3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting in the CatawbaWateree Project vicinity and any environmental resources that could be cumulatively affected 

by relicensing the project. Then, we address each affected environmental resource. Figures 

presenting each development, found in appendix A, also show land use and unique natural 

resources. For each resource, we first describe the existing conditions as a baseline against 

which to measure the effects of the proposed project and any alternative actions. After the 

existing conditions description, we then describe the environmental effects of the proposed 

project, including the proposed measure(s) discussed in section 2.2.3, Proposed Environmental 

Measures. Unless otherwise identified, the source of our information is the license application 

for the Catawba-Wateree Project (Duke Energy, 2007). We provide citations for information 

obtained from other sources including subsequent filings related to the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CATAWBA-WATEREE RIVER BASIN 

The Catawba-Wateree Project lies on the east side of the Blue Ridge Mountains in North 

and South Carolina and is located along an approximately 300-mile-long stretch of the Catawba 

River, which is a major tributary of the Wateree River. The Catawba River begins in western 

North Carolina and flows generally from northwest to southeast from its headwaters in the steep, 

mountainous Blue Ridge Province through the Piedmont Province. The Catawba River joins Big 

Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River in the Coastal Plain physiogeographic region of South 

Carolina. The drainage basin is relatively narrow, ranging from 11 to 39 miles wide (average 

27 miles) and has a watershed of approximately 4,750 sq mi. 

The Catawba-Wateree Project area and the surrounding region can be characterized 

generally as rolling hills, with elevations ranging from 1,200 ft msl at the Bridgewater 

Development, to approximately 80 ft msl at the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree Rivers, 

which is the downstream terminus of the project’s operational influence. 

The Blue Ridge scarp varies in elevation from 1,200 to 2,500 ft in the upper drainages of 

the Catawba-Wateree Project at the Bridgewater Development and is the eastern boundary of the 

Blue Ridge physiogeographic province. The Blue Ridge is a mountain plateau bounded by two 

mountain chains. The Blue Ridge Mountains on the east range from 3,000 to 4,000 ft in 

elevation, although a few peaks reach almost 6,000 ft. On the western boundary are the Unaka 

and Great Smoky Mountains with elevations that range from 3,000 to 6,000 ft. Transverse ridges 

and broad valley floors are located between the two mountain chains. In this region of the 

watershed, the majority of the Catawba-Wateree Project area is generally characterized by oakhickory forests and valleys interspersed with scattered homes and small farms; although it is 

predominantly rural, development in this region of the watershed is increasing. 

The Piedmont Province is located between the Blue Ridge scarp to the west and the Fall 

Line to the east, descending gradually in elevation to 600 to 800 ft at the Fall Line. The terrain is 

composed of gently rolling, well-rounded hills, and long, low ridges. The Piedmont was 

intensively farmed in the past, and former agricultural fields are in various stages of succession 

or have been converted to managed pine plantations. The Piedmont portion of the watershed is 

more extensively developed than the Blue Ridge scarp region. Considerable development is 

centered around the city of Charlotte, with additional development clustered in and around the 

cities of Morganton, Hickory, Mooresville, and Gastonia in North Carolina, and Rock Hill and 

59 
Lancaster in South Carolina. All of the major structures of the Catawba-Wateree Project lie 

within the Piedmont Province. 

The Coastal Plain meets the Piedmont along the Fall Line where soft sedimentary rocks 

of the Coastal Plain intersect with the harder, crystalline rocks of the higher elevation Piedmont. 

Along the Catawba River, the Fall Line occurs at the Wateree Development, and the Coastal 

Plain lies south and east of the Wateree Development. The Coastal Plain contains the majority 

of the Wateree regulated river reach to the confluence with the Congaree River. From this point 

downstream, the Catawba River passes through a relatively short stretch of the Carolina 

Sandhills region before it continues into the lower elevations of the Coastal Plain. In general, 

topography within the Coastal Plain is relatively flat, resulting in slow-flowing streams and poor 

drainage. The lower portion of the watershed supports some development, but is generally more 

rural in character than the Piedmont region. 

The forested areas bordering Catawba-Wateree developments have been logged or 

burned at least once and consist of secondary growth. Land use within the Catawba River Basin 

varies greatly, but is generally a mix of timber harvesting, forest, agricultural, and developed 

lands. Large scale residential development, or commercial development, or both have occurred 

at the Cowans Ford, Wylie, Fishing Creek, and Wateree Developments. 

Based on average meteorological data for Charlotte, North Carolina, and Columbia, 

South Carolina, the Catawba River Basin region has hot summers and cool winters with 

precipitation distributed evenly throughout the year (rssWeather, 2008a and 2008b). Summer 

high temperatures are normally near or above 90°F, and winter high temperatures near 55°F. 

Low temperatures are generally near 70°F in the summer and 35°F during the winter. Average 

precipitation ranges from 3 to 4 inches (in.) in Charlotte, North Carolina, to 3 to 6 in. in 

Columbia, South Carolina. There is not a distinct dry or wet season, although fall is normally the 

driest period of the year. On occasion in the summer or fall, hurricanes or their remnants from 

the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico can produce high rainfall events that result in high 

flows. 

3.2 CUMULATIVELY AFFECTED RESOURCES 

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the 

NEPA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] §1508.7), an action may cause cumulative 

impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in space or time with the impacts of other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and 

other land and water development activities. 

The Catawba-Wateree Project is operated as a coordinated, “stair-step” system and flows 

released from the upstream Catawba-Wateree Project developments in turn influence the water 

level, quality, and aquatic resources of the downstream developments. This influence is felt 

throughout the length of the Catawba-Wateree Project to the confluence with the Congaree River 

in South Carolina. Operations are primarily based on prevailing hydrologic conditions, license 

requirements, and regional power needs. 

Based on information in the license application, agency comments, other filings related to 

the Catawba-Wateree Project, and preliminary staff analysis, we identified the following 

60 
resources that have the potential to be cumulatively affected by the continued operation of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, in combination with other activities: water, geology and soils, aquatic 

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

3.2.1 Geographic Scope 

The geographic scope of analysis defines the physical limits of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project and encompasses the project boundary (the main stem of the Catawba and Wateree 

Rivers and lands adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project) including all mainstem reaches 

between project developments and the 77 miles of the Wateree River downstream of the Wateree 

development to the confluence with the Congaree River. We chose this geographic scope 

because this reach of the Catawba and Wateree Rivers encompasses the entire set of project 

facilities, plus those reaches of the river and other facilities on the river that affect or are affected 

by the operation of this project. 

 3.2.2 Temporal Scope 

The temporal scope of our cumulative analysis in the EIS includes a discussion of past, 

present, and future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. 

Based on the terms of the new license requested by Duke, the temporal scope looks 50 years into 

the future, concentrating on the effects on the resources from reasonably foreseeable future 

actions. The historical discussion is limited by the amount of information available for each 

resource. 

3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

3.3.1 Geology and Soils 

3.3.1.1 Affected Environment 

Geology 

From northwest to southeast, the geologic belts crossing the Catawba-Wateree drainage 

basin are Blue Ridge, Chauga, Inner Piedmont, Kings Mountain, Charlotte, and Carolina slate 

belts. Inner Piedmont, Charlotte, and Carolina slate belts underlie the major structures and 

reservoirs of the majority of the Catawba-Wateree Project. Sediments of the Coastal Plain 

overlap the Carolina slate belt south and east of the Wateree Development and underlie the 

majority of the Wateree regulated river reach to the Congaree River. 

The Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, and Lookout Shoals Developments are located 

within the Inner Piedmont belt in North Carolina. The western and northwestern reaches of Lake 

James are underlain by rocks of the Chauga and Blue Ridge belts. Rock units mapped in the 

vicinity of the developments include a variety of medium- to coarse-grained types that include 

granitic gneiss, augen gneiss, biotite gneiss, mica schist, garnet mica schist, sillimanite-mica 

schist, Toluca granite, amphibolite, ultramafic rocks, quartz-feldspar gneiss, and pegmatite. 

Alluvium in the Bridgewater and Lookout Shoals Developments consists of sand and silt 

deposits in the flood plains of major streams. 

The Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky 

Creek, and Cedar Creek Developments are located in South Carolina within the Charlotte belt, 

with the exception of the northern reaches of Lake Norman, which is underlain by rocks of the 

61 
Kings Mountain belt. Rock units mapped in the vicinity of the developments include granite, 

granitic gneiss, metagranite, diorite, gabbro, ultramafic rocks, mafic dikes (diabase), gabbro, 

metagabbro, metadiorite, meta-quartz monzonite, metatonalite, and felsic and mafic 

metavolcanics. 

The Wateree Development is located in South Carolina within the Carolina slate belt. 

Rocks in the vicinity are felsic and mafic tuffs, argillite, flood plain deposits, and the Middendorf 

formation of the Coastal Plain Province. 

Details on the geology found within each development are included in the license 

application (Duke Energy, 2007). 

Seismicity 

Historically, earthquakes have occurred within all three physiogeographic provinces. 

Within the Blue Ridge Province, three major earthquakes have occurred: Giles County, 

Virginia; Skyland, North Carolina; and Mitchell County, North Carolina in 1897, 1916, and 

1926, respectively. Microearthquakes related to seismic activity in an epicentral zone related to 

an 1897 Giles County, Virginia, earthquake continue to the present. Most activity is located at 

mid-crust depths of approximately 5 to 9 miles. 

Earthquakes in the Piedmont Province have occurred in central Virginia and South 

Carolina, though South Carolina has been seismically less active than Virginia. The largest 

earthquakes in the Piedmont occurred in 1861 in Wilkesboro, North Carolina, and in Union 

County, South Carolina, in 1913. Seismic activity in the Piedmont occurs at shallow depths in 

the upper crust from near surface to approximately 9 miles, with an average of 5 miles. 

The Coastal Plain Province has experienced one major earthquake: the Charleston, South 

Carolina, earthquake of 1886. Only a few scattered earthquakes have occurred outside of 

Charleston. 

Soils on slopes can be subject to flow or settling (liquefaction) during major earthquakes 

causing structures on the soils to move or fail. Generally, only alluvial soils are susceptible to 

liquefaction associated with earthquakes. The southeastern United States has experienced 

induced seismic activity related to Piedmont reservoirs and liquefaction. Although no reservoirinduced seismicity has occurred at any of the lakes or reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree Project, 

several semi-hydraulic embankment structures at the Bridgewater, Lookout Shoals, Mountain 

Island, and Wateree Developments are partially underlain by alluvial soils. Stability berms have 

been constructed at the Wateree and Bridgewater Developments. Lookout Shoals and Mountain 

Island Developments will be scheduled for future analysis and stability construction projects if 

the embankments at the developments do not meet the Commission’s criteria. The structures of 

remaining developments have no risk due to liquefaction. The current or future seismic stability 

construction for the applicable Catawba-Wateree projects is not a part of the analysis for this 

license application and is not addressed further in this document. 

Soils 

In general, soils within the Catawba-Wateree Project are well-drained, clayey or loamy 

soils and subsoils formed from the weathering of metamorphic or igneous rocks such as granite, 

gneiss, and schist. Appendix C provides a list of dominant soil types within each development, 

their composition, and their erosion factors. Most soil types are found in uplands with gentle to 

steep sloped topography or ridges. The Middle Catawba River Basin is characterized by flatter 

62 
terrain, highly erodible soils, and moderate river gradients. The Wateree Development and the 

Wateree regulated river reach are within the Carolina slate belt and have clayey soils that are 

primarily derived from slate, or alluvial deposits, or both on the flood plain. These soils and 

soils along streams and drainages are generally poorly drained. 

The Bridgewater, Cowans Ford, and Wylie Developments have recently seen a steady 

increase in the number of non-project-related leases and docks built along the shoreline. 

Analysis of cultural resources has revealed severe erosion along the island shorelines in Lake 

James and Lake Wylie. 

Reservoir Sedimentation 

Historically, the river has carried a heavy sediment load, as evidenced by the numerous 

mid-channel islands found in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain sections of the river. Land use has 

been a major factor in affecting the sediment yield of the river. The undeveloped, forested 

watershed draining to Lake James in the Bridgewater Development has typically exhibited the 

lowest sediment yields. Increased agricultural land use in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain creates 

a greater sediment yield to the Catawba River in those regions. More erodible, alluvial soils of 

the Coastal Plain exacerbate sediment loading in the southern section of the river where the 

Wateree Development, as the lowest reservoir in the system, typically has the highest sediment 

yield. 

Each of the 11 reservoirs along the Catawba-Wateree Project operates as a silt trap, 

disrupting the normal stream sediment continuity. Downstream of each dam, the upper 

tailwaters are typically scoured, with sand and fine sediment carried downstream and deposited 

in the lower riverine stretches of the next downstream impoundment. Lake James is an 

exception due to low seepage flows, frequent beaver dams, and sedimentation occurring 

downstream of the dam. Despite the sediment trapping action of the dams, the Catawba River 

has been stable over the project’s existence, exhibiting only localized aggradation (sediment 

deposition) or degradation (stream bed erosion). The high sediment yield from Piedmont and 

Coastal Plain watersheds prevents excess erosion and lowering of the river profile. Dam 

operations have typically provided adequate flows to maintain stable channel morphology. 

Some dredging operations have occurred around public water intake structures outside of 

project boundaries. 

3.3.1.2 Environmental Effects 

Geology 

Because the issuance of the new license would not involve new construction or grounddisturbing activities, we have not identified substantive issues related to geology. Seismic 

stability construction projects have occurred or may occur at developments within the CatawbaWateree Project, and analysis of those activities occurs outside of the relicensing process. 

Shoreline Erosion 

A 4-ft winter draw-down has been proposed for the Bridgewater Development and a 

2.5-ft winter draw-down has been proposed for the Wateree Development. Sediments exposed 

during the draw-down are susceptible to erosion when exposed to wind and wave action. 

63 
Our Analysis 

The SMP and North Carolina’s 50-ft buffer rule, which requires maintaining and 

protecting existing 50-ft-wide vegetated riparian (shoreline) areas along the mainstem Catawba 

River below Lake James and around the seven lakes in North Carolina, would minimize nonproject-related erosion of shorelines and resulting sedimentation of the reservoirs. The planned 

winter draw-downs have the potential to expose non-vegetated shorelines in the lake. These 

non-vegetated shorelines are susceptible to erosion, and routine monitoring is recommended. 

Boat traffic and recreational use would be low during the draw-down period. Exposed shoreline 

soil would be subject to wind-wave erosion. Slowly reducing the rate of the flow (“ramping”) 

during the draw-down period will reduce the likelihood of erosion downstream of the reservoirs 

by reducing the force of water on the stream banks. Avoiding winter drawdowns, while 

appropriate at some reservoirs, would have a drastic impact on hydropower operations and other 

aspects of the agreement, in this case. We conclude that developing ramping rates and a 

shoreline monitoring plan would provide for adequate protection from shoreline erosion. Where 

erosion appears, a more detailed investigation should be undertaken, and if necessary, an erosion 

repair and control plan should be developed. 

Sediment Deposition 

Duke Energy’s model of the reservoir system, which we discuss in section 3.3.2.2., Water 

Resources Environmental Effects, shows that the current rate of sedimentation of project 

reservoirs would not adversely affect project operations during the next 50-years. Duke Energy 

has proposed in the Revised CRA, but not as license articles, to provide the following measures 

in order to protect water quality and aquatic resources, but they would also contribute to a 

reduction in reservoir sedimentation. 

• Provide $9.32 million for North Carolina and South Carolina resource agencies to 

purchase land in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for public recreation, gamelands, 

or permanent conservation. 

• Contribute $154,000 annually through the Water Management Group to a water 

quality and quantity improvement fund, which can include sedimentation reduction 

projects. 

• Protect 34 bank miles of the Johns, Linville and Catawba Rivers by providing 100-ft 

riparian buffers as perpetual conservation easements. 

• Provide $1 million of funding to each state’s HEP that can be used for land 

conservation. 

Duke Energy has also teamed with the Muddy Creek Watershed Restoration Initiative to 

reduce sedimentation to Lake Rhodhiss. 

Our Analysis 

The applicant is involved in efforts that could help reduce sediment loads to the 

impoundments. The measures proposed by Duke Energy primarily for water quality and aquatic 

resources protection would provide minor ancillary benefits for erosion and sediment control. 

Otherwise, there is little that Duke Energy can do independently or directly to reduce 

sedimentation because the sources are largely outside of the project boundary. Duke’s modeling 

indicates that sedimentation rates are not a threat to the uses outlined in the Revised CRA. If 

64 
sedimentation affects safe yield for water suppliers in the future, the Water Management Group 

and CHEOPS model9

 provide effective tools for addressing the issue. 

River Bank Erosion 

Bank erosion has been raised as an issue downstream of the Wylie and Wateree 

Developments. Downstream of Lake Wylie, stream banks along tribal lands owned by CIN are 

described by Interior as undercut and destabilized. Duke Energy has proposed continuous 

minimum seasonal flow and pulsing operations at the Wylie dam for recreational flows. Pulsing 

operations have the potential to increase stream bank erosion due to fluctuating river flows, 

velocities, and water level. Interior considers, “continued project operations without concurrent 

protection of these federal lands...a gradual, inevitable taking of Indian Lands.” Interior has 

requested that Duke Energy consult with CIN and BIA to develop a stream bank erosion study 

and management plan within 1 year of license issuance or effective date, whichever is later. 

Interior recommends that the plan require stream bank stabilization and restoration measures by 

Duke Energy to a degree acceptable to CIN and BIA. 

The South Carolina SHPO has reported on active erosion at several historic Native 

American sites. The most important of these is the Mulberry Site, a privately owned historic 

village and complex of mounds listed in the National Register, which is located downstream of 

the Lake Wateree dam. We discuss Duke Energy’s proposed mitigation for the Mulberry Site, in 

section 3.3.7, Cultural Resources. 

Our Analysis 

The existing operations of the Catawba-Wateree Project are not directly or adversely 

altering downstream river morphology. Recreational flows proposed for the Wylie and Wateree 

Developments could adversely affect stream bank erosion at these sites discussed above; 

however, the proposed recreational flows are well within the historic range of operational 

releases and storm flows and are unlikely to further affect a system which has adapted to river 

level fluctuations over the past 70 years. Initiating recreational flows with a gradual increase in 

flow eventually achieving the target recreational flow over time (ramping) would reduce the 

force of the water flow on stream banks and result in reducing the potential for erosion. 

3.3.1.3 Cumulative Effects 

Sedimentation of reservoirs will continue through the next 50-years for the CatawbaWateree Project. Development and urbanization within the Catawba-Wateree watershed, 

particularly along shorelines of reservoirs, rivers, and their tributaries, will continue to have the 

potential to increase sediment yield where erosion of disturbed, unvegetated, erodible soils 

occurs in association with human activities. The applicant is a participant in several efforts 

(described above) that may result in modest reductions in sediment delivery. 

3.3.1.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Erosion of shoreline soils resulting from wind-driven waves and high rainfall that will 

occur as isolated meteorological events will continue. Implementation and enforcement of the 

SMP will lessen shoreline erosion through improved shoreline protection by means of vegetated 

 9 CHEOPSTM (Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software) is a 

proprietary software program that assesses the effects of simulated hydroelectric project 

operating conditions on flows and reservoir levels.

65 
buffers and development restrictions. To some degree this process is unavoidable given the 

nature of hydropower operations. Because this process can be ubiquitous, only the significant 

erosion problems identified through monitoring are likely to be addressed. Much of the 

sedimentation affecting the reservoirs will be unavoidable given the complexity and cost of 

addressing the problem and the fact that most of the sediment originates from outside of the 

project boundary. 

3.3.2 Water Resources 

3.3.2.1 Affected Environment 

3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity 

The Catawba-Wateree Project uses water from the Catawba River and Wateree River 

Basins to generate electricity (see figures 1 and 2). The Catawba River drains a portion of the 

eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains in western North Carolina and some of the Piedmont 

area of North Carolina and South Carolina, including most of the urban area of Charlotte, North 

Carolina. The Catawba River merges with several creeks south of Great Falls, South Carolina, 

to form the Wateree River, which drains the sand hills and upper Coastal Plain of South 

Carolina. The total project drainage area at the furthest downstream development, Wateree, 

is 4,750 sq mi. Below the Wateree Development, the Wateree River flows for 77 miles to the 

confluence of the Congaree River, which flows into the headwaters of Lake Marion on the 

Cooper River, which flows to the Atlantic Ocean. Flow at each development is highly influenced 

by the flow at the upstream development, as illustrated by the flow duration curves in figure 3. 

Table 6 summarizes the characteristics of the 11 project reservoirs considered in this draft 

EIS. There are no existing license restrictions for water surface elevations in any of the 

reservoirs. Within the limitations of available streamflow, Duke Energy operates the reservoirs in 

accordance with voluntary guide curves, which are constant throughout the year for most 

reservoirs (see table 7) but vary seasonally at Lake James (figure 4), Lake Norman (figure 5), 

and Lake Wateree figure 6. Minimum flow requirements under the existing license are 

summarized in table 8. 

Lake James, the uppermost reservoir, is one of four storage reservoirs in the project, 

Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree being the other three. Duke Energy operates the 

Bridgewater Development in a store-and-release mode to meet reservoir elevation targets in 

Lake James (see the guide curves in figure 4 and table 8) and to provide flow to meet elevation 

targets in downstream reservoirs. Under the Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program, Duke 

Energy voluntarily attempts to maintain water levels in Lake James during the spring spawning 

period for bass within a range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of the program. 

Duke Energy initiates the program on Lake James 14 days after the program begins on Lake 

Wateree and continues the program for 3 weeks. Figure 7 shows water level elevations in Lake 

James for a dry year, 1986, normal year, 1993, and wet year, 1983, as selected for hydrologic 

modeling conducted by Duke Energy. Table 9 provides monthly inflow exceedances for the 

Bridgewater Development; that is, the percent of time during a month that flows exceed a given 

rate (cfs). Water released from the Bridgewater powerhouse travels about 0.85 mile down the 

Linville River before entering the Catawba River, which then flows for about 13 miles to Lake 

Rhodhiss. 

66 
Figure 2. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) facilities flow diagram.

67 
Figure 2. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) facilities flow diagram (continued). 

68 
Figure 3. Flow duration curves for project developments (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

69 
Table 6. Reservoir characteristics for the Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke Energy, 200

Lake/reservoir 

River 

mile of 

dam1

Drainage 

area 

(sq mi) 

Normal 

maximum 

water 

surface 

elevation 

(ft USGS) 

Normal 

minimum 

water 

surface 

elevation 

(ft USGS) 

Surface 

area2

(acres) 

Average 

and 

maximum 

depths (ft) 

James 279.60 380 1,200.0 1,190.0 6,754 44/141 5Rhodhiss 248.00 1,090 994.1 990.1 2,724 21/48 7

Hickory 230.00 1,310 934.0 931.5 4,072 31/85 9

Lookout Shoals 220.30 1,450 837.1 834.6 1,155 25/79 2

Norman 186.90 1,790 760.0 750.0 32,339 33/110 2

Mountain Island 171.50 1,860 647.0 643.5 3,117 18/58 1

Wylie 143.50 3,020 568.4 564.4 12,177 23/93 4

Fishing Creek 104.80 3,810 416.2 412.2 3,431 24/90 1

Great Falls 101.50 4,100 355.3 349.8 353 5/75 1

Cedar Creek 99.30 4,360 283.9 280.9 748 29/35 2

Wateree 76.85 4,750 224.5 218.5 13,025 23/64 6

1 Measured from the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree Rivers. 2 At normal maximum water surface elevation. 3 Between normal maximum and normal minimum water surface elevations. 

70 
Table 7. Target reservoir water surface elevations (ft msl) for Catawba-Wateree Project. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir Full pond 

elevation 

Normal 

minimum 

Normal 

target 

Normal 

maximum 

James See figure 4 

Rhodhiss 995.1 990.1 992.1 994.1 

Hickory 935.0 931.5 932.0 934.0 

Lookout Shoals 838.1 834.6 836.1 837.1 

Norman See figure 5 

Mountain Island 647.5 643.5 644.5 647.0 

Lake Wylie 569.4 564.4 566.4 568.4 

Fishing Creek 417.2 412.2 414.2 416.2 

Great Falls 355.8 349.6 353.3 355.3 

Cedar Creek 284.4 280.9 281.9 283.9 

Wateree See figure 6 

71 
Figure 4. Lake James existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

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

72 
Figure 6. Lake Wateree existing guide curves (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

73 
Table 8. Existing License discharge requirements for Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232). (Source: Duke 

Development(s) Reach Length (miles) Minimum flow (cfs) Duke Energy’s mechanis

requirement 

Bridgewater Linville/Catawba River 13.8 25 continuous 

66 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Catawba Bypassed 

Reach 

5.6 NA 

Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach 

0.5 NA 

Rhodhiss Tailwater/backwater -- 40 continuous 

225 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Oxford Tailwater 2.8 40 continuous 

261 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Lookout Shoals Tailwater 0.3-1.3 1 60 continuous 

278 daily average 

one small generating unit rone unit run at efficiency l

Cowans Ford Tailwater/backwater -- 80 continuous 

311 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Mountain Island Tailwater/backwater -- 80 continuous 

314 daily average 

wicket gate leakage one unit run at efficiency l

Bypass 0.6 NA 

Wylie Tailwater/regulated 

reach 

25.6 411 daily average2 one unit run at efficiency l

Lansford Canal 1.4 NA 

Fishing Creek Tailwater/backwater -- 440 daily average one unit run at efficiency l

Great Falls and Dearborn 

Tailwater/backwater -- 444 daily average one unit run at efficiency l

Great Falls Long 

Bypassed Reach 

2.2 NA 

Great Falls Short Bypassed Reach 

0.8 NA 

Cedar Creek and Rocky Creek 

Tailwater/backwater -- 445 daily average one unit run at efficiency l

74 
75 

Development(s) Reach Length (miles) Minimum flow (cfs) Duke Energy’s mechanis

requirement 

Wateree Tailwater/regulated 

reach 

76.8 446 daily average3 one unit run at efficiency l

Spillway channel bypass 

0.4 NA 

1 Depending on Lake Norman drawdown. 2 Duke Energy also voluntarily provides 700 cfs continuous flow for industrial users. 3 Duke Energy also voluntarily provides 200 cfs continuous flow, March 15 – May 31, to support fish spawning. NA = not applicable, i.e., no existing license requirement. 
Figure 7. Lake James water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal (1993), 

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

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

percentages of time.1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Month 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 

January 1,314 878 626 452 344 

February 1,430 973 687 513 382 

March 1,571 1,046 749 562 429 

April 1,481 999 720 540 419 

May 1,088 795 586 449 339 

June 946 670 498 363 266 

July 764 565 415 307 224 

August 793 533 391 288 201 

September 767 486 354 254 181 

October 989 562 366 249 168 

November 983 637 429 309 225 

December 1,048 734 530 375 273 

1

 For 1930 through 2000. 

76 
Rhodhiss dam is 32 miles downstream from Linville dam. Sixty-five percent of the 

drainage area to Lake Rhodhiss enters the system below the Bridgewater Development. Flow to 

the Rhodhiss Development is proportionately higher, therefore, than flow to the Bridgewater 

Development (see figure 3). Lake Rhodhiss is a long, narrow reservoir with limited storage 

capacity; figure 8 displays water elevations in representative years. Water released from the 

Rhodhiss Development flows directly into Lake Hickory and provides about 87 percent of the 

lake’s inflow. Lake Hickory is also a long, narrow reservoir with limited storage capacity; typical 

operating elevations are displayed in figure 9. Water released from the Oxford Development 

flows for 2 miles in the Catawba River before entering the headwaters of Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Inflow to Lookout Shoals Lake consists primarily of the outflow of the Oxford Development, 

which controls 90 percent of the Lookout Shoals drainage area. Discharge from Lookout Shoals 

flow 0.3 -1.3 miles to the head of Lake Norman depending on the water surface elevation in 

Lake Norman. 

Lake Norman is the largest project reservoir, with a usable storage capacity that exceeds 

the combined capacities of all the other reservoirs. Releases from Cowans Ford Development, 

therefore, are used to augment generation flows for downstream project developments. About 85 

percent of the inflow to Lake Norman comes from the Lookout Shoals discharge. Under the 

existing guide curves for Lake Norman, the normal operating target elevation is highest during 

the summer, after which it drops gradually throughout the fall to the beginning of the winter 

draw-down on December 1 (figure 5). The target elevation then drops by 4 ft throughout the 

winter to March 1, providing storage for spring runoff. Under the voluntary Spring Lake Level 

Stabilization Program, Duke Energy maintains water levels in Lake Norman during the spring 

spawning period for bass within a range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of 

the program. Duke Energy initiates the program on Lake Norman 8 days after the program 

begins on Lake Wateree and continues it for 3 weeks. Figure 10 shows water surface elevations 

on Lake Norman in representative years. Water released from the Cowans Ford dam or 

powerhouse flows directly into the tailrace of Mountain Island Lake. 

Inflow to Mountain Island Lake is highly regulated by the Cowans Ford Development, 

which controls 96 percent of its drainage area. Water is released from the Mountain Island 

powerhouse into the tailrace channel constructed in a secondary channel of the Catawba River. 

The Mountain Island Development controls about 62 percent of the drainage area of the Wylie 

Development, with Dutchman’s Creek, South Fork Catawba, Crowders Creek, and Allison Creek 

and other minor tributaries draining the incremental area. Table 10 provides monthly inflow 

exceedance statistics, and figure 11 shows water surface elevations on Lake Wylie in 

representative years. Duke Energy maintains water levels in Lake Wylie during the spring 

spawning period for bass within a range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of 

the voluntary Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program. Duke Energy initiates the program on 

Lake Wylie 2 days after the program begins on Lake Wateree and continues it for 3 weeks. 

Water is released from Lake Wylie to the Catawba River about 25 miles above the headwaters of 

the Fishing Creek Development. 

77 
Figure 8. Lake Rhodhiss water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

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

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

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

78 
Figure 10. Lake Norman water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

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

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

percentages of time .1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Month 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 

January 9,469 6,901 4,797 2,559 1,218 

February 9,846 7,614 5,140 2,718 1,324 

March 10,107 7,488 5,132 2,837 1,177 

April 10,006 7,358 4,487 2,196 994 

May 7,696 5,459 3,579 1,691 840 

June 6,720 4,774 3,162 1,392 835 

July 5,951 4,071 2,420 1,124 756 

August 6,050 4,149 2,468 1,173 800 

September 5,783 3,911 2,053 1,073 556 

October 6,796 4,357 2,221 1,132 597 

November 6,686 4,712 2,598 1,223 756 

December 7,458 5,437 3,212 1,688 922 

1

 For 1930 through 2000.

79 
Figure 11. Lake Wylie water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal (1993), 

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

Sugar Creek, Twelve Mile Creek, Waxhaw Creek, Cane Creek, and other minor 

tributaries drain the 21 percent of Fishing Creek Development drainage area that is not controlled 

by Lake Wylie. Duke Energy operates the generating units at Fishing Creek Development 

primarily to refill the two downstream reservoirs for the Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, 

and Cedar Creek Developments, before their generating runs begin, but the units in the Fishing 

Creek powerhouse also must be balanced to avoid overfilling and spilling from the 

Developments. After meeting these operational constraints, Duke Energy operates the Fishing 

Creek units for peaking supply. Water is released from the Fishing Creek powerhouse directly 

into Great Falls reservoir, which is the smallest project reservoir. Releases from the Dearborn 

and Great Falls powerhouses enter directly into the Cedar Creek reservoir. The diversion dam at 

the upstream end of Great Falls reservoir creates the Great Falls long bypass east of Mountain 

Island. The headworks structure, located in the middle of the reservoir, creates the Great Falls 

short bypass reach west of the island. The existing license has no requirement for releases to 

these two bypassed reaches. 

Lake Wateree is the second largest project reservoir and is the last (most downstream) of 

the 11 reservoirs that compose the Catawba-Wateree River system. Normal operation is 

characterized by a high reservoir level from late winter to mid fall and a modest winter drawdown (figure 6). Under the Spring Lake Level Stabilization Program, Duke Energy voluntarily 

attempts to maintain water levels in Lake Wateree during the spring spawning period for bass 

within a range of 1 ft below to 2 ft above the level on the first day of the program. Duke Energy 

initiates the program on the fourth consecutive day of a noontime forebay temperature of at least 

80 
65°F and continues the program for 3 weeks. Figure 12 shows water surface elevations in 

representative dry, normal, and wet years. Table 11 lists monthly inflow exceedances. 

High intensity rainfall events have been shown to cause Lake Wateree to rise above the 

normal full reservoir elevation (225.5 ft). Water can be discharged from Lake Wateree through 

the five turbine-generators, which have a total maximum hydraulic capacity of 15,880 cfs, and 

the uncontrolled overflow spillway. Discharge through the overflow spillway occurs when the 

water surface elevation reaches full pond at 225.5 ft and increases as lake level rises above that 

elevation. Operations Study 02—Reservoir Level Study (Duke Energy, 2005a) assembled and 

evaluated historic lake levels. These data show that Lake Wateree exceeds full pond 

infrequently and that the frequency of higher water surface levels has decreased over time. The 

historic peak lake level at Wateree was approximately 9 ft above full pond in 1929. The recent 

peak reservoir elevation was 8 ft above full pond, which occurred in 1989 during Hurricane 

Hugo. Lake levels have never exceeded Duke Energy’s flood easement of 235.5 ft (10.0 ft 

above full pond). 

The potential for such occurrences is exacerbated if the rainfall events occur within the 

portion of the Catawba watershed downstream of Lake Wylie because the five developments 

between Wylie and Wateree have limited storage capacity and very short residence times. Lake 

Norman and Lake James are the only upstream reservoirs with significant storage capacity in the 

Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The increased system storage capacity created by construction of 

the Cowans Ford Development impounding of Lake Norman in 1963 resulted in partial 

mitigation of high water events at Lake Wateree. Lake Norman more than doubled the usable 

storage capacity in project reservoirs upstream of Lake Wateree. The influence of Lake Norman 

is demonstrated by comparing the percentage of time that lake levels exceeded full pond in the 

data record for 1929-1963 to the data representing 1963-2003. Since 1963, levels at Lake 

Wateree have exceeded full pond approximately 3 percent of the time, whereas prior to 1963, 

this level was exceeded approximately 10 percent of the time. 

Historically, development has occurred within the lower portion of the flood zone 

easement that was established on Lake Wateree. Much of this shore zone, particularly in the 

lower portion of Lake Wateree, has minimal topographic relief and, therefore, is prone to 

flooding during periodic major storm events.

81 
Figure 12. Lake Wateree water surface elevations for representative dry (1986), normal 

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

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

percentages of time.1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Month 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% 

January 15,064 10,867 7,054 4,272 2,012 

February 14,872 11,738 7,685 4,878 2,651 

March 15,586 12,222 7,974 4,694 2,543 

April 14,897 10,771 6,537 3,514 1,622 

May 9,449 6,591 4,281 2,204 944 

June 8,817 5,990 4,032 1,955 995 

July 7,752 5,313 3,282 1,568 841 

August 8,088 5,595 3,500 1,702 883 

September 7,574 5,263 2,874 1,450 661 

October 9,587 5,603 3,082 1,519 723 

November 9,464 6,241 3,727 1,836 863 

December 10,871 7,417 4,696 2,550 1,216 

1

 For 1930 through 2000. 

82 
Figure 13. Number of days that the water surface elevation in Lake Wateree was above 228.5 

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

CHEOPS Operations Model 

CHEOPSTM (Computer Hydro Electric Operations and Planning Software) is a software 

tool for evaluating a wide range of physical changes and operational constraints associated with 

relicensing or upgrading single and multiple-development hydroelectric projects. CHEOPS has 

been applied to accurately evaluate physical and operational changes considered during the 

relicensing of more than 25 hydroelectric projects. The model was developed for use as a 

decision support tool. One of the strengths of CHEOPS is that the model is tailored to meet the 

unique characteristics and demands of the particular system being evaluated. Because each 

project is unique, the ability of the model to accurately simulate proposed physical and 

operational modifications needs to be verified by comparison of simulated operation to historic 

project data. The Operations 01—CHEOPS Model report describes the analyses that were 

conducted to test the model’s ability to simulate operation of the 11 reservoir and 13 

powerhouses that make up the Catawba-Wateree Development. 

The Catawba-Wateree Model was custom configured for the project based on the specific 

Project constraints, such as environmental and recreational releases, target reservoir elevations, 

municipal and industrial water withdrawals, and powerhouse equipment constraints. The model 

was designed to be capable of simulating the complex interaction between the hydrology, 

hydraulics, reservoir elevation operating limits, minimum flows, turbine unit variable 

efficiencies, and the cumulative effects of project operations on the natural flow regimen and 

proposed operational alternatives associated with the requirements of 18 C.F.R §4.51, Exhibit E. 

83 
Prior to use in the stakeholder and negotiation process leading to the Revised CRA, the model 

was verified to demonstrate that it is capable of providing realistic results associated with the 

cumulative effects of project operations on the natural flow regimen and historic operational. 

The Water Resources Workgroup including agency representatives, stakeholders, and Duke 

Energy worked together to monitor the setup and testing of the model and selection of historic 

input data for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The consultation worksheet documents this group’s 

review, input during development of the model, and preparation and acceptance of the final 

Operations 01—CHEOPS Model report 

The objective of calibration and verification of the model is to reasonably characterize 

current operations, not perfectly match or mimic historical operations. Comparison of model 

results with historical data provides a basis for evaluation of the model’s ability to react in a 

manner consistent with “real” operations. The caveat to all these comparisons is that it is 

impossible to account for the multitude of outside influences and conditions that combined to 

determine the historic operational decisions or the degree of error in the input or historical data. 

The goal of verification of the Catawba-Wateree model was to demonstrate the ability of the 

model to produce results that were within approximately 5 percent of historic generation data on 

an annual basis. The qualitative component of the verification process is to compare the 

hydrographs of modeled results to historic data to verify whether the model provides a 

reasonable representation of project operations at each development and throughout the year 

(e.g., the timing, magnitude and duration of operations). 

The validation was conducted by comparing the model simulation of power generation 

for three specific historic years and the average of 1974 to 2003 historic data with the individual 

plant and total Catawba-Wateree Project historic generation data. Calendar year 1993 was 

selected as a representative normal year, 1983 as a wet year, and 1986 as a dry year based on a 

hydrologic ranking using the 1929 to 2003 CHEOPS inflow data set. For the 1983, 1986, and 

1993 scenarios, the simulated differences in system-wide annual generation were 5.54, 5.48, and 

3.26 percent, respectively. 

The Operations 01—CHEOPS Model report concluded that model verification results 

indicate the Catawba-Wateree CHEOPS Model provides a good overall comparison to historic 

data, verifies that it reasonably characterizes project operations, and is adequate for use in 

evaluating the impacts of operating scenarios considered in the relicensing proceedings. 

After verification, the CHEOPS model was used in Operations 04—Water Supply Study

(HDR, 2006) to estimate the safe yield of each of the project reservoirs given the operational 

constraints and flow requirements detailed in the Revised CRA. The model used regional 

growth projections and estimates of increased water use to assess the capacity of the system to 

support expanding water use in conjunction with other downstream release requirements. Safe 

yield is used to describe the amount of water theoretically available at a given location in a 

watershed and is a commonly used measure of the dependability of a water supply source. The 

safe yield of a water supply source depends on many factors, including the availability of water; 

storage, diversion, and the water supply infrastructure system; operation of the infrastructure 

system; and level of certainty of the system demand. 

CHEOPS used the operating depth of the shallowest water supply intake in each reservoir 

as the critical reservoir level elevation (table 12); that is, the lowest elevation to which the 

reservoir can be drawn down while all major intakes remain submerged and operational. To 

84 
estimate safe yield, a water budget was calculated that allocated and accounted for all significant 

sources and uses of water, given the constraints imposed by the system infrastructure and 

operations. Safe yield analyses were completed for several operating scenarios including the 

following. 

• Baseline Safe Yield—This analysis calculated safe yields for the project’s reservoirs 

using current operating conditions in Duke Energy’s existing FERC license, other 

agreements honored by Duke Energy, and other relevant operating practices. 

• Mutual Gains Safe Yield—This analysis calculated safe yields for the project’s 

reservoirs using the mutual gains operating conditions (dated November 28, 2006) 

negotiated during the relicensing stakeholder consultation process and outlined in the 

Revised CRA. The mutual gains operating conditions are the basis of the operating 

parameters and constraints proposed in the license application, including, but not 

limited to: 

- downstream flow requirements from each reservoir for protection and 

enhancement of aquatic resources and recreation, 

- proposed normal minimum and target reservoir elevations, 

- and implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol. 

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

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir 

Critical reservoir elevation 

(ft) and feet below full pool First controlling type 

James 1,161 (39 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Rhodhiss 984.5 (10.6 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Hickory 929 (6 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Lookout Shoals Lake 813 (25.1 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Norman 750 (10 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Mountain Island 641.8 (5.7 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Wylie 562 (7.4 ft below full pond) Industrial Intake 

Fishing Creek 412.2 (5 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

Great Falls 343 (12.8 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Cedar Creek 264.7 (19.7 ft below full pond) Power Production 

Wateree 218 (7.5 ft below full pond) Municipal Intake 

The reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree Project are generally operated as an integrated 

system. In simple terms, increased demand on a downstream reservoir results in water being 

released from a number of upstream reservoirs to keep system water levels in a reasonably 

85 
balanced state. The model also serves as a tool to assess the ability of the system to balance 

power, industrial, agricultural, and public water system demands while supporting stream flows 

for recreation and aquatic resources included in the proposed license articles over the duration of 

the license. To assess the ability to maintain this balance under conditions that would require 

implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol, historic low flow conditions for these model runs 

were extracted from the hydrologic period of record; selected periods were 1998-2003 and 1949-

1959. 

The CHEOPS model produced project simulations in 10-year time steps from 2008 to 

2078; at each time step a determination was made as to whether any critical constraint was 

violated for each reservoir. The safe yield for a given reservoir is estimated at the time-step prior 

to that at which a critical constraint is reached and cannot be balanced out using upstream water 

surplus. Through this incremental process the model simulates the future time increment at 

which water demand associated with regional growth projections surpasses the storage capacity 

for each reservoir given other specified system constraints. 

Baseline Safe Yield 

The lower end of the safe yield value range was determined as the withdrawal flows that 

were modeled in the 10-year time-step just prior to the simulated drawdown that caused a 

violation of the critical reservoir level. The upper end of the safe yield value range was the 

withdrawal flow that was modeled in the 10-year time-step when a reservoir violation was 

projected. For example, Mountain Island Lake had a no critical intake constraint violation in 

2038, while the 2048 simulation predicted violations of critical intake constraints. The 2038 

time-step and associated reservoir water demand (192 mgd) was determined as the safe yield for 

this reservoir under baseline conditions. The safe yield values obtained from two low inflow 

period simulations under the critical intake constraint scenario are presented in tables 13 and 14. 

86 
Table 13. Baseline safe yield value range obtained from critical intake constraints lowinflow period 1998-2003 simulations based on existing license conditions. 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year 

(mgd)1 (cfs)1

James 2058-20682 36-40 56-62 

Rhodhiss 2058-20682 44-47 68-73 

Hickory 2058-20682 44-49 68-76 

Lookout Shoals 2058-20682 12-13 19-21 

Norman 2038-2048 133-169 206-261 

Mountain Island 2038-2048 192-207 297-320 

Wylie > 2078 > 189 > 292 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 225 > 348 

Great Falls > 2078 > 3 > 5 

Cedar Creek > 2078 > 1 > 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

1

 Withdrawal flows associated with years given may not match exactly with flows outlined in 

section 3 and appendix C of the license application. Baseline safe yield analysis was 

completed in January 2005, prior to minor updates of the withdrawal/return projections. 

2

 Failure pending to support downstream reservoirs. 

87 
Table 14. Safe yield value range obtained from critical intake level constraints low-inflow 

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

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year 

(mgd)1 (cfs)1

James 2048-2058 32-34 50-53 

Rhodhiss 2048-2058 40-44 62-68 

Hickory 2048-2058 37-44 57-68 

Lookout Shoals 2048-2058 12 19 

Norman > 2078 > 223 > 346 

Mountain Island 2048-2058 207-224 320-347 

Wylie 2068-2078 171-189 265-292 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 225 > 348 

Great Falls 2058-2068 2-3 3-5 

Cedar Creek 2058-2068 1 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

1

 Withdrawal flows associated with years given may not match exactly with flows outlined in 

section 3 and appendix C of the license application. Baseline safe yield analysis was 

completed in January 2005, prior to minor updates of the withdrawal/return projections. 

The Water Supply Study baseline safe yield analysis presented the following conclusions. 

• Low inflow periods 1949-1959 and 1998-2003 are the key droughts in the hydrologic 

period of record for determination of safe yield. 

• Upstream reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree Project are integrally linked to 

supplying downstream reservoirs during periods of drought, given the relative size of 

the reservoirs and their location relative to water withdrawals and net outflows. 

• Using the water demand based on regional growth projections, the safe yield ranges 

are most limiting for Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman; yields are 

approximately 133-169 mgd and 192-207 mgd, respectively. These values equate to 

water use projected to occur between years 2038 and 2048, and represent the earliest 

time at which one of the project reservoirs can no longer meet increasing net 

outflows. 

• Other reservoirs have safe yield values that would support projected net outflows 

beyond the year 2038. 

• Fishing Creek reservoir, Great Falls reservoir, Cedar Creek reservoir, and Lake 

Wateree did not exceed safe yield estimates within the simulation period. 

88 
Mutual Gains Safe Yield Analysis 

The baseline safe yield analysis was performed, in part, to establish a benchmark for 

comparison to the proposed license conditions (mutual gains safe yield values). The mutual 

gains safe yield analysis focused on determining safe yields for each of the project’s reservoirs 

under the proposed license conditions; that is, a simulation of how Duke Energy would operate 

the system under its new FERC license, assuming acceptance by the Commission of the 

operating conditions proposed in the license application. 

This simulation was used to assess the project’s capacity to support regional water supply 

during extended drought periods over the next 50 years, the duration of the license requested by 

Duke Energy. Under the proposed operating conditions, Duke Energy would manage the system 

to maintain a new set of target, normal minimum, and normal maximum water surface elevation 

for each reservoir. During periods of low inflow, Duke Energy would work to maintain storage 

in the system, and, as reservoir levels drop, water from upstream reservoirs would be transferred 

downstream to maintain minimum reservoir elevations for as long as possible similar to existing 

operating protocols. Unlike the existing license, the proposed Low Inflow Protocol allows for 

minimum reservoir elevations to be adjusted for more effective management of water storage 

inventory throughout the project as low inflow or drought conditions continue to worsen. 

Two safe yield reservoir constraints were modeled. 

• Critical Intake Elevation—The first constraint was similar to the baseline scenario 

establishing the location of the shallowest water intake in each of the project’s 

reservoirs as the critical reservoir elevation. The available water storage inventory 

can be utilized until that level is reached, thereby defining the safe yield value for that 

reservoir. 

• Critical Boat Access—The second scenario used access to public boat ramps in each 

of the reservoirs for recreational use as the critical constraint. This scenario is very 

conservative given the relatively shallow location of most boat ramps compared to 

water supply intakes. The critical boat access levels were defined as the level that 

maintains two Duke Energy-owned access areas open on larger lakes, and one open 

on smaller lakes. 

Table 15 summarizes the critical constraints based on intake location and boat access and 

indicates the percentage of total storage available based on the critical intake constraint 

elevations. 

89 
Table 15. Critical constraint elevation summaries. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir 

Critical intake 

constraint elevation 

(feet relative to 

local datum)1

Estimated 

percentage of total 

available storage 

provided based on 

critical intake 

constraint2

Critical boat access 

constraint elevation 

(feet relative to 

local datum) 

James 61.0 25% 92.0 

Rhodhiss 89.4 2% 91.0 

Hickory 94.0 3% 91.0 

Lookout Shoals 74.9 2% 92.0 

Norman 90.0 40% 91.0 

Mountain Island 94.3 2% 91.0 

Wylie 92.6 10% 95.5 

Fishing Creek 95.0 2% 95.0 

Great Falls 87.2 1% 87.23

Cedar Creek 80.3 2% 96.0 

Wateree 92.5 11% 93.0 

Total 100% 

1

 All elevations listed are measured in feet relative to the full pond contour with 100.00 ft 

corresponding to full pond. 

2

 Total available storage estimated at 707,000 acre-feet. 

3

 Hydro operations limitation. 

The same low inflow periods used for the baseline analysis were used in the CHEOPS 

model to determine the critical reservoir level exceedances and safe yield results for the mutual 

gains analysis. Table 16 outlines the safe yield values for critical intake levels that were derived 

from this analysis and the corresponding period that projected demand would exceed safe yield. 

The safe yield for reservoirs from Lake James downstream to Lake Wylie would be exceeded 

between 2058 and 2068. 

90 
Table 16. Safe yield value range obtained from critical intake level constraint low-inflow 

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

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

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year (mgd) (cfs) 

James 2048 – 2058 32 – 34 50 – 53 

Rhodhiss 2048 – 2058 40 – 44 62 – 68 

Hickory 2048 – 2058 37 – 44 57 – 68 

Lookout Shoals 2048 – 2058 12 19 

Norman 2048 – 2058 169 – 179 261 – 277 

Mountain Island 2048 – 2058 207 – 224 320 – 347 

Wylie 2068 – 2078 141 – 155 218 – 240 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 238 > 368 

Great Falls > 2078 > 3 > 4 

Cedar Creek > 2078 > 1 > 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

The two low inflow periods were also used to simulate safe yield results under the mutual 

gains operating conditions using very conservative critical boat access constraints. This analysis 

indicated early and frequent violation of the boat access constraint at many of the reservoirs. 

Using projected 2008 net outflows in the model, the following five reservoirs immediately 

violated the boat access constraint level based on both low inflow periods: 

• Lake James, 

• Lake Hickory, 

• Mountain Island Lake, 

• Lake Wylie, and 

• Cedar Creek reservoir. 

These widespread reservoir violations are due primarily to the location of the boat access 

constraint levels relative to the proposed normal minimum lake levels. Table 15 summarizes the 

critical boat access constraint elevation for each reservoir; several of the reservoirs have 

relatively high boat access constraint elevations. In particular, Lake Wylie’s critical boat access 

constraint elevation is 95.5 ft (relative to local datum), which is above the normal minimum 

elevation for this reservoir. In this simulation, a relatively large downstream flow requirement at 

Lake Wylie and a relatively high boat access constraint stresses the storage capacity for most of 

the upper basin reservoir system. Other reservoirs in the system also approach critical levels 

attempting to meet downstream water demands or maintaining relatively high critical boat access 

91 
constraint elevations. Based on this analysis, table 17 presents the safe yield values associated 

with the boat access constraint levels. It can be assumed that under drought conditions, access 

for recreational boating in selected reservoirs might provide an early trigger for water 

management decisions; however, boat access at these developments would be a minor secondary 

concern relative to critical intake constraints during a drought. 

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

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

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

Withdrawal flow 

Reservoir Year 

(mgd) (cfs) 

James < 2008 < 12 < 19 

Rhodhiss > 2078 > 52 > 80 

Hickory < 2008 < 17 < 26 

Lookout Shoals > 2078 > 15 > 23 

Norman 2068-2078 202-223 312-346 

Mountain Island < 2008 < 131 < 203 

Wylie < 2008 < 95 < 147 

Fishing Creek > 2078 > 238 > 368 

Great Falls > 20781 > 3 > 5 

Cedar Creek < 2008 < 1 < 2 

Wateree > 2078 > 74 > 114 

1

 No critical boat access constraint elevation. 

 3.3.2.1.2 Water Use 

While water in the project reservoirs is used primarily for hydropower production, the 

reservoirs also are used to provide water withdrawals for municipal and industrial purposes. 

Duke Energy reports that 1.3 million people rely on the system for their domestic water. 

Table 18 summarizes the major water withdrawals from the Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs. 

Other users withdraw water for agriculture and recreational uses. Some of the water withdrawn 

for municipal or industrial water supply is returned to the project reservoirs as discharges from 

wastewater treatment plants, and the water withdrawn for power plant cooling is returned to the 

reservoirs minus losses from evaporative cooling. Net water withdrawal (the difference between 

water withdrawals and return flows) from project reservoirs is projected to increase by 

178 percent by 2058 (table 19). Each reservoir has municipal, industrial, or power plant intakes 

as well as the project hydroelectric intakes. Table 20 lists the critical water surface elevations for 

the shallowest intake in each reservoir. When lake levels fall below these critical elevations, one 

of the major uses would be restricted or shut down. 

92 
Table 18. Summary of major water withdrawals 1 from the Catawba-Wateree Project 

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

Water User Type Source of 

withdrawal 

Maximum 

instantaneous 

withdrawal 

capacity 

(million 

gallons per day 

[mgd]) 

Town of Granite Falls, North 

Carolina Municipal Lake Rhodhiss 2.5 

City of Lenoir, North Carolina Municipal Lake Rhodhiss 12 

Town of Valdese, North Carolina Municipal Lake Rhodhiss 12 

City of Hickory, North Carolina Municipal Lake Hickory 32 

Town of Longview, North 

Carolina Municipal Lake Hickory 2 

City of Statesville, North Carolina Municipal Lookout Shoals Lake 15 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina 

(North Mecklenburg Water 

Treatment Plant) 

Municipal Lake Norman 1082

Duke Energy’s Marshall Steam 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Norman 1,463 

Duke Energy’s McGuire Nuclear 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Norman 2,908 

The Pointe Golf Club Landscape 

Irrigation Lake Norman 1 

The Peninsula (Homeowner’s 

Association – golf course) 

Landscape 

Irrigation Lake Norman 13

Cowans Ford Country Club Landscape 

Irrigation Lake Norman 13

Lincoln County, North Carolina Municipal Lake Norman 12 

Town of Mooresville, North 

Carolina Municipal Lake Norman 12 

City of Charlotte, North Carolina 

(Franklin and Vest Water 

Treatment Plant) 

Municipal Mountain Island Lake 3304

City of Gastonia, North Carolina Municipal Mountain Island Lake 75 

93 
Water User Type Source of 

withdrawal 

Maximum 

instantaneous 

withdrawal 

capacity 

(million 

gallons per day 

[mgd]) 

City of Mount Holly, North 

Carolina Municipal Mountain Island Lake 13.5 

Duke Energy’s Riverbend Steam 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Mountain Island Lake 622.1 

American & Efird, Inc. Industrial Lake Wylie 3.45 

Clariant Corporation Industrial Lake Wylie 4.75 

City of Belmont, North Carolina Municipal Lake Wylie 10 

City of Rock Hill, South Carolina Municipal Lake Wylie 30 

Duke Energy’s Allen Steam 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Wylie 784 

Duke Energy’s Catawba Nuclear 

Station 

Industrial 

cooling water Lake Wylie 231 

Siemens Westinghouse Industrial Lake Wylie 21.6 

Springs Industries’ Grace 

Complex Industrial Fishing Creek 18 

Chester Metropolitan District Municipal Fishing Creek 15 

City of Camden, South Carolina Municipal Lake Wateree 12 

Lugoff-Elgin Water Authority Municipal Lake Wateree 10 

1 Withdrawals of 1 mgd or greater.

2

 When withdrawals reach an average of 36 mgd, a plan to evaluate the effects of lower lake 

levels caused by the water withdrawals approved in this order is required to be filed with the 

Commission. 

3 Assigned value of 1 mgd by Duke Energy. 

4 Restricted to 165 mgd during drought conditions.

 

94 
Table 19. Current and projected net water withdrawals from project reservoirs. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Reservoir Current (mgd) Projected for 

2058 (mgd) 

Percent 

Increase (%) 

James 2.0 19.4 870 

Rhodhiss 11.7 20.0 71 

Hickory 12.1 28.0 131 

Lookout Shoals 0.4 10.8 2,600 

Norman 57.9 175.0 202 

Mountain Island 95.1 205.3 116 

Wylie 47.8 66.4 39 

Fishing Creek -61.9 -96.0 -55 

Great Falls 0.4 -6.8 -1,800 

Cedar Creek -0.3 -2.5 -733 

Wateree 5.7 55.8 879 

Total 170.9 475.4 178 

Note: Negative net withdrawal indicates return flow exceeds withdrawal and reservoir is a net 

receiver of flow. 

95 
Table 20. Critical lake level elevations.1

 (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Depth Below Full Pond (ft) 

Reservoir Full Pond 

Elevation 

(ft) 

Municipal 

Intake2

Industrial 

Intake2

Power 

Production3

Critical Lake 

Elevation (ft) 4

James 1200.0 --- --- 39.0 1161.0 

Rhodhiss 995.1 10.6 --- 20.9 984.5 

Hickory 935.0 6.0 --- 27.0 929.0 

Lookout Shoals 838.1 25.1 --- 27.1 813.0 

Norman 760.0 15.0 25.0 10.0 750.0 

Mountain Island 647.5 12.0 --- 5.7 641.8 

Wylie 569.4 8.0 7.4 10.0 562.0 

Fishing Creek 417.2 5.0 9.2 22.1 412.2 

Great Falls 355.8 --- --- 12.8 343.0 

Cedar Creek 284.4 --- --- 19.7 264.7 

Wateree 225.5 11.5 --- 26.0 214.0 

1 As of November 2004. 

2

 Draw-down depth below which at least one intake of the particular type on the lake begins to 

have its operations restricted. 

3

 Draw-down depth below which power production facilities (either hydroelectric stations, 

fossil-fueled stations, or nuclear-fueled stations) cannot operate. 

4

 Water surface elevation at which one of the uses would be shut down or restricted. 

 3.3.2.1.3 Water Quality 

Water Quality Standards 

The North Carolina DWQ regulates water quality under the North Carolina 

Administrative Code (N.A.C.) subchapter 2B (15A N.A.C. 02B.0100, .0200, and .0300), and 

South Carolina regulates water quality under South Carolina Regulation 61-68. All surface 

waters are assigned classifications, which determine the water quality standards that apply to 

support designated best uses. 

There are four primary classes of water within the North Carolina portion of the project 

area, C, B, WS-IV, and WS-V, and one supplemental class, Tr. Class C waters are designated as 

the best uses of aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including 

fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture, and any other usage except for 

primary recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing 

purposes. Class B waters have the designated beneficial uses of primary recreation, which 

includes swimming on a frequent or organized basis, and the best usages specified for Class C 

96 
waters. The study area includes two classes for water supply (WS-IV and WS-V). The best uses 

for WS-IV waters are sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food-processing 

purposes. WS-V waters are protected as water supplies that are generally upstream and draining 

to Class WS-IV waters, or waters previously used for drinking water supply purposes, or waters 

used by industry to supply their employees, but not municipalities or counties, with a raw 

drinking water supply source. Class Tr waters are freshwaters protected for natural trout 

propagation and survival of stocked trout. Classifications for surface waters in the project area 

within North Carolina include: 

• C – Catawba River from the dam at Old Fort Finishing Plant water supply intake to 

North Fork Catawba River; 

• B – Catawba River from North Fork Catawba River to Bridgewater dam; Catawba 

River from Johns River to Oxford dam; Catawba River from Elk Shoal Creek to 

Lookout Shoals dam; Catawba River from Lyle Creek to Cowans Ford dam; Catawba 

River from the water intake at the River Bend Steam Station to Mountain Island dam; 

Catawba River from the Interstate 85 bridge to the North Carolina/South Carolina 

state line; 

• Tr – Catawba River from 0.6 mile upstream of Muddy Creek to 0.7 mile upstream of 

Canoe Creek10; and 

• WS-IV or WS-V – Catawba River from North Fork Catawba River to the North 

Carolina/South Carolina state line. 

In addition to these classes, the water quality regulations designate a critical area (CA) 

around certain WS waters. These are the areas adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir 

where risk associated with poor water quality is greater than from the remaining portions of the 

watershed. The requirements for CA designation generally focus on limiting land use within 

0.5 mile upstream, and draining to a water supply rather than setting numeric criteria for water 

quality parameters. 

There is only one class of water within the South Carolina portion of the project area, 

FW. Class FW waters are freshwaters that are suitable for primary and secondary contact 

recreation, and for fishing and the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic 

community of fauna and flora. This class is suitable also as a source for drinking water supply 

after conventional treatment and for industrial and agricultural uses. 

Table 21 summarizes selected water quality criteria that are applicable to Class B, C, WS, 

and Tr waters in North Carolina and FW waters in South Carolina. Each of these parameters has 

been identified as the cause for impaired water quality at one or several locations within the 

project. 

 10 This reach of the Catawba River was re-classified as Tr by North Carolina DWQ in 

May 2005, after submittal of the Duke Energy application.

97 
Table 21. Selected water quality criteria. (Sources: N.A.C. subchapter 2B, 2008; South 

Carolina Regulation 61-68, 2008) 

Parameter North Carolina1 South Carolina2

Temperature 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≤2.8 degrees 

Celsius (°C) above natural 

temperature, and ≤29.0°C for 

mountain and upper Piedmont 

waters (Lake James, or ≤32.0°C for 

lower Piedmont waters 

Class Tr: ≤20.0°C and ≤0.5°C 

above natural temperature 

≤32.2°C and ≤2.8°C above natural 

temperature at all times for streams 

and as a weekly average for lakes 

Total dissolved 

gas 

≤110 percent of saturation --- 

Dissolved 

oxygen 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≥5.0 

milligrams per liter (mg/l) as daily 

average and ≥4.0 mg/l as 

instantaneous 

Class Tr: ≥6.0 mg/l at all times 

≥5.0 mg/l as daily average and 

≥4.0 mg/l as instantaneous 

pH 

Normal for waters in the area, 

generally between 6.0 and 9.0 

standard units 

6.0 to 8.5 

Chlorophyll-a 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≤40 

micrograms per liter (μg/l) 

Class Tr: ≤15 μg/l 

≤40 μg/l 

Turbidity 

Classes B, C, and WS: ≤25 

nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) 

in reservoirs, ≤50 NTU in streams 

Class Tr: ≤10 NTU 

≤25NTU in reservoirs, ≤50 NTU in 

streams 

Copper 7 μg/l action level 

≤2.9 μg/l (chronic exposure of 

aquatic organisms) and ≤3.8 μg/l 

(acute exposure) 

Mercury ≤0.012 μg/l 

≤0.91 μg/l (chronic exposure of 

aquatic organisms) and ≤1.6 μg/l 

(acute exposure) 

98 
Parameter North Carolina1

 South Carolina2

Fecal coliform 

Class C: Geometric mean of 

≤200/100 milliliters (ml) (membrane 

filtration) based on at least 5 

consecutive samples during any 

30-day period, and >400/100 ml in 

no more than 20 percent of the 

samples examined during such 

period; violations of the fecal 

coliform standard are expected 

during rainfall events and, in some 

cases, this violation is expected to be 

caused by uncontrollable non-point 

source pollution. 

