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 including the following environmental measures proposed by Duke 

Energy and described in the Revised CRA for inclusion in any license issued for the CatawbaWateree 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, (2) suitable surface water temperature monitoring locations, 

(3) reservoir level variability limits, and (4) 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 within 60 days of the issuance 

of the new license to define procedures in the event of an emergency, maintenance, or 

abnormal situations. 

443 
• 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, and 445 cfs from the Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek Developments, and minimum continuous flows according to a seasonal 

schedule provided in Chapter 2 of this EIS, for the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, Great 

Falls, Dearborn, and Wateree Developments and the Catawba River and Great FallsDearborn 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 401 WQC for the previous 

calendar year by June 30 of the following calendar year for the term of the new 

license. 

• Implement the Flow and Water Quality Implementation Plan 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. 

• Conduct surveys for freshwater mussels at selected sites after consultation with state 

resource agencies at 5-year intervals throughout the life of the license as described in 

the species management and protection plan for freshwater mussels. 

444 
• Implement upstream and downstream fish passage study, design, installation, and 

operations for alosine species and American eel in accordance with section 18 

prescriptions and the Santee-Cooper 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. 

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 a new 

license for:: 

o rocky shoals spider lily; 

o Rafinesque’s big-eared bat; 

o the mussels: creeper, eastern floater, paper pondshell, eastern creekshell, notched 

rainbow, brook floater, and rayed-pink fatmucket; 

o flat and snail bullheads; 

o robust redhorse; 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 

federally-listed species through the implementation of the Federal Threatened and 

Endangered Species Protection Plans 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. Annual review and update of the plans would occur after 

consultation with FWS, North Carolina DENR and WRC, and South Carolina DNR. 

Cultural Resources 

• Develop and 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. 

445 
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. 

• File a biennial report with the Commission on the progress made on the RMP 

recreation enhancements. 

• 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, Great 

Falls, Dearborn, 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. 

• 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 

pattern of usage of the recreational flows and the effectiveness of the communication 

related to the resource. 

• 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 the entire Duke Energy-owned recreation access areas. 

Land Use 

• Implement the revised SMP. 

• Expand the project boundary, where necessary, 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 North Carolina and along 6.6 miles of 

the Catawba River in South Carolina. 

446 
Additional Measures Recommended by Staff 

Water Quantity 

• Install a bladder dam modification at the Wateree dam to improve management of 

flood events, 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. New levels would 

be implemented within 60 days following the issuance of the new license as proposed 

in Chapter 2 of this EIS. 

• Add NOAA Fisheries and FWS to the Drought Management Advisory Group. 

• Consult with NOAA Fisheries on Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

implementation. 

Aquatic Resources 

• Implement ramping during the increase and decrease in recreational flow releases to 

achieve the target flow over a period of several hours to minimize the risk to aquatic 

resources. 

• Establish an advisory group with representatives of Duke Energy, federal and state 

resource managers, and other stakeholders to evaluate and recommend appropriate 

mitigation 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. 

Terrestrial Resources 

• Develop and implement a terrestrial invasive plant species management plan. 

Cultural Resources 

• Re-assess the eligibility of the Cowans Ford Development for the National Register 

when the development reaches 50 years of age. The reassessment would occur as 

part of the process of review for the HPMP. 

Recreation 

• Provide two additional recreational enhancements that would be included in the 

project boundary and in the RMP: 

o East Wateree Access Improvements – Construct two motorized boat ramps with a 

courtesy dock, paved and lighted parking, and a swimming area with bathhouse 

on the east side of Lake Wateree within 5 years of approval of the RMP. 

o Lake Cornelius Access – Consult with the town of Cornelius and develop a small 

boat access and parking area that would be appropriate for the size of Lake 

Cornelius within 10 years of approval of the RMP. 

447 
• Evaluate and consult with, at a minimum, FWS, 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 

to determine the recreation access areas where wildlife viewing areas would be most 

appropriate; and file a plan with the Commission within 1 year of license issuance for 

implementing additional wildlife viewing areas at the project. 

• Provide public information related to river flow in a manner that provides the most 

up-to-date information possible. 

• Revise public safety plans, including consideration of the need for 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, and file for Commission approval within 1 year of license 

issuance. 

• Include within the project boundary all Duke Energy-owned islands that serve a 

project purpose or are affected by the project to ensure that 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. 

• Expand project boundary at all Duke Energy-owned recreation access areas to include 

any adjacent bank fishing areas provided by Duke Energy, except those minimal 

shoreline areas where bank fishing is restricted for safety reasons, management 

problems, or to avoid conflicts with other access area users. 

