 

fluctuations and normal maximum draw-down in Lake James have been reduced while they have 

been increased in the next three downstream developments. This portion of the basin is highly 

dependent on inflow from the Lake James watershed. Changes in the available storage in Lake 

Norman would affect the water balance in developments downstream of Lake Norman, but have 

minimal affect on the reservoir fluctuations upstream at Lake James. The critical reservoir 

elevations in Lakes Wylie and Wateree are determined by industrial and municipal water users, 

respectively. While relocating each of these intakes to a greater depth would provide greater 

storage capacity in these two lakes, the Commission does not have the authority to require such 

an action in these licensing proceedings. If experience during implementation of the Low Inflow 

Protocol indicates that increased storage is an appropriate measure to enhance drought 

management, the Drought Management Advisory Group could consider such options in the 

future outside the relicensing process; such changes could be incorporated into revisions to the 

Low Inflow Protocol which would require Commission review and approval.. 

Adaptive management methods are conceptually part of the Low Inflow Protocol with 

provisions for meetings by the Drought Management Advisory Group at least annually to review 

user data and inflow data, and review and revision of the Low Inflow Protocol by the Drought 

Management Advisory Group at least every 5 years for the life of the license. Given 

uncertainties in weather and climate forecasting and system modeling, these periodic reviews 

provide a mechanism to assess the observed effectiveness in preserving water storage and supply 

of the range of water conservation and use reduction steps implemented during low inflow 

events. The review process also provides an opportunity to test and evaluate the sensitivity and 

effectiveness of proposed and other alternative triggers for implementation of the Low Inflow 

Protocol going into and recovering from a drought. Revisions to the Low Inflow Protocol would 

be subject to formal review and approval by North Carolina DWQ, South Carolina DHEC, or 

both as required by the respective state’s Section 401 water quality certification, and would be 

incorporated into the license as modifications if accepted by the Commission. 

120 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
We conclude that the proposed Low Inflow Protocol provides an effective, cooperative 

management tool for protection and conservation of water resources during extended low inflow 

periods. Adaptive management concepts inherent in the Low Inflow Protocol ensure that the 

protocol would be refined as operating experience dictates through cooperative input of all water 

users and managers. Periodic review of user and inflow data and re-evaluation of the Low 

Inflow Protocol also provide an opportunity to evaluate changes in regional growth projections 

and anticipate impacts on water usage. Through effective communication and education, 

voluntary water conservation measures can effectively reduce water usage; however, if 

experience with implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol during drought situations indicates 

the need for more rigorous measures, the mechanism is in place to make the necessary revisions 

to the protocol. We find that the Low Inflow Protocol was developed through extensive 

modeling reviewed and accepted by all resource agencies and do not recommend any of the 

changes to the protocol proposed by other entities. We recommend that NOAA Fisheries and 

FWS be represented on the Drought Management Advisory Group to ensure that the federal 

interest in aquatic resources is incorporated to the extent possible during extended low inflow 

periods and in revisions to the Low Inflow Protocol. 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

Duke Energy proposes that the Low Inflow Protocol contained in the Revised CRA be 

incorporated in the license. The Revised CRA includes a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

for the Catawba-Wateree Project recognizing that under some emergency or other abnormal 

situations, and in the event of equipment failure and maintenance, it may be impractical or 

impossible to meet certain license conditions, and Duke Energy may need to temporarily suspend 

or modify some conditions to avoid taking unnecessary risks. The objectives of this protocol are 

to define the most likely situations of this type, identify the potentially affected license 

conditions, and outline the general approach that Duke Energy would take to mitigate the 

impacts to the license conditions and to communicate with the resource agencies and other 

potentially affected parties. Specific details would vary and would be determined on a case-bycase basis as the protocol is being implemented for a given event. 

DOI and NOAA Fisheries recommend implementation of the Revised CRA Maintenance 

and Emergency Protocol. DOI recommends that the applicant be required to consult with BIA 

and CIN for sections of the protocol related to the Wylie dam and the river below the dam 

because of potential effects on tribal lands and activities along the river; these two consultations 

are already provided for in the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. NOAA Fisheries 

recommends that it be consulted during development and implementation of the protocol. 

South Carolina DHEC concluded in their staff assessment for the 401 WQC that the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol, “will establish communications protocols and foster 

mitigation planning for protection of resources potentially affected by maintenance, emergency 

conditions, and other unusual events,” associated with operation of the Catawba Wateree Project 

and included implementation of these portions of the Revised CRA in the WQC. 

Our Analysis 

A key goal of a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol is to establish the general approach 

for handling maintenance and emergency situations and communicating appropriate information 

to all potentially affected stakeholders. We find that the proposed Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol accomplishes this goal. The protocol also directs Duke Energy to re-evaluate the 

121 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Maintenance and Emergency Protocol each time that it is invoked and consult with affected 

federal and state agencies and stakeholders if revisions to the Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol are necessary or recommended. The revised Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

would be filed with the Commission and, if necessary, an application for a license modification 

would be submitted. We find that these steps would ensure that the Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol is routinely refined and updated based on operating experience and that resource 

managers and stakeholders are involved in the process. We agree that the applicant should 

include NOAA Fisheries in consultations during implementation of the protocol. 

Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring and Reporting 

Duke Energy proposes implementation of a variety of streamflow and lake level 

requirements on project operations. Flow level monitors are in place at all of Duke Energy’s 

reservoirs to allow monitoring of normal target elevations and maximum draw-down limitations. 

There are currently six streamflow gaging stations operated by USGS in the Catawba-Wateree 

Basin, as shown on figure 2. Duke Energy is to fund USGS installation of a stream gage station 

on the Linville River between the Linville dam and the confluence of the Catawba River to 

monitor compliance with flow release requirements from the Bridgewater Development. To 

assure their continuing availability, Duke Energy would also fund USGS for operation and 

maintenance costs associated with the new gage and the six existing gages in the watershed. 

CRA Section A-6.0 details the annual monitoring and reporting requirements that would 

be necessary to document compliance with these license articles and to provide the Commission 

and federal and state agencies with the data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these 

articles for protection and enhancement of the affected resources. The annual report would 

provide data and summaries of high frequency monitoring of lake levels and downstream flow 

releases for recreation and aquatic habitat, and it would identify times and locations of any 

noncompliance events. 

Our Analysis 

We find that the stream gages are essential to monitoring and evaluating compliance with 

the proposed downstream flow requirements, and we recommend that the applicant install and 

maintain a new gage conforming to specifications of the USGS at the location proposed on the 

Linville River. We also recommend that the applicant operate and maintain this gage and six 

other gages at or in similar locations to the six gages currently in operation in the watershed, as 

shown on figure 2. Duke Energy may choose to implement the installation and maintenance for 

these gages via whatever contractual or funding mechanism they deem appropriate, but Duke 

Energy is the responsible party for compliance with the license article. 

We also conclude that the proposed monitoring and reporting requirements for lake levels 

and downstream flows are adequate to provide the Commission and other federal and state 

agencies with the information necessary to determine and ensure compliance with and assess the 

effectiveness of these license articles. Based on review of these annual reports, the Commission 

reserves the right to require changes to project operations or project facilities. Federal and state 

resource agencies may also act on the basis of these reports. 

122 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
3.3.2.2.2 Water Use 

Duke Power proposes to operate under a water agreement established as part of their 

relicensing process built around use of the CHEOPS model applied to water supply and use 

issues and the formation of a Water Management Team. Several of the major public water 

suppliers and industrial water users are signatories to the settlement. The locations of major 

water withdrawals are shown in figure 15. Net water use associated with public water supply is 

expected to increase from 32 percent of the net water use at present (figure 16) to 52 percent in 

2058 (figure 17); i.e., from 55 to 243 mgd. Operations 04—Water Supply Study (HDR 

Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas [HDR], 2006) presented projections for increases of water 

usage by development in 10-year increments for the next 50-years (table 23). The totals of all 

withdrawals across all reservoirs are projected to increase by 125 percent by 2058. Except at the 

Fishing Creek Development, water returns are less than withdrawals; net water use in the 

Catawba-Wateree River Basin is projected to increase approximately 180 percent by 2058 from 

170 mgd at present. Depending on the development, outflow ranges from 0 to 12 percent of the 

mean river flow (figure 18). 

DOI commented that an appropriate balance of water uses including for aquatic resources 

and diadromous fish restoration in the Catawba-Wateree basin should be analyzed to provide the 

baseline for future water needs studies. They requested that impacts of inter-basin water 

transfers also need to be analyzed. DOI also recommended that consideration be given to 

adjustment of flows over life of the license as withdrawal and discharge permits are modified. 

NOAA Fisheries has requested that it be represented on the Catawba-Wateree Drought 

Management Advisory Group established to implement the Low Inflow Protocol. 

The Catawba Riverkeeper, the Valdes Town Manager, S. Williams, S. Johnson, and 

G. Johnson all expressed concern relative to the impact of inter-basin water transfer and how 

those transfers have been handled in the CHEOPS model. Mr. G. Johnson commented that 

population growth and future inter-basin transfers were not accurately modeled in CHEOPS. 

Various of these stakeholders requested that inter-basin transfer flows modeled in excess of those 

currently authorized be used for aquatic habitat flows and that inter-basin transfers be capped in 

the future. 

123 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 15. Water withdrawals and returns in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007). 

124 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 16. Current net water use in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (in mgd) and percent 

of total (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Figure 17. Projected net water use in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin in 2058 (in mgd) and 

percent of total (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

125 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 23. Projected annual average withdrawal, return, and net water use by watershed (in 

mgd). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Year 

Reservoir Current1 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Withdrawals

James 11 12 13 14 15 32 34 

Rhodhiss 26 28 30 33 36 40 44 

Hickory 18 17 21 25 30 37 44 

Lookout Shoals 1 6 7 9 10 12 12 

Norman 60 66 99 118 133 169 179 

Mountain Island 101 131 153 172 192 207 224 

Wylie 92 95 101 120 130 141 155 

Fishing Creek 103 132 146 159 172 183 195 

Great Falls 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Cedar Creek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Wateree 6 8 9 11 26 27 56 

Subtotal 420 498 582 664 747 851 946 

Returns

James 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 

Rhodhiss 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 

Hickory 6 7 8 9 11 14 16 

Lookout Shoals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Norman 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 

Mountain Island 6 8 12 14 16 18 18 

Wylie 45 46 52 59 68 77 89 

Fishing Creek 165 192 213 234 254 272 291 

Great Falls 1 1 2 3 5 7 9 

Cedar Creek 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 

Wateree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal 250 283 319 355 392 430 468 

126 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Year 

Reservoir Current1

 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Net Water Use

James 2 2 2 2 3 19 20 

Rhodhiss 12 13 13 15 16 19 21 

Hickory 12 10 13 16 19 23 28 

Lookout Shoals 0 5 6 8 9 11 11 

Norman 58 64 97 115 130 165 175 

Mountain Island 95 123 141 158 176 189 206 

Wylie 47 49 49 61 62 64 66 

Fishing Creek -62 -60 -67 -75 -82 -89 -96 

Great Falls 0 1 0 -1 -3 -5 -7 

Cedar Creek 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 

Wateree 6 8 9 11 26 27 56 

Subtotal 170 215 263 309 355 421 478 

1

 Current rates were based on the most recent available years for which withdrawals and 

returns were recorded. The most recent year for a given water user ranged between 1999 and 

2003. 

127 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 18. Current versus projected 2058 net water use (net outflow) (Source: Duke Energy, 

2007). 

Our Analysis 

Existing and future water withdrawal and discharge for public water supply and industrial 

use within the project are not directly impacted or controlled by the project, but require cautioned 

and reasoned balance of available water with other uses. Public water supply, inter-basin 

transfers, wastewater, and industrial discharges are regulated by the states; the only control Duke 

Energy has in this process is the granting of easements on project lands. Existing inter-basin 

transfers represent a very small proportion of the water demand on the project. Future 

applications for inter-basin transfers should be evaluated in terms of the effect on the balance of 

other water users within the Catawba-Wateree Basin, but are not within the scope of this 

licensing process. 

We conclude that Duke Energy, in conjunction with the stakeholder consultation process, 

has performed an adequate evaluation of existing and future projected water use and balancing of 

competing uses based on the CHEOPS modeling exercise in support of the license application. 

Existing withdrawals and discharges have been documented from permits and monitoring report 

data. Appropriate, critical existing intake elevations have been identified for each development. 

Future water uses have been estimated from appropriate census and population growth 

projections. The model scenarios used to balance water uses recognize the uncertainty 

associated with projections of future growth, making conservative assumption related to growth 

and water availability using the two driest periods in the historic record up to the date of these 

analyses as a baseline. 

128 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The model simulations indicate that the system may be unable to meet future water 

demand 40-50 years into the future. However, the Low Inflow Protocol proposed as an article 

for the new license provides the mechanism for progressive water conservation and management 

of limited water resources during periods of low inflow including cooperative management 

through the Drought Management Advisory Group. The Drought Management Advisory Group 

is representative of the array of water users and the licensee. Although the Low Inflow Protocol 

incorporates steps for protection of aquatic resources, staff recommends that the Drought 

Management Advisory Group also include representatives of interested federal resource 

management agencies (NOAA Fisheries and FWS) to keep them apprised of water management 

issues that may affect their trust resources. Their participation is considered particularly 

appropriate during periodic review and revisions to the Low Inflow Protocol (Key Facts and 

Definitions Item #22) that has been proposed on at least a 5-year interval. 

The Drought Management Advisory Group, and Low Inflow Protocol provide the 

mechanisms and incentive to conserve and manage the water resource over the duration of the 

new license to resolve and avert future stress on the water resource projected by the applicant’s 

analysis of water use. 

 3.3.2.2.3 Water Quality 

Dissolved Oxygen Management and Monitoring 

Duke Energy proposes to develop and implement an FWQIP for completing the 

modifications necessary to satisfy the flow and water quality requirements at the project 

developments. The FWQIP would be prepared in consultation with FWS, NOAA Fisheries, 

North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, and South Carolina DHEC. 

Also, in the Revised CRA, Duke Energy proposed to operate the project in accordance with the 

conditions of the section 401 water quality certificates (WQCs) that have been issued by the 

states of North Carolina and South Carolina and to implement any DO monitoring requirements 

that may be contained in them. The WQCs provide the states with the enforcement mechanism 

to ensure that the project operates in compliance with applicable water quality standards. 

FWQIP agreements identified elsewhere in the Revised CRA, but related to water 

quality, are important as well: 

1. Duke Energy will initiate interim measures for providing aquatic flow, DO enhancement, 

or both as identified in the FWQIP within 60 days following the issuance of the new 

license and closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to water 

quantity and quality. The interim measures would continue until the physical 

modifications specified in the FWQIP are complete unless Duke Energy is operating in 

accordance with the Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

2. Following implementation of the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP, Duke 

Energy will operate the project in accordance with the 401 WQC. 

3. If TMDLs are developed for waters within the project boundaries, Duke Energy will 

actively consult with the appropriate state agency to determine what, if any, role project 

operations play in managing the pollutant(s) specified. 

4. After implementation of the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP, if regular 

noncompliance with the WQC occurs as a result of project operations, Duke Energy shall 

document the noncompliance in the annual water quality compliance report; assess the 

129 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
reasons for noncompliance and propose corrective actions; consult with South Carolina 

DHEC and North Carolina DWQ, as appropriate; and implement the state-approved plan 

for corrective action. If Duke Energy concludes that its ability to comply with the WQC 

is not attributable to project operations, Duke Energy will assist South Carolina DHEC, 

North Carolina DWQ, or both in determining the sources of the noncompliance. 

To assess the success of the water quality measures, Duke Energy proposes to develop 

and implement a water quality monitoring plan (WQMP) to monitor compliance with water 

quality standards. The WQMP would be prepared in consultation with North Carolina DWQ and 

South Carolina DHEC. The monitoring plan and monitoring locations that are defined by the 

WQMP and FWQIP provide the mechanism for determining compliance and identifying 

corrective measures, as necessary. By June 30 following each full calendar year for the term of 

the new license, Duke Energy proposes to file a report with the Commission verifying 

compliance with applicable WQCs. 

The specific measures for improvement of DO conditions in the tailwaters involve 

provision of minimum flows and the implementation of tailwater aeration strategies. Duke 

Energy would provide continuous minimum flows at the Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, 

Wylie, Great Falls, Dearborn, and Wateree Developments to protect and enhance aquatic habitat 

and water quality in the downstream riverine sections. Duke Energy proposes to perform the 

following physical modifications to increase tailwater DO: 

• Under a previously authorized project at the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy is 

building a new powerhouse at the Linville dam that will include aeration capability on all 

units. Duke Energy proposes to install a new flow valve with aerating capability that 

would support minimum flow releases and enhance aeration at the Bridgewater 

Development Catawba River dam. 

• A new aerating runner would be installed on unit 3 at the Rhodhiss Development to 

provide a continuous minimum flow that supports public water supply and industrial 

processes. 

• A minimum flow valve and a new aerating runner would be installed at an existing unit at 

the Oxford dam to provide a year-round continuous minimum flow of at least 150 cfs. 

• A year-round continuous minimum flow of at least 80 cfs would be provided from the 

Lookout Shoals Development. Anticipating enhanced DO conditions as a result of 

improved releases from the upstream Oxford Development, DO management at Lookout 

Shoals would be controlled initially by operation of the existing vacuum breakers. 

Additional aeration may be accomplished, if necessary, by adding aeration capacity to 

auxiliary units at Lookout Shoals. 

• An existing hydro unit at the Wylie Development would be replaced with a small aerating 

hydro unit to provide year-round continuous minimum flows. 

• Existing stay vanes and hub venting would be used to manage DO in downstream 

releases at the Fishing Creek Development. 

• A flow release structure would be installed at the Great Falls headworks and the Great 

Falls diversion dam to provide continuous minimum flows to the bypassed reaches, and 

operation of existing vacuum breakers would be used to enhance DO as needed. 

130 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• Existing hub venting at the Cedar Creek and Rocky Creek Developments would be used 

to manage DO in downstream releases. 

• An existing hydro unit at the Wateree Development would be replaced with a small 

aerating hydro unit to provide year-round continuous minimum flows and manage DO. 

• No changes to the equipment or operations were proposed at the Cowans Ford and 

Mountain Island Developments. 

Duke Energy proposes to develop and implement a WQMP to monitor compliance with 

water quality standards, a draft of which appears in appendix F of the Revised CRA. The 

WQMP would be prepared in consultation with North Carolina DWQ and South Carolina 

DHEC. The plan would include potential locations for continuous DO monitors, which were 

selected in consultation with the water quality resource committee and have been submitted to 

the state agencies for approval. By June 30 following each full calendar year for the term of the 

new license, Duke Energy proposes to file a report with the Commission verifying compliance 

with applicable WQCs. 

DOI commented that the application does not provide for compliance with basic water 

quality standards (e.g., temperature and DO) prior to issuance of the license. DOI also requested 

that permanent water quality monitors be included as part of the WQMP for each of the project 

tailwaters, bypassed reaches, and reservoirs. They specifically indicate the need for monitoring 

temperature, turbidity, pH, DO, and total dissolved gas and recommended that real-time 

monitoring be included in the license. DOI expressed concern that Duke Energy’s proposed 

enhancements to project equipment and facilities do not provide adequate assurance that DO 

standards will be met in a timely manner. They asked that the commission consider the 

following: the adequacy of Duke Energy’s proposed measures for DO; development of an 

alternative plan to provide timely compliance with water quality standards in project reservoirs, 

bypassed reaches, and regulated tailwaters; and the need for a backup plan with adequate 

redundancy in critical equipment to ensure compliance with water quality standards at all times, 

including during maintenance or emergency shut-down of oxygen-enhancing equipment. 

EPA asked that the DO enhancement program be evaluated with respect to the goal of 

increasing DO concentrations below all dams to meet state water quality standards. Specifically, 

EPA recommended that the program include contingencies for making additional modifications 

if the proposed modifications are not successful in meeting water quality standards. The agency 

also indicated that empirical evidence should be evaluated to determine the aeration capability of 

existing units and the effectiveness of existing technologies to increase DO levels in project 

tailwaters. EPA recommended that the capability of existing equipment to meet DO standards be 

determined before license approval. The agency also commented that the continuous water 

quality monitoring program should be evaluated under the FWQIP. Finally, EPA requested that 

they be included as a consulting party in the development of the FWQIP and WQMP and be 

provided with copies of the annual monitoring reports. 

North Carolina DENR and North Carolina WRC recommended that development of the 

WQMP in conjunction with the state agencies be included as a license article. American Rivers, 

Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper commented in response to the 

Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice that it has not yet been demonstrated that the project 

will meet either North Carolina’s or South Carolina’s DO standards, particularly below Lake 

131 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Wylie. These stakeholders also requested that the WQMP require that all elements of the project 

meet all applicable state water quality standards under all operating conditions. 

After review of the Revised CRA and Duke Energy’s 401 WQC application, South 

Carolina DHEC found that it gives reasonable assurance of compliance with the DO standard in 

all project discharges after full implementation. In particular, South Carolina DHEC indicated 

that DO was the only parameter identified during consultation as being out of compliance in the 

discharges from project developments and was targeted for compliance. Specifically they 

concluded that Duke Energy’s, “approach is sound and assumptions valid, and the analysis 

sufficiently demonstrates that the applicant can achieve the DO standard during generation with 

existing equipment (Fishing Creek, Dearborn, and Cedar Creek) or with planned upgrades 

(Wylie and Wateree).” 

The Catawba Riverkeeper stated that to provide redundancy, particularly in the event of 

maintenance and emergency events, every turbine should be able to meet water quality standards 

for DO and the ability to spill water should become a license article and regarded as a method for 

meeting DO requirements. The Riverkeeper also recommended that Duke Energy establish a fee 

structure for water withdrawn from within the project boundary, and use the funds for 

conservation and water quality improvements. The Riverkeeper commented that Duke Energy 

should be required to implement measures to minimize sediment and other pollutants from 

entering the Catawba River. The Lake Wateree Lakekeeper requested an evaluation of the 

aerating capability of the turbines to ensure water quality standards will be met, and if not, that 

Duke Energy should be required to provide further mitigation. Mr. G. Knox (Mayor of 

Cornelius) requested that Duke Energy maintain its environmental monitoring section rather than 

turn it over to a government agency. 

Our Analysis 

There are no water quality requirements in the existing license for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. The project was originally licensed in 1958, prior to the implementation of the Clean 

Water Act; therefore, the project has never been required to obtain a WQC. Operating the 

developments consistent with the Revised CRA would generally increase the rate of water 

moving through the system and reduce the effects of biochemical oxygen demand on DO 

concentration in affected reaches of the Catawba-Wateree project area, 

Operation of existing equipment at some developments and installation of proposed 

aerating capacity at other developments have a potential to enhance DO. The effectiveness of 

this capacity is a function of site-specific conditions. Several of the regulatory and resource 

agencies and other stakeholders have requested a mechanism for further action in the event that 

proposed equipment and operational modifications are not adequate to bring all of the 

developments into compliance with DO standards of the respective states. The proposed 

WQMP, which has been developed in consultation with the agencies, provides an adaptive 

management framework for monitoring water quality improvements and making necessary 

modifications when and where non-compliance related to project operations has not been 

adequately addressed by the elements of the FWQIP. The WQMP provides for real-time data 

review, monthly and annual data summaries and analyses, identification of non-compliance 

events, corrective measures and further mitigation. Inclusion of the WQMP, FWQIP, and 

Revised CRA by reference in the 401 WQCs ensures ongoing consultation and provides the 

states with a mechanism for enforcement of water quality standards, when and where necessary. 

132 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
It is our conclusion that the measures in the FWQIP have a reasonable potential to enhance DO 

to meet state water quality standards in the affected reaches and that the WQMP and 401 WQCs 

will provide for monitoring, documentation, and compliance; identify failures to meet the water 

quality criteria; and provide the means to ensure that necessary modifications can be 

implemented in a timely manner where FWQIP measures are not adequate. 

We agree that the state and federal agencies with responsibilities for regulation and 

protection of water quality related to this project should be included as part of the consultation 

team for development and review of the FWQIP and WQMP and the monthly and annual review 

of data specified in the WQMP. Consultation for the WQMP has been concluded with the state 

agencies as part of the 401 WQC. We recommend inclusion of EPA in the consultation list for 

the FWQIP and subsequent review of ongoing monitoring results during the license period. 

EPA’s request for more evidence that the aeration methods will work, and a similar request by 

the Coastal Conservation League, American Rivers, and Catawba Riverkeeper, is most 

affordably met by deploying the devices and beginning the monitoring program as soon as 

possible following the issuance of the new license. 

Regarding the request by the state agencies, the Coastal Conservation League, American 

Rivers, and Catawba Riverkeeper that the license include the provisions of the states’ 401 

certifications, the proposed FWQIP and WQMP are included as proposed license articles in the 

PM&E and as part of the application for the 401 certification. North Carolina DWQ issued a 

letter (November 18, 2008) granting the 401 certification (No. 3767) and South Carolina DHEC 

issued a Notice of Department Decision (May 15, 2009, DHEC 08-C-001) certifying the project; 

both WQCs incorporated by reference the conditions of the Revised CRA and the included 

WQMP and FWQIP. PM&E 6.1 includes a requirement for preparation of a quality assurance 

project plan as part of the 401 certification application; North Carolina DENR, North Carolina 

WRC, and South Carolina DHEC requested that this be included as a license article. The quality 

assurance project plan requested was submitted as part of the complete 401 certification 

applications to both states; North Carolina DWQ and South Carolina DHEC subsequently issued 

the 401 certifications. 

The new license would place responsibility on Duke Energy for compliance with all 

license articles including those related to water quality monitoring described in the WQMP and 

the state 401 certifications. The mechanism (e.g., in-house staff, consultants, agency) by which 

Duke Energy implements the monitoring requirements including sampling, operation and 

maintenance, quality assurance/quality control, and reporting is their option and not specified in 

the license. If they choose to do so, they can use their own staff to do the monitoring, as Mayor 

Knox recommends, or they can contract the work. Regarding DOI’s request for specific 

parameters in the WQMP, much of the request can be found in the draft plan, and determination 

of the additional specific parameters and measurement frequency for each development should 

be determined among the stakeholders, including DOI, as part of review and finalization of the 

WQMP. 

The Catawba Riverkeeper’s request for redundancy is unnecessary. To some degree 

redundancy is built into the system through the ability to spill water if aeration systems fail, 

although the ability to spill, particularly during low inflow periods is not a dependable method 

for aeration. Also, while low DO events are to be avoided to protect water quality and habitat, 

natural re-aeration often limits low DO conditions to a modest area below the dams relative to 

the habitat available, or the water is released directly into downstream impoundments. The 

133 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
concept to establish a fee structure for water users in the system was explored during the 

stakeholders’ process and negotiations. As a result of subsequent discussions, alternative 

approaches, including the progressive Low Inflow Protocol and establishment of the Drought 

Management Advisory Group, have been proposed to manage and conserve scarce water 

resources during low flow periods. Other aspects of the proposed mitigation package will also 

contribute to water quality protection and enhancement. Duke Energy does not have authority to 

control sediment and pollutant loadings from outside the project boundary. The Shoreline 

Management Plan discussed in sections 3.3.8.1 and 3.3.8.2 is one tool to protect riparian 

shorelines and minimize erosion and sediment loading to the project developments. Other point 

and non-point agricultural and urban sources of sediment and pollutants outside the project 

boundary are not within Duke Energy’s purview to control. Ongoing state and local stormwater, 

best management practices, and discharge permitting programs are the appropriate means for 

control of these sources. The mitigation package includes preservation of riparian habitat buffers 

in selected river reaches and contributions to the HEP. Protection and restoration of riparian 

buffers is an important means to reduce non-point sources of sediment, nutrients, and other 

pollutants in runoff from the watershed. Implementation of these programs will lead to 

reductions in pollutant sources, organic and nutrient loading, and associated improvements in 

water quality conditions including DO. 

Temperature 

To manage temperature in the Catawba River bypassed reach and the Linville River 

reach, Duke Energy proposes to balance three measures. They are: 

1. Managing the storage in Lake James to avoid depletion of the cold water reserve in 

summer and early fall. 

2. Providing coldwater minimum flows in the Linville River to support the trout fishery 

below the Bridgewater Powerhouse. 

3. Providing continuous minimum flows at warmer temperatures which would support and 

enhance freshwater mussel populations in the Catawba River bypassed reach. Increased 

warmer flows in the bypassed reach, however, should not cause water temperatures to 

rise to the extent that they affect the trout community’s survivability in the Catawba 

River below the confluence of the bypassed reach and the Linville River. 

Under the WQMP, Duke Energy would monitor water temperature downstream at all 

developments. 

American Rivers, the Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper 

commented that alternatives should be evaluated to assure adequate temperatures for trout in the 

Linville River and Catawba River bypass reaches downstream of the Bridgewater development. 

Our Analysis 

During the stakeholder negotiations leading to the Revised CRA, extensive modeling was 

performed to simulate the response of the storage capacity of Lake James to various downstream 

release scenarios at the Bridgewater powerhouse and the Catawba dam to provide minimum 

flows for support of aquatic resources, in particular trout and freshwater mussels. Implementing 

Duke Energy’s proposal would have little potential effect at any of the project developments 

except Bridgewater and the three bypassed reaches, the Catawba River bypassed reach, and 

Great Falls Long and Short bypassed reaches, that would now receive continuous minimum 

134 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
flows. It is our conclusion that the balance of flows struck in the Revised CRA between the 

Catawba River bypassed reach and the Linville River below the Bridgewater powerhouse would 

provide water temperatures and flows that continue to support the existing trout fishery in the 

Linville/Catawba River and other aquatic resources in both of these reaches. North Carolina 

DWQ has issued a 401 WQC for the project that includes the continuous flow modifications for 

this reach to protect the designated uses for these reaches including trout management. With 

negligible flows in the existing bypass, water temperatures fluctuate widely and summer water 

temperatures can frequently exceed the tolerance of many aquatic organisms. The proposed 

continuous minimum flows would provide a natural range of water temperatures in these reaches 

that meet water quality standards and would support and enhance aquatic resources in these 

bypassed reaches. Monitoring for temperatures that will support trout, a request of American 

Rivers, the Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper, would be addressed as 

an element of the WQMP. 

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects 

Water Quantity and Quality 

The hydrology of the Catawba-Wateree system is altered by the project itself and by 

changes in the character of the watershed, which falls mostly outside of the project boundary. 

An obvious characteristic of the hydroelectric power system is the fact that it has resulted in the 

transformation of much of the river system into reservoir systems. The existing condition for 

this analysis is the system under the current license, with the impoundments in place. However, 

though the pre-project condition is not the focus here, there are characteristics of impoundments 

that tie into other water quantity and quality issues. For example, cumulatively, a large amount 

of water evaporates from the surface area of the impounded lakes that would not otherwise be 

lost from the river surface. This process has been accounted for in the Duke Energy hydrologic 

models. 

The impounding of water brings changes in water quality. The fact that temperature and 

sediment content are altered is somewhat obvious. Less obvious is the re-suspension of some 

chemicals when low oxygen conditions trigger certain chemical reactions in the bottom 

sediments where those chemicals have settled. Another factor is that the stillness and long 

retention time of the impoundments gives algal populations better conditions for growth for 

longer periods of time than occurs in moving waters, leading to algal blooms. When the algae 

die and sink to the bottom, the bacteria that break them down require a great deal of oxygen and 

can cause low DO conditions. These are very difficult aspects of water quality to manage and 

are, to some degree, outside of the control of Duke Energy. Seasonal temperature stratification is 

another physical characteristic of many impoundments that contributes to the depletion of DO in 

deeper waters in the impoundments and the discharge of poorly oxygenated water downstream of 

the powerhouses. 

Outside of the project boundary, the watershed hydrology has changed and will continue 

to change over the years. As the watershed is developed, flows to the reservoirs are altered, 

often becoming “flashier,” or more extreme in character. Urban and suburban storm runoff 

brings increased sediment and nutrient loads. Ongoing development in the watershed, and 

particularly along shorelines, typically results in increased runoff, erosion, turbidity, nutrient 

loading, and fecal coliform. Discharge of treated wastewater from public treatment facilities 

often increases nutrient loads to the system. Agricultural practices also increase nutrient loads 

135 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
and fecal coliform. These watershed scale processes are, for the most part, beyond the control of 

Duke Energy. 

The Attorney General and Counsel for the State of South Carolina commented that the 

draft EIS does not address the indirect effects of low flow on water quality. During periods of 

low flow the capacity of the system to receive both point and non-point discharges is reduced 

due to decreased dilution associated with the lower flows. Thus, during droughts the ability of 

the aquatic system to assimilate, disperse, and dilute pollutants such as nutrients, turbidity, and 

coliform bacteria is compromised. This is typical of any river basin whether impounded or free 

flowing. Although the Catawba-Wateree Project has altered the hydrology of the system, 

periods of drought would have a similar effect on assimilative capacity without project 

operations. Proposed license articles for continuous minimum flows should generally result in 

higher instream flows and improved water quality associated with higher flows throughout most 

operations: the Low Inflow Protocol should provide improved management of low flow 

conditions compared to the existing license. 

American Rivers, the Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper 

stakeholders request that the FWQIP require that all elements of the project meet all applicable 

state water quality standards under all operating conditions. Given that many of the water 

quality factors above are largely out of the control of the power company, this may not be 

realistic for all parameters. However, Duke Power is involved in multiple efforts that could lead 

to modest improvements or prevent declines in overall water quality. These include: 

4. Participating in the states’ TMDL processes. 

5. Working with the water suppliers to apply some of the funds raised through the Water 

Management Group to carry out water quality improvement projects. 

6. Purchasing riparian easements (along waterways) in North and South Carolina to meet 

state mitigation requirements for flow alterations. These easements will preserve 

streamside vegetation that will help filter water before it reaches streams flowing to the 

reservoirs. 

7. Providing $1,000,000 to South Carolina for improvement of fish and wildlife habitat 

including water quality. (This fund also provides for other habitat and fish and wildlife 

enhancement activities not directly related to water quality.) 

Another water quantity factor with potential cumulative effects would be inter-basin 

transfers. Major inter-basin transfers are typically for public water supply outside of the basin or 

where the discharge of treated wastewater occurs outside of the basin. Predictions of new or 

expanded future inter-basin transfers are based on general regional growth projections and have 

an inherent high level of uncertainty. Inter-basin transfers require state approval and permitting, 

and the effect on project water quantity and availability of increases in inter-basin transfers can 

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the context of project water management and using 

the CHEOPS model as necessary. The CHEOPS model has been used extensively for these 

types of analyses and has developed a documented track record as a reliable tool for hydroproject 

water management. Existing and proposed, near-term transfers represent a very small portion of 

the available flow in the system. 

136 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Throughout much of the water column in most of the reservoirs, stratification of 

temperature and DO would continue to occur seasonally. Given the accumulation of sediments 

and associated contaminants, and continued input of sediments and nutrients in runoff and point 

source discharges to the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, near-bottom waters would continue to 

have elevated concentrations of ammonia. It is unlikely that pollution from watershed runoff 

will be avoided, though regional efforts by partners including Duke Energy may help. Finally, 

because the purpose of impounding water is to alter the timing of its availability for use, the flow 

regime is altered at each dam, affecting physical processes and organisms. However, the 

proposals in the Revised CRA would improve flows, particularly relative to the existing 

condition. 

3.3.3 Aquatic Resources 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Aquatic Habitat 

The project area within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin encompasses an elevation 

change of 1,113 ft msl and is defined by a complex hydrologic system of riverine habitats 

interspersed among the 11 project impoundments. 

Reservoirs 

The 11 impoundments of the Catawba-Wateree Project range in size from the 353-acre 

Great Falls reservoir to the 32,399-acre Lake Norman (table 24). The shoreline length varies 

from 13.1 miles on the Great Falls reservoir to 603.1 miles on Lake Norman. The shoreline 

development index is a measure of the complexity of the shoreline (length of shoreline divided 

by the circumference of a circle with the area of the lake); the higher the number, the more 

dendritic or irregular the shoreline or more arms and coves. For the Catawba-Wateree Project, 

the impoundments range from 5 (Great Falls reservoir) to 23.9 (Lake Norman), reflecting the 

relative complexity of the shoreline and potential shallow water habitat. Morphometric and 

hydraulic characteristics of these reservoirs range from small, fairly shallow reservoirs with short 

retention times and low shoreline development indices such as Great Falls and Cedar Creek 

reservoirs, to large, deep, reservoirs with long retention times and highly dendritic shorelines 

such as Lake Norman. 

Table 24. Dimensional characteristics of Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Impoundment Full pool 

(+msl ft) 

Shoreline 

(miles) 

Surface area 

(acres) 

Shoreline 

complexity 

Lake James 1,200.0 153.0 6,754 13.3 

Rhodhiss Lake 995.1 106.8 2,724 14.6 

Lake Hickory 935.0 115.7 4,072 12.9 

Lookout Shoals Lake 838.1 35.2 1,155 7.4 

137 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
138 

Impoundment Full pool 

(+msl ft) 

Shoreline 

(miles) 

Surface area 

(acres) 

Shoreline 

complexity 

Lake Norman 760.0 603.1 32,339 23.9 

Mountain Island Lake 647.5 96.5 3,117 12.3 

Lake Wylie 569.4 348.5 12,177 22.5 

Fishing Creek 

Reservoir 417.2 85.1 3,431 10.4 

Great Falls Reservoir 355.8 13.1 353 5.0 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 284.4 23.2 748 6.1 

Lake Wateree 225.5 214.3 13,025 13.4 

The mean surface water temperatures on the Catawba-Wateree impoundments (1993-

2002) ranged from 25.0 to 33.9°C in summer and from 6.1 to 12.5°C in winter. All reservoirs 

remained vertically mixed throughout winter. During the summer, deep reservoirs with long 

detention times maintained fairly stable thermal stratification, while stratification in shallower 

reservoirs with short detention times tended to be transient. Great Falls and Cedar Creek 

reservoirs, small reservoirs with retention times less than 3 days, did not stratify. All of the 

project reservoirs with the exception of Great Falls and Cedar Creek exhibit some degree of 

oxygen depletion in the hypolimnetic waters. 

Duke Energy conducted mapping of primary shallow aquatic habitat types over the 

normal range of pool elevations for each reservoir except Great Falls (Duke Energy, 2005b). 

Surveys were conducted using hydroacoustic and LiDAR technologies and habitat sampling 

along survey transects. The data were used to estimate fish habitat available at various levels of 

draw-down from normal full pool to minimum pool and to evaluate the amount of habitat lost 

during draw-down. 

Seven shallow water aquatic habitat types were mapped in each impoundment: cobble, 

riprap and piers, vegetation and tributary confluence, mud flats, sand, clay, and woody debris. 

Littoral zone areas where submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation grow, aside from the 

tributary confluence areas, can be vital cover and nursery habitat for various fish species at 

different life stages. These areas further add to the complexity of fish habitat. The types of 

shallow-water habitat that provide significant habitat complexity (i.e., cobble, riprap/piers, 

vegetated confluences, woody debris, and water willow) are a major determinant in fish 

diversity, fish distribution, predator-prey interactions, and survival of young. 

The most abundant habitat types across all impoundments were riprap and piers, 

vegetation and tributary confluence, and clay (table 25). The other habitat types were nearly an 

order of magnitude less abundant. Except in Lake James, cobble accounted for less than 10 acres 

of habitat between normal maximum and minimum pool elevation. The greatest acreage 

between maximum and minimum pool elevation occurs in Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake 

Wateree. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 25. Summary of aquatic habitat available between normal maximum and normal minimum water surf

Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments. (Source: Duke Energy, 2005b) 

Pool elevation relative to 100-ft 

maximum Aquatic habitat between maximum and minimum pool elevation 

Impoundment 

Normal 

maximum 

Normal 

minimum 

Survey 

min. 

pool 

Cobble Riprap piers Vegetation confluences Mud flats sand clay Wood

debri

Lake James 99.5 92.0 93.0 20.0 82.0 55.0 71.0 79.0 224.0 82.0Rhodhiss Lake 99.5 95.0 95.0 5.0 5.0 82.0 17.0 14.0 141.0 38.1Lake Hickory 99.5 95.0 96.0 0.8 149.0 123.0 0.0 2.7 51.0 10.1Lookout Shoals Lake 99.5 95.0 95.0 2.1 28.0 13.4 5.0 8.1 31.0 0.8Lake Norman 99.5 92.0 93.0 6.3 2,064.0 555.0 157.0 210.0 1,586.0 8.7Mountain Island Lake 99.5 94.5 95.0 2.1 67.0 507.0 29.0 4.2 73.0 0.5Lake Wylie 99.5 95.0 95.0 2.7 863.0 891.0 107.0 10.0 600.0 10.2Fishing Creek Reservoir 99.5 95.0 95.0 1.5 53.0 928.0 5.3 7.6 189.0 57.0Great Falls Reservoir 99.5 95.0 Cedar Creek Reservoir 99.5 96.0 96.0 0.0 3.3 28.0 2.1 2.1 28.0 0.0Lake Wateree 99.5 94.0 95.0 3.8 1,302.0 401.0 71.0 45.0 365.0 0.7

44.3 4,616.3 3,583.4 464.4 382.7 3,288.0 208.2

139 
Each of the project impoundments has a specific guide curve that determines ideal water 

levels for a given time of year. Water levels within the Catawba-Wateree River reservoirs vary 

more than 3 ft from the existing guide curves typically less than 10 percent of the time. The 

normal range of draw-down between maximum and minimum pool elevation ranges from 7.5 ft 

at Lake James and Lake Norman to 3.5 ft at Cedar Creek reservoir; the range for six of the 

impoundments is 4.5 ft (Rhodhiss Lake, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake, Lake Wylie, 

Fishing Creek reservoir, and Great Falls reservoir). The quantity of shallow water habitats 

generally declines as water levels recede. The greatest declines in habitat usually occur at drawdowns of 1 to 3 ft, which is the range at which the reservoirs have historically been operated. 

Vegetation and stream confluence habitats are most affected by draw-downs, while other habitats 

are generally available to fish even at normal minimum pool elevations. 

On a seasonal basis, reservoir levels are typically lowest from November to February 

when most fish in these reservoirs are least active and concentrated in deep areas of the reservoir 

beyond the shore zone. One important fish habitat type for spring/summer spawning and nursery 

functions is the vegetated stream-confluence type. Reservoir level changes after 

spawning activities have begun can be critically important, especially for nest-building fish 

species. If reservoir levels decrease appreciably after nests have been constructed and eggs have 

been deposited, nests and eggs can be dewatered, which can lead to stranding, exposure, 

desiccation, and death of the developing embryos and hatching larvae. 

Riverine 

Much of what was once lotic (riverine) habitat in the main stem Catawba-Wateree River 

prior to construction of the project has been transformed into lentic habitat discussed in the 

previous section. There are approximately 119 miles of riverine habitat interspersed between the 

project impoundments. The longest reaches of riverine habitat (table 26) are the regulated 

reaches below Bridgewater (12.5 miles), Wylie (25.6 miles), and Wateree (76.8 miles). The 

regulated reach below Oxford is 2.8 miles long. The Lookout Shoals regulated river reach varies 

from 0.3 to 1.3 miles in length depending on the draw-down of Lake Norman downstream. The 

tailraces from the other eight developments (Rhodhiss, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing 

Creek, Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek) enter the backwater of the 

impoundment of the next development downstream. 

Flows in these reaches vary through the day, depending on power generation operations, 

and seasonally depending on weather conditions and power generation. The existing operating 

conditions require minimum average daily flows (table 26) from each development, which 

generally can be met with several hours of generation and flows throughout the rest of the day 

limited to leakage. The minimum average daily flow at Bridgewater is 66 cfs, and progressively 

increases downstream to 446 cfs at Wateree. Minimum continuous flows are maintained at the 

six most upstream developments ranging from 25 cfs at Bridgewater to 80 cfs and Cowans Ford 

and Mountain Island. 

140 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 26. Summary of flows and length of riverine reaches associated with each 

development in the Catawba-Wateree Project. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Development(s) Regulated reach 

(miles) 

Minimum 

average daily 

flow (cfs) 

Minimum 

continuous flow 

(cfs) 

Bypassed reach 

(miles) 

Bridgewater 12.5 66 25 5.6/0.5 

Rhodhiss NA 225 40 NA 

Oxford 2.8 261 40 NA 

Lookout Shoals 0.3–1.3 278 60 NA 

Cowans Ford NA 311 80 NA 

Mountain Island NA 318 80 0.6 

Wylie 25.6 411 NA 

Fishing Creek NA 440 NA 

Great Falls and 

Dearborn NA 444 2.2/0.8 

Rocky Creek and 

Cedar Creek NA 445 NA 

Wateree 76.8 446 0.4 

Based on the habitat mapping information collected as part of the Instream Flow Study

(DTA, 2005), the regulated reaches are comprised of a diversity of habitat and substrate 

(table 27). Habitat types include riffles, runs, glides, pools, shoals, islands and braided channels, 

bends, and scour pools. Substrate is generally coarse; bedrock outcrops and ledges overlain by 

varying thicknesses of sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder; finer substrates limited in extent within 

the regulated reaches; and finer sediments that settle in the various project impoundments. 

141 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 27. Description of primary substrate and aquatic habitat of riverine and bypassed 

reaches in the Catawba-Wateree Project from the instream flow study. (Source: 

DTA, 2005a) 

Reach Substrate Habitat types 

Bridgewater Regulated River 

Reach 

Bedrock overlain by varying 

thickness of sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder 

Riffle, run, glide, pool, islands 

Catawba River Bypass 

Bedrock overlain by varying 

thickness of sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder, rubble 

Riffles, glides, pools beaver 

ponds 

Paddy Creek Bypass Bedrock, sand, gravel cobble Riffle, pool, split channel 

Oxford Regulated River 

Reach 

Bedrock overlain by varying 

thickness of sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder, some silt 

Run, glide, pool, shoal, island 

Lookout Shoals Regulated 

River Reach Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder Riffle, glide, pool, island 

Mountain Island Bypass Bedrock, boulder, cobble, 

sand, gravel 

Wylie Regulated River Reach Bedrock, boulder, gravel, 

cobble, some fines 

Pool, shoal, glide, vegetated 

island, riffle 

Great Falls Long Bypass Bedrock boulder Pool, run 

Great Falls Short Bypass Bedrock boulder Pool, run 

Wateree Regulated River 

Reach Bedrock boulder Pool, run 

Wateree Spillway Channel 

Bypass 

Bedrock, boulder, sand, 

gravel, vegetated islands 

Glide, bend, scour pool, run, 

riffle, flood plain, bars, shoals 

Bypassed Reaches 

The project includes six bypassed reaches approximately 10 miles in total length, two 

each associated with the Bridgewater and Great Falls and Dearborn Developments and one each 

at the Mountain Island and Wateree Developments (table 26). The Catawba River bypassed 

reach below the Bridgewater Development is the longest bypass at 5.6 miles; the Paddy Creek 

bypassed reach, also at Bridgewater, is 0.5 mile. The Mountain Island bypassed reach is 

approximately 0.6 mile, and the two Great Falls bypassed reaches are 2.2 and 0.8 mile. The 

Wateree spillway bypass is 0.4 mile long. 

Substrate in these bypassed reaches is generally bedrock with boulder, cobble, sand, and 

gravel. Runs, glides, pools, and riffles appear to predominate in the bypassed reaches. Beaver 

dams have created ponds in the Catawba River bypassed reach. 

142 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
143 

Except during spill periods, the flow through these bypassed reaches is generally limited 

to leakage, groundwater inflow, and tributary inflow. Muddy Creek provides significant flow to 

the lower portion of the Catawba River bypassed reach. Except for the Catawba River bypassed 

reach, downstream of the confluence of Muddy Creek, most of the bypassed reaches do not 

contain reliable flows and dry out between spill events. Thus, bypass habitat is typically 

marginal for fish and other biological resources with elevated water temperatures and depleted 

DO. 

Essential Fish Habitat 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is protected by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and is under the 

purview of NOAA Fisheries. Where EFH is potentially affected, the Commission is required to 

consult with NOAA Fisheries during the licensing process to assess EFH impacts. 

Tidally influenced waters of the lower Santee and Cooper Rivers include areas designated 

by NOAA Fisheries as EFH for federally managed fish and invertebrate species including white 

shrimp, brown shrimp, summer flounder, and red drum. The Santee River and its major 

tributaries provide important spawning and maturation habitat for diadromous fish species 

(American shad, blueback herring, and other alosines, and American eel) that are prey for 

estuarine or marine species, such as bluefish, billfish, sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals 

that are federally managed or protected. Construction and historic operation of the CatawbaWateree Project has restricted access to such habitat above the Wateree Development. Although 

usage of available habitat in the Wateree River downstream of the Wateree Development has not 

been documented in recent years, the historic range and spawning habitat for shortnose and 

Atlantic sturgeon extended upstream to the area of the Great Falls Development. 

Biological Resources 

Freshwater Mussels 

Freshwater mussel surveys were conducted in 2004 for the Catawba-Wateree relicensing 

projects (Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. [AES], 2005). Many species were collected 

during these surveys, including relic shell material. For purposes of this document, only species 

collected live during the survey will be discussed in detail. 

Sixteen live freshwater mussel species were collected in 2004 within 114 study reaches 

of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (table 28). These mussel surveys indicated that Eastern 

elliptio and Carolina lance were the most common species collected among the survey sites. 

Mussel diversity was highest at the Wylie Development (including sites surveyed in the South 

Fork Catawba River, Lake Wylie, Wylie River, and Waxhaw Creek) and the Wateree 

Development (including sites surveyed in the Wateree River and Grannies Quarter Creek), each 

having 10 mussel species including state and federally listed species. The exotic bivalve, Asian 

clam, was identified at most of the 114 reaches, with some stations having significantly higher 

densities of the invasive species than others. 

Federally listed species include one endangered species (Carolina heelsplitter) and two 

species of concern (brook floater and yellow lampmussel). Eleven state listed (North Carolina 

and South Carolina) species were collected during the surveys. Federal species of concern and 

state-listed mussel species are discussed in this section; Carolina heelsplitter, an endangered 

species, is discussed in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 28. Sixteen freshwater mussel species collected in the vicinity of 11 relicensing developments on the 

River basins. Mussels listed were collected live during the 2004 surveys. (AES, 2005) 

CATAWBA-WATEREE PROJECT DEVELOPMENTS1 

Common name 

Bridgewater Rhodhiss Oxford Lookout Shoals Cowans Ford Mt. Island Wylie Fishing Creek G

an

Eastern elliptio X X X X X X Variable spike X X X 

Carolina slabshellSSC(SC) 

Carolina lance X X X X 

Atlantic spike X X X 

Roanoke slabshellST(NC) X 

Pondhorn X X X X 

Carolina heelsplitterFE/SE(NC&SC) X 

Brook floaterFSC/SE(NC)/SSC(SC) X X 

Eastern pondmusselST(NC) 

Paper pondshellSSC(SC) X X X 

Eastern floaterSSC(SC) X X X X X 

Creeper/Squawfoot 

ST(NC)/SSC(SC) X X X X 

Eastern creekshellSSC(SC) X X X X 

Notched rainbowSSC(NC&SC) X X 

Yellow lampmusselFSC/SE(NC)/SSC

(SC)

144 
145 

1 No live mussels were collected at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments; therefore, the developme

in this summary table. 

2 FSC: federal species of concern.  FE: federally endangered.  SE: state endangered.  ST: state threatened.  SSC: state species of concern.  Sources: North Carolina WRC, 2008b; South Carolina DNR, 2008; FWS, 2008. 
Five mussel species collected during the 2004 survey are considered common in North 

Carolina and South Carolina watersheds and include the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina 

lance, Atlantic spike, and the pondhorn. Descriptions of the shells of these species, their 

distribution, habitat preference, and life history are well documented in Mussel Surveys for 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing report (AES, 2005). 

Bridgewater Development—Six mussel species were collected in the Bridgewater 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, brook floater, creeper/squawfoot, 

Eastern creekshell, and notched rainbow. The Eastern elliptio dominated the collection 

(181 individuals) with nearly 83 percent of the total catch. Most of the individuals were 

collected from Lake James, the Catawba River bypassed reach, and Muddy Creek. Two species 

(brook floater and Eastern creekshell) were collected from the Linville River. Four species from 

the Bridgewater Development are protected by North Carolina, and one species (brook floater, 

12 individuals) is considered a species of special concern by FWS. 

Rhodhiss Development—Eight mussel species were collected in the Rhodhiss 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina lance, Atlantic spike, brook 

floater, Eastern floater, Eastern creekshell, and the notched rainbow. The Eastern elliptio 

dominated the collection (281+ individuals) with nearly 82 percent of the total catch. All of the 

individuals were collected from Warriors Fork and the Johns River, with the exception of the 

Eastern floater, which was collected in the Rhodhiss regulated river reach. Four of the species 

from the Rhodhiss Development are protected by North Carolina, and one species (brook floater, 

three individuals) is considered a species of special concern by FWS. 

Oxford Development—One mussel species, the Eastern floater, was collected from the 

Oxford regulated river reach of the Oxford Development. Only 13 individuals of this species 

were collected at this development. The Eastern floater is considered a species of special 

concern by the state of South Carolina, but is not currently protected by the state of North 

Carolina or FWS. 

Lookout Shoals Development—One mussel species, the creeper/squawfoot, was collected 

from the Lookout Shoals regulated river reach of the Lookout Shoals Development. Only one 

individual of this species was collected at this development. This species is not currently 

protected by North Carolina or by FWS. 

Cowans Ford Development—Three mussel species were collected in the Cowans Ford 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, pondhorn, and Eastern floater. While relatively few 

individuals of these species were collected, the Eastern elliptio dominated the collection 

(11 individuals) with 79 percent of the total catch. All of the individuals were collected from the 

Cowans Ford tailrace. The Eastern floater is considered a species of special concern by the state 

of South Carolina, but is not currently protected by the state of North Carolina or FWS. 

Mountain Island Development—Eight mussel species were collected in the Mountain 

Island Development, including the Eastern elliptio, Carolina lance, Atlantic spike, pondhorn, 

paper pondshell, Eastern floater, creeper/squawfoot, and Eastern creekshell. The Carolina lance 

dominated the collection (204 individuals) with 73 percent of the total catch. Most of the 

individuals were collected from the Mountain Island bypassed reach, but a few (Carolina lance, 

paper pondshell, and pondhorn) were collected from the Mountain Island tailrace. Four of the 

146 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
species from the Mountain Island Development are protected by the state of North Carolina or 

South Carolina, or both. 

Wylie Development—Eleven mussel species were collected in the Wylie Development, 

including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina lance, Atlantic spike, Roanoke slabshell, 

pondhorn, Carolina heelsplitter, paper pondshell, Eastern floater, creeper/squawfoot, and Eastern 

creekshell. The Eastern elliptio dominated the collection (424+ individuals) with 52 percent of 

the total catch, followed by the Carolina lance with 35 percent of the total catch. Most of the 

individuals were collected from the Wylie regulated river reach, with fewer collected from 

Waxhaw Creek. Six of the species from the Wylie Development are protected by the state of 

North Carolina or South Carolina, or both, and one species (Carolina heelsplitter, two 

individuals) is federally listed as endangered by FWS. The Carolina heelsplitter was collected 

from Waxhaw Creek approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the project boundary during the 

2004 surveys and is discussed further in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

Fishing Creek Development—Four mussel species were collected in the Fishing Creek 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, Carolina lance, pondhorn, and paper pondshell. 

Surveys for the paper pondshell did not indicate specific numbers collected, but did report that 

this species was very common in the Catawba River (downstream of the Fishing Creek tailrace). 

The remaining three species were collected from the same location, but in much lower 

abundance (less than eight individuals each). The paper pondshell is the only species from this 

collection protected by South Carolina, but it is not currently protected by the state of North 

Carolina or FWS. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments—Three mussel species were collected in the 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, including the Carolina lance, pondhorn, and paper 

pondshell. Abundance for each species was very low (less than four individuals each). The 

pondhorn and Carolina lance were collected from the Great Falls reservoir. The paper pondshell, 

which is the only species from this collection protected by South Carolina, was collected in the 

Great Falls bypassed reach. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—Surveys within the Rocky Creek and 

Cedar Creek Developments were limited due to health and safety considerations. Two stations 

in Cedar Creek and Cedar Creek reservoir were surveyed with no live mussels collected at either 

station. 

Wateree Development—Ten mussel species were collected in the Wateree Development, 

including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina slabshell, Carolina lance, Roanoke 

slabshell, pondhorn, Eastern pondmussel, paper pondshell, Eastern floater, and yellow 

lampmussel. The Roanoke slabshell, which is listed as threatened by North Carolina, dominated 

the collection (65 individuals) with 42 percent of the total catch. Most of the individuals were 

collected from the Wateree regulated river reach, with the exception of the variable spike and 

some of Eastern elliptio specimens, which were collected in Grannies Quarter Creek. Six of the 

species from the Wateree Development are protected by the state of North Carolina or South 

Carolina, or both, and one species (yellow lampmussel, 15 individuals) is considered a species of 

special concern by FWS. The yellow lampmussel was collected from the Wateree regulated 

river reach during the 2004 surveys. 

Most of the mussel species collected during the 2004 survey are assumed to require 

intermediate fish hosts to complete their life cycles, and conservation of these mussel 

147 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
populations requires the protection of both the fish host and bivalve. Among the common 

mussels collected, no fish hosts have been specifically identified for the Carolina lance or 

Atlantic spike. The Eastern elliptio, variable spike, pondhorn, and Eastern floater, however, 

have several reported fish host species. The Eastern elliptio has at least four reported hosts 

including the green sunfish, largemouth bass, orangespotted sunfish, and white crappie 

(Cummings and Watters, 2004). Nine other fish species have been collected in the wild with 

Eastern elliptio glochidia lifestage attached to their gills, but transformation of the glochidia off 

the gill was not reported (Kneeland and Rhymer, 2008). During Duke Energy’s fish surveys, 

largemouth bass were collected more often than any other fish host species. Largemouth bass 

were collected from all 13 locations in which live Eastern elliptio were collected. Green sunfish 

were collected at eight of the locations in which live Eastern elliptio were collected. White 

crappie were collected in low abundance at one location (Bridgewater regulated river reach), and 

orangespotted sunfish were not collected from any of the 13 locations in which Eastern elliptio 

were collected. 

The variable spike has two reported fish hosts including the bluegill and largemouth bass 

(Keller and Ruessler, 1997). During Duke Energy’s fish surveys, bluegill were collected in 

relatively low abundance from most of the locations in which live variable spike also were 

collected, including the Catawba River bypassed reach, Wylie regulated river reach, Waxhaw 

Creek, and Grannies Quarter Creek (Duke Energy, 2005a). Bluegill were not collected in the 

Johns River during these same surveys. Largemouth bass also were collected from these same 

five locations. 

The pondhorn has one reported fish host, which is the golden shiner (Cummings and 

Watters, 2004). During Duke Energy’s fish surveys, golden shiner were collected in only three 

of the six locations in which live pondhorn were collected, including the Mountain Island tailrace 

(1 individual), Fishing Creek (10 individuals), and Wateree regulated river reach (27 individuals) 

(Duke Energy, 2005a). Golden shiner were not collected during fish surveys in the Cowans Ford 

tailrace, Wylie regulated river reach, or Great Falls reservoir. Historic records, also reported in 

table 25 of Duke Energy’s fish survey, indicate that the golden shiner have not been collected in 

the Wylie regulated river reach since 1973. Given that the pondhorn mussel had the greatest 

abundance (48 individuals) at the Wylie Development compared to any other survey location, it 

appears that other fish host species, not yet reported in the scientific literature, are likely 

supporting this small mussel population. 

Resident Fish 

A comprehensive reservoir investigation program was designed and initiated in the early 

1990s to characterize the fishery resources of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Conducted 

annually from 1993 through 1997 and every 3 years subsequently (with the exception of Lake 

Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie, which were conducted annually), the program 

included creel surveys, fish health assessments, littoral (shoreline) fish community assessments 

using electrofishing, and limnetic (open water) fish community assessments using 

hydroacoustics and purse seine sampling (Duke Energy, 2003). As part of relicensing studies, 

Duke Energy has conducted a survey and assessment of freshwater fish communities in various 

locations in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, within and adjacent to the project area (Coughlan 

et al., 2005a). The objectives of this study were to conduct fish community surveys in bypassed 

river reaches, regulated river reaches, tailrace areas, and major tributaries of the CatawbaWateree Project. Additionally, this study involved field sampling to assess the presence and 

148 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
relative abundance of several rare members of the sucker family, robust redhorse, Carolina 

redhorse, and highfin carpsuckers in the regulated reaches downstream of the Bridgewater, 

Wylie, and Wateree Developments. 

The reservoir studies found relatively high fish species diversity in the project’s 

reservoirs, ranging from 25 species in Great Falls reservoir to 38 species in Lake James. 

Reservoir characteristics such as high nutrient content and long retention times influence the 

high fish diversity observed in the reservoirs. Based on electrofishing data, total littoral (shore 

zone) fish biomass averaged 88.5 kilograms per kilometer (kg/km), ranging from 20.3 kg/km in 

the forebay area of Lake Norman to 191.1 kg/km in the upper Catawba River arm of Lake James. 

A total of 56 different species and a hybrid sunfish complex were collected by littoral 

electrofishing throughout the project area. Black basses averaged 37 percent of total littoral 

biomass, primarily consisting of largemouth bass. Sunfish (bluegill, redear, and redbreast) 

numerically dominated total fish catches throughout the project’s reservoirs, accounting for 

70 percent of fish sampled on average (Duke Energy, 2003). Based on hydroacoustic data 

collected by Duke Energy, 1997 to 2003, mean density of limnetic (open water) forage fish 

ranged from 887 fish per hectare on the Linville River arm of Lake James to 29,252 fish per 

hectare on Lake Wateree. Purse seine sampling conducted from 1993 to 2003 indicated that both 

threadfin and gizzard shad were important components of the limnetic forage fish communities 

on Lakes James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, and Lookout Shoals; relative abundance of these species 

was quite variable among years. On Lake Norman and downstream reservoirs, threadfin shad 

dominated limnetic forage fish communities. Alewife were first collected in purse seine samples 

on Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake in 1999, presumably introduced by release of angler 

bait fish. The relative abundance of alewife has increased rapidly on both lakes since 1999, and 

the species appeared downstream in Lake Wylie purse seine samples in 2001. Management of 

the fisheries in these reservoirs has included frequent stocking of forage fishes such as threadfin 

shad and sunfish, and game fishes such as striped bass and white bass. 

Bypassed river reaches (Catawba River, Paddy Creek, Mountain Island, and the Great 

Falls Long bypassed reaches) exhibited marginal fish communities likely related to restricted 

flows and impaired water quality. The fish community and water quality further downstream in 

the Catawba River bypassed reach improved dramatically after the confluence of Muddy Creek. 

Regulated river reaches below Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree dams were subject to 

altered flows and seasonal reductions in DO. Reduced water temperatures in the Bridgewater 

regulated river reach as a result of releases of cooler deep water from the dam have allowed 

North Carolina WRC to effectively manage this reach as a coldwater trout fishery including a 

stocking program. Fish communities in the Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated river reaches 

are typical of Piedmont and Coastal Plain rivers in the Southeast, but could benefit from 

improved flows and seasonal enhancement of DO concentrations. Tailraces had generally better 

fish populations (i.e., more species and higher numbers of individuals) in both spring and 

summer than the downstream reservoir locations. Tailrace data indicated diverse fish 

populations in the vicinity of the dams. Fish populations in tributary streams upstream of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project boundary are typical of fish communities in these order streams 

regionally; water quality and watershed impacts at locations upstream of the sampling site 

appeared to be the main determinants of the health and diversity of stream fish communities. 

Robust and Carolina redhorses and highfin carpsucker were not collected in these surveys. DOI 

noted in their comments on the DEIS that recent sampling (April 2009) in the Wateree tailrace 

149 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
collected large specimens of adult robust redhorse, a rare species that is subject of a management 

plan that includes a stocking program. 

DOI also noted concern about the collection of the exotic snakehead in Lake Wylie in 

2007 and 2009 and the potential for spread of this highly predatory fish to other parts of the 

Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Staff understands the grave concern of resource agencies 

regarding the very real, potential risk posed by the presence of this exotic species. Management 

and control options are limited in such large reservoirs with the potential and likelihood of 

dispersal, particularly downstream in the system; upstream passage may be a greater concern as 

fish passage facilities are installed. Monitoring programs proposed in the Revised CRA for 

inclusion in the new license provide one tool for monitoring the threat posed by this species. 

NOAA Fisheries in its preliminary recommendations, terms and conditions, and reservation of 

authority to prescribe fishways, Section E (5 June 2008) requested that Duke Energy form a 

Fisheries Technical Committee (FTC) for review and coordination on fisheries issues among 

involved agencies and other parties to the licensing proceedings. Staff encourages consultation 

between the resource agencies and Duke Energy through the FTC to optimize the value of these 

programs across the range of fisheries issues including monitoring status of the snakehead in the 

basin. Also, the new and expanded recreational access to project developments proposed in the 

Revised CRA will provide more contact opportunities for education of the public relative to the 

identification of this species, reporting and tracking population growth and dispersal, and control 

measures. 

The following findings relative to the resident fish resources are presented in 

exhibit E 3.1 of the relicensing application. 

Bypassed River Reaches 

• All bypassed reaches exhibited marginal fish habitat and communities. 

• The Catawba River bypassed reach, downstream of its confluence with Muddy Creek, 

exhibited a diverse fish community. 

• The majority of the Paddy Creek, Mountain Island, and Great Falls bypassed reaches do 

not contain water; where flow is available, the fish community is marginal. 

• Between spill events in the Great Falls bypassed reach, the channel drains; isolated 

pools become inhospitable to aquatic life due to adverse water quality conditions such as 

increased temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen. 

Regulated River Reaches 

• Stream segments downstream of the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree dams were 

subject to altered flows, seasonal reductions in dissolved oxygen (DO), and for the 

Bridgewater regulated river reach, reduced water temperatures. 

• Fish communities in the Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated river reaches were 

representative of southeastern fish communities, but communities were not sampled 

during periods of low DO. 

• Enabled by the cool water discharged from the bottom of Lake James, the Bridgewater 

regulated river reach is managed as a trout fishery by the NCWRC. 

150 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Tailraces (Non-Regulated River Reaches) 

• In general, more fish species were collected in each tailrace than in the immediate 

downstream reservoir. 

• Catches of fish per hour of sampling time were higher in tailraces than in the immediate 

downstream reservoir in the spring and summer. 

Wadeable Tributary Streams 

• Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) ratings for all sampled tributary streams ranged from 

Poor to Excellent. 

• North Carolina streams were rated Good to Excellent, except for the location below the 

Catawba Dam on the Catawba River bypassed reach, which rated as Poor. 

• The Catawba River bypassed reach, immediately downstream of the Catawba Dam 

(Bridgewater Development), had low DO, elevated conductivity, and limited fish habitat. 

• IBI ratings in South Carolina streams ranged from Poor to Excellent. 

• All SC tributary streams except Grannies Quarter Creek exhibited elevated conductivities 

indicative of man-induced impacts. 

• In general, IBI ratings reflected local upstream conditions and activities in the 

watershed. 

Rare Suckers 

• Surveys for robust and Carolina redhorse and highfin carpsucker in the vicinity of gravel 

bars, cobble, and boulders in spring (when fish should be concentrated in spawning 

aggregations) were conducted, but none of these rare sucker species was collected. 

• These results indicate that the rare sucker species may be extremely uncommon or 

absent, which is consistent with other river basins. 

• Five species of suckers were collected in the Catawba River below the Wylie Dam and six 

species were collected in the Wateree River, but no individuals of the three targeted 

species were collected. 

• DOI indicated in comments on the draft EIS that large specimens of robust redhorse 

(which has been stocked as part of a management plan) were collected during April 2009 

in the Wateree regulated reach below the Wateree Development. 

Reservoir Fishery 

• The number of fish species, age class distributions, and abundances varied substantially 

among the Catawba-Wateree Reservoirs. 

• Total fish abundance, as measured by weight, tended to increase in downstream 

reservoirs as reservoir fertility increased, suggesting that food abundance was a 

significant factor. 

• Largemouth bass, sunfish, crappie, and catfish abundance tended to increase with 

reservoir fertility. 

151 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• Factors other than fertility may also be regulating fish abundance in Fishing Creek 

Reservoir and the upper reaches of Lake Wateree. 

• Open water forage fish communities of Lakes James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, and Lookout 

Shoals consisted of gizzard and threadfin shad; the relative abundance of these two 

species was extremely variable among years, potentially due to the susceptibility of 

threadfin shad to winter die-offs at water temperatures below 9°C. 

• The open water forage fish communities of Lakes Norman, Mountain Island, Wylie, and 

Wateree consisted almost entirely of threadfin shad. 

• Alewife, an exotic and mobile species that affects fish population dynamics, was found in 

Lake Norman initially and has since spread to Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie; the 

relative abundance of alewife on Lakes Norman and Mountain Island has increased 

rapidly since its suspected introduction by fishermen. 

• The reservoirs provide important sport fisheries for a number of fish species. 

• Sunfish were the most frequently harvested (by number) fish in Lake James 

• Striped bass constituted the largest percentage of total sport fish harvest (by weight) on 

Lakes Rhodhiss and Hickory, and are important on Lakes Wateree and Norman as well. 

• Crappie constituted the largest percentage of total harvest by weight on Lake Norman, 

Mountain Island Lake, Fishing Creek Reservoir, Cedar Creek Reservoir, and Lake 

Wateree. 

• On Lake Wylie, both largemouth bass and crappie were major components of total 

harvest in terms of weight and numbers harvested, respectively. 

Diadromous Fish 

Relicensing of the Catawba-Wateree Project must consider the status of diadromous fish 

species in the Catawba-Wateree River and the potential for restoration of the runs of these 

species to their historic spawning grounds. Protection of EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

is managed by NOAA Fisheries and must be considered in this assessment within the context of 

habitat required by federally managed diadromous species and the reliance of other federally 

managed estuarine and marine species on them as a source of food. Diadromous fish species 

migrate between freshwater and marine environments and include anadromous and catadromous 

species. Anadromous species of concern (i.e., those that spend the majority of their life cycle in 

saltwater and spawn in freshwater) include: shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, blueback 

herring, hickory shad, and American shad. Restoration of the catadromous American eel (i.e., a 

species that spends the majority of its life cycle in freshwater and spawns in saltwater) also will 

be considered throughout its historic range in the drainage basin. Historic distributions of 

American shad are well documented in the vicinity of the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments. Blueback herring distributions are not well documented. American eel have 

been documented throughout the Catawba-Wateree River Basin upstream as far as Marion, 

North Carolina. Sturgeon also have been documented (without clear differentiation between 

species) upstream to the vicinity of the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, but not further 

upstream (Newcomb and Fuller, 2001) and are discussed further in section 3.3.5, Threatened and 

Endangered Species. 

152 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Diadromous species restoration throughout the Santee-Cooper Basin is a goal of South 

Carolina DNR, FWS, and NOAA. A restoration plan entitled Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous 

Fish Passage Restoration Plan has been submitted to the Commission (FWS et al., 2001) and 

approved as a comprehensive plan. This plan calls for the majority of fish restoration to occur in 

the Broad River drainage of the Congaree River. The Congaree River and the Wateree River 

join to form the Santee River in central South Carolina. While fish restoration in the Wateree 

River, and by inference the Catawba River, is a lesser goal of the restoration plan, the 

Commission’s relicensing process provides resource agencies a valuable opportunity to 

implement various sections of the plan. The Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish 

Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement is a cooperative partnership among Duke Energy, 

South Carolina Electric and Gas, South Carolina DNR, North Carolina WRC, and FWS for 

implementation of a 10-year action plan that includes no-sooner-than dates and biological 

triggers for fish passage to support restoration of these species. In conjunction with this accord, 

preliminary prescriptions for fish passage to support upstream migration of diadromous species 

at the Catawba-Wateree Project have been submitted to staff by FWS. 

An evaluation of diadromous fish use of the Wateree River was made during spring 2004 

and 2005 (Coughlan et al., 2005b). Five locations in the Wateree River, from the confluence of 

the Wateree and Congaree Rivers to the Wateree hydro tailrace, were electrofished biweekly 

from March 3 through July 1, 2004. Fifty-four hours of electrofishing time were expended in the 

Wateree River in 2004. Six locations were electrofished on the Wateree River in 2005, with 

much of the sampling occurring weekly, for a total of 79.4 hours of electrofishing time. Gillnets 

were fished at five locations in 2005 for a total of 538 hours of soak time. Eel traps were 

deployed in 2005 at six locations, for a total effort of 116 trap-weeks, to estimate American eel 

abundance. 

American eel were infrequently collected in 2004 and 2005, by both electrofishing and 

baited traps, and previous sampling studies have demonstrated similarly low success rates. 

Installation of an eel ramp and trap at the Wateree hydro in 2005 was more productive, resulting 

in the collection of 59 elvers from March 15 to June 23. Eel ramp sampling from February to 

June 2006 produced 24 elvers. 

Anadromous blueback herring typically spawn within inundated flood plains such as 

found in the lower part of the Wateree River. Blueback herring adults were collected in low 

numbers in 2004 and 2005. During 2004 they were generally found in the Wateree Development 

tailrace in late March and April; in 2005 blueback herring were found throughout the river in 

early April. Yearling blueback herring and alewife were found in the both the Wateree and 

Congaree Rivers. No hickory shad were observed during 2004 and 2005 and previous sampling 

exercises have documented few individuals of this species in the Wateree River. 

Approximately 200,000 to 500,000 American shad are passed above the Santee-Cooper 

dams (approximately 105 miles downstream of Wateree dam) each spring. The overall numbers 

of American shad and blueback herring collected in the Wateree River were lower than expected, 

given the numbers passed into the basin at the Santee-Cooper dams. Relatively low numbers of 

adult American shad (119 to 258) were found predominantly in the lower Coastal Plain reach of 

the Wateree River, and fewer shad were found in the lower Piedmont during both 2004 and 

2005. Adult American shad usage of the upper portion of the Wateree regulated river reach with 

typical spawning substrates of gravel, cobble, and rock were limited in both years. Yearling 

American shad were observed in similar abundance to adults in 2004 during the same time frame 

153 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
that adult spawners were present in the Wateree regulated river reach; few yearling American 

shad were captured in 2005. Most yearlings were collected in the Wateree tailrace. Low river 

flows during these sampling periods may have affected fish distribution and coincide with 

periods of low passage at the Santee-Cooper dams. 

Anadromous striped bass enter the Santee-Cooper Basin and have access to spawning 

habitat available in mainstem tributaries including the Wateree River regulated reach; landlocked 

populations of striped bass are present in several of the impoundments of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. South Carolina DNR indicates that landlocked striped bass populations in the project 

area upstream of the Wateree Development are not self-sustaining, but are presently managed by 

the states through a stocking program. They also conclude that there is insufficient quantity of 

spawning and nursery habitat in the Catawba River regulated reach below Wylie to support 

successful striped bass spawning. 

Special Status Species 

American Eel— In 2005 FWS was petitioned to list American eel as endangered. The 

Federal Register listed the following as reasons for American eel decline: seaweed harvest in 

spawning areas of the Atlantic Ocean, loss of wetlands, alterations of streamflow, loss of upper 

tributary habitat, disease, predation, hydropower turbines, contaminants, changes in 

oceanographic conditions, and overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes. After thorough review of available scientific and commercial information, 

FWS found that listing American eel as either threatened or endangered is not warranted at this 

time. Other acts protecting the American eel include the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Atlantic Coastal 

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act. American eels spawn in the Atlantic Ocean. During 

the first year of life, early lifestages drift with ocean currents towards the coast. Juveniles known 

as elvers migrate into estuaries and ascend rivers. Eels mature to the yellow eel stage in these 

rivers and streams before maturing to adults. American eels are known to live as long as 40 

years before transforming into the silver eel stage and returning to the ocean to spawn. Their 

utilization and distribution in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin is discussed above in the section 

entitled Diadromous Fish. As part of the license application, Duke Energy prepared a draft 

species protection plan for American eel; as FWS has determined that listing of this species is 

not warranted at this time, a species protection plan will not be finalized and implemented. 

Preliminary prescriptions for upstream and downstream passage of eels have been filed by FWS 

and are also part of the Santee River Basin Accord (June 19, 2008). NOAA has reserved its 

authority to submit additional prescriptions if needed at a later time. Duke Energy has proposed 

to stay informed of the activities to list the species as federally endangered and will cooperate 

with both FWS and NOAA Fisheries on conservation initiatives. Funding to address 

management concerns is provided in the Santee River Basin Accord. 

Flat Bullhead and Snail Bullhead—The flat bullhead and snail bullhead are small catfish 

species distributed throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, but are listed as 

state species of concern due to population declines in many southeastern rivers. Duke Energy 

has drafted a species protection plan for these two species to provide information for the 

continued maintenance of bullhead habitat and protection from human disturbance. The two 

species are similar in appearance and have overlapping geographic ranges and habitat preference. 

Flat bullhead inhabit low to medium gradient streams primarily in pools and slow water, while 

snail bullhead prefer medium to high gradient streams residing in pools and riffles. No specific 

154 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
threats to populations of these species have been identified. Both species are distributed 

throughout the project area. 

Snail bullhead were collected during fish community surveys from the Catawba River 

bypassed reach (above and below Muddy Creek), Rhodhiss tailrace, Oxford regulated river 

reach, Wylie regulated river reach, Fishing Creek tailrace, Great Falls and Dearborn tailraces, 

lower Great Falls Long bypassed reach, Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek tailraces, and Wateree 

regulated river reach immediately downstream of the dam. 

Flat bullhead were collected in the Catawba River bypassed reach below Muddy Creek, 

Paddy Creek bypassed reach, Rhodhiss tailrace, Oxford regulated river reach, Mountain Island 

tailrace, Wylie regulated river reach, Fishing Creek tailrace, Great Falls and Dearborn tailraces, 

Great Falls Long bypassed reach, Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek tailraces, and Wateree regulated 

river reach immediately downstream of the dam. Flat bullheads also were collected in 9 of 11 

wadeable tributaries sampled from upstream of Lake James to Lake Wateree. 

Robust Redhorse—The robust redhorse has been determined to be significantly rare by 

the North Carolina Heritage Program and the South Carolina Heritage Trust, and is a federal 

species of concern, but has no specific regulatory protection. Habitat modification appears to be 

a primary factor affecting the decline of the species. Watershed disturbances that result in 

erosion have had a negative effect on the species by increasing sediment load to streams which 

bury gravel substrate essential to robust redhorse for spawning and larval development. 

Freshwater mollusks are a major source of food for the redhorse and also are sensitive to 

sedimentation; many native populations of freshwater mussel species are in decline through 

much of their range. Populations of robust redhorse exist in the Oconee, Ocmulgee, Savannah, 

and Pee Dee Rivers. Sampling conducted during 2004 to 2005 specifically for rare catastomid 

species did not collect robust redhorse or another rare redhorse species, Carolina redhorse; a 

third rare catastomid, highfin carpsucker, was captured in the Congaree, but not in the CatawbaWateree River Basin. The highfin carpsucker and Carolina redhorse are listed in the states of 

North Carolina and South Carolina as species of special concern. An intensive 2-year effort to 

search for spawning aggregations of suckers in 2004 and 2005 in the Wateree River yielded no 

robust redhorse or the two other target rare suckers. South Carolina DNR has undertaken a 

project to introduce robust redhorse into the Wateree and Broad Rivers of South Carolina. 

Approximately 7,100 juvenile robust redhorse were released into the Wateree River in 

November and December 2005, with more to follow in subsequent years. DOI noted in 

comments on the draft EIS that electrofishing in the Wateree tailrace in April 2009 collected 

large specimens of adult robust redhorse. The Robust Redhorse Conservation Strategy (2003) 

was written to encourage partnerships between public and private sectors in the conservation of 

the redhorse and its habitat; Duke Energy is a member of the Robust Redhorse Conservation 

Committee. Duke Energy has indicated that it will continue to support the Robust Redhorse 

Conservation Committee as it has since the inception of the Committee in 1995. Duke Energy 

has prepared a species protection plan for the robust redhorse as part of this relicensing process. 

Freshwater Mussels—Twenty-four species of freshwater mussels have been documented 

from the Santee-Cooper River Basin during the past two centuries; 17 of these species were 

collected in the Catawba-Wateree Project area during the relicensing studies (AES, 2005). 

Seven of the 17 species found in the project area are either federally or state (North or South 

Carolina, or both) listed as endangered, threatened, or special concern. These include the 

following: creeper/squawfoot, eastern floater, pond floater, eastern creekshell, paper pondshell, 

155 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
notched rainbow, and rayed pink fatmucket. The rayed-pink fatmucket was collected only as 

relic shell material; that is, no live specimens were collected. The yellow lampmussel and the 

eastern pondmussel were only collected downstream of the Wateree Development. According to 

AES (2005), approximately 500 river/stream reaches have been surveyed within the CatawbaWateree River Basin during the last 20 years. Approximately 60 percent of these sampled 

reaches provided no evidence of an extant mussel fauna, and less than 25 percent provided 

habitat suitable for the Eastern elliptio or the variable spike, two of the most tolerant and 

abundant mussel species in the region. Generally, the healthier populations of North and South 

Carolina freshwater mussels occur in clean water flowing through forested landscapes. Because 

mature mussels are predominantly sessile organisms incapable of avoidance or escape, 

freshwater mussels are very susceptible to changes in their environment. Various threats to the 

viability of their populations include agriculture, wood harvesting, and other land use practices 

that increase erosion and sediment load to streams; impoundment of free-flowing streams and 

rivers; competition from exotic species introductions (e.g., Asiatic clam); changes in water 

temperature, water level, and DO; nutrient loading; and toxic chemicals from point and nonpoint sources. More detailed information on the distribution of these species within the project 

area was provided in the discussion in the section above entitled Freshwater Mussels. 

Seven species of freshwater mussel listed as species of concern by North Carolina, South 

Carolina, or both have been documented during recent sampling from the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area. These include the following: 

• Creeper/squawfoot is listed as state threatened in North Carolina and a species of special 

concern in South Carolina. AES (2005) collected the species at the Bridgewater, 

Lookout Shoals, Mountain Island bypass, and Wylie Developments. 

• Eastern floater is listed as a species of special concern by South Carolina. AES (2005) 

collected this species at the Rhodhiss, Oxford, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Wylie, 

and Wateree Developments. 

• Eastern creekshell is listed as a species of special concern in South Carolina. AES (2005) 

collected the Eastern creekshell at the Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Mountain Island, and 

Wylie Developments. 

• Paper pondshell is listed as a species of special concern by South Carolina. AES (2005) 

collected the paper pondshell at six developments from Mountain Island downstream to 

Wateree with the exception of Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek. 

• Brook floater is a federal species of concern, a species of special concern in South 

Carolina, and listed as endangered in North Carolina. AES (2005) collected this species 

at the Bridgewater and Rhodhiss Developments. 

• Notched rainbow is listed as a species of special concern in both North and South 

Carolina. AES (2005) collected the species at the Bridgewater and Rhodhiss 

Developments. At Bridgewater they were collected in Lake James, Catawba River 

bypassed reach, and Muddy Creek; at Rhodhiss they were collected in the Johns River 

and Warrior Forks. 

• Pink-rayed fatmucket is listed as a species of special concern by South Carolina. Relic 

shell material was collected in the Wylie regulated reach and immediately downstream of 

the Wateree Development; no live specimens were collected. 

156 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Duke Energy has prepared species protection plans for each of these species and 

proposed to continue monitoring freshwater mussels at selected locations influenced by hydro 

operations beginning within 5 years after the license is issued at 3-year intervals for the duration 

of the license. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects 

Reservoir Fluctuations 

The Catawba-Wateree Project developments are typically operated for load-following 

peaking power generation. Reservoir surface elevations fluctuate daily and seasonally in 

response to power generation operations, and seasonal and long-term weather conditions and 

associated natural inflow. Water surface fluctuations can affect the amount and quality of 

shallow water shoreline habitat available to aquatic resources including growth and distribution 

of aquatic vegetation, benthic invertebrates, and spawning, nursery, and feeding habitat for fish. 

The spawning success of fish species that utilize shallow bottom habitat for spawning (e.g., nest 

building sunfish and bass) can be particularly affected by water level fluctuations. 

To enhance lake spawning habitat, the Revised CRA proposes a new license article 

(PM&E 2.0), the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program. The proposed new license 

article formalizes a voluntary program currently in effect at the four reservoirs subject to winter 

draw-down and the most variable water surface elevations. In consultation with state agencies in 

North and South Carolina, Duke Energy has proposed to implement a program to protect and 

enhance near-shore spawning habitat by providing stable water surface elevations during 

3 weeks in the spring at Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree. These are 

the primary storage reservoirs within the project; spring water levels in the other project 

reservoirs are more stable than these four. The range of lake level fluctuations proposed in the 

Revised CRA are generally larger than occur under current operations, but are necessary to 

balance the use of the reservoir, generating operations and downstream interests. The proposed 

Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program for Catawba-Wateree developments will provide 

more stable reservoir levels from early spring through early summer, reducing the risk of 

reservoir level decreases during the spring/early summer spawning season. 

The programs at each of the four developments will be implemented based on a water 

temperature trigger or observation of bass spawning activity. A surface water temperature 

monitoring station will be established at each reservoir to provide real-time temperature trigger 

data. Lake levels will be held within 1 ft below and 2 ft above the level existing at that time the 

stabilization program is initiated. 

Our Analysis 

The Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program has been proposed to enhance 

spawning habitat for fish, such as black bass, crappie, and sunfish, which spawn in near-shore 

habitat during spring. These species are well established in the project reservoirs and support a 

significant recreational fishery. The license application includes study reports for the Fish 

Community Assessment (Aquatics 01) and Reservoir Fish Habitat Assessment (Aquatics 02). 

These reports indicate the success of these littoral spawners. Black bass (primarily largemouth 

bass) averaged 37 percent of the total littoral biomass; sunfish (bluegill and redbreast) 

numerically dominated the total fish catches throughout the project’s reservoirs, accounting for 

70 percent of the fish sampled on average. 

157 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
We conclude that the actions formalized in the Revised CRA to stabilize spring reservoir 

levels will improve and enhance spawning habitat for important sport fish species that utilize the 

littoral zone for spawning in the spring. The effectiveness of this program and fine-tuning the 

trigger temperatures for each reservoir will be accomplished by Duke Energy in coordination 

with the involved state agencies from North and South Carolina as weather and temperature 

conditions will affect the initiation of this program from year to year. 

Instream Flow Through Regulated Reaches 

Eight of the developments (Rhodhiss, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing Creek, 

Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek) discharge generation flows directly into 

the backwater of the next downstream impoundment. These projects have requirements for 

minimum average daily flow and, in the case of Cowans Ford and Mountain Island, continuous 

minimum releases in the existing license. No changes to these discharge requirements are 

proposed in the Revised CRA, and no alternative flows for aquatic resources have been 

recommended by any agency or other commentor. FWS did not list a minimum average daily 

flow for Rhodhiss in its June 4, 2008, comments on the Notice of Application Ready for 

Environmental Analysis; we assume that this may have been an oversight and have maintained 

the same minimum average daily flow for Rhodhiss. Given that there are generally no riverine 

reaches below each of these developments during the normal operating range of water surface 

elevations, the proposed continuation of minimum average daily flows will ensure the same flow 

conditions that have supported the existing aquatic resources in the downstream impoundments 

under the existing license. 

The Revised CRA proposes new minimum continuous releases for the Bridgewater, 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, and Wateree Developments that are generally higher than under 

the existing license. The proposed minimum continuous flows for the Oxford (150 cfs), Lookout 

Shoals (80 cfs), and Wylie (1,100 cfs) Developments are constant throughout the year. During 

specific high inflow conditions, the Wylie High Inflow Protocol will be implemented, increasing 

the minimum continuous flow from 1,100 to 1,300 cfs during the period of February 15 to 

May 15. The Revised CRA proposes seasonally variable minimum continuous flows at the 

Bridgewater and Wateree Developments to support fish spawning. 

American Rivers/Coastal Conservation League (AR/CCL) and the Catawba Riverkeeper 

(CR) have commented that flows in the Revised CRA are not sufficient to support diadromous 

fish, and recommended alternative seasonal continuous minimum flows for resident and 

anadromous fish that are generally higher than the Revised CRA for the Wylie and Wateree 

Developments to support anadromous fish spawning (tables 29 and 30). In order to spawn in the 

Wylie regulated river reach, anadromous fish will first need to pass the six downstream 

developments, which, based on the preliminary section 18 fish passage prescriptions, is not likely 

to occur during the first 10 years of the new license. FWS and NOAA Fisheries have agreed 

with the minimum continuous flows recommended in the Revised CRA for Wylie and Wateree 

including implementation of the Wylie High Inflow Protocol and the Wateree Spring Stable 

Flow Protocol. South Carolina DHEC found that proposed minimum continuous flows to the 

bypassed and regulated reaches of the project within South Carolina will provide acceptable 

aquatic habitat for resident and diadromous species and would be included in the WQC. 

158 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 29. Summary of proposed minimum continuous flow (cfs) alternatives to support 

anadromous fish spawning and maturation in the Wylie regulated river reach. 

Time period CRA FWS, NOAA Fisheries AR/CCL, CR 

January 1,100 1,100 1,100 

February 1,100 (High inflow 1,300) Wylie 1,400 

Mar-April 1,100 (High inflow 1,300) High Inflow 1,800 

May 1,100 (High inflow 1,300) Protocol 1,400 

June-December 1,100 1,100 1,100 

Table 30. Summary of proposed minimum continuous flow (cfs) alternatives to support 

anadromous fish spawning and maturation in the Wateree regulated river reach. 

Time period CRA FWS, NOAA Fisheries AR/CCL, CR 

January 930 930 2,400 

February 1-14 930 930 3,700 

February 15 -29 2,400 Wateree 3,700 

March 2,700 Spring 3,700 

April 2,700 Stable 2,700 

May 1-15 2,400 Flow 2,400 

May 16-31 1,250 Protocol 2,400 

June-December 930 930 930 

Our Analysis 

Instream flow modeling directed by the Instream Flow Study Team indicates that the 

proposed minimum continuous flows, while not supporting the maximum weighted useable area 

(WUA) for diadromous species, is sufficient to support their access and use of the appropriate 

reaches of the project following implementation of fish passage prescriptions when and if their 

numbers become significant in these reaches. Under the Santee River Basin Accord the resource 

trustees, NOAA Fisheries, and FWS will actively consult with Duke Energy to monitor and 

manage these populations. The Accord is consistent with the 10(j) prescriptions for fish passage 

submitted by FWS. Both agencies have concurred at this time with the minimum continuous 

flows proposed in the Revised CRA. Staff recommends the continuous minimum flows 

proposed in the Revised CRA. 

We agree with the Revised CRA on implementation of the Wateree Spring Stable Flow 

Protocol and recommend that Duke Energy, FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and South Carolina DNR 

consult annually during the first 10 years following implementation of the FWQIP to evaluate 

the effectiveness of the spring stable flow program and appropriate implementation benchmarks. 

Based on experience implementing this program during the first 10 years, a petition can be filed 

159 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
under standard Commission procedures to reopen the license to include an article with 

enforceable terms for the Wateree Spring Stable Flow Protocol. 

Staff also recommends implementation of the Wylie High Inflow Protocol as described in 

the Revised CRA to provide supplemental increased flows during spring spawning periods when 

high inflow is available. 

NOAA Fisheries has indicated that supplemental flows in the Wylie regulated reach and 

the Wateree River to support anadromous fish should be re-evaluated in the future after 

implementation of fish passage prescriptions; a petition to reopen the license under FERC’s 

standard procedures can be filed at that time to re-evaluate the need for higher flows for 

anadromous fish. For completeness we provide the following analysis of the recommended 

alternative flows to assess their benefit to anadromous fish relative to those proposed in the 

Revised CRA. 

Minimum continuous flows proposed in the Revised CRA for these two developments 

were based on analysis of the relationship between flow and aquatic habitat using Index C as a 

metric of habitat based on the WUA. Model simulations were presented in the instream flow 

assessment report for existing conditions, unregulated flows (without the dam), leakage flow, 

critical flow, and the modified mutual gains scenario for proposed operations. The proposed 

flows for the modified mutual gains scenario attempt to balance the varying and sometimes 

conflicting optimum flow requirements for the range of resident and diadromous aquatic species 

that utilize the reach. Data for alternate flow scenarios are not available in the instream flow 

assessment report. In order to evaluate the alternative flow recommendations, we have analyzed 

the underlying WUA curves for the target species and lifestages, in this case, spawning and 

maturation habitat for American shad at both developments and spawning habitat for sturgeon at 

Wateree. 

Our analysis for the Wylie Development is based on data interpolated from the WUA 

simulation curves weighted for four study sites as presented in the instream flow assessment 

report: subreach 1, study sites 1 (5.5 percent) and 2 (23 percent); subreach 2 (27.3 percent); and 

subreach 3 (44.1 percent). The proposed flow-associated WUA for American shad spawning 

and percent of maximum WUA for each time period are summarized in table 31 for the Revised 

CRA proposal and alternative recommendations. The model simulation estimates that the 

maximum WUA for American shad spawning in the Wylie regulated river reach occurs at 

approximately 3,750 cfs. 

During the peak spawning period of March to April, the 1,100 cfs proposed in the 

Revised CRA would provide 56 percent of the maximum WUA, while the 1,300 cfs proposed 

during high inflow at the Wylie Development would achieve 64.5 percent of the maximum 

WUA. The alternatives recommend 1,800 cfs during March to April providing 77.4 percent of 

the maximum WUA. This is an increase of 21.4 percent, or 12.9 percent compared to the 

Revised CRA proposal at normal and high inflow, respectively. During the early (January to 

February) and late (May) portion of the American shad spawning migration, the effect is less; the 

alternative recommendations result in an increase of 11.6 percent relative to the Revised CRA. 

Staff finds that the alternative increase in continuous minimum flows for this reach is not 

justified at this time; however, when fish passage for anadromous species has been established 

following implementation of fish passage prescriptions, if justification for increased flows can be 

160 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
161 

demonstrated, a petition to reopen the license under standard Commission procedures can be 

considered. 

The flow scenario for the Wateree Development proposed in the Revised CRA would 

achieve more than 97 percent of the maximum WUA for the Wateree regulated river reach 

during peak American shad spawning (table 32). The increase in continuous minimum discharge 

from 2,700 to 3,700 cfs between the beginning of February and the end of March as 

recommended in the alternatives would increase spawning habitat by 17.3 percent during the first 

half of February, but would slightly reduce the WUA from mid-February through March. Staff 

finds that the alternative increase in continuous minimum flows for this reach is not justified at 

this time; however, when fish passage for anadromous species has been established, if 

justification for increased flows can be demonstrated, a petition to reopen the license under 

standard Commission procedures can be considered. 

NOAA Fisheries made the preliminary determination in their Preliminary 

Recommendations, Terms, and Conditions that instream flow conditions recommended for EFH 

conservation in accordance with section 10(j) will improve habitat and water quality for 

diadromous fishes and are therefore expected to beneficially affect federally managed estuarine 

and marine species and EFH in the lower Santee River. These initial recommendations for 

instream flows are consistent with the Revised CRA. Staff concurs that the proposed continuous 

minimum flows will protect and enhance EFH in the Catawba-Wateree basin and Santee River. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 31. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA and alternative f

recommended by AR/CCL and CR for the Wylie regulated river reach. (Source: Duke Energy, 2

CRA AR/CCL, CR 

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of MJanuary 1,100 221,815 56.0 1,100 221,815 56.0 February 1-14 1,100 221,815 56.0 1,400 267,550 67.6 February 15-29 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56 .0 64.5 1,400 267,550 67.6 March 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56.0 64.5 1,800 306,255 77.4 April 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56.0 64.5 1,800 306,255 77.4 May 1-15 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56.0 64.5 1,400 267,550 67.6 May 16-31 1,100 221,815 56.0 1,400 267,550 67.6 Maximum 3,750 395,895 3,750 395,895 

162 
163 

Table 32. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA and alternative f

recommended by FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and AR/CCL for the Wateree regulated river reach. (So

2006a) 

CRA AR/CCL, CR 

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of MJanuary 930 136,802 75.6 2,400 176,542 97.6 February 1-14 930 136,802 75.6 3,700 167,988 92.9 February 15-29 2,400 176,542 97.6 3,700 167,988 92.9 March 2,700 175,708 97.2 3,700 167,988 92.9 April 2,700 175,708 97.2 2,700 175,708 97.2 May 1-15 2,400 176,542 97.6 2,400 176,542 97.6 May 16-31 1,250 160,120 88.5 2,400 176,542 97.6 Maximum 180,843 180,843 
Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

The Maintenance and Emergency Protocol appropriately provides for replacement of 

resources such as recreational flows and aquatic resources lost during a Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol event. For example, scheduled recreational flows that cannot be met during 

a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol event are to be provided at another time within the same 

year. It is recognized that during certain maintenance events, and particularly in an emergency, 

unavoidable fish mortality may occur. The Operations 06 Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

document identifies a series of scheduled, unscheduled and planned “abnormal conditions” to 

which the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol applies; each requires the licensee to “avoid 

falling below critical flows” and to “replace any aquatic species mortalities that are identified.” 

North Carolina DENR commented that mitigation of fish mortalities should not be 

required if the licensee has conducted consultation and followed the Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol, and noted that mitigation for fish mortalities has not been included in other 

maintenance and emergency protocols. 

NOAA Fisheries has recommended the establishment of a Catawba-Wateree Project 

Fisheries Technical Committee comprised of NOAA Fisheries, FWS, North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DHEC, Duke Energy, and nongovernmental conservation organizations to review monitoring and evaluation studies, operating 

plans, and maintenance issues within the project. 

Our Analysis 

We conclude that mitigation for the loss of aquatic resources may be necessary in some 

situations; however, we find that replacement of any aquatic species mortalities that are 

identified, as included in the CRA, is vague, unnecessary, and for given situations may be 

impractical or impossible to comply with. For example, replacement of a threatened and 

endangered species may not be possible if breeding programs are not available. Where an 

adequate forage base is present and the resource is otherwise healthy, replacement of forage 

species and a diversity of “minnows” also may not be necessary. The FPA does not require 

100 percent mitigation for fish losses at hydro facilities. We conclude that mitigation for fish 

losses that result from a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol event should be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis considering the species affected, the number of organisms affected, and the 

habitat, population, and community characteristics at the affected location. Where the 

populations and community are robust and healthy, monitoring or other habitat and resource 

management activities may be more beneficial than direct mitigation of the fish losses. We agree 

that an advisory group as recommended by NOAA Fisheries (FTC) be established with 

representatives of Duke Energy, federal and state resource managers, and other nongovernmental organization stakeholders ; among other aquatic resource issues this group can 

evaluate and recommend appropriate mitigation for fish losses on a case by case basis, as 

necessary. 

Instream Flow Through Bypassed Reaches 

Except for spillage during periods of high inflow, flow through existing bypassed reaches 

generally consists of leakage, groundwater seepage, and, in some cases, tributary inflow. As a 

result of these reduced flows and associated water quality constraints (for example, significant 

fluctuations in water temperatures), aquatic habitat is generally limited compared to conditions in 

164 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
an unregulated or regulated stream reach. There are six bypassed reaches at five developments 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project under the existing conditions. The Revised CRA proposes 

to implement continuous minimum flows for aquatic resources at three of these bypassed reaches 

(the Catawba River bypassed reach at the Bridgewater Development; the Long and Short 

bypassed reaches at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments) as part of relicensing. The 

flow recommendations in the Revised CRA are based on analysis and review by the Instream 

Flow Study Team of the studies conducted for these reaches. 

There are differing flow recommendations for the long bypassed reach at the Great Falls 

and Dearborn Developments. Under the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, the minimum 

continuous flow in the Long bypassed reach would be 450 cfs year-round with an increase to 

850 cfs to accommodate spring spawning for approximately 8 weeks from mid-February to midMay. FWS and NOAA Fisheries have recommended adoption of these minimum continuous 

flows for the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. AR/CCL and CR have recommended of 850 cfs 

in February, 1,500 cfs in March to mid-May, and 450 cfs for the rest of the year to accommodate 

resident and anadromous fish. 

Flow diversion from the Paddy Creek, Mountain Island, and Great Falls Short bypassed 

reaches would continue under normal operating conditions proposed in the Revised CRA. The 

Paddy Creek bypassed reach is only 0.5 mile long and approximately 2 acres in area. The 

Revised CRA considered the potential aquatic habitat gain by implementing minimum flows in 

the Paddy Creek bypassed reach to be minimal. Additionally, the Revised CRA determined that 

distribution of flows to the Catawba River bypassed reach and the regulated Linville River below 

the Linville dam was the most effective use of the water available for minimum releases at the 

Bridgewater Development to meet management goals for the trout fishery and protection of 

existing mussel populations. Water diverted to the Paddy Creek bypassed reach would be taken 

from the other two reaches. 

The Mountain Island bypassed reach provides habitat for an established population of the 

federally listed endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower. The bypassed reach is approximately 

0.6 mile long and 22 acres in area. The potential lotic habitat available by inundation of this 

reach is relatively small and would likely be less than the 0.6-mile length as flows in the 

bypassed reach would back up from the downstream impoundment. The Revised CRA 

determined that introduction of minimum flows necessary to enhance aquatic habitat would 

reduce habitat and threaten at least a portion of the established Schweinitz’s sunflower 

population. There is little benefit and high risk in transplanting the sunflower population that has 

established under existing conditions in the Mountain Island bypassed reach. It is our conclusion 

that the potential benefit of the increase in aquatic habitat associated with requiring continuous 

minimum flows would be outweighed by the risk to the population of the endangered 

Schweinitz’s sunflower. 

Instream flow and demonstration turbine flow studies at the bypassed reach below the 

Wateree spillway were conducted to assess potential aquatic habitat and spawning habitat 

available at various flows for resident and diadromous fish. The Revised CRA proposes 

minimum continuous flows from the powerhouse to the tailrace channel and installation of a 

10,000-cfs-capacity bladder dam in the spillway to provide flexibility for high flow and flood 

management in Lake Wateree. The majority of water released from the spillway bladder dam 

would travel downstream through the spillway channel. Based on the results of instream flow 

studies, the Revised CRA found that flows necessary to provide adequate conditions for sturgeon 

165 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
spawning in the bypassed reach are not sustainable under average flow conditions without 

excessive draw-down of Lake Wateree and other upstream impoundments. The Revised CRA 

proposes that the Wateree River bypassed reach continue as a bypass under normal operating 

conditions. FWS and NOAA Fisheries have accepted these recommendations. AR/CCL and CR 

have requested that flows be provided to accommodate sturgeon spawning during late winter and 

spring. NOAA Fisheries considers all accessible mainstem waters of the upper Santee basin 

including the Wateree to be important habitat for diadromous species and has indicated the need 

for an assessment of potential effects to EFH during the relicensing process. They indicated that 

although spawning populations of shortnose sturgeon are not likely to be present upstream of the 

Wateree dam during the life of the new license, preferred spawning habitat available in the 

Wateree River between the Wateree dam and the confluence with the Congaree River is critical 

for restoration of the species and must be protected. South Carolina DHEC concluded that the 

cost of providing flows to the Wateree bypass reach versus the minimal benefits gained does not 

warrant a minimum flow release to this area. 

The Revised CRA proposes protection and preservation of riparian buffer within the 

watershed to enhance water quality as mitigation for continued flow diversion at these three 

bypassed reaches. FWS, EPA, and AR/CCL question the appropriateness and adequacy of the 

proposed mitigation for aquatic habitat. 

Our Analysis 

Our analysis focuses on the bypassed reaches of the Catawba-Wateree River where there 

is disagreement on the minimum flows proposed, or where the adequacy of proposed mitigation 

has been questioned. 

We conclude that the allocation of available water resources to the Linville regulated 

river reach and the Catawba River bypassed reach provides the most benefit to resident fish and 

that allocation of a portion of that water to the relatively small Paddy Creek bypassed reach 

would provide negligible new aquatic habitat at the cost of reducing the potential benefits to the 

other two reaches. 

No specific recommendations for alternate minimum flows have been submitted by the 

resource agencies for the Catawba River bypassed reach or the Great Falls Short bypassed reach. 

FWS and NOAA Fisheries, in their comments on the Notice of Application Ready for 

Environmental Assessment, both accept the minimum continuous flows proposed in the Revised 

CRA to enhance aquatic habitat in the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. Both agencies request 

that flows for spring spawning of anadromous American shad be re-evaluated at a future time 

when implementation of fish passage prescriptions make this bypass accessible to this species. 

Additionally, AR/CCL and CR requested higher spring flows to support resident and 

anadromous fish. The most significant changes in minimum flows (from 850 to 1,500 cfs) were 

requested for the peak periods of spawning migration in March and April. 

166 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 33. Summary of proposed minimum continuous flow (cfs) alternatives to support 

anadromous fish spawning and maturation in the Great Falls Long bypassed 

reach. 

Time period CRA FWS, NOAA Fisheries AR/CCL, CR 

January 450 450 450 

February 1-14 450 450 850 

February 15-29 850 850 850 

Mar-April 850 850 1500 

May 1-15 850 850 850 

May 16-31 450 450 850 

June-December 450 450 450 

We reviewed the results of Duke Energy’s instream flow study for the 2.2-mile-long 

Great Falls Long bypassed reach and analyzed the differences in available spawning habitat for 

American shad estimated for each of these flow scenarios. Duke Energy’s study provided model 

simulations of WUA, total wetted area, and wetted perimeter. WUA is an index of available 

habitat (square feet per 1,000 linear feet of river) and was simulated over a range of discharge 

conditions (150 to 2,000 cfs) at the Long bypassed reach. Similarly, total wetted area simulated 

the total area inundated within the bypassed reach over a range of flows. Wetted perimeter 

provides an index of available habitat in terms of length of inundated substrate at specific 

transects across the reach. Increasing the flow from 850 to 1,500 cfs for March through midMay as proposed by AR/CCL and CR would result in an increase in wetted perimeter of 1.7 to 

11 percent based on the four transects simulated in Duke Energy’s analysis. The average depth 

at these transects increased approximately 0.4 to 0.7 ft (10 percent) over this flow range where 

average depths ranged from 4 to 7 ft. Total wetted area increased approximately 8 percent with a 

simulated increase in flow from 850 to 1,500 cfs. 

We analyzed the WUA figures presented in appendix I-2 of Duke Energy’s instream flow 

study report, to evaluate the potential benefit to American shad spawning habitat in the Great 

Falls Long bypassed reach by implementation of the alternate flows recommended by AR/CCL 

and CR. 

During the peak period of spawning for American shad in March and April, an increase 

of flow from 850 to 1,500 cfs would increase the WUA by 8.3 percent. Given an increase of 

more than 76 percent in flow, the associated 8.3 percent increase in habitat is negligible. The 

changes recommended for early in the season (early February) and late in the season (early May) 

would result in a 21 percent increase in WUA. 

Preliminary prescriptions for fish passage proposed by FWS require Duke Energy to 

provide fishways for anadromous American shad and blueback herring at the Wateree 

Development no later than January 1, 2018. FWS has recommended the design of a trap and 

transport (T&T) system for passage of anadromous fish at the Wateree dam. Until the number of 

American shad trapped exceeds 10,000, trapped fish will be released upstream into Lake 

167 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
168 

Wateree; when the number of fish collected exceeds 10,000, they will be distributed to upstream 

reaches of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin within South Carolina. 

