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 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 draft 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 (no-action 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 
Figure 1. General vicinity of the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

2 
This draft 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 831 MW and generates approximately 

1,121,525 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 an 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. 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 creates 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 
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 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 4(e) of the FPA 

(land management 

conditions) 

Forest Service 

Section 10(j) of the FPA FWS, NOAA Fisheries 

Clean Water Act (CWA) 

(water quality certification) 

North Carolina DENR, 

Department of Water 

Quality (DWQ); South 

Carolina Department of 

Health and Environmental 

Control (DHEC) 

Duke Energy filed a request for 

section 401 water quality 

certification with North Carolina 

DWQ and South Carolina DHEC 

on June 6, 2008. 

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) Consultation NOAA Fisheries, FWS 

Species protection plans for 

endangered and threatened species 

in the area have been written and 

will be implemented within 

60 days of license issuance. Plans 

include monitoring programs 

and/or habitat protection. 

4 
Requirement Agency Status 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (FWCA) 

U.S. Department of the 

Interior (Interior), FWS, 

NOAA Fisheries, North 

Carolina DENR, South 

Carolina DNR 

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. 

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 

5 
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. 

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. 

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. 

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 

6 
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. 

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 

Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 

FWS April 27, 2007 

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC April 30, 2007 

7 
Commenting entity Date of filing 

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 

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 draft 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 

Interior December 1, 2006 

American Whitewater Association December 6, 2006 

8 
Intervenor Date of filing 

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 Riverkeepers 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 

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 

Interior June 6, 2008 

Town of Cornelius, North Carolina June 6, 2008 

9 
Commenting entity Date of filing 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League June 6, 2008 

Catawba Riverkeepers Foundation July 11, 2008 

Community of Lake James, Inc. July 12, 2008 

Interior July 16, 2008 

Community of Lake James, Inc. August 12, 2008 

The following entities filed preliminary terms and conditions: 

Commenting entity Date of filing 

Interior 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 

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 

Interior October 27, 2006 

American Rivers and the Costal Conservation League October 30, 2006 

10 
Commenting entities on the CRA Date of filing 

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 

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 Interior 

(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 Catawba-Wateree Revised 

Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement (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. 

11 
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 

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 

12 
Signatories to the Revised CRA 

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 

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 

13 
14 

Signatories to the Revised CRA 

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 

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.