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 

In the analysis of costs and effectiveness of reducing frequency and duration of flooding 

that can be attained with the proposed bladder dam 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 beneficial attenuation of 

high volume flows provided from the installation of the bladder dam would be significant 

enough that we recommend the installation of the bladder dam be implemented without regard to 

the duration of the license that is issued. 

The original proposed license article 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.” This measure would not ensure that reservoir elevations are maintained on 

average at the normal target elevations, but would be merely goals and not required conditions of 

448 
the new license. Staff proposes that the normal target elevations proposed by Duke Energy be 

made conditions of the license to be enforceable as an annual average, and the proposed 

minimum elevations (maximum draw-downs) 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. 

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. 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. Existing aquatic resources in these reaches are 

adapted to the range of flows; however, the rate at which the flows increase and decrease for 

these recreational releases may be more rapid than typically experienced by aquatic organisms in 

these reaches. In particular, rapid decreases in the flow from peak recreational flows to 

minimum continuous flows designated for a reach have the potential to strand fish in small 

isolated pools as water levels recede. Water temperatures and DO can become inhospitable for 

fish and other aquatic organisms in these isolated pools. We recommend that “ramping” (the 

gradual increase and decrease of flow) recreational flows over a period of several hours before 

and after each recreational release be evaluated and implemented to reduce the risk to aquatic 

resources, especially fish. 

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 that an advisory group be established, with 

449 
representatives of Duke Energy, federal and state resource managers, and other stakeholders to 

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. 

Terrestrial Resources 

Duke Energy does not currently have a specific management policy or plan for invasive 

exotic terrestrial plants and has no ongoing cooperative agreements with any state resource 

agencies to manage invasive vegetation with the project boundary. Management of vegetation 

on private land within the project boundary is regulated by Duke Energy’s Shoreline 

Management Guidelines. Adjacent property owners may selectively control non-native invasive 

plants using hand tools and approved herbicides after receiving written concurrence from Duke 

Energy’s Lake Services. In addition, regular management of both native and exotic invasive 

vegetation at all project facilities involves mowing and spraying herbicides approved by EPA or 

North Carolina and South Carolina Departments of Agriculture. 

To provide a consistent source for guidance and protocol for identifying and controlling 

terrestrial invasive plant species such as kudzu, Japanese honeysuckle, and Chinese privet within 

the project area, we recommend that Duke Energy implement a terrestrial invasive plant species 

management plan. This management plan would include the following measures: (1) baseline 

identification of the range and extent of terrestrial invasive plant species within the CatawbaWateree Project boundary; (2) methods for management to be used (e.g., herbicide treatment, 

mechanical removal, mowing); (3) requirement that applicant’s staff involved in herbicide use be 

trained as a certified herbicide applicator; (4) a schedule for treatments, follow-up surveys, and 

additional treatments based on species-specific seasonal growth cycles to provide a basis for 

effective implementation of control measures; and (5) estimated costs for management. 

Procedures for management of invasive species in locations where RTE plant species occur 

would provide the guidance necessary to remove invasive species without harming RTE species. 

Implementation of the terrestrial invasive plant management plan would occur with consultation 

and guidance from applicable state and federal agencies as well as organizations such as the 

North Carolina and/or South Carolina Natural Heritage Program, and The Nature Conservancy. 

We recommend that Duke Energy implement a terrestrial invasive plant species 

management plan as a mechanism to improve/restore native plant communities within the project 

area and protect special status species habitat. In addition, we recommend that Duke Energy 

develop an educational brochure that would be made available to adjacent landowners for 

management of invasive terrestrial plant species on their property. Costs for implementation of 

the terrestrial invasive species management plan are presented in table 131 at the end of this 

450 
section and detailed further in section 4, Developmental Analysis. Lastly, we recommend that 

the terrestrial invasive species management plan which would be implemented as a “stand alone” 

plan, be considered for integration into the next revision of the SMP. 

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 

heartleaf. Species protection plans have also been developed and would be implemented for 

animal species with state and/or federal status including: American alligator, wood stork, and 

freshwater mussels (including Carolina heelsplitter). 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 and 

alternatives with the agencies and determine necessary modifications of shoreline classifications 

if new species are located. Specific content for individual protection plans has been discussed 

previously in section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources; section 3.3.4, Terrestrial Resources; and 

section 3.5, Threatened and Endangered 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, American eel, 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. We provide the costs for the applicant-proposed species protection 

plans in table 131 at the end of this section, which are detailed further in section 4, 

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 Property 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 

451 
Duke Energy implement the HPMP. The protection afforded to historic properties justifies the 

annual estimated cost of $ 2,403 for the HPMP. 