NOAA Fisheries recommended that the new license include provisions for the future reevaluation and implementation of revised instream flows proposed in appendix B to their 

Preliminary Recommendation, Terms, and Conditions (June 5, 2008) to support protection of 

anadromous fish spawning and maturation habitat if fish passage prescriptions provide access for 

American shad to this reach. 

Given this time table, it is clear that significant numbers of American shad are not likely 

to have access to the Great Falls Long bypassed reach for at least 10 years. Based on our review 

of the instream flow studies conducted by Duke Energy in support of the Revised CRA, we 

conclude that the minimum continuous flows proposed in the Revised CRA are adequate to 

enhance and protect aquatic resources in the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. The benefits of 

these minimum flows through the Great Falls Long bypassed reach should be adequately 

demonstrated during the intervening 10 years until the T&T program is implemented at the 

Wateree Development. Information related to availability of and utilization of habitat by 

resident and diadromous fish and operational experience of the project to provide these flows 

during that time will provide a stronger empirical basis for evaluation of the most appropriate 

flows to support anadromous fish spawning and maturation habitat within the operational 

constraints of the project. If the need for additional flows can be demonstrated when and if 

anadromous species begin to utilize these reaches, a petition can be filed under standard 

Commission procedures to reopen the license to consider the need for higher flows. The request 

for additional minimum flow would need to be evaluated relative to the ability to maintain 

system water balance, reservoir elevations, and storage. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 34. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA and alternative f

recommended by AR/CCL and CR for the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. 

CRA NOAA Fisheries, AR/CC

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of MJan 450 103,000 61.3 450 103,000 61.3 February 1-14 450 103,000 61.3 850 139,000 82.7 February 15-29 850 139,000 82.7 850 139,000 82.7 March 850 139,000 82.7 1,500 153,000 91.1 Apr 850 139,000 82.7 1,500 153,000 91.1 May 1-15 850 139,000 82.7 850 139,000 82.7 May 16-31 450 103,000 61.3 850 139,000 82.7 Maximum 168,000 168,000 

169 
We conclude that minimum flows during the spring spawning season for anadromous fish 

proposed in the Revised CRA are adequate to support initial use of the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach by spawning American shad, which is not likely to occur in significant numbers 

before the T&T program is initiated in 2018. The effectiveness of these flows to create 

spawning and nursery habitat can be most effectively re-evaluated at such time that the 

prescriptions under FPA section 18 for fish passage at the downstream Wateree Development 

result in the presence of significant numbers of adult American shad in the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach. If adequate justification can be demonstrated for higher flows in the bypassed 

reach at that time, a petition to reopen the license under standard Commission procedures could 

be considered. The request for additional minimum flow would need to be evaluated relative to 

the ability to maintain system water balance, reservoir elevations, and storage. 

NOAA Fisheries made the preliminary determination in their Preliminary 

Recommendations, Terms, and Conditions that instream flow conditions recommended for EFH 

conservation in accordance with section 10(j), “will improve habitat and water quality for 

diadromous fishes and are therefore expected to beneficially effect federally managed estuarine 

and marine species and EFH in the lower Santee River.” These initial recommendations for 

instream flows are consistent with the Revised CRA. Staff concurs that the proposed continuous 

minimum flows will protect and enhance EFH in the Catawba-Wateree basin and Santee River. 

Accordingly, NOAA Fisheries found and staff concur that, ”adverse effects on important prey 

species, federally managed species, and EFH are not anticipated,” provided the recommended 

section 10(j) conditions are included in the new license. 

AR/CCL and CR have requested additional flows to the Wateree tailrace and spillway 

channel to provide habitat in the Wateree bypassed reach to support sturgeon spawning. 

Minimum continuous flows proposed for the Wateree Development in the license application 

will not be adequate to inundate the Wateree bypassed reach adjacent to the spillway channel. 

The demonstration flow study showed that operation of at least four turbines is required to 

inundate significant portions of the bypass and that, under these discharge conditions, the water 

depths preferred by sturgeon for spawning habitat were generally not achieved in most of the 

Wateree bypassed reach. Alternative structural modifications to the bypass to redirect flows 

were evaluated by the Aquatic Resources Committee, but were not found to be effective and 

feasible given the configuration and slope of the bypass area. During periods of high inflow or 

in anticipation of major storm events, the proposed bladder dam at the Wateree spillway may 

provide up to 10,000 cfs additional flow to the spillway channel; however, availability of these 

discharges is weather dependent and cannot be relied on or generated within the project outside 

of such weather events. During the design and determination of the location for construction of 

the bladder dam, consideration should be given to whether the device could be used to 

effectively inundate the bypassed reach at least during high flow events. In addition, the licensee 

should coordinate with the agencies to ensure that the location of the bladder dam does not 

interfere with attraction flows to the proposed eelway facility. Given that neither Atlantic nor 

shortnose sturgeon have been demonstrated to utilize the Wateree River regulated reach at this 

time and that adequate preferred spawning habitat is available, it is our conclusion that it is not 

necessary or feasible to provide flows adequate to inundate the Wateree bypassed reach at this 

time in order to support sturgeon spawning. At such time as significant numbers of sturgeon are 

found in the vicinity of the Wateree Development, a petition to reopen the license could be 

considered at that time to evaluate the need for higher flows in the bypassed reach and 

prescriptions for fish passage. The request for additional minimum flow would need to be 

170 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
evaluated relative to the ability to maintain system water balance, reservoir elevations, and 

storage. 

Flow Mitigation Package for Less Than Target Streamflow for Aquatic Habitat 

The consultation records presented in the license application for the Instream Flow and 

Aquatic Resources committees document the iterative process undertaken to reach agreement on 

minimum flows in bypassed and regulated reaches of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The 

CHEOPS model was used to evaluate the effect of recommended flows at various reaches on 

reservoir storage in the project, and on water surface elevation, critical reservoir levels, power 

generation, and operating flexibility. Optimum flows for target aquatic resources were selected 

based on WUA and Index C simulations from the instream flow study and used as input to the 

CHEOPS model. These flow recommendations were identified regardless of whether or not the 

existing equipment and configuration at the developments could actually operate at the 

recommended flows or whether the flows could be reliably balanced among the developments. 

If CHEOPS indicated that flow recommendations would result in excessive draw-down, or 

earlier or more frequent implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol, alternative 

recommendations or rebalancing flows among regulated and bypassed reaches were considered 

and CHEOPS was rerun. 

EPA stated that minimum flow proposals must demonstrate consistency with the 

traditional approach of avoidance, minimization, and then mitigation to address less than optimal 

flows or reaches with no proposed minimum flow. We conclude that the process documented in 

the consultation record clearly demonstrates the effort to avoid and minimize impacts in balance 

with other competing demands on the resources. The flows proposed in the Revised CRA 

represent the consensus of the Aquatic Resource Committee for the seasonal allocation of 

available water among bypassed and regulated reaches at the project developments for support of 

aquatic resources. Continuous minimum flows will be provided in three bypassed reaches 

providing the greatest aquatic habitat gain for the first time in more than 80 years. Five regulated 

reaches will receive continuous minimum flows for the first time or flows significantly higher 

than under the existing license. Stable spring flows and gradual reductions in operations at the 

end of high spring flow events will enhance inundation and spawning habitat in the flood plain 

downstream of the Wateree Development. 

The Revised CRA proposes mitigation for project effects on aquatic habitat in riverine 

reaches that will continue to be bypassed by flow under normal operation in the proposed 

relicensing conditions (Paddy Creek bypassed reach, Mountain Island bypassed reach, and 

Wateree Spillway Channel bypassed reach). Also, the Revised CRA includes mitigation for 

regulated reaches (Oxford regulated river reach, Lookout Shoals regulated river reach, Great 

Falls Long and Short bypassed reaches, and Wylie regulated river reach) where proposed 

minimum flows will not achieve the agency target for aquatic habitat area equivalent to 

80 percent of that available under unregulated streamflow conditions. For the Wylie regulated 

river reach and the Great Falls bypassed reaches, shortfalls from target flows were particularly 

focused on habitat available for spring spawning anadromous fish, which do not presently have 

access to these reaches. 

The three bypassed reaches account for approximately 1.5 miles (approximately 66 acres) 

of potential stream habitat that will not receive minimum flows for aquatic resources under the 

proposed new licensing articles. The regulated reach below the Oxford dam is 2.8 miles long, 

171 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
and below the Lookout Shoals dam is 0.3 to 1.3 miles, depending on the draw-down level of 

Lake Norman downstream. The regulated reach between the Wylie Development and Fishing 

Creek reservoir is 25.6 miles long. These reaches will receive an increase in minimum flows 

compared to the existing license, but fell short of the habitat target of 80 percent of unregulated 

flow conditions. 

For most of the developments in the Catawba-Wateree Project, the upper end of the 

impoundment from one development backs up to the tailwater of the next upstream development 

with little or no intervening lotic habitat, except under low inflow or winter draw-down 

conditions. Except for the 76.8 miles between the Wateree dam and the Congaree River and the 

25.6 miles between the Wylie dam and Fishing Creek reservoir, the existing condition of most of 

the mainstem riverine habitat in the Catawba-Wateree River basin has become lentic habitat, 

inundated by the 11 project impoundments. Consequently, outside of the existing bypassed 

reaches there is minimal opportunity for in-kind mitigation within the basin. We have concluded 

that, where feasible, the Revised CRA has proposed to re-establish continuous minimum flows to 

support aquatic resources. The Revised CRA presents valid rationale for not providing 

continuous minimum flows to the three remaining proposed bypassed reaches: (1) additional 

water is not available for the bypass without adversely affecting operating flexibility or lake 

water surface elevations; (2) water for these bypassed reaches would have to be subtracted from 

the allocation to another bypass or the regulated reach, thus affecting its habitat; and (3) the 

potential habitat gain in the bypasses is very small compared to the effects on operations and 

aquatic habitat elsewhere. 

The Revised CRA has proposed mitigation for flows based on Stream Mitigation 

Guidelines (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] et al., 2003). For riparian preservation 

proposed in the Revised CRA, the Guidelines recommend multiplying the length of the affected 

reach by a factor of 2.5 to 5, depending on the quality of the reach. The state agencies agreed to 

use a multiplication factor of 4 for this mitigation package. The preservation length of stream 

bank was further adjusted on regulated reaches for which an increase in minimum flow was 

proposed at less than target habitat levels; the adjustment was a function of the percent below 

target habitat achieved by the proposed minimum flows. 

The proposed mitigation package consists of protection of riparian lands on mainstem 

and first and second order tributaries to the Johns, Catawba, and Linville Rivers in North and 

South Carolina portions of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Mitigation proposed in the 

Revised CRA is comprised of 28.6 miles (343 acres) of riparian stream bank protection in North 

Carolina and 5.5 miles (67 acres) in South Carolina. These conservation easements will provide 

permanent protection to 100-ft-wide buffers to these reaches and downstream water quality 

protection. Protection of riparian buffers to ensure natural filtration of nutrients and sediment 

from runoff is a widely accepted best management practice for protection of downstream water 

quality within watersheds and is cited in the Guidelines as an appropriate mitigation action. 

In addition, Duke Energy will contribute $1 million to South Carolina DNR to create the 

Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Fund. 

Mitigation packages of this type cannot be included as license requirements as the Commission 

does not have any authority over resource agencies. This agreement is considered as part of the 

cumulative effects of licensing the project. 

172 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The Catawba Riverkeeper commented that there is an imbalance in the proposed 

mitigation with too little mitigation in South Carolina. We conclude that preservation of 

upstream riparian habitat will provide permanent protection to water quality in the watershed 

downstream of the mitigation sites. The benefit to the overall watershed is not limited by the 

political boundary. In the staff assessment for the 401 WQC, South Carolina DHEC indicated 

that compensatory mitigation would not be required in the WQC, “because the Revised CRA 

will result in enhancement over existing conditions, even without mitigation. Any shortfall 

identified in the WQC application and by the CRA/stakeholders/commentors is only theoretical 

relative to instream flow and aquatic habitat goals and does not represent any real loss of 

functions and services over existing conditions. As a result of this conclusion, most of the other 

objections raised by American Rivers and Coastal Conservancy League become moot points.” 

It is our finding that the mitigation package proposed in the license application makes an 

adequate effort to be onsite and in kind, and is appropriate to meet the goal to avoid, minimize, 

and then mitigate for project effects. In this case mitigation occurs upstream of project effects 

improving the starting conditions. This conclusion is in agreement with North Carolina’s 

established interagency mitigation Guidelines and the record of consultation for determination of 

minimum flows for aquatic habitat and mitigation requirements. 

AR/CCL and CR recommended that mitigation be included as a license article to provide 

an enforcement mechanism. The mitigation requirements will be enforced by North and South 

Carolina through the section 401 certification. 

Freshwater Mussels 

Freshwater mussels generally require habitat in clean, free-flowing streams and rivers 

with coarse-grained substrate (sand and gravel). Seventeen species of freshwater mussel, 

including seven federal or state, or federal and state listed species have been collected in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, primarily in the tailraces and regulated reaches below project 

developments and upstream tributaries. Bypassed reaches typically provide marginal habitat for 

mussels due to restricted flows, elevated water temperatures, and low DO. Fragmentation and 

reduction of free-flowing stream and river habitat by impoundments have affected the 

distribution and abundance of mussel populations in the regulated reaches, tailraces, and 

tributaries. Nutrient loading and sedimentation related to land use in the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin also have affected the survival and distribution of mussels within streams and rivers in the 

project boundaries. 

Our Analysis 

Most specimens of freshwater mussel species of concern were collected from the 

tailwater and regulated reaches below the project developments or in tributaries to the 

impoundments or regulated reaches. The proposed continuous minimum flows to the bypassed 

and regulated reaches are higher than under the existing license and should benefit these species. 

Minimum continuous flows proposed for the Catawba River bypassed reach at the Bridgewater 

Development, the Lookout Shoals bypassed reach, and the Great Falls Long and Short bypassed 

reaches will open new aquatic habitat for potential use by freshwater mussels. Expanded use of 

these reaches by fish species that serve as hosts for the glochidia mussel lifestage also will 

potentially expand the distribution of mature mussels into these reaches. Negotiations by the 

Instream Flow Study and Aquatic Resources Committees to determine the appropriate 

distribution of increased flows to the regulated reach and the Catawba River bypassed reach at 

173 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the Bridgewater Development were specifically focused on the appropriate balance of water to 

protect and enhance conditions for the cold-water trout populations in the Bridgewater regulated 

river reach and existing mussel populations in the bypassed reach. Too much water discharged 

to the Catawba River bypassed reach at warmer temperatures preferred by mussels will increase 

water temperatures above the tolerance levels for trout in the reach below the confluence of the 

Linville regulated river reach and the Catawba River bypassed reach; too much cold water 

discharged to the Linville regulated river reach reduces the quantity of water available for 

discharge to the bypassed reach. 

Improved conditions in regulated reaches as a result of proposed continuous minimum 

flows and equipment modifications to improve DO below the dams and powerhouses also will 

provide improved habitat conditions for survival of mussel populations and movement of their 

fish hosts. Turbine aeration modifications at powerhouses should improve DO and overall water 

quality, which should benefit these species. Although there will continue to be daily cycling of 

flows between generation and minimum continuous flows, fluctuations in tailwater levels should 

be less than under the existing license and benefit mussel populations. Fish passage required by 

the FWS preliminary prescriptions and the Santee River Basin Accord will eventually provide 

opportunity for movement of resident glochidia-host fish species upstream, further expanding the 

potential for range expansion of extant mussel populations. The goal of the protection and 

preservation of riparian buffers in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin included in the mitigation 

package for less than target instream flows is to protect water quality (particularly nutrients, 

sediment, and turbidity) in the watershed. These actions also should enhance habitat conditions 

for mussels. 

It is our conclusion that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of freshwater mussels 

in tributaries upstream of the project boundaries are not directly affected by the individual 

project developments. Furthermore, proposed increased flows to the bypassed and regulated 

reaches will increase and enhance aquatic habitat for both mussels and the host fish for the 

glochidia early lifestage of mussels. The results from the monitoring program outlined in the 

Species Protection and Management Plan for Freshwater Mussels (2006) will provide periodic 

information to evaluate the condition of populations and the benefits to mussels from 

improvements to water quality and quantity in the tailwater and regulated reaches based on 

35 selected stations from the AES (2005) surveys. 

Diadromous Fish Passage and Restoration 

The Catawba-Wateree River currently supports several anadromous species downstream 

of the Wateree Development including American shad and blueback herring. Hickory shad have 

occasionally been collected in very low numbers below the Wateree Development. Atlantic 

sturgeon and the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon utilize portions of the Santee-Cooper 

system, but are not established in the Catawba-Wateree River above the confluence with the 

Congaree River. Historic records (Newcomb and Fuller, 2001; DTA and LEI, 2005) document 

the use of portions of the Catawba-Wateree River at least upstream to Great Falls by these 

species. It appears that American shad may have occurred historically upstream to the present 

location of the Wylie dam. The catadromous American eel (a species that spends the majority of 

its life in freshwater and spawns in saltwater) may have been distributed upstream in the 

watershed into North Carolina above Lake James and the Bridgewater Development. 

174 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration, and 

Enhancement (effective April 15, 2008) is a cooperative partnership among the applicant, South 

Carolina Electric and Gas, FWS, South Carolina DNR, and North Carolina WRC; NOAA 

Fisheries and South Carolina DHEC also were involved in the development of the accord, but are 

not signatories. The accord moves to implement a 10-year action plan for diadromous fish in the 

basin drafted January 24, 2007. Agreements specific to fish passage at the Catawba-Wateree 

Project are reinforced in the preliminary section 18 prescriptions for fishways pursuant to the 

FPA issued by FWS (May 23, 2008). In comments on the Notice of Application Ready for 

Environmental Analysis, NOAA Fisheries concurred with the FWS prescriptions, but reserved 

its own authority to issue additional prescriptions in the future relative to species within its 

jurisdiction. Both agencies can petition through the Commission’s standard procedures to 

reopen the license to revisit issues related to fish passage and diadromous fish species under 

sections10(j) and 18 of the FPA. 

FWS indicates that the prescriptions were developed in concert with Duke Energy and 

considered alternative designs and approaches to fish passage presented in Duke Energy’s Fish 

Passage Assessment (DTA and LEI, 2005). We consider the preliminary prescriptions and 

associated elements of the accord to be part of the license application for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. Table 35 summarizes the key milestones and schedule for implementation of fish 

passage at the Catawba-Wateree Project defined in the preliminary prescriptions. NOAA 

Fisheries in their Preliminary Recommendations, Terms, and Conditions indicated the need for 

an EFH assessment within the relicensing process because of potential effects of project 

operations on federally managed estuarine and marine species. 

Our Analysis 

We acknowledge that any license issued for the Catawba-Wateree Project would include 

the provisions of any final fishway prescriptions made by NOAA Fisheries and FWS. However, 

we provide our independent analysis of the preliminary prescriptions for completeness of this 

environmental review. Our analysis is focused on the primary issues of whether fish passage 

should be required at the project, the types of fish passage facilities that should be required, and 

the approximate timeframe for design and implementation of fish passage. 

Upstream (American Shad, American Eel, Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon)—The 

Wateree Development is the upstream limit of diadromous fish passage in the Catawba-Wateree 

Basin, although some American eels may move past this blockage. American eel, American 

shad, and blueback herring currently utilize the lower Wateree River in relatively low numbers 

up to the tailrace of the Wateree dam. The accord and preliminary fish passage prescriptions 

recognize that successful restoration of fish passage may be limited initially and have created a 

phased approach and restoration goals. 

The prescriptions call for implementation of a trap, sort, and transport (TS&T) facility for 

alosines (American shad and blueback herring) at the Wateree dam by January 1, 2018. The 

draft design plans and construction schedule are to be submitted for agency approval by 

December 31, 2015. This approximate 10-year period appears adequate for study, design, and 

construction of this facility to be operational by the beginning of the 2018 spring spawning 

season. Initially alosines captured are to be released into Lake Wateree; at such time that the 

number of alosines equals or exceeds 10,000 fish, Duke Energy will begin to distribute fish 

upstream within the South Carolina portion of the basin. Effectiveness studies are to be 

175 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
conducted during the first 3 years of operation of the TS&T provided FWS determines that 

sufficient numbers of fish are available. The results of these studies will be used in consultation 

with the agency to improve the design and effectiveness of the TS&T facility. 

FWS has prescribed conducting 3-year eelway siting studies moving sequentially 

upstream beginning with the Wateree dam in 2009 (table 35). During siting studies, eels will be 

passed to the immediate upstream reservoir. These studies will support the design and 

construction of semi-permanent or permanent upstream eelway passage facilities at all of the 

project developments over a 34-year period, progressively re-opening the Catawba-Wateree 

River Basin to catadromous American eel for growth and development. The upstream eelway 

will be constructed within 2 years of completion of the siting study at each dam. Annual reports 

will be prepared for each year of operation describing the population and characteristics of eels 

passed at each facility. The eelway study at Wateree should coordinate design and location with 

the team designing the bladder dam proposed for the Wateree spillway. 

It is our conclusion that the preliminary prescriptions provided by FWS are consistent 

with the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration, and 

Enhancement signed by the applicant and provide a reasonable and flexible approach for 

development of effective upstream passage for the target diadromous fish. The schedule outlined 

in the prescriptions appears to provide adequate time for site-specific studies and design of 

TS&T facilities for alosines, evaluation of their effectiveness, and modification as necessary. 

The schedule for study, design, and construction of upstream eelways moving sequentially 

upstream from Wateree to Bridgewater over a 34-year period is a reasonable approach to expand 

the geographic range of American eel in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and provides a means 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the passage facilities and success of the restoration program. 

We find that instream minimum continuous flows proposed in the Revised CRA are 

adequate to support restoration of diadromous species. NOAA Fisheries has requested future 

consideration of higher flows to support diadromous species following implementation of fish 

passage prescriptions if and when these species begin to utilize regulated reaches upstream of the 

Wateree development. FERC’s standard procedure for reopening the license would be the 

appropriate mechanism to propose any such seasonal modifications to minimum continuous 

flows. The request for additional minimum flow would need to be evaluated relative to the 

ability to maintain system water balance, reservoir elevations, and storage. 

176 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 35. Schedule for implementation of FWS fish passage prescriptions. 

177 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Downstream (American Shad, American Eel)—The preliminary prescriptions concur with 

the findings by Duke Energy (2005b) that existing design of the turbines, bypasses, spill gates, 

and spillways at the South Carolina developments are adequate for downstream passage of 

juvenile alosines without site-specific downstream fish passage facilities. FWS has reserved the 

authority to prescribe downstream passage at some time in the future, if necessary. 

FWS does have concern about downstream passage of out-migrating American eel. 

FWS has prescribed downstream passages studies to be initiated in 2024, 10 years following 

beginning of operations of the upstream eelway at Wateree dam. A study plan for downstream 

passage is to be submitted to the agency the year prior for approval. The study will evaluate 

operational modification, passage devices, and trapping methods for moving eels downstream. 

It is our conclusion that this schedule provides time for upstream eelway facilities at the 

first six developments to become operational and eels to begin to expand their geographic range 

in the basin, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the operational eelways and the progress of 

restoration efforts. With the decline in eel populations returning to river systems throughout the 

east coast, considerable attention and research is ongoing to identify the causes of the decline and 

approaches to protect and improve their status. During the time allotted for study of downstream 

passage for eels in the Catawba-Wateree Project, more effective, new technologies and 

procedures may be identified that could be implemented for the Catawba-Wateree Project to 

improve downstream passage. 

NOAA Fisheries made the preliminary determination in their Preliminary 

Recommendations, Terms, and Conditions that instream flow conditions recommended for EFH 

conservation in accordance with section 10(j) will, “improve habitat and water quality for 

diadromous fishes and are therefore expected to beneficially effect federally managed estuarine 

and marine species and EFH in the lower Santee River.” Staff concludes that preliminary fish 

passage prescriptions implemented over the period of the new license will provide access to 

habitat in these reaches enhanced by the proposed continuous minimum flows. Accordingly, 

NOAA Fisheries found and staff concur that, ”adverse effects on important prey species, 

federally managed species, and EFH are not anticipated,” provided the recommended 

section 10(j) conditions are included in the new license. 

Fish Entrainment 

The presence of the 13 hydroelectric powerhouses of the project currently results in some 

fish entrainment and associated mortality of resident species in the 11 reservoirs. We agree with 

the conclusions in Fish Entrainment Evaluation (Aquatics 05) Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC 

No. 2232) (Geosyntec Consultants, 2005). The majority of entrainment that occurs is likely to be 

young fish, which generally exhibit higher survival rates following passage through the Francis 

and Kaplan turbines installed at these developments. The level of entrainment that has occurred 

historically is not likely to change significantly under the new license. Under these rates of 

entrainment and survival, the reservoirs currently support quality sport fisheries. Thus, 

entrainment does not appear to adversely affect survival and growth of young of target sport and 

forage species populations. 

The FWS preliminary prescriptions for fish passage do not require specific new 

downstream fish passage facilities or operational changes for passage of juvenile American shad 

and blueback herring following construction and operation of TS&T facilities to move spawning 

178 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
adults upstream past the Wateree dam because the existing facility equipment and design are 

likely to allow downstream passage of these species with minimal mortality. The prescriptions 

do require downstream passage studies for American eel 10 years after construction of the first 

upstream passage eelway at the Wateree dam and subsequent passage provided upstream through 

the Fishing Creek Development. Eel downstream passage will be evaluated, because the shape 

and size of out-migrating adult eels make them more susceptible to injury during turbine passage 

and their preference for near-bottom habitat reduces their likelihood of using other passage 

routes at spill gates, trash sluices, and spillways. 

In the lifecycle of most freshwater mussels which rely on fish hosts for dispersal, the 

larval lifestage (glochidia) attach to the gills and fins of host fish species; when they eventually 

mature into juvenile mussels, they detach and begin their characteristic benthic habit. Fish 

entrainment does not likely have an adverse affect on the mussel lifecycle. Not all entrained fish 

are likely to carry glochidia larvae, and a high percentage of fish that may be hosts are likely to 

survive entrainment. 

If FWS exercises its reserved authority to make further prescription for downstream 

passage of diadromous species, such facilities also would likely benefit resident species further 

reducing the effects of entrainment. 

3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects 

Recreation Flows on Aquatic Habitat 

The Revised CRA has proposed a schedule of periodic increased discharges at six 

developments to support use by recreational paddlers and float anglers in selected regulated 

reaches and the two bypassed reaches at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments. The 

proposed recreational releases will be provided during daylight hours on the scheduled dates and 

the schedule will be reviewed by committee on an annual basis. 

FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and AR/CCL have raised questions related to the potential 

effects of the rapid changes in flow on the aquatic resources in those reaches. The proposed 

recreational releases to the existing regulated reaches are within and generally similar to the 

mean and median flow conditions and well within the frequency distribution of flows for each 

development reported in Exhibit B—Project Operation and Utilization of Resources. Flows 

higher than the proposed recreational flows typically occur in the historical record 20-80 percent 

of the time, except during July-September when higher flows may occur less than 10 percent of 

the time. It is our assessment that the aquatic resources in the regulated reaches are adapted to 

this range of flows. The bypassed reaches at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments will 

receive continuous minimum flows to support aquatic resources for the first time since the 

developments were constructed. The aquatic community that develops within these reaches will 

experience a range of flows between continuous minimum and recreational releases that is not 

significantly different than in the regulated reaches. Similar to the regulated reaches, the aquatic 

community that develops will adapt to the typical range of flows experienced in the reaches to be 

inundated under the new license. 

Based on our review of numerous comments relative to the recommendation in the draft 

EIS for evaluation of ramping in association with recreational flow releases and further review of 

the license application, staff has determined that the recommendation for ramping recreational 

flow releases is not warranted. The differences between base flows and the proposed 

179 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
recreational releases are less than historic differences between base flows and generation flows. 

The continuous minimum flows proposed for these reaches will provide a baseline buffer that 

has not existed in the past, which will reduce the flow differences and further minimize the 

potential for impacts to aquatic resources or erosion. Implementation of ramping flows has the 

potential to reduce water storage and exacerbate low inflow periods. Ramping flows on the 

increasing and decreasing limb of the flow curve has the potential to double the total flow 

associated with each recreational release and has the potential to adversely affect wading and 

floating recreational fishing opportunities built into the recreational release proposals. As 

indicated by South Carolina DNR (Dick Christie, April 22, 2009, comments), Duke Energy has a 

good record of cooperation with the agencies related to mitigating impacts of flow changes on 

fish stranding and mortality as demonstrated by modification made to the Wateree spillway 

channel in consultation with the agency following a fish mortality event. 

Habitat and Population Fragmentation 

Fragmentation of aquatic habitat and populations occurs when impoundments form 

following dam construction in a river corridor: riverine aquatic habitat is reduced and broken 

into disconnected sections with intervening lentic habitat; tributaries may flow into lakes losing 

the continuity of the former downstream connection with the next order stream; dams block 

movement of resident lotic populations to upstream river and tributary reaches; and formerly 

continuous riverine populations are fragmented and isolated within the remaining discontinuous 

lotic habitat. In the case of the Catawba-Wateree Project, over as much as a century following 

construction of some individual developments, the aquatic communities have shifted and adapted 

to the new distribution of habitat conditions. Resident aquatic communities continue to utilize 

those remaining riverine reaches; some populations disperse seasonally into the downstream 

impoundments; new lentic communities have evolved in each impoundment; some impoundment 

populations utilize tributary habitat for portions of their life history; some species may have been 

lost or marginalized while others are introduced or expand their range; resource management 

initiatives (stocking game and forage fish) also have reshaped some of these communities and 

the predator-prey interactions. The effect of multiple impoundments along nearly 280 miles of 

the Catawba-Wateree River has been to significantly alter the ecosystem, both the type and 

distribution of physical habitat and the distribution and character of the biotic resources 

associated with that habitat. The system has changed to the benefit of some species and the 

detriment of others. Among the more significant changes is that the geographic range and 

habitat available to diadromous species typically are now restricted to areas below the first 

blockage, the Wateree Development. 

It is our conclusion that the Santee River Basin Accord and the FWS preliminary 

prescriptions for fish passage will progressively re-open access to essential habitat for 

diadromous fish consistent with the goals of the applicable restoration plans. Proposed increases 

in continuous minimum flows in regulated reaches and several bypassed reaches also will 

expand and enhance available riverine habitat. 

Fish Entrainment Mortality 

As restoration of diadromous fish populations progresses in the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin with implementation of the FWS fish passage prescriptions, out-migrating diadromous fish 

will need to negotiate multiple dams and powerhouses in the system. Although through-turbine 

entrainment mortality for most species is relatively low, there could be an incremental effect 

180 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
from losses of fish at successive developments. The preliminary fish passage prescriptions 

require downstream passage studies and facilities targeted for American eel as access to 

additional habitat progresses upstream. It is our assessment that these studies should consider 

the potential cumulative impact of serial entrainment at successive downstream developments 

during out-migration. 

Fish Passage and Restoration 

The restoration of diadromous fish populations to their historic ranges in the CatawbaWateree River Basin will require negotiating upstream passage at two or three developments for 

American shad and sturgeon that have been documented as far upstream as the Great Falls reach 

and eventually all 13 developments for American eel. 

The fish passage prescriptions propose a trap-and-truck facility at the Wateree dam with 

release of spawning adult American shad into Lake Wateree until the number of shad trapped 

exceeds 10,000, at which time shad will be trucked and distributed to impoundments farther 

upstream. This will, for the immediate future, eliminate the need for American shad passage 

facilities at multiple developments and speed movement of adults to potential spawning habitat 

upstream. 

In contrast, young American eel elvers move into the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and 

will spend most of their life (as much as 40 years) growing to mature adults before returning to 

the ocean to spawn. The FWS fish passage prescriptions require installation of fish passage 

facilities at all of the dams, progressing upstream from the Wateree Development at several-year 

intervals. These multiple fish passage facilities will allow the species to disperse farther 

upstream into available habitat as utilization increases. The sequential implementation of fish 

passage for eels also will permit advances in our knowledge of the mechanisms of eel migration 

in freshwater habitat and the technologies for upstream and downstream passage at dams to be 

integrated into the design of subsequent facilities. 

3.3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Reservoir Effects on Fragmentation 

In the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, the dynamic integration of impoundment 

communities and interspersed riverine communities has become well established during the 

operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree River Basin ecosystem has 

developed into a complex mosaic of riverine and impoundment habitat and communities and 

must be viewed as the existing condition for the assessment of project effects on aquatic 

resources. This represents an unavoidable effect at this time of the project on the preconstruction riverine resources and an irretrievable commitment of selected aquatic resources. 

While certain pre-construction aquatic resources have been unavoidably altered, reduced, or lost, 

extensive new resources have been created, associated with the ecosystems that have developed 

in the 11 project impoundments. 

The Santee Basin Accord and preliminary prescription from FWS for fish passage 

provide a progressive process that will provide access to the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for 

upstream migration and expansion of spawning or nursery habitat of diadromous fish. Fish 

passage facilities also may provide the potential for upstream movement of resident species 

between developments. 

181 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Fluctuation of Reservoir and Tailwater Levels 

The primary purpose for the existence of the project is to help meet the energy needs of 

the rapidly developing region. The load-following nature of power generation from the project, 

other users (e.g., drinking water supply) of the resource, regional climatic conditions (e.g., wet 

and dry weather cycles), topography and morphology of the subwatershed for each 

impoundment, and storage capacity of each impoundment result in inevitable and unavoidable 

fluctuations in water level within each impoundment and in the downstream tailrace. The 

complexity of the sequence of impoundments and powerhouses and the system constraints 

related to management of inflow, outflow, power generation, and protection of aquatic resources 

and other uses is reflected by the complexity of the CHEOPS model used to assess operating 

alternatives and flow releases as part of the negotiations the lead to the Revised CRA. 

These fluctuations are an unavoidable effect of the project, but it is our conclusion that 

the operating scenario proposed in the Revised CRA provides an optimal balance of a wide range 

of conflicting demands on the resources and a significant improvement over conditions under the 

current license. The PM&Es proposed provide significant benefits, protections, and 

enhancement to the aquatic resources compared to conditions under the existing operating 

license for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The range of reservoir draw-down has been reduced; 

draw-down restrictions and criteria are established for stabilization of reservoir water levels to 

protect and enhance littoral fish spawning habitat in the spring; and management criteria for 

spring discharges from the Wateree Development will enhance inundation and spawning habitat 

in the downstream flood plain of the Wateree River. 

Fish Entrainment Mortality 

The presence of the 13 developments and powerhouses in the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin currently results in some fish entrainment and associated mortality for resident fish species 

and for diadromous species as restoration of these migratory populations progresses. Outside of 

spill events, the primary route for passage of fish downstream at each development is by 

entrainment through the turbines. The numbers of fish entrained will vary among 

impoundments, turbine and forebay configuration, season, and species. Mortality of entrained 

fish varies with the turbine design and the species involved. With some clear exceptions, 

survival for most species entrained at the Catawba-Wateree developments is relatively high. One 

exception is the diadromous American eel, which passes downstream as an adult to return to the 

ocean to spawn. The FWS preliminary prescriptions for fish passage set a schedule for studies 

and implementation of a program to begin following establishment of upstream passage facilities 

for American eel that will enhance survival of this species during downstream passage. FWS 

concurred with the assessment prepared for the license application (Geosyntec Consultants, 

2005), which concluded that entrainment mortality for most other species is minimal and did not 

warrant additional prescription at this time. 

It is our conclusion that the level of entrainment mortality currently experienced by most 

fish species does not adversely affect resident fish populations. In fact, many of the populations 

susceptible to entrainment support quality recreational sport fisheries either as target species or 

forage for those species. 

182 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Bypassed Reaches 

The Revised CRA proposes to re-establish continuous minimum flows in three of the 

project bypassed reaches: Catawba River bypassed reach at the Bridgewater Development, and 

the Short and Long bypassed reaches at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments. Three 

other reaches will continue to be bypassed except during spill events: Paddy Creek bypassed 

reach at the Bridgewater Development, Mountain Island bypassed reach, and Wateree Spillway 

Channel bypassed reach. The proposed operation of the Bridgewater Development provides use 

of available water resources to increase minimum flow in the Linville regulated river reach and 

provides continuous minimum flow to the Catawba River bypassed reach while balancing cold 

water habitat for trout and warmer water requirements of freshwater mussels. With the limited 

water available to distribute to the three downstream reaches, this configuration provides the 

greatest gain and enhancement of aquatic habitat, despite continuing to leave the relatively short 

Paddy Creek bypassed reach without a continuous flow of water. Flows to the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach adequate to create significant fish habitat could jeopardize the population of the 

federally listed Schweinitz’s sunflower. The volume of discharge necessary to inundate the 

Wateree Spillway Channel bypass and create significant additional habitat for anadromous fish 

spawning does not appear to be sustainable based on system simulations from the CHEOPS 

model. 

It is our assessment that Duke Energy has provided a reasonable and defensible rationale 

for operation of these three developments in a manner that will continue to bypass water around 

these three reaches except during spill events and leakage. These operating scenarios will allow 

protection and enhancement of other aquatic resources, or terrestrial resources, or both, and 

PM&Es have proposed adequate measures to mitigate these unavoidable effects. 

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources 

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Vegetation 

The Catawba-Wateree Project and the large geographical area it encompasses contain a 

wide variety of natural communities and vegetation cover types. Most of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project is located within the Piedmont Province, with the exception of the headwaters of Lake 

James, which are located in the Blue Ridge Province, and the Wateree River downstream of the 

Wateree Development to the Congaree River, which is located in the Coastal Plain Province. 

The original forested areas bordering Catawba-Wateree developments have been logged 

or burned at least once and consist of secondary growth. Within 1 mile of each of the 

developments, varying degrees of forest clearing have occurred for private residential or 

commercial development. Large-scale residential or commercial development has occurred at 

the Cowans Ford, Wylie, Fishing Creek, and Wateree Developments. Remaining wooded areas 

are generally represented by sweet gum, red maple, river birch, green ash, as well as white pine, 

sycamore, and box elder. Riparian vegetation has been left intact in most areas, although within 

several developments (Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree), riparian vegetation has been degraded and 

fragmented due to the extent of development. Riparian vegetation at Mountain Island 

Development has been left largely intact due to existing watershed protection measures including 

natural area preserves and a county park. Open fields, pastures, and fallow fields are present 

within each development. 

183 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Vegetation cover mapping was conducted within the general Catawba-Wateree Project 

vicinity to approximately 2,000 ft beyond the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries. Eleven 

vegetation cover types were identified within the general Catawba-Wateree Project area and are 

described in detail in the license application (Duke Energy, 2007). Many of the vegetation cover 

types are the result of past or current human activities (grass/pasture, shrub/scrub, cropland, 

project works, residential, urban). Forested vegetation cover (hardwood forest, mixed 

hardwood/pine forest) are typically located in areas away from roads, dwellings, and human 

activity. Three other cover types can be naturally occurring or influenced by human activities 

(water [including reservoirs], pine forest [including planted plantations], and barren areas devoid 

of vegetation). 

A botanical study of the Great Falls bypassed reaches in 2001 and 2004 resulted in the 

identification of nine plant community types and 300 plant species (Gaddy, 2005). Three plant 

communities (Wet Natural Shoals, Flood Plain Forest, and Bogs and Seepages) were determined 

to be high quality, natural communities. The Wet Natural Shoals community occurs only where 

a reliable supply of fast-flowing water is present most of the year. Indicator species are water 

willow and rocky shoals spider lily, a special status species listed in South Carolina as a species 

of “National Concern.” 

Water willow is a perennial herbaceous species that grows colonially from rhizomes 

along the banks or in shallow waters of rivers, ponds and lakes. It appears to grow best in 

6 to 20 in. of water on coarse substrates of sand and fine gravel, but can growth in depths of up 

to 4 ft and on fine textured sediments. It provides stabilization to shorelines and stream beds as 

well as aquatic habitat for small fish and invertebrates and some small aquatic mammals (DTA, 

2005a). Water willow can be affected by erosion and sedimentation, and can itself cause 

problems for recreational boating as it impedes propellers. 

The Flood Plain Forest community was dominated by sweet gum and red maple with 

other canopy tree species including water oak, green ash, sycamore, river birch, and American 

elm. Giant cane and river oats are found in the shrub and herbaceous layers. A few bogs and 

seepages were found along the margins of the shoals, generally draining water from adjoining 

uplands into the shoals. One other community, the Shoals Forest natural community, is a rare, 

possibly unique plant community in South Carolina that has become established in the central 

portions of the Long bypassed reach. Eastern red cedar is dominant on dry shoals and boulder 

piles (Gaddy, 2005). 

A total of 300 plant species were identified during the Great Falls bypassed reach 

botanical surveys. Of the 300 species identified, approximately 29 percent were determined to 

be weedy, invasive (out of range or out of habitat), or exotic plant species, and were the most 

commonly encountered species of the surveys. A number of out of range Coastal Plain plant 

species were found in the Great Falls bypassed reaches, including ti-ti growing as a small shrub 

or tree, cypress-swamp sedge, American bulrush, mosquito-fern, and pond-pennywort (Gaddy, 

2005). 

Wetlands/Riparian Habitat 

Wetland types were identified within the Catawba-Wateree Project area as part of a 

wetland mapping and characterization study focused on only those wetland areas directly 

affected by the project operations, from the wetlands upstream of Lake James, downstream 

through the Lake Wateree Development, and including the potential downstream zone of 

184 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
influence associated with Lake Wateree to the confluence of the Congaree River (DTA, 2005a). 

Initial determination of wetland areas used several procedures including review of existing 

information (National Wetland Inventory maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

[FEMA] flood plain maps, topographic maps, soil surveys, and aerial photography 

interpretation). Field surveys verified information derived from the initial review and resulted in 

surveys of approximately 345 wetlands characterized into three primary wetland types: 

palustrine forested (217), palustrine scrub/shrub (73), and palustrine emergent (55), including 

areas recommended by the agencies such as water willow beds along Lake Wateree and Lake 

Wylie. Wetland types and acreages found within Catawba-Wateree Project developments are 

listed in table 36. 

Within the Bridgewater Development, forested wetlands were the dominant wetland type 

and were comprised of red maple and sweet gum. Scrub/shrub wetlands within the Bridgewater 

Development were primarily black willow stands; one wetland was dominated by silky 

dogwood. 

Forested wetlands dominated the Rhodhiss Development and are characterized by river 

birch, green ash, and black willow. Two scrub/shrub wetlands identified within the Rhodhiss 

Development were each dominated by different plant communities; one was primarily a mix of 

tag alder and buttonbush while the other was principally comprised of green ash and black 

willow. One emergent wetland was characterized as a mixture of wool-grass, soft rush, and 

Panicum grass and appeared to be a result of relatively recent sediment accretion from nonproject-related disturbances on upstream tributaries that feed into Lake Rhodhiss. 

Oxford Development forested wetlands were similar in composition to those found at the 

Rhodhiss Development. Scrub/shrub wetlands at the Oxford Development were dominated by 

tag alder, silky dogwood, and saplings of sycamore and river birch. Buttonbush was present 

within the scrub/shrub wetlands at the Oxford Development, but was not the dominant plant 

species as found at the other developments. Two emergent wetlands associated with Lake 

Hickory were distinctive, one dominated by an abundance of water lily and the second by cattail. 

185 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 36. Wetland types and acreages associated with Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs 

and tailraces. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Wetland acres by type 

Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested 

Bridgewater 0.0 40.8 185.6 

Rhodhiss 9.1 8.2 139.6 

Oxford 1.3 6.7 33.5 

Lookout Shoals 0.72 2.4 82.4 

Cowans Ford 34.9 217.9 257.2 

Mountain Island 38.7 167.7 288.5 

Wylie 22.1 74.3 597.7 

Fishing Creek 33.2 32.4 220.0 

Great Falls and Dearborn 2.7 17.3 58.4 

Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek 0.9 1.3 36.6 

Wateree 181.4 346.6 1,343.4 

Wateree River 1,113.8 13,378.1 54,726.2 

Total Acreage 1,438.82 14,293.7 57,969.1 

The five wetlands identified at the Lookout Shoals Development were relatively small in 

acreage. Four of the wetlands were characterized as forested and one was an emergent wetland. 

The forested wetlands were associated with the drainage of tributaries into the reservoir and were 

comprised primarily of river birch, sycamore, box elder, and sweet gum. The emergent wetland 

was characterized as a fringe wetland along the shoreline of the reservoir comprised solely of 

swamp rosemallow. 

Several of the forested wetlands at the Cowans Ford Development had been cleared or 

filled due to land development activities unrelated to Catawba-Wateree Project operations. 

Scrub/shrub wetlands were typically buttonbush or young black willow. Sediment accretion due 

to disturbances upstream on tributaries feeding into Lake Norman was observed near the 

confluences of tributary streams with the reservoir and has resulted in the buildup of sediments 

on surfaces near the shoreline and in shallow water. Several of the emergent wetlands in the 

stream cove areas have been modified by sediment loading and removal transitioning through 

succession toward scrub/shrub type wetlands or subject to long periods of inundation as a result 

of sediment activity. 

Mountain Island Development forested wetlands were characterized by species such as 

green ash, river birch, sweet gum, and red maple. Several areas of forested wetland had been 

cleared due to land management activities unrelated to project activities. Scrub/shrub wetlands 

were dominated by young black willow, speckled alder, river birch, silky dogwood, and 

buttonbush. Emergent wetlands contained swamp rosemallow, lizard’s tail, arrow arum, broad186 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
leaf arrowhead, and broad-leaf cattail. Some emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands were observed 

as undergoing successional transitioning into more mature communities. Identified emergent 

wetlands were usually associated with protected coves but were small inclusions within forested 

or scrub/shrub dominated wetlands. 

The characteristics of the Wylie Development wetlands were similar to those of the 

Mountain Island Development. Some emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands had transitioned into 

more mature communities, and some forested wetlands had been cleared due to land 

management activities unrelated to project operations. Emergent wetlands were located in 

protected coves, disturbed areas, or located as small inclusions within other wetland types. 

Wetlands at the Fishing Creek Development were similar in characterization and 

condition to those of the Mountain Island and Wylie Developments. Scrub/shrub wetlands 

identified at Fishing Creek Development were often observed to be in successional transition. 

Water willow beds, located along the shoreline of the Fishing Creek reservoir, have developed 

under the current operating regime and appear to be stable and vigorous in growth. 

Forested and scrub/shrub wetlands at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments were 

both characterized as Bottomland Hardwood natural community. Forested wetlands were found 

to be affected by land management practices such as silviculture; scrub/shrub wetlands were 

often noted as undergoing successional transition due to the dynamics of tributary stream flow 

that may cause accretion or scouring. Emergent wetlands were most frequently located in 

protected coves or in small openings within forested or scrub/shrub wetlands. 

Two forested wetlands and one emergent wetland were identified within the Rocky Creek 

and Cedar Creek Developments. Emergent wetlands were characterized in protected areas 

removed from the main portion of the reservoir with the exception of water willow beds that 

were located along the main lake shoreline. 

The dominant wetland types located within the Wateree Development were characterized 

as Bottomland Hardwood forests (green ash, American elm, sweet gum, and red maple) and 

scrub/shrub wetlands (young black willow, red maple, and buttonbush). Emergent wetlands 

were typically located in backwater coves, disturbed areas, or in small inclusions in the forested 

or scrub/shrub wetlands. Water willow beds were found along the shoreline of Lake Wateree. 

Unique to Lake Wateree were several large southern wild rice dominated wetlands. 

Along the Wateree River, forested wetlands included natural communities of Bottomland 

Hardwoods and Bald Cypress-Tupelo Gum Swamp. Bottomland hardwoods were dominated by 

green ash and silver maple. Scrub/shrub wetlands were characterized as Shoal and Stream Bar 

and Levee natural communities dominated by young black willow and water-elm. The 

scrub/shrub wetlands were in a state of successional transitioning due to the river dynamics. 

Emergent wetlands along the Wateree River were generally located in disturbed areas, including 

main rights-of-way, or small inclusions within scrub/shrub or forested wetlands, and were 

dominated by herbaceous species including sedges, rushes, smartweed, and false nettle. 

Ten areas have been identified as high-value wetland areas that provide or contribute 

directly to the maintenance and support of exceptional value natural resources (DTA, 2005b). 

These areas were selected based on important wetland functions (e.g., wildlife habitat, nutrient 

retention, aquatic habitat, unique/heritage), wetland hydrology, wetland vegetation and 

187 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
interspersion, and value as wildlife habitat. These areas include the following and are presented 

on figures in appendix B. (River miles provided as guidance are approximate.) 

• Wateree River Hardwood Bottomlands (RM 0.0-66.0) is a wetland complex of several 

thousand acres. The bottomlands are contiguous with the Congaree National Park 

(figure B-1). 

• Great Falls bypassed reach-long bypass (RM-GF 1.0-2.0) is composed primarily of 

forested wetland and wet shoal communities forming bottomland wetlands (figure B-2). 

• Cane Creek Confluence Area (RM 112.5) is a 527-acre forested/shrub wetland near the 

confluence of Cane Creek upstream of the Fishing Creek reservoir (figure B-3). 

• Big Allison Creek Cove Area (RM 146.0) includes 71 acres located in the back of Big 

Allison Creek Cove of Lake Wylie (figure B-4). 

• Paw Creek Cove Area (RM 162.0) includes 118 acres of forested/shrub wetlands in the 

back of Paw Creek Cove of Lake Wylie (figure B-4). 

• Reed’s Creek Cove Area (RM199.1), located in the back of Reed’s Creek Cove of Lake 

Norman, is a 21-acre wetland (figure B-5). 

• Johns River Area (RM 261.5) is located near the confluence of Johns River and Catawba 

River and totals 124 acres (figure B-6). 

• Warrior Fork Area (RM 264.0) includes 115 acres near the confluence of Warrior Fork 

and the Catawba River (figure B-6). 

• Catawba River bypassed reach (RM 283.3) includes the majority of the reach and is 

167 acres (figure B-7). 

• Lake James/Catawba River Confluence Area (RM 294.5) includes 126 acres near the 

confluence of the Catawba River and Lake James (figure B-7). 

Vegetation was characterized during a flood plain inundation study for the Wateree River 

flood plain (DTA, 2006). The study focused on the zone of project operational influence on the 

Wateree River downstream of Lake Wateree to the confluence of the Congaree River, which 

included the Wateree River flood plain. The Wateree River and the Congaree River interact at 

higher flow levels, especially flows greater than 9,000 cfs, to inundate the flood plain. A portion 

of the 22,000-acre Congaree National Park is influenced by the flows received from the Wateree 

River via its confluence with the Congaree River. Congaree National Park protects the largest 

remnant of old-growth floodplain forest remaining on the North American continent and contains 

a diversity of terrestrial and wetland habitats that are seasonally inundated. Because of the vast 

diversity of biological resources, the park has been designated an International Biosphere 

Reserve and a Globally Important Bird Area (National Park Service [NPS], 2009). 

Most of the riparian corridor of the Wateree River is undeveloped bottomland swamp, 

although timber-cutting is practiced in some areas. Forested wetlands dominated the flood plain 

and included Bottomland Hardwood and Bald Cypress-Tupelo Gum Swamp communities. Bald 

Cypress-Tupelo Gum Swamp is a natural community that exists in the most deeply flooded 

habitats, and is habitat that potentially could provide post-nesting foraging areas for wood stork 

as well as expanded habitat for American alligators, both rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) 

188 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
species observed in the area. More detailed information on wood stork and American alligator is 

found in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

Noxious Weeds 

Six invasive exotic terrestrial plants have been identified within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area during botanical surveys: Autumn olive, Chinese privet, Chinese wisteria, Japanese 

honeysuckle, kudzu, and Vietnamese grass. Autumn olive is located at only one site adjacent to 

Lake Wylie, and Chinese wisteria is located at only one site adjacent to Dearborn Lake. Chinese 

privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and Vietnamese grass are abundant and well distributed within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area. These species were found at a total of 79 survey sites within or 

adjacent to project shorelines extending from Lake James to Lake Wateree. In addition, Chinese 

privet and Japanese honeysuckle are common in the Great Falls bypasses; Vietnamese grass is 

present but uncommon in the same areas. Kudzu is known to be widely distributed within and 

adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project, and along with Japanese honeysuckle may be the most 

abundant of all invasive exotic terrestrial plant species within the Catawba-Wateree Project 

(letter from Duke Energy, June 26, 2008). These invasive plants grow and spread aggressively 

and can overwhelm native species. 

Three aquatic invasive plant species, hydrilla, parrotfeather, and Brazilian elodea, have 

been documented within the Catawba-Wateree Project. Hydrilla is considered one of the worst 

submerged aquatic invasive species in the United States and can impair water flow, displace 

native species, and impair small boat navigation. It tolerates low light conditions and has a fast 

rate of growth that allows it to grow at greater depths and overwhelm other species. It can shade 

out other aquatic plants by forming a dense canopy beneath the surface of the water body and 

can reproduce by four different methods, including fragmentation and tubers. Tubers can remain 

viable in the soil for several years, allowing the species to survive seasonal cold temperatures 

and drought conditions (USACE, 2008a). Hydrilla was found in the Catawba arm of Lake James 

in 1999; in Lake Norman in 1999, where it had spread as far upstream as the North Carolina 

Route 150 bridge; and in Mountain Island Lake and in Lake Wateree in 2000. It has since been 

found in Lake Wylie in 2006 (Duke Energy, 2006c). Parrotfeather is present at Oxford and 

Lookout Shoals reservoirs and was discovered in Lake Hickory in 2001. It has spread in Lake 

Hickory from the original 10-acre infestation to 84 acres. Parrotfeather grows in slow flowing 

water at the edges of streams, lakes, ponds, and other water bodies, and spreads via rhizomes. It 

overwhelms other aquatic plant species because of its vigorous growth habits (USACE, 2008b). 

Duke Energy is currently in consultation with the municipalities of Hickory and Longview, 

North Carolina; North Carolina DENR; and North Carolina WRC to design a management plan 

for parrotfeather on Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals Lake. Brazilian elodea has been found in 

the tailwaters of Lake Hickory in the Oxford Development in association with parrotfeather. It 

grows in both still and flowing water and is fast growing, often shading out other aquatic and 

vegetation resulting in pure stands of Brazilian elodea (USACE, 2008c). Sterile grass carp have 

been stocked in the affected reservoirs by North Carolina WRC to control the spread of these 

invasive aquatic plants, and Duke Energy, along with North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DNR, and North Carolina State University, have formed a task force to jointly work on the 

aquatic invasive plant species issue. 

In addition to the three aquatic invasive plant species above, marsh dewflower is found at 

the Oxford, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, and Wylie Developments and is among the 

dominant herbaceous species present in riparian habitat. Marsh dewflower prefers damp soil at 

189 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the edge of ponds and along slow moving streams. Its aggressive growth enables it to outcompete native plants by forming dense mats. Seeds are dispersed by wildlife, and spreading 

can occur when floods distribute root fragments to new locations (NPS, 2008). Alligator weed is 

found at the Oxford Development and within the Great Falls bypassed reach, where it is among 

the most dominant exotic species. 

Special Status Plant Species 

Two federally listed plant species—Schweinitz’s sunflower, an endangered species, and 

dwarf-flowered heartleaf, a threatened species—were documented within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. Four state-listed plant species—rocky shoals spider lily, Canada moonseed, ovateleaved catchfly, and prairie trillium—were also documented from within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (table 37). Of the four state-listed species, three are listed in South Carolina, and one is 

listed in North Carolina; these species are discussed below. The two federally listed species are 

discussed in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

Table 37. RTE plant species documented in the Catawba-Wateree Project area. (Source: 

Gaddy, 2005) 

Species Common name State status1 Federal 

status1 Location 

Helianthus 

schweinitzii 

Schweinitz’s 

sunflower 

South Carolina and North 

Carolina—E E Mountain Island 

bypassed reach 

Hexastylis 

naniflora 

dwarf-flowered 

heartleaf North Carolina—T T 

Paddy Creek, 

Linville dam, 

Lake Hickory 

Hymenocallis 

coronaria 

rocky shoals 

spider lily South Carolina—NC 

Great Falls long 

bypassed reach; 

Sugar Creek; 

Landsford canal 

Symphyotrichum 

georgianum Georgia aster 

North Carolina–T 

South Carolina—SC 

FC Unknown 

Menispermum 

canadense Canada moonseed South Carolina—SC Unknown 

Silene ovata ovate-leaved 

catchfly North Carolina—SR-T FSC Unknown 

Trillium 

recurvatum prairie trillium South Carolina—SC Unknown 

1 SR-T = Significantly Rare Throughout 

 SC = Special Concern 

 NC = National Concern 

 E = Endangered 

 T = Threatened 

 FSC = Federal Species of Concern 

 FC = Federal Candidate 

190 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The status of rocky shoals spider lily is listed by South Carolina DNR as “imperiled 

because of factor(s) making it vulnerable” however, this status provides no legal protection. 

Rocky shoals spider lily occurs in limited habitat of river shoals and on rocky islands in 

Piedmont rivers. The plant was once widespread in the southeastern United States, but is 

currently known from small, scattered populations in two or three states. In South Carolina it is 

known from small populations on the Catawba River near Sugar Creek (RM 131.4) and the 

lower Great Falls long bypassed reach (RM 102.4); a large population (thousands of plants) is 

located at Landsford canal on the Catawba River (RM 119.0). 

Flat rock formations within rocky shoals appear to provide the best habitat for rocky 

shoals spider lilies, often occurring in association with riverweed or water willow (Duke Energy, 

2006d). Sedimentation, inundation frequency, flow, water depth, exposure, substrate type, 

temperature, and DO are all factors that affect the survival of the species. As part of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project relicensing discussions related to the protection of rocky shoals spider 

lily, a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) was developed with limiting factors for depth, velocity, 

and substrate. The HSI indicated that the most suitable habitat for rocky shoals spider lily 

contains water depth of between 2 and 11 in., flow velocity of 0.1 and 0.2 ft per second, and a 

substrate of broken bedrock. In addition, low water levels can provide access to the plant 

colonies by herbivores such as white-tailed deer. 

Canada moonseed is a South Carolina species of Special Concern (SC). The 

conservation status of Canada moonseed is currently listed as “unknown” due to incomplete 

information about the species in South Carolina. Canada moonseed is a woody, deciduous vine 

found growing in moist woodlands and beside streams from Canada south to Arkansas (Flora of 

North America, 2008a). Threats to the species appear to be primarily from loss of habitat due to 

development (Nelson, 1986). Canada moonseed has been identified from within the CatawbaWateree Project area, but specific locations are not identified in survey reports (Gaddy, 2005). 

Prairie trillium is a South Carolina SC species that is considered to be critically imperiled 

because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state. It is found in 

rich clayey flood plain soils, where plants are often inundated during their flowering period in 

late March to late May. It is a perennial wildflower growing from horizontal rhizomes (Flora of 

North American, 2008b). 

Ovate-leaved catchfly is a perennial herb found in clumps growing from rhizomes on 

rich, moist slopes, cove forests, and montane oak-hickory forests. Its status in North Carolina is 

SR-T (Significantly Rare-Throughout) with fewer than 100 populations throughout its range, and 

is a federal species of concern. It is considered vulnerable because it is endemic to North 

American with a limited range, found in 11 of the southeastern United States (Forest Service, 

2003). 

FWS describes the Georgia aster as a plant species that was historically associated with 

post oak savanna/prairie communities once common throughout the southeast where fires and 

animal grazing maintained appropriate habitat. Current populations are known from areas 

adjacent to roads, utility rights-of-way, and openings where land management activities maintain 

disturbed habitat (FWS 2007). One population of Georgia aster has been documented on a 

transmission line approximately one-half mile from the Mountain Island Development dam 

outside of the project boundary. 

191 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Georgia aster is found in dry oak-pine flatwoods and uplands where soils can vary from 

sandy to heavy clay. Adequate sunlight appears to be the most important factor in the success of 

the species. Because the populations are small and relatively isolated, threats to the populations 

are associated with herbicide applications, fire suppression, invasive species, and development. 

Recent information indicates that the species is more abundant than when initially listed as an 

FWS candidate species (FWS 2007). 

Wildlife 

The study area for wildlife observations was defined as all Catawba-Wateree Project 

developments, associated bypassed reaches, zone of influence, major tributaries, associated 

shorelines, and adjacent uplands. Documented observations resulted from specific wildlife 

surveys, as well as opportunistic sightings, and review of existing databases and literature. 

Mammals 

The various habitats associated with the Catawba-Wateree Project area and surrounding 

vicinity provide excellent resident, migratory/transient, and seasonal habitat for a high diversity 

of wildlife species. Mammal species are well represented by large and small game species, furbearers, rodents, and bats that reside in many different habitats such as woodland, scrub/shrub or 

early successional areas, grasslands, and wetlands. Species typically found within the CatawbaWateree Project area include species such as white-tailed deer, coyote, red fox, Virginia 

opossum, gray squirrel, striped skunk, southern flying squirrel, eastern cottontail, and raccoon. 

Beaver, muskrat, and mink are found typically in wetland areas. Small mammals commonly 

found in the Catawba-Wateree Project area include white-footed deer mouse, eastern mole, 

meadow-jumping mouse, and southeastern shrew. Black bears are thought to be present as 

transients within some developments (Bridgewater) where heavily forested areas are present. 

Several species of bats are considered seasonally common in habitats associated with most of the 

Catawba-Wateree developments. Species such as eastern pipistrelle, big brown bat, and eastern 

red bat are considered common and wide-ranging throughout the 14 counties comprising the 

project area. Seminole bat and Brazilian free-tailed bat are more common in the area around the 

lower projects primarily from Cowans Ford south to Wateree (Webster, 2005a). Many wildlife 

species are found in multiple habitat types due to their generalized requirements for food, shelter, 

and breeding (e.g., coyotes). 

A mammal survey of the Great Falls bypassed reaches area of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project was conducted in 2005 and resulted in the documentation of 38 species of mammals. All 

of the species observed were considered common throughout the Piedmont; 33 of the species 

have wide geographic distributions in the eastern United States and the entire Catawba-Wateree 

Project area including representative species such as Virginia opossum, eastern mole, eastern red 

bat, eastern cottontail, eastern gray squirrel, white-footed deer mouse, common gray fox, 

raccoon, and white-tailed deer (Webster, 2005a). The southeastern myotis, a federal species of 

concern and a North Carolina species of concern, was documented via SONOBAT recordings 

and is discussed further in the following section Special Status Wildlife Species. 

Birds 

Information from Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department avian surveys, 

National Audubon Christmas Counts, Cowans Ford Wildlife Refuge, the South Carolina 

Breeding Bird Atlas, and Partners in Flight provided baseline and historic information to 

192 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
supplement field surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005. Field surveys characterized the existing 

breeding, migratory, and resident bird communities of the Catawba-Wateree Project area. The 

variety of habitats within the Catawba-Wateree Project contributes to a wide variety of resident, 

migratory, and seasonal avian species. The transition between forested and open water habitat 

types of Piedmont alluvial, bottomland, and levee forests adjacent to project reservoirs or rivers 

and Coastal Plain levee forest/river associations resulted in the highest avian species richness and 

abundance during the 2004 and 2005 surveys. A total of 147 bird species were observed during 

the surveys including waterbirds (36), game birds (2), raptors (12), woodpeckers (7), 

swifts/swallows (6), hummingbirds (1), and perching birds (83) (DTA, 2005b). 

The five most commonly observed species throughout the year were Carolina chickadee, 

tufted titmouse, Carolina wren, northern cardinal, and American goldfinch. These species are 

generalists that use a variety of habitats for foraging and nesting (DTA, 2005b). 

Species diversity was highest during spring migration and summer breeding seasons for 

all habitat types. During migration and the summer breeding season, resident species are joined 

by north-bound migrants and species that stay to nest in appropriate available habitats. Summer 

breeding and migratory species include neotropical migrants13 such as vireos, flycatchers, and 

warblers (DTA, 2005b). 

Several special status bird species were observed within the Catawba-Wateree Project 

area during the survey. Wood stork was the only federally listed (endangered) species observed 

and is discussed in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. Brown creeper, hermit 

thrush, and sharp-shinned hawk were observed only during migratory or winter seasons and are 

likely to use appropriate habitat in the Catawba-Wateree Project area for food and shelter during 

migration or as winter residents. Species discussed further in the section, Special Status Wildlife 

Species, include bald eagle, little blue heron, Mississippi kite, red-headed woodpecker, and 

Swainson’s warbler. 

In addition to the seasonal avian surveys, a study was conducted to determine habitat 

usage and movement of great blue heron and great egret during different flow stages at the 

Wateree dam tailrace. Results of the study indicate that the great blue heron and the great egret 

utilize the tailrace area as foraging habitat when the development is operating, but move 

elsewhere when no flow conditions occur. Each species used a different area of the tailrace with 

great blue herons using the backwater area and great egrets foraging in fast flowing water just 

downstream of the initial tailrace water release. Twenty-four other species used the tailrace area 

for foraging including large groups of double-crested cormorant and Bonaparte’s gull (DTA, 

2005b). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptiles and amphibians are common within the Catawba-Wateree Project area and 

include both terrestrial and aquatic species. Distribution of reptiles and amphibians within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area is dependent upon food and reproductive requirements, but 

generally representative species of both groups may be found in a variety of habitat types 

including grasslands, scrub/shrub or early successional, woodland, wetland, or open water 

habitats. 

 13 Neotropical migrants are species that migrate from wintering areas in the Caribbean, 

and Central and South America to North America to breed.

193 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Reptile species representative of grassland habitat in the Catawba-Wateree Project area 

include northern fence lizard and eastern garter snake. In scrub/shrub habitat southern ringneck 

snake, rough green snake, northern black racer, and black rat snake are typical species 

encountered. Woodland reptile species include eastern box turtle, five-lined skink, northern 

redbelly snake, corn snake, and northern copperhead. Reptile species typically encountered in 

aquatic habitats include snapping turtle, eastern painted turtle, northern water snake, and queen 

snake. 

Amphibians are most frequently found in wetland and open water habitat, but several are 

found in woodland habitats. Amphibians found in woodland areas in the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area typically include spotted salamander, American toad, and Fowler’s toad. Typical 

amphibians of wetlands in the Catawba-Wateree Project area include red-spotted newt, southern 

two-lined salamander, three-lined salamander, green frog, bullfrog, and pickerel frog. 

Surveys documenting reptile and amphibian species in the Great Falls bypassed reach 

were conducted in 2004 (Dorcas, 2005a). The surveys resulted in the documentation of 

12 frog/toad, 6 salamander, 7 turtle, 6 lizard, and 11 snake species. None of the species observed 

during the survey were identified as species of special status (Dorcas, 2005a). 

Special Status Wildlife Species 

Surveys conducted throughout the Catawba-Wateree Project area resulted in the 

identification of 11 North Carolina State, South Carolina State, or federally listed wildlife 

species. Four federally listed species—Rafinesques’ big-eared bat, wood stork, and American 

alligator, and bog turtle—are discussed further in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered 

Species. The remaining special status species are North Carolina or South Carolina listed species 

and are discussed below. Table 38 presents each species, their status, and survey occurrence. 

Table 38. RTE terrestrial wildlife species identified in the Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Species Common Name State Status1 Federal 

Status1 Survey Occurrence 

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat North 

Carolina—SR 

Widely distributed throughout 

the Catawba-Wateree Project 

area 

Lasionycteris 

noctivagans silver-haired bat 

North 

Carolina—SR 

(SU) 

Uncommon to common 

throughout the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area except in winter 

Myotis 

austroriparius 

southeastern 

myotis (bat) 

North 

Carolina—SC FSC 

Wateree River (RM 69.4); 

Catawba River at Great Falls 

bypassed reaches (Mile 1.2) 

Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii 

Rafinesque’s bigeared bat 

North 

Carolina—T; 

South 

Carolina—E 

FSC 

Specimens from the vicinity of 

the Wateree River below the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area 

194 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Species Common Name State Status1 Federal 

Status1 Survey Occurrence 

Egretta caerula little blue heron South 

Carolina—SC 

Multiple observations from the 

confluence of Wateree and 

Congaree Rivers 

Mycteria 

americana wood stork South 

Carolina—E E 

1 Observation of 25 foraging 

individuals west of the study area 

adjacent to the Congaree River 

Ictinia 

mississippiensis Mississippi kite South 

Carolina—SC 

Confluence of Wateree and 

Congaree Rivers in migration 

and during breeding season 

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned 

hawk 

North 

Carolina—SR 

Lake James/Bridgewater 

Development – 1 fall observation 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus bald eagle 

North 

Carolina—T; 

South 

Carolina—E 

D 

Lake James, Mountain Island 

Lake, Lookout Shoals Lake, 

Cedar Creek reservoir, Fishing 

Creek reservoir, Lake Wateree, 

as well as Catawba and Wateree 

Rivers 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

red-headed 

woodpecker 

South 

Carolina—SC Winter visitor, Lake Wateree 

Certhia americana brown creeper North 

Carolina—SR Fall migrant; winter visitor only 

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush North 

Carolina—SR 

Fall migrant; winter visitor only. 

Observed at the Bridgewater, 

Cowans Ford, and Mountain 

Island Developments 

Limnothylpis 

swainsonii 

Swainson’s 

warbler 

South 

Carolina—SC 

One breeding season observation 

near the confluence of the 

Wateree and Congaree Rivers 

Alligator 

mississippiensis American alligator E Wateree River downstream of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area 

Glyptemys 

muhlenburgii bog turtle North 

Carolina—T T 

Specimens from Bristol Creek 

(2003) tributary to Lake 

Rhodhiss 

1 E = Endangered 

 D = Delisted 

 T = Threatened 

 SC = Species of Concern 

 SR = Significantly Rare 

195 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Mammals 

Hoary Bat—Hoary bats typically occur throughout North and South Carolina during the 

fall, winter, and spring months. This species is widely distributed throughout the CatawbaWateree Project area where it is absent in the summer months to rare or uncommon during 

migration (Webster, 2005b). 

Silver-Haired Bat—Silver-haired bats inhabit forested areas throughout much of Canada 

and the United States and are distributed throughout much of both North and South Carolina. 

The silver-haired bat is a highly migratory species and its abundance in the Carolinas varies 

throughout the year. Generally, it is considered uncommon to common throughout the CatawbaWateree area where it has been recorded in 10 of the 14 counties that comprise the study area. 

The silver-haired bat is present in the Catawba-Wateree Project area outside of the breeding 

season, arriving in late summer and staying through mid-spring. Although the species’ status is 

defined as “unknown,” North Carolina lists the silver-haired bat as significantly rare during the 

breeding season. It has no special status in South Carolina (Webster, 2005b). 

Southeastern Myotis—The southeastern myotis is a bat found exclusively in riverine 

habitats in the southeastern United States and along the Mississippi River and lower Ohio River 

Basins in the Midwest. In both North and South Carolina its range is limited to the Coastal Plain 

Province. The southeastern myotis is found in cypress-gum swamps and abandoned buildings 

adjacent to permanent water sources. In the Catawba-Wateree Project area it was documented 

foraging over the Wateree River and over the Catawba River at the Great Falls bypassed reaches 

(Webster, 2005b). 

Birds 

Little Blue Heron—Little blue heron is considered a species of concern in South Carolina. 

The little blue heron is a colonial nesting species of the Coastal Plain that can occur inland 

during post-breeding dispersal from July to September. They feed in shallow water on fish and 

small aquatic organisms (Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). Multiple observations of little 

blue herons occurred from Lake Wateree to the confluence of the Congaree River during the 

2004-2005 avian surveys. 

Mississippi Kite—Mississippi kites are a long distance migrant found throughout the 

southern Midwest and eastern United States as a breeding species, with the largest portion of 

their population occurring in the southern Great Plains. In North and South Carolina they are a 

breeding species on the Coastal Plain, but their population is expanding into the Piedmont. Nest 

sites in the southeast are found commonly in mature, undisturbed stands of lowland and flood 

plain forests and along major rivers where they use trees at least 100 ft in height (Potter, Parnell 

and Teulings, 1980). Foraging habitat consists of fields adjacent to nesting sites where it can 

prey on large insects such as cicadas, grasshoppers, and dragonflies in flight. All observations of 

Mississippi kites within the Catawba-Wateree Project area were documented from the Wateree 

River riparian areas below the Wateree dam. The Mississippi kite is listed in South Carolina, 

where it is a species of concern (DTA, 2005b). 

Sharp-shinned Hawk—The sharp-shinned hawk is considered significantly rare in North 

Carolina. It is considered a fairly common fall migrant, an uncommon winter resident, and a rare 

to absent breeding species throughout the Carolinas. A bird of prey found primarily in forests 

and woodlands, the sharp-shinned hawk actively pursues small birds, up to the size of a thrush, 

196 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
as its major food source (Potter, Parnell and Teulings, 1980). One individual was observed 

during fall avian surveys adjacent to Lake James, and it is likely that it was a migrant based on 

time of year of observation (DTA, 2005b). 

Bald Eagle—The bald eagle, formerly listed as a threatened species, has been removed 

from the federal endangered species list as of 2007 (FWS, 2007). It is currently listed as a 

threatened species in North Carolina and as an endangered species in South Carolina. Avian 

surveys in 2004-2005 documented 64 observations of bald eagles on 7 of the 11 lakes, reservoirs, 

and river sections within the Catawba-Wateree Project. A nest survey in 2005 resulted in the 

identification of 16 known bald eagle nests within the Catawba-Wateree Project area or 2 miles 

of the Catawba-Wateree Project area; 5 of the nests were active in 2005. Bald eagles concentrate 

at the Wateree dam tailrace on a seasonal basis using the area for foraging. 

Red-Headed Woodpecker—The red-headed woodpecker can be found in all sections of 

both North and South Carolina during all months of the year and is a common permanent 

resident within the Congaree National Park (Carter, 2005). On the Coastal Plain it is fairly 

common in summer, but at other seasons and inland it is considered uncommon to fairly 

common. The species constructs a nest hole in standing dead trees and telephone poles (Potter, 

Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). The red-headed woodpecker is considered a species of concern in 

South Carolina. Observations of red-headed woodpecker occurred only during winter surveys 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project study area (DTA, 2005b). 

Swainson’s Warbler—The Swainson’s warbler is known to breed in the mountains and in 

the Coastal Plain physiogeographic regions of North and South Carolina. In the mountains, the 

species is associated with rhododendron thickets and woodlands with closed canopies. In the 

Coastal Plain it uses thickets that occur in forest gaps and edges, primarily along bottomland 

forests. It appears to use damp forests with cane species but will not use inundated areas (South 

Carolina DNR, 2005). The species generally nests from 1 to 10 ft above the ground in cane 

brakes and thickets from early May through early July (Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). 

Swainson’s warbler is a watchlist species of highest priority according to the Partners In Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan for the South Atlantic Coastal Plain (American Bird Conservancy, 2001) 

and it has also been identified by the South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy as needing a specific monitoring program (South Carolina DNR, 2005). An observation 

during the breeding season on the Wateree River during relicensing surveys near the confluence 

of the Congaree River suggests the presence of breeding individuals, but breeding is not 

confirmed (DTA, 2005b). The Swainson’s warbler is a common summer resident of the 

Congaree National Park (Carter, 2005). 

Brown Creeper—The brown creeper is considered significantly rare in North Carolina 

where it is a fairly common winter resident from mid-October to mid-April in the Coastal Plain 

and Piedmont and a permanent resident of the mountains. In the mountains, it breeds in the high 

altitude spruce-fir forests. It feeds on insects gleaned from crevices in tree bark and from spider 

webs (Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). The brown creeper was observed only during fall 

migration and winter inventory surveys in the project area (DTA, 2005b). 

Hermit Thrush—Hermit thrush is designated as a significantly rare species in North 

Carolina and is found as a fairly common winter resident of woodlands throughout the Carolinas 

from mid-October to early May. It is less abundant in the mountains than the coastal areas. Like 

other thrushes, it is primarily insectivorous, but will also eat a wide variety of fruits and berries 

197 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
(Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). It was observed only during fall migration and winter 

inventory surveys within the project area (DTA, 2005b) 

Priority Wildlife Habitat 

Lake Norman Colonial Waterbird Nesting—A great blue heron rookery established on 

lower Lake Norman (Hero Island) and unique to the Catawba River has been designated a 

Priority Habitat (Duke Energy, 2007). The rookery population appears to vary from 60 to 90 

individuals and 30 to 40 nests each year. Although green herons are observed on the island on 

occasion, no other species are known to use the rookery. The shoreline of the island is classified 

as a Natural Area and the island is part of the North Carolina WRC James Parnell Colonial 

Waterbird Sanctuary System, a network of colonial waterbird conservation lands. Other 

rookeries have been identified in association with the Wylie and Oxford Developments. Duke 

Energy currently has a management and protection plan in place for rookeries that is jointly 

implemented with the North Carolina WRC to protect the habitat and the great blue herons 

occupying the rookeries during the breeding season. 

In addition to the heron rookery on lower Lake Norman, the Catawba-Mountain Island 

Lake Watershed, which includes the Catawba River corridor from Lake Norman to Mountain 

Island Lake, has been designated an Important Bird Area by Audubon North Carolina (Audubon 

North Carolina, 2008). The Catawba River is a well-known migratory corridor, making it an 

important stopover site during spring and fall migration and a wintering site for 21 species of 

waterfowl. According to Audubon North Carolina, key avian habitat in the Piedmont Province 

includes reservoirs that provide open water habitat in a region without natural lakes except for 

beaver-created impoundments. Reservoirs provide migratory and wintering habitat for 

waterfowl; migrating shorebirds use exposed mudflats in late summer and fall; and bald eagle, 

osprey, and double-crested cormorants nest on several reservoirs (Audubon North Carolina, 

2008). 

Congaree National Park—Congaree National Park, is the largest old growth bottomland 

hardwood forest in the United States, representing one of the few intact examples of freshwater 

swamps in the United States. Seasonal flooding that maintains the unique and diverse habitats in 

the park is provided through flows received through the Wateree River regulated reach to the 

flood plain and is an integral part of the entire bottomland hardwood forest ecology. The park is 

designated as an UNESCO International Biosphere Reserve, a National Natural Landmark, and a 

Globally Important Bird Area. It contains 22,000 acres, supports high densities of migrating and 

wintering landbirds, and provides habitat for high densities of bottomland hardwood resident 

species such as pileated woodpecker, red-headed woodpecker, barred owl, prothonotary warbler, 

and Swainson’s warbler (American Bird Conservancy, 2003). 

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects 

Reservoir Levels and Minimum Flows 

Project operations can affect wetlands, riparian, and wildlife habitat within the CatawbaWateree Project area including the Wateree River downstream to its confluence with the 

Congaree River. Reservoir fluctuations can adversely affect the distribution, species 

composition, and productivity of wetland and riparian habitat. Reservoir draw-downs during the 

growing and reproductive seasons can limit wetland growth in the fluctuation zone, flood 

198 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
waterfowl nesting areas, strand amphibian eggs and tadpoles, and reduce foraging and cover 

habitat for a variety of other wildlife species that are resident or migrate through the project area. 

The proposed reservoir levels and minimum continuous flows would provide wetland 

areas with more dependable water levels and flows that are more consistent. Winter draw-downs 

would occur in Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree, but would provide a 

smaller drop in elevation and for a shorter time period than under existing license conditions. 

Daily water fluctuations would be more frequent, but within a reduced range of fluctuation. The 

new increased minimum continuous flow regime proposed for the Catawba-Wateree Project 

would provide a consistently wetted channel in the Great Falls bypassed reaches and for the 

Wylie regulated river reach. Although no specific public comments on proposed reservoir levels 

and flow regimes in regard to wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat were received, the proposed 

reservoir levels and flow regimes were supported by approximately 66 parties who signed the 

Revised CRA. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed water elevations at project reservoirs are presented in 

section 3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity. Currently, the range of water levels in Lake James and Lake 

Norman directly related to the Catawba-Wateree Project operations do not appear to adversely 

affect the hydrology for adjacent wetlands. Minor lake level fluctuations occur at both reservoirs 

during the growing season. Wetlands associated with Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lookout 

Shoals Lake, Mountain Island Lake, Lake Wylie, Fishing Creek reservoir, Great Falls reservoir, 

Cedar Creek reservoir, and Lake Wateree do not experience any reservoir level fluctuations 

during the growing season under the current operating regime. 

The proposed reservoir levels, in concert with the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization 

Program (section 3.3.2.1.1, Water Quantity), would provide beneficial enhancement of the 

existing emergent wetlands by stabilizing and potentially increasing the extent of shallow water 

habitat that could be occupied consistently by emergent wetland plant species. There would be a 

corresponding reduction in the probability and extent of periodic desiccation during the growing 

season as a result of the proposed reservoir levels. More consistently stable lake levels would in 

turn increase the potential for establishment of new emergent plant species and could result in a 

beneficial increase in the diversity of plant species within emergent wetland habitat at 

development reservoirs. Shrub/scrub and forested wetlands species diversity may be altered by 

the proposed stabilization in water levels and flows. Emergent plants found along the margin or 

as understory within these wetland types would continue to benefit from the new regime while 

some species requiring drier episodic conditions potentially would be reduced or replaced. 

Water willow beds that have existed under the current regime of reservoir level fluctuations 

along the shoreline of Lake Wylie, Fishing Creek reservoir, Cedar Creek reservoir, and Lake 

Wateree would not be adversely affected by the proposed changes in reservoir water levels since 

water levels would be more stable than previous regimes. As a result of the proposed reservoir 

levels and Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program, an increase in the establishment of 

emergent wetland vegetation within the Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs would provide 

beneficial protection of reservoir shorelines by increasing attenuation of storm flows entering the 

reservoirs from tributaries and reducing the potential for erosion while enhancing wetland 

functions for sediment and nutrient retention. 

199 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
In general, wildlife species, including special status species, have lived successfully in 

existing habitats and with the current Catawba-Wateree River Project operating regimes. 

Wildlife species associated with wetlands and reservoir shoreline areas would benefit from more 

stable, available foraging habitat and reduced incidents of stranding or flooding within the 

fluctuation zone where nests or nursery habitat occurs. Waterfowl species that nest close to or 

on the ground adjacent to the water’s edge would be provided with increased potential for 

breeding success as the chance of nest inundation is reduced through more stable water levels. 

Semi-aquatic organisms such as frogs, toads, and salamanders would have a higher probability 

for successful reproduction as stable water levels provide less chance of stranding of eggs and 

tadpoles as well as reduced opportunistic predation of eggs and young in shallow pools and on 

sand or mud bars. Migrating and wintering waterfowl using the reservoirs for food and shelter 

would benefit from the potential for enhanced wetland habitat in which to rest and feed. 

The rocky shoals spider lily would be beneficially affected by flow rates high enough to 

prevent silt from covering the plant seeds. The ability of the plant to reproduce from viable 

seeds is critical to survival of the species; however, long-term high flow events can be 

destructive, causing scouring of substrate or prolonged inundation. Long-term low-flow events 

can expose plants to high temperatures and desiccation. Short-term intermittent and flood flows 

can be tolerated. 

Flow regimes proposed for the Great Falls bypassed reaches, and the Wylie regulated 

river reach that includes minimum continuous and critical flows will provide appropriate 

conditions for the protection and enhancement of rocky shoals spider lily. The new increased 

minimum continuous flows proposed for the Catawba-Wateree Project Great Falls bypassed 

reaches and Wylie regulated river reach would provide consistent channel flows that would in 

turn provide consistent and relatively stable conditions for the rocky shoals spider lily colonies 

and would prevent excessive sediment accumulation in and around the colonies. Flows would 

provide a barrier to access for white-tailed deer and reduce opportunistic grazing on plants within 

the colonies. Rocky shoals spider lily colonies will continue to be susceptible to detrimental 

impacts from flooding and spills that may cause scouring and uprooting of existing plants and 

bulbs; however, current populations of rocky shoals spider lily have survived despite flooding 

and spills that have occurred to date. Some loss of plants and bulbs is likely during periodic 

flood events, but the losses will be offset by the overall benefit to the species from the 

implementation of minimum continuous and critical flows and the species protection plan. 

Canada moonseed, which grows in low woods and bottomland forests, can be affected by 

desiccation during periods of low water. Canada moonseed would benefit from proposed 

releases from Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments, which would prevent desiccation during 

periods of low water flows. Ovate-leaved catchfly and prairie trillium are found in moist 

woodlands in upland areas where proposed water levels and flows would not affect the species’ 

viability. 

Flood Plain Inundation 

Duke Energy has proposed to extend the duration of flood plain inundation in the 

Wateree River flood plain to seasonally and temporarily increase the flood plain by coinciding 

regulated releases from the Wateree dam with annual spring flood events using two proposed 

measures: Wateree Spring Stable Flows and the Wateree Flood Plain Inundation (section 3.3.2, 

Water Resources). Following periods of high inflow between February 1 and May 31 that create 

200 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
spill conditions, the applicant would endeavor in good faith to gradually reduce flood plain 

inundation in the Wateree regulated river reach to approximate natural inflow conditions until 

the Lake Wateree water level returns to 1 ft above or below the normal target elevation, unless 

operating under the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol or Low Inflow Protocol. Two 10-day 

periods of stable flows would be provided during the target time periods of February 15 to 

April 1 and April 1 to May 15, to enhance aquatic habitat primarily for spawning anadromous 

fish species. Inundation of the flood plain would be gradually reduced in the Wateree regulated 

river reach to approximate natural conditions. Based on the results from the Wateree River flood 

plain inundation study, the greatest backwater effect of the Congaree River is caused when 

releases of approximately 25,000 cfs from Lake Wateree and 40,000 cfs within the Congaree 

River occur. At this level, inundation expands across a majority of Fork Swamp adjacent to the 

Congaree National Park and north to Gum Swamp. 

FWS states that enhancement and protection of the Wateree flood plain is vitally 

important on an ecosystem level because it contains habitat similar to the Congaree flood plain 

and contiguous Congaree National Park, and because seasonal inundation is important for flood 

plain vegetation health and growth. DOI recommends the implementation of the Wateree flood 

plain inundation provision and suggests that Duke Energy develop an implementation and 

operation plan. DOI recommends that the plan provide clear details into when the provision 

would be initiated, how the Catawba-Wateree Project would be operated during the inundation 

period, how operations would produce the desired effects of prolonged flood plain inundation 

and be measured for compliance, and include a provision for Duke to prepare an annual report 

for review by DOI and NPS. 

Our Analysis 

Seasonal inundation of the Wateree River flood plain would result in a lateral expansion 

of the flood plain and provide beneficial enhancement of flood plain natural communities such as 

the Bald Cypress-Tupelo Gum Swamp and Bottomland Hardwood forests in the flood plain and 

contiguous with Congaree National Park. The proposed cycle of inundation would remove some 

flood intolerant plant species from the flood plain and favor the growth of species adapted to the 

natural bottomland hardwood plant community, resulting in enhancement of the bottomland 

hardwood habitat. Seasonal inundation also would restore a natural seasonal fluctuation that 

would help to maintain habitat health and vitality. Seasonal inundation would provide habitat 

that wetland wildlife species, including RTE species such as wood stork and American alligator, 

require for reproduction, foraging, and shelter (section 3.3.5, Rare, Threatened, and Endangered 

Species). Special status wildlife species such as little blue heron, wood stork, and other wading 

birds would benefit from the habitat enhancement provided by seasonal inundation with an 

increase in foraging habitat containing macroinvertebrates and other prey organisms they rely on 

for food. As a result of seasonal flood plain inundation, we conclude that unique natural 

communities and the wildlife that use the habitats within the natural communities would benefit 

from better quality habitat and increased forage that would be further restored and enhanced with 

a long-term commitment to the proposed flood plain regime during the life of a new license. 

Flood plain inundation has the potential to adversely affect Swainson’s warblers that may 

choose to nest in cane brakes and thickets within the flood plain. Depending on inundation and 

because of their mobility, Swainson’s warbler could relocate to appropriate upland habitat if 

traditional nesting areas are inundated during the nesting season. We conclude that, although 

Swainson’s warblers have the potential to be adversely affected by seasonal inundation of the 

201 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Wateree River flood plain, their ability to use other habitat and their mobility would minimize 

any adverse effects potentially occurring as a result of the implementation of a program for 

inundation of the Wateree flood plain. 

Rare Species Management 

Review of wildlife survey results and life requisites for special status wildlife species 

precluded a number of species from being carried forward for analysis of potential project 

effects. The species removed from further analysis are Mississippi kite, sharp-shinned hawk, 

brown creeper, and hermit thrush. These species are not considered due to their limited presence 

in the project area resulting from the absence or inadequate provision of habitat, food, or 

reproduction in the Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Several rare plant and wildlife species occur within the Catawba-Wateree Project area 

and have the potential to be affected by project operations, maintenance, or project-related 

activities. South Carolina DNR agrees that species protection plans be filed with South Carolina 

DNR and North Carolina WRC, as appropriate, for the rocky shoals spider lily, Rafinesque’s 

big-eared bat, mussel species, flat and snail bullheads, and heron rookeries. North Carolina WF 

states that species protection plans provide strong protection for specific unique flora and fauna 

in the region. Species protection plans have been created and filed with the license application 

for special status species of North Carolina or South Carolina, or both, and one priority habitat 

occurring within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Those plans not already approved and 

implemented would be implemented within 60 days of the issuance of the new license and the 

closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to species protection. 

Annually, the list of special status species for the Catawba-Wateree Project would be reviewed in 

consultation with federal and state agencies. Mutually agreed upon management actions and 

alternatives would occur for any changes in status, and newly listed or de-listed species. Any 

changes in management strategy based on new information would require consultation with the 

appropriate agencies. Terrestrial species with proposed protection plans are discussed within this 

section. Aquatic species that have proposed species protection plans were discussed further in 

section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources. 

Rocky Shoals Spider Lily 

The rocky shoals spider lily occurs in small populations on the Catawba River near Sugar 

Creek (RM 131.4) and the lower Great Falls long bypassed reach (RM 102.4); a large population 

(thousands of plants) is located at Landsford canal on the Catawba River (RM 119.0). Duke 

Energy has donated approximately 2 miles of shoreline to the state of South Carolina at 

Landsford canal, providing the population located there with permanent protection. With 

assistance from the Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Aquatic and Terrestrial Resource Committee, 

Duke Energy prepared a species protection and management plan for the rocky shoals spider lily 

populations within the Catawba-Wateree Project area as part of the Catawba-Wateree relicensing 

agreement. The purpose of the plan is to provide information for the continued maintenance of 

rocky shoals spider lily habitat and protection from human disturbance. Low-level aerial 

photographs have been taken of colonies of rocky shoals spider lily to provide baseline data for 

long-term monitoring. Additional baseline information on HSI requirements for depth and flow 

would be gathered using generation records and USGS gaging data, and current physical 

condition of existing populations would be documented prior to the initiation of minimum flows 

(3 to 5 years after license issuance). South Carolina DNR and South Carolina DPRT have 

202 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
agreed to monitor the population within the Great Falls long bypassed reach. Potential relocation 

of rocky shoals spider lily bulbs from Landsford Canal to three sites selected in the Great Falls 

long bypassed reach has been proposed and a protocol including a separate monitoring plan is 

included in the species protection plan. 

Georgia Aster 

DOI requested the development and implementation of a species protection plan for the 

known population of Georgia aster that occurs along a transmission line approximately one-half 

mile from the Mountain Island Development dam. The population is located outside of the 

project area defined as the geographic scope of this EIS. Operation of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project developments would not adversely affect the existing population; however, should a 

population of Georgia aster be found within the project boundary, the development and 

implementation of a species protection plan in conjunction with state and federal agency 

consultations would be appropriate at that time. 

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat 

Although there is no evidence that Rafinesque’s big-eared bat habitat exists in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area, two individuals observed nearby suggest that the species may use 

the Catawba-Wateree Project area to some extent. In association with Duke Energy’s CatawbaWateree relicensing agreement, Duke Energy has prepared a species protection plan for 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Habitat management 

(maintaining forested natural communities, especially pine flatwoods and riverine forests), 

selective tree removal where harvesting occurs, keeping dead standing timber intact, and 

placement of artificial roosts would be implemented through the protection plan. Within 2 years 

following the issuance of the new license, roost structures would be erected. Within 5 years of 

license issuance, roost surveys, mist netting, and acoustic surveys would be conducted for 

2 consecutive years, and then at 3-year intervals. 

Bald Eagle 

Bald eagles nest within the Catawba-Wateree Project and regularly use the power plant 

tailrace areas, rivers, tributaries and open water of reservoirs as forage sites. Individuals may be 

seasonal migrants or residents in the Catawba-Wateree Project area and all are subject to 

disturbance from human activities along the shoreline of the developments. As of 2005, five 

active bald eagle nests were known from the Catawba-Wateree Project area. DOI recommends 

Duke Energy provide an annual bald eagle monitoring report to the Commission, FWS, and the 

state wildlife agencies that would include methodology for monitoring bald eagles and nest trees; 

transient bald eagle occurrences; and the location of resident or nesting bald eagles within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. DOI further recommends that Duke Energy be required to 

develop and implement management guidelines for the bald eagle and include them in the 

species protection plan. The guidelines should use the most current version of the federal bald 

eagle management guidelines to develop management objectives and actions. 

Duke Energy proposes a bald eagle species protection plan that would provide for the 

collection of data on existing status, new nest sites, and recruitment estimates within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project boundary and the zone of operational influence every 3 years 

beginning within 5 years of the issuance of the new license. Information from the surveys would 

be shared with FWS and state agencies concerning any bald eagle nests within or adjoining the 

203 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries. Consultation with FWS and appropriate state agencies 

would provide assistance in the development of management plans for bald eagle nest sites 

following the FWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2006). The management plan 

for bald eagle may include implementation of distance buffers and avoidance of certain activities 

during the breeding season to minimize disturbance, and the conservation and maintenance of 

habitat. As part of the bald eagle species protection plan, Duke Energy proposes to place 

approximately 25 acres of applicant-owned property located on the east side of the Wateree 

tailrace in a conservation easement. The easement would be in effect for the term of the new 

license and would protect a fairly large, seasonal concentration of adult and juvenile bald eagles 

that use the tailrace for foraging. 

Rookeries/Colonial Waterbirds 

Heron rookeries, specifically great blue heron rookeries, have been documented on 

islands within the lakes and adjacent shorelines of the Cowans Ford, Wylie, and Oxford 

Developments. Duke Energy, in accordance with the SMP, is implementing a protection plan for 

the heron rookeries found within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. The primary concern 

for the rookeries is human disturbance created by residential and commercial use of project lands 

adjacent to the heron rookeries. The specific rookeries are protected under a Colonial Waterbird 

Nesting Area Program and the boundaries of the island rookeries are posted “No Entry” to 

restrict public access during the nesting season from April through August. North Carolina 

WRC Enforcement Division provides patrol and enforcement of the regulation. In addition, 

Duke Energy would continue management and protection of any colonial waterbird rookeries 

and nesting areas on all lands and waters within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary or any 

applicant-owned lands adjoining the boundary. After 2 years of inactivity during the nesting 

season, a rookery would be considered abandoned and protection would be removed. Should 

any new rookeries be located within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries, Duke Energy 

would consult with federal and state agencies to develop appropriate management and protection 

strategies. Rookery data would be collected concurrent with bald eagle nest surveys and 

provided to the pertinent federal and state agencies. Data would include existing status, new nest 

sites, and recruitment estimates within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries and zone of 

operational influence at 3-year intervals. 

Our Analysis 

Rocky Shoals Spider Lily—The new increased minimum continuous flow regimes 

associated with the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures for the Wylie and Great 

Falls bypassed reaches of the Catawba-Wateree Project would provide a consistent channel flow 

and habitat conditions appropriate for the continued survival and potential expansion of existing 

rocky shoals spider lily colonies. The new flows would reduce the accumulation of sediment 

within the shoals, preventing suffocation of the plant bulbs. In addition, increased flows and 

consistent watering of the channel would reduce accessibility to the colonies by white-tailed deer 

and possible opportunistic grazing on plants and bulbs. Monitoring of the Great Falls long 

bypassed reach colonies of rocky shoals spider lily and comparison with baseline information 

would provide guidance for long-term management of the population including an auxiliary 

program for transplanting and monitoring rocky shoals spider lily plants originating from the 

Landsford Canal State Park population. Transplanting plants from Landsford Canal State Park 

could be implemented should negative effects of Catawba-Wateree Project operations be 

observed during monitoring. However, protecting and enhancing the colonies in the existing 

204 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
locations would be preferable to requiring relocation efforts. Duke Energy’s continued open 

dialogue with the appropriate agencies during all aspects of monitoring and management would 

also be beneficial. 

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat— Although Rafinesque’s big-eared bat has not been 

definitively observed within the Catawba-Wateree Project, Duke Energy has prepared a species 

protection plan that provides for protection and enhancement of potentially suitable habitat 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Initiation of monitoring for a 2-year period would 

provide information on Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (whether or not they established colonies 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project area) that would be useful to federal and state agencies in 

conservation and management of the species. The SMP and the species protection plan provide 

for the protection of forested riparian habitat with limited tree removal, and the provision for 

keeping dead standing trees in place provides appropriate habitat for roosting colonies. Protected 

habitat would be supplemented with artificial roost boxes that would create habitat for the 

possible establishment of roost colonies within the Catawba-Wateree Project. These measures 

are proactive, beneficial, and result in adequate protection and enhancement of habitat for a 

species that could become established within the Catawba-Wateree Project, providing additional 

opportunities for the species’ conservation and protection. Measures to protect and enhance 

potential habitat for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat would also provide protection and enhancement 

of habitat for other special status bat species known to occur in the project area, including 

southeastern myotis, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat. We recommend that Duke Energy 

continue to consult with agencies and make any appropriate revisions to the species protection 

plan as the plan is implemented if any special status bat species are observed within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Bald Eagle—Implementation of the species protection plan for the bald eagle as proposed 

would provide data on the status of resident and nesting bald eagles as well as transient bald 

eagles using the Catawba-Wateree Project area for foraging and roosting. Annual bald eagle 

surveys performed during the winter nesting season would continue to provide the most current 

data on bald eagle nesting, fledging success, and transient use of the Catawba-Wateree Project 

area. Sharing of information and consultation with the appropriate agencies would provide Duke 

Energy with the ability to adjust protective measures should adverse impacts to bald eagle be 

observed. The proposed conservation easement on approximately 25 acres of property located 

on the east side of the Wateree tailrace would protect the large seasonal concentration of adult 

and juvenile bald eagles that forage in the tailrace area for the duration of the license. As a result 

of the implementation of the species protection plan for bald eagle, bald eagles using CatawbaWateree Project reservoirs and terrestrial habitat would continue to receive beneficial protection 

from human activities and intrusions as well as protected nesting and foraging habitat. Duke 

Energy’s management guidelines should be consistent with the most current version of the FWS 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (currently the 2008 version), and be updated as 

newer versions are implemented by FWS. Coordination with agencies including FWS for bald 

eagle management recommendations would provide opportunities to update and adjust protective 

measures for bald eagles using the Catawba-Wateree Project area, resulting in continued 

protection and potential enhancement of the bald eagle population. We conclude that with 

monitoring and agency consultation, SMP guidelines, and riparian land conservation 

opportunities, Duke Energy would provide quality roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat for 

bald eagles resulting in a long-term benefit to the species. 

205 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Heron Rookeries—The proposed species protection plan for heron rookeries located 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project area provides conservation and protection for nesting and 

roosting great blue herons that is not provided on either the state or federal level. Disturbance 

from human activities and intrusions, especially during the breeding and nesting season, can 

cause abandonment of individual nests or an entire colony. In association with its SMP, Duke 

Energy has developed a species protection plan that would suspend public access to the rookeries 

during the nesting season (April-August) and would be enforced by the North Carolina WRC 

Enforcement Division. Data gathered through monitoring of the rookeries, and identification of 

new or abandoned sites in partnership with appropriate agency personnel would maximize the 

protection and enhancement of colonial nesting heron habitat within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. The proposed protection plan and SMP guidelines would provide adequate protection 

for existing and future heron rookeries; however, enforcement of the access restrictions lies with 

state agency personnel and not with Duke Energy. As part of the species protection plan, 

consultation between Duke Energy and the agencies could include enforcement personnel to 

provide information on the successful application of access restrictions during the breeding 

season. 

Noxious Plant Species 

Terrestrial invasive plant species can affect the quality of natural plant communities 

including communities which contain RTE species. Invasive species successfully compete 

against and overtake native species by means of reproductive mechanisms and growth 

characteristics that result in crowding and shading out of native species. Newly established 

invasive species are continually being identified by agencies and organizations that monitor 

invasive species such as FWS and The Nature Conservancy. Within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project boundary, increasing development and recreation activities resulting in fragmentation 

and disturbance to plant communities can provide increased opportunities for terrestrial invasive 

plant species to colonize or expand into, within, or out of the project boundary. Activities to 

control erosion, uninformed landscape plantings, and creation of informal paths that remove 

native vegetation are just a few examples of how terrestrial invasive plant species can become 

established. 

Terrestrial invasive plant species have become established in the project area and include 

species such as autumn olive, Chinese privet, Chinese wisteria, Japanese honeysuckle, 

Vietnamese grass, and kudzu. Autumn olive and Chinese wisteria appear to currently have 

limited distributions within or adjacent to the project area. The remaining species are considered 

abundant and more widely distributed along shorelines from Lake James to Lake Wateree. 

Kudzu and Japanese honeysuckle may be the most abundant of all the species occurring within 

the project area. For all species identified, spill flows have the ability to transport seeds and 

uprooted plants downstream where they have the potential to become established. 

Duke Energy does not have a specific management policy or plan for management of 

invasive exotic terrestrial plants, but does have vegetation management requirements outlined 

within the SMG as well as routine maintenance at all facilities. Under the SMG, adjacent 

property owners are allowed to selectively manage non-native invasive plants or poisonous 

plants with written concurrence from Duke Energy. Applicant personnel and contractors provide 

routine vegetation maintenance at all facilities including access areas, dams, powerhouses, and 

rights-of-way. Maintenance includes mowing and spraying of herbicides according to the EPAapproved directions found on the specific herbicide label. DOI is concerned with the potential 

206 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
effects of invasive plant species and recommends that Duke Energy develop an invasive 

terrestrial and riparian vegetation management program for the project to help manage invasive 

exotic terrestrial plants especially where there are documented occurrences of RTE plant species. 

Aquatic nuisance plant species have the potential to reduce boating and recreation access 

and reduce the aesthetic value of the recreational experience on any of the affected reservoirs. 

Hydrilla, parrotfeather, and Brazilian elodea all have reproductive mechanisms that allow the 

plants to spread vegetatively as well as by seed. Fragmentation of existing plants by cutting with 

a boat propeller is a means for all three species to be spread. Seasonal flooding and resulting 

high flows can wash fragments or seeds into new areas of an affected reservoir or downstream 

into other reservoirs. Currently, Duke Energy, in cooperation with North Carolina WRC, South 

Carolina DNR, and North Carolina DENR, uses public education and stakeholder outreach as the 

primary mechanism to prevent aquatic nuisance plant species from establishing and spreading in 

Catawba-Wateree Project waters. Presentations to local governmental, lake interest groups, and 

schools have helped to increase public awareness of the problem of invasive aquatic plant 

species. FWS recommends Duke Energy provide additional measures to reduce the spread of 

aquatic invasive plant species by including a “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers” public education 

campaign. Duke Energy is currently implementing elements of the “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers” 

program by including literature in all lake use permit packages that are mailed out and by posting 

program-related information at all access area information kiosks 

Our Analysis 

Public education and awareness programs are an easy, low cost, and beneficial method 

for disseminating information on the prevention of exotic plant species introductions in both 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats and would be supported and implemented by Duke Energy. 

Aquatic—Current consultation with FWS for aquatic invasive species management 

should continue, but in addition Duke Energy could expand consultation to include the Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Task Force and the Coast Guard, both sponsors of the Stop Aquatic 

Hitchhikers Campaign with FWS. South Carolina DNR is a partnering agency to the campaign, 

and as a current consulting agency with Duke Energy, would continue to ensure the 

implementation of successful invasive aquatic weed management and prevention efforts by Duke 

Energy in development reservoirs and lakes. The Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers Campaign 

(www.ProtectYourWaters.net) provides educational materials, specific procedures to be used in 

cleaning all aquatic recreational equipment, and guidelines to prevent the spread of aquatic 

invasive species from one water body to another. The use of signage and provision of existing 

educational materials developed by organizations such as Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers by Duke 

Energy at boat launch sites would educate visitors and residents on how they can help prevent 

the introduction and/or spread of aquatic invasive species through their own actions. These signs 

would thereby passively assist Duke Energy in actively preventing and managing aquatic 

nuisance species in an effective, efficient, and inexpensive manner. Duke Energy has stocked 

grass carp in affected project reservoirs (Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Hickory, Mountain 

Island Lake) to control aquatic invasive plant species in cooperation with North Carolina DENR. 

Grass carp have been used as an effective means for managing aquatic nuisance plants, but they 

can also reduce or eliminate native aquatic vegetation and can be spread to other bodies of water 

via connecting rivers and streams during periods of flooding. Some states are now prohibiting 

the use of grass carp as a control mechanism. Continued consultation through the life of the 

207 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
license with agencies would provide Duke Energy with opportunities to determine alternative 

methods for aquatic nuisance plant management should they become available. 

Terrestrial—Terrestrial invasive plant species such as autumn olive, Chinese privet, 

Chinese wisteria, Japanese honeysuckle, Vietnamese grass, and kudzu have become established 

in the project area. Autumn olive and Chinese wisteria occur in single locations (Lake Wylie 

and Dearborn Lake, respectively) and appear to have limited distributions within or adjacent to 

the project area and do not appear to be distributed or affected by project operations. The 

remaining species are considered abundant and more widely distributed along reservoir 

shorelines from Lake James to Lake Wateree. Kudzu and Japanese honeysuckle may be the 

most abundant of all the species occurring within the project area and the species that may have 

the potential to be dispersed by project operations. Vietnamese grass would be most likely to 

adversely affect rocky shoals spider lily if left untreated. The Schweinitz’s sunflower can be 

adversely affected by invasive plant species that compete for available sunlight, growing over the 

sunflower and effectively shading out or smothering the sunflower. Mimosa, Chinese privet, 

Japanese honeysuckle, and Serecea lespedeza have been detected within the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach and, if not actively managed, could outcompete the Schweinitz’s sunflower 

population there. Spill flows have the ability to transport seeds and uprooted plants downstream 

where they have the potential to become established. 

Adjacent property owners are allowed to control invasive exotic terrestrial species or 

poisonous plants with written concurrence from Duke Energy as stated in the SMP. Landowners 

are encouraged to plant native plant species instead of exotic species and thereby limit the 

introduction and spread of invasive species. In addition, Duke Energy replaced the “Stabilizing 

Your Shoreline” pamphlet and developed the “Lake Shoreline Stabilization” pamphlet that 

discusses protecting the riparian zone, bioengineering, vegetation, aquatic weeds, and stabilizing 

the shoreline with plants, and includes additional information resources, plant lists, and suppliers. 

