EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

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

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

Catawba River joins Big Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River downstream of the project. 

The project is located on the Catawba River8

 in the counties of Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, 

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

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

license expired on August 31, 2008. Since that time, the project has operated under an annual 

license. 

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

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

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

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

filed on March 8, 2007. 

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

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

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

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

staff did in its scoping documents. Duke Energy proposes no new capacity or operating changes, 

but does propose measures for the protection and enhancement of environmental resources, 

including increased minimum flows, measures to improve aquatic habitat and protect threatened 

and endangered species, and measures to maintain and enhance recreational opportunities. 

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

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

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

Scoping Document 2 on February 28, 2008. Scoping Document 2 serves as the current guide to 

the issues and alternatives considered in this draft EIS. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consideration of these factors for the project. 

 In addition to a no-action alternative, under which Duke Energy would continue to 

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

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

 

8

 The Catawba River joins Big Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River downstream of 

the project. 

1 
2 
Duke Energy’s Proposal

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

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

Inflow Protocol; 

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

habitat flow releases, dissolved oxygen compliance, implementation schedules, 

mitigation plans, and monitoring plans; 

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

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

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

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

eagle, wood stork, American alligator, shortnose sturgeon, and freshwater mussels 

including the Carolina heelsplitter; 

• develop and implement a protection plan for heron rookeries; 

• implement a historic properties management plan; 

• develop a schedule for recreational flows; 

• develop and enhance recreational facilities; 

• enhance public information systems; 

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

Management Guidelines; and 

• develop instream flow mitigation packages, in locations where the new minimum 

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

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

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

Staff Alternative

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

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

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

events; 

• 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 Maintenance and Emergency Protocol and implement the 

elevations within 60 days of the issuance of a new license; 

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

Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as agencies to consult with the Drought 

Management Advisory Group; 

3 
• consult with NOAA Fisheries on Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

implementation; 

• implement ramping of flows during the increase and decrease in recreational flow 

releases to minimize risk to aquatic resources; 

• establish an advisory group of stakeholders to evaluate and recommend appropriate 

mitigation for fish losses resulting from abnormal conditions; 

• develop and implement a terrestrial invasive plant species management plan for 

Catawba-Wateree Project lands within the development boundaries in consultation 

with applicable agencies; 

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

Register of Historic Places when the development reaches 50 years of age; include 

the Mountain Creek Park measure in the project boundary for the Cowans Ford 

Development; 

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

project boundary and in the Recreation Management Plan: East Wateree Access and 

Lake Cornelius Access; 

• consult with FWS, state agencies, and other stakeholders to evaluate the feasibility 

and locations for placement of wildlife viewing platforms at recreation access sites 

and file a plan within 1 year of license issuance for implementation; 

• include all Duke Energy-owned islands that serve a project purpose or are affected by 

the project within the project boundary; 

• expand the 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; 

• provide public information related to river flow via a web site or other electronic 

broadcast in a manner that provides the most up-to-date information possible; and 

• revise public safety plans, considering the need for warning devices, multi-lingual 

signage, and facility exclusion zones. 

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

Development and Recommended Alternative of this draft EIS. 

The Revised CRA includes several measures that are not currently license articles, but 

will be considered for possible inclusion as license articles, as well as several measures that are 

not included in the Staff Alternative because they affect lands that are currently outside the 

project boundary and are not needed for project purposes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 
5 

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

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

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

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

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

facilities. 

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

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

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

and cultural resources. 

The No Action Alternative is the existing project which generates an average of 

1,441,950 megawatt-hours (MWh) annually, valued at $83,148,504 (57.68 mills per kilowatt 

hour [mills/kWh]). The annual cost of producing this energy is $57,159,248 (39.65 mills/kWh). 

Under Duke Energy’s proposal, the project would generate about 1,283,010 MWh annually, 

valued at $76,297,848 (59.47 mills/kWh). The annual cost of producing this energy would be 

$66,068,715 (51.50 mills/kWh). 

The staff alternative would generate an average of 1,283,010 MWh of electricity 

annually, have an annual power value of $76,297,848 (59.47 mills/kWh), and have total annual 

costs of $63,089,564 (49.17 mills/kWh). As proposed, the staff alternative would result in an 

annual net benefit of $13,208,284. 

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

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

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

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

Basin.