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. 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. 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. 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 offered to 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 issued20. Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to various agencies would force a 

contract between two parties and would be outside the Commission’s authority. Therefore, we 

do not recommend this measure. However, we encourage Duke Energy to enter into these leases 

because they would provide protection for the sites, which are not eligible for protection under 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

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. We 

recommend that Duke Energy develop the RMP after consultation with, at a minimum, 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 

 20 These cultural resources sites are not affected by project operations. 

452 
League (the entire relicensing Recreation Resources Committee) and file the plan with the 

Commission for approval. Consulting with the relicensing Recreation Resources Committee, at 

a minimum, would be beneficial by providing continuity to the recreation planning process. 

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 

Lookout Shoals Development 

o Upper Lookout Shoals Access Area 

453 
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 Cowan’s 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. 

o Highway 200 Bridge Access Area 

o Great Falls Diversion Dam Portage 

454 
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 Mudcat 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 five 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. 

• 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 

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 are necessary for project 

purposes and should remain within the project boundary. It would be appropriate for Duke 

Energy to apply to the Commission for approval for non-project use of project lands, and to enter 

455 
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-site 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-site 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 except for the East Wateree access 

improvements. The east side of Lake Wateree currently has four ramps and one fishing pier, 

while the west side has one swimming area and two proposed swimming areas. We conclude 

that the East Wateree Access Area would serve a project purpose by providing additional boating 

opportunities and the only access area providing non-boating or fishing activities on the east side 

of Lake Wateree. Therefore, we recommend that Duke Energy provide East Wateree access 

improvements, including the construction of two motorized boat ramps with a courtesy dock, 

paved and lighted parking, and a swimming area with bathhouse on the east side of Lake 

Wateree within 5 years of approval of the RMP. 

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. We find that operation of the project affects Lake Cornelius and 

conclude that public access appropriate for the size of Lake Cornelius would serve a project 

purpose. Therefore, we recommend that Duke Energy consult with the Town of Cornelius and 

develop a small boat access and parking area that would be appropriate for the size of 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 

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 evaluate and consult with, at 

a minimum, FWS, 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 to determine the recreation access areas where wildlife viewing areas 

would be most appropriate, and file a plan with the Commission, within one year of license 

issuance, to implement additional wildlife viewing areas at the project. 

456 
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. 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 

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 

457 
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. 

We conclude that consulting with, at a minimum, 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 RMP and the 

recreational needs assessment would be beneficial since it would provide continuity to the 

recreation planning process. 

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 at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 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. 

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 suggest that the ramping of the recreational flows over a period 

of several hours before and after each scheduled recreational release should be evaluated and 

potentially implemented, to reduce the risk to aquatic resources. If ramping of flows is 

considered for achieving the target recreational flow releases, it may be necessary for the 

458 
ramping to occur outside of Duke Energy’s proposed window for target recreational flow 

releases so that the overall time for recreational boating and angling would not be reduced. 

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 a 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 the proposed stakeholders 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 

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 providing, as non-license article 

measures, additional public information related to river flow. Up-to-date river flow information 

would be useful to recreational users in planning and staging water-related visits to the project. 

459 
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 so they are not caught in unexpected 

conditions. Although we do not recommend that Duke Energy provide the specific measures 

included in the Revised CRA, we recommend that Duke Energy provide public information 

related to river flow in a manner that provides the most up-to-date information possible to 

enhance 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. We recommend that Duke 

Energy implement the proposed public safety plans within one year of issuance of the new 

license, to enhance public safety at the project. 

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. 

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 

460 
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. Modification of the minimum lot width requirement would significantly reduce the 

environmental impacts of residential shoreline development, by requiring larger lots, resulting in 

fewer piers and structures along the shoreline. This same provision should also help to reduce 

overcrowding of reservoirs by boats, as would the proposed new limitations on watercraft per 

slip. 

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. Moreover, 

under the terms of the Revised CRA, Duke Energy has earmarked certain portions of the fees 

they charge to be used to help conserve lands around the project, which combined with the 

specific changes proposed to the SMP, would be environmentally beneficial to the project. 