This pamphlet is included in all permit application packages mailed to lake use permit applicants 

and is also available on Duke Energy’s website. Through the SMP, Duke Energy would 

continue to provide information on methods for control and management of existing and newly 

identified non-native invasive plant species on shoreline property within the project boundary 

Under the current management procedures for noxious weed control, routine 

management of terrestrial species surrounding development facilities includes active mowing 

and use of herbicides approved by EPA and/or the North Carolina and South Carolina 

Departments of Agriculture. Duke Energy could continue their current management procedures 

for control of noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant species but also ensure that it 

(1) monitors and surveys areas surrounding the developments and facilities to identify the extent 

of terrestrial invasive species and ensure that management practices are effective; (2) maintains 

awareness of new invasive plant species that may become established within areas surrounding 

the developments and facilities and the treatments available to contain any new species; and 

(3) consults with appropriate organizations and agencies with available expertise to review and 

modify, as necessary, management techniques to ensure the maximum effectiveness of 

methodologies being used. As part of their annual consultation with the agencies, Duke Energy 

would receive guidance from agencies on how to identify, monitor, and manage any newly 

detected non-native invasive plant species. 

In areas where RTE plant species are documented and threatened by terrestrial non-native 

invasive plant species, Duke Energy could incorporate the management of terrestrial invasive 

208 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
plant species into the species protection plans to be implemented as stated in the CRA. The 

management of invasive plant species could include (1) baseline surveys to identify the range 

and extent of terrestrial invasive plant species within the habitat(s) of documented RTE plant 

species; (2) best methods and procedures for control of invasive plant species (e.g., herbicide 

treatment, mechanical removal, mowing, hand pulling) while avoiding further impacts to RTE 

species; and (3) a schedule for treatments, follow-up surveys/monitoring, and additional 

treatments. 

For both general maintenance removal of invasive species and the management of 

invasive plant species surrounding RTE plant species, consultation with FWS, DOI, and other 

appropriate agencies would assist in the development of management procedures for existing 

invasive species under both maintenance and RTE scenarios. Herbicide treatments would be 

employed by certified applicators and could be used in combination with other methods such as 

mechanical removal. Mechanical methods such as cutting and physical removal of plants in 

combination with stump/root crown spraying can be effective for kudzu, Chinese privet, and 

large isolated stands of wisteria or Japanese honeysuckle. Vietnamese grass can be managed by 

physical pulling of plants before seed production or spraying. Depending on the species and 

treatment methods adopted, follow-up treatments may be necessary on an annual basis years 

after the initial treatment. If management efforts result in the elimination of invasive species, 

planting or reseeding of native vegetation to re-establish natural habitat and prevent soil erosion 

would be necessary. Partnership with other organization to implement the active removal and 

restoration process would provide additional support to Duke Energy. 

Because the Catawba-Wateree Project’s APE for cultural resources encompasses lands 

within the project boundary including land around the powerhouses and dams and along the 

regulated river reaches, management of non-native invasive plant species for general 

maintenance or protection of RTE species has the potential to affect cultural resources. When 

developing the methodologies for management of invasive plant species, consultation should 

also include representatives of the North Carolina and South Carolina SHPOs, as appropriate, 

and the CIN THPO and EBCI to determine the appropriateness of invasive plant species removal 

and methodology. As previously stated, there are a variety of methods for invasive plant species 

management that may be used individually or in combination that may allow removal of plants. 

Many methods would not disturb soil and underlying artifacts, and hydroseeding, placement of 

matting, or other measures may be used to prevent exposed soil from eroding after treatment. In 

addition, personnel involved with the management and/or removal of invasive species should be 

cross-trained on the requirements of the HPMP. 

3.3.4.3 Cumulative Effects 

The spread of invasive exotic plant species is a cumulative effect of ongoing 

development combined with an uncoordinated management of invasive species within the 

watershed. Because both terrestrial and aquatic invasive plant species exist inside and outside of 

the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary, species can continue to spread, re-establish, and pioneer 

from both sides of the project boundary. Seeds can be spread by wildlife, air, and water currents, 

and root stock can be moved from one area to another by flooding and erosion processes that 

occur anywhere along the river’s course. Eradication of many non-native invasive plant species 

is improbable by management; however, concerted efforts to treat newly arrived species can 

contain a species’ spread. Continued human activities that fragment and disturb natural 

communities and the lack of coordinated management of any newly detected non-native invasive 

209 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
plant species will continue to have an adverse effect on natural aquatic and terrestrial plant 

communities and wildlife habitats throughout the Catawba-Wateree Project area and the region. 

Recreation Enhancements 

Shoreline recreational enhancements have been proposed (section 3.3.7, Recreational 

Resources) that may have minor temporary or permanent impacts on terrestrial resources, 

including disturbance or removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat to provide access, parking, or 

other facilities. As a rule, improvements at existing facilities would require the removal of small 

amounts of vegetation that would not adversely affect wildlife habitat, RTE species, or natural 

communities. Construction of new facilities would potentially require the removal or 

disturbance of larger amounts of vegetation. Knowledge of existing plant communities and the 

presence of any RTE or special status plant within the footprint of the construction site would be 

necessary prior to the initiation of construction. Prior to the construction of any new proposed 

recreation sites, Duke Energy would survey for potential RTE species prior to any construction. 

Should RTE be identified, consultation with FWS, South Carolina DNR, or North Carolina 

DENR would occur under Section 7 of the ESA. 

Improvements to existing, or construction of new, public recreation facilities can cause 

short-term disturbance to wildlife during construction activities. New or improved recreation 

facilities create the potential for long-term increases in disturbance as activity by users of the 

new or improved facilities increases. Restrictions on access and enforcement of the restrictions 

would prevent access and limit human-related disturbance to heron rookeries and bald eagle 

nesting and foraging concentration sites especially if new heron rookeries or bald eagle nests are 

established within the Catawba-Wateree Project area that may be adversely impacted by 

construction or new recreational activity. 

Our Analysis 

Continued consultation with applicable agencies and monitoring via species protection 

plans would provide the information necessary to avoid any adverse impacts to plants and 

wildlife from construction or recreational activities. RTE information and databases are 

constantly updated and refined and construction of recreation facilities would take place over an 

extended schedule during any new license term. Therefore, planning prior to the onset of 

construction and consideration of seasonal wildlife use, especially RTE or special status species, 

in the area proposed for construction would be essential. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

The SMP provides classifications and lake use restrictions intended to protect specific 

natural communities and the wildlife species that may use or inhabit those areas. Vegetation 

removal, construction, and shoreline stabilization or excavation activities inside the project 

boundary would be restricted within emergent vegetation, especially water willow beds, stream 

confluences and heads of coves, bottomland hardwood forests, and areas designated as 

“environmental” or “natural.” Duke Energy’s shoreline stabilization criteria recommend the use 

of species native to North or South Carolina and encourage the avoidance of activities in water 

willow beds. The SMP provides vegetation management requirements to protect and enhance 

shoreline vegetation and applies to all 13 developments within the Catawba-Wateree Project. A 

complete discussion of the SMP is found in section 3.3.8, Land Use and Aesthetics. The SMP 

presents a number of protection measures including restrictions on clearing, thinning, spraying, 

210 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
planting, and sowing of vegetation, with allowances for hazard tree removal; restrictions on 

mechanical removal and clearing of footpaths; restrictions on viewshed clearing; and restrictions 

on herbicide use. Wildlife enhancements may be authorized through application to Duke Energy 

with approval of adjacent property owners and appropriate state wildlife agencies. Planting of 

native Piedmont vegetation is recommended. 

EPA stated that their primary interest related to shoreline management for the CatawbaWateree Project is to ensure the protection of sensitive wetlands, riparian, and terrestrial habitat 

along the reservoirs and riverine sections from impacts related to development and recreation. 

DOI recommends that the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary in South Carolina include the 50-

ft-wide vegetated riparian buffer area required by the North Carolina Environmental 

Management Commission and contained within their Catawba Riparian Buffer Protection Rules 

as the minimum necessary to protect riparian resources. 

Our Analysis 

The SMP would provide for the protection and enhancement of sensitive wetland and 

bottomland habitats including water willow beds and forested areas. Restrictions, use 

classifications, and identification of important habitat areas were developed and updated by 

Duke Energy with the assistance and consultation of agencies. These revisions to the SMP 

would increase the amount of land protected through the designations of “natural” to greater than 

0.7 percent and “environmental” to greater than 0.3 percent, and offer protection to bottomlands 

(0.6 percent) as a new designation (section 3.3.8, Land Use). By protecting the wetlands, cove 

heads, riparian, and forested habitats surrounding the Catawba-Wateree Project development 

reservoirs, rivers, coves, and islands, the SMP provides for the protection and enhancement of 

wildlife habitat including the heron rookeries found at Lake Norman and the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach habitat for RTE species such as Schweinitz’s sunflower. Special status bat 

species will benefit from SMP recommendations for keeping dead trees (snags) that could 

provide roosting sites. Red-headed woodpecker and other cavity nesting species would benefit 

from the maintenance of dead trees and snags, especially within the Wateree River regulated 

reach, as an integral component of the flood plain including Congaree National Park. 

Removal of non-native invasive terrestrial plant species that may affect RTE plant 

species, and the planting of species native to the North Carolina and South Carolina Piedmont 

physiogeographic region would enhance existing terrestrial and shoreline habitat for wildlife as 

nesting, foraging, and nursery areas. Non-native invasive species management that would 

provide for active removal and management policies and procedures for lands within the 

Catawba-Wateree project boundary would have more success if terrestrial invasive species 

management were also incorporated into the protection plans for RTE plant species as previously 

discussed. 

Continued development of the shoreline surrounding reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project would increase erosion of the shoreline and sedimentation input into reservoirs, 

particularly Rhodhiss and Mountain Island Lakes. In those reservoirs, sediment has buried 

emergent wetlands in some areas and created emergent wetlands in others. The SMP and its 

guidelines would provide protection and enhancement measures to prevent shoreline erosion and 

sedimentation within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. New development outside of the 

Catawba-Wateree development boundaries would continue to affect project reservoirs; however 

the current SMP would be adequate in its protection of shoreline within the Catawba-Wateree 

211 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Project boundaries and guidelines for maintaining vegetated buffers. The SMP would provide 

protection of “environmental” and “natural” designated lands as well as areas of bottomland 

hardwood natural communities that would in turn benefit plants and wildlife adapted to 

bottomland habitat. As recreation and development continues to increase around project 

reservoirs, disturbance and fragmentation of riparian and terrestrial plant communities would 

result in an increase in opportunities for terrestrial invasive plant species to colonize or expand. 

General maintenance removal of non-native invasive plant species and the management of nonnative invasive plant species surrounding RTE plant species within the Catawba-Wateree Project 

boundary would also help to maintain the vigor of natural plant communities along reservoir 

shorelines. 

Land Conservation 

The impacts of reduced flows in Paddy Creek bypassed reach, Oxford regulated river 

reach, Lookout Shoals regulated river reach, and Mountain Island bypassed reach within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project in North Carolina, and Wylie regulated river reach, Great Falls long 

and short bypassed reaches, and Wateree regulated river reach in South Carolina are discussed in 

section 3.3.2, Water Resources. The North Carolina and South Carolina flow mitigation 

packages provide for protection and permanent conservation of riparian corridors and upland 

habitat to mitigate for unavoidable impacts in exchange for the reduced flows in the bypassed 

reaches. The North Carolina flow mitigation package provides for permanent conservation 

easements on 28.6 miles of streambank; the South Carolina flow mitigation package provides for 

permanent conservation easements on 5.5 miles of streambank. The conservation easements are 

100-ft wide, perpetual easements to be located on the Johns, Catawba, and Linville Rivers, and 

first and second order tributaries to the Catawba River and transferred to the state of North 

Carolina or state-chosen land trust within 18 months of the issuance of the license. In South 

Carolina, the 100-ft-wide perpetual easements are to be located on the Catawba River. In 

addition, within 1 year following the issuance of a new license, Duke Energy would provide a 

one-time contribution of $1 million to South Carolina DNR to create a fish and wildlife 

mitigation and enhancement fund for support of survey and inventory, research, and population 

enhancement of fish and wildlife in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin including RTE, 

biodiversity protection and enhancement, and environmental outreach programs. 

Duke Energy would make one-time contributions of $1 million to the HEP funds in North 

and South Carolina, respectively, in addition to the $80,000 annual contribution per state 

contributed by Duke Energy through 2009. HEP funds may be used by the states to support 

long-term management of conservation easements established through the Revised CRA or add 

land as conservation easements. 

North Carolina WF is pleased with the new gamelands, riparian buffers, and island 

habitat acreage proposed for protection, which would benefit terrestrial non-game and game 

wildlife species, reduce fragmentation of habitat, and protect wildlife corridors. North Carolina 

WF is also pleased with the HEP fund, which would allow long-term enhancement for fish and 

wildlife. South Carolina DPRT supports the additional opportunities for land acquisition for 

conservation including more than 10 miles of conservation easements. American Rivers requests 

that mitigation be located within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. DOI recommends that Duke 

Energy develop a comprehensive plan to work with federal and state resource agencies, CIN, 

communities, and non-profit organizations to conserve and protect its lands including fish and 

212 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
wildlife habitat based at Bridgewater, Johns River in the vicinity of Rhodhiss, Dearborn Island, 

Wateree canal, and the lands and waters within Congaree National Park. 

Our Analysis 

The primary benefit of placing riparian stream habitat along the tributaries and rivers that 

drain into the Catawba River in both North and South Carolina in new conservation easements 

would be the protection of water quality and aquatic habitats, riparian corridors, natural plant 

communities, wildlife habitat, and migration corridors. Riparian stream habitat attenuates 

periodic high inflows during flooding, reducing damage from erosion of stream banks. In turn, 

sediment entering the water during flooding is reduced and water quality is not compromised. 

Funding and conservation mechanisms proposed by Duke Energy in consultation with applicable 

agencies would allow Duke Energy to be proactive in protecting the natural communities 

adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Benefits from resulting flow attenuation outside 

of the project area would reduce impacts from flooding to the existing plant communities in 

downstream project developments. Proposed conservation easements would establish 

unfragmented corridors of habitat for wildlife movement and migrations. While the lands 

proposed for the establishment of conservation easements would protect important riparian 

habitat, these lands are not needed to operate the project and are not affected by project 

operations. Therefore, these lands should not be brought into the project boundary. These lands 

would be permanently protected because the North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification 

issued on November 14, 2008, is conditioned upon transfer of the easements to state and other 

entities as proposed in the Revised CRA. Establishment of permanent conservation easements 

on these lands would ensure their protection from development and other uses that may be 

inconsistent with the need to preserve their values as riparian corridor. In addition, funding and 

conservation mechanisms as outlined in the CRA would allow Duke Energy to be proactive in 

protecting the natural communities within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Lastly, 

conservation measures proposed in concert with guidelines and restrictions for riparian habitat 

use in the SMP would conserve and enhance riparian habitat in the Catawba-Wateree Project 

area and basin consistent with the Catawba River Basin natural resources plan (North Carolina 

DENR and North Carolina WRC, 2001). 

3.3.4.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Terrestrial natural communities, wetlands, and wildlife habitat have developed in 

association with current operations and are generally considered to be stable and in good 

condition, but would be subjected to potential effects of fluctuating reservoir levels. As 

proposed in the license application, stabilization of reservoir levels and flow regimes would 

protect and enhance Catawba-Wateree Project terrestrial resources. Until the species protection 

plans are implemented with the issuance of the new license, special status plant and animal 

species are at risk of adverse effects from fluctuating water levels, inconsistent flows, and human 

activity. 

213 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower 

Endemic to the Piedmont region of North and South Carolina, Schweinitz’s sunflower is 

a federally listed endangered species as of 1991 and is listed as endangered by the states of North 

Carolina and South Carolina. Conditions that led to the listing of Schweinitz’s sunflower include 

habitat destruction, alteration, or both; curtailment of range; loss of known populations; and fire 

suppression. Historically, Schweinitz’s sunflower probably inhabited open, prairie-like habitats 

or post oak-blackjack oak savannas that were maintained by fires set by lightning and Native 

Americans or by grazing (FWS, 1994). The species has lost much of its original habitat to forest 

succession and is now most frequently found in transmission line corridors, old pastures, and 

other areas that receive partial sun. It is commonly found along roadsides where it is difficult to 

protect and can be affected by mowing and herbicide spraying. Plants are often associated with 

other species from the aster family as well as grasses and legumes (FWS, 1994). Within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, Schweinitz’s sunflower is located in the spillway channel of the 

Mountain Island bypassed reach, which is the site one of the largest known populations of 

Schweinitz’s sunflower. 

Schweinitz’s sunflower is a long-lived perennial sunflower that has a small yellow flower 

head approximately 0.25 to 0.6 in. in diameter, and has alternate leaves; it is usually less than 3 ft 

in height and bushy (FWS, 1994). It blooms from August to frost (FWS, 1994). Geologically, 

Schweinitz’s sunflower is found within the Charlotte Belt and the Carolina Slate Belt, primarily 

on mafic rocks. Schweinitz’s sunflower prefers poor soils that are clayey, thin, and derived from 

mafic rocks such as Cecil, Enon, and Iredell soils. Cecil soils are found throughout the CatawbaWateree Project from Rhodhiss south and including Wylie. Enon and Iredell soils are found in 

the Mountain Island Development. Soil types are described in section 3.3.1.1, Affected 

Environment, Soils. Plants are generally located on upland flats and gentle slopes (FWS, 1994). 

Limiting factors for survival and growth of Schweinitz’s sunflower are partial shade for 

protection from sunlight and excessive competition from other vegetation (FWS, 1994). Because 

of these criteria, Schweinitz’s sunflower requires active management of its habitat by controlled 

burns or removal of encroaching shrubs and trees to maintain the semi-open habitat and reduced 

competition from surrounding vegetation (FWS, 1994). 

Consultation with FWS under section 7 of the ESA was initiated by Duke Energy in 1999 

for proposed tree removal at Mountain Island Development. The resulting biological opinion 

was issued by FWS in 2000 and resulted in the development of a species protection plan and the 

request for designation of the bypassed reach as “natural” in the next filing of the SMP (letter 

from FWS, March 23, 2000). 

Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf 

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a federally listed threatened species and a state listed 

threatened species in both North and South Carolina. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low growing 

evergreen perennial herbaceous species that is endemic to a nine-county area in the western 

upper Piedmont of North and South Carolina (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program [NHP], 

2008). When listed in 1989, reasons cited for the decline of the species included habitat loss 

from development, conversion to agriculture, timber cutting, and cattle grazing. Since listing, 

214 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the number of documented populations have risen from 24 to more than 130, and the number of 

individual plants has increased from 5,900 to more than 248,000 (FWS, 2004). Three 

populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf are located in the Paddy Creek and Linville dam areas of 

the Bridgewater Development, but outside of the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries. Several 

populations of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf are located along the shores of Lake Hickory 

upslope from the project area. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs along Ball Creek, a tributary of 

Lake Norman, and is within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. 

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and slopes of 

hillside ravines and in boggy areas adjacent to creeks and streams. It is often associated with 

laurel. The most important habitat requisite for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is soil type: the 

species requires Pacolet, Madison, or Mustella sandy loam to grow (North Carolina NHP, 2008). 

In the correct soils, dwarf-flowered heartleaf can tolerate dry conditions or moderate moisture. 

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf flowers from mid-March through early June, and the jug-shaped 

flowers are inconspicuous under the leathery, evergreen leaves. Maximum flowering requires 

sunlight in the early spring. Seed distribution relies on ants and existing plants spread via 

rhizomes below the soil surface (FWS, 2004). 

Duke Energy has consulted with FWS under section 7 of the ESA for the Paddy Creek 

Dam Seismic Stability Improvement Project (FERC Project No. 222-540). Consultation resulted 

in the development of a biological assessment and the issuance of a biological opinion by FWS. 

Duke Energy then prepared a species protection plan and developed and implemented a 

monitoring plan for the three populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the Bridgewater 

Development. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf has been monitored and protected as part of a species 

protection plan at Paddy Creek dam in accordance with requirements of the Paddy Creek Dam 

Embankment Seismic Stability Improvement Project Biological Opinion through 2007. Baseline 

and annual monitoring through post-construction has been reported. Monitoring included the 

determination of condition of populations, survival, and any population trends. Buffers 200 ft 

wide were placed around the population sites and included in the monitoring. Buffers 

surrounding the sites are affected by the growth of kudzu, which is being controlled by selective 

herbicide application (Duke Energy, 2007). 

Carolina Heelsplitter 

The Carolina heelsplitter, a freshwater mussel, inhabits cool, slow-moving, and small- to 

medium-sized streams and rivers. The Carolina heelsplitter was once widespread, but is 

currently a federally listed endangered species. Its historic distribution included several 

locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North Carolina and the Pee Dee and 

Savannah River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system, in South Carolina. The Carolina 

heelsplitter currently has a very fragmented distribution and appears to persist in only six streams 

and one small river, including Waxhaw Creek, a tributary of the Catawba River (FWS, 1997a). 

Only two individuals were found near the Wylie Development in Waxhaw Creek 1.5 miles 

upstream of the Catawba-Wateree Project zone of influence during surveys conducted in 2004. 

The decline of the species has been attributed to several factors related to human 

activities, including siltation, development, runoff containing pollutants, and habitat alteration 

and fragmentation due to impoundments on rivers and streams (FWS, 1997a). 

Because of its rarity, little is known about its life cycle or specific habitat requirements of 

the Carolina heelsplitter. It is thought that the species prefers silt-free substrate comprised 

215 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
primarily of a mixture of sand, gravel, and cobble. Like other freshwater mussels, the Carolina 

heelsplitter feeds by filtering food particles from the water column, but the specific food habits 

are unknown. The reproductive cycle is thought to be similar to other freshwater mussels and 

includes a glochidia (larva) lifestage. The Carolina heelsplitter’s life span, fish host species, and 

a number of other aspects of its life history are unknown (FWS, 1997a). 

Wood Stork 

Wood stork is a federally listed endangered species, and also is listed as endangered by 

the states of North Carolina and South Carolina. Loss of habitat, water manipulations affecting 

inundation, human disturbance, and lack of regeneration of cypress trees are factors that have 

influenced the decline in wood stork populations. 

Wood storks are a colonial species that use freshwater and estuarine wetlands for nesting, 

roosting, and feeding in the southeastern United States. Wood storks select nest sites that have 

patches of medium to tall trees, often with species such as bald cypress, black gum, and coastal 

plain willow. Inundation followed by a period of drying that concentrates food resources is a 

habitat requisite to protect the nests from predation by raccoons and prevent adults from 

abandoning nests. Wood storks are faithful to a colony site as long as habitat and food 

availability are adequate (FWS, 1997b). 

The nesting season occurs from March through August. After nesting, wood storks 

disperse northward as far as North Carolina and as far west as Mississippi and Alabama (FWS, 

1997b). They are occasionally observed in summer flying over the Congaree National Park 

(Carter, 2005). Although not within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries, wood storks were 

observed foraging adjacent to the Wateree River Regulated Reach, in a backwater area of the 

Congaree River during relicensing surveys (DTA, 2005b). 

Wood storks forage in open, shallow water areas where small fish are concentrated and 

feeding is easier. Seasonal differences of inundation depth and duration and rainfall amounts 

cause wood storks to change where and what wetlands are used for nesting, foraging, or roosting; 

however, in general, nesting wood storks generally feed within approximately 30 miles of the 

colony. The most successful colonies are those found in regions where there are a variety of 

wetland types and varying hydrologic schemes readily available. Proximity to foraging areas 

appears to play a major role in chick and fledgling survival (FWS, 1997b). Roosting sites are 

usually similar to nesting colony sites, but may use more variable habitat, especially by nonbreeding individuals who choose roost sites based on access to feeding sites and may change 

sites as feeding locations change (FWS, 1997b). 

Wood storks require roosting, foraging, and nesting areas that may change geographically 

over their range based on available hydrologic regimes, rainfall, food availability, and nest sites. 

Because of this variability, FWS thinks that the long-term recovery of the species will require the 

identification and protection of a mosaic of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats (FWS, 

1997b). 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

Shortnose sturgeon are benthic omnivores feeding on crustaceans, insect larvae, worms, 

and mollusks and may shift food preferences at various life stages. They are found in rivers, 

estuaries, and oceans, but are confined primarily to natal rivers and estuaries and are therefore, 

not considered a truly anadromous species (FWS, 1998). Instead, shortnose sturgeon migrate 

216 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
within their natal systems to spawn in late winter through early spring. Spawning habitat 

requires large rivers with deep channels, moderate river discharge and coarse substrates. 

Shortnose sturgeon have undergone population declines due to a number of threats including 

non-point and point-source pollution, commercial overharvesting, hydroelectric dams, and 

channelization, as well as incidental mortality in dredges or through impingement. The species 

is a federally listed endangered species. 

In 1998, NOAA Fisheries recognized 19 distinct population segments including the 

Santee River Basin, which includes Lake Marion and Lake Moultrie formed by impounding the 

Santee and Cooper Rivers, and the Wateree and Congaree Rivers. Shortnose sturgeon spawning 

has recently been documented in the Cooper River and Congaree River shoals. Spawning has 

not been documented in the Wateree River for more than 100 years; however, suitable habitat 

exists downstream from the Wateree dam and surveys for spawning activity are ongoing. 

Shortnose sturgeon can access the lower regulated reach of the Wateree River below the Wateree 

Development, and numerous researchers conclude that there are isolated populations of 

shortnose sturgeon in the lakes of the Santee-Cooper System, including some migration up the 

Congaree River during spawning season (Duke Energy, 2006e). One shortnose sturgeon was 

collected during sampling in the Congaree River near Columbia, South Carolina, in 2004. No 

shortnose sturgeon were observed in the Wateree River during 2004 or 2005; similarly, other 

recent sampling studies have failed to collect sturgeon in the Wateree River. A supplemental 

gillnetting study (developed in consultation with FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and South Carolina 

DNR), which targeted shortnose sturgeon potentially inhabiting the Wateree River, was 

conducted in the spring of 2006. No shortnose sturgeon were collected in this effort, although a 

concurrent study by South Carolina DNR indicated that a single shortnose sturgeon entered the 

lower section of the Wateree River for a few days before returning downstream and then moving 

upstream into the Congaree River. NOAA Fisheries indicates that adequate preferred spawning 

habitat important to the recovery of shortnose sturgeon is available in the regulated reach of the 

Wateree River to the confluence with the Congaree River. NOAA Fisheries has reserved its 

authority to prescribe fish passage for sturgeon in the future should adequate numbers of 

sturgeon begin utilizing the river in the vicinity below the Wateree dam. 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were selected as target species for the instream flow 

assessment performed by DTA (2005a). The habitat suitability curves used for calculation of 

WUA for evaluation of the relationship between flow and available habitat indicate that sturgeon 

prefer water depths greater than 6 ft and water velocities between 0.5 and 3 ft per second. 

Preferred substrate for sturgeon spawning includes sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder. Although 

the bypassed reach below the Wateree dam spillway has been identified as potential spawning 

habitat for sturgeon, it does not appear that flows in this depth and velocity range can be feasibly 

provided in the bypassed reach at his time. The Commission’s standard reopener provision 

could be used in the future to reconsider flows to this reach and the need for fish passage. 

Duke Energy has prepared a species protection plan for the shortnose sturgeon with a 

provision for Duke Energy to share any occurrences of the species within the Wateree River 

downstream of the Wateree dam with the appropriate agencies. The species protection plan 

further provides for management and habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement for the 

shortnose sturgeon through the Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration 

Plan (FWS, et al., 2001) and the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, 

Restoration, and Enhancement. The Commission initiated consultation with a letter to NOAA 

217 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Fisheries, Protected Resources Division requesting concurrence with an endangered species 

determination for shortnose sturgeon on March 23, 2009. 

American Alligator 

Since 1987, FWS has considered the American alligator to be fully recovered, although it 

remains federally listed as a threatened species due to similarity of appearance with other 

endangered or threatened crocodilians (NatureServe, 2008). It is listed as threatened by North 

Carolina and is a delisted species in South Carolina. The American alligator is not found within 

the Catawba-Wateree Project area; however, it is found in the lower Wateree River and adjacent 

Congaree National Park. 

The American alligator primarily inhabits freshwater swamps and marshes, but can use 

estuarine wetlands, shallow rivers and lakes, and other small open water areas. During dry 

periods, American alligators modify their habitat by creating water-retaining depressions in the 

mud that also provide a refuge for other aquatic species. Alligators can move from one wetland 

to another over land up to 5 miles a day (Nature Serve, 2008). 

American alligators are opportunistic predators feeding on a wide range of small 

mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Feeding activity is dependent on water 

temperature with foraging activity ceasing below 68-73°F. Alligators reach reproductive age 

between 8 and 13 years. Courtship rituals that signal the initiation of the breeding season are 

temperature dependent beginning when temperatures rise in the spring. Vegetation and mud 

mounds form nests typically constructed on banks or mats of vegetation in early summer. 

Flooding will kill most eggs within 12 hours of submergence, so nests are constructed such that 

the eggs are elevated above the water level. Females are faithful to a nest site as long as 

conditions remain conducive to nesting. Juvenile alligators are protected by remaining in close 

proximity to the mother for up to a year, but occasionally for a longer period of 2 to 3 years 

(Duke Energy, 2006f). American alligators provide some measure of protection to wood stork 

nesting colonies as predators of raccoons, which are known to be highly effective predators of 

eggs and nestlings of wood storks. 

Bog Turtle 

The bog turtle has two distinct populations in the United States: a northern population 

listed as threatened by FWS, and a southern population listed as threatened due to their similarity 

in appearance to other endangered or threatened turtles. Bog turtles are listed as threatened by 

the state of North Carolina. Populations of bog turtles have declined due to loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation of habitat (FWS, 2001). Three individual bog turtles were observed from 

Bristol Creek, a tributary of Lake Rhodhiss in Burke County located northeast of Lake Rhodhiss. 

This location is outside of the Catawba-Wateree Project area and the zone of operational 

influence. 

Bog turtles are one of the smallest North American turtles with a carapace length of 

approximately 4 to 41⁄2 in. They usually occur in small, discrete populations in wetlands that 

have micro-habitats, including flooded areas, dry areas, and saturated areas that provide foraging, 

breeding, hibernating, basking, and shelter areas. Wetlands are variable by type, but are often 

small, open-canopy, herbaceous sedge meadows or fens with thickly vegetated or wooded 

borders. Denser vegetation provides shelter and hibernation habitat (FWS, 2001). Cattle 

pastures in North Carolina currently provide some of the best habitat for bog turtles because 

218 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
grazing cattle can keep vegetation from successional encroachment in the wetlands (Dorcas, 

2005b). 

Bog turtles feed primarily on insects, slugs, and earthworms, and, on occasion, crayfish, 

frogs, and vegetation. They lay eggs in the spring on raised mounds of grass devoid of woody 

shrubs and generally sparsely vegetated. Tussocks used for nesting are clustered in nursery areas 

(FWS, 2001). 

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects 

Catawba-Wateree Project operations affect federally listed plant and wildlife species. 

Reductions in the number of viable stems of Schweinitz’s sunflower are a result of spills and 

inundation, and reductions of dwarf-flowered heartleaf are a result of activities outside of the 

focus of the relicensing application. Flood plain habitat in the Wateree regulated river reach 

downstream to the confluence of the Congaree River is occasionally used by foraging wood 

storks and has potential for use by the American alligator. The lack of regular, seasonal flood 

plain inundation currently makes habitat inconsistently available for wood storks and American 

alligators. Continuous dialogue between Duke Energy and the agencies would provide 

opportunity for changes to management and protection of the species; the capability to discern 

any adverse or beneficial impacts occurring to the species from Catawba-Wateree project 

operations; and the ability to ameliorate or mitigate those impacts. 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League think that the provisions in the 

Revised CRA do not provide adequate basis for compliance with the ESA because it does not 

identify needs critical to endangered species habitat or final species protection plans, or describe 

a connection between direct and indirect impacts of project operations on endangered species. 

DOI recommends Duke Energy initiate consultation with FWS regarding ESA listed 

species and assess the effects of the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Our Analysis 

Species protection plans have been written or updated and would be implemented within 

60 days of the issuance of the license for the Catawba-Wateree Project and the closure of all 

rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to species protection. These plans were 

developed in consultation with the Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Aquatic and Terrestrial 

Resource Committees. The resulting species protection plans have specific methods for 

monitoring each species, and determination of the effectiveness of management and conservation 

measures proposed for each species, including annual communication and consultation with the 

appropriate state and federal agencies. Monitoring results and agency consultation particularly 

as requested by DOI would provide opportunity for amending or otherwise altering management 

and conservation measures for specific species. In addition, annual consultation with agencies 

would provide Duke Energy with current information on changes in status of existing protected 

species, and the addition or removal of species to the ESA or applicable state lists that are found 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. The species protection plans would provide adequate 

opportunity for the collection of information on the status of federally listed species within the 

Catawba-Wateree project area. However, the plans should be considered a work in progress, 

subject to review and amendment as necessary for the benefit of the applicable species based on 

consultation with the agencies and timely review of the data gathered during monitoring. 

219 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Schweinitz’s Sunflower 

Periodic flooding events cause uncontrolled spills from the dam and adversely affect 

Schweinitz’s sunflower habitat by causing scouring and inundation of the existing plants. 

Natural succession could close openings in the vegetation that the Schweinitz’s sunflower 

requires for survival. The presence of uncontrolled exotic invasive plant species could compete 

with the species for sunlight and limit the availability of sunlight to the Schweinitz’s sunflower. 

FWS recommends that section 7 consultation on Schweinitz’s sunflower be re-initiated after the 

loss of some stems of the species as the result of a spill event. FWS further states that the 

species protection plan should include relocation strategies so that some stems could be moved to 

a protected upland site where better management could be implemented and spill hazards could 

be avoided. 

As part of the species protection plan, monitoring on an annual basis would be conducted 

during the flowering period to determine the health and status of Schweinitz’s sunflower 

populations in Mountain Island bypassed reach. Results would be documented in a report, and 

evidence of any decline in the population would initiate consultation with FWS and North 

Carolina NHP (Duke Energy, 2006g). 

Project maintenance within Schweinitz’s sunflower habitat in the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach would occur only with prior notification to FWS and North Carolina NHP 

personnel. Tree removal can be accomplished using hand tools between November and February 

when the Schweinitz’s sunflowers are dormant. Stump removal herbicides are acceptable for 

use, but broadcast herbicides may not be used without prior consultation with FWS and North 

Carolina NHP. Duke Energy proposes to remove or reduce invasive species directly competing 

with the sunflower during the plant’s period of dormancy through possible use of controlled 

burns, hand clearing, or herbicides, or a combination of these methods. Activities would require 

consultation with FWS and North Carolina NHP. 

To avoid adverse impacts to Schweinitz’s sunflower habitat after habitat management 

activities have occurred, Duke Energy would manage Mountain Island Lake to avoid spills to 

prevent damage to the improved habitat from erosion (Duke Energy, 2006g). The population of 

Schweinitz’s sunflower, however, would continue to be at risk from unavoidable spills when 

periodic meteorological events result in high levels of precipitation. 

Our Analysis 

These actions, as proposed, would ensure that growing conditions for the Schweinitz’s 

sunflower within the Mountain Island bypassed reach would be maintained and potentially 

enhanced, increasing the potential for expansion of the existing population. Updates and 

amendments to the species management plan would occur as additional information on the life 

history, current management practices, and condition of the Mountain Island bypassed reach 

population are integrated through consultation dialogue with FWS and North Carolina NHP. 

The Schweinitz’s sunflower population found within the Mountain Island bypassed reach 

has persisted under current project operations and periodic flooding events including, most 

recently, the effects of hurricanes in the fall of 2004. Additional protection measures outlined in 

the species protection plan in concert with monitoring, management of spills from Mountain 

Island Lake and continued partnership with FWS and North Carolina NHP would provide 

necessary protection for Schweinitz’s sunflower. In addition, these actions would allow for 

220 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
potential opportunistic expansion of the Schweinitz’s sunflower population within the Mountain 

Island bypassed reach, despite the continued threat of impacts from uncontrollable 

meteorological events. Re-initiation of section 7 consultation with FWS may become necessary 

during any new license term if monitoring determines that the population is declining; however, 

consultation with FWS and state agencies would occur on an informal basis as part of the species 

protection plan and provide opportunity for dialogue and advisement that may offset the need for 

formal section 7 consultation. We caution that the relocation of viable stems of the Schweinitz’s 

sunflower may not be effective in protecting the existing population. However, the collection 

and planting of seeds in appropriate habitat may indirectly provide enhancement of the Mountain 

Island bypassed reach population and appropriately mitigate the loss of plants from unavoidable 

spills and inundation. Planting of seeds and transplanting of mature Schweinitz’s sunflower 

plants should occur after consultation and assistance from applicable agency personnel. 

We conclude that proposed project operations would be likely to adversely affect 

Schweinitz’s sunflower during unavoidable spills resulting from uncontrollable meteorological 

events. The implementation of a species protection plan along with protection measures would 

provide adequate safeguards. Consultation with applicable agencies would allow Duke Energy 

to be proactive in developing mitigation and enhancement of the Mountain Island populations. 

A letter requesting formal consultation has been sent to FWS under Section 7. Under formal 

consultation, the Biological Opinion will determine if an adverse impact is likely and identify 

any reasonable and prudent alternatives or conservation recommendations. 

Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf 

To protect dwarf-flowered heartleaf from the potential effects of any future human 

activities related to the project such as construction activities, maintenance of access roads, or 

control of invasive species, Duke Energy would consult with FWS and North Carolina Natural 

Heritage Program and appropriately protect populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf found 

within the project boundaries or on Duke Energy-owned property. Once documented, Duke 

Energy will place, if applicable, the identified populations within protective buffers or place the 

property inside the buffer into conservation easements. After protective measures are completed, 

Duke Energy would develop a site-specific species protection plan for dwarf-flowered heartleaf. 

Management guidelines will be developed and include monitoring of populations location(s), 

size, and overall condition every 4 years. A significant component of the management 

guidelines will involve the possible removal and future control of invasive exotic terrestrial plant 

species from the dwarf-flowered heartleaf protection buffers and easements (Duke Energy, 

2006h). 

Our Analysis 

The establishment of buffers and/or conservation easements for protection of the dwarfflowered heartleaf would provide beneficial protection of existing populations within the project 

boundary and on Duke Energy-owned lands. Further protection and potential enhancement of 

the existing populations would be provided by the development of a species protection plan. 

Data gathered from monitoring and protection of dwarf-flowered heartleaf during the 

seismic rehabilitation work at the Bridgewater Development provides an excellent basis for the 

development of a species protection plan. These activities together with continued consultation 

with FWS and North Carolina NHP staff would enable Duke Energy to produce a species 

221 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
protection plan and best management practices to protect and potentially enhance all dwarfflowered heartleaf populations within the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Monitoring to be provided for in the species protection plan for dwarf-flowered heartleaf 

would provide a comparison of current populations with existing baseline data and document any 

project-related impacts. Initiation of agency consultation would follow any determination of 

project-related effects. Monitoring would provide information on the success of invasive species 

management. Control measures for invasive species would be implemented through the species 

protection plan and in conjunction with a proposed terrestrial invasive species management plan 

if accepted as a license article. The implementation of the proposed species protection plan with 

periodic consultation and updates would provide protection and potential enhancement of the 

dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations located within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Implementation of an active management of invasive species is necessary to protect this species. 

In conclusion, project operations as proposed, are not likely to adversely affect this 

species with acceptance of an appropriate species protection plan, monitoring and invasive 

species management. 

Carolina Heelsplitter 

Like the other freshwater mussel species found during surveys within the CatawbaWateree Project area, it appears that the Carolina heelsplitter generally requires habitat in clean 

free-flowing streams and rivers with coarse-grained substrate. The Catawba-Wateree Project 

may contain suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter; however, the only two specimens found 

were outside of the Catawba-Wateree Project zone of influence in Waxhaw Creek. The 

Catawba-Wateree Project is not likely to affect the Carolina heelsplitter population in Waxhaw 

Creek. 

Our Analysis 

Improved conditions in regulated reaches as a result of proposed continuous minimum 

flows and equipment modifications to improve DO below the dams and powerhouses will 

provide improved habitat conditions for survival of existing mussel populations and potentially 

could increase habitat available for the Carolina heelsplitter. Fish passage required by the FWS 

preliminary prescriptions and the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, 

Restoration, and Enhancement would eventually provide opportunity for movement of resident 

glochidia-host fish species upstream, further expanding the potential for range expansion of 

extant mussel populations. 

The distribution, diversity, and abundance of freshwater mussels upstream of the project 

boundaries are not directly affected by the individual project developments. Furthermore, 

increased flows to the bypass and regulated reaches would increase and enhance aquatic habitat 

for both mussels and glochidial host fish. Project operations as proposed are not likely to 

adversely affect the Carolina heelsplitter. 

Because Carolina heelsplitter has not been collected within the project boundary, a 

species protection plan has not been prepared for this species; the states of North Carolina and 

South Carolina have not included this species in their comprehensive plans for mussel species. If 

the species is found during the proposed mussel monitoring program within the project 

boundary, consultation will be initiated under section 7 of the ESA at that time. 

222 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
223 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

The Wateree Development is the upstream limit of diadromous fish passage, including 

the shortnose sturgeon, in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, and prevents possible upstream 

spawning opportunities in the Wateree River for the shortnose sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon 

utilize portions of the Santee-Cooper system, but are not established in the Catawba-Wateree 

River above the confluence with the Congaree River. Historic records (Newcomb and Fuller, 

2001; DTA and LEI, 2005) document the use of portions of the Catawba-Wateree River at least 

upstream to the Great Falls by these species. 

Our Analysis 

The Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan and the Final 

Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon provide goals and actions for restoration of the 

shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous species in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. These 

actions are not likely to result in the use of the Wateree regulated river reach by significant 

numbers of spawning sturgeon during the life of the new license. The section18 preliminary fish 

passage prescriptions submitted by FWS acknowledge that for the life of this license, the passage 

of sturgeon is not a goal. Rather, FWS prescriptions call for a sturgeon handling plan for fish 

captured at passage facilities for American shad and American eels and the release of sturgeon to 

areas downstream of the Wateree dam. NOAA Fisheries has reserved its authority to prescribe 

fish passage for shortnose sturgeon in the future. 

Our analysis of the Revised CRA and alternative flow recommendations for the Wateree 

Development (table 39) indicate that the proposed flows in the Revised CRA are adequate to 

provide considerable habitat for shortnose sturgeon within the Wateree River regulated reach. 

NOAA Fisheries acknowledges that it is not clear that spawning habitat is limiting to restoration 

of shortnose sturgeon in this reach. If and when sturgeon begin to utilize existing habitat in this 

reach of the Wateree River for spawning and maturation, NOAA Fisheries is likely to make 

prescriptions for sturgeon passage or recommendations for alternative flows. At that time a more 

effective analysis of the relationship of flows, spawning habitat, and other factors affecting 

shortnose sturgeon population restoration could be undertaken and provide a basis, if necessary, 

to reopen the license under standard Commission procedures to propose modifications to 

minimum continuous flows to enhance sturgeon spawning. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 39. Summary of weighted useable area analysis for sturgeon spawning based on Revised CRA and alt

scenarios recommended by FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and American Rivers/ Coastal Conservation L

Wateree regulated river reach. 

CRA FWS NOAA 

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/ 1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/ 1,000 ft) % of Max. % change from Revised 

CRA 

Flow 

(cfs) 

WUA 

(ft2/ 

1,000 ft

January 930 7,090 15.7 2,700 27,176 60.1 44.4 2,400 23,363 February 1-14 930 7,090 15.7 3,700 35,155 77.8 62.1 3,700 35,155 

February 15-29 2,400 23,363 51.7 3,700 35,155 77.8 26.1 3,700 35,155 March 2,700 27,176 60.1 3,700 35,155 77.8 17.7 3,700 35,155 April 2,700 27,176 60.1 2,700 27,176 60.1 0 2,700 27,176 May 1-15 2,400 23,363 51.7 930 7,090 15.7 -36 2,400 23,363 

May 16-31 1,250 9,782 21.6 930 7,090 15.7 -5.9 2,400 23,363 

Maximum 45,203 45,203 45,203 

224 
The Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration, and 

Enhancement (effective April 15, 2008) is a cooperative partnership among Duke Energy, South 

Carolina Electric and Gas, FWS, South Carolina DNR, and North Carolina WRC; NOAA 

Fisheries and South Carolina DHEC were involved in the development of the accord, but are not 

signatories. The Accord moves to implement a 10-year action plan for diadromous fish in the 

basin drafted January 24, 2007. Agreements specific to fish passage at the Catawba-Wateree 

Project are reinforced in the preliminary section 18 prescriptions for fishways pursuant to the 

FPA issued by FWS (May 23, 2008). In comments on the Ready for Environmental Analysis, 

NOAA Fisheries concurred with the FWS prescriptions, but reserved its own authority to issue 

additional prescriptions in the future relative to species within its jurisdiction, specifically 

including shortnose sturgeon.. 

FWS indicates that the prescriptions were developed in concert with Duke Energy and 

considered alternative designs and approaches to fish passage presented in Duke Energy’s Fish 

Passage Assessment (DTA and LEI 2005). We consider the preliminary prescriptions and 

associated elements of the Accord to be part of the license application for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. FWS prescribed that any sturgeon collected in the TS&T facility at Wateree dam would 

not be passed upstream at this time, but would be released at an appropriate downstream location 

in consultation with the agency. NOAA Fisheries considers existing information on shortnose 

sturgeon in the Wateree River to be insufficient for prescription of fish passage at this time. 

Upstream passage prescription may be considered in the future, during the life of the new project 

license as sufficient information on shortnose sturgeon recovery needs become available. 

NOAA Fisheries has concluded that progress of restoration for sturgeon is not likely to achieve a 

stage that would warrant upstream passage prescriptions during the life of the next license; 

NOAA Fisheries has reserved its authority to prescribe fish passage, which could be invoked 

should restoration actions be more successful than anticipated. Although higher flows could 

increase available habitat, information available at this time indicates that quality habitat is 

presently available and proposed flows are adequate for sturgeon in this reach, but the habitat is 

underutilized for reasons that have not been determined. As proposed, project operations would 

therefore not be likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon or deter their recovery. Staff 

recommends that minimum flows proposed in the Revised CRA and preliminary fish passage 

prescriptions of FWS be adopted in the new license. The license can be reopened to address 

potential future prescriptions and recommendations from NOAA Fisheries under their FPA 

section 10(j) and section 18 and ESA section 7 authority. 

Wood Stork 

As a proactive measure to protect and potentially increase foraging habitat for any wood 

storks that may use habitat within the Catawba-Wateree Project area, Duke Energy has 

developed and would implement a species protection plan for wood storks with the issuance of a 

new license (i.e., after the closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to 

species protection (Duke Energy, 2006i). As part of that plan, Duke Energy would maintain 

communication with FWS and state agencies regarding the presence or potential for nesting and 

foraging sites within and adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries and zone of 

operational influence. Duke Energy would enhance wood stork foraging habitat by providing 

increased flow (duration and magnitude) for inundation of the sloughs and emergent wetlands of 

the Wateree River flood plain and bottomlands. 

225 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
To enhance foraging and potential nesting habitat for wood stork, the Wateree 

Development would be operated such that minimum continuous flows of 2,400 cfs (February 

15-29; May 1-15), 2,700 cfs (March 1 to April 30), and 1,250 cfs (May 16-31) are maintained. 

Operating under this regime would allow two 10-day periods of stable flow releases each spring 

unless operating in the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol modes, or 

as long as weather and inflow conditions allow. Following periods of high natural inflow 

between February 1 and May 31 that create spill flow conditions at Wateree dam, Duke Energy 

proposes to operate the Wateree Development powerhouse to gradually reduce flood plain 

inundation in the Wateree River regulated reach to approximate natural inflow conditions. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed flow regime for the Wateree River regulated reach would provide a 

beneficial extension of the natural seasonal inundation of the Wateree River flood plain 

providing weather conditions are conducive and flows (natural and regulated) are available. 

Although the primary reason for implementing the Wateree flood plain inundation is to create 

and enhance spawning habitat for diadromous fish, inundation of the flood plain will secondarily 

provide foraging habitat for dispersed post-nesting wood storks and other wading birds. As the 

inundated area diminishes over time, small fish would be concentrated in remaining shallow 

areas and pools providing the preferred foraging habitat for wood storks dispersed from coastal 

nesting areas. Proposed project operations are not likely to adversely affect wood storks that 

may visit the Wateree River flood plain; instead, some beneficial enhancement of foraging 

habitat may result from implementation of proposed flow regimes. 

American Alligator 

Duke Energy has developed a species protection plan for the American alligator that is 

based upon enhanced flood flow duration and intensity on the Wateree River (Duke Energy, 

2006f). As outlined in section 3.3.2.2.1, Water Quantity, these flows would result in the 

inundation of back sloughs and emergent wetlands within the Wateree River flood plain and 

bottomlands adjacent to the Congaree National Park, potentially expanding existing habitat for 

the American alligator into the Wateree River. No other protection measures or monitoring of 

the American alligator is proposed. 

Our Analysis 

The flow regime proposed by Duke Energy to increase diadromous fish spawning habitat 

by way of seasonal inundation of the Wateree flood plain would provide a secondary potential 

benefit by increasing habitat for the American alligator. Additional food resources would be 

available from the increase in aquatic habitat for fish, amphibian, and invertebrate populations 

for foraging alligators, and nesting habitat may become available. In summary, the proposed 

project operations are not likely to adversely affect American alligators that may use the Wateree 

River flood plain. Proposed changes in flow regimes may result in enhancement of habitat and 

forage resources for American alligator in the Wateree River flood plain. 

Bog Turtle 

Although several bog turtles were documented approximately 12 miles from the Paddy 

Creek Seismic Remediation Project area during surveys prior to project initiation, literature 

searches and field surveys have not determined the presence of any preferred habitat, individuals, 

or populations of bog turtles within the Catawba-Wateree Project area (Dorcas, 2005b). 

226 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Our Analysis 

Because bog turtles are not known from within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries, 

the proposed operations of the Catawba-Wateree Project outlined in the license application 

would not affect the species. 

3.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Until RTE species protection plans with associated management guidelines are 

completely developed and implemented, species would continue to be at risk of adverse effects 

associated with human activities and disturbance including recreational activities, invasive plant 

species encroachment, fluctuating water levels, and flow releases. Schweinitz’s sunflower would 

still be at risk from uncontrollable meteorological events that trigger spillage into the Mountain 

Island bypassed reach regardless of protection and enhancement measures provided by Duke 

Energy. 

3.3.6 Cultural Resources 

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Area of Potential Effects 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires that the Commission evaluate the 

potential effects on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. Such 

properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register are called historic properties. In 

this case, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected 

within the project’s APE. The Catawba-Wateree Project’s APE encompasses areas directly 

affected by project operations, including lands within the project boundaries (areas at or below 

full pond contour, licensee-owned islands in the reservoirs, access areas owned by Duke Energy, 

and land around the powerhouses and dams) and lands along the regulated river reaches 

downstream from the project. No federal or tribal lands are located within the APE. The CIN 

reservation adjoins the APE downstream of the Wylie Development along the Wylie regulated 

river reach. 

The APE for the Catawba-Wateree Project was defined in consultation with the Cultural 

Resources Resource Committee (Cultural Committee). The Cultural Committee was formed to 

work closely with Duke Energy in both the preparation of the study plans and the selection of 

consultants to conduct the studies, and provide technical review of study reports. The Cultural 

Committee included representatives from the North Carolina SHPO, South Carolina SHPO, CIN 

THPO, EBCI, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, FWS, and the University of South 

Carolina. 

Cultural Resource Investigations 

As part of Duke Energy’s licensing efforts, the following cultural resource surveys and 

studies have been conducted within and adjacent to the project’s APE: 

• Brockington and Associates, Inc. 2006. Historic properties management plan for the 

Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2232) North and South Carolina. 

Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North 

Carolina by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. 

227 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• Cleveland, M. Todd, and Jeffrey L. Holland. 2004. National Register of Historic Places 

Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, and Mountain Island Developments, North 

Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, 

North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

• Cleveland, M. Todd, Jeffrey L. Holland, and Ruth D. Nichols. 2004. National Register 

of Historic Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Wylie, 

Fishing Creek, Great Falls–Dearborn, Rocky Creek–Cedar Creek, and Wateree 

Developments, South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy 

Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

• Joy, Deborah. 2004. Cultural resource context for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric 

Project. Submitted to Duke Power, a Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, 

North Carolina by Legacy Research Associates, Inc., Durham, North Carolina. 

• Millis, Heather. 2004. Cultural resources survey for the Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Relicensing Project, Alexander, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, 

McDowell, and Mecklenberg Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, 

Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, 

South Carolina. 

• Norris, Sean. 2004. Cultural resources survey for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric 

Project, Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster and York Counties, South Carolina. 

Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

• Whitley, Thomas G. and David S. Leigh. 2005. Evaluation of the natural and cultural 

impacts at the Mulberry Site (38KE12), Kershaw County, South Carolina. Submitted to 

Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by 

Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. 

Archaeological Resources 

The APE of the Catawba-Wateree Project contains six archaeological sites that are 

considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Four of the eligible archaeological 

sites are located in Chester County while the remaining sites are located in York and Lancaster 

Counties, South Carolina. These resources were discovered and assessed through a series of 

investigations conducted within the project’s APE. 

A total of 20 sites are considered potentially eligible within the Catawba-Wateree 

developments. Nine sites are located within the Cowans Ford Development. None of the sites 

within the Lake Norman Development are actively eroding, but monitoring was recommended, 

as each will be preserved in place. Two sites are located within the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments. Both sites are stable and would be preserved in place and monitored. The 

Fishing Creek Development features two potentially eligible sites. One is threatened by looting, 

while the second site is eroding. Four potentially eligible sites are found in the Cedar Creek 

Development. Of the sites located in the Cedar Creek Development, three sites would be 

preserved in place, while the remaining site is eroding. One site in the Wylie Development is 

actively eroding, necessitating mitigation. The remaining two potential eligible sites are located 

in the Wateree Development and would require monitoring, as there is potential for erosion. 

228 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Site 38CS235 consists of a Native American mound (Tibbetts and Southerlin, 2003). 

CIN considers the site sacred. It is assumed to contain human remains. The site has been 

extensively looted in the past and was, in fact, being actively looted at the time of survey. Duke 

Energy and CIN began cooperative management efforts of the site in 2000 when both parties 

entered into a memorandum of agreement regarding the site. CIN THPO undertook an intensive 

effort to stabilize the mound site, assess the extent of the resource, and implement sitemonitoring activities. Duke Energy supplemented these efforts by hiring security patrols for the 

site. These patrols have been in place since 2003. Both CIN THPO and Duke Energy deem that, 

as the site is well known to artifact collectors, it will continue to be at risk of looting for the term 

of the new license. 

The Dearborn Armory Site (38CS307) is located on Dearborn Island, also known as Big 

Island, in the Cedar Creek and Rocky Creek Developments. The site was originally constructed 

in the early nineteenth century as one of three national armories. It was in service for less than 

30 years before being abandoned (Tibbetts and Southerlin, 2003). In 2002, Duke Energy granted 

access to the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology to evaluate the armory 

site. The results of this evaluation indicate that the site is eligible for the National Register. The 

incorporation of this site in a new state park is a goal for a number of groups including the South 

Carolina DPRT and the town of Great Falls. 

Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 were located during the 2002 and 2004 shoreline and island 

surveys conducted in support of the Catawba-Wateree Project (Green, 2004; Tibbetts and 

Southerlin, 2003). Site 38CS321, located in the Fishing Creek Development, is an actively 

eroding Woodland/Mississippian Period occupation site, while site 38CS339, located in the 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments, is a prehistoric occupation dating to the Early and 

Middle Archaic Periods and also features Nineteenth Century components. These sites are 

considered eligible for the National Register. 

Site 38KE12 consists of a significant Native American mound complex and the Mulberry 

Plantation National Historic Landmark. Portions of the site are located within the project 

boundary, but most of the site is outside of the APE. The Native American component of the site 

consists of a village and an associated complex of mounds. The mounds are thought to represent 

the location of Cofitachequi (or possibly Talimeco), a significant Native American occupation in 

the region. Mulberry Plantation possesses significance as a National Historic Landmark as the 

most important site associated with the writing of Mary Boykin Chesnut’s remarkable first-hand 

account of southern society during the Civil War. Historians have long recognized the journal’s 

value as a source of information concerning the people and events of the war and life during the 

period. The diary contributes toward understanding one of the most important events in 

America’s history. 

Sites 38YK427 and 38LA475 were identified in 2004 during the Phase I survey of islands 

within the project (Norris, 2004). Site 38YK427, located in the Wylie Development, is a very 

dense scatter of Archaic through Woodland Period artifacts that potentially could represent a 

lithic tool workshop, while 38LA475, located in the Wateree Development is a deeply buried site 

containing artifacts dating to the Late Woodland Period. Both sites were either actively eroding 

or susceptible to erosion. 

229 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Historical Resources 

The Catawba-Wateree Project features a total of 13 developments. A majority of the dam 

and powerhouse facilities associated with each of the developments are eligible for listing on the 

National Register. 

Based on prior research conducted in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 60.4, the 

Bridgewater,14 Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, and Mountain Island Developments were 

recommended eligible for the National Register under criteria A and C. The significance of the 

pre-1930 Duke Catawba-Wateree developments in North Carolina lies in the fact that they retain 

the distinctive characteristics of their types and uses, illustrating and representing their historic 

time period and cultural associations. The developments have undergone minimal alteration and 

retain historic integrity. Alterations to the facilities have included installation of modern 

controls, changes made for safety reasons, Commission-mandated upgrades for flood control, 

and upgrades of generating and transmission equipment. Their continued operations illustrate 

the historical associations for which they are significant. Operational maintenance of the 

developments has preserved their integrity, and they remain good examples of their types 

(Cleveland and Holland, 2004). 

Cowans Ford Development was recommended but found to be ineligible for the National 

Register due to its more recent age. Criterion Consideration G of the National Register 

assessment process states that resources less than 50 years old that possess exceptional 

significance are eligible for listing. However, the Cowans Ford Development does not meet the 

standards set forth in Criterion Consideration G. It was recommended, however, that Duke 

Power reassess the eligibility of Cowans Ford after it becomes 50 years old in 2015 (Cleveland 

and Holland, 2004). 

Additional National Register assessment of developments Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great 

Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, Cedar Creek, and Wateree, in South Carolina, was undertaken in 

2006. Similar to the North Carolina developments, those in South Carolina were recommended 

eligible for the National Register under criteria A and C. The Duke Catawba-Wateree 

developments in South Carolina were typical of the level of engineering and technology 

available between 1907 and 1926, and these developments were not the first of their kind. 

Although Great Falls and Rocky Creek were early examples of hydroelectric facilities, they did 

not employ groundbreaking methods of construction or utilize unique types of equipment. 

However, their significance lies in the fact that they retain the distinctive characteristics of their 

types and uses, illustrating and representing their historic time period and cultural association. 

The developments in South Carolina featured many of the qualities of integrity and significance 

 

14 On September 11, 2007, Duke Energy proposed to remove and replace the existing 

Bridgewater powerhouse in conjunction with the Bridgewater Seismic Stability Project. It was 

determined that in order to strengthen the Linville dam, the Bridgewater powerhouse, adjacent to 

the dam, must be demolished and reconstructed 200 meters downstream. Because the 

modifications would adversely affect the Bridgewater powerhouse, a facility determined eligible 

for listing in the National Register, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed between 

the Commission and the North Carolina SHPO on June 10, 2008. The stipulations of the MOA 

appropriately mitigated for any adverse effects that resulted from the removal of the powerhouse.

230 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
possessed by the developments in North Carolina. All seven developments were recommended 

eligible for the National Register (Cleveland et al., 2004). 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

Although traditional cultural properties have not been formally recorded in either 

project’s APE, both Duke Energy and the Commission have invited interested tribes to 

participate in the relicensing process. 

CIN and EBCI have been integral parts of the Cultural Committee. As members of the 

Cultural Committee, CIN and EBCI have collaborated in the development of the HPMP and 

expressed interest in archaeological site management, management of inadvertent discoveries of 

human remains or Native American burials, and curation. 

Additionally, Duke Energy and CIN began cooperative management efforts of the site in 

2000 when both parties entered into a memorandum of agreement regarding site 38CS235, a 

Native American mound. CIN THPO has undertaken intensive stabilization, assessment, and 

monitoring efforts to protect a property important to them. 

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects 

Historic Properties Management Plan 

Duke proposes to protect historic properties within the APE by implementing the HPMP 

and any PA developed for the project. In consultation with the Cultural Committee, the Historic 

Properties Management Plan for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2232) 

North and South Carolina was developed in 2006 to provide a framework to manage cultural 

resources within the project’s APE (Brockington and Associates, Inc., 2006). The goals 

specified in the HPMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project are consistent with the goals of the 

NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800). These goals include: 

• identifying historic properties located within the APE and the FERC project boundaries; 

• ensuring that planning for all proposed activities within the FERC project boundaries 

considers the effects of the activities on historic properties from the earliest stage of the 

planning process; 

• preserving, protecting, and interpreting historic properties within the APE and the FERC 

project boundaries; and 

• ensuring that conflicts among project operations, land management needs, and historic 

properties are resolved within the context of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation's regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties; as 

revised August 5, 2004) for compliance with the NHPA. 

In letters filed April 9, 2007, and April 23, 2008, the South Carolina and North Carolina 

SHPOs, respectively, concurred with the HPMP’s findings and recommendations. On June 5, 

2008, the CIN concurred with the HPMP’s findings and recommendations. 

In the letter filed June 4, 2008, BIA recommended that Duke Energy be required to 

consult with CIN and BIA in the development and execution of the HPMP. 

231 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Our Analysis 

Continued operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project would maintain the historic 

facilities at this project in productive use for the purpose for which they were originally designed 

and built, and would, therefore, be beneficial. However, operating the project under the 

protections afforded by section 106 does not ensure that there would be no adverse effects. 

Adverse effects may occur to licensed historic project features due to repairs and modifications 

that, while necessary for the continued safe and efficient operation of these projects, are not in 

keeping with the projects’ historic character. While adverse effects on historic properties may be 

acceptable because of the need to continue operating the projects safely and efficiently, they 

should nevertheless be taken into account. Also, there may be undiscovered historic properties 

in the APE that could be adversely affected by future changes in project operation or by projectrelated activities. 

As a provision of the HPMP, site-specific management plans have been developed to 

avoid, lessen, or mitigate any adverse effects on eligible or potentially eligible archaeological 

sites listed in section 3.3.6.1, Affected Environment, Archaeological Resources. When future site 

evaluations are conducted, the HPMP would be revised to reflect changes in site location and 

determination of National Register eligibility. Also, the HPMP includes principles and 

procedures to respond to accidental discovery of cultural resources during project operations. 

Such principles and procedures would ensure that cultural resources are accorded proper 

treatment, and, as appropriate, protection, over the term of the license. 

The HPMP was developed as a cooperative effort between Duke Energy and the Cultural 

Committee. Because the Cultural Committee included representatives from state agencies as 

well as regional Native American tribes, including the CIN, which has concurred with the 

mitigation plans outlined in the HPMP, BIA is not needed to represent the tribe’s interests. 

In addition to the management of archaeological sites, all but one of the hydroelectric 

developments of the Catawba-Wateree Project have been determined eligible for the National 

Register. Duke Energy intends to manage all of the historic hydroelectric structures found to be 

eligible for the National Register with the goal of ensuring that the facilities retain their 

historically significant features. The HPMP provides principals and procedures to address any 

major changes to the properties, such as partial or total removal of buildings or structures. 

Additionally, the HPMP delineates actions listed as a Categorical Exclusion, which are necessary 

for the operation of the development, but do not require consultation with the SHPOs. 

As part of its obligation under section 106, the Commission plans to execute a PA that 

incorporates the HPMP with the North Carolina and South Carolina SHPOs, and affords the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Duke Energy, 

CIN THPO, and the EBCI, would be invited to participate in the PA as concurring parties. If a 

license is ultimately issued, the PA would be incorporated into the license by reference. 

Cowans Ford 

Only 45 years has passed since the completion of Cowans Ford, making it ineligible for 

the National Register. Criterion Consideration G of the National Register assessment process 

states that resources less than 50 years old that possess exceptional significance are eligible for 

listing. However, the National Register of Historic Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Project Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, and 

232 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Mountain Island Developments, North Carolina, report recommended that Duke Energy reassess 

the eligibility of Cowans Ford after it becomes 50 years old in 2015 (Cleveland and Holland, 

2004). On May 17, 2005, North Carolina SHPO stated that they concur that the Cowans Ford 

Development should be reassessed after it is 50 years old. 

Our Analysis 

Even though the Cowans Ford Development is ineligible for the National Register due to 

its more recent age, it was the largest of the developments and the last to be constructed, thereby 

completing the build-out of the river begun in 1900. It followed a different design, had a much 

larger capacity than the other developments, and was built in the post-World War II, modern era, 

which places it in a different context than the neighboring developments. However, the cultural 

impact of the development is congruent with the surrounding facilities. Therefore, at 50 years of 

age Cowans Ford would likely meet the standards set under Criteria A and C, and we agree that 

reassessment occur at that point. 

Sites 38CS321, 38CS339, and the Mulberry Site 

Phase I and II archaeological investigations at Site 38CS321 revealed that it contains 

components from the Late Woodland Period, Uwharrie phase occupation and a Mississippian 

Period, Pee Dee phase component. There also may be a Middle Woodland, Yadkin phase 

component as well, but this has not been firmly established. The site retains only a moderate 

degree of integrity, but because so little is known about the Late Woodland and Mississippian 

periods of the area, the site offers a rare opportunity to enhance knowledge of these poorly 

understood time periods. Based on this, Site 38CS321 is recommended eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register. Similarly, Site 38CS339 is an Early to Late Archaic and nineteenth 

century site located on a flood plain on the east side of Big Island. Artifacts were recovered 

from deeply buried deposits. Therefore, Phase II testing was recommended to determine the 

National Register eligibility of this potentially significant site. 

Both sites are either actively eroding or susceptible to erosion associated with lake level 

fluctuation and wave action. Impact avoidance is not feasible for these sites, as site 

protection/stabilization efforts pose a significant challenge. Therefore, to offset the adverse 

effects to these sites, a plan has been developed to maximize mitigation resources. 

Duke Energy, in consultation with the South Carolina SHPO and CIN THPO, proposes 

that the project-related effects of Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 can be mitigated at a more 

significant site, the Mulberry Site (38KE12). The Mulberry Site is located adjacent to the 

Wateree River approximately 9 miles downstream of the project outside the FERC project 

boundaries, but within the APE of the project. The site has been eroding since its abandonment 

by Indian occupants in the 1500s. This site has the potential to answer questions about the 

complex pre-contact societies in South Carolina. Therefore, Duke Energy would provide 

funding for 3 years to support data recovery efforts at Mound A of the Mulberry Site in 

accordance with the Revised CRA.15 The Cultural Committee agrees with Duke Energy’s 

 15 In the event that the funding support for work at the Mulberry site does not occur for 

any reason, Duke would revise the management plan for Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 in 

consultation with South Carolina SHPO and CIN THPO and incorporate the revised plan in the 

HPMP. 

233 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
proposal to mitigate project effects at Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 through additional 

archaeology at the Mulberry Site. 

Our Analysis 

The Mulberry Site was a significant political center for Native Americans in the region as 

late as the 17th century. Historical documents support the site’s significance, indicating the 

village was visited on several occasions by European explorers Hernando de Soto and Juan 

Pardo. Section 106 does not require that all adverse effects be lessened, avoided, or mitigated. 

However, all parties must agree that the resources could be better used to mitigate a more 

significant site in lieu of other resources. Therefore, because of the weight of its prehistoric and 

early historic significance, mitigation efforts would be better utilized at the Mulberry Site rather 

than Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339. Because this mitigation plan extends over a limited time 

period (3 years) and does not represent ongoing maintenance of Site 38KE12, it is unnecessary to 

change the project boundaries to include the Mulberry Site. 

Land Leases 

Duke Energy offered to lease an island containing an historic gravesite to the North 

Carolina DPR for management as part of Lake James State Park. Duke Energy also offered to 

lease sites 38LA467, 38LA468, 38LA469, 38LA470, 38LA471, 38LA473, 38LA474 to South 

Carolina DPRT for the term of the any new license and require a management plan for these sites 

in consultation with CIN THPO and South Carolina DAH. The sites and the historic gravesite 

are not eligible for the National Register. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to various agencies would force a contract 

between two parties. This would be outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy 

could pursue these measures as a non-license article measure since these measures would 

provide protection to these sites. 

3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.7 Recreational Resources 

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Regional Recreational Resources 

The recreation use and needs study conducted during relicensing considered regional 

recreational opportunities within the regional impact zone, or the area within 40 to 50 miles of 

the Catawba-Wateree Project that is within about an hour’s drive from the project. Recreational 

resources within this zone provide a full range of activities, including boating, canoeing, 

swimming, fishing, hiking, camping, hunting, mountain biking, horseback riding, and wildlife 

viewing. The lakes and reservoirs in the region, which include the project reservoirs, provide a 

variety of recreational opportunities and varying levels of developed facilities for camping and 

day-use activities. Boat launches in the area provide opportunities for motorized boat use. 

Three federal agencies operate recreational facilities within the region, the Forest Service, 

FWS, and NPS. The Forest Service operates the Pisgah, Uwharrie, and Nantahala National 

234 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Forests in North Carolina and the Sumter National Forest in South Carolina. These forests offer 

opportunities for hiking, camping, horseback riding, hunting, boating, off-highway vehicle use, 

fishing, picnicking, and mountain biking. Additionally, the Uwharrie National Forest has 

opportunities for gold panning and rock hounding. Two notable features pass through the Pisgah 

National Forest, the Appalachian Trail and the Pisgah Loop Scenic Byway, managed by the 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (North Carolina DOT). 

FWS operates the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge in Anson and Richmond Counties, 

North Carolina and the Carolina Sand Hill National Wildlife Refuge in Chesterfield and Darling 

Counties, South Carolina. These wildlife refuges provide opportunities for hiking, hunting, 

fishing, picnicking, wildlife viewing, and interpretive and educational programs. 

NPS operates the Congaree National Park, Cowpens National Battlefield, and Kings 

Mountain National Military Park in South Carolina. These NPS areas provide opportunities for 

camping, hiking, boating, horseback riding, auto touring, fishing, picnicking, wildlife viewing, 

environmental education, museum visitation, and historic interpretation. Also, NPS operates the 

Blue Ridge Parkway, which travels through Virginia and North Carolina and is located about 

20 miles from the project’s Bridgewater Development (Lake James), and the Overmountain 

Victory National Historic Trail, which travels through North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and Virginia. Portions of the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail are 

located in the project area. 

North Carolina state agencies provide recreational opportunities in the region surrounding 

the project. In addition to managing gamelands, North Carolina WRC operates 11 boat access 

areas in the region outside of the Catawba-Wateree system on the South Yadkin River, Yadkin 

River, High Rock reservoir, Tuckertown reservoir, Narrows reservoir, Lake Tillery, and the Pee 

Dee River. North Carolina DPR manages seven state parks in the region that are outside of the 

Catawba-Wateree system, including Mount Mitchell, Mount Jefferson, New River, Stone 

Mountain, Morrow Mountain, South Mountains, and Crowder’s Mountain. These state parks 

offer opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, picnicking, horseback riding, camping, boating, 

fishing, swimming, and environmental education. A portion of the more than 800-mile 

Mountains to Sea Trail and the French Broad River Trail are notable trails in the project region. 

South Carolina DPRT manages 11 state parks within the project region, including Kings 

Mountain, Chester, Dreher Island, Sesquicentennial, Poinsett, Woods Bay, Lee, Goodale, 

Cheraw, Landsford Canal, and Andrew Jackson. Recreational opportunities within these state 

parks generally include swimming, boating, fishing, hiking, picnicking, horseback riding, 

camping, lodging, golf, tennis, and interpretive programs. There also are three South Carolina 

state forests within the region, Harbison, Manchester, and Sand Hills, that offer opportunities for 

fishing, hiking, canoeing, picnicking, hunting, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicle use. 

Additionally, counties, local governments, and the private sector in both North Carolina 

and South Carolina provide additional recreational opportunities in the region surrounding the 

project that are generally tailored to the local population. Facilities typically include parks with 

walking trails, athletic fields, playgrounds, and picnic areas; commercial marinas; campgrounds; 

golf courses; and amusement parks. 

A number of other major lakes and reservoirs in the region provide a variety of 

recreational opportunities. Major lakes and reservoirs within 40 to 50 miles of the project 

include Watauga Lake, Wilkesboro reservoir, High Rock reservoir, Tuckertown reservoir, 

235 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Narrows reservoir, Falls reservoir, Lake Tillery, Blewett Falls reservoir, Lake Lure, Lake Adger, 

and Moss Lake in North Carolina; and Monticello reservoir, Parr reservoir, Lake Murray, and 

Lake Marion in South Carolina. 

Project Recreational Facilities 

Project Boundary 

The existing project boundary generally includes the area within full pond elevation of 

the project reservoirs and the land immediately surrounding the dams and powerhouses. Existing 

public recreation access areas that provide access to the project and are owned by Duke Energy 

are included in the project boundary, but portions of the existing Duke Energy-owned project 

recreation access areas may lie partially outside the boundary. For non-Duke Energy-owned 

recreation access areas, portions of the recreation access areas that extend below the normal full 

pond elevation of the reservoir lie within the project boundary. For example, Lake Norman State 

Park includes boat ramps and a courtesy dock on Lake Norman that extend below the normal full 

pool elevation of the reservoir and are therefore within the project boundary (i.e., extend below 

the full pond elevation) while the parking area and other facilities likely lie outside the project 

boundary (i.e., located above the full pond elevation). 

Overview of Project Recreational Facilities 

There are 86 public recreation access areas located adjacent to the reservoirs, tailraces, 

bypassed reaches, and regulated river reaches of the Catawba-Wateree Project that provide 

access to the project, including 59 Duke Energy-owned public access areas and 27 access areas 

owned and managed by state, county, or local government or non-profit organizations (see 

tables 40 through 49). These public recreation access areas provide 140 boat ramps, 65 courtesy 

docks, 31 fishing piers, 3 swimming areas, 21 picnic areas, and 4 camping areas. Duke Energy 

has an Access Area Maintenance Agreement that expires in 2008 with North Carolina WRC 

whereby Duke Energy pays North Carolina WRC to maintain boating access facilities (boat 

ramps, courtesy docks, parking areas, and lighting) at most Duke Energy-owned public 

recreation access areas located in North Carolina. 

In addition to the public recreation sites described above, as part of its relicensing studies, 

Duke Energy identified 39 commercial public marinas and campgrounds that also provide visual 

or recreational access to the project. As commercial recreation areas, these sites are generally 

available to the public for a fee. The Upper Catawba River Trail is a state designated river trail 

that is an 82-mile water route for non-motorized boats that extends from the Black Bear Access 

Area on Lake James to the Lookout Shoals Access Area on Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Bridgewater Development 

The Bridgewater Development includes Lake James. At a full pond elevation of 1,200 ft 

msl, Lake James has a surface area of 6,754 acres and 149 miles of shoreline. There is also a 

regulated river reach downstream of Lake James. Five public recreation areas provide direct 

access to Lake James (figure 19 and table 40). There are major recreational facilities at all of 

these public recreation areas, including 13 boat ramps, 6 courtesy docks, a fishing pier, a swim 

area, 18 campsites, a picnic area, and 4.5 miles of trails. Lake James State Park is a 3,067-acre 

state park owned and operated by the State of North Carolina located in the central portion of 

Lake James. The park provides a number of the recreational opportunities described above 

236 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
including the fishing pier, swim area, campsites, picnic area, and hiking trails. There are also 

three commercial marinas and campgrounds that provide direct access to Lake James. 

Five public recreation access areas are located along the regulated river reach 

downstream of Lake James (figure 20 and table 40). There are major recreational facilities at 

four of these public recreation areas, including three canoe launches, a canoe portage around 

Linville dam, four fishing piers, two picnic areas, bank fishing, and almost 13 miles of trails. 

Four of these public recreation areas are municipal-owned and managed. These include the 

Watermill Road canoe access that is owned by the town of Glen Alpine, North Carolina, and 

three multi-use public recreation areas (Greenlee Ford, River Village, and Catawba Meadows 

Parks) that are part of the Morganton Greenway owned and managed by the city of Morganton, 

North Carolina. 

Duke Energy owns slightly more than one-half of the project-related recreational 

facilities at the Bridgewater Development; however, these are managed by North Carolina 

DENR (North Carolina DPR) or by North Carolina WRC. 

Table 40. Recreational facilities at the Bridgewater Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake James 

Black Bear Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six concrete boat ramps, three courtesy docks, 

large paved parking area, six ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Lake James 

State Park 

State of North 

Carolina/North Carolina 

DENR (North Carolina 

DPR) 

1 ADA-fishing pier, large paved parking area, 1 

swim beach, 18 campsites, picnic tables, 4.5 miles 

of trails, 1 restroom/shower 

Hidden Cove 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina DENR (North 

Carolina DPR) 

two concrete boat ramps, one courtesy dock, small 

parking area, one vault toilet, one ADA-compliant 

toilet, and one ADA-compliant parking space 

Canal Bridge 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina DENR (North 

Carolina DPR) 

three concrete boat ramps, one courtesy dock, 

large parking area, flush toilets, five ADAcompliant parking spaces, two ADA-compliant 

toilets 

Linville Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two concrete boat ramps, one courtesy dock, large 

paved parking area, bank fishing, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Bridgewater Regulated River Reach 

Bridgewater 

Access Area 

Duke Energy /North 

Carolina WRC 

includes canoe portage take-out on Lake James 

and canoe put-in below the tailrace of the dam and 

a public fishing area, bank fishing, small parking 

area, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, one ADAcompliant parking space 

237 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Watermill Road 

Canoe Access 

Town of Glen Alpine, 

North Carolina canoe launch, small parking area, picnic table 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Greenlee Ford 

Park 

City of Morganton, North 

Carolina 

canoe launch, one fishing pier, bank fishing, 

moderate-sized paved parking area, playground, 

flush toilets, picnic tables and shelters, 4.25 miles 

of trail 

Morganton 

Greenway - River 

Village Park 

City of Morganton, North 

Carolina 

canoe launch, 2 fishing piers, large paved parking 

area, 2 flush toilets, 14 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, 4.25 miles of trails (paved/wooden) 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Catawba Meadows 

Park 

City of Morganton, North 

Carolina 

baseball field, moderate-sized parking area, 4.25 

miles of trail 

238 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 19. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Bridgewater Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

239 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 20. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Bridgewater regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

240 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Rhodhiss Development 

The Rhodhiss Development includes Lake Rhodhiss and the Rhodhiss tailrace. At a full 

pond elevation of 995.1 ft msl, Lake Rhodhiss has a surface area of 2,724 acres and 95.5 miles of 

shoreline. There are six public recreation areas on Lake Rhodhiss (figure 21 and table 41). Five 

of these public recreation areas have major recreational facilities including 11 boat ramps, 

6 courtesy docks, a canoe portage around the dam, and a fishing pier. There is also one 

commercial marina on Lake Rhodhiss. There are no additional public recreation areas at the 

Rhodhiss Development. 

Duke Energy owns all of the project-related recreational facilities at the Rhodhiss 

Development; however, four of these are managed by North Carolina WRC and another, the 

Sawmills Veterans Memorial Park, is managed by the town of Sawmills, North Carolina, with 

North Carolina WRC managing its boating access facilities. 

Table 41. Recreational facilities at the Rhodhiss Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Rhodhiss 

Johns River Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

one boat ramp, one courtesy dock, small parking 

area 

Huffman Bridge Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC bank fishing, small parking area 

Castle Bridge Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six boat ramps, three ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Conley 

Creek/Sawmills 

Veterans 

Memorial Park 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC and Town 

of Sawmills 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy dock, 

one fishing pier, large paved parking area, two 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Rhodhiss Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy dock, 

large paved parking area, four ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Rhodhiss Canoe 

Portage Duke Energy canoe portage around the dam 

241 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 21. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Rhodhiss Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

242 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Oxford Development 

The Oxford Development includes Lake Hickory. At a full pond elevation of 935.0 ft 

msl, Lake Hickory has a surface area of about 4,072 acres and 109.8 miles of shoreline. There is 

also a regulated river reach between Oxford dam and Lookout Shoals Lake. There are 10 public 

recreation areas located on Lake Hickory, including one undeveloped area (figure 22 and 

table 42). Eight of these public recreation areas have major recreational facilities including 

17 boat ramps, 9 courtesy docks, 4 fishing piers, a canoe portage around the dam, and 3 picnic 

areas. The city of Hickory, North Carolina, owns and operates three of these public recreation 

areas: Bud Geitner Park, Hickory Greenway, and Glenn C. Hilton Park. There are also five 

commercial marinas or campgrounds that provide additional public access to Lake Hickory. 

There is one public recreation area located along the regulated river reach downstream 

of Lake Hickory (figure 22 and table 42). Major recreational facilities at this public recreation 

area include a canoe launch, a fishing platform, a picnic area, and 12.1 miles of trails (4.3 miles 

horse and 7.8 miles foot/bike). This public recreation area, Riverbend Park, is owned and 

operated by Catawba County, North Carolina. 

Duke Energy owns more than one-half of the project-related recreational facilities at the 

Oxford Development; however, most of these are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

Table 42. Recreational facilities at the Oxford Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Hickory 

Bud Geitner Park City of Hickory, North 

Carolina 

one concrete boat ramp, one courtesy dock, 

one fishing pier, bank fishing, flush toilets, mediumsized paved parking area, 2 ADA-compliant flush 

toilets, picnic area and shelters, grills 

Hickory Greenway City of Hickory, North 

Carolina 

large parking area, 3 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, 3.9 miles of trail 

Glenn C. Hilton 

Park 

City of Hickory, North 

Carolina 

one canoe launch, one fishing pier, bank fishing, 

flush toilets, large parking area, one ADA-compliant 

parking space, picnic area and shelters, grills, 

athletic fields, observation deck 

Gunpowder Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy dock, 

medium-sized parking area 

Lovelady Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, medium-sized 

paved parking area, one ADA-compliant parking 

space 

Wittenburg Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six boat ramps, three ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, two ADA-compliant fishing piers, large 

paved parking area, 10 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces 

243 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Long Shoals Duke Energy/ 

Undeveloped 20.1-acre undeveloped area 

Dusty Ridge 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC, Alexander 

County, North Carolina 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

large parking area, 8 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, restrooms, baseball fields, picnic area 

Oxford Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, 5 ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Oxford Canoe 

Portage Duke Energy canoe portage around the dam, small gravel parking area 

Oxford Regulated River Reach 

Riverbend Park Catawba County, North 

Carolina 

one canoe launch, one ADA-compliant fishing 

platform, tailrace fishing, one fishing pond, ADAcompliant flush toilets, medium-sized paved parking 

area, nine ADA-compliant parking spaces, picnic 

area and shelter, 12.1 miles of trail (4.3 miles horse 

and 7.8 miles foot/bike), wildlife area 

244 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 22. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Oxford Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

245 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Lookout Shoals Development 

The Lookout Shoals Development includes Lookout Shoals Lake. At full pond elevation 

of 838.1 ft msl, Lookout Shoals Lake has a surface area of about 1,155 acres and 33.1 miles of 

shoreline. Two public recreation access areas are located on Lookout Shoals Lake (figure 23 and 

table 43). There are major recreational facilities at both of these public recreation areas, 

including three boat ramps and two courtesy docks. There are no state or county park facilities 

and no commercial marinas along Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Duke Energy owns both of the project-related recreational facilities at the Lookout Shoals 

Development; however, both are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

Table 43. Recreational facilities at the Lookout Shoals Development of the CatawbaWateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lookout Shoals Lake 

Lookout Shoals Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, medium-sized 

paved parking area, two ADA-compliant parking 

spaces 

Sharon Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

one boat ramp, one courtesy dock, small paved 

parking area, one ADA-compliant parking space 

246 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 23. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Lookout Shoals Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

247 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Cowans Ford Development 

The Cowans Ford Development includes Lake Norman and the Cowans Ford tailrace. 

At a full pond elevation of 760.0 ft msl, Lake Norman has a surface area of about 32,339 acres 

and 562.3 miles of shoreline. Eighteen public recreation access areas are located at Lake 

Norman, including three undeveloped areas (figure 24 and table 44). There are major 

recreational facilities at 14 of these public recreation areas, including 36 boat ramps, 17 courtesy 

docks, 3 fishing piers, a swimming area, a sunbathing beach posted for “no swimming,” 5 picnic 

areas, camping, and 16.5 miles of trails. Lake Norman State Park is a 1,328-acre state park 

owned and operated by the State of North Carolina located in the northeast portion of Lake 

Norman. The park provides several recreational opportunities described above, such as a fishing 

pier, the swim area, camping, a picnic area, and hiking trails. Two of the public recreation areas 

on Lake Norman are county parks (Mecklenburg County, North Carolina), Jetton Road County 

Park and Blythe Landing Park, and two are municipal parks, Roosevelt Wilson Park (town of 

Davidson, North Carolina) and Hunsucker Park (town of Catawba, North Carolina). There are 

also 17 commercial marinas or campgrounds that provide additional public access to Lake 

Norman. 

Duke Energy owns most of the project-related recreational facilities at the Cowans Ford 

Development; however, most of the developed areas are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

Table 44. Recreational facilities at the Cowans Ford Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Norman 

Hunsucker Park Town of Catawba, North 

Carolina 

one gravel/dirt boat ramp, bank fishing, small 

parking area 

Buffalo Shoals Duke Energy 10.8-acre undeveloped area 

Long Island Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, medium-sized paved parking area, two 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Lake Norman 

State Park 

State of North 

Carolina/North Carolina 

DENR (North Carolina 

DPR) 

1 concrete boat ramp, 1 courtesy dock, 

1 swimming area, fishing pier, bank fishing, 

camping, large paved parking area, flush toilets, 

17 ADA-compliant parking spaces, 1 ADAcompliant flush toilet, picnic area with shelters, 

11.4 miles of trail, showers, grills 

Island Point Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 141.3-acre undeveloped area 

Stumpy Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, large parking area, six ADA-compliant 

parking spaces, athletic fields 

248 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Pinnacle Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

five boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces 

McCrary Creek Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, bank fishing, large paved parking area, five 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Marshall Fishing 

Area 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

bank fishing, small gravel parking area, port-ajohn 

Slanting Bridge Duke Energy 12.6-acre undeveloped area 

Hager Creek Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, bank fishing, large paved parking area, five 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Little Creek Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Roosevelt Wilson 

Park 

Town of Davidson, North 

Carolina 

bank fishing, small paved parking area, 

playground, one port-a-john, picnic area and 

shelter, grills, 0.5 miles of trail and two 

boardwalks, one ADA-compliant parking space 

Beatty’s Ford 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC, Lincoln 

County, North Carolina 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Jetton Road 

County Park 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

bank fishing, 1 sunbathing beach posted for “no 

swimming,” large paved parking area, flush 

toilets, 15 ADA-compliant parking spaces, 8 

ADA-compliant flush toilets, picnic area with 

shelters, 3.8 miles of trail, playground, formal 

garden 

Ramsey Creek 

Duke Energy/ 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, picnic 

area with shelters, large paved parking area, 10 

ADA-compliant parking spaces, restrooms, 

volleyball court, playground, 0.5 m of trail 

McGuire Fishing 

Area Duke Energy 

one ADA-compliant fishing pier, bank fishing, 

medium-sized parking area, three ADA-compliant 

parking spaces, port-a-johns 

Blythe Landing 

County Park 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

six concrete boat ramps, three courtesy docks, 

picnic area with shelters, large parking area, four 

ADA-compliant parking spaces, flush toilets, 

volleyball courts, playground, grills, 0.3 miles of 

paved trail 

249 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 24. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Cowans Ford Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

250 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Mountain Island Development 

The Mountain Island Development includes Mountain Island Lake and the Mountain 

Island bypassed reach. At a full pond elevation of 647.5 msl, Mountain Island Lake has a 

surface area of 3,117 acres and 94.3 miles of shoreline. Five public recreation areas are located 

at Mountain Island Lake (figure 25 and table 45). There are major recreational facilities at all of 

these public recreation areas, including 6 boat ramps, 3 courtesy docks, a fishing pier, a 

sunbathing beach posted as “no swimming,” just over 16 miles of trails (horseback riding is 

allowed on 13 miles of these trails), and 3 picnic areas. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 

owns and operates three of these public recreation areas: Cowans Ford Wildlife Refuge, Rural 

Hill Park, and Latta Plantation County Park. There are no commercial marinas or campgrounds 

on Mountain Island Lake. In addition to the current recreational facilities, the North Carolina 

Division of Forestry is currently developing the Mountain Island State Educational Forest on 

Mountain Island Lake. 

Duke Energy owns two of the project-related recreational facilities at the Mountain Island 

Development; however, both of these are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

Table 45. Recreational facilities at the Mountain Island Development of the CatawbaWateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Mountain Island Lake 

Cowans Ford Wildlife 

Refuge 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

picnic area, interpretive display, observation deck, 

waterfowl pond, 0.05 mile of trail, small gravel 

parking area, 2 ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Rural Hill Park Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

one picnic shelter, small parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space, flush toilets 

Neck Road Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, bank fishing, medium-sized paved parking 

area, four ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Latta Plantation County 

Park 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

picnic area with shelters, large parking area, six 

ADA-compliant parking spaces, sunbathing beach 

posted as “no swimming,” one fishing pier, bank 

fishing, scenic overlook, volleyball court, grills, 

16 miles of trail (horseback riding is allowed on 

13 miles of these trails), flush toilets, four ADAcompliant flush toilets 

Riverbend Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, four ADAcompliant parking spaces 

251 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 25. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Mountain Island Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

252 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Wylie Development 

The Wylie Development includes Lake Wylie. At a full pond elevation of 569.4 ft msl, 

Lake Wylie has a surface area of 12,177 acres and 340.3 miles of shoreline. There is also a 

regulated river reach downstream of the Wylie dam. Eleven public recreation access areas 

(Indian Ground is currently closed according to Duke Energy’s license application) are located 

on Lake Wylie, and two public recreational facilities (Mountain Island River Park and Mountain 

Island Tailrace Fishing Area) are located just downstream of Mountain Island Lake (figure 26 

and table 46). There are major recreational facilities at 10 of these public recreation areas, 

including 23 boat ramps, 15 courtesy docks, 13 fishing piers, a swim area, 121 individual 

campsites and 4 group campsites, 4 picnic areas, 2 canoe/kayak put-ins, and 9 miles of trails. 

Three of the 13 public recreation areas are city, county, or privately owned parks, including 

Mount Holly River Street Park (city of Mount Holly, North Carolina), McDowell Park 

(Mecklenburg County, North Carolina), and the Stowe Botanical Garden (Daniel Stowe Family). 

In addition to these public recreation areas, there are eight commercial marinas or campgrounds 

that provide additional direct access to Lake Wylie. 

Three public recreation areas are located along the regulated river reach downstream of 

Lake Wylie (figure 27 and table 46). All of these public recreation areas have major recreational 

facilities, including a boat ramp, two picnic areas, two canoe/kayak put-ins, and 4.5 miles of 

trails. Landsford Canal State Park is a 448-acre state park owned and operated by the State of 

South Carolina located in the regulated river reach downstream of Lake Wylie. The park 

provides several recreational opportunities described above such as a canoe/kayak put-in, picnic 

area, and 2 miles of trails. The city of Rock Hill, South Carolina, owns and manages one of the 

three public recreation areas, Rock Hill River Park. 

Duke Energy owns a majority of the project-related recreational facilities at the Wylie 

Development; however, one-half of these are managed by other parties including North Carolina 

WRC; city of Mount Holly, North Carolina; and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

Table 46. Recreational facilities at the Wylie Development of the Catawba-Wateree Project 

(P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Wylie 

Mountain Island 

River Park 

Duke Energy/City of 

Mount Holly, North 

Carolina 

bank fishing, walking trail, small gravel parking 

area, four ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Mountain Island 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC, City of 

Mount Holly, North 

Carolina 

two fishing piers, small gravel parking area, two 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Mount Holly 

River Street Park 

City of Mount Holly, 

North Carolina 

two wooden put-ins for canoes/kayaks, bank 

fishing, one fishing pier, medium-sized gravel 

parking area, one ADA-compliant parking space, 

picnic area with shelters, 0.5 mile of trails, 

playground, athletic fields, flush toilets, grills 

253 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

South Point Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six boat ramps, four courtesy docks, large paved 

parking area, seven ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Allen Fishing 

Area 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two fishing piers, bank fishing, small paved 

parking area, two ADA-compliant parking spaces, 

ADA-compliant walkway from restrooms to 

fishing piers 

Stowe Botanical 

Garden Daniel Stowe Family 

100-acre wildlife area, 0.5 mile of trail, large paved 

parking area, flush toilets, two ADA-compliant 

flush toilets 

Copperhead 

Duke 

Energy/Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina 

four boat ramps (two ADA-compliant), three 

courtesy docks, six ADA-compliant fishing piers, 

six tent campsites, two observation decks, scenic 

overlook, 1 mile of trails, large paved parking area, 

three ADA-compliant parking spaces, picnic area 

with shelters, playground, athletic fields, restrooms 

(two are ADA-compliant), volleyball courts 

McDowell Park Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

1 courtesy dock, 1 fishing pier, bank fishing, 56 

individual campsites and 4 group campsites, large 

paved parking area, 10 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, picnic area with shelters, 7 miles of trail, 

1 wildlife area, playground, flush toilets, 4 ADAcompliant toilets, volleyball court, grills 

Buster Boyd Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Indian Ground Duke Energy/closed currently closed, fishing platform 

Allison Creek Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, large 

paved parking area, one ADA-compliant parking 

space 

Ebenezer Park Duke Energy/York 

County, North Carolina 

three boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, 69 campsites, picnic area with shelters, one 

swim area, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces, playground, showers, 

four ADA-compliant restrooms 

Nivens Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, medium-sized 

paved parking area, two ADA-compliant parking 

spaces 

254 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Wylie Regulated River Reach 

Fort Mill Duke Energy one boat ramp, bank fishing, small gravel parking 

area 

Rock Hill River 

Park 

City of Rock Hill, South 

Carolina 

one concrete canoe/kayak put-in, bank fishing, 

picnic area with shelter, 2.5 miles of trail, small 

gravel parking area, two ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, port-a-johns 

Landsford Canal 

State Park South Carolina DPRT 

one canoe/kayak put-in, bank fishing, picnic area 

with shelters, one rental cabin, 2 miles of trail, 

medium-sized gravel parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space, flush toilets, two ADAcompliant flush toilets, grills, playground 

255 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 26. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wylie Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

256 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 27. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wylie regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

257 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Fishing Creek Development 

The Fishing Creek Development includes Fishing Creek reservoir. At a full pond 

elevation of 417.2 ft msl, Fishing Creek reservoir has a surface area of 3,431 acres and 

90.4 miles of shoreline. Three public recreation areas are located on Fishing Creek reservoir 

(figure 28 and table 47). There are major recreational facilities at all of these public recreation 

areas, including four boat ramps and one courtesy dock. There are no commercial marinas at 

Fishing Creek reservoir. 

Duke Energy owns and manages two of the project-related recreational facilities at the 

Fishing Creek Development. 

Table 47. Recreational facilities at the Fishing Creek Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Fishing Creek Reservoir 

Highway 9 

Landing South Carolina DNR one concrete boat ramp, informal bank fishing, small parking area 

Cane Creek Duke Energy one boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

Fishing Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, two ADAparking spaces 

258 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 28. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Fishing Creek Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

259 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments include Great Falls reservoir. At a full pond 

elevation of 355.8 ft msl, Great Falls reservoir has a surface area of 353 acres and 13.2 miles of 

shoreline. There are two bypassed reaches at the developments, the Great Falls Long bypassed 

reach along the east side of Mountain Island and the Great Falls Short bypassed reach on the 

west side of Mountain Island. The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments currently have no 

developed public recreational facilities. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments include Cedar Creek reservoir. At a 

full pond elevation of 284.4 ft msl, Cedar Creek reservoir has a surface area of 748 acres and 

22.3 miles of shoreline. Two public recreation areas are located on Cedar Creek reservoir 

(figure 29 and table 48). Each of these public recreation areas has a boat ramp. There are no 

commercial marinas, or state or county recreational facilities on Cedar Creek reservoir. 

Duke Energy owns and manages these two project-related recreational facilities at the 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments. 

Table 48. Recreational facilities at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 

2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 

Stumpy Pond Duke Energy one boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

Debutary Creek Duke Energy one boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

260 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 29. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

recreational facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

261 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Wateree Development 

The Wateree Development includes Lake Wateree. At a full pond elevation of 225.5 ft 

msl, Lake Wateree has a surface area of about 13,025 acres and 189.4 miles of shoreline. There 

is also a regulated river reach downstream of the dam. Nine public recreation access areas are 

located on Lake Wateree (figure 30 and table 49). There are major recreational facilities at all of 

these public recreation areas, including 20 boat ramps, 6 courtesy docks, 2 fishing piers, 

70 individual campsites and 2 group campsites, 0.7 mile of trails, and 2 bird sanctuaries. One of 

these public recreation areas is Lake Wateree State Park, owned and managed by South Carolina 

DPRT. A significant amount of public fishing also occurs at the Wateree Creek, Taylor’s Creek, 

Dutchman’s Creek, and Colonel’s Creek bridges at informal areas on the west side of the 

reservoir, two of which are owned by Fairfield County, South Carolina, and two of which are 

managed by South Carolina DNR. The county does not allow formal parking or bridge fishing at 

these areas. In addition to these public recreation areas, six commercial marinas or campgrounds 

provide additional access to Lake Wateree. 

Three public recreation areas are located along the regulated river reach downstream of 

Lake Wateree (figure 31 and table 49). All of these public recreation areas have major 

recreational facilities, including four boat ramps and one fishing pier. 

Duke Energy owns and manages a majority of the project-related recreational facilities at 

the Wateree Development. 

 

Table 49. Recreational facilities at the Wateree Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Wateree 

Cedar Creek Duke Energy two boat ramps, medium-sized gravel parking area 

Wateree Creek 

Access Area Duke Energy two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, small paved parking area, two ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Taylors Creek 

Access Area Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, small paved parking area, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Lake Wateree 

State Park South Carolina DPRT 

2 concrete boat ramps, 1 courtesy dock, 1 fishing 

pier, bank fishing, 70 individual campsites and 2 

group campsites, 13 flush toilets (6 ADAcompliant), showers, 0.7 mile of trail, large parking 

area, 1 ADA-compliant parking space, grills 

June Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space 

Beaver Creek 

Landing South Carolina DNR one concrete boat ramp, bird sanctuary, mediumsized parking area 

262 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Colonel’s Creek 

Access Area Duke Energy three boat ramps, large paved parking area 

White Oak Creek Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, one boat dock, one event/fishing pier, bird 

sanctuary, large paved parking area, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Buck Hill Duke Energy two boat ramps, medium-sized gravel parking area 

Wateree Regulated River Reach 

Lugoff Duke Energy 

one boat ramp, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, 

ADA-compliant walkway, medium-sized gravel 

parking area, one ADA-compliant parking space 

Highway 1 

Landing South Carolina DNR one concrete boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

Billy Tolar 

Landing South Carolina DNR 

two concrete boat ramps, informal bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space 

263 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 30. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wateree Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

264 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Figure 31. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wateree regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

265 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recreational Use 

Duke Energy estimates that the entire Catawba-Wateree Project had more than 

10.1 million recreation days16 from March 2004 through February 2005, including non-public 

access use from shoreline residents, back lot residents, and commercial marina use (table 50). 

The total visitation at public recreation areas at the project for the same period is estimated at 

more than 8.3 million recreation days. The greatest use occurs at Lake Norman (31 percent) and 

Lake Wylie (21 percent), followed by Lake Hickory (11 percent), Lake Wateree (9 percent), 

Lake James (8 percent), and Mountain Island Lake (5 percent). The Oxford regulated river reach 

receives the lowest use with about 0 percent of the project’s total recreation use. 

Table 50. Recreational Use at the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2007) 

Development (reservoir 

and regulated river 

reach) 

Visitation at 

public recreation 

areas (recreation 

days) 

Non-public 

access use1 

(recreation 

days) 

Total 

visitation 

(recreation 

days) 

Percent of 

total project 

Bridgewater 1,076,484 79,642 1,156,126 11% 

Lake James 734,754 79,642 814,396 8% 

Bridgewater Regulated 

River Reach 341,730 0 341,730 3% 

Rhodhiss 406,091 2,723 408,814 4% 

Oxford 950,537 143,447 1,093,984 11% 

Lake Hickory 926,757 143,447 1,070,204 11% 

Oxford Regulated River 

Reach 23,780 0 23,780 0% 

Lookout Shoals 221,291 22,516 243,807 3% 

Lookout Shoals Lake 142,127 22,516 164,643 2% 

Lookout Shoals 

Regulated River Reach 79,164 0 79,164 1% 

Cowans Ford 2,227,923 912,624 3,140,547 31% 

Mountain Island 416,364 62,884 479,248 5% 

Wylie 1,919,425 423,349 2,342,774 22% 

Lake Wylie 1,688,646 423,349 2,111,995 21% 

Wylie Regulated River 

Reach 230,779 0 230,779 2% 

 16 A recreation day is defined as “any part of a day a person visited an area for recreation 

purposes.” Therefore, any and all recreation during a 24-hour period by one person would equal 

one recreation day. 

266 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
267 

Development (reservoir 

and regulated river 

reach) 

Visitation at 

public recreation 

areas (recreation 

days) 

Non-public 

access use1 

(recreation 

days) 

Total 

visitation 

(recreation 

days) 

Percent of 

total project 

Fishing Creek 229,195 3,865 233,060 2% 

Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek 50,315 750 51,065 1% 

Wateree 830,313 203,692 1,034,005 10% 

Lake Wateree 678,926 203,692 882,618 9% 

Wateree Regulated River 

Reach 151,387 0 151,387 1% 

Total Visitor Use 8,327,938 1,855,492 10,183,430 100% 

1 Includes shoreline residents, back lot residents, and commercial marina use. 

Table 51 summarizes the monthly distribution of visitation at the public recreation areas 

based on traffic counter data for the 2004-2005 study period. Most use occurs during May 

(15 percent), followed by July (12 percent), June (11 percent), April (10.4 percent), and 

September (10.1 percent) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). About 67 percent of 

recreational use occurs during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Boating (motor boating and boat fishing) is the primary recreational activity, representing 

about 20 percent of recreation days (about 10.2 percent for boat fishing and about 9.6 percent for 

motor boating). Swimming represents about 9.6 percent of recreation days, and bank/pier fishing 

represents 8 percent (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

As part of the recreation use and needs study, Duke Energy estimated boating use and 

boat carrying capacity for the six developments that experience the greatest recreational use and 

provide the most public access to the project (Bridgewater, Oxford, Cowans Ford, Mountain 

Island, Wylie, and Wateree). Duke Energy estimates that none of the six reservoirs have reached 

its boat carrying capacity. Lake Hickory has the highest estimated peak-day weekday, weekend, 

and holiday period boat carrying capacity at 10, 71, and 70 percent, respectively (Study 

Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 51. Estimate of recreational visitation at public recreation areas based on traffic counter data by month 

Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Development(s) Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct NoBridgewater

Visitation 66,165 41,015 57,527 97,498 156,113 131,344 132,648 88,215 115,984 68,114 7

% Total use 6% 4% 5% 9% 15% 12% 12% 8% 11% 6% 

Rhodh iss

ord

Visitation 20,018 14,433 26,967 44,925 64,848 44,257 46,482 35,179 45,748 23,718 2

% Total use 5% 4% 7% 11% 16% 11% 11% 9% 11% 6% 

Oxf 

Visitation 49,766 35,640 61,844 105,052 152,875 103,108 107,045 84,577 103,094 56,369 5

% Total use 5% 4% 7% 11% 16% 11% 11% 9% 11% 6% 

Lookout Shoals 

Visitation 13,537 9,110 12,889 20,018 29,932 22,592 23,340 18,881 35,120 12,980 1

% Total use 6% 4% 6% 9% 14% 10% 11% 9% 16% 6% 

Cowans Ford 

Visitation 140,057 115,395 156,391 218,571 302,129 226,499 253,058 198,801 224,105 146,405 1

% Total use 6% 5% 7% 10% 14% 10% 11% 9% 10% 7% 

Mountain Island 

Visitation 23,370 17,497 24,437 41,218 63,799 46,293 51,008 37,173 39,651 28,064 2

% Total use 6% 4% 6% 10% 15% 11% 12% 9% 10% 7% 

268 
269 

Development(s) Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct NoWylie 

Visitation 103,228 81,563 119,750 195,256 275,884 195,867 251,411 193,706 191,334 125,111 1% Total use 5% 4% 6% 10% 14% 10% 13% 10% 10% 7% 

Fishing Creek 

Visitation 14,254 9,290 16,263 27,687 34,459 23,037 27,775 18,932 18,763 13,827 1

% Total use 6% 4% 7% 12% 15% 10% 12% 8% 8% 6% 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Visitation 3,248 3,033 4,066 6,499 6,507 3,893 3,877 3,200 4,053 4,844 

% Total use 6% 6% 8% 13% 13% 8% 8% 6% 8% 10% 

Wateree 

Visitation 40,700 42,934 53,169 109,632 141,081 100,035 87,073 63,294 60,841 40,126 4

% Total use 5% 5% 6% 13% 17% 12% 10% 8% 7% 5% 

Total Proj ect 

Visitation 474,343 369,910 533,303 866,356 1,227,627 896,925 983,717 741,958 838,693 519,558 4

% Total use 6% 4% 6% 10% 15% 11% 12% 9% 10% 6% 
Duke Energy estimated recreational use projections by incorporating indexed values for 

future recreational use for various activities, modified to account for differences in population 

estimates. The populations of counties immediately surrounding the project experienced about 

an 18.6 percent increase in population from 1999 to 2000 (Duke Energy, 2007). Duke Energy 

estimated population projections through 2030 using data from the Office of State Planning for 

the counties located in North Carolina and from the Office of Research and Statistics for the 

counties in South Carolina. Population estimates through 2050 were calculated by applying an 

average percentage increase for each 10-year period. Duke Energy estimates a 57 percent 

increase in recreational visitation at the Catawba-Wateree Project from 2004 to 2050. 

Bridgewater Development 

The Bridgewater Development public recreation areas received more than 1 million 

recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident visitors) for the 

2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the visitation at the Bridgewater Development 

occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Boat fishing 

(14 percent), motor boating (11 percent), and swimming are the primary recreational activities at 

Lake James recreation areas. At the Bridgewater regulated river reach recreation areas, 

recreational visitors were primarily walking (29 percent), sightseeing (21 percent), fishing 

(16 percent), and picnicking (11 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Bridgewater Development, the Linville Access Area had a mean percent capacity of 58 percent 

on non-holiday weekends and is the only recreation access area where the capacity exceeded 

50 percent (table 52). During the study period, the Linville Access Area was recorded over 

capacity 13 percent of the time on non-holiday weekends. 

For Lake James, the peak numbers of boats (highest day) during the days when counts 

were conducted were 60 boats (weekday), 344 boats (weekend), and 253 boats (holiday). 