Class B: Geometric mean of 

≤200/100 ml (membrane filtration) 

based upon at least 5 consecutive 

samples examined during any 30-

day period, and >400/100ml in no 

more than 20 percent of the samples 

examined during such period. 

Geometric mean of ≤200/100 ml 

(membrane filtration) based on 

5 consecutive samples during any 

30-day period, and >400/100 ml in 

no more than 10 percent of the 

samples examined during any 

30-day period. 

Total nitrogen --- ≤1.50 mg/l 

Ammonia 

nitrogen --- 

Criteria are pH and temperature 

dependent; equations to calculate 

site-specific criteria are given in the 

regulations. 

Nitrate nitrogen Class WS only: ≤10.0 mg/l --- 

Total phosphorus --- ≤0.06 mg/l 

Total dissolved 

solids Class WS only: ≤500 mg/l --- 

Total hardness Class WS only: ≤100 mg/l as 

CaCO3

--- 

1 Criteria applicable to Class C (Aquatic Life), Class B (Primary Recreation), and Class WS 

(Water Supply) unless otherwise noted 

2 Criteria applicable to Class FW (Fresh Water) 

General Water Quality 

Reservoir water quality is determined by several factors including the water quality of 

inflows, hydraulic retention times, reservoir depth, depth at which water is withdrawn in a 

reservoir, and industrial and power plant withdrawals or discharges. Natural thermal 

stratification varies substantially among developments; it is strong in four reservoirs (Lake 

99 
James, Lake Hickory, Lake Norman, and Cedar Creek reservoir), moderate in one reservoir 

(Lake Wateree), and weak or negligible in the other reservoirs, which have short retention times. 

North Carolina DWQ (2008b) sampled five project lakes in 2007: Lake James, Lake 

Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lake Norman, and Lake Wylie. Surface water temperature in Lake 

James exceeded the state criterion for mountain lakes in the summer when air temperatures are 

high. Although nutrient concentrations in Lake James were elevated relative to other mountain 

lakes, and chlorophyll-a concentrations exceeded the state standard for trout waters on occasion, 

the lake had oligotrophic, low productivity conditions. Lake Rhodhiss had elevated nutrient 

concentrations and eutrophic, high productivity conditions. Algal blooms dominated by bluegreen algae occurred in the upper arm of the lake and near the dam in the summer. Lake Hickory 

had low to moderate nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations and mesotrophic, moderate 

productivity conditions. Algal blooms, dominated by euglenoid algae, were present in the lower 

end of the reservoir from July through September. Although Lake Norman had elevated 

concentrations of nitrate nitrogen, it had low concentrations of other nutrients, moderate to low 

concentrations of chlorophyll-a, and oligotrophic, low productivity conditions. Lake Wylie had 

elevated nutrient concentrations, mild to severe algal blooms throughout the summer, and 

eutrophic, high productivity conditions. 

North Carolina DWQ (2007) listed Lake Rhodhiss from the Johns River to the Rhodhiss 

dam as water-quality limited on the 2006 303(d) list. The list specified high pH values as the 

impairment but gave the source of impairment as unknown. In the 2007 lake assessment report, 

North Carolina DWQ (2008b) considered high algal activity as the source of elevate pH. In the 

draft 303(d) list for 2008, North Carolina DWQ (2008a) proposes to list three additional 

segments of project waters: the backwaters of Lake James from the dam at the Old Fort 

finishing plant water supply intake to the North Fork Catawba River for violations of the state’s 

turbidity criterion; Lake Wylie from Mountain Island dam to the Interstate 85 bridge for pH 

values below the state criterion; and the South Fork Catawba River arm of Lake Wylie for 

violations of the state’s turbidity criterion. North Carolina DWQ (2008c) has not scheduled total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) studies for any segments of the Catawba River. 

South Carolina DHEC (2005) made the following findings about water quality conditions 

in the Catawba River basin based on sampling data from 1998 and 2002: 

• Nutrient concentrations in Lake Wylie were decreasing, which suggested improving 

water quality conditions. 

• Cedar Creek reservoir, Fishing Creek reservoir, and Lake Wateree had elevated 

concentrations of total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a, possibly indicating eutrophic, 

high productivity conditions. 

• DO concentrations were below state standards in Cedar Creek reservoir and 

decreasing at the Wateree dam. Downstream of the Wateree dam, DO concentrations 

were below the state criterion, but they were increasing over the assessment period, 

suggesting improving conditions. 

South Carolina DHEC (2008a) listed specific sampling stations in Lake Wylie, Fishing 

Creek reservoir, Cedar Creek reservoir, Great Falls reservoir, and Lake Wateree as water-quality 

limited on the 2008 303(d) list. The list specified fecal coliform and copper as causes of 

impairment in Lake Wylie; total nitrogen, total phosphorus, ammonia, chlorophyll-a, and pH as 

causes in Fishing Creek reservoir; total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and turbidity as causes in 

100 
Great Falls reservoir; dissolved oxygen (DO), total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, 

turbidity, and copper as causes in Cedar Creek reservoir; and DO, total phosphorus, 

chlorophyll-a, turbidity, and pH as causes in Lake Wateree. South Carolina DHEC (2008a) 

listed the Wateree River downstream of the Wateree dam as water-quality limited because of 

high mercury concentrations and low DO. To address the 303(d) listings for phosphorus in 

Fishing Creek and Cedar Creek reservoirs, South Carolina DHEC began TMDL studies for each 

reservoir in 2005 (South Carolina DHEC, 2008b). South Carolina DHEC also began TMDL 

studies in 2005 for Lake Wateree to address listings for phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and pH. 

These TMDL studies plus future studies for the other causes of impairment are scheduled for 

completion in 2008 through 2020 (South Carolina DHEC, 2008a). 

Water quality conditions were identified as the cause one fish kill in project waters during 

the period 2003 through 2007 (North Carolina DWQ, 2008d). In the summer of 2004, low 

concentrations of DO resulted in fish kills in Lake Norman, totaling 2,500 striped bass. North 

Carolina DWQ concluded that the fish were trapped in the low DO waters of the hypolimnion 

during thermal stratification of the lake. 

North Carolina DWQ (2002, 2003) identified 13 monitoring stations in the Catawba 

River Basin with elevated fecal coliform levels, which were attributed to urbanization. None of 

the sites are on waters classified for primary recreational contact, however, and all of the sites are 

on tributaries to the Catawba River, not in the project reservoirs or the main stem of the Catawba 

River influenced by the project. South Carolina DHEC (2005) found that recreation uses were 

not supported or only partially supported because of high fecal coliform concentrations in the 

Crowders Creek arm of Lake Wylie, the Catawba River downstream of the Wylie dam, and the 

Rocky Creek arm of Cedar Creek reservoir. 

North Carolina DWQ (2003, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008d) did not list metals as a cause 

for impairment in any project waters or report high metals concentrations in its basin and lake 

assessments. North Carolina has issued a statewide fish advisory for the consumption of fish 

because of high mercury concentrations, but there are no site-specific advisories in project waters 

(North Carolina WRC, 2008a). South Carolina DHEC (2005) found copper concentrations 

above the state criterion (see table 21) at a site in the upper region of Lake Wylie; the state 

removed this site from the 303(d) list in 2008 because copper concentrations had fallen below 

the water quality standard, but another site near the dam remained on the list because of high 

copper concentrations (South Carolina DHEC, 2008a). Additionally, copper concentrations 

exceeded the state criterion at a station on the Catawba River about halfway between Wylie dam 

and the headwaters of Fishing Creek reservoir (South Carolina DHEC, 2005). No source was 

identified for these elevated copper concentrations. South Carolina DHEC (2008c) issued a fish 

consumption advisory for bowfin (mudfish) and flathead catfish in the Wateree River below the 

Wateree dam because of high mercury concentrations in fish tissue from the river. 

Tailwaters 

Duke Energy conducted studies to evaluate water temperature, pH, and DO conditions in 

project tailwaters. Studies included continuous monitoring of temperature and DO starting in 

1995 (Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Wylie, 

Fishing Creek, and Wateree), 1996 (Great Falls, Dearborn, and Cedar Creek), or 1997 (Rocky 

Creek) and ending in 2004 (Duke Energy, 2007). 

101 
Duke Energy’s studies showed that temperatures remain cooler than the 32°C criterion in 

all project tailraces. The coldwater release from the Bridgewater powerhouse has allowed a 

coldwater fishery to develop in the Catawba River below the dam, but the river is not classified 

as a trout stream by the state in this reach. During summers with high flows, however, high 

reservoir inflows deplete the cold water reserve in Lake James, and water temperature in the 

tailwaters in late fall may exceed the 20°C standard for trout waters by a few degrees. 

Tailrace pH was below the upper criterion, 9.0 in North Carolina and 8.5 in South 

Carolina, in all project tailraces, and it was above the lower criterion, 6.0 in both states, in the 

tailraces below the Oxford, Cowans Ford, Fishing Creek, Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, 

Cedar Creek, and Wateree Developments. At the Rhodhiss Development, tailrace pH was below 

the lower criterion 2.2 percent of the time, and at the other developments, tailrace pH was below 

the lower criterion less than 0.5 percent of the time. Duke attributes low pH values, which 

tended to occur in summer and early fall, to the release of carbon dioxide from biological 

decomposition in the deeper reservoir waters and the discharge of deeper water through the 

turbine intakes. 

The downstream water releases from each development exhibit the same general seasonal 

trends over the 10-year monitoring period as the lakes and reservoirs: highest DO concentrations 

in January or February and lowest in July and August. During the warmer periods when many of 

the reservoirs are stratified (usually May through November), DO concentrations downstream of 

the dams and powerhouses were often less than the North and South Carolina (5.0 mg/l daily 

average) state standards. 

The Bridgewater tailrace experiences DO concentrations less than 4 mg/l, 29 percent of 

the time from May 1 through November 30 as a direct result of drafting low-DO water from 

deeper areas at the turbine intakes in Lake James. Years with higher winter and spring flows 

tend to have lower tailrace DO concentrations because of higher nutrient and organic loadings 

from the upstream watershed. Warm fall weather can delay lake mixing, which can extend the 

low-DO period further into the fall. DO increases rapidly downstream when there is no 

generation. High generation flows push low-DO water farther downstream, reaching about 

7 miles in the worst cases. There is no supplemental aeration capability at the existing 

Bridgewater powerhouse, but the three turbines to be installed in the new powerhouse will have 

aeration capability. 

There are two bypassed reaches below Lake James: the Catawba River bypassed reach 

and the Paddy Creek bypassed reach. Both bypassed reaches merge with flows from Muddy 

Creek before joining the Linville River downstream of the Bridgewater powerhouse. Tributaries 

to these bypassed reaches contribute water of good quality, but the reaches are not currently 

meeting state water use designations for support of aquatic life because of limited flow resulting 

from the hydrologic modification created by the development. Overall, the water quality of the 

bypassed reaches is good. Concentrations of most constituents are typical of streams draining 

the upper Piedmont (i.e., near saturated DO). Coldwater releases from the Bridgewater 

powerhouse have enabled the establishment of a downstream trout fishery in the Linville River. 

During low flows and no generation at the Bridgewater powerhouse, DO increases moving 

downstream from the dam. Conversely, when turbine flow is high, low DO from the Linville 

dam releases extends farther downstream. However, even at high turbine flow, DO is typically 

at least 5 mg/l to about 7 miles below the dam. 

102 
DO concentrations in the Rhodhiss tailrace are highly variable because of the deep-water 

withdrawal from a reservoir with a moderate retention time, 21 days, and a highly productive 

algal community from enriched conditions. DO concentrations are less than 4 mg/l, 13 percent 

of the time in May through November. When there is no generation, bottom water with low DO 

leaks through the turbines. As turbine flows increase, the withdrawal zone extends into the 

upper layers of the lake, resulting in higher DO concentrations. Rhodhiss Unit 2 has stay vane11

aeration capability. 

The Oxford tailrace shows low DO concentrations of less than 4 mg/l, 29 percent of the 

time from May through November. The Oxford turbines withdraw water from the middle depths 

of Lake Hickory, where DO concentrations are highly variable because of algal activity in the 

surface water, daily mixing, and flow-through of the discharge from Lake Rhodhiss. Both 

turbines at the Oxford Development have hub-venting12 capability, which has been used 

intermittently for DO enhancement. 

DO concentrations in the Lookout Shoals tailrace are typically higher than those in the 

upstream Oxford Development because of a short retention time and lack of stratification in 

Lookout Shoals Lake. In May through November, tailrace DO is below 4 mg/l, 8 percent of the 

time. There is no supplemental aeration capability at the Lookout Shoals powerhouse. The 

length of the affected regulated reach between Lookout Shoals and Lake Norman varies from 

0.3 to 1.3 miles depending on the draw-down level of Lake Norman downstream. 

The Cowans Ford tailrace has DO concentrations less than 4 mg/l only 1 percent of the 

time from May through November. DO in the tailrace is relatively high because the withdrawal 

zone is restricted to the top 10 meters of the lake by a skimmer weir upstream of the intakes. 

There is no supplemental aeration capability at the Cowans Ford powerhouse. 

Water quality in Mountain Island Lake is highly influenced by the discharge from the 

Cowans Ford Development. Consequently, DO concentrations in the Mountain Island tailrace 

also are below 4 mg/l only 1 percent of the time from May through November. Mountain Island 

Lake discharges directly into Lake Wylie and has a short 0.6-mile bypassed reach. Between 

May and November the daily average DO concentrations typically meet water quality standards 

approximately 87 percent of the time. There is no supplemental aeration capability at the 

Mountain Island powerhouse. 

The Wylie Development releases water with DO below 4 mg/l, 29 percent of the time 

from May through November. DO may remain below 4 mg/l for up to 6 miles below Wylie 

dam, after which it improves because of re-aeration and photosynthesis by aquatic plants. Wylie 

turbines 2 and 3 have hub-venting capability, unit 1 has minimal aeration capability, and unit 4 

has no venting capability. The 25.6-mile river reach from Lake Wylie to Fishing Creek reservoir 

is one of the longest free-flowing reaches in the project area. DO in the regulated reach 

immediately downstream of the Wylie Development primarily is controlled by Wylie power 

generation; progressively downstream, DO is primarily affected by photosynthesis and 

 

11 Stay vanes are fixed metal vanes fitted to the inner periphery of the scroll case that 

guide the water from the scroll case to the turbine runner.

12 Hub venting is an air flow enhancing measure that draws air into the turbines and 

mixes it with the water.

103 
respiration of extensive aquatic vegetation. DO concentrations are frequently not in compliance 

with South Carolina water quality standards. 

DO concentrations in the Fishing Creek tailrace fall below 4 mg/l, 13 percent of the time 

from May through November. Highly variable DO concentrations are attributed by Duke Energy 

to high loadings of organics and nutrients from wastewater discharges, high algal productivity, 

non-point source runoff, and short retention time and weak stratification in the reservoir. Fishing 

Creek units 1, 2, and 3 have minimal aerating capability, and units 4 and 5 have none. Great 

Falls reservoir has a very short retention time, 1 day, and is highly influenced by the discharge 

from Fishing Creek reservoir. Fishing Creek reservoir discharges directly to the Great Falls 

reservoir downstream. 

Releases from the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, however, are lower than 

those from the Fishing Creek Development because of continued biological decomposition in 

Great Falls reservoir. DO concentrations in the Great Falls tailrace are below 4 mg/l, 29 percent 

of the time from May through November. There is no supplemental aeration capability at the 

Great Falls powerhouse. South Carolina DHEC has no long-term monitoring sites on Great Falls 

reservoir and has not assessed water quality in Great Falls reservoir. Great Falls and Dearborn 

powerhouses discharge directly into Cedar Creek reservoir. Releases from the Great Falls 

powerhouse flow directly into Cedar Creek reservoir, which also has a short retention time of 

2 days. DO concentrations in the Cedar Creek tailrace fall below 4 mg/l, 18 percent of the time 

from May through November. Cedar Creek units 2 and 3 have some aeration capability. 

DO concentrations in the release from Lake Wateree are influenced by high nutrient and 

organic loadings to the reservoir from Cedar Creek reservoir, high biological productivity in the 

surface waters and decomposition of organic matter in the bottom waters, stable thermal 

stratification during the summer, and a moderate retention time of 29 days. The Wateree tailrace 

is reported to have DO below 4 mg/l, 31 percent of the time from May through November. 

Wateree turbines 1 and 3 have auto-venting runners that provide good aeration, but the other 

units have limited venting capability. The Wateree River below the Wateree dam is the longest 

riverine reach (79 miles) downstream of Lake James and the Bridgewater Development. 

3.3.2.2 Environmental Effects 

 3.3.2.2.1 Water Quantity 

The Catawba-Wateree Project Revised CRA covers a wide range of measures related to 

water use, reservoir level management, proposed minimum streamflow schedules, a Low Inflow 

Protocol, and a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol for project-influenced reaches and 

reservoirs. Because measures related to streamflow primarily pertain to protecting and 

enhancing aquatic and riparian habitat and recreational opportunities, we discuss these measures 

in sections 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects; 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, 

Environmental Effects; and 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects. In this 

section we discuss the effects of the proposed project operations on current and future water 

uses, reservoir water level regimes, the ability to meet minimum streamflow requirements, and 

the needs of project operations, as well as measures to ensure compliance with the proposed 

minimum streamflow schedules and water level regimes. In addition, in this section we discuss 

the effects of project operations on shoreline flooding in the Wateree reservoir. 

104 
Reservoir Level Fluctuations 

Duke Energy proposes to endeavor to meet normal target elevations at all the reservoirs, 

which is not required by the existing license (see Revised CRA proposed license article WQQ 

1.0 listed in table 4 in section 2.2.3.1). It also proposes to operate each reservoir within a range 

between full pond and the normal maximum draw-down unless operating under the Low Inflow 

Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Under the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program (see Revised CRA proposed 

license article WQQ 2.0 in table 4), Duke Energy proposes to limit the operating range to 3 ft for 

3 weeks during bass spawning season at Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake 

Wateree. Because the purpose of this program would be to enhance littoral fish spawning 

habitat, and it would operate well within Duke Energy’s proposed operating guides, we discuss it 

further in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects. 

No stakeholders or the public proposed alternative operating guides, although there were 

comments about flood elevations at Lake Wateree, which we discuss below in Lake Wateree 

Flooding, and critical elevations for Lake James, which we discuss below in Low Inflow 

Protocol. Donna Lisenby, the Catawba Riverkeeper, commented that Duke Energy’s proposed 

normal target elevations would not be enforceable and that the proposed maximum draw-downs 

at some of the reservoirs are lower than the existing maximum draw-downs. 

Our Analysis 

Reservoir operating guides are tools to help manage reservoir operations that affect 

reservoir levels. The goal is to maintain water levels as close as possible to the normal target 

elevation, but within the envelope of normal minimum and normal maximum elevations. 

Table 22 compares Duke Energy’s proposed operating guides to the voluntary guides under 

which it has operated historically. The table also compares maximum draw-down fluctuations 

and usable storage area in each of the project reservoirs. 

Under Duke Energy’s proposal, normal maximum operating elevation would increase to 

full pond year-round at all project reservoirs, and maximum draw-down would change at all 

reservoirs except Fishing Creek. Duke Energy expects that daily reservoir elevation fluctuations 

would increase over current conditions because the requirements for minimum flow, which we 

discuss below in Minimum Flow Releases, would necessitate discharging water that would now 

be held for generation on a daily basis under the existing license. These daily fluctuations would 

still occur within the range of normal maximum draw-down. 

Duke Energy modeled the ability to operate the project with the proposed reservoir 

operating guides plus flow and other water use requirements, which we describe in the section, 

Water Balance Simulation Modeling. The model (CHEOPS) has been reviewed and accepted by 

the major federal, state, and local stakeholders. We conclude that the reservoir operating guides 

proposed by Duke Energy are reasonable and achievable and a good balance between often 

conflicting demands. 

However, as proposed, the Duke Energy proposal would not clearly require that reservoir 

elevations be maintained on average at the normal target elevations, which would be goals only 

and not conditions. While all scenarios cannot be anticipated and some flexibility is essential to 

a project, the development of the Low Inflow Protocol and the Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol provides adequate flexibility for the applicant to adjust to extreme conditions. Staff 

105 
106 

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. In Flow 

and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring and Reporting below, we discuss requirements for reporting 

reservoir elevations that will ensure that the Commission and resource agencies are able to assess 

Duke Energy’s compliance with these proposed license conditions. 

Reservoir level management affects aquatic, terrestrial, and recreational resources, which 

we discuss in sections 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects; 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial 

Resources, Environmental Effects; and 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects. 
Table 22. Existing1 and proposed draw-downs, maximum reservoir fluctuation, and usable storage (Source: 

Normal maximum 

draw-down (ft) 

Normal target 

draw-down (ft) 

Normal minimum 

draw-down (ft) 

Maximum 

fluctuation (ft) 

Reservoir Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed E

James 4 to 10 5 to 8 2 to 8 2 to 6 0 to 6 0 10 8 5Rhodhiss 5 6 3 3 1 0 4 6 

Hickory 3.5 6 3 3 to 4 1 0 2.5 6 

Lookout Shoals 

3.5 6 2 3 1 0 2.5 6 

Norman 4 to 10 5 to 9 2 to 8 2 to 6 0 to 6 0 10 9 2

Mountain Island 

4 5.7 3 4 0.5 0 3.5 6 

Wylie 5 6 3 3 1 0 4 6 4

Fishing Creek 

5 5 3 2 1 0 4 5 

Great Falls 6 5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0 5.5 5 

Cedar Creek 3.5 4 2.5 2.5 0.5 0 3 4 Wateree 5 to 7 6 to 7 3 to 5 3 to 5.5 1 to 3 0 6 7 6

1 The existing license has no limitations on reservoir levels; Duke Energy voluntarily operates under these exis

guides. 

107 
Minimum Flows for Aquatic Life 

Reservoir level management is also tied directly into the ability to meet minimum flow 

requirements. See section 2.2.2.1 for proposed minimum continuous flows and minimum 

average daily flows outlined in the Revised CRA. See section 3.3.3.2 for alternative minimum 

flows proposed by Interior, NOAA Fisheries, American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation 

League jointly, and the Catawba Riverkeeper. The Lancaster County Water and Sewer District 

in Union County, North Carolina, commented that these alternative minimum flows could result 

in earlier triggering of the Low Inflow Protocol under low inflow conditions, which could result 

in more frequent drought restrictions on its customers. The proponents of additional flows for 

diadromous fish responded to the District’s comments by stipulating that the proposed flows 

would not be required if they would induce a Stage 0 condition of the Low Inflow Protocol. In 

their recommendations filed after the Commission’s ready for environmental analysis notice, 

however, these proponents did not include this stipulation.

Our Analysis 

In our analysis of the proposed minimum instream flows and alternatives for fish in 

section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects, we conclude that Duke Energy’s 

proposal is appropriate and adequate to support existing aquatic resources. The negotiation of 

minimum instream flows at each development proposed by the Aquatic Resources Committee 

relied on the CHEOPS model to assess the effects of instream flow options on the system 

balance of water among the project developments. The stepwise process of this analysis is 

documented in the consultation record for the aquatic resources, book 2 of the license 

application. Beginning with the goal of 80 percent of the estimated maximum habitat available 

at unregulated flows (without the project), recommended flows were tested for sustainability 

using CHEOPS simulation runs; flow recommendations were adjusted as necessary until 

sustainable flows as close to the goal as possible were identified. 

After review of the consultation record and the CHEOPS model simulations, we conclude 

that the recommended minimum flows in the Revised CRA are sustainable through 2048 to 2058 

under critical extended low inflow periods typical of the hydrologic record since 1930. The 

higher flows recommended by some non-agency stakeholders for anadromous fish spawning at 

several of the lower basin developments upset the system water balance simulated through 

CHEOPS. 

The ability to meet these minimum flows may be compromised during extended periods 

of severe low inflow when regional growth and associated water demand projected beyond the 

year 2048 may tax the ability of operating protocols to balance and maintain system storage 

capacity. The Revised CRA provides a mechanism for temporary variance from continuous 

minimum flows when conditions trigger implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol or 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Annual reporting by the applicant and review by the 

Commission and resource agencies provide the means to ensure that minimum flows for aquatic 

resources are satisfied and to evaluate the operational experience managing the interaction of 

various competing system demands and flows that were simulated using CHEOPS. 

Recreational Flows 

The Revised CRA proposes a schedule of augmented releases to support recreational 

paddling and float angling and a system for communication of information related to recreational 

108 
releases from the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, Great Falls, Dearborn, and Wateree 

Developments. These releases are scheduled for daylight hours on selected days of the week 

beginning in March, April, or May, depending on the development, and running through 

October. See table 3 in section 2.2.2.1 for Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows. We 

evaluate recreational flows in section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects, 

and the potential effects of these flows on aquatic resources in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic 

Resources, Environmental Effects. 

Our Analysis 

Similar to continuous minimum flows for aquatic resources, the effect of recreational 

flow proposals on system water balance and operations were tested using the CHEOPS model. 

The ability to manage reservoir capacity at target water levels in conjunction with minimum 

flows and proposed recreational releases was verified with CHEOPS. We are satisfied that the 

CHEOPS model is a reliable tool for simulation of the balance of proposed recreational flows 

with other water uses proposed in the Revised CRA. The model simulations indicate that system 

storage and proposed operating protocols would allow Duke Energy to meet projected water 

demand and satisfy downstream flow requirements for recreation and aquatic resources through 

at least the year 2048 under extended low inflow conditions typical of the hydrologic record 

since 1930. During periods of drought or emergency maintenance, the capacity to provide the 

recreational flows may be compromised; the Revised CRA provides for a mechanism for 

temporary variance from recreational flow releases when conditions trigger implementation of 

the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Lake Wateree Flooding 

High water concerns identified by property owners on Lake Wateree included the 

following issues: 

• flooding of roads resulting in emergency access restriction; 

• damage to structures, land, septic systems, and other items; 

• damage to docks and the interruption of recreational opportunities; and 

• shoreline erosion. 

The Revised CRA proposes an alternative 10,000 cfs (4-ft deep by 300- to 400-ft wide) 

bladder dam for the Wateree spillway at a cost of $6,000,000. Based on the analysis (Duke 

Energy, 2006b) of the significant 2003 flood event presented in Figure 14, it appears that the 

10,000-cfs-capacity bladder dam would have reduced the peak flood elevation at the Wateree 

dam from 4.9 ft above to full pond to approximately 4 ft above, and would have reduced the time 

that water surface elevation exceeded 3 ft above full pond from 20.5 to 15 hours. 

In its response to the Commission’s additional information request (dated June 27, 2008), 

Duke Energy indicated that simulation of flood conditions for a 50-year period demonstrates that 

existing conditions result in 257 days (5.1 days per year on average) above full pond and 9 days 

(less than 1 day every 5 years) greater than 3 ft above full pond. The reduction in turbine 

capacity (to provide aeration and minimum downstream flows) without additional discharge 

capacity over the 50-year simulation would result in 653 days (13 days per year) above full pond 

and 28 days (less than 1 day per year) greater than 3 ft above full pond. By comparison, the 

operating conditions in the Revised CRA with a 10,000-cfs-capacity bladder dam over the 

109 
50-year simulation would result in 157 days (3.1 days per year) above full pond and 10 days 

greater than 3 ft above full pond (1 day every 5 years), a negligible change from existing 

conditions. 

Based on hydraulic/hydrologic modeling, Operations 08—Wateree High Water Level 

Management Study (Duke Energy, 2006b) concluded that no reasonable adjustments to current 

operational practices would result in substantial mitigation of high water levels associated with 

major storm events in the watershed. The model simulation demonstrated that a lower water 

elevation at the beginning of inflow from a storm event would not significantly lower the peak 

level of high water events. This is due to the relatively small storage volume that can be created 

as compared to the volume of inflow during high intensity rainfall events. The effectiveness of 

operational changes is also made more difficult by the inherent uncertainty in meteorological 

forecasting which limits reaction time to adjust lake levels in anticipation of inflow. 

For additional storage to be available in Lake Wateree (or upstream reservoirs) to assist 

in controlling high water events, lake levels would have to be lowered prior to increased inflows. 

Maintaining lower lake levels long term is not considered a viable option given the impacts to 

recreation, water supply, and aquatic species. Lowering lake levels in anticipation of intense 

rainfall and high water is dependent on meteorological forecasting and the associated uncertainty 

of forecasting tools. Such forecasting does not provide sufficient lead time to make lake level 

adjustments with the certainty that the forecast would be accurate and the decision to lower lake 

levels correct. Changes in the operation of upstream hydroelectric developments are also 

dependent on rainfall forecast. If rain is primarily centered in the Lower Catawba River Basin 

downstream of Lake Wylie, limited storage exists and operational options are even more limited. 

Discharges for Lake Wateree are limited to powerhouse releases through the turbinegenerator units and spillway discharges after the lake level reaches full pond at 225.5 ft. Normal 

operating procedure is to maximize powerhouse discharge to prevent water levels in excess of 

full pond. The Revised CRA proposes to replace one of the existing turbine runners with a 

smaller runner in order to provide aeration and more efficiently provide the minimum continuous 

flows for aquatic resources. This change is likely to result in no more than a 10 percent 

reduction in the maximum hydraulic capacity of 15,900 cfs at the Wateree powerhouse. At a 

flood elevation of 228.5 ft, 3 ft above full pond, the estimated spillway capacity at Wateree is 

24,331 cfs; thus, the total discharge capacity at 228.5-ft lake elevation is 40,231 cfs. The 

decreased capacity as a result of the downsized turbine capacity would be less than 5 percent. 

A broad range of options to provide additional discharge capacity were evaluated in the 

Operations 08 studies. The Wateree Development hydraulic/hydrologic model (Duke Energy, 

2006b) indicated that an increased capacity of 40,000 cfs would be necessary to significantly 

mitigate most flooding above 228.5 ft. The additional capacity would both reduce the maximum 

lake elevation as well as the decrease the duration that the lake is above full pond (Figure 14). 

The resource committee charged with evaluating alternatives for alleviating Lake Wateree 

flooding reached the consensus that the cost for the additional 40,000 cfs capacity ($9,600,000) 

was not justified by the low frequency of flood events that exceed the 228.5-ft lake elevation 

(less than 1 day per year on average). 

110 
Figure 14. Water surface elevation at Wateree dam with varying discharge conditions 

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

Energy, 2007). 

Duke had alternatively proposed to support road upgrades to improve access and egress 

for residents and emergency responders during flood events. Stakeholders identified 18,500 ft of 

road segments between 225.5 and 228.5 ft that could be raised to 230.0 ft in order to reduce 

flooding; the estimated cost for these infrastructure upgrades exceeded $3,435,000, without 

additional costs for purchase of easements and restoration of private property following 

construction. Upgrading and raising public roads would reduce the frequency and duration that 

these segments are flooded; however, the frequency and duration of flooding of private property, 

structures, and septic systems lower than 228.5 ft would not be alleviated. Given the relative 

costs of road reconstruction and other damage to private property from flooding versus 

construction of a 10,000-cfs bladder dam, the stakeholders concluded that the reduction in 

frequency and duration of flooding associated with the bladder dam was a more cost-effective 

measure for mitigation of flooding effects on property and infrastructure. 

Comments submitted by residents during the public review of the Revised CRA 

suggested that flood gates be examined as an alternative to the bladder dam. There are a wide 

variety of flood gate designs that could be considered and may be more or less cost effective at a 

given location; a variety of these structures were evaluated by Duke Energy. A bladder dam acts 

as one of several flood-gate-type designs that were considered (Duke Energy, 2006b) and was 

selected as most appropriate to address the Lake Wateree flooding issues. Another commenter 

suggested lowering the entire spillway by 2 ft. 

111 
Our Analysis 

The flood elevation has never risen above the applicant’s easement. Also, the 

applicant’s proposal improves upon the existing condition in terms of flooding while overcoming 

a reduction in hydraulic capacity associated with providing for downstream minimum flows. 

For these reasons and our analysis of the alternatives below we recommend approval of the 

proposal in the Revised CRA employing the 10,000-cfs bladder. Though staff concludes that the 

10,000-cfs bladder is the appropriate measure. Commission policy is to analyze projects for 

30-year terms in NEPA documents, and staff does not pre-determine the duration of the license 

before it is issued and cannot link any measure to granting a 50-year license. 

Although lowering the entire spillway would significantly reduce flooding, this option is 

not practical. This approach would significantly reduce the water storage inventory in Lake 

Wateree, thus reducing the ability to meet downstream flow requirements for aquatic resources 

and recreation; reduce hydraulic head and generating capacity; reduce recreational access to 

Lake Wateree; and require significant upgrades to maintain access from public and private 

docks, piers, and boat access points. 

The 40,000-cfs bladder also would mitigate many of the problems. This proposal was not 

supported by the resource committee advising the applicant on the matter because of the cost 

estimate of $9,600,000. Staff also concludes that adding an additional 50 percent to the project 

component cost to further improve upon the existing condition is not appropriate. 

Given the reductions in frequency and duration of flooding that can be attained with the 

proposed bladder dam compared to the public infrastructure upgrades within the existing flood 

easement, it is our conclusion that the proposal for high water management via the increased 

discharge capacity provided by a 10-ft bladder dam provides an adequate and reasonable effort 

toward mitigation of effects of the occasional flood events, particularly those events reaching a 

height of less than 3 ft above full pond, but occurring more frequently. 

To reduce future increases in the number of properties affected by the high water periods, 

we also recommend that, to the extent possible, Duke Energy partner with local governments to 

develop and implement adequate and appropriate building codes/zoning to limit the types of 

development and construction within the Lake Wateree shoreline flood easement in order to 

minimize future property losses related to typical flood events. 

Wateree Development Discharge 

Regulated releases coinciding with annual spring flooding events at the Wateree dam 

result in a lateral expansion of inundation on the flood plain downstream of the dam, beginning 

when the discharge exceeds 6,000 cfs. The Revised CRA contains two non-license conditions 

for enhancing flood plain habitat, Wateree Spring Stable Flows and the Wateree Flood Plain 

Inundation. See table 5 in section 2.2.2.2, Not Proposed License Articles, for descriptions of 

these conditions. The purpose of these conditions is to improve flood plain habitat for 

anadromous fish spawning, wetlands, and terrestrial species, and we discuss the effects of these 

conditions on those resources in section 3.3.3.2, Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects, and 

section 3.3.4.2, Terrestrial Resources, Environmental Effects. In this section we discuss the 

effects of these conditions on project water flow. 

Under the Spring Stable Flows Protocol, when inflows are adequate without 

unreasonably affecting the project operations, Duke Energy would provide two 10-day periods of 

112 
sustained stable flows to stabilize river water levels in the Wateree River and its flood plain 

downstream of the Wateree dam between mid-February and mid-May. If operational conditions 

require a flow change during one of these 10-day periods, Duke Energy would attempt to 

maintain the new flow for at least 8 hours before any further change is made. Under the Wateree 

Flood Plain Inundation Protocol, when high natural inflow during the spring (February to May) 

causes spill conditions at the Wateree dam, Duke Energy, in good faith, would attempt to 

approximate natural flow conditions until the reservoir is within 1 ft of the normal target level; 

95 ft in February and 97 ft in March to May. The objective of this protocol would be to simulate 

the natural hydrograph of the river following high-flow events in the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin; i.e., a gradual decline in the river stage over a period of time, rather than the sharp drop in 

river level more commonly associated with discontinuing turbine discharges over a short time 

interval when the reservoir returns to full pool. This hydrograph would create a more natural 

rate of dewatering in the habitat complex of the flood plain, which provides spawning habitat for 

the target anadromous fish. During periods of drought or emergency maintenance, when the 

system’s capacity to provide flow stability and natural hydrograph conditions may be 

compromised, the Revised CRA provides for a mechanism for relief from these goals under the 

Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. The protocols also set 

priorities allowing suspension of the Reservoir Level Stabilization Program if necessary to 

achieve the flood plain inundation and flow stabilization downstream. 

Because the volume of water available at the Wateree dam and the extent of inundation 

are dependent on seasonal weather patterns in both the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and the 

Congaree River Basin, the Revised CRA recommends a flexible approach to attaining the flood 

plain habitat and function objectives. Terrestrial 02—Wateree River Flood Plain Inundation 

Study Report (Devine Tarbell and Associates, Inc. [DTA], 2006) states that the extent of 

inundation for a given release at the Wateree dam increases as the discharge in the Congaree 

River increases and the lower Wateree River exhibits a backwater effect. The greatest backwater 

effect occurs at releases at the Wateree dam reach 25,000 cfs with concurrent flows in the 

Congaree River at approximately 40,000 cfs. 

Duke Energy proposes that neither of these conditions be included as license articles, but 

that based on a decade of operating experience and consultation with the involved agencies and 

other stakeholders, enforceable license articles may be drafted as an amendment to the license in 

10 years. 

Our Analysis 

The ability to meet the goals of flood plain inundation is highly dependent upon weather 

conditions in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, natural inflows, and regulated flows into the 

Wateree Development. The various Revised CRA conditions affecting inflow and discharge of 

water at Lake Wateree create a complex set of goals that encompass minimum continuous 

releases, flood plain inundation, lake level stabilization, and lake flood-management. Staff finds 

that the flexibility of an adaptive management 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 can be incorporated into the 

license. 

113 
Low Inflow Protocol 

Duke Energy proposes that the Low Inflow Protocol contained in the Revised CRA be 

incorporated in the license. The Low Inflow Protocol would provide a formal set of procedures 

to conserve and protect water resources and storage capacity on the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin during extended low inflow periods or droughts. These procedures would be based on 

weather and watershed inflow triggers that would advance through four stages of conservation 

and management as the duration and severity of drought conditions increase. The Low Inflow 

Protocol was developed on the basis that all parties with interests in water quantity would share 

the responsibility to establish priorities and conserve the limited water supply. During times that 

inflow is not adequate to meet all of the normal demands for water and maintain normal target 

reservoir levels, Duke Energy would progressively reduce hydro generation. If hydrologic 

conditions worsen until specific trigger points are reached, Duke Energy would declare a Stage 0 

Low Inflow Watch and begin meeting with the applicable agencies and water users to discuss the 

Low Inflow Protocol. If hydrologic conditions continue to worsen, Duke Energy would declare 

subsequent stages of a Low Inflow Condition as defined in the protocol. Each progressive stage 

of the Low Inflow Condition would require greater reductions in hydro station releases and water 

withdrawals and allow additional use of available water storage inventory. Waivers would be 

provided for the prioritization, reduction, or elimination of the normal operating requirements for 

spring reservoir stabilization, recreational flows, minimum flows for aquatic resources, flows for 

flood plain inundation, and spring downstream flow stabilization as drought conditions worsen. 

The goal of the staged Low Inflow Protocol would be to take actions needed in the CatawbaWateree River Basin to delay the point at which the project’s usable water storage inventory is 

fully depleted. The Low Inflow Protocol would also provide for waivers of downstream releases 

required for recreation and aquatic resources during extended low inflow periods to conserve 

water storage inventory in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. The Low Inflow Protocol also 

provides procedures for recovery of the system when the drought conditions that initiated the 

Low Inflow Protocol end. 

The Low Inflow Protocol would establish the Drought Management Advisory Group to 

meet at least annually throughout the life of the license to discuss river flows and water user data 

and to review and, if necessary, revise the protocol every 5 years. Under the Revised CRA, 

members of the advisory group would be the applicant, North Carolina DENR, North Carolina 

WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DHEC, USGS, and owners of large water intakes on 

project reservoirs, the main stems of the Catawba and Wateree Rivers, and tributaries in the 

Catawba-Wateree Basin above the Wateree dam. 

Interior and NOAA Fisheries recommend implementation of the Revised CRA Low 

Inflow Protocol, and NOAA Fisheries recommends that it be added to the Drought Management 

Advisory Group. The Community of Lake James requests revisions to the Low Inflow Protocol 

including increased total usable storage in Lake Norman, changes to target storage index, moreconsistent water restrictions, higher water use reduction targets, and expanded membership on 

the Drought Management Advisory Group. Suzanne Johnson recommends revisions to increase 

Lake James elevations, cap inter-basin transfers, and protect wells. George Johnson questions 

the validity of the CHEOPS model in predicting future low-inflow events because of understated 

population growth, more-severe droughts resulting from climate change, and underestimation of 

inter-basin transfers. He recommends raising critical intake elevations at Lake James and 

114 
lowering them at other reservoirs and increasing water use reduction targets or replacing them 

with water supply targets. 

Our Analysis 

Elements and triggers of the Low Inflow Protocol were incorporated into the CHEOPS 

model simulations. After review of water supply intake information, we find that the critical 

lake elevation inputs used in the CHEOPS model are appropriate for evaluation of the system 

water balance constraints and the Low Inflow Protocol. Growth and water demand inputs to the 

model are based on projections from recent available Census data. 

These simulations indicate that the Low Inflow Protocol in combination with other 

proposed downstream flow requirements in the license application can be effective for managing 

water storage inventory in the project reservoirs. Comparison of simulations for existing 

baseline conditions and proposed new license conditions demonstrate that safe yield limits 

during low inflow periods would be sustained throughout the system for approximately 10 years 

longer under the proposed conditions with the Low Inflow Protocol in place. Under existing 

baseline conditions, safe yields would be exceeded between 2038 and 2048, while under 

proposed license conditions, safe yields would be exceeded between 2048 and 2058 at some 

reservoirs in the upper Catawba-Wateree Basin. The number of days per year when critical 

reservoir levels for public water supply would be violated would be reduced if the Low Inflow 

Protocol were implemented under the proposed new license conditions. 

Adaptive management methods are built into the Low Inflow Protocol with provisions for 

review and revision of the Low Inflow Protocol by the Drought Management Advisory Group at 

least every 5 years for the life of the license; revisions would be subject to formal review and 

approval by North Carolina DWQ, South Carolina DHEC, or both as may be required by the 

respective state’s Section 401 water quality certification, and would be incorporated into the 

license as modifications if accepted by the Commission. 

We conclude that the proposed Low Inflow Protocol provides an effective, cooperative 

management tool for protection and conservation of water resources during extended low inflow 

periods. Adaptive management procedures inherent in the Low Inflow Protocol ensure that the 

protocol would be refined as operating experience dictates through cooperative input of all water 

users and managers. We find that the Low Inflow Protocol was developed through extensive 

modeling reviewed and accepted by all resource agencies and do not recommend any of the 

changes to the protocol proposed by other entities. We recommend that NOAA Fisheries and 

FWS be represented on the Drought Management Advisory Group to ensure that the federal 

interest in aquatic resources is incorporated to the extent possible during extended low inflow 

periods. 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

Duke Energy proposes that the Low Inflow Protocol contained in the Revised CRA be 

incorporated in the license. The Revised CRA includes a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

for the Catawba-Wateree Project recognizing that under some emergency or other abnormal 

situations, and in the event of equipment failure and maintenance, it may be impractical or 

impossible to meet certain license conditions, and Duke Energy may need to temporarily suspend 

or modify some conditions to avoid taking unnecessary risks. The objectives of this protocol are 

to define the most likely situations of this type, identify the potentially affected license 

115 
conditions, and outline the general approach that Duke Energy would take to mitigate the 

impacts to the license conditions and to communicate with the resource agencies and other 

potentially affected parties. Specific details would vary and would be determined on a case-bycase basis as the protocol is being implemented for a given event. 

Interior and NOAA Fisheries recommend implementation of the Revised CRA 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Interior recommends that the applicant be required to 

consult with BIA and CIN for sections of the protocol related to the Wylie dam and the river 

below the dam because of potential effects on tribal lands and activities along the river; these two 

consultations are already provided for in the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. NOAA 

Fisheries recommends that it be consulted during development and implementation of the 

protocol. 

Our Analysis 

A key goal of a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol is to establish the general approach 

for handling maintenance and emergency situations and communicating appropriate information 

to all potentially affected stakeholders. We find that the proposed Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol accomplishes this goal. The protocol also directs Duke Energy to re-evaluate the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol each time that it is invoked and consult with affected 

federal and state agencies and stakeholders if revisions to the Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol are necessary or recommended. The revised Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

would be filed with the Commission and, if necessary, an application for a license modification 

would be submitted. We find that these steps would ensure that the Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol is routinely refined and updated based on operating experience and that resource 

managers and stakeholders are involved in the process. We agree that the applicant should 

include NOAA Fisheries in consultations during implementation of the protocol. 

Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring and Reporting 

Duke Energy proposes implementation of a variety of streamflow and lake level 

requirements on project operations. Flow level monitors are in place at all of Duke Energy’s 

reservoirs to allow monitoring of normal target elevations and maximum draw-down limitations. 

There are currently six streamflow gaging stations operated by USGS in the Catawba-Wateree 

Basin, as shown on figure 2. Duke Energy is to fund USGS installation of a stream gage station 

on the Linville River between the Linville dam and the confluence of the Catawba River to 

monitor compliance with flow release requirements from the Bridgewater Development. To 

assure their continuing availability, Duke Energy would also fund USGS for operation and 

maintenance costs associated with the new gage and the six existing gages in the watershed. 

CRA Section A-6.0 details the annual monitoring and reporting requirements that would 

be necessary to document compliance with these license articles and to provide the Commission 

and federal and state agencies with the data necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these 

articles for protection and enhancement of the affected resources. The annual report would 

provide data and summaries of high frequency monitoring of lake levels and downstream flow 

releases for recreation and aquatic habitat, and it would identify times and locations of any 

noncompliance events. 

116 
Our Analysis 

We find that the stream gages are essential to monitoring and evaluating compliance with 

the proposed downstream flow requirements, and we recommend that the applicant install and 

maintain a new gage conforming to specifications of the USGS at the location proposed on the 

Linville River. We also recommend that the applicant operate and maintain this gage and six 

other gages at or in similar locations to the six gages currently in operation in the watershed, as 

shown on figure 2. Duke Energy may choose to implement the installation and maintenance for 

these gages via whatever contractual or funding mechanism they deem appropriate, but Duke 

Energy is the responsible party for compliance with the license article. 

We also conclude that the proposed monitoring and reporting requirements for lake levels 

and downstream flows are adequate to provide the Commission and other federal and state 

agencies with the information necessary to determine and ensure compliance with and assess the 

effectiveness of these license articles. Based on review of these annual reports, the Commission 

reserves the right to require changes to project operations or project facilities. Federal and state 

resource agencies may also act on the basis of these reports. 

 3.3.2.2.2 Water Use 

Duke Power proposes to operate under a water agreement established as part of their 

relicensing process built around use of their CHEOPS model applied to water supply and use 

issues and the formation of a Water Management Team. Several of the major public water 

suppliers and industrial water users are signatories to the settlement. The locations of major 

water withdrawals are shown in figure 15. Net water use associated with public water supply is 

expected to increase from 32 percent of the net water use at present (figure 16) to 52 percent in 

2058 (figure 17); i.e., from 55 to 243 mgd. Operations 04—Water Supply Study (HDR 

Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas [HDR], 2006) presented projections for increases of water 

usage by development in 10-year increments for the next 50-years (table 23). The totals of all 

withdrawals across all reservoirs are projected to increase by 125 percent by 2058. Except at the 

Fishing Creek Development, water returns are less than withdrawals; net water use in the 

Catawba-Wateree River Basin is projected to increase approximately 180 percent by 2058 from 

170 mgd at present. Depending on the development, outflow ranges from 0 to 12 percent of the 

mean river flow (figure 18). 

117 
Figure 15. Water withdrawals and returns in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007). 

118 
Figure 16. Current net water use in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (in mgd) and percent 

of total (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

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

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

119 
Table 23. Projected annual average withdrawal, return, and net water use by watershed (in 

mgd). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Year 

Reservoir Current1 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Withdrawals

James 11 12 13 14 15 32 34 

Rhodhiss 26 28 30 33 36 40 44 

Hickory 18 17 21 25 30 37 44 

Lookout Shoals 1 6 7 9 10 12 12 

Norman 60 66 99 118 133 169 179 

Mountain Island 101 131 153 172 192 207 224 

Wylie 92 95 101 120 130 141 155 

Fishing Creek 103 132 146 159 172 183 195 

Great Falls 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Cedar Creek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Wateree 6 8 9 11 26 27 56 

Subtotal 420 498 582 664 747 851 946 

Returns

James 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 

Rhodhiss 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 

Hickory 6 7 8 9 11 14 16 

Lookout Shoals 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Norman 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 

Mountain Island 6 8 12 14 16 18 18 

Wylie 45 46 52 59 68 77 89 

Fishing Creek 165 192 213 234 254 272 291 

Great Falls 1 1 2 3 5 7 9 

Cedar Creek 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 

Wateree 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal 250 283 319 355 392 430 468 

120 
Year 

Reservoir Current1

 2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Net Water Use

James 2 2 2 2 3 19 20 

Rhodhiss 12 13 13 15 16 19 21 

Hickory 12 10 13 16 19 23 28 

Lookout Shoals 0 5 6 8 9 11 11 

Norman 58 64 97 115 130 165 175 

Mountain Island 95 123 141 158 176 189 206 

Wylie 47 49 49 61 62 64 66 

Fishing Creek -62 -60 -67 -75 -82 -89 -96 

Great Falls 0 1 0 -1 -3 -5 -7 

Cedar Creek 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 

Wateree 6 8 9 11 26 27 56 

Subtotal 170 215 263 309 355 421 478 

1

 Current rates were based on the most recent available years for which withdrawals and 

returns were recorded. The most recent year for a given water user ranged between 1999 and 

2003. 

121 
Figure 18. Current versus projected 2058 net water use (net outflow) (Source: Duke Energy, 

2007). 

Interior commented that an appropriate balance of water uses including for aquatic 

resources and diadromous fish restoration in the Catawba-Wateree basin should be analyzed to 

provide the baseline for future water needs studies. They requested that impacts of inter-basin 

water transfers also need to be analyzed. Interior also recommended that consideration be given 

to adjustment of flows over life of the license as withdrawal and discharge permits are modified. 

NOAA Fisheries has requested that it be represented on the Drought Management 

Advisory Committee established in the Low Inflow Protocol. 

The Catawba Riverkeeper, the Valdes Town Manager, S. Williams, S. Johnson, and 

G. Johnson all expressed concern relative to the impact of inter-basin water transfer and how 

those transfers have been handled in the CHEOPS model. Mr. G. Johnson commented that 

population growth and future inter-basin transfers were not accurately modeled in CHEOPS. 

Various of these stakeholders requested that inter-basin transfer flows modeled in excess of those 

currently authorized be used for aquatic habitat flows and that inter-basin transfers be capped in 

the future. 

Our Analysis 

Existing and future water withdrawal and discharge for public water supply and industrial 

use within the project are not directly impacted or controlled by the project, but require cautioned 

and reasoned balance of available water with other uses. Public water supply, inter-basin 

transfers, wastewater, and industrial discharges are regulated by the states; the only control Duke 

Energy has in this process is the granting of easements on project lands. Existing inter-basin 

122 
transfers represent a very small proportion of the water demand on the project. Future 

applications for inter-basin transfers should be evaluated in terms of the effect on the balance of 

other water users within the Catawba-Wateree Basin, but are not within the scope of this 

licensing process. 

We conclude that Duke Energy, in conjunction with the stakeholder consultation process, 

has performed an adequate evaluation of existing and future projected water use and balancing of 

competing uses based on the CHEOPS modeling exercise in support of the license application. 

Existing withdrawal and discharge have been documented from permits and monitoring report 

data. Appropriate, critical existing intake elevations have been identified for each development. 

Future water uses have been estimated from appropriate census and population growth 

projections. The model scenarios used to balance water uses recognize the uncertainty associated 

with projections of future growth, making conservative assumption related to growth and water 

availability using the two driest periods in the historic record as a baseline. 

The model simulations indicate that the system may be unable to meet future water 

demand 40-50 years into the future. However, the Low Inflow Protocol proposed as an article 

for the new license provides the mechanism for progressive water conservation and management 

of limited water resources during periods of low inflow including cooperative management 

through the Water Group. The Water Group is representative of the array of water users and 

should include interested regulatory and resource management agencies such as NOAA 

Fisheries. 

The water users group, Water Group, and Low Inflow Protocol provide the mechanisms 

and incentive to conserve and manage the water resource over the duration of the new license to 

resolve and avert future stress on the water resource projected by the applicant’s analysis of 

water use. 

 3.3.2.2.3 Water Quality 

Dissolved Oxygen Management and Monitoring 

Duke Energy proposes to develop and implement an FWQIP for completing the 

modifications necessary to satisfy the flow and water quality requirements at the project 

developments. The FWQIP would be prepared in consultation with FWS, NOAA Fisheries, 

North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, and South Carolina DHEC. 

Also, in the Revised CRA, Duke Energy proposed to operate the project in accordance with the 

conditions of the section 401 water quality certificates (WQCs) and to implement any DO 

monitoring requirements that may be contained in them. 

FWQIP agreements identified elsewhere in the Revised CRA, but related to water 

quality, are important as well: 

1. Duke Energy will initiate interim measures for providing aquatic flow, DO 

enhancement, or both as identified in the FWQIP within 60 days following the 

issuance of the new license and closure of all rehearing and administrative challenge 

periods related to water quantity and quality. The interim measures would continue 

until the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP are complete unless Duke 

Energy is operating in accordance with the Low Inflow Protocol or the Maintenance 

and Emergency Protocol. 

123 
2. Following implementation of the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP, 

Duke Energy will operate the project in accordance with the 401 WQC. 

3. If TMDLs are developed for waters within the project boundaries, Duke Energy will 

actively consult with the appropriate state agency to determine what, if any, role 

project operations play in managing the pollutant(s) specified. 

4. After implementation of the physical modifications specified in the FWQIP, if regular 

noncompliance with the WQC occurs as a result of project operations, Duke Energy 

shall document the noncompliance in the annual water quality compliance report; 

assess the reasons for noncompliance and propose corrective actions; consult with 

South Carolina DHEC and North Carolina DWQ, as appropriate; and implement the 

state-approved plan for corrective action. If Duke Energy concludes that its ability to 

comply with the WQC is not attributable to project operations, Duke Energy will 

assist South Carolina DHEC, North Carolina DWQ, or both in determining the 

sources of the noncompliance. 

To assess the success of the water quality measures, Duke Energy proposes to develop 

and implement a water quality monitoring plan (WQMP) to monitor compliance with water 

quality standards. The WQMP would be prepared in consultation with North Carolina DWQ and 

South Carolina DHEC. By June 30 following each full calendar year for the term of the new 

license, Duke Energy proposes to file a report with the Commission verifying compliance with 

applicable WQCs. 

The specific measures for improvement of DO conditions in the tailwaters involve 

provision of minimum flows and the implementation of tailwater aeration strategies. Duke 

Energy would provide continuous minimum flows at the Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, 

Wylie, Great Falls, Dearborn, and Wateree Developments to protect and enhance aquatic habitat 

and water quality in the downstream riverine sections. Duke Energy proposes to perform the 

following physical modifications to increase tailwater DO: 

• Under a previously authorized project at the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy 

is building a new powerhouse at the Linville dam that will include aeration capability 

on all units. Duke Energy proposes to install a new flow valve with aerating 

capability that would support minimum flow releases and enhance aeration at the 

Bridgewater Development Catawba River dam. 

• A new aerating runner would be installed on unit 3 at the Rhodhiss Development to 

provide a continuous minimum flow that supports public water supply and industrial 

processes. 

• A minimum flow valve and a new aerating runner would be installed at an existing 

unit at the Oxford dam to provide a year-round continuous minimum flow of at least 

150 cfs. 

• A year-round continuous minimum flow of at least 80 cfs would be provided from the 

Lookout Shoals Development. Anticipating enhanced DO conditions as a result of 

improved releases from the upstream Oxford Development, DO management at 

Lookout Shoals would be controlled initially by operation of the existing vacuum 

breakers. Additional aeration may be accomplished, if necessary, by adding aeration 

capacity to auxiliary units at Lookout Shoals. 

124 
• An existing hydro unit at the Wylie Development would be replaced with a small 

aerating hydro unit to provide year-round continuous minimum flows. 

• Existing stay vanes and hub venting would be used to manage DO in downstream 

releases at the Fishing Creek Development. 

• A flow release structure would be installed at the Great Falls headworks and the Great 

Falls diversion dam to provide continuous minimum flows to the bypassed reaches, 

and operation of existing vacuum breakers would be used to enhance DO as needed. 

• Existing hub venting at the Cedar Creek and Rocky Creek Developments would be 

used to manage DO in downstream releases. 

• An existing hydro unit at the Wateree Development would be replaced with a small 

aerating hydro unit to provide year-round continuous minimum flows. 

• No changes to the equipment or operations were proposed at the Cowans Ford and 

Mountain Island Developments. 

Duke Energy proposes to develop and implement a WQMP to monitor compliance with 

water quality standards, a draft of which appears in appendix F of the Revised CRA. The 

WQMP would be prepared in consultation with North Carolina DWQ and South Carolina 

DHEC. The plan would include potential locations for continuous DO monitors, which were 

selected in consultation with the water quality resource committee and have been submitted to 

the state agencies for approval. By June 30 following each full calendar year for the term of the 

new license, Duke Energy proposes to file a report with the Commission verifying compliance 

with applicable WQCs. 

Interior commented that the application does not provide for compliance with basic water 

quality standards (e.g., temperature and DO) prior to issuance of the license. Interior also 

requested that permanent water quality monitors be included as part of the WQMP for each of 

the project tailwaters, bypassed reaches, and reservoirs. They specifically indicate the need for 

monitoring temperature, turbidity, pH, DO, and total dissolved gas and recommended that realtime monitoring be included in the license. Interior expressed concern that Duke Energy’s 

proposed enhancements to project equipment and facilities do not provide adequate assurance 

that DO standards will be met in a timely manner. They asked that the commission consider the 

following: the adequacy of Duke Energy’s proposed measures for DO; development of an 

alternative plan to provide timely compliance with water quality standards in project reservoirs, 

bypassed reaches, and regulated tailwaters; and the need for a backup plan with adequate 

redundancy in critical equipment to ensure compliance with water quality standards at all times, 

including during maintenance or emergency shut-down of oxygen-enhancing equipment. 

EPA asked that the DO enhancement program be evaluated with respect to the goal of 

increasing DO concentrations below all dams to meet state water quality standards. Specifically, 

EPA recommended that the program include contingencies for making additional modifications 

if the proposed modifications are not successful in meeting water quality standards. The agency 

also indicated that empirical evidence should be evaluated to determine the aeration capability of 

existing units and the effectiveness of existing technologies to increase DO levels in project 

tailwaters. EPA recommended that the capability of existing equipment to meet DO standards be 

determined before license approval. The agency also commented that the continuous water 

125 
quality monitoring program should be evaluated under the FWQIP. Finally, EPA requested that 

they be included as a consulting party in the development of the FWQIP and WQMP. 

North Carolina DENR and North Carolina WRC recommended that development of the 

WQMP in conjunction with the state agencies be included as a license article. American Rivers, 

Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper commented in response to the 

Ready for Environmental Analysis Notice that it has not yet been demonstrated that the project 

will meet either North Carolina’s or South Carolina’s DO standards, particularly below Lake 

Wylie. These stakeholders also requested that the WQMP require that all elements of the project 

meet all applicable state water quality standards under all operating conditions. 

The Catawba Riverkeeper stated that to provide redundancy, particularly in the event of 

maintenance and emergency events, every turbine should be able to meet water quality standards 

for DO. The Lake Wateree Lakekeeper requested an evaluation of the aerating capability of the 

turbines to ensure water quality standards will be met, and if not, that Duke Energy should be 

required to provide further mitigation. Mr. G. Knox (Mayor of Cornelius) requested that Duke 

Energy maintain its environmental monitoring section rather than turn it over to a government 

agency. 

Our Analysis 

There are no water quality requirements in the existing license for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. The project was originally licensed in 1958, prior to the implementation of the Clean 

Water Act; therefore, the project has never been required to obtain a WQC. Operating the 

developments consistent with the Revised CRA would generally increase the rate of water 

moving through the system and lower the effects of biochemical oxygen demand on DO 

concentration in affected reaches of the Catawba-Wateree project area, 

Operation of existing equipment at some developments and installation of proposed 

aerating capacity at other developments have a potential to enhance DO. The extent of this 

capacity is a function of site-specific conditions. Several of the regulatory and resource agencies 

and other stakeholders have requested a mechanism for further action in the event that proposed 

equipment and operational modifications are not adequate to bring all of the developments into 

compliance with state DO standards. The proposed WQMP, which will be finalized in 

consultation with the agencies, provides an adaptive management framework for monitoring 

water quality improvements and making necessary modifications when and where noncompliance related to project operations has not be adequately addressed by the elements of the 

FWQIP. The WQMP provides for real-time data collection, monthly and annual data summaries 

and analyses, identification of non-compliance events, corrective measures and further 

mitigation. Inclusion of the WQMP and FWQIP by reference in the 401 WQC ensures ongoing 

consultation and provides the states with a mechanism for enforcement of water quality 

standards. It is our conclusion that the measures in the FWQIP have a reasonable potential to 

enhance DO to meet state water quality standards in the affected reaches and that the WQMP and 

401 WQC will provide for monitoring, documentation, and compliance; identify failures to meet 

the water quality criteria; and provide the means to ensure that necessary modifications can be 

implemented where FWQIP measures are not adequate. 

We agree that the state and federal agencies with responsibilities for regulation and 

protection of water quality related to this project should be included as part of the consultation 

team for development and review of the FWQIP and WQMP and the monthly and annual review 

126 
of data specified in the WQMP. We recommend inclusion of EPA in the consultation list. 

EPA’s request for more evidence that the aeration methods will work, and a similar request by 

the Coastal Conservation League, American Rivers, and Catawba Riverkeeper, is most 

affordably met by deploying the devices and beginning the monitoring, some of it continuous as 

requested in the EPA comments, as soon as possible. 