Land Conveyances and Conservation 

Duke Energy proposes to establish permanent conservation easements in the riparian 

corridor along certain sections of the river, as mitigation for reduced stream flows. As proposed, 

the North Carolina flow mitigation package provides for permanent conservation easements on 

22 bank miles of stream; and the South Carolina flow mitigation package provides for permanent 

conservation easements on 6.6 bank miles of stream. The conservation easements are 100-ftwide perpetual easements to be located on the Johns, Catawba, and Linville Rivers 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 located on tributaries to the Catawba River. 

Under the existing license, 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. As conservation of these lands is being proposed as mitigation to offset the 

environmental effects of reduced flows in some river reaches, we conclude that these lands are 

necessary for project purposes, and accordingly we recommend that the project boundary be 

expanded to encompass all of these riparian corridor lands. Establishment of conservation 

easements along these river corridors would have a wide variety of environmental benefits. The 

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. Conservation easements would ensure that natural vegetation remains in 

place, which in turn would preserve the aesthetic quality of these corridors, ensure protection of 

these areas for use by both aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna, and benefit both river and 

reservoir water quality. 

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 

461 
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 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. Moreover, 

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 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. 

• 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 all the 

shoreline adjoining the state park) 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. 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 nature-based tourism in the region, and would create 

several thousand acres of contiguous public lands in the vicinity of Great Falls. The proposed 

462 
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 are lands that are necessary for project 

purposes, in that they lie within the normal full pool elevation of the reservoir, and, as such 

cannot be removed from the project boundary. Inasmuch as the proposed use of these project 

lands is for public recreational use, however, and presumably to consolidate the administration 

and enforcement authority for the state parks which lie adjacent to these lands under a single 

entity, lease of these lands, as proposed, would benefit the recreating public, and would allow the 

states 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. 

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 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 130 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 brought into 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. 

463 
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 brought 

into 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 

464 
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 brought 

into the project 

boundary 

Muddy Creek 

Access Area X X 

Lake James State 

Park 

Management 

Zone 

X 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 

465 
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 brought 

into 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 

466 
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 brought 

into 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 

467 
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 brought 

into the project 

boundary 

New Access Areas or Management Zones

Cowans Ford 

Dam Portage and 

Overlook 

X X 

Lake Cornelius 

Access X 

Lake Norman 

State Park 

Management 

Zone 

X 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 

468 
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 brought 

into the project 

boundary 

Wylie Development 

Existing Recreation Access Areas

Mountain Island 

River Park X 

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 

469 
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 brought 

into the project 

boundary 

New Access Areas or Management Zones

Dutchmans 

Creek Access 

Area 

X X 

Rock Hill Park 

(lake) X X 

Saddler Island X X 

Landsford Canal 

State Park 

Management 

Zone 

X X 

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 

470 
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 brought 

into the project 

boundary 

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 

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 

Mudcat Inn 

Access Area X X 

471 
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 brought 

into the project 

boundary 

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 

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 

X 

Lake Wateree 

State Park 

Management 

Zone 

X X 

472 
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 that serve a project purpose or are 

affected by the project, including islands designated as off-limits, should be included in the 

project boundary to ensure that the open access islands remain available for the term 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. 

In the Revised CRA, Duke Energy also 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. Ensuring that all bank 

fishing areas provided by Duke Energy are available to recreationists for the term of the new 

license would enhance bank fishing opportunities at the project. Therefore, we recommend that 

Duke Energy expand the project boundary at all Duke Energy-owned recreation access areas to 

include any adjacent bank fishing areas provided by Duke Energy. 

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 equitable 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, Interior, NMFS, North Carolina WRC, and South Carolina DNR filed letters providing 

comments and terms and conditions for the Catawba-Wateree Project, pursuant to section 

473 
10(j).21 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 no

including those recommendations in section 5.1, Comprehensive Development and 

Recommended Alternative. Table 131 summarizes the agency recommendations ma

section 10(j) for the Catawba-Wateree Project, as well as our analysis of those recommendatio

and whether to adopt the measures as part of the staff alternative. 

Recommendations Under Section 10(a) of the FPA 

t 

de under 

ns 

 NOAA Fisheries that we consider 

outside

gency section 10(j) recommendations for the 

Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

Total 

l 

$) 

Staff 

mending? 

We have analyzed recommendations filed by FWS and

 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. 

Table 133. Analysis of fish and wildlife a

Catawba-Wateree Project. (Source: Staff) 

of 10(j)? 

Annua

Cost 

(2008

Recom

1. Request the establishment of 

quest NOAA 

; 

LIP yes 

o 

$176,000 Yes 

a Low Inflow Protocol and a 

Drought Management 

Advisory Group, and re

NOAA Fisheries as well as 

other interested federal and 

state agencies be included in

the Drought Management 

Advisory Group. 