The average number of boats (per type of day) was 43 boats (weekday), 211 boats (weekend), 

and 119 boats (holiday). In terms of overall lake-wide boating capacity, the estimated percent of 

capacity for the peak day was 8 percent (weekday), 45 percent (weekend), and 33 percent 

(holiday). Based on the average boat counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 

6 percent (weekday), 27 percent (weekend), and 18 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource 

Committee, 2006). 

270 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 52. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Bridgewater Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake James 

Black Bear Access 

Area 171 60 90 35% 

Lake James State 

Park 44 77 NA 

Hidden Cove 

Access Area 47 7 13 15% 

Canal Bridge 

Access Area 95 38 70 40% 

Linville Access 

Area 62 36 70 58% 13% 

Bridgewater Regulated River Reach 

Bridgewater Access 

Area 24 2 8 10% 8% 

Watermill Road 

Canoe Access 14 4 10 28% 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Greenlee Ford Park 

0 21 37 NA 

Morganton 

Greenway - River 

Village Park 

0 0 4 NA 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 42 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

James and by 51 percent for the Bridgewater regulated river reach. Boating (motor boating and 

boat fishing), sightseeing, and swimming are anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of future 

use at Lake James. Walking, sightseeing, bank/pier fishing, and picnicking are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use at the Bridgewater regulated river reach. For Lake 

James, Duke Energy estimated 164 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational 

facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 

about 5 acres of beaches, 8 acres of picnic areas, 58 acres of campsites, 74 acres of boat ramps, 

14 acres of hiking trails, and 5 acres of fishing access areas. For the Bridgewater regulated river 

reach, an estimated 160 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050, including about 7 acres of picnicking, 38 acres of campsites, 

6 acres of boat ramps, 102 acres of hiking trails, and 7 acres of fishing access areas. 

271 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
 Rhodhiss Development 

More than 400,000 people visited the Rhodhiss Development (Lake Rhodhiss and 

Rhodhiss tailrace) recreation areas (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline 

resident visitors) for the 2004-1005 study period. Sixty-nine percent of the visitation at the 

Rhodhiss Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Visitors to the Rhodhiss Development recreation areas were primarily boat fishing (46 percent) 

and bank/pier fishing (15 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Rhodhiss Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity greater 

than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 53). During the study period, none of the access 

areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

Table 53. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Rhodhiss Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Rhodhiss 

Johns River 30 4 13 14% 

Huffman Bridge 20 1 4 7% 

Castle Bridge 155 35 72 22% 

Conley 

Creek/Sawmills 

Veterans Memorial 

Park 

72 11 24 16% 

Rhodhiss Access 

Area 104 11 24 11% 

Rhodhiss Canoe 

Portage 0 0 0 NA 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by about 38 percent between 2004 and 2050 at 

the Rhodhiss Development. Boat fishing, bank/pier fishing, and motor boating are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Lake Rhodhiss, Duke Energy estimated that 

84 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the 

year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This acreage would include approximately 

12 acres of beaches, 22 acres of picnic areas, 14 acres of campsites, 59 acres of boat ramps, 

1 acre of hiking trails, and 7 acres of fishing access areas. 

272 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Oxford Development 

The Oxford Development public recreation areas received more than one million 

recreational visits (taking into account both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident 

visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-nine percent of the total visitation at the Oxford 

Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Boat 

fishing (15 percent), motor boating (11 percent), bank/pier fishing (9 percent), and swimming 

(9 percent) are the primary recreational activities at the Lake Hickory recreation areas. At the 

Oxford regulated river reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily sightseeing 

(31 percent), picnicking (22 percent), and walking (14 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Oxford Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity greater 

than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 54). During the study period, none of the access 

areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

For Lake Hickory, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 41 boats (weekday), 281 boats (weekend), and 278 boats (holiday). The average 

number of boats were: 28 boats (weekday), 171 boats (weekend), and 143 boats (holiday). In 

terms of overall lake-wide capacity, for the peak day the estimated percent of capacity was 

10 percent (weekday), 71 percent (weekend), and 70 percent (holiday). Based on the average 

boat counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 7 percent (weekday), 43 percent 

(weekend), and 36 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 47 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

Hickory and by 58 percent for the Oxford regulated river reach. For Lake Hickory, boating 

(motor boating and boat fishing), and bank/pier fishing are anticipated to receive the greatest 

amounts of future use. Sightseeing, picnicking, and walking are anticipated to receive the 

greatest amounts of future use at the Oxford regulated river reach. For Lake Hickory, Duke 

Energy estimated 167 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 6 acres 

of beaches, 9 acres of picnic areas, 20 acres of campsites, 116 acres of boat ramps, 4 acres of 

hiking trails, and 12 acres of fishing access areas. For the Oxford regulated river reach, an 

estimated 1 acre would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through 

2050 for picnic areas, campsites, and hiking trails. 

273 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 54. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Oxford Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Hickory 

Bud Geitner Park 0 15 32 NA 

Glenn C. Hilton 

Park 0 39 81 NA 

Gunpowder 60 16 24 26% 

Lovelady 49 22 58 46% 

Wittenburg 206 44 84 21% 

Dusty Ridge 117 10 24 9% 

Oxford Access Area 125 18 28 14% 

Oxford Canoe 

Portage 20 4 12 21% 

Oxford Regulated 

Reach 

Riverbend Park 0 6 16 NA 

Lookout Shoals Development 

The Lookout Shoals Development public recreation areas received more than 

243,000 recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident 

visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-nine percent of the total visitation at the Lookout 

Shoals Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Boat fishing (18 percent), motor boating (10 percent), and swimming (8 percent) are the primary 

recreational activities at the Lookout Shoals Lake recreation areas. At the tailrace and Lookout 

Shoals regulated river reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily tailrace fishing, 

(75 percent), boat fishing (12 percent), and hunting (12 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Lookout Shoals Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity 

greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 55). During the study period, none of 

the access areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

274 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 55. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Lookout Shoals Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff) 

 Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lookout Shoals Lake 

Sharon Access Area 29 7 12 24% 

Lookout Shoals 

Access Area 56 23 33 41% 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 48 percent between 2004 and 2050 for 

Lookout Shoals Lake and by 49 percent for the Lookout Shoals regulated river reach. For 

Lookout Shoals Lake, boating (motor boating and boat fishing) and sightseeing are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use. Boat fishing and sunbathing are anticipated to receive 

the greatest amounts of future use at the Lookout Shoals regulated river reach. For Lookout 

Shoals Lake, Duke Energy estimated 36 acres would be required to accommodate future 

recreational facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006) 

that includes approximately 1 acre of beaches, 1 acre of picnic areas, 13 acres of campsites, 

19 acres of boat ramps, 1 acre of hiking trails, and 2 acres of fishing access areas. For Lookout 

Shoals regulated river reach, an estimated 3 acres of fishing access area would be required to 

accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. 

Cowans Ford Development 

More than 3.1 million people visited the Cowans Ford Development (Lake Norman and 

Cowans Ford tailrace) public recreation areas (including both recreational area visitors and 

shoreline resident visitors) for the 2004-1005 study period. Sixty-four percent of the visitation at 

the Cowans Ford Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through 

September). Visitors to the Cowans Ford Development recreation areas were primarily 

swimming (10 percent), motor boating (10 percent), sunbathing (8 percent), and boat fishing 

(7 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Cowans Ford Development on non-holiday weekends, the Marshall fishing area had a mean 

percent capacity of 87 percent, Roosevelt Wilson Park had a mean percent capacity of 

243 percent, and the McGuire fishing area was close to 50 percent capacity (table 56). 

275 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 56. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Cowans Ford Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

and staff) 

 Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Norman 

Hunsucker Park 20 1 2 4% 

Long Island 50 2 5 5% 

Lake Norman State 

Park 16 31 NA 

Stumpy Creek 157 58 106 37% 

Pinnacle 146 20 63 14% 

McCrary Creek 103 37 49 36% 

Marshall Fishing 

Area 38 33 57 87% 

Hager Creek 125 3 6 3% 

Little Creek 63 8 18 13% 

Roosevelt Wilson 

Park 6 15 29 243% 

Beatty’s Ford 126 2 6 2% 

Jetton Road County 

Park 28 74 NA 

Ramsey Creek 295 31 52 11% 

Blythe Landing 

County Park 261 24 48 9% 

McGuire Fishing 

Area 55 27 43 49% 

For Lake Norman, the peak numbers of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 262 boats (weekday), 982 boats (weekend), and 1,814 boats (holiday). The 

average number of boats were 210 boats (weekday), 830 boats (weekend), and 1,104 boats 

(holiday). For the peak day, the estimated percent of capacity in terms of overall lake-wide 

capacity was 6 percent (weekday), 23 percent (weekend), and 43 percent (holiday). Based on the 

average boat counts, the estimated percent of capacity was 5 percent (weekday), 20 percent 

(weekend), and 26 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 62 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Cowans Ford Development. Motor boating, swimming, and sightseeing are anticipated to 

276 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Lake Norman, Duke Energy estimated that 

approximately 489 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand 

through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes approximately 

20 acres of beaches, 31 acres of picnic areas, 104 acres of campsites, 289 acres of boat ramps, 

23 acres of hiking trails, and 23 acres of fishing access areas. 

Mountain Island Development 

The Mountain Island Development public recreation areas received more than 

479,000 recreational visits (taking into account both recreational area visitors and shoreline 

resident visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the visitation at the 

Mountain Island Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through 

September). Visitors to the development recreation areas were primarily swimming (9 percent), 

motor boating (9 percent), boat fishing (7 percent), picnicking (7 percent), sightseeing 

(7 percent), and sunbathing (6 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Mountain Island Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity 

greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 57). 

Table 57. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Mountain Island Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 

2006; staff) 

 Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Mountain Island Lake 

Cowans Ford 

Wildlife Refuge 14 4 16 29% 

Rural Hill Park 7 0 1 4% 

Neck Road 65 0 0 0% 

Latta Plantation 

County Park 179 19 33 11% 

Riverbend 104 34 69 33% 

For Mountain Island Lake, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 19 boats (weekday), 67 boats (weekend), and 165 boats (holiday). The average 

number of boats were 13 boats (weekday), 51 boats (weekend), and 108 boats (holiday). In 

terms of overall lake-wide capacity, for the peak day the estimated percent of capacity was 

7 percent (weekday), 26 percent (weekend), and 64 percent (holiday). Based on the average boat 

counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 5 percent (weekday), 20 percent 

(weekend), and 42 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

277 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recreational use is estimated to increase by 63 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Mountain Island Development. Motor boating, sightseeing, and swimming are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Mountain Island Lake, Duke Energy estimated 

that approximately 87 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 

approximately 3 acres of beaches, 6 acres of picnic areas, 19 acres of campsites, 50 acres of 

boat ramps, 4 acres of hiking trails, and 4 acres of fishing access areas. 

Wylie Development 

The Wylie Development public recreation areas received more than 2.3 million 

recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident visitors) for the 

2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the total visitation at the Wylie Development 

occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Bank/pier fishing 

(20 percent), sightseeing (17 percent), walking (14 percent), and picnicking (10 percent) are the 

primary recreational activities at the Lake Wylie recreation areas. At the Wylie regulated river 

reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily bank/pier fishing (20 percent), 

sightseeing (17 percent), walking (14 percent), and picnicking (10 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Wylie Development on non-holiday weekends, the Mountain Island River Park had a mean 

percent capacity of 146 percent, and the Nivens Creek Access Area had a mean percent capacity 

of 111 percent (table 58). The Buster Boyd Access Area was close to 50 percent capacity on 

non-holiday weekends. During the study period, the Nivens Creek Access Area was recorded 

over capacity 50 percent of the time on non-holiday weekends. 

Table 58. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Wylie Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Wylie 

Mountain Island 

River Park 24 35 92 146% 

Mountain Island 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

22 4 7 18% 

Mount Holly River 

Street Park 30 1 8 5% 

Allen Fishing Area 29 4 10 13% 

South Point 172 41 86 24% 

Copperhead 100 33 76 33% 

278 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Buster Boyd 176 83 216 47% 

McDowell Park 28 105 NA 

Allison Creek 106 39 81 37% 

Ebenezer Park 236 75 156 32% 

Nivens Creek 34 38 93 111% 50% 

Wylie Regulated River Reach 

Fort Mill 20 5 7 26% 

Rock Hill River 

Park 6 11 NA 

Landsford Canal 

State Park 25 55 NA 

For Lake Wylie, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were conducted 

were 117 boats (weekday), 238 boats (weekend), and 506 boats (holiday). The average number 

of boats was 75 boats (weekday), 222 boats (weekend), and 397 boats (holiday). For the peak 

day, in terms of overall lake-wide capacity, the estimated percent of capacity was 8 percent 

(weekday), 17 percent (weekend), and 37 percent (holiday). Based on the average boat counts 

per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 5 percent (weekday), 16 percent (weekend), 

and 29 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 65 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

Wylie and by 64 percent for the Wylie regulated river reach. For Lake Wylie, motor boating, 

bank/pier fishing, boat fishing, and swimming are anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of 

future use. Bank/pier fishing, sightseeing, walking, and picnicking are anticipated to receive the 

greatest amounts of future use at the Wylie regulated river reach. For Lake Wylie, Duke Energy 

estimated that approximately 410 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational 

facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006), including 

about 15 acres of beaches, 26 acres of picnic areas, 93 acres of campsites, 227 acres of boat 

ramps, 18 acres of hiking trails, and 32 acres of fishing access areas. For the Wylie regulated 

river reach, Duke Energy estimated that approximately 5 acres would be required to 

accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes about 

1 acre of picnic areas, less than 1 acre of campsites, 1 acre of boat ramps, 3 acres of hiking trails, 

and 1 acre of fishing access areas. 

Fishing Creek Development 

The Fishing Creek Development public recreation areas received more than 233,000 

recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident visitors) for the 

2004-2005 study period. Sixty-six percent of the visitation at the Fishing Creek Development 

occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Visitors to the Fishing 

279 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Creek Development recreation areas were primarily bank/pier fishing (24 percent), boat fishing 

(22 percent), and motor boating (10 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Fishing Creek Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity 

greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 59). During the study period, none of 

the access areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

Table 59. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Fishing Creek Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; 

staff) 

 Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Fishing Creek Reservoir 

Highway 9 Landing 20 6 16 29% 

Cane Creek 35 5 10 13% 

Fishing Creek 60 13 19 22% 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 39 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Fishing Creek Development. Bank/pier fishing, boat fishing, and motor boating are anticipated 

to receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Fishing Creek Lake, Duke Energy estimated 

that approximately 358 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006) including about 1 acre 

of beaches, 2 acres of picnic areas, 2 acres of campsites, 24 acres of boat ramps, less than 1 acre 

of hiking trails, and 7 acres of fishing access areas. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

There are currently no public recreation areas associated with the Great Falls reservoir, 

tailraces, and bypassed reaches. Therefore, future use estimates were not projected. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

About 51,000 people visited the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments’ (Cedar 

Creek reservoir and tailraces) recreation areas (including both recreational area visitors and 

shoreline resident visitors) for the 2004-1005 study period. Fifty-six percent of the visitation at 

the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments occurred during the peak recreation season 

(April through September). Visitors to the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments’ 

recreation areas were primarily boat fishing (30 percent), bank/pier fishing (22 percent), 

sightseeing (7 percent), and picnicking (7 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

280 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments, none of the recreation access areas had a mean 

percent capacity greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 60). During the study 

period, none of the access areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

Table 60. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments. (Source: Study Team/Resource 

Committee, 2006; staff) 

 Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 

Stumpy Pond 23 4 10 16% 

Debutary Creek 20 5 17 23% 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 41 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Developments. Boat fishing, bank/pier fishing, and sightseeing are 

the recreational activities anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Cedar 

Creek reservoir, Duke Energy estimated that 9 acres would be required to accommodate future 

recreational facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

This includes less than 1 acre of beaches, 1 acre of picnic areas, 1 acre of campsites, 6 acres of 

boat ramps, less than 1 acre of hiking trails, and 1 acre of fishing access areas. 

Wateree Development 

The Wateree Development public recreation areas received more than 680,000 

recreational visits (taking into account both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident 

visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the total visitation at the 

Wateree Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Boat fishing (13 percent), swimming (11 percent), motor boating (10 percent), and bank/pier 

fishing (9 percent) are the primary recreational activities at the Lake Wateree recreation areas. 

At the Wateree regulated river reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily tailrace 

fishing (45 percent), bank/pier fishing (21 percent), and boat fishing (16 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Wateree Development on non-holiday weekends, the Wateree Creek Access Area had a mean 

percent capacity of 50 percent, White Oak Creek Access Area had a mean percent capacity of 

63 percent, and the Highway 1 landing had a mean percent capacity of 58 percent (table 61). 

The Beaver Creek Landing was close to 50 percent capacity on non-holiday weekends. During 

the study period, the White Oak Creek Access Area was recorded over capacity 11 percent of the 

time on non-holiday weekends. 

281 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 61. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

Wateree Development. (Source: Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006; staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Wateree 

Cedar Creek 55 13 26 23% 

Wateree Creek 

Bridge 0 0 2 NA 

Wateree Creek 

Access Area 37 19 36 50% 

Taylors Creek 

Access Area 70 14 35 20% 

Taylors Creek 

Bridge 2 0 0 0% 

Lake Wateree State 

Park 30 78 NA 

Dutchman’s Creek 

Bridge 4 1 2 13% 

June Creek 35 12 23 34% 

Beaver Creek 

Landing 45 19 78 43% 

Colonel’s Creek 

Bridge 4 1 2 13% 

Colonel’s Creek 

Access Area 72 21 38 30% 

White Oak Creek 88 55 91 63% 11% 

Buck Hill 50 11 21 22% 

Wateree Regulated River Reach 

Lugoff 48 12 25 26% 

Highway 1 Landing 26 15 27 58% 

Billy Tolar Landing 49 15 15 31% 

For Lake Wateree, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 62 boats (weekday), 158 boats (weekend), and 260 boats (holiday). The average 

number of boats was 38 boats (weekday), 117 boats (weekend), and 168 boats (holiday). In 

terms of overall lake-wide capacity, for the peak day the estimated percent of capacity was 

3 percent (weekday), 9 percent (weekend), and 14 percent (holiday). Based on the average boat 

282 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 2 percent (weekday), 6 percent 

(weekend), and 9 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 30 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

Wateree and by 24 percent for the Wateree regulated river reach. For Lake Wateree, motor 

boating, boat fishing, and swimming are anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of future use. 

Tent/vehicle camping, swimming, bank/pier fishing, and motor boating are anticipated to receive 

the greatest amounts of future use at the Wateree regulated river reach. For Lake Wateree, Duke 

Energy estimates 124 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 

approximately 4 acres of beaches, 6 acres of picnic areas, 40 acres of campsites, 65 acres of boat 

ramps, 3 acres of hiking trails, and 8 acres of fishing access areas. For the Wateree regulated 

river reach, an estimated 31 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational 

facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes less than 1 acre of beaches, 1 acre of 

picnic areas, 11 acres of campsites, 6 acres of boat ramps, 3 acres of hiking trails, and 10 acres of 

fishing. 

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects 

Reservoir Elevations 

Duke Energy proposes to continue to maintain the normal target reservoir elevation high 

enough to ensure that all boat ramps at Duke Energy-owned public access areas would be usable 

during the peak recreation season and to ensure that the majority of the reservoirs’ surface area is 

boatable during the peak recreation season, which runs from April through September. The 

proposed reservoir level ranges are generally not as broad as existing ranges, and proposed 

overall reservoir target levels are slightly higher or similar to those under the existing license. 

Duke Energy proposes, within 60 days of license issuance, to operate the project to maintain 

reservoir elevations within specific normal minimum and normal maximum elevations around 

normal target elevations. The proposed normal minimum elevation ranges from 1.5 to 4 ft 

(generally about 2-3 ft) below the normal target elevation, depending on the reservoir and 

season, taking into consideration the following: (1) the ability to draw down the reservoir when 

substantial precipitation is expected; (2) the ability to use a portion of the reservoir storage 

during relatively dry periods; (3) the ability to ensure that all public water supply, large 

industrial, and regional power station water intakes on the reservoirs are fully usable; and (4) the 

ability to ensure that most of the boat ramps at the Duke Energy-owned public access areas on 

the reservoirs are operational. Duke Energy’s proposed reservoir elevations are discussed further 

in section 3.3.2.2.1 Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Water Quantity. 

Ms. Donna Lisenby, the Catawba Riverkeeper, commented that target elevations are not 

enforceable and that the minimum elevations for some reservoirs are lower than the previous 

guide curves. 

Mr. Chris Goudreau with North Carolina WRC comments that the new reservoir level 

regimes will expand the time of year that the project reservoirs can be used for recreational 

purposes, particularly for Lake James where the reservoir will be filled earlier in the spring and 

held high longer in the fall. 

283 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Our Analysis 

As part of a Comprehensive Relicensing Settlement Agreement (CRA) (Proposed Article 

A-1.0 Reservoir Elevations), Duke Energy’s proposal would expand the time of year that the 

project reservoirs can be used for recreational purposes, particularly for Lake James where the 

reservoir will be filled earlier in the spring and held high longer in the fall. The proposed 

reservoir elevations would generally reduce the reservoir elevation fluctuations with the normal 

minimum elevation ranging from 1.5 to 4 ft (generally 2 to 3 ft) below the normal target 

elevation. Proposed reservoir target levels are generally slightly higher than existing, but there 

would be no associated effects on recreational use and access at the project which currently 

supports more than 10.1 million recreation days annually. 

A normal minimum elevation of 4 ft below the normal target elevation is proposed at 

Lake James during the month of April only and at Lake Wateree during the month of November 

only. The November period is outside of the project’s peak recreation season while the April 

period is still inside the project peak recreation season. Lake Wateree receives about 9 percent 

of the total recreational use at the project while Lake James receives about 8 percent. The 

recreational use and needs study conducted for the relicensing, which included surveys of 

recreation access area visitors and shoreline residents, did not identify reservoir levels as an issue 

related to recreational use or boating. 

The reservoir level study conducted during relicensing showed that historic reservoir 

levels were influenced over the life of the Catawba-Wateree hydroelectric facilities by 

hydrologic conditions, maintenance needs, and power generation needs. The magnitude of 

reservoir level variation and the number of days when boating access was restricted due to 

reservoir levels have generally decreased in recent years (Duke Energy, 2005a). The study 

report summarized the critical reservoir elevations17 for boating access as feet msl relative to 

100 ft equal to full pond. The critical reservoir elevation is 92.0 ft for Lake James, 95.5 ft for 

Lake Wylie, 95.0 ft for Fishing Creek reservoir, 96.0 ft for Cedar Creek reservoir, 93.0 ft for 

Lake Wateree, not applicable for Great Falls reservoir, and 91.0 ft for the remaining project 

reservoirs. Duke Energy’s proposed normal target elevations are well above these critical 

reservoir elevations. Generally, Duke Energy’s proposed normal minimum elevations are at or 

above these critical reservoir elevations, except for Lake Wylie where the proposed year-round 

normal minimum elevation is 94 ft, which is below the critical reservoir elevation for boating 

access but above the critical elevation for power production and municipal/industrial intakes. 

We conclude that that the proposed reservoir elevations would not have an adverse effect 

on recreation at the project. 

Under the proposed license article, Duke Energy proposes in good faith to endeavor to 

achieve the normal target elevations and maintain reservoir levels within the newly established 

minimum and normal maximum elevations unless operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or 

the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Duke Energy also proposes (Proposed License 

Article A-6.0 Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring) to file a report by June 30 of each year 

with the Commission that verifies compliance for the previous year with the normal minimum 

 17 Critical reservoir elevations for boating access are the reservoir elevations below which 

public boating access to the reservoir is restricted based on keeping at least two Duke Energyowned recreation access areas open per reservoir. 

284 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
reservoir elevations and normal maximum reservoir elevations, Spring Reservoir Level 

Stabilization Program, recreational flow releases, minimum continuous flows, minimum average 

daily flows, and the Wylie High Inflow Protocol. Thus, compliance with reservoir elevations 

would be reviewed by the Commission. 

In the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, to address the flooding issue at Lake Wateree, 

Duke Energy and the signatories agree that Duke Energy would install a bladder dam along the 

Wateree dam’s spillway to provide approximately 10,000 cfs flow release capacity with Lake 

Wateree at full pond elevation to improve Duke Energy’s flood management capabilities at Lake 

Wateree. The Revised CRA states that the signatories agree this measure would not prevent 

flooding on Lake Wateree above any specific elevation. DOI, American Rivers, and the Coastal 

Conservation League recommend the inclusion of the proposed bladder dam in the new license 

regardless of the license term. 

Although the flooding issues and proposed bladder dam at the Wateree Development 

were not raised as an issue for recreational use and access, flooding has the potential to affect 

recreational use and access. Lake Wateree currently has 9 public recreation access areas with 

20 boat ramps and 2 fishing piers. Flooding has the potential to limit access to recreation access 

areas if roads are flooded, and also to inundate boat ramps, making them inaccessible to the 

public. While flooding is expected to continue even with the proposed bladder dam, it would 

occur less frequently and less severely than under current conditions. Therefore, potential 

flooding impacts to recreational use and facilities would be lessened, though not eliminated, 

under Duke Energy’s proposal. As discussed in section 3.3.2.2.1, Water Resources, 

Environmental Effects, Water Quantity, high intensity rainfall events have been shown to cause 

Lake Wateree to rise above the normal full reservoir elevation (225.5 ft msl). The potential for 

such occurrences is exacerbated if the rainfall events occur within the portion of the Catawba 

watershed downstream of Lake Wylie because the three reservoirs between Wylie and Wateree 

have limited storage capacity. Lake Norman and Lake James are the only upstream reservoirs 

with significant storage capacity in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. 

Under the existing license, Duke Energy attempts to maintain the water surface level in 

Lake Wateree at a year-round target elevation of 97 ft; however, the proposed water surface 

under the new license would be 95 ft in December, 94.5 ft in January, and 97 ft the remainder of 

the year. Since most high rainfall events would probably occur in the late winter or early spring, 

potential flooding impacts to recreational use and facilities are less than they would be if high 

rainfall events typically occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Minimum Flows, Recreational Flows, and Streamflow Monitoring 

Under existing conditions at the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy releases a 

continuous minimum flow of at least 25 cfs from the Linville dam into the Bridgewater tailrace 

and 0 cfs from the Catawba dam into the Catawba River bypassed reach. Duke Energy currently 

releases a continuous minimum flow of at least 40 cfs from the Oxford Development, 60 cfs 

from the Lookout Shoals Development, 0 cfs from the Wylie Development, 0 cfs from the Great 

Falls and Dearborn Developments into the Long and Short bypassed reaches, and 0 cfs from the 

Wateree Development. 

Duke Energy proposes to provide increased minimum flows from the Bridgewater, 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Fall-Dearborn, and Wateree Developments to protect and 

enhance aquatic habitat and water quality in the downstream riverine sections, in addition to 

285 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
minimum average daily flows from the remaining project developments, as described in 

section 3.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects. 

South Carolina DNR comments that the minimum flows proposed by Duke Energy for 

aquatic habitat would comply with the state water plan, enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the 

Catawba River Basin, meet all requirements for recreational navigation, and protect and enhance 

water quality. South Carolina DNR also comments that the proposed Wylie High Inflow 

Protocol would provide some additional benefit to the aquatic community in the Catawba River 

below Lake Wylie and enhance recreational navigation. 

Mr. Tim Mead, representing recreational anglers, comments that recreational anglers are 

pleased with the minimum flows in the river reaches below Lake James and Lake Wylie. 

Duke Energy proposes to provide dedicated recreational flow releases at rates and on 

schedules to support paddling, wade fishing, boat fishing, and other activities. These new 

scheduled flows would be provided in the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated 

river reaches as well as scheduled flow releases for canoeing and whitewater boating into the 

Great Falls bypassed reaches. These recreational flows would be provided within 60 days of 

license issuance at the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments and could be 

temporarily modified if Duke Energy is operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Duke Energy proposes to convene an annual recreational 

flow schedule planning meeting in March of each year with North Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, and other entities with recreational 

experience or expertise to identify potential improvements to the recreational flow release 

schedule, to establish the schedule for the added recreational flow releases (10 additional hours 

of recreational flows at each location per year), and to identify potential dates for replacement 

flows at the Bridgewater Development. 

Duke Energy proposes to provide recreational flow releases at the Bridgewater 

Development to support float angling and paddling, in accordance with the schedule shown in 

table 62. The flows for float angling would be as close as feasible to 900 cfs, but would not 

exceed 1,200 cfs, and the flows for paddling would be at least 900 cfs with scheduled 

recreational flow release days divided approximately equally. Scheduling of specific dates each 

year that are focused on float angling or paddling would be determined at the annual recreational 

flow schedule planning meeting. At the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy would provide 

up to 10 additional hours of recreational flow releases per calendar year in addition to the 

recreational flow releases identified in table 62. Flows would be provided in increments of no 

less than 1 hour each of 900 to 1,200 cfs. If Duke Energy is not operating in accordance with the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol and needs to operate the Bridgewater Development to 

release more than 1,200 cfs for 3 or more hours during any of the scheduled flow release periods 

to support float angling, then Duke Energy would endeavor in good faith to add equivalent hours 

of replacement recreational flow releases for float angling at the Bridgewater Development 

within the same calendar year. 

286 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 62. Bridgewater Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a) 

Dates (inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Apr 1–Apr 30 Last full weekend–Saturday and 

Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

May 1–Jul 15 

Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Memorial Day and 

Independence Day 

900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Jul 16–Aug 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Jun 1–July 31 Wednesdays and Thursdays 900 4:30 PM 6:30 PM 

Sep 1–Sep 30 Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Labor Day 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Duke Energy proposes to provide up to 10 hours per calendar year, in increments of no 

less than 1 hour each, of recreational flow releases at the Oxford Development of at least 

2,600 cfs in addition to the scheduled flows shown in table 63. 

Table 63. Oxford Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a) 

Dates (inclusive) Days/Description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour Start Hour End 

May 1–Sept 30 

Each Saturday and Sunday plus 

Memorial, Independence, and 

Labor Days 

2,600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 First four Saturdays 2,600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Duke Energy proposes to provide up to 10 hours per calendar year, in increments of no 

less than 1 hour each, of recreational flow releases of at least 3,000 cfs at the Wylie 

Development in addition to the scheduled flows shown in table 64. In addition, Duke Energy 

proposes, from May 1 to July 15, inclusive, to release at least 1,300 cfs for 6 hours prior to the 

recreational flow release scheduled start times shown in table 64 to ensure suitable water levels 

at the Landsford Canal State Park. 

287 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 64. Wylie Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a) 

Dates 

(inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Apr 1–Apr 30 Last full weekend–Saturday and 

Sunday 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

May 1–Jun 15 Each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 

plus Memorial Day 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Jun 16–Jul 15 Each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 

plus Independence Day 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Jul 16–Aug 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Sep 1–Sep 30 Each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 

plus Labor Day 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Duke Energy proposes to evaluate safety concerns associated with boating near the Great 

Falls Diversion dam, the Great Falls headworks, and the Great Falls-Dearborn dam, and 

determine the need for constructing boating safety devices upstream of the structures. This 

evaluation would be completed, and the necessary structures would be completed prior to 

beginning the recreational flows. Duke Energy proposes, within 60 days following completion 

of the structural modifications at both the Great Falls diversion dam and the Great Falls 

headworks and the completion of the Highway 200 Bridge Access Area, the Great Falls 

diversion dam portage, the Great Falls headworks portage, and the Great Falls headworks-toCedar Creek reservoir portage, to provide recreational flow releases as summarized in table 65 of 

at least 2,940 cfs into Great Falls Long bypassed reach and at least 2,860 cfs into Great Falls 

Short bypassed reach, as well as 10 additional hours of recreational flow per calendar year, in 

increments of no less than 1 hour each, of at least 2,860 cfs at the Great Falls Short bypassed 

reach and at least 2,940 cfs at the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. 

288 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 65. Great Falls and Dearborn Developments recreational flow schedule. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2006a) 

Channel Dates (inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Two Saturdays per 

month Long 2,940 

Bypassed 

Reach 

Mar 1–Oct 31 

A total of four 

Saturdays 2,940 

10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Mar 1–Apr 30 

One Saturday per 

month to 

correspond with 

Long bypass 

releases 

2,860 

Short 

Bypassed 

Reach 

May 1–Oct 31 

Two weekends 

(Saturday and 

Sunday) per month 

2,860

10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Duke Energy proposes to provide up to 10 additional hours per calendar year, in 

increments of no less than 1 hour each, of recreational flow releases at the Wateree Development 

and at least 2,760 cfs in addition to the scheduled flows shown in table 66. 

Table 66. Wateree Development recreational flow schedule. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a) 

Dates (inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Apr 1–Apr 30 Last full weekend–Saturday 

and Sunday 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

May 1–Jul 31 

Each Saturday and Sunday plus 

Memorial and Independence 

Days 

2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Sep 1–Sep 30 Each Saturday and Sunday plus 

Labor Day 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Many comments were received supporting the scheduled recreational flows. Mr. Irvin 

Pitts with South Carolina DPRT and Mr. Maurice Blackburn with the Carolina Canoe Club 

support the recreational flows and conclude they will enhance tourism in the area. Mr. 

Blackburn comments that the negotiated recreational flows, particularly at Bridgewater, took into 

account downstream angling. Mr. Ben Van Camp and Mr. Andrew Lazenby with American 

Whitewater support the recreational flows, particularly in the Bridgewater Reach, which has 

289 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
good beginner Class II and intermediate whitewater, and at Great Falls. Mr. Chris Goudreau, 

North Carolina WRC, comments that the scheduled recreational flows will be a good 

improvement from existing conditions. Ms. Barbara Baddy with Catawba County, North 

Carolina, supports the recreational flows at the Oxford development. Mr. Nick Stegall, City of 

Rock Hill, South Carolina, comments that the proposed recreational flows are adequate for 

improved boating access below Lake Wylie. Ms. Glenda Coleman, Great Falls Hometown 

Association, comments that the recreational flows will attract paddlers from other states and help 

restore the town of Great Falls to a nature-based economy. The North Carolina Wildlife 

Federation comments that the increased flows will benefit paddlers, float hunters, and wade 

anglers. South Carolina DNR supports the recreational flows and comments that the recreational 

flows will enhance paddling and boating opportunities, but recommends the Commission 

evaluate the effect of these flows on operations and natural resources, particularly at Great Falls. 

Duke Energy proposes, within 1 year following the implementation of the minimum 

continuous flow from the Linville dam at the Bridgewater Development, to fund the installation 

of a new USGS streamflow gage to be located on the Linville River between the Linville dam 

and the confluence with the Catawba River to monitor compliance with the minimum flow and 

recreational flow release requirements and to provide a readily available source of public 

information. Additionally, Duke Energy proposes to fund the annual maintenance cost for the 

term of the new license for the new gage and for six existing USGS streamflow gages 

(#02137727 Catawba River near Pleasant Gardens, North Carolina; #02140991 Johns River at 

Arney’s Store, North Carolina; #02145000 South Fork Catawba River at Lowell, North Carolina; 

#02146000 Catawba River near Rock Hill, South Carolina; #02147500 Rocky Creek at Great 

Falls, South Carolina; and #02148000 Wateree River near Camden, South Carolina) to monitor 

compliance with the minimum flow and recreational flow release requirements and to provide a 

readily available source of information. 

Duke Energy also proposes to file a report by June 30 of each year with the Commission 

that verifies compliance for the previous year with reservoir level and flow requirements, 

including normal minimum reservoir elevations and normal maximum reservoir elevations, 

recreational flow releases, minimum continuous flows, and minimum average daily flows. 

South Carolina DNR comments that it concurs with Duke Energy’s proposal to fund the 

installation and annual maintenance cost for the term of the new license of a new USGS 

streamflow gage to be located on the Linville River between the Linville dam and the confluence 

with the Catawba River to monitor compliance with the minimum flow and recreational flow 

release requirements. It also concurs with Duke Energy’s proposal to file a report by June 30 of 

each year with the Commission that verifies compliance for the previous year with reservoir 

level and flow requirements. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed minimum flows (Proposed Article A-2.0 Minimum Flows) and 

additional recreational flows (Proposed Article A-2.0 Recreational Flows) would enhance 

recreational opportunities by providing non-motorized boating and fishing opportunities. The 

proposed minimum flows at most of the developments represent a modest to moderate increase 

in minimum flows over what is currently provided. For the recreation use and needs study 

conducted for the relicensing, recreation access area visitors and shoreline residents provided 

considerable input on the need for additional flows in the bypassed reaches at the Great Fall290 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Dearborn Developments and an interest in additional recreational opportunities in the tailraces, 

regulated river reaches, and bypassed reaches. 

FWS, American Rivers, and the Coastal Conservation League commented that the 

Wateree River (below Wateree Lake) and portions of the Catawba River (from above Fishing 

Creek reservoir to Lake Wylie and from the backwaters of Lake James to the Catawba River 

headwaters) are included in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory as potentially eligible for wild and 

scenic river designation. They state that pursuant to a 1979 Presidential Directive and Council 

on Environmental Quality procedures, the Commission must seek to avoid or mitigate actions 

that would have an adverse effect on one or more National Rivers Inventory segments. Duke 

Energy’s proposed minimum flows for the Wylie and Wateree Developments would enhance 

these sections by providing minimum flows to protect and enhance aquatic habitat and water 

quality in the downstream riverine sections, while the proposed recreation flows at the Wylie and 

Wateree Developments would enhance the recreational values. 

Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows would provide reliable flows for recreation 

that would greatly enhance recreational opportunities in the regulated river reaches and provide 

whitewater boating opportunities in the bypassed reaches at Great Falls, where there are 

currently none. Duke Energy proposes to provide weekend and holiday recreational flows 

during most of the project’s peak recreation season (April through September) at the 

Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments. Duke Energy proposes to provide 

recreational flows late April through September at the Bridgewater and Wylie Developments, 

late April through July and September at the Wateree Development, and May through September 

at the Oxford Development. Recreational flows are also proposed for most weekend days in 

October at these developments. A more limited schedule for recreational flow releases is 

proposed at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments with a total of 26 recreational flow days 

between the two bypassed reaches. 

Duke Energy conducted a recreation flow study during the relicensing to determine the 

flow, range, and timing of flows that would enhance recreational opportunities for anglers and 

boaters of various skill levels (Duke Energy, 2006j). The recreation flow study was designed to 

address public needs for riverine recreation flows, specifically those of recreational boaters 

(canoe, kayak, drift boat) and recreational anglers, not provide flows for aquatic habitat. Results 

from the boating evaluation were used to develop Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows. 

The proposed recreational flows for the Bridgewater Development are within the range for 

acceptable flows for paddling (400 cfs minimum and 1,000 cfs optimum) and for boat fishing 

(350 to 900 cfs). Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows for the Oxford Development are 

the optimum flow (2,600 cfs) for paddling and the minimum flow (2,600 cfs) for motorized 

boating. The proposed recreational flows at the Wylie Development reflect the minimum 

(3,000 cfs) and optimum (6,000 cfs) flows for paddling. The optimum paddling flow of 

3,000 cfs for the Great Falls Long bypassed reach is reflected in the proposed recreational flow 

of 2,940 cfs, and the proposed flow for the Great Falls Short bypassed reach is 2,860 cfs (slightly 

higher than the optimum paddling flow of 2,800 cfs). Duke Energy’s proposed recreational 

flows at the Wateree Development are slightly lower than the minimum suggested flow of 

3,500 cfs. 

Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows coupled with the proposed recreational 

enhancements at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments would provide good to excellent 

whitewater boating opportunities at the project in both the Great Falls Long and the Great Falls 

291 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Short bypassed reaches. Under existing conditions, there are no whitewater boating 

opportunities at the project. In comparing whitewater opportunities at the project to other rivers 

within a 1-hour drive, the recreation flow study participants noted that the overall experience at 

both Great Falls bypassed reaches was excellent, while the experience at Bridgewater, Wateree, 

and Wylie (Fort Mill to Sugar Creek) were rated as better than average. The Wylie section 

(Sugar Creek to Landsford Canal State Park) was rated as average during this comparison. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to convene an annual meeting with North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, and other entities with 

recreational experience or expertise to identify potential improvements to the recreational flow 

release schedule and to establish the schedule for the added recreational flow releases 

(10 additional hours of recreational flows at each location per year) would provide an 

opportunity to re-evaluate and modify as necessary, the recreational flow schedule. 

During periods of drought or emergency maintenance, the capacity to provide the 

recreational flows may be compromised, but Duke Energy has proposed a mechanism for 

temporary variance from recreational flow releases when conditions trigger implementation of 

the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Accurate and timely streamflow data provides important information for recreational 

visitors planning water-related activities at the project reservoirs, tailraces, and regulated river 

reaches. While Duke Energy’s proposal for funding the installation of a new USGS gage and for 

funding the maintenance costs of the new gage and six existing gages (Proposed Article A-6.0 

Funding for USGS Streamflow Gages) would allow Duke Energy to monitor compliance with 

the minimum flow and recreational flow release requirements, this proposal also would ensure 

that recreational users have a readily available source of public information. The streamflow 

information available through the USGS website would be useful to recreational users in 

planning and staging water-related visits to the project for fishing, flat water boating, and 

whitewater boating, and also would enhance public safety at the project by providing up-to-date 

information to recreational users about flows. 

This streamflow data would be used in the report proposed under the Proposed License 

Article A-6.0 Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring. Duke Energy proposes to file a report 

by June 30 of each year with the Commission that verifies compliance for the previous year with 

the recreational flow releases, minimum continuous flows, minimum average daily flows, normal 

minimum reservoir elevations and normal maximum reservoir elevations, Spring Reservoir 

Level Stabilization Program, and the Wylie High Inflow Protocol. This report would verify 

compliance with the Commission license requirements for streamflow. 

We conclude that Duke Energy’s proposed minimum flows, recreational flows, and 

provision of streamflow data would likely enhance recreational boating use of the project waters, 

as well as recreation-related spending, which would benefit local communities. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

The SMP and its guidelines provide classifications and lake use restrictions intended to 

regulate activities within the project to protect and enhance the scenic, cultural, environmental, 

public safety, and public recreational values of the reservoirs. Duke Energy is proposing 

changes to the existing project SMP in two areas: (1) revised shoreline classification maps, and 

292 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
(2) revised SMG. The proposed changes to the SMP and its guidelines were developed by Duke 

Energy, in consultation with resource agencies, and other interested stakeholders 

The SMP is fully discussed in section 3.3.8 Land Use and Aesthetics. The proposed SMP 

and its guidelines include a number of restrictions that could impact recreational resources. 

Water willow beds would have additional restrictions under the proposed SMP for construction. 

Excavations would be more limited in nature. Private and common use facilities would be 

restricted with a reduction in boat slips and limitation on watercraft moorings. The shoreline lot 

width would be increased for waterfront lots to be eligible for private piers or common use 

facilities. The number of watercraft per boat slip would be limited. Private individuals would 

not be allowed to rope-off or exclude the public from a portion of the project area for the purpose 

of creating a private swim area, and large inflatable recreation equipment would not be allowed 

within the project boundary. The facilities allowed at true public marinas would be considered 

for a maximum of 200 ft in length, provided the facility meets all the other requirements of a true 

public marina, and an exemption from requirements limiting the expansion of commercial 

marinas. The location of new boat ramps at residential marinas would be restricted from the 

backs of coves and smaller coves. 

Duke Energy’s SMP guidelines include Lake Use Policy Statements (Lake Policy). The 

Lake Policy delineates the types of access and activities that may be allowed on all reservoirs 

owned or managed by Duke Energy. With respect to the Catawba-Wateree Project, Lake Policy 

allows for review of four basic types of lake access: (1) private access; (2) public recreational 

access; (3) public infrastructure access; and (4) business/industrial access on the lakes with 

existing private and business development (James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Lookout Shoals, Norman, 

Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Cedar Creek, and Wateree). Public infrastructure and 

business/industrial access will be allowed in accordance with the Commission’s standard land 

use articles. The Lake Policy does not allow any additional private access on Great Falls 

reservoir, but public recreational access will be allowed as required to meet the terms of the new 

FERC license. 

Catawba County, North Carolina, states that the revised SMP will improve shoreline 

preservation by providing incentives for buffers and reduced the number of multi-slip boat 

facilities. 

Our Analysis 

Restrictions, shoreline use classifications, and identification of important habitat areas 

were developed and updated by Duke Energy with the assistance and consultation of agencies. 

Under the proposed shoreline use classification maps, Public Recreation areas, both existing and 

future, would account for approximately 7.0 percent of the project shoreline. Future Public 

Recreation classification remains nearly unchanged from the 2003 approved shoreline use 

classification maps. Future Commercial Marina classification has been reduced from 11.5 to 

5.5 percent, and Future Residential Marina classification has been reduced from 7.4 to 

2.0 percent. Conversely, Future Residential classification has increased from 4.8 to 10.8 percent. 

With these proposed changes in the shoreline use classification maps, minor decreases in 

the Future Commercial Marina and Future Residential Marina classifications could result in 

fewer marinas being developed project-wide. Increases in the Future Residential classification 

indicates that more of the project shoreline would be developed with residential dwellings, many 

of which would construct docks and other related private recreation facilities as allowed under 

293 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the SMP. The shoreline use classifications for natural, environmental, and impact minimization 

zones may have a negative impact on recreational resources since no development would be 

allowed to occur in areas classified as Natural, Environmental, or Bottomland Hardwood. 

The construction restrictions for water willow beds under the proposed SMP would 

restrict recreational facilities over water willow beds. These new provisions and restrictions 

could negatively impact recreational access. 

Under the proposed SMP, additional restrictions would be placed on excavation 

activities. Recreational access could be negatively impacted by these additional new restrictions. 

Private and common use facilities would be restricted under the proposed SMP. 

Although private boat ramps would not be allowed, there would be little impact on recreational 

access to the project waters due to the large number of existing and proposed boat ramps on each 

project reservoir. The proposed SMP would require that decks, gazebos, covered boat slips, and 

boat shelters constructed within the project boundary be single-story structures, which would 

enhance recreational safety on the project reservoirs by reducing the impacts of potential sight 

impairment of boaters and other recreationists to oncoming boat traffic. 

The proposed SMP also includes several changes regarding common use facilities: 

(1) common use facilities with more than three boat slips would not be eligible for mooring 

additional watercraft including personal watercrafts, and (2) no more than one common use boat 

slip per waterfront lot would be allowed, and ownership or interest in a common use facility 

would eliminate the eligibility of that person also to have a separate slip at another common-use 

facility. The proposed common use facility restrictions would significantly benefit project 

resources by reducing the total number of watercraft that can be moored on each reservoir and by 

reducing the overall total number of boat slips ultimately developed on the project reservoirs. 

Although the use, number, and location of common use facilities was not designed as a means to 

limit or control boater over-crowding and the boat density studies conducted during the 

relicensing did not find a direct correlation between the location of boat slips and boating 

activity, this reduction in total boat slips along with limitations on watercraft moorings will help 

to protect against potential future recreational crowding in certain areas of some of the project 

reservoirs. 

The proposed SMP also would increase the shoreline lot width for pier or common use 

facility eligibility. Although this requirement is not specifically intended to limit development or 

to reduce the number of piers or watercraft, this proposed modification to the SMG could limit 

the total number of new piers and other private recreation facilities that will be developed, which 

may help ensure against future over-crowding of the reservoirs and should help to preserve the 

recreational experience. 

Under the proposed SMP, only one watercraft at a time could be moored within a boat 

slip or docking/mooring location at a marina facility. Although this proposed requirement is not 

specifically intended to reduce the number of watercraft, reduce crowding, or increase safety on 

the reservoirs, this proposed change could help limit the total number of watercraft on the 

reservoirs which could help ensure against future over-crowding of the reservoirs by boats, 

improve boating safety, and preserve the quality of the boating experience. 

Large inflatable recreation equipment would not be allowed under the proposed SMP, 

and private individuals would not be allowed to rope-off or exclude the public from a portion of 

294 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the project area for the purpose of creating a private swim area. These new provisions would 

benefit boaters on the reservoirs by ensuring that ropes and buoys deployed by private 

individuals do not become navigational hazards. Recreational users of the project reservoirs also 

would benefit as the entire reservoir would remain available for public use. Through its current 

and proposed recreational facilities, Duke Energy has ensured that safe public swimming areas 

area available for use on nearly all the project reservoirs. 

The proposed SMP defines “true public marinas” and would allow these facilities to be a 

maximum length of 200 ft, provided the facility meets all the other requirements of a true public 

marina, and would allow the expansion of existing true public marinas to be exempted from 

adhering to certain requirements limiting expansion of other commercial facilities. True public 

marina facilities must also meet all the other requirements of a true public marina, including that 

the facility must not extend more than one-third the distance to the opposite shoreline as 

measured from the full pond contour or 200 ft waterward, whichever is more limiting. This 

requirement would help ensure that the facility does not limit or impact recreational use of the 

project reservoirs. These new provisions would allow existing true public marinas to expand, 

rather than to have new marinas developed, in order to accommodate increased recreational use 

and demand. In essence, this provision would encourage a clustering of additional boat slips and 

other marina facilities at a fewer number of larger facilities. Additionally, the proposed SMP 

would not allow new boat ramps at residential marinas to be located in the backs of coves or in 

smaller coves. Recreational resources would benefit from this provision. Restrictions on boat 

ramps in small coves would help to prevent boating congestion in the cove and reduce the 

potential for unsafe boating conditions. 

We conclude that Duke Energy’s proposed SMP and its guidelines would generally have 

positive effects on recreational resources. The proposed modifications would improve boating 

safety and the quality of the boating experience, and generally enhance the recreational 

experience. The proposed modifications also may help reduce recreational crowding in certain 

areas of some of the project reservoirs. Negative impacts would generally be related to 

limitations on facilities and uses. 

Public Information and Public Safety 

Public safety measures undertaken by Duke Energy are contained in the Public Safety 

Plans for each development that are filed with the Commission. Recreational maps for 11 of the 

13 developments (Great Falls and Dearborn Developments have no recreational areas), which is 

part of a map booklet including most of the Duke Energy’s lakes, contains the following warning 

to boaters: 

“Keep clear of power lines. Contact with or arcing from these lines can be very 

dangerous. Stay 300 feet away from the upstream and downstream sides of the 

dam and powerhouse. Do not enter the tailrace section directly below hydro 

stations. A flashing red beacon and/or sounding of a horn mean sudden rising 

swift and turbulent waters below the dam.” 

Duke Energy proposes to implement several measures within 60 days of license issuance 

to facilitate the public’s enjoyment of the project and support the safe and effective public use of 

the project’s resources. Duke Energy proposes to post the following reservoir level information 

for each project reservoir via its website: normal minimum elevation, normal target elevation, 

normal maximum elevation, actual reservoir level, recent reservoir level history, 13-month 

295 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
reservoir level history, projections, points of contact for additional information, and special 

messages. Special messages and actual levels for each project reservoir are proposed to be 

available via Duke Energy’s toll-free telephone system. Duke Energy also proposes to post an 

annual calendar on its website showing all scheduled flow releases from the Bridgewater (Lake 

James), Oxford (Lake Hickory), Wylie, and Wateree Developments and into the Great Falls 

bypassed reaches, including the dates, times of day, and expected minimum release rates of the 

scheduled releases. Additionally, Duke Energy proposes to post 2-day flow release forecasts on 

its website and toll-free telephone system for the Oxford (Lake Hickory), Wylie, and Wateree 

Developments and the Great Falls bypassed reaches; and 3-day flow release forecasts for the 

Bridgewater Development. 

DOI, more specifically BIA, recommends that Duke Energy, in consultation with CIN, 

develop a proactive notification system to alert CIN of all releases of water above minimum flow 

levels in the stretch of river below Wylie dam. DOI comments that pulsing operations at Wylie 

dam cause significant, rapid variations in the river volume, level , and flow strength resulting in 

potential safety hazards to tribal members using the river as it passes by their lands. 

Although the Catawba Riverkeeper, Ms. Donna Lisenby, comments that the proposed 

public information systems are good, she recommends a longer near-term forecast period over 

Duke Energy’s proposed 2-day flow release forecasts. 

The town of Cornelius recommends funding for public safety (such as the navigation 

aids, marine commissions) and environmental protection and enhancement on Lake Norman, 

including, but not limited to, an independent $10 million endowment fund. The town 

recommends the provision of resources for increased public safety on and around the lake, 

including, but not limited to, additional fire/rescue capacity and a lighted buoy navigation aid 

system. Mr. Gary Knox with the town comments that it is a challenge for the town to respond to 

the growing number of public safety calls on Lake Norman. 

Several comments were received supporting the proposed public information system, 

including comments from Mr. Maurice Blackburn with the Carolina Canoe Club, Mr. Michael 

McLaurin with the Lake Wylie and Mountain Island Lake Marine Commissions, American 

Whitewater, and Catawba County, North Carolina. 

Our Analysis 

Accurate and timely information provides important information to enhance public safety 

and to assist recreational visitors planning water-related activities at the project reservoirs, 

tailraces, and regulated river reaches. Duke Energy’s proposal (Proposed Article A-8.0 Public 

Information) would ensure that recreational users have a readily available source of public 

information. 

The availability of reservoir levels and projected reservoir levels would allow the public 

to know when water levels are expected to rise or fall while the availability of special messages 

via Duke Energy’s toll-free telephone system would alert the public of special circumstances that 

could affect public safety. The availability of this information would not only enhance public 

safety, but it also would be useful to recreational users in planning and staging water-related 

visits to the project. 

Although the Catawba Riverkeeper, Ms. Donna Lisenby, recommends a longer near-term 

forecast period over Duke Energy’s proposed 2-day flow release forecasts, 2 days is enough for a 

296 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
peaking facility because generating electricity is dependent on demand. Demand would be 

difficult for Duke Energy to forecast more than 2 days in advance. 

Additionally, the availability of flow release forecasts on Duke Energy’s website and tollfree telephone system and the annual calendar of scheduled flow releases would be useful to 

recreational users in planning and staging water-related visits to the project for fishing, flat water 

boating, and whitewater boating. The availability of this information would also enhance public 

safety at the project by providing up-to-date information about flows to alert the public about 

forecasted increases in flows so that the public is not caught in unexpected conditions. 

As part of the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, Duke Energy committed to providing, as 

non-license article measures, additional public information related to river flow (including 

frequent flow arrival and recession times, hotlinks on its website to USGS streamflow gages and 

groundwater monitoring wells, and special messages consistent with the Low Inflow Protocol or 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol); public information provided in English and universal 

signage; an annual media advisory to promote public awareness about the website and phone 

line; additional reservoir level information; information about the Duke Energy-owned public 

recreation facilities; a historic canoe trail map for the South Carolina portion of the Catawba 

River; and posting biennial recreation activities status reports and the FERC Form 80 Reports on 

the project website. Up-to-date river flow information would be useful to recreational users in 

planning and staging water-related visits to the project for fishing, flat water boating, and 

whitewater boating. The availability of this information would also enhance public safety at the 

project by providing up-to-date information about flows so that the public is not caught in 

unexpected conditions. We find that providing appropriate public information related to river 

flow in a manner that provides the most up-to-date information possible would enhance public 

safety at the project. While a number of the other non-license measures would also be helpful to 

the public, we do not find that they are necessary. 

As part of the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, Duke Energy committed to providing, as 

non-license article measures, public safety measures, including updates to its public safety plans, 

warning devices, Spanish language tailrace signage, horns at the Bridgewater and Oxford 

Developments, Riverbend Park warning system, English and universal signage, and facility 

exclusion zones. The revision and implementation of the public safety plans would enhance 

public safety at the project by taking into consideration the need for providing warnings of rising 

or falling water levels at recreation access areas affected by project operations, and signage for 

Spanish-speaking people, which is a demonstrated need in the project area. Since the 

development of the public safety plan and all of the public safety plan additions have been 

completed at the project, Duke Energy would need to implement the Commission-approved plan 

for the term of any new license. For all recreation access areas located within the project 

boundary, the Commission’s part 8 regulations for signage will apply. 

BIA recommends that Duke Energy, in consultation with the tribe, develop a proactive 

notification system to alert the tribe of all releases of water above minimum flow levels in the 

stretch of river below Wylie dam. The CIN reservation is located approximately 7 miles 

downstream of the Wylie Development, and Duke Energy comments that, during relicensing, it 

was learned that flow release patterns substantially attenuate in this distance and this location is 

not subject to the rapid variations that could be observed in the Wylie tailrace. Duke Energy has 

proposed to implement phone-based and internet-based public information systems, which are 

297 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
being recommend by staff for adoption, so the public can access information about planned 

operations. 

The town of Cornelius recommends funding for public safety (such as the navigation 

aids, marine commissions, and additional fire/rescue capacity). The town comments that it is a 

challenge for it to respond to the growing number of public safety calls on Lake Norman. The 

Lake Norman Marine Commission consists of members appointed by the counties bordering 

Lake Norman: Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg. As defined by the North Carolina 

1969 State Statute, the Lake Norman Marine Commission is responsible for taking appropriate 

responsibility for Lake Norman and its shoreline area for all matters relating to or affecting 

public recreation and water safety. It maintains a Navigational Marker System as part of its 

duties. Fire and rescue response funding is available through localities through other sources and 

is not a relicensing issue. 

Recreational Facility Enhancements 

Duke Energy proposes within 1 year of license issuance to develop and file with the 

Commission, in consultation with the North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South 

Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other entities, a recreation 

management plan (RMP) for the Catawba-Wateree Project that describes the implementation of 

the recreational enhancements proposed to be undertaken, described below by development. 

Duke Energy proposes that the RMP would include: (1) a schedule in 5-year increments for 

implementing the recreational enhancements within 20 years following Commission approval of 

the RMP; (2) maps that clearly identify all existing and proposed recreational areas in relation to 

the project boundary; (3) maps that identify where the project boundary would be modified such 

that all land areas associated with the recreational enhancements described in the RMP are 

incorporated into the project boundary; (4) conceptual facility site plans; (5) descriptions of how 

new facilities would be constructed and how new and existing facilities would be operated and 

maintained; (6) procedures for temporary closures of project recreation sites; (7) discussion of 

how the needs of the disabled were considered in planning and design of recreational facilities; 

(8) discussion of how Low Impact Development practices were considered in planning and 

design of recreational facilities; and (9) a description of the standardized recreational signage 

program for recreation sites. 

Duke Energy also proposes to file with the Commission a biennial report for the first 

20 years of the new license of the progress made under the RMP. Additionally, Duke Energy 

proposes to file with the Commission as-built drawings following the completion of construction 

for each recreation area within the project boundary. 

To address future recreational needs, Duke Energy proposes to complete a review of the 

project’s recreational needs at 20 years following the issuance of a new license and repeated at 

every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license. This review would include a 

recreation use and needs assessment and identification of any additional public recreational 

facility needs at the project. Subsequent to the reviews, Duke Energy proposes to file 

supplements to the RMP. Duke Energy proposes to consult with the North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other 

entities to provide recommendations on the assessment and the RMP. 

Duke Energy proposes to upgrade and improve existing recreational facilities and 

construct new recreational facilities within 20 years of the Commission’s approval of the RMP. 

298 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The RMP would include these proposed enhancements and a schedule in 5-year increments for 

development. The Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA includes a proposed schedule for 

implementation of these measures and the proposed measures are summarized by development in 

the sections below. 

DOI generally supports the Revised CRA’s provisions for the recreational enhancements 

and recommends that Duke Energy continue to allow and enhance free reasonable public access 

to the project waters and adjacent project lands owned by Duke Energy for the purpose of full 

utilization of such lands and waters for navigation and outdoor recreational purposes. 

DOI, American Rivers, Coastal Conservation League, and Ms. Donna Lisenby (the 

Catawba Riverkeeper) express concerns about some of the Revised CRA measures being 

dependent on third parties. Ms. Lisenby comments that local and state governments are expected 

to cost share at a time when they are struggling to provide other services to meet growth. She 

expresses concern that in some cases Duke Energy agreed to backstop some of the recreational 

enhancements if the cost share partner could not afford them. 

Ms. Michelle Mann, a Lake Wateree homeowner, comments that she does not think that 

the numbers the recreation enhancements are based on are good numbers and recommends that 

those numbers be reviewed. She does not think that some of the recreational facilities will meet 

the needs of the public. Ms. Donna Lisenby and Ms. Sarah Williams also comment that the 

population projections used in the studies were underestimated and those projections were used 

to estimate recreational needs. 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League express concern about the 

conceptual conservation easement outline appended to the Revised CRA. They conclude that the 

document is not adequate to ensure public access to the Catawba and Wateree Rivers. 

Numerous comments were received supporting the proposed increased recreational 

access and recreational facility improvements at the project, including comments from Mr. Irvin 

Pitts with South Carolina DPRT, Mr. Chris Goudreau with North Carolina WRC, Ms. Barbara 

Baddy with Catawba County, North Carolina, Mr. Warren Selquist with Iredell County, North 

Carolina, Mr. Maurice Blackburn with the Carolina Canoe Club, Mr. Bo Cash with the Foothills 

Advisory Group and a fly fishing guide, Mr. Richard Moat with North Carolina Wildlife 

Federation, Mr. Ben Van Camp and Mr. Andrew Lazenby with American Whitewater, and 

Ms. Shirley Greene representing about 1,000 non-boating anglers on Lake Wateree. 

South Carolina DPRT comments that the expansion of smaller recreation access areas 

and development of new access areas would accommodate population growth including the 

proposed new park on the east side of Lake Wateree. Additionally, South Carolina DPRT 

supports the recreational planning review process and particular support for canoe access areas 

below Lake Wylie. Mr. Steve Reed with North Carolina DWR comments that the proposed 

Revised CRA significantly increases access to project waters, particularly for non-motorized 

boats, and provides increased trails and swimming, bank fishing, and camping areas. Mr. Reed 

recommends the Revised CRA as the preferred alternative in the Commission’s analysis and 

comments that the conservation lands are also extremely important. Duke Energy provided the 

funds early for the conservation lands, such the Johns River Confluence gamelands, which will 

provide hunting access and other recreational opportunities to the public. Mr. Michael McLaurin 

with the Lake Wylie and Mountain Island Lake Marine Commissions supports the increased 

recreation access areas, particularly the canoe and kayak trails, increased swimming areas, and 

299 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the York County EMS measure on Lake Wylie that will allow law enforcement officers to better 

serve the public. Mr. Marc Collins with Burke County, North Carolina, supports the proposed 

increased recreational access at the project, in particular the public accessible trails provided for 

in the Revised CRA. Mr. Steve Gilbert with Lincoln County, North Carolina, supports the 

proposed recreational enhancements, and expresses appreciation particularly for those proposed 

in Lincoln County. Ms. Glenda Coleman, Great Falls Hometown Association, comments that 

the recreational enhancements at Great Falls will attract paddlers from other states and help 

restore the town of Great Falls to a nature-based economy. Mr. Richard Moat, North Carolina 

Wildlife Federation, also strongly urged the Commission to accept the proposed license articles 

in their entirety. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed RMP (Proposed License Article A-9.0) would provide the 

measures to define the specific design for Duke Energy’s proposed recreational facilities and 

facilitate Duke Energy in developing its proposed recreational facilities in a coordinated manner. 

The RMP would be helpful as a planning tool and the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA has 

clearly outlined the proposed recreational facilities and enhancements that have been agreed to 

by the signatories of the Revised CRA. As proposed, the RMP would include a discussion of 

how the needs of the disabled were considered in the design and construction of recreation 

facilities, while Duke Energy committed in the Revised CRA to ensuring that all facilities 

constructed at the Duke Energy-owned access areas comply with ADA requirements. Improving 

access for the disabled at the project would be consistent with the Commission’s policy on 

recreational facilities at licensed projects. Duke Energy has proposed to develop the RMP in 

consultation with the North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South 

Carolina DNR, local governments, and other entities. To maintain continuity in the recreation 

planning process, we conclude that Duke Energy should notify and attempt to consult with, at a 

minimum, the entire relicensing Recreation Resources Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, Burke County, York County, 

American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake 

Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League) for the development of the 

RMP. For those parties that do not participate in the RMP development, we conclude that it 

would not be necessary for Duke Energy to continue consulting with them during future reviews 

of the project’s recreational needs. Duke Energy could consult with additional parties. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to file a biennial report for the first 20 years following the 

issuance of a new license with the Commission of the progress it has made on completing the 

recreation enhancements under any new license would assist the Commission and the other 

Revised CRA signatories with tracking the status of the required recreation enhancements. Since 

supplements to the RMP are proposed to be filed at 20 years following the issuance of a new 

license and repeated at every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license, we find 

that biennial reports for the term of any new license would be appropriate as there would be 

recreational enhancements under future RMP supplements that would also need tracking. 

Generally, the project offers numerous opportunities for public recreation, most of which 

are free to the public, with the exception of some of the local county parks and state parks. Duke 

Energy proposes to provide a number of recreational enhancements at the project including 

26 additional recreation access areas in the project boundary and numerous enhancements at 

existing areas (Proposed License Article A-9.0). The existing recreation access areas and the 

300 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
proposed recreational enhancements would accommodate the projected increase in recreational 

users at the project. Respondents for the recreation and use needs study did not feel crowded at 

the public recreation access areas on weekdays and felt only slightly to moderately crowded on 

typical weekends during the peak recreation season. 

Several individuals, Ms. Michelle Mann, Ms. Lisenby, and Ms. Williams, expressed 

concerns about whether the proposed recreational enhancements would meet the increasing 

population and felt the future recreation needs and population numbers should be reviewed. No 

other alternative methodology or population projections have been brought forward since the 

recreation use and needs study was begun in 2004. The methods and models used to project 

recreation needs within the project area are documented, standard approaches that are accepted in 

the recreation planning profession. The facility needs projections were developed by computing 

current use numbers based on a full year of data collection, and by incorporating indexed values 

for future recreation use for the various activities. The index values for each activity were 

obtained from Cordell et al. (1999), a recognized future projection data source. Duke Energy 

consulted with Cordell and Bowker, authors of the model, to review the study methods and to 

incorporate regional population growth into the model. Duke Energy compared Cordell’s 

population projections to current state and U.S. Census Bureau projections to determine an 

adjustment factor. An average percentage increase for each 10-year period was calculated. 

Population growth estimates also were obtained from population data from the Office of State 

Planning for the counties in North Carolina and from the Office of Research and Statistics for the 

counties in South Carolina, and population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2010, 

2020, and 2030. The model was adjusted to account for the difference in population estimates 

between sources. 

However, to address future recreational needs, Duke Energy proposes to complete a 

review of the project’s recreational needs at 20 years following the issuance of a new license and 

repeated at every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license. This review would be 

conducted in consultation with North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DPRT, South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other interested parties, and would include 

a recreation use and needs assessment and identification of any additional public recreational 

facility needs at the project. This review would provide Duke Energy and the stakeholders with 

an opportunity to re-evaluate recreation use and needs at the project and to identify additional 

recreational needs at the project. Subsequent to the reviews, Duke Energy proposes to file 

supplements to the RMP. We conclude that this measure is necessary and that Duke Energy 

should consult with, at a minimum, the parties of the relicensing Recreation Resources 

Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South 

Carolina DNR, Burke County, York County, American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal 

Conservation League) who chose to participate in the development of the RMP. Duke Energy 

could consult with additional parties. 

More than 90 percent of those interviewed at the public recreation access areas during the 

recreation and use needs study were satisfied with the recreation opportunities available and the 

condition of the facilities. Visitors using the public recreation access areas indicated a need for 

increased restrooms, trails, and picnic facilities. Shoreline residents indicated a need for more 

swimming areas, multiple day-use facilities, commercial opportunities, and trails. Duke 

Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would provide additional opportunities to address 

301 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
these identified needs and emphasis has been placed on land-based recreational enhancements 

and non-motorized boating access to the regulated river reaches. Most reservoirs, except for 

several of those receiving the least amount of recreational use, offer a range of water-based and 

land-based recreational opportunities, and recreational opportunities are generally available 

within a short drive somewhere within the project. 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League express concern about the 

conceptual conservation easement outline appended to the Revised CRA and conclude that the 

document is not adequate to ensure public access to the Catawba and Wateree Rivers. The 

proposed conservation easements are for lands that are currently outside and proposed to be 

outside the project boundary. 

In addition to those measures for which Duke Energy would be responsible for under any 

new license, Duke Energy has partnered with others to enhance existing recreation access areas 

or to develop additional areas in addition to those that Duke Energy would be responsible for. 

These measures as described later in this section are included in the Revised CRA and are not 

proposed to be included as license articles. Although DOI, American Rivers, Coastal 

Conservation League, and Ms. Donna Lisenby (the Catawba Riverkeeper) express concern about 

some of the Revised CRA measures being dependent on third parties, we have evaluated each of 

these additional enhancements to determine if any of them might be appropriate to include in any 

license for the project. All of these non-license article measures were agreed to by the Revised 

CRA signatories. 

Proposed Enhancements Inside the Project Boundary 

Duke Energy is proposing to include a number of recreational enhancements discussed 

below as a license article that would be included in the project boundary and RMP. 

FWS recommends that the importance of fish and wildlife-based recreation, especially 

bird-watching, should be considered, as well as water-based recreation. 

Bridgewater Development 

At the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 67). These enhancements 

include three new public recreation access areas and significant improvements at three existing 

recreation access areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land 

areas associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

302 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 67. Proposed recreation measures at the Bridgewater Development to be included in 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake James 

Black Bear Access 

Area 

Provide restrooms, additional shade trees, a shoreline 

buffer, trails, primitive camping sites, picnic 

facilities, and a fishing pier (or bank fishing trail) if 

suitable resource conditions are located at existing 

recreation area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake James State 

Park Islands 

Management Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for 

the term of the new license for the Lake James State 

Park management zone (300 horizontal feet lakeward 

from full pond elevation) along the shoreline 

adjoining the state park, including three islands. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

New Linville Access 

Area 

Acquire approximately 10 acres of land near the 

existing Linville Access Area and develop two boat 

ramps for trailered motor boats, lighted and paved 

parking, one courtesy dock, an access road, and a 

vault toilet. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Linville 

Canoe/Kayak 

Access Area 

After the ramps at the New Linville Access Area are 

in-service, convert the existing Linville Access Area 

to canoe/kayak use, provide picnic facilities and 

restrooms, and plant shade trees. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Pocket Park for Lake 

James Loop Trail 

Develop an approximately 10-acre park near the 

Linville dam at the existing canoe portage take-out 

with parking facilities, picnic facilities, photographic 

overlooks, and a bank fishing trail. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Bridgewater Regulated River Reach 

Bridgewater Access 

Area 

Develop restrooms, a ramp for trailered boats, 

additional parking, and picnic facilities at existing 

recreation area. Evaluate the existing portage trail 

and signage and incorporate needed improvements. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Muddy Creek 

Access Area 

Acquire 1-3 acres of property adjoining Muddy 

Creek between I-40 and the confluence of Muddy 

Creek with the Catawba River bypassed reach and 

develop a canoe/kayak access area with 

approximately 10 gravel parking spaces. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

303 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Rhodhiss Development 

Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at the Rhodhiss 

Development to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 68), including one new 

public recreation access area and significant improvements at four existing recreation access 

areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated 

with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

 

Table 68. Proposed recreation measures at the Rhodhiss Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Corpening Bridge 

Access Area 

Acquire approximately 10 acres and construct a 

trailered boat ramp and approximately 10 gravel 

parking spaces on the Johns River at the Corpening 

Bridge. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Conley Creek 

Access Area 

(Sawmills Veterans 

Park) 

Construct approximately two additional miles of trail 

at existing recreation area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rhodhiss Access 

Area Provide restrooms at existing recreation area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rhodhiss Dam 

Canoe Portage 

Evaluate the condition of the existing portage trail 

and its signage and develop any needed 

improvements. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Castle Bridge 

Access Area Provide restrooms at existing recreation area. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Development 

At the Oxford Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 69). These enhancements 

include three new public recreation access areas and significant improvements at six existing 

recreation access areas, including one undeveloped area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the 

project boundary so that all land areas associated with these proposed measures are included in 

the project boundary. 

304 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 69. Proposed recreation measures at the Oxford Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake Hickory 

Lake Hickory first 

swimming area Develop swimming area at Lake Hickory. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wittenburg Access 

Area 

Acquire approximately 15 additional acres to include 

in the access area and provide restrooms, picnic 

facilities, and additional paved parking. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Dusty Ridge Access 

Area 

Develop approximately 1 mile of trail and restrooms 

at the site. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lovelady Access 

Area 

Provide a fishing pier if suitable resource conditions 

are located. If a suitable location cannot be found, 

then construct a fishing pier at another site on Lake 

Hickory in Caldwell County. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Long Shoals Access 

Area Develop a canoe/kayak access with gravel parking. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Access Area Develop a primitive campground, paved parking, 

picnic facilities, bank fishing, trails, and restrooms. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Hickory 

second swimming 

area 

Develop second swimming area at Lake Hickory. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Regulated River Reach 

Oxford Tailrace 

Fishing Area Develop public fishing area facilities. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Dam Canoe 

Portage 

Improve existing parking and extend the existing 

canoe portage trail to Catawba County’s Riverbend 

Park. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals Development 

Duke Energy proposes several recreational enhancements at the Lookout Shoals 

Development to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 70), including three new 

public recreation access areas and improvements at one existing recreation access area. Duke 

Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated with these 

proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

305 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 70. Proposed recreation measures at the Lookout Shoals Development to be included 

in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lookout Shoals Lake 

Upper Lookout 

Shoals Access Area 

Acquire approximately 1-5 acres of property in 

Catawba County and develop a trailered boat access 

area with parking, restrooms, and primitive camping 

downstream of the “bend” of the lake (RM 227). 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals 

Access Area Provide restrooms. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach 

Lookout Shoals 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

Develop a public fishing area. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals Dam 

Canoe Portage 

Develop a portage trail with canoe/kayak access 

(take-out, put-in) and signage around Lookout Shoals 

dam. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Cowans Ford Development 

At the Cowans Ford Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 71). These enhancements 

include one new public recreation access area and significant improvements at five existing 

recreation access areas, including one undeveloped area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the 

project boundary so that all land areas associated with these proposed measures are included in 

the project boundary. 

 The town of Cornelius recommends additional public recreational opportunities on Lake 

Norman, specifically additional public lakefront property in and around the Cornelius shoreline, 

to provide sufficient public recreation opportunities, including, but not limited to, swimming 

areas, fishing piers, and non-motorized boating access. Mr. Gary Knox with the town comments 

that there is less public access on Lake Norman than 20 years ago and that there is no public 

access to Lake Cornelius except through a YWCA, which is limited to members only. 

Ms. Jean McKinley, a resident near the proposed Island Point Access Area, expressed 

numerous concerns about the proposed access area and its impact on local residents, including 

lack of police and fire protection, a decrease in property values, traffic, and whether the lessee 

would be a “good citizen.” She expressed particular concern over the Revised CRA proposal 

(proposed as a non-license article measure) to offer a lease to a commercial operator for the 

development of a recreational vehicle (RV) campground, marine pump-out, dump station, and 

306 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
bathhouse. She requested that if the access area is forced on local residents, the access road to 

the Island Point Access Area should be Steam Plant Road. 

Table 71. Proposed recreation measures at the Cowans Ford Development to be included in 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake Norman State 

Park Management 

Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for 

the term of the new license for the Lake Norman 

State Park management zone (300 horizontal feet 

lakeward from full pond elevation) along the 

shoreline adjoining Lake Norman State Park) 

including one island. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Beatty’s Ford 

Access Area 

Develop picnic facilities, a fishing pier, swimming 

area, restrooms, and shade trees. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Hagers Creek 

Access Area 

Develop additional paved parking, trails, bank 

fishing, picnic facilities, restrooms, and, if suitable 

conditions are located, a fishing pier. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Stumpy Creek 

Access Area 

Develop a fishing pier, picnic facilities, walking trail, 

restrooms, and additional paved parking. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Little Creek Access 

Area 

Develop restrooms, a fishing pier, paved parking 

spaces, and a picnic shelter. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Island Point Access 

Area 

Develop trails, bank or pier fishing, picnic facilities, 

a swimming area, boating access facilities, and 

restrooms. Conceptual plan development would be 

coordinated with Catawba County. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Cowans Ford Dam 

Portage and 

Overlook 

Develop a portage trail to the new Highway 73 

Access Area, a reservoir overlook with park benches, 

and approximately 10 gravel parking spaces. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mountain Island Development 

At the Mountain Island Development, Duke Energy proposes several recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 72). These enhancements 

include three new public recreation access areas and significant enhancements at an existing 

recreation access area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land 

areas associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

307 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 72. Proposed recreation measures at the Mountain Island Development to be included 

in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Highway 73 Access 

Area 

Develop approximately 2 acres of Duke Energyowned property as a canoe/kayak access with 

approximately 10 gravel parking spaces. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lucia Access Area Develop a canoe/kayak access and approximately 10 

gravel parking spaces. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Riverbend Access 

Area 

Develop restrooms, bank fishing, a swimming area, 

and a fishing pier. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mountain Island 

Dam Canoe Portage 

Develop a portage trail with canoe access (take-out, 

put-in) and signage. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wylie Development 

Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at the Wylie Development 

to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 73). These enhancements include two 

new public recreation access areas and significant improvements at four existing recreation 

access areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas 

associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

308 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 73. Proposed recreation measures at the Wylie Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation Access 

Area Proposed Measure CRA Proposed Schedule 

Lake Wylie 

Dutchmans Creek 

Access Area 

Develop a canoe/kayak access and approximately 10 

gravel parking spaces 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Saddler Island 

Offer an AAII lease of the approximately 37-acre 

island to the U.S. National Whitewater Center for 

individual and group environmental education and 

outdoor recreation programming. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

South Point Access 

Area 

Develop trails, a fishing pier, a bank fishing area, 

picnic facilities, a swimming area, restrooms, and 

additional paved parking. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Buster Boyd Access 

Area Provide restrooms. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Allison Creek 

Access Area 

Expand existing access area by approximately 48 

acres and develop restrooms, picnic facilities, 

additional paved parking, and approximately 1 mile 

of trail. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rock Hill Park 

Develop a bank fishing trail with fishing stations, 

picnic facilities, a swimming area, restrooms, and 

parking on approximately 17 acres of land. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wylie Regulated River Reach 

Fort Mill Access 

Area Provide restrooms and picnic facilities. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Landsford Canal 

State Park 

Management Zone 

Offer South Carolina DPRT a nominal-cost lease for 

the Lake Wateree State Park management zone (up 

to 300 horizontal feet lakeward from full pond 

elevation) along the shoreline adjoining the state 

park. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek Development 

At the Fishing Creek Development, Duke Energy proposes several recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 74). These enhancements 

include one new public recreation access area, a replacement access area, and significant 

improvements at one existing recreation access area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the 

project boundary so that all land areas associated with these proposed measures are included in 

the project boundary. 

309 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 74. Proposed recreation measures at the Fishing Creek Development to be included in 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Springs Park 

Relocate the existing Cane Creek Access Area to an 

approximately 18-acre portion of the old Springs 

Park Property and develop two trailered boat ramps, 

courtesy dock, paved and lighted parking, fishing 

pier, and bank fishing trail. Once the boating 

facilities and parking areas are developed and in 

service at this site, the existing Cane Creek Access 

Area would be closed, and Duke Energy would file 

revised exhibit G drawings for Commission approval 

to remove the existing Cane Creek Access Area from 

the FERC project boundary. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek 

Access Area 

Develop a fishing pier, additional paved parking, 

picnic facilities, restrooms, and a swimming area if a 

suitable swimming area is feasible at the site. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

Develop a public fishing area, including a platform, 

pier or bank fishing trail, and paved parking. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

Duke Energy proposes to evaluate safety concerns associated with boating at the Great 

Falls and Dearborn Developments near the Great Falls diversion dam, the Great Falls headworks, 

and the Great Falls-Dearborn dam, and determine the need for constructing boating safety 

devices upstream of the structures. Duke Energy proposes to report conclusions to the 

Commission and submit a revised public safety plan for Commission acceptance, if necessary. 

This evaluation is proposed to be completed and the necessary structures completed prior to 

beginning the recreational flows and prior to construction of any public boat launching area 

providing boat access to the Great Falls reservoir. Duke Energy proposes five new public 

recreation access areas to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 75). Duke 

Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated with these 

proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

310 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 75. Proposed recreation measures at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments to 

be included in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke 

Energy, 2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Highway 200 Bridge 

Access Area 

Acquire and develop a 1- to 5-acre site with a 

canoe/kayak launch, restrooms, and gravel parking 

area in the vicinity of the Highway 200, Highway 21, 

and Fishing Creek intersection. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls 

Diversion Dam 

Portage 

Develop a portage trail on the north end of Mountain 

Island to provide boater access the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls 

Headworks Portage 

Develop a portage trail on Mountain Island around 

the Great Falls headworks to provide boater access to 

the Great Falls Short bypassed reach. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls 

Headworks to Cedar 

Creek Reservoir 

Portage 

Provide a portage trail along the Great Falls Short 

bypassed reach to Cedar Creek reservoir. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lower Great Falls 

Reservoir 

Canoe/Kayak 

Launch 

Acquire approximately 1 to 7 acres and construct a 

canoe/kayak launch on Great Falls reservoir 

downstream of the Great Falls headworks. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

Duke Energy proposes one new recreation access area at the Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek Developments and to offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for improvements at the 

islands in Cedar Creek reservoir to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 76). 

Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated with these 

proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

 

311 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 76. Proposed recreation measures at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

to be included in the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Cedar Creek 

Reservoir Island 

Improvements 

Offer a lease of the islands associated with Great 

Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek 

Developments to the South Carolina DPRT to 

establish and maintain a new state park centered on 

the Dearborn Armory site. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mud Cat Inn Access 

Area 

Acquire approximately 1 acre of property and develop 

a canoe/kayak access facility with approximately 10 

gravel parking spaces. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wateree Development 

At the Wateree Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 77). These enhancements 

include one new public recreation access area and significant improvements at four existing 

recreation access areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land 

areas associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

DOI recommends that the new license include provisions for the establishment and longterm sustainability of a water trail from Wateree Dam to Congaree National Park. DOI suggests 

the provisions could include the development of a map and brochure for the trail, acquisition of 

additional access locations, and development and management of several primitive campsites 

along the trail. 

Table 77. Proposed recreation measures at the Wateree Development to be included in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

 Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Wateree Creek 

Access Area 

Provide a fishing pier, a 5 to 10 table picnic facility, 

restrooms, and approximately 10 gravel parking 

spaces. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Molly Creek Park 

Acquire approximately 100 acres and provide a 

swimming area, paved parking, restrooms, trails, 

bank and pier fishing, picnic facilities, and trailered 

boat access. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

312 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
 Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake Wateree State 

Park Management 

Zone 

Offer the South Carolina DPRT a nominal-cost lease 

for the Lake Wateree State Park management zone 

(up to 300 horizontal feet lakeward from full pond 

elevation along all the shoreline adjoining the state 

park) along the shoreline adjoining the state park. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Colonels Creek 

Access Area 

Provide a courtesy dock, a swimming area, 

restrooms, and additional paved parking. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Taylors Creek 

Access Area 

Expand the existing access area by approximately 3 

acres and develop approximately 10 gravel parking 

spaces. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lugoff Access Area Provide restrooms and improved gravel parking. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Our Analysis 

Generally, the project offers numerous opportunities for public recreation, and Duke 

Energy proposes to provide a number of recreational enhancements at the project including 

26 additional recreation access areas in the project boundary and numerous enhancements at 

existing areas (Proposed License Article A-9.0). The existing recreation access areas and the 

proposed recreational enhancements would accommodate the projected increase in recreational 

users at the project. Duke Energy is proposing to include a number of recreational enhancements 

as a license article, that would be included in the project boundary and RMP, and, as the 

licensee, Duke Energy would be responsible for these measures and enhancements and for all 

operation and maintenance of those facilities. 

The existing and proposed public recreation access areas would be spaced geographically 

throughout the project reservoirs and regulated river reaches to provide recreational opportunities 

no matter where the potential user is traveling from. Generally, the developments receiving the 

greatest recreation use are proposed for the most recreational enhancements. 

The existing project boundary generally includes the area within full pond elevation of 

the project reservoirs and the land immediately surrounding the dams and powerhouses. Existing 

Duke Energy-owned public recreation access areas that provide access to the project are included 

in the project boundary, but portions of the existing Duke Energy-owned project recreation 

access areas may lie partially outside the boundary. All lands needed for the operation of the 

project, including lands needed to ensure the protection of non-power values, must be included in 

the project boundary. This would allow the Commission to ensure that maintenance and 

operation of those recreation access areas would be continued over the life of the issued license. 

FWS recommends that the importance of fish and wildlife-based recreation, especially 

bird-watching should be considered. The project provides many opportunities for fishing, and 

Duke Energy’s proposed enhancements provide numerous additional opportunities for pier and 

bank fishing and fishing in the regulated river reaches. With only four formal areas identified in 

313 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project available for 

wildlife viewing at the project (none of which are in the project boundary), additional wildlife 

viewing opportunities would enhance the recreational opportunities available at the project. In 

the Revised CRA, Duke Energy has committed to evaluating the need for and feasibility of 

including wildlife viewing facilities at appropriate Duke Energy-owned public access areas 

located within the project boundary. We conclude that evaluating the need for and feasibility of 

including wildlife viewing facilities at Duke Energy is needed at the project and Duke Energy 

should, during the development of the RMP, notify and attempt to consult with, at a minimum, 

the entire relicensing Recreation Resources Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, Burke County, York County, 

American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake 

Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League) regarding the need for and 

feasibility of including wildlife viewing facilities at Duke Energy-owned public access areas that 

will be within the project boundary. Where determined to be needed and feasible, Duke Energy 

should include site designs and a schedule for implementing the wildlife viewing areas in the 

RMP. 

In the Revised CRA, Duke Energy has committed to ensuring that the shoreline of all 

Duke Energy-owned access areas remains open for bank fishing for the term of the new license, 

except those minimal shoreline areas where bank fishing is restricted for safety reasons, for 

management problems, or to avoid conflicts with other access area users. Duke Energy has not 

proposed this measure as a license article. While this measure would enhance bank fishing 

opportunities at the project, we conclude that it is not necessary to be included in any new license 

issued for the project. 

Duke Energy has committed in the Revised CRA to a non-license article measure 

whereby Duke Energy would ensure that all of its islands located on the project reservoirs or in 

the regulated river reaches would remain open for the term the new license for any permissible 

day-use public recreation activity. Islands may be designated as off-limits by Duke Energy due 

to issues related to cultural resource protection, wildlife protection or safety, security, or 

management concerns or restrictions by state or local public health, safety or law enforcement 

authorities. Camping on islands located in project reservoirs and regulated river reaches would 

be authorized only on specific Duke Energy-owned islands. We conclude that all Duke Energyowned islands in the project reservoirs are necessary for project purposes and should remain 

within the project boundary. This measure would enhance recreational use by boaters and nonmotorized boaters using the project waters. 

Bridgewater Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Bridgewater Development that would help 

meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements 

would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake James for boating, nonmotorized boating, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, camping, overlooks, and restrooms. The 

Bridgewater regulated river reach would include additional facilities for boating, non-motorized 

boating, picnicking, and restrooms. The proposed new Linville Access Area would alleviate 

some of the recreational pressure at the existing Linville Access Area, which has a mean capacity 

of 58 percent on non-holiday weekends. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to North Carolina DENR for the Lake James 

State Park Islands Management Zone would force a contract between two parties. This would be 

314 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a nonlicense article measure and apply to the Commission for approval for non-project use of project 

lands since this measure would facilitate state agencies being able to implement specific 

management and enforcement objectives. These lands are already within the project boundary 

and have not been proposed for removal from the project boundary. 

Rhodhiss Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Rhodhiss Development that would help meet 

future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would 

provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Rhodhiss for boating, trails, and 

restrooms. The proposed Corpening Bridge Access Area would provide boating access well 

above the existing Johns River Access Area to provide a more “riverine” recreational experience. 

Lake Rhodhiss is a relatively small reservoir and no swimming areas are provided or proposed 

on the reservoir; however, there is a swimming area at the nearby Lake James State Park on Lake 

James and two proposed swimming areas on Lake Hickory. 

Oxford Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Oxford Development that would help meet 

future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would 

provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Hickory for non-motorized boating, 

swimming areas, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, primitive camping, trails, and restrooms. The 

Oxford regulated river reach would include facilities for public fishing and a trail. The proposed 

expansion of the Wittenburg Access Area would alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the 

existing Lovelady Access Area, which has a mean capacity of close to 50 percent on non-holiday 

weekends. 

Lookout Shoals Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements 

would provide increased recreational opportunities at the Lookout Shoals Development that 

would help meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed 

enhancements would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lookout Shoals Lake 

for boating, non-motorized boating, primitive camping, and restrooms. The Lookout Shoals 

regulated river reach would include facilities for public fishing and a portage trail around the 

Lookout Shoals dam. The proposed Upper Lookout Shoals Access Area would provide boating 

access and camping in the upper portion of Lookout Shoals Lake. Lookout Shoals Lake is a 

relatively small reservoir and no swimming areas are provided or proposed on the reservoir; 

however, there is a swimming area at the nearby Lake Norman State Park on Lake Norman and 

two proposed swimming areas for Lake Hickory. 

Cowans Ford Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Cowans Ford Development that would help 

meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements 

would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Norman for boating, nonmotorized boating, trails, swimming, pier/bank fishing, a portage trail, and restrooms. The 

proposed Island Point Access Area and the proposed enhancements at the existing Little Creek 

Access Area, especially the fishing pier, would alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the 

existing Marshall fishing area which has a mean capacity of 87 percent on non-holiday 

weekends. The proposed enhancements at the existing Hagers Creek Access Area would 

alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the existing Roosevelt Wilson Park, which has a 

mean capacity of 243 percent on non-holiday weekends, by providing bank fishing and picnic 

315 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
facilities. The proposed enhancements at the Beatty’s Ford Access Area would alleviate the 

recreational pressure at the existing McGuire fishing area, which has a mean capacity of 

49 percent on non-holiday weekends, by providing a fishing pier in addition to other day use 

facilities. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to North Carolina DENR for the Lake Norman 

State Park Management Zone would force a contract between two parties. This would be outside 

the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a non-license 

article measure and apply to the Commission for approval for non-project use of project lands 

since this measure would facilitate state agencies being able to implement specific management 

and enforcement objectives. These lands are already within the project boundary and have not 

been proposed for removal from the project boundary. 

The town of Cornelius recommends additional public recreational opportunities on Lake 

Norman, specifically additional public lakefront property in and around the Cornelius shoreline, 

to provide sufficient public recreation opportunities, including, but not limited to, swimming 

areas, fishing piers, and non-motorized boating access. Lake Cornelius and Lake Davidson were 

cut off from the remainder of Lake Norman by the construction of Interstate 77 and, therefore, 

there is no public access from Lake Norman proper. Neither Lake Davidson nor Lake Cornelius 

have any formal public access, but Lake Davidson has informal access. The Lake Norman 

YMCA does provide some access to Lake Cornelius, but only to its members. In Duke Energy’s 

April 30, 2007, response to scoping meeting comments, it acknowledged that there is no public 

access to Lake Cornelius, but stated that none was recommended by the Recreation Ad Hoc 

Committee during relicensing. We find that operation of the project affects Lake Cornelius and 

conclude that providing informal public access with no facilities to Lake Cornelius would serve a 

project purpose. 

Ms. Jean McKinley expressed numerous concerns about the proposed Island Point 

Access Area, particularly related to the Revised CRA proposal (proposed as a non-license article 

measure) to offer a lease to a commercial operator for the development of an RV campground. 

The proposed recreation access area would be developed in a manner consistent with the SMP 

and all local zoning ordinances and would alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the 

existing Marshall fishing area which has a mean capacity of 87 percent on non-holiday 

weekends. Duke Energy has proposed as a license article to provide trails, bank or pier fishing, 

picnic facilities, a swimming area, boating access facilities, and restrooms at the Island Point 

Access Area. The Revised CRA contains an additional non-license article provision that states 

that within 15 years of the effective date of the new FERC license, Duke Energy may market to 

commercial operators a lease for development and management of a multi-use recreation area at 

this site. If an acceptable proposal is received, the additional amenities could include, but would 

not necessarily be limited to RV camping with bathhouse and dump station, and a marine pumpout in addition to the previous facilities. The Revised CRA also includes a commitment for 

Duke Energy and Catawba County, North Carolina, to form a workgroup of parties that 

represents the public interest to participate in developing the site plan for this access area. 

Mountain Island Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements 

would provide increased recreational opportunities at the Mountain Island Development that 

would help meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed 

enhancements would provide additional facilities in the project boundary for non-motorized 

boating, pier/bank fishing, a portage trail, swimming, and restrooms. The proposed 

316 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
enhancements at the Riverbend Access Area would provide bank and pier fishing and the only 

swimming area on Mountain Island Lake (Latta Plantation County Park, owned and operated by 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has a beach for sunbathing only). Mountain Island Lake 

is a relatively small reservoir and there are no public camping areas currently provided; however, 

there are camping areas nearby at Lake Norman State Park on Lake Norman, and the 

Copperhead Access Area and McDowell Park on Lake Wylie. 

Wylie Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would provide 

increased recreational opportunities at the Wylie Development that would help meet future 

recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would provide 

additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Wylie for non-motorized boating, picnicking, 

pier/bank fishing, swimming areas, trails, and restrooms. The Wylie regulated river reach would 

include additional facilities for picnicking and restrooms. The proposed Rock Hill Park and the 

proposed enhancements at the existing Fort Mill Access Area would alleviate some of the 

recreational pressure at the existing Nivens Creek Access Area, which has a mean capacity of 

111 percent on non-holiday weekends, by providing other types of recreational opportunities 

including a swimming area and bank fishing. The proposed enhancements at the Allison Creek 

Access Area include a trail, parking, and picnic facilities, which would help alleviate some of the 

recreational pressure at the Nivens Creek Access Area and the Buster Boyd Access Area, which 

has a mean capacity of 47 percent on non-holiday weekends. Although located at the Mountain 

Island Development, the Riverbend Access Area is very close to the Mountain Island River Park, 

which has a mean capacity of 146 percent on non-holiday weekends, and would help alleviate 

some of the recreational pressure at the existing Mountain Island River Park. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease for Saddler Island to the U.S National 

Whitewater Center for environmental education programming would force a contract between 

two parties. This would be outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could 

pursue this measure as a non-license article measure. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for the Landsford Canal 

State Park Management Zone would force a contract between two parties. This would be outside 

the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a non-license 

article measure and apply to the Commission for approval for non-project use of project lands 

since this measure would facilitate state agencies being able to implement specific management 

and enforcement objectives. These lands are already partially within the project boundary and 

are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary; therefore, Duke Energy would need to 

expand the project boundary to include the entire management zone. 

Fishing Creek Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Fishing Creek Development that would help 

meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements 

would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at the Fishing Creek Development for 

boating, non-motorized boating, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, a swimming area (if a suitable 

swimming area is feasible at the access area), and restrooms. The reservoir does not have an 

existing swimming area, but there is one proposed swimming area on Fishing Creek reservoir. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational 

enhancements would provide recreational opportunities at the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments where none previously existed. After evaluating safety concerns associated with 

317 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
boating near the Great Falls diversion dam, the Great Falls headworks, and the Great FallsDearborn dam, Duke Energy would provide the proposed recreational enhancements that would 

provide canoeing/kayaking facilities, portage trails, and restrooms where none previously 

existed. We find that the safety evaluation is necessary to ensure public safety. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational 

enhancements would provide increased recreational opportunities at the Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek Developments that would help meet future recreational need at the developments and 

provide a facility for non-motorized boating. Since the Cedar Creek reservoir is small, 

recreational opportunities are limited but can be found at other nearby public recreation access 

areas within the project. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for Cedar Creek 

reservoir island improvements would force a contract between two parties. This would be 

outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a nonlicense article measure since this measure would provide a new state park centered around the 

Dearborn Armory Site. 

Wateree Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Wateree Development that would help meet 

future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would 

provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Wateree for boating, non-motorized 

boating, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, swimming areas, trails, and restrooms. The Wateree 

regulated river reach would include additional facilities for parking and restrooms. The proposed 

expansion of the parking area at the Taylors Creek Access Area would alleviate some of the 

recreational pressure at the existing Wateree Creek Access Area, which has a mean capacity of 

50 percent on non-holiday weekends. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for the Lake Wateree 

State Park Management Zone would force a contract between two parties. This would be outside 

the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a non-license 

article measure and apply to the Commission for approval for non-project use of project lands 

since this measure would facilitate state agencies being able to implement specific management 

and enforcement objectives. These lands are already within the project boundary and have not 

been proposed for removal from the project boundary. 

DOI recommends that the license include provisions for the establishment and long-term 

sustainability of a water trail from Wateree dam to Congaree National Park. The requested 

measure would not serve project purposes and does not have a clear nexus to project operation. 

The Congaree National Park is a substantial distance downstream of the Wateree Development 

and Duke Energy already provides a boat ramp at the Lugoff Access Area just downstream of the 

dam that can be used for paddlers, and South Carolina DNR provides boat ramps at the Highway 

1 and Billy Tolar landings. Duke Energy proposes to provide minimum flows and recreational 

flow releases from the Wateree Development which would enhance recreational use below 

Wateree dam. 

Proposed Enhancements Outside the Project Boundary 

In addition to those measures for which Duke Energy would be responsible for under any 

new license (i.e., those located in the project boundary and proposed for inclusion in the RMP), 

318 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Duke Energy has partnered with others to enhance existing recreation access areas or to develop 

additional recreation areas. The measures as described below are commitments in the Revised 

CRA that are not proposed as license articles or to be included inside the project boundary. 

Bridgewater Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Bridgewater Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 78). Additionally, the 

Revised CRA includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to 

provide cabins at the Black Bear Access Area which is proposed for inclusion in the project 

boundary. 

DOI recommends that the measure described below for the Overmountain Victory 

National Historic Trail Corridor be included as a license article and the easements provided by 

Duke Energy for the trail should be in perpetuity rather than for the term of the FERC license. 

Table 78. CRA recreation measures at the Bridgewater Development to be excluded from 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed 

schedule 

Black Bear 

Connector Trail 

Facilitate discussions about trail easement 

agreements among McDowell County, North 

Carolina, and the owners of Bear Cliff Development, 

Sunset Development Homeowner’s Association, and 

Crescent Resources, LLC to connect the Black Bear 

Access Area to the Lake James Loop Trail. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake James Loop 

Trail 

Provide up to $500,000 to either Burke County or 

North Carolina DENR to construct up to 5 miles of 

the Lake James Loop Trail, including the portion 

across the project dams (length to be determined by 

engineering feasibility). 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

North Bend 

Recreation Land 

Transfer approximately 550 acres of property 

adjoining the Bridgewater regulated river reach 

downstream of the Bridgewater Development to 

North Carolina DENR for public recreation and 

permanent conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Catawba-Linville 

River Confluence 

Recreation Land 

Transfer approximately 420 acres of property 

adjoining the Catawba River downstream of the 

Bridgewater Development in the vicinity of the 

confluence of the Catawba River bypassed reach and 

the Bridgewater regulated river reach to North 

Carolina DENR for public recreation and permanent 

conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

319 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Paddy Creek 

Recreation Land 

Transfer or cause to be transferred 275 acres of 

property downstream of Paddy Creek and Linville 

dams to North Carolina DENR for public recreation 

and permanent conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

North Bend 

Recreation Land 

Access Area 

Transfer approximately 10 acres of property at the 

second Powerhouse Road bridge to North Carolina 

WRC and provide up to $225,000 for North Carolina 

WRC to develop and maintain a trailered boat 

access, bank fishing area, and parking area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Morganton Weir 

Take-out Area 

Provide up to $125,000 to the City of Morganton, 

North Carolina, or North Carolina DENR to develop 

a trailered boat ramp and approximately 10 gravel 

parking spaces upstream in the immediate vicinity of 

the Morganton weir. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake James-toMorganton 

Overmountain 

Victory National 

Historic Trail 

Corridor 

Provide up to $600,000 to Burke County, North 

Carolina DENR, or others to develop approximately 

6 miles of the Overmountain Victory National 

Historic Trail. Acquire easements (up to 300 ft in 

width) for approximately 6 miles of the 

Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail 

Corridor on the North Bend Recreation Land tract, 

the Paddy Creek tract, or the Catawba-Linville River 

Confluence tract and provide $600,000 to support 

land conservation in North Carolina if other entities 

develop the Overmountain Victory National Historic 

Trail in Burke County such that Duke Energy’s 

funding support is unnecessary. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Watermill Road 

Access Area 

The Licensee would provide up to $65,000 to the 

town of Glen Alpine, North Carolina, to modify the 

existing canoe/kayak facility to better accommodate 

trailered boats in addition to canoes and kayaks 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rhodhiss Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Rhodhiss Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 79). 

320 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 79. Proposed recreation measures at the Rhodhiss Development to be excluded from 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Wilson Creek 

Access Area 

Acquire 50 to 100 acres of land along Wilson Creek 

between Adako Road and the confluence of Wilson 

Creek with the Johns River and offer it to Caldwell 

County, North Carolina, through the AAII. Duke 

Energy to develop bank fishing and picnic facilities 

if Caldwell County leases the site. Duke Energy 

funds the installation of a USGS streamflow gage on 

Wilson Creek near Adako Road if Caldwell County 

agrees to pay for annual USGS gage maintenance. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Upper Johns River 

Access Area 

Provide up to $125,000 to Caldwell County to 

develop a canoe/kayak access with parking at a 

location to be acquired by Caldwell County located 

on the Johns River, upstream of its confluence with 

Wilson Creek. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Johns River 

Gameland 

Support the acquisition of up to 2,882 acres of 

property by the Foothills Conservancy or North 

Carolina WRC in the vicinity of the confluence of 

Johns River and Lake Rhodhiss for public recreation 

and permanent conservation by effecting a reduction 

in price of $915 per acre purchased up to $2,640,000 

if the total tract is purchased. 

Between the effective 

date of the Revised 

CRA and August 1, 

2009 

Oxford Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreation enhancements proposed 

to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes several nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide enhancements at the 

Wittenburg Access Area (additional day use facilities), Lovelady Access Area (additional day 

use facilities including, but not limited to picnic areas, trails, restrooms), and Oxford Access 

Area (RV campground, dump station, marine pump-out, and bathhouse) which are proposed for 

inclusion in the project boundary. 

Lookout Shoals Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Lookout Shoals Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 80). 

321 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 80. Proposed recreation measures at the Lookout Shoals Development to be excluded 

from the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Riverbend 

Park/Upper Lookout 

Shoals Trail 

Provide up to $220,000 to Catawba County, North 

Carolina, or North Carolina DENR to support 

easement, acquisition and the development of a 50-

ft-wide, 1.5-mile-long trail between Catawba 

County’s Riverbend Park and the new Upper 

Lookout Shoals Access Area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Cowans Ford Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Cowans Ford Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 81). The Revised CRA 

includes several additional non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to 

provide additional enhancements at the Hagers Creek Access Area (RV campground, dump 

station, marine pump-out, and bathhouse), Little Creek Access Area (additional day use facilities 

such as picnic areas), and Island Point Access Area (RV campground, dump station, marine 

pump-out, and bathhouse), which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. 

Table 81. Proposed Recreation measures at the Cowans Ford Development to be excluded 

from the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) 

 Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Mountain Creek 

Park 

Support the acquisition by Catawba County of up to 

600 acres of property at the mouth of Mountain 

Creek by effecting a reduction in price of $1,900 per 

acre purchased up to $1,140,000 if the total tract is 

purchased. If Catawba County does not acquire the 

property, the applicant would acquire 20-30 acres at 

this location and develop a canoe/kayak launch, 

restrooms, fishing pier, swimming beach, and paved 

parking. 

Between the effective 

date of the Revised 

CRA and August 1, 

2009 

322 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
 Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Hunsucker Park 

Offer an AAII lease to the town of Catawba, North 

Carolina, or another public entity for the applicant’s 

property on the south side of Lyle Creek near 

Hunsucker Park. If a lessee is located, the applicant 

would develop picnic facilities, 0.5 mile of trail, a 

trailered boat access, and parking on the applicant’s 

property. The applicant also would incorporate its 

property on the north side of Lyle Creek in the lease 

provided that the town’s or public entity’s operations 

and management plan for the park is acceptable. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Norman Trail 

Planning Assistance 

Provide technical assistance to facilitate any needed 

bicycle route crossings of the FERC project 

boundary and use of Duke Energy’s access areas 

along the North Carolina DOT’s proposed Lake 

Norman Bike Route. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Davidson Park 

Provide up to $130,000 to the town of Davidson, 

North Carolina, to acquire adjoining property or 

develop a canoe/kayak launch and fishing pier at 

Lake Davidson Park. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mountain Island Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA commits Duke 

Energy to providing trail planning and technical assistance to state and local governments on an 

as-requested basis to connect existing multi-use trail systems in the vicinity of Mountain Island 

Lake. The Revised CRA includes an additional non-license article enhancement to offer a lease 

to a third party to provide a campground and bathhouse at the Riverbend Access Area, which is 

proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. 

Wylie Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements proposed 

to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes recreational 

enhancements for the Wylie Development that are proposed to be outside the project boundary 

and not included in the proposed license article (table 82) The Revised CRA also includes nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to a third party to provide RV campgrounds, marine 

pump-outs, dump stations, and bathhouses at the South Point and Allison Creek Access Areas, 

and additional recreational facilities at the Fort Mill Access Area. BIA expressed concerned 

about a measure in the Revised CRA whereby CIN would maintain a proposed canoe access not 

in the project boundary at the reservation. As a non-license article Revised CRA commitment, 

Duke Energy proposes to provide funding to CIN THPO to develop a canoe/kayak access and 

parking area at the CIN reservation. 

323 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 82. Proposed recreation measures at the Wylie Development to be excluded from the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake Wylie 

Upper Wylie Access 

Area 

Provide up to $435,000 to Mecklenburg, North 

Carolina, or any other governmental entity to 

develop a double-lane concrete boat ramp with a 

metal courtesy dock and paved and lighted parking 

for 100 vehicles and trailers north of the Allen Steam 

Station. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

York County EMS 

Provide approximately 1 acre of property in York 

County, South Carolina, for the development of a 

dedicated marine law enforcement and emergency 

access facility for Lake Wylie. The property would 

be offered through the AAII lease to a state or local 

governmental entity for the term of the new license, 

provided the leasing entity agrees to develop and 

manage all approved facilities. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wylie Regulated River Reach 

Upper Wylie 

Regulated River 

Reach Trail 

Develop approximately 1 mile of trail up to 4 ft in 

width downstream of the Wylie Development along 

the eastern shore of the river, if such a trail can be 

constructed consistent with the water quality 

mitigation conservation easement on the same 

property. The applicant would offer to lease the trail 

to York County, South Carolina, or another 

governmental entity. If the trail is not leased, the 

applicant would not develop the trail. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Catawba Indian 

Reservation or 

Highway 5 

Canoe/Kayak 

Access 

Provide up to $165,000 to CIN THPO to develop a 

canoe/kayak access and parking area at the Catawba 

Indian Reservation or the applicant would develop 

the canoe/kayak launch with gravel parking at the 

Catawba Indian Reservation to be maintained by 

CIN THPO. If this site is not developed as planned, 

Duke Energy would acquire the necessary lands and 

develop a canoe/kayak launch with associated 

parking in the vicinity of the Highway 5 bridge 

within 10 years of the effective date of the new 

license. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

324 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Landsford Canal 

State Park Access 

Area 

Provide up to $265,000 to South Carolina DPRT to 

develop a canoe/kayak access, gravel parking area to 

accommodate up to 50 cars, and a vault toilet at 

Landsford Canal State Park if South Carolina DPRT 

would provide any needed road enhancements and 

long-term facility maintenance. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Culp Island 

Offer an AAII lease to South Carolina DPRT to 

manage Culp Island as part of Landsford Canal State 

Park. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Simpson Island 

Retain ownership of Simpson Island for the term of 

the new license. If York County, South Carolina, 

acquires and develops a park on land adjoining 

Simpson Island, the applicant would offer an AAII 

lease with York County, South Carolina, to manage 

any facilities on the island and would provide 

funding of up to $265,000 to York County for the 

development of a canoe/kayak access and picnic 

shelter on the county-owned land adjoining the 

island. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Fishing Creek Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 83). The Revised CRA 

also includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to provide 

additional recreational facilities at the Fishing Creek Access Area, which is proposed for 

inclusion in the project boundary. 