Regarding the request by the state agencies, the Coastal Conservation League, American 

Rivers, and Catawba Riverkeeper that the license include the provisions of the state’s 401 

certifications, the proposed FWQIP and WQMP are included as proposed license articles in the 

PM&E and as part of the application for the 401 certification. North Carolina DWQ issued a 

letter (November 18, 2008) granting the 401 certification (No. 3767) and incorporating by 

reference the conditions of the Revised CRA and the included WQMP and FWQIP. PM&E 6.1 

includes a requirement for preparation of a quality assurance project plan as part of the 401 

certification application; North Carolina DENR and North Carolina WRC requested that this be 

included as a license article. The quality assurance project plan requested by North Carolina was 

submitted as part of the complete 401 certification application; North Carolina DWQ 

subsequently issued the 401 certification. 

The new license would place responsibility on Duke Energy for compliance with all 

license articles including those related to water quality monitoring described in the WQMP and 

the state 401 certifications. The mechanism (e.g., in-house staff, consultants, agency) by which 

Duke Energy implements the monitoring requirements including sampling, operation and 

maintenance, quality assurance/quality control, and reporting is their option and not specified in 

the license. If they choose to do so, they can use their own staff to do the monitoring, as Mayor 

Knox recommends, or they can contract the work. Regarding Interior’s request for specific 

parameters in the WQMP, much of the request can be found in the draft plan, and determination 

of the additional specific parameters and measurement frequency for each development should 

be determined among the stakeholders, including Interior, as part of review and finalization of 

the WQMP. 

The Catawba Riverkeeper’s request for redundancy is unnecessary. To some degree 

redundancy is built into the system through the ability to spill water if aeration systems fail. 

Also, while low DO events are to be avoided to protect water quality and habitat, natural 

reaeration often limits low DO conditions to a modest area below the dams relative to the habitat 

available, or the releases are directly to downstream impoundments. 

Temperature 

To manage temperature in the Catawba River bypassed reach and the Linville River 

reach, Duke Energy proposes to balance three measures. They are: 

1. Managing the storage in Lake James to avoid depletion of the cold water reserve in 

summer and early fall. 

2. Providing coldwater minimum flows in the Linville River to support the trout fishery 

below the Bridgewater Powerhouse. 

3. Providing continuous minimum flows at warmer temperatures which would support and 

enhance freshwater mussel populations in the Catawba River bypassed reach. Increased 

warmer flows in the bypassed reach, however, should not cause water temperatures to 

127 
Under the WQMP, Duke Energy would monitor water temperature downstream at all 

developments. 

American Rivers, the Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper 

commented that alternatives should be evaluated to assure adequate temperatures for trout in the 

Linville River and Catawba River bypass reaches downstream of the Bridgewater development. 

Our Analysis 

During the stakeholder negotiations leading to the Revised CRA, extensive modeling was 

performed to simulate the response of the storage capacity of Lake James to various downstream 

release scenarios at the Bridgewater powerhouse and the Catawba dam to provide minimum 

flows for support of aquatic resources, in particular trout and freshwater mussels. Implementing 

Duke Energy’s proposal would have little potential effect at any of the project developments 

except Bridgewater and the three bypassed reaches, the Catawba River bypassed reach, and 

Great Falls Long and Short bypassed reaches, that would now receive continuous minimum 

flows. It is our conclusion that the balance of flows struck in the Revised CRA between the 

Catawba River bypassed reach and the Linville River below the Bridgewater powerhouse would 

provide water temperatures and flows that continue to support the existing trout fishery in the 

Linville/Catawba River and other aquatic resources in both of these reaches. North Carolina 

DWQ has issued a 401 WQC for the project that includes the continuous flow modifications for 

this reach to protect the designated uses for these reaches including trout management. With 

negligible flows in the existing bypass, water temperatures fluctuate widely and summer water 

temperatures can frequently exceed the tolerance of many aquatic organisms. The proposed 

continuous minimum flows would provide a natural range of water temperatures in these reaches 

that meet water quality standards and would support and enhance aquatic resources in these 

bypassed reaches. Monitoring for temperatures that will support trout, a request of American 

Rivers, the Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper, would be addressed as 

an element of the WQMP. 

3.3.2.3 Cumulative Effects 

Water Quantity and Quality 

The hydrology of the Catawba-Wateree system is altered by the project itself and by 

changes in the character of the watershed, which falls mostly outside of the project boundary. 

An obvious characteristic of the hydroelectric power system is the fact that it has resulted in the 

transformation of much of the river system into reservoir systems. The existing condition for 

this analysis is the system under the current license, with the impoundments in place. However, 

though the pre-project condition is not the focus here, there are characteristic of impoundments 

that tie into other water quantity and quality issues. For example, cumulatively, a large amount 

of water evaporates from the surface area of the impounded lakes. This process has been 

accounted for in the Duke Energy hydrologic models. 

The impounding of water brings changes in water quality. The fact that temperature and 

sediment content are altered is somewhat obvious. Less obvious is the re-suspension of some 

chemicals when low oxygen conditions trigger certain chemical reactions in the bottom 

sediments where those chemicals have settled. Another factor is that the stillness and long 

128 
retention time of the impoundments gives algal populations better conditions for growth for 

longer periods of time than occurs in moving waters, leading to algal blooms. When the algae 

die and sink to the bottom, the bacteria that break them down require a great deal of oxygen and 

can cause low DO conditions. These are very difficult aspects of water quality to manage and 

are, to some degree, outside of the control of Duke Energy. Seasonal temperature stratification is 

another physical characteristic of many impoundments that contributes to the depletion of DO in 

deeper waters in the impoundments and the discharge of poorly oxygenated water downstream of 

the powerhouses. 

Outside of the project boundary, the watershed hydrology has changed and will continue 

to change over the years. As the watershed is developed, flows to the reservoirs are altered, 

often becoming “flashier,” or more extreme in character. Urban and suburban storm runoff 

brings increased sediment and nutrient loads. Ongoing development in the watershed, and 

particularly along shorelines, typically results in increased runoff, erosion, turbidity, nutrient 

loading, and fecal coliform. Discharge of treated wastewater from public treatment facilities 

often increases nutrient loads to the system. Agricultural practices also increase nutrient loads 

and fecal coliform. These watershed scale processes are, for the most part, beyond the control of 

Duke Energy. 

American Rivers, the Coastal Conservation League, and the Catawba Riverkeeper 

stakeholders request that the FWQIP require that all elements of the project meet all applicable 

state water quality standards under all operating conditions. Given that many of the water 

quality factors above are largely out of the control of the power company, this may not be 

realistic for all parameters. However, Duke Power is involved in multiple efforts that could lead 

to modest improvements or prevent declines in overall water quality. These include: 

1. Participating in the states’ TMDL processes. 

2. Working with the water suppliers to apply some of the funds raised through the Water 

Management Group to carry out water quality improvement projects. 

3. Purchasing riparian easements (along waterways) in North and South Carolina to 

meet state mitigation requirements for flow alterations. These easements will 

preserve streamside vegetation that will help filter water before it reaches streams 

flowing to the reservoirs. 

4. Providing $1,000,000 to South Carolina for improvement of fish and wildlife habitat 

including water quality. (This fund also provides for other habitat and fish and 

wildlife enhancement activities not directly related to water quality.) 

Another water quantity factor with potential cumulative effects would be inter-basin 

transfers. Major inter-basin transfers are typically for public water supply outside of the basin or 

where the discharge of treated wastewater occurs outside of the basin. Predictions of new or 

expanded future inter-basin transfers are based on general regional growth projections and have 

an inherent high level of uncertainty. Inter-basin transfers require state approval and permitting, 

and the effect on project water quantity and availability of increases in inter-basin transfers can 

be evaluated on a case-by-case basis within the context of project water management and using 

the CHEOPS model as necessary. The CHEOPS model has been used extensively for these 

types of analyses and has developed a documented track record as a reliable tool for hydroproject 

129 
water management. Existing and proposed, near-term transfers represent a very small portion of 

the available flow in the system. 

3.3.2.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Throughout much of the water column in most of the reservoirs, stratification of 

temperature and DO would continue to occur seasonally. Given the accumulation of sediments 

and associated contaminants, and continued input of sediments and nutrients in runoff and point 

source discharges to the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, near-bottom waters would continue to 

have elevated concentrations of ammonia. It is unlikely that pollution from watershed runoff 

will be avoided, though regional efforts by partners including Duke Energy may help. Finally, 

because the purpose of impounding water is to alter the timing of its availability for use, the flow 

regime is altered at each dam, affecting physical processes and organisms. However, the 

proposals in the Revised CRA would improve flows, particularly relative to the existing 

condition. 

3.3.3 Aquatic Resources 

3.3.3.1 Affected Environment 

Aquatic Habitat 

The project area within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin encompasses an elevation 

change of 1,113 ft msl and is defined by a complex hydrologic system of riverine habitats 

interspersed among the 11 project impoundments. 

Reservoirs 

The 11 impoundments of the Catawba-Wateree Project range in size from the 353-acre 

Great Falls reservoir to the 32,399-acre Lake Norman (table 24). The shoreline length varies 

from 13.1 miles on the Great Falls reservoir to 603.1 miles on Lake Norman. The shoreline 

development index is a measure of the complexity of the shoreline (length of shoreline divided 

by the circumference of a circle with the area of the lake); the higher the number, the more 

dendritic or irregular the shoreline or more arms and coves. For the Catawba-Wateree Project, 

the impoundments range from 5 (Great Falls reservoir) to 23.9 (Lake Norman), reflecting the 

relative complexity of the shoreline and potential shallow water habitat. Morphometric and 

hydraulic characteristics of these reservoirs range from small, fairly shallow reservoirs with short 

retention times and low shoreline development indices such as Great Falls and Cedar Creek 

reservoirs, to large, deep, reservoirs with long retention times and highly dendritic shorelines 

such as Lake Norman. 

130 
Table 24. Dimensional characteristics of Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments. (Source: 

Duke Energy, 2007) 

Impoundment Full pool 

(+msl ft) 

Shoreline 

(miles) 

Surface area 

(acres) 

Shoreline 

complexity 

Lake James 1,200.0 153.0 6,754 13.3 

Rhodhiss Lake 995.1 106.8 2,724 14.6 

Lake Hickory 935.0 115.7 4,072 12.9 

Lookout Shoals Lake 838.1 35.2 1,155 7.4 

Lake Norman 760.0 603.1 32,339 23.9 

Mountain Island Lake 647.5 96.5 3,117 12.3 

Lake Wylie 569.4 348.5 12,177 22.5 

Fishing Creek 

Reservoir 417.2 85.1 3,431 10.4 

Great Falls Reservoir 355.8 13.1 353 5.0 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 284.4 23.2 748 6.1 

Lake Wateree 225.5 214.3 13,025 13.4 

The mean surface water temperatures on the Catawba-Wateree impoundments (1993-

2002) ranged from 25.0 to 33.9°C in summer and from 6.1 to 12.5°C in winter. All reservoirs 

remained vertically mixed throughout winter. During the summer, deep reservoirs with long 

detention times maintained fairly stable thermal stratification, while stratification in shallower 

reservoirs with short detention times tended to be transient. Great Falls and Cedar Creek 

reservoirs, small reservoirs with retention times less than 3 days, did not stratify. All of the 

project reservoirs with the exception of Great Falls and Cedar Creek exhibit some degree of 

oxygen depletion in the hypolimnetic waters. 

Duke Energy conducted mapping of primary shallow aquatic habitat types over the 

normal range of pool elevations for each reservoir except Great Falls (Duke Energy, 2005b). 

Surveys were conducted using hydroacoustic and LiDAR technologies and habitat sampling 

along survey transects. The data were used to estimate fish habitat available at various levels of 

draw-down from normal full pool to minimum pool and to evaluate the amount of habitat lost 

during draw-down. 

Seven shallow water aquatic habitat types were mapped in each impoundment: cobble, 

riprap and piers, vegetation and tributary confluence, mud flats, sand, clay, and woody debris. 

Littoral zone areas where submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation grow, aside from the 

tributary confluence areas, can be vital cover and nursery habitat for various fish species at 

different life stages. These areas further add to the complexity of fish habitat. The types of 

shallow-water habitat that provide significant habitat complexity (i.e., cobble, riprap/piers, 

vegetated confluences, woody debris, and water willow) are a major determinant in fish 

diversity, fish distribution, predator-prey interactions, and survival of young. 

131 
132 

The most abundant habitat types across all impoundments were riprap and piers, 

vegetation and tributary confluence, and clay (table 25). The other habitat types were nearly an 

order of magnitude less abundant. Except in Lake James, cobble accounted for less than 10 acres 

of habitat between normal maximum and minimum pool elevation. The greatest acreage 

between maximum and minimum pool elevation occurs in Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake 

Wateree. 

Each of the project impoundments has a specific guide curve that determines ideal water 

levels for a given time of year. Water levels within the Catawba-Wateree River reservoirs vary 

more than 3 ft from the existing guide curves typically less than 10 percent of the time. The 

normal range of draw-down between maximum and minimum pool elevation ranges from 7.5 ft 

at Lake James and Lake Norman to 3.5 ft at Cedar Creek reservoir; the range for six of the 

impoundments is 4.5 ft (Rhodhiss Lake, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals Lake, Lake Wylie, 

Fishing Creek reservoir, and Great Falls reservoir). The quantity of shallow water habitats 

generally declines as water levels recede. The greatest declines in habitat usually occur at drawdowns of 1 to 3 ft, which is the range at which the reservoirs have historically been operated. 

Vegetation and stream confluence habitats are most affected by draw-downs, while other habitats 

are generally available to fish even at normal minimum pool elevations. 

On a seasonal basis, reservoir levels are typically lowest from November to February 

when most fish in these reservoirs are least active and concentrated in deep areas of the reservoir 

beyond the shore zone. One important fish habitat type for spring/summer spawning and nursery 

functions is the vegetated stream-confluence type. Reservoir level changes after spawning 

activities have begun can be critically important, especially for nest-building fish species. If 

reservoir levels decrease appreciably after nests have been constructed and eggs have been 

deposited, nests and eggs can be dewatered, which can lead to stranding, exposure, desiccation, 

and death of the developing embryos and hatching larvae. 
Table 25. Summary of aquatic habitat available between normal maximum and normal minimum water surf

Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments. (Source: Duke Energy, 2005b) 

Pool elevation relative to 100-ft 

maximum Aquatic habitat between maximum and minimum pool elevation 

Impoundment 

Normal 

maximum 

Normal 

minimum 

Survey 

min. 

pool 

Cobble Ripra p piers Vegetation confluences Mud flats sand clay Wood

debri

Lake James 99.5 92.0 93.0 20.0 82.0 55.0 71.0 79.0 224.0 82.0Rhodhiss Lake 99.5 95.0 95.0 5.0 5.0 82.0 17.0 14.0 141.0 38.1Lake Hickory 99.5 95.0 96.0 0.8 149.0 123.0 0.0 2.7 51.0 10.1Lookout Shoals Lake 99.5 95.0 95.0 2.1 28.0 13.4 5.0 8.1 31.0 0.8Lake Norman 99.5 92.0 93.0 6.3 2,064.0 555.0 157.0 210.0 1,586.0 8.7Mountain Island Lake 99.5 94.5 95.0 2.1 67.0 507.0 29.0 4.2 73.0 0.5Lake Wylie 99.5 95.0 95.0 2.7 863.0 891.0 107.0 10.0 600.0 10.2Fishing Creek Reservoir 99.5 95.0 95.0 1.5 53.0 928.0 5.3 7.6 189.0 57.0Great Falls Reservoir 99.5 95.0 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 99.5 96.0 96.0 0.0 3.3 28.0 2.1 2.1 28.0 0.0

Lake Wateree 99.5 94.0 95.0 3.8 1,302.0 401.0 71.0 45.0 365.0 0.7

44.3 4,616.3 3,583.4 464.4 382.7 3,288.0 208.2

133 
Riverine 

Much of what was once lotic (riverine) habitat in the main stem Catawba-Wateree River 

prior to construction of the project has been transformed into lentic habitat discussed in the 

previous section. There are approximately 119 miles of riverine habitat interspersed between the 

project impoundments. The longest reaches of riverine habitat (table 26) are the regulated 

reaches below Bridgewater (12.5 miles), Wylie (25.6 miles), and Wateree (76.8 miles). The 

regulated reach below Oxford is 2.8 miles long. The Lookout Shoals regulated river reach varies 

from 0.3 to 1.3 miles in length depending on the draw-down of Lake Norman downstream. The 

tailraces from the other eight developments (Rhodhiss, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing 

Creek, Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek) enter the backwater of the 

impoundment of the next development downstream. 

Flows in these reaches vary through the day, depending on power generation operations, 

and seasonally depending on weather conditions and power generation. The existing operating 

conditions require minimum average daily flows (table 26) from each development, which 

generally can be met with several hours of generation and flows throughout the rest of the day 

limited to leakage. The minimum average daily flow at Bridgewater is 66 cfs, and progressively 

increases downstream to 446 cfs at Wateree. Minimum continuous flows are maintained at the 

six most upstream developments ranging from 25 cfs at Bridgewater to 80 cfs and Cowans Ford 

and Mountain Island. 

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

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

Development(s) Regulated reach 

(miles) 

Minimum 

average daily 

flow (cfs) 

Minimum 

continuous flow 

(cfs) 

Bypassed reach 

(miles) 

Bridgewater 12.5 66 25 5.6/0.5 

Rhodhiss NA 225 40 NA 

Oxford 2.8 261 40 NA 

Lookout Shoals 0.3–1.3 278 60 NA 

Cowans Ford NA 311 80 NA 

Mountain Island NA 318 80 0.6 

Wylie 25.6 411 NA 

Fishing Creek NA 440 NA 

Great Falls and 

Dearborn NA 444 2.2/0.8 

Rocky Creek and 

Cedar Creek NA 445 NA 

Wateree 76.8 446 0.4 

134 
Based on the habitat mapping information collected as part of the Instream Flow Study

(DTA, 2005), the regulated reaches are comprised of a diversity of habitat and substrate 

(table 27). Habitat types include riffles, runs, glides, pools, shoals, islands and braided channels, 

bends, and scour pools. Substrate is generally coarse; bedrock outcrops and ledges overlain by 

varying thicknesses of sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder; finer substrates limited in extent within 

the regulated reaches; and finer sediments that settle in the various project impoundments. 

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

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

DTA, 2005a) 

Reach Substrate Habitat types 

Bridgewater Regulated River 

Reach 

Bedrock overlain by varying 

thickness of sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder 

Riffle, run, glide, pool, islands 

Catawba River Bypass 

Bedrock overlain by varying 

thickness of sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder, rubble 

Riffles, glides, pools beaver 

ponds 

Paddy Creek Bypass Bedrock, sand, gravel cobble Riffle, pool, split channel 

Oxford Regulated River 

Reach 

Bedrock overlain by varying 

thickness of sand, gravel, 

cobble, boulder, some silt 

Run, glide, pool, shoal, island 

Lookout Shoals Regulated 

River Reach Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder Riffle, glide, pool, island 

Mountain Island Bypass Bedrock, boulder, cobble, 

sand, gravel 

Wylie Regulated River Reach Bedrock, boulder, gravel, 

cobble, some fines 

Pool, shoal, glide, vegetated 

island, riffle 

Great Falls Long Bypass Bedrock boulder Pool, run 

Great Falls Short Bypass Bedrock boulder Pool, run 

Wateree Regulated River 

Reach Bedrock boulder Pool, run 

Wateree Spillway Channel 

Bypass 

Bedrock, boulder, sand, 

gravel, vegetated islands 

Glide, bend, scour pool, run, 

riffle, flood plain, bars, shoals 

Bypassed Reaches 

The project includes six bypassed reaches approximately 10 miles in total length, two 

each associated with the Bridgewater and Great Falls and Dearborn Developments and one each 

at the Mountain Island and Wateree Developments (table 26). The Catawba River bypassed 

135 
reach below the Bridgewater Development is the longest bypass at 5.6 miles; the Paddy Creek 

bypassed reach, also at Bridgewater, is 0.5 mile. The Mountain Island bypassed reach is 

approximately 0.6 mile, and the two Great Falls bypassed reaches are 2.2 and 0.8 mile. The 

Wateree spillway bypass is 0.4 mile long. 

Substrate in these bypassed reaches is generally bedrock with boulder, cobble, sand, and 

gravel. Runs, glides, pools, and riffles appear to predominate in the bypassed reaches. Beaver 

dams have created ponds in the Catawba River bypassed reach. 

Except during spill periods, the flow through these bypassed reaches is generally limited 

to leakage, groundwater inflow, and tributary inflow. Muddy Creek provides significant flow to 

the lower portion of the Catawba River bypassed reach. Except for the Catawba River bypassed 

reach, downstream of the confluence of Muddy Creek, most of the bypassed reaches do not 

contain reliable flows and dry out between spill events. Thus, bypass habitat is typically 

marginal for fish and other biological resources with elevated water temperatures and depleted 

DO. 

Biological Resources 

Freshwater Mussels 

Freshwater mussel surveys were conducted in 2004 for the Catawba-Wateree relicensing 

projects (Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. [AES], 2005). Many species were collected 

during these surveys, including relic shell material. For purposes of this document, only species 

collected live during the survey will be discussed in detail. 

Sixteen live freshwater mussel species were collected in 2004 within 114 study reaches 

of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin (table 28). These mussel surveys indicated that Eastern 

elliptio and Carolina lance were the most common species collected among the survey sites. 

Mussel diversity was highest at the Wylie Development (including sites surveyed in the South 

Fork Catawba River, Lake Wylie, Wylie River, and Waxhaw Creek) and the Wateree 

Development (including sites surveyed in the Wateree River and Grannies Quarter Creek), each 

having 10 mussel species including state and federally listed species. The exotic bivalve, Asian 

clam, was identified at most of the 114 reaches, with some stations having significantly higher 

densities of the invasive species than others. 

Federally listed species include one endangered species (Carolina heelsplitter) and two 

species of concern (brook floater and yellow lampmussel). Eleven state listed (North Carolina 

and South Carolina) species were collected during the surveys. Relic shell material (no live 

specimens) of the rayed-pink fatmucket, a South Carolina species of special concern, was 

collected downstream of the Wylie Development in the Wylie regulated river reach, and just 

below the Wateree dam. Federal species of concern and state-listed mussel species are discussed 

in this section; Carolina heelsplitter, an endangered species, is discussed in section 3.3.5, 

Threatened and Endangered Species.

Five mussel species collected during the 2004 survey are considered common in North 

Carolina and South Carolina watersheds and include the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina 

lance, Atlantic spike, and the pondhorn. Descriptions of the shells of these species, their 

distribution, habitat preference, and life history are well documented in Mussel Surveys for 

Catawba-Wateree Relicensing report (AES, 2005). 

136 
137 

Bridgewater Development—Six mussel species were collected in the Bridgewater 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, brook floater, creeper/squawfoot, 

Eastern creekshell, and notched rainbow. The Eastern elliptio dominated the collection 

(181 individuals) with nearly 83 percent of the total catch. Most of the individuals were 

collected from Lake James, the Catawba River bypassed reach, and Muddy Creek. Two species 

(brook floater and Eastern creekshell) were collected from the Linville River. Four species from 

the Bridgewater Development are protected by North Carolina, and one species (brook floater, 

12 individuals) is considered a species of special concern by FWS. 

Rhodhiss Development—Eight mussel species were collected in the Rhodhiss 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina lance, Atlantic spike, brook 

floater, Eastern floater, Eastern creekshell, and the notched rainbow. The Eastern elliptio 

dominated the collection (281+ individuals) with nearly 82 percent of the total catch. All of the 

individuals were collected from Warriors Fork and the Johns River, with the exception of the 

Eastern floater, which was collected in the Rhodhiss regulated river reach. Four of the species 

from the Rhodhiss Development are protected by North Carolina, and one species (brook floater, 

three individuals) is considered a species of special concern by FWS. 

Oxford Development—One mussel species, the Eastern floater, was collected from the 

Oxford regulated river reach of the Oxford Development. Only 13 individuals of this species 

were collected at this development. The Eastern floater is considered a species of special 

concern by the state of South Carolina, but is not currently protected by the state of North 

Carolina or FWS. 

Lookout Shoals Development—One mussel species, the creeper/squawfoot, was collected 

from the Lookout Shoals regulated river reach of the Lookout Shoals Development. Only one 

individual of this species was collected at this development. This species is not currently 

protected by North Carolina or by FWS. 

Cowans Ford Development—Three mussel species were collected in the Cowans Ford 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, pondhorn, and Eastern floater. While relatively few 

individuals of these species were collected, the Eastern elliptio dominated the collection 

(11 individuals) with 79 percent of the total catch. All of the individuals were collected from the 

Cowans Ford tailrace. The Eastern floater is considered a species of special concern by the state 

of South Carolina, but is not currently protected by the state of North Carolina or FWS. 

Mountain Island Development—Eight mussel species were collected in the Mountain 

Island Development, including the Eastern elliptio, Carolina lance, Atlantic spike, pondhorn, 

paper pondshell, Eastern floater, creeper/squawfoot, and Eastern creekshell. The Carolina lance 

dominated the collection (204 individuals) with 73 percent of the total catch. Most of the 

individuals were collected from the Mountain Island bypassed reach, but a few (Carolina lance, 

paper pondshell, and pondhorn) were collected from the Mountain Island tailrace. Four of the 

species from the Mountain Island Development are protected by the state of North Carolina or 

South Carolina, or both. 
Table 28. Sixteen freshwater mussel species collected in the vicinity of 11 relicensing developments on the 

River basins. Mussels listed were collected live during the 2004 surveys. (AES, 2005) 

CATAWBA-WATEREE PROJECT DEVELOPMENTS1 

Common name Bridgewater Rhodhiss Oxford Lookout Shoals Cowans Ford Mt. Island Wylie Fishing Creek G

an

Eastern elliptio X X X X X X Variable spike X X X 

Carolina slabshellSSC(SC) 

Carolina lance X X X X 

Atlantic spike X X X 

Roanoke slabshellST(NC) X 

Pondhorn X X X X 

Carolina heelsplitterFE/SE(NC&SC) X 

Brook floaterFSC/SE(NC)/SSC(SC) X X 

Eastern pondmusselST(NC) 

Paper pondshellSSC(SC) X X X 

Eastern floaterSSC(SC) X X X X X 

Creeper/Squawfoot 

ST(NC)/SSC(SC) X X X X 

Eastern creekshellSSC(SC) X X X X 

Notched rainbowSSC(NC&SC) X X 

Yellow lampmusselFSC/SE(NC)/SSC

(SC)

138 
139 

1 No live mussels were collected at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments; therefore, the developme

in this summary table. 

2 FSC: federal species of concern.  FE: federally endangered.  SE: state endangered.  ST: state threatened.  SSC: state species of concern.  Sources: North Carolina WRC, 2008b; South Carolina DNR, 2008; FWS, 2008. 
Wylie Development—Eleven mussel species were collected in the Wylie Development, 

including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina lance, Atlantic spike, Roanoke slabshell, 

pondhorn, Carolina heelsplitter, paper pondshell, Eastern floater, creeper/squawfoot, and Eastern 

creekshell. The Eastern elliptio dominated the collection (424+ individuals) with 52 percent of 

the total catch, followed by the Carolina lance with 35 percent of the total catch. Most of the 

individuals were collected from the Wylie regulated river reach, with fewer collected from 

Waxhaw Creek. Six of the species from the Wylie Development are protected by the state of 

North Carolina or South Carolina, or both, and one species (Carolina heelsplitter, two 

individuals) is federally listed as endangered by FWS. The Carolina heelsplitter was collected 

from Waxhaw Creek during the 2004 surveys and is discussed further in section 3.3.5, 

Threatened and Endangered Species. 

Fishing Creek Development—Four mussel species were collected in the Fishing Creek 

Development, including the Eastern elliptio, Carolina lance, pondhorn, and paper pondshell. 

Surveys for the paper pondshell did not indicate specific numbers collected, but did report that 

this species was very common in the Catawba River (downstream of the Fishing Creek tailrace). 

The remaining three species were collected from the same location, but in much lower 

abundance (less than eight individuals each). The paper pondshell is the only species from this 

collection protected by South Carolina, but it is not currently protected by the state of North 

Carolina or FWS. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments—Three mussel species were collected in the 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, including the Carolina lance, pondhorn, and paper 

pondshell. Abundance for each species was very low (less than four individuals each). The 

pondhorn and Carolina lance were collected from the Great Falls reservoir. The paper pondshell, 

which is the only species from this collection protected by South Carolina, was collected in the 

Great Falls bypassed reach. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—Surveys within the Rocky Creek and 

Cedar Creek Developments were limited due to health and safety considerations. Two stations 

in Cedar Creek and Cedar Creek reservoir were surveyed with no live mussels collected at either 

station. 

Wateree Development—Ten mussel species were collected in the Wateree Development, 

including the Eastern elliptio, variable spike, Carolina slabshell, Carolina lance, Roanoke 

slabshell, pondhorn, Eastern pondmussel, paper pondshell, Eastern floater, and yellow 

lampmussel. The Roanoke slabshell, which is listed as threatened by North Carolina, dominated 

the collection (65 individuals) with 42 percent of the total catch. Most of the individuals were 

collected from the Wateree regulated river reach, with the exception of the variable spike and 

some of Eastern elliptio specimens, which were collected in Grannies Quarter Creek. Six of the 

species from the Wateree Development are protected by the state of North Carolina or South 

Carolina, or both, and one species (yellow lampmussel, 15 individuals) is considered a species of 

special concern by FWS. The yellow lampmussel was collected from the Wateree regulated 

river reach during the 2004 surveys. 

Most of the mussel species collected during the 2004 survey are assumed to require 

intermediate fish hosts to complete their life cycles, and conservation of these mussel 

populations requires the protection of both the fish host and bivalve. Among the common 

mussels collected, no fish hosts have been specifically identified for the Carolina lance or 

140 
Atlantic spike. The Eastern elliptio, variable spike, pondhorn, and Eastern floater, however, 

have several reported fish host species. The Eastern elliptio has at least four reported hosts 

including the green sunfish, largemouth bass, orangespotted sunfish, and white crappie 

(Cummings and Watters, 2004). Nine other fish species have been collected in the wild with 

Eastern elliptio glochidia lifestage attached to their gills, but transformation of the glochidia off 

the gill was not reported (Kneeland and Rhymer, 2008). During Duke Energy’s fish surveys, 

largemouth bass were collected more often than any other fish host species. Largemouth bass 

was collected from all 13 locations in which live Eastern elliptio were collected. Green sunfish 

was collected at eight of the locations in which live Eastern elliptio were collected. White 

crappie was collected in low abundance at one location (Bridgewater regulated river reach), and 

orangespotted sunfish was not collected from any of the 13 locations in which Eastern elliptio 

were collected. 

The variable spike has two reported fish hosts including the bluegill and largemouth bass 

(Keller and Ruessler, 1997). During Duke Energy’s fish surveys, bluegill was collected in 

relatively low abundance from most of the locations in which live variable spike also was 

collected, including the Catawba River bypassed reach, Wylie regulated river reach, Waxhaw 

Creek, and Grannies Quarter Creek (Duke Energy, 2005a). Bluegill was not collected in the 

Johns River during these same surveys. Largemouth bass also was collected from these same 

five locations. 

The pondhorn has one reported fish host, which is the golden shiner (Cummings and 

Watters, 2004). During Duke Energy’s fish surveys, golden shiner was collected in only three of 

the six locations in which live pondhorn were collected, including the Mountain Island tailrace 

(1 individual), Fishing Creek (10 individuals), and Wateree regulated river reach (27 individuals) 

(Duke Energy, 2005a). Golden shiner was not collected during fish surveys in the Cowans Ford 

tailrace, Wylie regulated river reach, or Great Falls reservoir. Historic records, also reported in 

table 25 of Duke Energy’s fish survey, indicate that the golden shiner has not been collected in 

the Wylie regulated river reach since 1973. Given that the pondhorn mussel had the greatest 

abundance (48 individuals) at the Wylie Development compared to any other survey location, it 

appears that other fish host species, not yet reported in the scientific literature, are likely 

supporting this small mussel population. 

Resident Fish 

A comprehensive reservoir investigation program was designed and initiated in the early 

1990s to characterize the fishery resources of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Conducted 

annually from 1993 through 1997 and every 3 years subsequently (with the exception of Lake 

Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie, which were conducted annually), the program 

included creel surveys, fish health assessments, littoral (shoreline) fish community assessments 

using electrofishing, and limnetic (open water) fish community assessments using 

hydroacoustics and purse seine sampling (Duke Energy, 2003). As part of relicensing studies, 

Duke Energy has conducted a survey and assessment of freshwater fish communities in various 

locations in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, within and adjacent to the project area (Coughlan 

et al., 2005a). The objectives of this study were to conduct fish community surveys in bypassed 

river reaches, regulated river reaches, tailrace areas, and major tributaries of the CatawbaWateree Project. Additionally, this study involved field sampling to assess the presence and 

relative abundance of several rare members of the sucker family, robust redhorse, Carolina 

141 
redhorse, and highfin carpsuckers in the regulated reaches downstream of the Bridgewater, 

Wylie, and Wateree Developments. 

The reservoir studies found relatively high fish species diversity in the project’s 

reservoirs, ranging from 25 species in Great Falls reservoir to 38 species in Lake James. 

Reservoir characteristics such as high nutrient content and long retention times influence the 

high fish diversity observed in the reservoirs. Based on electrofishing data, total littoral (shore 

zone) fish biomass averaged 88.5 kilograms per kilometer (kg/km), ranging from 20.3 kg/km in 

the forebay area of Lake Norman to 191.1 kg/km in the upper Catawba River arm of Lake James. 

A total of 56 different species and a hybrid sunfish complex were collected by littoral 

electrofishing throughout the project area. Black basses averaged 37 percent of total littoral 

biomass, primarily consisting of largemouth bass. Sunfish (bluegill, redear, and redbreast) 

numerically dominated total fish catches throughout the project’s reservoirs, accounting for 

70 percent of fish sampled on average (Duke Energy, 2003). Based on hydroacoustic data 

collected by Duke Energy, 1997 to 2003, mean density of limnetic (open water) forage fish 

ranged from 887 fish per hectare on the Linville River arm of Lake James to 29,252 fish per 

hectare on Lake Wateree. Purse seine sampling conducted from 1993 to 2003 indicated that both 

threadfin and gizzard shad were important components of the limnetic forage fish communities 

on Lakes James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, and Lookout Shoals; relative abundance of these species 

was quite variable among years. On Lake Norman and downstream reservoirs, threadfin shad 

dominated limnetic forage fish communities. Alewife were first collected in purse seine samples 

on Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake in 1999, presumably introduced by release of angler 

bait fish. The relative abundance of alewife has increased rapidly on both lakes since 1999, and 

the species appeared downstream in Lake Wylie purse seine samples in 2001. Management of 

the fisheries in these reservoirs has included frequent stocking of forage fishes such as threadfin 

shad and sunfish, and game fishes such as striped bass and white bass. 

Bypassed river reaches (Catawba River, Paddy Creek, Mountain Island, and the Great 

Falls Long bypassed reaches) exhibited marginal fish communities likely related to restricted 

flows and impaired water quality. The fish community and water quality further downstream in 

the Catawba River bypassed reach improved dramatically after the confluence of Muddy Creek. 

Regulated river reaches below Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree dams were subject to 

altered flows and seasonal reductions in DO. Reduced water temperatures in the Bridgewater 

regulated river reach as a result of releases of cooler deep water from the dam have allowed 

North Carolina WRC to effectively manage this reach as a coldwater trout fishery including a 

stocking program. Fish communities in the Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated river reaches 

are typical of Piedmont and Coastal Plain rivers in the Southeast, but could benefit from 

improved flows and seasonal enhancement of DO concentrations. Tailraces had generally better 

fish populations (i.e., more species and higher numbers of individuals) in both spring and 

summer than the downstream reservoir locations. Tailrace data indicated diverse fish 

populations in the vicinity of the dams. Fish populations in tributary streams upstream of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project boundary are typical of fish communities in these order streams 

regionally; water quality and watershed impacts at locations upstream of the sampling site 

appeared to be the main determinants of the health and diversity of stream fish communities. 

Robust and Carolina redhorses and highfin carpsucker were not collected in these surveys or 

other studies in the recent past on the Catawba or Wateree Rivers. 

142 
The following findings relative to the resident fish resources are presented in 

exhibit E 3.1 of the relicensing application. 

Bypassed River Reaches 

• All bypassed reaches exhibited marginal fish habitat and communities. 

• The Catawba River bypassed reach, downstream of its confluence with Muddy 

Creek, exhibited a diverse fish community. 

• The majority of the Paddy Creek, Mountain Island, and Great Falls bypassed 

reaches do not contain water; where flow is available, the fish community is 

marginal. 

• Between spill events in the Great Falls bypassed reach, the channel dries out, 

isolated pools become inhospitable to aquatic life due to adverse water 

quality conditions such as increased temperatures, and low dissolved oxygen. 

Regulated River Reaches 

• Stream segments downstream of the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree 

dams were subject to altered flows, seasonal reductions in dissolved oxygen 

(DO), and for the Bridgewater regulated river reach, reduced water 

temperatures. 

• Fish communities in the Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated river reaches 

were representative of southeastern fish communities, but communities were 

not sampled during periods of low DO. 

• Enabled by the cool water discharged from the bottom of Lake James, the 

Bridgewater regulated river reach is managed as a trout fishery by the 

NCWRC. 

Tailraces (Non-Regulated River Reaches) 

• In general, more fish species were collected in each tailrace than in the 

immediate downstream reservoir. 

• Catches of fish per hour of sampling time were higher in tailraces than in the 

immediate downstream reservoir in the spring and summer. 

Wadeable Tributary Streams 

• Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) ratings for all sampled tributary streams 

ranged from Poor to Excellent. 

• North Carolina streams were rated Good to Excellent, except for the location 

below the Catawba Dam on the Catawba River bypassed reach, which rated 

as Poor. 

• The Catawba River bypassed reach, immediately downstream of the Catawba 

Dam (Bridgewater Development), had low DO, elevated conductivity, and 

limited fish habitat. 

• IBI ratings in South Carolina streams ranged from Poor to Excellent. 

143 
• All SC tributary streams except Grannies Quarter Creek exhibited elevated 

conductivities indicative of man-induced impacts. 

• In general, IBI ratings reflected local upstream conditions and activities in the 

watershed. 

Rare Suckers 

• Surveys for robust and Carolina redhorse and highfin carpsucker in the 

vicinity of gravel bars, cobble, and boulders in spring (when fish should be 

concentrated in spawning aggregations) were conducted, but none of these 

rare sucker species was collected. 

• These results indicate that the rare sucker species may be extremely 

uncommon or absent, which is consistent with other river basins. 

• Five species of suckers were collected in the Catawba River below the Wylie 

Dam and six species were collected in the Wateree River, but no individuals of 

the three targeted species were collected. 

Reservoir Fishery 

• The number of fish species, age class distributions, and abundances varied 

substantially among the Catawba-Wateree Reservoirs. 

• Total fish abundance, as measured by weight, tended to increase in 

downstream reservoirs as reservoir fertility increased, suggesting that food 

abundance was a significant factor. 

• Largemouth bass, sunfish, crappie, and catfish abundance tended to increase 

with reservoir fertility. 

• Factors other than fertility may also be regulating fish abundance in Fishing 

Creek Reservoir and the upper reaches of Lake Wateree. 

• Open water forage fish communities of Lakes James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, and 

Lookout Shoals consisted of gizzard and threadfin shad; the relative 

abundance of these two species was extremely variable among years, 

potentially due to the susceptibility of threadfin shad to winter die-offs at 

water temperatures below 9°C. 

• The open water forage fish communities of Lakes Norman, Mountain Island, 

Wylie, and Wateree consisted almost entirely of threadfin shad. 

• Alewife, an exotic and mobile species that affects fish population dynamics, 

was found in Lake Norman initially and has since spread to Mountain Island 

Lake and Lake Wylie; the relative abundance of alewife on Lakes Norman and 

Mountain Island has increased rapidly since its suspected introduction by 

fishermen. 

• The reservoirs provide important sport fisheries for a number of fish species. 

• Sunfish were the most frequently harvested (by number) fish in Lake James 

144 
• Striped bass constituted the largest percentage of total sport fish harvest (by 

weight) on Lakes Rhodhiss and Hickory, and are important on Lakes Wateree 

and Norman as well. 

• Crappie constituted the largest percentage of total harvest by weight on Lake 

Norman, Mountain Island Lake, Fishing Creek Reservoir, Cedar Creek 

Reservoir, and Lake Wateree. 

• On Lake Wylie, both largemouth bass and crappie were major components of 

total harvest in terms of weight and numbers harvested, respectively. 

Diadromous Fish 

Relicensing of the Catawba-Wateree Project must consider the status of diadromous fish 

species in the Catawba-Wateree River and the potential for restoration of the runs of these 

species to their historic spawning grounds. Diadromous fish species migrate between freshwater 

and marine environments and include anadromous and catadromous species. Anadromous 

species of concern (i.e., those that spend the majority of their life cycle in saltwater and spawn in 

freshwater) include: shortnose sturgeon, Atlantic sturgeon, blueback herring, hickory shad, and 

American shad. Restoration of the catadromous American eel (i.e., a species that spends the 

majority of its life cycle in freshwater and spawns in saltwater) also will be considered 

throughout its historic range in the drainage basin. Historic distributions of American shad are 

well documented in the vicinity of the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments. Blueback 

herring distributions are not well documented. American eel have been documented throughout 

the Catawba-Wateree River Basin upstream as far as Marion, North Carolina. Sturgeon also 

have been documented (without clear differentiation between species) upstream to the vicinity of 

the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, but not further upstream (Newcomb and Fuller, 

2001) and are discussed further in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

Diadromous species restoration throughout the Santee-Cooper Basin is a goal of South 

Carolina DNR, FWS, and NOAA. A restoration plan entitled Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous 

Fish Passage Restoration Plan has been submitted to the Commission (FWS et al., 2001) and 

approved as a comprehensive plan. This plan calls for the majority of fish restoration to occur in 

the Broad River drainage of the Congaree River. The Congaree River and the Wateree River 

join to form the Santee River in central South Carolina. While fish restoration in the Wateree 

River, and by inference the Catawba River, is a lesser goal of the restoration plan, the 

Commission’s relicensing process provides resource agencies a valuable opportunity to 

implement various sections of the plan. The Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish 

Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement is a cooperative partnership among Duke Energy, 

South Carolina Electric and Gas, South Carolina DNR, North Carolina WRC, and FWS for 

implementation of a 10-year action plan that includes no-sooner-than dates and biological 

triggers for fish passage to support restoration of these species. In conjunction with this accord, 

preliminary prescriptions for fish passage to support upstream migration of diadromous species 

at the Catawba-Wateree Project have been submitted to staff by FWS. 

An evaluation of diadromous fish use of the Wateree River was made during spring 2004 

and 2005 (Coughlan et al., 2005b). Five locations in the Wateree River, from the confluence of 

the Wateree and Congaree Rivers to the Wateree hydro tailrace, were electrofished biweekly 

from March 3 through July 1, 2004. Fifty-four hours of electrofishing time were expended in the 

Wateree River in 2004. Six locations were electrofished on the Wateree River in 2005, with 

145 
much of the sampling occurring weekly, for a total of 79.4 hours of electrofishing time. Gillnets 

were fished at five locations in 2005 for a total of 538 hours of soak time. Eel traps were 

deployed in 2005 at six locations, for a total effort of 116 trap-weeks, to estimate American eel 

abundance. 

American eel were infrequently collected in 2004 and 2005, by both electrofishing and 

baited traps, and previous sampling studies have demonstrated similarly low success rates. 

Installation of an eel ramp and trap at the Wateree hydro in 2005 was more productive, resulting 

in the collection of 59 elvers from March 15 to June 23. Eel ramp sampling from February to 

June 2006 produced 24 elvers. 

Anadromous blueback herring typically spawn within inundated flood plains such as 

found in the lower part of the Wateree River. Blueback herring adults were collected in low 

numbers in 2004 and 2005. During 2004 they were generally found in the Wateree Development 

tailrace in late March and April; in 2005 blueback herring were found throughout the river in 

early April. Freshwater resident blueback herring and alewife were found in the both the 

Wateree and Congaree Rivers and probably originated from upstream reservoirs. No hickory 

shad were observed during 2004 and 2005 and previous sampling exercises have documented 

few individuals of this species in the Wateree River. 

Approximately 200,000 to 500,000 American shad are passed above the Santee-Cooper 

dams (approximately 105 miles downstream of Wateree dam) each spring. The overall numbers 

of American shad and blueback herring collected in the Wateree River were lower than expected, 

given the numbers passed into the basin at the Santee-Cooper dams. Relatively low numbers of 

adult American shad (119 to 258) were found predominantly in the lower Coastal Plain reach of 

the Wateree River, and fewer shad were found in the lower Piedmont during both 2004 and 

2005. Adult American shad usage of the upper portion of the Wateree regulated river reach with 

typical spawning substrates of gravel, cobble, and rock were limited in both years. Yearling 

American shad were observed in similar abundance to adults in 2004 during the same time frame 

that adult spawners were present in the Wateree regulated river reach; few yearling American 

shad were captured in 2005. Most yearlings were collected in the Wateree tailrace. 

Anadromous striped bass enter the Santee-Cooper Basin, and landlocked populations are 

present in several of the impoundments of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The landlocked striped 

bass populations in the project area are not self-sustaining, but are managed by the states through 

a stocking program. 

Special Status Species 

American Eel—American eel is currently a federal species of concern and was proposed 

for listing as threatened or endangered by FWS in 2005. The Federal Register listed the 

following as reasons for American eel decline: seaweed harvest in spawning areas of the 

Atlantic Ocean, loss of wetlands, alterations of streamflow, loss of upper tributary habitat, 

disease, predation, hydropower turbines, contaminants, changes in oceanographic conditions, and 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. Other acts 

protecting the American eel include the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries 

Cooperative Management Act. American eels spawn in the Atlantic Ocean. During the first 

year of life, early lifestages drift with ocean currents towards the coast. Juveniles known as 

elvers migrate into estuaries and ascend rivers. Eels mature to the yellow eel stage in these rivers 

146 
and streams before maturing to adults. American eels are known to live as long as 40 years 

before transforming into the silver eel stage and returning to the ocean to spawn. Their 

utilization and distribution in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin is discussed above in the section 

entitled Diadromous Fish. As part of the license application, Duke Energy has prepared a 

species protection plan for American eel. Preliminary prescriptions for upstream and 

downstream passage of eels have been filed by FWS. NOAA has reserved its authority to submit 

additional prescriptions if needed at a later time. 

Flat Bullhead and Snail Bullhead—The flat bullhead and snail bullhead are small catfish 

species distributed throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, but are listed as 

state species of concern due to population declines in many southeastern rivers. Duke Energy 

has drafted a species protection plan for these two species to provide information for the 

continued maintenance of bullhead habitat and protection from human disturbance. The two 

species are similar in appearance and have overlapping geographic ranges and habitat preference. 

Flat bullhead inhabit low to medium gradient streams primarily in pools and slow water, while 

snail bullhead prefer medium to high gradient streams residing in pools and riffles. No specific 

threats to populations of these species have been identified. Both species are distributed 

throughout the project area. 

Snail bullhead were collected during fish community surveys from the Catawba River 

bypassed reach (above and below Muddy Creek), Rhodhiss tailrace, Oxford regulated river 

reach, Wylie regulated river reach, Fishing Creek tailrace, Great Falls and Dearborn tailraces, 

lower Great Falls Long bypassed reach, Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek tailraces, and Wateree 

regulated river reach immediately downstream of the dam. 

Flat bullhead were collected in the Catawba River bypassed reach below Muddy Creek, 

Paddy Creek bypassed reach, Rhodhiss tailrace, Oxford regulated river reach, Mountain Island 

tailrace, Wylie regulated river reach, Fishing Creek tailrace, Great Falls and Dearborn tailraces, 

Great Falls Long bypassed reach, Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek tailraces, and Wateree regulated 

river reach immediately downstream of the dam. Flat bullheads also were collected in 9 of 11 

wadeable tributaries sampled from upstream of Lake James to Lake Wateree. 

Robust Redhorse—The robust redhorse has been determined to be significantly rare by 

the North Carolina Heritage Program and the South Carolina Heritage Trust, and is a federal 

species of concern, but has no specific regulatory protection. Habitat modification appears to be 

a primary factor affecting the decline of the species. Watershed disturbances that result in 

erosion have had a negative effect on the species by increasing sediment load to streams which 

bury gravel substrate essential to robust redhorse for spawning and larval development. 

Freshwater mollusks are a major source of food for the redhorse and also are sensitive to 

sedimentation; many native populations of freshwater mussel species are in decline through 

much of their range. Populations of robust redhorse exist in the Oconee, Ocmulgee, Savannah, 

and Pee Dee Rivers. Sampling conducted during 2004 to 2005 specifically for rare catastomid 

species did not collect robust redhorse or another rare redhorse species, Carolina redhorse; a 

third rare catastomid, highfin carpsucker, was captured in the Congaree, but not in the CatawbaWateree River Basin. The highfin carpsucker and Carolina redhorse are listed in the states of 

North Carolina and South Carolina as species of special concern. An intensive 2-year effort to 

search for spawning aggregations of suckers in 2004 and 2005 in the Wateree River yielded no 

robust redhorse or two other target rare suckers, the highback carpsucker and the Carolina 

redhorse. South Carolina DNR has undertaken a project to introduce robust redhorse into the 

147 
Wateree and Broad Rivers of South Carolina. Approximately 7,100 juvenile robust redhorse 

were released into the Wateree River in November and December 2005, with more to follow in 

subsequent years. The Robust Redhorse Conservation Strategy (2003) was written to encourage 

partnerships between public and private sectors in the conservation of the redhorse and its 

habitat; Duke Energy is a member of the Robust Redhorse Conservation Committee. Duke 

Energy has indicated that it will continue to support the Robust Redhorse Conservation 

Committee as it has since the inception of the Committee in 1995. Duke Energy has prepared a 

species protection plan for the robust redhorse as part of this relicensing process. 

Freshwater Mussels—Twenty-four species of freshwater mussels have been documented 

from the Santee-Cooper River Basin during the past two centuries; 17 of these species were 

collected in the Catawba-Wateree Project area during the relicensing studies (AES, 2005). 

Seven of the 17 species found in the project area are either federally or state (North or South 

Carolina, or both) listed as endangered, threatened, or special concern. These include the 

following: creeper/squawfoot, Eastern creekshell, paper pondshell, Roanoke slabshell, yellow 

lampmussel, Eastern pondmussel, notched rainbow, and rayed pink fatmucket. According to 

AES (2005), approximately 500 river/stream reaches have been surveyed within the CatawbaWateree River Basin during the last 20 years. Approximately 60 percent of these sampled 

reaches provided no evidence of an extant mussel fauna, and less than 25 percent provided 

habitat suitable for the Eastern elliptio or the variable spike, two of the most tolerant and 

abundant mussel species in the region. Generally, the healthier populations of North and South 

Carolina freshwater mussels occur in clean water flowing through forested landscapes. Because 

mature mussels are predominantly sessile organisms incapable of avoidance or escape, 

freshwater mussels are very susceptible to changes in their environment. Various threats to the 

viability of their populations include agriculture, wood harvesting, and other land use practices 

that increase erosion and sediment load to streams; impoundment of free-flowing streams and 

rivers; competition from exotic species introductions (e.g., Asiatic clam); changes in water 

temperature, water level, and DO; nutrient loading; and toxic chemicals from point and nonpoint sources. More detailed information on the distribution of these species within the project 

area was provided in the discussion in the section above entitled Freshwater Mussels. 

Seven species of freshwater mussel listed as species of concern by North Carolina, South 

Carolina, or both have been documented during recent sampling from the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area. These include the following: 

• Yellow lampmussel is listed as a state endangered species by North Carolina, a 

species of special concern by South Carolina, and a federal species of concern. 

Fifteen individuals of this species were collected only from the regulated reach below 

the Wateree Development during the AES (2005) surveys. 

• Creeper/squawfoot is listed as state threatened in North Carolina and a species of 

special concern in South Carolina. AES (2005) collected the species at the 

Bridgewater, Lookout Shoals, Mountain Island bypass, and Wylie Developments. 

• Eastern creekshell is listed as a species of special concern in South Carolina. AES 

(2005) collected the Eastern creekshell at the Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Mountain 

Island, and Wylie Developments. 

148 
• Paper pondshell is listed as a species of special concern by South Carolina. AES 

(2005) collected the paper pondshell at six developments from Mountain Island 

downstream to Wateree with the exception of Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek. 

• Roanoke slabshell is listed as state threatened in North Carolina. AES (2005) 

collected Roanoke slabshell at the Wylie and Wateree Developments; no specimens 

were collected in North Carolina. The Roanoke slabshell was the most abundant 

mussel collected (65 individuals) at Wateree, mostly in the regulated reach. 

• Eastern pondmussel, state threatened in North Carolina, was collected only at the 

Wateree regulated river reach (AES, 2005). 

• Notched rainbow is listed as a species of special concern in both North and South 

Carolina. AES (2005) collected the species at the Bridgewater and Rhodhiss 

Developments. At Bridgewater they were collected in Lake James, Catawba River 

bypassed reach, and Muddy Creek; at Rhodhiss they were collected in the Johns 

River and Warrior Forks. 

In addition, the rayed pink fatmucket is a species of special concern in South Carolina. 

Although several relic shells were found below the Wateree dam, no live specimens were 

collected at any sampling locations. No species-specific management plan for any of these 

mussels has been prepared by either state. Duke Energy has prepared species protection plans 

for each of these species and proposed to continue monitoring freshwater mussels at selected 

locations influenced by hydro operations at 5-year intervals for the duration of the license. 

3.3.3.2 Environmental Effects 

Reservoir Fluctuations 

The Catawba-Wateree Project developments are typically operated for load-following 

peaking power generation. Reservoir surface elevations fluctuate daily and seasonally in 

response to power generation operations, and seasonal and long-term weather conditions and 

associated natural inflow. Water surface fluctuations can affect the amount and quality of 

shallow water shoreline habitat available to aquatic resources including growth and distribution 

of aquatic vegetation, benthic invertebrates, and spawning, nursery, and feeding habitat for fish. 

The spawning success of fish species that utilize shallow bottom habitat for spawning (e.g., nest 

building sunfish and bass) can be particularly affected by water level fluctuations. 

To enhance lake spawning habitat, the Revised CRA proposes a new license article 

(PM&E 2.0), the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program. The proposed new license 

article formalizes a voluntary program currently in effect at the four reservoirs subject to winter 

draw-down and the most variable water surface elevations. In consultation with state agencies in 

North and South Carolina, Duke Energy has proposed to implement a program to protect and 

enhance near-shore spawning habitat by providing stable water surface elevations during 

3 weeks in the spring at Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree. These are 

the primary storage reservoirs within the project; spring water levels in the other project 

reservoirs are more stable than these four. The range of lake level fluctuations proposed in the 

Revised CRA are generally larger than occur under current operations, but are necessary to 

balance the use of the reservoir, generating operations and downstream interests. The proposed 

Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program for Catawba-Wateree developments will provide 

149 
more stable reservoir levels from early spring through early summer, reducing the risk of 

reservoir level decreases during the spring/early summer spawning season. 

The programs at each of the four developments will be implemented based on a water 

temperature trigger or observation of bass spawning activity. A surface water temperature 

monitoring station will be established at each reservoir to provide real-time temperature trigger 

data. Lake levels will be held within 1 ft below and 2 ft above the level existing at that time the 

stabilization program is initiated. 

Our Analysis 

The Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program has been proposed to enhance 

spawning habitat for fish, such as black bass, crappie, and sunfish, which spawn in near-shore 

habitat during spring. These species are well established in the project reservoirs and support a 

significant recreational fishery. The license application includes study reports for the Fish 

Community Assessment (Aquatics 01) and Reservoir Fish Habitat Assessment (Aquatics 02). 

These reports indicate the success of these littoral spawners. Black bass (primarily largemouth 

bass) averaged 37 percent of the total littoral biomass; sunfish (bluegill and redbreast) 

numerically dominated the total fish catches throughout the project’s reservoirs, accounting for 

70 percent of the fish sampled on average. 

We conclude that the actions formalized in the Revised CRA to stabilize spring reservoir 

levels will improve and enhance spawning habitat for important sport fish species that utilize the 

littoral zone for spawning in the spring. The effectiveness of this program and fine-tuning the 

trigger temperatures for each reservoir will be accomplished by Duke Energy in consultation 

with the involved state agencies from North and South Carolina. 

Instream Flow Through Regulated Reaches 

Eight of the developments (Rhodhiss, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing Creek, 

Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek) discharge generation flows directly into 

the backwater of the next downstream impoundment. These projects have requirements for 

minimum average daily flow and, in the case of Cowans Ford and Mountain Island, continuous 

minimum releases in the existing license. No changes to these discharge requirements are 

proposed in the Revised CRA, and no alternative flows for aquatic resources have been 

recommended by any agency or other commentor. FWS did not list a minimum average daily 

flow for Rhodhiss in its June 4, 2008, comments on the Notice of Application Ready for 

Environmental Analysis; we assume that this may have been an oversight and have maintained 

the same minimum average daily flow for Rhodhiss. Given that there are generally no riverine 

reaches below each of these developments during the normal operating range of water surface 

elevations, the proposed continuation of minimum average daily flows will ensure the same flow 

conditions that have supported the existing aquatic resources in the downstream impoundments 

under the existing license. 

The Revised CRA proposes new minimum continuous releases for the Bridgewater, 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, and Wateree Developments that are generally higher than under 

the existing license. The proposed minimum continuous flows for the Oxford (150 cfs), Lookout 

Shoals (80 cfs), and Wylie (1,100 cfs) Developments are constant throughout the year. During 

specific high inflow conditions, the Wylie High Inflow Protocol will be implemented, increasing 

the minimum continuous flow from 1,100 to 1,300 cfs during the period of February 15 to 

150 
May 15. The Revised CRA proposes seasonally variable minimum continuous flows at the 

Bridgewater and Wateree Developments to support fish spawning. 

American Rivers/Coastal Conservation League (AR/CCL) and the Catawba Riverkeeper 

(CR) have recommended alternative seasonal continuous minimum flows for resident and 

anadromous fish that are generally higher than the Revised CRA for the Wylie and Wateree 

Developments to support anadromous fish spawning (tables 29 and 30). In order to spawn in the 

Wylie regulated river reach, anadromous fish will first need to pass the six downstream 

developments, which, based on the preliminary section 18 fish passage prescriptions, is not likely 

to occur during the first 10 years of the new license. FWS and NOAA Fisheries have agreed 

with the minimum continuous flows recommended in the Revised CRA for Wylie and Wateree 

including implementation of the Wylie High Inflow Protocol and the Wateree Spring Stable 

Flow Protocol. We agree that Duke Energy, FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and South Carolina DNR 

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. NOAA Fisheries has 

indicated that supplemental flows to support diadromous fish should be re-evaluated in the future 

after implementation of fish passage prescriptions. For completeness we provide the following 

analysis of the recommended alternative flows to assess their benefit to anadromous fish relative 

to those proposed in the Revised CRA. 

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

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

Time period CRA FWS, NOAA Fisheries AR/CCL, CR 

January 1,100 1,100 1,100 

February 1,100 (High inflow 1,300) Wylie 1,400 

Mar-April 1,100 (High inflow 1,300) High Inflow 1,800 

May 1,100 (High inflow 1,300) Protocol 1,400 

June-December 1,100 1,100 1,100 

151 
Table 30. Summary of proposed minimum continuous flow (cfs) alternatives to support 

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

Time period CRA FWS, NOAA Fisheries AR/CCL, CR 

January 930 930 2,400 

February 1-14 930 930 3,700 

February 15 -29 2,400 Wateree 3,700 

March 2,700 Spring 3,700 

April 2,700 Stable 2,700 

May 1-15 2,400 Flow 2,400 

May 16-31 1,250 Protocol 2,400 

June-December 930 930 930 

Minimum continuous flows proposed in the Revised CRA for these two developments 

were based on analysis of the relationship between flow and aquatic habitat using Index C as a 

metric of habitat based on weighted useable area (WUA). Model simulations were presented in 

the instream flow assessment report for existing conditions, unregulated flows (without the dam), 

leakage flow, critical flow, and the modified mutual gains scenario for proposed operations. The 

proposed flows for the modified mutual gains scenario attempt to balance the varying and 

sometimes conflicting optimum flow requirements for the range of resident and diadromous 

aquatic species that utilize the reach. Data for alternate flow scenarios are not available in the 

instream flow assessment report. In order to evaluate the alternative flow recommendations, we 

have analyzed the underlying WUA curves for the target species and lifestages, in this case, 

spawning and maturation habitat for American shad at both developments and spawning habitat 

for sturgeon at Wateree. 

Our analysis for the Wylie Development is based on data interpolated from the WUA 

simulation curves weighted for four study sites as presented in the instream flow assessment 

report: subreach 1, study sites 1 (5.5 percent) and 2 (23 percent); subreach 2 (27.3 percent); and 

subreach 3 (44.1 percent). The proposed flow-associated WUA for American shad spawning 

and percent of maximum WUA for each time period are summarized in table 31 for the Revised 

CRA proposal and alternative recommendations. The model simulation estimates that the 

maximum WUA for American shad spawning in the Wylie regulated river reach occurs at 

approximately 3,750 cfs. 

During the peak spawning period of March to April, the 1,100 cfs proposed in the 

Revised CRA would provide 56 percent of the maximum WUA, while the 1,300 cfs proposed 

during high inflow at the Wylie Development would achieve 64.5 percent of the maximum 

WUA. The alternatives recommend 1,800 cfs during March to April providing 77.4 percent of 

the maximum WUA. This is an increase of 21.4 percent, or 12.9 percent compared to the 

Revised CRA proposal at normal and high inflow, respectively. During the early (January to 

February) and late (May) portion of the American shad spawning migration, the effect is less; the 

alternative recommendations result in an increase of 11.6 percent relative to the Revised CRA. 