Fisheries

FWS DMAG n

2. Require applicant 

OAA 

ergency 

plies to Lake 

NOAA 

; No $11,000 Yes 

consultation with N

Fisheries during 

development and

implementation of

Maintenance and Em

Protocol: 

• as it ap

Wylie – Consult with

CIN and BIA. 

Fisheries

FWS 

 21 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 Interior letter was filed on June 4, 2008, amended with errata on July 17, 2008.

474 
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

3. Prepare an 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 

4. Provide minimum flows for 

aquatic habitat, specifically 

as follows: 

• Initial instream flows 

developed in Revised 

CRA have been 

accepted; however, 

recommend a provision 

for re-evaluating and 

implementing revised 

instream flow 

requirements if future 

prescriptions for fish 

passage are issued. 

NOAA 

Fisheries; 

FWS 

Yes $1,820,800 Yes 

• Implement the Wateree 

Spring Stable Flows and 

Protocol each calendar 

year from February 15 

through May 15. 

NOAA 

Fisheries; 

FWS 

Yes No 

5. Establish a Catawba-Wateree 

Project Fisheries Technical 

Committee with NOAA 

Fisheries, FWS, North 

Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, South 

Carolina DNR, South 

Carolina DHEC, and nongovernmental conservation 

organizations to review 

monitoring and evaluation 

NOAA 

Fisheries No Yes 

475 
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

studies, operating plans, and 

maintenance issues. 

6. Install and operate the 

bladder dam as 

recommended in the Revised 

CRA. 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

$554,110 Yes 

7. Develop an implementation 

and operation plan that 

includes ramping or pulsing 

of hydro units for the 

Wateree Flood Plain 

Inundation. 

FWS Yes No 

8. Implement 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 Yes 

• Develop an invasive 

terrestrial and riparian 

vegetation management 

program to manage 

invasive exotic 

terrestrial plant species 

that occur on project 

lands. 

FWS No $4,700 Yes 

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 

476 
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

• 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 Yes 

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. 

• Recommend the 

avoidance of impacts to 

shoreline vegetation or 

near-shore habitats. 

• Require planting of 

native species and 

installation of fishfriendly pier features 

under docks. 

• Require the project 

boundary to include a 

FWS 

No, not a 

specific 

measure to 

protect fish and 

wildlife [10(a)] 

$26,411 Yes 

477 
Recommendation Agency1 Within Scope 

of 10(j)? 

Total 

Annual 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Staff 

Recommending? 

50-ft vegetated riparian 

buffer area required by 

North Carolina as the 

minimum necessary to 

protect riparian 

resources. 

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. 

Wateree Flood Plain Inundation 

We do not recommend measures as currently proposed to provide inundation to the 

Wateree flood plain. 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 flood-management. We 

conclude that the flexibility of an adaptive management approach is needed 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 test and refine these protocols within the operating constraints and uncertainties of 

weather prediction before determining whether enforceable articles should be incorporated into 

the license. 

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 preliminary section 18 fish passage 

prescriptions, is not likely to occur until at least 10 years following issuance of the new license. 

Therefore, we do not recommend the proposed measures for implementation of the High Inflow 

Protocol or the Wateree Spring Stable Flow Protocol. 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. We agree that Duke Energy, FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and South Carolina DNR 

should consult during the first 10 years following implementation of the FWQIP on a license 

article to be included as an amendment for 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 131 identifies three 

measures for the Catawba-Wateree Project that we consider under 10(a). These measures are 

addressed in the specific resource sections of this document. All three measures considered 

under section 10(a) were recommended by staff. 

478 
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 

total of 72 qualifying North Carolina, South Carolina, and federal comprehensive plans, of which 

we identified 11 North Carolina, 6 South Carolina, and 3 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 20 state and federal plans listed below that are 

applicable to the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

North Carolina 

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 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. 2000. Sub-chapter 2BSurface water and wetland standards. Raleigh, North Carolina. August 1, 2000. 

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. 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 and North Carolina Wildlife 

Resources Commission. 2001. Catawba River Basin natural resources plan. October 

2001. 

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 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. 

479 
480 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy 2005-2010. Final. Columbia, South Carolina. September 28, 

2005. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2004. South Carolina water plan – second 

edition. Columbia, South Carolina. 2002. 

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 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1986. North American waterfowl 

management plan. Department of the Interior. Environment Canada. May 1986. 

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. 

Forest Service. 1994. Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests land and resource management 

plan – Amendment 5. Department of Agriculture, Asheville, North Carolina. March 

1994.