Table 83. Proposed recreation measures at the Fishing Creek Development to be excluded 

from the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Highway 9 Access 

Area 

Provide up to $215,000 to an entity that would 

provide 1 to 5 acres of suitable property and develop 

and maintain a new 1- to 5-acre trailered boat access 

area with parking in the vicinity of the existing 

Highway 9 Access Area. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—In addition to the recreational 

enhancements proposed to be included in the proposed license article and the RMP, the Revised 

325 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
CRA includes recreational enhancements at the Cedar Creek reservoir islands, which are 

dependent upon the South Carolina DPRT leasing the islands, that are proposed to not be 

included in the proposed license article. More specifically, Duke Energy would provide up to $1 

million to support the development and management of the new state park on Dearborn Island 

and construct a pedestrian bridge from the Lower Great Falls reservoir canoe/kayak launch to 

Dearborn Island. 

Wateree Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Wateree Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 84). The Revised CRA 

also includes non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide 

additional enhancements at Molly Creek Park (RV campground, bathhouse, marine pump-out, 

and dump station) and the Colonels Creek Access Area (additional recreation development) 

which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. 

Table 84. Proposed recreation measures at the Wateree Development to be excluded from 

the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) boundary. (Source: Duke Energy, 2006a; 

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed 

schedule 

East Wateree Access 

Improvements 

Provide up to $900,000 to Kershaw County, South 

Carolina, or other governmental entities to construct 

two motorized boat ramps with a courtesy dock, 

paved and lighted parking, and a swimming area 

with bath house on the east side of Lake Wateree. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Wateree 

Recreation lands 

(Wateree 

Development) 

Transfer or cause to be transferred approximately 

800 acres of land adjoining the Heritage Tract to the 

South Carolina DNR for public recreation and 

permanent conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Our Analysis 

In addition to those measures for which Duke Energy would be responsible for under any 

new license (i.e., those located in the project boundary), Duke Energy has partnered with others 

to enhance existing recreation access areas or to develop additional recreation areas as discussed 

above. These measures are included in the Revised CRA and are not proposed to be included as 

license articles or in the RMP. We have evaluated each of these additional enhancements to 

determine if any of them might be appropriate to include in any license for the project. All of 

these non-license article measures were agreed to by the Revised CRA signatories. 

Bridgewater Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Bridgewater Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also 

includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to provide cabins at 

326 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the Black Bear Access Area. There has not been a demonstrated need at the project for cabins at 

the Black Bear Access Area. Camping is already proposed at the Black Bear Access Area and is 

currently provided at the Lake James State Park. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 78 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need that would require these enhancements. Since none of the trails 

would connect two project facilities, we do not find that they are needed for project purposes 

and, therefore, do not need to be brought into the project boundary. The Watermill Road Access 

Area is owned by a town and, like the Morganton Weir Take-out Area, is not needed for project 

purposes. 

The land conveyances described in table 78 and in section 3.3.8.2, Land Use and 

Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, would transfer several areas of Duke Energy-owned lands, 

that are not associated with project operations, to federal, state, or local entities. The potential 

for land transfers is included in the Revised CRA, but is not considered under the proposed 

action for relicensing, and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

DOI recommends that the measure described for the Overmountain Victory National 

Historic Trail Corridor be included as a license article. Since this trail would not connect two 

project facilities, we do not find that it is needed for project purposes and, therefore, does not 

need to be brought into the project boundary. It is unnecessary to modify the project boundary to 

include this trail because the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail measure is for a onetime payment and does not represent ongoing maintenance of the trail by Duke Energy. The 

Congaree National Park is a substantial distance downstream of the Wateree Development, and 

Duke Energy already provides a boat ramp at the Lugoff Access Area just downstream of 

Wateree dam and South Carolina DNR provides boat ramps at the Highway 1 and Billy Tolar 

landings. 

Rhodhiss Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes recreational 

enhancements for the Rhodhiss Development that are proposed to be outside the project 

boundary and not included in the proposed license article. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements in table 79 to determine 

if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. The Wilson Creek and 

Upper Johns River Access Areas are both some distance from the project and are not needed for 

project purposes. 

The land conveyance described in table 79 and in section 3.3.8.2, Land Use and 

Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, would transfer an area of Duke Energy-owned land, that is not 

associated with project operations, to state, or local entities. The potential for land transfer is 

included in the Revised CRA, but is not considered under the proposed action for relicensing, 

and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

Oxford Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes several nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide enhancements at the 

Wittenburg Access Area, Lovelady Access Area, and Oxford Access Area which are proposed 

for inclusion in the project boundary. These day uses are available at other nearby recreation 

access areas and there has not been a demonstrated need at the project for RV camping. We 

327 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
have evaluated each of these non-license article enhancements to determine if any are 

appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. 

Lookout Shoals Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Lookout Shoals Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. We have evaluated the nonlicense article enhancement described in table 80 to provide funding to Catawba County, North 

Carolina, for the development of a trail from a county park to a project recreation access area. 

Since the trail would not connect two project facilities, we do not find that it is needed for project 

purposes and, therefore, does not need to be brought into the project boundary. 

Cowans Ford Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Cowans Ford Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also 

includes several non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide 

additional enhancements at the Hagers Creek Access Area (RV campground, dump station, 

marine pump-out, and bathhouse), Little Creek Access Area (additional day use facilities such as 

picnic areas), and Island Point Access Area (RV campground, dump station, marine pump-out, 

and bathhouse), which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. There has not been a 

demonstrated need at the project for RV camping, but camping is provided at Lake Norman State 

Park. A number of day use facilities are proposed by Duke Energy for the Beatty’s Ford Access 

Area, which is located near the Little Creek Access Area, including, but not limited to, 

swimming areas, fishing piers, and non-motorized boating access. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 81 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. Since there 

is already a boat ramp at Hunsucker Park and the existing area is only at 4 percent capacity on 

non-holiday weekends (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006), we conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need for the additional enhancements near Hunsucker Park. We also conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need for the Mountain Creek Park because the nearby proposed 

Island Point Access Area would provide the same recreational facilities as those that would be 

provided at Mountain Creek Park. There is no public access from Lake Norman proper to Lake 

Davidson, but Lake Davidson does have informal access. 

Mountain Island Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA commits 

Duke Energy to providing trail planning and technical assistance to state and local governments 

on an as-requested basis and to offer a lease to a third party to provide a campground and 

bathhouse at the Riverbend Access Area, which is proposed for inclusion in the project 

boundary. 

We have evaluated these non-license article enhancements to determine if they are 

appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. There has not been a 

demonstrated need specifically for camping at Mountain Island Lake. There are nearby camping 

areas at Lake Norman State Park on Lake Norman, and Ebenezer Park, McDowell Park, and the 

Copperhead Access Area on Lake Wylie. 

328 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Wylie Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes additional 

recreational enhancements for the Wylie Development that are proposed to be outside the project 

boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also includes nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide RV campgrounds, marine 

pump-outs, dump stations, and bathhouses at the South Point and Allison Creek Access Areas, 

and additional recreational facilities at the Fort Mill Access Area. There has not been a 

demonstrated need at the project for RV camping, but camping is provided nearby at Ebenezer 

Park, McDowell Park, and the Copperhead Access Area on Lake Wylie, and at Lake Norman 

State Park on Lake Norman. A number of day use recreation facilities are proposed by Duke 

Energy for Rock Hill Park and are currently provided by McDowell Park, both of which are 

located near the Fort Mill Access Area. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 82 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. There is 

already a boating access area (Highway 9 Landing) near the proposed Landsford Canal State 

Park Access Area and a boating access area near the proposed Upper Wylie Access Area. Since 

the Upper Wylie regulated river reach trail would not connect two project facilities, we do not 

find that it is needed for project purposes and, therefore, does not need to be brought into the 

project boundary. We cannot adopt any measure that would force a contract between two 

parties. 

BIA expressed concerned about a measure in the Revised CRA whereby CIN would 

maintain a proposed canoe access not in the project boundary at the reservation. As a nonlicense article Revised CRA commitment, Duke Energy proposes to provide funding to CIN 

THPO to develop a canoe/kayak access and parking area at the CIN reservation. The proposed 

facility would be located approximately 7 miles downstream of the Wylie Development and 

would not serve a project purpose or have a project nexus. 

Fishing Creek Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Fishing Creek Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also 

includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to provide additional 

recreational facilities at the Fishing Creek Access Area, which is proposed for inclusion in the 

project boundary. 

We have evaluated each of these non-license article enhancements to determine if either 

is appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. There is already a boating 

access area (Highway 9 Landing) that is at 29 percent capacity on non-holiday weekends (Study 

Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—As described previously, the Revised 

CRA includes recreational enhancements at the Cedar Creek reservoir islands, which are 

dependent upon the South Carolina DPRT leasing the islands, that are proposed to not be 

included in the proposed license article. Duke Energy would provide up to $1 million to support 

the development and management of the new state park on Dearborn Island and construct a 

pedestrian bridge from the Lower Great Falls reservoir canoe/kayak launch to Dearborn Island. 

Since these enhancements would be specific to the leasing of the islands and the creation of a 

329 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
new state park, we conclude that there is not a demonstrated need that would require these 

additional enhancements to be included in any license issued for the project. We cannot adopt a 

measure that would force a contract between two parties. 

Wateree Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes additional 

recreational enhancements at the Wateree Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. Additionally, the Revised 

CRA includes additional non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to 

provide additional enhancements at Molly Creek Park (RV campground, bathhouse, marine 

pump-out, and dump station) and the Colonels Creek Access Area (additional recreation 

development) which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. There has not been a 

demonstrated need at the project for RV camping and additional development at the Colonels 

Creek Access Area. RV camping is provided at Lake Wateree State Park. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 84 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. Land has 

already been purchased by Kershaw County, South Carolina, for the access area proposed to be 

outside the project boundary on the east side of Lake Wateree that would provide public access 

to Lake Wateree. 

The land conveyance described in table 84 and in section 3.3.8.2, Land Use and 

Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, would transfer several areas of Duke Energy-owned lands, 

that are not associated with project operations, to a state entity. The potential for land transfers is 

included in the Revised CRA, but is not considered under the proposed action for relicensing, 

and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

3.3.7.3 Cumulative Effects 

The proposed and staff recommended recreational measures would improve recreational 

opportunities throughout the project. Enhancements to recreation facilities and increases in 

public access areas would distribute recreational visitors more evenly throughout the project’s 

recreation access areas as well as improve the quality of the recreational facilities and public 

access. The measures would improve recreational opportunities in the region, allowing the 

project to adapt to changing recreational use over time and develop new resources that address 

foreseeable recreational activities. 

The proposed recreational flows and minimum flows throughout the project would 

provide additional recreational opportunities and enhance angling and boating in the regulated 

river reaches. The scheduled recreational flows also would provide varying levels of whitewater 

opportunities at the project. Public safety at the project would be enhanced by the proposed and 

staff recommended public information and public safety measures. The proposed and staff 

recommended public information measures would improve the availability of reservoir 

elevations and flow information to the public. 

There are a number of measures in the Revised CRA that Duke Energy has committed to 

that are not recommended by staff; however, these measures also would improve recreational 

opportunities at the project. A number of new recreation access areas would be developed or 

enhanced under the Revised CRA that would be outside the project boundary but close to or 

adjacent to the project, that also will enhance recreation at the project. Duke Energy’s 

330 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
commitment to providing trails planning and technical assistance to state and local governments 

on an as-requested basis to connect existing multi-use trail systems in the vicinity of Mountain 

Island Lake also would enhance trails in the vicinity of the project. In the Revised CRA, Duke 

Energy committed to providing $4 million to North Carolina WRC, North Carolina DENR, or 

both, and $5.32 million to South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, or both, to support the 

purchase of agency-selected land in Catawba-Wateree River Basin for public recreation, game 

management, and compatible permanent conservation. Duke Energy’s commitment to 

conveying lands for public recreation and permanent conservation would enhance recreational 

resources at the project, provide land conservation, and provide gamelands near the project. 

These land conveyances include 550 acres adjoining the Bridgewater regulated river reach 

downstream of the Bridgewater Development to North Carolina DENR, 420 acres adjoining the 

Catawba River downstream of the Bridgewater Development in the vicinity of the confluence of 

the Catawba River bypassed reach and the Bridgewater regulated river reach to North Carolina 

DENR, 275 acres downstream of Paddy Creek and Linville Dams to North Carolina DENR, and 

800 acres adjoining the Heritage Tract to South Carolina DNR. Duke Energy, North Carolina 

DENR, North Carolina WRC, and North Carolina WF have developed a plan to address 

waterfowl hunting in the Catawba River in the vicinity of the North Bend Recreation Land, 

North Bend Access Area, Catawba-Linville River Confluence Recreation Land, and Paddy 

Creek Recreation Land. 

Additionally, Duke Energy, in cooperation with North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DNR, and North Carolina DENR, currently uses public education and stakeholder outreach as 

the primary mechanism to prevent aquatic nuisance plant species from establishing and 

spreading in Catawba-Wateree Project waters. These aquatic nuisance plant species can 

potentially reduce boating and recreation access and reduce the aesthetic value of the recreational 

experience. Continued education of the residents and users of lands and waters within the 

project area will increase public awareness of potential new invasive weed species, methods of 

prevention for new and existing species, and accepted control methods for existing populations. 

These measures would have a significant positive cumulative effect on recreational 

opportunities at the project, public safety, and the quality of the recreational experience. 

3.3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.8 Land Use and Aesthetics 

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment 

The Catawba-Wateree Project is located on the Catawba and Wateree Rivers in North 

and South Carolina. The majority of the project area is located within the Piedmont Province, 

with the exception of the headwaters of Lake James, which are located within the Blue Ridge 

Province, and the portion the Wateree River downstream of the Wateree dam, which is located in 

the Coastal Plain Province. 

In the mountain region of the watershed, the majority of the project area is characterized 

by oak-hickory forests dominated by white oak with an understory of dogwood, sourwood, and 

black locust. Although development in this region of the watershed is increasing, the area is 

predominately still rural, with large areas of forests, valleys, and some agricultural land, 

interspersed with scattered homes and small farms. 

331 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The Piedmont portion of the watershed is more extensively developed than the mountain 

region. The Piedmont consists of a wide plateau of gently rolling hills, and is characterized by 

oak-hickory forests with primarily dogwood and sourwood in the understory. The Piedmont was 

intensively farmed in the past, and former agricultural fields are in various stages of succession 

or have been converted to managed pine plantations. Considerable development also has 

occurred in the Piedmont region. 

The Fall Line marks the transition from the Piedmont to the Sandhills region. The 

Catawba River passes through a relatively short stretch of the Sandhills region before it 

continues into the lower elevations of the Coastal Plain. The Sandhills region is characterized by 

long leaf pines and open Savannahs (Kovacik, 1987). The lower portion of the watershed 

supports some development, but is generally more rural in character than the Piedmont region. 

Most of the development in the watershed is found within the Piedmont region. 

Considerable development is centered around the city of Charlotte, with additional development 

clustered in and around the cities of Morganton, Hickory, Mooresville, and Gastonia in North 

Carolina, and Rock Hill and Lancaster in South Carolina. 

There are several major travel routes in the project vicinity, most of which are found in 

the Piedmont region, including Interstate Routes 77, 85, and 40. There are also numerous U.S. 

and state highways in the project vicinity. These roads provide transportation connections 

between many of the communities, and support both residential and commercial/industrial 

development. 

Land Use 

Land use within the Catawba River Basin varies greatly, but is generally a mix of forest, 

agricultural, and developed lands. Within the watershed, approximately 5 percent of the land is 

developed. Most of the population in the watershed is located in the major metropolitan areas 

including the area around Charlotte, North Carolina. Table 85, provides a breakdown of the 

major land use categories within the basin. 

Table 85. Percent land use in the North Carolina and South Carolina portions of the 

Catawba Wateree River Watershed. (Sources: North Carolina DWQ, 2004; 

South Carolina DHEC, 2006) 

Land Use North Carolina South Carolina 

Forest 67% 81% 

Agriculture 24% 12% 

Urban/Developed 6% 4% 

Water 3% 3% 

Human uses of lands within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin include timber harvesting, 

agriculture, industry/commercial, residences, recreation, and other miscellaneous uses. Current 

land use within the immediate vicinity of the project is characterized as agriculture, forest (public 

and private), riparian buffer, residential (low and high density), recreational and public access, 

332 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
industrial/commercial, and utility use (including project works and transmission line corridors). 

Most of the forest lands in the vicinity of the project are privately owned forests. However, a 

portion of the Pisgah National Forest borders the Bridgewater Development along Lake James. 

There are no wilderness areas within or adjacent to the project, nor are there any wild and 

scenic rivers or eligible river segments within the project. One designated wild and scenic river, 

Wilson Creek, is located in the Catawba River watershed but is not within the project boundary 

or within the influence of the project. Similarly, the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area is located 

along the Linville River, which is a tributary to the Bridgewater Development. However, none 

of the designated wilderness area is located within the project boundary or within the influence 

of the project. 

Bridgewater Development 

The Bridgewater Development is the most upstream of the project developments and 

consists of the Catawba dam, the Paddy Creek dam, the Linville dam, the Bridgewater 

powerhouse, and the resulting impoundment, Lake James. At a full pond elevation of 1,200 ft 

msl, Lake James has a surface area of 6,754 acres and 149 miles of shoreline. Project lands at 

this development include the land within the full pond elevation and land surrounding the dams 

and powerhouse. Most of the land adjoining Lake James is privately owned. The State of North 

Carolina owns and operates the 605-acre Lake James State Park, which is located adjacent to the 

Catawba dam. In 2004, the State of North Carolina announced the acquisition of 2,900 acres of 

property on the north side of Lake James for the expansion of Lake James State Park. 

The Bridgewater Development is the only one of the project developments located 

partially in the mountain region, and the lands immediately adjacent to Lake James are generally 

steep, forested slopes. Shoreline development around Lake James is limited, and excluding lands 

designated for public recreation, approximately 17 percent of the shoreline of the lake has a 

permitted shoreline use. Approximately 21 percent is classified as existing or future public 

recreation. 

Lake James provides scenic mountain views of the surrounding region from many 

locations, including views of Pisgah National Forest to the north and west, and the Blue Ridge 

Mountains to the west. Even where foreground views include residential housing developments, 

the background views are dominated by mountains. 

Rhodhiss Development 

The Rhodhiss Development consists of a concrete spillway, an earthen embankment, and 

a powerhouse. At a full pond elevation of 995.1 ft msl, Lake Rhodhiss has a surface area of 

2,724 acres and 95.5 miles of shoreline. Project lands include land within the full pond elevation 

of the reservoir and land surrounding the dam complex. 

The headwaters of Lake Rhodhiss begin approximately 19 miles downstream of the 

Bridgewater powerhouse near the confluence of the Johns River and the Catawba River. Lake 

Rhodhiss is a riverine reservoir with very limited development. Much of the land adjacent to the 

reservoir is forested, including areas of bottomland hardwoods and planted loblolly pine stands. 

The upper reaches of Lake Rhodhiss support large areas of submerged vegetation. Excluding 

lands designated for public recreation, approximately 6 percent of the shoreline of Lake 

Rhodhiss has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 3 percent is classified as existing or 

future public recreation. 

333 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Oxford Development 

The Oxford Development consists of a dam, a powerhouse, and an impoundment known 

as Lake Hickory. At a full pond elevation of 935.0 ft msl, Lake Hickory has a surface area of 

approximately 4,072 acres and 109.8 miles of shoreline. Project lands include lands within the 

full pond elevation of the reservoir and land surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

The lands adjacent to Lake Hickory are heavily developed. Development consists 

primarily of residential housing interspersed with other types of development. An invasive 

aquatic weed, parrot feather, has become established in the upper end of Lake Hickory. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 61 percent of the shoreline of 

Lake Hickory has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 3 percent is classified as existing 

or future public recreation. 

Lookout Shoals Development 

The Lookout Shoals Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Lookout Shoals Lake). At full pond elevation of 838.1 ft 

msl, Lookout Shoals Lake has a surface area of approximately 1,155 acres and 33.1 miles of 

shoreline. Project lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land 

immediately surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

Lookout Shoals Lake is a riverine impoundment with development located primarily 

along the lower half of the reservoir. Undeveloped areas upland of the shoreline retain 

predominantly rural characteristics and include both agricultural areas and planted loblolly pine 

stands. Two invasive aquatic plants, parrot feather and hydrilla, are present in Lookout Shoals 

Lake. Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 31 percent of the 

shoreline of Lookout Shoals Lake has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 4 percent is 

classified as existing or future public recreation. In addition to the public recreation areas 

provided by Duke Energy, Catawba County operates River Park located along the upper end of 

Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Cowans Ford Development 

The Cowans Ford Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, an earthen dike located east of the powerhouse complex, and an impoundment 

(Lake Norman). Lake Norman is the largest reservoir in the Catawba-Wateree Project, and the 

largest lake wholly within North Carolina. At a full pond elevation of 760.0 ft msl, Lake 

Norman has a surface area of approximately 32,339 acres and 562.3 miles of shoreline. Project 

lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately 

surrounding the dams and powerhouse. 

Lake Norman begins immediately downstream of the Lookout Shoals dam. This upper 

part of Lake Norman is riverine in nature and supports many wetland areas. Moving 

downstream, the lake becomes wider and shoreline development increases. Development 

adjacent to the reservoir is most dense along the southern portions of the lake, closest to the city 

of Charlotte, North Carolina. The shoreline of Lake Norman is heavily developed and the lake 

receives a considerable amount of recreational use. Much of the land adjacent to the reservoir is 

developed in single family and multi-family housing, commercial marinas, and to a limited 

extent, industrial facilities. Marshall Steam Station, a coal-fired power generating facility, and 

334 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
McGuire Nuclear Station are located on the shores of Lake Norman and utilize reservoir waters 

for cooling. 

Two areas of Lake Norman were cut off by the construction of Interstate 77. Although 

both of these “lakes” are now hydraulically connected to Lake Norman by culverts, these two 

cut-off lakes are known locally as Lake Cornelius and Lake Davidson. The culverts connect the 

two cut-off lakes to Lake Norman, but do not provide boating access between the smaller lakes 

and Lake Norman. Because there is no boat access between the lakes, boating use of both Lake 

Cornelius and Lake Davidson is less than the boating use on Lake Norman. As a result both 

Lake Davidson and Lake Cornelius have a more secluded feel than the heavily utilized Lake 

Norman. 

The towns of Mooresville, Davidson, Cornelius, and Huntersville, North Carolina, adjoin 

Lake Norman. There are a number of parks located along the reservoir shoreline including the 

1,459-acre Lake Norman State Park, located on the northern half of Lake Norman. Excluding 

lands designated for public recreation, approximately 68 percent of the shoreline of Lake 

Norman currently has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 5 percent is classified as 

existing or future public recreation. 

 Mountain Island 

The Mountain Island Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Mountain Island Lake). At a full pond elevation of 647.5 ft 

msl, Mountain Island Lake has a surface area of 3,117 acres and 94.3 miles of shoreline. Project 

lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately 

surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

Mountain Island Lake is a long, narrow reservoir, the upper half of which is riverine in 

nature. Much of the land adjoining this portion of Mountain Island Lake has been acquired by 

state agencies and local entities for conservation purposes. Approximately halfway down the 

reservoir, the lake doubles back on itself, creating a peninsula, which is known locally as 

“Riverbend.” The reservoir supports extensive areas of emergent aquatic vegetation and is very 

shallow in the vicinity of the bend. Mountain Island Lake supports drinking water intakes for 

Charlotte, Mount Holly, and Gastonia, North Carolina. Riverbend Steam Station, a coal-fired 

generating facility, also is located on the reservoir. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 26 percent of the 

shoreline of Mountain Island Lake has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 16 percent 

is classified as existing or future public recreation. The remaining waterfront shoreline has been 

developed or is being developed with residential housing. 

Wylie Development 

The Wylie Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete gated spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Lake Wylie). At a full pond elevation of 569.4 ft msl, Lake 

Wylie has a surface area of 12,177 acres and 340.3 miles of shoreline. Project lands include 

lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the dam 

and powerhouse. 

Lake Wylie is the second largest reservoir in the Catawba-Wateree Project. Like Lake 

Norman, due to its proximity to the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, lands adjacent to the 

reservoir are generally developed as residential housing. In addition to the residential 

335 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
development, a number of industrial facilities, including a chemical plant, several textile mills, 

and two electrical generating facilities, are located adjacent to Lake Wylie. The upper reaches of 

the reservoir are more riverine in nature and, until recently, less developed than the downstream 

portions of the reservoir. In addition, at the confluences of large tributaries such as Allison 

Creek and Crowder Creek, the reservoir supports areas of emergent aquatic vegetation and 

undeveloped hardwood bottomlands, and thus gives these areas a different feel from the main 

part of the reservoir. In addition to the public recreation areas operated by Duke Energy, there 

are several parks located on the shores of Lake Wylie that are accessible to the public including 

Mecklenburg County’s McDowell Nature Preserve and the privately owned Daniel Stowe 

Botanical Gardens. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 51 percent of the 

shoreline of Lake Wylie has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 4 percent is classified 

as existing or future public recreation. The remaining waterfront shoreline has been developed 

or is being developed with residential housing. 

Fishing Creek Development 

The Fishing Creek Development consists of an earthen embankment, a concrete gated 

spillway, a powerhouse, and an impoundment (Fishing Creek reservoir). Locally the facility is 

known as the “Nitrolee Plant.” At a full pond elevation of 417.2 ft msl, Fishing Creek reservoir 

has a surface area of 3,431 acres and 90.4 miles of shoreline. Project lands include lands within 

the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the powerhouse. 

The upper end of Fishing Creek reservoir is largely undeveloped. Landsford Canal State 

Park adjoins the upper end of the reservoir, and this area is very shallow with numerous shoals. 

A large colony of the Rocky Shoals spider lily is located in this portion of the reservoir. 

Downstream of Highway 9, the reservoir widens, and moving downstream the western shoreline 

is largely developed as residential housing. Eastern shoreline of the reservoir is largely 

undeveloped, but a large new residential subdivision is currently being developed on the eastern 

shore of the reservoir. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 7 percent of the 

shoreline of Fishing Creek Lake has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 4 percent is 

classified as existing or future public recreation. The remaining waterfront shoreline has been 

developed or is being developed with residential housing. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments consist of an ungated concreted diversion 

weir, an intake canal, the concrete Great Falls headworks, a concrete dam with two powerhouses, 

and an impoundment (Great Falls reservoir). At a full pond elevation of 355.8 ft msl, Great Falls 

reservoir has a surface area of 353 acres and 13.2 miles of shoreline. Project lands include lands 

within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the dams and 

powerhouses. 

There is no public access to the Great Falls reservoir due to safety concerns associated 

with the ungated spillways. Shoreline development along the Great Falls reservoir is limited, 

and due to safety concerns Duke Energy does not permit the construction of any private 

recreation facilities on Great Falls reservoir. 

336 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Approximately 71 percent of the shoreline of Great Falls reservoir has a permitted 

shoreline use and approximately 19 percent is classified as existing or future public recreation. 

The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments include two bypassed river reaches. The 

bypassed river reaches contain boulder fields, large potholes, and exposed rock cliffs. The 

shorelines of the bypassed reaches are undeveloped. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments consist of a dam, two powerhouses, 

and an impoundment (Cedar Creek reservoir). At a full pond elevation of 284.4 ft msl, Cedar 

Creek reservoir has a surface area of 748 acres and 22.3 miles of shoreline. Project lands include 

lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the dam 

and powerhouses. 

Cedar Creek reservoir is a relatively shallow reservoir and is locally known as “Stumpy 

Pond.” Within the reservoir is a an island, known as Big Island or Dearborn Island, that rises 

almost 200 ft above the full pond elevation of the reservoir. The reservoir shoreline is 

characterized by steep hardwood forested slopes, and the uplands are primarily loblolly pine 

stands. The steep-sloped islands and lands surrounding Cedar Creek reservoir provide a 

mountain-like setting for the lake. Shoreline development is limited and is confined to one cove 

on the reservoir. The remaining shoreline is currently under option to a local land conservancy 

for purchase for permanent conservation. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 11 percent of the 

shoreline of Cedar Creek reservoir has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 35 percent 

is classified as existing or future public recreation. 

Wateree Development 

The Wateree Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Lake Wateree). At a full pond elevation of 225.5 ft msl, 

Lake Wateree has a surface area of approximately 13,025 acres and 189.4 miles of shoreline. 

Project lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately 

surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

Lake Wateree is the lowermost development in the project. Downstream of the Wateree 

dam, the Wateree River takes on the characteristics of a Coastal Plain river, with meanders and 

adjacent swamps. The landscape around Lake Wateree marks the transition between the 

Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions of the watershed. Most of the area consists of former 

agricultural fields that have been converted to loblolly pine plantations. Much of the property 

adjacent to the reservoir on the western side and southern half of Lake Wateree is developed in 

residential housing. The upland areas remain relatively rural in nature. The upper half of the 

east side of Lake Wateree remains undeveloped, but a residential development is being planned 

for a 3,500-acre tract in this area. In addition to Duke Energy’s public access areas, Lake 

Wateree State Park, located on the west side of the reservoir, provides public access to the 

reservoir. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 48 percent of the 

shoreline of Lake Wateree has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 5 percent is 

classified as existing or future public recreation. 

337 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Land Ownership and Management 

Lands within the project boundary are generally limited to lands within the full-pond 

elevation contour of the project reservoirs and lands immediately surrounding project dams, 

powerhouses, and related facilities. Project lands are generally owned by Duke Energy. There 

are no federal lands within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. The Pisgah National Forest 

comprises federal lands adjacent to Lake James. State-owned or managed lands adjacent to the 

project include Lake James State Park, Lake Norman State Park, and Lake Wateree State Park. 

There also are several major county- or municipal-owned local parks adjacent to the project 

reservoirs. Most of the lands immediately adjacent to the project are privately owned. Private 

lands include agricultural lands, forest lands (managed or unmanaged), permanent or seasonal 

homes, and commercial use lands. Significant federal or state lands located adjacent to the 

project that are available for public use include the following. 

Pisgah National Forest 

The Forest Service manages the Pisgah National Forest adjacent to the project. The 

Pisgah National Forest covers 510,113 acres, a portion of which borders Lake James 

(Bridgewater Development), and includes diverse communities, habitats, and recreational 

opportunities. Management of the Pisgah National Forest is guided by the Nantahala and Pisgah 

National Forests land and resource management plan that establishes management standards and 

guidelines for the national forest lands. The goal of the plan is to provide a management 

program that has a mixture of management activities that allow use and protection of the forest 

resources; fulfill legislative requirements; and address local, regional, and national issues and 

concerns. 

Lake James State Park 

Lake James State Park is a state park located adjacent to Lake James that is owned and 

operated by the State of North Carolina (North Carolina DPR). The park provides a number of 

the recreational opportunities at Lake James including a swim area, picnic area, a fishing pier, 

trails, and campsites. Lake James State Park was established in 1987 by the North Carolina 

General Assembly and is one of the most recent additions to the North Carolina state park 

system. For the initial phase of development, 565 acres of land were purchased. An expansion 

in 2005 added almost 3,000 acres of land and almost 30 miles of shoreline. 

Lake Norman State Park 

Lake Norman State Park is a 1,928-acre state park located adjacent to Lake Norman 

(Cowans Ford Development) that is owned and operated by the State of North Carolina (North 

Carolina DPR, www.ncparks.gov). The park was established in 1962 when Duke Energy 

donated 1,328 acres of land for a state park. The park provides a number of the recreational 

opportunities at Lake Norman including boat ramps, a swim area, picnic area, bank fishing, 

trails, and campsites. 

Lake Wateree State Park 

Lake Wateree State Park is a 238-acre state park located adjacent to Lake Wateree 

(Wateree Development) that is owned and operated by the State of South Carolina (South 

Carolina DPRT). The park provides a number of the recreational opportunities at Lake Wateree 

including boat ramps, pier/bank fishing, trails, and campsites. Land for the state park was 

338 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
purchased in 1982. State parks in South Carolina conserve and protect the diverse natural and 

cultural resources found in the state parks. 

State parks in North Carolina are managed by the North Carolina DPR under the 

Systemwide Plan for the North Carolina State Parks System. The plan outlines goals for 

interpretation and education, natural and cultural resource protection, park operations, capital 

improvements, planning, community outreach, and system expansion. The overall mission of 

North Carolina state parks is to conserve and protect representative examples of the natural 

beauty, ecological features, and recreational resources of statewide significance; to provide 

outdoor recreational opportunities; and to provide environmental education opportunities. 

Mountain Island Educational State Forest 

The Mountain Island Educational State Forest is a state educational forest operated by the 

North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (North Carolina DFR), a division within North 

Carolina DENR. The forest is still under development adjacent to Mountain Island Lake 

(Mountain Island Development) and is not yet open to the public. Once open, the forest will 

feature classes and exhibits designed to educate schoolchildren, forestry professionals, and the 

general public about the importance of North Carolina's forest health. North Carolina DFR’s 

primary purpose is to ensure adequate and quality forest resources for the state to meet present 

and future needs. 

City of Hickory, North Carolina, Local Parks 

The City of Hickory owns and manages two city parks adjacent to Lake Hickory (Oxford 

Development) that total about 224 acres, Bud Geitner Park and Glenn C. Hilton Park. These 

parks provide a variety of public recreational opportunities including a boat ramp, a canoe 

launch, bank/pier fishing and picnic areas. The city manages its parks under its Parks and 

Recreation Master Plan. 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Local Parks 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, owns and manages two county parks adjacent to 

Lake Norman (Cowans Ford Development), Jetton Road County Park and Blythe Landing 

County Park, that total about 131 acres. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, also owns and 

manages a wildlife refuge (Cowans Ford Wildlife Refuge) and two county parks adjacent to 

Mountain Island Lake (Mountain Island Development), Rural Hill Park and Latta Plantation 

County Park, that total about 2,356 acres. The county also owns and manages a 956-acre park 

located adjacent to Lake Wylie (Wylie Development), McDowell Park. These areas provide a 

variety of public recreational opportunities including boat ramps, pier/bank fishing, sunbathing 

beaches, picnic areas, trails, volleyball courts, playgrounds, an observation deck, a wildlife area, 

and a formal garden. The county manages its parks in accordance with its Parks and Recreation 

Master Plan. 

Stowe Botanical Garden 

The Stowe Botanical Garden is a 100-acre botanical garden and wildlife area located 

adjacent to Lake Wylie (Wylie Development) that is owned and managed by the Daniel Stowe 

Family. 

339 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Shoreline Management Plan 

SMGs for the Catawba-Wateree Project were developed in 1985. An SMP and SMG for 

the project were last updated and approved by the Commission in October 2003. Duke Energy 

began implementing the proposed SMP and SMG on September 1, 2006. Since its inception, the 

project SMP has consisted of two primary components: (1) the SMG, and (2) the shoreline 

classification maps and associated lake use restrictions. 

Working with interested agencies and other stakeholders, Duke Energy has revised and 

updated both the shoreline classification maps and its SMG as part of its relicensing study efforts 

and is proposing the adoption of these revised maps and guidelines as part of a newly approved 

SMP for the project. The updated guidelines consist of revised criteria within each of the six 

lake use permitting programs, including: (1) shoreline stabilization, (2) private facilities, 

(3) marina facilities, (4) conveyance, (5) excavation, and (6) miscellaneous reservoir uses. 

As the SMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project was last updated and approved in October 

2003 (Order Approving and Modifying the Shoreline Management Plan issued on October 15, 

2003) this EIS focuses on the incremental changes between the 2003 approved SMP and the 

proposed SMP, and we assess the effects of these proposed changes on environmental resources 

of the project. 

Shoreline Classifications 

The existing SMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project includes maps that classify the 

shoreline into various use categories. Each category carries with it a description of the area 

characteristics and established lake use restrictions. The classification maps are an integral part 

of the project SMP and are a critical component of the proposed action. The Catawba-Wateree 

Project shoreline classifications are summarized in table 86. 

Table 86. Summary of Shoreline Classifications Proposed for the Revised SMP for the 

Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

 Classification Summary description Lake use restrictions 

Environmental 

Vegetated areas or cove heads with 

stream confluences with either (1) stable, 

wetland-type habitat and emergent 

vegetation, or (2) intermittent or 

permanent streams entering the upper 

ends of shallow coves. 

No removal of vegetation, 

construction, excavation, or 

shoreline stabilization inside the 

project boundaries. 

Bottomland Hardwood 

Area 

Areas with diverse, well-developed tree 

canopies consisting of some combination 

of hydrophytic tree species. The soils are 

typically sandy, organically rich, alluvial 

soils that exhibit hydric soil conditions. 

These areas have gentle slopes and are 

often associated with a drainage area or 

stream confluence. 

No removal of vegetation, 

construction, excavation, or 

shoreline stabilization inside the 

project boundaries. 

340 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
 Classification Summary description Lake use restrictions 

Natural 

These areas have characteristics that 

make most types of development inside 

the project boundaries undesirable from 

an overall lake management standpoint. 

Natural areas exist where any of four 

criteria, summarized as follows, are met: 

(1) large areas of shallow water, 

(2) important terrestrial habitat areas, (3) 

significant cultural resource areas, or (4) 

narrow isolated berms within the project 

boundary. 

No removal of vegetation, 

construction, or excavation inside 

the project boundaries 

Impact Minimization 

Zones 

Areas that have specifically identified 

importance on a given lake from a scenic, 

environmental, or cultural standpoint. 

Applicants must first try to avoid impact 

minimization zones, but if complete 

avoidance is not a practicable alternative, 

then the lake use restrictions apply. 

No boat ramps except those 

required for public recreation, 

and no excavation.1

 Construction 

in these areas may have specific 

mitigation requirements imposed 

by the federal, state, or local 

resource agencies. Shoreline 

stabilization within the project 

boundaries must adhere to the 

Shoreline Stabilization 

Technique Selection Process. 

Commercial Marina 

Project lands and waters where boats can 

be launched, retrieved, or moored, and 

where provisions for food services, 

convenience retailing such as petroleum 

sales, wet and dry storage of watercraft, 

and other related activities take place. 

Per the SMG, new commercial 

marina facilities will not be 

authorized in areas within a halfmile radius of an existing 

commercial marina facility nor 

areas where more than 50 percent 

of the shoreline within a halfmile radius is residentially 

developed. 

Residential Marina 

Project lands and waters where boats can 

be launched, retrieved, or moored for the 

purpose of providing private access to the 

lake for specific residential properties 

including: (1) multi-family dwellings, 

(2) long-term campgrounds, and 

(3) subdivision access lots that provide 

boating access for owners of any 

residential lots that do not have project 

frontage. 

No commercial marina facilities. 

Residential 

Project lands and waters occupied by 

private facilities for project-front 

landowners, none of which can have 

multi-family dwellings. 

No commercial marina or new 

residential marina facilities. 

341 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
 Classification Summary description Lake use restrictions 

Business/Industrial 

Project lands and waters that are typically 

used by private businesses but which 

have little to no effect on boating. 

No facilities that have an 

appreciable effect on boating. 

Project Operations 

Project lands and waters associated with 

hydropower production including, but not 

limited to, dams, dikes, powerhouses, and 

other hydro plant properties. 

Downstream Clear Zones also are part of 

this classification and include project 

lands and waters immediately 

downstream of all operating hydro 

stations that are potentially subject to 

rapid and significant variations in flow 

rates based on plant operations. 

No new or expanded residential 

marina, commercial marina or 

residential facilities. 

Public Recreation 

Project lands and waters occupied by 

facilities supporting various public 

recreational amenities. 

No non-project uses except 

public infrastructure. 

Public Infrastructure 

Project lands and waters occupied by 

public, non-recreational facilities 

supporting regional needs. 

No new or expanded residential 

marina, commercial marina, or 

residential facilities. 

1 Different lake use restrictions apply for Lake James in the Impact Minimization Zone 

classification. 

The classification of Bottomland Hardwood is a new classification under the proposed 

2006 modifications. Shoreline in this new classification is afforded the same level of protection 

as shoreline classified as Environmental. 

 The proposed 2006 classification maps designate classifications for the entire shoreline 

of the Catawba-Wateree Project. However, as the project boundary for this project generally 

follows the normal full pond elevation of the reservoirs, the classifications apply only to the 

immediate shoreline uses. The exceptions to this are project lands surrounding the dams and 

powerhouses, but these are all classified as project operations, within which no new residential 

marina, commercial marina, or residential facilities are permitted. 

Shoreline Management Guidelines 

The SMG are a set of detailed procedures and criteria that Duke Energy uses to regulate 

activities within reservoirs owned and managed by Duke Energy, including lands and waters 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. The revised SMG developed by Duke Energy in 

consultation with agencies and other stakeholders are designed to be consistent with the 

Commission’s Standard Land Use article. 

The SMG provide detailed guidance for allowable uses of project lands and waters in 

several program categories including the: (1) Marina Facilities Program, (2) Conveyance 

Program, (3) Excavation Program, (4) Private Facilities Program, (5) Shoreline Stabilization 

Program, (6) Miscellaneous Reservoir Uses Program, (7) General Policies that are not Lake 

342 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
343 

Specific, and (8) Vegetation Management Requirements. The SMG also include sections that 

outline True Public Marina Requirements and the Shoreline Stabilization Technique Selection 

Process. In addition to providing specific criteria and procedures in each of the these program 

areas, the SMG also outline the step-wise review processes that Duke Energy utilizes in 

considering all lake use permit activity requests and in evaluating non-project uses. Overall, the 

review steps outlined in the SMG are intended to ensure consistency in reviewing all permit 

applications and considering all requests for non-project use of project lands and waters, 

consistent with its FERC license. 

A cornerstone of Duke Energy’s SMG for the Catawba-Wateree Project is its Lake Use 

Policy Statements (Lake Policy). The Lake Policy delineates the types of access and activities 

that may be allowed on all reservoirs owned or managed by Duke Energy. With respect to the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, Lake Policy allow for review of four basic types of lake access: 

(1) private access, (2) public recreational access, (3) public infrastructure access, and 

(4) business/industrial access on the lakes with existing private and business development 

(James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Lookout Shoals, Norman, Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, 

Cedar Creek, and Wateree). Public infrastructure and business/industrial access will be allowed 

in accordance with the Commission’s standard land use articles. However, the Lake Policy will 

not allow any additional private access on Great Falls reservoir, but public recreational access 

will be allowed as required to meet the terms of any new FERC licenses. 

Duke Energy is proposing changes to the SMG. Table 87 summarizes the SMG changes 

being proposed for inclusion in the revised SMG. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 87. Summary of proposed modifications to the Shoreline Management Guidelines. (Source: Duke En

SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria Fees 

Applicant proposes fees for permitting of private and commercial docks, marinas, and other recrallowed under the SMP. Some fees are earmarked for inclusion in the HEP Funds, and are to be 

purchase or otherwise protect lands outside the project boundary for conservation or other public support fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, and for creation and protection activities within a

the project boundary, the Duke Energy-owned islands, Duke Energy-owned public recreation arstretches in the Catawba basin in the counties occupied by the Catawba-Wateree Project. The reestablishes no caps on fees. 

Enforcement The SMP and SMG both include provisions and restrictions for activities that can be authorized 

boundary. Specific restrictions and consequences for violations are included within each SMG p

Areas with an average eroded bank height less than or equal to 3 ft can only be stabilized utilizintechniques, or riprap, or both: seawalls are not allowed. This is a change over the previously ap

allowed seawalls regardless of bank height. Seawalls A layer of riprap must be placed along the entire base of all bulkheads extending 6 ft lakeward fra change over the previously approved SMP, which did not require 6ft extension of riprap, resul

of bulkheads. 

Plantings 

The type of plantings utilized in bioengineering and landscape planting projects should be native South Carolina, or both, and must be reviewed and approved by Duke Energy prior to introducti

approved SMP did not limit plant introduction to native species. Excavation is not allowed within water willow beds except as necessary to maintain access to pr

facilities. The previously approved SMP did not limit excavations in areas of water willow. Excavation activities must not occur during the months of March, April, May, and June because to fish spawning areas. The previously approved SMP allowed excavations during these months Carolina portion of the project. 

Excavation Excavation permits will not be issued for the following activities: (a) channeling to create additi

channeling that would alter the project boundary or the full pond contour elevation; (b) excavatiothreatened or endangered species, historic properties, or environmentally important areas; and (cactivities not associated with maintaining access to an existing permitted facility or a proposed f

owner had made application and received written approval from Duke Energy for its constructioexpand restrictions on excavation over what was allowed in the previously approved SMP. 

344 
SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria 

Sand Mining 

Sand mining operations for the removal of sand from within the project boundary, usually on he

the reservoir, may be authorized in accordance with the Excavation and Conveyance Program gumaximum practical extent. The previously approved SMP did not address sand mining in projec

Placement of Excavated Materials 

All excavated material must be handled following best management practices unless special conwriting by South Carolina DHEC or North Carolina DENR. The previously approved SMP did excavated materials were to be handled. 

Commission Review of Excavation Application 

Commission review is required for: (a) all excavations, except for maintenance excavations, tha

cubic yards of material removed; and (b)any excavation activity that is required to support anothrequest that requires Commission review. The previously approved SMP did not specify the neereview of these excavation projects. 

Protection of Water Willow Beds 

Applicants are encouraged to avoid activities that could have an adverse impact upon existing wUnavoidable impacts should be confined to the sides of water willow beds to minimize disruptioshallow water fish habitat. No floating structures or other extraneous facilities may be constructbeds. The width of walkways over water willow beds will be limited to less than 3 ft. Removal 

continued lake access may be allowed provided only that necessary for limited access in specificis approved in writing. The previously approved SMP did not limit or encourage limitations on areas of water willow beds. 

Private Boat Ramps The SMP will no longer allow boat ramps for private use. The previously approved SMP allowe

but placed some restrictions on when such boat ramps could be constructed. 

Material Requirements 

Floatation for all facilities and boat mooring buoys must be constructed of materials manufacturMaterials will resist puncture and penetration and will not be subject to damage by animals. The 

polystyrene will not be permitted for any new construction or as replacement for existing faciliti

metal, or other previously used drums or containers for encasement or flotation purposes is prohapproved flotation is authorized until it has severely deteriorated and is no longer serviceable, at be replaced with approved flotation. 

No Permanently Moored Houseboats 

Watercraft used for habitation shall not be permanently moored at private docks. Permanent momarinas with sewer facilities. The previously approved SMP did not limit mooring of houseboa

Limitations on Watercraft Moored at Common Use Facilities 

Common use facilities with three or more slips are not eligible for mooring additional watercraft 

watercrafts. The previously approved SMP did not specifically limit the number of watercraft at 

facilities. 

345 
SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria 

Common Use Boat Slips per Waterfront Lot 

Unless grandfathered, no more than one common use boat slip per waterfront lot will be conside

Ownership or interest in a common use facility eliminates the option of having a separate facility 

a slip in a common use facility. The previously approved SMP did not specifically limit commo

lot. 

Shoreline Structures 

Decks, gazebos, covered boat slips, and boat shelters must be single-story structures. They may 

designed to allow second story use; however, the second story must not be roofed creating a twostructure. The previously approved SMP did not restrict two-story structures. 

Lot Width 

Unless grandfathered, a lot having less than 100 ft of shoreline that is suitable for residential use 

considered for a pier or common use slip. The previously approved SMP required 75 ft of shorepier. 

Inflatable Recreation Equipment 

The use and placement of large water-based recreational equipment will not be allowed within thThe previously approved SMP did not restrict the use of water-based recreational equipment. 

Water Withdrawals 

The applicant may authorize a single water withdrawal pump for private home use provided the horsepower of less than or equal to 2 horsepower and is used exclusively for the adjoining water

previously approved SMP allowed withdrawal pumps that did not exceed 1 mgd for home and a

Private Swim Areas Private individuals will not be authorized to rope off or exclude the public from a portion of the 

purpose of creating a private swim area. The previously approved SMP did not include this prov

Wildlife Enhancement Activities 

The applicant may authorize wildlife enhancement activities such as wood duck boxes and other regardless of the shoreline classification, provided the activity does not pose a hazard to public sthe state wildlife agency approves of the activity, and there are no objections from adjacent prop

Shoreline Vegetation 

Any new developer that desires to provide off-water access for interior lots within a developmenaside a minimum of 20 percent of the entire development’s shoreline, in addition to any shorelin

habitat classification. The SMG also encourage owners and developers of shoreline property to 

property upland of the project boundary either associated with these preserved shoreline areas or protected shoreline classification. 

True Public Marinas 

Facilities operated as true public marinas may be considered for a maximum length of 200 ft promeets all other requirements and continues to be operated as a true public marina. The previousnot allow commercial facility piers (including those that would meet the definition of true public than 120 ft. 

346 
347 

SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria Expansion of True Public Marinas 

Expansion of existing true public marinas may be exempted from adhering to certain requiremenof other existing commercial facilities even if: (a) The facility is behind a point where the cove 

less, (b) the facility expansion would exceed the maximum of 200 boat slips, or (c) the facility e200-ft setback from the outermost project front property corners or from any privately owned in

Petroleum at Commercial Facilities 

New, expanding, or rebuilding commercial marina facilities that dispense gasoline within the pro

provide petroleum absorbent materials or similar best available technology at all the slips dedicagasoline dispensing. The previously approved SMP had no spill or clean-up requirements for mpetroleum products. 

Commercial Boat Ramp Construction 

New boat ramps for commercial marina facility use shall not be located in the backs of coves if cove between the proposed boat ramp location and the main channel is 300 ft or less in width. Tapproved SMP had no restrictions on the location of commercial boat ramps. 

Pump-out Installation 

Any proposed new or rebuilding residential marina facility must provide onsite sanitation facilitdisposal of waste if any of the following criteria are met: (a) the facility will have more than 65 spaces, (b) The facility will moor more than 25 watercraft with marine sanitation devices, or (c) 

watercraft that will be used for human habitation. The previously approved SMP did not require for any size residential marina facilities. 

Extraneous Facilities New extraneous facilities that are not required to provide lake access (e.g., gazebos, that are not 

boating facilities) are prohibited. The previously approved SMP did not have this restriction. 

Watercraft per Boat Slip 

Unless a boat slip or docking/mooring location is specifically designed to accommodate addition

capacity is specified, only one watercraft at a time shall be moored within a boat slip or dockingmarina facility. The previously approved SMP did not specify any limitations on boats per slip. 

Water Withdrawals/ Intakes 

New, expanding, or rebuilding large (greater than 1 mgd) permanent water intakes should be ful

below the critical lake elevation. The previously approved SMP did not specify this requiremen

Waste Water Discharges 

New, expanding, or rebuilding waste water effluent outfalls should be completely submerged anor below the critical lake elevation. 

Private Bridges/Causeways 

New construction of non-public bridges that will cross the full pond contour of the project, excepprovide access to privately owned islands, will not be authorized. The previously approved SMP whether private bridges across the project were allowed. 

Non-Project Use of Project Lands/Waters 

Conveyance proposals for non-project use activities should generally avoid crossing an applicanaccess area. The previously approved SMP was silent on this issue. 
SMP Review and Update 

Duke Energy proposes to review and update the SMP at 10 years following the issuance 

of a new project license and the closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods 

related to shoreline and land management and every 10 years thereafter for the term of the new 

license. In developing the revised SMP, Duke Energy proposes to convene and consult with a 

workgroup consisting of North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, 

South Carolina DNR, FWS, local governments, and other interested parties to review the 

implementation of the SMP and recommended potential modifications. Coincident with filing 

the revised SMP, Duke Energy proposes to update and file revised shoreline classifications maps 

that have been updated to reflect changes in the project’s shoreline development. 

Visual Aesthetics 

The visual quality of the Catawba-Wateree Project developments is highly variable. 

Starting at the top of the watershed, the Bridgewater Development is set partially within the Blue 

Ridge Province, and the lands immediately adjoining Lake James are generally steep and 

forested slopes. The lake affords scenic views of Pisgah National Forest and the Blue Ridge 

Mountains. With only 17 percent of the shoreline in permitted uses, much of the Lake James 

shoreline remains in a natural state, adding to the overall aesthetic quality of the reservoir. Just 

downstream from Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss offers a riverine type reservoir with very limited 

shoreline development. In contrast, the lands adjacent to Lake Hickory (Oxford Development) 

are heavily developed, and most views of the reservoir shoreline include homes and other types 

of development. At the next downstream development, Lookout Shoals Lake, the shoreline 

development is clustered primarily along the lower half of the reservoir, while the upper part of 

this reservoir retains a natural, riverine character. 

Lake Norman (Cowans Ford Development) is the largest of the project reservoirs, and 

one of the most heavily developed. Visually, much of the reservoir shoreline supports residential 

development, and boating use of the reservoir is very heavy. The two areas of the reservoir that 

were cut off from the main reservoir by the construction of Interstate 77, Lake Davidson and 

Lake Cornelius, get less use and provide a more secluded setting than does the main part of the 

reservoir. Despite the preponderance of development along much of the Lake Norman shoreline, 

portions of the reservoir shoreline, particularly at the upper end of the reservoir, remain 

undeveloped and provide a more natural visual setting. The most frequently observed view of 

Lake Norman is undoubtedly the view of the reservoir from the Interstate 77 causeway. From 

this perspective, passing motorists get a good view of the lake, with a moderately developed 

shoreline in the background. Excellent views of the Cowans Ford dam and powerhouse also are 

available to the public at the visitor’s overlook. 

Mountain Island Lake (Mountain Island Development) is a long narrow lake, the upper 

half of which is riverine in nature. Much of the land adjacent to this part of the reservoir has 

been purchased for conservation. Key viewpoints of Mountain Island Lake for the public 

include the Highway 73 Bridge that crosses the reservoir downstream of Cowans Ford Hydro 

and the Highway 16 Bridge that crosses the reservoir near Riverbend Steam Station. 

The second largest of the project reservoirs, Lake Wylie (Wylie Development), has a 

shoreline that also is heavily developed. In addition to considerable residential development, 

several industrial facilities dot the shoreline. Views of Lake Wylie are accessible from 

348 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Highway 273, Highway 27, and Interstate 85, on the northern end of the reservoir, and from 

Highway 49 which crosses the southern half of the reservoir. 

Fishing Creek reservoir is a moderate sized reservoir which is largely undeveloped. Only 

7 percent of this reservoir’s shoreline has a permitted shoreline use. However, a large new 

development is planned for the eastern side of the reservoir, and may alter the aesthetic quality of 

the reservoir in the future. Views of Fishing Creek reservoir are accessible primarily from the 

Highway 9 Bridge crossing on the upper end of the reservoir and limited views on the western 

side from Highway 21. The public is afforded an excellent view of the Fishing Creek dam and 

powerhouse from the Highway 200 Bridge, which crosses the river just downstream of the dam. 

Due to safety concerns, there is no public access provided to the Great Falls reservoir, so 

views of the reservoir are generally limited to private individuals with residences located along 

the reservoir shoreline. Moreover, while a considerable amount of the Great Falls reservoir 

shoreline is classified as developed (71 percent of the shoreline has a permitted use; however, the 

developed classification is primarily [50 percent] project operations with 0.8 percent 

business/industrial use and 0.5 percent public infrastructure), Duke Energy does not permit the 

construction of private piers on this reservoir, so the shoreline remains uncluttered. The primary 

view of the reservoir afforded to the public is from the Highway 200 bridge as it crosses the 

reservoir just downstream from the Fishing Creek dam. 

 Cedar Creek reservoir is one of the least developed of the project reservoirs. Only 

11 percent of the shoreline of this small reservoir has permitted shoreline use. The reservoir’s 

unique features are two large islands, Big Island which rises almost 200 ft above the full pond 

elevation, and Mountain Island which rises 506 ft above msl. The reservoir shoreline is 

characterized by steep hardwood forested slopes, interspersed with stands of loblolly pine in 

upland areas. Much of the Cedar Creek reservoir shoreline is under option to a local land 

conservancy and is likely to be conserved in a natural state in the future. 

Lake Wateree has a moderately developed shoreline with nearly half of the shoreline 

(48 percent) in permitted use. As this development is located in the transition region between the 

Piedmont and the Coastal Plain, much of the land surrounding the reservoir is flat, and views 

from the reservoir are generally limited to the immediate shoreline. Lake Wateree State Park 

provides the public with outstanding views of the lake. Views from public roads are limited to 

bridge crossings on the west side of the reservoir and the Highway 97 bridge crossing at Beaver 

Creek on the east side of the reservoir. 

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects 

Minimum Flows, Recreational Flows, and Reservoir Levels 

Duke Energy is proposing to provide new or increased minimum flows at several of the 

project developments including the Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Falls, 

Dearborn, and Wateree Developments. 

Additionally, Duke Energy proposes to provide minimum average daily flows at the 

remaining project developments, including Rhodhiss Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing 

Creek, and Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek. Minimum flows are discussed in detail in 

section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects. 

In addition to its proposed minimum flows Duke Energy proposes to provide dedicated 

recreational flow releases at rates and on schedules to support paddling, wade fishing, boat 

349 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
fishing, and other activities. These new scheduled flows would be provided in the Bridgewater, 

Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated river reaches in addition to scheduled flow releases for 

canoeing and whitewater boating into the Great Falls bypassed reaches. Recreational flows are 

discussed in detail in Section 3.3.7, Recreational Resources. 

There were no comments regarding the potential effect of the proposed recreational flows 

on land use, ownership, or development. There were comments from the public in support of the 

proposed flow releases into the Great Falls bypassed reaches. South Carolina DNR commented 

that Great Falls will be greatly enhanced with the flows proposed in the Revised CRA. The 

Great Falls Hometown Association expressed its support of the proposed flow releases noting 

that the flows will help to restore the sound of the Great Falls, which historically were described 

as “a great wonder, that could be heard for miles.” Similarly, the Honorable H.C. Starnes, 

Mayor of Great Falls, commented that with the planned release of water through the old river 

bed, the historic sounds of the Great Falls of the Catawba will be heard again. 

Duke Energy also is proposing some changes to reservoir water level regimes. These 

proposed modifications are discussed in detail in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. There were no 

comments regarding the potential for the proposed reservoir water level regimes to adversely 

impact land use, shoreline management, or project aesthetics. 

Our Analysis 

The changes in minimum flows proposed for the Catawba-Wateree Project developments 

would have minimal to no effect on land use, ownership, or management. Proposed minimum 

flows at most of the developments represent a modest to moderate increase in minimum flows 

over what is currently provided. At nearly every development where Duke Energy has proposed 

an increase in continuous minimum flows, it would be anticipated that the increased minimum 

flows would enhance the scenic quality of the river or bypassed reach. This is particularly true 

of the bypassed reaches at the Great Falls Development, where Duke Energy’s proposal to 

provide a continuous minimum flow 100 cfs in the Short bypassed reach and 450-850 cfs 

(depending on the season) in the Long bypassed reach will significantly enhance the aesthetic 

quality of the falls that historically distinguished this river reach. 

Recreational flows proposed for a number of the developments also are anticipated to 

enhance the visual quality of these river reaches during periods of higher recreational flow 

releases, and greater recreational use. As part of the studies used to evaluate and consider 

appropriate recreational flow release levels for each of the developments, the aesthetic quality of 

the range of recreational flows being considered for each of the river reaches was assessed. The 

aesthetic quality of the recreational boating flows proposed for the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, 

Great Falls, Dearborn (Long and Short bypassed reaches), and Wateree Developments were all 

rated as “Acceptable” to “Totally Acceptable.” 

Provisions of recreational flows in the various development reaches, as proposed, will 

result in an increase in recreational use of these reaches. In turn, unless appropriate facilities and 

accommodations are provided to handle the increased recreational use, having more users along 

the shorelines could result in an increase in shoreline disturbance and eventually lead to 

additional shoreline erosion. Littering, and other unsightly forms of human disturbance could 

result. Duke Energy’s proposal for adding and modifying planned recreation sites to 

accommodate the expected increase in recreational use along these river reaches, should be 

adequate to more than offset any adverse impacts to the shoreline or the aesthetics of the 

350 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
bypassed reaches that might result from increased use. We conclude that the proposed 

recreational flows will have no significant adverse effect on the project shorelines or land use, 

and will further enhance the aesthetic quality of these reaches. 

Reservoir water level regimes proposed for each of the project developments will have 

minimal or no effect on project land use, shoreline management, or aesthetics. None of the 

proposed water level regimes will result in significant increases in reservoir draw-down or 

fluctuation levels. Modified guide curves for Lake James and Lake Norman will reduce the 

maximum winter draw-down of the reservoir. At Lake James and Lake Norman, the proposed 

guide curves will reduce the winter draw-down from a current maximum of 8 ft to a new 

maximum of 6 ft. Modifications proposed for the operating levels of the other reservoirs are all 

within 1 ft of the current operating levels and would have no effect land use or the visual quality 

of the reservoirs. 

Lake Wateree Flooding 

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, high intensity rainfall events 

cause Lake Wateree to rise above the normal full pool elevation of the reservoir, causing 

flooding in low-lying shoreline areas around the reservoir. Lake Wateree property owners have 

indicated that flooding increases shoreline erosion and causes impacts to roads, structures, land, 

septic systems, docks, and other recreation facilities. 

Our Analysis 

To help reduce the magnitude, frequency, and duration of flooding at Lake Wateree, 

Duke Energy is proposing to install a bladder dam in the Wateree spillway. As discussed in 

section 3.3.2, Water Resources, the proposed spillway and bladder dam would increase the 

discharge capacity at the 103-ft flood stage by approximately 33 percent, and is anticipated to 

reduce the peak flood elevation at the Wateree dam from 104.9 ft to approximately 104 ft, and 

reduce the duration the reservoir elevation is above 103 ft from 20.5 to 15 hours. Much of the 

shoreline in the lower portion of Lake Wateree has minimal topographic relief and is therefore 

prone to flooding. Historically, these same areas have been developed with little consideration 

of the location of structures and facilities within the flood easement. Even with the proposed 

bladder dam, flooding of portions of the Lake Wateree shoreline would be expected to continue, 

albeit at a reduced frequency and magnitude. Duke Energy has a 10-ft vertical flood easement 

around Lake Wateree; however, the project boundary at Lake Wateree is at full pool elevation of 

225.5 ft msl. Lands outside the project boundary are under the purview of planning and zoning 

efforts conducted by local jurisdictions and are outside the Commission’s authority. Local 

government zoning ordinances prevent the building of homes within the flood easement. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

Duke Energy is proposing changes to the existing project SMP in two areas: (1) revised 

shoreline classification maps, and (2) revised SMG. The proposed changes to the shoreline 

classification maps are important in that they reflect a comprehensive review of the existing 

shoreline classifications for all the project reservoirs, by Duke Energy, in consultation with 

resource management agencies and other interested stakeholders. Table 88 provides a summary 

of the proposed shoreline classifications project-wide and compares these classifications to the 

currently approved classifications. In the project settlement agreement Duke Energy reserves the 

right to make changes to the classification maps to protect newly discovered resources such as 

351 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
archeological or historic sites, threatened or endangered species, special concern species, or to 

correct errors. 

Table 88. Comparison between the 2003 classifications and the proposed classifications. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

2003 Approved SMP classification type and 

percent of total shoreline in each classification 

2006 Proposed SMP classification type and 

percent of total shoreline in each classification 

Commercial/Non-Residential 1.2% Commercial Marina 1.1% 

Commercial/Residential 1.9% Residential Marina 1.9% 

Residential 34.4% Residential 37.7% 

Public Recreational 0.5% Public Recreation 0.6% 

Project Operations 1.5% Project Operations 1.4% 

Environmental 18.3% Environmental 19.0% 

Natural Areas 5.7% Natural 5.4% 

Business/Industrial 0.3% Business/Industrial 0.6% 

Public Infrastructure 3.2% Public Infrastructure 3.9% 

Impact Minimization Zone 3.3% Impact Minimization Zone 3.2% 

Future Commercial/Non-Residential 11.5% Future Commercial Marina 5.5% 

Future Commercial/Residential 7.4% Future Residential Marina 2.0% 

Future Residential 4.8% Future Residential 10.8% 

Future Public Recreation 6.0% Future Public Recreation 6.5% 

Bottomland Hardwood 0.6% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 

352 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
353 

 

Under the proposed classification maps, project-wide, the Residential classification 

makes up the single greatest shoreline classification accounting for 37.7 percent of the total 

project shoreline. Combined with the other development categories, both current and future, 

development classifications account for 65.3 percent of the project shoreline.18 Public 

Recreation areas, both existing and future, account for approximately 7.0 percent of the project 

shoreline. Project-wide, approximately 79.6 miles of shoreline would be classified as Natural 

areas (4.7 percent), 322.3 miles would be classified as Environmental (19.0 percent), 9.9 miles 

would be classified as Bottomland Hardwood areas (0.6 percent), and 54.5 miles would be 

classified as Impact Minimization Zones (3.2 percent). In all, 470 miles (27.7 percent) of the 

total project shoreline would be afforded some sort of protection from development with the 

proposed modifications to the classifications. This is nearly the same as the 27.3 percent of the 

project shoreline classified in protective classifications in the 2003 approved maps. 

At the development level, Table 89 summarizes the proposed percent classification of 

shoreline for each of the 13 project developments. As proposed, the two developments with the 

greatest amount of shoreline in development classifications remain the Oxford and Cowans Ford 

Developments, which have 79.9 and 82.3 percent of their shorelines classified in development 

categories, respectively. In total, 7 of the 13 project developments have greater than 50 percent 

of their shorelines classified for development (not including public recreation areas). In addition 

to Oxford and Cowans Ford, these developments include Bridgewater, Wylie, Great Falls, and 

Wateree. The greatest percentage of shoreline classified in protected natural or environmental 

areas occur at the Rhodhiss (56.6 percent), Fishing Creek (52.9 percent), and Mountain Island 

(50.65 percent) Developments. Public Recreation classification (both existing and future) is 

greatest at the Bridgewater (21.5 percent), Mountain Island (15.5 percent), and Great Falls and 

Dearborn Developments (18.9 percent). 

18 Development categories include Commercial Marina, Residential Marina, Residential, 

Business/Industrial, Public Infrastructure, Project Operations, Future Commercial Marina, Future 

Residential Marina, Future Residential, Impact Minimization Zone Developed.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 89. Proposed shoreline classifications by development (percentage). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Classification Rhodhiss Oxford 

Lookout 

Shoals 

Cowans 

Ford 

Mountain 

Island Wylie 

Fishing 

Creek 

Great 

Falls 

Bridge- water 

Commercial Marina 1.0% 0.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% Residential Marina 2.7% 0.3% 2.0% 0.9% 3.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% Residential 11.3% 1.6% 51.9% 25.1% 56.8% 10.8% 40.7% 4.2% 0.0% 

Business/ Industrial 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 1.0% 0.3% 0.8% Public Recreation 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% Project Operations 0.4% 2.6% 2.6% 1.2% 4.9% 9.5% 5.6% 1.4% 1.5% Natural 1.7% 0.3% 1.5% 4.2% 0.7% 3.0% 0.5% 0.8% 50.0% 

Natural Isolated Berm 5.0% 27.7% 0.1% 10.6% 1.1% 4.7% 6.8% 2.8% 1.5% Bottomland Hardwood 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% 4.7% 0.2% 3.2% 0.0% Future Commercial Marina 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 6.8% 1.5% 

Future Residential Marina 

14.7% 19.1% 1.2% 6.6% 1.3% 0.0% 1.5% 18.8% 0.0% 

Future Residential 1.3% 0.9% 2.6% 0.9% 1.9% 3.3% 2.7% 0.4% 0.0% 

354 
355 

Classification Bridge- water Rhodhiss Oxford Look- out Shoals Cowans Ford Mountain Island Wylie Fish- ing Creek Great Falls Future Public Recreation 19.5% 15.0% 15.2% 7.9% 10.3% 5.1% 8.4% 16.9% 0.0% Impact Minimization Zone 

21.1% 2.3% 2.6% 3.9% 4.6% 15.3% 3.0% 3.9% 18.9% 

Impact Minimization Zone Developed 

6.0% 1.7% 1.5% 10.6% 1.8% 3.3% 2.6% 0.6% 0.0% 

Environmental 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 0.5% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 
Several agencies commented on the proposed revisions to the Catawba-Wateree Project 

SMP. South Carolina DPRT comments that improvements to the SMP will help protect scenic 

integrity and improve water quality and natural habitat. South Carolina DNR concurs with 

proposed revisions to the SMP and supports the inclusion of the revised SMP in the new license. 

Catawba County states that the revised SMP will improve shoreline preservation by providing 

incentives for buffers and reduced the number of multi-slip boat facilities. EPA recommends 

that the EIS discuss the extent to which the revised SMP will help to protect sensitive wetlands 

and riparian and terrestrial habitat. DOI comments that the EIS should include a review of 

various SMP modeling scenarios to determine the impact of existing and future watershed land 

development, both within and beyond the project boundary, on current and future water quality 

in the Catawba-Wateree system. 

North Carolina WRC expressed its support of the proposed revisions to the SMP noting 

that the revised SMP would be a considerable improvement over the existing SMP. North 

Carolina WRC also noted its strong support for the provisions of the Revised CRA to continue 

stakeholder involvement in the periodic review and revision of the SMP throughout the term of 

the new license. 

Specific to the proposed revisions to the SMG, a number of comments were received. 

Ms. Suzanne Johnson raised concerns that the revised SMG do not cap fees, and in particular 

noted that there was a lack of restrictions on dock fees. A number of commentors, including 

Ms. Michelle Mann, Ms. Donna Lisenby, Ms. Sarah Williams, Mr. Robert Anderson, and 

Ms. Rebecca McSwain, raise concerns that the enforcement provisions of the SMG are 

inadequate and that Duke Energy does not adequately enforce the current SMG. Regarding 

seawalls, North Carolina WRC comments that the EIS should consider the effects of the SMP on 

shoreline erosion and sedimentation. 

DOI recommends that Duke Energy or its lessees be required to plant native vegetation 

and install fish-friendly pier features under docks. DOI also recommends that Duke Energy and 

any lessee minimize or avoid any impacts to shoreline vegetation or near-shore habitats. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed changes in shoreline classifications for the project will have a modest 

effect on land use, ownership, or management of the project shoreline. Overall, there is very 

little change in project-wide classifications between the 2003 approved classification maps and 

the 2006 proposed classification maps. The greatest changes in classification proposed projectwide are the future use classifications. Future Commercial Marina classification has been 

reduced from 11.5 to 5.5 percent. Future Residential Marina classification has been reduced 

from 7.4 to 2.0 percent. Conversely, Future Residential classification has increased from 4.8 to 

10.8 percent. Future Public Recreation classification remains nearly unchanged, as does the 

project-wide amount of shoreline in natural and environmental classifications which accounted 

for 27.3 percent in the 2003 classification maps and 27.7 percent in the 2006 classification maps. 

With these proposed changes in the classification maps, there would be little to no impact 

on project resources, compared to the 2003 approved classifications. Minor decreases in the 

Future Commercial Marina and Future Residential Marina classifications could result in fewer 

marinas being developed project-wide, with a corresponding benefit to project resources. 

However, any such benefits would likely be offset by the proposed increase in the Future 

356 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Residential classification. Increases in the Future Residential classification indicate that more of 

the project shoreline will be developed with private homes and residential dwellings, and that 

many of these residences will construct docks and other related private recreation facilities as 

allowed under the SMG. Construction activities would lead to short-term and localized impacts 

on aquatic habitats due to increased shoreline erosion, disturbance of bottom substrates, elevated 

turbidity, and sedimentation. 

Many of the development activities would involve permanent shoreline modifications, 

such as alteration of shoreline vegetation (as allowed under the SMG), and the installation of 

seawalls and shoreline riprap. Removal of forested shoreline vegetation and elimination of the 

natural shoreline slope would reduce the availability of cover, eliminate sources of submerged 

woody debris, and increase the potential for shoreline erosion and sedimentation. Loss of 

shoreline cover, especially woody debris, and increased sedimentation of benthic habitats may 

locally alter shallow water spawning and rearing habitats for fishes. 

Natural shoreline cover would be replaced in part by constructed docks, piers, and other 

structures. These features would seasonally harbor largemouth bass, crappie, sunfish, and other 

species seeking overhead cover. However, the increased boating activities, and associated 

increases in wave action and bottom disturbance, could disrupt the spawning behavior of 

shallow-water fish species. Development of the shoreline would result in incremental losses of 

some shoreline fish habitat (including spawning and nursery areas) and invertebrate food 

sources; however, many of the most productive shallow water areas have been classified in the 

natural or environmental categories and therefore are afforded protection from development 

under the proposed SMP. 

Given the potential impacts associated with the development that would be allowed 

under the revised SMP, the classifications and associated lake use restrictions for natural, 

environmental, and impact minimization zones are critical for the protection of project resources. 

As with the previously approved classification maps, the proposed classification maps designate 

reservoir shoreline areas as either “Environmental” or “Natural.” Environmental areas include 

vegetated areas or cove heads with stream confluences. Natural areas typically have significant 

shallow water as the most distinguishing feature, but natural areas also include areas of isolated 

berms or areas that have significant cultural resources or significant terrestrial habitats. No 

development is allowed to occur in areas classified as Natural or Environmental, but stabilization 

is allowed in areas classified as Natural based on the Shoreline Stabilization Technique Selection 

Process. Similarly, areas classified as Bottomland Hardwood are afforded this same level of 

protection as areas classified as Environmental. 

The proposed revisions to the SMG will have a variety of affects on project resources. 

The most significant of these are discussed in more detail below. 

Vegetation Management 

Under the proposed SMG, Duke Energy has proposed several modifications to SMG 

provisions designed to strengthen beneficial vegetation management practices at the project 

reservoirs. These include provisions to better protect existing aquatic vegetation including water 

willow, and shoreline vegetation, as well as provisions for vegetative plantings along the 

shoreline. 

357 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Plantings—Under the proposed SMG, the type of plantings used in bioengineering and 

landscape projects should be native species and must be reviewed and approved by Duke Energy 

prior to introduction. This is a change from the 2003 approved SMP which did not limit plant 

introduction to native species. The requirement to use native species in shoreline plantings is an 

improvement over the previously approved SMP in that it reduces the potential for the accidental 

introduction of invasive non-native plant species along the project shorelines, which have the 

potential to spread and crowd out other native species. The use of native species in plantings 

also will be of greater use and benefit to wildlife species that might utilize such plantings for 

food or cover. Native plantings also have the potential to be more aesthetically pleasing as they 

blend more naturally into the surrounding landscape. 

Water Willow—Under the proposed SMG, applicants for use permits are encouraged to 

avoid activities that could impact water willow beds. Unavoidable impacts should be confined to 

the sides of beds to minimize disruption of their function as shallow water fish habitat. No 

floating structures or other extraneous facilities may be constructed over water willow beds. The 

width of walkways over water willow beds will be limited to less than3 ft. Removal of water 

willow for continued lake access may be allowed provided only that necessary for limited access 

in specifically identified areas is approved in writing. The previous SMP did not limit or 

encourage limitations on facilities and uses in areas of water willow beds. These new provisions 

and restrictions will help to minimize the impacts of shoreline development on water willow 

beds which provide important habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. The water willow 

beds also are beneficial for maintaining reservoir water quality. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

Seawalls—Under the proposed SMG areas with an average eroded bank height of 3 ft or 

less can only be stabilized utilizing bioengineering techniques, riprap, or both. Seawalls are not 

allowed in these situations. This represents a change from the 2003 approved SMP which 

allowed seawalls to be installed along the shoreline regardless of bank height. In addition, under 

the revised SMG a layer of riprap must be placed along the entire base of all bulkheads 

extending 6 ft lakeward from full pond. The previously approved SMP required riprap to be 

placed along the base of all bulkheads with the riprap consisting of a minimum depth of 1 ft and 

a slope of 2 to 1. The additional restrictions on the installation of seawalls along the project 

shoreline will benefit both terrestrial and aquatic resources by limiting the installation of 

seawalls, which significantly limit the use of the shoreline edge by many species. Installation of 

riprap in these situations is preferable in that it provides some useable habitat for both terrestrial 

and aquatic species, and provides some useable interface between the water and the land. 

Similarly, the proposed modification to the riprap requirement at the base of bulkheads will 

provide some additional habitat for aquatic species and will help to maintain installed bulkheads 

and reduce undermining and resulting shoreline erosion. 

Excavation and Mining 

Excavation—Under the proposed SMG, excavation is not allowed within water willow 

beds except as necessary to maintain access to previously approved facilities. In addition, 

excavation is prohibited during the months of March, April, May, and June because of potential 

impacts to fish spawning. The proposed SMG do not allow excavation for several specified 

activities, including: (a) channeling to create additional shoreline or to alter the project 

boundary; (b) excavation that would impact threatened or endangered species, historic 

358 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
properties, or environmentally important areas; or (c) excavation not associated with maintaining 

access to an existing permitted facility or a proposed new facility for which the owner has 

submitted an application and received written approval from Duke Energy for its construction. 

Under the proposed SMG, all excavated material must be handled following best management 

practices unless given special consideration by South Carolina DHEC or North Carolina DENR. 

Finally, the proposed SMG require that the Commission review: (1) all excavations, other than 

maintenance excavations, that exceed 2,000 cubic yards, and (2) any excavation that is required 

to support another proposed lake use that requires Commission review. None of these 

restrictions on excavation were included in the previously approved SMG. Taken as a whole, 

these additional restrictions on excavation in the project reservoirs will significantly benefit 

project resources. Water willow beds will be protected from excavation, as will other important 

aquatic habitat or environmental areas. Excavations will be more limited in nature, since under 

the proposed SMP, excavation can be undertaken only to provide access to a permitted facility. 

These restrictions will help to protect habitat and reduce the potential for impacts to water 

quality and aquatic habitat that would results from more extensive excavations. 

Sand Mining—Under the proposed SMG, sand mining operations for the removal of sand 

from within the project boundary may be authorized in accordance with the Excavation and 

Conveyance Program guidelines. The previously approved SMG did not address sand mining. 

This new provision will benefit project resources by allowing a consistent review of proposed 

sand mining operations before such operations are approved. 

Private and Common Use Facilities 

Private Boat Ramps—Under the proposed SMG, private boat ramps will no longer be 

allowed. The previously approved SMG allowed private boat ramps under certain restrictions. 

This proposed change in the SMG will greatly benefit project resources by reducing the impact 

to the shoreline from future residential development. 

Shoreline Structures—Under the proposed SMG, decks, gazebos, covered boat slips, and 

boat shelters constructed within the project boundary must be single-story structures. The 

previously approved SMP did not restrict two-story structures. This proposed change in the 

SMG will enhance recreational safety on the project reservoirs by reducing the impacts of 

potential sight impairment of boaters and other recreationists to oncoming boat traffic. These 

restrictions also will help significantly to reduce the aesthetic impact of new structures installed 

along the reservoir shorelines by limiting the vertical intrusion of shoreline structures to a single 

story. 

Common Use Facilities—Duke Energy is proposing two changes to the SMG regarding 

common use facilities. First, under the proposed SMG, common use facilities with more than 

three boat slips will not be eligible for mooring additional watercraft including personal 

watercrafts. The previously approved SMG did not limit the number of watercraft moored at 

common use facilities. Also under the proposed SMG, unless grandfathered, no more than one 

common use boat slip per waterfront lot will be allowed, and ownership or interest in a common 

use facility will eliminate the eligibility of that person to have a separate slip at another common 

use facility. These proposed changes in the SMG will significantly benefit project resources by 

reducing total number of watercraft that can be moored on each reservoir and by reducing the 

overall total number of boat slips ultimately developed on the project reservoirs. If each lot 

owner is restricted to a single common use boat slip, then the total number of boat slips, and 

359 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
therefore the total area of the project impacted by the construction of additional common use 

boat docks, will be reduced. Although the use, number, and location of common use facilities 

was not designed as a means to limit or control boater over-crowding, and the boat density 

studies conducted during the relicensing did not find a direct correlation between the location of 

boat slips and boating activity, this reduction in total boat slips along with limitations on 

watercraft moorings will help to protect against potential future recreational crowding in certain 

areas of some of the project reservoirs, particularly Lake Norman, and will generally benefit the 

aesthetic quality of all the project reservoirs. Fewer boat slips and fewer moored boats will help 

to preserve more of the reservoir area in a natural undeveloped condition, which in turn will 

benefit reservoir water quality and aquatic habitat. 

Lot Width—Under the proposed SMG, unless grandfathered, a lot having less than 100 ft 

of shoreline that is suitable for residential use will not be considered for a pier or common use 

facility. The previously approved SMG required only 75 ft of shoreline to qualify for a pier. 

Although this requirement is not specifically intended to limit development or to reduce the 

number of piers or watercraft, this proposed modification to the SMG will likely benefit the 

natural and environmental resources of the project by limiting the total number of new piers that 

ultimately will be developed along the reservoir shorelines. In addition, another possible effect 

of the additional lot width requirement is that adjacent private property developers may plat 

larger lots, thereby reducing the total portion of the adjacent shoreline that is disturbed and 

developed with homes and other related structures, and thus helping to better preserve the 

aesthetic quality of the reservoir shorelines. Another possible effect of this requirement is the 

potential to limit the total number of new piers and other private recreation facilities that will be 

developed, which may help ensure against future over-crowding of the reservoirs and should 

help to preserve the recreational experience. Reduced development along the shorelines also will 

help to better protect reservoir water quality by reducing the impacts to water quality due to 

construction activities, and the resulting increase in stormwater runoff and non-point source 

pollution that results from the conversion of natural shoreline to developed. 

New Extraneous Facilities—Under the proposed SMG, new extraneous facilities that are 

not required to provide lake access will be prohibited. These include gazebos and other facilities 

and structures not incorporated into the access facilities. The previously approved SMG did not 

include this provision. The proposed restriction on the development of extraneous shoreline 

facilities will benefit project resources by reducing the total amount of development along the 

reservoir shorelines. Fewer structures will result in less disturbance of shoreline vegetation and 

soils and will benefit reservoir water quality and habitats. Limitations on shoreline structures 

also will help to better preserve the aesthetic quality of the shoreline. 

Watercraft 

Houseboats—Under the proposed SMG, watercraft used for habitation shall not be 

permanently moored at private docks. Permanent mooring must be at marinas with sewer 

facilities. The previously approved SMP did not limit mooring of houseboats. This proposed 

change in the SMG will benefit the project reservoirs by helping to eliminate the potential for 

overboard discharges from live-aboard boats, which will benefit reservoir water quality. 

Watercraft per Boat Slip—Under the proposed SMG, only one watercraft at a time shall 

be moored within a boat slip or docking/mooring location at a marina facility, unless the boat 

slip or mooring is specifically designed to accommodate a specified number of additional 

360 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
watercraft. The previously approved SMG did not specify any limitations on boats per slip. 

Although this proposed requirement is not specifically intended to reduce the number of 

watercraft, reduce crowding, or increase safety on the reservoirs, this proposed change in the 

SMG could benefit project resources by helping to limit the total number of watercraft on the 

reservoirs which could help ensure against future over-crowding of the reservoirs by boats, 

improve boating safety, and preserve the quality of the recreational experience. 

Swim Areas and Swimming 

Private Swim Areas—Under the proposed SMG, private individuals will not be allowed 

to rope-off or exclude the public from a portion of the project area for the purpose of creating a 

private swim area. The previously approved SMG did not include this provision. The inclusion 

of this new provision will benefit recreational users of the project reservoirs by ensuring that all 

of the reservoir remains available for public use. It will benefit boaters on the reservoirs by 

ensuring that ropes and buoys deployed by private individuals do not become navigational 

hazards. Through its current and proposed recreational facilities, Duke Energy has ensured that 

safe public swimming areas are available for use on nearly all the project reservoirs. 

Inflatable Recreational Equipment—Under the proposed SMG, the use and placement of 

large water-based recreational equipment will not be allowed within the project boundary. The 

previously approved SMG did not include this provision. Eliminating the placement and use of 

large inflatable recreational equipment will enhance recreational user safety on the project 

reservoirs. The removal of large inflatables also will improve the overall aesthetic quality of the 

reservoirs, particularly in areas of dense shoreline development. 

Marinas 

True Public Marinas—The current and proposed SMG establish a definition for a true 

public marina. For establishments that meet the definition of a true public marina, Duke Energy 

is proposing several modifications to provisions in its SMG regarding facilities allowed at true 

public marinas. First, under the proposed SMG, facilities operated as true public marinas may be 

considered for a maximum length of 200 ft, provided the facility meets all the other requirements 

of a true public marina. The previously approved SMP did not allow commercial facilities to be 

longer than 120 ft. Second, the proposed SMG allows for the expansion of existing true public 

marinas, which when they expand may be exempted from adhering to certain requirements that 

would apply to other types of commercial facilities. Taken together, these two modified 

provisions would be expected to benefit project resources. Extending the maximum facility 

length from 120 to 200 ft will result in some additional impacts to reservoir water quality and 

aquatic habitat. The longer facilities also will have an adverse affect on project aesthetics. True 

public marina facilities must also meet all the other requirements of a true public marina, 

including that the facility must not extend more than one-third the distance to the opposite 

shoreline as measured from the full pond contour or 200 ft waterward, whichever is more 

limiting. This requirement would help ensure that the facility does not limit or impact 

recreational use of the project reservoirs. However, any impacts would be offset by other 

benefits. Of particular note would be the benefit of allowing existing marinas to expand, rather 

than developing new marinas, in order to accommodate increased recreational use and demand. 

In essence these provisions will encourage a clustering of additional boat slips and other marina 

facilities at a fewer number of larger facilities. 

361 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Commercial Boat Ramp Construction—Under the proposed SMG, new boat ramps at 

commercial marinas will not be allowed to be located in the backs of coves if any portion of the 

cove between the proposed boat ramp and the main channel is 300 ft or less in width. The 

previously approved SMG had no restrictions on the location of boat ramps in coves. This 

provision will benefit project resources by not allowing the development of commercial boat 

ramps in smaller coves. The backs of coves and the smaller coves are generally areas of 

shallower water habitats that are likely to support aquatic vegetation, and which would be more 

significantly impacted by the development of a commercial boat ramp. Recreational resources 

also will benefit from this provision, as restrictions on boat ramps in small coves will help to 

prevent boating congestion in the cove, and will reduce the potential for unsafe boating 

conditions. 

Petroleum at Marinas—Under the proposed SMG, new or expanding Commercial 

Marina facilities that dispense gasoline within the project boundary must provide petroleum 

absorbent materials or similar best available technology at all the slips dedicated for gasoline 

dispensing. The previously approved SMG did not have spill or clean-up requirements for 

marinas dispensing petroleum products. The addition of this new provision will significantly 

benefit project resources by helping to ensure that the impacts to water quality, fish, aquatic life, 

water willow, and recreational users is minimized in the event that a spill of petroleum products 

occurs at a marina. 

Pump-out Installation—Under the proposed SMG, any proposed new or rebuilding 

residential marina facility must provide onsite sanitation facilities for pump-out and waste 

disposal if the facility has more than 65 mooring/docking spaces, or will have more than 

25 watercraft with marine sanitation devices, or the facility will moor watercraft used for human 

habitation. The previously approved SMG did not require pump-out facilities for any size 

residential marina. The addition of this provision to the SMG will benefit project resources by 

helping to reduce the impact of overboard discharges on reservoir water quality. 

Fees and Enforcement 

Under the previously approved SMP, Duke Energy established fees for permitting of 

private and commercial docks, marinas, and other recreational use facilities. Consistent with 

Commission policy, fees collected by a licensee can be used to help defray the cost of 

administering the shoreline management program for the project, but cannot exceed the total cost 

of program administration. As it has in the past, under the proposed revisions to the SMP, some 

of the fees collected by Duke Energy are earmarked for inclusion in the HEP and will be used to 

help purchase or otherwise protect lands outside the project boundary for conservation or other 

public use purposes, to support fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, and for creation and 

protection activities within and contiguous with the project boundary, the Duke Energy-owned 

islands, Duke Energy-owned public recreation areas, and the river stretches in the Catawba basin 

in the counties occupied by the Catawba-Wateree Project. So long as the total amount of the fees 

collected does not exceed the total cost to Duke Energy of administering its SMP, the use of fees 

to help protect lands adjacent to the project, but outside the project boundary will generally be of 

great benefit to project resources, and will help to protect the natural resources and aesthetic 

quality of the project reservoirs. 

The previously approved SMP and SMG both include provisions for Duke Energy’s 

enforcement of the provisions of the SMP. Specific provisions and consequences for violation of 

362 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
SMP and SMG requirements will continue to be provided in each of Duke Energy’s SMG 

permitting programs. Generally, the enforcement provisions will remain unchanged under the 

proposed SMP 

As proposed, Duke Energy’s proposed SMP review and update process would allow for a 

consistent and periodic review of the implementation of the SMP and the opportunity to modify 

the SMP. 

We conclude that the DOI recommendations for Duke Energy or its lessees to plant 

native vegetation and install fish-friendly pier features under docks and to minimize or avoid any 

impacts to shoreline vegetation or near-shore habitats are not necessary. Although not required, 

the proposed SMP promotes planting native vegetation and installing fish-friendly pier features 

under docks. The proposed SMP will minimize or avoid impacts to shoreline vegetation or nearshore habitats. Duke Energy has mapped and classified habitat areas and the appropriate 

reservoir use restrictions were assigned to each classification. Shorelines with significant aquatic 

vegetation and/or habitat are protected from development. 

Recreation Improvements 

Duke Energy proposes within 1 year of license issuance to develop and file with the 

Commission an RMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project that describes certain proposed recreation 

enhancements for the project. The proposed recreation measures are described in detail in 

section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects and are summarized in 

tables 67 through 77. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed recreational enhancement to be included in the project RMP would have 

positive environmental effects by guiding recreational land use and management for the license 

term, and may help avoid conflicts by coordinating interagency management of recreation and 

land use. The proposed recreational enhancements would be expected to have little or no impact 

on project visual resources. Improvements to existing facilities would not affect land use, 

management, or visual aesthetics, provided that such improvements are made consistent with the 

guidelines set forth in the SMG. 

Bridgewater Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Bridgewater Development, including three new public recreation access 

areas and significant improvements at three existing recreation access areas. Modifications and 

additions to the existing recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline 

management, land use, or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public 

recreation areas, and the addition of facilities at these areas as proposed will result in no 

additional impacts. The new facilities proposed for the new Linville Access Area will result in 

the development of a portion of 10 acres with boat ramps and related facilities. Addition of these 

facilities will have a minor impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the 

provision of an additional boat launch area available for public use on the popular Lake James. 

Similarly, the development of additional facilities for the proposed pocket park at the existing 

canoe portage take-out will have a minor impact on the shoreline in this area that will be offset 

by the improvement in public access to this portion of the project. In addition, a proposed 

photographic overlook at this location will provide the public with additional access to the high 

visual quality of the Bridgewater Development. Downstream of the dam, in the regulated river 

363 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
reach, Duke Energy’s proposal to acquire 1-3 acres to develop a canoe/kayak access area with 

gravel parking will have a minor impact on natural aesthetics of the river shoreline. However, 

these impacts would be small and would be more than offset by the benefits to the recreating 

public of having a new canoe/kayak access in this location. 

Rhodhiss Development—Duke Energy proposes a new public recreation access area and 

improvements to four existing recreation sites at the Rhodhiss Development. Modifications and 

additions to the existing recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline 

management, land use, or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public 

recreation areas, and the addition of facilities at these areas, as proposed, will result in no 

additional impacts. The new facilities proposed for the new Corpening Bridge Access Area will 

result in the development of a portion of 10 acres for a trailered boat ramp and approximately 

10 gravel parking spaces at the Corpening bridge. Addition of these facilities will have a minor 

impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the provision of a new boat launch 

which will provide additional public access to Lake Rhodhiss. 

Oxford Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at 

the Oxford Development, including three new public recreation access areas and significant 

improvements at six existing recreation access areas. Modifications and additions to the existing 

recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline management, land use, or 

project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public recreation areas, and the 

addition of facilities at these areas as proposed will result in no additional impacts. The new 

facilities proposed for the Wittenburg Access Area will result in the development of a portion of 

15 additional acres with restrooms, picnic facilities, and additional paved parking. Addition of 

these facilities could have a minor impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the 

provision of additional public recreation areas on Lake Hickory. Similarly, the new facilities 

proposed for the Oxford Access Area, including a primitive campground, paved parking, picnic 

facilities, restrooms, and trails, will have a minor impact on the reservoir shoreline, but the 

impacts will be more than offset by the benefits to the public of additional recreational access on 

Lake Hickory. Downstream of the dam, Duke Energy proposes to develop a tailrace fishing 

area. This new access area would have little or no impact on the shoreline or the aesthetic 

quality of the tailwater area. Any impacts that may occur would be offset by the benefit of 

providing anglers access to the Oxford Development tailwaters. 

Lookout Shoals Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Lookout Shoals Development, including three new public recreation access 

areas and improvements at one existing recreation access area. The proposed improvements to 

the Lookout Shoals Access Area would have no impact on shoreline management, land use, or 

project aesthetics. This area has already been designated as a public recreation area, and the 

addition of restrooms at this site, as proposed, will result in no additional impacts. The new 

facilities proposed for the new Upper Lookout Shoals Access Area will result in the development 

of 1-5 acres with a boat ramp, parking, and restroom facilities. Addition of these facilities will 

have a minor impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the provision of an 

additional boat launch area available for public use on Lake Lookout Shoals. Downstream of the 

dam, on the regulated river reach, Duke Energy is proposing two new public recreation sites, a 

canoe portage trail and a public tailrace fishing area. Development of these facilities will have 

little or no impact on land use or visual aesthetics in this area. 

364 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Cowans Ford Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Cowans Ford Development, including one new public recreation access area 

and significant improvements at five existing recreation access areas. The proposed 

improvements to the five existing access areas would have no impact on shoreline management, 

land use, or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public recreational 

areas, and the addition of new facilities at these sites, as proposed, will result in no additional 

impacts. Downstream of the dam, the new facilities proposed for the Cowans Ford dam portage 

and overlook area will have minimal to no effect on the shoreline or the visual quality of the 

project. Moreover, the addition of the overlook area will provide the public with improved 

visual access to the project. 

Mountain Island Development—Duke Energy proposes several recreational 

enhancements at the Mountain Island Development, including three new public recreation access 

areas and significant enhancements at one existing recreation access area. The proposed 

improvements to the Riverbend Access Area will have no impact on shoreline management, land 

use, or project aesthetics. This area has already been designated as a public recreation area, and 

the addition of new restrooms, bank fishing, and swimming facilities at this site, as proposed, 

will result in no additional impacts. The new facilities proposed for the Highway 73 Access 

Area will result in the development of approximately 2 acres of Duke Energy-owned property as 

a canoe/kayak access with gravel parking. A similar canoe/kayak access area is proposed for 

development at the Lucia Access Area. The addition of these canoe access facilities will have 

little to no impact on the project shoreline, and any impacts that do occur will be offset by 

providing the public with two convenient put-in locations for canoes and kayaks. In addition, 

Duke Energy proposes to develop a canoe portage trail to give paddlers a route around the 

Mountain Island dam. As with the two canoe put-in areas, the proposed canoe portage trail will 

have a negligible effect on the project shoreline, and will have no effect on land use and project 

aesthetics. 

Wylie Development—Duke Energy proposes several recreational enhancements at the 

Wylie Development, including three new public recreation access areas and significant 

improvements at four existing recreation access areas. The proposed improvements to the 

existing recreation access areas will have no impact on shoreline management, land use, or 

project aesthetics. These areas have been designated as public recreation areas, and the addition 

of new facilities proposed for these areas will result in no additional impacts. Duke Energy 

proposes a significant new recreational area, Rock Hill Park, on Lake Wylie in the vicinity of the 

city of Rock Hill’s water intake. Creation of this recreation area will result in the development 

of a portion of 17 acres of land and the installation of a swim area, restrooms, bank fishing sites, 

and parking. The development of this site will result in minor impacts to the shoreline in this 

area, but these impacts will be more than offset by the benefits to the public of having a new 

recreational area that provides access to this portion of Lake Wylie. The canoe/kayak access and 

associated gravel parking proposed for the Dutchmans Creek Access Area will have little to no 

impact on the project shoreline, and any impacts that do occur will be offset by providing the 

public with an additional put-in for paddlers on the western side of Lake Wylie. Downstream of 

the dam, the proposed Fort Mill Access Area will provide restrooms and picnic facilities. These 

facilities will have little or no impact on the shoreline of the Wylie regulated river reach. 

Fishing Creek Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Fishing Creek Development, including one new public recreation access 

365 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
area, the replacement of an existing access area, and significant improvements at one existing 

recreation area. Modifications to the existing Fishing Creek Access Area, as proposed, will have 

no impact on shoreline management, land use, or project aesthetics. This area has already been 

designated as public recreational area, and the addition of new facilities at this area, as proposed, 

will result in no additional impacts. The relocation of the Cane Creek Access Area will result in 

the development of a portion of about 18 acres with two trailered boat ramps, a fishing pier, 

parking, and other related facilities. Addition of these facilities will have a minor impact on the 

shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the improved recreational access provided at the 

new access area. Downstream of the dam, Duke Energy proposes to develop a public fishing 

pier and paved parking. The development of these facilities will have a minor impact on the 

shoreline, but no impacts on project aesthetics and land use. Impacts to the project shoreline 

would be small, however, and would be more than offset by the benefits to the recreating public 

of having a new tailwater fishing pier in this location. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments—Duke Energy proposes a number of 

recreational enhancements at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, including five new 

public recreation access areas. Duke Energy proposes several canoe portage trails for these 

developments including a portage trail on the north end of Mountain Island, a portage trail on 

Mountain Island around the Great Falls headworks, and a portage trail along the Great Falls 

Short bypassed reach. The addition of these portage trails will have minor impacts to the project 

shoreline that will be more than offset by the improved public access to the bypassed reaches for 

paddlers. Similarly, Duke Energy’s proposal to acquire a 1- to 7-acre site and develop a 

canoe/kayak launch on Great Falls reservoir downstream of the Great Falls headworks will result 

in minor impacts to the reservoir shoreline that will be offset by providing improved public 

access to the reservoir. Duke Energy proposes to acquire and develop a 1- to 5-acre site to create 

the Highway 200 Bridge Access Area. This site would include a canoe/kayak launch, restrooms, 

and a gravel parking lot. Impacts to the shoreline from the development of this site would be 

minimal and would be offset by improved public access to the reservoir for paddlers. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—Duke Energy proposes a new recreation 

access area at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments. The proposed Mud Cat Inn 

Access Area would result in the development of approximately 1 acre into a canoe/kayak access 

site with associated gravel parking. The addition of this canoe/kayak access facility will have 

little or no impact on the project shoreline, and any impacts that do occur will be offset by 

providing the public with a new put-in location for canoes and kayaks. 

Wateree Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at 

the Wateree Development, including one new public recreation access area and significant 

improvements at four existing recreation access areas. Modifications and additions to the 

existing recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline management, land use, 

or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public recreational areas, and 

the addition of facilities at these areas as proposed will result in no additional impacts. For the 

proposed new Molly Creek Park, Duke Energy would acquire approximately 100 acres and 

would develop a small portion of this acreage with a swimming area, restrooms, fishing pier, 

picnic facilities, trailered boat access, and parking. The development of Molly Creek Park 

represents a significant addition to public recreational access on Lake Wateree. While the 

construction of some of the planned facilities would have some minor impact on the reservoir 

shoreline, and would result in a visual modification to the shoreline in this vicinity, the majority 

366 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
of the park land would remain undeveloped and would be protected for the future. This benefit, 

combined with the benefit of additional public access to the project, would more than offset any 

small impacts to the shoreline and project aesthetics resulting from the installation of the 

recreation facilities. 

Cultural Resources 

As part of its relicensing efforts, Duke Energy conducted cultural resource surveys that 

identified 20 sites that are considered potentially eligible within the Catawba-Water Project. To 

address potential ongoing project effects on these sites, Duke Energy prepared and is proposing 

to implement an historic properties management plan for the project that includes site-specific 

management plans for maintaining and protecting the eligible sites. In general, Duke Energy’s 

proposal to implement the HPMP and site-specific management plans will have no direct affect 

on land use or aesthetics, but indirect or synergistic affects, particularly those that could occur as 

a result of the proposed SMP could occur. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed implementation of the HPMP includes site-specific 

management plans for seven significant cultural sites. Implementation of these management 

plans will have no adverse effect on project land use. Mitigation plans for each of these sites 

varies, but in no case will the management actions proposed for protection of the sites have an 

adverse effect on project land use or aesthetics. To the contrary, several of the eligible sites are 

actively experiencing erosion, and implementation of the proposed management plans will 

ensure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent additional site erosion, which also should 

benefit the project shoreline and would help to improve the general aesthetic character of the 

reservoir. 

As discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources, the Dearborn Armory 

Site (38CS307) is located on Dearborn Island, also known as Big Island, in the Rocky Creek and 

Cedar Creek Developments. The site was originally constructed in the early nineteenth century 

as one of three national armories. The HPMP proposed by Duke Energy for implementation 

includes a site specific management plan for the Dearborn Armory Site. This site is located on 

an island that is proposed for inclusion in a conveyance of project land to the state of South 

Carolina for the development of a new state park. Specifically, Duke Energy proposes to offer a 

lease of the islands associated with the Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek 

Developments (including Big Island) to South Carolina DPRT for purposes of establishing and 

maintaining a new state park centered on the Dearborn Armory site. Implementation of the 

Dearborn Armory site management plan, in conjunction with Duke Energy’s proposal to lease 

the land on which this site is located to South Carolina to create a new state park, will benefit the 

public and protect a cultural resource, and would be an appropriate non-project use of project 

lands. 

Land Conveyances 

As part of its relicensing settlement agreement, Duke Energy has agreed to transfer 

several areas of Duke Energy-owned lands, that are not associated with project operations, to 

federal, state, or local entities through sale or deed. Table 90 summarizes the lands included in 

the settlement agreement that are proposed for transfer. The potential for land transfers is 

367 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
included in the settlement agreement, but is not considered under the proposed action for 

relicensing, and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

Table 90. Conveyances of non-project land included in the Revised CRA. 

Development(s)/area Conveyance agreement 

Bridgewater 

North Bend Recreation 

Land 

Approximately 500 acres of non-project property adjacent to the Catawba 

River at the second Powerhouse Road Bridge downstream of the 

Bridgewater powerhouse to be conveyed to North Carolina DENR for 

development and management of public recreation access and permanent 

conservation. 

North Bend Access Area 

Approximately 10 acres of non-project property adjacent to the Catawba 

River at the second Powerhouse Road Bridge downstream of the 

Bridgewater powerhouse to North Carolina WRC for development and 

maintenance of a public recreation access area. 

Catawba-Linville River 

Confluence Recreation 

Land 

Approximately 420 acres of non-project property adjacent to the Catawba 

River in the vicinity of the confluence of the Catawba River bypassed reach 

and the Bridgewater regulated river reach to North Carolina DENR for 

public recreation and permanent conservation. 

Paddy Creek Recreation 

Land 

Approximately 275 acres of non-project property downstream of the Paddy 

Creek and Linville dams to North Carolina DENR for public recreation and 

permanent conservation. 

Rhodhiss 

Johns River Gameland 

Duke Energy shall support the acquisition by the Foothills Land 

Conservancy, North Carolina WRC, or both of up to 2882 acres of nonproject land in the vicinity of the confluence of the Johns River and Lake 

Rhodhiss for public recreation and permanent conservation. 

Cowans Ford 

Mountain Creek Park 

Duke Energy shall support the acquisition by Catawba County of up to 600 

acres of non-project land at the mouth of Mountain Creek for the 

development of a public park. 

Wateree 

Lake Wateree Recreation 

Lands 

Approximately 800 acres of non-project land adjoining the Heritage Project, 

Cedar Creek Access Area, and Lake Wateree to South Carolina DNR for 

public recreation and conservation. 

There are some project-related land conveyances, however, mostly in association with 

existing recreation access areas, that are being proposed by Duke Energy, and that are included 

in the proposed action for relicensing, and therefore are considered herein. The proposed land 

conveyances are summarized in Table 91. 

368 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 91. Proposed conveyances of project lands. 

Development/area Proposed conveyance 

Bridgewater 

Lake James State Park 

Islands Management 

Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for the term of the new 

license for the Lake James State Park management zone (300 horizontal 

feet lakeward from full pond elevation) along the shoreline adjoining the 

state park, including three islands. 

Cowans Ford 

Lake Norman State Park 

Management Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for the term of the new 

license for the Lake Norman State Park management zone (300 horizontal 

feet lakeward from full pond elevation) along the shoreline adjoining Lake 

Norman State Park) including one island. 

Wylie 

Saddler Island 

Offer an AAII lease of the approximately 37-acre island to the U.S. 

National Whitewater Center for individual and group environmental 

education and outdoor recreation programming. 

Landsford Canal State 

Park Management Zone 

Offer South Carolina DPRT a nominal-cost lease for the Lake Wateree 

State Park management zone (up to 300 horizontal feet lakeward from full 

pond elevation) along the shoreline adjoining the state park. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 

Island Improvements 

Offer a lease of the islands associated with Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky 

Creek, and Cedar Creek Developments to South Carolina DPRT to 

establish and maintain a new state park centered on the Dearborn Armory 

site. 

Wateree 

Lake Wateree State Park 

Management Zone 

Offer South Carolina DPRT a nominal-cost lease for the Lake Wateree 

State Park management zone (up to 300 horizontal feet lakeward from full 

pond elevation) along the shoreline adjoining the state park. 

Several comments were received regarding the land protection measures and land 

conveyances proposed by Duke Energy both as part of the Revised CRA and/ or as proposed 

license articles. The Great Falls Hometown Association expressed its support for the Cedar 

Creek reservoir island improvements, noting that, as proposed, the Dearborn Armory Site and 

several other islands totaling more than 900 acres that would be protected as a new state park 

would be consistent with local efforts to establish nature-based tourism in the region, and would 

all create several thousand acres of contiguous public lands in the vicinity of Great Falls. 