152 
153 

The flow scenario for the Wateree Development proposed in the Revised CRA would 

achieve more than 97 percent of the maximum WUA for the Wateree regulated river reach 

during peak American shad spawning (table 32). The increase in continuous minimum discharge 

from 2,700 to 3,700 cfs between the beginning of February and the end of March as 

recommended in the alternatives would increase spawning habitat by 17.3 percent during the first 

half of February, but would slightly reduce the WUA from mid-February through March. 
Table 31. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA and alternative f

recommended by AR/CCL and CR for the Wylie regulated river reach. (Source: Duke Energy, 2

CRA AR/CCL, CR 

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of MJanuary 1,100 221,815 56.0 1,100 221,815 56.0 February 1-14 1,100 221,815 56.0 1,400 267,550 67.6 February 15-29 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56 .0 64.5 1,400 267,550 67.6 March 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56.0 64.5 1,800 306,255 77.4 April 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56.0 64.5 1,800 306,255 77.4 May 1-15 1,100 1,300 221,815 255,280 56.0 64.5 1,400 267,550 67.6 May 16-31 1,100 221,815 56.0 1,400 267,550 67.6 Maximum 3,750 395,895 3,750 395,895 

154 
155 

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

recommended by FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and AR/CCL for the Wateree regulated river reach. (So

2006a) 

CRA AR/CCL, CR 

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of MJanuary 930 136,802 75.6 2,400 176,542 97February 1-14 930 136,802 75.6 3,700 167,988 92February 15-29 2,400 176,542 97.6 3,700 167,988 92March 2,700 175,708 97.2 3,700 167,988 92April 2,700 175,708 97.2 2,700 175,708 97May 1-15 2,400 176,542 97.6 2,400 176,542 97May 16-31 1,250 160,120 88.5 2,400 176,542 97Maximum 180,843 180,843 
Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 

The Maintenance and Emergency Protocol appropriately provides for replacement of 

resources lost during a Maintenance and Emergency Protocol 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. 

NOAA Fisheries has recommended the establishment of a Catawba-Wateree Project 

Fisheries Technical Committee comprised of NOAA Fisheries, FWS, North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DHEC, Duke Energy, and nongovernmental conservation organizations to review monitoring and evaluation studies, operating 

plans, and maintenance issues within the project. 

Our Analysis 

We conclude that mitigation for the loss of resources may be necessary in some 

situations; however, we find 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 and a diversity of “minnows” also may not be 

necessary. The FPA does not require 100 percent mitigation for fish losses at hydro facilities. 

We conclude that mitigation for fish losses that result from a Maintenance and Emergency 

Protocol event be evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering the species affected, the number 

of organisms affected, and the habitat, population, and community characteristics at the affected 

location. Where the populations and community are robust and healthy, monitoring or other 

habitat and resource management activities may be more beneficial than direct mitigation of the 

fish losses. We agree that an advisory group as recommended by NOAA Fisheries be 

established with representatives of Duke Energy, federal and state resource managers, and other 

stakeholders to evaluate and recommend appropriate mitigation for fish losses.

Instream Flow Through Bypassed Reaches 

Except for spillage during periods of high inflow, flow through existing bypassed reaches 

generally consists of leakage, groundwater seepage, and, in some cases, tributary inflow. As a 

result of these reduced flows and associated water quality constraints (for example, significant 

fluctuations in water temperatures), aquatic habitat is generally limited compared to conditions in 

an unregulated or regulated stream reach. There are six bypassed reaches at five developments 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project under the existing conditions. The Revised CRA proposes 

to implement continuous minimum flows for aquatic resources at three of these bypassed reaches 

(the Catawba River bypassed reach at the Bridgewater Development; the Long and Short 

bypassed reaches at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments) as part of relicensing. The 

flow recommendations in the Revised CRA are based on analysis and review by the Instream 

Flow Study Team of the studies conducted for these reaches. 

There are differing flow recommendations for the long bypassed reach at the Great Falls 

and Dearborn Developments. Under the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, the minimum 

156 
continuous flow in the Long bypassed reach would be 450 cfs year-round with an increase to 850 

cfs to accommodate spring spawning for approximately 8 weeks from mid-February to mid-May. 

FWS and NOAA Fisheries have recommended adoption of these minimum continuous flows for 

the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. AR/CCL and CR have recommended of 850 cfs in 

February, 1,500 cfs in March to mid-May, and 450 cfs for the rest of the year to accommodate 

resident and anadromous fish. 

Flow diversion from the Paddy Creek, Mountain Island, and Great Falls Short bypassed 

reaches would continue under normal operating conditions proposed in the Revised CRA. The 

Paddy Creek bypassed reach is only 0.5 mile long and approximately 2 acres in area. The 

Revised CRA considered the potential aquatic habitat gain by implementing minimum flows in 

the Paddy Creek bypassed reach to be minimal. Additionally, the Revised CRA determined that 

distribution of flows to the Catawba River bypassed reach and the regulated Linville River below 

the Linville dam was the most effective use of the water available for minimum releases at the 

Bridgewater Development to meet management goals for the trout fishery and protection of 

existing mussel populations. Water diverted to the Paddy Creek bypassed reach would be taken 

from the other two reaches. 

The Mountain Island bypassed reach provides habitat for an established population of the 

federally listed endangered Schweinitz’s’ sunflower. The bypassed reach is approximately 

0.6 mile long and 22 acres in area. The potential lotic habitat available by inundation of this 

reach is relatively small and would likely be less than the 0.6-mile length as flows in the 

bypassed reach would back up from the downstream impoundment. The Revised CRA 

determined that introduction of minimum flows necessary to enhance aquatic habitat would 

reduce habitat and threaten at least a portion of the established Schweinitz’s sunflower 

population. There is little benefit and high risk in transplanting the sunflower population that has 

established under existing conditions in the Mountain Island bypassed reach. It is our conclusion 

that the potential benefit of the increase in aquatic habitat associated with requiring continuous 

minimum flows would be outweighed by the risk to the population of the endangered 

Schweinitz’s’ sunflower. 

Instream flow and demonstration turbine flow studies at the bypassed reach below the 

Wateree spillway were conducted to assess potential aquatic habitat and spawning habitat 

available at various flows for resident and diadromous fish. The Revised CRA proposes 

minimum continuous flows from the powerhouse to the spillway channel and installation of a 

10,000-cfs-capacity bladder dam in the spillway to provide flexibility for high flow and flood 

management in Lake Wateree. Based on the results of instream flow studies, the Revised CRA 

found that flows necessary to provide adequate conditions for sturgeon spawning in the bypassed 

reach are not sustainable under average flow conditions without excessive draw-down of Lake 

Wateree and other upstream impoundments. The Revised CRA proposes that the Wateree River 

bypassed reach continue as a bypass under normal operating conditions. FWS and NOAA 

Fisheries have accepted these recommendations. AR/CCL and CR have requested that flows be 

provided to accommodate sturgeon spawning during late winter and spring. NOAA Fisheries 

pointed out that spawning populations of shortnose sturgeon are not likely to be present in the 

vicinity of the Wateree bypass during the life of the new license. 

The Revised CRA proposes protection and preservation of riparian buffer within the 

watershed to enhance water quality as mitigation for continued flow diversion at these three 

157 
bypassed reaches. FWS, EPA, and AR/CCL question the appropriateness and adequacy of the 

proposed mitigation for aquatic habitat. 

Our Analysis 

Our analysis focuses on the bypassed reaches of the Catawba-Wateree River where there 

is disagreement on the minimum flows proposed, or where the adequacy of proposed mitigation 

has been questioned. 

We conclude that the allocation of available water resources to the Linville regulated 

river reach and the Catawba River bypassed reach provides the most benefit to resident fish and 

that allocation of a portion of that water to the relatively small Paddy Creek bypassed reach 

would provide negligible new aquatic habitat at the cost of reducing the potential benefits to the 

other two reaches. 

No specific recommendations for alternate minimum flows have been submitted for the 

Catawba River bypassed reach or the Great Falls Short bypassed reach. FWS and NOAA 

Fisheries, in their comments on the Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Assessment, 

both accept the minimum continuous flows proposed in the Revised CRA to enhance aquatic 

habitat in the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. Both agencies request that flows for spring 

spawning of anadromous American shad be re-evaluated at a future time when implementation 

of fish passage prescriptions make this bypass accessible to this species. Additionally, AR/CCL 

and CR requested higher spring flows to support resident and anadromous fish. The most 

significant changes in minimum flows (from 850 to 1,500 cfs) were requested for the peak 

periods of spawning migration in March and April. 

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

anadromous fish spawning and maturation in the Great Falls Long bypassed 

reach. 

Time period CRA FWS, NOAA 

Fisheries AR/CCL, CR 

January 450 450 450 

February 1-14 450 450 850 

February 15-29 850 850 850 

Mar-April 850 850 1500 

May 1-15 850 850 850 

May 16-31 450 450 850 

June-December 450 450 450 

We reviewed the results of Duke Energy’s instream flow study for the 2.2-mile-long 

Great Falls Long bypassed reach and analyzed the differences in available spawning habitat for 

American shad estimated for each of these flow scenarios. Duke Energy’s study provided model 

simulations of WUA, total wetted area, and wetted perimeter. WUA is an index of available 

habitat (square feet per 1,000 linear feet of river) and was simulated over a range of discharge 

158 
159 

conditions (150 to 2,000 cfs) at the Long bypassed reach. Similarly, total wetted area simulated 

the total area inundated within the bypassed reach over a range of flows. Wetted perimeter 

provides an index of available habitat in terms of length of inundated substrate at specific 

transects across the reach. Increasing the flow from 850 to 1,500 cfs for March through midMay as proposed by AR/CCL and CR would result in an increase in wetted perimeter of 1.7 to 

11 percent based on the four transects simulated in Duke Energy’s analysis. The average depth 

at these transects increased approximately 0.4 to 0.7 ft (10 percent) over this flow range where 

average depths ranged from 4 to 7 ft. Total wetted area increased approximately 8 percent with a 

simulated increase in flow from 850 to 1,500 cfs. 

We analyzed the WUA figures presented in appendix I-2 of Duke Energy’s instream flow 

study report, to evaluate the potential benefit to American shad spawning habitat in the Great 

Falls Long bypassed reach by implementation of the alternate flows recommended by AR/CCL 

and CR. 

During the peak period of spawning for American shad in March and April, an increase 

of flow from 850 to 1,500 cfs would increase the WUA by 8.3 percent. Given an increase of 

more than 76 percent in flow, the associated 8.3 percent increase in habitat is negligible. The 

changes recommended for early in the season (early February) and late in the season (early May) 

would result in a 21 percent increase in WUA. 

Preliminary prescriptions for fish passage proposed by FWS require Duke Energy to 

provide fishways for anadromous American shad and blueback herring at the Wateree 

Development no later than January 1, 2018. FWS has recommended the design of a trap and 

transport (T&T) system for passage of anadromous fish at the Wateree dam. Until the number of 

American shad trapped exceeds 10,000, trapped fish will be released upstream into Lake 

Wateree; when the number of fish collected exceeds 10,000, they will be distributed to upstream 

reaches of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin within South Carolina. 

NOAA Fisheries recommended that the new license include provisions for the reevaluation and implementation of revised instream flows to support protection of anadromous 

fish spawning and maturation habitat if fish passage prescriptions provide access for American 

shad to this reach. 

Given this time table, it is clear that significant numbers of American shad are not likely 

to have access to the Great Falls Long bypassed reach for at least 10 years. Based on our review 

of the instream flow studies conducted by Duke Energy in support of the Revised CRA, we 

conclude that the minimum continuous flows proposed in the Revised CRA are adequate to 

enhance and protect aquatic resources in the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. The benefits of 

these minimum flows through the Great Falls Long bypassed reach should be adequately 

demonstrated during the intervening 10 years until the T&T program is implemented at the 

Wateree Development. Information related to availability of and utilization of habitat by 

resident and diadromous fish and operational experience of the project to provide these flows 

during that time will provide a stronger empirical basis for evaluation of the most appropriate 

flows to support anadromous fish spawning and maturation habitat within the operational 

constraints of the project. 
Table 34. Summary of WUA analysis for American shad spawning based on Revised CRA and alternative f

recommended by AR/CCL and CR for the Great Falls Long bypassed reach. 

CRA NOAA Fisheries, AR/CC

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/1,000 ft) % of MJan 450 103,000 61.3 450 103,000 61.3 February 1-14 450 103,000 61.3 850 139,000 82.7 February 15-29 850 139,000 82.7 850 139,000 82.7 March 850 139,000 82.7 1,500 153,000 91.1 Apr 850 139,000 82.7 1,500 153,000 91.1 May 1-15 850 139,000 82.7 850 139,000 82.7 May 16-31 450 103,000 61.3 850 139,000 82.7 Maximum 168,000 168,000 

160 
We conclude that minimum flows during the spring spawning season for anadromous fish 

proposed in the Revised CRA are adequate to support initial use of the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach by spawning American shad, which is not likely to occur in significant numbers 

before the T&T program is initiated in 2018. The effectiveness of these flows to create 

spawning and nursery habitat can be most effectively re-evaluated at such time that the 

prescriptions under FPA section 18 for fish passage at the downstream Wateree Development 

result in the presence of significant numbers of adult American shad in the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach. Modifications to the license articles stipulating revised minimum continuous 

flows can be made as appropriate at that time. 

AR/CCL and CR have requested additional flows to the Wateree tailrace and spillway 

channel to provide habitat in the Wateree bypassed reach to support sturgeon spawning. 

Minimum continuous flows proposed for the Wateree Development in the license application 

will not be adequate to inundate the Wateree bypassed reach adjacent to the spillway channel. 

The demonstration flow study showed that operation of at least four turbines is required to 

inundate significant portions of the bypass and that, under these discharge conditions, the water 

depths preferred by sturgeon for spawning habitat were generally not achieved in most of the 

Wateree bypassed reach. Alternative structural modifications to the bypass to redirect flows 

were evaluated by the Aquatic Resources Committee, but were not found to be effective and 

feasible given the configuration and slope of the bypass area. During periods of high inflow or 

in anticipation of major storm events, the proposed bladder dam at the Wateree spillway may 

provide up to 10,000 cfs additional flow to the spillway channel; however, availability of these 

discharges is weather dependent and cannot be relied on or generated within the project outside 

of such weather events. During the design and determination of the location for construction of 

the bladder dam, consideration should be given to whether the device could be used to 

effectively inundate the bypassed reach at least during high flow events. Given that neither 

Atlantic nor shortnose sturgeon currently utilize the Wateree River, it is our conclusion that it is 

not necessary or feasible to provide flows adequate to inundate the Wateree bypassed reach at 

this time in order to support sturgeon spawning. At such time as significant numbers of sturgeon 

are found in the vicinity of the Wateree Development, these findings may warrant re-evaluation 

along with consideration of fish passage options. 

Flow Mitigation Package for Less Than Target Streamflow for Aquatic Habitat 

The consultation records presented in the license application for the Instream Flow and 

Aquatic Resources committees document the iterative process undertaken to reach agreement on 

minimum flows in bypassed and regulated reaches of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The 

CHEOPS model was used to evaluate the effect of recommended flows at various reaches on 

reservoir storage in the project, and on water surface elevation, critical reservoir levels, power 

generation, and operating flexibility. Optimum flows for target aquatic resources were selected 

based on WUA and Index C simulations from the instream flow study and used as input to the 

CHEOPS model. These flow recommendations were identified regardless of whether or not the 

existing equipment and configuration at the developments could actually operate at the 

recommended flows or whether the flows could be reliably balanced among the developments. 

If CHEOPS indicated that flow recommendations would result in excessive draw-down, or 

earlier or more frequent implementation of the Low Inflow Protocol, alternative 

recommendations or rebalancing flows among regulated and bypassed reaches were considered 

and CHEOPS was rerun. 

161 
EPA stated that minimum flow proposals must demonstrate consistency with the 

traditional approach of avoidance, minimization, and then mitigation to address less than optimal 

flows or reaches with no proposed minimum flow. We conclude that the process documented in 

the consultation record clearly demonstrates the effort to avoid and minimize impacts in balance 

with other competing demands on the resources. The flows proposed in the Revised CRA 

represent the consensus of the Aquatic Resource Committee for the seasonal allocation of 

available water among bypassed and regulated reaches at the project developments for support of 

aquatic resources. Continuous minimum flows will be provided in three bypassed reaches 

providing the greatest aquatic habitat gain for the first time in more than 80 years. Five regulated 

reaches will receive continuous minimum flows for the first time or flows significantly higher 

than under the existing license. Stable spring flows and gradual reductions in operations at the 

end of high spring flow events will enhance inundation and spawning habitat in the flood plain 

downstream of the Wateree Development. 

The Revised CRA proposes mitigation for project effects on aquatic habitat in riverine 

reaches that will continue to be bypassed by flow under normal operation in the proposed 

relicensing conditions (Paddy Creek bypassed reach, Mountain Island bypassed reach, and 

Wateree Spillway Channel bypassed reach). Also, the Revised CRA includes mitigation for 

regulated reaches (Oxford regulated river reach, Lookout Shoals regulated river reach, Great 

Falls Long and Short bypassed reaches, and Wylie regulated river reach) where proposed 

minimum flows will not achieve the agency target for aquatic habitat area equivalent to 

80 percent of that available under unregulated streamflow conditions. For the Wylie regulated 

river reach and the Great Falls bypassed reaches, shortfalls from target flows were particularly 

focused on habitat available for spring spawning anadromous fish, which do not presently have 

access to these reaches. 

The three bypassed reaches account for approximately 1.5 miles (approximately 66 acres) 

of potential stream habitat that will not receive minimum flows for aquatic resources under the 

proposed new licensing articles. The regulated reach below the Oxford dam is 2.8 miles long, 

and below the Lookout Shoals dam is 0.3 to 1.3 miles, depending on the draw-down level of 

Lake Norman downstream. The regulated reach between the Wylie Development and Fishing 

Creek reservoir is 25.6 miles long. These reaches will receive an increase in minimum flows 

compared to the existing license, but fell short of the habitat target of 80 percent of unregulated 

flow conditions. 

For most of the developments in the Catawba-Wateree Project, the upper end of the 

impoundment from one development backs up to the tailwater of the next upstream development 

with little or no intervening lotic habitat, except under low inflow or winter draw-down 

conditions. Except for the 76.8 miles between the Wateree dam and the Congaree River and the 

25.6 miles between the Wylie dam and Fishing Creek reservoir, the existing condition of most of 

the mainstem riverine habitat in the Catawba-Wateree River basin has become lentic habitat, 

inundated by the 11 project impoundments. Consequently, outside of the existing bypassed 

reaches there is minimal opportunity for in-kind mitigation within the basin. We have concluded 

that, where feasible, the Revised CRA has proposed to re-establish continuous minimum flows to 

support aquatic resources. The Revised CRA presents valid rationale for not providing 

continuous minimum flows to the three remaining proposed bypassed reaches: (1) additional 

water is not available for the bypass without adversely affecting operating flexibility or lake 

water surface elevations; (2) water for these bypassed reaches would have to be subtracted from 

162 
the allocation to another bypass or the regulated reach, thus affecting its habitat; and (3) the 

potential habitat gain in the bypasses is very small compared to the effects on operations and 

aquatic habitat elsewhere. 

The Revised CRA has proposed mitigation for flows based on Stream Mitigation 

Guidelines (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] et al., 2003). For riparian preservation 

proposed in the Revised CRA, the Guidelines recommend multiplying the length of the affected 

reach by a factor of 2.5 to 5, depending on the quality of the reach. The state agencies agreed to 

use a multiplication factor of 4 for this mitigation package. The preservation length of stream 

bank was further adjusted on regulated reaches for which an increase in minimum flow was 

proposed at less than target habitat levels; the adjustment was a function of the percent below 

target habitat achieved by the proposed minimum flows. 

The proposed mitigation package consists of protection of riparian lands on mainstem 

and first and second order tributaries to the Johns, Catawba, and Linville Rivers in North and 

South Carolina portions of the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. Mitigation proposed in the 

Revised CRA is comprised of 28.6 miles (343 acres) of riparian stream bank protection in North 

Carolina and 5.5 miles (67 acres) in South Carolina. These conservation easements will provide 

permanent protection to 100-ft-wide buffers to these reaches and downstream water quality 

protection. Protection of riparian buffers to ensure natural filtration of nutrients and sediment 

from runoff is a widely accepted best management practice for protection of downstream water 

quality within watersheds and is cited in the Guidelines as an appropriate mitigation action. 

In addition, Duke Energy will contribute $1 million to South Carolina DNR to create the 

Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Fund. 

Mitigation packages of this type cannot be included as license requirements as the Commission 

does not have any authority over resource agencies. This agreement is considered as part of the 

cumulative effects of licensing the project. 

The Catawba Riverkeeper commented that there is an imbalance in the proposed 

mitigation with too little mitigation in South Carolina. We conclude that preservation of 

upstream riparian habitat will provide permanent protection to water quality in the watershed 

downstream of the mitigation sites. The benefit to the overall watershed is not limited by the 

political boundary. 

It is our finding that the mitigation package proposed in the license application makes an 

adequate effort to be onsite and in kind, and is appropriate to meet the goal to avoid, minimize, 

and then mitigate for project effects. In this case mitigation occurs upstream of project effects 

improving the starting conditions. This conclusion is in agreement with North Carolina’s 

established interagency mitigation Guidelines and the record of consultation for determination of 

minimum flows for aquatic habitat and mitigation requirements. 

AR/CCL and CR recommended that mitigation be included as a license article to provide 

an enforcement mechanism. The mitigation requirements will be enforced by North and South 

Carolina through the section 401 certification. 

Freshwater Mussels 

Freshwater mussels generally require habitat in clean, free-flowing streams and rivers 

with coarse-grained substrate (sand and gravel). Seventeen species of freshwater mussel, 

including seven federal or state, or federal and state listed species have been collected in the 

163 
Catawba-Wateree Project, primarily in the tailraces and regulated reaches below project 

developments and upstream tributaries. Bypassed reaches typically provide marginal habitat for 

mussels due to restricted flows, elevated water temperatures, and low DO. Fragmentation and 

reduction of free-flowing stream and river habitat by impoundments have affected the 

distribution and abundance of mussel populations in the regulated reaches, tailraces, and 

tributaries. Nutrient loading and sedimentation related to land use in the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin also have affected the survival and distribution of mussels within streams and rivers in the 

project boundaries. 

Our Analysis 

Most specimens of freshwater mussel species of concern were collected from the 

tailwater and regulated reaches below the project developments or in tributaries to the 

impoundments or regulated reaches. The proposed continuous minimum flows to the bypassed 

and regulated reaches are higher than under the existing license and should benefit these species. 

Minimum continuous flows proposed for the Catawba River bypassed reach at the Bridgewater 

Development, the Lookout Shoals bypassed reach, and the Great Falls Long and Short bypassed 

reaches will open new aquatic habitat for potential use by freshwater mussels. Expanded use of 

these reaches by fish species that serve as hosts for the glochidia mussel lifestage also will 

potentially expand the distribution of mature mussels into these reaches. Negotiations by the 

Instream Flow Study and Aquatic Resources Committees to determine the appropriate 

distribution of increased flows to the regulated reach and the Catawba River bypassed reach at 

the Bridgewater Development were specifically focused on the appropriate balance of water to 

protect and enhance conditions for the cold-water trout populations in the Bridgewater regulated 

river reach and existing mussel populations in the bypassed reach. Too much water discharged 

to the Catawba River bypassed reach at warmer temperatures preferred by mussels will increase 

water temperatures above the tolerance levels for trout in the reach below the confluence of the 

Linville regulated river reach and the Catawba River bypassed reach; too much cold water 

discharged to the Linville regulated river reach reduces the quantity of water available for 

discharge to the bypassed reach. 

Improved conditions in regulated reaches as a result of proposed continuous minimum 

flows and equipment modifications to improve DO below the dams and powerhouses also will 

provide improved habitat conditions for survival of mussel populations and movement of their 

fish hosts. Turbine aeration modifications at powerhouses should improve DO and overall water 

quality, which should benefit these species. Although there will continue to be daily cycling of 

flows between generation and minimum continuous flows, fluctuations in tailwater levels should 

be less than under the existing license and benefit mussel populations. Fish passage required by 

the FWS preliminary prescriptions and the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish 

Protection, Restoration, and Enhancement will eventually provide opportunity for movement of 

resident glochidia-host fish species upstream, further expanding the potential for range expansion 

of extant mussel populations. The goal of the protection and preservation of riparian buffers in 

the Catawba-Wateree River Basin included in the mitigation package for less than target 

instream flows is to protect water quality (particularly nutrients, sediment, and turbidity) in the 

watershed. These actions also should enhance habitat conditions for mussels. 

It is our conclusion that the distribution, diversity, and abundance of freshwater mussels 

in tributaries upstream of the project boundaries are not directly affected by the individual 

project developments. Furthermore, proposed increased flows to the bypassed and regulated 

164 
reaches will increase and enhance aquatic habitat for both mussels and the host fish for the 

glochidia early lifestage of mussels. The results from the monitoring program outlined in the 

Species Protection and Management Plan for Freshwater Mussels (2006) will provide periodic 

information to evaluate the condition of populations and the benefits to mussels from 

improvements to water quality and quantity in the tailwater and regulated reaches based on 

35 selected stations from the AES (2005) surveys. 

Diadromous Fish Passage and Restoration 

The Catawba-Wateree River currently supports several anadromous species downstream 

of the Wateree Development including American shad and blueback herring. Hickory shad have 

occasionally been collected in very low numbers below the Wateree Development. Atlantic 

sturgeon and the federally endangered shortnose sturgeon utilize portions of the Santee-Cooper 

system, but are not established in the Catawba-Wateree River above the confluence with the 

Congaree River. Historic records (Newcomb and Fuller, 2001; DTA and LEI, 2005) document 

the use of portions of the Catawba-Wateree River at least upstream to Great Falls by these 

species. It appears that American shad may have occurred historically upstream to the present 

location of the Wylie dam. The catadromous American eel (a species that spends the majority of 

its life in freshwater and spawns in saltwater) may have been distributed upstream in the 

watershed into North Carolina above Lake James and the Bridgewater Development. 

The Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration, and 

Enhancement (effective April 15, 2008) is a cooperative partnership among the applicant, South 

Carolina Electric and Gas, FWS, South Carolina DNR, and North Carolina WRC; NOAA 

Fisheries and South Carolina DHEC also were involved in the development of the accord, but are 

not signatories. The accord moves to implement a 10-year action plan for diadromous fish in the 

basin drafted January 24, 2007. Agreements specific to fish passage at the Catawba-Wateree 

Project are reinforced in the preliminary section 18 prescriptions for fishways pursuant to the 

FPA issued by FWS (May 23, 2008). In comments on the Notice of Application Ready for 

Environmental Analysis, NOAA Fisheries concurred with the FWS prescriptions, but reserved 

its own authority to issue additional prescriptions in the future relative to species within its 

jurisdiction. 

FWS indicates that the prescriptions were developed in concert with Duke Energy and 

considered alternative designs and approaches to fish passage presented in Duke Energy’s Fish 

Passage Assessment (DTA and LEI, 2005). We consider the preliminary prescriptions and 

associated elements of the accord to be part of the license application for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. Table 35 summarizes the key milestones and schedule for implementation of fish 

passage at the Catawba-Wateree Project defined in the preliminary prescriptions. 

Our Analysis 

We acknowledge that any license issued for the Catawba-Wateree Project would include 

the provisions of any final fishway prescriptions made by NOAA Fisheries and FWS. However, 

we provide our independent analysis of the preliminary prescriptions for completeness of this 

environmental review. Our analysis is focused on the primary issues of whether fish passage 

should be required at the project, the types of fish passage facilities that should be required, and 

the approximate timeframe for design and implementation of fish passage. 

165 
Upstream (American Shad, American Eel, Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon)—The 

Wateree Development is the upstream limit of diadromous fish passage in the Catawba-Wateree 

Basin, although some American eels may move past this blockage. American eel, American 

shad, and blueback herring currently utilize the lower Wateree River in relatively low numbers 

up to the tailrace of the Wateree dam. The accord and preliminary fish passage prescriptions 

recognize that successful restoration of fish passage may be limited initially and have created a 

phased approach and restoration goals. 

The prescriptions call for implementation of a trap, sort, and transport (TS&T) facility for 

alosines (American shad and blueback herring) at the Wateree dam by January 1, 2018. The 

draft design plans and construction schedule are to be submitted for agency approval by 

December 31, 2015. This approximate 10-year period appears adequate for study, design, and 

construction of this facility to be operational by the beginning of the 2018 spring spawning 

season. Initially alosines captured are to be released into Lake Wateree; at such time that the 

number of alosines equals or exceeds 10,000 fish, Duke Energy will begin to distribute fish 

upstream within the South Carolina portion of the basin. Effectiveness studies are to be 

conducted during the first 3 years of operation of the TS&T provided FWS determines that 

sufficient numbers of fish are available. The results of these studies will be used in consultation 

with the agency to improve the design and effectiveness of the TS&T facility. 

FWS has prescribed conducting 3-year eelway siting studies moving sequentially 

upstream beginning with the Wateree dam in 2009 (table 35). During siting studies, eels will be 

passed to the immediate upstream reservoir. These studies will support the design and 

construction of semi-permanent or permanent upstream eelway passage facilities at all of the 

project developments over a 34-year period, progressively re-opening the Catawba-Wateree 

River Basin to catadromous American eel for growth and development. The upstream eelway 

will be constructed within 2 years of completion of the siting study at each dam. Annual reports 

will be prepared for each year of operation describing the population and characteristics of eels 

passed at each facility. 

It is our conclusion that the preliminary prescriptions provided by FWS are consistent 

with the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration, and 

Enhancement signed by the applicant and provide a reasonable and flexible approach for 

development of effective upstream passage for the target diadromous fish. The schedule outlined 

in the prescriptions appears to provide adequate time for site-specific studies and design of 

TS&T facilities for alosines, evaluation of their effectiveness, and modification as necessary. 

The schedule for study, design, and construction of upstream eelways moving sequentially 

upstream from Wateree to Bridgewater over a 34-year period is a reasonable approach to expand 

the geographic range of American eel in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and provides a means 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the passage facilities and success of the restoration program. 

166 
Table 35. Schedule for implementation of FWS fish passage prescriptions. 

167 
Downstream (American Shad, American Eel)—The preliminary prescriptions concur with 

the findings by Duke Energy (2005b) that existing design of the turbines, bypasses, spill gates, 

and spillways at the South Carolina developments are adequate for downstream passage of 

juvenile alosines without site-specific downstream fish passage facilities. FWS has reserved the 

authority to prescribe downstream passage at some time in the future, if necessary. 

FWS does have concern about downstream passage of out-migrating American eel. 

FWS has prescribed downstream passages studies to be initiated in 2024, 10 years following 

beginning of operations of the upstream eelway at Wateree dam. A study plan for downstream 

passage is to be submitted to the agency the year prior for approval. The study will evaluate 

operational modification, passage devices, and trapping methods for moving eels downstream. 

It is our conclusion that this schedule provides time for upstream eelway facilities at the 

first six developments to become operational and eels to begin to expand their geographic range 

in the basin, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the operational eelways and the progress of 

restoration efforts. With the decline in eel populations returning to river systems throughout the 

east coast, considerable attention and research is ongoing to identify the causes of the decline and 

approaches to protect and improve their status. During the time allotted for study of downstream 

passage for eels in the Catawba-Wateree Project, more effective, new technologies and 

procedures may be identified that could be implemented for the Catawba-Wateree Project to 

improve downstream passage. 

Fish Entrainment 

The presence of the 13 hydroelectric powerhouses of the project currently results in some 

fish entrainment and associated mortality of resident species in the 11 reservoirs. We agree with 

the conclusions in Fish Entrainment Evaluation (Aquatics 05) Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC 

No. 2232) (Geosyntec Consultants, 2005). The majority of entrainment that occurs is likely to be 

young fish, which generally exhibit higher survival rates following passage through the Francis 

and Kaplan turbines installed at these developments. The level of entrainment that has occurred 

historically is not likely to change significantly under the new license. Under these rates of 

entrainment and survival, the reservoirs currently support quality sport fisheries. Thus, 

entrainment does not appear to adversely affect survival and growth of young of target sport and 

forage species populations. 

The FWS preliminary prescriptions for fish passage do not require specific new 

downstream fish passage facilities or operational changes for passage of juvenile American shad 

and blueback herring following construction and operation of TS&T facilities to move spawning 

adults upstream past the Wateree dam because the existing facility equipment and design are 

likely to allow downstream passage of these species with minimal mortality. The prescriptions 

do require downstream passage studies for American eel 10 years after construction of the first 

upstream passage eelway at the Wateree dam and subsequent passage provided upstream through 

the Fishing Creek Development. Eel downstream passage will be evaluated, because the shape 

and size of out-migrating adult eels make them more susceptible to injury during turbine passage 

and their preference for near-bottom habitat reduces their likelihood of using other passage 

routes at spill gates, trash sluices, and spillways. 

In regards to the lifecycle of most freshwater mussels which rely on fish hosts for 

dispersal. The larval lifestage (glochidia) attach to the gills and fins of host fish species; when 

168 
they eventually mature into juvenile mussels, they detach and begin their characteristic benthic 

habit. Fish entrainment does not likely have an adverse affect on the mussel lifecycle. Not all 

entrained fish are likely to carry glochidia larvae, and a high percentage of fish that may be hosts 

are likely to survive entrainment. 

If FWS exercises its reserved authority to make further prescription for downstream 

passage of diadromous species, such facilities also would likely benefit resident species further 

reducing the effects of entrainment. 

3.3.3.3 Cumulative Effects 

Recreation Flows on Aquatic Habitat 

The Revised CRA has proposed a schedule of periodic increased discharges at six 

developments to support use by recreational paddlers and float anglers in selected regulated 

reaches and the two bypassed reaches at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments. The 

proposed recreational releases will be provided during daylight hours on the scheduled dates and 

the schedule will be reviewed by committee on an annual basis. 

FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and AR/CCL have raised questions related to the potential 

effects of the rapid changes in flow on the aquatic resources in those reaches. The proposed 

recreational releases are within and generally similar to the mean and median flow conditions 

and well within the frequency distribution of flows for each development reported in Exhibit B—

Project Operation and Utilization of Resources. Flows higher than the proposed recreational 

flows typically occur in the historical record 20-80 percent of the time, except during JulySeptember when higher flows may occur less than 10 percent of the time. It is our assessment 

that the aquatic resources in these reaches are adapted to this 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 isolated small pools as water levels recede. Water temperatures and 

DO can become inhospitable for fish in these isolated pools. We propose that the feasibility of 

gradually increasing and decreasing flow over a period of several hours before and after each 

recreational release be evaluated to minimize the risk to aquatic resources. 

Habitat and Population Fragmentation 

Fragmentation of aquatic habitat and populations occurs when impoundments form 

following dam construction in a river corridor: riverine aquatic habitat is reduced and broken 

into disconnected sections with intervening lentic habitat; tributaries may flow into lakes losing 

the continuity of the former downstream connection with the next order stream; dams block 

movement of resident lotic populations to upstream river and tributary reaches; and formerly 

continuous riverine populations are fragmented and isolated within the remaining discontinuous 

lotic habitat. In the case of the Catawba-Wateree Project, over as much as a century following 

construction of some individual developments, the aquatic communities have shifted and adapted 

to the new distribution of habitat conditions. Resident aquatic communities continue to utilize 

those remaining riverine reaches; some populations disperse seasonally into the downstream 

impoundments; new lentic communities have evolved in each impoundment; some impoundment 

populations utilize tributary habitat for portions of their life history; some species may have been 

lost or marginalized while others are introduced or expand their range; resource management 

169 
initiatives (stocking game and forage fish) also have reshaped some of these communities and 

the predator-prey interactions. The effect of multiple impoundments along nearly 280 miles of 

the Catawba-Wateree River has been to significantly alter the ecosystem, both the type and 

distribution of physical habitat and the distribution and character of the biotic resources 

associated with that habitat. The system has changed to the benefit of some species and the 

detriment of others. Among the more significant changes is that the geographic range and 

habitat available to diadromous species typically are now restricted to areas below the first 

blockage, the Wateree Development. 

It is our conclusion that the FWS preliminary prescriptions for fish passage will 

progressively re-open access to essential habitat for diadromous fish consistent with the goals of 

the applicable restoration plans. Proposed increases in continuous minimum flows in regulated 

reaches and several bypassed reaches also will increase and enhance available riverine habitat. 

Fish Entrainment Mortality 

As restoration of diadromous fish populations progresses in the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin with implementation of the FWS fish passage prescriptions, out-migrating diadromous fish 

will need to negotiate multiple dams and powerhouses in the system. Although through-turbine 

entrainment mortality for most species is relatively low, there could be an incremental effect 

from losses of fish at successive developments. The preliminary fish passage prescriptions 

require downstream passage studies and facilities targeted for American eel as access to 

additional habitat progresses upstream. It is our assessment that these studies should consider 

the potential cumulative impact of serial entrainment at successive downstream developments 

during out-migration. 

Fish Passage and Restoration 

The restoration of diadromous fish populations to their historic ranges in the CatawbaWateree River Basin will require negotiating upstream passage at two or three developments for 

American shad and sturgeon that have been documented as far upstream as the Great Falls reach 

and eventually all 13 developments for American eel. 

The fish passage prescriptions propose a trap-and-truck facility at the Wateree dam with 

release of spawning adult American shad into Lake Wateree until the number of shad trapped 

exceeds 10,000, at which time shad will be trucked and distributed to impoundments farther 

upstream. This will, for the immediate future, eliminate the need for American shad passage 

facilities at multiple developments and speed movement of adults to potential spawning habitat 

upstream. 

In contrast, young American eel elvers move into the Catawba-Wateree River Basin and 

will spend most of their life (as much as 40 years) growing to mature adults before returning to 

the ocean to spawn. The FWS fish passage prescriptions require installation of fish passage 

facilities at all of the dams, progressing upstream from the Wateree Development at several-year 

intervals. These multiple fish passage facilities will allow the species to disperse farther 

upstream into available habitat as utilization increases. The sequential implementation of fish 

passage for eels also will permit advances in our knowledge of the mechanisms of eel migration 

in freshwater habitat and the technologies for upstream and downstream passage at dams to be 

integrated into the design of subsequent facilities. 

170 
3.3.3.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Reservoir Effects on Fragmentation 

In the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, the dynamic integration of impoundment 

communities and interspersed riverine communities has become well established during the 

operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree River Basin ecosystem has 

developed into a complex mosaic of riverine and impoundment habitat and communities and 

must be viewed as the existing condition for the assessment of project effects on aquatic 

resources. This represents an unavoidable effect at this time of the project on the preconstruction riverine resources and an irretrievable commitment of selected aquatic resources. 

While certain pre-construction aquatic resources have been unavoidably altered, reduced, or lost, 

extensive new resources have been created, associated with the ecosystems that have developed 

in the 11 project impoundments. 

The Santee Basin Accord and preliminary prescription from FWS for fish passage 

provide a progressive process that will provide access to the Catawba-Wateree River Basin for 

upstream migration and expansion of spawning or nursery habitat of diadromous fish. Fish 

passage facilities also may provide the potential for upstream movement of resident species 

between developments. 

Fluctuation of Reservoir and Tailwater Levels 

The primary purpose for the existence of the project is to help meet the energy needs of 

the rapidly developing region. The load-following nature of power generation from the project, 

other users (e.g., drinking water supply) of the resource, regional climatic conditions (e.g., wet 

and dry weather cycles), topography and morphology of the subwatershed for each 

impoundment, and storage capacity of each impoundment result in inevitable and unavoidable 

fluctuations in water level within each impoundment and in the downstream tailrace. The 

complexity of the sequence of impoundments and powerhouses and the system constraints 

related to management of inflow, outflow, power generation, and protection of aquatic resources 

and other uses is reflected by the complexity of the CHEOPS model used to assess operating 

alternatives and flow releases as part of the negotiations the lead to the Revised CRA. 

These fluctuations are an unavoidable effect of the project, but it is our conclusion that 

the operating scenario proposed in the Revised CRA provides an optimal balance of a wide range 

of conflicting demands on the resources. The PM&Es proposed provide significant benefits, 

protections, and enhancement to the aquatic resources compared to conditions under the existing 

operating license for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The range of reservoir draw-down has been 

reduced; draw-down restrictions and criteria are established for stabilization of reservoir water 

levels to protect and enhance littoral fish spawning habitat in the spring; and management criteria 

for spring discharges from the Wateree Development will enhance inundation and spawning 

habitat in the downstream flood plain of the Wateree River. 

Fish Entrainment Mortality 

The presence of the 13 developments and powerhouses in the Catawba-Wateree River 

Basin currently results in some fish entrainment and associated mortality for resident fish species 

and for diadromous species as restoration of these migratory populations progresses. Outside of 

spill events, the primary route for passage of fish downstream at each development is by 

entrainment through the turbines. The numbers of fish entrained will vary among 

171 
impoundments, turbine and forebay configuration, season, and species. Mortality of entrained 

fish varies with the turbine design and the species involved. With some clear exceptions, 

survival for most species entrained at the Catawba-Wateree developments is relatively high. One 

exception is the diadromous American eel, which passes downstream as an adult to return to the 

ocean to spawn. The FWS preliminary prescriptions for fish passage set a schedule for studies 

and implementation of a program to begin following establishment of upstream passage facilities 

for American eel that will enhance survival of this species during downstream passage. FWS 

concurred with the assessment prepared for the license application (Geosyntec Consultants, 

2005), which concluded that entrainment mortality for most other species is minimal and did not 

warrant additional prescription at this time. 

It is our conclusion that the level of entrainment mortality currently experienced by most 

fish species does not adversely affect resident fish populations. In fact, many of the populations 

susceptible to entrainment support quality recreational sport fisheries either as target species or 

forage for those species. 

Bypassed Reaches 

The Revised CRA proposes to re-establish continuous minimum flows in three of the 

project bypassed reaches: Catawba River bypassed reach at the Bridgewater Development, and 

the Short and Long bypassed reaches at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments. Three 

other reaches will continue to be bypassed except during spill events: Paddy Creek bypassed 

reach at the Bridgewater Development, Mountain Island bypassed reach, and Wateree Spillway 

Channel bypassed reach. The proposed operation of the Bridgewater Development provides use 

of available water resources to increase minimum flow in the Linville regulated river reach and 

provides continuous minimum flow to the Catawba River bypassed reach while balancing cold 

water habitat for trout and warmer water requirements of freshwater mussels. With the limited 

water available to distribute to the three downstream reaches, this configuration provides the 

greatest gain and enhancement of aquatic habitat, despite leaving the relatively short Paddy 

Creek bypassed reach without a continuous flow of water. Flows to the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach adequate to create significant fish habitat could jeopardize the population of the 

federally listed Schweinitz’s sunflower. The volume of discharge necessary to inundate the 

Wateree Spillway Channel bypass and create significant additional habitat for anadromous fish 

spawning does not appear to be sustainable based on system simulations from the CHEOPS 

model. 

It is our assessment that Duke Energy has provided a reasonable and defensible rationale 

for operation of these three developments in a manner that will continue to bypass water around 

these three reaches. These operating scenarios will allow protection and enhancement of other 

aquatic resources, or terrestrial resources, or both, and PM&Es have proposed adequate measures 

to mitigate these unavoidable effects. 

3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources 

3.3.4.1 Affected Environment 

Vegetation 

The Catawba-Wateree Project and the large geographical area it encompasses contain a 

wide variety of natural communities and vegetation cover types. Most of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project is located within the Piedmont Province, with the exception of the headwaters of Lake 

172 
James, which are located in the Blue Ridge Province, and the Wateree River downstream of the 

Wateree Development to the Congaree River, which is located in the Coastal Plain Province. 

The original forested areas bordering Catawba-Wateree developments have been logged 

or burned at least once and consist of secondary growth. Within 1 mile of each of the 

developments, varying degrees of forest clearing have occurred for private residential or 

commercial development. Large-scale residential or commercial development has occurred at 

the Cowans Ford, Wylie, Fishing Creek, and Wateree Developments. Remaining wooded areas 

are generally represented by sweet gum, red maple, river birch, green ash, as well as white pine, 

sycamore, and box elder. Riparian vegetation has been left intact in most areas, although within 

several developments (Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree), riparian vegetation has been degraded and 

fragmented due to the extent of development. Riparian vegetation at Mountain Island 

Development has been left largely intact due to existing watershed protection measures including 

natural area preserves and a county park. Open fields, pastures, and fallow fields are present 

within each development. 

Vegetation cover mapping was conducted within the general Catawba-Wateree Project 

vicinity to approximately 2,000 ft beyond the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries. Eleven 

vegetation cover types were identified within the general Catawba-Wateree Project area and are 

described in detail in the license application (Duke Energy, 2007). Many of the vegetation cover 

types are the result of past or current human activities (grass/pasture, shrub/scrub, cropland, 

project works, residential, urban). Forested vegetation cover (hardwood forest, mixed 

hardwood/pine forest) are typically located in areas away from roads, dwellings, and human 

activity. Three other cover types can be naturally occurring or influenced by human activities 

(water [including reservoirs], pine forest [including planted plantations], and barren areas devoid 

of vegetation). 

A botanical study of the Great Falls bypassed reaches in 2001 and 2004 resulted in the 

identification of nine plant community types and 300 plant species (Gaddy, 2005). Three plant 

communities (Wet Natural Shoals, Flood Plain Forest, and Bogs and Seepages) were determined 

to be high quality, natural communities. The Wet Natural Shoals community occurs only where 

a reliable supply of fast-flowing water is present most of the year. Indicator species are water 

willow and rocky shoals spider lily, a special status species listed in South Carolina as a species 

of “National Concern.” 

Water willow is a perennial herbaceous species that grows colonially from rhizomes 

along the banks or in shallow waters of rivers, ponds and lakes. It appears to grow best in 

6 to 20 in. of water on coarse substrates of sand and fine gravel, but can growth in depths of up 

to 4 ft and on fine textured sediments. It provides stabilization to shorelines and stream beds as 

well as aquatic habitat for small fish and invertebrates and some small aquatic mammals (DTA, 

2005a). Water willow can be affected by erosion and sedimentation, and can itself cause 

problems for recreational boating as it impedes propellers. 

The Flood Plain Forest community was dominated by sweet gum and red maple with 

other canopy tree species including water oak, green ash, sycamore, river birch, and American 

elm. Giant cane and river oats are found in the shrub and herbaceous layers. A few bogs and 

seepages were found along the margins of the shoals, generally draining water from adjoining 

uplands into the shoals. One other community, the Shoals Forest natural community, is a rare, 

possibly unique plant community in South Carolina that has become established in the central 

173 
portions of the long bypassed reach. Eastern red cedar is dominant on dry shoals and boulder 

piles (Gaddy, 2005). 

A total of 300 plant species were identified during the Great Falls bypassed reach 

botanical surveys. Of the 300 species identified, approximately 29 percent were determined to 

be weedy, invasive (out of range or out of habitat), or exotic plant species, and were the most 

commonly encountered species of the surveys. A number of out of range Coastal Plain plant 

species were found in the Great Falls bypassed reaches, including ti-ti growing as a small shrub 

or tree, cypress-swamp sedge, American bulrush, mosquito-fern, and pond-pennywort (Gaddy, 

2005). 

Wetlands/Riparian Habitat 

Wetland types were identified within the Catawba-Wateree Project area as part of a 

wetland mapping and characterization study focused on only those wetland areas directly 

affected by the project operations, from the wetlands upstream of Lake James, downstream 

through the Lake Wateree Development, and including the potential downstream zone of 

influence associated with Lake Wateree to the confluence of the Congaree River (DTA, 2005a). 

Initial determination of wetland areas used several procedures including review of existing 

information (National Wetland Inventory maps, Federal Emergency Management Agency 

[FEMA] flood plain maps, topographic maps, soil surveys, and aerial photography 

interpretation). Field surveys verified information derived from the initial review and resulted in 

surveys of approximately 345 wetlands characterized into three primary wetland types: 

palustrine forested (217), palustrine scrub/shrub (73), and palustrine emergent (55), including 

areas recommended by the agencies such as water willow beds along Lake Wateree and Lake 

Wylie. Wetland types and acreages found within Catawba-Wateree Project developments are 

listed in table 36. 

Within the Bridgewater Development, forested wetlands were the dominant wetland type 

and were comprised of red maple and sweet gum. Scrub/shrub wetlands within the Bridgewater 

Development were primarily black willow stands; one wetland was dominated by silky 

dogwood. 

Forested wetlands dominate the Rhodhiss Development and are characterized by river 

birch, green ash, and black willow. Two scrub/shrub wetlands identified within the Rhodhiss 

Development were each dominated by different plant communities; one was primarily a mix of 

tag alder and buttonbush while the other was principally comprised of green ash and black 

willow. One emergent wetland was characterized as a mixture of wool-grass, soft rush, and 

Panicum grass and appeared to be a result of relatively recent sediment accretion from nonproject-related disturbances on upstream tributaries that feed into Lake Rhodhiss. 

Oxford Development forested wetlands were similar in composition to those found at the 

Rhodhiss Development. Scrub/shrub wetlands at the Oxford Development were dominated by 

tag alder, silky dogwood, and saplings of sycamore and river birch. Buttonbush was present 

within the scrub/shrub wetlands at the Oxford Development, but was not the dominant plant 

species as found at the other developments. Two emergent wetlands associated with Lake 

Hickory were distinctive, one dominated by an abundance of water lily and the second by cattail. 

174 
Table 36. Wetland types and acreages associated with Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs 

and tailraces. (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Wetland acres by type 

Emergent Scrub/Shrub Forested 

Bridgewater 0.0 40.8 185.6 

Rhodhiss 9.1 8.2 139.6 

Oxford 1.3 6.7 33.5 

Lookout Shoals 0.72 2.4 82.4 

Cowans Ford 34.9 217.9 257.2 

Mountain Island 38.7 167.7 288.5 

Wylie 22.1 74.3 597.7 

Fishing Creek 33.2 32.4 220.0 

Great Falls and Dearborn 2.7 17.3 58.4 

Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek 0.9 1.3 36.6 

Wateree 181.4 346.6 1,343.4 

Wateree River 1,113.8 13,378.1 54,726.2 

Total Acreage 1,438.82 14,293.7 57,969.1 

The five wetlands identified at the Lookout Shoals Development were relatively small in 

acreage. Four of the wetlands were characterized as forested and one was an emergent wetland. 

The forested wetlands were associated with the drainage of tributaries into the reservoir and were 

comprised primarily of river birch, sycamore, box elder, and sweet gum. The emergent wetland 

was characterized as a fringe wetland along the shoreline of the reservoir comprised solely of 

swamp rosemallow. 

Several of the forested wetlands at the Cowans Ford Development had been cleared or 

filled due to land development activities unrelated to Catawba-Wateree Project operations. 

Scrub/shrub wetlands were typically buttonbush or young black willow. Sediment accretion due 

to disturbances upstream on tributaries feeding into Lake Norman was observed near the 

confluences of tributary streams with the reservoir and has resulted in the buildup of sediments 

on surfaces near the shoreline and in shallow water. Several of the emergent wetlands in the 

stream cove areas have been modified by sediment loading and removal transitioning through 

succession toward scrub/shrub type wetlands or subject to long periods of inundation as a result 

of sediment activity. 

Mountain Island Development forested wetlands were characterized by species such as 

green ash, river birch, sweet gum, and red maple. Several areas of forested wetland had been 

cleared due to land management activities unrelated to project activities. Scrub/shrub wetlands 

were dominated by young black willow, speckled alder, river birch, silky dogwood, and 

buttonbush. Emergent wetlands contained swamp rosemallow, lizard’s tail, arrow arum, broad175 
leaf arrowhead, and broad-leaf cattail. Some emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands were observed 

as undergoing successional transitioning into more mature communities. Identified emergent 

wetlands were usually associated with protected coves but were small inclusions within forested 

or scrub/shrub dominated wetlands. 

The characteristics of the Wylie Development wetlands were similar to those of the 

Mountain Island Development. Some emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands had transitioned into 

more mature communities, and some forested wetlands had been cleared due to land 

management activities unrelated to project operations. Emergent wetlands were located in 

protected coves, disturbed areas, or located as small inclusions within other wetland types. 

Wetlands at the Fishing Creek Development were similar in characterization and 

condition to those of the Mountain Island and Wylie Developments. Scrub/shrub wetlands 

identified at Fishing Creek Development were often observed to be in successional transition. 

Water willow beds, located along the shoreline of the Fishing Creek reservoir, have developed 

under the current operating regime and appear to be stable and vigorous in growth. 

Forested and scrub/shrub wetlands at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments were 

both characterized as Bottomland Hardwood natural community. Forested wetlands were found 

to be affected by land management practices such as silviculture; scrub/shrub wetlands were 

often noted as undergoing successional transition due to the dynamics of tributary stream flow 

that may cause accretion or scouring. Emergent wetlands were most frequently located in 

protected coves or in small openings within forested or scrub/shrub wetlands. 

Two forested wetlands and one emergent wetland were identified within the Rocky Creek 

and Cedar Creek Developments. Emergent wetlands were characterized in protected areas 

removed from the main portion of the reservoir with the exception of water willow beds that 

were located along the main lake shoreline. 

The dominant wetland types located within the Wateree Development were characterized 

as Bottomland Hardwood forests (green ash, American elm, sweet gum, and red maple) and 

scrub/shrub wetlands (young black willow, red maple, and buttonbush). Emergent wetlands 

were typically located in backwater coves, disturbed areas, or in small inclusions in the forested 

or scrub/shrub wetlands. Water willow beds were found along the shoreline of Lake Wateree. 

Unique to Lake Wateree are several large southern wild rice dominated wetlands. 

Along the Wateree River, forested wetlands included natural communities of Bottomland 

Hardwoods and Bald Cypress-Tupelo Gum Swamp. Bottomland hardwoods were dominated by 

green ash and silver maple. Scrub/shrub wetlands were characterized as Shoal and Stream Bar 

and Levee natural communities dominated by young black willow and water-elm. The 

scrub/shrub wetlands are in a state of successional transitioning due to the river dynamics. 

Emergent wetlands along the Wateree River are generally located in disturbed areas, including 

main rights-of-way, or small inclusions within scrub/shrub or forested wetlands, and were 

dominated by herbaceous species including sedges, rushes, smartweed, and false nettle. 

Ten areas have been identified as high-value wetland areas that provide or contribute 

directly to the maintenance and support of exceptional value natural resources (DTA, 2005b). 

These areas were selected based on important wetland functions (e.g., wildlife habitat, nutrient 

retention, aquatic habitat, unique/heritage), wetland hydrology, wetland vegetation and 

176 
interspersion, and value as wildlife habitat. These areas include the following and are presented 

on figures in appendix B. (River miles provided as guidance are approximate.) 

• Wateree River Hardwood Bottomlands (RM 0.0-66.0) is a wetland complex of 

several thousand acres. The bottomlands are contiguous with the Congaree Swamp 

National Park (figure B-1). 

• Great Falls bypassed reach-long bypass (RM-GF 1.0-2.0) is composed primarily of 

forested wetland and wet shoal communities forming bottomland wetlands 

(figure B-2). 

• Cane Creek Confluence Area (RM 112.5) is a 527-acre forested/shrub wetland near 

the confluence of Cane Creek upstream of the Fishing Creek reservoir (figure B-3). 

• Big Allison Creek Cove Area (RM 146.0) includes 71 acres located in the back of Big 

Allison Creek Cove of Lake Wylie (figure B-4). 

• Paw Creek Cove Area (RM 162.0) includes 118 acres of forested/shrub wetlands in 

the back of Paw Creek Cove of Lake Wylie (figure B-4). 

• Reed’s Creek Cove Area (RM199.1), located in the back of Reed’s Creek Cove of 

Lake Norman, is a 21-acre wetland (figure B-5). 

• Johns River Area (RM 261.5) is located near the confluence of Johns River and 

Catawba River and totals 124 acres (figure B-6). 

• Warrior Fork Area (RM 264.0) includes 115 acres near the confluence of Warrior 

Fork and the Catawba River (figure B-6). 

• Catawba River bypassed reach (RM 283.3) includes the majority of the reach and is 

167 acres (figure B-7). 

• Lake James/Catawba River Confluence Area (RM 294.5) includes 126 acres near the 

confluence of the Catawba River and Lake James (figure B-7). 

Vegetation was characterized during a flood plain inundation study for the Wateree River 

flood plain (DTA, 2006). The study focused on the zone of project operational influence on the 

Wateree River downstream of Lake Wateree to the confluence of the Congaree River, which 

included the Wateree River flood plain. The Wateree River and the Congaree River interact at 

higher flow levels, especially flows greater than 9,000 cfs, to inundate the flood plain adjacent to 

Congaree Swamp National Park. Most of the riparian corridor of the Wateree River is 

undeveloped bottomland swamp, although timber-cutting is practiced in some areas. Forested 

wetlands dominated the flood plain and included Bottomland Hardwood and Bald CypressTupelo Gum Swamp communities. Bald Cypress-Tupelo Gum Swamp is a natural community 

that exists in the most deeply flooded habitats, and is habitat that potentially could provide postnesting foraging areas for wood stork as well as expanded habitat for American alligators, both 

RTE species observed in the area. More detailed information on wood stork and American 

alligator is found in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

Noxious Weeds 

Five invasive exotic terrestrial plants have been identified within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area during botanical surveys: Autumn olive, Chinese privet, Chinese wisteria, Japanese 

177 
honeysuckle, and Vietnamese grass. Autumn olive is located at only one site adjacent to Lake 

Wylie, and Chinese wisteria is located at only one site adjacent to Dearborn Lake. Chinese 

privet, Japanese honeysuckle, and Vietnamese grass are abundant and well distributed within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area. These species were found at a total of 79 survey sites within or 

adjacent to project shorelines extending from Lake James to Lake Wateree. In addition, Chinese 

privet and Japanese honeysuckle are common in the Great Falls bypasses; Vietnamese grass is 

present but uncommon in the same areas. Kudzu is known to be widely distributed within and 

adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project, and along with Japanese honeysuckle may be the most 

abundant of all invasive exotic terrestrial plant species within the Catawba-Wateree Project 

(letter from Duke Energy, June 26, 2008). In all cases, these invasive plants grow and spread 

aggressively and can overwhelm native species. 

Three aquatic invasive plant species, hydrilla, parrotfeather, and Brazilian elodea, have 

been documented within the Catawba-Wateree Project. Hydrilla is considered one of the worst 

submerged aquatic invasive species in the United States and can impair water flow, displace 

native species, and impair small boat navigation. It tolerates low light conditions and has a fast 

rate of growth that allows it to grow at greater depths and overwhelm other species. It can shade 

out other aquatic plants by forming a dense canopy beneath the surface of the water body and 

can reproduce by four different methods, including fragmentation and tubers. Tubers can remain 

viable in the soil for several years, allowing the species to survive seasonal cold temperatures 

and drought conditions (USACE, 2008a). Hydrilla was found in the Catawba arm of Lake James 

in 1999; in Lake Norman in 1999, where it had spread as far upstream as the North Carolina 

Route 150 bridge; and in Mountain Island Lake and in Lake Wateree in 2000. It has since been 

found in Lake Wylie in 2006 (Duke Energy, 2006c). Parrotfeather is present at Oxford and 

Lookout Shoals reservoirs and was discovered in Lake Hickory in 2001. It has spread in Lake 

Hickory from the original 10-acre infestation to 84 acres. Parrotfeather grows in slow flowing 

water at the edges of streams, lakes, ponds, and other water bodies, and spreads via rhizomes. It 

overwhelms other aquatic plant species because of its vigorous growth habits (USACE, 2008b). 

Duke Energy is currently in consultation with the municipalities of Hickory and Longview, 

North Carolina; North Carolina DENR; and North Carolina WRC to design a management plan 

for parrotfeather on Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals Lake. Brazilian elodea has been found in 

the tailwaters of Lake Hickory in the Oxford Development in association with parrotfeather. It 

grows in both still and flowing water and is fast growing, often shading out other aquatic and 

vegetation resulting in pure stands of Brazilian elodea (USACE, 2008c). Sterile grass carp have 

been stocked in the affected reservoirs by North Carolina WRC to control the spread of these 

invasive aquatic plants, and Duke Energy, along with North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DNR, and North Carolina State University, have formed a task force to jointly work on the 

aquatic invasive plant species issue. 

In addition to the three aquatic invasive plant species above, marsh dewflower is found at 

the Oxford, Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, and Wylie Developments and is among the 

dominant herbaceous species present in riparian habitat. Marsh dewflower prefers damp soil at 

the edge of ponds and along slow moving streams. Its aggressive growth enables it to outcompete native plants by forming dense mats. Seeds are dispersed by wildlife, and spreading 

can occur when floods distribute root fragments to new locations (Park Service, 2008). Alligator 

weed is found at the Oxford Development and within the Great Falls bypassed reach, where it is 

among the most dominant exotic species. 

178 
Special Status Plant Species 

Two federally listed plant species—Schweinitz’s sunflower, an endangered species, and 

dwarf-flowered heartleaf, a threatened species—were documented within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. Four state-listed plant species—rocky shoals spider lily, Canada moonseed, ovateleaved catchfly, and prairie trillium—were also documented from within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project (table 37). Of the four state-listed species, three are listed in South Carolina, and one is 

listed in North Carolina; these species are discussed below. The two federally listed species are 

discussed in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

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

Gaddy, 2005) 

Species Common name State status1 Federal 

status1 Location 

Helianthus 

schweinitzii

Schweinitz’s 

sunflower 

South Carolina and North 

Carolina—E E Mountain Island bypassed reach 

Hexastylis 

naniflora

dwarf-flowered 

heartleaf North Carolina—T T 

Paddy Creek, 

Linville dam, 

Lake Hickory 

Hymenocallis 

coronaria

rocky shoals 

spider lily South Carolina—NC 

Great Falls long 

bypassed reach; 

Sugar Creek; 

Landsford canal 

Symphyotrichum 

georgianum Georgia aster 

North Carolina–T 

South Carolina—SC 

FC Unknown 

Menispermum 

canadense Canada moonseed South Carolina—SC Unknown 

Silene ovata ovate-leaved 

catchfly North Carolina—SR-T FSC Unknown 

Trillium 

recurvatum prairie trillium South Carolina—SC Unknown 

1 SR-T = Significantly Rare Throughout 

 SC = Special Concern 

 NC = National Concern 

 E = Endangered 

 T = Threatened 

 FSC = Federal Species of Concern 

 FC = Federal Candidate 

179 
The status of rocky shoals spider lily is listed by South Carolina DNR as “imperiled 

because of factor(s) making it vulnerable” however, this status provides no legal protection. 