North Carolina DENR commented in support of the land conveyance proposals included 

in the Revised CRA, noting that the proposed conveyance of the Paddy Creek, Catawba-Linville 

Confluence, and North Bend lands will provide diverse recreational opportunities in the upper 

river basin. North Carolina DENR also indicated its support for the provision of the Revised 

CRA under which Duke Energy would support North Carolina WRC’s efforts to acquire certain 

369 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
lands for conservation and future public access. The Lake Wateree Homeowners Association 

expressed its support for the land conveyance proposals embodied in the Revised CRA noting 

that the agreement preserves a significant track of shoreline in the upper section of Lake 

Wateree. Several other agencies and NGOs made comment in general support of the land 

conveyance measures included in the Revised CRA (including both those that were and were not 

proposed as license articles) including North Carolina WRC and the Foothills Conservancy. 

Our Analysis 

We have reviewed the lands proposed by Duke Energy for conveyance to different 

entities for the purpose of providing additional recreational access and public use. All of the 

land conveyances agreed to in the Revised CRA that are not proposed as license articles involve 

lands that are outside of the project boundary. Upon review of these lands we conclude that the 

non-project lands being proposed for conveyance are not needed for project purposes, and 

therefore require no further consideration in this review of environmental effects. 

All of the lands proposed for transfer under new license articles are currently within or 

partially within the FERC project boundary. Two of the proposed project land conveyances 

involve islands that are currently within the project boundary. At the Wylie Development, Duke 

Energy proposes to lease the approximately 37-acre Saddler Island to the U.S. National 

Whitewater Center. In the event that the U.S. National Whitewater Center does not go forward 

with its plans for the use of Saddler Island, it is necessary that property rights for the island 

revert back to Duke Energy, so that the island can be managed consistent with the purposes of 

the project. Therefore, we find that the land that makes up Saddler Island, above the normal full 

pool elevation of Lake Wylie, is necessary for project purposes and should remain within the 

project boundary. In order to allow the U.S. National Whitewater Center to develop and operate 

whitewater facilities on the island, consistent with the standard land use article, Duke Energy 

could lease the island to the U.S. National Whitewater Center as proposed. At the Great Falls, 

Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek Developments, Duke Energy proposed to lease the 

islands associated with the four developments to the State of South Carolina DPRT for the 

purpose of establishing a new state park centered on the Dearborn Armory site. We find that the 

islands proposed for lease are necessary for project purposes and should remain within the 

project boundary. A lease would force a contract between two parties which would be outside 

the Commission’s authority; however, consistent with the standard land use article, Duke Energy 

could, as a non-license article measure, apply to the Commission for approval for non-project use 

of project lands and lease the islands as proposed in the relicensing settlement agreement. 

The remaining land conveyances proposed by Duke Energy at the Bridgewater, Cowans 

Ford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments involve lands that lie within or partially within19 the 

FERC project boundary and extend under the reservoirs 300 horizontal feet lakeward from the 

normal full pond elevation of the reservoir within which they lie. These lands are already within 

or partially within the project boundary and have not been proposed for removal from the project 

boundary. Duke Energy has proposed including the Landsford Canal State Park Management 

Zone within the project boundary; therefore, Duke Energy would need to expand the project 

boundary to include the entire management zone. These are lands that are necessary for project 

purposes, in that they lie within the normal full pool elevation of the reservoir, and are subject to 

changes in water levels that may occur as a result of project operations. A lease would force a 

 

19 The Landsford Canal State Park Management Zone lies partially within the project boundary. 

370 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
contract between two parties which would be outside the Commission’s authority. In as much as 

the proposed use of these project lands is for public recreational use, and to facilitate state 

agencies being able to implement specific management and enforcement objectives, we find that 

it would be appropriate for Duke Energy to apply to the Commission for approval for nonproject use of project lands, and to enter into a lease agreement with the states’ agencies, as 

proposed in the relicensing settlement agreement. Such an arrangement would benefit the 

recreating public, and would allow the state agencies to better manage these existing and popular 

state parks. 

Land Conservation 

Duke Energy is proposing as a non-license measure to establish permanent conservation 

easements in the riparian corridor along certain sections of the Johns, Catawba, and Linville 

Rivers and first and second order tributaries to the Catawba River that would remain outside the 

project boundary. As proposed, the North Carolina flow mitigation package provides for 

permanent conservation easements on 28.6 bank miles of stream; the South Carolina flow 

mitigation package provides for permanent conservation easements on 5.5 bank miles of stream. 

The conservation easements are 100-ft wide perpetual easements to be located on the Johns, 

Catawba, and Linville Rivers, and first and second order tributaries to the Catawba River and 

transferred to the state of North Carolina or state-chosen land trust within 18 months of the 

issuance of the license. In South Carolina, the 100-ft-wide perpetual easements are to be located 

on the Catawba River. 

In addition, under the terms of the Revised CRA, Duke Energy proposes to make onetime contributions of $1 million to the HEP funds in North and South Carolina, respectively, in 

addition to the $80,000 annual contribution per state contributed by Duke Energy through 2009. 

HEP funds may be used by the states to support long-term management of conservation 

easements established through the Revised CRA or add land as conservation easements. 

The Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation commented that it did not think that the “land for 

water mitigation scheme” negotiated as part of the Revised CRA was a good thing. They did 

note that, in general, the proposed land conservation would help to ensure open space for 

generations to come, and more specifically that the agreement would result in the protection of 

28.6 miles of riparian corridor in Burke and Caldwell Counties, and about 6 miles of riparian 

corridor in Chester and Lancaster Counties in South Carolina. However, they expressed concern 

regarding the inequity in riparian land protection between the two states, with South Carolina 

receiving only 6 miles of riparian corridor protection, compared to 28 miles in North Carolina. 

DOI commented that one of the highest priorities in the region is the protection and 

conservation of Piedmont rocky shoals, as such reaches are increasingly scarce and often support 

unique assemblages of plant and animal species. At the Catawba-Wateree Project, DOI notes 

that the protection, restoration, and recovery of these areas, including the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach, the Great Falls of the Catawba, and the Wateree bypassed reach, are extremely 

important. 

DOI recommends that Duke Energy develop a comprehensive plan to work with federal 

and state resource agencies, CIN, communities, and non-profit organizations to conserve and 

protect its lands including fish and wildlife habitat based at Bridgewater, Johns River in the 

vicinity of Rhodhiss, Dearborn Island, Wateree canal, and the lands and waters within Congaree 

National Park. DOI also recommends that at those reservoirs where the shoreline development 

371 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
has already exceeded 50 percent, Duke Energy implement a program of strategic reacquisition 

and restoration of contiguous shoreline segments and that where this may not prove practicable, 

a program for protection of key tracts along the regulated reaches of the Catawba and Wateree 

Rivers. Additionally, DOI recommends that the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary include the 

50-ft-wide vegetated riparian buffer area required by the North Carolina Environmental 

Management Commission and contained within their Catawba Riparian Buffer Protection Rules 

as the minimum necessary to protect riparian resources. 

Our Analysis 

While the lands proposed for the establishment of conservation easements would protect 

important riparian habitat, we conclude that these lands are not needed to operate the project and 

are not affected by project operations. They are not needed for public recreational access to the 

project. Therefore, we do not find that these lands should be brought into the project boundary. 

We conclude that the DOI recommendations for Duke Energy to develop a 

comprehensive plan to conserve and protect its lands, reacquire and restore contiguous shoreline 

segments, and include a 50-ft vegetated riparian buffer in the project boundary are not necessary. 

There is no evidence that these recommendations are needed. Duke Energy undertook an 

extensive planning and evaluation process to determine what lands to conserve and protect 

during the relicensing process as outlined in the Application for New License Supplement & 

Clarification dated March 2007. While reacquisition and restoration of contiguous shoreline 

segments would be cost-prohibitive and impracticable, Duke Energy has proposed in the Revised 

CRA permanent conservation easements that would protect riparian habitat and specific 

protections intended to conserve and protect project lands. Expanding the project boundary to 

include a 50-ft vegetated riparian buffer is impractical. Regulation of lands currently outside the 

project boundary is under the purview of local government jurisdictions and the SMP establishes 

an MOU to coordinate local government and Duke Energy efforts on shoreline protection issues. 

3.3.8.3 Cumulative Effects 

Duke Energy’s proposed revisions to the SMP, including both the classification maps and 

the SMG, would have positive cumulative benefits to water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat, 

and the Catawba-Wateree Project’s long-term scenic qualities. The proposed revisions to the 

SMP have the potential to negatively affect shoreline property owners or commercial developers 

if construction is restricted or not permitted under the classification maps or the regulations and 

policies that make up the SMG. These effects would be experienced on an individual, case-bycase basis, as shoreline classifications vary among the reservoirs. 

Revisions to the SMG that target stormwater runoff, waste water effluent, and shoreline 

erosion are expected to result in less nutrients, turbidity, and other non-point-source pollution 

entering project waters. The maintenance of natural vegetation and the requirement to use native 

vegetation in shoreline plants would attenuate surface water runoff, capture and filter nutrients, 

and reduce shoreline erosion by anchoring soils. 

Duke Energy proposes several revisions to the SMG that over time could reduce the total 

amount of shoreline development that occurs along the project reservoirs. The most significant 

of these revisions is the proposal to increase the minimum lot width necessary in order to be 

eligible for a private pier from 75 to 100 ft. Although this requirement is not specifically 

intended to limit development, a possible effect of this proposed revision to the SMG is the 

372 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
reduction the number of new shoreline homes that are constructed along the reservoir shoreline, 

which in turn would have significant positive effects on reservoir water quality, fisheries, 

wildlife habitat, and aesthetics. 

Duke Energy also proposes several revisions to the SMG that over time may reduce the 

total number of piers and docks constructed on the reservoirs. The development of fewer docks 

and piers on the reservoirs would have a cumulative benefit to recreational users of the reservoirs 

by helping to alleviate over-use and crowding. The aesthetic quality of the project reservoirs 

also will benefit from having fewer docks and piers developed along the shoreline. 

There are several proposed revisions to the SMG that could reduce the total number of 

watercraft that can be moored or docked on a reservoir. The most significant of these proposals 

is the SMG revision that would limit the mooring of watercraft at a marina facility to one at a 

time within a boat slip or docking/mooring location unless that facility was specifically designed 

and approved to moor additional watercraft. Although this proposed requirement is not 

specifically intended to reduce the number of watercraft, reduce crowding, or increase safety on 

the reservoirs, this proposed change in the SMG may have a positive cumulative effect in helping 

to reduce over-crowding on the reservoirs by boats and to improve boating safety and the quality 

of the boating experience. 

The proposed conveyance and conservation of Duke Energy-owned project and nonproject lands would add positively to efforts of land managing agencies. These measures are 

designed to protect the shorelines from development that could affect the aesthetics, water 

quality, recreational opportunities, and wildlife throughout this project. The lands proposed as 

an off-license measure for the establishment of conservation easements would protect important 

riparian habitat in the Catawba basin. These lands would be permanently protected because the 

North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification issued on November 14, 2008 is conditioned 

upon transfer of the easements to state and other entities as proposed in the Revised CRA. 

Establishment of permanent conservation easements on these lands will ensure their protection 

from development and other uses that may be inconsistent with the need to preserve their values 

as riparian corridor. Protection of these lands, combined with Duke Energy’s other proposals for 

conveying both project and non-project lands to various entities for future preservation or the 

establishment of parks or other public access areas, will greatly benefit the project but further 

limit the potential for new development along the shorelines of the reservoirs and tailwater areas, 

and will help to maintain aesthetic quality of the reservoirs and riparian corridors. 

3.3.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

The proposed revisions to the project SMP including the classification maps and SMG 

will allow shoreline development to continue. In turn, continued development of the project 

shoreline will have an unavoidable adverse effect on project resources including, most 

particularly, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat. Shoreline development by its very 

nature results in disturbance to the vegetation and soils and conversion of natural pervious 

surfaces to impervious surfaces. These effects combined result in an increase in runoff, nonpoint source pollutant loads, and soil erosion, resulting in a decline in water quality and adverse 

impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. 

However, the revisions to the SMP proposed by Duke Energy will strengthen the SMP, 

and will generally result in less shoreline development, with fewer structures constructed on the 

reservoir, than would have occurred under the existing approved SMP. 

373 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
3.3.9 Socioeconomic Resources 

3.3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The Catawba River begins in western North Carolina and flows easterly and southerly 

into South Carolina, where it joins Big Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River. The project 

spans over 225 RM within nine counties in North Carolina and five counties in South Carolina. 

The counties bordering the project area are diverse in nature, ranging from urban to rural. These 

counties include Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, McDowell, and 

Mecklenberg, North Carolina; and Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster, and York, South 

Carolina (table 92). 

Table 92. Counties associated with the Catawba-Wateree Development. 

Development County/state 

Bridgewater Development Burke/McDowell, North Carolina 

Rhodhiss Development Burke/Caldwell, North Carolina 

Oxford Development Alexander/Burke/Caldwell/Catawba, North Carolina 

Lookout Shoals Development Alexander/Catawba/Iredell, North Carolina 

Cowans Ford Development Mecklenburg/Iredell/Catawba/Lincoln, North Carolina 

Mountain Island Development Mecklenburg/Lincoln/Gaston, North Carolina 

Wylie Development Gaston/Mecklenburg, North Carolina; York, South 

Carolina 

Fishing Creek Development Lancaster/Chester, South Carolina 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments Chester/Lancaster/Fairfield, South Carolina 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Developments Chester/Lancaster/Fairfield, South Carolina 

Wateree Development Lancaster/Kershaw/Fairfield, South Carolina 

Population and Demographics 

North Carolina’s population grew from 8.05 million in 2000 to 8.9 million in 2006 

(10 percent) and is projected to grow to 10.3 million by 2015 (16 percent) (Duke Energy, 2007; 

North Carolina State Data Center, 2008). South Carolina’s population grew from 4.0 million in 

2000 to 4.3 million in 2006 (8 percent) and is projected to grow to 4.7 million by 2015 

(9 percent) (Duke Energy, 2007; South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 2006). The 

population changes between 2000 and 2006 and the population estimate for 2015 for each county 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project are displayed in table 93. 

374 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 93. 2000 and 2006 population size by county within the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

County State 20002 20063 Percent 

change 

Population estimate 

20154,5 

Burke North Carolina 89,148 90,054 1.0 % 88,074 

McDowell North Carolina 42,151 NA1 -- 46,217 

Caldwell North Carolina 77,415 79,841 3.1% 81,210 

Alexander North Carolina 33,603 NA -- 39,208 

Iredell North Carolina 122,660 146,206 19.2% 183,685 

Mecklenburg North Carolina 695,454 827,445 19.0% 1,067,396 

Catawba North Carolina 141,685 153,784 8.5% 167,119 

Lincoln North Carolina 63,780 71,894 12.7% 83,445 

Gaston North Carolina 190,365 199,397 4.5% 215,548 

York South Carolina 164,614 199,035 20.9% 221,910 

Lancaster South Carolina 61,351 NA -- 67,300 

Chester South Carolina 34,068 NA -- 34,910 

Fairfield South Carolina 23,454 NA -- 25,540 

Kershaw South Carolina 52,647 NA -- 63,800 

1

 NA – 2006 data unavailable for those counties with a population less than 65,000. 

2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau [USCB], 2000. 

3 Source: USCB, 2006. 

4 Source: North Carolina State Data Center, 2008. 

5 Source: South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 2006. 

The fastest growing counties between 2000 and 2006 were York, South Carolina 

(20.9 percent); Iredell, North Carolina (19.2 percent); and Mecklenburg, North Carolina 

(19.0 percent). The slowest growing counties include Burke (1 percent), Caldwell (3.1 percent), 

and Gaston (4.5 percent) Counties. Population data for 2006 is not available for those counties 

with a population less than 65,000. The population increase from 1990 to 2000 for these 

counties are as follows: McDowell (18.1 percent), Alexander (22.0 percent), Lancaster 

(12.5 percent), Chester (5.9 percent), Fairfield (5.2 percent), and Kershaw (21 percent) (USCB, 

1990). 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has the largest population of all counties within 

the project area. This county includes the city of Charlotte. Mecklenburg County was one of the 

fastest growing counties from the year 2000 to 2006. The population is expected to grow by 

29 percent to more than one million by 2015 (table 93). Iredell County is expected to grow 

25.6 percent to more than 183,000 by 2015. Caldwell and Chester Counties are projected to 

experience slow growth increasing 2 and 2.5 percent, respectively, by 2015. Burke is the only 

county within the project expected to lose population by 1.2 percent. Moderate growing counties 

375 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
376 

include Mc Dowell (9.6 percent), Alexander (16.7 percent), Lincoln (16.0 percent), York 

(11.5 percent), and Lancaster (9.7 percent). 

In 2005, the population of North Carolina was 67.7 percent White, 21.2 percent African 

American, 6.7 percent Hispanic or Latino, 1.8 percent Asian, 1.2 percent persons of two or more 

races, 1.1 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.2 percent persons of some other race, and 

0.1 percent Native Hawaiian (USCB, 2006). The minority population, defined as the non-white 

and multi-racial population of a given area which includes African American, Asian, American 

Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, persons reporting some other race, 

and persons reporting two or more races, comprised 29 percent of North Carolina. The 

population of South Carolina in 2005 was 65.3 percent White, 28.6 percent African American, 

3.4 percent Hispanic or Latino, 1.2 percent persons of two or more races, 1.1 percent Asian, 

0.25 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.1 percent persons of some other race, and 

0.05 percent Native Hawaiian (USCB, 2006). Minorities in South Carolina comprised 35 

percent of the total population. Table 94 displays the demographic breakdown of each of the 

counties associated with the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Mecklenburg was the only county in North Carolina with a high minority population 

(44.7 percent). The minority population was comprised of 66 percent African Americans, 

22 percent Hispanic or Latino, 9 percent Asian, and 3 percent of other race. Approximately 10 to 

20 percent of the total population of Burke, Caldwell, Alexander, Iredell, Catawba, and Lincoln 

Counties was comprised of minorities. The lowest minority population in North Carolina was 

McDowell County (9.7 percent). The counties within South Carolina have a higher minority 

population than those counties within North Carolina. In 2000, the total population in Fairfield 

County was 23,454, which comprised of 60.8 percent minorities, the highest minority population 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project. Approximately, 96 percent of the minority population was 

African American. The remaining counties in South Carolina had minority populations ranging 

from 25 to 40 percent, comprised of predominantly African Americans. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 94. Demographic breakdown (percent of total population in 2006) of Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

2000 and 2006) 

County White African American Hispanic American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian Two or More Races Som

R

Burke 84.0 6.5 4.9 0.2 3.2 0.0 1.2 McDowell1 89.6 4.0 2.8 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.8 Caldwell 89.1 4.1 3.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 1.2 

Alexander1 89.8 4.6 2.4 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.8 Iredell 79.8 11.8 5.2 0.1 0.9 0.3 1.8 Mecklenburg 55.3 29.5 9.8 0.4 3.9 0.0 0.9 Catawba 79.3 7.7 8.4 0.3 3.0 0.0 1.3 

Lincoln1 85.4 6.1 5.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.9 

Gaston 78.2 13.7 5.2 0.3 1.1 0.1 1.4 York 74.9 18.9 3.2 0.5 1.1 0.1 1.3 

Lancaster1 69.9 26.4 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 

Chester1 59.5 38.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 

Fairfield1 39.1 58.5 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 

Kershaw1 70.4 25.9 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 

1 Based on 2000 data; 2006 data unavailable. 

377 
Economic Base 

Table 95 displays the economic and employment data for the counties within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area. The 2006 median household income in Burke ($37,677), 

Caldwell ($34,052), Lincoln (38,433), and Gaston ($42,410) Counties in North Carolina were 

below the state median of $42,265. Iredell, Mecklenburg, and Catawba Counties had higher 

median household incomes of $43,307, $51,945, and $42,349, respectively (USCB, 2006). The 

2000 median household income in the counties of McDowell ($32,396) and Alexander ($38,684) 

were lower than the state median of $39,184 (2006 data unavailable) (USCB, 2000). The 

percentage of people living below the poverty level in North Carolina grew from 12.3 percent in 

2000 to 14.7 percent in 2006. Counties in the project area with higher poverty rates include 

Burke (17.6 percent), Gaston (15 percent), and Caldwell (14.9 percent). All other counties 

within the project area in North Carolina had poverty rates lower than the state rate (USCB, 2000 

and 2006). 

The median household income in South Carolina in 2006 was $41,100. The only county 

within the project area in South Carolina that had a higher median household income than the 

state was York County ($45,739) (USC 2006). The 2006 economic data for Lancaster, Chester, 

Fairfield, and Kershaw Counties is unavailable. The 2000 median household incomes in the 

counties of Lancaster ($34,688), Chester ($32,425), and Fairfield ($30,376) were lower than the 

state median of $37,082. Kershaw County ($38,804) was slightly higher than the state median 

(USCB, 2000). The percentage of people living below poverty level in South Carolina was 

14.1 percent in 2000 and 15.7 percent in 2006, which was slightly higher than the rates in 

North Carolina. Chester and Fairfield Counties had higher poverty rates in 2000 (15.3 and 

19.6 percent, respectively) when compared to the state. 

Employment in the project area is quite diverse and includes jobs ranging from white 

collar or professional, to blue collar or labor-intensive. Some of the industries include farming 

and forestry; government employment; education and health services; leisure and hospitality; 

trade; retail; and manufacturing. The two largest industries of employment in both North 

Carolina and South Carolina are education services, health care, and social assistance; and 

manufacturing. These industries represented more than 50 percent of the workforce in the 

majority of the counties within the project area. 

The unemployment rate in North Carolina grew from 5.3 percent in 2000 to 6.6 percent 

in 2006. The following counties in North Carolina had unemployment rates equal to or higher 

than the state in 2000 or 2006: Caldwell (10.1 percent), Burke (8.4 percent), Catawba 

(7.4 percent), Mecklenburg (7.0 percent), and Lincoln (6.6 percent) (USCB, 2000 and 2006). 

Gaston, McDowell, and Alexander Counties had unemployment rates of 6.4, 4.5, and 

2.5 percent, respectively, which were lower than the state rate. The unemployment rate in South 

Carolina also grew from 5.9 percent in 2000 to 7.4 percent in 2006. Fairfield (6.9 percent), 

Chester (6.8 percent), and Lancaster (6.4 percent) Counties had higher unemployment rates than 

the state in 2000. York and Kershaw Counties had unemployment rates of 5.6 and 5.3, 

respectively, which were lower than the state rate. 

378 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 95. 2006 economic and employment data of the Catawba-Wateree Project area. (Source: USCB, 200

County 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Average 

Household 

Size 

Median 

Value of 

Home 

% 

Unemployed 

% Living 

Below 

Poverty 

Level 

Largest Industry of Employment 

% 

S

Gr

or 

Burke $37,677 2.58 $99,700 8.4 17.6 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance McDowell $32,396 2.45 $72,000 4.5 11.6 Manufacturing 

Caldwell $34,052 2.55 $105,600 10.1 14.9 Manufacturing 

Alexander $38,684 2.54 $95,600 2.5 8.5 Manufacturing 

Iredell $43,307 2.61 $156,600 6.5 12.0 Manufacturing 

Mecklenburg $51,945 2.41 $172,000 7.0 11.3 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance 

Catawba $42,349 2.62 $127,700 7.4 10.7 Manufacturing 

Lincoln $38,433 2.58 $129,900 6.6 13.9 Manufacturing Gaston $42,410 2.65 $114,000 6.4 15.0 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance 

York $45,739 2.61 $143,400 5.6 11.8 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance 

Lancaster $34,688 2.56 $77,100 6.4 12.8 Manufacturing Chester $32,425 2.62 $62,800 6.8 15.3 Manufacturing 

Fairfield $30,376 2.63 $69,900 6.9 19.6 Manufacturing 

Kershaw $38,804 2.58 $88,000 5.3 12.8 Manufacturing 

1 Based on the population 25 years and over. 

379 
3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects 

Employment in the project area is quite diverse and includes farming and forestry; 

government employment; education and health services; leisure and hospitality; trade; retail; and 

manufacturing. The two largest industries of employment in both North Carolina and South 

Carolina are education services, health care, and social assistance; and manufacturing. These 

industries represented more than 50 percent of the workforce in the majority of the counties 

within the project area. The primary contribution that the project currently makes to the local 

economy is related to recreational use. 

Changes to reservoir water surface elevations and instream flows could affect the water 

uses in varying ways. Higher reservoir water levels year-round are more desirable to both 

visitors and residents resulting in more recreational use, visitor spending, income to local 

recreation-related businesses, recreation-related employment, and higher property values and tax 

revenues. On the other hand, lower reservoir levels would be associated with less recreation use, 

spending, income, employment, property value, and tax revenue. Recreational flow releases and 

recreation facility enhancements are proposed for the project. Details on the proposed recreation 

enhancements are discussed in section 3.3.7, Recreational Resources. 

General Recreation User Characteristics 

During the 2004-2005 recreation use and needs study period, total visitation to the project 

site was more than 10.1 million visits. Lake Norman and Lake Wylie received the highest level 

of visitation, followed by Lake Hickory, Lake Wateree, and Lake James. 

Of the people who were interviewed at the public recreation areas, 28 percent were 

female and 72 percent were male, and the average age was 44 for females and 45 for males. For 

shoreline residents, 5 percent were less than 35 years old, 47 percent were between the ages of 

35 and 54, 27 percent were between the ages of 55 and 64, and the remaining 21 percent were 

over the age of 64. For potential visitors, about 13 percent were less than 35 years old, 

42 percent were between the ages of 35 and 54, 21 percent were between the ages of 55 and 64, 

and the remaining 24 percent were over the age of 64. 

In terms of race, for public recreation area visitors, 79 percent indicated they were 

Caucasian, 15 percent African American, 4 percent Hispanic or Latino, and 2 percent Asian. 

For shoreline and backlot residents, 98 percent indicated they were Caucasian, and less than 

1 percent each indicated they were African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, or American 

Indian and Alaska Native. For potential visitors, 91 percent indicated they were Caucasian, 

6 percent African American, and less than 1 percent each indicated they were Hispanic or Latino, 

Asian, or American Indian and Alaska Native. 

For shoreline residents, 13 percent indicated they had an annual income of less than 

$50,000, 32 percent were between $50,000 and $99,999, and the remaining 55 percent indicated 

an annual income of more than $100,000. For potential visitors, 42 percent indicated they had an 

annual income of less than $50,000, 40 percent were between $50,000 and $99,999, and the 

remaining 18 percent indicated an annual income of more than $100,000. 

Economic Value of Recreation Assessment 

The socioeconomic effects of Catawba-Wateree Project recreation on the local economies 

of North and South Carolina was assessed utilizing recreation use estimates combined with 

380 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
expenditure information. The IMPLAN model (MIG, 1999) was used to estimate the economic 

effects of recreation expenditures in the study area based on the value of income, jobs, and taxes 

attracted to the region due to project-related recreation. IMPLAN is a widely used regional 

economic impact model. Visitor use data collected during the recreation study was used to 

populate the model. 

Key Findings 

• More than 11 million people visited public recreation areas in the Catawba-Wateree 

Project study area from March 1, 2004, to February 28, 2005. 

• Visitation is projected to increase by about 11 percent per decade through 2050. 

• Fifty percent of the visitors went to Lake Norman or Lake Wylie. 

• The primary recreation activities were motor boating, boat fishing, bank/pier fishing, and 

swimming. 

• The peak recreation season for the Catawba-Wateree system is April through September, 

and the peak visitation months are May and July. 

• More than 3,000 boats used the 11 reservoirs during July 4th weekend (the peak holiday 

weekend in 2004), but only Lake Hickory was at more than 50 percent capacity. 

• On a typical weekend during the peak recreation season, 2,000 boats use the 

11 reservoirs. 

• People using the public recreation areas typically spent money on food and beverages, 

lodging, entrance fees, boat rental and supplies, bait and tackle, gasoline, and other 

related services. These expenditures directly support almost 1,700 jobs and provide more 

than $24 million dollars in total economic benefits. 

• Ninety percent of the visitors to the public recreation areas were satisfied with both the 

condition of the areas, and the types of recreation opportunities available at the areas. 

• During the peak recreation season, visitors did not feel crowded at the public recreation 

areas on weekdays, and felt slightly to moderately crowded on weekends. 

• People rated the reservoirs as not crowded or only slightly crowded during the weekdays, 

and between slightly crowded and moderately crowded during the weekends. 

• Visitors using the public recreation areas generally felt safe but were concerned about 

uncontrolled operation of personal watercraft, excessive boat speeds on the reservoirs, 

and deadheads and floating logs. 

Recreation spending at the Catawba-Wateree Project areas accounts for a small fraction 

of the regional economies of North and South Carolina. Individuals using the project for 

recreational purposes typically make expenditures (approximately $50 per group per visit) on 

food and beverages, lodging, entrance fees, boat rental and supplies, bait and tackle, gasoline, 

and other related services. These expenditures directly support almost 1,700 jobs and provide 

more than $24 million dollars in direct labor income to the region. The total labor income 

(direct, indirect, and induced) associated with recreation expenditures is almost exclusively in the 

service sector; however, this is less than 1 percent of the total labor income for the 14 counties 

surrounding the project. The sectors most significantly influenced by recreation visits to the 

381 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
project include: restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, sporting goods, hotels/motels, and 

general merchandise stores. 

The surrounding counties and states benefit from this spending through recreation-related 

sales tax revenues that bring in approximately $10 million and gasoline tax revenues that bring in 

approximately $7 million to counties and states. Counties with the largest tax benefits from 

recreational use of project area waters are Mecklenburg (North Carolina) and York (South 

Carolina). 

Management directives and policy that support and potentially enhance recreation 

resources and opportunities along the Catawba-Wateree Project, as discussed in section 3.3.7, 

Recreational Resources, would ultimately increase visitation to project waters. Higher visitation 

numbers would increase the amount of expenditures related to recreational activities within the 

region, which in turn would have a positive effect on the regional economy. 

Our Analysis 

Lake and river users contribute substantially to local economies (e.g., boat and equipment 

purchases, gas, food, and lodging), and their purchases of hunting and fishing licenses and boat 

registrations help the state wildlife agencies fund management programs. Additionally, the 

growth of the area due to the presence of the project has allowed the tax base and economy of the 

counties and areas surrounding the project reservoirs to increase substantially since construction 

of the project reservoirs. 

Recreational flow releases and recreation facility enhancements proposed for the project, 

as well as continued operation of the project, are unlikely to change the social and economic 

conditions of the project vicinity. However, not relicensing the project could have a negative 

impact on the area by increasing future electricity rates, thereby increasing living and business 

costs and causing fewer businesses to be attracted to the area, as well as lowering the tax base for 

the local economies. 

Population 

There is no reason to expect that implementing the proposed recreational enhancements 

will cause any appreciable or permanent migration to or from the area. 

Employment 

No local impacts to employment are expected due to the proposed recreational 

enhancements of the project. The economic future of the area will remain tied to its traditional 

employment sources. 

Housing 

Housing in the project area should not be affected by the proposed recreational 

enhancements of the project. No additional housing will be required. No residences or 

businesses will be displaced, and local government expenditures are not expected to increase. 

Recreation 

Recreational opportunities in the project area will be increased by implementing the 

proposed action due to the recreation enhancement PM&E measures. A full description of 

recreational resources is discussed in section 3.3.7, Recreational Resources. 

382 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Existing Socioeconomic Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement 

Measures 

There are no existing socioeconomic PM&E measures associated with the project. 

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms 

and conditions of the existing license, and there would be no change to the existing environment. 

Under this scenario, there would be continued energy production and no enhancement of existing 

natural resources. We use the no-action alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions 

for comparison with other alternatives. 

Specifically, under the no-action alternative, water supply throughout the project area 

would not be appropriately managed, especially in periods of drought; water quality, especially 

DO, would be affected during periods of low flow and would in turn continue to affect aquatic 

resources; reservoir levels and flow releases would not provide protection or enhancement of 

aquatic resources and bypassed reaches would not receive water flow below Lake James or at 

Great Falls. Low flows, high inflows/flooding would continue to occur and affect fish 

populations in downstream reaches. Reservoir levels and the elevation of existing public boat 

ramps in development reservoirs could continue to limit access to the reservoir during periods of 

low water levels. Special status aquatic and terrestrial species, including federally listed species 

within the project area, while still potentially affected by some project operations would not be 

provided with monitoring or habitat enhancements provided through the implementation of 

specie-specific protection plans. Bald eagles and heron rookeries would continue to be 

threatened by inadvertent disturbance from recreation use along the shorelines. Historic 

properties and archaeological resources would not receive protective management including 

monitoring of erosional processes, monetary support for a number of initiatives. Interpretive 

displays and opportunities for education on the historical and archaeological importance of the 

area would not be made available to the residents, visitors and children of the Catawba-Wateree 

area. Recreational flows for the support of whitewater, paddling, and boat fishing activities 

would not be made available to enhance recreational use of the project area. Without the new 

license, enhancements to existing public facilities or the construction of new facilities at 88 

locations would not occur. The revised SMP provides modifications to shoreline classifications, 

lake use restrictions, the SMG, and land conservation that would otherwise not be implemented 

or receive periodic review and updates to continue to improve water quality and shoreline and 

riparian habitat within the project area. Implementation of proposed flows would not be made 

available to improve habitat for diadromous fish species. 

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Continued operation of the existing project would continue to commit lands and waters 

previously developed for energy production. This commitment would not necessarily be 

irreversible or irretrievable because removal of the project dams and restoration of disturbed 

areas could return the project areas to near pre-project conditions. However, given the substantial 

costs and loss of energy, recreational, and socioeconomic benefits, removal of the dams is 

unlikely in the foreseeable future. 

383 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
384 

3.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM USES 

Under all alternatives considered, the project would continue to generate power for 

customers of Duke Energy, as well as provide recreation and socioeconomic benefits for the 

duration of any new licenses. The proposed action with staff-recommended modifications would 

provide significant long-term protection and enhancement of biological, cultural, and 

recreational resources in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, although energy generation at the 

existing project would be somewhat reduced. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
4. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS 

In this section, we look at the Catawba-Wateree Project’s use of the Catawba and 

Wateree Rivers for hydropower purposes to see what effect various environmental measures 

would have on the project’s costs and power benefits. Consistent with the Commission’s 

approach to economic analysis, the power benefit of the project is determined by estimating the 

cost of obtaining the same amount of energy and capacity using the likely alternative generating 

resources available in the region. In keeping with Commission policy as described in Mead, our 

economic analysis is based on current electric power cost conditions and does not consider future 

escalation of fuel prices in valuing the hydropower project’s power benefits.20 

Our analysis includes: (1) an estimate of the net power benefit of the project for each of 

the licensing alternatives; and (2) an estimate of the cost of individual measures considered in the 

EIS for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of environmental resources affected by the 

project. To determine the net power benefit for each of the licensing alternatives, we compare 

project costs to the value of the power output as represented by the cost of a likely alternative 

source of power in the region. For any alternative, a positive net annual power benefit indicates 

that the project power costs less than the current cost of alternative generation resources, and a 

negative net annual benefit indicates that project power costs more than the current cost of 

alternative generation resources. This estimate helps to support an informed decision concerning 

what is in the public interest with respect to a proposed license. However, project economics is 

only one of many public interest factors the Commission considers in determining whether, and 

under what conditions, to issue a license. 

4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE BRIDGEWATER 

DEVELOPMENT 

Table 96 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); estimated future capital 

investment required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; relicensing 

costs; normal operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 

unless specified otherwise. 

 20 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 (July 13, 1995). 

In most cases, electricity from hydropower would displace some form of fossil-fueled 

generation, in which fuel cost is the largest component of the cost of electricity production. 

385 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 96. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Bridgewater Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 233,344,786 

Future major capital cost5 22,670,930 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 1,763,780 

Operation and maintenance (2008$)7 597,589 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.30 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 30.12 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $2,344,786 (2008$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported in 

exhibit D, and $109,000,000 (2008$) for the new powerhouse, $71,000,000 (2008$) for seismic 

upgrades to the Catawba Dam, $1,000,000 (2008$) for flood stability upgrades at the Paddy 

Creek Dam, and $50,000,000 (2008$) for seismic upgrades to the Linville Dam as reported by 

Duke Energy in filed comments on the DEIS. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Bridgewater Development in 2006$ is $1,637,906. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $554,941 (2006$).

8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.21/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $27.97/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

386 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls) 

As currently operated, the new 27.7-MW Bridgewater Development will generate an 

average of 74,250 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 25.8 MW. 

4.1.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 97 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. The power benefit in Table 97 is the combined annual value of 

the energy generation and capacity value for the Bridgewater Development. 

Table 97. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Bridgewater Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 27.7 27.7 27.7 

Dependable capacity (MW) 25.8 25.8 25.8 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 74.25 66.08 66.08 

Annual power value, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

3,992,121 

(53.77) 

3,638,360 

(55.06) 

3,638,360 

(55.06) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

7,833,257 

(105.50) 

9,849,563 

(149.06) 

8,801,774 

(55.06) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$ 

(mills/kWh): 

-3,841,136 

(-51.73) 

-6,211,203 

(-94.00) 

-5,163,414 

(-78.14) 

4.1.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 74,250 MWh, 

the existing project has an annual power value of $3,992,121 and costs $7,833,257 annually 

to operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of negative $3,841,136 (or 

-$51.73/MWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is greater than that 

of currently available alternative generation by $3,841,136 annually. 

387 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
388 

4.1.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Bridgewater Development would generate an 

average of 66,080 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $3,638,360 

(55.06 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $23,182,030 (350.82 mills/kWh). This results in a 

net annual benefit of negative $-19,543,670 (-295.76 mills/kWh). In other words, the project 

produces energy at a cost that is greater than that of currently available alternative generation by 

$19,543,670 annually. 

4.1.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. Table 98 

lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 66,080 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $3,638,360 (55.06 mills/kWh) and have total annual costs of 

$9,849,563 (149.06 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of negative $6,211,203 

(-94.00 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is greater than that 

of currently available alternative generation by $6,211,203 annually. The staff alternative would 

increase the net annual project benefit by about $1,047,789 ($15.86/MWh) compared to the 

project as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.1.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 98 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 98. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by staff for the Bridgewater Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Operations 

Reservoir Level Control – Install flow compliance gage and provide maintenance 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 11,000 

Reservoir Level Stabilization (Spring Lake Stabilization) 

Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring – USGS gage installation and maintenance 

Duke Energy 21,000 1,939 30,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Water Quality Enhancements – Minimum flow units and aeration on 3 units 

Duke Energy 5,400,000 498,699 12,000 

Aquatic Habitat Flows – Bypass Flow Valve Duke Energy 1,134,000 104,727 25,000 

Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 643,000 59,383 0 

389 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 10,000 924 6,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 167,000 15,422 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

Recreational Resources 

Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Black Bear Access Area, Linville Canoe/Kayak Access Area, New Linville Access Area, Pocket Parks for Lake James Loop Trail and Land, Muddy Creek Access Area and Land, Bridgewater Access Area) 

Duke Energy 2,892,000 267,081 127,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Lake James Loop Trail, North Bend Recreation Lands, North Bend Access Area, Catawba-Linville Gameland, Paddy Creek Recreation Land, Morganton Weir Takeout, Overmountain National Historic Trail Corridor, Watermill Road Access Area, Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 9,360,000 864,412 72,000 

390 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3

Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Recreation Flow Communication – Develop and Maintain Systems 

Duke Energy 20,000 1,847 5,000 

Safety and Security –Warning Device4 Duke Energy 50,000 4,617 0 

Safety and Security – Signage 4 Duke Energy 30,000 2,771 1,000 

Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5

Staff 98,500 9,097 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 

Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 667,000 61,599 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 250,000 23,088 0 

391 
392 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.2 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE RHODHISS DEVELOPMENT 

Table 99 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 99. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Rhodhiss Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 14,515,721 

Future major capital cost5 11,215,390 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 1,517,376 

Operation and maintenance (2008$/yr)7 427,664 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.35 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 28.46 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $15,897,941 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Rhodhiss Development in 2006$ is $1,409,087. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $397,143 (2006$). 

393 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.26/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $26.43/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group. 

As currently operated, the 28.4-MW Rhodhiss Development generates an average of 

63,880 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 30.2 MW. 

4.2.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 100 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 100. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Rhodhiss Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 28.4 28.4 28.4 

Dependable capacity (MW) 30.2 30.2 30.2 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 63.88 56.85 56.85 

Annual power value, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

3,628,690 

(56.80) 

3,323,940 

(58.47) 

3,323,940 

(58.47) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

2,780,548 

(43.53) 

3,730,694 

(65.62) 

3,025,696 

(53.22) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

848,142 

(13.28) 

-406,754 

(-7.15) 

298,243 

(5.25) 

4.2.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 63,880 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $3,628,690 and costs $2,780,548 annually to 

394 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
395 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $848,142 (or $13.28/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $848,142 annually. 

4.2.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Rhodhiss Development would generate an 

average of 56,850 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $3,323,940 

(58.47 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $3,730,694 (65.62 mills/kWh), resulting in a 

negative net annual benefit of $406,754 (-7.15 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces 

energy at a cost that is more than that of currently available alternative generation by $406,754 

annually. 

4.2.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 101 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 56,850 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $3,323,940 (58.47 mills/kWh), and have total annual costs of 

$3,025,696 (53.22 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $298,243 

(5.25 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $298,243 annually. The staff alternative would 

increase the net annual project benefit by about $704,997 ($12.40/MWh) compared to the project 

as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.2.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 101 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 101. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Rhodhiss Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Operations Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Water Quality Enhancement – new aerating runner 

Duke Energy 2,876,000 265,603 12,000 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 7,000 647 5,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 167,000 15,422 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

Cultural Resources Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

396 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Corpening Bridge Access Area and Land, Sawmills Veterans Park, Rhodhiss Access Area, Castle Bridge Access Area, Rhodhiss Canoe Portage Trail) 

Duke Energy 836,000 77,206 77,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Wilson Creek Access Area Lease and Land, Upper Johns River Access Area, Johns River Gameland, Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 4,176,000 385,661 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3

Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5

Staff 28,500 2,632 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 

Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

397 
398 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Other Enhancements Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 667,000 61,599 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 250,000 23,088 0 

Conservation Easements Duke Energy 1,125,000 103,896 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis, 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.3 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE OXFORD DEVELOPMENT 

Table 102 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 102. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Oxford Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 28,323,220 

Future major capital cost5 8,201,300 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 2,471,040 

Operation and maintenance7 439,605 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.25 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 36.95 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $30,696,742 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Oxford Development in 2006$ is $2,294,691. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $408,232 (2006$).

399 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.16/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $34.31/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group. 

As currently operated, the 35.7-MW Oxford Development generates an average of 

104,030 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 41.6 MW. 

4.3.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 103 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 103. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Oxford Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 35.7 35.7 35.7 

Dependable capacity (MW) 41.6 41.6 41.6 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 104.03 92.58 92.58 

Annual power value, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

6,036,418 

(58.03) 

5,541,205 

(59.85) 

5,541,205 

(59.85) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

4,782,301 

(45.97) 

5,575,288 

(60.22) 

5,405,545 

(58.39) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

1,254,117 

(12.06) 

-34,083 

(-0.37) 

135,660 

(1.47) 

4.3.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 104,030 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $6,036,418 and costs $4,782,301 annually to 

400 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
401 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $1,254,117 (or $12.06 /MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $1,254,117 annually. 

4.3.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Oxford Development would generate an 

average of 92,580 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $5,541,205 

(59.85 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $5,575,288 (60.22 mills/kWh). This results in a net 

annual benefit of negative $34,083 (-0.37 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces 

energy at a cost that is greater than that of currently available alternative generation by $34,083 

annually. 

4.3.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 104 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 92,580 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $5,541,205 (59.85 mills/kWh), and have total annual costs of 

$5,405,545 (58.39 mills/kWh), resulting in an annual net benefit of $135,660 (1.47 mills/kWh). 

In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $133,660 annually. The staff alternative would increase the net annual 

project benefit by about $169,743 ($1.84/MWh) compared to the project as proposed by Duke 

Energy. 

4.3.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 104 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 104. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Oxford Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(l

co

Operations Reservoir Level Control – Install flow compliance gage and provide maintenance Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 11,000 Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Water Quality Enhancement – new aerating runner Duke Energy 2,633,000 243,162 12,000 

Aquatic Habitat Flows – Bypass flow valve installation and maintenance Duke Energy 570,000 52,640 30,000 

Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 643,000 59,383 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 9,000 831 5,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 167,000 15,422 0 

402 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(l

co

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2 Staff 3,000 277 150 

Cultural Resources Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (First and Second Lake Hickory Swimming Areas, Wittenburg Access Area and Land, Dusty Ridge Access Area, Lovelady Access Area, Long Shoals Access Area, Oxford Tailrace Fishing Area, Oxford Portage Access Area) 

Duke Energy 2,845,000 262,741 128,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Land or Facilities) Duke Energy 206,000 19,024 9,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3 Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Recreation Flow Communication – Develop and Maintain Systems Duke Energy 20,000 1,847 5,000 Safety and Security – Warning Device4 Duke Energy 100,000 9,236 0 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 

403 
404 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(l

co

Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5 Staff 28,500 2,632 1,000 Shoreline Management Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 667,000 61,599 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 250,000 23,088 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.4 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE LOOKOUT SHOALS 

DEVELOPMENT 

Table 105 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 105. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Lookout Shoals Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 12,664,705 

Future major capital cost5 4,496,930 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 2,164,135 

Operation and maintenance7 435,517 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.00 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 43.68 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $13,960,963 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Lookout Shoals Development in 2006$ is $2,009,689. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $404,436 (2006$). 

405 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $39.93/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.56/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group. 

As currently operated, the 25.7-MW Lookout Shoals Development generates an average 

of 91,110 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 27.8 MW. 

4.4.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 106 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 106. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Lookout Shoals Development (Source: Staff). 

No action 

Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 25.7 25.7 25.7 

Dependable capacity (MW) 27.8 27.8 27.8 

Annual generation 

(thousand MWh) 91.11 81.08 81.08 

Annual power value, 

2008$: (mills/kWh): 

5,132,034 

(56.33) 

4,700,744 

(57.98) 

4,700,744 

(57.98) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

3,167,170 

(34.76) 

3,550,028 

(43.78) 

3,348,393 

(41.30) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

1,964,864 

(21.57) 

1,150,716 

(14.19) 

1,352,351 

(16.68) 

4.4.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 91,110 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $5,132,034 and costs $3,167,170 annually to 

406 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
407 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $1,964,864 ($21.57/MWh). In other 

words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available alternative 

generation by $1,964,864 annually. 

4.4.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Lookout Shoals Development would generate an 

average of 81,080 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $4,700,744 

(57.98 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $3,550,028 (43.78 mills/kWh). This results in a net 

annual benefit of $1,150,716 (14.19 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a 

cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $1,101,076 annually. 

4.4.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 107 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 81,080 MWh of electricity 

annually, have an annual power value of $4,700,744 (57.98 mills/kWh), and have total annual 

costs of $3,348,393 (41.30 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $1,352,351 

(16.68 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $1,352,351 annually. The staff alternative would 

increase the net annual project benefit by about $201,635 ($2.49/MWh) compared to the project 

as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.4.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 107 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 107. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Lookout Shoals Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Operations Reservoir Level Control – Install flow compliance gage and provide maintenance 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 11,000 

Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 643,000 59,383 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 9,000 831 5,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 167,000 15,422 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

408 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Upper Lookout Shoals Access Area and Land, Lookout Shoals Access Area, Lookout Shoals Tailrace Fishing Area, Lookout Shoals Canoe Portage) 

Duke Energy 1,595,000 147,301 122,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Riverbend Park, Land or Facilities) Duke Energy 426,000 39,342 0 Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3 Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5 Staff 128,500 11,868 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

409 
410 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Other Enhancements Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 667,000 61,599 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 250,000 23,088 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff incorporated the costs of the Riverbend Park warning device (modification and installation) in the Oxford D

the cost for this measure has been removed from the Lookout Shoals cost analysis. 
4.5 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE COWANS FORD 

DEVELOPMENT 

Table 108 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 108. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Cowans Ford Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 34,294,153 

Future major capital cost5 2,979,650 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 4,267,600 

Operation and maintenance7 2,240,110 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.42 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 5.94 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $38,982,106 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Cowans Ford Development in 2006$ is $3,963,038. 

411 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $2,080,242 (2006$).

8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.32/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $5.52/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls). 

As currently operated, the 332.5-MW Cowans Ford Development generates an average of 

179,660 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 341.7 MW. 

4.5.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 109 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 109. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Cowans Ford Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 332.5 332.5 332.5 

Dependable capacity (MW) 341.7 341.7 341.7 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 179.66 159.89 159.89 

Annual power value, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

9,830,535 

(54.72) 

8,972,122 

(56.11) 

8,972,122 

(56.11) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

7,864,402 

(43.77) 

8,170,852 

(51.10) 

7,866,689 

(49.20) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

1,966,133 

(10.94) 

801,270 

(5.01) 

1,105,432 

(6.91) 

412 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
413 

4.5.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 179,660 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $9,830,535 and costs $7,864,402 annually to 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $1,966,133 (or $10.94/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $1,996,133 annually. 

4.5.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Cowans Ford Development would generate an 

average of 159,890 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $8,972,122 

(56.11 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $8,170,852 (51.10 mills/kWh). This results in a net 

annual benefit of $801,270 (5.01 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a 

cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $801,270 annually. 

4.5.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 110 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. The 

cost for the staff recommendation to reassess the eligibility of the Cowans Ford Development for 

the National Register is negligible since the reassessment would occur as part of the process of 

review for the HPMP. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 159,890 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $8,972,122 (56.11 mills/kWh), and have total annual costs of 

$7,866,689 (49.20 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $1,105,432 

(6.91 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $1,105,432 annually. The staff alternative would 

increase the net annual project benefit by about $304,162 ($1.90/MWh) compared to the project 

as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.5.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 110 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 110. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Cowans Ford Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Operations Reservoir Level Stabilization (Spring Lake Stabilization) Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Flow and Reservoir – Gage Maintenance Duke Energy 0 0 30,000 Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 7,000 647 5,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 167,000 15,422 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2 Staff 3,000 277 150 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

414 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Beatty’s Ford Access Area, Hagers Creek Access Area, Stumpy Creek Access Area, Little Creek Access Area, Cowans Ford Portage) 

Duke Energy 1,577,000 145,638 56,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Hunsucker Park, Mountain Creek Park Land, Lake Davidson Park, Lake Cornelius Fishing Pier, Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 2,223,000 205,298 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3 Staff 4,500 416 0 Recreation Enhancements (Lake Cornelius Informal Access)3 Staff 5,000 461 0 

Public Information Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 Safety and Security – Revise plans and implement safety measures5 Staff 98,500 9,097 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

415 
416 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Other Enhancements Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 667,000 61,599 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 250,000 23,088 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff acknowledged but did not adopt stakeholder comments to provide navigation aids, marine commissions, an

capacity at Lake Norman (draft EIS, p. 460). 
4.6 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE MOUNTAIN ISLAND 

DEVELOPMENT 

Table 111 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 111. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Mountain Island Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 16,705,673 

Future major capital cost5 3,144,400 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 2,696,777 

Operation and maintenance7 867,750 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.40 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 25.32 

Interest rate (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $19,371,329 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Mountain Island Development in 2006$ is $2,504,318. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $805,822 (2006$). 

417 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.30/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $23.51/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls). 

As currently operated, the 55.1-MW Mountain Island Development generates an average 

of 113,530 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 60.6 MW. 

4.6.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 112 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 112. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Mountain Island Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 55.1 55.1 55.1 

Dependable capacity (MW) 60.6 60.6 60.6 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 113.53 101.04 101.04 

Annual power value, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

6,461,594 

(56.92) 

5,919,528 

(58.59) 

5,919,528 

(58.59) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

4,265,532 

(37.57) 

4,443,747 

(43.98) 

4,261,742 

(42.18) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

2,196,062 

(19.34) 

1,475,781 

(14.61) 

1,657,786 

(16.41) 

4.6.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

418 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
419 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 113,530 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $6,461,594 and costs $4,265,532 annually to 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $2,196,062 (or $19.34/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $2,196,062 annually. 

4.6.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Mountain Island Development would generate an 

average of 101,040 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $5,919,528 

(58.59 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $4,443,747 (43.98 mills/kWh). This results in a net 

annual benefit of $1,475,781 (14.61 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a 

cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $1,475,781 annually. 

4.6.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 113 lists these proposed measures and identify the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 101,040 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $5,919,528 (58.59 mills/kWh), and have total annual costs of 

$4,261,742 (42.18 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $1,657,786 

(16.41 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $1,657,786 annually. The staff alternative would 

increase the net annual project benefit by about $182,005 ($1.80/MWh) compared to the project 

as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.6.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 113 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 113. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Mountain Island Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Operations Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 643,000 59,383 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 9,000 831 5,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 167,000 15,422 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2 Staff 3,000 277 150 Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, & materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

420 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Recreational Resources 

Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (North Carolina Highway 73 Access Area and Land, Lucia Access Area, Riverbend Access Area, Mountain Island Canoe Portage) 

Duke Energy 667,000 61,599 49,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Land or Facilities) Duke Energy 206,000 19,024 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3 Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5 Staff 28,500 2,632 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 667,000 61,599 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 250,000 23,088 0 

421 
422 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.7 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE WYLIE DEVELOPMENT 

Table 114 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 114. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Wylie Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 31,856,667 

Future major capital cost5 13,602,790 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 3,364,083 

Operation and maintenance7 810,852 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 42.44 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 25.88 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $34,522,323 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Wylie Development in 2006$ is $3,124,001. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $752,985 (2006$). 

423 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $39.41/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $24.03/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls). 

As currently operated, the 69-MW Wylie Development generates an average of 

141,620 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 74.3 MW. 

4.7.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 115 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 115. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Wylie Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 69 69 69 

Dependable capacity (MW) 74.3 74.3 74.3 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 141.62 126.04 126.04 

Annual power value, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

7,933,237 

(56.02) 

7,272,022 

(57.70) 

7,272,022 

(57.70) 

Annual cost, 2008$ 

(mills/kWh): 

6,008,525 

(42.43) 

7,084,100 

(56.21) 

6,579,167 

(52.20) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$ 

(mills/kWh): 

1,924,712 

(13.59) 

187,922 

(1.49) 

692,855 

(5.50) 

4.7.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

424 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
425 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 141,620 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $7,933,237 and costs $6,008,525 annually to 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $1,924,712 (or $13.59/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $1,924,712 annually. 

4.7.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Wylie Development would generate an average 

of 126,040 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $7,272,022 (57.70 

mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $7,084,100 (56.21 mills/kWh). This results in a net annual 

benefit of $187,922 (1.49 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that 

is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $187,922 annually. 

4.7.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 116 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 126,040 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $7,272,022 (57.70 mills/kWh), and have total annual costs of 

$6,579,167 (52.20 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $692,855 

(5.50 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $687,575 annually. The staff alternative would 

increase the net annual project benefit by about $504,933 ($4.01/MWh) compared to the project 

as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.7.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 116 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period 

analysis to give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs 

were adjusted from 2006$ to 2008$. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 116. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Wylie Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(L

C

Operations Reservoir Level Stabilization (Spring Lake Stabilization) Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring – USGS gage installation and maintenance Duke Energy 0 0 30,000 Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 Water Quality Enhancement – minimum flow unit with aerating runner Duke Energy 3,989,000 368,391 12,000 Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 168,000 15,515 0 

Flow Mitigation – Mitigation Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 12,000 1,108 8,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 167,000 15,422 0 

426 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(L

C

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

Funding for Various Fish Enhancement Activities 

FWS 500,000 46,176 0 

Cultural Resources Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Dutchmans Creek Access Area and Land, Buster Boyd Access Area, Allison Creek Access Area and Land, Rock Hill Park and Land, Fort Mill Access Area) 

Duke Energy 3,215,000 296,911 38,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Upper Wylie Access Area, York County EMS Land, Regulated River Reach Trails and Land, Catawba Reservation Canoe/Kayak Access, Landsford Canal State Park, Culp Island Land, Simpson Island and Land, Canoe Trail Map, and Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 3,153,000 291,185 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3 Staff 4,500 416 0 

427 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(L

C

Public Information 

Recreation Flow Communication – Develop and Maintain Systems Duke Energy 20,000 1,847 5,000 Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 

Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5 Staff 28,500 2,632 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 1,064,000 98,262 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 300,000 27,706 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

428 
429 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.8 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE FISHING CREEK 

DEVELOPMENT 

Table 117 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 117. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Fishing Creek Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 30,145,439 

Future major capital cost5 6,378,190 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 3,540,554 

Operation and maintenance7 828,301 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.24 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 43.29 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $32,866,883 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value.. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Fishing Creek Development in 2006$ is $3,287,878. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $769,188 (2006$). 

430 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.15/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.20/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls) 

As currently operated, the 48.1-MW Fishing Creek Development generates an average of 

149,719 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 52.1 MW. 

4.8.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 118 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 118. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Fishing Creek Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 48.1 48.1 48.1 

Dependable capacity (MW) 52.1 52.1 52.1 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 149.72 133.25 133.25 

Annual power value, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

8,729,259 

(58.30) 

8,017,139 

(60.17) 

8,017,139 

(60.17) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

6,147,942 

(41.06) 

6,865,172 

(51.52) 

6,703,244 

(50.31) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

2,581,317 

(17.24) 

1,151,967 

(8.65) 

1,313,895 

(9.86) 

4.8.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

431 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
432 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 149,719 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $8,729,259 and costs $6,147,942 annually to 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $2,581,317 (or $17.24/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $2,581,317 annually. 

4.8.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Fishing Creek Development would generate an 

average of 133,250 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $8,017,139 

(60.17 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $6,865,172 (51.52 mills/kWh). This results in a net 

annual benefit of $1,151,967 (8.65 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a 

cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $1,151,967 annually. 

4.8.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 119 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 133,250 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $8,017,139 (60.17 mills/kWh), and have total annual costs of 

$6,703,244 (50.31 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $1,313,895 

(9.86 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $1,313,895 annually. The staff alternative would 

decrease the net annual project benefit by about $161,928 ($1.21/MWh) compared to the project 

as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.8.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 119 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 119. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Fishing Creek Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

C

Operations Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Flow Mitigation – Mitigation Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 9,000 831 5,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

Funding for Various Fish Enhancement Activities 

FWS 500,000 46,176 0 

American Eel Passage Facility FWS 2,675,000 247,041 33,000 

433 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

C

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Site Monitoring 

Duke Energy 0 0 25,000 

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Springs Park Access Area and Land, Fishing Creek Access Area, Fishing Creek Tailrace Fishing Area) 

Duke Energy 2,111,000 194,954 48,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Highway 9 Access Area, Canoe Trail Map, Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 508,000 46,915 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3

Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Recreation Flow Communication – Develop and Maintain Systems 

Duke Energy 20,000 1,847 5,000 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 

Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5

Staff 28,500 2,632 1,000 

434 
435 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

C

Shoreline Management Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 

Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 1,064,000 98,262 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Trash Rake Duke Energy 1,200,000 110,822 0 Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 300,000 27,706 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.9 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE GREAT FALLS AND 

DEARBORN DEVELOPMENTS 

Table 120 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 120. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 18,711,557 

Future major capital cost5 7,726,400 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 3,237,448 

Operation and maintenance7 1,036,632 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.32 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 40.68 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $20,718,638 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments in 2006$ is $3,006,404. 

436 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $962,652 (2006$). 

8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.23/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $37.78/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls) 

As currently operated, the 66-MW Great Falls and Dearborn Developments generates an 

average of 177,338 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 63.7 MW. 

4.9.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 121 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 121. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 66 66 66 

Dependable capacity (MW) 63.7 63.7 63.7 

Annual generation 

(thousand MWh) 177.34 157.83 157.83 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

10,273,598 

(57.93) 

9,428,512 

(59.74) 

9,428,512 

(59.74) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

5,811,230 

(32.77) 

6,663,589 

(42.22) 

6,418,140 

(40.66) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

4,462,368 

(25.16) 

2,764,923 

(17.52) 

3,010,371 

(19.07) 

437 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
438 

4.9.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 177,338 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $10,273,598 and costs $5,811,230 annually to 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $4,462,368 (or $25.16/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $4,462,368 annually. 

4.9.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments would 

generate an average of 157,831 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of 

$9,428,512 (59.74 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $6,663,589 (42.22 mills/kWh). This 

results in a net annual benefit of $2,764,923 (17.52 mills/kWh). In other words, the project 

produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by 

$2,764,923 annually. 

4.9.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 122 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 157,831 MWh of electricity annually, 

have an annual power value of $9,428,512 (59.74 mills/kWh), and have total annual costs of 

$6,418,140 (40.66 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $3,010,371 

(19.07 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $3,010,371 annually. The staff alternative would 

increase the net annual project benefit by about $245,448 ($1.55/MWh) compared to the project 

as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.9.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 122 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 122. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Operations Reservoir Level Control – Install flow compliance gage and provide maintenance 

Duke Energy 215,000 19,855 22,000 

Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Water Quality and Quantity Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Aquatic Habitat Flows – Diversion Dam and Headworks Structural Modifications 

Duke Energy 3,376,000 311,780 20,000 

Flow Mitigation – Mitigation Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 168,000 15,515 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 12,000 1,108 8,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

439 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Funding for Various Fish Enhancement Activities 

FWS 500,000 46,176 0 

American Eel Passage Facility FWS 2,675,000 247,041 33,000 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 159,000 14,684 1,000 

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Highway 200 Bridge Access Area and Land, Canoe/Kayak Launch, Diversion Dam Portage and Boating Safety, Headworks Portage, Headworks to Cedar Creek Portage) 

Duke Energy 957,000 88,381 130,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Canoe Trail Map, Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 212,000 19,578 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3

Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 20,000 1,847 1,000 Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5

Staff 38,500 3,556 1,000 

440 
441 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Shoreline Management Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 

Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 1,064,000 98,262 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 300,000 27,706 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.10 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE ROCKY CREEK AND CEDAR 

CREEK DEVELOPMENTS 

We base our analysis of this project’s net benefits on the economic information and 

parameters shown in Table 123. These values are common to all the licensing alternatives for 

the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments. All dollars are year 2008 unless specified 

otherwise. 

Table 123. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Developments. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 21,795,730 

Future major capital cost5 5,187,190 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 3,679,753 

Operation and maintenance7 704,608 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.29 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 41.38 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $24,076,918 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments in 2006$ is 

$3,417,143. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $654,323 (2006$). 

8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.20/MWh in 2006$. 

442 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $38.43/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls) 

As currently operated, the 68.8-MW Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

generate an average of 154,909 MWh annually and have a dependable capacity of 56.1 MW. 

4.10.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 124 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 124. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 68.8 68.8 68.8 

Dependable capacity (MW) 56.1 56.1 56.1 

Annual generation 

(thousand MWh) 154.91 137.87 137.87 

Annual power value, 

2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

9,027,429 

(58.28) 

8,289,810 

(60.13) 

8,289,810 

(60.13) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

5,478,895 

(35.37) 

6,055,955 

(43.93) 

5,732,518 

(41.58) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

3,548,534 

(22.91) 

2,233,855 

(16.20) 

2,557,292 

(18.55) 

4.10.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

 Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the 

project under the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental 

protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

443 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
444 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 154,909 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $9,027,429 and costs $5,478,895 annually to 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $3,548,534 (or $22.91/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $3,548,534 annually. 

4.10.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments would 

generate an average of 137,870 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of 

$8,289,810 (60.13 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $6,055,955 (43.93 mills/kWh). This 

results in a net annual benefit of $2,233,855 (16.20 mills/kWh). In other words, the project 

produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by 

$2,233,855 annually. 

4.10.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 125 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 137,870 MWh of electricity 

annually, have an annual power value of $8,289,810 (60.13 mills/kWh), and have total 

annual costs of $5,732,518 (41.58 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of 

$2,557,292 (18.55 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less 

than that of currently available alternative generation by $2,557,292 annually. The staff 

alternative would increase the net annual project benefit by about $323,437 ($2.35/MWh) 

compared to the project as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.10.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 125 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$.

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 125. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Operations Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Flow Mitigation – Mitigation Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 5,000 461 5,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

Funding for Various Fish Enhancement Activities 

FWS 500,000 46,176 0 

American Eel Passage Facility FWS 2,675,000 247,041 33,000 

445 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Cultural Resources Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

Recreational Resources 

Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Cedar Creek Reservoir Island Improvement – construction related activities, Mud Cat Inn Access Area and Land) 

Duke Energy 1,473,000 136,034 29,000 

Recreation Enhancements (Cedar Creek Reservoir Island Improvements – State Park Start-up Costs, Canoe Trail Map, Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 1,254,000 115,809 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3

Staff 4,500 416 0 

Public Information 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 20,000 1,847 1,000 Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5

Staff 38,500 3,556 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 

446 
447 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) T

c

Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 1,064,000 98,262 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 300,000 27,706 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple
4.11 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE WATEREE DEVELOPMENT 

Table 126 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); relicensing costs; normal 

operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 unless 

specified otherwise. 

Table 126. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Wateree Development. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 33,106,816 

Future major capital cost5 26,208,390 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 5,541,307 

Operation and maintenance7 962,347 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.29 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 38.83 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $36,410,989 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities as reported by Duke 

Energy in exhibit D. 

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses to date. Staff 

has assumed total project relicensing cost $31,800,000 (2006$) is prorated by the average annual 

energy generation per project to determine the relicensing cost for each project. The Staff 

assumed relicensing cost for the Wateree Development in 2006$ is $5,145,845. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $893,668 (2006$). 

448 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.20/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $36.06/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls) 

As currently operated, the 82-MW Wateree Development generates an average of 

233,276 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 88.5 MW. 

4.11.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 127 summarizes the annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit for the three 

alternatives considered in this DEIS: no-action alternative, Duke Energy’s proposal, and the 

staff-recommended alternative. 

Table 127. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Wateree Development (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 82 82 82 

Dependable capacity (MW) 88.5 88.5 88.5 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 233.28 207.62 207.62 

Annual power value 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

13,513,978 

(57.93) 

12,405,639 

(59.75) 

12,405,639 

(59.75) 

Annual cost2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

8,181,382 

(35.07) 

10,235,319 

(49.30) 

10,050,279 

(48.41) 

Annual net benefit2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

5,332,596 

(22.86) 

2,170,320 

(10.45) 

2,355,360 

(11.34) 

4.11.1.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate the project under 

the terms and conditions of the existing license, and no new environmental protection, 

mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. 

449 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
450 

Based on the above information and an average annual generation of 233,276 MWh, the 

existing project has an annual power value of $13,513,978 and costs $8,181,382 annually to 

operate and maintain. This results in a net annual benefit of $5,332,596 (or $22.86/MWh). In 

other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of currently available 

alternative generation by $5,332,596 annually. 

4.11.1.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

In its license application and CRA, filed on December 22, 2007, Duke Energy proposes 

numerous operational and non-operational measures. 

As proposed by Duke Energy, the Wateree Development would generate an average 

of 207,620 MWh of electricity annually, have an annual power value of $12,405,639 

(59.75 mills/kWh), and total annual costs of $10,235,319 (49.30 mills/kWh). This results in a 

net annual benefit of $2,170,320 (10.45 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy 

at a cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $2,170,320 

annually. 

4.11.1.3 Staff Alternative 

Resource agencies and nongovernmental organizations recommended the implementation 

of a variety of measures at the project. Staff reviewed each recommendation and determined 

which measures were the most appropriate for implementation. In section 5.0, Comprehensive 

Development and Recommended Alternative, we discuss our reasons for recommending the staff 

alternative and why we conclude that the environmental benefits are worth these costs. 

Table 128 lists these proposed measures and identifies the ones that were adopted by staff. 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 207,620 MWh of electricity 

annually, have an annual power value of $12,405,639 (59.75 mills/kWh), and have total 

annual costs of $10,050,279 (48.41 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of 

$2,355,360 (11.34 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less 

than that of currently available alternative generation by $2,355,360 annually. The staff 

alternative would increase the net annual project benefit by about $185,040 ($0.89/MWh) 

compared to the project as proposed by Duke Energy. 

4.11.2 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 128 gives the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures considered 

in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 30-year period to 

give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All costs were adjusted 

from 2006$ to 2008$. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 128. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Wateree Development for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Operations Reservoir Level Stabilization (Spring Lake Stabilization) 

Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 2,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 14,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 1,000 

Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring – USGS gage installation and maintenance 

Duke Energy 0 0 30,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 108,000 9,974 55,000 

Water Quality Enhancement – minimum flow unit with aerating runner 

Duke Energy 4,045,000 373,563 12,000 

Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 168,000 15,515 0 

Flow Mitigation – Mitigation Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 15,000 1,385 8,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 200,000 18,470 0 

451 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan (TIPSMP)2

Staff 3,000 277 150 

Funding for Various Fish Enhancement Activities 

FWS 500,000 46,176 0 

Trap, Sort, and Transport Facility FWS 3,700,000 341,701 213,000 American Eel Passage Facility FWS 2,675,000 247,041 33,000 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 9,000 831 1,000 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Archaeological Site Data Recovery, Site Monitoring, and Plan 

Duke Energy 540,000 49,870 0 

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 91,000 8,404 1,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 45,000 4,156 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wateree Creek Access Area, Molly Creek Park Land, Colonel’s Creek Access Area, Taylors Creek Bank Fishing Area and Land, Lugoff Access Area) 

Duke Energy 2,580,000 238,267 72,000 

Recreation Enhancements (East Wateree Access Area, Lake Wateree Recreation Lands, Canoe Trail Map, Land or Facilities) 

Duke Energy 6,712,000 619,864 0 

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing)3 Staff 4,500 416 0 

452 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Public Information 

Recreation Flow Communication – Develop and Maintain Systems 

Duke Energy 20,000 1,847 5,000 

Safety and Security – Signage4 Duke Energy 10,000 924 1,000 

Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans5

Staff 28,500 2,632 1,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 26,000 2,401 0 

Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 8,000 738 1,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 1,064,000 98,262 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 14,000 1,293 4,000 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 300,000 27,706 0 

Conservation Easements – 67 Duke Energy 503,000 46,453 0 

Flood Management at Wateree – Bladder Dam6

Duke Energy 7,680,000 709,261 0 

Flood Management at Wateree – Buffer Zone7 Staff 6,000,000 554,110 0 

453 
454 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 

2 Staff will not adopt its proposed TIPSMP because elements of the TIPSMP will be incorporated into the Species significant costs to the Species Protection Plan.

3 Staff will not adopt its proposed Wildlife Viewing areas because they will be part of Duke Energy’s RMP. 

4 In February 2009, Duke Energy completed upgrades to the Safety and Security measure, which was proposed in 

in August 2006. Although Duke Energy has completed the upgrades, prior to relicensing, staff will continue to analy

perform dynamic actuary accounting. The Developmental Analysis section is required to analyze the applicant’s proof relicensing. Any activities that are carried out by the licensee do not warrant removal of analysis. 

5 Staff will not require the licensee to revise and implement the safety plan beyond the already proposed and imple6 Although Duke Energy only proposes the Bladder Dam with the 50-year license, staff has determined that regardmanagement is necessary. 7 Staff will not require the licensee to provide a 50-ft buffer zone for flood management. 
4.12 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE CATAWBA-WATEREE 

PROJECT 

Table 129 summarizes the assumptions and economic information we use in our analysis. 

This information was provided by Duke Energy in its license application. We find that the 

values provided by Duke Energy are reasonable for the purposes of our analysis. Cost items 

common to all alternatives include: taxes and insurance costs; net investment (the total 

investment in power plant facilities remaining to be depreciated); estimated future capital 

investment required to maintain and extend the life of plant equipment and facilities; relicensing 

costs; normal operation and maintenance cost; and Commission fees. All dollars are year 2008 

unless specified otherwise. 

Table 129. Staff assumptions for the economic analysis of the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Parameter Value 

Period of analysis (years) 30 

Local Tax Rate (%)1 3.0 

Federal tax rate (%)2 32 

Insurance Rate (%)3 0.25 

Net investment(2008$)4 475,464,467 

Future major capital cost (2008$)5 125,309,900 

Relicensing cost (2008$)6 34,243,853 

Operation and maintenance (2008$)7 9,350,975 

Energy value (2008$/MWh)8 43.20 

Capacity value (2008$/kW-year)9 22.64 

Cost of Capital (%)10 8.5 

Discount rate (%)11 8.5 

1 Staff assumed a local tax rate of 3.0 percent. 

2 Staff assumed federal tax rate at 32 percent revenues. 

3 Staff assumed insurance rate equal to 0.25 percent of net investment. 

4 Net investment is the depreciated project investment allocated to power purposes and 

includes $270,553,226 (2006$) net plant investment for the existing facilities, as reported by 

Duke Energy in exhibit D and $109,000,000 (2008$) for the new powerhouse, $71,000,000 

(2008$) for seismic upgrades to the Catawba dam, $1,000,000 (2008$) for flood stability 

upgrades at the Paddy Creek dam, and $50,000,000 (2008$) for seismic upgrades to the Linville 

dam as reported by Duke Energy in filed comments on the draft EIS.

5 Future major capital costs include implementation of measures to maintain present-day 

capability scheduled between 2008 and 2039 and are expressed as a present value. 

455 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
6 Relicensing costs include the administrative, legal/study, and other expenses related to 

preparing the license application. As reported by Duke the cost for relicensing Catawba-Wateree 

is $31,800,000 (2006$). Section 4.51(e)(7) of the Commission’s regulations requires that the 

applicant provide an estimate of the cost to develop the license application. Although Duke 

Energy provides additional costs for relicensing from mid-2006 to present (via draft EIS 

comments), staff will continue to analyze the initial costs provided for preparing the license 

application and will not consider the additional costs to present. The intent of “relicensing cost” 

is to reflect the estimated costs associated with preparing the license application, not the 

expenses incurred to date. 

7 Annual plant operation and maintenance costs reported by Duke are $8,683,632 (2006$).

8 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $40.12/MWh in 2006$. 

9 Source: application for new license, exhibit D, page D-27, $21.02/kW-year in 2006$. 

10 Based on Duke Energy’s weighted average cost of capital. Source: application for new 

license, exhibit D. 

11 Assumed by staff to be same as interest rate. 

Note: Staff escalated all 2006 values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent 

(12/31/06 to 12/31/07), and 2.3 percent (12/31/07 to 12/31/08) per year, respectively. The 

escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineering Group 

(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Vari

ous%20Years.xls) 

As currently operated, the 839-MW Bridgewater Development generates an average of 

1,483,304 MWh annually and has a dependable capacity of 862.4 MW. 

4.12.1 Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 130 summarizes the combined annual cost, power benefit, and annual net benefit of 

the alternatives considered in this DEIS for all eleven of the hydroelectric developments in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project. The power benefit in Table 130 is the combined annual value of the 

energy generation and capacity value for the Bridgewater Development. 

456 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 130. Summary of the annual cost, power benefits, and annual net benefits for the three 

alternatives for the Catawba-Wateree Project (Source: Staff). 

No action Duke Energy’s 

Proposal 

Staff-recommended 

alternative 

Installed capacity (MW) 839 839 839 

Dependable capacity (MW) 862.4 862.4 862.4 

Annual generation (thousand 

MWh) 1,483.30 1,320.14 1,320.14 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

83,603,469 

(56.36) 

76,554,784 

(57.99) 

76,554,784 

(57.99) 

Annual cost, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

56,206,480 

(37.89) 

66,113,380 

(50.08) 

62,923,490 

(47.67) 

Annual net benefit, 2008$: 

(mills/kWh): 

27,396,989 

(18.47) 

10,441,404 

(7.91) 

13,628,294 

(10.32) 

4.12.1 No-Action Alternative 

Under the no-action alternative, Duke Energy would continue to operate as it does now. 

The project generates an average of 1,483,304 MWh of electricity annually. The average annual 

power value would be $83,603,469 (56.36/MWh). The average annual cost of producing this 

power would be $56,206,480 (37.89/MWh), resulting in a net annual benefit of $27,396,989 

(18.47/MWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $27,396,989 annually. 

4.12.2 Applicant’s Proposal 

As discussed in the previous sections for each of the hydroelectric development in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, Duke Energy proposes numerous operational and non-operational 

measures. As proposed by Duke Energy, all of the developments in the Catawba-Wateree 

Project would generate a combined average of 1,320,140 MWh of electricity annually, have an 

annual power value of $76,554,784, and total annual costs of $66,113,380, resulting in a net 

annual benefit of $10,441,404 (7.91 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a 

cost that is less than that of currently available alternative generation by $10,441,404 annually. 

4.12.3 Staff Alternative 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 1,320,140 MWh of electricity 

annually, have an annual power value of $76,554,784 (57.99 mills/kWh) and have total annual 

costs of $62,923,490 (47.67 mills/kWh). This results in an annual net benefit of $13,628,294 

(10.32 mills/kWh). In other words, the project produces energy at a cost that is less than that of 

currently available alternative generation by $13,628,294 annually. 

457 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
458 

4.12.4 Cost of Environmental Measures 

Table 131 summarizes the cost of each of the environmental enhancement measures 

considered in our analysis. We convert all costs to equal annual (levelized) values over a 

30-year period to give a uniform basis for comparing the benefits of a measure to its cost. All 

costs were adjusted from 2006$ to 2008$. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 131. Summary of capital, annual O&M, and annualized costs for environmental measures proposed by Du

by Staff for the Catawba-Wateree Project for a 30-year license. (Source: Staff) 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Operations Reservoir Level Control – Install flow compliance gage and provide maintenance 

Duke Energy 539,000 49,777 55,000 

Reservoir Level Stabilization (Spring Lake Stabilization) 

Duke Energy 0 0 4,000 

Drought Mitigation – Low inflow protocol administration 

Duke Energy 0 0 22,000 

Drought Mitigation – Water Management Group Dues 

Duke Energy 0 0 154,000 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol Duke Energy 0 0 11,000 

Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring – USGS gage maintenance 

Duke Energy 21,000 1,939 120,000 

Water Quality and Quantity 

Monitoring and Compliance – Installation and maintenance of DO and groundwater monitors 

Duke Energy 1,188,000 109,714 605,000 

Water Quality Enhancement – Minimum flow units and Aerating Runners 

Duke Energy 18,943,000 1,749,418 60,000 

Aquatic Habitat Flows – Bypass Flow Valve Duke Energy 1,704,000 157,367 55,000 

Aquatic Habitat Flows – Diversion Dam and Headworks Structural Modifications 

Duke Energy 3,376,000 311,780 20,000 

459 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Flow Mitigation – Conservation Easements Duke Energy 3,076,000 284,074 0 

Flow Mitigation – Mitigation Fund Duke Energy 1,000,000 92,352 0 

Fish, Wildlife, and Botanical Resources 

Species Protection Plans Duke Energy 104,000 9,604 65,000 Habitat Enhancement Fund Duke Energy 1,969,000 181,841 0 

Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Management Plan 

Staff 33,000 3,048 1,650 

Funding for Various Fish Enhancement Activities 

FWS 2,500,000 230,880 0 

Trap, Sort, and Transport Facility FWS 3,700,000 341,701 213,000 

American Eel Passage Facility FWS 10,700,000 988,163 132,000 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan – Annual HPMP review, signs, website, and materials 

Duke Energy 798,000 73,697 37,000 

Recreational Resources Recreation Management Plan Development Duke Energy 1,000,000 92,352 11,000 Recreation Use and Needs Update Duke Energy 495,000 45,714 0 

Recreation Enhancements Duke Energy 20,748,000 1,916,113 876,000 2Recreation Enhancements Duke Energy 28,436,000 2,626,113 81,000 2

Recreation Enhancements (Wildlife Viewing) Staff 49,500 4,571 0 

460 
Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Recreation Enhancements (Lake Cornelius Informal Access)3 Staff 5,000 461 0 

Public Information Recreation Flow Communication – Develop and Maintain Systems 

Duke Energy 100,000 9,236 25,000 

Safety and Security –Warning Device Duke Energy 150,000 13,853 0 Safety and Security – Signage Duke Energy 150,000 13,853 11,000 

Safety and Security – Revise and implement safety plans 

Staff 573,500 52,963 11,000 

Shoreline Management 

Shoreline Management Plan Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 286,000 26,413 0 

Shoreline Management Guidelines Updates (every 10 years) 

Duke Energy 88,000 8,127 11,000 

Other Enhancements 

Land Conservation Support Duke Energy 9,322,000 860,902 0 Trash Management/Safety Duke Energy 154,000 14,223 44,000 

Trash Rake Duke Energy 1,200,000 110,822 0 

Funding for Conservation Easements Duke Energy 4,125,000 380,951 0 

Funding for Conservation Easements – 67 Duke Energy 503,000 46,453 0 

Flood Management at Wateree – Bladder Dam 

Duke Energy 7,680,000 709,261 0 

461 
462 

Mitigation measure Recommending entities Capital costs (2006$)1 Annualized capital costs (2008$) Annualized O&M (2008$) To

(

co

Flood Management at Wateree – Buffer Zone Staff 6,000,000 554,110 0 

1 Staff escalated those values to 2008 by 2.0 percent (12/31/05 to 12/31/06), 3.2 percent (12/31/06 to 12/31/07), an

12/31/08) per year, respectively. The escalation rates were reported by the Department of Energy’s Cost Engineerin(http://www.oecm.energy.gov/Portals/2/Inflators%20to%20Constant%20Dollars%20for%20Various%20Years.xls). 
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 

Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the FPA require the Commission to give equal consideration to 

all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. The review of a hydropower project gives 

equal consideration to recreation, fish, wildlife, and other non-development values of the 

waterway with the project’s electric energy and other developmental values. In deciding 

whether, and under what circumstances, a hydroelectric power license should be issued, the 

Commission must weigh the various economic and environmental tradeoffs involved in that 

decision. In this section we weigh the costs and benefits of our recommended alternative against 

other proposed measures and provide the basis for, and the summary of, our recommendations 

for relicensing the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Based on our independent review and evaluation of the environmental and economic 

effects of the proposed action, the proposed action with staff-identified measures, and no action, 

we recommend the proposed action with staff-identified measures as the preferred alternative for 

the Catawba-Wateree Project. We recommend this alternative because (1) issuing the new 

license would allow the applicant to continue operating the Catawba-Wateree Project as a 

beneficial, dependable source of electric energy; (2) the Catawba-Wateree Project, with a total 

installed capacity of 831 MW, may offset an equivalent amount of fossil fuel-produced energy, 

thereby conserving a non-renewable resource and limiting atmospheric pollution; (3) our 

recommended environmental measures would protect water quality and quantity, enhance fish 

and wildlife resources, protect cultural resources, and improve public use of the CatawbaWateree recreational facilities and resources; and (4) the public benefit of these measures would 

exceed those of the other alternatives. 

We recommend the following environmental measures proposed by Duke Energy and 

described in the Revised CRA for inclusion in any license issued for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. 

Project Operations 

• Implement a Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program after consultation with 

North Carolina WRC and South Carolina DNR to enhance fish spawning at Lake James, 

Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree. The program should consist of: 

(1) trigger points (water surface temperatures, observation of bass spawning), (2) suitable 

surface water temperature monitoring locations, (3) reservoir level variability limits, and 

(4) specification of an adequate stabilization period, and would be implemented unless 

operating in the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol modes, or 

if maintaining the stable reservoir level on Lake Wateree would prevent or alter flow 

releases from the Wateree Development necessary to support downstream fish habitat. 

• Implement the Low Inflow Protocol within 60 days of the issuance of the new license to 

conserve a limited water supply during periods of drought. 

• Implement the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol, which defines the procedures to be 

followed in the event of an emergency, maintenance, or abnormal situation, within 60 

days of the issuance of the new license. 

463 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• Prepare an annual report for verification of compliance with normal minimum elevation 

and normal maximum elevation for reservoir levels, Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization 

Program, recreational flow releases, minimum continuous flows, minimum average daily 

flows, and the Wylie High Inflow Protocol. 

• Install a new streamflow gage on the Linville River between the Linville dam and the 

confluence of the Linville and Catawba Rivers, and perform annual maintenance of this 

gage and six existing gages to support implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol and 

Wylie High Inflow Protocol, to monitor compliance with the minimum flow and 

recreational flow release requirements, and to provide a ready source of public 

information on flows. 

• Provide flows to protect and enhance aquatic habitat including minimum average daily 

flows as follows: 225 cfs from the Rhodhiss Development, 311 cfs from the Cowans 

Ford Development, 314 cfs from the Mountain Island Development, 440 cfs from the 

Fishing Creek Development, 445 cfs from the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Developments, and 80 cfs from the Lookout Shoals Development, and minimum 

continuous flows according to a seasonal schedule provided in section 2.0, Proposed 

Actions and Alternatives, of this EIS, for the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, Great Falls, 

Dearborn, and Wateree Developments and the Catawba River and Great Falls-Dearborn 

Long and Short bypassed reaches. 

• Implement the Wylie High Inflow Protocol to provide additional protection and 

enhancement of aquatic habitat downstream of the Wylie Development when aboveaverage flow is available. Minimum continuous flow would be increased from 1,100 to 

1,300 cfs from February 15 through May 15 unless the February median flow is below 

the February median flow for the period of record for any gage; then, the minimum flow 

requirement would be reduced on April 1 to 1,100 cfs. 

Water Quality 

• Implement the WQMP to monitor compliance with water quality requirements. 

• Provide an annual report verifying compliance with the section 401 WQC for the 

previous calendar year by June 30 of the following calendar year for the term of the new 

license. 

• Implement the FWQIP for completing modifications necessary to implement minimum 

continuous flow, recreation flow, and water quality requirements at project 

developments. 

Aquatic Resources 

• Following completion of the new Bridgewater powerhouse, under the WQMP (see water 

quality recommendations), implement the supplemental trout habitat monitoring for flow 

and water temperature to assess the effect of flows from the Catawba River bypassed 

reach on trout habitat. 

• Beginning within 5 years following the Commission’s issuance of the new license, 

conduct surveys for freshwater mussels at selected sites after consultation with state 

resource agencies at 3-year intervals throughout the life of the license as described in the 

Species Protection Plan for freshwater mussels. 

464 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• Implement upstream and downstream fish passage study, design, installation, and 

operations for alosine species and American eel in accordance with section 18 

preliminary prescriptions from FWS and the Santee River Basin Accord. 

• Continue to partner with the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee concerning 

management and protection of this species in the project area, particularly at the Wylie 

and Wateree Developments. 

• File species protection plans with North Carolina WRC and South Carolina DNR, and 

implement species protection plans within 60 days following the issuance of the new 

license and the closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to 

species protection for state listed threatened and endangered species: 

o the mussels: creeper, eastern floater, paper pondshell, eastern creekshell, notched 

rainbow, brook floater, and rayed-pink fatmucket; 

o flat and snail bullheads; and 

o robust redhorse. 

Terrestrial Resources 

• File species protection plans with North Carolina WRC and South Carolina DNR, and 

implement species protection plans within 60 days following the issuance of the new 

license and the closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to 

species protection for state listed threatened and endangered species: 

o rocky shoals spider lily; 

o Rafinesque’s big-eared bat; and 

o heron rookeries. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

• In addition to the Species Protection Plans for state listed threatened and endangered 

species, provide a coordinated and consultative approach to the protection of federallylisted species through the implementation of the Federal Threatened and Endangered 

Species Protection Plans developed in consultation with and reviewed by federal agency 

personnel for: 

o Schweinitz’s sunflower; 

o dwarf-flowered heartleaf; 

o bald eagle; 

o wood stork; 

o American alligator; and 

o shortnose sturgeon. 

These species protection plans should be implemented within 60 days of the issuance of 

the new license and the closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods 

related to species protection. Annual review and update of the plans would occur after 

consultation with FWS, North Carolina DENR and WRC, and South Carolina DNR. 

465 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Cultural Resources 

• Implement the HPMP and monitoring plan of known historic properties within the FERC 

project boundaries to ensure that adverse effects on known and potential historic 

properties, and to any as-yet unidentified archaeological resources, are satisfactorily 

resolved over the term of a new license. 

Recreational Resources 

• File an RMP within 1 year of license issuance developed after consultation with, at a 

minimum, North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South 

Carolina DNR, local governments, and other entities. The RMP would include 

construction schedules, specific recreation measures, operation and maintenance 

guidelines, construction plans or conceptual facility site plans, procedures for temporary 

closures of project recreational sites, a description of the recreational signage program for 

the recreational sites, and discussions of how the needs of the disabled and Low Impact 

Development practices were considered in the planning of the recreational facilities. 

• Develop and enhance recreational facilities included in the RMP. 

• File a biennial report with the Commission on the progress made on the RMP recreation 

enhancements for the first 20 years of the new license. 

• Complete a review of the project’s recreation needs 20 years following the issuance of a 

new license and repeat every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license, and 

file with the Commission a supplement to the RMP after consultation with, at a 

minimum, North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South 

Carolina DNR, local governments, and other entities. 

• Implement the recreational flow releases from the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and 

Wateree Developments, as outlined in section 2.2.2.1, Required Minimum Flows, within 

60 days of license issuance to support recreational activities, which could be modified if 

operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Implement the recreational flow releases into the Great Falls Long and Short bypassed 

reaches to support recreational activities, as outlined in section 2.2.2.1, Required 

Minimum Flows, within 60 days following completion of the: (1) structural 

modifications necessary to deliver the recreation flow releases, (2) Highway 200 Bridge 

Access Area, (3) Great Falls diversion dam portage, (4) Great Falls headworks portage, 

and (5) Great Falls headworks-to-Cedar Creek reservoir portage to support recreational 

activities, which could be modified if operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Design for release structures at the Long and 

Short bypass diversion dams will be prepared as part of the FWQIP within 180 days of 

issuance of the license; implementation of recreational releases will occur within 60 days 

of completion of construction of the associated flow control structures. 

• Hold an annual meeting with, at a minimum, North Carolina DENR, North Carolina 

WRC, South Carolina DNR, and South Carolina DPRT to re-evaluate and modify, as 

necessary, the recreational flow schedule, taking into account information related to the 

pattern of usage of the recreational flows and the effectiveness of the communication 

related to the resource. 

466 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• Within 60 days of license issuance, provide reservoir-related and flow release 

information to the public via telephone, internet, annual scheduled flow release calendar, 

and flow release forecasts. 

• Expand the existing project boundary, where necessary, to include all of the new 

recreation access areas and enhancements recommended for inclusion in the project 

boundary and all Duke Energy-owned recreation access areas. 

Land Use 

• Implement the revised SMP. 

• Review and update the SMP at 10 years following license issuance and every 10 years 

thereafter for the term of the new license, in consultation with a workgroup consisting of 

North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina 

DNR, FWS, local governments, and other interested parties, and update and file revised 

shoreline classification maps coincident with filing the revised SMP. 

Additional Measures Recommended by Staff 

Water Quantity 

• Install a bladder dam modification at the Wateree dam to improve management of flood 

events, designed with a capacity of 10,000 cfs recommended in the Revised CRA. 

• Maintain reservoir levels within newly established normal minimum and normal 

maximum elevations unless operating in the Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol. New levels would be implemented within 60 days following the 

issuance of the new license as proposed in section 2.0, Proposed Actions and 

Alternatives, of this EIS. 

• Add NOAA Fisheries and FWS to the Drought Management Advisory Group. 

• Coordinate with NOAA Fisheries on Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

implementation. 

Aquatic Resources 

• Establish a Fisheries Technical Committee with representatives of Duke Energy, federal 

and state resource managers, and other stakeholders to, among other goals, evaluate and 

recommend appropriate mitigation, if necessary, for fish losses resulting from abnormal 

conditions when the applicant cannot avoid falling below any of the critical flows, in 

accordance with the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. When an event occurs, 

monitor impacts to aquatic species in affected stream segments. Mitigate impacts based 

on recommendations from the advisory group. 

• Consideration of requests for higher minimum flows to support diadromous species when 

and if they begin to utilize reaches upstream of the Wateree dam following 

implementation of fish passage prescriptions should be handled through standard FERC 

procedures for reopening the license. 

467 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Cultural Resources 

• Re-assess the eligibility of the Cowans Ford Development for the National Register when 

the development reaches 50 years of age in 2015. The reassessment would occur as part 

of the process of review for the HPMP. 

Recreation 

• Provide one additional recreational enhancement that would be included in the project 

boundary and in the RMP: 

o Lake Cornelius Informal Access – Consult with the town of Cornelius and provide 

informal public access with no facilities to Lake Cornelius within 10 years of 

approval of the RMP. 

• When developing the RMP, consultation should include notifying and attempting to 

consult with, at a minimum, the entire relicensing Recreation Resources Committee (i.e., 

North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina 

DNR, Burke County, York County, American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina 

Coastal Conservation League). 

• During the development and consultation process for the RMP, also consult regarding the 

need for and feasibility of including wildlife viewing facilities at Duke Energy-owned 

public access areas that will be within the project boundary. Where determined to be 

needed and feasible, include site designs and a schedule for implementing those wildlife 

viewing areas in the RMP. 

• File biennial reports for the term of any new license instead of only for the first 20 years 

to document the progress made on completing the recreation enhancements under 

supplements to the RMP. 

• When reviewing the project’s recreation needs 20 years following the issuance of a new 

license and every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license, the parties to 

be consulted should include, at a minimum, the parties of the relicensing Recreation 

Resources Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DPRT, South Carolina DNR, Burke County, York County, American Whitewater, 

Carolina Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake Wylie Covekeeper, 

and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League) who chose to participate in the 

development of the RMP. 

• Provide public information related to river flow in a manner that provides the most up-todate information possible. 

• Implement the Commission-approved public safety plan. 

• Include within the project boundary all Duke Energy-owned islands located in the project 

reservoirs to ensure that where possible, these islands remain open for the term of the 

new license for any permissible day-use public recreation activity. Where there are 

issues related to cultural resource protection, wildlife protection or safety, security, or 

management concerns or restrictions by state or local public health, safety, or law 

enforcement authorities, islands may be designated as off-limits by Duke Energy. 

468 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
The following discussion describes the basis for staff-recommended measures as well as 

for not recommending measures recommended by other entities. Under each major issue, we 

discuss our recommendations for the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Water Quantity 

Based on analysis of costs and effectiveness of the proposed bladder dam to reduce the 

frequency and duration of flooding compared to the alternatively proposed public infrastructure 

upgrades within the existing flood easement, we concluded that the proposal for management of 

periodic episodes of high water conditions by providing an increased discharge capacity through 

the installation of a bladder dam would provide an adequate and reasonable effort toward 

mitigation of effects of the occasional flood events. The proposed bladder dam more than 

effectively offsets the decreased hydraulic capacity at the Wateree dam associated with 

replacement of an existing turbine to provide continuous minimum flows and enhanced dissolved 

oxygen. The period for design and installation of the bladder dam will be concurrent with study, 

design, installation, and testing of the eelway trap and truck facility at the Wateree dam; these 

two projects should be coordinated to ensure that the design and location of the bladder dam 

releases will not interfere with the effective operation of the eelway. 

The proposed license article in the Revised CRA stated that Duke Energy “would 

endeavor in good faith to achieve the Normal Target Elevations and would keep reservoir levels 

within newly established Normal Minimum and Normal Maximum elevations unless operating 

in the LIP or the MEP modes.” The proposed normal minimum elevations should be made 

conditions of the license to be enforceable at all times except when operating under the Low 

Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. We further recommend that the 

proposed monitoring and reporting requirements for lake levels include the daily average 

reservoir level, in addition to the daily minimum and maximum elevations proposed by Duke 

Energy. It is not operationally feasible, particularly at reservoirs with seasonal changes in 

normal target levels, to maintain normal target lake elevations on average over an extended 

period of time given the variability in inflow hydrology and other operating conditions proposed 

in the new license. The goal to operate as close as possible to the normal target elevation is a 

good faith commitment to lake stakeholders, but is not an enforceable condition and will not be 

included as a new license article. 

We recommend that NOAA Fisheries and FWS be represented on the Drought 

Management Advisory Group to ensure that the federal interest in aquatic resources is 

adequately protected to the extent possible during extended low inflow periods and to ensure that 

these resource agencies are involved in any proposed revisions to the Low Inflow Protocol. The 

applicant should consult with NOAA Fisheries during implementation of the Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol to ensure adequate representation of the federal interest in aquatic 

resources. 

Aquatic Resources 

When recreational flows are implemented, rapid increases and decreases in flow could 

affect aquatic resources. As previously stated, proposed recreational releases are within, and 

generally similar to, the mean and median flow conditions, and well within the frequency 

distribution of flows for each development. The differences between baseflows and the proposed 

recreational releases are less than historic differences between baseflows and generation flows. 

The continuous minimum flows proposed for these reaches will provide a baseline buffer that 

469 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
has not existed in the past which will reduce the flow differences and further minimize the 

potential for impacts to aquatic resources. Existing aquatic resources in these reaches are 

adapted to the range of flows similar to those proposed under the new license. 

The Maintenance and Emergency Protocol appropriately provides for replacement of 

resources lost during a maintenance and emergency event such as recreational flows and aquatic 

resources. It is recognized that during certain maintenance events and particularly in an 

emergency, unavoidable fish mortality may occur. The protocol indicates that if critical flows 

cannot be maintained during the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol, Duke Energy would 

monitor any potential aquatic species impacts in the affected stream segment and replace any 

aquatic species mortalities that are identified. 

We conclude that the second requirement, as included, may be vague, unnecessary, and 

for given situations may be impractical or impossible to comply with. For example, replacement 

of a threatened and endangered species may not be possible if breeding programs are not 

available. Where an adequate forage base is present and the resource is otherwise healthy, 

replacement of forage species or the diversity in “minnows” also may not be necessary. 

We recommend that the responses for fish losses that result from a Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol event be evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering the species affected, 

the number of organisms affected, and the habitat, population, and community characteristics at 

the affected location. Where the populations and community are robust and healthy, monitoring 

or other habitat and resource management activities may be more beneficial than direct 

mitigation of the fish losses. We recommend the Fisheries Technical Committee proposed by 

NOAA Fisheries, with representatives of Duke Energy, federal and state resource managers, and 

other stakeholders, evaluate and recommend appropriate mitigation for fish losses. 

Duke Energy has formed a task force with North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, 

and North Carolina State University to work on aquatic invasive species issues. Duke Energy 

also is consulting with the municipalities of Hickory and Longview, North Carolina, North 

Carolina DENR, and North Carolina WRC on the implementation of an aquatic invasive species 

management program for parrotfeather. We recommend that Duke Energy continue to 

implement invasive aquatic species management measures in affected reservoirs. We further 

recommend that Duke Energy continue to provide public education opportunities and materials 

promoting awareness of aquatic invasive species and the means for preventing their expansion 

throughout the Catawba-Wateree Project area. We support the FWS recommendation for using 

the “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers Program” for educational materials and signage to assist with their 

public education initiative. We agree with FWS that Duke Energy should consult with agencies 

and sponsors of the Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers Campaign and other applicable organizations 

which would provide a beneficial mechanism to assist Duke Energy with preventing and 

managing aquatic nuisance species in the project reservoirs. Signage using the trademarked logo 

of the campaign and education specifically focused on the procedures to be used in cleaning all 

water-based recreational equipment should be incorporated into the aquatic non-native invasive 

species management of affected reservoirs and placed at all launch sites. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

As part of the Revised CRA, Duke Energy has developed and proposed to implement, 

species protection plans for state and/or federally-listed plant species that are endangered, 

threatened, and species of concern including Schweinitz’s sunflower and dwarf-flowered 

470 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
heartleaf. Species protection plans also have been developed and would be implemented for 

animal species with state and/or federal status including American alligator, wood stork, and 

freshwater mussels. Guidelines for the species protection and management plans would require 

annual review of federal and state lists of special status species. Consultation with the applicable 

agencies would occur not just to update the lists on an annual basis, but also to provide Duke 

Energy opportunities to discuss management actions (including invasive plant species 

management) and alternatives with the agencies and determine necessary modifications of 

shoreline classifications if new species are located. We recommend that Duke Energy continue 

its planning and implementation of safeguards related to RTE species prior to any construction. 

As part of the species protection plans, we recommend that management of non-native 

invasive plant species should be incorporated into species protection plans (as applicable) to be 

implemented as stated in the CRA. We further recommend that annual RTE consultation with 

the agencies also provide guidance from the agencies on how to identify, monitor, and manage 

any newly detected non-native invasive species. 

In addition to providing species management and protection plans for federally-listed 

species, Duke Energy has developed, and proposed to implement, additional species protection 

plans for the rocky shoals spider lily, Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, robust redhorse, flat bullhead, 

snail bullhead, and bald eagle, as well as a plan to protect and manage heron rookeries located 

within the project area. Species protection and management plans for these species would be 

developed and implemented with the same guidelines outlined for the federal species mentioned 

above including non-native plant species management where necessary. We provide the costs 

for the applicant-proposed species protection plans in table 133 at the end of this section; these 

costs are detailed further in section 4.0, Developmental Analysis. We find that the benefits of the 

species protection plans would be worth the costs. 

We recommend that the species plans, as proposed by the applicant, be implemented after 

consultation with the appropriate agencies and approval by the Commission. We further 

recommend that these plans be reviewed and revised as necessary when new information 

applicable to the species and Catawba-Wateree habitats supporting those species becomes 

available. 

Cultural Resources 

Historic Properties Management Plan 

To ensure that adverse effects on known and potential historic properties, and to any asyet unidentified archaeological resources are satisfactorily resolved over the term of a new 

license, the Commission staff plans to execute a PA with the South Carolina and North Carolina 

SHPOs for the Catawba-Wateree developments. Duke Energy, CIN, and EBCI would be invited 

to participate as concurring parties. The PA would incorporate the final HPMP filed on 

December 12, 2006. The HPMP for the project contains the principles and procedures to address 

the proposed continued use, and protection of, historic properties; mitigation of unavoidable 

adverse effects; compliance with laws and regulations governing human remains; and discovery 

of previously unidentified resources over the term of any license issued. We recommend that 

Duke Energy implement the HPMP. The protection afforded to historic properties justifies the 

annual estimated cost of $ 2,403 for the HPMP. 

471 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Cowans Ford 

Even though the Cowans Ford development is currently ineligible for the National 

Register due to its more recent age, it is the largest of the developments and the last to be 

constructed, thereby completing the build-out of the river begun in 1900. Cowans Ford followed 

a different design, had a much larger capacity than the other developments, and was built in the 

post-World War II, modern era, which places it in a different context than the neighboring 

developments. At 50 years of age, Cowans Ford likely would meet the standards set under 

criteria A and C, and should be reassessed for its eligibility at that time. Therefore, we 

recommend that the PA incorporate a stipulation that requires Duke Energy to reassess the 

eligibility of Cowans Ford after it is 50 years old (which would occur in 2015). The cost for the 

staff recommendation to reassess the eligibility of the Cowans Ford Development for the 

National Register is negligible since the reassessment would occur as part of the review process 

for the HPMP. 

Land Leases 

Duke Energy proposed license articles requiring that they lease lands that contained 

cultural resource sites not eligible for the National Register to North Carolina DPR and South 

Carolina DPRT for the term of any license issued.21 The Commission can require Duke Energy 

to conserve such lands. To do so Duke may offer to lease said parcels to various agencies 

through the standard land use article included in most licenses for hydropower facilities. Duke, 

as the licensee, would still be responsible for the completion of whatever conservation measures 

were required for the parcels. The Commission has authority only over its licensees, not third 

parties. Therefore, staff cannot incorporate these proposed articles in any new license. 

However, we encourage Duke Energy to enter into these leases because they would provide 

protection for the historical sites which are not eligible for protection under the NHPA. 

Recreational Resources 

Recreational Facility Enhancements and Recreation Management Plan 

After consultation with North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DPRT, South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other entities and within 1 year of license 

issuance, Duke Energy proposes to develop and file an RMP with the Commission. The RMP 

would include (1) a schedule for implementing the recreational enhancements; (2) maps that 

identify all existing and proposed recreational areas in relation to the project boundary; (3) maps 

that identify where the project boundary would be modified such that all land areas associated 

with the recreational enhancements described in the RMP are incorporated into the project 

boundary; (4) conceptual facility site plans; (5) descriptions of new facility construction and 

operation and maintenance of existing and new facilities; (6) procedures for temporary closures 

of project recreation sites; (7) discussion of how the needs of the disabled were considered in 

planning and design of recreational facilities; (8) discussion of how the low impact development 

practices were considered in the planning and design of recreational facilities; and (9) a 

description of the standardized recreational signage program for recreation sites. To maintain 

continuity in the recreation planning process, we recommend that Duke Energy notify and 

attempt to consult with, at a minimum, the entire relicensing Recreation Resources Committee 

(i.e., North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, 

 21 These cultural resources sites are not affected by project operations. 

472 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Burke County, York County, American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree 

Relicensing Coalition, Lake Wylie Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation 

League) for the development of the RMP. For those parties that do not participate in the RMP 

development, we conclude that it would not be necessary for Duke Energy to continue consulting 

with those parties during the future reviews of the project’s recreational needs. Duke Energy 

could consult with additional parties. 

Generally, the project offers numerous opportunities for public recreation and Duke 

Energy proposes to provide a number of recreational enhancements at the project, including 

26 additional recreation access areas in the project boundary and numerous enhancements at 

existing areas. As the licensee, Duke Energy would be responsible for all recreational 

enhancements and facilities, including operation and maintenance of those facilities. We 

recommend that the following recreational enhancements proposed by Duke Energy be included 

in the RMP and the project boundary (see tables 67-77 in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational 

Resources, Environmental Effects): 

Bridgewater Development 

o Black Bear Access Area 

o New Linville Access Area 

o Linville Canoe/Kayak Access Area 

o Pocket Park for Lake James Loop Trail 

o Bridgewater Access Area 

o Muddy Creek Access Area 

Rhodhiss Development 

o Corpening Bridge Access Area 

o Conley Creek Access Area (Sawmills Veterans Park) 

o Rhodhiss Access Area 

o Rhodhiss Dam Canoe Portage 

o Castle Bridge Access Area 

Oxford Development 

o Two Lake Hickory swimming areas 

o Wittenburg Access Area 

o Dusty Ridge Access Area 

o Lovelady Access Area 

o Long Shoals Access Area 

o Oxford Access Area 

o Oxford Tailrace Fishing Area 

o Oxford Dam Canoe Portage 

473 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Lookout Shoals Development 

o Upper Lookout Shoals Access Area 

o Lookout Shoals Access Area 

o Lookout Shoals Tailrace Fishing Area 

o Lookout Shoals Dam Canoe Portage 

Cowans Ford Development 

o Beatty’s Ford Access Area 

o Hagers Creek Access Area 

o Stumpy Creek Access Area 

o Little Creek Access Area 

o Island Point Access Area 

o Cowans Ford Dam Portage and Overlook 

Mountain Island Development 

o Highway 73 Access Area 

o Lucia Access Area 

o Riverbend Access Area 

o Mountain Island Dam Canoe Portage 

Wylie Development 

o Dutchmans Creek Access Area 

o South Point Access Area 

o Buster Boyd Access Area 

o Allison Creek Access Area 

o Rock Hill Park 

o Fort Mill Access Area 

Fishing Creek Development 

o Springs Park 

o Fishing Creek Access Area 

o Fishing Creek Tailrace Fishing Area 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

o Evaluate safety concerns associated with boating at the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments; determine the need for constructing boating safety devices upstream 

of the structure; and report conclusions to the Commission. Submit a revised public 

safety plan for the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments for Commission 

acceptance, if necessary. 