Rocky shoals spider lily occurs in limited habitat of river shoals and on rocky islands in 

Piedmont rivers. The plant was once widespread in the southeastern United States, but is 

currently known from small, scattered populations in two or three states. In South Carolina it is 

known from small populations on the Catawba River near Sugar Creek (RM 131.4) and the 

lower Great Falls long bypassed reach (RM 102.4); a large population (thousands of plants) is 

located at Landsford canal on the Catawba River (RM 119.0). 

Flat rock formations within rocky shoals appear to provide the best habitat for rocky 

shoals spider lilies, often occurring in association with riverweed or water willow (Duke Energy, 

2006d). Sedimentation, inundation frequency, flow, water depth, exposure, substrate type, 

temperature, and DO are all factors that affect the survival of the species. As part of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project relicensing discussions related to the protection of rocky shoals spider 

lily, a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) was developed with limiting factors for depth, velocity, 

and substrate. The HSI indicated that the most suitable habitat for rocky shoals spider lily 

contains water depth of between 2 and 11 in., flow velocity of 0.1 and 0.2 ft per second, and a 

substrate of broken bedrock. In addition, low water levels can provide access to the plant 

colonies by herbivores such as white-tailed deer. 

Canada moonseed is a South Carolina species of Special Concern (SC). The 

conservation status of Canada moonseed is currently listed as “unknown” due to incomplete 

information about the species in South Carolina. Canada moonseed is a woody, deciduous vine 

found growing in moist woodlands and beside streams from Canada south to Arkansas (Flora of 

North America, 2008a). Threats to the species appear to be primarily from loss of habitat due to 

development (Nelson, 1986). Canada moonseed has been identified from within the CatawbaWateree Project area, but specific locations are not identified in survey reports (Gaddy, 2005). 

Prairie trillium is a South Carolina SC species that is considered to be critically imperiled 

because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state. It is found in 

rich clayey flood plain soils, where plants are often inundated during their flowering period in 

late March to late May. It is a perennial wildflower growing from horizontal rhizomes (Flora of 

North American, 2008b). 

Ovate-leaved catchfly is a perennial herb found in clumps growing from rhizomes on 

rich, moist slopes, cove forests, and montane oak-hickory forests. Its status in North Carolina is 

SR-T (Significantly Rare-Throughout) with fewer than 100 populations throughout its range, and 

is a federal species of concern. It is considered vulnerable because it is endemic to North 

American with a limited range, found in 11 of the southeastern United States (Forest Service, 

2003). 

FWS describes the Georgia aster as a plant species that was historically associated with 

post oak savanna/prairie communities once common throughout the southeast where fires and 

animal grazing maintained appropriate habitat. Current populations are known from areas 

adjacent to roads, utility rights-of-way, and openings where land management activities maintain 

disturbed habitat (FWS 2007). One population of Georgia aster has been documented on a 

transmission line approximately one-half mile from the Mountain Island Development dam 

outside of the project boundary. 

180 
Georgia aster is found in dry oak-pine flatwoods and uplands where soils can vary from 

sandy to heavy clay. Adequate sunlight appears to be the most important factor in the success of 

the species. Because the populations are small and relatively isolated, threats to the populations 

are associated with herbicide applications, fire suppression, invasive species, and development. 

Recent information indicates that the species is more abundant than when initially listed as an 

FWS candidate species (FWS 2007). 

Wildlife 

The study area for wildlife observations was defined as all Catawba-Wateree Project 

developments, associated bypassed reaches, zone of influence, major tributaries, associated 

shorelines, and adjacent uplands. Documented observations resulted from specific wildlife 

surveys, as well as opportunistic sightings, and review of existing databases and literature. 

Mammals 

The various habitats associated with the Catawba-Wateree Project area and surrounding 

vicinity provide excellent resident, migratory/transient, and seasonal habitat for a high diversity 

of wildlife species. Mammal species are well represented by large and small game species, furbearers, rodents, and bats that reside in many different habitats such as woodland, scrub/shrub or 

early successional areas, grasslands, and wetlands. Species typically found within the CatawbaWateree Project area include species such as white-tailed deer, coyote, red fox, Virginia 

opossum, gray squirrel, striped skunk, southern flying squirrel, eastern cottontail, and raccoon. 

Beaver, muskrat, and mink are found typically in wetland areas. Small mammals commonly 

found in the Catawba-Wateree Project area include white-footed deer mouse, eastern mole, 

meadow-jumping mouse, and southeastern shrew. Black bears are thought to be present as 

transients within some developments (Bridgewater) where heavily forested areas are present. 

Several species of bats are considered seasonally common in habitats associated with most of the 

Catawba-Wateree developments. Species such as eastern pipistrelle, big brown bat, and eastern 

red bat are considered common and wide-ranging throughout the 14 counties comprising the 

project area. Seminole bat and Brazilian free-tailed bat are more common in the area around the 

lower projects primarily from Cowans Ford south to Wateree (Webster, 2005a). Many wildlife 

species are found in multiple habitat types due to their generalized requirements for food, shelter, 

and breeding (e.g., coyotes). 

A mammal survey of the Great Falls bypassed reaches area of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project was conducted in 2005 and resulted in the documentation of 38 species of mammals. All 

of the species observed were considered common throughout the Piedmont; 33 of the species 

have wide geographic distributions in the eastern United States and the entire Catawba-Wateree 

Project area including representative species such as Virginia opossum, eastern mole, eastern red 

bat, eastern cottontail, eastern gray squirrel, white-footed deer mouse, common gray fox, 

raccoon, and white-tailed deer (Webster, 2005a). The southeastern myotis, a federal species of 

concern and a North Carolina species of concern, was documented via SONOBAT recordings 

and is discussed further in the following section Special Status Wildlife Species. 

Birds 

Information from Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department avian surveys, 

National Audubon Christmas Counts, Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge, the South Carolina 

Breeding Bird Atlas, and Partners in Flight provided baseline and historic information to 

181 
supplement field surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005. Field surveys characterized the existing 

breeding, migratory, and resident bird communities of the Catawba-Wateree Project area. The 

variety of habitats within the Catawba-Wateree Project contributes to a wide variety of resident, 

migratory, and seasonal avian species. The transition between forested and open water habitat 

types of Piedmont alluvial, bottomland, and levee forests adjacent to project reservoirs or rivers 

and Coastal Plain levee forest/river associations resulted in the highest avian species richness and 

abundance during the 2004 and 2005 surveys. A total of 147 bird species were observed during 

the surveys including waterbirds (36), game birds (2), raptors (12), woodpeckers (7), 

swifts/swallows (6), hummingbirds (1), and perching birds (83) (DTA, 2005b). 

The five most commonly observed species throughout the year were Carolina chickadee, 

tufted titmouse, Carolina wren, northern cardinal, and American goldfinch. These species are 

generalists that use a variety of habitats for foraging and nesting (DTA, 2005b). 

Species diversity was highest during spring migration and summer breeding seasons for 

all habitat types. During migration and the summer breeding season, resident species are joined 

by north-bound migrants and species that stay to nest in appropriate available habitats. Summer 

breeding and migratory species include neotropical migrants13 such as vireos, flycatchers, and 

warblers (DTA, 2005b). 

Several special status bird species were observed within the Catawba-Wateree Project 

area during the survey. Wood stork was the only federally listed (endangered) species observed 

and is discussed in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. Brown creeper, hermit 

thrush, and sharp-shinned hawk were observed only during migratory or winter seasons and are 

likely to use appropriate habitat in the Catawba-Wateree Project area for food and shelter during 

migration or as winter residents. Species discussed further in the section, Special Status Wildlife 

Species, include bald eagle, little blue heron, Mississippi kite, red-headed woodpecker, and 

Swainson’s warbler. 

In addition to the seasonal avian surveys, a study was conducted to determine habitat 

usage and movement of great blue heron and great egret during different flow stages at the 

Wateree dam tailrace. Results of the study indicate that the great blue heron and the great egret 

utilize the tailrace area as foraging habitat when the development is operating, but move 

elsewhere when no flow conditions occur. Each species used a different area of the tailrace with 

great blue herons using the backwater area and great egrets foraging in fast flowing water just 

downstream of the initial tailrace water release. Twenty-four other species used the tailrace area 

for foraging including large groups of double-crested cormorant and Bonaparte’s gull (DTA, 

2005b). 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptiles and amphibians are common within the Catawba-Wateree Project area and 

include both terrestrial and aquatic species. Distribution of reptiles and amphibians within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area is dependent upon food and reproductive requirements, but 

generally representative species of both groups may be found in a variety of habitat types 

including grasslands, scrub/shrub or early successional, woodland, wetland, or open water 

habitats. 

 13 Neotropical migrants are species that migrate from wintering areas in the Caribbean, 

and Central and South America to North America to breed.

182 
Reptile species representative of grassland habitat in the Catawba-Wateree Project area 

include northern fence lizard and eastern garter snake. In scrub/shrub habitat southern ringneck 

snake, rough green snake, northern black racer, and black rat snake are typical species 

encountered. Woodland reptile species include eastern box turtle, five-lined skink, northern 

redbelly snake, corn snake, and northern copperhead. Reptile species typically encountered in 

aquatic habitats include snapping turtle, eastern painted turtle, northern water snake, and queen 

snake. 

Amphibians are most frequently found in wetland and open water habitat, but several are 

found in woodland habitats. Amphibians found in woodland areas in the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area typically include spotted salamander, American toad, and Fowler’s toad. Typical 

amphibians of wetlands in the Catawba-Wateree Project area include red-spotted newt, southern 

two-lined salamander, three-lined salamander, green frog, bullfrog, and pickerel frog. 

Surveys documenting reptile and amphibian species in the Great Falls bypassed reach 

were conducted in 2004 (Dorcas, 2005a). The surveys resulted in the documentation of 

12 frog/toad, 6 salamander, 7 turtle, 6 lizard, and 11 snake species. None of the species observed 

during the survey were identified as species of special status (Dorcas, 2005a). 

Special Status Wildlife Species 

Surveys conducted throughout the Catawba-Wateree Project area resulted in the 

identification of 11 North Carolina State, South Carolina State, or federally listed wildlife 

species. Four federally listed species—Rafinesques’ big-eared bat, wood stork, and American 

alligator, bog turtle—are discussed further in section 3.3.5, Threatened and Endangered Species. 

The remaining special status species are North Carolina or South Carolina listed species and are 

discussed below. Table 38 presents each species, their status, and survey occurrence. 

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

Species Common Name State Status1 Federal 

Status1 Survey Occurrence 

Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat North 

Carolina—SR 

Widely distributed throughout 

the Catawba-Wateree Project 

area 

Lasionycteris 

noctivagans silver-haired bat 

North 

Carolina—SR 

(SU) 

Uncommon to common 

throughout the Catawba-Wateree 

Project area except in winter 

Myotis 

austroriparius

southeastern 

myotis (bat) 

North 

Carolina—SC FSC 

Wateree River (RM 69.4); 

Catawba River at Great Falls 

bypassed reaches (Mile 1.2) 

Corynorhinus 

rafinesquii

Rafinesque’s bigeared bat 

North 

Carolina—T; 

South 

Carolina—E 

FSC 

Specimens from the vicinity of 

the Wateree River below the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area 

Egretta caerula little blue heron South Multiple observations from the 

183 
Species Common Name State Status1 Federal 

Status1 Survey Occurrence 

Carolina—SC confluence of Wateree and 

Congaree Rivers 

Mycteria 

americana wood stork South 

Carolina—E E 

1 Observation of 25 foraging 

individuals west of the study area 

adjacent to the Congaree River 

Ictinia 

mississippiensis Mississippi kite South 

Carolina—SC 

Confluence of Wateree and 

Congaree Rivers in migration 

and during breeding season 

Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned 

hawk 

North 

Carolina—SR 

Lake James/Bridgewater 

Development – 1 fall observation 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus bald eagle 

North 

Carolina—T; 

South 

Carolina—E 

D 

Lake James, Mountain Island 

Lake, Lookout Shoals Lake, 

Cedar Creek reservoir, Fishing 

Creek reservoir, Lake Wateree, 

as well as Catawba and Wateree 

Rivers 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

red-headed 

woodpecker 

South 

Carolina—SC Winter visitor, Lake Wateree 

Certhia americana brown creeper North 

Carolina—SR Fall migrant; winter visitor only 

Catharus guttatus hermit thrush North 

Carolina—SR 

Fall migrant; winter visitor only. 

Observed at the Bridgewater, 

Cowans Ford, and Mountain 

Island Developments 

Limnothylpis 

swainsonii

Swainson’s 

warbler 

South 

Carolina—SC 

One breeding season observation 

near the confluence of the 

Wateree and Congaree Rivers 

Alligator 

mississippiensis American alligator E Wateree River downstream of the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area 

Glyptemys 

muhlenburgii bog turtle North 

Carolina—T T 

Specimens from Bristol Creek 

(2003) tributary to Lake 

Rhodhiss 

1 E = Endangered 

 D = Delisted 

 T = Threatened 

 SC = Species of Concern 

 SR = Significantly Rare 

184 
Mammals 

Hoary Bat—Hoary bats typically occur throughout North and South Carolina during the 

fall, winter, and spring months. This species is widely distributed throughout the CatawbaWateree Project area where it is absent in the summer months to rare or uncommon during 

migration (Webster, 2005b). 

Silver-Haired Bat—Silver-haired bats inhabit forested areas throughout much of Canada 

and the United States and are distributed throughout much of both North and South Carolina. 

The silver-haired bat is a highly migratory species and its abundance in the Carolinas varies 

throughout the year. Generally, it is considered uncommon to common throughout the CatawbaWateree area where it has been recorded in 10 of the 14 counties that comprise the study area. 

The silver-haired bat is present in the Catawba-Wateree Project area outside of the breeding 

season, arriving in late summer and staying through mid-spring. Although the species’ status is 

defined as “unknown,” North Carolina lists the silver-haired bat as significantly rare during the 

breeding season. It has no special status in South Carolina (Webster, 2005b). 

Southeastern Myotis—The southeastern myotis is a bat found exclusively in riverine 

habitats in the southeastern United States and along the Mississippi River and lower Ohio River 

Basins in the Midwest. In both North and South Carolina its range is limited to the Coastal Plain 

Province. The southeastern myotis is found in cypress-gum swamps and abandoned buildings 

adjacent to permanent water sources. In the Catawba-Wateree Project area it was documented 

foraging over the Wateree River and over the Catawba River at the Great Falls bypassed reaches 

(Webster, 2005b). 

Birds 

Little Blue Heron—Little blue heron is considered a species of concern in South Carolina. 

The little blue heron is a colonial nesting species of the Coastal Plain that can occur inland 

during post-breeding dispersal from July to September. They feed in shallow water on fish and 

small aquatic organisms (Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). Multiple observations of little 

blue herons occurred from Lake Wateree to the confluence of the Congaree River during the 

2004-2005 avian surveys. 

Mississippi Kite—Mississippi kites are a long distance migrant found throughout the 

southern Midwest and eastern United States as a breeding species, with the largest portion of 

their population occurring in the southern Great Plains. In North and South Carolina they are a 

breeding species on the Coastal Plain, but their population is expanding into the Piedmont. Nest 

sites in the southeast are found commonly in mature, undisturbed stands of lowland and flood 

plain forests and along major rivers where they use trees at least 100 ft in height (Potter, Parnell 

and Teulings, 1980). Foraging habitat consists of fields adjacent to nesting sites where it can 

prey on large insects such as cicadas, grasshoppers, and dragonflies in flight. All observations of 

Mississippi kites within the Catawba-Wateree Project area were documented from the Wateree 

River riparian areas below the Wateree dam. The Mississippi kite is listed in South Carolina, 

where it is a species of concern (DTA, 2005b). 

Sharp-shinned Hawk—The sharp-shinned hawk is considered significantly rare in North 

Carolina. It is considered a fairly common fall migrant, an uncommon winter resident, and a rare 

to absent breeding species throughout the Carolinas. A bird of prey found primarily in forests 

185 
and woodlands, the sharp-shinned hawk actively pursues small birds, up to the size of a thrush, 

as its major food source (Potter, Parnell and Teulings, 1980). One individual was observed 

during fall avian surveys adjacent to Lake James, and it is likely that it was a migrant based on 

time of year of observation (DTA, 2005b). 

Bald Eagle—The bald eagle, formerly listed as a threatened species, has been removed 

from the federal endangered species list as of 2007 (FWS, 2007). It is currently listed as a 

threatened species in North Carolina and as an endangered species in South Carolina. Avian 

surveys in 2004-2005 documented 64 observations of bald eagles on 7 of the 11 lakes, reservoirs, 

and river sections within the Catawba-Wateree Project. A nest survey in 2005 resulted in the 

identification of 16 known bald eagle nests within the Catawba-Wateree Project area or 2 miles 

of the Catawba-Wateree Project area; 5 of the nests were active in 2005. Bald eagles concentrate 

at the Wateree dam tailrace on a seasonal basis using the area for foraging. 

Red-Headed Woodpecker—The red-headed woodpecker can be found in all sections of 

both North and South Carolina during all months of the year and is a common permanent 

resident within the Congaree Swamp National Park (Carter, 2005). On the Coastal Plain it is 

fairly common in summer, but at other seasons and inland it is considered uncommon to fairly 

common. The species constructs a nest hole in standing dead trees and telephone poles (Potter, 

Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). The red-headed woodpecker is considered a species of concern in 

South Carolina. Observations of red-headed woodpecker occurred only during winter surveys 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project study area (DTA, 2005b). 

Swainson’s Warbler—The Swainson’s warbler is known to breed in the mountains and in 

the Coastal Plain physiogeographic regions of North and South Carolina. In the mountains, the 

species is associated with rhododendron thickets and woodlands with closed canopies. In the 

Coastal Plain it uses thickets that occur in forest gaps and edges, primarily along bottomland 

forests. It appears to use damp forests with cane species but will not use inundated areas (South 

Carolina DNR, 2005). The species generally nests from 1 to 10 ft above the ground in cane 

brakes and thickets from early May through early July (Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). 

Swainson’s warbler is a watchlist species of highest priority according to the Partners In Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan for the South Atlantic Coastal Plain (American Bird Conservancy, 2001) 

and it has also been identified by the South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy as needing a specific monitoring program (South Carolina DNR, 2005). An observation 

during the breeding season on the Wateree River during relicensing surveys near the confluence 

of the Congaree River suggests the presence of breeding individuals, but breeding is not 

confirmed (DTA, 2005b). The Swainson’s warbler is a common summer resident of the 

Congaree Swamp National Park (Carter, 2005).

Brown Creeper—The brown creeper is considered significantly rare in North Carolina 

where it is a fairly common winter resident from mid-October to mid-April in the Coastal Plain 

and Piedmont and a permanent resident of the mountains. In the mountains, it breeds in the high 

altitude spruce-fir forests. It feeds on insects gleaned from crevices in tree bark and from spider 

webs (Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). The brown creeper was observed only during fall 

migration and winter inventory surveys in the project area (DTA, 2005b). 

Hermit Thrush—Hermit thrush is designated as a significantly rare species in North 

Carolina and is found as a fairly common winter resident of woodlands throughout the Carolinas 

from mid-October to early May. It is less abundant in the mountains than the coastal areas. Like 

186 
other thrushes, it is primarily insectivorous, but will also eat a wide variety of fruits and berries 

(Potter, Parnell, and Teulings, 1980). It was observed only during fall migration and winter 

inventory surveys within the project area (DTA, 2005b) 

Priority Wildlife Habitat 

Lake Norman Colonial Waterbird Nesting—A great blue heron rookery established on 

lower Lake Norman (Hero Island) and unique to the Catawba River has been designated a 

Priority Habitat (Duke Energy, 2007). The rookery population appears to vary from 60 to 90 

individuals and 30 to 40 nests each year. Although green herons are observed on the island on 

occasion, no other species are known to use the rookery. The shoreline of the island is classified 

as a Natural Area and the island is part of the North Carolina WRC James Parnell Colonial 

Waterbird Sanctuary System, a network of colonial waterbird conservation lands. Other 

rookeries have been identified in association with the Wylie and Oxford Developments. Duke 

Energy currently has a management and protection plan in place for rookeries that is jointly 

implemented with the North Carolina WRC to protect the habitat and the great blue herons 

occupying the rookeries during the breeding season. 

In addition to the heron rookery on lower Lake Norman, the Catawba-Mountain Island 

Lake Watershed, which includes the Catawba River corridor from Lake Norman to Mountain 

Island Lake, has been designated an Important Bird Area by Audubon North Carolina (Audubon 

North Carolina, 2008). The Catawba River is a well-known migratory corridor, making it an 

important stopover site during spring and fall migration and a wintering site for 21 species of 

waterfowl. According to Audubon North Carolina, key avian habitat in the Piedmont Province 

includes reservoirs that provide open water habitat in a region without natural lakes except for 

beaver-created impoundments. Reservoirs provide migratory and wintering habitat for 

waterfowl; migrating shorebirds use exposed mudflats in late summer and fall; and bald eagle, 

osprey, and double-crested cormorants nest on several reservoirs (Audubon North Carolina, 

2008). 

Congaree Swamp National Park—Congaree National Park, located downstream of the 

Wateree River Regulated Reach, is the largest old growth bottomland hardwood forest in the 

United States and represents one of the few intact examples of freshwater swamps in the United 

States. It is designated as an UNESCO International Biosphere Reserve, a National Natural 

Landmark, and a Globally Important Bird Area. Congaree Swamp National Park supports high 

densities of migrating and wintering landbirds and high densities of bottomland hardwood 

resident species such as pileated woodpecker, red-headed woodpecker, barred owl, prothonotary 

warbler, and Swainson’s warbler (American Bird Conservancy, 2003). 

3.3.4.2 Environmental Effects 

Reservoir Levels and Minimum Flows 

Project operations can affect wetlands, riparian, and wildlife habitat within the CatawbaWateree Project area including the Wateree River downstream to its confluence with the 

Congaree River. Reservoir fluctuations can adversely affect the distribution, species 

composition, and productivity of wetland and riparian habitat. Reservoir draw-downs during the 

growing and reproductive seasons can limit wetland growth in the fluctuation zone, flood 

waterfowl nesting areas, strand amphibian eggs and tadpoles, and reduce foraging and cover 

habitat for a variety of other wildlife species that are resident or migrate through the project area. 

187 
The proposed reservoir levels and minimum continuous flows will provide wetland areas 

with more dependable water levels and flows that are more consistent. Winter draw-downs will 

occur in Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree, but will provide a smaller 

drop in elevation and for a shorter time period than under existing license conditions. Daily 

water fluctuations will be more frequent, but within a reduced range of fluctuation. The new 

increased minimum continuous flow regime proposed for the Catawba-Wateree Project will 

provide a consistently wetted channel in the Great Falls bypassed reaches and for the Wylie 

regulated river reach. Although no specific public comments on proposed reservoir levels and 

flow regimes in regard to wetland, riparian, and wildlife habitat were received, the proposed 

reservoir levels and flow regimes were supported by approximately 66 parties who signed the 

Revised CRA. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed water elevations at project reservoirs are presented in 

section 3.3.2.1.1 Water Quantity. Currently, the range of water levels in Lake James and Lake 

Norman directly related to the Catawba-Wateree Project operations do not appear to adversely 

affect the hydrology for adjacent wetlands. Minor lake level fluctuations occur at both reservoirs 

during the growing season. Wetlands associated with Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory, Lookout 

Shoals Lake, Mountain Island Lake, Lake Wylie, Fishing Creek reservoir, Great Falls reservoir, 

Cedar Creek reservoir, and Lake Wateree do not experience any reservoir level fluctuations 

during the growing season under the current operating regime. 

The proposed reservoir levels, in concert with the Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization 

Program (section 3.3.2.1.1, Water Quantity), would provide beneficial enhancement of the 

existing emergent wetlands by stabilizing and potentially increasing the extent of shallow water 

habitat that could be occupied consistently by emergent wetland plant species. There would be a 

corresponding reduction in the probability and extent of periodic desiccation during the growing 

season as a result of the proposed reservoir levels. More consistently stable lake levels would in 

turn increase the potential for establishment of new emergent plant species and could result in a 

beneficial increase in the diversity of plant species within emergent wetland habitat at 

development reservoirs. Shrub/scrub and forested wetlands species diversity may be altered by 

the proposed stabilization in water levels and flows. Emergent plants found along the margin or 

as understory within these wetland types would continue to benefit from the new regime while 

some species requiring drier episodic conditions potentially would be reduced or replaced. 

Water willow beds that have existed under the current regime of reservoir level fluctuations 

along the shoreline of Lake Wylie, Fishing Creek reservoir, Cedar Creek reservoir, and Lake 

Wateree would not be adversely affected by the proposed changes in reservoir water levels since 

water levels would be more stable than previous regimes. As a result of the proposed reservoir 

levels and Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program, an increase in the establishment of 

emergent wetland vegetation within the Catawba-Wateree Project reservoirs would provide 

beneficial protection of reservoir shorelines by increasing attenuation of storm flows entering the 

reservoirs from tributaries and reducing the potential for erosion and increase wetland functions 

for sediment and nutrient retention. 

In general, wildlife species, including special status species, have lived successfully in 

existing habitats and with the current Catawba-Wateree River Project operating regimes. 

Wildlife species associated with wetlands and reservoir shoreline areas would benefit from more 

stable, available foraging habitat and reduced incidents of stranding or flooding within the 

188 
fluctuation zone where nests or nursery habitat occurs. Waterfowl species that nest close to or 

on the ground adjacent to the water’s edge would be provided with increased potential for 

breeding success as the chance of nest inundation is reduced through more stable water levels. 

Semi-aquatic organisms such as frogs, toads, and salamanders would have a higher probability 

for successful reproduction as stable water levels provide less chance of stranding of eggs and 

tadpoles as well as reduced opportunistic predation of eggs and young in shallow pools and on 

sand or mud bars. Migrating and wintering waterfowl using the reservoirs for food and shelter 

would benefit from the potential for enhanced wetland habitat in which to rest and feed. 

The rocky shoals spider lily would be beneficially affected by flow rates high enough to 

prevent silt from covering the plant seeds. The ability of the plant to reproduce from viable 

seeds is critical to survival of the species; however, long-term high flow events can be 

destructive, causing scouring of substrate or prolonged inundation. Long-term low-flow events 

can expose plants to high temperatures and desiccation. Short-term intermittent and flood flows 

can be tolerated. 

Flow regimes proposed for the Great Falls bypassed reaches, and the Wylie regulated 

river reach that includes minimum continuous and critical flows will provide appropriate 

conditions for the protection and enhancement of rocky shoals spider lily. The new increased 

minimum continuous flows proposed for the Catawba-Wateree Project Great Falls bypassed 

reaches and Wylie regulated river reach would provide consistent channel flows that would in 

turn provide consistent and relatively stable conditions for the rocky shoals spider lily colonies 

and would prevent excessive sediment accumulation in and around the colonies. Flows would 

provide a barrier to access for white-tailed deer and reduce opportunistic grazing on plants within 

the colonies. Rocky shoals spider lily colonies will continue to be susceptible to detrimental 

impacts from flooding and spills that may cause scouring and uprooting of existing plants and 

bulbs; however, current populations of rocky shoals spider lily have survived despite flooding 

and spills that have occurred to date. Some loss of plants and bulbs is likely during periodic 

flood events, but the losses will be offset by the overall benefit to the species from the 

implementation of minimum continuous and critical flows and the species protection plan. 

Canada moonseed, which grows in low woods and bottomland forests, can be affected by 

desiccation during periods of low water. Canada moonseed would benefit from proposed 

releases from Catawba-Wateree Project impoundments, which would prevent desiccation during 

periods of low water flows. Ovate-leaved catchfly and prairie trillium are found in moist 

woodlands in upland areas where proposed water levels and flows would not affect the species’ 

viability. 

Flood Plain Inundation 

Duke Energy has proposed to extend the duration of flood plain inundation in the 

Wateree River flood plain to seasonally and temporarily increase the flood plain by coinciding 

regulated releases from the Wateree dam with annual spring flood events using two proposed 

measures: Wateree Spring Stable Flows and the Wateree Flood Plain Inundation (section 3.3.2, 

Water Resources). Two 10-day periods of flows between mid-February and mid-May would be 

provided to enhance aquatic habitat primarily for spawning anadromous fish species. Inundation 

of the flood plain would be gradually reduced in the Wateree regulated river reach to 

approximate natural conditions. Based on the results from the Wateree River flood plain 

inundation study, the greatest backwater effect of the Congaree River is caused when releases of 

189 
approximately 25,000 cfs from Lake Wateree and 40,000 cfs within the Congaree River occur. 

At this level, inundation expands across a majority of Fork Swamp adjacent to the Congaree 

Swamp National Park and north to Gum Swamp. 

FWS states that enhancement and protection of the Wateree flood plain is vitally 

important on an ecosystem level because it contains habitat similar to the Congaree flood plain 

and contiguous Congaree Swamp National Park, and because seasonal inundation is important 

for flood plain vegetation health and growth. Interior recommends the implementation of the 

Wateree flood plain inundation provision and suggests that Duke Energy develop an 

implementation and operation plan. Interior recommends that the plan provide clear details into 

when the provision will be initiated, how the Catawba-Wateree Project will be operated during 

the inundation period, how operations will produce the desired effects of prolonged flood plain 

inundation and be measured for compliance, and include a provision for Duke to prepare an 

annual report for review by Interior and the Park Service. 

Our Analysis 

Seasonal inundation of the Wateree River flood plain would result in a lateral expansion 

of the flood plain and provide beneficial enhancement of flood plain natural communities such as 

the Bald Cypress-Tupelo Gum Swamp and Bottomland Hardwood forests in the flood plain and 

contiguous with Congaree Swamp National Park. The proposed cycle of inundation will remove 

some flood intolerant plant species from the flood plain and favor the growth of species adapted 

to the natural bottomland hardwood plant community, resulting in enhancement of the 

bottomland hardwood habitat. Seasonal inundation also would restore a natural seasonal 

fluctuation that would help to maintain habitat health and vitality. Seasonal inundation would 

provide habitat that wetland wildlife species, including RTE species such as wood stork and 

American alligator, require for reproduction, foraging, and shelter (section 3.3.5, Rare, 

Threatened, and Endangered Species). Special status wildlife species such as little blue heron, 

wood stork, and other wading birds would benefit from the habitat enhancement provided by 

seasonal inundation with an increase in foraging habitat containing macroinvertebrates and other 

prey organisms they rely on for food. As a result of seasonal flood plain inundation, we 

conclude that unique natural communities and the wildlife that use the habitats within the natural 

communities would benefit from better quality habitat and increased forage that would be further 

restored and enhanced with a long-term commitment to the proposed flood plain regime during 

the life of the new license. 

Flood plain inundation has the potential to adversely affect Swainson’s warblers that may 

choose to nest in cane brakes and thickets within the flood plain. Depending on inundation and 

because of their mobility, Swainson’s warbler could relocate to appropriate upland habitat if 

traditional nesting areas are inundated during the nesting season. We conclude that, although 

Swainson’s warblers have the potential to be adversely affected by seasonal inundation of the 

Wateree River flood plain, their ability to use other habitat and their mobility would minimize 

any adverse effects potentially occurring as a result of the implementation of a program for 

inundation of the Wateree flood plain. 

Rare Species Management 

Review of wildlife survey results and life requisites for special status wildlife species 

precluded a number of species from being carried forward for analysis of potential project 

effects. The species removed from further analysis are Mississippi kite, sharp-shinned hawk, 

190 
brown creeper, and hermit thrush. These species are not considered due to their limited presence 

in the project area resulting from the absence or inadequate provision of habitat, food, or 

reproduction in the Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Several rare plant and wildlife species occur within the Catawba-Wateree Project area 

and may have the potential to be affected by project operations, maintenance, or project-related 

activities. South Carolina DNR agrees that species protection plans be filed with South Carolina 

DNR and North Carolina WRC, as appropriate, for the rocky shoals spider lily, Rafinesque’s 

big-eared bat, mussel species, flat and snail bullheads, and heron rookeries. North Carolina WF 

states that species protection plans provide strong protection for specific unique flora and fauna 

in the region. Species protection plans have been created and filed with the license application 

for special status species of North Carolina or South Carolina, or both, and one priority habitat 

occurring within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Those plans not already approved and 

implemented would be implemented within 60 days of the issuance of the new license. 

Annually, the list of special status species for the Catawba-Wateree Project will be reviewed in 

consultation with federal and state agencies. Mutually agreed upon management actions and 

alternatives would occur for any changes in status, and newly listed or de-listed species. Any 

changes in management strategy based on new information would require consultation with the 

appropriate agencies. Terrestrial species with proposed protection plans are discussed within this 

section. Aquatic species that have proposed species protection plans were discussed further in 

section 3.3.3, Aquatic Resources. 

Rocky Shoals Spider Lily 

The rocky shoals spider lily occurs in small populations on the Catawba River near Sugar 

Creek (RM 131.4) and the lower Great Falls long bypassed reach (RM 102.4); a large population 

(thousands of plants) is located at Landsford canal on the Catawba River (RM 119.0). Duke 

Energy has donated approximately 2 miles of shoreline to the state of South Carolina at 

Landsford canal, providing the population located there with permanent protection. With 

assistance from the Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Aquatic and Terrestrial Resource Committee, 

Duke Energy has prepared a species protection and management plan for the rocky shoals spider 

lily populations within the Catawba-Wateree Project area as part of the Catawba-Wateree 

relicensing agreement. The purpose of the plan is to provide information for the continued 

maintenance of rocky shoals spider lily habitat and protection from human disturbance. Lowlevel aerial photographs have been taken of colonies of rocky shoals spider lily to provide 

baseline data for long-term monitoring. Additional baseline information on HSI requirements 

for depth and flow will be established using generation records and USGS gaging data, and 

current physical condition of existing populations will be documented prior to the initiation of 

minimum flows (3 to 5 years after license issuance). South Carolina DNR and South Carolina 

DPRT have agreed to monitor the population within the Great Falls long bypassed reach. 

Potential relocation of rocky shoals spider lily bulbs from Landsford Canal to three sites selected 

in the Great Falls long bypassed reach has been proposed and a protocol including a separate 

monitoring plan is included in the species protection plan. 

Georgia Aster 

Interior requested the development and implementation of a species protection plan for 

the known population of Georgia aster that occurs along a transmission line approximately onehalf mile from the Mountain Island Development dam. The population is located outside of the 

191 
project area defined as the geographic scope of this EIS. Operation of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project developments would not adversely affect the existing population; however, should a 

population of Georgia aster be found within the project boundary, the development and 

implementation of a species protection plan in conjunction with state and federal agency 

consultations would be appropriate at that time. 

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat 

Although there is no evidence that Rafinesque’s big-eared bat habitat exists in the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area, two individuals observed nearby suggest that the species may use 

the Catawba-Wateree Project area to some extent. In association with Duke Energy’s CatawbaWateree relicensing agreement, Duke Energy has prepared a species protection plan for 

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Habitat management 

(maintaining forested natural communities, especially pine flatwoods and riverine forests), 

selective tree removal where harvesting occurs, keeping dead standing timber intact, and 

placement of artificial roosts would be implemented through the protection plan. Roost surveys, 

mist netting, and acoustic surveys would be conducted for 2 years, then once every 3 years to 

determine presence and use of habitat within the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Bald Eagle 

Bald eagles nest within the Catawba-Wateree Project and regularly use the power plant 

tailrace areas, rivers, tributaries and open water of reservoirs as forage sites. Individuals may be 

seasonal migrants or residents in the Catawba-Wateree Project area and all are subject to 

disturbance from human activities along the shoreline of the developments. As of 2005, five 

active bald eagle nests were known from the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Interior 

recommends Duke Energy provide an annual bald eagle monitoring report to the Commission, 

FWS, and the state wildlife agencies that will include methodology for monitoring bald eagles 

and nest trees; transient bald eagle occurrences; and the location of resident or nesting bald 

eagles within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. Interior further recommends that Duke 

Energy be required to develop and implement management guidelines for the bald eagle and 

include them in the species protection plan. The guidelines should use the most current version 

of the federal bald eagle management guidelines to develop management objectives and actions. 

Duke Energy proposes a bald eagle species protection plan that will provide for the 

collection of data on existing status, new nest sites, and recruitment estimates within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project boundary and the zone of operational influence every 3 years. 

Information from the surveys would be shared with FWS and state agencies concerning any bald 

eagle nests within or adjoining the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries. Consultation with 

FWS and appropriate state agencies would provide assistance in the development of management 

plans for bald eagle nest sites following the FWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

(2006). The management plan for bald eagle may include implementation of distance buffers 

and avoidance of certain activities during the breeding season to minimize disturbance, and the 

conservation and maintenance of habitat. As part of the bald eagle species protection plan, Duke 

Energy proposes to place approximately 25 acres of applicant-owned property located on the 

east side of the Wateree tailrace in a conservation easement. The easement would be in effect for 

the term of the new license and would protect a fairly large, seasonal concentration of adult and 

juvenile bald eagles that use the tailrace for foraging. 

192 
Rookeries/Colonial Waterbirds 

Heron rookeries, specifically great blue heron rookeries, have been documented on 

islands within the lakes and adjacent shorelines of the Cowans Ford, Wylie, and Oxford 

Developments. Duke Energy, in accordance with the SMP, is implementing a protection plan for 

the heron rookeries found within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. The primary concern 

for the rookeries is human disturbance created by residential and commercial use of project lands 

adjacent to the heron rookeries. The specific rookeries are protected under a Colonial Waterbird 

Nesting Area Program and the boundaries of the island rookeries are posted “No Entry” to 

restrict public access during the nesting season from April through August. North Carolina 

WRC Enforcement Division provides patrol and enforcement of the regulation. In addition, 

Duke Energy would continue management and protection of any colonial waterbird rookeries 

and nesting areas on all lands and waters within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary or any 

applicant-owned lands adjoining the boundary. After 2 years of inactivity during the nesting 

season, a rookery would be considered abandoned and protection would be removed. Should 

any new rookeries be located within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries, Duke Energy 

would consult with federal and state agencies to develop appropriate management and protection 

strategies. Rookery data would be collected concurrent with bald eagle nest surveys and 

provided to the pertinent federal and state agencies. Data would include existing status, new nest 

sites, and recruitment estimates within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries and zone of 

operational influence at 3-year intervals. 

Our Analysis 

Rocky Shoals Spider Lily—The new increased minimum continuous flow regimes 

associated with the proposed mitigation and enhancement measures for the Wylie and Great 

Falls bypassed reaches of the Catawba-Wateree Project will provide a consistent channel flow 

and habitat conditions appropriate for the continued survival and potential expansion of existing 

rocky shoals spider lily colonies. The new flows will reduce the accumulation of sediment 

within the shoals, preventing suffocation of the plant bulbs. In addition, increased flows and 

consistent watering of the channel would reduce accessibility to the colonies by white-tailed deer 

and possible opportunistic grazing on plants and bulbs. Monitoring of the Great Falls long 

bypassed reach colonies of rocky shoals spider lily and comparison with baseline information 

will provide guidance for long-term management of the population including an auxiliary 

program for transplanting and monitoring rocky shoals spider lily plants originating from the 

Landsford Canal State Park population. Transplanting plants from Landsford Canal State Park 

could be implemented should negative effects of Catawba-Wateree Project operations be 

observed during monitoring. However, protecting and enhancing the colonies in the existing 

locations would be preferable to requiring relocation efforts. Duke Energy should continue open 

dialogue with the appropriate agencies during all aspects of monitoring and management. 

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat— Although Rafinesque’s big-eared bat has not been 

definitively observed within the Catawba-Wateree Project, Duke Energy has prepared a species 

protection plan that provides for protection and enhancement of potentially suitable habitat 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Initiation of monitoring for a 2-year period would 

provide information on Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (whether or not they established colonies 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project area) that would be useful to federal and state agencies in 

conservation and management of the species. The SMP and the species protection plan provide 

for the protection of forested riparian habitat with limited tree removal, and the provision for 

193 
keeping dead standing trees in place provides appropriate habitat for roosting colonies. Protected 

habitat will be supplemented with artificial roost boxes that will create habitat for the possible 

establishment of roost colonies within the Catawba-Wateree Project. These measures are 

proactive, beneficial, and result in adequate protection and enhancement of habitat for a species 

that can become established within the Catawba-Wateree Project, providing additional 

opportunities for the species’ conservation and protection. Measures to protect and enhance 

potential habitat for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat would also provide protection and enhancement 

of habitat for other special status bat species known to occur in the project area, including 

southeastern myotis, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat. We recommend that Duke Energy 

continue to consult with agencies and make any appropriate revisions to the species protection 

plan as the plan is implemented if any special status bat species are observed within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Bald Eagle—Implementation of the species protection plan for the bald eagle as proposed 

would provide data on the status of resident and nesting bald eagles as well as transient bald 

eagles using the Catawba-Wateree Project area for foraging and roosting. Annual bald eagle 

surveys performed during the winter nesting season would continue to provide the most current 

data on bald eagle nesting, fledging success, and transient use of the Catawba-Wateree Project 

area. Sharing of information and consultation with the appropriate agencies would provide Duke 

Energy with the ability to adjust protective measures should adverse impacts to bald eagle be 

observed. The proposed conservation easement on approximately 25 acres of property located 

on the east side of the Wateree tailrace would protect the large seasonal concentration of adult 

and juvenile bald eagles that forage in the tailrace area for the duration of the license. As a result 

of the implementation of the species protection plan for bald eagle, bald eagles using CatawbaWateree Project reservoirs and terrestrial habitat would continue to receive beneficial protection 

from human activities and intrusions as well as protected nesting and foraging habitat. Duke 

Energy’s management guidelines should be consistent with the most current version of the FWS 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (currently the 2008 version), and be updated as 

newer versions are implemented by FWS. Coordination with agencies including FWS for bald 

eagle management recommendations would provide opportunities to update and adjust protective 

measures for bald eagles using the Catawba-Wateree Project area, resulting in continued 

protection and potential enhancement of the bald eagle population. We conclude that with 

monitoring and agency consultation, SMP guidelines, and riparian land conservation 

opportunities, Duke Energy would provide quality roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat for 

bald eagles resulting in a long-term benefit to the species. 

Heron Rookeries—The proposed species protection plan for heron rookeries located 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project area provides conservation and protection for nesting and 

roosting great blue herons that is not provided on either the state or federal level. Disturbance 

from human activities and intrusions, especially during the breeding and nesting season, can 

cause abandonment of individual nests or an entire colony. In association with its SMP, Duke 

Energy has developed a species protection plan that would suspend public access to the rookeries 

during the nesting season (April-August) and would be enforced by the North Carolina WRC 

Enforcement Division. Data gathered through monitoring of the rookeries, and identification of 

new or abandoned sites in partnership with appropriate agency personnel would maximize the 

protection and enhancement of colonial nesting heron habitat within the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. The proposed protection plan and SMP guidelines would provide adequate protection 

for existing and future heron rookeries; however, enforcement of the access restrictions lies with 

194 
state agency personnel and not with Duke Energy. As part of the species protection plan, 

consultation between Duke Energy and the agencies could include enforcement personnel to 

provide information on the successful application of access restrictions during the breeding 

season. 

Noxious Plant Species 

Terrestrial invasive plant species can affect the quality of natural plant communities 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. Invasive species successfully compete against 

and overtake native species by means of reproductive mechanisms and growth characteristics 

that result in crowding and shading out of native species. As recreation and development 

continues to increase around project reservoirs, disturbance and fragmentation of riparian and 

terrestrial plant communities can provide increased opportunities for terrestrial invasive plant 

species to colonize or expand. Terrestrial invasive plant species have become established in the 

project area primarily due to human activities that include planting for erosion control and 

development that results in fragmentation and/or disturbance of natural plant communities. 

Invasive plant species such as autumn olive, Chinese privet, Chinese wisteria, Japanese 

honeysuckle, Vietnamese grass, and kudzu occur in the project area. Autumn olive and Chinese 

wisteria appear to have limited distributions within or adjacent to the project area. The 

remaining species are considered abundant and more widely distributed along shorelines from 

Lake James to Lake Wateree. Kudzu and Japanese honeysuckle may be the most abundant of all 

the species occurring within the project area and the species that may have the potential to be 

dispersed by project operations. For all species identified, spill flows have the ability to 

transport seeds and uprooted plants downstream where they have the potential to become 

established. 

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

invasive exotic terrestrial plants, but does have vegetation management requirements outlined 

within the SMG. Under the guidelines, adjacent property owners are allowed to selectively 

manage non-native invasive plants or poisonous plants with written concurrence from Duke 

Energy. Applicant personnel and contractors provide routine vegetation maintenance at all 

facilities including access areas, dams, powerhouses, and rights-of-way. Maintenance includes 

mowing and spraying of herbicides according to the EPA-approved directions found on the 

specific herbicide label. Interior is concerned with the possibility of existing invasive plant 

species being dispersed by project operations and recommends that Duke Energy develop an 

invasive terrestrial and riparian vegetation management program to help manage invasive exotic 

terrestrial plants that occur on Catawba-Wateree Project lands and to restore native plants on 

these lands. FWS further recommends the development of a public education program that 

would include a brochure, signage, and implementation of an active invasive terrestrial and 

riparian species management program in consultation with FWS and the Park Service. 

Aquatic nuisance plant species have the potential to reduce boating and recreation access 

and reduce the aesthetic value of the recreational experience on any of the affected reservoirs. 

Hydrilla, parrotfeather, and Brazilian elodea all have reproductive mechanisms that allow the 

plants to spread vegetatively as well as by seed. Fragmentation of existing plants by cutting with 

a boat propeller is a means for all three species to be spread. Seasonal flooding and resulting 

high flows can wash fragments or seeds into new areas of an affected reservoir or downstream 

into other reservoirs. Currently, Duke Energy, in cooperation with North Carolina WRC, South 

Carolina DNR, and North Carolina DENR, uses public education and stakeholder outreach as the 

195 
primary mechanism to prevent aquatic nuisance plant species from establishing and spreading in 

Catawba-Wateree Project waters. Presentations to local governmental, lake interest groups, and 

schools have helped to increase public awareness of the problem of invasive aquatic plant 

species. FWS recommends Duke Energy provide additional measures to reduce the spread of 

aquatic invasive plant species by including a “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers” public education 

campaign. Signage using the trademarked logo of the campaign and education specifically 

focused on the procedures to be used in cleaning all water-based recreational equipment should 

be included and placed at all launch sites. 

Our Analysis 

Public education and awareness programs are an easy, low cost, and beneficial method 

for disseminating information on the prevention of exotic plant species introductions in both 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats and would be supported and implemented by Duke Energy. 

Aquatic—Current consultation with FWS for aquatic invasive species management 

should continue, but in addition Duke Energy should expand consultation to include the Aquatic 

Nuisance Species Task Force and the Coast Guard, both sponsors of the Stop Aquatic 

Hitchhikers Campaign with FWS. South Carolina DNR is a partnering agency to the campaign, 

and as a current consulting agency with Duke Energy, would continue to ensure the 

implementation of successful invasive aquatic weed management and prevention efforts by Duke 

Energy in development reservoirs and lakes. The Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers Campaign 

(www.ProtectYourWaters.net) provides educational materials and specific procedures to be used 

in cleaning all aquatic recreational equipment guidelines to prevent the spread of aquatic 

invasive species from one water body to another. The education of visitors and residents on how 

they can help manage the introduction and/or spread of aquatic invasive species through their 

own actions would assist Duke Energy in actively preventing and managing aquatic nuisance 

species in an effective, efficient, and inexpensive manner. We agree with FWS that Duke 

Energy should consult with agencies and sponsors of the Stop aquatic Hitchhikers Campaign 

which would provide a beneficial mechanism to assistance Duke Energy with preventing and 

managing aquatic nuisance species in the project reservoirs. 

Duke Energy has stocked grass carp in affected project reservoirs (Lake James, Lake 

Norman, Lake Hickory, Mountain Island Lake) to control aquatic invasive plant species in 

cooperation with North Carolina DENR. Grass carp have been used as an effective means for 

managing aquatic nuisance plants, but they can also reduce or eliminate native aquatic vegetation 

and can be spread to other bodies of water via connecting rivers and streams during periods of 

flooding. Some states are now prohibiting the use of grass carp as a control mechanism. 

Continued consultation through the life of the license with agencies would provide Duke Energy 

with opportunities to determine alternative methods for aquatic nuisance plant management. 

Terrestrial—Terrestrial invasive plant species such as autumn olive, Chinese privet, 

Chinese wisteria, Japanese honeysuckle, Vietnamese grass, and kudzu have become established 

in the project area primarily due to human activities that result in fragmentation and/or 

disturbance of natural plant communities. Autumn olive and Chinese wisteria occur in single 

locations (Lake Wylie and Dearborn Lake, respectively) and appear to have limited distributions 

within or adjacent to the project area and do not appear to be distributed or affected by project 

operations. The remaining species are considered abundant and more widely distributed along 

reservoir shorelines from Lake James to Lake Wateree. Kudzu and Japanese honeysuckle may 

196 
be the most abundant of all the species occurring within the project area and the species that may 

have the potential to be dispersed by project operations. Vietnamese grass would be most likely 

to adversely affect rocky shoals spider lily if left untreated. Spill flows have the ability to 

transport seeds and uprooted plants downstream where they have the potential to become 

established. 

Under the current management procedures for noxious weed control, routine 

management of terrestrial species surrounding development facilities includes active mowing 

and use of herbicides approved by EPA and/or the North Carolina and South Carolina 

Departments of Agriculture. Adjacent property owners are allowed to selectively control 

invasive exotic terrestrial species or poisonous plants with written concurrence from Duke 

Energy as stated in the SMP. Land owners are encouraged to plant native plant species instead 

of exotic species in the SMP and thereby preventing the introduction and spread of invasive 

species. In terrestrial and riparian areas that are not the property of the landowner or adjacent to 

development facilities, invasive exotic species are not currently managed and may continue to 

spread through vegetative growth or a variety of mechanisms (wind, water, wildlife, etc.). 

The development and implementation of a terrestrial invasive plant species management 

plan would provide enhancement of existing natural plant communities and protection for special 

status species. The terrestrial invasive species management plan would include the following 

measures: (1) baseline surveys to identify the range and extent of terrestrial invasive plant 

species within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary; (2) methods for management to be used 

(e.g., herbicide treatment, mechanical removal, mowing); (3) requirement that applicant staff 

involved in herbicide use be trained as a certified herbicide applicator; (4) a schedule for 

treatments, follow-up surveys, and additional treatments; and (5) estimated costs for 

management.. Consultation with FWS, the Park Service, and other appropriate agencies would 

assist in the development of a management plan and the selection of appropriate management 

procedures for existing invasive species. Herbicide treatments would be employed by certified 

applicators and could be used in combination with other methods such as mechanical removal. 

Mechanical methods such as cutting and physical removal of plants in combination with 

stump/root crown spraying can be effective for kudzu, Chinese privet, and large isolated stands 

of wisteria or Japanese honeysuckle. Vietnamese grass can be managed by physical pulling of 

plants before seed production or spraying. Depending on the species and treatment methods 

adopted, follow-up treatments may be necessary on an annual basis for 1 to 2 years after the 

initial treatment. If management efforts result in the elimination of invasive species especially in 

areas where invasive species formerly threatened special status habitats, wetlands or other unique 

habitats, planting of native vegetation to reestablish natural habitat and prevent soil erosion 

would be beneficial. Partnership with other organizations to implement the active removal and 

restoration process would provide additional support to Duke Energy. 

To address invasive terrestrial plant species occurring outside of its project boundary, 

Duke Energy would develop an educational brochure that would be made available to adjacent 

landowners for management of invasive terrestrial plant species on their property. Information 

contained in the brochure would be developed in consultation with FWS and the Park Service 

and would provide information on terrestrial invasive plant species found within the project area, 

methods for mechanical removal and licensed herbicide application, and the estimated costs per 

acre. The brochure also would be made available for download through the Duke Energy 

website and would be incorporated into the next revision of the SMP guidelines. The 

197 
development of an educational brochure would result in long-term benefits to native plant 

species and habitats in the project vicinity. 

We present the estimated cost of development and implementation of a terrestrial 

invasive plant species management plan, and make our final recommendations regarding this 

measure, in section 5, Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative. 

Recreation Enhancements 

Shoreline recreational enhancements have been proposed (section 3.3.7, Recreational 

Resources) that may have minor temporary or permanent impacts on terrestrial resources, 

including disturbance or removal of vegetation and wildlife habitat to provide access, parking, or 

other facilities. As a rule, improvements at existing facilities will require the removal of small 

amounts of vegetation that would not adversely affect wildlife habitat, RTE species, or natural 

communities. Construction of new facilities will potentially require the removal or disturbance 

of larger amounts of vegetation. Knowledge of existing plant communities and the presence of 

any RTE or special status plant within the footprint of the construction site will be necessary 

prior to the initiation of construction. Prior to the construction of any new proposed recreation 

sites, Duke Energy would need to review existing information from prior surveys and consult 

with FWS, South Carolina DNR, or North Carolina DENR on the possible presence of RTE 

species in the vicinity of the proposed construction. If species are identified as occurring or 

potentially occurring in the project vicinity, additional consultation with the appropriate agencies 

would provide expertise to assist with the development of protection measures if the species does 

not have an existing species protection plan. 

Improvements to existing, or construction of new, public recreation facilities can cause 

short-term disturbance to wildlife during construction activities. New or improved recreation 

facilities create the potential for long-term increases in disturbance as activity by users of the 

new or improved facilities increases. Restrictions on access and enforcement of the restrictions 

will prevent access and limit human-related disturbance to heron rookeries and bald eagle 

nesting and foraging concentration sites especially if new heron rookeries or bald eagle nests are 

established within the Catawba-Wateree Project area that may be adversely impacted by 

construction or new recreational activity. 

Our Analysis 

Continued consultation with applicable agencies and monitoring via species protection 

plans will provide the information necessary to avoid any adverse impacts to wildlife from 

construction or recreational activities. Planning prior to the onset of construction and 

consideration of seasonal wildlife use, especially RTE or special status species, in the area 

proposed for construction is vital. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

The SMP provides classifications and lake use restrictions intended to protect specific 

natural communities and the wildlife species that may use or inhabit those areas. Vegetation 

removal, construction, and shoreline stabilization or excavation activities would be restricted 

within emergent wetlands, especially water willow beds, stream confluences and heads of coves, 

bottomland hardwood forests, and areas designated as “natural”. Shoreline stabilization criteria 

recommend the use of species native to North or South Carolina and encourage the avoidance of 

activities in water willow beds. The SMP provides vegetation management requirements to 

198 
protect and enhance shoreline vegetation and applies to all 13 developments within the CatawbaWateree Project. A complete discussion of the SMP is found in section 3.3.8, Land Use and 

Aesthetics. The SMP presents a number of protection measures including restrictions on 

clearing, thinning, spraying, planting, and sowing of vegetation except for hazard trees that are 

unsafe; restrictions on mechanical removal and clearing of footpaths; viewshed clearing; and 

herbicide use. Wildlife enhancements may be authorized through application to Duke Energy 

with approval of adjacent property owners and appropriate state wildlife agencies. Planting of 

native Piedmont vegetation is recommended. EPA stated that their primary interest related to 

shoreline management for the Catawba-Wateree Project is to ensure the protection of sensitive 

wetlands, riparian, and terrestrial habitat along the reservoirs and riverine sections from impacts 

related to development and recreation. Interior recommends that the Catawba-Wateree Project 

boundary in South Carolina include the 50-ft-wide vegetated riparian buffer area required by the 

North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and contained within their Catawba 

Riparian Buffer Protection Rules as the minimum necessary to protect riparian resources. 

Our Analysis 

The SMP would provide for the protection and enhancement of sensitive wetland and 

bottomland habitats including water willow beds and forested areas. Restrictions, use 

classifications, and identification of important habitat areas were developed and updated by 

Duke Energy with the assistance and consultation of agencies. These revisions to the SMP 

would increase the amount of land protected through the designations of “natural” to greater than 

0.7 percent and “environmental” to greater than 0.3 percent, and offer protection to bottomlands 

(0.6 percent) as a new designation (section 3.3.8, Land Use). By protecting the wetlands, cove 

heads, riparian, and forested habitats surrounding the Catawba-Wateree Project development 

reservoirs, rivers, coves, and islands, the SMP provides for the protection and enhancement of 

wildlife habitat including the heron rookeries found at Lake Norman and the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach habitat for RTE species such as Schweinitz’s sunflower. Special status bat 

species will benefit from SMP recommendations for keeping dead trees (snags) that could 

provide roosting sites. Red-headed woodpecker and other cavity nesting species will benefit 

from the maintenance of dead trees and snags, especially within the Wateree River regulated 

reach adjacent to the Congaree Swamp National Park. 

Removal of invasive aquatic and terrestrial plant species and the planting of species 

native to the North Carolina and South Carolina Piedmont physiogeographic region would 

enhance existing terrestrial and shoreline habitat for wildlife as nesting, foraging, and nursery 

areas. However, we think that invasive species management that would provide for active 

removal and management policies and procedures for lands within the Catawba-Wateree project 

boundary and zone of influence would have more success if a terrestrial invasive species 

management plan were developed and implemented as previously discussed. 

Continued development of the shoreline surrounding reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree 

Project would increase erosion of the shoreline and sedimentation input into reservoirs, 

particularly Rhodhiss and Mountain Island Lakes. In those reservoirs, sediment has buried 

emergent wetlands in some areas and created emergent wetlands in others. The SMP and its 

guidelines would provide protection and enhancement measures to prevent shoreline erosion and 

sedimentation within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. New development outside of the 

Catawba-Wateree development boundaries would continue to affect project reservoirs; however 

the current SMP would be adequate in its protection of shoreline within the Catawba-Wateree 

199 
Project boundaries and guidelines for maintaining vegetated buffers. The SMP would provide 

protection of “environmental” and “natural” designated lands as well as areas of bottomland 

hardwood natural communities that would in turn benefit plants and wildlife adapted to 

bottomland habitat. As recreation and development continues to increase around project 

reservoirs, disturbance and fragmentation of riparian and terrestrial plant communities would 

result in an increase in opportunities for terrestrial invasive plant species to colonize or expand. 

The development and implementation of a terrestrial invasive species management plan for lands 

within the Catawba-Wateree project boundary and zone of influence would provide additional 

policies and procedures to maintain the vigor of natural plant communities along reservoir 

shorelines.

Land Conservation 

The impacts of reduced flows in Paddy Creek bypassed reach, Oxford regulated river 

reach, Lookout Shoals regulated river reach, and Mountain Island bypassed reach within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project in North Carolina, and Wylie regulated river reach, Great Falls long 

and short bypassed reaches, and Wateree regulated river reach in South Caroline are discussed in 

section 3.3.2, Water Resources. The North Carolina and South Carolina flow mitigation 

packages provide for protection and permanent conservation of riparian corridors and upland 

habitat to mitigate for unavoidable impacts in exchange for the reduced flows in the bypassed 

reaches. The North Carolina flow mitigation package provides for permanent conservation 

easements on 22 miles of streambank; the South Carolina flow mitigation package provides for 

permanent conservation easements on 6.6 miles of streambank. The conservation easements are 

100-ft wide, 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 within 18 months of the 

issuance of the license. In South Carolina, the 100-ft-wide perpetual easements are to be located 

on tributaries to the Catawba River. In addition, within 1 year following the issuance of a new 

license, Duke Energy will provide a one-time contribution of $1 million to South Carolina DNR 

to create a fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement fund for support of survey and 

inventory, research, and population enhancement of fish and wildlife in the Catawba-Wateree 

River Basin including RTE, biodiversity protection and enhancement, and environmental 

outreach programs. 

Duke Energy will make one-time contributions of $1 million to the HEP funds in North 

and South Carolina, respectively, in addition to the $80,000 annual contribution per state 

contributed by Duke Energy through 2009. HEP funds may be used by the states to support 

long-term management of conservation easements established through the Revised CRA or add 

land as conservation easements. 

North Carolina WF is pleased with the new gamelands, riparian buffers, and island 

habitat acreage proposed for protection, which would benefit terrestrial non-game and game 

wildlife species, reduce fragmentation of habitat, and protect wildlife corridors. North Carolina 

WF is also pleased with the HEP fund, which would allow long-term enhancement for fish and 

wildlife. South Carolina DPRT supports the additional opportunities for land acquisition for 

conservation including more than 10 miles of conservation easements. American Rivers requests 

that mitigation be located within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Interior recommends that 

Duke Energy develop a comprehensive plan to work with federal and state resource agencies, 

CIN, communities, and non-profit organizations to conserve and protect its lands including fish 

200 
and wildlife habitat based at Bridgewater, Johns River in the vicinity of Rhodhiss, Dearborn 

Island, Wateree canal, and the lands and waters within Congaree National Park. 

Our Analysis 

The primary benefit of placing riparian stream habitat along the tributaries and rivers that 

drain into the Catawba River in both North and South Carolina in new conservation easements 

would be the protection of water quality and aquatic habitats, riparian corridors, natural plant 

communities, wildlife habitat and migration corridors. Riparian stream habitat attenuates 

periodic high inflows during flooding, reducing damage from erosion of stream banks. In turn, 

sediment entering the water during flooding is reduced and water quality is not compromised. 

We think that funding and conservation mechanisms proposed by Duke Energy in consultation 

with applicable agencies would allow Duke Energy to be proactive in protecting the natural 

communities adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project area. Benefits from resulting flow 

attenuation outside of the project area would reduce impacts from flooding to the existing plant 

communities in downstream project developments. Proposed conservation easements would 

establish unfragmented corridors of habitat for wildlife movement and migrations. However, 

under the existing license, not all of the riparian habitat proposed for permanent conservation 

ease is included in the project boundaries. Because 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 recommend that they be 

included in the project boundary. Lastly, we agree that conservation measures proposed in 

concert with guidelines and restrictions for riparian habitat use in the SMP would conserve and 

enhance riparian habitat in the Catawba-Wateree Project area and basin consistent with the 

Catawba River Basin natural resources plan (North Carolina DENR and North Carolina WRC, 

2001). 

3.3.4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Terrestrial natural communities, wetlands, and wildlife habitat have developed in 

association with current operations and are generally considered to be stable and in good 

condition, but would be subjected to potential effects of fluctuating reservoir levels. As 

proposed in the license application, stabilization of reservoir levels and flow regimes would 

protect and enhance Catawba-Wateree Project terrestrial resources. Until the species protection 

plans are implemented with the issuance of the new license, special status plant and animal 

species are at risk of adverse effects from fluctuating water levels, inconsistent flows, and human 

activity. 

3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species 

3.3.5.1 Affected Environment 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower 

Endemic to the Piedmont region of North and South Carolina, Schweinitz’s sunflower is 

a federally listed endangered species as of 1991 and is listed as endangered by the states of North 

Carolina and South Carolina. Conditions that led to the listing of Schweinitz’s sunflower include 

habitat destruction, alteration, or both; curtailment of range; loss of known populations; and fire 

suppression. Historically, Schweinitz’s sunflower probably inhabited open, prairie-like habitats 

or post oak-blackjack oak savannas that were maintained by fires set by lightning and Native 

Americans or by grazing (FWS, 1994). The species has lost much of its original habitat to forest 

201 
succession and is now most frequently found in transmission line corridors, old pastures, and 

other areas that receive partial sun. It is commonly found along roadsides where it is difficult to 

protect and can be affected by mowing and herbicide spraying. Plants are often associated with 

other species from the aster family was well as grasses and legumes (FWS, 1994). Within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, Schweinitz’s sunflower is located in the spillway channel of the 

Mountain Island bypassed reach, which is the site one of the largest known populations of 

Schweinitz’s sunflower. 

Schweinitz’s sunflower is a long-lived perennial sunflower that has a small yellow flower 

head approximately 0.25 to 0.6 in. in diameter, and has alternate leaves; it is usually less than 3 ft 

in height and bushy (FWS, 1994). It blooms from August to frost (FWS, 1994). Geologically, 

Schweinitz’s sunflower is found within the Charlotte Belt and the Carolina Slate Belt, primarily 

on mafic rocks. Schweinitz’s sunflower prefers poor soils that are clayey, thin, and derived from 

mafic rocks such as Cecil, Enon, and Iredell soils. Cecil soils are found throughout the CatawbaWateree Project from Rhodhiss south and including Wylie. Enon and Iredell soils are found in 

the Mountain Island Development. Soil types are described in section 3.3.1.1, Affected 

Environment, Soils. Plants are generally located on upland flats and gentle slopes (FWS, 1994). 

Limiting factors for survival and growth of Schweinitz’s sunflower are partial shade for 

protection from sunlight and excessive competition from other vegetation (FWS, 1994). Because 

of these criteria, Schweinitz’s sunflower requires active management of its habitat by controlled 

burns or removal of encroaching shrubs and trees to maintain the semi-open habitat and reduced 

competition from surrounding vegetation (FWS, 1994). 

Consultation with FWS under section 7 of the ESA was initiated by Duke Energy in 1999 

for proposed tree removal at Mountain Island Development. The resulting biological opinion 

was issued by FWS in 2000 and resulted in the development of a species protection plan and the 

request for designation of the bypassed reach as “natural” in the next filing of the SMP (letter 

from FWS, March 23, 2000). 

Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf 

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a federally listed threatened species and a state listed 

threatened species in both North and South Carolina. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a low growing 

evergreen perennial herbaceous species that is endemic to a nine-county area in the western 

upper Piedmont of North and South Carolina (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program [NHP], 

2008). When listed in 1989, reasons cited for the decline of the species included habitat loss 

from development, conversion to agriculture, timber cutting, and cattle grazing. Since listing, 

the number of documented populations have risen from 24 to more than 130, and the number of 

individual plants has increased from 5,900 to more than 248,000 (FWS, 2004). Three 

populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf are located in the Paddy Creek and Linville dam areas of 

the Bridgewater Development, but outside of the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries. Several 

populations of the dwarf-flowered heartleaf are located along the shores of Lake Hickory 

upslope from the project area. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf occurs along Ball Creek, a tributary of 

Lake Norman, and is within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. 

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf grows in acidic, sandy loam soils along bluffs and slopes of 

hillside ravines and in boggy areas adjacent to creeks and streams. It is often associated with 

laurel. The most important habitat requisite for the dwarf-flowered heartleaf is soil type: the 

species requires Pacolet, Madison, or Mustella sandy loam to grow (North Carolina NHP, 2008). 

202 
In the correct soils, dwarf-flowered heartleaf can tolerate dry conditions or moderate moisture. 

Dwarf-flowered heartleaf flowers from mid-March through early June, and the jug-shaped 

flowers are inconspicuous under the leathery, evergreen leaves. Maximum flowering requires 

sunlight in the early spring. Seed distribution relies on ants and existing plants spread via 

rhizomes below the soil surface (FWS, 2004). 

Duke Energy has consulted with FWS under section 7 of the ESA for the Paddy Creek 

Dam Seismic Stability Improvement Project (FERC Project No. 222-540). Consultation resulted 

in the development of a biological assessment and the issuance of a biological opinion by FWS. 

As a result, Duke Energy prepared a species protection plan and developed and implemented a 

monitoring plan for the three populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf in the Bridgewater 

Development. Dwarf-flowered heartleaf has been monitored and protected as part of a species 

protection plan at Paddy Creek dam in accordance with requirements of the Paddy Creek Dam 

Embankment Seismic Stability Improvement Project Biological Opinion through 2007. Baseline 

and annual monitoring through post-construction has been reported. Monitoring included the 

determination of condition of populations, survival, and any population trends. Buffers 200 ft 

wide were placed around the population sites and included in the monitoring. Buffers 

surrounding the sites are affected by the growth of kudzu, which is being controlled by selective 

herbicide application (Duke Energy, 2007). 

Carolina Heelsplitter 

The Carolina heelsplitter, a freshwater mussel, inhabits cool, slow-moving, and small- to 

medium-sized streams and rivers. The Carolina heelsplitter was once widespread. Its historic 

distribution included several locations within the Catawba and Pee Dee River systems in North 

Carolina and the PeeDee and Savannah River systems, and possibly the Saluda River system, in 

South Carolina. The Carolina heelsplitter currently has a very fragmented distribution and 

appears to persist in only six streams and one small river, including Waxhaw Creek, a tributary 

of the Catawba River (FWS, 1997a). Two individuals were found near the Wylie Development 

in Waxhaw Creek 1.5 miles upstream of the Catawba-Wateree Project zone of influence during 

surveys conducted in 2004. 

The decline of the species has been attributed to several factors related to human 

activities, including siltation, development, runoff containing pollutants, and habitat alteration 

and fragmentation due to impoundments on rivers and streams (FWS, 1997a). 

Because of its rarity, little is known about its life cycle or specific habitat requirements of 

the Carolina heelsplitter. It is thought that the species prefers silt-free substrate comprised 

primarily of a mixture of sand, gravel, and cobble. Like other freshwater mussels, the Carolina 

heelsplitter feeds by filtering food particles from the water column, but the specific food habits 

are unknown. The reproductive cycle is thought to be similar to other freshwater mussels and 

includes a glochidia (larva) lifestage. The Carolina heelsplitter’s life span, fish host species, and 

a number of other aspects of its life history are unknown (FWS, 1997a). 

Wood Stork 

Wood stork is a federally listed endangered species, and also is listed as endangered by 

the states of North Carolina and South Carolina. Loss of habitat, water manipulations affecting 

inundation, human disturbance, and lack of regeneration of cypress trees are factors that have 

influenced the decline in wood stork populations. 

203 
Wood storks are a colonial species that use freshwater and estuarine wetlands for nesting, 

roosting, and feeding in the southeastern United States. Wood storks select nest sites that have 

patches of medium to tall trees, often with species such as bald cypress, black gum, and coastal 

plain willow. Inundation followed by a period of drying that concentrates food resources is a 

habitat requisite to protect the nests from predation by raccoons and prevent adults from 

abandoning nests. Wood storks are faithful to a colony site as long as habitat and food 

availability are adequate (FWS, 1997b). 

The nesting season occurs from March through August. After nesting, wood storks 

disperse northward as far as North Carolina and as far west as Mississippi and Alabama (FWS, 

1997b). They are occasionally observed in summer flying over the Congaree Swamp National 

Park (Carter, 2005). Although not within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries, wood storks 

were observed foraging adjacent to the Wateree River Regulated Reach, in a backwater area of 

the Congaree River during relicensing surveys (DTA, 2005b). 

Wood storks forage in open, shallow water areas where small fish are concentrated and 

feeding is easier. Seasonal differences of inundation depth and duration and rainfall amounts 

cause wood storks to change where and what wetlands are used for nesting, foraging, or roosting; 

however, in general, nesting wood storks generally feed within approximately 30 miles of the 

colony. The most successful colonies are those found in regions where there are a variety of 

wetland types and varying hydrologic schemes readily available. Proximity to foraging areas 

appears to play a major role in chick and fledgling survival (FWS, 1997b). Roosting sites are 

usually similar to nesting colony sites, but may use more variable habitat, especially by nonbreeding individuals who choose roost sites based on access to feeding sites and may change 

sites as feeding locations change (FWS, 1997b). 

Wood storks require roosting, foraging, and nesting areas that may change geographically 

over their range based on available hydrologic regimes, rainfall, food availability, and nest sites. 

Because of this variability, FWS thinks that the long-term recovery of the species will require the 

identification and protection of a mosaic of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats (FWS, 

1997b). 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

Shortnose sturgeon are benthic omnivores feeding on crustaceans, insect larvae, worms, 

and mollusks and may shift food preferences at various life stages. They are found in rivers, 

estuaries, and oceans, but are confined primarily to natal rivers and estuaries and are therefore, 

not considered a truly anadromous species (FWS, 1998). Instead, shortnose sturgeon migrate 

within their natal systems to spawn in late winter through early spring. Spawning habitat 

requires large rivers with deep channels, moderate river discharge and coarse substrates. 

Shortnose sturgeon have undergone population declines due to a number of threats including 

non-point and point-source pollution, commercial overharvesting, hydroelectric dams, and 

channelization, as well as incidental mortality in dredges or through impingement. 

In 1998, NOAA Fisheries recognized 19 distinct population segments including the 

Santee River Basin, which includes Lake Marion and Lake Moultrie formed by impounding the 

Santee and Cooper Rivers, and the Wateree and Congaree Rivers. Shortnose sturgeon spawning 

has been documented in the Cooper and Congaree Rivers, but has not been reported from the 

Wateree River for more than 100 years. Shortnose sturgeon can access the lower regulated reach 

of the Wateree River below the Wateree Development, and numerous researchers conclude that 

204 
there are isolated populations of shortnose sturgeon in the lakes of the Santee-Cooper System, 

including some migration up the Congaree River during spawning season (Duke Energy, 2006e). 

One shortnose sturgeon was collected during sampling in the Congaree River near Columbia, 

South Carolina, in 2004. No shortnose sturgeon, a federally listed endangered species, were 

observed in the Wateree River during 2004 or 2005; similarly, other recent sampling studies 

have failed to collect sturgeon in the Wateree River. A supplemental gillnetting study 

(developed in consultation with FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and South Carolina DNR), which 

targeted shortnose sturgeon potentially inhabiting the Wateree River, was conducted in the 

spring of 2006. No shortnose sturgeon were collected in this effort, although a concurrent study 

by South Carolina DNR indicated that a single shortnose sturgeon entered the lower section of 

the Wateree River for a few days before returning downstream and then moving upstream into 

the Congaree River. 

Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon were selected as target species for the instream flow 

assessment performed by DTA (2005a). The habitat suitability curves used for calculation of 

WUA for evaluation of the relationship between flow and available habitat indicate that sturgeon 

prefer water depths greater than 6 ft and water velocities between 0.5 and 3 ft per second. 

Preferred substrate for sturgeon spawning includes sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder. 

Duke Energy has prepared a species protection plan for the shortnose sturgeon with a 

provision for Duke Energy to share any occurrences of the species within the Wateree River 

downstream of the Wateree dam with the appropriate agencies. The species protection plan 

further provides for management and habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement for the 

shortnose sturgeon through the Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration 

Plan (FWS, et al., 2001) and the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, 

Restoration, and Enhancement. 

American Alligator 

Since 1987, FWS has considered the American alligator to be fully recovered, although it 

remains federally listed as a threatened species due to similarity of appearance with other 

endangered or threatened crocodilians (NatureServe, 2008). It is listed as threatened by North 

Carolina and is a delisted species in South Carolina. The American alligator is not found within 

the Catawba-Wateree Project area; however, it is found in the lower Wateree River and adjacent 

Congaree Swamp National Park. 

The American alligator primarily inhabits freshwater swamps and marshes, but can use 

estuarine wetlands, shallow rivers and lakes, and other small open water areas. During dry 

periods, American alligators modify their habitat by creating water-retaining depressions in the 

mud that also provide a refuge for other aquatic species. Alligators can move from one wetland 

to another over land up to 5 miles a day (Nature Serve, 2008). 

American alligators are opportunistic predators feeding on a wide range of small 

mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Feeding activity is dependent on water 

temperature with foraging activity ceasing below 68-73°F. Alligators reach reproductive age 

between 8 and 13 years. Courtship rituals that signal the initiation of the breeding season are 

temperature dependent beginning when temperatures rise in the spring. Vegetation and mud 

mounds form nests typically constructed on banks or mats of vegetation in early summer. 

Flooding will kill most eggs within 12 hours of submergence, so nests are constructed such that 

the eggs are elevated above the water level. Females are faithful to a nest site as long as 

205 
conditions remain conducive to nesting. Juvenile alligators are protected by remaining in close 

proximity to the mother for up to a year, but occasionally for a longer period of 2 to 3 years 

(Duke Energy, 2006f). American alligators provide some measure of protection to wood stork 

nesting colonies as predators of raccoons, which are known to be highly effective predators of 

eggs and nestlings of wood storks. 

Bog Turtle

The bog turtle has two distinct populations in the United States: a northern population 

listed as threatened by FWS, and a southern population listed as threatened due to their similarity 

in appearance to other endangered or threatened turtles. Bog turtles are listed as threatened by 

the state of North Carolina. Populations of bog turtles have declined due to loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation of habitat (FWS, 2001). Three individual bog turtles were observed from 

Bristol Creek, a tributary of Lake Rhodhiss in Burke County located northeast of Lake Rhodhiss. 

This location is outside of the Catawba-Wateree Project area and the zone of operational 

influence. 

Bog turtles are one of the smallest North American turtles with a carapace length of 

approximately 4 to 41⁄2 in. They usually occur in small, discrete populations in wetlands that 

have micro-habitats, including flooded areas, dry areas, and saturated areas that provide foraging, 

breeding, hibernating, basking, and shelter areas. Wetlands are variable by type, but are often 

small, open-canopy, herbaceous sedge meadows or fens with thickly vegetated or wooded 

borders. Denser vegetation provides shelter and hibernation habitat (FWS, 2001). Cattle 

pastures in North Carolina currently provide some of the best habitat for bog turtles because 

grazing cattle can keep vegetation from successional encroachment in the wetlands (Dorcas, 

2005b). 

Bog turtles feed primarily on insects, slugs, and earthworms, and, on occasion, crayfish, 

frogs, and vegetation. They lay eggs in the spring on raised mounds of grass devoid of woody 

shrubs and generally sparsely vegetated. Tussocks used for nesting are clustered in nursery areas 

(FWS, 2001). 

3.3.5.2 Environmental Effects 

Catawba-Wateree Project operations affect federally listed plant and wildlife species. 

Reductions in the number of viable stems of Schweinitz’s sunflower are a result of spills and 

inundation, and reductions of dwarf-flowered heartleaf are a result of activities outside of the 

focus of the relicensing application. Flood plain habitat in the Wateree regulated river reach 

downstream to the confluence of the Congaree River is occasionally used by foraging wood 

storks and has potential for use by the American alligator. The lack of regular, seasonal flood 

plain inundation currently makes habitat inconsistently available for wood storks and American 

alligators. Continuous dialogue between Duke Energy and the agencies would provide 

opportunity for changes to management and protection of the species; the capability to discern 

any adverse or beneficial impacts occurring to the species from Catawba-Wateree project 

operations; and the ability to ameliorate or mitigate those impacts. 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League think that the provisions in the 

Revised CRA do not provide adequate basis for compliance with the ESA because it does not 

identify needs critical to endangered species habitat or final species protection plans, or describe 

a connection between direct and indirect impacts of project operations on endangered species. 

206 
Interior recommends Duke Energy initiate consultation with FWS regarding ESA listed 

species and assess the effects of the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Our Analysis 

Species protection plans have been written or updated and would be implemented within 

60 days of the issuance of the license for the Catawba-Wateree Project. The species protection 

plans have specific methods for monitoring each species, and determination of the effectiveness 

of management and conservation measures proposed for each species, including annual 

communication and consultation with the appropriate state and federal agencies. Monitoring 

results and agency consultation will provide opportunity for amending or otherwise altering 

management and conservation measures for specific species. In addition, annual consultation 

with agencies will provide Duke Energy with current information on changes in status of existing 

protected species, and the addition or removal of species to the ESA or applicable state lists that 

are found within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. We conclude that the species protection 

plans would provide adequate opportunity for the collection of information on the status of 

federally listed species within the Catawba-Wateree project area; however, the plans should be 

considered a work in progress, subject to review and amendment as necessary for the benefit of 

the applicable species based on consultation with the agencies and timely review of the data 

gathered during monitoring. 

Schweinitz’s Sunflower 

Periodic flooding events cause uncontrolled spills from the dam and adversely affect 

Schweinitz’s sunflower habitat by causing scouring and inundation of the existing plants. 

Natural succession could close openings in the vegetation that the Schweinitz’s sunflower 

requires for survival. The presence of uncontrolled exotic invasive plant species could compete 

with the species for sunlight and limit the availability of sunlight to the Schweinitz’s sunflower. 

FWS recommends that section 7 consultation on Schweinitz’s sunflower be re-initiated after the 

loss of some stems of the species as the result of a spill event. FWS further states that the 

species protection plan should include relocation strategies so that some stems could be moved to 

a protected upland site where better management could be implemented and spill hazards could 

be avoided. 

As part of the species protection plan, monitoring on an annual basis will be conducted 

during the flowering period to determine the health and status of Schweinitz’s sunflower 

populations in Mountain Island bypassed reach. Results will be documented in a report, and 

evidence of any decline in the population will initiate consultation with FWS and North Carolina 

NHP (Duke Energy, 2006g). 

Project maintenance within Schweinitz’s sunflower habitat in the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach will occur only with prior notification to FWS and North Carolina NHP 

personnel. Tree removal can be accomplished using hand tools between November and February 

when the Schweinitz’s sunflowers are dormant. Stump removal herbicides are acceptable for 

use, but broadcast herbicides may not be used without prior consultation with FWS and North 

Carolina NHP. Duke Energy proposes to remove or reduce invasive species directly competing 

with the sunflower during the plant’s period of dormancy through possible use of controlled 

burns, hand clearing, or herbicides, or a combination of these methods. Activities will require 

consultation with FWS and North Carolina NHP. 

207 
To avoid adverse impacts to Schweinitz’s sunflower habitat after habitat management 

activities have occurred, Duke Energy will manage Mountain Island Lake to avoid spills to 

prevent damage to the improved habitat from erosion (Duke Energy, 2006g). The population of 

Schweinitz’s sunflower, however, will continue to be at risk from unavoidable spills when 

periodic meteorological events result in high levels of precipitation. 

Our Analysis 

These actions, as proposed, will ensure that growing conditions for the Schweinitz’s 

sunflower within the Mountain Island bypassed reach will be maintained and potentially 

enhanced, increasing the potential for expansion of the existing population. Updates and 

amendments to the species management plan will occur as additional information on the life 

history, current management practices, and condition of the Mountain Island bypassed reach 

population are integrated through consultation dialogue with FWS and North Carolina NHP. 

The Schweinitz’s sunflower population found within the Mountain Island bypassed reach 

has persisted under current project operations and periodic flooding events including, most 

recently, the effects of hurricanes in the fall of 2004. Additional protection measures outlined in 

the species protection plan in concert with monitoring, management of spills from Mountain 

Island Lake and continued partnership with FWS and North Carolina NHP would provide 

necessary protection for Schweinitz’s sunflower. In addition, these actions would allow for 

potential opportunistic expansion of the Schweinitz’s sunflower population within the Mountain 

Island bypassed reach, despite the continued threat of impacts from uncontrollable 

meteorological events. Re-initiation of section 7 consultation with FWS may become necessary 

if monitoring determines that the population is declining; however, consultation with FWS and 

state agencies would occur on an informal basis as part of the species protection plan and provide 

opportunity for dialogue and advisement that may offset the need for formal section 7 

consultation. We caution that the relocation of viable stems of the Schweinitz’s sunflower may 

not be effective in protecting the existing population. However, the collection and planting of 

seeds in appropriate habitat may indirectly provide enhancement of the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach population and appropriately mitigate the loss of plants from unavoidable spills 

and inundation. Planting of seeds and transplanting of mature Schweinitz’s sunflower plants 

should occur after consultation and assistance from applicable agency personnel. 

We conclude that proposed project operations would be likely to adversely affect 

Schweinitz’s sunflower during unavoidable spills resulting from uncontrollable meteorological 

events. The implementation of a species protection plan along with protection measures would 

provide adequate safeguards. Consultation with applicable agencies would allow Duke Energy 

to be proactive in developing mitigation and enhancement of the Mountain Island populations 

through propagation and transplanting of additional plants. 

Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf 

To protect dwarf-flowered heartleaf from the potential effects of any future human 

activities related to the project such as construction activities, maintenance of access roads, or 

control of invasive species, Duke Energy would consult with FWS and North Carolina Natural 

Heritage Program and appropriately protect populations of dwarf-flowered heartleaf found 

within the project boundaries or on Duke Energy-owned property. Once documented, Duke 

Energy will place, if applicable, the identified populations within protective buffers or place the 

property inside the buffer into conservation easements. After protective measures are completed, 

208 
Duke Energy would develop a site-specific species protection plan for dwarf-flowered heartleaf. 

Management guidelines will be developed and include monitoring of populations location(s), 

size, and overall condition every 4 years. A significant component of the management 

guidelines will involve the possible removal and future control of invasive exotic terrestrial plant 

species from the dwarf-flowered heartleaf protection buffers and easements (Duke Energy, 

2006h). 

Our Analysis 

The establishment of buffers and/or conservation easements for protection of the dwarfflowered heartleaf would provide beneficial protection of existing populations within the project 

boundary and on Duke Energy-owned lands. Further protection and potential enhancement of 

the existing populations would be provided by the development of a species protection plan. 

Data gathered from monitoring and protection of dwarf-flowered heartleaf during the 

seismic rehabilitation work at the Bridgewater Development provides an excellent basis for the 

development of a species protection plan. These activities together with continued consultation 

with FWS and North Carolina NHP staff would enable Duke Energy to produce a species 

protection plan and best management practices to protect and potentially enhance all dwarfflowered heartleaf populations within the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Monitoring to be provided for in the species protection plan for dwarf-flowered heartleaf 

would provide a comparison of current populations with existing baseline data and document any 

project-related impacts. Initiation of agency consultation would follow any determination of 

project-related effects. Monitoring would provide information on the success of invasive species 

management. Control measures for invasive species would be implemented through the species 

protection plan and in conjunction with a proposed terrestrial invasive species management plan 

if accepted as a license article. The implementation of the proposed species protection plan with 

periodic consultation and updates would provide protection and potential enhancement of the 

dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations located within the Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

Implementation of an active management of invasive species is necessary to protect this species. 

In conclusion, project operations as proposed, are not likely to adversely affect this 

species with acceptance of an appropriate species protection plan, monitoring and invasive 

species management. 

Carolina Heelsplitter 

Like the other freshwater mussel species found during surveys within the CatawbaWateree Project area, it appears that the Carolina heelsplitter generally requires habitat in clean 

free-flowing streams and rivers with coarse-grained substrate. The Catawba-Wateree Project 

may contain suitable habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter; however, specimens were found only 

outside of the Catawba-Wateree Project zone of influence in Waxhaw Creek. The CatawbaWateree Project is not likely to affect the Carolina heelsplitter population in Waxhaw Creek. 

Our Analysis 

Improved conditions in regulated reaches as a result of proposed continuous minimum 

flows and equipment modifications to improve DO below the dams and powerhouses will 

provide improved habitat conditions for survival of existing mussel populations and potentially 

could increase habitat available for the Carolina heelsplitter. Fish passage required by the FWS 

preliminary prescriptions and the Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, 

209 
210 

Restoration, and Enhancement would eventually provide opportunity for movement of resident 

glochidia-host fish species upstream, further expanding the potential for range expansion of 

extant mussel populations. 

The distribution, diversity, and abundance of freshwater mussels upstream of the project 

boundaries are not directly affected by the individual project developments. Furthermore, 

increased flows to the bypass and regulated reaches would increase and enhance aquatic habitat 

for both mussels and glochidial host fish. Project operations as proposed are not likely to 

adversely affect the Carolina heelsplitter. 

Shortnose Sturgeon 

The Wateree Development is the upstream limit of diadromous fish passage, including 

the shortnose sturgeon, in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, and prevents possible upstream 

spawning opportunities in the Wateree River for the shortnose sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon 

utilize portions of the Santee-Cooper system, but are not established in the Catawba-Wateree 

River above the confluence with the Congaree River. Historic records (Newcomb and Fuller, 

2001; DTA and LEI, 2005) document the use of portions of the Catawba-Wateree River at least 

upstream to the Great Falls by these species. 

Our Analysis 

The Santee-Cooper Basin Diadromous Fish Passage Restoration Plan and the Final 

Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon provide goals and actions for restoration of the 

shortnose sturgeon and other anadromous species in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. These 

actions are not likely to result in the use of the Wateree regulated river reach by significant 

numbers of spawning sturgeon. The section18 preliminary fish passage prescriptions submitted 

by FWS acknowledge that for the life of this license, the passage of sturgeon is not a goal. 

Rather, FWS’s prescriptions call for a sturgeon handling plan for fish captured at passage 

facilities for American shad and American eels and the release of sturgeon to areas downstream 

of the Wateree dam. 

Our analysis of the Revised CRA and alternative flow recommendations for the Wateree 

Development (table 39) indicate that the recommended alternatives may have the potential to 

provide more spawning habitat than the proposed Revised CRA flows. At such time as 

significant numbers of sturgeon begin to utilize the Wateree regulated reach for spawning and 

FWS makes prescriptions for sturgeon passage, additional assessment of the relationship of 

flows and spawning habitat could be performed to determine the appropriate flows to support 

sturgeon spawning. 
Table 39. Summary of weighted useable area analysis for sturgeon spawning based on Revised CRA and alt

scenarios recommended by FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and American Rivers/ Coastal Conservation L

Wateree regulated river reach. 

CRA FWS N

Time period Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/ 1,000 ft) % of Max. Flow (cfs) WUA (ft2/ 1,000 ft) % of Max. % change from Revised 

CRA 

Flow 

(cfs) 

WUA 

(ft2/ 

1,000 ft

January 930 7,090 15.7 2,700 27,176 60.1 44.4 2,400 23,363 February 1-14 930 7,090 15.7 3,700 35,155 77.8 62.1 3,700 35,155 

February 15-29 2,400 23,363 51.7 3,700 35,155 77.8 26.1 3,700 35,155 

March 2,700 27,176 60.1 3,700 35,155 77.8 17.7 3,700 35,155 

April 2,700 27,176 60.1 2,700 27,176 60.1 0 2,700 27,176 

May 1-15 2,400 23,363 51.7 930 7,090 15.7 -36 2,400 23,363 

May 16-31 1,250 9,782 21.6 930 7,090 15.7 -5.9 2,400 23,363 

Maximum 45,203 45,203 45,203 

211 
The Santee River Basin Accord for Diadromous Fish Protection, Restoration, and 

Enhancement (effective April 15, 2008) is a cooperative partnership among Duke Energy, South 

Carolina Electric and Gas, FWS, South Carolina DNR, and North Carolina WRC; NOAA 

Fisheries and South Carolina DHEC were involved in the development of the accord, but are not 

signatories. The accord moves to implement a 10-year action plan for diadromous fish in the 

basin drafted January 24, 2007. Agreements specific to fish passage at the Catawba-Wateree 

Project are reinforced in the preliminary section 18 prescriptions for fishways pursuant to the 

FPA issued by FWS (May 23, 2008). In comments on the Ready for Environmental Analysis, 

NOAA Fisheries concurred with the FWS prescriptions, but reserved its own authority to issue 

additional prescriptions in the future relative to species within its jurisdiction. 

FWS indicates that the prescriptions were developed in concert with Duke Energy and 

considered alternative designs and approaches to fish passage presented in Duke Energy’s Fish 

Passage Assessment (DTA and LEI 2005). We consider the preliminary prescriptions and 

associated elements of the accord to be part of the license application for the Catawba-Wateree 

Project. FWS prescribed that any sturgeon collected in the TS&T facility at Wateree dam would 

not be passed upstream at this time, but would be released at an appropriate downstream location 

in consultation with the agency. NOAA Fisheries has concluded that progress of restoration for 

sturgeon is not likely to achieve a stage that would warrant upstream passage prescriptions 

during the life of the next license; NOAA Fisheries has reserved its authority to prescribe fish 

passage, which could be invoked should restoration actions be more successful than anticipated. 

As proposed, project operations would therefore not be likely to adversely affect the shortnose 

sturgeon. 

Wood Stork 

As a proactive measure to protect and potentially increase foraging habitat for any wood 

storks that may use habitat within the Catawba-Wateree Project area, Duke Energy has 

developed and would implement a species protection plan for wood storks with the issuance of a 

new licensee (Duke Energy, 2006i). As part of that plan, Duke Energy would maintain 

communication with FWS and state agencies regarding the presence or potential for nesting and 

foraging sites within and adjacent to the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries and zone of 

operational influence. Duke Energy would enhance wood stork foraging habitat by providing 

increased flow (duration and magnitude) for inundation of the sloughs and emergent wetlands of 

the Wateree River flood plain and bottomlands. 

To enhance foraging and potential nesting habitat for wood stork, the Wateree 

Development would be operated such that minimum continuous flows of 2,400 cfs (February 

15-29; May 1-15), 2,700 cfs (March 1 to April 30), and 1,250 cfs (May 16-31) are maintained. 

Operating under this regime would allow two 10-day periods of stable flow releases each spring 

unless operating in the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol modes, or 

as long as weather and inflow conditions allow. Following periods of high natural inflow 

between February 1 and May 31 that create spill flow conditions at Wateree dam, Duke Energy 

proposes to operate the Wateree Development powerhouse to gradually reduce flood plain 

inundation in the Wateree River regulated reach to approximate natural inflow conditions. 

212 
Our Analysis 

The proposed flow regime for the Wateree River regulated reach would provide a 

beneficial extension of the natural seasonal inundation of the Wateree River flood plain 

providing weather conditions are conducive and flows (natural and regulated) are available. 

Although the primary reason for implementing the Wateree flood plain inundation is to create 

and enhance spawning habitat for diadromous fish, inundation of the flood plain will secondarily 

provide foraging habitat for dispersed post-nesting wood storks and other wading birds. As the 

inundated area diminishes over time, small fish would be concentrated in remaining shallow 

areas and pools providing the preferred foraging habitat for wood storks dispersed from coastal 

nesting areas. Proposed project operations are not likely to adversely affect wood storks that 

may visit the Wateree River flood plain; instead, some beneficial enhancement of foraging 

habitat may result from implementation of proposed flow regimes. 

American Alligator 

Duke Energy has developed a species protection plan for the American alligator that is 

based upon enhanced flood flow duration and intensity on the Wateree River (Duke Energy, 

2006f). As outlined in section 3.3.2.2.1, Water Quantity, these flows would result in the 

inundation of back sloughs and emergent wetlands within the Wateree River flood plain and 

bottomlands adjacent to the Congaree Swamp National Park, potentially expanding existing 

habitat for the American alligator into the Wateree River. No other protection measures or 

monitoring of the American alligator is proposed. 

Our Analysis 

The flow regime proposed by Duke Energy to increase diadromous fish spawning habitat 

by way of seasonal inundation of the Wateree flood plain would provide a secondary potential 

benefit by increasing habitat for the American alligator. Additional food resources would be 

available from the increase in aquatic habitat for fish, amphibian, and invertebrate populations 

for foraging alligators, and nesting habitat may become available. In summary, the proposed 

project operations are not likely to adversely affect American alligators that may use the Wateree 

River flood plain. Proposed changes in flow regimes may result in enhancement of habitat and 

forage resources for American alligator in the Wateree River flood plain. 

Bog Turtle 

Although several bog turtles were documented approximately 12 miles from the Paddy 

Creek Seismic Remediation Project area during surveys prior to project initiation, literature 

searches and field surveys have not determined the presence of any preferred habitat, individuals, 

or populations of bog turtles within the Catawba-Wateree Project area (Dorcas, 2005b). 

Our Analysis 

Because bog turtles are not known from within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundaries, 

the proposed operations of the Catawba-Wateree Project outlined in the license application 

would not affect the species. 

3.3.5.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Until RTE species protection plans with associated management guidelines are 

completely developed and implemented, species would continue to be at risk of adverse effects 

associated with human activities and disturbance including recreational activities, invasive plant 

213 
species encroachment, fluctuating water levels, and flow releases. Schweinitz’s sunflower would 

still be at risk from uncontrollable meteorological events that trigger spillage into the Mountain 

Island bypassed reach regardless of protection and enhancement measures provided by Duke 

Energy. 

3.3.6 Cultural Resources 

3.3.6.1 Affected Environment 

Area of Potential Effects 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires that the Commission evaluate the 

potential effects on properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. Such 

properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register are called historic properties. In 

this case, the Commission must take into account whether any historic property could be affected 

within the project’s APE. The Catawba-Wateree Project’s APE encompasses areas directly 

affected by project operations, including lands within the project boundaries (areas at or below 

full pond contour, licensee-owned islands in the reservoirs, access areas owned by Duke Energy, 

and land around the powerhouses and dams) and lands along the regulated river reaches 

downstream from the project. No federal or tribal lands are located within the APE. The CIN 

reservation adjoins the APE downstream of the Wylie Development along the Wylie regulated 

river reach. 

The APE for the Catawba-Wateree Project was defined in consultation with the Cultural 

Resources Resource Committee (Cultural Committee). The Cultural Committee was formed to 

work closely with Duke Energy in both the preparation of the study plans and the selection of 

consultants to conduct the studies, and provide technical review of study reports. The Cultural 

Committee included representatives from the North Carolina SHPO, South Carolina SHPO, CIN 

THPO, EBCI, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, FWS, and the University of South 

Carolina. 

Cultural Resource Investigations 

As part of Duke Energy’s licensing efforts, the following cultural resource surveys and 

studies have been conducted within and adjacent to the project’s APE: 

• Brockington and Associates, Inc. 2006. Historic properties management plan for the 

Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2232) North and South Carolina. 

Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North 

Carolina by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. 

• Cleveland, M. Todd, and Jeffrey L. Holland. 2004. National Register of Historic 

Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project, Bridgewater, 

Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, and Mountain Island 

Developments, North Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy 

Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

• Cleveland, M. Todd, Jeffrey L. Holland, and Ruth D. Nichols. 2004. National 

Register of Historic Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric 

Project, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls–Dearborn, Rocky Creek–Cedar Creek, 

and Wateree Developments, South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of 

214 
Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South 

Carolina. 

• Green, William. 2004. Phase II archaeological testing at Site 38CS321, Fishing 

Creek Lake, Chester County, South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of 

Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, Columbia, South 

Carolina. 

• Hargrove, Thomas. 1997a. An archaeological survey of the proposed Lake Pointe 

South Project, Sherrill’s Ford Vicinity, Lake Norman, Catawba County, North 

Carolina. Archaeological Research Consultants, Inc., Raleigh. Crescent Resources, 

Charlotte. 

• Hargrove, Thomas. 1997b. An archaeological survey of the Pointe Development, 

Brawley School Road, Lake Norman, Iredell County, North Carolina. Archaeological 

Research Consultants, Inc., Raleigh. Crescent Resources, Charlotte. 

• Hargrove, Thomas. 1999. An archaeological survey of the proposed Northview 

Harbor Development, Lake Norman, Catawba County, North Carolina. 

Archaeological Research Associates, Inc., Raleigh. Submitted to Crescent Resources, 

Charlotte. 

• Joy, Deborah. 2004. Cultural resource context for the Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Project. Submitted to Duke Power, a Division of Duke Energy 

Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by Legacy Research Associates, Inc., 

Durham, North Carolina. 

• Louis Berger Group (LBG). 2000a. GIS database and maps for the CatawbaWateree Hydroelectric Project, Alexander, Burke, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Catawba, 

Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, McDowell, Mecklenberg, Rowan, Rutherford, 

and Watauga Counties, North Carolina and Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster, 

and York Counties, South Carolina. Appendix C, Parts 3 and 4 (Restricted Access) 

of Duke Power shoreline management plan update for the Catawba-Wateree Hydro 

Project (FERC No. 2232). Submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Washington, DC by Duke Power, A Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Group 

Environment Health & Safety Department, Lake Management, Charlotte, North 

Carolina. 

• LBG. 2000b. Cultural resources context for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric 

Project, Alexander, Burke, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Catawba, Cleveland, Gaston, Iredell, 

Lincoln, McDowell, Mecklenberg, Rowan, Rutherford, and Watauga Counties, North 

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

Carolina. Appendix C, Part 2 of Duke Power shoreline management plan update for 

the Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project (FERC No. 2232). Submitted to the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC by Duke Power, A Division of 

Duke Energy Corporation, Group Environment Health & Safety Department, Lake 

Management, Charlotte, North Carolina. 

• LBG. 2001. Duke Power shoreline management plan update for the CatawbaWateree Hydro Project (FERC No. 2232). Submitted to the Federal Energy 

215 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC by Duke Power, A Division of Duke 

Energy Corporation, Group Environment Health & Safety Department, Lake 

Management, Charlotte, North Carolina. 

• LBG. 2002. Predictive model for historic and archaeological site location. 

Developed for Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North 

Carolina by the Louis Berger Group, Inc., Cary, North Carolina. 

• Millis, Heather. 2004. Cultural resources survey for the Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Relicensing Project, Alexander, Burke, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, 

Lincoln, McDowell, and Mecklenberg Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to Duke 

Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by TRC, 

Columbia, South Carolina. 

• Norris, Sean. 2004. Cultural resources survey for the Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Project, Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster and York Counties, 

South Carolina. Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, by TRC, Columbia, South Carolina. 

• Tibbetts, Rachel, and Bobby Southerlin. 2003a. Archaeological shoreline survey at 

Lake James, Burke and McDowell Counties, North Carolina. Submitted to Duke 

Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, by 

Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. 

• Tibbetts, Rachel, and Bobby Southerlin. 2003b. Archaeological shoreline survey at 

Lake Norman, Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln, and Mecklenberg Counties, North Carolina. 

Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North 

Carolina by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. 

• Tibbetts, Rachel, and Bobby Southerlin. 2003c. Archaeological shoreline survey at 

Fishing Creek Lake, Chester and Lancaster Counties, South Carolina. Submitted to 

Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina by 

Brockington and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina. 

• Whitley, Thomas G. and David S. Leigh. 2005. Evaluation of the natural and 

cultural impacts at the Mulberry Site (38KE12), Kershaw County, South Carolina. 

Submitted to Duke Power, Division of Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, North 

Carolina by Brockington and Associates, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. 

Archaeological Resources 

The APE of the Catawba-Wateree Project contains six archaeological sites that are 

considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Four of the eligible archaeological 

sites are located in Chester County while the remaining sites are located in York and Lancaster 

Counties, South Carolina. These resources were discovered and assessed through a series of 

investigations conducted within the project’s APE. 

A total of 20 sites are considered potentially eligible within the Catawba-Wateree 

developments. Nine sites are located within the Cowans Ford Development. None of the sites 

within the Lake Norman Development are actively eroding, but monitoring was recommended, 

as each will be preserved in place. Two sites are located within the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments. Both sites are stable and would be preserved in place and monitored. The 

216 
Fishing Creek Development features two potentially eligible sites. One is threatened by looting, 

while the second site is eroding. Four potentially eligible sites are found in the Cedar Creek 

Development. Of the sites located in the Cedar Creek Development, three sites would be 

preserved in place, while the remaining site is eroding. One site in the Wylie Development is 

actively eroding, necessitating mitigation. The remaining two potential eligible sites are located 

in the Wateree Development and would require monitoring, as there is potential for erosion. 

Site 38CS235, located on Courtney Island in the Fishing Creek Development, consists of 

a Native American mound (Tibbetts and Southerlin, 2003c). CIN considers the site sacred. It is 

assumed to contain human remains. The site has been extensively looted in the past and was, in 

fact, being actively looted at the time of survey. Duke Energy and CIN began cooperative 

management efforts of the site in 2000 when both parties entered into a memorandum of 

agreement regarding the site. CIN THPO undertook an intensive effort to stabilize the mound 

site, assess the extent of the resource, and implement site-monitoring activities. Duke Energy 

supplemented these efforts by hiring security patrols for the site. These patrols have been in 

place since 2003. Both CIN THPO and Duke Energy deem that, as the site is well known to 

artifact collectors, it will continue to be at risk of looting for the term of the new license. 

The Dearborn Armory Site (38CS307) is located on Dearborn Island, also known as Big 

Island, in the Cedar Creek and Rocky Creek Developments. The site was originally constructed 

in the early nineteenth century as one of three national armories. It was in service for less than 

30 years before being abandoned (Tibbetts and Southerlin, 2003c). In 2002, Duke Energy 

granted access to the South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology to evaluate the 

armory site. The results of this evaluation indicate that the site is eligible for the National 

Register. The incorporation of this site in a new state park is a goal for a number of groups 

including the South Carolina DPRT and the town of Great Falls. 

Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 were located during the 2002 and 2004 shoreline and island 

surveys conducted in support of the Catawba-Wateree Project (Green, 2004; Tibbetts and 

Southerlin, 2003c). Site 38CS321, located in the Fishing Creek Development, is an actively 

eroding Woodland/Mississippian Period occupation site, while site 38CS339, located in the 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments, is a prehistoric occupation dating to the Early and 

Middle Archaic Periods and also features Nineteenth Century components. These sites are 

considered eligible for the National Register. 

Site 38KE12 consists of a significant Native American mound complex and the Mulberry 

Plantation National Historic Landmark. The site is located within the APE, but outside of the 

project boundary along the Catawba River. The Native American component of the site consists 

of a village and an associated complex of mounds. The mounds are thought to represent the 

location of Cofitachequi (or possibly Talimeco), a significant Native American occupation in the 

region. Mulberry Plantation possesses significance as a National Historic Landmark as the most 

important site associated with the writing of Mary Boykin Chesnut’s remarkable first-hand 

account of southern society during the Civil War. Historians have long recognized the journal’s 

value as a source of information concerning the people and events of the war and life during the 

period. The diary contributes toward understanding one of the most important events in 

America’s history. 

Sites 38YK427 and 38LA475 were identified in 2004 during the Phase I survey of islands 

within the project (Norris, 2004). Site 38YK427, located in the Wylie Development, is a very 

217 
dense scatter of Archaic through Woodland Period artifacts that potentially could represent a 

lithic tool workshop, while 38LA475, located in the Wateree Development is a deeply buried site 

containing artifacts dating to the Late Woodland Period. Both sites were either actively eroding 

or susceptible to erosion. 

Historical Resources 

The Catawba-Wateree Project features a total of 13 developments. A majority of the dam 

and powerhouse facilities associated with each of the developments are eligible for listing on the 

National Register. 

Based on prior research conducted in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 60.4, the 

Bridgewater,14 Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, and Mountain Island Developments were 

recommended eligible for the National Register under criteria A and C. The significance of the 

pre-1930 Duke Catawba-Wateree developments in North Carolina lies in the fact that they retain 

the distinctive characteristics of their types and uses, illustrating and representing their historic 

time period and cultural associations. The developments have undergone minimal alteration and 

retain historic integrity. Alterations to the facilities have included installation of modern 

controls, changes made for safety reasons, Commission-mandated upgrades for flood control, 

and upgrades of generating and transmission equipment. Their continued operations illustrate 

the historical associations for which they are significant. Operational maintenance of the 

developments has preserved their integrity, and they remain good examples of their types 

(Cleveland and Holland, 2004). 

Cowans Ford Development was recommended but found to be ineligible for the National 

Register due to its more recent age. Criterion Consideration G of the National Register 

assessment process states that resources less than 50 years old that possess exceptional 

significance are eligible for listing. However, the Cowans Ford Development does not meet the 

standards set forth in Criterion Consideration G. It was recommended, however, that Duke 

Power reassess the eligibility of Cowans Ford after it becomes 50 years old (Cleveland and 

Holland, 2004). 

Additional National Register assessment of developments Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great 

Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, Cedar Creek, and Wateree, in South Carolina, was undertaken in 

2006. Similar to the North Carolina developments, those in South Carolina were recommended 

eligible for the National Register under criteria A and C. The Duke Catawba-Wateree 

developments in South Carolina were typical of the level of engineering and technology 

available between 1907 and 1926, and these developments were not the first of their kind. 

Although Great Falls and Rocky Creek were early examples of hydroelectric facilities, they did 

 

14 On September 11, 2007, Duke Energy proposed to remove and replace the existing 

Bridgewater powerhouse in conjunction with the Bridgewater Seismic Stability Project. It was 

determined that in order to strengthen the Linville dam, the Bridgewater powerhouse, adjacent to 

the dam, must be demolished and reconstructed 200 meters downstream. Because the 

modifications would adversely affect the Bridgewater powerhouse, a facility determined eligible 

for listing in the National Register, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed between 

the Commission and the North Carolina SHPO on June 10, 2008. The stipulations of the MOA 

appropriately mitigated for any adverse effects that resulted from the removal of the powerhouse.

218 
not employ groundbreaking methods of construction or utilize unique types of equipment. 

However, their significance lies in the fact that they retain the distinctive characteristics of their 

types and uses, illustrating and representing their historic time period and cultural association. 

The developments in South Carolina featured many of the qualities of integrity and significance 

possessed by the developments in North Carolina. All seven developments were recommended 

eligible for the National Register (Cleveland et al., 2004). 

Traditional Cultural Properties 

Although traditional cultural properties have not been formally recorded in either 

project’s APE, both Duke Energy and the Commission have invited interested tribes to 

participate in the relicensing process. 

CIN and EBCI have been integral parts of the Cultural Committee. As members of the 

Cultural Committee, CIN and EBCI have collaborated in the development of the HPMP and 

expressed interest in archaeological site management, management of inadvertent discoveries of 

human remains or Native American burials, and curation. 

Additionally, Duke Energy and CIN began cooperative management efforts of the site in 

2000 when both parties entered into a memorandum of agreement regarding site 38CS235, a 

Native American mound located on Courtney Island in the Fishing Creek Development. CIN 

THPO has undertaken intensive stabilization, assessment, and monitoring efforts to protect a 

property important to them. 

3.3.6.2 Environmental Effects 

Historic Properties Management Plan 

Duke proposes to protect historic properties within the APE by implementing the HPMP 

and any PA developed for the project. In consultation with the Cultural Committee, the Historic 

Properties Management Plan for the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project (FERC #2232) 

North and South Carolina was developed in 2006 to provide a framework to manage cultural 

resources within the project’s APE (Brockington and Associates, Inc., 2006). The goals 

specified in the HPMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project are consistent with the goals of the 

NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800). These goals include: 

• identifying historic properties located within the APE and the FERC project 

boundaries; 

• ensuring that planning for all proposed activities within the FERC project boundaries 

considers the effects of the activities on historic properties from the earliest stage of 

the planning process; 

• preserving, protecting, and interpreting historic properties within the APE and the 

FERC project boundaries; and 

• ensuring that conflicts among project operations, land management needs, and 

historic properties are resolved within the context of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation's regulations (36 C.F.R. Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties; as 

revised August 5, 2004) for compliance with the NHPA. 

219 
In letters filed April 9, 2007, and April 23, 2008, the South Carolina and North Carolina 

SHPOs, respectively, concurred with the HPMP’s findings and recommendations. On June 5, 

2008, the CIN concurred with the HPMP’s findings and recommendations. 

In the letter filed June 4, 2008, BIA recommended that Duke Energy be required to 

consult with CIN and BIA in the development and execution of the HPMP. 

Our Analysis 

Continued operation of the Catawba-Wateree Project would maintain the historic 

facilities at this project in productive use for the purpose for which they were originally designed 

and built, and would, therefore, be beneficial. However, operating the project under the 

protections afforded by section 106 does not ensure that there would be no adverse effects. 

Adverse effects may occur to licensed historic project features due to repairs and modifications 

that, while necessary for the continued safe and efficient operation of these projects, are not in 

keeping with the projects’ historic character. While adverse effects on historic properties may be 

acceptable because of the need to continue operating the projects safely and efficiently, they 

should nevertheless be taken into account. Also, there may be undiscovered historic properties 

in the APE that could be adversely affected by future changes in project operation or by projectrelated activities. 

As a provision of the HPMP, site-specific management plans have been developed to 

avoid, lessen, or mitigate any adverse effects on eligible or potentially eligible archaeological 

sites listed in section 3.3.6.1, Affected Environment, Archaeological Resources . When future 

site evaluations are conducted, the HPMP would be revised to reflect changes in site location and 

determination of National Register eligibility. Also, the HPMP includes principles and 

procedures to respond to accidental discovery of cultural resources during project operations. 

Such principles and procedures would ensure that cultural resources are accorded proper 

treatment, and, as appropriate, protection, over the term of the license. 

The HPMP was developed as a cooperative effort between Duke Energy and the Cultural 

Committee. Because the Cultural Committee included representatives from state agencies as 

well as regional Native American tribes, including the CIN, which has concurred with the 

mitigation plans outlined in the HPMP, BIA is not needed to represent the tribe’s interests. 

In addition to the management of archaeological sites, all but one of the hydroelectric 

developments of the Catawba-Wateree Project have been determined eligible for the National 

Register. Duke Energy intends to manage all of the historic hydroelectric structures found to be 

eligible for the National Register with the goal of ensuring that the facilities retain their 

historically significant features. The HPMP would provide principals and procedures to address 

any major changes to the properties, such as partial or total removal of buildings or structures. 

Additionally, the HPMP delineates actions listed as a Categorical Exclusion, which are necessary 

for the operation of the development, but do not require consultation with the SHPOs. 

As part of its obligation under section 106, the Commission plans to execute a PA that 

incorporates the HPMP with the North Carolina and South Carolina SHPOs, and affords the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment. Duke Energy, 

CIN THPO, and the EBCI, would be invited to participate in the PA as concurring parties. If a 

license is ultimately issued, the PA would be incorporated into the license by reference. 

220 
Cowans Ford 

Only 45 years has passed since the completion of Cowans Ford, making it ineligible for 

the National Register. Criterion Consideration G of the National Register assessment process 

states that resources less than 50 years old that possess exceptional significance are eligible for 

listing. However, the National Register of Historic Places Assessment for the Catawba-Wateree 

Hydroelectric Project Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Cowans Ford, and 

Mountain Island Developments, North Carolina, report recommended that Duke Energy reassess 

the eligibility of Cowans Ford after it becomes 50 years old (Cleveland and Holland, 2004). On 

May 17, 2005, North Carolina SHPO stated that they concur that the Cowans Ford Development 

should be reassessed after it is 50 years old. 

Our Analysis 

Even though the Cowans Ford Development is ineligible for the National Register due to 

its more recent age, it was the largest of the developments and the last to be constructed, thereby 

completing the build-out of the river begun in 1900. It followed a different design, had a much 

larger capacity than the other developments, and was built in the post-World War II, modern era, 

which places it in a different context than the neighboring developments. However, the cultural 

impact of the development is congruent with the surrounding facilities. Therefore, at 50 years of 

age Cowans Ford would likely meet the standards set under Criteria A and C, and we agree that 

reassessment occur at that point. 

Sites 38CS321, 38CS339, and the Mulberry Site 

Phase I and II archaeological investigations at Site 38CS321 revealed that it contains 

components from the Late Woodland Period, Uwharrie phase occupation and a Mississippian 

Period, Pee Dee phase component. There also may be a Middle Woodland, Yadkin phase 

component as well, but this has not been firmly established. The site retains only a moderate 

degree of integrity, but because so little is known about the Late Woodland and Mississippian 

periods of the area, the site offers a rare opportunity to enhance knowledge of these poorly 

understood time periods. Based on this, Site 38CS321 is recommended eligible for inclusion in 

the National Register. Similarly, Site 38CS339 is an Early to Late Archaic and nineteenth 

century site located on a flood plain on the east side of Big Island. Artifacts were recovered 

from deeply buried deposits. Therefore, Phase II testing was recommended to determine the 

National Register eligibility of this potentially significant site. 

Both sites are either actively eroding or susceptible to erosion associated with lake level 

fluctuation and wave action. Impact avoidance is not feasible for these sites, as site 

protection/stabilization efforts pose a significant challenge. Therefore, to offset the adverse 

effects to these sites, a plan has been developed to maximize mitigation resources. 

Duke Energy, in consultation with the South Carolina SHPO and CIN THPO, proposes 

that the project-related effects of Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 can be mitigated at a more 

significant site, the Mulberry Site (38KE12). The Mulberry Site is located adjacent to the 

Wateree River approximately 9 miles downstream of the project outside the FERC project 

boundaries, but within the APE of the project. The site has been eroding since its abandonment 

by Indian occupants in the 1500s. This site has the potential to answer questions about the 

complex pre-contact societies in South Carolina. Therefore, Duke Energy would provide 

funding for 3 years to support data recovery efforts at Mound A of the Mulberry Site in 

221 
accordance with the Revised CRA.15 The Cultural Committee agrees with Duke Energy’s 

proposal to mitigate project effects at Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 through additional 

archaeology at the Mulberry Site. 

Our Analysis 

The Mulberry Site was a significant political center for Native Americans in the region as 

late as the 17th century. Historical documents support the site’s significance, indicating the 

village was visited on several occasions by European explorers Hernando de Soto and Juan 

Pardo. Section 106 does not require that all adverse effects be lessened, avoided, or mitigated. 

However, all parties must agree that the resources could be better used to mitigate a more 

significant site in lieu of other resources. Therefore, because of the weight of its prehistoric and 

early historic significance, mitigation efforts would be better utilized at the Mulberry Site rather 

than Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339. Because this mitigation plan extends over a limited time 

period (3 years) and does not represent ongoing maintenance of Site 38KE12, it is unnecessary to 

change the project boundaries to include the Mulberry Site. 

Land Leases 

Duke Energy offered to lease an island containing an historic gravesite to the North 

Carolina DPR for management as part of Lake James State Park. Duke Energy also offered to 

lease sites 38LA467, 38LA468, 38LA469, 38LA470, 38LA471, 38LA473, 38LA474 to South 

Carolina DPRT for the term of the any new license and require a management plan for these sites 

in consultation with CIN THPO and South Carolina DAH. The sites and the historic gravesite 

are not eligible for the National Register. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to various agencies would force a contract 

between two parties. This would be outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy 

could pursue these measures as a non-license article measure since these measures would 

provide protection to these sites.

3.3.6.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.7 Recreational Resources 

3.3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Regional Recreational Resources 

The recreation use and needs study conducted during relicensing considered regional 

recreational opportunities within the regional impact zone, or the area within 40 to 50 miles of 

the Catawba-Wateree Project that is within about an hour’s drive from the project. Recreational 

resources within this zone provide a full range of activities, including boating, canoeing, 

 15 In the event that the funding support for work at the Mulberry site does not occur for 

any reason, Duke would revise the management plan for Sites 38CS321 and 38CS339 in 

consultation with South Carolina SHPO and CIN THPO and incorporate the revised plan in the 

HPMP. 

222 
swimming, fishing, hiking, camping, hunting, mountain biking, horseback riding, and wildlife 

viewing. The lakes and reservoirs in the region, which include the project reservoirs, provide a 

variety of recreational opportunities and varying levels of developed facilities for camping and 

day-use activities. Boat launches in the area provide opportunities for motorized boat use. 

Three federal agencies operate recreational facilities within the region, the Forest Service, 

FWS, and Park Service. The Forest Service operates the Pisgah, Uwharrie, and Nantahala 

National Forests in North Carolina and the Sumter National Forest in South Carolina. These 

forests offer opportunities for hiking, camping, horseback riding, hunting, boating, off-highway 

vehicle use, fishing, picnicking, and mountain biking. Additionally, the Uwharrie National 

Forest has opportunities for gold panning and rock hounding. Two notable features pass through 

the Pisgah National Forest, the Appalachian Trail and the Pisgah Loop Scenic Byway, managed 

by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (North Carolina DOT). 

The FWS operates the Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge in Anson and Richmond 

Counties, North Carolina and the Carolina Sand Hill National Wildlife Refuge in Chesterfield 

and Darling Counties, South Carolina. These wildlife refuges provide opportunities for hiking, 

hunting, fishing, picnicking, wildlife viewing, and interpretive and educational programs. 

The Park Service operates the Congaree Swamp National Park, Cowpens National 

Battlefield, and Kings Mountain National Military Park in South Carolina. These Park Service 

areas provide opportunities for camping, hiking, boating, horseback riding, auto touring, fishing, 

picnicking, wildlife viewing, environmental education, museum visitation, and historic 

interpretation. Also, the Park Service operates the Blue Ridge Parkway, which travels through 

Virginia and North Carolina and is located about 20 miles from the project’s Bridgewater 

Development (Lake James), and the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail, which travels 

through North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Portions of the Overmountain 

Victory National Historic Trail are located in the project area. 

North Carolina state agencies provide recreational opportunities in the region surrounding 

the project. In addition to managing gamelands, North Carolina WRC operates 11 boat access 

areas in the region outside of the Catawba-Wateree system on the South Yadkin River, Yadkin 

River, High Rock reservoir, Tuckertown reservoir, Narrows reservoir, Lake Tillery, and the Pee 

Dee River. North Carolina DPR manages seven state parks in the region that are outside of the 

Catawba-Wateree system, including Mount Mitchell, Mount Jefferson, New River, Stone 

Mountain, Morrow Mountain, South Mountains, and Crowder’s Mountain. These state parks 

offer opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, picnicking, horseback riding, camping, boating, 

fishing, swimming, and environmental education. A portion of the more than 800-mile 

Mountains to Sea Trail and the French Broad River Trail are notable trails in the project region. 

South Carolina DPRT manages 11 state parks within the project region, including Kings 

Mountain, Chester, Dreher Island, Sesquicentennial, Poinsett, Woods Bay, Lee, Goodale, 

Cheraw, Landsford Canal, and Andrew Jackson. Recreational opportunities within these state 

parks generally include swimming, boating, fishing, hiking, picnicking, horseback riding, 

camping, lodging, golf, tennis, and interpretive programs. There also are three South Carolina 

state forests within the region, Harbison, Manchester, and Sand Hills, that offer opportunities for 

fishing, hiking, canoeing, picnicking, hunting, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicle use. 

Additionally, counties, local governments, and the private sector in both North Carolina 

and South Carolina provide additional recreational opportunities in the region surrounding the 

223 
project that are generally tailored to the local population. Facilities typically include parks with 

walking trails, athletic fields, playgrounds, and picnic areas; commercial marinas; campgrounds; 

golf courses; and amusement parks. 

A number of other major lakes and reservoirs in the region provide a variety of 

recreational opportunities. Major lakes and reservoirs within 40 to 50 miles of the project 

include Watauga Lake, Wilkesboro reservoir, High Rock reservoir, Tuckertown reservoir, 

Narrows reservoir, Falls reservoir, Lake Tillery, Blewett Falls reservoir, Lake Lure, Lake Adger, 

and Moss Lake in North Carolina; and Monticello reservoir, Parr reservoir, Lake Murray, and 

Lake Marion in South Carolina. 

Project Recreational Facilities 

Project Boundary 

The existing project boundary generally includes the area within full pond elevation of 

the project reservoirs and the land immediately surrounding the dams and powerhouses. Existing 

public recreation access areas that provide access to the project and are owned by Duke Energy 

are included in the project boundary, but portions of the existing Duke Energy-owned project 

recreation access areas may lie partially outside the boundary. For non-Duke Energy-owned 

recreation access areas, portions of the recreation access areas that extend beyond the normal full 

pond elevation of the reservoir lie within the project boundary. For example, Lake Norman State 

Park includes boat ramps and a courtesy dock on Lake Norman that extend below the normal full 

pool elevation of the reservoir and are therefore within the project boundary (i.e., extend below 

the full pond elevation) while the parking area and other facilities likely lie outside the project 

boundary (i.e., located above the full pond elevation). 

Overview of Project Recreational Facilities 

There are 86 public recreation access areas located adjacent to the reservoirs, tailraces, 

bypassed reaches, and regulated river reaches of the Catawba-Wateree Project that provide 

access to the project, including 59 Duke Energy-owned public access areas and 27 access areas 

owned and managed by state, county, or local government or non-profit organizations (see 

tables 40 through 49). These public recreation access areas provide 140 boat ramps, 65 courtesy 

docks, 31 fishing piers, 3 swimming areas, 21 picnic areas, and 4 camping areas. Duke Energy 

has an Access Area Maintenance Agreement that expires in 2008 with North Carolina WRC 

whereby Duke Energy pays North Carolina WRC to maintain boating access facilities (boat 

ramps, courtesy docks, parking areas, and lighting) at most Duke Energy-owned public 

recreation access areas located in North Carolina. 