474 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
o Highway 200 Bridge Access Area 

o Great Falls Diversion Dam Portage 

o Great Falls Headworks Portage 

o Great Falls Headworks to Cedar Creek Reservoir Portage 

o Lower Great Falls Reservoir Canoe/Kayak Launch 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

o Mud Cat Inn Access Area 

Wateree Development 

o Wateree Creek Access Area 

o Molly Creek Park 

o Colonels Creek Access Area 

o Taylors Creek Access Area 

o Lugoff Access Area 

The existing and proposed public recreation access areas would be spaced geographically 

throughout the project reservoirs and regulated river reaches to provide recreational opportunities 

no matter where the potential user originates. Generally, the developments receiving the greatest 

recreational use would receive the most recreational enhancements. The proposed recreational 

enhancements would provide increased recreational opportunities at the project and alleviate 

some of the pressure at the existing recreation access areas that are approaching or over capacity. 

As license articles, Duke Energy proposed offering six areas of land currently within the 

project boundaries to federal or state entities through nominal-cost leases. These are projectrelated land conveyances, mostly in association with existing recreation access areas. 

• Lake James State Park Islands Management Zone (Bridgewater Development)—Offer a 

lease to North Carolina DENR for the Lake James State Park Islands Management Zone. 

• Lake Norman State Park Management Zone (Cowans Ford Development)—Offer a lease 

to North Carolina DENR for the Lake Norman State Park Management Zone. 

• Saddler Island (Wylie Development)—Offer a lease for Saddler Island to the U.S. 

National Whitewater Center for environmental education programming. 

• Landsford Canal State Park Management Zone (Wylie Development)—Offer a lease to 

South Carolina DPRT for the Landsford Canal State Park Management Zone. 

• Cedar Creek Reservoir island improvements (Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Developments)—Offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for Cedar Creek reservoir island 

improvements. 

• Lake Wateree State Park Management Zone (Wateree Development)—Offer a lease to 

South Carolina DPRT for the Lake Wateree State Park Management Zone. 

In addition to providing diverse recreational opportunities in the upper river basin, 

protecting these lands would be consistent with local efforts to establish nature-based tourism in 

475 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the region and would create several thousand acres of contiguous public lands in the vicinity of 

Great Falls. However, we find that the lands proposed for lease (described above) are necessary 

for project purposes and should remain within the project boundary. The Landsford Canal State 

Park Management Zone lies partially within the project boundary and is proposed for inclusion 

in the project boundary; therefore, Duke Energy would need to expand the project boundary to 

include the entire management zone. A lease would force a contract between two parties which 

would be outside the Commission’s authority; however, consistent with the standard land use 

article, it would be appropriate for Duke Energy to, as a non-license article measure, apply to the 

Commission for approval for non-project use of project lands, and to enter into a lease agreement 

with the federal or state entities, as proposed in the relicensing settlement agreement. Such an 

arrangement would benefit the recreating public, and would allow the state or federal entities to 

better manage the land, which includes existing, popular state parks. 

In addition to those measures proposed by Duke Energy for inclusion in the RMP that 

would be located within the project boundary, Duke Energy has partnered with others to enhance 

existing recreation access areas or to develop areas in addition to those for which Duke Energy 

would be responsible. These off-license measures, as described in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational 

Resources, Environmental Effects, and tables 78-84, included in the Revised CRA are not 

proposed to be included as license articles or in the RMP. 

We have evaluated each of these off-license enhancements to determine if any are 

appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these enhancements. 

One stakeholder, the Town of Cornelius, recommended additional public recreational 

opportunities on Lake Norman, specifically additional public lakefront property in and around 

the Cornelius shoreline, to provide sufficient public recreation opportunities. Lake Cornelius and 

Lake Davidson were cut off from the remainder of Lake Norman by the construction of Interstate 

77 and, therefore, there is no public access from Lake Norman proper. Lake Cornelius does not 

have any public access, but Lake Davidson does have informal access. We find that operation of 

the project affects Lake Cornelius and conclude that providing informal public access to Lake 

Cornelius would serve a project purpose. Therefore, we recommend that Duke Energy consult 

with the Town of Cornelius and provide informal public access to Lake Cornelius within 

10 years of approval of the RMP. 

FWS recommended that the importance of fish- and wildlife-based recreation, especially 

bird-watching should be considered. We find that the project provides many opportunities for 

fishing, and Duke Energy’s proposed enhancements provide numerous additional opportunities 

for pier and bank fishing and fishing in the regulated river reaches. With only four formal areas 

identified in the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project 

available for wildlife viewing at the project (none of which are in the project boundary), we 

conclude that the measure to evaluate the feasibility of including wildlife viewing facilities at 

appropriate Duke Energy-owned public access areas located within the project boundary is 

needed at the project. Therefore, we recommend that Duke Energy, during the development and 

consultation process of the RMP, also consult regarding the need for and feasibility of including 

wildlife viewing facilities at Duke Energy-owned public access areas that will be within the 

project boundary. Where determined to be needed and feasible, we recommend that Duke 

Energy include site designs and a schedule for implementing the wildlife viewing areas in the 

RMP. 

476 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Comments from stakeholders on the recreational enhancements also included the 

following: (1) a recommendation that the non-license article measure to provide $600,000 to 

Burke County, North Carolina DENR, or others to develop approximately 6 miles of the 

Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail Corridor be included as a license article; 

(2) concern about the non-license article measure where CIN would maintain a canoe access 

outside the project boundary; and (3) a recommendation that the license include provisions for 

the establishment of a water trail from Wateree dam to Congaree National Park. We do not 

recommend including any of these suggested enhancements in the RMP or license article. We 

conclude that the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail is not needed for project 

purposes since it would not connect any project facilities and, therefore, does not need to be 

brought into the project boundary. It is unnecessary to modify the project boundary to include 

this trail because the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail measure is for a one-time 

payment and does not represent ongoing maintenance of the trail by Duke Energy. Congaree 

National Park is a substantial distance downstream of the Wateree Development, and Duke 

Energy already provides a boat ramp at the Lugoff Access Area just downstream of Wateree dam 

and South Carolina DNR provides boat ramps at the Highway 1 and Billy Tolar landings. Since 

the canoe/kayak access at the CIN reservation would be located approximately 7 miles 

downstream of the Wylie Development, we conclude that it would not serve a project purpose or 

have a project nexus. Finally, we conclude that the requested water trail from Wateree dam to 

Congaree National Park would not serve project purposes and does not have a clear nexus to 

project operation. 

One stakeholder, Ms. Jean McKinley, expressed concern about the proposed Island Point 

Access Area at Lake Norman that would be located within the project boundary, especially the 

non-license article measure to offer a lease to a commercial operator for the development of an 

RV campground. Day-use facilities are currently proposed by Duke Energy for this access area, 

and the Revised CRA contains a non-license article provision whereby Duke Energy could 

market to commercial operators a lease for the development and management of a multi-use 

recreation area at this site. However, the Revised CRA also includes a commitment for Duke 

Energy and Catawba County, North Carolina, to form a workgroup of stakeholders representing 

the public interest, to participate in developing the site plan for this access area. We conclude 

that the proposed recreation access area would be developed in a manner consistent with the 

SMP and all local zoning ordinances, and would alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the 

existing Marshall fishing area. 

Stakeholders also commented that some of the Revised CRA measures for recreational 

enhancements were dependent on third parties and cost-shares with other entities, and questioned 

if the proposed recreational enhancements would meet the demands of an increasing population. 

We have evaluated each of the proposed recreational enhancements and those enhancements 

proposed as non-license article measures in the Revised CRA to determine if any of them might 

be appropriate to include in any license for the project. Recreational enhancements determined 

to be necessary for project purposes that were not proposed for inclusion in the project boundary 

have been recommended by staff for inclusion in the project boundary. We conclude that the 

methods and models used to project recreation needs within the project area are documented, 

standard approaches that are accepted in the recreation planning profession. 

Duke Energy proposed to file a biennial report for the first 20 years following the 

issuance of a new license with the Commission to document the progress made on completing 

477 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
the recreation enhancements under any new license. This report would assist the Commission 

and the other Revised CRA signatories with tracking the status of the required recreation 

enhancements. Supplements to the RMP are proposed to be filed at 20 years following the 

issuance of a new license and repeated every subsequent 10 years. The supplements to the RMP 

would include recreational enhancements that would also need tracking. Therefore, we 

recommend that Duke Energy file biennial reports for the term of any new license instead of only 

for the first 20 years. 

To address future recreational needs, Duke Energy proposes to complete a review of the 

project’s recreational needs at 20 years following the issuance of a new license and repeated at 

every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license. This review would be conducted 

after consultation with North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, 

South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other interested parties. Subsequent to the 

reviews, Duke Energy proposes to file supplements to the RMP. The reviews and RMP 

supplements would provide Duke Energy and the stakeholders with an opportunity to re-evaluate 

recreation use and needs at the project and to identify additional recreational needs at the project. 

To maintain continuity in the recreation planning process, we recommend that for the RMP 

review and recreational needs assessment, Duke Energy consult with, at a minimum, the parties 

of the relicensing Recreation Resources Committee (i.e., North Carolina DENR, North Carolina 

WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, Burke County, York County, American 

Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Coalition, Lake Wylie 

Covekeeper, and South Carolina Coastal Conservation League) who chose to participate in the 

development of the RMP. Duke Energy could consult with additional parties. 

Recreational Flows 

Under the existing license, Duke Energy does not provide recreational flows at the 

project. As discussed in further detail in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental 

Effects, Duke Energy proposes to provide dedicated recreational flow releases at rates, and on 

schedules, to support paddling, wade fishing, boat fishing, and other activities, which could be 

temporarily modified if Duke Energy is operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. These new scheduled flows would be provided in the 

Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated river reaches. In addition, scheduled flow 

releases for canoeing and whitewater boating would be provided in the Great Falls bypassed 

reaches. Duke Energy proposes to provide weekend and holiday recreational flows during most 

of the project’s peak recreation season (April through September) at the Bridgewater, Oxford, 

Wylie, and Wateree Developments. Recreational flows are also proposed for most weekend 

days in October at these developments. A more limited schedule for recreational flow releases is 

proposed for the Great Falls Long bypassed reach and Great Falls Short bypassed reach with a 

total of 26 recreational flow days between the two bypassed reaches. 

As discussed in further detail in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental 

Effects, Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows would provide reliable flows for recreation 

that would greatly enhance recreational opportunities in the regulated river reaches, and provide 

whitewater boating opportunities in the bypassed reaches at Great Falls, where there are 

currently none. Therefore, we recommend that Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows be 

adopted. 

478 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Section 3.3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, Cumulative Effects, and section 3.3.1.4.3, Geology 

and Soils, Environmental Effects, River Geomorphology, discuss the effects of the proposed 

recreational flows on aquatic resources and stream bank erosion below the Wylie and Wateree 

Developments. Those sections found that the variation between proposed minimum continuous 

flows and recreation flows would be less than between historic baseflows and generating flows. 

Because the diverse aquatic communities found in these reaches have adapted to these daily flow 

fluctuations, it is probable that the smaller fluctuations associated with recreational releases will 

not significantly affect these communities and ecosystems. 

During periods of drought or emergency maintenance, the capacity to provide the 

recreational flows may be compromised. However, our evaluation of the mechanism to 

implement a temporary variance from recreational flow releases when conditions trigger 

implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol as Duke 

Energy has proposed concludes that this mechanism would be a proper response to such 

conditions. The mechanism would allow Duke Energy to act to protect the aquatic resources of 

the Catawba-Wateree river system during extreme climatic conditions, such as drought. 

Therefore, we recommend the adoption of this mechanism to protect the uses of the 

project. Duke Energy also proposes to convene an annual meeting with, at a minimum, North 

Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, and South Carolina DPRT to reevaluate and modify, as necessary, the recreational flow schedule. This meeting would be held 

to ensure that quality recreational opportunities would continue to exist at the project. We 

recommend that Duke Energy convene an annual meeting with stakeholders as proposed to reevaluate the recreational flow schedule so that any modifications that are necessary can be 

implemented. 

Public Information and Public Safety 

Duke Energy proposes to implement several measures to facilitate the public’s enjoyment 

of the project and support the safe and effective public use of the project’s resources. Duke 

Energy proposes to post reservoir level information and special messages for each project 

reservoir on its website, with special messages and actual levels for each project reservoir also 

available via Duke Energy’s toll-free telephone system. Duke Energy proposes to post an annual 

calendar on its website showing all scheduled flow releases from the Bridgewater, Oxford, 

Wylie, and Wateree Developments and into the Great Falls bypassed reaches. Additionally, 

Duke Energy proposes to post 2-day flow release forecasts on its website and toll-free telephone 

system for the Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments and the Great Falls bypassed reaches, 

and 3-day flow release forecasts for the Bridgewater Development. 

Providing accurate and timely information is important to enhance public safety and to 

assist recreational visitors planning water-related activities at the project. The availability of 

reservoir levels and projected reservoir levels would allow the public to know when water levels 

are expected to rise or fall, while the availability of special messages via Duke Energy’s toll-free 

telephone system would alert the public of special circumstances that could affect public safety. 

The availability of flow release forecasts on Duke Energy’s website and toll-free telephone 

system, and the annual calendar of scheduled flow releases would be useful to recreational users 

in planning and staging water-related visits to the project and provide up-to-date information 

about flows to alert the public about forecasted increases in flows so that the public is not caught 

in unexpected conditions. Therefore, we recommend adopting Duke Energy’s proposed public 

479 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
information and safety measures to ensure that recreational users have a readily available source 

of public information. 

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects, 

Duke Energy, as part of the Revised CRA, committed to voluntarily providing additional public 

information above and beyond what was proposed as a license requirement. Up-to-date river 

flow release forecasts would be useful to recreational users in planning and staging water-related 

visits to the project. The availability of this information would also further enhance public safety 

at the project by providing advance information about flow release schedules to alert the public 

so they are not caught in unexpected conditions. We do not recommend incorporating the extra 

information outlined as specific measures included in the Revised CRA in any license issued for 

the project. We find that the measures proposed by Duke Energy for incorporation as a license 

article provide sufficient public information related to river conditions and flows in a manner that 

provides for enhanced public safety at the project. 

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects,

Duke Energy committed in the Revised CRA to providing non-license article public safety 

measures, including updates to its public safety plans, warning devices, Spanish language 

tailrace signage, horns at the Bridgewater and Oxford Developments, a Riverbend Park warning 

system, English and universal signage, and facility exclusion zones. Since the development of 

the public safety plan and all of the public safety plan additions have been completed at the 

project, we recommend that Duke Energy continue to implement the Commission-approved plan 

for the term of any new license. 

Comments from stakeholders regarding public information and safety included a 

recommendation to provide a longer near-term forecast period, a proactive notification system to 

alert CIN of all releases of water above minimum flow levels in the river below Wylie dam, and 

funding for public safety (such as the navigation aids, marine commissions, and additional 

fire/rescue capacity) at Lake Norman. We conclude that 2 days for near-term forecasts is 

sufficient for a peaking facility because generating electricity is dependent on demand and 

demand would be difficult for Duke Energy to forecast more than 2 days in advance. Duke 

Energy’s proposed phone-based and internet-based public information systems would be 

sufficient for the public, including the CIN, to access information about planned operations. The 

CIN reservation is located approximately 7 miles downstream of the Wylie Development, and 

this location is not subject to the rapid variations that could be observed in the Wylie tailrace. 

We conclude that Duke Energy should not be required to provide funding for public 

safety at Lake Norman, since the Lake Norman Marine Commission is responsible for all matters 

relating to or affecting public recreation and water safety at Lake Norman. Fire and rescue 

response funding is available through localities from other sources. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

The proposed changes to the SMP are anticipated to benefit the project reservoir 

shorelines, as well as environmental resources at the project. In general, the changes proposed 

by Duke Energy to the classification maps and the SMP represent modifications and adjustments 

to the existing, approved SMP. The proposed modifications would reduce the environmental 

impacts resulting from continuing shoreline development, and would also help to address 

changing conditions at the project or questions and issues that have arisen since the 

Commission’s most recent approval of the SMP in 2003. The proposed SMP review and update 

480 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
process would allow for a consistent and periodic review of the implementation of the SMP and 

the opportunity to modify the SMP. 

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.8, Land Use and Aesthetics, proposed modifications 

to the SMP would provide a variety of environmental, recreational, and aesthetic benefits. 

Proposed modification to the vegetation management, planting, and water willow provisions of 

the SMP would better protect existing shoreline and aquatic vegetation, including water willow. 

Proposed modifications to the seawall provisions of the SMP would further restrict the 

installation of seawalls along the project shoreline which would benefit both terrestrial and 

aquatic resources by maintaining a more natural shoreline edge. Modifications to the excavation 

provisions of the SMP would further restrict excavations in areas of water willow or other 

sensitive areas. Proposed modifications to the SMP provisions for private use facilities (e.g., 

prohibition of new private boat ramps, prohibition of two-story boat dock structures) would help 

to reduce the environmental and aesthetic impacts of private individual shoreline recreation 

facilities. Although not intended to limit development or to reduce the number of piers or 

watercraft, modification of the minimum lot width requirement may reduce the environmental 

impacts of residential shoreline development through the creation of larger lots, resulting in 

fewer piers and structures along the shoreline. Fewer piers and the proposed new limitations on 

watercraft per slip would, in turn, help ensure against future over-crowding of the reservoirs. 

Comments from stakeholders regarding the SMP included a recommendation to cap fees, 

particularly for private piers. Duke Energy’s current and proposed fee system is consistent with 

the Commission’s policy on fees, in that a licensee may charge reasonable fees for 

permitting/licensing of shoreline recreational and access facilities, to help defray the cost of 

administering the shoreline management program. So long as the fees charged by Duke Energy 

do not exceed the cost of the program, we see no need to cap the fees proposed. 

DOI recommends that the SMP be revised to require that Duke Energy or its lessees be 

required to plant native vegetation and install fish-friendly pier features under docks, and that 

Duke Energy and any lessee minimize or avoid any impacts to shoreline vegetation or near-shore 

habitats. We do not recommend that any new license for the project include these recommended 

measures. The current SMP promotes planting native vegetation and installing fish-friendly pier 

features under docks but does not require these measures. The SMP also contains measures 

intended to minimize or avoid impacts to shoreline vegetation or near-shore habitats. Under the 

SMP, shorelines with significant aquatic vegetation and/or habitat are protected from 

development. 

Land Conveyances and Conservation 

As mitigation for reduced stream flows, Duke Energy proposes to establish permanent 

conservation easements in the riparian corridor along certain sections of the river that would 

remain outside the project boundary. As proposed, the North Carolina flow mitigation package 

provides for permanent conservation easements on 28.6 bank miles of stream, and the South 

Carolina flow mitigation package provides for permanent conservation easements on 5.5 bank 

miles of stream. The conservation easements are 100-ft-wide perpetual easements to be located 

on the Johns, Catawba, and Linville Rivers and tributaries to the Catawba River and transferred 

to the State of North Carolina or state-chosen land trust. In South Carolina, the 100-ft-wide 

perpetual easements are to be on the Catawba River. While the lands proposed for the 

establishment of conservation easements would protect important riparian habitat, we conclude 

481 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
that these lands are not needed to operate the project and are not affected by project operations. 

They are not needed for public recreational access to the project. Therefore, we do not find that 

these lands should be brought into the project boundary. 

As part of its relicensing agreement, Duke Energy has also proposed various types of 

conveyances of both project and non-project lands for purposes of conservation and/or public 

recreation. We have reviewed the lands proposed by Duke Energy for conveyance to different 

entities for the purpose of providing additional recreational access and public use. As discussed 

in section 3.3.8, Land Use and Aesthetics, we have concluded that these land conveyances can 

appropriately be placed into two distinct categories: (1) proposed land conveyances involving 

project or project-related lands (section 3.3.8, table 91); and (2) proposed land conveyances 

involving non-project lands (section 3.3.8, table 90). 

All of the non-project land conveyances agreed to in the Revised CRA, but that are not 

proposed by Duke Energy as license articles, involve lands that are outside of the existing project 

boundary. Upon review of these lands we conclude that none of the non-project lands being 

proposed for conveyance are needed for project purposes, and therefore are not recommended for 

inclusion in the project or the project license. Allowing these lands to remain outside the project 

boundary would have no adverse effect on the environment or natural resources of the project. 

However, conveyance of these non-project lands, for purposes of land conservation and/or public 

recreation, as proposed through the terms of the Revised CRA, would benefit the environment in 

many ways: by limiting shoreline development in these areas; by preserving natural vegetation 

and the corresponding benefits to watershed conservation and tributary and reservoir water 

quality; by providing contiguous parcels of undeveloped land which would serve as greenways 

and wildlife corridors; and by making additional lands in the vicinity of the project available for 

public use. 

The project-related land conveyances (leases) proposed by Duke Energy (section 3.3.8, 

table 91) include the following. 

• Offer North Carolina DENR a lease for the term of the new license for the Lake James 

State Park management zone (300 horizontal feet lakeward from full pond elevation) 

along the shoreline adjoining the state park, including three islands. 

• Offer North Carolina DENR a lease for the term of the new license for the Lake Norman 

State Park management zone (300 horizontal feet lakeward from full pond elevation) 

along the shoreline adjoining Lake Norman State Park) including one island. 

• Offer South Carolina DPRT a lease for the term of the new license for the Landsford 

Canal State Park management zone (300 horizontal feet lakeward from full pond 

elevation) along the shoreline adjoining Landsford Canal State Park. 

• Offer a lease of the approximately 37-acre island to the U.S. National Whitewater Center 

for individual and group environmental education and outdoor recreation programming. 

• Offer a lease of the islands associated with the Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and 

Cedar Creek Developments to South Carolina DPRT to establish and maintain a new 

state park centered on the Dearborn Armory site. 

482 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
• Offer South Carolina DPRT a lease for the Lake Wateree State Park management zone 

(up to 300 horizontal feet lakeward from full pond elevation) along the shoreline 

adjoining the state park. 

Leases of these project-related lands, as proposed, would significantly benefit the 

environmental and recreational resources of the project by increasing the percentage of nondeveloped shoreline available as wildlife habitat or for public access. The Commission can 

require the conservation of lands. Duke can, through the standard land use article, apply to the 

Commission to conserve lands through a lease. Duke Energy could apply to the Commission for 

approval of such leases for non-project use of project lands. 

At the Wylie Development, the proposed lease of Saddler Island to the U.S. National 

Whitewater Center would promote the development of additional recreational benefits in the 

project area. At the Great Falls, Dearborn, and Cedar Creek Developments, the proposed lease 

of several islands associated with the two developments, totaling more than 900 acres, to the 

State of South Carolina, would result in the establishment of a new state park centered on the 

Dearborn Armory Site. Such a park would be consistent with local efforts to establish naturebased tourism in the region, and would create several thousand acres of contiguous public lands 

in the vicinity of Great Falls. The proposed lease of the Paddy Creek, Catawba-Lindell 

Confluence, and North Bend lands would provide diverse recreational opportunities in the upper 

river basin, and would serve as a natural buffer against additional development in this area. 

The remaining leases of project land proposed by Duke Energy at the Bridgewater, 

Cowans Ford, and Wateree Developments involve lands that lie within the FERC project 

boundary and extend under the reservoirs 300 horizontal feet lakeward from the normal full pond 

elevation of the reservoir within which they lie. These lands are already within the project 

boundary and have not been proposed for removal from the project boundary. These are lands 

that are necessary for project purposes, in that they lie within the normal full pool elevation of 

the reservoir. Inasmuch as the proposed use of these project lands is for public recreational use 

and to facilitate state agencies being able to implement specific management and enforcement 

objectives, lease of these lands, as proposed, would benefit the recreating public, and would 

allow the state agencies to better manage these existing and popular state parks. Accordingly, 

we recommend that in order to achieve the desired purpose of the property conveyance, that 

Duke Energy request Commission approval for the proposed non-project use of project lands in 

accordance with the SMP and standard land use license article. 

DOI recommends that Duke Energy develop a comprehensive plan to work with federal 

and state resource agencies, CIN, communities, and non-profit organizations to conserve and 

protect its lands including fish and wildlife habitat based at Bridgewater, Johns River in the 

vicinity of Rhodhiss, Dearborn Island, Wateree canal, and the lands and waters within Congaree 

National Park; implement a program of reacquisition and restoration of contiguous shoreline 

segments at those reservoirs where the shoreline development has already exceeded 50 percent; 

and modify the project boundary to include the 50-ft-wide vegetated riparian buffer. We do not 

recommend that any new license for the project include these recommended measures. Duke 

Energy undertook an extensive planning and evaluation process to determine what lands to 

conserve and protect during the relicensing process as outlined in the Application for New 

License Supplement & Clarification dated March 2007. Reacquisition and restoration of 

contiguous shoreline segments would be cost-prohibitive and impracticable. Expanding the 

project boundary to include a 50-ft vegetated riparian buffer is impractical. Regulation of lands 

483 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
currently outside the project boundary is under the purview of local government jurisdictions and 

the SMP establishes an MOU to coordinate local government and Duke Energy efforts on 

shoreline protection issues. Duke Energy has proposed in the Revised CRA permanent 

conservation easements that would protect riparian habitat and specific protections intended to 

conserve and protect project lands. 

Project Boundaries 

The existing project boundary generally includes the area within full pond elevation of 

the project reservoirs and the land immediately surrounding the dams and powerhouses. Existing 

Duke Energy-owned public recreation access areas that provide access to the project are 

generally included in the project boundary, but portions of the existing Duke Energy-owned 

project recreation access areas may lie partially outside the boundary. All lands needed for the 

operation of the project, including lands needed to ensure the protection of non-power values, 

must be included in the project boundary. This would allow the Commission to ensure that 

maintenance and operation of those recreation access areas continue over the life of the issued 

license. If licensed, the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries would need to include all of Duke 

Energy’s existing and new recreation facilities. 

Table 132 summarizes the existing recreation access areas at the project, whether they are 

currently in the project boundary, and whether there are proposed enhancements at these areas 

that would need to be included in the project boundary. This table also summarizes the new 

recreation access areas that are proposed by Duke Energy or recommended by staff which would 

need to be included in the project boundary. 

484 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 132. Summary of existing recreation access areas and Duke Energy or staff proposed 

new recreation access areas to be included in the Catawba-Wateree project 

boundary. (Source: Staff) 

Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Bridgewater Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Black Bear X X 

Lake James 

State Park 

Hidden Cove X 

Canal Bridge X 

Linville X X 

Bridgewater 

Access Area X X 

Watermill Road 

Canoe Access 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Greenlee Ford 

Park 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

River Village 

Park 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Catawba 

Meadows Park 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

New Linville 

Access Area X X 

Pocket Park for 

Lake James 

Loop Trail 

X X 

485 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Muddy Creek 

Access Area X X 

Lake James State 

Park 

Management 

Zone 

X 

Rhodhiss Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Johns River X 

Huffman Bridge X 

Castle Bridge X X 

Conley 

Creek/Sawmills 

Veterans 

Memorial Park 

X X 

Rhodhiss X X 

Rhodhiss Canoe 

Portage X X 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Corpening 

Bridge Access 

Area 

X X 

Oxford Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Bud Geitner 

Park 

Hickory 

Greenway 

Glenn C. Hilton 

Park 

Gunpowder X 

486 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Lovelady X X 

Wittenburg X X 

Long Shoals 

(undeveloped) X X 

Dusty Ridge X X 

Oxford X X 

Oxford Canoe 

Portage X X 

Riverbend Park 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Lake Hickory 

swimming areas X X 

Oxford Tailrace 

Fishing Area X X 

Lookout Shoals Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Lookout Shoals X X 

Sharon X 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Upper Lookout 

Shoals Access 

Area 

X X 

Lookout Shoals 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

X X 

Lookout Shoals 

Dam Canoe 

Portage 

X X 

487 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Cowans Ford Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Hunsucker Park 

Buffalo Shoals 

(undeveloped) X 

Long Island X 

Lake Norman 

State Park 

Island Point 

(undeveloped) X X 

Stumpy Creek X X 

Pinnacle X 

McCrary Creek X 

Marshall Fishing 

Area X 

Slanting Bridge 

(undeveloped) X 

Hager Creek X X 

Little Creek X X 

Roosevelt 

Wilson Park 

Beatty’s Ford X X 

Jetton Road 

County Park 

Ramsey Creek X 

McGuire Fishing 

Area X 

Blythe Landing 

County Park 

488 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Cowans Ford 

Dam Portage and 

Overlook 

X X 

Lake Cornelius 

Informal Access X 

Lake Norman 

State Park 

Management 

Zone 

X 

Mountain Island Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Cowans Ford 

Wildlife Refuge 

Rural Hill Park 

Neck Road X 

Latta Plantation 

County Park 

Riverbend X X 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Highway 73 

Access Area X X 

Lucia Access 

Area X X 

Mountain Island 

Dam Canoe 

Portage 

X X 

Wylie Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Mountain Island 

River Park X 

489 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Mountain Island 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

X 

Mount Holly 

River Street Park 

South Point X X 

Allen Fishing 

Area X 

Stowe Botanical 

Garden 

Copperhead X 

McDowell Park 

Buster Boyd X X 

Indian Ground 

(currently closes) X 

Allison Creek X X 

Ebenezer Park X 

Nivens Creek X 

Fort Mill X X 

Rock Hill River 

Park (regulated 

river reach) 

Landsford Canal 

State Park 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Dutchmans 

Creek Access 

Area 

X X 

Rock Hill Park 

(lake) X X 

Saddler Island X X 

490 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Landsford Canal 

State Park 

Management 

Zone 

X (partially 

within the 

project 

boundary) 

Fishing Creek Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Highway 9 

Landing 

Cane Creek 

X 

(proposed 

for removal 

when 

Springs 

Park is 

constructed) 

Fishing Creek X X 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Springs Park X X 

Fishing Creek 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

X X 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Highway 200 

Bridge Access 

Area 

X X 

Great Falls 

Diversion Dam 

Portage 

X X 

Great Falls 

Headworks 

Portage 

X X 

491 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Great Falls 

Headworks to 

Cedar Creek 

Reservoir 

Portage 

X X 

Lower Great 

Falls Reservoir 

Canoe/Kayak 

Launch 

X X 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Stumpy Pond X 

Debutary Creek X 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Cedar Creek 

Reservoir island 

improvements 

X X 

Mud Cat Inn 

Access Area X X 

Wateree Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas 

Cedar Creek X 

Wateree Creek 

Access Area X X 

Taylors Creek 

Access Area X X 

Lake Wateree 

State Park 

June Creek X 

Beaver Creek 

Landing 

492 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Currently 

inside the 

project 

boundary 

Proposed by 

Duke Energy 

to be brought 

into the 

project 

boundary 

Recommended 

by staff to be 

brought into 

the project 

boundary 

New facilities are 

proposed at existing 

area by Duke Energy 

that must be included 

in the project 

boundary 

Colonel’s Creek 

Access Area X X 

White Oak 

Creek X 

Buck Hill X 

Lugoff X X 

Highway 1 

Landing 

Billy Tolar 

Landing 

New Access Areas or Management Zones 

Molly Creek 

Park X X 

East Wateree 

access 

improvements 

Lake Wateree 

State Park 

Management 

Zone 

X 

Duke Energy has committed in the Revised CRA to a non-license article measure 

whereby it would ensure that all of its islands located on the project reservoirs or in the regulated 

river reaches would remain open for the term of the new license for any permissible day-use 

public recreation activity. Islands could be designated as off-limits by Duke Energy due to 

issues related to cultural resource protection, wildlife protection or safety, security, or 

management concerns or restrictions by state or local public health, safety, or law enforcement 

authorities. We conclude that all Duke Energy-owned islands in the project reservoirs are 

necessary for project purposes, including islands designated as off-limits, and should be included 

in the project boundary to ensure that the open access islands remain available for the term of the 

new license for permissible day-use public recreation activity, and recommend including this 

measure in any license issued for the project. This measure would enhance recreational use by 

boaters and non-motorized boaters using the project waters. 

493 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
In the Revised CRA, Duke Energy also committed to, as a non-license measure, ensuring 

that the shoreline of all Duke Energy-owned access areas remains open for bank fishing for the 

term of the new license, except those minimal shoreline areas where bank fishing is restricted for 

safety reasons or to avoid conflicts with other access area users. While this measure would 

enhance bank fishing opportunities at the project, we conclude that it is not necessary to be 

included in any new license issued for the project. 

Conclusion 

Based on our review of the agency and public comments filed on the project and our 

independent analysis pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(a)(1), and 10(a)(2) of the FPA, we conclude 

that licensing the Catawba-Wateree Project as proposed by Duke Energy with additional staffrecommended measures would be best adapted to a plan for improving or developing the 

Catawba and Wateree Rivers waterway. 

5.2 CONSISTENCY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE FISH AND 

WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Section 10(j) of the FPA requires the Commission to include license conditions, based on 

recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies for the protection, 

mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources affected by the project. Section 10(j) 

of the FPA states that, whenever the Commission concludes that any fish and wildlife agency 

recommendation is inconsistent with the purposes and the requirements of the FPA or other 

applicable law, the Commission and the agency should attempt to resolve any such 

inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory 

responsibilities of the agency. If the Commission still does not adopt a recommendation, it must 

explain how the recommendation is inconsistent with Part I of the FPA, or other applicable law, 

and how the conditions imposed by the Commission adequately and equitably protect, mitigate 

damages to, and enhance fish and wildlife resources. 

In response to the Commission’s ready for environmental analysis notice, issued April 7, 

2008, DOI, NOAA Fisheries, North Carolina WRC, and South Carolina DNR filed letters 

providing comments and terms and conditions for the Catawba-Wateree Project, pursuant to 

section 10(j)22. Of the six recommendations that we consider to be within the scope of section 

10(j), we wholly include three, include one in part, and do not include two. We discuss the 

reasons for not including those recommendations in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development 

and Recommended Alternative. Table 133 summarizes the agency recommendations made under 

section 10(j) for the Catawba-Wateree Project, as well as our analysis of those recommendations 

and whether to adopt the measures as part of the staff alternative. 

Recommendations Under Section 10(a) of the FPA 

We have analyzed recommendations filed by FWS and NOAA Fisheries that we consider 

outside the scope of section 10(j) under section 10(a) of the FPA. These measures are addressed 

in specific resource sections of this document. Measures considered under section 10(a) were 

recommended for implementation by staff. 

 22 The North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, and South Carolina DNR letters 

were filed on June 3, 5, and 6, 2008, respectively. The NOAA Fisheries letter was filed on June 

6, 2008, and the DOI letter was filed on June 4, 2008, amended with errata on July 17, 2008. 

494 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Table 133. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency section 10(j) recommendations for the 

Catawba-Wateree Project. (Source: Staff) 

Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

1. Request the establishment of 

a Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) 

and a Drought Management 

Advisory Group (DMAG), 

and request NOAA Fisheries 

as well as other interested 

federal and state agencies be 

included in the Drought 

Management Advisory 

Group. 

NOAA 

Fisheries; 

FWS 

LIP yes 

DMAG no $176,000 Yes 

2. Require applicant 

consultation with NOAA 

Fisheries during 

development and 

implementation of 

Maintenance and 

Emergency Protocol: 

• as it applies to Lake 

Wylie – Consult with 

CIN and BIA. 

NOAA 

Fisheries; 

FWS 

No $11,000 Yes 

3. Prepare a Flow and Water 

Quality Implementation 

Plan within 180 days 

following the issuance of 

the new license after 

consultation with NOAA 

Fisheries, FWS, North 

Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, South 

Carolina DNR, and South 

Carolina DHEC. 

NOAA 

Fisheries Yes Yes 

495 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

4. Provide minimum flows for 

aquatic habitat, specifically 

as follows: 

• Initial instream flows 

developed in Revised 

CRA have been 

accepted at this time; 

however, recommend a 

provision for reevaluating and 

implementing revised 

instream flow 

requirements if future 

prescriptions for fish 

passage are issued. 

NOAA 

Fisheries; 

FWS 

Yes $1,820,800 

Yes, implement 

proposed flows. 

Future requests 

for modifications 

to flows should 

follow standard 

reopener 

procedures. 

• Implement the Wateree 

Spring Stable Flows and 

Protocol each calendar 

year from February 15 

through April 1 and 

from April 1 through 

May 15. 

NOAA 

Fisheries; 

FWS 

Yes 

No, conduct in 

coordination with 

agencies, reopen 

license, as 

appropriate, and 

propose new 

article after 

10 years’ 

experience. 

5. Establish a CatawbaWateree Project Fisheries 

Technical Committee with 

NOAA Fisheries, FWS, 

NPS, North Carolina 

DENR, North Carolina 

WRC, South Carolina 

DNR, South Carolina 

DHEC, and nongovernmental conservation 

organizations to review 

monitoring and evaluation 

studies, operating plans, and 

maintenance issues. 

NOAA 

Fisheries No No 

496 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

6. Design, install, and operate 

the bladder dam with 

10,000 cfs capacity. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

$554,110 Yes 

7. Develop an implementation 

and operation plan that may 

include ramping or pulsing 

of hydro units for the 

Wateree Flood Plain 

Inundation. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

No, conduct in 

coordination with 

agencies, reopen 

license, as 

appropriate, and 

propose new 

article after 

10 years’ 

experience. 

8. Implement Wylie High 

Inflow Protocol as 

described in the Revised 

CRA. 

FWS Yes Yes 

9. For invasive non-native 

species: 

• Provide and maintain a 

program to reduce the 

spread of invasive exotic 

aquatic species. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

Yes 

• Continue invasive 

terrestrial and riparian 

vegetation management 

to manage invasive 

exotic terrestrial plant 

species that occur in the 

vicinity of RTE plant 

species as a segment of 

applicable species 

protection plans. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

Yes 

497 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

10. For bald eagle monitoring: 

• Provide an annual bald 

eagle monitoring report 

to the Commission, 

FWS, and state agencies. 

FWS 

No, monitoring 

is not an 

enhancement or 

protection 

measure 

$8,600 Yes 

• Develop and implement 

management guidelines 

for bald eagles to be 

included in a species 

management plan. 

FWS Yes Yes 

11. For land conservation: 

• Develop a 

comprehensive plan to 

conserve and protect 

lands and special places 

in and around the 

Catawba-Wateree 

Project in concert with 

federal and state 

resource agencies, CIN, 

communities, and nonprofit organizations. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

$1,329,323 No 

12. For the SMP: 

• Recommend reacquisition and 

restoration of contiguous 

shoreline segments or, 

where not practicable, a 

program for protection 

of key tracts along the 

regulated reaches of the 

Catawba and Wateree 

Rivers. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

$26,4112 No 

498 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

• Recommend the 

avoidance of impacts to 

shoreline vegetation or 

near-shore habitats. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

Yes, but not as a 

separate license 

article since this 

will be 

accomplished 

through 

implementation 

of the proposed 

SMP. 

• Require planting of 

native species and 

installation of fishfriendly pier features 

under docks. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

No, these 

measures are 

promoted under 

the SMP but are 

not required. 

• Require the project 

boundary to include a 

50-ft vegetated riparian 

buffer area required by 

North Carolina as the 

minimum necessary to 

protect riparian 

resources. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

No 

1 In lieu of specific 10(j) measures, North Carolina WRC and South Carolina DNR are 

signatories of the Revised CRA, which they state in their letters is protective of their fish and 

wildlife interests. 

2

 This cost estimate is for the four recommendations under No. 12 combined. 

Wateree Flood Plain Inundation 

We do not recommend including an article in the new license to provide inundation to the 

Wateree flood plain currently proposed in the Revised CRA. DOI has pointed out the 

importance of the Wateree Flood Plain Inundation program to the ecological function of the 

bottomland hardwood forest and dependent aquatic and terrestrial resources. DOI indicated that 

ongoing studies are evaluating the complex hydraulic and hydrologic relationship between flood 

plain topography and inundation. However, the project has no significant storage below Lake 

Norman and because 62 percent of the basin drainage area is found below Lake Norman the 

ability to meet the goals of flood plain inundation in any year is more dependent upon weather 

conditions in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, natural inflows, regulated flows into the 

Wateree Development, and geomorphometry of the flood plain, than on project operations. The 

499 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
various Revised CRA conditions affecting inflow and discharge of water at Lake Wateree create 

a complex set of goals that encompass minimum continuous releases, flood plain inundation, 

lake level stabilization, and flood management. We conclude that the flexibility of an adaptive 

management type approach is appropriate to implement these programs and optimize the success 

of each. This can be accomplished through the reporting and consultation process described in 

the Revised CRA. We agree that a 10-year period is appropriate to evaluate ongoing flood plain 

resource studies and monitoring, and to test and refine the protocols proposed in the CRA within 

the operating constraints and uncertainties of weather prediction. Based on this 10-year period 

of experience with flood plain inundation protocols, a petition can be made to the Commission 

under standard license reopening procedures to consider an enforceable article for flood plain 

inundation. 

High Inflow Protocol and Wateree Spring Stable Flow Protocol 

In order to spawn in the Wylie regulated river reach, anadromous fish first would need to 

pass the six downstream developments, which, based on the Santee River Basin Accord and the 

preliminary section 18 fish passage prescriptions, is not likely to occur until at least 10 years 

following issuance of the new license. However, as indicated by North Carolina DENR and 

South Carolina DNR, the higher minimum continuous flows proposed for periods of high inflow 

at the Wylie Development will also enhance aquatic habitat and benefit resident species in the 

Wylie regulated river reach. Therefore, we recommend the proposed measures for 

implementation of the Wylie High Inflow Protocol be included as a license article. FWS and 

NOAA Fisheries have agreed with the minimum continuous flows recommended in the Revised 

CRA for Wylie, including implementation of the Wylie High Inflow Protocol. 

The Wateree Spring Stable Flow Protocol has been proposed to provide a more natural 

rate of dewatering of the Wateree flood plain following inundation during late winter and spring. 

As discussed in the previous section, flood plain inundation will require ongoing consultation 

between the licensee and resource managers to effectively implement and balance water 

resources for human needs and the benefit of aquatic and terrestrial resources downstream of the 

Wateree Development. We agree that Duke Energy, DOI, NOAA Fisheries, NPS, and South 

Carolina DNR should review operational experience with the Wateree Spring Stable Flow 

Protocol and consult during the first 10 years following implementation of the FWQIP; at that 

time a petition under standard reopening procedures can be filed with the Commission to 

consider an enforceable license article for compliance with the Wateree Spring Stable Flow 

Protocol. 

Recommendations Under Section 10(a) of the FPA 

We have analyzed recommendations filed by FWS and NOAA Fisheries that we consider 

outside the scope of section 10(j) under section 10(a) of the FPA. Table 133 identifies three 

measures for the Catawba-Wateree Project that we consider under section 10(a). These measures 

are addressed in the specific resource sections of this document. One of the measures considered 

under section 10(a) was recommended by staff. 

5.3 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 

Section 10(a)(2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a 

project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, and 

conserving waterways affected by a project. Under this section, federal and state agencies filed a 

500 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
total of 72 qualifying North Carolina, South Carolina, and federal comprehensive plans, of which 

we identified 11 North Carolina, 7 South Carolina, and 6 federal that are applicable to the 

Catawba-Wateree Project. The continued operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project, as 

recommended in this EIS is consistent with the 24 state and federal plans listed below that are 

applicable to the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

North Carolina 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1995. North Carolina 

outdoor recreation plan (SCORP): 1995-2000. Raleigh, North Carolina. September 

1995. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 1999. Catawba River 

Basinwide water quality plan. Raleigh, North Carolina. December 1999. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2000. Sub-chapter 2BSurface water and wetland standards. Raleigh, North Carolina. August 1, 2000. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2003. Basinwide 

assessment report: Catawba River Basin. Raleigh, North Carolina. June 2003. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2004. Catawba River Basin 

(classifications and water quality standards). Raleigh, North Carolina. August 1, 2004. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and 

Recreation. Systemwide plan for the North Carolina State Parks System, 2000-2005. 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources and North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission. 2001. Catawba River Basin natural resources plan. October 

2001. 

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 2000. Water 

quality progress in North Carolina 1998-1999 305(b) report. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

April 2000. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. Fisheries and wildlife management plan 

for the Catawba River basin. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina wildlife action plan. 

Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition and Pacific Rivers Council. Undated. Protection of 

aquatic biodiversity in the Southern Appalachian National Forests and their watersheds. 

South Carolina 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Catawba River Corridor plan. 

Columbia, South Carolina. September 1994. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2004. South Carolina water plan – second 

edition. Columbia, South Carolina. 2002. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy 2005-2010. Final. Columbia, South Carolina. September 28, 

2005. 

501 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. 2008. South Carolina State 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). Columbia, South Carolina. April 

2008. 

South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism and Palmetto Conservation 

Foundation. 2002. South Carolina trails plan. Columbia, South Carolina. 

South Carolina Water Resources Commission. 1988. Instream flow study – Phase II: 

determination of minimum flow standards to protect instream uses in priority stream 

segments. Report No. 163. Columbia, South Carolina. May 1988. 

South Carolina Water Resources Commission. National Park Service. 1988. South Carolina 

rivers assessment. Columbia, South Carolina. September 1988. 

United States 

Forest Service. 1994. Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests land and resource management 

plan – Amendment 5. Department of Agriculture, Asheville, North Carolina. March 

1994. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American 

waterfowl management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 

1986. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), National Marine Fisheries Service, and South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Santee-Cooper Basin diadromous fish passage 

restoration plan. Charleston, South Carolina. August 28, 2001. 

NPS (National Park Service). 1988. General Management Plan for Congaree Swamp National 

Monument. Department of the Interior. 

NPS (National Park Service). 2004. Resource Management Plan for Congaree National Park. 

Department of the Interior. 

NPS (National Park Service). 1996. Water Resources Management Plan for Congaree Swamp 

National Monument. Department of the Interior. 

502 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
503 

6.0 LITERATURE CITED 

AES (Alderman Environmental Services, Inc.). 2005. Aquatics 06: Mussel survey. Prepared 

for Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina. June 6, 2005. 317 pp. 

American Bird Conservancy. 2001. Partners in Flight bird conservation plan for the South 

Atlantic Coastal Plain (Physiographic Area 03). Version 1.0. Written by William C. 

Hunter, Lori Peoples, and Jaime Collazo. 

__________. 2003. The American Bird Conservancy guide to the 500 most important bird 

areas in the United States: Key sites for birds and birding in all 50 states. Published in 

association with The Nature Conservancy. Random House. 

Audubon North Carolina. 2008. 2004 Important Bird Areas of North Carolina. Accessed 

August 6, 2008. http://nc.audubon.org/IBA_2004IBAsOfNC.html

Brockington and Associates, Inc. 2006. Historic properties management plan for the CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2232) North and South Carolina. Submitted to 

Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by 

Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Carter, Robin M. 2005. An annotated checklist of the birds of Congaree National Park. 

Accessed August 5, 2008. 

http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/chat/issues/2005/v69n1congaree.pdf

Cleveland, M. Todd, and Jeffrey L. Holland. 2004. National Register of Historic Places 

Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, and Mountain Island Developments, North 

Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, 

North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Cleveland, M. Todd, Jeffrey L. Holland, and Ruth D. Nichols. 2004. National Register of 

Historic Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Wylie, 

Fishing Creek, Great Falls–Dearborn, Rocky Creek–Cedar Creek, and Wateree 

Developments, South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy 

Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Cordell, H. Ken, J.M. Bower, and Donald B.K. English. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American 

life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends, pp. 323-351 in Cordell, H. 

Ken; Carter Betz, J.M. Bow, and others. Sagamore Publishing, Champaign, Illinois. 

Coughlan, David J., D. Hugh Barwick, B. Kim Baker, W. Mark Rash, A. Brad Garner, and 

W. Robert Doby. 2005a. Aquatics 01: Fish community assessment. Prepared for Duke 

Power Company and Geosyntec, Inc. June 24, 2005. 207 pp. 

Coughlan, David J., B. Kim Baker, D. Hugh Barwick, Gene E. Vaughan, A. Brad Garner, W. 

Robert Doby, John E. Derwort, and W. Mark Rash. 2005b. Aquatics 03: Diadromous 

fish studies. Prepared for Duke Power Company and Geosyntec, Inc. June 29, 2005. 

252 pp. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Cummings, K., and G. Watters. 2004. Mussel/Host Data Base. Molluscs Division of the 

Museum of Biological Diversity at the Ohio State University. 

http://128.146.250.234/MusselHost/

Dorcas, Michael E. 2005a. Herpetological inventory of the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches, 

South Carolina. Final report prepared for Duke Power Company. March 14, 2005. 

__________. 2005b. Rare, threatened and endangered amphibians and reptiles within the 

Catawba-Wateree River System. Final Report prepared for Duke Power Company. 

March 14, 2005. 

DTA (Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc.). 2005a. Wetlands mapping and characterization 

study report. Prepared for Duke Power. March 2005. 

__________. 2005b. A biological survey for breeding, migratory, wintering and resident avian 

species associated with the Catawba and Wateree Relicensing Project Area North 

Carolina and South Carolina. Prepared for Duke Power by Devine Tarbell And 

Associates and GeoSyntec Consultants. July 2005. 

__________. 2006. Wateree River inundation study report (Terrestrial 02). Prepared for Duke 

Power. July 2006. 

DTA and LEI (Lakeside Engineering, Inc.). 2005. Fish passage assessment, Wateree through 

Fishing Creek. Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2232. 

Prepared for Duke Power, Charlotte, North Carolina. 

Duke Energy (Duke Power Company, LLC). 2003. Fish stage consultation document, 

Catawba-Wateree Project No. 2232. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, North Carolina. 

__________. 2005a. Reservoir level study report (Operations 02). January 31, 2005. 100 pp. 

__________. 2005b. Aquatics 02: Reservoir Fish Habitat Assessment. 91 pp. 

__________. 2006a. Comprehensive relicensing agreement for the CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2232. Signature copy revision 1. 

December 22, 2006. 

__________. 2006b. Wateree high water level management study report (Operations 

08). April 9, 2006. 212 pp. 

__________. 2006c. Catawba currents newsletter for neighbors and stakeholders along the 

Catawba River. June 2006. 5 pp. Accessed July 30, 2008. http://www.dukeenergy.com/pdfs/currents_summer_06.pdf

__________. 2006d. Duke Energy Catawba-Wateree relicensing (FERC 2232) species 

protection plan: Rocky shoals spider lily (Hymenocallis coronaria). April 2006. 

__________. 2006e. Duke Energy Catawba-Wateree Relicensing (FERC No. 2232) species 

protection plan: Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). April 2006. 

__________. 2006f. Duke Energy Catawba-Wateree Relicensing (FERC No. 2232) species 

protection plan: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). April 2006. 

__________. 2006g. Duke Energy Catawba-Wateree Relicensing (FERC No. 2232) species 

protection plan: Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). April 2006. 

504 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
__________. 2006h. Duke Energy Catawba-Wateree Relicensing (FERC No. 2232) species 

protection plan: Dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora). April 2006. 

__________. 2006i. Duke Energy Catawba-Wateree Relicensing (FERC No. 2232) species 

protection plan: Wood stork (Mycteria americana). April 2006. 

__________. 2006a. Recreation flow study report. June 22, 2006. 

__________. 2007. Catawba-Wateree Project FERC #2232. Application for new license. 

Flora of North America. 2008. Flora of North America online as EFloras.com. Canada 

moonseed species account. Accessed August 13, 2008. 

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=220008359

__________. 2008. Flora of North America online as EFloras.com. Prairie trillium species 

account. Accessed August 13, 2008. 

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242102007

Forest Service. 2003. Conservation assessment for ovate catchfly (Silene ovata) Pursh. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Eastern Region. May 9, 2003. 

FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Recovery plan, Schweinitz’s sunflower 

(Helianthus schweinitzii). Atlanta Georgia. 28 pages. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/940422.pdf

__________. 1997a. Recovery plan for (Lasmisgona decorata) Lea. FWS Southeast Region, 

Atlanta, Georgia. 30 pp. 

__________. 1997b. Revised recovery plan for the U.S. breeding population of the wood stork. 

FWS Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 41 pp. 

__________. 1998. Final recovery plan for the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). 

Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, Maryland. 

December 1998. 104 pages. 

__________. 2001. Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) Northern population recovery plan. 

Hadley, Massachusetts. 103 pp. 

__________. 2007. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form, Georgia aster 

(Symphyotrichum georgianum). November 27, 2007. Accessed September 25, 2008. 

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r4/Q2Z5_P01.pdf

__________. 2008. Endangered species program. Accessed June 23, 2008. 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered

FWS, NOAA Fisheries (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration National Marine Fisheries Service), and South Carolina DNR (South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 2001. Santee-Cooper Basin diadromous 

fish passage restoration plan. Charleston, South Carolina. August 28, 2001. 50 pp. 

Gaddy, L.L. 2005. Botanical study of the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches of the Catawba River. 

Prepared by L.L. Gaddy for Devine Tarbell and Associates and Duke Power Company. 

Charlotte, North Carolina. January 2005. 

505 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Geosyntec Consultants. 2005. Aquatics 05: Fish entrainment evaluation. Prepared for Devine 

Tarbell and Associates, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina. June 2005. 208 pp. 

Green, William. 2004. Phase II archaeological testing at Site 38CS321, Fishing Creek Lake, 

Chester County, South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy 

Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

HDR (HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas. 2006. Water supply study, final report, 

Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Relicensing Project. Prepared for Duke Energy 

Corporation. April 2006. 84 pp. plus appendices. 

Joy, Deborah. 2004. Cultural resource context for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project. 

Submitted to Duke Power, a Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North 

Carolina by Legacy Research Associates, Inc., Durham, North Carolina. 

Keller, A., and D.S. Ruessler. 1997. Determination of verification of host fish for nine species 

of unionid mussels. American Midland Naturalist 138:402-407. 

Kneeland, S.C., and J.M. Rhymer. 2008. Determination of fish host use by wild populations of 

rare freshwater mussels using a molecular identification key to identify glochida. 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27:15-160. 

Kovacik, Charles, and John Winberry. 1987. South Carolina: The making of a landscape. 

Westview Press, Inc. 

Millis, Heather. 2004. Cultural resources survey for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric 

Relicensing Project, Alexander, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell, 

and Mecklenberg Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of 

Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG). 1999. Impact analysis for planning (IMPLAN) pro 2.0 

model software. May, 1999. 

NatureServe. 2008. Comprehensive report: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) 

Accessed August 8, 2008. 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchSciOrCommonName=a

merican+alligator&x=2&y=8

NPS (National Park Service). 2009. Congaree National Park website. Accessed June 7, 2009. 

http://www.nps.gov/cosw 

Nelson, John B. 1986. The communities of South Carolina: Initial classification and 

description. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Division of 

Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. February, 1986. 

Newcomb, T.J., and J.S. Fuller. 2001. Anadromous and catadromous fish survey of 

Santee/Cooper Basin in North Carolina and South Carolina. Final report prepared for 

Duke Power. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 

Norris, Sean. 2004. Cultural resources survey for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, 

Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster and York Counties, South Carolina. Submitted to 

Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, by TRC, 

Columbia, South Carolina. 

506 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
North Carolina DENR (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources) and 

North Carolina WRC (Wildlife Resources Commission). 2001. Catawba River Basin 

natural resources plan. October 2001. 

North Carolina DWQ (North Carolina Department of Water Quality). 2002. Catawba River 

water quality plan. Raleigh. September 2002. 

__________. 2003. Basinwide assessment report, Catawba River Basin. Raleigh. June 2003. 

__________. 2004a. North Carolina 1998-1999 305(b) report. 

__________. 2004b. Catawba River basinwide water quality plan. September, 2004. 

__________. 2007. North Carolina 303(d) list – 2006. Raleigh. 125 pp. 

__________. 2008a. 303(d) list, draft for public review, January 10, 2008. Raleigh. 96 pp. 

Accessed July 16, 2008. 

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/General_303d.htm#Questions_About_the_List

__________. 2008b. Lake and reservoir assessments, Catawba River Basin. Intensive Survey 

Unit, Environmental Sciences Section. Raleigh. June 5, 2008. 21 pp. 

__________. 2008c. Modeling and TMDL unit: NC TMDLs. Accessed August 22, 2008. 

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/TMDL_list.htm

__________. 2008d. Basinwide assessment report, Catawba River Basin. Environmental 

Sciences Section. Raleigh. 33 pp. plus appendices. 

North Carolina NHP (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program). 2008. Dwarf-flowered 

heartleaf fact sheet. Accessed June 24, 2008. http://www.ncnhp.org/images/83.pdf

North Carolina State Data Center. 2008. Projected annual county population totals 2010-2019. 

Accessed August 19, 2008. 

http://www.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm/facts_and_figures/socioeconomic_data/population_

estimates/demog/cpa2010p.html. 

North Carolina WRC (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission). 2008a. Fish 

consumption advisories. Accessed August 24, 2008. 

http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/current.html

__________. 2008b. Accessed June 25, 2008. http://www.ncwildlife.org

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2008. Survey staff, NRCS, United States 

Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. Accessed 

August 6, 2008. http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov

NPS (National Park Service). 2008. Plant invaders of Mid-Atlantic natural areas website. 

Marsh dewflower (Murdannia keisak) species information. Accessed July 30, 2008. 

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/pubs/midatlantic/muke.htm

Potter, Eloise F, James F. Parnell, and Robert P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. 

University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 

rssWeather. 2008a. Climate for Charlotte, North Carolina website. Accessed August 20, 2008. 

http://www.rssweather.com/climate/North%20Carolina/Charlotte/

507 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
__________. 2008b. Climate for Columbia, South Carolina website. Accessed August 20, 

2008. http://www.rssweather.com/climate/South%20Carolina/Columbia/

South Carolina Budget and Control Board. 2006. South Carolina state and county population 

projections 2010-2015. Accessed August 19, 2008. 

http://www.ors2.state.sc.us/population/proj2015.php. 

South Carolina DHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control). 

2005. Watershed water quality assessment, Catawba River Basin. Bureau of Water, 

Technical Report No. 012-05, Columbia. 159 pp. 

__________. 2006. South Carolina Catawba/Wateree River Basin facilities water use report. 

January, 2006. 

__________. 2008a. The State of South Carolina’s 2008 integrated report. July 11, 2008. 

Accessed July 16, 2008. http://www.scdhec.net/environment/water/tmdl/. 

__________. 2008b. Total maximum daily load (TMDL) development. Accessed August 24, 

2008. http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/tmdl/tmdlsud.htm

__________. 2008c. Fish advisories, Wateree River – entire river. Accessed August 24, 2008. 

http://www.scdhec.gov/environment/water/fish/Advisories/wateree.thm

South Carolina DNR (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources). 2008. Accessed June 

25, 2008. http://www.dnr.sc.gov

__________. 2005. South Carolina comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy 2005-2010. 

Final. Columbia, South Carolina. September 28, 2005. 

South Carolina Legislature. 2008. South Carolina Legislature Online – Code of Laws 

(Unannotated). Title 48 – Environmental Protection and Conservation. Accessed 

August 12, 2008. http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t48c039.doc

Study Team/Resource Committee. 2006. Final Catawba-Wateree recreation use and needs 

study (REC01). April 3, 2006. 

Tibbetts, Rachel, and Bobby Southerlin. 2003. Archaeological shoreline survey at Fishing 

Creek Lake, Chester and Lancaster Counties, South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, 

Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by Brockington and 

Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina 

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2008a. Aquatic plant invasive species website – 

Hydrilla verticillata. Accessed July 30, 2008. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/plants/html/hydrilla.html 

__________. 2008b. Aquatic plant invasive species website –Myriophyllum aquaticum. 

Accessed July 30, 2008. 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil.aqua/apis/plants/html/myriophy.html. 

__________. 2008c. Aquatic plant invasive species website – Egeria densa. Accessed July 30, 

2008. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/aqua/apis/html/egeria_d.html

USACE Wilmington District, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), North Carolina 

Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality 

(DWQ). 2003. Stream mitigation guidelines. 

508 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
USCB (U.S. Census Bureau). 1990. Census 1990 data sets. Accessed August 19, 2008. 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenu

Id=datasets_3&_lang=en&_ts

__________. 2000. Census 2000 demographic profile highlights. Accessed August 19, 2008. 

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html. 

__________. 2006. 2006 American community survey, data profile highlights. Accessed 

August 19, 2008. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

Webster, Wm. David. 2005a. The mammals of the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches (Great FallsDearborn Development) in South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power Company, by 

Wm. David Webster, PhD, Department of Biological Sciences, University of North 

Carolina at Wilmington. March 14, 2005. 

__________. 2005b. Rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) mammals of the CatawbaWateree Project Area in North and South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power Company, 

by Wm. David Webster, PhD, Department of Biological Sciences, University of North 

Carolina at Wilmington. June 30, 2005. 

Whitley, Thomas G., and David S. Leigh. 2005. Evaluation of the natural and cultural impacts 

at the Mulberry Site (38KE12), Kershaw County, South Carolina. Submitted to Duke 

Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by Brockington 

and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. 

509 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
This page intentionally left blank. 

510 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
511 

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Allan Creamer—Senior Technical Advisor (M.S., Fisheries Management) 

Sean Murphy—Coordinator/Fisheries (Fisheries Biologist; M.S., Fisheries Management) 

Stephen Bowler—Water Resources (Fish Biologist; M.S., Aquatic Ecology) 

Sarah Florentino—Terrestrial Resources /RTE (Environmental Biologist; M.S., Applied 

Ecology; B.A., Environmental Studies) 

Kim Carter--Need for Power, Developmental Analysis (Engineer; B.S. Civil Engineering; 

M. Eng. Engineering Management, M.S. Industrial Engineering) 

Janet Hutzel—Cultural Resources (B.S. Environmental Analysis and Planning; M.S., 

Geography) 

Allyson Conner— Recreation and Land Use Resources (B.A., Recreation; M.S., Recreation 

Management) 

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 

Jeffrey M. Boltz—Project Management and Senior Technical Review Aquatic Resources and 

Water Resources (Senior Scientist/Project Manager; Ph.D., Ecology/Ichthyology; B.S., 

Biology/Aquatic Sciences) 

Suzanne E. Boltz—Comprehensive Development and Senior Technical Review/Overview 

(Senior Scientist/Project Manager; M.S., Fish and Wildlife Sciences; B.S., Environmental 

Biology) 

Thomas C. Cook—Developmental Analysis and Comprehensive Development (Senior Engineer; 

B.S., Civil Engineering) 

Sanita A. Corum—Developmental Analysis and Comprehensive Development (Environmental 

Scientist; B.S., Computer Information Systems) 

Jeannette M. Dawson—Water Quality (Environmental Scientist; B.S., Biology) 

Jacquelyn M. Dierksen—Developmental Analysis (Intern; M.S.E., Environmental Engineering; 

B.S., Biological Systems Engineering) 

Janet L. Earickson—Editorial Review (Technical Writer/Editor; M.S., Professional Writing; 

B.A., Geography and English; Certificate in Environmental Studies) 

H. Jeffrey Elseroad— Water Resources and Aquatic Resources (Senior Environmental Scientist; 

M.S.E., Environmental Engineering; B.A., Chemistry) 

Jeffrey W. Hills—Program Management (Program Manager, Federal Programs/Contracts; M.S., 

Civil Engineering (MSCE); M.S., Management (MSM/MBA); B.S., U.S. Military 

Academy, West Point) 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Mary Alice Koeneke—Geology and Soils, Terrestrial Resources (Senior Environmental 

Scientist; M.S., Biology/Environmental Science; B.S., Biology) 

Tracy J. Layfield—Socioeconomics (Environmental Scientist; B.S., Biology) 

Nicholas L. Lindow—Geology and Soils (Water Resources Specialist, Staff Engineer; Ph.D., 

Biological and Agricultural Engineering; M.S., Civil, Environmental, and Construction 

Engineering; B.S., Civil Engineering) 

Paul H. Muessig—Aquatic Resources and Water Resources (Senior Environmental Scientist; 

M.S., Biological Oceanography; B.A., Biology) 

Christine Papageorgis—Senior Technical Review/Overview (Chief Scientist; Ph.D., Ecology and 

Evolutionary Biology; B.S., Biology) 

Allison Rowland—(Environmental Scientist; M.S, Organismal Biology and Ecology; B.S., 

Biology) 

Long View Associates 

Wendy Bley—Shoreline Management Plan, Land Use and Aesthetics (Senior Consultant; M.S., 

Natural Resources Management) 

Joyce Brooks—Recreational Resources (Consultant; B.S., Biology – Environmental Science 

Emphasis) 

New South Associates 

Natalie Paige Adams—Cultural Resources (Senior Technical Review; M.A., Public Service 

Archaeology; B.A., Anthropology and History) 

William Matthew Tankersley—Cultural Resources (Archaeologist; M.A., Historic Preservation; 

B.A, Anthropology) 

512 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
APPENDIX A 

PROJECT FIGURES 

A-1 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
40

70

221

221

Paddy Cre ek

Paddy Creek

Linville Ri ver

Linville River

Catawba River

Catawba River

North

Fo

rk Catawba River

North

Fo

rk Catawba Riv

er

Lake James

Lake James

MMaarriioonn

Glen

Alpine

Glen

Alpine

MMoorrggaannttoonn

Ru R

s sell Cr eek

us sell Cr eek

Sh ooks Creek

Shooks Creek

Black Fork

Black Fork

Bailey

Creek

Bailey Creek

Dales

Cree k

Dales

Cree k

White

Cree k

White

Creek

Bear Creek

Bear Creek

Cox Creek

Cox Creek

Sandy Br anch

Sandy Branch

BBiiggCCaammp Creek p Creek

Shehan BranchShehan Branch

Conl ey Branch

Conl ey Branch

PPiissggaahh NNaattiioonnaallFFoorreesstt

1233

Catawba Dam

Linville Dam

Paddy

Creek

Dam

Catawba River Bypassed Reach

Paddy Creek

Bypassed Reach

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A1

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 1 2

Miles

Figure A-1 - Bridgewater Development Project Area, Catawba River, Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
LLaakkee RRhhooddhhiissss

Smoky Creek

Smoky Creek

Bristol C reek

Bristol C reek

McGalliard Creek

McGalliard Creek

Littl e Gunpowder Creek

Little Gunpowder Creek

Fiddlers

Run

Fiddlers

Run

Stafford Creek

Stafford Creek

W arrior F ork

Warrior Fork

Drowning

Creek

Drowning

Creek

Micol C re ek

Micol C reek

Sec r ets

C reek

Sec rets

C reek

Cata wba River

Catawba River

Jumping

Run

Jumping

Run

Island Creek (Lail Creek)

Island Creek (Lail Creek)

Haye s Mill Creek

Haye s Mill Creek

Howard Creek (Propst Creek)Howard Creek (Propst Creek)

Husband Creek

Husband Creek

Jumping Branch

Jumping Branch

Pee Dee BranchPee Dee Branch

Hunting

Creek

Hunting

Creek

Lower Creek

Lower Creek

John

s

Ri ve r

John

s

Ri ve r

40

70

321

64

MMoorrggaannttoonn

IIccaarrdd

SSaawwmmiillllss

VVaallddeessee

SSaalleemm

HHuuddssoonn

GGaammeewweellll

DDrreexxeell

GGrraanniittee FFaallllss

CCoonnnneellllyy SSpprriinnggss

Cajah's

Mountain

Cajah's

Mountain

Rutherford

College

Rutherford

College

LLeennooiirr

RRhhooddhhiissss

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A2

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

0 2

Miles

Figure A-2. Rhodiss Development Project Area, Catawba River, Caldwell County, North Carolina

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
40

70

321

Sn

o

w Creek

Sn

o

w

Creek

Upper Little River

Upper Little River

L

o

n

g

Sh

o

al Creek

L

o

n

g

Sh

o

al Creek

Middle

Little River

Middle

Little Rive

G

r

unpowder Cre

ek

Gunpowder Cre

ek

Lower Little River

Lower Little River

La ke Hickory

La ke Hickory

HHiicckkoorryy

CCoonnoovveerr

SStt.. SStteepphheennss

BBeetthhlleehheemm

IIccaarrdd LLoonngg VViieeww

GGrraanniittee FFaallllss

HHiillddeebbrraann

CCllaarreemmoonntt

MMoouunnttaaiinn VViieeww NNeewwttoonn

SSaawwmmiillllss

BBrrooookkffoorrdd

Lyle Cree k

Lyle Cree k

Bakers Creek

Bakers Creek

Rock C reek

Rock C reek

S ilver Creek

S ilver Creek

I sa ac Creek

I sa ac Creek

Frye C reek

Frye C reek

Mi l l Creek

Mi l l Creek

Glade Creek

Glade Creek

Herman Bra nch

Herman Bra nch

L ong Creek

L ong Creek

Mahaffie Branc h

Mahaffie Branch

Barg er Branch

Barg er Branch

Mull Creek

Mull Creek

De llin ger Creek

De llin ger Creek

Billy Bra nch

Billy Bra nch

Ju mping Run

Ju mping Run

Dro w ning Creek

Dro w ning Creek

Clark Creek

Clark Creek

L yle Creek

L yle Creek

Henry Fork

Henry Fork

Mull C reekMull C reek

Roc k Creek Roc k Creek

Oxford Dam

Rhodhiss Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A3

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 1 2

Miles

Figure A-3. Oxford Development Project Area, Catawba River, Caldwell, Alexander, and Catawba Counties, North Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Lower Little River

Lower Little River

Lak e Hickory

Lak e Hickory

Lookout Shoals Lake

Lookout Shoals Lake

40

64

CCoonnoovveerr

SSttoonnyy PPooiinntt

Big Branch

Big Branch

Bakers Creek

Bakers Creek

Buffalo Shoals Creek

Buffalo Shoals Creek

Elk S hoal Cree k (East Side)

Elk S hoal Cree k (East Side)

Guys Branch

Guys Branch

Delling er Creek

Delling er Creek

N aked Creek

N aked Creek

Elk Shoal Creek (West Side)Elk Shoal Creek (West Side)

Islan d Creek Islan d Creek

Lyle Creek

Lyle Creek

Benfiel d Cre ek

Benfield Cre ek

G ol be Creek

G ol be Creek

Oxford Dam

Lookout Shoals Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A4

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure A-4. Lookout Shoals Development Project Area, Catawba River, Alexander, Iredell, and Catawba Counties, North Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
LLyyllee Crreeeekk

MccLLiinn CCrreeeekk

BBaallllss

CCrree eekk

MMaaiiddeenn CCrreeeekk

BBeeaavveerrddaamm CCrreeeekk

WWiitthhrrooww CCrreeeekk

BBaacckk CCrreeeekk

RRoocc

kkyy

RRiivvee rr

CCoodd dd llee

CCrree

ee

kk

Kiilllliiaann

CCrreeee

kk

FFoorrnneeyy

CCrreeeekk

CCrreeeekk

LLeeeeppeerrss

LLiippppaarrdd

CCrreeee kk

AAnnddeerrssoonn

Crreeeekk

SSnnyyddeerr CCrr eeee kk

BB

aa ll llaarrdd CC rreeeekk

RReeeedd CCrreeee kk

HHaaggaann

FFoorrkk

SSii lllsls

CCrree eekk

DD

yy

ee

CC rree

ee kk

WWeess tt BBrraa nn

cchh

RR

oo cc kk

yy

RR ii vv

ee rr

u

tt SShhooaallss

LLaakkee

NNoorrmmaann

40

70

70

321

77

40

21

321

CCoonnoovveerr

NNeewwttoonn

CCllaarreemmoonntt

CCaattaawwbbaa

LLaakkee NNoorrmmaann

MMoooorreessvviillllee

HHuunntteerrssvviillllee

MMaaiiddeenn

LLiinnccoollnnttoonn DDaavviiddssoonn

CCoorrnneelliiuuss

CCrree

eekk

MMuullll CCrreeeekk

BBrrooaadd MMeeaaddooww CCrreeeekk

SS

hh

oo

aa ll ss

CCrree

ee

kk

Murrays Mill Lake

Cowans Ford Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A5

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 2 4

Miles

Figure A-5. Cowans Ford Development Project Area, Catawba River, Iredell and Catawba Counties, North Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Bypassed Reach

77

21

MMccDDoowweellll CCrreeeekk

GGaarr CCrreeeekk

HHuunntteerrssvviillllee

CChhaarrlloottttee

LLoowweessvviillllee

MMoouunntt HHoollllyy LLoonngg CC rreeeekk

SS ttaannl

leeyy CCrreeeekk

LLee ee ppeerr ss

CC rree

ee

kk

JJoohhnnssoonn

CCrreeeekk

MMccIInntt yy rree CC rreeeekk

TTaa yy l

loorrss CCrreeeekk

GGuutttteerrBBrraanncchh

DDii

xxoonn BBrraanncchh

SSoo uu tt hh SSttaannlleeyy CCrreeeekk

GGuumm BBrraanncchh

Killian

Creek

Killian

Creek

IIrrwwiinn

CC rr ee

eekk

SSwwaarri

inn

ggee

rr LLaakkee

DD

uu tt cc

hh

mm

aann

ss

CC rreeeekk

MMttnn..

IIssllaanndd

LLaakkee

Mountain Island Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A6

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure A-6. Mountain Island Development Project Area, Catawba River, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
277

85

77

21

29

321

21

485

NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA

Cro wders Creek

Cro wders Creek

South Fork Catawba River

South Fork Catawba River

Dutchm

a

n's

Creek

Dutchm

a

n's

Creek

Lake Wylie

Charlotte

GGaassttoonniiaa

MMaatttthheewwss

RRoocckk HHiillll

HHuunntteerrssvviillllee

BBeellmmoonntt

MMtt.. HHoollllyy

Lake Wylie Dam

Mountain Island Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A7

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 2 4

Miles

Figure A-7. Wylie Development Project Area, Catawba River, Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, North Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
WWaaxxhhaaww CCrreeeekk

CCaannee

CCrreeeekk

TTwweellvveemmiillee CCrreeeekk

77

21

521

121

9

NNOORRTTHH CCAARROOLLIINNAA

SSOOUUTTHH CCAARROOLLIINNAA

Fishing Creek reservoir

RRoocckk HHiillll

MMoonnrrooee

MMiinneerraall SSpprriinnggss

WWaaxxhhaaww

GGrreeaatt FFaallllss

FFoorrtt

LLaawwnn

RRiicchhbbuurrgg

HHeeaatthh

SSpprriinnggss

SSpprriinnggddaallee

EEllggiinn

LLeesssslliiee

Fishing Creek Dam

Great Falls-Dearborn Diversion Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A8

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 2 4

Miles

Figure A-8. Fishing Creek Development Project Area, Catawba River, York, Chester, and Lancaster Counties, South Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
21

CCaammpp CCrreeeekk

Roocckkyy CCrreeeekk

RRoocckkyy CCrreeeekk

GGrreeaatt FFaallllss

FFiisshhiinngg CCrreeeekk

rreesseerrvvooiirr

GGrreeaatt FFaallllss

rreesseerrvvooiirr

CCeeddaarr CCrreeeekk

rreesseerrvvooiirr

Great Falls Bypass Reaches

Dearborn Dam

Great Falls Dam

Cedar Creek Dam

Rocky Creek Dam

Fishing Creek Dam

Great Falls-Dearborn Diversion Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A9

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure A-9. Great Falls and Dearborn Development Project Area, Catawba River, Chester and Lancaster Counties, South Carolina

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
21

Roocckkyy Crreeeekk

GGrreeaatt FFaallllss rreesseerrvvooiirr

LLaakkee

WWaatteerreeee

GGrreeaatt FFaallllss

CCeeddaarr CCrreeeekk

rreesseerrvvooiirr

GGaarr CCrreeeekk

Dearborn Dam

Great Falls Dam

Cedar Creek Dam

Rocky Creek Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A10

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 0.25 0.5

Miles

Figure A-10. Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Development Project Area, Catawba River, Chester and Lancaster Counties, South Carolina

Area Enlarged

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
77

21

BBeeaavveerr CCrreeeekk

SSiinngglleettoonn CCrreeeekk

BBiigg Waatteerreeee CCrreeee kk

WWhhiittee

OOaakk

CCrreeeekk

DDuuttcchhmmaann''ss CCrreeeekk

LLiittttllee

WWaatteerreeee CCrreeeekk

LLaakkee WWaatteerreeee

Wateree Dam

Cedar Creek Dam

Rocky Creek Dam

\\lovetoncad\projects\GIS\BACKUP\1457301\MXD\A11

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

Legend

0 1 2

Miles

Figure A-11. Wateree Development Project Area, Fairfield and Kershaw Counties, South Carolina

Land Cover

Barren

Cropland

Grass / Pasture

Hardwood Forest

Mixed Hardwood / Pine Forest

Pine Forest

Project Works

Residential / Scattered Homes

Scrub / Shrub

Urban / Built-Up

Mussel Locations

Reservoir Contains Invasive

Aquatic Species

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Flora

Dam

Powerhouse

Rare, Threatened and

Endangered Fauna

Project Boundary

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
APPENDIX B 

HIGH-VALUE WETLANDS 

B-1 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Congaree Swamp

National Park

Congaree Swamp

National Park

LLeeeeSSttaatteePPaarrkk

Columbia

CCaammddeenn

BBiisshhooppvviillllee

Sumter

20

77

26

95

76

1

21

15

401

378

521

321

176

521

Wateree River

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

C:\WORK\1457301\MXD\B1

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

USFWS, 2008

Legend

0 3 6

Miles

Figure B-1. Wateree River (RM 0.0-RM 66.0)

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Dam

Powerhouse

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Other

Riverine

Project Boundary

River Mile (approximate)

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
21

CCaammpp CCrreeeekk

Roocckkyy CCrreeeekk

GGrreeaatt FFaallllss

FFiisshhiinngg CCrreeeekk

rreesseerrvvooiirr

GGrreeaatt FFaallllss

rreesseerrvvooiirr

CCeeddaarr CCrreeeekk

rreesseerrvvooiirr

Rocky Creek Powerhouse

Fishing Creek Powerhouse

Great Falls and

Dearborn

Powerhouses

Cedar Creek Powerhouse

Dearborn Dam

Great Falls Dam

Cedar Creek Dam Rocky Creek Dam

Fishing Creek Dam

9999

9988

110044

110033

110022

110011

110000

C:\WORK\1457301\MXD\B2

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

USFWS, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure B-2. Great Falls

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Dam

Powerhouse

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Project Boundary

River Mile (approximate)

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Cane Creek Cane Creek

Fishing Creek

reservoir

Fishing Creek

reservoir

IIrrwwiinn

SSpprriinnggddaallee

LLaannccaasstteerr

FFoorrtt LLaawwnn

LLaannccaasstteerr MMiillll

114

113

112

111

110

109

21

C:\WORK\1457301\MXD\B3

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

USFWS, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure B-3. Cane Creek Confluence

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Other

Project Boundary

River Mile (approximate)

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
NORTH CAROLINA

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

RRoocckk HHiillll

LLaakkee WWyylliiee

148

147

146

145

144

143

274

49

C:\WORK\1457301\MXD\B4

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

USFWS, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure B-4. Big Allison Cove

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Other

Project Boundary

River Mile (approximate)

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Lake

Norman

Lake

Norman

Reed's Creek

MMoooorreessvviillllee

Sherrills

Ford

Sherrills

Ford

Lake Norman

of Catawba

Lake Norman

of Catawba

205

204

203

202

201

200

199

198

197

196 77

21

150

115

152

115

C:\WORK\1457301\MXD\B5

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

USFWS, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure B-5. Reed's Cove

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Project Boundary

River Mile (approximate)

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
MMoorrggaannttoonn

DDrreexxeell

64

Lake Rhodhiss

Warrior Fork

Warrior Fork

Wilson Creek

Wilson Creek

Johns River

Johns River

Catawba RiverCatawba River

264

263

262

261

260

259

258

C:\WORK\1457301\MXD\B6

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

USFWS, 2008

Legend

0 0.5

Miles

Figure B-6. Johns River Area

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Wetlands

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Project Boundary

River Mile (approximate)

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
MMaarriioonn

40

70

Lake James

PPiissggaahh NNaattiioonnaallFFoorreesstt

North Fork Catawba River

North Fork Catawba River

Catawba RiverCatawba River

Catawba Dam

Paddy Creek Dam

295

294

293

292

291

290 289

288

287

286

285

284

283

282

281

280

279

C:\WORK\1457301\MXD\B7

Sources:

ESRI StreetMap, 2006

FERC, 2008

USFWS, 2008

Legend

0 0.5 1

Miles

Figure B-7. Catawba River Bypassed Reach and Lake James

77

40

20

85

CChhaarrlloottttee

CCoolluummbbiiaa

SC

NC

Dam

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Project Boundary

River Mile (approximate)

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
APPENDIX C 

SOIL MAP UNIT DESCRIPTIONS 

C-1 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Types, composition, and erosion factors associated with the soils of the Catawba-Wateree 

developments. 

Development Soil map unit Composition Erosion factor 

(Kf)

1

41% Hayesville 0.28 

Hayesville-Evard 39% Evard 0.28 

20% soils of minor extent NA 

31% Iotla 0.20 

16% Braddock 0.32 

13% Rosman 0.15 

11% Potomac 0.10 

Iotla-BraddockRosman-Potomac 

29% soils of minor extent NA 

50% Northcove 0.2 

33% Lonon 0.37 

Bridgewater 

Northcove-Lonon 

17% soils of minor extent NA 

40% Cecil 0.17 

40% Pacolet 0.20 

6% Rion 0.17 Rhodhiss Cecil-PacoletRion 

14% soils of minor extent NA 

45% Pacolet 0.20 

Pacolet-Cecil 35% Cecil 0.17 

20% soils of minor extent NA 

72% Pacolet 0.20 

Pacolet-Rion 10 % Rion 0.17 

18% soils of minor extent NA 

44% Hibriten 0.17 

26% Bethlehem 0.20 

23% Pacolet 0.20 

HibritenBethlehemPacolet 7% soils of minor extent NA 

30% Hiwassee 0.28 

Hiwassee-Cecil 30% Cecil 0.17 

40% soils of minor extent NA 

65% Cecil 0.17 

Oxford 

Cecil 35% soils of minor extent NA 

45% Pacolet 0.20 

Pacolet-Cecil 35% Cecil 0.17 

20% soils of minor extent NA 

30% Hiwassee 0.28 

Hiwassee-Cecil 30% Cecil 0.17 

40% soils of minor extent NA 

43% Lloyd 0.28 

35% Cecil 0.17 

Lookout 

Shoals 

Lloyd-Cecil 

22% soils of minor extent NA 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Development Soil map unit Composition Erosion factor 

(Kf)

1

45% Pacolet 0.20 

Pacolet-Cecil 35% Cecil 0.17 

20% soils of minor extent NA 

43% Lloyd 0.28 

Lloyd-Cecil 35% Cecil 0.17 

22% soils of minor extent NA 

65% Cecil 0.17 

Cowans Ford 

Cecil 35% soils of minor extent NA 

65% Cecil 0.17 Cecil 35% soils of minor extent NA 

40% Wilkes 0.32 

Wilkes-Enon 30% Enon 0.32 

30% soils of minor extent NA 

40% Iredell 0.28 

35% Mecklenburg 0.24 IredellMecklenburg 25% soils of minor extent NA 

70% Gaston 0.10 

9% Winnsboro 0.28 

8% Cecil 0.17 

GastonWinnsboro-Cecil 

13% soils of minor extent NA 

47% Appling 0.20 

21% Wedowee 0.20 

20% Pacolet 0.20 

ApplingWedowee-Pacolet 

12% soils of minor extent NA 

80% Monacan 0.37 

Mountain 

Island 

Monacan 20% soils of minor extent NA 

65% Cecil 0.17 Cecil 35% soils of minor extent NA 

38% Cecil 0.17 

Cecil-Urban Land 30% Urban land NA 

32% soils of minor extent NA 

30-50% Cecil 0.17 

Cecil-Pacolet 25-30% Pacolet 0.20 

20-25% soils of minor extent NA 

Cecil-Lloyd- 50% Cecil 0.17 

Appling 50% Appling 0.20 

70% Gaston 0.10 

9% Winnsboro 0.28 

8% Cecil 0.17 

GastonWinnsboro-Cecil 

13% soils of minor extent NA 

75% Enon-Mecklenburg 0.32/ 

0.24 

Wylie 

EnonMecklenburg 25% soils of minor extent NA 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Development Soil map unit Composition Erosion factor 

(Kf)

1

64% Cecil 0.17 

Cecil-Davidson 7% Davidson 0.28 

29% soils of minor extent NA 

45% Wedowee 0.20 

24% Wilkes 0.32 

9% Gullied Land NA 

WedoweeWilkes-Gullied 

Land 22% soils of minor extent NA 

35% Pacolet 0.20 

30% Lockhart 0.20 

20% Gullied Land NA 

Pacolet-LockhartGullied Land 

5% soils of minor extent NA 

55-60% Chewacla 0.28 

Chewacla-Toccoa 30-35% Toccoa 0.24 

10% soils of minor extent NA 

Wylie 

Regulated 

River Reach 

ChewaclaCongareeWickham 

Information not available 

NA 

37-46% Cecil 0.17 

23-32% Pacolet 0.20 

6-8% Appling 0.20 

Cecil-PacoletAppling 

16-32% soils of minor extent NA 

64% Cecil 0.17 

Cecil-Davidson 7% Davidson 0.28 

29% soils of minor extent NA 

55-60% Chewacla 0.28 

30-35% Toccoa 0.24 

Fishing 

Creek 

Chewacla-Toccoa 

10% soils of minor extent NA 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Development Soil map unit Composition Erosion factor 

(Kf)

1

37-46% Cecil 0.17 

23-32% Pacolet 0.20 

6-8% Appling 0.20 

Cecil-PacoletAppling 

16-32% soils of minor extent NA 

45% Wedowee 0.20 

24% Wilkes 0.32 

9% Gullied Land NA 

Great FallsDearborn WedoweeWilkes-Gullied 

Land 22% soils of minor extent NA 

37-46% Cecil 0.17 

23-32% Pacolet 0.20 

6-8% Appling 0.20 

Cecil-PacoletAppling; 

16-32% soils of minor extent NA 

64% Cecil 0.17 

Cecil-Davidson 7% Davidson 0.28 

29% soils of minor extent NA 

39% Wateree 0.24 

28% Rion 0.17 

5% Helena 0.24 

Wateree-RionHelena 

28% soils of minor extent NA 

45% Wedowee 0.20 

24% Wilkes 0.32 

9% Gullied Land NA 

WedoweeWilkes-Gullied 

Land 22% soils of minor extent NA 

35% Pacolet 0.20 

30% Lockhart 0.20 

20% Gullied Land NA 

Rocky 

Creek-Cedar 

Creek 

Pacolet-LockhartGullied Land 

15% soils of minor extent NA 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Development Soil Map Unit Composition Erosion Factor 

(Kf)

1

39% Wateree 0.24 

28% Rion 0.17 

5% Helena 0.24 

Wateree-RionHelena 

28% soils of minor extent NA 

51% Wilkes 0.32 

23% Winnsboro 0.28 

8% Mecklenburg 0.24 

WilkesWinnsboroMecklenburg 18% soils of minor extent NA 

53% Georgeville 0.43 

21% Herndon 0.43 GeorgevilleHerndon 26% soils of minor extent NA 

70% Madison 0.24 

19% Cecil 0.17 

5% Pacolet 0.20 

Madison-CecilPacolet 

6% soils of minor extent NA 

35% Pacolet 0.2 

30% Lockhart 0.2 

20% Gullied Land NA 

Wateree 

Pacolet-LockhartGullied Land 

15% soils of minor extent NA 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Development Soil Map Unit Composition Erosion Factor 

(Kf)

1

15% Nason 0.49 

15% Georgeville 0.43 

13% Herndon 0.43 

NasonGeorgevilleHerndon 57% soils of minor extent NA 

60% Chewacla 0.28 

25% Congaree 0.32 ChewaclaCongaree 15% soils of minor extent NA 

37% Congaree 0.32 

31% Tawcaw 0.28 

14% Chastain 0.32 

CongareeTawcaw-Chastain 

18% soils of minor extent NA 

75% Chastain-Chewacla 0.32/0.28 

Wateree 

Regulated 

River Reach 

ChastainChewacla 25% soils of minor extent NA 

1 Soil Erodibility K factors provided by Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS) Soils Data Mart (NRCS, 2008), and reflect the tendency for soils to both produce 

runoff and detach. Values greater than 0.4 are highly erodible. 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
APPENDIX D 

COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX 

D-1 

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

WATER RESOURCES 

RAMPING 

Maurice 

Blackburn 

Carolina Canoe 

Club 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping recommendation for recreational flows should be removed. 

Based on our rerelative to the rto evaluate ramrecreational floof the License Athe recommendflow releases is Consideration orecommended bnot warranted bbetween baseflorecreational reledifferences betwgeneration flowflows proposed a baseline buffepast which will and further minimpacts to aquaShoreline erosireaches below tbeen a widespreoperating historissues with erosthrough site spethan implementhave the potentand exacerbate flows on the incof the flow chandouble the total each recreationpotential to adv

1 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

floating recreatbuilt into the reAs indicated by April 2009 comrecord of coopemitigate impactpast fish strand

Maurice 

Blackburn 

Carolina Canoe 

Club 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping recommendation for recreational flows should be removed. 

See above 

Maurice 

Blackburn 

(T-22 April) 

Carolina Canoe 

Club 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping unjustified; provided written comments at meeting 

See above 

Gerri Roberts 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

American 

Rivers 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping – their concern was for operational rather than recreational flows and want to have FERC include operational flows in ramping considerations. 

See above 

David 

Merriman 

(T-22 April) 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping important for flows to attenuate on the downside of increased flow – “Ramp down” 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

(T-21 April) 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping flows – asked as a question – why ramping for recreation added? Why not also for generation flows? May upset the timing of flows to certain parts of the river. Verbal comments from S. Murphy and Mark Oakley follow in transcripts 

See above 

Maurice 

Blackburn 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

Carolina Canoe 

Club 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping would deplete water source – spent a lot of time working out a good balance in CRA. Curious as to why operational flows aren’t then included in ramping. Water levels may fall faster after power releases. 

See above 

2 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Kevin Colburn American Whitewater 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Provide evidence that significant stranding or displacement of aquatic species occurs with flow releases above base flow, and that ramping is effective at mitigating these impacts. 

See above 

Kevin Colburn American Whitewater 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Eliminate ramping recommendation from the FEIS and license. 

See above 

Wenonah G. 

Haire, DMD, 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation 

Officer 

Catawba Indian 

Nation 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

We do not agree that ramping is necessary to achieve recreational flows. 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Recreational Flows – The page cited for ramping flows has no data to support fish stranding; they would interfere with water "budget." 

See above 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping of recreation flows - would deplete storage capacity and affect continuous flow regimes for habitat purposes; why not recommended for other operational regimes 

See above 

Al James (T-22 

April AM) 

South Carolina 

DPRT 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping will reduce storage capacity which could alter schedules, rates and number of days for flows. 

See above 

David Buetow 

Mecklenburg 

County Water 

Quality Program 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping of recreation flows inconsistencies in wording on pgs 56, 169, and 279 regarding use of evaluation, potential, and implementation - changes intent 

See above 

3 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Page 447 Ramping inconsistent with other discussions stating evaluated and potentially implemented. SCDNR believes ramping is not necessary based on cooperation of Duke since the early 1990s in monitoring for fish kills and modification of the shallow area. On page 458, the need for ramping recreational flows again is discussed with the implication that the need for ramping is undecided. Again, DNR sees no reason to recommend ramping for recreational flows 

See above 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Pages 65, 169, and 279 Implementation of ramping for recreation flows Pointless due to recreation flow changes being no greater than those for hydro generation – for which there are no ramping requirements

See above 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Page 65 for ramping for recreational flows. The intended objective of the DEIS recommendation is to reduce possible stream bank erosion; however, no evidence has been presented that the CRA releases would have such negative impacts. A very thorough recreational flow model was looked at from every possible angle resulting in the recreational flows in the CRA. The CRA recreational flows meets wade fishing, paddling and float hunting needs and interests. A change to the CRA would in effect necessitate redistribution of the CRA recreational flows which would jeopardize NCWF interests. 

See above 

4 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Christopher 

Goudreau 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Resources 

Commission 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping not justified – recreational flows are much less than existing and projected generation flows; will reduce storage capacity 

See above 

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Pages 447 through 448 Ramping inconsistent language regarding evaluation – use of potential for implementation 

See above 

Gregory Hogue US DOI 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Pages 447 and 449: Ramping recommended on the “downside” of hydro peak operational flow in addition to recreational flows – inconsistent to require ramping only for recreational flows. 

See above 

Gregory Hogue US DOI 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping- consider additional analyses with models to refine the range of flow-related issues to be included in a ramping study 

See above 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Ramping for recreational releases will benefit aquatic resources. 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Eliminate ramping of recreational flows as a condition in the license. 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Page 65: The DEIS recommends ramping to reduce the potential for erosion. Since the increase in flow when recreational flows are proposed to be released are less than the historical increases and decreases in flow releases, since the ramping of flows would result in the release of additional water from storage, and since there is a lack of confirmed need for or verified benefit from ramping recreational flows, there is no 

See above 

5 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

justification for the ramping provision. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Water Quantity, 

Recreation 

Pages 4, 56, 65, 169, 279, 447, 458, 459: The DEIS recommends ramping to reduce the risk to aquatic resources. Ramping for recreational flows could seriously impact availability of water in other areas of the CRA. The CRA carefully balances basin water uses. There is no substantive or quantifiable biological benefit for ramping rates during the increase and decrease of recreational flows and Duke requests that this recommendation not be included in the EIS or the New License. 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Water Quantity/ 

Shoreline 

Management 

Plan 

Page 64: It has been determined during the C-W relicensing process and through over 100 years of operation that the flexibility to change reservoir levels on a daily and seasonal basis is required to operate this system. On a daily basis the reservoir level fluctuations are small and such variations are common and are not linked to MEP events. During the relicensing process, reservoir ramping rates were never identified as the cause of shoreline erosion. However, erosion in general was a concern but primarily in limiting the extent and type of circumstances where stabilization could be used. The SMG02 study team made revisions to the Shoreline Stabilization Program criteria in the SMG to address these concerns but they were not specific to reservoir level ramping. The extent of drawdowns, the rate of drawdowns, and a record of no ramping-induced erosion concerns being raised during the relicensing 

Staff agrees witreference to resremoved from t

6 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

process do not warrant a reservoir ramp rate provision. During 50 years of operating CW Project in its current configuration (after construction of Cowans Ford) erosion problems would have become evident. There is no evidence that operating under the CRA-proposed conditions will have any impact on shoreline erosion. Imposing ramp rates on daily reservoir fluctuations would severely compromise the ability to operate the Project in response to daily needs and occasional meteorological events (refer to Comment #15) 

BLADDER DAM 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Water Quantity 

Section 5.1 (pg 445): NMFS supports installation of bladder dam modification at Wateree Dam; operation of the date should be integrated with instream flow management planning for the Wateree reach. 

As proposed fominimum flows intended to be mgenerating turbproposed to parhydraulic capacsmaller turbine provide greater instances of higan additional mfloodplain inun

Richard D. and 

Pearl E. Foote Individual Water Quantity 

The DEIS incorrectly presents the process by which the decision was reached to use the 10,000 cfs bladder dam in place of the 40,000 cfs bladder dam originally proposed by the Wateree High Water Level Management Study committee. Please reinstate the requirement for a 40,000 cfs bladder dam without a restriction on the length of license, to reduce the potential for flooding. 

The Wateree HStudy Team did capacity structumagnitude and events near the would not elimduring negotiatResource CommTeams (SRT) lebalance of bene

7 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

bladder dam wato offset hydraumagnitude and within the 10-ft Wateree. Regulations limproposals in NElicense terms; dduration of the license. 

Gary 

Faulkenberry 

(T-22 April) 

Lake Wateree 

Association Water Quantity 

Size of bladder dam (pg. 110) was determined by a Resource Committee - needs to be 40,000 cfs – statement clarified process of determination by Resource Committee 

See above 

Al James (T-22 

April AM) 

South Carolina 

DPRT Water Quantity Bladder Dam is supported but only by 50- year license See above 

Gerri Roberts 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

American 

Rivers Water Quantity 

Support inclusion of Bladder Dam See above 

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Water Quantity 

Pg. 476 bladder dam CRA says conditional on 50-year license – DEIS states that it should be installed without regard to term of license 

See above 

Sarah Williams 

(T-22 April) Individual Water Quantity Bladder Dam commendable but would like to see the 40,000 cfs instead of 10,000 See above 

Ken Koth 

(T-22 April) Individual Water Quantity 

Concerned with Lake Wateree flooding and the 40,000 vs. 10,000 cfs bladder dam option 

See above 

8 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Wenonah G. 

Haire, DMD, 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation 

Officer 

Catawba Indian 

Nation Water Quantity 

We agree that a bladder dam should be provided only if a 50-year license is instituted. 

See above 

Linda 

Worthington Individual Water Quantity 

Commented on consideration of reducing size of turbines to reduce flooding in addition to consideration of bladder dam 

See above 

Sarah Williams Individual Water Quantity Supports the 50-year license for the 40,000 cfs bladder dam. See above 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Water Quantity 

Lake Wateree Bladder Dam - recommend 50-year license - not monetarily efficient for less time to place bladder dam 

See above 

Rebecca 

Wodder (T-22 

April) 

Individual Water Quantity 

Lake Wateree flooding – glad that the installation of a bladder dam isn’t tied to a 50-year license; wants to see 40,000 cfs bladder dam instead of 10,00 cfs which will only cut down on minor floods. 

See above 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Water Quantity 

A 40,000 cfs bladder dam should be installed at the Wateree Dam. 

See above 

Steve S. Kelly, 

Jr. Kershaw County Water Quantity 

We support the CRA decision to use a bladder dam if the license has a 50-year term. 

See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Water Quantity 

Pg. 447 Duke has proposed the installation of a bladder dam and SCDNR believes the significant cost without benefit of a 50-year license would upset the CRA. SCDNR recommends the installation of the bladder dam be conditioned on the term of license as provided in the CRA. On page 476, it is stated "Install and operate bladder dam as recommended in the revised CRA." DNR concurs with that recommendation for 

See above 

9 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

reasons previously stated 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Water Quantity 

Page 112 Bladder Dam: Not contingent on a 

50-year license, which is contrary to the balance of benefits to Duke and other parties to the CRA.

See above 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Water Quality 

The DEIS recommends Duke install a bladder dam modification to improve flood events regardless of the term of the license. NCWF supports the CRA which will accomplish the bladder dam only if a 50-year license is issued. NCWF fully supports this component of the CRA. The cost for this modification is significant, especially when weighed against the relatively small constituent base it will benefit. NCWF is an advocate statewide for flood plain protection and policies against building in them. Realizing there are homes within this potential floodplain we supported the modification if a 50-year license was granted. The justification of paying for this improvement for a small constituent base over the course of a longer license is merited. If the DEIS recommendation for the modification, regardless of the term of license, is upheld, the CRA is at risk. 

See above 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Water Quantity 

Pg 447-448: Bladder Dam- DOI recommends a comprehensive evaluation on the efficacy of the 10,000 cfs bladder dam before a final decision by staff. If necessary, then length of license is irrelevant – will have to coordinate installation of eelway prescribed in Section 18. 

The purpose anto offset hydrauprovide flood mWateree. Basemagnitude and Wateree High WStudy Team it iwill be opened during some of 

10 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

that there will bdam spillway wattracting flows since study and dam and the eelbe somewhat cothese efforts be potential interfedesign of the tw

Walter Riggan 

(T-22 April) Individual Water Quantity 

Proposed cutting 2 feet from dam height instead of bladder dam installation. 

This option was effective as a gwould reduce saffect available aquatic resourcflexibility, and of Lake Waterewould also advrecreational useboat ramps, doc

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

Water Quantity 

The bladder dam at Wateree Dam is a necessary PM&E measure, and should be used to enhance spawning and floodplain health in an enforceable manner. It should not be contingent on the length of the license term. 

The proposed boffset hydraulic flood managema routine releasflow managemeefficiency and pthat flows for flin the Revised Cmanaged by relgenerating turbturbines were asignificant portbelow the spillwevents in the spalso be operated levels in Lake W

11 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

would contribuinundation. Proflows for aquatby operation of 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Pages 3, 55, 112, 448: Duke has agreed to install a bladder dam modification, but only if the New License is issued for a 50-year term. Otherwise, there is insufficient justification for a bladder dam modification to be required in a New License. A bladder dam would benefit a relatively small segment of the public; however, there is no evidence of environmental issues to remedy and the significant cost does not balance the variety of interests in the Catawba-Wateree Basin or deliver broad-based benefits. Duke’s willingness to install a bladder dam at the Wateree Development is above and beyond its obligation to address Projectrelated impacts as defined by Commission requirements, will effectively reduce high water levels and occurrences, and when combined with other significant expenditures contained in the CRA and in the License Application merits a 50-year term for the New License. 

Regulations limproposals in NElicense terms; dduration of the license. 

Milton Marley Individual Water Quantity 

Supports recommendation of bladder dam at Lake Wateree to decrease flooding potential. 

Acknowledged 

Charles O. 

Stogner III Individual Water Quantity 

Supports bladder dam or removal of top 3 feet of dam as a condition of license renewal, not just a recommendation. 

The option of redam is not consas a gate type sreduce system savailable water resources, prov

12 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

flexibility, requLake Wateree taffect private anpiers, and marin

Charles O. 

Stogner III Individual Water Quantity 

Please require Duke to not decrease the size of one of their turbines on the Wateree dam as a condition; this will increase the likelihood of flooding. 

The smaller turdam is needed tminimum flows improve oxygenbelow the dam. bladder dam wihydraulic capacturbine size. 

WATER STORAGE 

Ed Morse Individual Water Quantity 

There should be more usable storage available via Lake Norman. 

Additional stornot significantly and distribution Lake Norman. capacity in the Bridgewater anOxford, and LoMaintenance of through these reby storage capaincremental tribof low inflow oJames and infloLake James becfor managementhese developm

Lake James 

Environmental 

Association 

Water Quantity 

Add usable water storage to Lake Norman. See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Water Quantity Relocate Lake Wylie and Lake Wateree existing water supply intakes to a lower elevation to increase useable storage FERC does not 

this action in licoptions may be 

13 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

WMG to considdemand and stomore critical iss

DROUGHT MANAGEMENT ADVISORY GROUP (DMAG) 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Water Quantity 

Page 123 - NMFS and USFWS are not signatories to the CRA which creates the DMAG. Does “Water Group” mean DMAG?

Water Group dothe text has beeWhile NMFS ato the CRA whiwere active parnegotiation proStaff believes thresource managtrustees as it reldiadromous speNMFS and FWinsight and guidmanagement of regional droughthese agencies wmake timely mato their trust ressituations in resimplementation

Robert Long Community of Lake James Water Quantity The end users and payers for water are not represented in the CW Drought Management Advisory Group. See above 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Water Quantity Page 3 Appreciate FERC staff’s consideration to add DOI to the DMAG See above 

Ed Morse Individual Water Quantity CW-DMAG membership is not representative of the using public. See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Page 123: The DEIS has a reference to "The water users group", and a "Water Group". The DEIS states that "The Water Group" should include NOAA Fisheries. The DEIS should clarify which group is the CWThe FEIS has b

difference betwand their respecStaff recognize

14 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

DMAG and which group is the WMG. NOAA Fisheries was not included as a member in either organization in the CRA. 

have a fishery mHowever, decismanagement duhave impacts on resources. We to be included oreasonable in ocommunication critical periods, federal resource inflow managemrespond accordmanagement deresources in an during stressful 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Pages 3, 56, 115, 123, 447, 449, 474: The DEIS recommends adding USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to the C-W DMAG. Duke states that the purpose of the DMAG is to manage the implementation of the LIP. Fish and aquatic resources protection has already been included in the LIP, and would not be subject to renegotiation during a drought event. Duke suggests that the recommended additional membership offers little to no benefit, because membership in the DMAG does not give an opportunity to actively manage fish and aquatic resources, and because DMAG already includes state fishery resource agency representatives. Duke also mentions that because the DMAG is a voluntary coalition of several parties besides the licensee, the Commission cannot require it to accept additional members. 

See above 

15 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

BRIDGEWATER RECREATION RELEASES 

Maurice 

Blackburn (T22 April AM) Carolina Canoe Club Water Quantity 

Table 3 Pages 28-31; pages 274-276 – 10 hours of recreation releases to each section – missing for Bridgewater. 

FEIS text and tconsistent with the schedule forecreation releaannually, the 10 do not appear o

Maurice 

Blackburn 

Carolina Canoe 

Club 

Water 

Quantity/Recrea

tion 

Correct error in Details of Recreational Flows: in Table 3, the Bridgewater Development was omitted; and in the listings on pages 274-276, there is no mention of the additional 10 hours release for any sections. 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Pages 28-31, 274: The additional 10 hours of recreational flow releases are included for most river sections, but does not consistently include mention of the Bridgewater Development. The EIS and New License should consistently refer to the location for which additional flow releases are to be negotiated as presented in the CRA 

See above 

GREAT FALLS RECREATION RELEASES 

Maurice 

Blackburn 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

Carolina Canoe 

Club Water Quantity 

DEIS notes that recreational flows “are well within historic range of ops releases” PG. 169 discuss that recreational flows Great Falls releases for recreation can’t begin in 60 days after license issue because of mechanical changes that have to be made. 

Staff recognizerange of operatFalls bypass reaclarified to reflebeen corrected the release strucheadworks and minimum contito the Great Falas part of the FWissuance of the implemented wof the necessary 

16 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR 

Water Quantity 

Recreation 

Pg. 446 implementing recreation flows Great Falls within 60 days of license issue not right time frame – issue of delivery of water 

See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Water Quantity/Recrea tion 

Pg 446: Duke not proposing recreation flows below Dearborn. Not proposing recreation flows at Great Falls within 60 days of license issue. Final plan for water delivery will be in FWQIP which will be issued within 180 days of license issue; rec flows would then be implemented within 60 days of structural modifications identified in the FWQIP. SCDNR understands that the same delivery method will be used for provision of continuous minimum flows in Great Falls and concur that additional time will be needed to plan flows 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity/ Recreation 

Page 446: The DEIS recommends implementation of recreational flows at the Great Falls-Dearborn development within 60 days of the issuance of the license. However, Duke notes that because of structural modifications and recreational improvements to the development, recreational flows cannot be implemented within 60 days of the license issue. Duke suggests correcting the schedule to read “Within 60 days following completion: (1) of the structural modifications necessary to deliver the recreation flow releases; (2) of the Hwy 200 Bridge Access Area; (3) of the Great Falls Diversion Dam Portage; (4) of the Great Falls Headworks Portage; and (5) of the Great Falls Headworks-to-Cedar Creek Reservoir Portage.” 