In addition to the public recreation sites described above, as part of its relicensing studies, 

Duke Energy identified 39 commercial public marinas and campgrounds that also provide visual 

or recreational access to the project. As commercial recreation areas, these sites are generally 

available to the public for a fee. The Upper Catawba River Trail is a state designated river trail 

that is an 82-mile water route for non-motorized boats that extends from the Black Bear Access 

Area on Lake James to the Lookout Shoals Access Area on Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Bridgewater Development 

The Bridgewater Development includes Lake James. At a full pond elevation of 1,200 ft 

msl, Lake James has a surface area of 6,754 acres and 149 miles of shoreline. There is also a 

regulated river reach downstream of Lake James. Five public recreation areas provide direct 

224 
access to Lake James (figure 19 and table 40). There are major recreational facilities at all of 

these public recreation areas, including 13 boat ramps, 6 courtesy docks, a fishing pier, a swim 

area, 18 campsites, a picnic area, and 4.5 miles of trails. Lake James State Park is a 3,067-acre 

state park owned and operated by the State of North Carolina located in the central portion of 

Lake James. The park provides a number of the recreational opportunities described above 

including the fishing pier, swim area, campsites, picnic area, and hiking trails. There are also 

three commercial marinas and campgrounds that provide direct access to Lake James. 

Five public recreation access areas are located along the regulated river reach 

downstream of Lake James (figure 20 and table 40). There are major recreational facilities at 

four of these public recreation areas, including three canoe launches, a canoe portage around 

Linville dam, four fishing piers, two picnic areas, bank fishing, and almost 13 miles of trails. 

Four of these public recreation areas are municipal-owned and managed. These include the 

Watermill Road canoe access that is owned by the town of Glen Alpine, North Carolina, and 

three multi-use public recreation areas (Greenlee Ford, River Village, and Catawba Meadows 

Parks) that are part of the Morganton Greenway owned and managed by the city of Morganton, 

North Carolina. 

Duke Energy owns slightly more than one-half of the project-related recreational 

facilities at the Bridgewater Development; however, these are managed by North Carolina 

DENR (North Carolina DPR) or by North Carolina WRC. 

Table 40. Recreational facilities at the Bridgewater Development of the Catawba-Wateree 

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

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake James 

Black Bear Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six concrete boat ramps, three courtesy docks, 

large paved parking area, six ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Lake James 

State Park 

State of North 

Carolina/North Carolina 

DENR (North Carolina 

DPR) 

1 ADA-fishing pier, large paved parking area, 1 

swim beach, 18 campsites, picnic tables, 4.5 miles 

of trails, 1 restroom/shower 

Hidden Cove 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina DENR (North 

Carolina DPR) 

two concrete boat ramps, one courtesy dock, small 

parking area, one vault toilet, one ADA-compliant 

toilet, and one ADA-compliant parking space 

Canal Bridge 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina DENR (North 

Carolina DPR) 

three concrete boat ramps, one courtesy dock, 

large parking area, flush toilets, five ADAcompliant parking spaces, two ADA-compliant 

toilets 

Linville Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two concrete boat ramps, one courtesy dock, large 

paved parking area, bank fishing, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

225 
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Bridgewater Regulated River Reach 

Bridgewater 

Access Area 

Duke Energy /North 

Carolina WRC 

includes canoe portage take-out on Lake James 

and canoe put-in below the tailrace of the dam and 

a public fishing area, bank fishing, small parking 

area, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, one ADAcompliant parking space 

Watermill Road 

Canoe Access 

Town of Glen Alpine, 

North Carolina canoe launch, small parking area, picnic table 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Greenlee Ford 

Park 

City of Morganton, North 

Carolina 

canoe launch, one fishing pier, bank fishing, 

moderate-sized paved parking area, playground, 

flush toilets, picnic tables and shelters, 4.25 miles 

of trail 

Morganton 

Greenway - River 

Village Park 

City of Morganton, North 

Carolina 

canoe launch, 2 fishing piers, large paved parking 

area, 2 flush toilets, 14 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, 4.25 miles of trails (paved/wooden) 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Catawba Meadows 

Park 

City of Morganton, North 

Carolina 

baseball field, moderate-sized parking area, 4.25 

miles of trail 

226 
Figure 19. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Bridgewater Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

227 
Figure 20. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Bridgewater regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

228 
Rhodhiss Development 

The Rhodhiss Development includes Lake Rhodhiss and the Rhodhiss tailrace. At a full 

pond elevation of 995.1 ft msl, Lake Rhodhiss has a surface area of 2,724 acres and 95.5 miles of 

shoreline. There are six public recreation areas on Lake Rhodhiss (figure 21 and table 41). Five 

of these public recreation areas have major recreational facilities including 11 boat ramps, 

6 courtesy docks, a canoe portage around the dam, and a fishing pier. There is also one 

commercial marina on Lake Rhodhiss. There are no additional public recreation areas at the 

Rhodhiss Development. 

Duke Energy owns all of the project-related recreational facilities at the Rhodhiss 

Development; however, four of these are managed by North Carolina WRC and another, the 

Sawmills Veterans Memorial Park, is managed by the town of Sawmills, North Carolina, with 

North Carolina WRC managing its boating access facilities. 

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

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

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Rhodhiss 

Johns River Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

one boat ramp, one courtesy dock, small parking 

area 

Huffman Bridge Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC bank fishing, small parking area 

Castle Bridge Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six boat ramps, three ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Conley 

Creek/Sawmills 

Veterans 

Memorial Park 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC and Town 

of Sawmills 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy dock, 

one fishing pier, large paved parking area, two 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Rhodhiss Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy dock, 

large paved parking area, four ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Rhodhiss Canoe 

Portage Duke Energy canoe portage around the dam 

229 
Figure 21. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Rhodhiss Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

230 
Oxford Development 

The Oxford Development includes Lake Hickory. At a full pond elevation of 935.0 ft 

msl, Lake Hickory has a surface area of about 4,072 acres and 109.8 miles of shoreline. There is 

also a regulated river reach between Oxford dam and Lookout Shoals Lake. There are 10 public 

recreation areas located on Lake Hickory, including one undeveloped area (figure 22 and 

table 42). Eight of these public recreation areas have major recreational facilities including 

17 boat ramps, 9 courtesy docks, 4 fishing piers, a canoe portage around the dam, and 3 picnic 

areas. The city of Hickory, North Carolina, owns and operates three of these public recreation 

areas: Bud Geitner Park, Hickory Greenway, and Glenn C. Hilton Park. There are also five 

commercial marinas or campgrounds that provide additional public access to Lake Hickory. 

There is one public recreation area located along the regulated river reach downstream 

of Lake Hickory (figure 22 and table 42). Major recreational facilities at this public recreation 

area include a canoe launch, a fishing platform, a picnic area, and 12.1 miles of trails (4.3 miles 

horse and 7.8 miles foot/bike). This public recreation area, Riverbend Park, is owned and 

operated by Catawba County, North Carolina. 

Duke Energy owns more than one-half of the project-related recreational facilities at the 

Oxford Development; however, most of these are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

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

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

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Hickory 

Bud Geitner Park City of Hickory, North 

Carolina 

one concrete boat ramp, one courtesy dock, 

one fishing pier, bank fishing, flush toilets, mediumsized paved parking area, 2 ADA-compliant flush 

toilets, picnic area and shelters, grills 

Hickory Greenway City of Hickory, North 

Carolina 

large parking area, 3 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, 3.9 miles of trail 

Glenn C. Hilton 

Park 

City of Hickory, North 

Carolina 

one canoe launch, one fishing pier, bank fishing, 

flush toilets, large parking area, one ADA-compliant 

parking space, picnic area and shelters, grills, 

athletic fields, observation deck 

Gunpowder Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy dock, 

medium-sized parking area 

Lovelady Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, medium-sized 

paved parking area, one ADA-compliant parking 

space 

Wittenburg Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six boat ramps, three ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, two ADA-compliant fishing piers, large 

paved parking area, 10 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces 

231 
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Long Shoals Duke Energy/ 

Undeveloped 20.1-acre undeveloped area 

Dusty Ridge 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC, Alexander 

County, North Carolina 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

large parking area, 8 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, restrooms, baseball fields, picnic area 

Oxford Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, 5 ADA-compliant 

parking spaces 

Oxford Canoe 

Portage Duke Energy canoe portage around the dam, small gravel parking area 

Oxford Regulated River Reach 

Riverbend Park Catawba County, North 

Carolina 

one canoe launch, one ADA-compliant fishing 

platform, tailrace fishing, one fishing pond, ADAcompliant flush toilets, medium-sized paved parking 

area, nine ADA-compliant parking spaces, picnic 

area and shelter, 12.1 miles of trail (4.3 miles horse 

and 7.8 miles foot/bike), wildlife area 

232 
Figure 22. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Oxford Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

233 
Lookout Shoals Development 

The Lookout Shoals Development includes Lookout Shoals Lake. At full pond elevation 

of 838.1 ft msl, Lookout Shoals Lake has a surface area of about 1,155 acres and 33.1 miles of 

shoreline. Two public recreation access areas are located on Lookout Shoals Lake (figure 23 and 

table 43). There are major recreational facilities at both of these public recreation areas, 

including three boat ramps and two courtesy docks. There are no state or county park facilities 

and no commercial marinas along Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Duke Energy owns both of the project-related recreational facilities at the Lookout Shoals 

Development; however, both are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

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

staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lookout Shoals Lake 

Lookout Shoals Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, medium-sized 

paved parking area, two ADA-compliant parking 

spaces 

Sharon Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

one boat ramp, one courtesy dock, small paved 

parking area, one ADA-compliant parking space

234 
Figure 23. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Lookout Shoals Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

235 
Cowans Ford Development 

The Cowans Ford Development includes Lake Norman and the Cowans Ford tailrace. 

At a full pond elevation of 760.0 ft msl, Lake Norman has a surface area of about 32,339 acres 

and 562.3 miles of shoreline. Eighteen public recreation access areas are located at Lake 

Norman, including three undeveloped areas (figure 24 and table 44). There are major 

recreational facilities at 14 of these public recreation areas, including 36 boat ramps, 17 courtesy 

docks, 3 fishing piers, a swimming area, a sunbathing beach posted for “no swimming,” 5 picnic 

areas, camping, and 16.5 miles of trails. Lake Norman State Park is a 1,328-acre state park 

owned and operated by the State of North Carolina located in the northeast portion of Lake 

Norman. The park provides several recreational opportunities described above, such as a fishing 

pier, the swim area, camping, a picnic area, and hiking trails. Two of the public recreation areas 

on Lake Norman are county parks (Mecklenburg County, North Carolina), Jetton Road County 

Park and Blythe Landing Park, and two are municipal parks, Roosevelt Wilson Park (town of 

Davidson, North Carolina) and Hunsucker Park (town of Catawba, North Carolina). There are 

also 17 commercial marinas or campgrounds that provide additional public access to Lake 

Norman. 

Duke Energy owns most of the project-related recreational facilities at the Cowans Ford 

Development; however, most of the developed areas are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

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

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

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Norman 

Hunsucker Park Town of Catawba, North 

Carolina 

one gravel/dirt boat ramp, bank fishing, small 

parking area 

Buffalo Shoals Duke Energy 10.8-acre undeveloped area 

Long Island Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, medium-sized paved parking area, two 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Lake Norman 

State Park 

State of North 

Carolina/North Carolina 

DENR (North Carolina 

DPR) 

1 concrete boat ramp, 1 courtesy dock, 

1 swimming area, fishing pier, bank fishing, 

camping, large paved parking area, flush toilets, 

17 ADA-compliant parking spaces, 1 ADAcompliant flush toilet, picnic area with shelters, 

11.4 miles of trail, showers, grills 

Island Point Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 141.3-acre undeveloped area 

Stumpy Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, large parking area, six ADA-compliant 

parking spaces, athletic fields 

236 
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Pinnacle Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

five boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces 

McCrary Creek Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, bank fishing, large paved parking area, five 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Marshall Fishing 

Area 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

bank fishing, small gravel parking area, port-ajohn 

Slanting Bridge Duke Energy 12.6-acre undeveloped area 

Hager Creek Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, bank fishing, large paved parking area, five 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Little Creek Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Roosevelt Wilson 

Park 

Town of Davidson, North 

Carolina 

bank fishing, small paved parking area, 

playground, one port-a-john, picnic area and 

shelter, grills, 0.5 miles of trail and two 

boardwalks, one ADA-compliant parking space 

Beatty’s Ford 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC, Lincoln 

County, North Carolina 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Jetton Road 

County Park 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

bank fishing, 1 sunbathing beach posted for “no 

swimming,” large paved parking area, flush 

toilets, 15 ADA-compliant parking spaces, 8 

ADA-compliant flush toilets, picnic area with 

shelters, 3.8 miles of trail, playground, formal 

garden 

Ramsey Creek 

Duke Energy/ 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, picnic 

area with shelters, large paved parking area, 10 

ADA-compliant parking spaces, restrooms, 

volleyball court, playground, 0.5 m of trail 

McGuire Fishing 

Area Duke Energy 

one ADA-compliant fishing pier, bank fishing, 

medium-sized parking area, three ADA-compliant 

parking spaces, port-a-johns 

Blythe Landing 

County Park 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

six concrete boat ramps, three courtesy docks, 

picnic area with shelters, large parking area, four 

ADA-compliant parking spaces, flush toilets, 

volleyball courts, playground, grills, 0.3 miles of 

paved trail 

237 
Figure 24. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Cowans Ford Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

238 
Mountain Island Development 

The Mountain Island Development includes Mountain Island Lake and the Mountain 

Island bypassed reach. At a full pond elevation of 647.5 msl, Mountain Island Lake has a 

surface area of 3,117 acres and 94.3 miles of shoreline. Five public recreation areas are located 

at Mountain Island Lake (figure 25 and table 45). There are major recreational facilities at all of 

these public recreation areas, including 6 boat ramps, 3 courtesy docks, a fishing pier, a 

sunbathing beach posted as “no swimming,” just over 16 miles of trails (horseback riding is 

allowed on 13 miles of these trails), and 3 picnic areas. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 

owns and operates three of these public recreation areas: Cowans Ford Wildlife Refuge, Rural 

Hill Park, and Latta Plantation County Park. There are no commercial marinas or campgrounds 

on Mountain Island Lake. In addition to the current recreational facilities, the North Carolina 

Division of Forestry is currently developing the Mountain Island State Educational Forest on 

Mountain Island Lake. 

Duke Energy owns two of the project-related recreational facilities at the Mountain Island 

Development; however, both of these are managed by North Carolina WRC. 

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

staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Mountain Island Lake 

Cowans Ford Wildlife 

Refuge 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

picnic area, interpretive display, observation deck, 

waterfowl pond, 0.05 mile of trail, small gravel 

parking area, 2 ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Rural Hill Park Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

one picnic shelter, small parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space, flush toilets 

Neck Road Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, bank fishing, medium-sized paved parking 

area, four ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Latta Plantation County 

Park 

Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

picnic area with shelters, large parking area, six 

ADA-compliant parking spaces, sunbathing beach 

posted as “no swimming,” one fishing pier, bank 

fishing, scenic overlook, volleyball court, grills, 

16 miles of trail (horseback riding is allowed on 

13 miles of these trails), flush toilets, four ADAcompliant flush toilets 

Riverbend Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, four ADAcompliant parking spaces 

239 
Figure 25. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Mountain Island Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

240 
Wylie Development 

The Wylie Development includes Lake Wylie. At a full pond elevation of 569.4 ft msl, 

Lake Wylie has a surface area of 12,177 acres and 340.3 miles of shoreline. There is also a 

regulated river reach downstream of the Wylie dam. Eleven public recreation access areas 

(Indian Ground is currently closed according to Duke Energy’s license application) are located 

on Lake Wylie, and two public recreational facilities (Mountain Island River Park and Mountain 

Island Tailrace Fishing Area) are located just downstream of Mountain Island Lake (figure 26 

and table 46). There are major recreational facilities at 10 of these public recreation areas, 

including 23 boat ramps, 15 courtesy docks, 13 fishing piers, a swim area, 121 individual 

campsites and 4 group campsites, 4 picnic areas, 2 canoe/kayak put-ins, and 9 miles of trails. 

Three of the 13 public recreation areas are city, county, or privately owned parks, including 

Mount Holly River Street Park (city of Mount Holly, North Carolina), McDowell Park 

(Mecklenburg County, North Carolina), and the Stowe Botanical Garden (Daniel Stowe Family). 

In addition to these public recreation areas, there are eight commercial marinas or campgrounds 

that provide additional direct access to Lake Wylie. 

Three public recreation areas are located along the regulated river reach downstream of 

Lake Wylie (figure 27 and table 46). All of these public recreation areas have major recreational 

facilities, including a boat ramp, two picnic areas, two canoe/kayak put-ins, and 4.5 miles of 

trails. Landsford Canal State Park is a 448-acre state park owned and operated by the State of 

South Carolina located in the regulated river reach downstream of Lake Wylie. The park 

provides several recreational opportunities described above such as a canoe/kayak put-in, picnic 

area, and 2 miles of trails. The city of Rock Hill, South Carolina, owns and manages one of the 

three public recreation areas, Rock Hill River Park. 

Duke Energy owns a majority of the project-related recreational facilities at the Wylie 

Development; however, one-half of these are managed by other parties including North Carolina 

WRC; city of Mount Holly, North Carolina; and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. 

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

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

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Wylie 

Mountain Island 

River Park 

Duke Energy/City of 

Mount Holly, North 

Carolina 

bank fishing, walking trail, small gravel parking 

area, four ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Mountain Island 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC, City of 

Mount Holly, North 

Carolina 

two fishing piers, small gravel parking area, two 

ADA-compliant parking spaces 

241 
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Mount Holly 

River Street Park 

City of Mount Holly, 

North Carolina 

two wooden put-ins for canoes/kayaks, bank 

fishing, one fishing pier, medium-sized gravel 

parking area, one ADA-compliant parking space, 

picnic area with shelters, 0.5 mile of trails, 

playground, athletic fields, flush toilets, grills 

South Point Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

six boat ramps, four courtesy docks, large paved 

parking area, seven ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Allen Fishing 

Area 

Duke Energy/North 

Carolina WRC 

two fishing piers, bank fishing, small paved 

parking area, two ADA-compliant parking spaces, 

ADA-compliant walkway from restrooms to 

fishing piers 

Stowe Botanical 

Garden Daniel Stowe Family 

100-acre wildlife area, 0.5 mile of trail, large paved 

parking area, flush toilets, two ADA-compliant 

flush toilets 

Copperhead 

Duke 

Energy/Mecklenburg 

County, North Carolina 

four boat ramps (two ADA-compliant), three 

courtesy docks, six ADA-compliant fishing piers, 

six tent campsites, two observation decks, scenic 

overlook, 1 mile of trails, large paved parking area, 

three ADA-compliant parking spaces, picnic area 

with shelters, playground, athletic fields, restrooms 

(two are ADA-compliant), volleyball courts 

McDowell Park Mecklenburg County, 

North Carolina 

1 courtesy dock, 1 fishing pier, bank fishing, 56 

individual campsites and 4 group campsites, large 

paved parking area, 10 ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, picnic area with shelters, 7 miles of trail, 

1 wildlife area, playground, flush toilets, 4 ADAcompliant toilets, volleyball court, grills 

Buster Boyd Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Indian Ground Duke Energy/closed currently closed, fishing platform 

Allison Creek Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, large 

paved parking area, one ADA-compliant parking 

space 

Ebenezer Park Duke Energy/York 

County, North Carolina 

three boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, 69 campsites, picnic area with shelters, one 

swim area, large paved parking area, six ADAcompliant parking spaces, playground, showers, 

four ADA-compliant restrooms 

Nivens Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, medium-sized 

paved parking area, two ADA-compliant parking 

spaces 

242 
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Wylie Regulated River Reach 

Fort Mill Duke Energy one boat ramp, bank fishing, small gravel parking 

area 

Rock Hill River 

Park 

City of Rock Hill, South 

Carolina 

one concrete canoe/kayak put-in, bank fishing, 

picnic area with shelter, 2.5 miles of trail, small 

gravel parking area, two ADA-compliant parking 

spaces, port-a-johns 

Landsford Canal 

State Park South Carolina DPRT 

one canoe/kayak put-in, bank fishing, picnic area 

with shelters, one rental cabin, 2 miles of trail, 

medium-sized gravel parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space, flush toilets, two ADAcompliant flush toilets, grills, playground 

243 
Figure 26. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wylie Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

244 
Figure 27. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wylie regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

245 
Fishing Creek Development 

The Fishing Creek Development includes Fishing Creek reservoir. At a full pond 

elevation of 417.2 ft msl, Fishing Creek reservoir has a surface area of 3,431 acres and 

90.4 miles of shoreline. Three public recreation areas are located on Fishing Creek reservoir 

(figure 28 and table 47). There are major recreational facilities at all of these public recreation 

areas, including four boat ramps and one courtesy dock. There are no commercial marinas at 

Fishing Creek reservoir. 

Duke Energy owns and manages two of the project-related recreational facilities at the 

Fishing Creek Development. 

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

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

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Fishing Creek Reservoir 

Highway 9 

Landing South Carolina DNR one concrete boat ramp, informal bank fishing, small parking area 

Cane Creek Duke Energy one boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

Fishing Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, two ADAparking spaces 

246 
Figure 28. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Fishing Creek Development recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

247 
Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments include Great Falls reservoir. At a full pond 

elevation of 355.8 ft msl, Great Falls reservoir has a surface area of 353 acres and 13.2 miles of 

shoreline. There are two bypassed reaches at the developments, the Great Falls Long bypassed 

reach along the east side of Mountain Island and the Great Falls Short bypassed reach on the 

west side of Mountain Island. The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments currently have no 

developed public recreational facilities. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments include Cedar Creek reservoir. At a 

full pond elevation of 284.4 ft msl, Cedar Creek reservoir has a surface area of 748 acres and 

22.3 miles of shoreline. Two public recreation areas are located on Cedar Creek reservoir (figure 

29 and table 48). Each of these public recreation areas has a boat ramp. There are no 

commercial marinas, or state or county recreational facilities on Cedar Creek reservoir. 

Duke Energy owns and manages these two project-related recreational facilities at the 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments. 

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

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

2006; staff) 

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 

Stumpy Pond Duke Energy one boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

Debutary Creek Duke Energy one boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

248 
Figure 29. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

recreational facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007).

249 
Wateree Development 

The Wateree Development includes Lake Wateree. At a full pond elevation of 225.5 ft 

msl, Lake Wateree has a surface area of about 13,025 acres and 189.4 miles of shoreline. There 

is also a regulated river reach downstream of the dam. Nine public recreation access areas are 

located on Lake Wateree (figure 30 and table 49). There are major recreational facilities at all of 

these public recreation areas, including 20 boat ramps, 6 courtesy docks, 2 fishing piers, 

70 individual campsites and 2 group campsites, 0.7 mile of trails, and 2 bird sanctuaries. One of 

these public recreation areas is Lake Wateree State Park, owned and managed by South Carolina 

DPRT. A significant amount of public fishing also occurs at the Wateree Creek, Taylor’s Creek, 

Dutchman’s Creek, and Colonel’s Creek bridges at informal areas on the west side of the 

reservoir, two of which are owned by Fairfield County, South Carolina, and two of which are 

managed by South Carolina DNR. The county does not allow formal parking or bridge fishing at 

these areas. In addition to these public recreation areas, six commercial marinas or campgrounds 

provide additional access to Lake Wateree. 

Three public recreation areas are located along the regulated river reach downstream of 

Lake Wateree (figure 31 and table 49). All of these public recreation areas have major 

recreational facilities, including four boat ramps and one fishing pier. 

Duke Energy owns and manages a majority of the project-related recreational facilities at 

the Wateree Development. 

 

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

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

Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Lake Wateree 

Cedar Creek Duke Energy two boat ramps, medium-sized gravel parking area 

Wateree Creek 

Access Area Duke Energy two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, small paved parking area, two ADA-compliant parking spaces 

Taylors Creek 

Access Area Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one ADA-compliant courtesy 

dock, small paved parking area, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Lake Wateree 

State Park South Carolina DPRT 

2 concrete boat ramps, 1 courtesy dock, 1 fishing 

pier, bank fishing, 70 individual campsites and 2 

group campsites, 13 flush toilets (6 ADAcompliant), showers, 0.7 mile of trail, large parking 

area, 1 ADA-compliant parking space, grills 

June Creek Duke Energy 

two boat ramps, one courtesy dock, bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space 

Beaver Creek 

Landing South Carolina DNR one concrete boat ramp, bird sanctuary, mediumsized parking area 

250 
Site name Owner/manager Facilities 

Colonel’s Creek 

Access Area Duke Energy three boat ramps, large paved parking area

White Oak Creek Duke Energy 

four boat ramps, two ADA-compliant courtesy 

docks, one boat dock, one event/fishing pier, bird 

sanctuary, large paved parking area, two ADAcompliant parking spaces 

Buck Hill Duke Energy two boat ramps, medium-sized gravel parking area 

Wateree Regulated River Reach 

Lugoff Duke Energy 

one boat ramp, one ADA-compliant fishing pier, 

ADA-compliant walkway, medium-sized gravel 

parking area, one ADA-compliant parking space 

Highway 1 

Landing South Carolina DNR one concrete boat ramp, small gravel parking area 

Billy Tolar 

Landing South Carolina DNR 

two concrete boat ramps, informal bank fishing, 

medium-sized paved parking area, one ADAcompliant parking space 

251 
Figure 30. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wateree Development recreational facilities 

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

252 
Figure 31. Catawba-Wateree Project (P-2232) Wateree regulated river reach recreational 

facilities (Source: Duke Energy, 2007). 

253 
Recreational Use 

Duke Energy estimates that the entire Catawba-Wateree Project had more than 

10.1 million recreation days16 from March 2004 through February 2005, including non-public 

access use from shoreline residents, back lot residents, and commercial marina use (table 50). 

The total visitation at public recreation areas at the project for the same period is estimated at 

more than 8.3 million recreation days. The greatest use occurs at Lake Norman (31 percent) and 

Lake Wylie (21 percent), followed by Lake Hickory (11 percent), Lake Wateree (9 percent), 

Lake James (8 percent), and Mountain Island Lake (5 percent). The Oxford regulated river reach 

receives the lowest use with about 0 percent of the project’s total recreation use. 

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

Energy, 2007) 

Development (reservoir 

and regulated river reach) 

Visitation at 

public recreation 

areas (recreation 

days) 

Non-public 

access use1

(recreation 

days) 

Total 

visitation 

(recreation 

days) 

Percent of 

total project 

Bridgewater 1,076,484 79,642 1,156,126 11% 

Lake James 734,754 79,642 814,396 8% 

Bridgewater Regulated 

River Reach 341,730 0 341,730 3% 

Rhodhiss 406,091 2,723 408,814 4% 

Oxford 950,537 143,447 1,093,984 11% 

Lake Hickory 926,757 143,447 1,070,204 11% 

Oxford Regulated River 

Reach 23,780 0 23,780 0% 

Lookout Shoals 221,291 22,516 243,807 3% 

Lookout Shoals Lake 142,127 22,516 164,643 2% 

Lookout Shoals 

Regulated River Reach 79,164 0 79,164 1% 

Cowans Ford 2,227,923 912,624 3,140,547 31% 

Mountain Island 416,364 62,884 479,248 5% 

Wylie 1,919,425 423,349 2,342,774 22% 

Lake Wylie 1,688,646 423,349 2,111,995 21% 

Wylie Regulated River 

Reach 230,779 0 230,779 2% 

 16 A recreation day is defined as “any part of a day a person visited an area for recreation 

purposes.” Therefore, any and all recreation during a 24-hour period by one person would equal 

one recreation day. 

254 
255 

Development (reservoir 

and regulated river reach) 

Visitation at 

public recreation 

areas (recreation 

days) 

Non-public 

access use1

(recreation 

days) 

Total 

visitation 

(recreation 

days) 

Percent of 

total project 

Fishing Creek 229,195 3,865 233,060 2% 

Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek 50,315 750 51,065 1% 

Wateree 830,313 203,692 1,034,005 10% 

Lake Wateree 678,926 203,692 882,618 9% 

Wateree Regulated River 

Reach 151,387 0 151,387 1% 

Total Visitor Use 8,327,938 1,855,492 10,183,430 100% 

1 Includes shoreline residents, back lot residents, and commercial marina use. 

Table 51 summarizes the monthly distribution of visitation at the public recreation areas 

based on traffic counter data for the 2004-2005 study period. Most use occurs during May (15 

percent), followed by July (12 percent), June (11 percent), April (10.4 percent), and September 

(10.1 percent) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). About 67 percent of recreational use 

occurs during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Boating (motor boating and boat fishing) is the primary recreational activity, representing 

about 20 percent of recreation days (about 10.2 percent for boat fishing and about 9.6 percent for 

motor boating). Swimming represents about 9.6 percent of recreation days, and bank/pier fishing 

represents 8 percent (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

As part of the recreation use and needs study, Duke Energy estimated boating use and 

boat carrying capacity for the six developments that experience the greatest recreational use and 

provide the most public access to the project (Bridgewater, Oxford, Cowans Ford, Mountain 

Island, Wylie, and Wateree). Duke Energy estimates that none of the six reservoirs have reached 

its boat carrying capacity. Lake Hickory has the highest estimated peak-day weekday, weekend, 

and holiday period boat carrying capacity at 10, 71, and 70 percent, respectively (Study 

Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 
Table 51. Estimate of recreational visitation at public recreation areas based on traffic counter data by month 

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

Development(s) Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Bridgewater 

Visitation 66,165 41,015 57,527 97,498 156,113 131,344 132,648 88,215 115,984 68,114 7

% Total use 6% 4% 5% 9% 15% 12% 12% 8% 11% 6% 

Rhodhiss 

Visitation 20,018 14,433 26,967 44,925 64,848 44,257 46,482 35,179 45,748 23,718 2

% Total use 5% 4% 7% 11% 16% 11% 11% 9% 11% 6% 

Oxford 

Visitation 49,766 35,640 61,844 105,052 152,875 103,108 107,045 84,577 103,094 56,369 5

% Total use 5% 4% 7% 11% 16% 11% 11% 9% 11% 6% 

Lookout Shoals

Visitation 13,537 9,110 12,889 20,018 29,932 22,592 23,340 18,881 35,120 12,980 1

% Total use 6% 4% 6% 9% 14% 10% 11% 9% 16% 6% 

Cowans Ford 

Visitation 140,057 115,395 156,391 218,571 302,129 226,499 253,058 198,801 224,105 146,405 1

% Total use 6% 5% 7% 10% 14% 10% 11% 9% 10% 7% 

Mountain Island

Visitation 23,370 17,497 24,437 41,218 63,799 46,293 51,008 37,173 39,651 28,064 2

% Total use 6% 4% 6% 10% 15% 11% 12% 9% 10% 7% 

256 
257 

Development(s) Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Wylie 

Visitation 103,228 81,563 119,750 195,256 275,884 195,867 251,411 193,706 191,334 125,111 1% Total use 5% 4% 6% 10% 14% 10% 13% 10% 10% 7% 

Fishing Creek 

Visitation 14,254 9,290 16,263 27,687 34,459 23,037 27,775 18,932 18,763 13,827 1

% Total use 6% 4% 7% 12% 15% 10% 12% 8% 8% 6% 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek

Visitation 3,248 3,033 4,066 6,499 6,507 3,893 3,877 3,200 4,053 4,844 

% Total use 6% 6% 8% 13% 13% 8% 8% 6% 8% 10% 

Wateree 

Visitation 40,700 42,934 53,169 109,632 141,081 100,035 87,073 63,294 60,841 40,126 4

% Total use 5% 5% 6% 13% 17% 12% 10% 8% 7% 5% 

Total Project 

 Visitation 474,343 369,910 533,303 866,356 1,227,627 896,925 983,717 741,958 838,693 519,558 4

 % Total use 6% 4% 6% 10% 15% 11% 12% 9% 10% 6% 
Duke Energy estimated recreational use projections by incorporating indexed values for 

future recreational use for various activities, modified to account for differences in population 

estimates. The populations of counties immediately surrounding the project experienced about 

an 18.6 percent increase in population from 1999 to 2000 (Duke Energy, 2007). Duke Energy 

estimated population projections through 2030 using data from the Office of State Planning for 

the counties located in North Carolina and from the Office of Research and Statistics for the 

counties in South Carolina. Population estimates through 2050 were calculated by applying an 

average percentage increase for each 10-year period. Duke Energy estimates a 57 percent 

increase in recreational visitation at the Catawba-Wateree Project from 2004 to 2050. 

Bridgewater Development 

The Bridgewater Development public recreation areas received more than 1 million 

recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident visitors) for the 

2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the visitation at the Bridgewater Development 

occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Boat fishing 

(14 percent), motor boating (11 percent), and swimming are the primary recreational activities at 

Lake James recreation areas. At the Bridgewater regulated river reach recreation areas, 

recreational visitors were primarily walking (29 percent), sightseeing (21 percent), fishing 

(16 percent), and picnicking (11 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Bridgewater Development, the Linville Access Area had a mean percent capacity of 58 percent 

on non-holiday weekends and is the only recreation access area where the capacity exceeded 

50 percent (table 52). During the study period, the Linville Access Area was recorded over 

capacity 13 percent of the time on non-holiday weekends. 

For Lake James, the peak numbers of boats (highest day) during the days when counts 

were conducted were 60 boats (weekday), 344 boats (weekend), and 253 boats (holiday). 

The average number of boats (per type of day) was 43 boats (weekday), 211 boats (weekend), 

and 119 boats (holiday). In terms of overall lake-wide boating capacity, the estimated percent of 

capacity for the peak day was 8 percent (weekday), 45 percent (weekend), and 33 percent 

(holiday). Based on the average boat counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 

6 percent (weekday), 27 percent (weekend), and 18 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource 

Committee, 2006). 

258 
Table 52. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

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

staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake James 

Black Bear Access 

Area 171 60 90 35% 

Lake James State 

Park 44 77 NA 

Hidden Cove 

Access Area 47 7 13 15% 

Canal Bridge 

Access Area 95 38 70 40% 

Linville Access 

Area 62 36 70 58% 13% 

Bridgewater Regulated River Reach 

Bridgewater Access 

Area 24 2 8 10% 8% 

Watermill Road 

Canoe Access 14 4 10 28% 

Morganton 

Greenway - 

Greenlee Ford Park 

0 21 37 NA 

Morganton 

Greenway - River 

Village Park 

0 0 4 NA 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 42 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

James and by 51 percent for the Bridgewater regulated river reach. Boating (motor boating and 

boat fishing), sightseeing, and swimming are anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of future 

use at Lake James. Walking, sightseeing, bank/pier fishing, and picnicking are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use at the Bridgewater regulated river reach. For Lake 

James, Duke Energy estimated 164 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational 

facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 

about 5 acres of beaches, 8 acres of picnic areas, 58 acres of campsites, 74 acres of boat ramps, 

14 acres of hiking trails, and 5 acres of fishing access areas. For the Bridgewater regulated river 

reach, an estimated 160 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050, including about 7 acres of picnicking, 38 acres of campsites, 

6 acres of boat ramps, 102 acres of hiking trails, and 7 acres of fishing access areas. 

259 
 Rhodhiss Development 

More than 400,000 people visited the Rhodhiss Development (Lake Rhodhiss and 

Rhodhiss tailrace) recreation areas (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline 

resident visitors) for the 2004-1005 study period. Sixty-nine percent of the visitation at the 

Rhodhiss Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Visitors to the Rhodhiss Development recreation areas were primarily boat fishing (46 percent) 

and bank/pier fishing (15 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Rhodhiss Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity greater 

than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 53). During the study period, none of the access 

areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

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

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

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Rhodhiss 

Johns River 30 4 13 14% 

Huffman Bridge 20 1 4 7% 

Castle Bridge 155 35 72 22% 

Conley 

Creek/Sawmills 

Veterans Memorial 

Park 

72 11 24 16% 

Rhodhiss Access 

Area 104 11 24 11% 

Rhodhiss Canoe 

Portage 0 0 0 NA 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by about 38 percent between 2004 and 2050 at 

the Rhodhiss Development. Boat fishing, bank/pier fishing, and motor boating are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Lake Rhodhiss, Duke Energy estimated that 

84 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the 

year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This acreage would include approximately 

12 acres of beaches, 22 acres of picnic areas, 14 acres of campsites, 59 acres of boat ramps, 

1 acre of hiking trails, and 7 acres of fishing access areas. 

260 
Oxford Development 

The Oxford Development public recreation areas received more than one million 

recreational visits (taking into account both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident 

visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-nine percent of the total visitation at the Oxford 

Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Boat 

fishing (15 percent), motor boating (11 percent), bank/pier fishing (9 percent), and swimming 

(9 percent) are the primary recreational activities at the Lake Hickory recreation areas. At the 

Oxford regulated river reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily sightseeing 

(31 percent), picnicking (22 percent), and walking (14 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Oxford Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity greater 

than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 54). During the study period, none of the access 

areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

For Lake Hickory, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 41 boats (weekday), 281 boats (weekend), and 278 boats (holiday). The average 

number of boats were: 28 boats (weekday), 171 boats (weekend), and 143 boats (holiday). In 

terms of overall lake-wide capacity, for the peak day the estimated percent of capacity was 

10 percent (weekday), 71 percent (weekend), and 70 percent (holiday). Based on the average 

boat counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 7 percent (weekday), 43 percent 

(weekend), and 36 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 47 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

Hickory and by 58 percent for the Oxford regulated river reach. For Lake Hickory, boating 

(motor boating and boat fishing), and bank/pier fishing are anticipated to receive the greatest 

amounts of future use. Sightseeing, picnicking, and walking are anticipated to receive the 

greatest amounts of future use at the Oxford regulated river reach. For Lake Hickory, Duke 

Energy estimated 167 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 6 acres 

of beaches, 9 acres of picnic areas, 20 acres of campsites, 116 acres of boat ramps, 4 acres of 

hiking trails, and 12 acres of fishing access areas. For the Oxford regulated river reach, an 

estimated 1 acre would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand through 

2050 for picnic areas, campsites, and hiking trails. 

261 
Table 54. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

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

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Hickory

Bud Geitner Park 0 15 32 NA 

Glenn C. Hilton 

Park 0 39 81 NA 

Gunpowder 60 16 24 26% 

Lovelady 49 22 58 46% 

Wittenburg 206 44 84 21% 

Dusty Ridge 117 10 24 9% 

Oxford Access Area 125 18 28 14% 

Oxford Canoe 

Portage 20 4 12 21% 

Oxford Regulated 

Reach 

Riverbend Park 0 6 16 NA 

Lookout Shoals Development 

The Lookout Shoals Development public recreation areas received more than 

243,000 recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident 

visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-nine percent of the total visitation at the Lookout 

Shoals Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Boat fishing (18 percent), motor boating (10 percent), and swimming (8 percent) are the primary 

recreational activities at the Lookout Shoals Lake recreation areas. At the tailrace and Lookout 

Shoals regulated river reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily tailrace fishing, 

(75 percent), boat fishing (12 percent), and hunting (12 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Lookout Shoals Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity 

greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 55). During the study period, none of 

the access areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

262 
Table 55. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

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

staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lookout Shoals Lake 

Sharon Access Area 29 7 12 24% 

Lookout Shoals 

Access Area 56 23 33 41% 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 48 percent between 2004 and 2050 for 

Lookout Shoals Lake and by 49 percent for the Lookout Shoals regulated river reach. For 

Lookout Shoals Lake, boating (motor boating and boat fishing) and sightseeing are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use. Boat fishing and sunbathing are anticipated to receive 

the greatest amounts of future use at the Lookout Shoals regulated river reach. For Lookout 

Shoals Lake, Duke Energy estimated 36 acres would be required to accommodate future 

recreational facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006) 

that includes approximately 1 acre of beaches, 1 acre of picnic areas, 13 acres of campsites, 

19 acres of boat ramps, 1 acre of hiking trails, and 2 acres of fishing access areas. For Lookout 

Shoals regulated river reach, an estimated 3 acres of fishing access area would be required to 

accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. 

Cowans Ford Development 

More than 3.1 million people visited the Cowans Ford Development (Lake Norman and 

Cowans Ford tailrace) public recreation areas (including both recreational area visitors and 

shoreline resident visitors) for the 2004-1005 study period. Sixty-four percent of the visitation at 

the Cowans Ford Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through 

September). Visitors to the Cowans Ford Development recreation areas were primarily 

swimming (10 percent), motor boating (10 percent), sunbathing (8 percent), and boat fishing 

(7 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Cowans Ford Development on non-holiday weekends, the Marshall fishing area had a mean 

percent capacity of 87 percent, Roosevelt Wilson Park had a mean percent capacity of 

243 percent, and the McGuire fishing area was close to 50 percent capacity (table 56). 

263 
Table 56. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

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

and staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Norman 

Hunsucker Park 20 1 2 4% 

Long Island 50 2 5 5% 

Lake Norman State 

Park 16 31 NA 

Stumpy Creek 157 58 106 37% 

Pinnacle 146 20 63 14% 

McCrary Creek 103 37 49 36% 

Marshall Fishing 

Area 38 33 57 87% 

Hager Creek 125 3 6 3% 

Little Creek 63 8 18 13% 

Roosevelt Wilson 

Park 6 15 29 243% 

Beatty’s Ford 126 2 6 2% 

Jetton Road County 

Park 28 74 NA 

Ramsey Creek 295 31 52 11% 

Blythe Landing 

County Park 261 24 48 9% 

McGuire Fishing 

Area 55 27 43 49% 

For Lake Norman, the peak numbers of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 262 boats (weekday), 982 boats (weekend), and 1,814 boats (holiday). The 

average number of boats were 210 boats (weekday), 830 boats (weekend), and 1,104 boats 

(holiday). For the peak day, the estimated percent of capacity in terms of overall lake-wide 

capacity was 6 percent (weekday), 23 percent (weekend), and 43 percent (holiday). Based on the 

average boat counts, the estimated percent of capacity was 5 percent (weekday), 20 percent 

(weekend), and 26 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 62 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Cowans Ford Development. Motor boating, swimming, and sightseeing are anticipated to 

264 
receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Lake Norman, Duke Energy estimated that 

approximately 489 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities demand 

through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes approximately 

20 acres of beaches, 31 acres of picnic areas, 104 acres of campsites, 289 acres of boat ramps, 

23 acres of hiking trails, and 23 acres of fishing access areas. 

Mountain Island Development 

The Mountain Island Development public recreation areas received more than 

479,000 recreational visits (taking into account both recreational area visitors and shoreline 

resident visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the visitation at the 

Mountain Island Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through 

September). Visitors to the development recreation areas were primarily swimming (9 percent), 

motor boating (9 percent), boat fishing (7 percent), picnicking (7 percent), sightseeing 

(7 percent), and sunbathing (6 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Mountain Island Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity 

greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 57). 

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

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

2006; staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Mountain Island Lake 

Cowans Ford 

Wildlife Refuge 14 4 16 29% 

Rural Hill Park 7 0 1 4% 

Neck Road 65 0 0 0% 

Latta Plantation 

County Park 179 19 33 11% 

Riverbend 104 34 69 33% 

For Mountain Island Lake, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 19 boats (weekday), 67 boats (weekend), and 165 boats (holiday). The average 

number of boats were 13 boats (weekday), 51 boats (weekend), and 108 boats (holiday). In 

terms of overall lake-wide capacity, for the peak day the estimated percent of capacity was 

7 percent (weekday), 26 percent (weekend), and 64 percent (holiday). Based on the average boat 

counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 5 percent (weekday), 20 percent 

(weekend), and 42 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

265 
Recreational use is estimated to increase by 63 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Mountain Island Development. Motor boating, sightseeing, and swimming are anticipated to 

receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Mountain Island Lake, Duke Energy estimated 

that approximately 87 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 

approximately 3 acres of beaches, 6 acres of picnic areas, 19 acres of campsites, 50 acres of 

boat ramps, 4 acres of hiking trails, and 4 acres of fishing access areas. 

Wylie Development 

The Wylie Development public recreation areas received more than 2.3 million 

recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident visitors) for the 

2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the total visitation at the Wylie Development 

occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Bank/pier fishing 

(20 percent), sightseeing (17 percent), walking (14 percent), and picnicking (10 percent) are the 

primary recreational activities at the Lake Wylie recreation areas. At the Wylie regulated river 

reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily bank/pier fishing (20 percent), 

sightseeing (17 percent), walking (14 percent), and picnicking (10 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Wylie Development on non-holiday weekends, the Mountain Island River Park had a mean 

percent capacity of 146 percent, and the Nivens Creek Access Area had a mean percent capacity 

of 111 percent (table 58). The Buster Boyd Access Area was close to 50 percent capacity on 

non-holiday weekends. During the study period, the Nivens Creek Access Area was recorded 

over capacity 50 percent of the time on non-holiday weekends. 

Table 58. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

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

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Wylie 

Mountain Island 

River Park 24 35 92 146% 

Mountain Island 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

22 4 7 18% 

Mount Holly River 

Street Park 30 1 8 5% 

Allen Fishing Area 29 4 10 13% 

South Point 172 41 86 24% 

Copperhead 100 33 76 33% 

266 
Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Buster Boyd 176 83 216 47% 

McDowell Park 28 105 NA 

Allison Creek 106 39 81 37% 

Ebenezer Park 236 75 156 32% 

Nivens Creek 34 38 93 111% 50% 

Wylie Regulated River Reach 

Fort Mill 20 5 7 26% 

Rock Hill River 

Park 6 11 NA 

Landsford Canal 

State Park 25 55 NA 

For Lake Wylie, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were conducted 

were 117 boats (weekday), 238 boats (weekend), and 506 boats (holiday). The average number 

of boats was 75 boats (weekday), 222 boats (weekend), and 397 boats (holiday). For the peak 

day, in terms of overall lake-wide capacity, the estimated percent of capacity was 8 percent 

(weekday), 17 percent (weekend), and 37 percent (holiday). Based on the average boat counts 

per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 5 percent (weekday), 16 percent (weekend), 

and 29 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 65 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

Wylie and by 64 percent for the Wylie regulated river reach. For Lake Wylie, motor boating, 

bank/pier fishing, boat fishing, and swimming are anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of 

future use. Bank/pier fishing, sightseeing, walking, and picnicking are anticipated to receive the 

greatest amounts of future use at the Wylie regulated river reach. For Lake Wylie, Duke Energy 

estimated that approximately 410 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational 

facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006), including 

about 15 acres of beaches, 26 acres of picnic areas, 93 acres of campsites, 227 acres of boat 

ramps, 18 acres of hiking trails, and 32 acres of fishing access areas. For the Wylie regulated 

river reach, Duke Energy estimated that approximately 5 acres would be required to 

accommodate future recreational facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes about 

1 acre of picnic areas, less than 1 acre of campsites, 1 acre of boat ramps, 3 acres of hiking trails, 

and 1 acre of fishing access areas. 

Fishing Creek Development 

The Fishing Creek Development public recreation areas received more than 233,000 

recreational visits (including both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident visitors) for the 

2004-2005 study period. Sixty-six percent of the visitation at the Fishing Creek Development 

occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). Visitors to the Fishing 

267 
Creek Development recreation areas were primarily bank/pier fishing (24 percent), boat fishing 

(22 percent), and motor boating (10 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Fishing Creek Development, none of the recreation access areas had a mean percent capacity 

greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 59). During the study period, none of 

the access areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

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

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

staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Fishing Creek Reservoir 

Highway 9 Landing 20 6 16 29% 

Cane Creek 35 5 10 13% 

Fishing Creek 60 13 19 22% 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 39 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Fishing Creek Development. Bank/pier fishing, boat fishing, and motor boating are anticipated 

to receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Fishing Creek Lake, Duke Energy estimated 

that approximately 358 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006) including about 1 acre 

of beaches, 2 acres of picnic areas, 2 acres of campsites, 24 acres of boat ramps, less than 1 acre 

of hiking trails, and 7 acres of fishing access areas. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

There are currently no public recreation areas associated with the Great Falls reservoir, 

tailraces, and bypassed reaches. Therefore, future use estimates were not projected. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

About 51,000 people visited the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments’ (Cedar 

Creek reservoir and tailraces) recreation areas (including both recreational area visitors and 

shoreline resident visitors) for the 2004-1005 study period. Fifty-six percent of the visitation at 

the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments occurred during the peak recreation season 

(April through September). Visitors to the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments’ 

recreation areas were primarily boat fishing (30 percent), bank/pier fishing (22 percent), 

sightseeing (7 percent), and picnicking (7 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

268 
Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments, none of the recreation access areas had a mean 

percent capacity greater than 50 percent on non-holiday weekends (table 60). During the study 

period, none of the access areas were recorded over capacity on non-holiday weekends. 

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

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

Committee, 2006; staff) 

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Cedar Creek Reservoir 

Stumpy Pond 23 4 10 16% 

Debutary Creek 20 5 17 23% 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 41 percent between 2004 and 2050 at the 

Rocky Creek-Cedar Creek Developments. Boat fishing, bank/pier fishing, and sightseeing are 

the recreational activities anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of future use. For Cedar 

Creek reservoir, Duke Energy estimated that 9 acres would be required to accommodate future 

recreational facilities demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

This includes less than 1 acre of beaches, 1 acre of picnic areas, 1 acre of campsites, 6 acres of 

boat ramps, less than 1 acre of hiking trails, and 1 acre of fishing access areas.

Wateree Development 

The Wateree Development public recreation areas received more than 680,000 

recreational visits (taking into account both recreational area visitors and shoreline resident 

visitors) for the 2004-2005 study period. Sixty-seven percent of the total visitation at the 

Wateree Development occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Boat fishing (13 percent), swimming (11 percent), motor boating (10 percent), and bank/pier 

fishing (9 percent) are the primary recreational activities at the Lake Wateree recreation areas. 

At the Wateree regulated river reach recreation areas, recreational visitors were primarily tailrace 

fishing (45 percent), bank/pier fishing (21 percent), and boat fishing (16 percent). 

During the recreation use and needs study conducted during the relicensing of the project, 

spot counts were conducted to analyze parking capacity at the recreation access areas. At the 

Wateree Development on non-holiday weekends, the Wateree Creek Access Area had a mean 

percent capacity of 50 percent, White Oak Creek Access Area had a mean percent capacity of 

63 percent, and the Highway 1 landing had a mean percent capacity of 58 percent (table 61). 

The Beaver Creek Landing was close to 50 percent capacity on non-holiday weekends. During 

the study period, the White Oak Creek Access Area was recorded over capacity 11 percent of the 

time on non-holiday weekends. 

269 
Table 61. Summary of non-holiday weekend capacity of the recreation access areas at the 

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

Public recreation 

area 

Number of 

parking 

spaces 

Mean 

number of 

cars counted 

Maximum 

number of 

cars counted 

Mean % 

of 

capacity 

Percentage of 

time the site was 

recorded over 

capacity 

Lake Wateree 

Cedar Creek 55 13 26 23% 

Wateree Creek 

Bridge 0 0 2 NA 

Wateree Creek 

Access Area 37 19 36 50% 

Taylors Creek 

Access Area 70 14 35 20% 

Taylors Creek 

Bridge 2 0 0 0% 

Lake Wateree State 

Park 30 78 NA 

Dutchman’s Creek 

Bridge 4 1 2 13% 

June Creek 35 12 23 34% 

Beaver Creek 

Landing 45 19 78 43% 

Colonel’s Creek 

Bridge 4 1 2 13% 

Colonel’s Creek 

Access Area 72 21 38 30% 

White Oak Creek 88 55 91 63% 11% 

Buck Hill 50 11 21 22% 

Wateree Regulated River Reach 

Lugoff 48 12 25 26% 

Highway 1 Landing 26 15 27 58% 

Billy Tolar Landing 49 15 15 31% 

For Lake Wateree, the peak number of boats during the days when counts were 

conducted were 62 boats (weekday), 158 boats (weekend), and 260 boats (holiday). The average 

number of boats was 38 boats (weekday), 117 boats (weekend), and 168 boats (holiday). In 

terms of overall lake-wide capacity, for the peak day the estimated percent of capacity was 

3 percent (weekday), 9 percent (weekend), and 14 percent (holiday). Based on the average boat 

270 
counts per category, the estimated percent of capacity was 2 percent (weekday), 6 percent 

(weekend), and 9 percent (holiday) (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Recreational use is estimated to increase by 30 percent between 2004 and 2050 for Lake 

Wateree and by 24 percent for the Wateree regulated river reach. For Lake Wateree, motor 

boating, boat fishing, and swimming are anticipated to receive the greatest amounts of future use. 

Tent/vehicle camping, swimming, bank/pier fishing, and motor boating are anticipated to receive 

the greatest amounts of future use at the Wateree regulated river reach. For Lake Wateree, Duke 

Energy estimates 124 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational facilities 

demand through the year 2050 (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006). This includes 

approximately 4 acres of beaches, 6 acres of picnic areas, 40 acres of campsites, 65 acres of boat 

ramps, 3 acres of hiking trails, and 8 acres of fishing access areas. For the Wateree regulated 

river reach, an estimated 31 acres would be required to accommodate future recreational 

facilities demand through the year 2050. This includes less than 1 acre of beaches, 1 acre of 

picnic areas, 11 acres of campsites, 6 acres of boat ramps, 3 acres of hiking trails, and 10 acres of 

fishing. 

3.3.7.2 Environmental Effects 

Reservoir Elevations 

Duke Energy proposes to continue to maintain the normal target reservoir elevation high 

enough to ensure that all boat ramps at Duke Energy-owned public access areas would be usable 

during the peak recreation season and to ensure that the majority of the reservoirs’ surface area is 

boatable during the peak recreation season, which runs from April through September. The 

proposed reservoir level ranges are generally not as broad as existing ranges, and proposed 

overall reservoir target levels are slightly higher or similar to those under the existing license. 

Duke Energy proposes, within 60 days of license issuance, to operate the project to maintain 

reservoir elevations within specific normal minimum and normal maximum elevations around 

normal target elevations. The proposed normal minimum elevation ranges from 1.5 to 4 ft 

(generally about 2-3 ft) below the normal target elevation, depending on the reservoir and 

season, taking into consideration the following: (1) the ability to draw down the reservoir when 

substantial precipitation is expected; (2) the ability to use a portion of the reservoir storage 

during relatively dry periods; (3) the ability to ensure that all public water supply, large 

industrial, and regional power station water intakes on the reservoirs are fully usable; and (4) the 

ability to ensure that most of the boat ramps at the Duke Energy-owned public access areas on 

the reservoirs are operational. Duke Energy’s proposed reservoir elevations are discussed further 

in section 3.3.2.2.1 Water Resources, Environmental Effects, Water Quantity. 

Ms. Donna Lisenby, the Catawba Riverkeeper, commented that target elevations are not 

enforceable and that the minimum elevations for some reservoirs are lower than the previous 

guide curves. 

Mr. Chris Goudreau with North Carolina WRC comments that the new reservoir level 

regimes will expand the time of year that the project reservoirs can be used for recreational 

purposes, particularly for Lake James where the reservoir will be filled earlier in the spring and 

held high longer in the fall. 

271 
Our Analysis 

As part of a Comprehensive Relicensing Settlement Agreement (CRA) (Proposed Article 

A-1.0 Reservoir Elevations), Duke Energy’s proposal would expand the time of year that the 

project reservoirs can be used for recreational purposes, particularly for Lake James where the 

reservoir will be filled earlier in the spring and held high longer in the fall. The proposed 

reservoir elevations would generally reduce the reservoir elevation fluctuations with the normal 

minimum elevation ranging from 1.5 to 4 ft (generally 2 to 3 ft) below the normal target 

elevation. Proposed reservoir target levels are generally slightly higher than existing, but there 

would be no associated effects on recreational use and access at the project which currently 

supports more than 10.1 million recreation days annually. 

A normal minimum elevation of 4 ft below the normal target elevation is proposed at 

Lake James during the month of April only and at Lake Wateree during the month of November 

only. The November period is outside of the project’s peak recreation season while the April 

period is still inside the project peak recreation season. Lake Wateree receives about 9 percent 

of the total recreational use at the project while Lake James receives about 8 percent. The 

recreational use and needs study conducted for the relicensing, which included surveys of 

recreation access area visitors and shoreline residents, did not identify reservoir levels as an issue 

related to recreational use or boating. 

The reservoir level study conducted during relicensing showed that historic reservoir 

levels were influenced over the life of the Catawba-Wateree hydroelectric facilities by 

hydrologic conditions, maintenance needs, and power generation needs. The magnitude of 

reservoir level variation and the number of days when boating access was restricted due to 

reservoir levels have generally decreased in recent years (Duke Energy, 2005a). The study 

report summarized the critical reservoir elevations17 for boating access as feet msl relative to 

100 ft equal to full pond. The critical reservoir elevation is 92.0 ft for Lake James, 95.5 ft for 

Lake Wylie, 95.0 ft for Fishing Creek reservoir, 96.0 ft for Cedar Creek reservoir, 93.0 ft for 

Lake Wateree, not applicable for Great Falls reservoir, and 91.0 ft for the remaining project 

reservoirs. Duke Energy’s proposed normal target elevations are well above these critical 

reservoir elevations. Generally, Duke Energy’s proposed normal minimum elevations are at or 

above these critical reservoir elevations, except for Lake Wylie where the proposed year-round 

normal minimum elevation is 94 ft, which is below the critical reservoir elevation for boating 

access but above the critical elevation for power production and municipal/industrial intakes. 

We conclude that that the proposed reservoir elevations would not have an adverse effect 

on recreation at the project. 

Under the proposed license article, Duke Energy proposes in good faith to endeavor to 

achieve the normal target elevations and maintain reservoir levels within the newly established 

minimum and normal maximum elevations unless operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or 

the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Duke Energy also proposes (Proposed License 

Article A-6.0 Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring) to file a report by June 30 of each year 

with the Commission that verifies compliance for the previous year with the normal minimum 

 17 Critical reservoir elevations for boating access are the reservoir elevations below which 

public boating access to the reservoir is restricted based on keeping at least two Duke Energyowned recreation access areas open per reservoir. 

272 
reservoir elevations and normal maximum reservoir elevations, spring reservoir level 

stabilization program, recreational flow releases, minimum continuous flows, minimum average 

daily flows, and the Wylie High Inflow Protocol. Thus, compliance with reservoir elevations 

would be reviewed by the Commission. 

In the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, to address the flooding issue at Lake Wateree, 

Duke Energy and the signatories agree that Duke Energy would install a bladder dam along the 

Wateree dam’s spillway to provide approximately 10,000 cfs flow release capacity with Lake 

Wateree at full pond elevation to improve Duke Energy’s flood management capabilities at Lake 

Wateree. The Revised CRA states that the signatories agree this measure would not prevent 

flooding on Lake Wateree above any specific elevation. Interior, American Rivers, and the 

Coastal Conservation League recommend the inclusion of the proposed bladder dam in the new 

license regardless of the license term. 

Although the flooding issues and proposed bladder dam at the Wateree Development 

were not raised as an issue for recreational use and access, flooding has the potential to affect 

recreational use and access. Lake Wateree currently has 9 public recreation access areas with 

20 boat ramps and 2 fishing piers. Flooding has the potential to limit access to recreation access 

areas if roads are flooded, and also to inundate boat ramps, making them inaccessible to the 

public. While flooding is expected to continue even with the proposed bladder dam, it would 

occur less frequently and less severely than under current conditions. Therefore, potential 

flooding impacts to recreational use and facilities would be lessened, though not eliminated, 

under Duke Energy’s proposal. As discussed in section 3.3.2.2.1, Water Resources, 

Environmental Effects, Water Quantity, high intensity rainfall events have been shown to cause 

Lake Wateree to rise above the normal full reservoir elevation (225.5 ft msl). The potential for 

such occurrences is exacerbated if the rainfall events occur within the portion of the Catawba 

watershed downstream of Lake Wylie because the three reservoirs between Wylie and Wateree 

have limited storage capacity. Lake Norman and Lake James are the only upstream reservoirs 

with significant storage capacity in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin. 

Under the existing license, Duke Energy attempts to maintain the water surface level in 

Lake Wateree at a year-round target elevation of 97 ft; however, the proposed water surface 

under the new license would be 95 ft in December, 94.5 ft in January, and 97 ft the remainder of 

the year. Since most high rainfall events would probably occur in the late winter or early spring, 

potential flooding impacts to recreational use and facilities are less than they would be if high 

rainfall events typically occurred during the peak recreation season (April through September). 

Minimum Flows, Recreational Flows, and Streamflow Monitoring 

Under existing conditions at the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy releases a 

continuous minimum flow of at least 25 cfs from the Linville dam into the Bridgewater tailrace 

and 0 cfs from the Catawba dam into the Catawba River bypassed reach. Duke Energy currently 

releases a continuous minimum flow of at least 40 cfs from the Oxford Development, 60 cfs 

from the Lookout Shoals Development, 0 cfs from the Wylie Development, 0 cfs from the Great 

Falls and Dearborn Developments into the Long and Short bypassed reaches, and 0 cfs from the 

Wateree Development. 

Duke Energy proposes to provide increased minimum flows from the Bridgewater, 

Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Fall-Dearborn, and Wateree Developments to protect and 

enhance aquatic habitat and water quality in the downstream riverine sections, in addition to 

273 
minimum average daily flows from the remaining project developments, as described in 

section 3.3.3.2 Aquatic Resources, Environmental Effects. 

South Carolina DNR comments that the minimum flows proposed by Duke Energy for 

aquatic habitat would comply with the state water plan, enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the 

Catawba River Basin, meet all requirements for recreational navigation, and protect and enhance 

water quality. South Carolina DNR also comments that the proposed Wylie High Inflow 

Protocol would provide some additional benefit to the aquatic community in the Catawba River 

below Lake Wylie and enhance recreational navigation. 

Mr. Tim Mead, representing recreational anglers, comments that recreational anglers are 

pleased with the minimum flows in the river reaches below Lake James and Lake Wylie. 

Duke Energy proposes to provide dedicated recreational flow releases at rates and on 

schedules to support paddling, wade fishing, boat fishing, and other activities. These new 

scheduled flows would be provided in the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated 

river reaches as well as scheduled flow releases for canoeing and whitewater boating into the 

Great Falls bypassed reaches. These recreational flows would be provided within 60 days of 

license issuance at the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments and could be 

temporarily modified if Duke Energy is operating under the Low Inflow Protocol or the 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Duke Energy proposes to convene an annual recreational 

flow schedule planning meeting in March of each year with North Carolina DENR, North 

Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, and other entities with recreational 

experience or expertise to identify potential improvements to the recreational flow release 

schedule, to establish the schedule for the added recreational flow releases (10 additional hours 

of recreational flows at each location per year), and to identify potential dates for replacement 

flows at the Bridgewater Development. 