See above 

17 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

FLOOD PLAIN 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Water Quantity 

Pg. 478 Wateree Flood Plain Inundation – protecting and enhancing the bottom land hardwood forest ecological functions is a high priority of the DOI – request reconsideration of Wateree Floodplain Inundation as license article 

Staff recognizeimportance of tecological resouRiver ecosystemcomplexity of tinteractions betthe floodplain. comments, studof South Carolitechnology to bthis relationshipinherent in the implementation Inundation and Protocol proposreasonable initiand enhancemeresources; not iLicense Articlegreater flexibiliresource agenciprocedures for resources. The Duke Energy pdocumenting acprevious year awith NOAA Fisevaluate plans fflows period. Arecommend thaprotocols be reeinclusion as an License Article experience and 

18 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

monitoring. 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Water Quantity More recent studies of Wateree River Floodplain using LIDAR data hydrology See above Gregory Hogue US DOI Water Quantity 

Recommend that Licensee provide funding to replace Eastover gauge that could provide more accurate flow information for Wateree River Floodplain 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Page 478: Duke agrees that the protocols for Wateree Floodplain Inundation be tested and possibly refined after 10 years of operating history; supplemental information from Duke: CRA does not intend to present this protocol as adaptive management in the “classic” sense. The protocol does not propose monitoring of aquatic habitat or fish population response to operations and adjust operations in pursuit of defined aquatic resource goals. The protocol provides opportunity for Duke in consultation to determine if and how the Wateree Development can be operated so that floodplain inundation events below the hydro recede more slowly 

See above 

HIGH INFLOW PROTOCOL (HIP) 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Water Quantity 

Page 478: HIP and Wateree Spring Stable Flow Protocol; Given the possible impacts in North Carolina related to the movement of water downstream, NCDENR and NC Wildlife Resources Commission should be included in the consulting group if this FERC recommendation moves forward.- These two protocols address different natural resource concerns and should not be lumped together. The High Inflow protocol is NOT just to benefit anadromous species 

Staff agrees—Wshould be retainthe FEIS has beagreement. Wateree Spring Wateree Floodpincluded as Licreissuance, but inclusion at 10 and ongoing stu

19 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

and should be included in the license per the CRA – not delayed until anadromous species are present.

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Water Quantity 

Pg. 478: HIP not recommended by Staff; Pg. 476 #8 says it is recommended. SCDNR hopes that it is implemented – concerned HIP is being confused with Lake Wateree flood plain inundation. 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Water Quantity 

Pages cited: Lake Wateree HIP not recommended by Commission- entity wants retained. 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Retain the Wylie High Inflow Protocol in license. 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Aquatic Resources 

Pages 478, 444, 475, 476: The DEIS does not recommend the Wylie HIP. The Wylie HIP will benefit diadromous species if and when they do arrive at this location and has been included as a relevant consideration in the preliminary fish passage prescription issued by the USFWS. The Wylie HIP should be included as a provision of the new license. 

See above 

LOW INFLOW PROTOCOL (LIP) 

Robert Long Community of Lake James Water Quantity 

The LIP drought management rules should take into consideration the most sensitive indicator at any given time (drought monitor, stream flow or stored water), not wait for two indicators to agree. 

The LIP is intenthus the 5-yr reis considered a revisiting the prdoes not limit rGiven that the Lmanagement apmanagement anthe DMAG can 

20 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

the LIP on a moexperience so dwhich serve as projections are thus the 5-yr LIadequate to anttrends coordinadepartments anThe use of a twexample of a coprematurely immanagement prmodifications tindicators relied the DMAG basAgain, the typeuse restrictions the LIP are a reinitiate the progand enforcemenmodification baEducation and cfactors in gainincompliance witcritical periods palatable to the punitive actionsintroduced to gdrought events severity based ocompliance. 

Robert Long Community of Lake James Water Quantity The up to 5-year review period for the LIP may be too long to be adaptive to changing See above 

21 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

conditions of water availability and use, population growth, and future power needs. 

Lake James 

Environmental 

Association 

Water Quantity 

LIP water use restrictions and water usereduction targets should be mandatory and more stringent, sooner, to preserve stored water earlier and longer. 

See above 

Lake James 

Environmental 

Association 

Water Quantity 

Instead of using multiple LIP drought indicators, use just a single indicator as the trigger, to start water conservation earlier than the linked indicators. 

See above 

Lake James 

Environmental 

Association 

Water Quantity 

Include conservation of electrical power in the LIP restrictions and use-reduction targets. 

See above 

Lake James 

Environmental 

Association 

Water Quantity 

LIP should be revisited more frequently than every 5 years. 

See above 

Ed Morse Individual Water Quantity 

The LIP drought management rules are insufficient and should use reduction targets and water use restrictions that are more stringent and proactive to preserve stored water earlier and longer. 

See above 

Ed Morse Individual Water Quantity 

The LIP is not responsive enough to adequately account for changing water availability and use, population growth, and future power needs. 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Water Quantity 

LIP/minimum flow terminology used inconsistently and interchangeably (Table 2)

See above 

Lake James 

Association Water Quantity 

The Catawba-Wateree system and LIP should be strengthened especially by adding useable storage to Lake Norman and by including conservation of power in the use restrictions and usage targets. Many more details in letter. 

See above 

22 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Water Quantity 

LIP pg 115, SCDNR has general concurrence with LIP though concerned that some triggers are slow in detecting improvement resulting in lower flows downstream. There are inconsistencies between 3 indicators and storage index trigger. They are hopeful when LIP is required a balance of habitat flows and hydro operations can be achieved when inflow and reservoir levels allow and when coming out of a drought. SCDNR recommends inclusion of a provision “to ensure continuous improvement” process in LIP; encourage Duke to expeditiously test and operationally use new triggers under consideration by LIP Subcommittee 

As indicated abproposed triggefrom a drought as part of the Lshould be recombased on operat

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Water Quantity 

Pages 105-106; 272-273 Duke should be required to meet set reservoir level requirements instead of making a “good 

faith effort” to meet reservoir levels. Would downstream releases still have priority, or would the project have to meet both reservoir level and flow requirements – with potential ramifications for hydro generation and perhaps accelerating invocation of LIP?

Hydro generatispring lake levetargets for redugiving early pristorage capacityand downstream aquatic habitat. to meet specific flexibility necewater resources Wateree basin dRecommendaticompliance witunrealistic and consideration. 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Water Quantity Page 156- Fish loss mitigation for MEP/LIP. Regular maintenance requires consultation with agencies in advance and The MEP as pro

required replaceMEP event. St

23 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

emergency conditions are beyond the licensee’s control; so licensee should not be penalized if MEP is followed. This type of provision not included in MEP’s for other licenses.

that, if in spite agencies and fooccurs due to cocontrol, Duke Eaccountable for DEIS proposes approach to mitconsultation wi

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA Water Quantity 

EPA also supports the limitations on Project reservoir level fluctuations during important spring spawning periods and the proposed drought contingency plan, or low inflow protocol (LIP), which prescribes how the Project would be operated and water conserved during periods when there is not enough water in the system to meet all needs. The inclusion of the LIP in the new license is vital to ensure that the critical low flows necessary to continue to meet water quality standards and aquatic life use support are provided during times of drought. 

Staff concurs. 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Water Quantity 

Clarify use of the terms LIP and minimum flows in the DEIS (Table 2, for example). 

Clarification harevisions in the 

David C. 

Frederick, 

Scott H. 

Angstreich, and 

Scott K. 

Attaway 

State of South 

Carolina Water Quantity 

The LIP is flawed because it is based on a model that has failed to predict the low flow conditions of the past two years. (CHEOPS predicted 4 months of stage 3 drought conditions over a 51-year period, but in the first 2 years of this period, there have been 15 consecutive months of stage 3 conditions). The CHEOPS model should be reevaluated, incorporating the more recent 

The CHEOPS mstakeholder conevaluating and on the system fin the Catawba-such as CHEOPevaluation of realternative opermanagement as

24 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

low-flow periods, and the LIP should be corrected to provide better protection of water supplies. “The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) precludes the Commission from relying on such demonstrably flawed modeling to predict future low-flow periods in its environmental assessment. And both Duke’s application and the Draft EIS acknowledge that modeling revisions are required under such circumstances.” 

model to predicas the available validate the morecord for the bdatabase to use the model predidrought is a funvery infrequent that a more sev2008 is an indicnatural weather after model calialternatives anapart of the stakewas completed signed. Duke wthe more recent enhance the usemanagement deof the LIP procis not needed folicensing actiondownstream flowithdrawals winew data and fucollected by Du

MAINTENANCE AND EMERGENCY PROTOCOL (MEP) 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Aquatic Resources 

Pages 4, 156, 447, 449-450, 56: The DEIS recommends that fish losses that result from a MEP event be evaluated on a case-bycase basis; establishment of an advisory group is recommended to evaluate and recommend appropriate mitigation for fish losses. Duke maintains the recommended consultation is within the MEP. Pages 4, 56, 

The MEP proviwould be mitigmay in some innecessary. Thucase basis was pthis evaluation necessary, in coappropriate stat

25 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

474, and 475: The DEIS recommends Duke consult with NOAA on MEP implementation. Duke agrees to notify NOAA Fisheries in the event of an MEP implementation and consult with entities via the DEIS recommended advisory group format. Page 55: NOAA Fisheries recommends a Catawba-Wateree Project Fisheries Technical Committee and annual coordination meetings. An MEP ad-hoc advisory group will not be a standing committee as requested in NOAA Fisheries June 5, 2008 letter. The creation of yet another permanent, standing fishery management vehicle is unsupported and unwarranted. 

management agof conditions in indicate the neecoordination beor all of these smanagement agfloodplain inunflows). Staff agcommittees can necessary. The that a Fisheries formed, would address many oresource issues with members bdiscussions of inecessary. Dukby some of thesthe DMAG for the LIP should because those athe CRA. Consproposed Fishethe DMAG couapproach to assinformation necmanagement de Staff cannot readvisory commthe parties explfor coordinating discussion of thaquatic resourcCRA has creatiaddressed. 

26 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

CHEOPS 

Robert Long Community of Lake James Water Quantity 

CHEOPS model should not be relied upon for drought management because it does not seem to work well for climate extremes. 

The CHEOPS mstakeholder conevaluating and on the system fin the Catawba-such as CHEOPevaluation of realternative opermanagement asmodel to predicas the available validate the morecord for the bdatabase to use the model predidrought is a funvery infrequent that a more sev2008 is an indicnatural weather after model calialternatives anapart of the stakewas completed signed. Duke wthe more recent enhance the usemanagement deof the LIP procis not needed folicensing actiondownstream flowithdrawals winew data and fu

27 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

collected by DuAny modeling tbased on a “bacthat is a use of record to predicno guarantees twill mirror the future growth arisk and uncertatypically highly longer the periolikelihood that representative o51-yr record usfairly representrecord occurred established for stakeholder proto the Revised Capplication werdrought of reco

Ed Morse Individual Water Quantity 

The CRA should be modified so it is not dependent on results from a backwardlooking model. 

See above 

Lake James 

Association Water Quantity 

CHEOPS cannot be relied on for process control purposes or multi-decade projections. 

See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Water Quantity CHEOPS (Sec. 3.3.2.1.1) did not include data for 2007-2008 drought now considered drought of record See above 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Water Quantity 

The CHEOPS model should not be relied upon solely to forecast Catawba-Wateree future; refer to Lake James Environmental Association modeling recommendations. 

See above 

28 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

David C. 

Frederick, 

Scott H. 

Angstreich, and 

Scott K. 

Attaway 

State of South 

Carolina 

Water Quantity 

(CHEOPS 

details) 

CHEOPS apparently assumes more water than actually exists in the river basin, particularly in times of low flows. First, data included in Duke’s application suggest that the model tends to overestimate the available water supply during times of low flows. Second, the process used to verify the model’s ability to simulate historical conditions consistently and substantially overestimated historical power generation, which also suggests an overestimation by the model of the available water supply. Third, because there was no attempt to verify the model’s ability to simulate historical low-flow periods, it would be unreasonable and inconsistent with NEPA to rely on the model to predict future lowflow periods with sufficient accuracy, particularly in light of the recent data showing those predictions to be entirely unreliable. 

See above 

Lake James 

Environmental 

Association 

Water Quantity 

Use a different model such as Adaptive Capacity or Monte Carlo Analysis rather than CHEOPS, which does not model climate extremes well. 

See above 

WATER QUANTITY/FLOWS - General 

Kevin Colburn American Whitewater Water Quantity/Recrea tion Do not single out recreation flows for mitigation. Ramping to mit

flows is no longstaff. 

Gerri Roberts 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

American 

Rivers 

Water 

Quantity/Land 

Use 

Do not support trading land for water essentially protecting land in lieu of putting unnecessary flows in the stretches of Catawba and Wateree Rivers 

The justificatiopreservation as optimal minimudocumented in record and in thprecedent prov

29 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

by US Corps of North Carolina 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Water Resources 

Page 116: NMFS is not a signatory to the CRA which creates the MEP.

We understand signatory of the agrees that as reas well as the stprovide valuablMEP events anappropriate. 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Water Quantity 

Strike the “good faith” language and enforce the normal minimum and maximum elevations with the understanding that the target levels are those sought but not mandated as an annual average. 

Good faith langthe proposed anwith the normaand neither is rethe license. 

V. Randall 

Tinsley 

Town of 

Mooresville, NC Water Quantity 

DEIS Table 18 incorrectly describes Mooresville's water intake facilities. Mooresville recently entered into an agreement with Duke to resolve current litigation and avoid future disputes regarding water withdrawals. See referenced documents. 

FEIS text has bdescribe the Mo

Kevin Colburn American Whitewater Water Quantity/Recrea tion 

Include the proposed license article from the settlement agreement in the new license; timelines for recreational releases and installation of recreational infrastructure are in conflict. 

The FEIS has badditional hourparticularly for consistent with 

David C. 

Frederick, 

Scott H. 

Angstreich, and 

Scott K. 

Attaway 

State of South 

Carolina Water Quantity 

The Final EIS should make clear that any license would not limit anyone’s rights to seek an equitable apportionment of the river, as has been recognized in analogous license decisions. In the suit South Carolina v. North Carolina, No. 138, Original (filed June 7, 2007), currently pending before the Supreme Court, South Carolina alleges that water withdrawals in North Carolina from 

The Commissiostates, other entchallenge water venues. Under U.S.C. § 821 (2not take actions rights. Any liceimpose requiremflows, that infri

30 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

the Catawba River Basin adversely affect South Carolina and thus violate South Carolina’s right to an equitable share of the river. 

apportionments

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

Aquatic 

Resources 

The CRA does not provide adequate stream flow mitigation: flow mitigation calculations are baseless, and there is no connection between project impacts and the proposed offsite mitigation. 

The justificatiopreservation as optimal minimudocumented in record and in ththe amount of mprecedence in gUS Corps of En(2003). 

Robert Long Community of Lake James Water Quantity 

Use reduction targets and water use restrictions should be mandatory and more stringent, sooner, to preserve water longer. 

The types and prestrictions and are a reasonable program and arbeen proven suplanning efforts

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Water Quantity 

Water Quantity – pg. 105-272,448-9; Normal min/max elevations adequate; no need to require achievement of annual average target elevations 

Good faith langthe proposed anwith the normaand neither is rethe license. 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Water Quantity 

Page 64 - This is the only mention NCDWR could find of the winter drawdown recommendation. Is it part of the FERC staff recommended package? 

The FEIS text hwinter drawdowguide curves foseasonally variaelevations. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Page 105: For clarification, and to be consistent with the language in the Revised CRA, Duke proposes to limit the operating range during the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program (Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree) to 

The FEIS text hconsistent with 

31 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

1 ft below and 2 ft above the water surface elevation at the time that the stabilization is triggered for each reservoir. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Pages 41, 113, 189: As stated in the Revised CRA, the targeted time periods for providing a 10-day stable flow regime are from February 15 to April 1 and from April 1 to May 1. 

The requested cwith the CRA hthe FEIS. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Page 157: DEIS should be re-worded to exclude the phrase "from the powerhouse to the spillway channel" as only a small portion of the spillway channel may become wetted, and usually only at full generation, and the conservation easement was put in place because of no new flows into the spillway channel. For clarification, and to be consistent with the language in the Revised CRA, Duke proposes minimum continuous flows from the Wateree Powerhouse to the tailrace channel and installation of a 10,000 cfs capacity bladder dam in the spillway to provide flexibility for high water management in Lake Wateree. The majority of flow released from the spillway bladder dam would travel downstream through the spillway channel. 

The FEIS text hbladder dam dewith wording in 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity/ Recreation 

Pages 276, 446: First paragraph contains correct implementation for the Great Falls recreation flows; this understanding is not consistent throughout the DEIS. Duke agrees with the implementation for the Great Falls recreational flows as indicated on page 276 of the DEIS and requests that the implementation schedule in other sections of the DEIS, such as page 446, be 

The text in the clarify for cons

32 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

consistent with page 276. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Page 43: For clarification, the Wateree Floodplain Inundation statement in Table 5 should read "Following periods of high inflow between February 1 and May 31 that 

create spill conditions, the applicant must 

endeavor in good faith to gradually reduce flood plain inundation...." 

The requested chas been made 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity/ Recreation 

Page 30: Paragraph describing additional flows at Bridgewater does not mention 10 hours of additional recreation flows. Duke recommends insertion of the 10 additional hours of recreation flow information. 

The appropriate the FEIS text. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quantity 

Pages 3, 56, 105, 272, 447: The DEIS recommends the normal target elevations proposed by Duke be made conditions of the license to be enforceable as an annual average. It is not operationally feasible or in the best interest of stakeholders to maintain Normal Target Lake Elevations on average over an extended period of time given the variability in inflow hydrology and other operating conditions of the new license. The DEIS does not identify any resource impact or benefit that validates the need for implementing this recommendation as a license condition. Duke requests that this recommendation not be included in the EIS or in a New License as written. 

Good faith langthe proposed anwith the normaand neither is rethe license. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Water Quantity/ 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Page 150: Spring Reservoir Stabilization Flows – Duke has implemented spring reservoir level stabilization voluntarily for more than 30 years in collaboration with NC and SC resource agencies. Recommended consultation has already 

Because implemdependent and is not recommeprocess, but thacoordinated witaware that the p

33 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

been completed during the relicensing process which resulted in enhancement to the voluntary program. Duke requests that no additional consultation by included in the EIS or new license – agencies have not requested this additional consultation 

relate to other mwhich they are 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Water Quantity/ 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Pages 151, 153, 161, 210, 475: Duke observes that the recommendation in Table 133 of a provision to re-evaluate instream flow requirements if future prescriptions for fish passage are issued is already provided for by the Commission’s standard reopener provision. Therefore, they ask that it not be included in the FEIS or the New License. 

Staff understanprovisions provresource trusteeincluded so thawith the proceshave the flexibia later more appFEIS has been mis part of an exispecial conditio

WATER QUALITY 

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

Water Quality 

The CRA does not provide adequate basis for compliance with the Clean Water Act: SCDHEC, not SCDNR, is the regulatory agency charged with protecting aquatic health, water quality and navigation in SC; and reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality standards is not achieved by the Flow and Water Quality Implementation Plan and the Water Quality Monitoring Plan. 

Compliance wiissuance of the (May 15, 2009)FWQIP is intenoperations comcertifications fr

David C. 

Frederick, 

Scott H. 

Angstreich, and 

Scott K. 

Attaway 

State of South 

Carolina Water Quality 

The Draft EIS does not address the impacts of low flow conditions on water quality. For example, the effects of wastewater discharges on downstream conditions increase as upstream flows are dramatically reduced. “The Final EIS should correct this oversight by also considering the project’s indirect effect in enhancing the low-flow 

Indirect effects addressed throuthe water qualitin the FEIS. 

34 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

impacts of others as well as its direct effect at low flow.” 

David 

Merriman 

(T-22 April) 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation 

Water Quality 

Water quality is within the project boundary and water quality in the reservoirs is under the purview of the project boundary and Duke. Important to maintain DO levels and temperature. 

Compliance wibe addressed thcertifications anFWQIP. The mmonitoring locaWQMP and FWfor determining corrective meas

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Water Quantity 

Duke Energy should charge for water taken from within project boundaries, and use funds for conservation and water quality improvement. 

A water use fee Duke Energy dprocess and negsubsequent discapproaches, incestablishment oproposed to mawater resources Other aspects opackage will alprotection and e

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Water 

Quality/Aquatic 

Resources 

Minimum continuous flow requirements of CRA do not meet needs of aquatic inhabitants or water quality standards. 

Proposed minimmeet the goal ounregulated habspecies/guilds. accomplished arequirements, thdeveloped to co

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Water Quality 

Ability to spill water should become a license article and regarded as a method for meeting dissolved oxygen requirements. 

The ability to splow inflow pericritically challefor oxygenationlevels may freqspillage. Propomodified turbin

35 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

specifically desfound to be a mwider range of 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Water Quality 

Duke should be required to include conditions minimizing sediment and other pollutants from entering the Catawba River. 

The SMP is one shorelines and msediment loadindevelopments. agricultural and that are outside within Duke’s astate and local sprograms, and dappropriate memanagement ansources. 

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA Water Quality 

EPA supports inclusion of the proposed DO enhancement program in the new license, including rigorous continuous monitoring, to validate success of the project modifications. 

FERC concurs. 

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA Water Quality 

EPA appreciates the recognition by FERC that EPA should be involved in the development and implementation of the Flow and Water Quality Implementation Plan (FWQIP) and the Water Quality Monitoring Plan (WQMP). EPA requests to be involved in any consultations related to any revisions of the FWQIP or WQMP, as well as to receive copies of the annual report verifying compliance with applicable water quality standards. 

Staff recommensuch reviews an

36 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA Water Quality 

Duke agreed to consult in any future TMDL development commitment in CRA but not clear in DEIS that is included as a specific license article – “assume incorporated into Section 401 certification” address in EIS 

Consultation anin future TMDL the 401 certificSC. 

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA Water Quantity 

EPA supports the increased and more regular downstream flows (measured as either daily average or continuous minimum) throughout the Project to better protect aquatic life, particularly in the bypassed reaches below the Bridgewater and Fishing Creek developments. The restoration of flows and improved aquatic use support in these bypass reaches is an important achievement of the relicensing process. 

Staff concurs anreference to “bereferring more long and short bGreat Falls dive

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quality 

Page 26: There is a reference in "Proposed Project Facilities" to installation of dissolved oxygen and groundwater compliance monitors at all 1.1 developments. Request that this statement be clarified to be consistent with Appendix C of the CRA. 

The appropriate consistency in t

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Water Quality 

Page 126: DEIS states that federal and state agencies with responsibilities for regulation and protection of water quality related to this project should be included as part of the consultation team for development and review of the FWQIP and WQMP. Duke agrees with including the USFWS, NMFS, NCDENR, NCWRC, SCDNR, SCDHEC, and EPA in consultation for the FWQIP. However, the consultation for the WQMP has already taken place with the NCDWQ and SCDHEC as required content for the 

The appropriate consistency. Stconsultation for 

37 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

NC and SC 401 Water Quality Certification applications and as described in the CRA. Duke concurs with including EPA in future monthly and annual review of data specified in the 401 certifications, but references to the WQMP should be deleted from the EIS, since the consultation has already occurred. 

Chuck 

Hightower 

SC Department 

of Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

Water Quality 

SCDHEC will issue the Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act with four conditions as outlined in their letter. 

Staff acknowledQuality Certific401 and the conSCDHEC. StafCommission’s ifor the Catawbacontingent on thSCDHEC has tcompliance by conditions of th

Chuck 

Hightower 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

Water Quality 

The applicant must follow the Quality Assurance Project Plan; Revision #0; January 6, 2009 (QAPP) while the CWHP FERC license is valid. If changes are proposed to the QAPP, they must be submitted to the SCDHEC for review and written approval before being implemented. 

Staff concurs. 

Chuck 

Hightower 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

Water Quality 

Condition #4 of the 401 WQC: “The applicant must take all necessary measures during CWHP facility operation and maintenance to prevent fuel, oil, tar, trash, debris, and other pollutants from entering the adjacent waters or wetlands.” 

Staff concurs 

Chuck 

Hightower 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

Water Quality 

If the SCDHEC determines State Water Quality Standards are being contravened in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the applicant must take action to determine the cause of the violations and rectify the 

Staff concurs 

38 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

situation. 

WATER QUALITY – TROUT WATER CLASSIFICATION 

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA Water Quality 

Pg. 97 Bridgewater – trout water classification clarifications and update provided by EPA Included copy of EPA letter to NCDWQ on partial approval of Catawba designation for Trout Use, disapproval of seasonal DO exemption. 

The FEIS text hrecent designati

Gerri Roberts 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

American 

Rivers Water Quality 

Trout river designation of Linville and Cog River downstream of Bridgewater 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Water Quality 

Trout water classifications inconsistencies with determination. 

See above 

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA Water Quality 

Review of Section 401 (NC 11-14-2008) EPA expects Duke to meet new standards for WQ; monitoring location for compliance is approved by EPA 

Staff recognizenoted such in th

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Water Quality 

Pg. 447 measures under heading of Water Quality to the DNR knowledge, the flowage easements on Lake Wateree have never been exceeded, and the changes in lake levels as a result of replacing an existing unit in the Wateree Development with a smaller unit are not expected to exceed the existing flowage easements, any expense to ease "flooding" on Lake Wateree could be questioned – 

Staff recognizethis in part suppreduction of the bladder dam froby the Operatioduring stakeholthe Revised CR

AQUATIC RESOURCES – General 

Gregory Hogue US DOI 

Aquatic 

Resources – 

Invasive Fish 

Species 

DOI expresses concern over snakehead fish – collected in 2007 and 2009 in Lake Wylie and potential spread to other project reservoirs and Santee River Basin. 

Snakehead fish aquatic resourclicensing applicHowever, staff concern of reso

39 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

very real potentposed by the prManagement anin such large relikelihood of diparticularly dowMonitoring proRevised CRA flicense provide threat posed by Fisheries in its Recommendatioand Reservation Fishways, Sectithat Duke EnerCommittee (FTinvolved agenclicensing proceconsultation beand Duke Energcoordinate, revithe various progRevised CRA tand other aquatnew and expandproject developRevised CRA wopportunities forelative to the ireporting and trdispersal, and c

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Require Duke Energy Lake Service teams to monitor year-round activities in Environmentally Sensitive Areas. 

As stated in revthe SMP providmonitoring of EAreas. 

40 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Gregory Hogue US DOI Aquatic Resources 

Pg. 147 note sampling on April 9, 2009 and April 24, 2009 in Wateree Dam Tailrace, applicant electro-fished adult robust red horse suckers. Although re-licensing surveys did not capture – subsequent studies have found large specimens at the Wateree Tailrace. 

The text of the this recent occu

Gerri Roberts 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

American 

Rivers 

Aquatic 

Resources 

No fisheries REA flows are not consistent with CRA they are consistent with those proposed by American Rivers. 

Table 30 in the recommendatioand the Coastal 

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

Aquatic 

Resources 

the proposed spring stable flow period intended to mitigate project impacts on a federally endangered species is unenforceable by FERC 

The Wateree SpWateree Floodpwere proposed floodplain bottothe aquatic and depend on themthe system and most effectively these resourcesconsultation bemanagers/agencof these flows onew license. Bexperience duriongoing studies enforceable licefor inclusion in 

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Proposed operations for floodplain inundation intended to mitigate project impacts on floodplain wetlands including Congaree National Park and diadromous fish species are unenforceable by FERC. 

See above 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Mitigate any loss of aquatic inhabitants. Staff finds that 

package is adeqDEIS summariz

41 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Instream Flow minimize low fresources and thabitat reductioor minimized fu

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Proposed mitigation does not comply with federal mitigation guidance: the CRA does not prevent or minimize losses to in-kind habitat values; the mitigation package violates well-established federal mitigation sequencing; and the conservation easements do not meet federal criteria for land conservation. 

See above 

HABITAT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (HEP) 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Comprehensive 

Development 

HEP contribution of $1 million on Tables 116 and 128 should be included in Dev. Analysis. SCDNR reminds FERC that HEP program is a FERC approved method to address mitigation for loss of woody debris and funds are obligated to habitat enhancements in or adjacent to project waters. 

The Habitat EnFERC approved mitigation that project.. Howerequire a State tproposed under are not enforceare generally no

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Water Quality 

HEP – no mention of HEP contributions to mitigation fund – water quality (Section 4 and 14 CRA) 

Reference to Hadded to water in the FEIS. 

FISH PASSAGE / DIADROMOUS FISH 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Provide opportunities in the license to revisit requirements that would provide for establishment and protection of diadromous fish populations. 

The recourse trFWS) have the and modify the and diadromou18 and 10j, as ain these populaESA Section 7 have specificallissue or modify 

42 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.3 (pg 157) paragraph 4: incorrect statement regarding information provided by NOAA Fisheries; NMFS considers all accessible mainstem waters of the upper Santee, Wateree, Congaree, Broad, and Saluda Rivers to be important habitat for diadromous species, including shortnose sturgeon, striped bass, American shad, all other alosines, and American eel. 

The statement ito reflect this st

Christopher 

Goudreau 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Resources 

Commission 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Wylie HIP and Wateree Spring Stable Flow – inconsistency with recommendations (pg. 476 and Chapter 3). Two concepts should not be linked in analysis. HIP will benefit other species besides anadromous fish; will provide flow variability to routine 1,100 cfs flow. HIP will benefit diadromous fish species if and when they occur and is included in the fish passage prescription issued by FWS. 

The FEIS text hdistinguish thes

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.3 (pg 146) paragraph 4: the potential and importance of restoring diadromous fish within the Wateree River should not be understated or based on 2004-2005 fish sampling results, which were influenced by the lowest river flows on record, lower than normal upstream migrations by American shad, and lower than normal passage at St. Stephen Fish Lock in those years. 

The FEIS text hunusual nature the specified sapotential to affefindings. 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

NMFS recommends an EFH assessment be included in the FEIS in accordance with the April 2001 draft national guidance for the FERC_NMFS EFH consultation process for Hydropower Licensing (Section I.B). 

An EFH assessV of NOAA FiRecommendatiJune 2008) has Resources Sect

Dick Christie South Carolina Aquatic SCDNR recommends the HIP regardless of Lake Wylie HIP 

43 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

DNR Resources the presence of diadromous species – the 

measure will have benefit to a variety of aquatic resources in the 30-mile reach below Lake Wylie 

license article fwell as future dhas been revise

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Aquatic Resources 

DNR agrees with the DEIS recommendation for the Wateree Spring Stable Flow Protocol. DNR does not believe that the presence or absence of diadromous fish below the Wateree Dam is entirely due to flow issues in the Wateree River. DNR cannot support this measure as a license condition until information is available that demonstrates a positive relationship between stable spring flows and diadromous fish population enhancement. 

Staff concurs anrecommended tthe agencies anpart of monitorWateree River in this reach for terrestrial resoufloodplain durin

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

Aquatic 

Resources 

The flows in CRA Section 4 are not sufficient for diadromous fish. 

Modeling direcproposed minimnot supporting habitat for diadsupport their acappropriate reactime as their nufish passage is ptrustees, NOAA actively consult Santee Basin Athese populatio

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Aquatic Resources 

Pages 151, 153, 161, 210, and 475- It is surprising that neither of the summaries on pages xxviii-xxix or pages 447-448 include the FERC staff’s agreement with the USFWS/NMFS 10(j) recommendation for re-evaluation of flows from the Wateree development when anadromous fish are present in significant numbers.

The text of the resulting in moto reflect FERC 10(j) agreemen

44 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Aquatic Resources 

Pages 151-155: Duke requests clarification on the language of the NOAA recommendation: “NOAA Fisheries has indicated that supplemental flows to support diadromous fish should be reevaluated in the future after implementation of fish passage prescriptions.” This language is different from the provision in item 18, which says “if future prescriptions for fish passage are issued”. Duke points out that the Santee-Cooper Accord, which specifically addresses Section 18 prescriptions, and the CRA both agree on flows, and any change would be inconsistent with both documents. Duke requests that this provision not be included in the FEIS or New License. 

The language oto be consistent Recommendatiletter (5 June 20Text will also inreevaluate the fbe undertaken areopener procesfuture. 

Chuck 

Hightower 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

Water Quality 

The applicant must provide for upstream fish passage and downstream fish passage and protection at the CWHP in South Carolina consistent with the “Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration and Enhancement”, unless is conflicts with other requirements of State or Federal laws and regulations. 

Duke Energy is River Basin Acthe fish passage the Accord. The consistent with issued by FWS new license. Nhave also reservmodifications to prescriptions fodetermine necesuch additions oby these agencireopened under incorporate app

AMERICAN EEL 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Aquatic Resources Pg., 147 American eel – correct text to read USFWS was petitioned to list American eel The USFWS de

to the text of th

45 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

as endangered” After review FWS found that listing is not warranted at this time – FWS will continue to seek new information and will monitor and encourage ongoing conservation of this species 

monitoring and included in the 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Pages 445, 451: A recent petition to list American eel was rejected by FWS. American eel monitoring and passage are addressed in the Fish Passage Accord that was filed with the Commission on 6/19/2009. The DEIS contains inconsistent reference to the American eel and whether or not it is going to be included in the protection plans. Due to the American eel not being listed and management measures already on record, Duke does not believe there are any benefits to requiring a protection plan and requests that Duke not be required to develop one for this species. 

See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR RTE-Aquatic 

Duke is not proposing to develop a species protection plan for the American eel, but is proposing to stay informed of the activities to list the species as federally endangered and will cooperate with both US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on conservation initiatives. Funding to address management concerns is provided in the Santee Basin Diadromous Fish Accord

See above 

SHORTNOSE STURGEON 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 2.3.1.2 (pg 54) paragraph 2 should contain clarification that fish passage prescriptions pursuant to Section 18 and consultations pursuant to the ESA for shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon are under 

Text in the FEIthat NMFS is thpassage prescrifor shortnose st

46 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

NMFS responsibility. 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Water Quantity; 

Aquatic 

Resources; 

Aquatic RTE 

Providing additional flows into the regulated Wateree for shortnose sturgeon has ramifications on the entire flow regime within the CRA. There is not data providing shortnose sturgeon are evident in this stretch of the Wateree River, however, if the species became present, this aquatic habitat would be enhanced by the flow regimes with the CRA. NCWF is confident that FERC can utilize its “re-opener clause” if this species was ever found to be present. Adding more water for species not present concerns NCWF and the flows we negotiated for in the CRA 

Staff recommenthe Revised CRadequate for the utilize this reacadditional flowin the commentdiadromous and reopen the licennecessary for thsignificant numutilize habitat in 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

ESA Consultation with NMFS Protected Resources Division is required for Shortnose sturgeon. 

FEIS text has b

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.3 (pg 161) paragraph 2: incorrectly asserts that it is unnecessary to provide flows adequate to support sturgeon spawning; NMFS asserts there is suitable spawning habitat for all anadromous species in the Wateree River and bypass reach below Wateree Dam, and these areas are considered to be within the distribution limits of shortnose sturgeon; it is uncertain if these areas are within the distribution limits of Atlantic sturgeon. NMFS considers instream flows recommended in 2008 Recommended Terms and Conditions to be applicable to the bypass reach and tailwater of Wateree Dam; recommended flows could 

NOAA Fisheriefuture instream Section 3.3.3 of recommendatiopassage is availanadromous speto reopen the licneed for differespawning and m

47 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

be addressed through the Commissionproposed Flow and Water Quality Implementation Plan and the adaptive management program. The same correction is needed for 3.3.3 (pg 165) paragraph 2. 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.4.2 (pg 204) paragraph 6: Instead of stating that shortnose sturgeon spawning has not been reported for more than 100 years, reference instead the recent documentation of spawning in Congaree River shoals and Cooper River (references provided). Spawning has not been documented in the Wateree River; however, suitable habitat exists downstream from the Wateree Dam and surveys for spawning are in progress. 

Text of the FEIsuggested. Text documentation River and Coopthat suitable hasturgeon within reach. 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.4.2 (pg 205, paragraph 1): Clarify to indicate the importance of existing habitats suitable for shortnose sturgeon spawning in the Wateree River; these occur below the Wateree Dam to the Congaree confluence, and are fully accessible and important for future recovery. 

FEIS text has b

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.4.2 (pg 210) paragraph 5: Shortnose sturgeon falls under the jurisdiction of NMFS, not USFWS. 

Text of the FEIthe appropriate as suggested. 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Aquatic 

Resources 

NOAA, not USFWS, is charged with management of shortnose sturgeon. 

See above 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.4.2 (pg 212) paragraph 2: Replace sentence with “NMFS considers 

Text in FEIS hapassage: “NOA

48 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

existing information on shortnose sturgeon in the Wateree River to be insufficient for prescription of fish passage at this time. Upstream passage prescription may be considered in the future, during the life of the new Project license when sufficient information on shortnose sturgeon recovery needs is available.” 

existing informthe Wateree Rivprescription of Upstream passaconsidered in thnew Project liceinformation on needs is availab

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 5.2: the minimum instream flow terms recommended by NMFS for the Wateree Development, as presented in Preliminary Terms, Conditions and Prescriptions document (Attachment B, Table 1) were not included or analyzed in the DEIS. Also, NMFS recommends an appropriate analysis of the proposed Wateree River flows be included in the Commission's BA for shortnose sturgeon, and resolved during ESA consultation. 

NOAA Fisheriefuture instream and Wateree hawith a staff recotime as fish passpecified anadrpetition to reopstandard FERC of the need for support spawniThe recommenanalyzed furtheanalyzed using data from moniconsultation thrre-evaluation of fish populationagencies. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Aquatic Resources 

Pages 210-211: Duke objects to the provision to re-open the subject of higher minimum flows to provide spawning habitat for sturgeon when sturgeon populations return to the project in significant numbers. Duke notes that it is not their responsibility to completely restore shortnose sturgeon to the Wateree River, but should additional flows be necessary, the Commission’s 

NOAA Fisheriefuture flows in Conditions and (Attachment B, Those recommein the text, but wAgencies may pfor consideratiominimum flows 

49 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

standard reopener provision would provide a mechanism for such a change. 

maturation habipopulations havspawning and mRecommended using up-to-datmonitoring progthrough the FTC evaluation of flpopulations and 

RIVER HERRING 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.3 (pg 146) paragraph 3: some of the river herring captured in the Wateree tailwater may be from upstream, but it is equally likely that they are overwintering juveniles from the previous spawning season. 

Text of the FEIsuggested. 

STRIPED BASS 

Miles M. 

Croom 

NOAA National 

Marine Fisheries 

Service Habitat 

Conservation 

Division 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Section 3.3.3 (pg 146) paragraph 5: it is incorrect to state that the striped bass population in the Wateree River is not selfsustaining; stocking is conducted to augment the Santee Cooper population to support public recreational fishing. 

FEIS text has bstriped bass popspawning habitregulated reach

Gerri Roberts 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

American 

Rivers 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Striped Bass maintain a population in Cooper Lake and migrate to Lake Wateree Dam according to DNR and are caught at Lake Wateree Dam recreationally 

See above 

FRESHWATER MUSSELS 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Aquatic Resources, RTE 

Pg., 148 Freshwater mussels, Note both NC and Sc have prepared comprehensive plans that address the needs of each mussel species - refers to specific plans 

Text in the FEIreflects that the included in the plans and that ithe future withiunder Section 7 determination w

50 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

we do not recomplan for a new l

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Aquatic Resources Pg. 444 mussel studies to be in 3-yr intervals beginning 5 years after new license is issued See above Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR 

Aquatic 

Resources 

Points out inconsistencies in DEIS – mussel studies every three years stated instead of every five years 

See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR RTE-Aquatic 

 Pg. 451: DNR concurs with the species protection agreements as described in the CRA. Most of the mussels identified in the CRA are identified in the South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and fall under state jurisdiction. Contrary to the DEIS, the Carolina Heelsplitter is not included in this list. 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Pages 148-149; 43; 445: Consistent listing of species of mussels from CRA 7 species: Creeper; Eastern Floater; Paper Pondshell; Eastern Creekshell; Notched Rainbow; Brook Floater; Rayed-Pink Fatmucket 

Text in the list been revised to species providespecies of specifederal agenciecollected during project boundaron the list. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Carolina Heelsplitter was not included in the list of species protection plans because none were detected in the regulated river reaches or within tributary sections affected by the project. If they are discovered, then they will be addressed under the ESA at that time. Duke requests that the EIS be corrected to delete reference to Carolina Heelsplitter and that a species protection plan is not required for this species under the EIS or the new license 

Text in the EIS Carolina Heelsplist of species pspecies is discoProject, consultESA will occur Until that time, species protectinew license. 

51 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE - Aquatic 

DEIS (149) states that “Duke Energy . . . proposed to continue monitoring freshwater mussels . . . at 5-year intervals for the duration of the license.” Duke requests that the EIS and new license reflect the schedule as worded in the CRA, Section 11.3.3.2, that beginning within 5 years following the issuance of the new license Duke shall monitor freshwater mussels at 3-yr intervals for the term of the new license. 

The appropriate the FEIS as req

SECTION 18 FISHWAYS 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Aquatic Resources 

Fishways Section 18, 18 submitted June 4, 2008 as preliminary that is consistent and complimentary to Santee River Basin Accord. DOI will submit additional, final prescription for fishways within statutory time frame 

Text in the FEIthe preliminary schedule for suprescription 

Gerri Roberts 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

American 

Rivers 

Aquatic 

Resources 

USFWS is not fish prescription author – NOAA is 

Section 18 fishwauthored by FWNOAA Fisherieauthority under Section 7 to mamodification at future as neede

Mark Cantrell 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

USFWS Aquatic Resources 

Will file final fish prescriptions within statutory time frame – will be similar to if not identical to preliminary fish way prescriptions – they will not prescribe for Atlantic Sturgeon – restoration focused on American eel, American shad, blue back herring, shortnose sturgeon. 

Acknowledged

TERRESTRIAL 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Terrestrial 

Chapter 3 Congaree NP discussion of “adjacent” or “contiguous” should be reworded to reflect interconnectivity of 

The text of the provide more cWateree River 

52 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Wateree River Regulated Reach and that the floodplain does not represent a separate entity. 

Wateree River Congaree River NP 

RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED (RTE) SPECIES 

Gregory Hogue US DOI RTE 

Received letter request for formal consultation under ESA. DOI will reply under statutory time frame. 

Acknowledged 

Mark Cantrell 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

USFWS RTE 

FWS received the Commission’s request for endangered species consultation and will be 

gathering information, and doing site visits – FWS will be responding within the statutory time frame. 

Acknowledged 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

RTE 

DEIS states that the CRA may adversely impact this endangered species (Schweinitz’s sunflower) in the Mountain Island Hydro spillway channel. NCWF refers to the appropriate section of the CRA (p. 207) which covers management of this species. The Aquatic Resource Committee concluded that no continuous flows or habitat changes were necessitated. Mitigation for possible impacts have been accepted by NC Division of Water Quality by issuance of its 401 Water Quality Certification.

The FEIS states plan and protecadequate safeguspills may advesunflower as doevent. Consultallow Duke to bmitigation and populations. A consultation haSection 7. Undwill determine and identify any alternatives or crecommendatio

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Pages 6, 208: The DEIS concludes that proposed project operations may have an adverse impact on the Schweinitz’s sunflower colony in the Mountain Island Hydro spillway channel. Duke has successfully and continuously protected the resident Schweinitz sunflowers in the Mountain Island Lake spillway channel for 

See above 

53 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

10 years (even though there were a few unavoidable spills), and Duke believes there is no foundation for the conclusion of adverse impacts likely to this species. Duke requests the Commission withdraw the request for a BO from the USFWS and instead issue a finding of no likely adverse impacts to the sunflowers or their habitat based on the current species protection plan. 

Gregory Hogue US DOI RTE 

Page 448: FWS requested applicant consultation concerning content of their proposed RTE species management plan (April 24, 2006) as plans were developed without federal agency review. To date no consultation has been conducted – they maintain their request. 

The FEIS notes plans were draf“Catawba-WateTerrestrial Resoreiterates the neconsultation wispecies manage

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

RTE 

The CRA and DEIS set up a conflict with Endangered Species Act consultation. 

ESA consultatibeen conflicted issuance of the 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Pages 192-193: Bald Eagle Monitoring add specific language from the CRA “ every 3 years beginning within 5 years of issuance of the New License. 

The FEIS has bconsistency in dbald eagle monCRA. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Page 192: Georgia Aster – Duke concurs that a species protection plan for Georgia Aster should not be a requirement of a new license at this time. 

Acknowledged 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Page 198: DEIS states that prior to construction of any new recreation sites, Duke would need to consult with FWS, SCDNR, or NCDENR on the possible presence of RTE species in the vicinity. Duke points out that they already have 

The FEIS has bexisting safeguDuke will deterpresence of RTconstruction incNatural Heritag

54 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

several safeguards in place, including the SMP and RTE surveys. They propose that this recommendation is redundant and no support is given for the necessity of additional consultation. 

constantly updaas part of the saRTE be identifiSCDNR, NCDESection 7 of the species) would data, which wiland out of date 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy RTE 

Page 445: DEIS recommends that for nonfederally recognized RTE species Duke file species protection plans with NCWRC and SCDNR within 60 days following the issuance of the license. Duke does not believe that this recommendation needs to be included in the DEIS or New License, but if it is included, they request that the following schedule be used: “within 60 days following issuance of the new license and the closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge periods related to species protection.” 

The FEIS has bclarification of following issuaclosure of all rechallenge perioprotection.” 

INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT 

Mary George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks, 

and 

Development 

Terrestrial 

Invasive terrestrial plant management plan - concern with how project spreads species, authority on private lands. Issue is addressed in SMP for shoreline. 

The FEIS has bterrestrial invaswas intended to vegetation that within the projedeveloped an edshoreline stabilnative invasive native plants. Ithe species protdo contemplate management. Tthe SMP, Duke 

55 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

information and control and manon shoreline proboundary. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Terrestrial Resources/ RTE 

Pages 4, 56, 195-7, 200, 447, 450, 451, 476: Terrestrial invasive species are not the result of Project operations; management efforts are impracticable, of questionable effectiveness, and engender inherent risks; Duke has implemented invasive species guidelines for adjacent property owners; an educational brochure has already been completed, and there are provisions in place to monitor and protect special status species. Duke requests that the recommendation [that Duke develop and implement an invasive species management plan and develop an educational brochure for landowners on management of invasive species] not be included in either the EIS or the new license. 

See above 

Mary K. 

George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks 

& Development 

Terrestrial 

Do not require Duke to develop management plan for terrestrial invasive plants. 

The FEIS has binvasive terrestas previously rerecommendatiomanagement of RTE species prand continues tspecies as part revisions in the in consultation appropriate agemeasures to mainvasive plant sand their habita

56 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

project boundarThe FEIS revisDuke maintain agencies to receinvasive specieoccur within thtechniques to mThe spread of nspecies within tadded as a cumdevelopment in uncoordinated mplants within th

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Terrestrial 

Page 450: management of invasive plants Public education is area of education and role of the Clemson Extension not Duke – provided additional information sources 

See above 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Terrestrial 

Terrestrial invasive plant management is important to NCWF overall mission work as invasive plants degrade habitats by often smothering out native flora critical to wildlife species. NCWF supports this nonCRA inclusion as the problem of invasive plants is pervasive and broader in scope than this Hydro Relicensing project. Proliferation of these species most often occurs from excrement by avian species as well as mammals. Therefore management on project lands is quite impractical as continuous re-infestation occurs via ongoing wildlife travel back and forth from adjacent lands and further. It is unfair to place burden on Duke for species planted and 

See above 

57 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

spreading outside the project boundaries when these invasive plant species are sold commonly everywhere at places such as Wal Mart, Lowes and Home Depot. In other words, NCWF realizes the problems invasive plants present to wildlife and to habitat but we also realize it is a much larger problem and therefore, solutions are bigger than in this Hydro project so it is our opinion that non-inclusion in the CRA and a license is appropriate 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Terrestrial 

Page 450: management of vegetation on private lands is not clear. The project boundary is full pool, and it is the DNR understanding that there are few if any, private properties located within the project boundary. Duke cannot be responsible for managing terrestrial vegetation outside the project boundary

See above 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Terrestrial Pages 197, 198, 200: Invasive species Management Plan. Potential to upset balance of CRA. See above 

Christopher 

Goudreau 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Resources 

Commission 

Terrestrial 

NCWRC does not see a reason for a broad approach to invasive species management. Geographic area – plants constantly spread to project area from outside. Cost to benefit ratio would be low if intent is to manage common exotics throughout the project area. The original recommendation came from FWS and if the intent is to protect federally or state listed plant species, then the recommendation should be limited to a management plan for specific locations 

See above 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Terrestrial Page 450: note impacts of invasive species on Schweinitz’s sunflower – recommend See above 

58 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

licensee be required to consult with DOI to develop a Terrestrial Invasive Species Management Plan – letter contains recommendations for plan. 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Terrestrial 

Cogongrass – request that the licensee specifically address how it will monitor, detect and control the spread of cogongrass at the Project. 

See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Terrestrial 

Page 447: the DEIS describes a recommendation to develop and implement a terrestrial plant species management plan. Based on DNR knowledge of the Project boundary, there is limited terrestrial property in the Project area. The exception is the islands, where DNR is not aware of any problems with non-native terrestrial vegetation. Duke manages vegetation around the hydropower developments and within transmission corridors. DNR has not identified any specific Project related problems. Private property owners adjacent to the Project have access to county extension agents for the purposes of advice managing terrestrial vegetation. DNR cannot support a recommendation that requires Duke to serve in that capacity. DNR does recommend that Duke continue to implement existing terrestrial vegetation management strategies, and that they consult the proper technical agency as needed to control nuisance vegetation.

See above 

Wenonah G. 

Haire, DMD, 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation 

Catawba Indian 

Nation Terrestrial 

We do not support FERC's suggestion to implement a terrestrial invasive plant management program; invasive plants indirectly provide protection to certain 

Many native plto be colonizer stage species wcultural sites. T

59 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Officer sensitive cultural sites and we do not 

support their removal. 

clarifies that the management plonly non-native RTE plant specboundaries. It hwhether any nonear or within aproject boundarterrestrial non-nincluded in the protection planconsultation wimanagement ortribes. Managewould address aboundary where species threaten species managemethodology apnative invasive monitoring, hanapplication) to shallow subsurfRTE plant specnon-native speccultural resourcmanagement plpotential for eroartifacts after antreatment with the surface e.g.matting that wo

AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Terrestrial/ 

Aquatic 

Continue aquatic noxious plant management program. 

The FEIS text rare effective as 

60 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Foundation, Inc. vegetation, how

recommendatioconsultation proagencies and cofor aquatic invabe identified in The FEIS revisDuke continue the educational distributing/posHitchhikers” br

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Terrestrial 

The DEIS recommends that Duke continue to implement invasive aquatic species control measures and continue education in order to curb and prevent any invasion within the project boundary. We applaud the collaborative efforts to both educate boaters and to curb proliferation. The effective sterile grass carp project, in conjunction with NC and SC agencies, is a positive model that has been going on for many years prior to the CRA negotiations. NCWF feels this collaboration is effective and does not wish to see it potentially dissolved which could occur by this DEIS recommendation

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Terrestrial Resources 

Pages 196, 450, 476: The recommended Aquatic Invasive Species Management program is already in place. Duke intends to continue the program, but requests that it not be a requirement of the new license because the effectiveness of the program depends on cooperation with state resource agencies. 

See above 

61 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT - General 

Mary K. 

George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks 

& Development 

Land Use 

Implementation of a 50-foot vegetated buffer and reacquisition and restoration of contiguous shoreline segments–of concern to local governments is requiring the private sector to impose and enforce land use controls, such as implementation of a vegetated buffer requirement. Do not require Duke to enforce land use regulations; use the MOU Duke has with local agencies for enforcing buffer regulations. 

The FEIS has bthe 50 ft buffer not being recom

50-FOOT BUFFER 

Sarah Williams Individual Land Use/SMP 

Duke Energy should use a 50 foot buffer around its project boundaries to protect natural resources. Duke should require shoreline buffers for dock permits. The existing Shoreline Management Plan offers little protection and is not enforced adequately. 

The FEIS has b50-ft buffer is nrecommended. 

Sarah Williams 

(T-22 April) Individual Land Use/SMP 

Duke must stop 50 feet beyond project boundary with buffers to protect entire project area water quality, water quantity, and wildlife habitat. 

See above 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Land Use/SMP 

50-ft. buffer - shoreline protection already a part of SMP; reacquisition of shoreline within project for protection not feasible; HEP plan funding will be implemented. 

The FEIS has bthe 50 ft buffer not being recom

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

SC DNR Land Use-SMP 

Page 477: 50-ft. buffer proposed asking for clarification since project boundary is confined to full pool – require landowners to install or Duke to purchase land and install. 

The FEIS has b50 ft buffer is nrecommended. 

David Buetow Mecklenburg County Water Land Use/SMP Oppose inclusion of 50-ft riparian buffer (Table 133). See above 

62 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Quality Program 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Land Use/ SMP 

Pages 477 – 478: “re-acquisition and restoration of contiguous shorelines”. NC has Catawba buffers advocated by NCWF and adopted by the counties that are within the Catawba. This policy regulates the river stem and reservoirs in NC for 50-100 foot buffer restrictions on tributaries. This holistic approach to buffers for controlling sedimentation and stormwater runoff as well as providing wildlife corridors is more comprehensive than just the project boundary and serves as an example for policy makers in SC to follow. NCWF feels that putting the onus on Duke to reacquire buffer lands is highly impractical due to costs and the importance given to reacquisition is not merited due to Catawba buffer policies. 

The FEIS has bthe 50-ft buffer not being recom

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Land Use/ SMP 

On page 477, it is proposed to require that the project boundary include a minimum of a 50-ft vegetated riparian buffer, as required in North Carolina. DNR concurs with the protection of riparian areas and generally favors such a recommendation. DNR does not understand how this would be implemented in the Project because: a) there is very little riparian area in the Project boundary; b) most of the Duke Energy properties have been protected; and c) there is no such requirement in South Carolina. 

The FEIS has b50-ft buffer is nrecommended. 

Robert M. 

Williams Individual Land Use/SMP 

Duke Energy should use a 50-foot buffer around its project boundaries to protect natural resources. Duke should require shoreline buffers for dock permits. The 

See above 

63 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

existing Shoreline Management Plan offers little protection and is not enforced adequately. 

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Steve S. Kelly, 

Jr. Kershaw County SMP 

We oppose the DEIS recommendation that the Shoreline Management Plan should be modified to strictly limit all new shoreline development within the flood zone. Current provisions are adequate at limiting development. This would adversely impact landowners and Kershaw County. 

The FEIS has bearlier recomm“flood zone” as classification at would be outsidboundary, whicelevation of the necessary flood feet above normgovernment zonbuilding of hom

W. Clay Young Kershaw County SMP 

We oppose the DEIS recommendation that the Shoreline Management Plan should be modified to strictly limit all new shoreline development within the flood zone. Current provisions are adequate at limiting development. This would adversely impact landowners and Kershaw County. 

See above 

Rebecca 

Wodder (T-22 

April) 

Individual SMP 

Commends Shoreline Management Plan. Acknowledged 

Mary George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks, 

and 

Development 

SMP 

Discusses the vegetated buffer MOU-SMP between Duke and local governments and the requirement for land use controls 

As the MOU is it is outside the 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

SMP 

The DEIS also recommends planting native species and installing fish friendly piers. Both these habitat enhancement issues are valued by NCWF. We believe that the SMP exhaustively and thoroughly covers impacts to shoreline vegetation and habitat. As for 

Table 133 has bplanting of natifish friendly pieas a requiremenmeasures are prbut are not requ

64 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

fish friendly piers, that enhancement component can be accomplished through the HEP program. NCWF values this creative funding mechanism and the opportunities it affords the CatawbaWateree for habitat enhancement projects such as vegetative planting, fish habitat creation and fish friendly piers 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

SMP 

Duke/FERC has no authority or funding to establish land use controls or to institute shoreline protection outside of the project boundary; 

Acknowledged 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 198: Vegetation removal, construction, and shoreline stabilization or excavation activities would be restricted within areas designated as "environmental" with emergent vegetation, especially water willow beds, stream confluences and heads of coves, bottomland hardwood forests, and other areas designated as "natural". CRA in J-1 does not describe or use the term "emergent wetlands" but rather "emergent vegetation" in the definitions in the SMP Classifications and Lake Use Restrictions. The classification of "Environmental" is much broader than jurisdictional wetlands since it is based primarily on the presence of vegetation. Jurisdictional wetland must include the presence of the 3 parameters of hydric soils, hydrology and vegetation. As a result of the classification of "Environmental" being broader, more areas are included in this type classification and a greater percentage of the shoreline preserved. Also, in addition to areas 

Clarification ha

65 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

designated as "Natural" there are areas designated as "Environmental" with some, but not all of the same restrictions. This is not listed. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 280: "Private swim areas that exclude the public from a portion of the project and large inflatable recreation equipment within the project boundary would not be allowed." Duke requests that the DEIS clarify that this limit applies to private individuals because Duke will consider private swim areas as part of marina facility applications. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 281: "Proposed recreational access would be negatively impacted by this new restriction since excavation would not be allowed to create new recreational access." Excavation can be allowed to create new recreational access provided it is in areas that are not limited because of some habitat quality warranting protection or other lake use restriction. The SMP criteria do not require a facility to be in existence to be eligible for excavation if the adjoining property owner has submitted an application and received written approval for facility construction. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Pages 281, 282, 345, 461: This reduction in total boat slips along with limitations on watercraft moorings would help reduce recreational crowding in certain areas of some of the project reservoirs, particularly Lake Norman, and improve boating safety and the quality of the boating experience. Boat density studies conducted during the process of developing the CRA did not find 

Clarification ha

66 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

a direct correlation between the location of boat slips and boating activity. Certain areas being crowded is not a function of the location and number of boat slips or mooring locations but more attributable to recreation user preferences. This is a recurring theme throughout the DEIS where the preparers are making a direct link between numbers of facilities (e.g., piers, boat ramps, marinas, etc.) and crowding, over-crowding and boating safety. Perceptions of crowding vary and Duke saw this in discussions with stakeholders. What may be crowded to one individual or user group is not considered crowded to another. Compare canoeists/ kayakers perceptions to those who participate in raft-up events. Additionally, boating density cannot be regulated directly by spatially locating mooring/launching facilities since boaters will travel on average 30 minutes from their point of origin or 5 miles as determined by Michigan DNR's boating study. Density (and therefore areas of high boat volumes) may be attributable to a number of factors including areas of attraction (e.g., flat water areas for slalom skiing, scenic attractions, good fishing locations, home of celebrities) and narrow or confined areas boaters have to travel through to get to other destinations. These factors are not influenced greatly by facility construction. Duke wishes to clarify that the use, number, and location of common use facilities was not designed as a means to limit or control boater crowding. 

67 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 282: Extending the maximum facility length could, depending on the location of the facility, disrupt or impair recreational use of some small portion of the reservoir. Duke Comment: True Public Marinas may be considered for the additional length provided they meet all other requirements including the 1/3 cove width limitation which helps ensure the facility does not limit or impact recreational use of the Project. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 325: An SMP for the CatawbaWateree Project has been in effect since June 1, 1996, and was last updated and approved by the Commission in October 2003. Duke Comment: The SMP was last updated and approved by the Commission in October 2003. The Shoreline Management Guidelines were included in that filing and they were approved as part of that filing in 2003. The SMGs were last updated and implemented (not approved) on 

June 1, 1996. This was the last major revision to the SMG prior to the latest revision/implementation of both the SMP and SMG revisions filed as part of the License Application and implemented on September 1, 2006, although still not approved. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 326: The updated guidelines consist of revised criteria within each of the six lake use permitting programs, including: (1) shoreline stabilization, (2) private facilities, (3) commercial facilities, (4) conveyance, (5) excavation, and (6) miscellaneous 

Clarification ha

68 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

reservoir uses. References to the Commercial Facilities Program should be changed to Marina Facilities Program. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Pages 330, 348: Applicant proposes fees for permitting of private and commercial docks, marinas, and other recreational use facilities allowed under the SMP. Some fees are earmarked for inclusion in the Habitat Enhancement Program (HEP) Funds, and are to be used to help purchase or otherwise protect lands outside the project boundary for conservation or other public use purposes. The revised SMP establishes no caps on fees. HEP funds are available for more than purchasing or protecting lands outside the project boundary. Funds are also used to support fish and wildlife habitat enhancement, creation and protection activities within and contiguous with the project boundary, the Duke-owned islands, Duke-owned Public Recreation Areas and the river stretches in the Catawba Basin in the counties occupied by the CatawbaWateree Hydro Project. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 333: Expansion of existing true public marinas may be exempted from adhering to certain requirements limiting expansion of other existing commercial facilities even if the facility is behind a constriction point of 200-feet or less. The DEIS references a 200-foot constriction point which should be replaced with language referring to a 300-foot wide narrowing of the cove. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP Page 333: New boat ramps for residential marina facility use shall not be located in Clarification ha

69 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

the backs of coves if any portion of the cove between the proposed boat ramp location and the main channel is less than 200 foot in width. DEIS language referring to 200 foot width should be revised to reflect the 300 - foot wide narrowing of the cove criteria. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 334: Duke Energy proposes to review and update the SMP at 10 years following the issuance of a new project license and every 10 years thereafter for the term of the new license. Replace DEIS language for the first SMP update with CRA language. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 335: Moreover, while there is considerable development along the Great Falls reservoir shoreline (71 percent of the shoreline has a permitted use), Duke Energy does not permit the construction of private piers on this reservoir, so the shoreline remains uncluttered. The developed classification is primarily (50%) Project Operations with 0.8% Business/ industrial and 0.5% Public Infrastructure. The remaining shoreline is in a protected classification. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 343: Natural areas are areas of isolated berms or those areas that have important resource characteristics such as shallow water, significant cultural resources, or significant terrestrial habitats. No development is allowed to occur in areas classified as Natural or Environmental. Natural areas have significant shallow water as the most distinguishing feature. The other attributes do occur but much less often. Natural areas do have significant restriction, 

Clarification ha

70 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

but stabilization is allowed based on the Shoreline Stabilization Technique Selection Process. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 344: The previously approved SMP did not require this riprap installation, resulting in undermining of bulkheads. The DEIS states that the previous SMG did not include the provision of rip rap at the base of all bulkheads, however, there was such a requirement for rip-rap to be placed along the base of all bulkheads with the rip rap consisting of a minimum depth of one foot and a slope of 2 to 1. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 344: In addition, excavation is prohibited during the months of March, April, and June because of potential impacts to fish spawning. Moratorium should include the months of March through June, including May. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 344: The proposed SMG does not allow excavation for several specified activities, including: (a) channeling to create additional shoreline or to alter the project boundary; (b) excavation that would impact threatened or endangered species, historic properties, or environmentally important areas; or (c) excavation not associated with maintaining access to an existing permitted facility. DEIS does not mention that excavation will be considered for a proposed (not constructed) facility for which the owner has submitted an application and received written approval. Excavation can be allowed to create new recreational access provided it is in areas 

Clarification ha

71 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

that are not limited because of some habitat quality warranting protection or other lake use restriction. The SMP criteria do not require a facility to be in existence to be eligible for excavation. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 345: The passage, "The previously approved SMP did not limit common use slips to one per lot" should be omitted. 

Correction has 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Pages 346, 357, 461: The additional lot width requirement will force adjacent private property developers to plat larger lots, thereby reducing the total portion of the adjacent shoreline that is disturbed and developed with homes and other related structures. The resulting reduction in the total number of homes developed along the shoreline will help to better preserve the aesthetic quality of the reservoir shorelines. It also will help to limit the total number of new piers and other private recreation facilities that will be developed, which will help prevent over-crowding of the reservoirs and preserve the recreational experience. The DEIS implies that this criteria affects the lot size of property upland of the project boundary, thereby reducing the upland development resulting in fewer lake facilities which in turn reduces over-crowding. Duke believes that the impact of these criteria may be overstated. These criteria do not dictate upland development, slips for off-water lots, or boating traffic. 

Clarification halot width increadevelopment or or watercraft. Teffect of the pro

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP Pages 346, 358: Watercraft per Boat Slip— Under the proposed SMP, only one See above 

72 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

watercraft at a time shall be moored within a boat slip or docking/mooring location, unless the boat slip or mooring is specifically designed to accommodate a specified number of additional watercraft. The previously approved SMP did not specify any limitations on boats per slip. This proposed change in the SMP will benefit project resources by serving to help limit the total number of watercraft on the reservoirs. In turn, a reduction in the total number of watercraft will help to prevent overcrowding on the reservoirs and preserve the quality of the recreational experience. Boating safety also will benefit by a reduction in the total number of watercraft being moored on a particular reservoir. The watercraft per slip restriction applies to Marina Facilities and not Private Facilities. No reference is made in the CRA that these criteria are intended to reduce boating levels, reduce crowding or increase safety. Duke recommends that the DEIS be revised to agree with the CRA. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 347: Extending the maximum facility length from 120 to 200-ft will result in some additional impacts to reservoir water quality and aquatic habitat. The longer facilities also will have an adverse effect on project aesthetics and, depending on the location of the facility, the potential to disrupt or impair recreational use of some small portion of the reservoir. True Public Marinas may be considered for the additional length provided they meet all other requirements 

Acknowledged 

73 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

including 1/3 cove width limitation which helps ensure the facility does not limit or impact recreational use of the project. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 347: Commercial Boat Ramp Construction— Under the proposed SMP, new boat ramps at residential marinas will not be allowed to be located in the backs of coves if any portion of the cove between the proposed boat ramp and the main channel is less than 200 ft in width. Duke recommends the cove width limitation be revised in the DEIS to 300 ft. 

Correction has 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 36: File a revised SMP every 10 years after the issuance of the new license for the term of the license, to be prepared in consultation with FWS, NOAA Fisheries, North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DHEC, and other interested parties. Duke requests clarification of the need for NOAA Fisheries to be included in Services List since they have not previously been included and did not participate in development of any of the SMG Duke and other stakeholders have developed. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 44: SMP18.3 During the first year after issuance of the new license and annually for the term of the new license, convene a workgroup of interested stakeholders for a status-reviewing meeting to discuss implementation of the SMP including SMP classification mapping and SMP permitting criteria. Duke requests that the DEIS language be revised to be consistent with the CRA language. 

Clarification ha

74 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 44: SMP 18.4 In the first year after the issuance of the new license, consult with the SMP Workgroup, and prepare a basic study methodology and list of baseline review parameters with which to evaluate the effectiveness of the SMG permitting criteria in protecting near-shore and riparian habitats. Duke requests that the DEIS language be revised to be consistent with the CRA language. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Page 44: SMP 18.6 In September 2006, begin contacting the counties shown in Table 1 of appendix K (memorandum of understanding [MOU] between applicant, states, counties, and municipalities) of the Revised CRA. The current MOU template does not include a table but the CRA version has been used as a discussion starting point for those entities interested in entering into this type agreement. While the template can be modified Duke does not intend to revise the template included in the CRA but will consider customized modifications to the template as part of negotiations with interested state and local entities. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Pages 477, 478: Re-acquisition of shoreline segments: there is no evidence provided that this recommended action is needed. Moreover, implementation of the recommendation is impracticable and cost prohibitive. Duke estimates it would cost over $2 billion to acquire the 800 miles of shoreline. The costs are not justified by the benefits. 

Table 133 has bacquisition of 5requirement for installation of fbeing recommenew license. 

75 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Avoid impacts to shoreline vegetation/ habitat: this has already been achieved by the SMP that was filed with the License Application. Duke and stakeholders have mapped and classified habitat areas and the appropriate lake use restrictions were assigned to each classification. Shorelines with significant aquatic vegetation and/or habitat are protected from development. Require planting native species and installation of fish-friendly piers: Duke and stakeholders developed criteria in the SMP for managing native vs. invasive species; a pamphlet has been developed; fish-friendly pier information is included in the approved Catawba-Wateree SMP as Appendix E. 50-ft vegetated riparian buffer: Acquiring this additional property is impractical. Regulation of lands outside the project boundary falls within local government jurisdictions, not Duke or FERC. Duke has proposed in the CRA numerous riparian protection measures: the SMP establishes an MOU to coordinate local government and Duke efforts on shoreline protection issues; Duke has implemented the Habitat Enhancement Plan, which uses fees for new construction or renovation of piers for habitat improvement projects. If all CRA conditions are met, Duke will donate an additional $1 million each to the NC and SC Habitat Enhancement Programs. 

FLOOD ZONE 

Victoria Taylor CatawbaWateree SMP 

Lake Wateree Flood Zone pg 112, 337: Create flood zone in SMP - no clarity as to 

The FEIS has bearlier recomm

76 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Relicensing 

Coalition 

size and elevation would severely limit development. 

Victoria Taylor 

(T – 21 April) 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

SMP 

Flood Zone – question asked about what is the definition (pg.337) Verbal comments from S. Murphy – working within the flood easement. 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR SMP 

Page 337: Flood Zone – SCDNR understands this would require Duke to survey the entire project to establish flood easement. Lakes Wylie and Wateree are already heavily developed. Inland regulated by county zoning; lakeward by SMP. Would have been a good measure to put in earlier licenses. 

Morris 

Worthington 

(T-22 April) 

Lake Wateree 

Properties SMP 

Flood Zones need clarification as to definition – is it flood easement at 110 ft as in deeds or is it 100-year flood level? FERC changing setbacks from 50 ft in deeds? Clarified Flood Zone as flood easement by Sean Murphy 

“flood zone” as classification at would be outsidboundary, whicelevation of the necessary flood feet above normgovernment zonbuilding of homLocal zoning coof the shorelinethe author of fe50-yr and 100-yare not to be coeasement that Dlake shore parc

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

SMP 

Clarify the “flood zone” of the Shoreline Management Plan. 

See above 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

SMP 

Duke Energy should map flood zones, and prevent development within the flood zones.

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy SMP 

Pages 112, 337: DEIS recommends that the SMP be modified to strictly limit all development within the flood zone in order to reduce the impact of flooding on property and structures. Duke finds this requirement to be somewhat unclear. If it is recommending that Duke should prohibit all development within low-lying areas in order 

See above 

77 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

to discourage development outside the project boundary, they are willing to accept the recommendation. However, if the DEIS is recommending that Duke expand its project boundaries to include the 10-ft flood easement above full pond that currently exists all along the shoreline, then Duke proposes that this recommendation is contrary to Commission precedent, unnecessary, unreasonable, and highly inequitable to Duke. 

Charles O. 

Stogner III Individual SMP 

Please do not increase the restrictions on anything being in the 110 foot current Duke Energy flood easement that is effective for most of the Lake Wateree shoreline. 

See above 

James Smith Individual SMP 

The proposed flood relief plan through changes in the SMP declaring new “flood zones” needs more clarification. 

See above 

RECREATION -General 

Kevin Colburn American Whitewater Recreation 

Include the takeout at the Wateree reach [canoe/kayak access at the CIN reservation] in the new license. There is absolutely a project purpose and nexus – it is the takeout for a run that starts at the dam and is regulated by the dam. Recreation on the Wateree reach is directly connected to project operations, and a takeout is an essential part of providing river based recreation. 

By letter dated Whitewater reqthis comment atreatment of the the CRA. 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Recreation 

Page 457: Overmountain Victory Trail – and water trail – disagree with staff recommendation – DOI believes they are an important mitigation and enhancement measure that help to offset a range of natural and cultural resource impacts 

The Overmounproposed to conis not needed foit is not necessaproject boundarlocated on non-

78 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

associated with the project in the FEIS to n

purposes. The substantial distaWateree develoalready provideAccess Area juSouth Carolina the Highway 1 FEIS recommenadditional inforFEIS. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Recreation 

Pages 309,354,455,462,470: Duke recommends that the lakeward section of the LCSP management zone be included consistently with other management zones included in the DEIS on pages 354, 455, 462. 

This correction 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Recreation/ 

Economic 

Analysis 

Pages 376, 382, 388, 394, 400, 406, 411, 417, 423, 429, 434, 440: Additional Line Item for “Recreation Enhancement” Recommended by Staff ($4,500 Capital per Development, Totaling $49,500 Capital). Duke requests clarification on the additional "recreation enhancement" line item recommended by Staff shown as $4,500 in the DEIS. Specifically, what is the adopted cost for, how was the amount determined and the rationale for adopting? 

The Recreation proposed by staclarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Recreation 

Page 288: Recreation Management Plan consultation list recommended in DEIS is excessive to the point of including entities not located in or having a direct interest in the C-W Basin, selectively included two counties and not others. With a more consistent list, and a more direct wildlife or 

Additional clariconsultation lisFEIS. 

79 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

recreational mission, Duke agrees to consult with the NCWRC, SCDPRT, SCDNR, American Whitewater, Carolina Canoe Club, C-W Relicensing Coalition, local governments and agencies. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Recreation/Econ omic Analysis 

Pages 376, 382, 388, 394, 400, 406, 411, 417, 423, 429, 434, 440: Recreation Management Plan Duke requests that the RMP be included in the EIS and in the new license as proposed by the CRA. Duke also believes that the costs associated with the RMP should be incorporated into the annualized cost of environmental measures. Duke would appreciate an explanation from the Commission if it is determined that this cost should not be included. 

Chapter 4 of the reflect that the R

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Recreation 

Page 448: DEIS recommends that the project boundary at all Duke-owned recreation areas should be expanded to include any adjacent bank fishing areas, except where bank fishing is restricted. Duke requests clarification, mentioning that bank fishing usually takes place informally wherever good conditions are available, and the recommendation is vague and does not specify which areas are proposed to be added. 

The FEIS has brecommendatio

Milton Marley Individual Recreation Supports additional public recreation facilities. Acknowledged 

RECREATION ENHANCEMENT COSTS 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Recreation/ 

Economic 

Analysis 

Pages 376,388,394,400,406,411,417,423,429, 434, 440: DEIS Line Item "Recreation Enhancements" ($9,000 O&M per Development for all Developments except 

Clarification haRecreation Enhhave been remohave been revis

80 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Rhodhiss) are shown as not "Adopted by Staff" in the individual development tables but as "Adopted by Staff" in the Project summary. Duke requests clarification of the line items and dollars associated with "All staff" that are included in the Developmental Analysis of the DEIS. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Recreation/ 

Economic 

Analysis 

Page 382: Line Item for "Recreation Enhancements" valued at $2,971,000 (Rhodhiss Development). Duke recommends that the line items and dollars associated with "Recreation Enhancements" be included in the Developmental Analysis of the DEIS shown on page 382 (Rhodhiss Development). 

Clarification haRecreation Enhclarified in the section. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Recreation/ 

Economic 

Analysis 

Page 400: Line Item for "Recreation Enhancements" recommended by "Staff" includes $4,600 (see note above) plus an additional $304,500. Duke requests clarification of the line item "recreation enhancements” shown as $304,500 in the DEIS on page 400, specifically what the cost is for, how the amount was determined, and the staff rationale for adopting. 

Clarification ha

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Recreation/ 

Economic 

Analysis 

Page 411: All line items listed as "Recreation Enhancements" ($1,816,000 and $4,292,000 and $260,000 and $2,178,500). DEIS shows a NOT "Adopted by Staff” for the Line Item valued at $4,292,000 and $260,000 but shows a YES "Adopted by Staff” for line items of value $1,816,000 and $2,178,500. Duke requests clarification on all Line Items listed as "Recreation Enhancements" ($1,816,000 and $4,292,000 and $260,000 and 

Clarification ha

81 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

$2,178,500) in the DEIS on page 411, specifically what the costs are for, how the cost was determined, and the staff rationale for adopting or not. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy 

Recreation/ 

Economic 

Analysis 

Page 440: Summary Table - All Line Items listed under Recreation Resources. All values in DEIS development cost summary table match the PM&E values in the license application and are all shown as YES "Adopted by Staff”. However, the total cost shown in the DEIS summary table does not match the Adopted by Staff total of all the individual development sheets. Duke requests clarification of how the values in the project summary table should be reconciled with the tables for individual developments. 

The values provtable take into aRemaining Inveproposed/adoptprepare license Local taxes, opcosts, and insurof power. It is table to be an “proposed measureflect the cost energy being prparticular valuein the FEIS. 

KERSHAW COUNTY 

Steve S. Kelly, 

Jr. Kershaw County Recreation 

Kershaw County acquired lands under the CRA agreement with the understanding that Duke would provide funds to develop the site. Please uphold this agreement rather than follow contrary recommendations in the DEIS. 

The FEIS has bearlier recommbe responsible faccess. 

W. Clay Young Kershaw County Recreation 

Kershaw County acquired lands under the CRA agreement with the understanding that Duke would provide funds to develop the site. Please uphold this agreement rather than follow contrary recommendations in the DEIS. 

See above 

Gary 

Faulkenberry 

(T-22 April) 

Lake Wateree 

Association Recreation 

Asked for clarification of Kershaw County Park lands brought into project boundary 

See above 

James R. Smith Individual Recreation Support additional public recreation on east The FEIS has b

82 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

side of lake, but need a better definition and does it include proposed park being discussed between Duke Energy and Kershaw County? 

earlier recommbe responsible faccess. 

LAKE CORNELIUS 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Recreation 

The DEIS recommends providing additional recreational enhancements at Lake Cornelius however, the CRA does not include an access area for this body of water. NCWF feels there many access areas for the greater public to enjoy within southern Lake Norman. We feel this area is already represented by a relative abundance of access sites. Furthermore, during negotiations by stakeholders, Cornelius rejected an offer to provide land and funding for recreational access and did not sign the CRA. Those earmarked monies were redistributed within the CRA and the available land at the time of negotiations is no longer available. There also may be some wide disagreement amongst area constituents to the degree of even desiring such an access area. 

The FEIS has bthat Duke EnerCornelius to pro(no facilities) to Davidson and Laccessed from Lhydraulically coare affected by already informa

Wenonah G. 

Haire, DMD, 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation 

Officer 

Catawba Indian 

Nation Recreation 

We agree that no access area is needed at Lake Cornelius. 

See above 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Recreation 

Pages 302 and 316: Lake Cornelius and East Wateree Recreational enhancementsParties who benefit are not CRA signatories. Potential to upset balance of CRA benefits. 

See above 

E. Mark Duke Energy Recreation Pages 4, 302, 447, 56: Duke does not See above 

83 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Oakley believe that there is a demonstrated need for 

a recreational facility on Lake Cornelius and requests that the recommended additional facility not be included in the EIS or in a New License. 

MOUNTAIN CREEK TRACT 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Recreation 

Clarify conflicting statements in DEIS regarding Mountain Creek Tract; it should remain outside project boundary. East Wateree Access Area enhancements should remain outside project boundary. Lake Norman State Park is close to 2,000 acres, not 1,328 as stated in the DEIS. 

The FEIS has berror in the ExeMountain Creek recommended fboundary. 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Recreation 

Mountain Creek Tract – do not include in project boundary. 

See above 

Mary K. 

George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks 

& Development 

Recreation 

Revise DEIS to state that Mountain Creek will not be in the project boundary unless the default position of Duke acquiring 20-30 acres occurs. 

See above 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Land Use The 589-acre Mountain Creek Park tract is under contract to Catawba County in NC. See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Land Use 

Pages 4, 314: The recommendation (Executive Summary, page 4) is inconsistent with other summary areas of the DEIS (Section 3.3.7.2, page 314) that state that it is not necessary to include Mountain Creek Park in the Project Boundary due to similar facilities being included at the nearby Island Point Access Area. The DEIS offers no justification for the inclusion of Mountain Creek Park in the Project Boundary. Duke requests that 

See above 

84 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Mountain Creek Park not be included in the Project Boundary. 

EAST WATEREE 

Al James (T-22 

April AM) 

South Carolina 

DPRT Recreation 

East Wateree brought into project boundary does not need to be in project boundary to be protected 

The FEIS has bearlier recommbe responsible faccess. 

Sarah Williams 

(T-22 April) Individual Recreation Access on East Wateree commendable See above 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Recreation 

East Wateree Enhancement recommendations are in SC, it has the potential to force a rebalance of recreational interests to which we negotiated. The CRA already provides for a recreational area for this region (Kershaw County) which Duke will contribute $900,000 to the county for development of recreational amenities. Additional access amenities proved not warranted nor desired during negotiations and eventual signing of the CRA. This recommendation jeopardizes the recreational package within the CRA so we re-state our support of the CRA 

See above 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Recreation 

Pages 302 and 316: Lake Cornelius and East Wateree Recreational enhancementsParties who benefit are not CRA signatories. Potential to upset balance of CRA benefits. 

See above. The FEIS also hrecommend thaTown of Cornepublic access (nCornelius. LakCornelius cannNorman but are to Lake Normaoperations. Theto Lake Davids

85 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Recreation 

Pages 4, 316, 447, 56: The DEIS recommends providing additional recreational enhancements at the East Wateree Access that would be included in the project boundary. Duke requests that the Commission rely upon the infrastructure that has been put in place to monitor and meet recreational needs and not alter the commitments made by Duke and Kershaw County or the overall recreation plan designed by CRA Parties. Duke requests that this recommendation not be included in the EIS or in the New License. 

The FEIS has bearlier recommbe responsible faccess. 

Charles O. 

Stogner III Individual Recreation Supports additional public recreational facilities on the east side of Lake Wateree. See above 

Robert M. 

Williams Individual Recreation 

Duke Energy should have to come up with its own land for an access area on the east side of Lake Wateree, rather than setting aside money for future conservation projects. 

See above 

James Smith Individual Recreation 

The need for an additional public recreation area on the east side of the [Wateree] lake is well-appreciated, however, a better definition of the concept is needed and does it include the proposed park being discussed with Duke Energy and Kershaw County. 

See above 

WILDLIFE VIEWING 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Recreation 

Page 456: There seems to be some concern that there are only 4 "formal" wildlife viewing areas. SCDNR submits there is no shortage of sites to observe wildlife within or near the Project.

The FEIS recommodified to recwith parties durRecreation Mandetermined to binclude site desimplementing tthe Recreation 

86 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Recreation Page 300: Additional number of wildlife viewing platforms adds costs for licensee. See above 

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Recreation 

Page 456: comments that there are many areas for wildlife viewing and questions statement that states only four viewing areas 

See above. The Assessment reliformal wildlife 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Recreation 

Page 4: Appreciate FERC staff consideration to require Licensee to consult with DOI et.al. for wildlife viewing platform placement. 

Acknowledged 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Recreation 

Page 283: Public information on river flow – is this any different from CRA?

The public infoproposed in the recommended balso proposed iinformation relupdates to the narrival and recehotlinks on the streamflow gagRather than spethe staff recomminclude a requirpublic informatmanner that proinformation pos

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Recreation 

Page 284: Public safety plan revisions- Is this any different from the CRA? 

Since the Publisubmitted to FEthe plan have bhas been reviseapproved Publiunder the new l

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Recreation 

Pages 4, 448, 456, 56, 300: Duke has already agreed to evaluate the need for and feasibility of including wildlife viewing facilities in CRA section 10.5 and can agree to some degree of expanded consultation. 

The FEIS recommodified to recwith parties durRecreation Mandetermined to b

87 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

However, the consultation list recommended in the DEIS is excessive to the point of including entities not located in or having a direct interest in C-W Basin (SC Coastal Commission), selectively including 2 counties and excluding others. Duke is willing to expand consultation to a more consistent list of entities with a more direct or recreational mission. Duke agrees to consult with NCDENR, NCWRC, SCDPRT, SCDNR, local governments and entities. Schedule – Duke believes that its originally proposed schedule allowed for coordination of the evaluation and inclusion of wildlife viewing areas into the site design process. The site designs resulting will be submitted for Commission approval – Duke does not feel that the subject recommendation needs to be included in the EIS or the New License, but if the Commission so chooses, then Duke requests that the condition be fully consistent with CRA Section 10.5 as supplemented by this response. 

include site desimplementing tthe Recreation 

LAND USE – General 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Land Use 

Pages 200, 356: The North Carolina flow mitigation package provides for permanent conservation easements on 22 miles of stream bank; the South Carolina flow mitigation package provides for permanent conservation easements on 6.6 miles of stream bank. The South Carolina conservation easements will be located along tributaries to the Catawba River. Duke recommends that the DEIS be 

Correction has 

88 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

revised to match the description of the mitigation package in the CRA. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Land Use 

Page 357: The conservation easements established as mitigation for Project effects on water quality were not proposed for aesthetic purposes. While the protection of the conservation easements will benefit the aesthetic resources of the Project and lands within the Project area, no mitigation needs for aesthetics were identified or proposed. 

The FEIS has bpurpose of the c

COMPREHENSIVE LAND CONSERVATION PLAN 

Mary George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks, 

and 

Development 

Land Use 

Concerned with land conservation plan requirement in EIS and loss of monetary support through the CRA 

The FEIS has brecommendatio

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Land Use 

On page 477, it is recommended that Duke "develop a comprehensive plan to conserve and protect lands and special places in and around the project." DNR staff spent considerable effort during relicensing working with a number of other stakeholders to evaluate lands and special places that were in need of protection. The resulting recommendations from that focus group lead to the permanent protection of approximately 7,000 a in both Carolinas. DNR submits that all reasonably obtainable, available lands holding special value for fish and wildlife resources were identified and have been permanently protected. 

See above 

Gregory Hogue US DOI Land Use 

Page 477: Land Comprehensive Conservation Plan DOI believes majority of “special places” are protected that are associated with the project. Would welcome identification of any new sites. 

See above 

89 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Mary K. 

George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks 

& Development 

Land Use 

Do not require a comprehensive plan to conserve and protect lands; this plan has already been developed through the CRA process. 

See above 

Wenonah G. 

Haire, DMD, 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation 

Officer 

Catawba Indian 

Nation Land Use 

We do not agree that the CRA included a comprehensive plan to "conserve and protect lands and special places in and around the Catawba-Wateree Project. This is best accomplished by the partnerships that have evolved. 

See above 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Land Use 

EIS recommended comprehensive plan redundant with protections established through CRA 

See above 

Christopher 

Goudreau 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Resources 

Commission 

Land Use 

Comprehensive Land Conservation Plansignificant land conservation provisions in CRA already. Do not see reason to reanalyze. 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Land Use 

Do not include a comprehensive plan to conserve and protect lands and special places in and around the project. 

See above 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Land Use 

The DEIS recommends that Duke "develop a comprehensive plan to conserve and protect lands and special places in and around the Catawba-Wateree project". It is our belief that the CRA accomplishes land protection comprehensively. Already, even though a license has not yet been issued, Duke has deposited over $9 million dollars into escrow accounts for the purchase of lands in NC and SC. NCWF is very pleased that money from this deposit has been used towards the acquisition of 2,800 acres for the John's River gamelands. Additionally, 

See above 

90 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

the 589-acre Mountain Creek Park tract is under contract to Catawba County in NC. A 361-acre parcel on the west side of Lake Norman-Rock Springs Park- was supported by a CRA supported Habitat Enhancement Program (HEP) financial contribution of $50,000. On April 30, 2008, Duke, Duke Ventures, LLC, Crescent Resources, LLC, and the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) signed an agreement for new trail easements through some of the conservation easements along the Catawba River and Warrior Fork in Burke County and the Johns River in Caldwell County. The key component of the agreement provides NCDENR (or its designee) the opportunity to purchase at a substantial discount nearly 2,600 acres of lands predominately along the Johns River in Burke County with some parcels along the Johns River and Wilson Creek in Caldwell County. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Land Use 

Page 477: The DEIS calls for Duke to develop a comprehensive plan to conserve special lands in the Project area. This planning and evaluation process occurred during the relicensing process as outlined in the Land Ad Hoc Committee’s Land Identification Process Report that Duke submitted with the Application for New License Supplement & Clarification (March 2007). The actual land protection implementation is in progress. Duke believes that the planning and evaluation conducted during and after the relicensing 

See above 

91 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

process as well as the specific protections presented in the CRA and License Application meet this DEIS recommendation in its entirety. The CRA presents the plan agreed to by all CRA parties for conserving special and unique places within the Catawba-Wateree Project area in balance with all other interests. Significant land preservation is occurring and more is planned. 

LANDS/PROJECT BOUNDARY 

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Land Use 

Page 446: 6.6 miles of shoreline should be 5.5; additional 5.5 if 50 year license 

Correction has descriptions in 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Land Use 

5.5 miles not 6.6 miles of shoreline are proposed for protection; if an new license is issued an additional 5.5 miles of conservation easements have been proposed by Duke 

See above 

Tony Gallegos 

Catawba River 

Study 

Committee 

Land Use 

Requiring mitigation land to be brought into the project boundary (and therefore into private ownership by Duke Energy) will limit local jurisdictions' abilities to manage land in the public's best interest. 

The FEIS has bconservation earecommended alicense or for inboundary. 

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

Land Use 

All lands used as mitigation, islands and regulated river reaches should be included in the project boundary. 

See above 

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Land Use 

Do not include mitigation lands within project boundary. 

See above 

Sarah Williams Individual Land Use 

Duke Energy should have to come up with its own land for an access area on the east side of Lake Wateree, rather than setting aside money for future conservation 

The FEIS has bearlier recommbe responsible faccess. 

92 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

projects. 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Land Use 

Page 461: the DEIS states that "not all of the riparian habitat proposed for permanent conservation easement is provided protection, as some of these lands lie outside the existing project boundary." This statement is true, but Duke does not own all of the riparian land proposed for protection. The DEIS supported proposed conservation easements could be accomplished without requiring the purchase of these properties, which could jeopardize the CRA. 

The FEIS has bconservation earecommended alicense or for inboundary.

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR Land Use Page 446: Expansion of Project boundary is to provide permanent protection to lands adjacent without requiring purchase. See above 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Land Use 

Page 201: Place conservation lands within the project boundary requirement goes beyond the CRA and is additionally burdensome for Duke.- Protection of these lands is provided by easements and placing them within the project boundary provides no additional protection.

See above 

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Land Use 

Page 461: using conservation easements to protect those lands has some benefit from cost perspective but many lands are outside of project boundary 

See above 

Dick Christie 

(T-22 April 

AM) 

South Carolina 

DNR Land Use 

Page 477: Points out Land Committee that identified areas for protection – why is what is in CRA not adequate protection for lands and special places 

The FEIS has brecommendatioto conserve and places in and ar

Al James (T-22 

April AM) 

South Carolina 

DPRT 

Land Use 

Table 132 properties to be included in boundary – include areas already in project or are proposed to be in the project – lake management zone in the project boundary are already in boundary 

Clarification ha

93 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Ben West (T21 April) EPA, SE Regional Office Land Use 

Asked to explain philosophy of incorporating lands into the project boundary and capture of public benefits from doing so. Verbal comments from S. Murphy –refer to term of license and to provide further benefit to people. “We didn’t bring anything into the DEIS without a reason” 

The FEIS has bconservation earecommended alicense or for inboundary. 

Mary George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks, 

and 

Development 

Land Use 

Points out inconsistency of Mountain Creek Park boundary being included in project area between Exec Sum and pg. 314) 

The FEIS has bclarify that the not being recomproject boundar

Victoria Taylor 

CatawbaWateree 

Relicensing 

Coalition 

Land Use 

Expansion of project boundary - pgs. Cited. Not in public interest to have within project boundary lands serving as mitigation for impacts - 3 reasons presented 

The FEIS has brecommendatioeasements to be boundary. 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Land Use 

Proposed conservation easement lands - to protect boundary not necessary for project operations; would be disjointed management for Duke 

See above 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Land Use 

East Wateree - if Kershaw County develops Duke would contribute - does not need to be within the project boundary to serve public recreation. 

The FEIS has bearlier recommbe responsible faccess. 

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Land Use 

There is a misunderstanding of "Leased Management Zones" at parks. 

The FEIS has bthese zones are from the projec

Tony Bebber 

South Carolina 

Parks, 

Recreation and 

Tourism 

Land Use 

Table 132 - recommends recreation facilities in boundary - many are already within boundary. 

The FEIS has bpurpose of this to summarize aproposed) and wproposed to be boundary . 

Jim Mead North Carolina Land Use Page 300: Expand project boundary to The FEIS has b

94 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

DENR, DWR include adjacent bank fishing has potential 

to upset balance of CRA benefits.

recommendatio

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Land Use 

Pages 300-301: Bringing all Duke-owned islands within project boundary affords no further protection. 

The FEIS has bonly islands in Duke are recomproject boundar

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Land Use 

Pages 201, 446, 461 and 201 suggest that conservation lands be included in the project boundary. NCWF is an ardent proponent of conservation easements and fully entrusts local land trusts and state agencies to uphold the protection of lands and their ascribed stewardship management and uses in perpetuity. It is not clear to NCWF as to the value of having conservation easement lands not contiguous with other project lands being included in the project boundary as no additional protection levels would be gained by those not already written into the conservation easement deed. Furthermore along the subject of expansion of project boundary to include 100-foot wide riparian corridor lands in pages 455, 446, 461 NCWF again re-states our support of a conservation easement deed held and managed by a land trust or state agency.

The FEIS has bconservation earecommended alicense or for inboundary. 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

Land Use 

NCWF supports the CRA which does not include the Mountain Creek tract in the project boundary as called for in the DEIS. We support the development of the project by the county as written in the CRA and offer that the nearby Island Point Access Area which is in the project boundary, offers similar amenities that are planned for 

The FEIS has berror in the ExeMountain Creek recommended fboundary. 

95 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Mountain Creek.

Gregory Hogue US DOI Land Use 

Pages 455, 446, 461, 463: Project boundary expansion – DOI agrees that in order to consider efforts of the parties in the CRA, the project boundary should where necessary be expanded to incorporate all the 100-ft wide riparian corridor lands proposed for permanent conservation easement along 22 miles of the Johns, Catawba, and Linville Rivers in NC and along those reaches of the Catawba in SC 

The FEIS has bconservation earecommended alicense or for inboundary. 

Robert E. 

Hibbitts and H. 

DeWitt 

Blackwell, Jr. 

Western 

Piedmont 

Council of 

Governments 

Land Use 

Private ownership and management of mitigation lands is a concern of regional planners; local jurisdictions’ ability to manage land for the best public good would be limited, and funding for conservation and trail easements would be reduced or eliminated. 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Land Use 

Pages 455, 456, 461: Correct EIS and New License: 22 miles and 6.6 miles should be 28.6 miles and 5.5 miles as stated in CRA. The purpose of the conservation easements is to provide permanent protection to the land. Duke does not agree with incorporating the easements into the Project Boundary and presents an alternative recommendation for documenting to the Commission when easements have been permanently protected. 

Correction has 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Land Use 

Page 455: The DEIS states that Management Zones should remain within the project boundary. Management Zones were specifically created to facilitate state agencies being able to implement specific 

The FEIS has bthese zones are from the projecthese zones. 

96 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

management and enforcement objectives. It has not been proposed that these zones be excluded from the Project Boundary (where applicable) and Duke and agencies would adhere to all non-Project use permitting requirements as required. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Land Use 

Pages 56, 448: DEIS recommends that all Duke-owned islands that serve a project purpose or are affected by the project should be included in the project boundary to ensure that they remain open to day-use public recreation. Duke objects that the DEIS too broadly defines which islands would be included. They point out that all islands within the project envelope have already been included in the Project and made available for public recreation. However, the DEIS language would include downstream islands that are not required for Project operations, but may occasionally be affected. No parties to the CRA had requested additional recreational access via these islands, so Duke submits that this recommendation is not necessary. 

The FEIS has bonly islands in Duke are recomproject boundar

Charles O. 

Stogner III Individual 

Water Quality, 

Aquatic 

Resources, 

Terrestrial 

Resources 

Supports CRA action in which Duke provided funds to SC DNR to purchase critical shoreline property on the upper east side of Lake Wateree that will protect the property from development and subsequent impacts to water quality, wildlife and aquatic interests. 

The FEIS has bearlier recommbe responsible faccess. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR Cultural Resources Page 221: Reassess the Cowans Ford Development for eligibility- Potential to upset balance of CRA Since Cowans F

age, it does not eligibility. Onc

97 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

qualifies for assRegister of Hisshould be deterthe CRA the PaLicensee, in conshall reassess theligibility of the in Year 2015” (

Rebekah 

Debrasko 

South Carolina 

SHPO 

Cultural 

Resources 

The SHPO concurs with the DEIS assessment regarding cultural resources. A programmatic agreement for implementation of the Historic Properties Management Plan may be used to address potential effects to historic properties by the project. 

Acknowledged 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Cultural Resources 

Page 214: The DEIS identifies a number of cultural resource studies that are incorrectly attributed to having been done by Duke as part of Duke’s licensing efforts. The only studies conducted by Duke in support of relicensing are these listed below; the others are relevant to the development of the Historic Properties Management Plan but were conducted in support of other proceedings. 

• Brockington and Associates, Inc. 

2006. Historic Properties Management Plan for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC#2232) North and South Carolina 

• Cleveland, M. Todd, and Jeffrey L. 

Holland. 2004. National Register of Historic Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Bridgewater, Rhodiss, 

FEIS should onare part of the lreferences not rremoved from t

98 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, and Mountain Island Developments, NC. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC. 

• Cleveland, M. Todd, Jeffrey L. 

Holland and Ruth D. Nichols. 2004. National Register of Historic Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls-Dearborn, Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek, and Wateree Developments, SC. 

• Joy, Deborah. 2004. Cultural 

Resource Context for the CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Project. 

• Millis, Heather. 2004. Cultural 

Resources Survey for the CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Relicensing Project, Alexander, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell, and Mecklenburg Counties, NC. 

• Norris, Sean. 2004. Cultural 

Resources Survey for the CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Project, Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster and York Counties, SC. 

• Whitley, Thomas G. and David S. 

Leigh. 2005. Evaluation of the natural and cultural impacts at the Mulberry Site (38KE12), Kershaw County, SC. 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Cultural Resources 

Pages 217, 221: DEIS states, "(Site 38KE12) is located within the APE, but outside of the project boundary...". Portions of Site 38KE12 are located within the 

Correction has 

99 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Project Boundary, but most of the site is outside of the Area of Project Effects (APE). 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Cultural Resources 

Page 445: "Develop and implement the HPMP and....". The HPMP has already been developed through extensive consultation with the NC and SC SHPO, the Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians THPO, and other state and federal agencies. Therefore, development of the HPMP has already been completed. 

Correction has 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Cultural Resources 

Page 45: Perform a cultural resources field evaluation of any property identified for the North Bend Recreation Land, North Access Area. Duke recommends replacing the term "North Access Area" with the term "North Bend Access Area". 

Correction has 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Cultural Resources 

Duke concurs with the recommendation to reassess the Cowans Ford Development for eligibility for listing on the NRHP when the development reaches 50 years of age and suggests that in order to reduce the potential for future discrepancy due to interpretation, phrasing this recommendation to include the specific year for the reassessment (2015) is appropriate. 

Change has bee

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Cultural Resources 

Pages 217, 219: The location of site 38CS235 is identified by name. Because this site is sacred to the Catawba Indian Nation, Duke requests that all references to the specific location of the site be removed immediately from the DEIS and not included in the FEIS or New License. 

Change has bee

100 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT VARIOUS 

Tony Gallegos 

Catawba River 

Study 

Committee 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Sections in the DEIS differ from the CRA agreed upon by the interested parties. 

Staff has reviseremove inconsiCRA as applica

LICENSE TERM 

Wenonah G. 

Haire, DMD, 

Tribal Historic 

Preservation 

Officer 

Catawba Indian 

Nation 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

We support a 50-year license as proposed in the CRA, with regular reviews to determine the effectiveness of programs. 

Staff does not eproposed projecdocument analylicense is set in decision to lice

Martha and 

Owen 

Whitfield 

Individuals 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

We support the Community of Lake James in their protest of the 50-year license term. We support a 10-year review proposal instead. 

See above 

Lake James 

Association 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Any re-license issued to Duke Energy for the Catawba-Wateree Project contains a 

provision for review at least every ten years. 

This would help assure that the system is not undermined by changing circumstances 

See above 

Lake James 

Environmental 

Association 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Review Duke Energy's relicense every ten years. 

See above 

G. Richard 

Mode 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Federation 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

NCWF supports a 50-year license for the following reasons/interests within the CRA: An additional 12 1⁄2 miles of tributary riparian buffers for NC protected along the John’s river; An additional $1.5 million for land conservation in NC (and $1.5 million for SC); An additional contribution of $1 million to the HEP fund in NC (and $1 million for SC). 

See above 

101 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

C. David 

Merryman 

Catawba 

Riverkeeper 

Foundation, Inc. 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

The 50 year period for the relicense is too long considering the area’s rapid population growth and resulting changes in water quantity and water quality. 

See above 

A. Stanley 

Meiburg EPA DEIS 

EPA rates document EC-1 (environmental concerns) – proposed actions identify impacts to aquatic species in Catawba River below Bridgewater – corrective measures may require changes to preferred alternative or application of mitigation measures 

See above 

Milton Marley Individual 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Supports 50-year license to avoid conflicts with CRA. 

See above 

Charles O. 

Stogner III Individual 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Supports 50-year license to avoid conflicts with CRA. 

See above 

COMPREHENSTIVE RELICENSING AGREEMENT (CRA ) 

Mary George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks, 

and 

Development 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Points out that some of the terms of the CRA are in process of being implemented for rec. flows; rec. facilities; public safety; and $ contributions 

The CRA develentered into witprovisions requto third parties specific and noCommission’s pnarrowly definePM&E measureof license articlinclude the appthird parties for measures where authority to enswork proposed. measures are noarticles; howevrestrict Duke Eagreements, ou

102 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

with third partiefunding. ThereCommission’s Duke from impmeasures. 

Maurice 

Blackburn 

(T-22 April) 

Carolina Canoe 

Club 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Concern expressed with staff recommendations altering the CRA balance and funding 

See above 

Mary George 

Catawba County 

Planning, Parks, 

and 

Development 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Requests that terms of CRA are upheld See above 

Dale L. 

Herendeen AbitibiBowater 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Please adopt the provisions of the CRA without material changes as proposed in the DEIS. 

See above 

Dick Christie South Carolina DNR FERC Comprehensive Development Pages 447-448: Staff recommended additional measures may cause CRA to be restructured and jeopardize some of measures proposed See above 

Christopher 

Goudreau 

North Carolina 

Wildlife 

Resources 

Commission 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Differences between recommendations in DEIS and CRA have a real chance of disrupting the careful balance of operational and non-operational terms formulated in the CRA by stakeholders 

See above 

H. C. Stannes Mayor of Great Falls FERC Comprehensive Development 

Comments relate planned economic development around tourism and recreation to result from CRA and concern with staff recommended measures that would potentially alter the funding for times in the CRA. Town Master Plan built around economic development and items in CRA. 

See above 

103 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Glinda Price 

Coleman 

Great Falls 

Home Town 

Association 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

Comments relate planned economic development around tourism and recreation to result from CRA and concern with staff recommended measures that would potentially alter the funding for times in the CRA. Great Falls Home Town Assoc, developed a Nature Based Tourism Initiative to re-establish economy of Great Falls built around economic development and items in CRA. 

See above 

Jim Mead North Carolina DENR, DWR FERC Comprehensive Development Strongly urge issuance of a license that is consistent with the CRA. See above 

Gerrit Jöbsis 

and Patrick 

Moore 

American 

Rivers and the 

Coastal 

Conservation 

League 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

The agreement does not comply with FERC settlement policy: mitigation fund provisions run contrary to established guidance; the CRA fund distribution schedule compromises FERC’s ability to determine PM&E measures; delegation of license responsibilities to third parties is unacceptable; 

See above 

Sarah Williams Individual Aquatic Resources 

Protests Duke's requirement that signatory parties to the CRA must support the entire CRA and may not speak out against it, nor may they support additional water quality enhancement, recreation or public access projects. Note the Miscellaneous Agreements to the CRA. 

See above 

Robert M. 

Williams Individual Aquatic Resources 

Protests Duke's requirement that signatory parties to the CRA must support the entire CRA and may not speak out against it, nor may they support additional water quality enhancement, recreation or public access 

See above 

104 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

projects. Note the Miscellaneous Agreements to the CRA. 

Robert E. 

Hibbitts and H. 

DeWitt 

Blackwell, Jr. 

Western 

Piedmont 

Council of 

Governments 

FERC 

Comprehensive 

Development 

FERC should revisit changes proposed in DEIS and make them consistent with CRA that parties agreed to. Rebalancing requirements will cause losses of benefits worth millions of dollars. 

See above 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy CRA 

If the new license issued incorporates all of the new recommendations contained in the DEIS, the New License will include several inconsistent acts. This would cause a rebalance and modification of the CRA causing reduced benefits and increased burdens to CRA Parties. If CRA is rebalanced or ceases to exist the basis for the 401 water quality certifications may change and could require a reopening, reprocessing and reissuing of the documents. This would delay benefits. Inconsistent acts could potentially impact the Santee River Basin Accord. CRA was designed to optimize benefits basin-wide not to any one interest. Duke requests that the Commission issue an EIS and new license consistent with the CRA. 

See above 

Chuck 

Hightower 

South Carolina 

Department of 

Health and 

Environmental 

Control 

CRA 

The following portions of the CRA as applicable to South Carolina Developments of the CWHP are hereby incorporated into [the] 401 Water Quality Certification by reference: a)CRA-Resource Agreements, sections 2.0 Reservoir Elevation Agreements, 3.0 Recreation Flow Agreements, 4.0 Habitat Flow Agreements, 6.0 Low Inflow Protocol Agreements, 7.0 Maintenance and 

See above 

105 
Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

Emergency Protocol Agreements, 13.0 Water Quality Agreements, 15.0 Gaging and Monitoring Agreements (15.1-15.5 only; 15.6 Groundwater Monitors is excluded). b)CRA-Appendices, A: Proposed License Articles, A-1.0 Reservoir Elevation Articles (a,b), A-2.0 Flow Articles (a-e), A-3.0 LIP Articles (a), A-4.0 MEP Article (a), A-5.0 Water Quality Article (a), A-6.0 Gaging and Monitoring Article (a,b); C: LIP for the Catawba-Wateree Project; D: MEP for the Catawba-Wateree Project; F: WQMP; L: FWQIP. 

CHAPTER 4 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Economic Analysis 

Pages 371-441: An overall explanation of the purpose of these economic analyses is needed, including how costs were identified for inclusion. It is not apparent why certain line item costs were or were not adopted by staff. Some line items that appear to be similar do not receive similar treatment in the analyses (examples: Land Conservation costs and conservation easement costs, flow mitigation easements cost and flow mitigation funding cost, Recreation Management Plan costs and Recreation Use and Needs Plan costs. Also the treatment of some costs (Table 131) are not consistent with staff recommendations (examples: Recreation Management Plan, safety and security signage and warning devices. The results of the economic analysis in DEIS Table 130 that present the C-W Project annual power costs would be lower and 

The economic adetermine if the economical souaccordance with traditional leastpractices and in of the National Costs were obtaand D of the licDuke Energy. Certain line itembecause the Co“Funding” or cothat have no diraddition, PM&E tangible measurCommission as project. 

106 
107 

Name Organization Resource Topic Comment Co

power benefits would be higher under staff alternative is not at all consistent with the extra costs of the staff recommendations as identified in these DEIS reply comments, specifically Comment Item numbers 1,3,4,5,7,9,11,13,16,17,18,19, and 20. 

PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN 

E. Mark 

Oakley Duke Energy Public Safety Plan 

Pages 56, 448: DEIS recommends that Duke revise public safety plans and file for Commission approval within 1 year of license issuance. Duke concurs with the recommendation and advises that these activities have already been completed. On Dec 20, 2007, Duke submitted a Proposed Safety Plan to the Commission, and after approval, Duke filed on Feb 20, 2009, confirmation that all PSP additions had been completed. 

Acknowledgedhas been submimeasures under implemented, threcommend thaPlan be implem
Document Content(s)

CatawbaWateree_FEIS ch 1 and 2.PDF....................................1-90

CatawbaWateree_FEIS ch 3.PDF..........................................91-414

CatawbaWateree_FEIS ch 4.PDF..........................................415-492

CatawbaWateree_FEIS ch 5.PDF..........................................493-542

d Appendix A.PDF......................................................543-554

d Appendix B.PDF......................................................555-562

d Appendix C.PDF......................................................563-569

d Appendix D.PDF......................................................570-677

20090723-4001 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 07/23/2009