Duke Energy proposes to provide recreational flow releases at the Bridgewater 

Development to support float angling and paddling, in accordance with the schedule shown in 

table 62. The flows for float angling would be as close as feasible to 900 cfs, but would not 

exceed 1,200 cfs, and the flows for paddling would be at least 900 cfs with scheduled 

recreational flow release days divided approximately equally. 

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

2006a) 

Dates (inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Apr 1–Apr 30 Last full weekend–Saturday and 

Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

May 1–Jul 15 

Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Memorial Day and 

Independence Day 

900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Jul 16–Aug 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Jun 1–July 31 Wednesdays and Thursdays 900 4:30 PM 6:30 PM 

274 
Dates (inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Sep 1–Sep 30 Each Friday, Saturday, and 

Sunday plus Labor Day 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 900 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Duke Energy proposes to provide recreational flow releases at the Oxford Development 

of at least 2,600 cfs in accordance with the schedule shown in table 63. 

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

Dates (inclusive) Days/Description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour Start Hour End 

May 1–Sept 30 

Each Saturday and Sunday plus 

Memorial, Independence, and 

Labor Days 

2,600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 First four Saturdays 2,600 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Duke Energy proposes to provide recreational flow releases at the Wylie Development in 

accordance with the schedule below. In addition, Duke Energy proposes, from May 1 to July 15 

inclusive, to release at least 1,300 cfs for 6 hours prior to the recreational flow release scheduled 

start times shown in table 64 to ensure suitable water levels at the Landsford Canal State Park. 

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

Dates 

(inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Apr 1–Apr 30 Last full weekend–Saturday and 

Sunday 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

May 1–Jun 15 Each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 

plus Memorial Day 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Jun 16–Jul 15 Each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 

plus Independence Day 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Jul 16–Aug 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Sep 1–Sep 30 Each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday 

plus Labor Day 6,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 3,000 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 

275 
Duke Energy proposes to evaluate safety concerns associated with boating near the Great 

Falls Diversion dam, the Great Falls headworks, and the Great Falls-Dearborn dam, and 

determine the need for constructing boating safety devices upstream of the structures. This 

evaluation would be completed, and the necessary structures would be completed prior to 

beginning the recreational flows. Duke Energy proposes, within 60 days following completion 

of the structural modifications at both the Great Falls diversion dam and the Great Falls 

headworks and the completion of the Highway 200 Bridge Access Area, the Great Falls 

diversion dam portage, the Great Falls headworks portage, and the Great Falls headworks-toCedar Creek reservoir portage, to provide recreational flow releases as summarized in table 65 of 

at least 2,940 cfs into Great Falls Long bypassed reach and at least 2,860 cfs into Great Falls 

Short bypassed reach. 

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

Duke Energy, 2006a) 

Channel Dates (inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Two Saturdays per 

month Long 2,940 

Bypassed 

Reach 

Mar 1–Oct 31 

A total of four 

Saturdays 2,940 

10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Mar 1–Apr 30 

One Saturday per 

month to 

correspond with 

Long bypass 

releases 

2,860 

Short 

Bypassed 

Reach 

May 1–Oct 31 

Two weekends 

(Saturday and 

Sunday) per month 

2,860

10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Duke Energy proposes to provide recreational flow releases at the Wateree Development 

of at least 2,760 cfs in accordance with the schedule shown in table 66. 

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

Dates (inclusive) Days/description Flow (at or 

above cfs) Hour start Hour end 

Apr 1–Apr 30 Last full weekend–Saturday 

and Sunday 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

May 1–Jul 31 

Each Saturday and Sunday plus 

Memorial and Independence 

Days 

2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Sep 1–Sep 30 Each Saturday and Sunday plus 

Labor Day 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

Oct 1–Oct 31 Each Saturday and Sunday 2,760 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 

276 
Many comments were received supporting the scheduled recreational flows. Mr. Irvin 

Pitts with South Carolina DPRT and Mr. Maurice Blackburn with the Carolina Canoe Club 

support the recreational flows and conclude they will enhance tourism in the area. Mr. 

Blackburn comments that the negotiated recreational flows, particularly at Bridgewater, took into 

account downstream angling. Mr. Ben Van Camp and Mr. Andrew Lazenby with American 

Whitewater support the recreational flows, particularly in the Bridgewater Reach, which has 

good beginner Class II and intermediate whitewater, and at Great Falls. Mr. Chris Goudreau, 

North Carolina WRC, comments that the scheduled recreational flows will be a good 

improvement from existing conditions. Ms. Barbara Baddy with Catawba County, North 

Carolina, supports the recreational flows at the Oxford development. Mr. Nick Stegall, City of 

Rock Hill, South Carolina, comments that the proposed recreational flows are adequate for 

improved boating access below Lake Wylie. Ms. Glenda Coleman, Great Falls Hometown 

Association, comments that the recreational flows will attract paddlers from other states and help 

restore the town of Great Falls to a nature-based economy. The North Carolina Wildlife 

Federation comments that the increased flows will benefit paddlers, float hunters, and wade 

anglers. South Carolina DNR supports the recreational flows and comments that the recreational 

flows will enhance paddling and boating opportunities, but recommends the Commission 

evaluate the effect of these flows on operations and natural resources, particularly at Great Falls. 

Duke Energy proposes, within 1 year following the implementation of the minimum 

continuous flow from the Linville dam at the Bridgewater Development, to fund the installation 

of a new USGS streamflow gage to be located on the Linville River between the Linville dam 

and the confluence with the Catawba River to monitor compliance with the minimum flow and 

recreational flow release requirements and to provide a readily available source of public 

information. Additionally, Duke Energy proposes to fund the annual maintenance cost for the 

term of the new license for the new gage and for six existing USGS streamflow gages 

(#02137727 Catawba River near Pleasant Gardens, North Carolina; #02140991 Johns River at 

Arney’s Store, North Carolina; #02145000 South Fork Catawba River at Lowell, North Carolina; 

#02146000 Catawba River near Rock Hill, South Carolina; #02147500 Rocky Creek at Great 

Falls, South Carolina; and #02148000 Wateree River near Camden, South Carolina) to monitor 

compliance with the minimum flow and recreational flow release requirements and to provide a 

readily available source of information. 

Duke Energy also proposes to file a report by June 30 of each year with the Commission 

that verifies compliance for the previous year with reservoir level and flow requirements, 

including normal minimum reservoir elevations and normal maximum reservoir elevations, 

recreational flow releases, minimum continuous flows, and minimum average daily flows. 

South Carolina DNR comments that it concurs with Duke Energy’s proposal to fund the 

installation and annual maintenance cost for the term of the new license of a new USGS 

streamflow gage to be located on the Linville River between the Linville dam and the confluence 

with the Catawba River to monitor compliance with the minimum flow and recreational flow 

release requirements. It also concurs with Duke Energy’s proposal to file a report by June 30 of 

each year with the Commission that verifies compliance for the previous year with reservoir 

level and flow requirements. 

277 
Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed minimum flows (Proposed Article A-2.0 Minimum Flows) and 

additional recreational flows (Proposed Article A-2.0 Recreational Flows) would enhance 

recreational opportunities by providing non-motorized boating and fishing opportunities. The 

proposed minimum flows at most of the developments represent a modest to moderate increase 

in minimum flows over what is currently provided. For the recreation use and needs study 

conducted for the relicensing, recreation access area visitors and shoreline residents provided 

considerable input on the need for additional flows in the bypassed reaches at the Great FallDearborn Developments and an interest in additional recreational opportunities in the tailraces, 

regulated river reaches, and bypassed reaches. 

FWS, American Rivers, and the Coastal Conservation League commented that the 

Wateree River (below Wateree Lake) and portions of the Catawba River (from above Fishing 

Creek reservoir to Lake Wylie and from the backwaters of Lake James to the Catawba River 

headwaters) are included in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory as potentially eligible for wild and 

scenic river designation. They state that pursuant to a 1979 Presidential Directive and Council 

on Environmental Quality procedures, the Commission must seek to avoid or mitigate actions 

that would have an adverse effect on one or more National Rivers Inventory segments. Duke 

Energy’s proposed minimum flows for the Wylie and Wateree Developments would enhance 

these sections by providing minimum flows to protect and enhance aquatic habitat and water 

quality in the downstream riverine sections, while the proposed recreation flows at the Wylie and 

Wateree Developments would enhance the recreational values. 

Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows would provide reliable flows for recreation 

that would greatly enhance recreational opportunities in the regulated river reaches and provide 

whitewater boating opportunities in the bypassed reaches at Great Falls, where there are 

currently none. Duke Energy proposes to provide weekend and holiday recreational flows 

during most of the project’s peak recreation season (April through September) at the 

Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree Developments. Duke Energy proposes to provide 

recreational flows late April through September at the Bridgewater and Wylie Developments, 

late April through July and September at the Wateree Development, and May through September 

at the Oxford Development. Recreational flows are also proposed for most weekend days in 

October at these developments. A more limited schedule for recreational flow releases is 

proposed at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments with a total of 26 recreational flow days 

between the two bypassed reaches. 

Duke Energy conducted a recreation flow study during the relicensing to determine the 

flow, range, and timing of flows that would enhance recreational opportunities for anglers and 

boaters of various skill levels (Duke Energy, 2006j). The recreation flow study was designed to 

address public needs for riverine recreation flows, specifically those of recreational boaters 

(canoe, kayak, drift boat) and recreational anglers, not provide flows for aquatic habitat. Results 

from the boating evaluation were used to develop Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows. 

The proposed recreational flows for the Bridgewater Development are within the range for 

acceptable flows for paddling (400 cfs minimum and 1,000 cfs optimum) and for boat fishing 

(350 to 900 cfs). Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows for the Oxford Development are 

the optimum flow (2,600 cfs) for paddling and the minimum flow (2,600 cfs) for motorized 

boating. The proposed recreational flows at the Wylie Development reflect the minimum 

(3,000 cfs) and optimum (6,000 cfs) flows for paddling. The optimum paddling flow of 

278 
3,000 cfs for the Great Falls Long bypassed reach is reflected in the proposed recreational flow 

of 2,940 cfs, and the proposed flow for the Great Falls Short bypassed reach is 2,860 cfs (slightly 

higher than the optimum paddling flow of 2,800 cfs). Duke Energy’s proposed recreational 

flows at the Wateree Development are slightly lower than the minimum suggested flow of 

3,500 cfs. 

Duke Energy’s proposed recreational flows coupled with the proposed recreational 

enhancements at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments would provide good to excellent 

whitewater boating opportunities at the project in both the Great Falls Long and the Great Falls 

Short bypassed reaches. Under existing conditions, there are no whitewater boating 

opportunities at the project. In comparing whitewater opportunities at the project to other rivers 

within a 1-hour drive, the recreation flow study participants noted that the overall experience at 

both Great Falls bypassed reaches was excellent, while the experience at Bridgewater, Wateree, 

and Wylie (Fort Mill to Sugar Creek) were rated as better than average. The Wylie section 

(Sugar Creek to Landsford Canal State Park) was rated as average during this comparison. 

Section 3.3.3.3, Aquatic Resources, Cumulative Effects, and section 3.3.1.4, 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, and recommend that “ramping” (the gradual increase and decrease of flow) 

recreational flows over a period of several hours before and after each scheduled recreational 

release 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, we 

recommend that the ramping 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. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to convene an annual meeting with North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, and other entities with 

recreational experience or expertise to identify potential improvements to the recreational flow 

release schedule and to establish the schedule for the added recreational flow releases 

(10 additional hours of recreational flows at each location per year) would provide an 

opportunity to re-evaluate and modify as necessary, the recreational flow schedule. 

During periods of drought or emergency maintenance, the capacity to provide the 

recreational flows may be compromised, but Duke Energy has proposed a mechanism for 

temporary variance from recreational flow releases when conditions trigger implementation of 

the Low Inflow Protocol or Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. 

Accurate and timely streamflow data provides important information for recreational 

visitors planning water-related activities at the project reservoirs, tailraces, and regulated river 

reaches. While Duke Energy’s proposal for funding the installation of a new USGS gage and for 

funding the maintenance costs of the new gage and six existing gages (Proposed Article A-6.0 

Funding for USGS Streamflow Gages) would allow Duke Energy to monitor compliance with 

the minimum flow and recreational flow release requirements, this proposal also would ensure 

that recreational users have a readily available source of public information. The streamflow 

information available through the USGS website would be useful to recreational users in 

planning and staging water-related visits to the project for fishing, flat water boating, and 

279 
whitewater boating, and also would enhance public safety at the project by providing up-to-date 

information to recreational users about flows. 

This streamflow data would be used in the report proposed under the Proposed License 

Article A-6.0 Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring. Duke Energy proposes to file a report 

by June 30 of each year with the Commission that verifies compliance for the previous year with 

the recreational flow releases, minimum continuous flows, minimum average daily flows, normal 

minimum reservoir elevations and normal maximum reservoir elevations, spring reservoir level 

stabilization program, and the Wylie High Inflow Protocol. This report would verify compliance 

with the Commission license requirements for streamflow. 

We conclude that Duke Energy’s proposed minimum flows, recreational flows, and 

provision of streamflow data would likely enhance recreational boating use of the project waters, 

as well as recreation-related spending, which would benefit local communities. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

The SMP and its guidelines provide classifications and lake use restrictions intended to 

regulate activities within the project to protect and enhance the scenic, cultural, environmental, 

public safety, and public recreational values of the reservoirs. Duke Energy is proposing 

changes to the existing project SMP in two areas: (1) revised shoreline classification maps, and 

(2) revised SMG. The proposed changes to the SMP and its guidelines were developed by Duke 

Energy, in consultation with resource agencies, and other interested stakeholders 

The SMP is fully discussed in section 3.3.8 Land Use and Aesthetics. The proposed SMP 

and its guidelines include a number of restrictions that could impact recreational resources. 

Water willow beds would have additional restrictions under the proposed SMP for construction. 

Excavations would be more limited in nature. Private and common use facilities would be 

restricted with a reduction in boat slips and limitation on watercraft moorings. The shoreline lot 

width would be increased for waterfront lots to be eligible for private piers or common use 

facilities. The number of watercraft per boat slip would be limited. Private swim areas that 

exclude the public from a portion of the project and large inflatable recreation equipment within 

the project boundary would not be allowed. The facilities allowed at true public marinas would 

be modified to allow a maximum of 200 ft in length and an exemption from requirements 

limiting the expansion of commercial marinas. The location of new boat ramps at residential 

marinas would be restricted from the backs of coves and smaller coves. 

Duke Energy’s SMP guidelines include Lake Use Policy Statements (Lake Policy). The 

Lake Policy delineates the types of access and activities that may be allowed on all reservoirs 

owned or managed by Duke Energy. With respect to the Catawba-Wateree Project, Lake Policy 

allows for review of four basic types of lake access: (1) private access; (2) public recreational 

access; (3) public infrastructure access; and (4) business/industrial access on the lakes with 

existing private and business development (James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Lookout Shoals, Norman, 

Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Cedar Creek, and Wateree). Public infrastructure and 

business/industrial access will be allowed in accordance with the Commission’s standard land 

use articles. The Lake Policy does not allow any additional private access on Great Falls 

reservoir, but public recreational access will be allowed as required to meet the terms of the new 

FERC license. 

280 
Catawba County, North Carolina, states that the revised SMP will improve shoreline 

preservation by providing incentives for buffers and reduced the number of multi-slip boat 

facilities.

Our Analysis 

Restrictions, shoreline use classifications, and identification of important habitat areas 

were developed and updated by Duke Energy with the assistance and consultation of agencies. 

Under the proposed shoreline use classification maps, Public Recreation areas, both existing and 

future, would account for approximately 7.0 percent of the project shoreline. Future Public 

Recreation classification remains nearly unchanged from the 2003 approved shoreline use 

classification maps. Future Commercial Marina classification has been reduced from 11.5 to 

5.5 percent, and Future Residential Marina classification has been reduced from 7.4 to 

2.0 percent. Conversely, Future Residential classification has increased from 4.8 to 10.8 percent. 

With these proposed changes in the shoreline use classification maps, minor decreases in 

the Future Commercial Marina and Future Residential Marina classifications could result in 

fewer marinas being developed project-wide. Increases in the Future Residential classification 

indicates that more of the project shoreline would be developed with residential dwellings, many 

of which would construct docks and other related private recreation facilities as allowed under 

the SMP. The shoreline use classifications for natural, environmental, and impact minimization 

zones may have a negative impact on recreational resources since no development would be 

allowed to occur in areas classified as Natural, Environmental, or Bottomland Hardwood. 

The construction restrictions for water willow beds under the proposed SMP would 

restrict recreational facilities over water willow beds. These new provisions and restrictions 

could negatively impact recreational access. 

Under the proposed SMP, excavations would be more limited since excavation could 

only be undertaken to provide access to an existing permitted facility. Proposed recreational 

access would be negatively impacted by this new restriction since excavation would not be 

allowed to create new recreational access. 

Private and common use facilities would be restricted under the proposed SMP. 

Although private boat ramps would not be allowed, there would be little impact on recreational 

access to the project waters due to the large number of existing and proposed boat ramps on each 

project reservoir. The proposed SMP would require that decks, gazebos, covered boat slips, and 

boat shelters constructed within the project boundary be single-story structures, which would 

enhance recreational safety on the project reservoirs by reducing the impacts of potential sight 

impairment of boaters and other recreationists to oncoming boat traffic. The proposed SMP also 

includes several changes regarding common use facilities: (1) common use facilities with more 

than three boat slips would not be eligible for mooring additional watercraft including personal 

watercrafts, and (2) no more than one common use boat slip per waterfront lot would be allowed, 

and ownership or interest in a common use facility would eliminate the eligibility of that person 

also to have a separate slip at another common-use facility. The proposed common use facility 

restrictions would significantly benefit project resources by reducing the total number of 

watercraft that can be moored on each reservoir and by reducing the overall total number of boat 

slips ultimately developed on the project reservoirs. This reduction in total boat slips along with 

limitations on watercraft moorings would help reduce recreational crowding in certain areas of 

some of the project reservoirs, particularly Lake Norman, and improve boating safety and the 

281 
quality of the boating experience. The proposed SMP also would increase the shoreline lot width 

for pier or common use facility eligibility, which would help to limit the total number of new 

piers and other private recreation facilities that would be developed. This would ultimately help 

prevent overcrowding of the reservoirs and help preserve the recreational experience. 

Under the proposed SMP, only one watercraft at a time could be moored within a boat 

slip or docking/mooring location. This would help limit the total number of watercraft on the 

reservoirs and prevent overcrowding which would help to preserve the quality of the recreational 

experience. Boating safety also would benefit by a reduction in the total number of watercraft 

being moored on a particular reservoir. 

Large inflatable recreation equipment would not be allowed under the proposed SMP, 

and private individuals would not be allowed to rope-off or exclude the public from a portion of 

the project area for the purpose of creating a private swim area. These new provisions would 

benefit boaters on the reservoirs by ensuring that ropes and buoys deployed by private 

individuals do not become navigational hazards. Recreational users of the project reservoirs also 

would benefit as the entire reservoir would remain available for public use. Through its current 

and proposed recreational facilities, Duke Energy has ensured that safe public swimming areas 

area available for use on nearly all the project reservoirs. 

The proposed SMP defines “true public marinas” and would allow these facilities to be a 

maximum length of 200 ft, and would allow the expansion of existing true public marinas to be 

exempted from adhering to certain requirements limiting expansion of other commercial 

facilities. Extending the maximum facility length could, depending on the location of the 

facility, disrupt or impair recreational use of some small portion of the reservoir. These new 

provisions would allow existing true public marinas to expand, rather than to have new marinas 

developed, in order to accommodate increased recreational use and demand. In essence, this 

provision would encourage a clustering of additional boat slips and other marina facilities at a 

fewer number of larger facilities. Additionally, the proposed SMP would not allow new boat 

ramps at residential marinas to be located in the backs of coves or in smaller coves. Recreational 

resources would benefit from this provision. Restrictions on boat ramps in small coves would 

help to prevent boating congestion in the cove and reduce the potential for unsafe boating 

conditions. 

We conclude that Duke Energy’s proposed SMP and its guidelines would generally have 

positive effects on recreational resources. The proposed modifications would help reduce 

recreational crowding in certain areas of some of the project reservoirs, improve boating safety 

and the quality of the boating experience, and generally enhance the recreational experience. 

Negative impacts would generally be related to limitations on facilities and uses. 

Public Information and Public Safety 

Public safety measures undertaken by Duke Energy are contained in the Public Safety 

Plans for each development that are filed with the Commission. Recreational maps for 11 of the 

13 developments (Great Falls and Dearborn Developments have no recreational areas), which is 

part of a map booklet including most of the Duke Energy’s lakes, contains the following warning 

to boaters: 

“Keep clear of power lines. Contact with or arcing from these lines can be very 

dangerous. Stay 300 feet away from the upstream and downstream sides of the 

282 
dam and powerhouse. Do not enter the tailrace section directly below hydro 

stations. A flashing red beacon and/or sounding of a horn mean sudden rising 

swift and turbulent waters below the dam.” 

Duke Energy proposes to implement several measures within 60 days of license issuance 

to facilitate the public’s enjoyment of the project and support the safe and effective public use of 

the project’s resources. Duke Energy proposes to post the following reservoir level information 

for each project reservoir via its website: normal minimum elevation, normal target elevation, 

normal maximum elevation, actual reservoir level, recent reservoir level history, 13-month 

reservoir level history, projections, points of contact for additional information, and special 

messages. Special messages and actual levels for each project reservoir are proposed to be 

available via Duke Energy’s toll-free telephone system. Duke Energy also proposes to post an 

annual calendar on its website showing all scheduled flow releases from the Bridgewater (Lake 

James), Oxford (Lake Hickory), Wylie, and Wateree Developments and into the Great Falls 

bypassed reaches, including the dates, times of day, and expected minimum release rates of the 

scheduled releases. Additionally, Duke Energy proposes to post 2-day flow release forecasts on 

its website and toll-free telephone system for the Oxford (Lake Hickory), Wylie, and Wateree 

Developments and the Great Falls bypassed reaches; and 3-day flow release forecasts for the 

Bridgewater Development. 

Interior, more specifically BIA, recommends that Duke Energy, in consultation with CIN, 

develop a proactive notification system to alert CIN of all releases of water above minimum flow 

levels in the stretch of river below Wylie dam. Interior comments that pulsing operations at 

Wylie dam cause significant, rapid variations in the river volume, level , and flow strength 

resulting in potential safety hazards to tribal members using the river as it passes by their lands. 

Although the Catawba Riverkeeper, Ms. Donna Lisenby, comments that the proposed 

public information systems are good, she recommends a longer near-term forecast period over 

Duke Energy’s proposed 2-day flow release forecasts. 

The town of Cornelius recommends funding for public safety (such as the navigation 

aids, marine commissions) and environmental protection and enhancement on Lake Norman, 

including, but not limited to, an independent $10 million endowment fund. The town 

recommends the provision of resources for increased public safety on and around the lake, 

including, but not limited to, additional fire/rescue capacity and a lighted buoy navigation aid 

system. Mr. Gary Knox with the town comments that it is a challenge for the town to respond to 

the growing number of public safety calls on Lake Norman. 

Several comments were received supporting the proposed public information system, 

including comments from Mr. Maurice Blackburn with the Carolina Canoe Club, Mr. Michael 

McLaurin with the Lake Wylie and Mountain Island Lake Marine Commissions, American 

Whitewater, and Catawba County, North Carolina. 

Our Analysis 

Accurate and timely information provides important information to enhance public safety 

and to assist recreational visitors planning water-related activities at the project reservoirs, 

tailraces, and regulated river reaches. Duke Energy’s proposal (Proposed Article A-8.0 Public 

Information) would ensure that recreational users have a readily available source of public 

information. 

283 
The availability of reservoir levels and projected reservoir levels would allow the public 

to know when water levels are expected to rise or fall while the availability of special messages 

via Duke Energy’s toll-free telephone system would alert the public of special circumstances that 

could affect public safety. The availability of this information would not only enhance public 

safety, but it also would be useful to recreational users in planning and staging water-related 

visits to the project. 

Although the Catawba Riverkeeper, Ms. Donna Lisenby, recommends a longer near-term 

forecast period over Duke Energy’s proposed 2-day flow release forecasts, 2 days is enough for a 

peaking facility because generating electricity is dependent on demand. Demand would be 

difficult for Duke Energy to forecast more than 2 days in advance. 

Additionally, the availability of flow release forecasts on Duke Energy’s website and tollfree telephone system and the annual calendar of scheduled flow releases would be useful to 

recreational users in planning and staging water-related visits to the project for fishing, flat water 

boating, and whitewater boating. The availability of this information would also enhance public 

safety at the project by providing up-to-date information about flows to alert the public about 

forecasted increases in flows so that the public is not caught in unexpected conditions. 

As part of the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, Duke Energy committed to providing, as nonlicense article measures, additional public information related to river flow, including frequent 

flow arrival and recession times, hotlinks on its website to USGS streamflow gages and 

groundwater monitoring wells, and special messages consistent with the Low Inflow Protocol or 

Maintenance and Emergency Protocol. Up-to-date river flow information would be useful to 

recreational users in planning and staging water-related visits to the project for fishing, flat water 

boating, and whitewater boating. The availability of this information would also enhance public 

safety at the project by providing up-to-date information about flows so that the public is not 

caught in unexpected conditions. We find that providing appropriate public information related 

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

public safety at the project. 

As part of the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA, Duke Energy committed to providing, as 

non-license article measures, public safety measures, including updates to its public safety plans, 

warning devices, Spanish language tailrace signage, horns at the Bridgewater and Oxford 

Developments, Riverbend Park warning system, English and universal signage, and facility 

exclusion zones. The revision and implementation of the public safety plans would enhance 

public safety at the project by taking into consideration the need for providing warnings of rising 

or falling water levels at recreation access areas affected by project operations, and signage for 

Spanish-speaking people, which is a demonstrated need in the project area. We conclude that 

revising the project’s public safety plans while considering these specific measures would 

enhance public safety at the project. For all recreation access areas located within the project 

boundary, the Commission’s part 8 regulations for signage will apply. 

BIA recommends that Duke Energy, in consultation with the tribe, develop a proactive 

notification system to alert the tribe of all releases of water above minimum flow levels in the 

stretch of river below Wylie dam. The CIN reservation is located approximately 7 miles 

downstream of the Wylie Development, and Duke Energy comments that, during relicensing, it 

was learned that flow release patterns substantially attenuate in this distance and this location is 

not subject to the rapid variations that could be observed in the Wylie tailrace. Duke Energy has 

proposed to implement phone-based and internet-based public information systems, which are 

284 
being recommend by staff for adoption, so the public can access information about planned 

operations. 

The town of Cornelius recommends funding for public safety (such as the navigation 

aids, marine commissions, and additional fire/rescue capacity). The town comments that it is a 

challenge for it to respond to the growing number of public safety calls on Lake Norman. The 

Lake Norman Marine Commission consists of members appointed by the counties bordering 

Lake Norman: Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg. As defined by the North Carolina 

1969 State Statute, the Lake Norman Marine Commission is responsible for taking appropriate 

responsibility for Lake Norman and its shoreline area for all matters relating to or affecting 

public recreation and water safety. It maintains a Navigational Marker System as part of its 

duties. Fire and rescue response funding is available through localities through other sources and 

is not a relicensing issue. 

Recreational Facility Enhancements 

Duke Energy proposes within 1 year of license issuance to develop and file with the 

Commission, in consultation with the North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South 

Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other entities, a recreation 

management plan (RMP) for the Catawba-Wateree Project that describes the implementation of 

the recreational enhancements proposed to be undertaken, described below by development. 

Duke Energy proposes that the RMP would include: (1) a schedule in 5-year increments for 

implementing the recreational enhancements within 20 years following Commission approval of 

the RMP; (2) maps that clearly identify all existing and proposed recreational areas in relation to 

the project boundary; (3) maps that identify where the project boundary would be modified such 

that all land areas associated with the recreational enhancements described in the RMP are 

incorporated into the project boundary; (4) conceptual facility site plans; (5) descriptions of how 

new facilities would be constructed and how new and existing facilities would be operated and 

maintained; (6) procedures for temporary closures of project recreation sites; (7) discussion of 

how the needs of the disabled were considered in planning and design of recreational facilities; 

(8) discussion of how Low Impact Development practices were considered in planning and 

design of recreational facilities; and (9) a description of the standardized recreational signage 

program for recreation sites. 

Duke Energy also proposes to file with the Commission a biennial report for the first 

20 years of the new license of the progress made under the RMP. Additionally, Duke Energy 

proposes to file with the Commission as-built drawings following the completion of construction 

for each recreation area within the project boundary. 

To address future recreational needs, Duke Energy proposes to complete a review of the 

project’s recreational needs at 20 years following the issuance of a new license and repeated at 

every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license. This review would include a 

recreation use and needs assessment and identification of any additional public recreational 

facility needs at the project. Subsequent to the reviews, Duke Energy proposes to file 

supplements to the RMP. Duke Energy proposes to consult with the North Carolina DENR, 

North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other 

entities to provide recommendations on the assessment and the RMP. 

Duke Energy proposes to upgrade and improve existing recreational facilities and 

construct new recreational facilities within 20 years of the Commission’s approval of the RMP. 

285 
The RMP would include these proposed enhancements and a schedule in 5-year increments for 

development. The Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA includes a proposed schedule for 

implementation of these measures and the proposed measures are summarized by development in 

the sections below. 

Interior generally supports the Revised CRA’s provisions for the recreational 

enhancements and recommends that Duke Energy continue to allow and enhance free reasonable 

public access to the project waters and adjacent project lands owned by Duke Energy for the 

purpose of full utilization of such lands and waters for navigation and outdoor recreational 

purposes. 

Interior, American Rivers, Coastal Conservation League, and Ms. Donna Lisenby (the 

Catawba Riverkeeper) express concerns about some of the Revised CRA measures being 

dependent on third parties. Ms. Lisenby comments that local and state governments are expected 

to cost share at a time when they are struggling to provide other services to meet growth. She 

expresses concern that in some cases Duke Energy agreed to backstop some of the recreational 

enhancements if the cost share partner could not afford them. 

Ms. Michelle Mann, a Lake Wateree homeowner, comments that she does not think that 

the numbers the recreation enhancements are based on are good numbers and recommends that 

those numbers be reviewed. She does not think that some of the recreational facilities will meet 

the needs of the public. Ms. Donna Lisenby and Ms. Sarah Williams also comment that the 

population projections used in the studies were underestimated and those projections were used 

to estimate recreational needs. 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League express concern about the 

conceptual conservation easement outline appended to the Revised CRA. They conclude that the 

document is not adequate to ensure public access to the Catawba and Wateree Rivers. 

Numerous comments were received supporting the proposed increased recreational 

access and recreational facility improvements at the project, including comments from Mr. Irvin 

Pitts with South Carolina DPRT, Mr. Chris Goudreau with North Carolina WRC, Ms. Barbara 

Baddy with Catawba County, North Carolina, Mr. Warren Selquist with Iredell County, North 

Carolina, Mr. Maurice Blackburn with the Carolina Canoe Club, Mr. Bo Cash with the Foothills 

Advisory Group and a fly fishing guide, Mr. Richard Moat with North Carolina Wildlife 

Federation, Mr. Ben Van Camp and Mr. Andrew Lazenby with American Whitewater, and 

Ms. Shirley Greene representing about 1,000 non-boating anglers on Lake Wateree. 

South Carolina DPRT comments that the expansion of smaller recreation access areas 

and development of new access areas would accommodate population growth including the 

proposed new park on the east side of Lake Wateree. Additionally, South Carolina DPRT 

supports the recreational planning review process and particular support for canoe access areas 

below Lake Wylie. Mr. Steve Reed with North Carolina DWR comments that the proposed 

Revised CRA significantly increases access to project waters, particularly for non-motorized 

boats, and provides increased trails and swimming, bank fishing, and camping areas. Mr. Reed 

recommends the Revised CRA as the preferred alternative in the Commission’s analysis and 

comments that the conservation lands are also extremely important. Duke Energy provided the 

funds early for the conservation lands, such the Johns River Confluence gamelands, which will 

provide hunting access and other recreational opportunities to the public. Mr. Michael McLaurin 

with the Lake Wylie and Mountain Island Lake Marine Commissions supports the increased 

286 
recreation access areas, particularly the canoe and kayak trails, increased swimming areas, and 

the York County EMS measure on Lake Wylie that will allow law enforcement officers to better 

serve the public. Mr. Marc Collins with Burke County, North Carolina, supports the proposed 

increased recreational access at the project, in particular the public accessible trails provided for 

in the Revised CRA. Mr. Steve Gilbert with Lincoln County, North Carolina, supports the 

proposed recreational enhancements, and expresses appreciation particularly for those proposed 

in Lincoln County. Ms. Glenda Coleman, Great Falls Hometown Association, comments that 

the recreational enhancements at Great Falls will attract paddlers from other states and help 

restore the town of Great Falls to a nature-based economy. Mr. Richard Moat, North Carolina 

Wildlife Federation, also strongly urged the Commission to accept the proposed license articles 

in their entirety. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed RMP (Proposed License Article A-9.0) would provide the 

measures to define the specific design for Duke Energy’s proposed recreational facilities and 

facilitate Duke Energy in developing its proposed recreational facilities in a coordinated manner. 

The RMP would be helpful as a planning tool and the Catawba-Wateree Revised CRA has 

clearly outlined the proposed recreational facilities and enhancements that have been agreed to 

by the signatories of the Revised CRA. As proposed, the RMP would include a discussion of 

how the needs of the disabled were considered in the design and construction of recreation 

facilities, while Duke Energy committed in the Revised CRA to ensuring that all facilities 

constructed at the Duke Energy-owned access areas comply with ADA requirements. Improving 

access for the disabled at the project would be consistent with the Commission’s policy on 

recreational facilities at licensed projects.

Duke Energy’s proposal to file a biennial report for the first 20 years following the 

issuance of a new license with the Commission of the progress it has made on completing the 

recreation enhancements under any new license would assist the Commission and the other 

Revised CRA signatories with tracking the status of the required recreation enhancements. Since 

supplements to the RMP are proposed to be filed at 20 years following the issuance of a new 

license and repeated at every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license, we find 

that biennial reports for the term of any new license would be appropriate as there would be 

recreational enhancements under future RMP supplements that would also need tracking. 

Generally, the project offers numerous opportunities for public recreation, most of which 

are free to the public, with the exception of some of the local county parks and state parks. Duke 

Energy proposes to provide a number of recreational enhancements at the project including 

26 additional recreation access areas in the project boundary and numerous enhancements at 

existing areas (Proposed License Article A-9.0). The existing recreation access areas and the 

proposed recreational enhancements would accommodate the projected increase in recreational 

users at the project. Respondents for the recreation and use needs study did not feel crowded at 

the public recreation access areas on weekdays and felt only slightly to moderately crowded on 

typical weekends during the peak recreation season. 

Several individuals, Ms. Michelle Mann, Ms. Lisenby, and Ms. Williams, expressed 

concerns about whether the proposed recreational enhancements would meet the increasing 

population and felt the future recreation needs and population numbers should be reviewed. No 

other alternative methodology or population projections have been brought forward since the 

287 
recreation use and needs study was begun in 2004. The methods and models used to project 

recreation needs within the project area are documented, standard approaches that are accepted in 

the recreation planning profession. The facility needs projections were developed by computing 

current use numbers based on a full year of data collection, and by incorporating indexed values 

for future recreation use for the various activities. The index values for each activity were 

obtained from Cordell et al. (1999), a recognized future projection data source. Duke Energy 

consulted with Cordell and Bowker, authors of the model, to review the study methods and to 

incorporate regional population growth into the model. Duke Energy compared Cordell’s 

population projections to current state and U.S. Census Bureau projections to determine an 

adjustment factor. An average percentage increase for each 10-year period was calculated. 

Population growth estimates also were obtained from population data from the Office of State 

Planning for the counties in North Carolina and from the Office of Research and Statistics for the 

counties in South Carolina, and population projections from the U.S. Census Bureau for 2010, 

2020, and 2030. The model was adjusted to account for the difference in population estimates 

between sources. 

However, to address future recreational needs, Duke Energy proposes to complete a 

review of the project’s recreational needs at 20 years following the issuance of a new license and 

repeated at every subsequent 10 years during the term of the new license. This review would be 

conducted in consultation with North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DPRT, South Carolina DNR, local governments, and other interested parties, and would include 

a recreation use and needs assessment and identification of any additional public recreational 

facility needs at the project. This review would provide Duke Energy and the stakeholders with 

an opportunity to re-evaluate recreation use and needs at the project and to identify additional 

recreational needs at the project. Subsequent to the reviews, Duke Energy proposes to file 

supplements to the RMP. We conclude that 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 on the assessment 

and the RMP (the entire relicensing Recreation Resources Committee) would be beneficial to 

maintain continuity in the recreation planning process. 

More than 90 percent of those interviewed at the public recreation access areas during the 

recreation and use needs study were satisfied with the recreation opportunities available and the 

condition of the facilities. Visitors using the public recreation access areas indicated a need for 

increased restrooms, trails, and picnic facilities. Shoreline residents indicated a need for more 

swimming areas, multiple day-use facilities, commercial opportunities, and trails. Duke 

Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would provide additional opportunities to address 

these identified needs and emphasis has been placed on land-based recreational enhancements 

and non-motorized boating access to the regulated river reaches. Most reservoirs, except for 

several of those receiving the least amount of recreational use, offer a range of water-based and 

land-based recreational opportunities, and recreational opportunities are generally available 

within a short drive somewhere within the project. 

American Rivers and the Coastal Conservation League express concern about the 

conceptual conservation easement outline appended to the Revised CRA and conclude that the 

document is not adequate to ensure public access to the Catawba and Wateree Rivers. The 

288 
proposed conservation easements are for lands that are currently outside and proposed to be 

outside the project boundary. 

In addition to those measures for which Duke Energy would be responsible for under any 

new license, Duke Energy has partnered with others to enhance existing recreation access areas 

or to develop additional areas in addition to those that Duke Energy would be responsible for. 

These measures as described later in this section are included in the Revised CRA and are not 

proposed to be included as license articles. Although Interior, American Rivers, Coastal 

Conservation League, and Ms. Donna Lisenby (the Catawba Riverkeeper) express concern about 

some of the Revised CRA measures being dependent on third parties, we have evaluated each of 

these additional enhancements to determine if any of them might be appropriate to include in any 

license for the project. All of these non-license article measures were agreed to by the Revised 

CRA signatories. 

Proposed Enhancements Inside the Project Boundary 

Duke Energy is proposing to include a number of recreational enhancements discussed 

below as a license article that would be included in the project boundary and RMP. 

FWS recommends that the importance of fish and wildlife-based recreation, especially 

bird-watching, should be considered, as well as water-based recreation. 

Bridgewater Development 

At the Bridgewater Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 67). These enhancements 

include three new public recreation access areas and significant improvements at three existing 

recreation access areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land 

areas associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

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

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake James

Black Bear Access 

Area 

Provide restrooms, additional shade trees, a shoreline 

buffer, trails, primitive camping sites, picnic 

facilities, and a fishing pier (or bank fishing trail) if 

suitable resource conditions are located at existing 

recreation area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake James State 

Park Islands 

Management Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for 

the term of the new license for the Lake James State 

Park management zone (300 horizontal feet lakeward 

from full pond elevation) along the shoreline 

adjoining the state park, including three islands. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

289 
Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

New Linville Access 

Area 

Acquire approximately 10 acres of land near the 

existing Linville Access Area and develop two boat 

ramps for trailered motor boats, lighted and paved 

parking, one courtesy dock, an access road, and a 

vault toilet. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Linville 

Canoe/Kayak 

Access Area 

After the ramps at the New Linville Access Area are 

in-service, convert the existing Linville Access Area 

to canoe/kayak use, provide picnic facilities and 

restrooms, and plant shade trees. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Pocket Park for Lake 

James Loop Trail 

Develop an approximately 10-acre park near the 

Linville dam at the existing canoe portage take-out 

with parking facilities, picnic facilities, photographic 

overlooks, and a bank fishing trail. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Bridgewater Regulated River Reach

Bridgewater Access 

Area 

Develop restrooms, a ramp for trailered boats, 

additional parking, and picnic facilities at existing 

recreation area. Evaluate the existing portage trail 

and signage and incorporate needed improvements. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Muddy Creek 

Access Area 

Acquire 1-3 acres of property adjoining Muddy 

Creek between I-40 and the confluence of Muddy 

Creek with the Catawba River bypassed reach and 

develop a canoe/kayak access area with 

approximately 10 gravel parking spaces. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rhodhiss Development 

Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at the Rhodhiss 

Development to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 68), including one new 

public recreation access area and significant improvements at four existing recreation access 

areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated 

with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

 

290 
Table 68. Proposed recreation measures at the Rhodhiss Development to be included in the 

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Corpening Bridge 

Access Area 

Acquire approximately 10 acres and construct a 

trailered boat ramp and approximately 10 gravel 

parking spaces on the Johns River at the Corpening 

Bridge. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Conley Creek 

Access Area 

(Sawmills Veterans 

Park) 

Construct approximately two additional miles of trail 

at existing recreation area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rhodhiss Access 

Area Provide restrooms at existing recreation area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rhodhiss Dam 

Canoe Portage 

Evaluate the condition of the existing portage trail 

and its signage and develop any needed 

improvements. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Castle Bridge 

Access Area Provide restrooms at existing recreation area. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Development 

At the Oxford Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 69). These enhancements 

include three new public recreation access areas and significant improvements at six existing 

recreation access areas, including one undeveloped area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the 

project boundary so that all land areas associated with these proposed measures are included in 

the project boundary. 

291 
Table 69. Proposed recreation measures at the Oxford Development to be included in the 

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake Hickory

Lake Hickory first 

swimming area Develop swimming area at Lake Hickory. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wittenburg Access 

Area 

Acquire approximately 15 additional acres to include 

in the access area and provide restrooms, picnic 

facilities, and additional paved parking. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Dusty Ridge Access 

Area 

Develop approximately 1 mile of trail and restrooms 

at the site. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lovelady Access 

Area 

Provide a fishing pier if suitable resource conditions 

are located. If a suitable location cannot be found, 

then construct a fishing pier at another site on Lake 

Hickory in Caldwell County. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Long Shoals Access 

Area Develop a canoe/kayak access with gravel parking. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Access Area Develop a primitive campground, paved parking, 

picnic facilities, bank fishing, trails, and restrooms. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Hickory 

second swimming 

area 

Develop second swimming area at Lake Hickory. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Regulated River Reach

Oxford Tailrace 

Fishing Area Develop public fishing area facilities. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Oxford Dam Canoe 

Portage 

Improve existing parking and extend the existing 

canoe portage trail to Catawba County’s Riverbend 

Park. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals Development 

Duke Energy proposes several recreational enhancements at the Lookout Shoals 

Development to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 70), including three new 

public recreation access areas and improvements at one existing recreation access area. Duke 

Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated with these 

proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

292 
Table 70. Proposed recreation measures at the Lookout Shoals Development to be included 

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

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lookout Shoals Lake

Upper Lookout 

Shoals Access Area 

Acquire approximately 1-5 acres of property in 

Catawba County and develop a trailered boat access 

area with parking, restrooms, and primitive camping 

downstream of the “bend” of the lake (RM 227). 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals 

Access Area Provide restrooms. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach

Lookout Shoals 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

Develop a public fishing area. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lookout Shoals Dam 

Canoe Portage 

Develop a portage trail with canoe/kayak access 

(take-out, put-in) and signage around Lookout Shoals 

dam. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Cowans Ford Development 

At the Cowans Ford Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 71). These enhancements 

include one new public recreation access area and significant improvements at five existing 

recreation access areas, including one undeveloped area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the 

project boundary so that all land areas associated with these proposed measures are included in 

the project boundary. 

 The town of Cornelius recommends additional public recreational opportunities on Lake 

Norman, specifically additional public lakefront property in and around the Cornelius shoreline, 

to provide sufficient public recreation opportunities, including, but not limited to, swimming 

areas, fishing piers, and non-motorized boating access. Mr. Gary Knox with the town comments 

that there is less public access on Lake Norman than 20 years ago and that there is no public 

access to Lake Cornelius except through a YWCA, which is limited to members only. 

Ms. Jean McKinley, a resident near the proposed Island Point Access Area, expressed 

numerous concerns about the proposed access area and its impact on local residents, including 

lack of police and fire protection, a decrease in property values, traffic, and whether the lessee 

would be a “good citizen.” She expressed particular concern over the Revised CRA proposal 

(proposed as a non-license article measure) to offer a lease to a commercial operator for the 

development of a recreational vehicle (RV) campground, marine pump-out, dump station, and 

293 
bathhouse. She requested that if the access area is forced on local residents, the access road to 

the Island Point Access Area should be Steam Plant Road. 

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

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake Norman State 

Park Management 

Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for 

the term of the new license for the Lake Norman 

State Park management zone (300 horizontal feet 

lakeward from full pond elevation) along the 

shoreline adjoining Lake Norman State Park) 

including one island. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Beatty’s Ford 

Access Area 

Develop picnic facilities, a fishing pier, swimming 

area, restrooms, and shade trees. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Hagers Creek 

Access Area 

Develop additional paved parking, trails, bank 

fishing, picnic facilities, restrooms, and, if suitable 

conditions are located, a fishing pier. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Stumpy Creek 

Access Area 

Develop a fishing pier, picnic facilities, walking trail, 

restrooms, and additional paved parking. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Little Creek Access 

Area 

Develop restrooms, a fishing pier, paved parking 

spaces, and a picnic shelter. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Island Point Access 

Area 

Develop trails, bank or pier fishing, picnic facilities, 

a swimming area, boating access facilities, and 

restrooms. Conceptual plan development would be 

coordinated with Catawba County. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Cowan’s Ford Dam 

Portage and 

Overlook 

Develop a portage trail to the new Highway 73 

Access Area, a reservoir overlook with park benches, 

and approximately 10 gravel parking spaces. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mountain Island Development 

At the Mountain Island Development, Duke Energy proposes several recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 72). These enhancements 

include three new public recreation access areas and significant enhancements at an existing 

recreation access area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land 

areas associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

294 
Table 72. Proposed recreation measures at the Mountain Island Development to be included 

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

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Highway 73 Access 

Area 

Develop approximately 2 acres of Duke Energyowned property as a canoe/kayak access with 

approximately 10 gravel parking spaces. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lucia Access Area Develop a canoe/kayak access and approximately 10 

gravel parking spaces. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Riverbend Access 

Area 

Develop restrooms, bank fishing, a swimming area, 

and a fishing pier. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mountain Island 

Dam Canoe Portage 

Develop a portage trail with canoe access (take-out, 

put-in) and signage. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wylie Development 

Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at the Wylie Development 

to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 73). These enhancements include two 

new public recreation access areas and significant improvements at four existing recreation 

access areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas 

associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

295 
Table 73. Proposed recreation measures at the Wylie Development to be included in the 

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

staff) 

Recreation Access 

Area Proposed Measure CRA Proposed Schedule 

Lake Wylie

Dutchmans Creek 

Access Area 

Develop a canoe/kayak access and approximately 10 

gravel parking spaces 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Saddler Island 

Offer an AAII lease of the approximately 37-acre 

island to the U.S. National Whitewater Center for 

individual and group environmental education and 

outdoor recreation programming. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

South Point Access 

Area 

Develop trails, a fishing pier, a bank fishing area, 

picnic facilities, a swimming area, restrooms, and 

additional paved parking. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Buster Boyd Access 

Area Provide restrooms. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Allison Creek 

Access Area 

Expand existing access area by approximately 48 

acres and develop restrooms, picnic facilities, 

additional paved parking, and approximately 1 mile 

of trail. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rock Hill Park 

Develop a bank fishing trail with fishing stations, 

picnic facilities, a swimming area, restrooms, and 

parking on approximately 17 acres of land. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wylie Regulated River Reach

Fort Mill Access 

Area Provide restrooms and picnic facilities. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek Development 

At the Fishing Creek Development, Duke Energy proposes several recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 74). These enhancements 

include one new public recreation access area, a replacement access area, and significant 

improvements at one existing recreation access area. Duke Energy proposes to modify the 

project boundary so that all land areas associated with these proposed measures are included in 

the project boundary. 

296 
Table 74. Proposed recreation measures at the Fishing Creek Development to be included in 

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Springs Park 

Relocate the existing Cane Creek Access Area to an 

approximately 18-acre portion of the old Springs 

Park Property and develop two trailered boat ramps, 

courtesy dock, paved and lighted parking, fishing 

pier, and bank fishing trail. Once the boating 

facilities and parking areas are developed and in 

service at this site, the existing Cane Creek Access 

Area would be closed, and Duke Energy would file 

revised exhibit G drawings for Commission approval 

to remove the existing Cane Creek Access Area from 

the FERC project boundary. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek 

Access Area 

Develop a fishing pier, additional paved parking, 

picnic facilities, restrooms, and a swimming area if a 

suitable swimming area is feasible at the site. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek 

Tailrace Fishing 

Area 

Develop a public fishing area, including a platform, 

pier or bank fishing trail, and paved parking. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

Duke Energy proposes to evaluate safety concerns associated with boating at the Great 

Falls and Dearborn Developments near the Great Falls diversion dam, the Great Falls headworks, 

and the Great Falls-Dearborn dam, and determine the need for constructing boating safety 

devices upstream of the structures. Duke Energy proposes to report conclusions to the 

Commission and submit a revised public safety plan for Commission acceptance, if necessary. 

This evaluation is proposed to be completed and the necessary structures completed prior to 

beginning the recreational flows and prior to construction of any public boat launching area 

providing boat access to the Great Falls reservoir. Duke Energy proposes five new public 

recreation access areas to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 75). Duke 

Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated with these 

proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

297 
Table 75. Proposed recreation measures at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments to 

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

Energy, 2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Highway 200 Bridge 

Access Area 

Acquire and develop a 1- to 5-acre site with a 

canoe/kayak launch, restrooms, and gravel parking 

area in the vicinity of the Highway 200, Highway 21, 

and Fishing Creek intersection. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls 

Diversion Dam 

Portage 

Develop a portage trail on the north end of Mountain 

Island to provide boater access the Great Falls Long 

bypassed reach. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls 

Headworks Portage 

Develop a portage trail on Mountain Island around 

the Great Falls headworks to provide boater access to 

the Great Falls Short bypassed reach. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Great Falls 

Headworks to Cedar 

Creek Reservoir 

Portage 

Provide a portage trail along the Great Falls Short 

bypassed reach to Cedar Creek reservoir. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lower Great Falls 

Reservoir 

Canoe/Kayak 

Launch 

Acquire approximately 1 to 7 acres and construct a 

canoe/kayak launch on Great Falls reservoir 

downstream of the Great Falls headworks. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

Duke Energy proposes one new recreation access area at the Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek Developments and to offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for improvements at the 

islands in Cedar Creek reservoir to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 76). 

Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land areas associated with these 

proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

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

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

Duke Energy, 2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Cedar Creek 

Reservoir Island 

Improvements 

Offer a lease of the islands associated with Great 

Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek 

Developments to the South Carolina DPRT to 

establish and maintain a new state park centered on 

the Dearborn Armory site. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mudcat Inn Access 

Area 

Acquire approximately 1 acre of property and develop 

a canoe/kayak access facility with approximately 10 

gravel parking spaces. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

298 
Wateree Development 

At the Wateree Development, Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements to be included as a license article and in the RMP (table 77). These enhancements 

include one new public recreation access area and significant improvements at four existing 

recreation access areas. Duke Energy proposes to modify the project boundary so that all land 

areas associated with these proposed measures are included in the project boundary. 

Interior recommends that the new license include provisions for the establishment and 

long-term sustainability of a water trail from Wateree Dam to Congaree National Park. Interior 

suggests the provisions could include the development of a map and brochure for the trail, 

acquisition of additional access locations, and development and management of several primitive 

campsites along the trail. 

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

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Wateree Creek 

Access Area 

Provide a fishing pier, a 5 to 10 table picnic facility, 

restrooms, and approximately 10 gravel parking 

spaces. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Molly Creek Park 

Acquire approximately 100 acres and provide a 

swimming area, paved parking, restrooms, trails, 

bank and pier fishing, picnic facilities, and trailered 

boat access. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Wateree State 

Park Management 

Zone 

Offer the South Carolina DPRT a nominal-cost lease 

for the Lake Wateree State Park management zone 

(up to 300 horizontal feet lakeward from full pond 

elevation along all the shoreline adjoining the state 

park) along the shoreline adjoining the state park. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Colonels Creek 

Access Area 

Provide a courtesy dock, a swimming area, 

restrooms, and additional paved parking. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Taylors Creek 

Access Area 

Expand the existing access area by approximately 3 

acres and develop approximately 10 gravel parking 

spaces. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lugoff Access Area Provide restrooms and improved gravel parking. 

15 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Our Analysis 

Generally, the project offers numerous opportunities for public recreation, and Duke 

Energy proposes to provide a number of recreational enhancements at the project including 

26 additional recreation access areas in the project boundary and numerous enhancements at 

existing areas (Proposed License Article A-9.0). The existing recreation access areas and the 

299 
proposed recreational enhancements would accommodate the projected increase in recreational 

users at the project. Duke Energy is proposing to include a number of recreational enhancements 

as a license article, that would be included in the project boundary and RMP, and, as the 

licensee, Duke Energy would be responsible for these measures and enhancements and for all 

operation and maintenance of those facilities. 

The existing and proposed public recreation access areas would be spaced geographically 

throughout the project reservoirs and regulated river reaches to provide recreational opportunities 

no matter where the potential user is traveling from. Generally, the developments receiving the 

greatest recreation use are proposed for the most recreational enhancements. 

The existing project boundary generally includes the area within full pond elevation of 

the project reservoirs and the land immediately surrounding the dams and powerhouses. Existing 

Duke Energy-owned public recreation access areas that provide access to the project are included 

in the project boundary, but portions of the existing Duke Energy-owned project recreation 

access areas may lie partially outside the boundary. All lands needed for the operation of the 

project, including lands needed to ensure the protection of non-power values, must be included in 

the project boundary. This would allow the Commission to ensure that maintenance and 

operation of those recreation access areas would be continued over the life of the issued license. 

FWS recommends that the importance of fish and wildlife-based recreation, especially 

bird-watching should be considered. The project provides many opportunities for fishing, and 

Duke Energy’s proposed enhancements provide numerous additional opportunities for pier and 

bank fishing and fishing in the regulated river reaches. With only four formal areas available for 

wildlife viewing at the project (none of which are in the project boundary), additional wildlife 

viewing opportunities would enhance the recreational opportunities available at the project. In 

the Revised CRA, Duke Energy has committed to evaluating the need for and feasibility of 

including wildlife viewing facilities at appropriate Duke Energy-owned public access areas 

located within the project boundary; however, we conclude that this measure is needed at the 

project. 

In the Revised CRA, Duke Energy has committed to ensuring that the shoreline of all 

Duke Energy-owned access areas remains open for bank fishing for the term of the new license, 

except those minimal shoreline areas where bank fishing is restricted for safety reasons, for 

management problems, or to avoid conflicts with other access area users. Duke Energy has not 

proposed this measure as a license article; however, ensuring that all bank fishing areas provided 

by Duke Energy be available to recreationists for the term of the new license would enhance 

bank fishing opportunities at the project. 

Duke Energy has committed in the Revised CRA to a non-license article measure 

whereby Duke Energy would ensure that all of its islands located on the project reservoirs or in 

the regulated river reaches would remain open for the term the new license for any permissible 

day-use public recreation activity. Islands may be designated as off-limits by Duke Energy due 

to issues related to cultural resource protection, wildlife protection or safety, security, or 

management concerns or restrictions by state or local public health, safety or law enforcement 

authorities. Camping on islands located in project reservoirs and regulated river reaches would 

be authorized only on specific Duke Energy-owned islands. All lands that serve a project 

purpose or are affected by the project must be included within the project boundary. This 

300 
measure would enhance recreational use by boaters and non-motorized boaters using the project 

waters. 

Bridgewater Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Bridgewater Development that would help 

meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements 

would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake James for boating, nonmotorized boating, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, camping, overlooks, and restrooms. The 

Bridgewater regulated river reach would include additional facilities for boating, non-motorized 

boating, picnicking, and restrooms. The proposed new Linville Access Area would alleviate 

some of the recreational pressure at the existing Linville Access Area, which has a mean capacity 

of 58 percent on non-holiday weekends. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to North Carolina DENR for the Lake James 

State Park Islands Management Zone would force a contract between two parties. This would be 

outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a nonlicense article measure since this measure would allow the state park to enforce its regulations 

below the full pond elevation adjacent to the state park. 

Rhodhiss Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Rhodhiss Development that would help meet 

future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would 

provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Rhodhiss for boating, trails, and 

restrooms. The proposed Corpening Bridge Access Area would provide boating access well 

above the existing Johns River Access Area to provide a more “riverine” recreational experience. 

Lake Rhodhiss is a relatively small reservoir and no swimming areas are provided or proposed 

on the reservoir; however, there is a swimming area at the nearby Lake James State Park on Lake 

James and two proposed swimming areas on Lake Hickory. 

Oxford Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Oxford Development that would help meet 

future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would 

provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Hickory for non-motorized boating, 

swimming areas, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, primitive camping, trails, and restrooms. The 

Oxford regulated river reach would include facilities for public fishing and a trail. The proposed 

expansion of the Wittenburg Access Area would alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the 

existing Lovelady Access Area, which has a mean capacity of close to 50 percent on non-holiday 

weekends. 

Lookout Shoals Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements 

would provide increased recreational opportunities at the Lookout Shoals Development that 

would help meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed 

enhancements would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lookout Shoals Lake 

for boating, non-motorized boating, primitive camping, and restrooms. The Lookout Shoals 

regulated river reach would include facilities for public fishing and a portage trail around the 

Lookout Shoals dam. The proposed Upper Lookout Shoals Access Area would provide boating 

access and camping in the upper portion of Lookout Shoals Lake. Lookout Shoals Lake is a 

relatively small reservoir and no swimming areas are provided or proposed on the reservoir; 

301 
however, there is a swimming area at the nearby Lake Norman State Park on Lake Norman and 

two proposed swimming areas for Lake Hickory. 

Cowans Ford Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Cowans Ford Development that would help 

meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements 

would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Norman for boating, nonmotorized boating, trails, swimming, pier/bank fishing, a portage trail, and restrooms. The 

proposed Island Point Access Area and the proposed enhancements at the existing Little Creek 

Access Area, especially the fishing pier, would alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the 

existing Marshall fishing area which has a mean capacity of 87 percent on non-holiday 

weekends. The proposed enhancements at the existing Hagers Creek Access Area would 

alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the existing Roosevelt Wilson Park, which has a 

mean capacity of 243 percent on non-holiday weekends, by providing bank fishing and picnic 

facilities. The proposed enhancements at the Beatty’s Ford Access Area would alleviate the 

recreational pressure at the existing McGuire fishing area, which has a mean capacity of 

49 percent on non-holiday weekends, by providing a fishing pier in addition to other day use 

facilities. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to North Carolina DENR for the Lake Norman 

State Park Management Zone would force a contract between two parties. This would be outside 

the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a non-license 

article measure since this measure would allow the state park to enforce its regulations below the 

full pond elevation adjacent to the state park. 

The town of Cornelius recommends additional public recreational opportunities on Lake 

Norman, specifically additional public lakefront property in and around the Cornelius shoreline, 

to provide sufficient public recreation opportunities, including, but not limited to, swimming 

areas, fishing piers, and non-motorized boating access. Lake Cornelius and Lake Davidson were 

cut off from the remainder of Lake Norman by the construction of Interstate 77 and, therefore, 

there is no public access from Lake Norman proper. Lake Davidson does have one existing 

public boat access, but Lake Cornelius does not have any public access. The Lake Norman 

YMCA does provide some access to Lake Cornelius, but only to its members. In Duke Energy’s 

April 30, 2007, response to scoping meeting comments, it acknowledged that there is no public 

access to Lake Cornelius, but stated that none was recommended by the Recreation Ad Hoc Committee 

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

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

Ms. Jean McKinley expressed numerous concerns about the proposed Island Point 

Access Area, particularly related to the Revised CRA proposal (proposed as a non-license article 

measure) to offer a lease to a commercial operator for the development of an RV campground. 

The proposed recreation access area would be developed in a manner consistent with the SMP 

and all local zoning ordinances and would alleviate some of the recreational pressure at the 

existing Marshall fishing area which has a mean capacity of 87 percent on non-holiday 

weekends. Duke Energy has proposed as a license article to provide trails, bank or pier fishing, 

picnic facilities, a swimming area, boating access facilities, and restrooms at the Island Point 

Access Area. The Revised CRA contains an additional non-license article provision that states 

that within 15 years of the effective date of the new FERC license, Duke Energy may market to 

commercial operators a lease for development and management of a multi-use recreation area at 

302 
this site. If an acceptable proposal is received, the additional amenities could include, but would 

not necessarily be limited to RV camping with bathhouse and dump station, and a marine pumpout in addition to the previous facilities. The Revised CRA also includes a commitment for 

Duke Energy and Catawba County, North Carolina, to form a workgroup of parties that 

represents the public interest to participate in developing the site plan for this access area. 

Mountain Island Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements 

would provide increased recreational opportunities at the Mountain Island Development that 

would help meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed 

enhancements would provide additional facilities in the project boundary for non-motorized 

boating, pier/bank fishing, a portage trail, swimming, and restrooms. The proposed 

enhancements at the Riverbend Access Area would provide bank and pier fishing and the only 

swimming area on Mountain Island Lake (Latta Plantation County Park, owned and operated by 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has a beach for sunbathing only). Mountain Island Lake 

is a relatively small reservoir and there are no public camping areas currently provided; however, 

there are camping areas nearby at Lake Norman State Park on Lake Norman, and the 

Copperhead Access Area and McDowell Park on Lake Wylie. 

Wylie Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would provide 

increased recreational opportunities at the Wylie Development that would help meet future 

recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would provide 

additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Wylie for non-motorized boating, picnicking, 

pier/bank fishing, swimming areas, trails, and restrooms. The Wylie regulated river reach would 

include additional facilities for picnicking and restrooms. The proposed Rock Hill Park and the 

proposed enhancements at the existing Fort Mill Access Area would alleviate some of the 

recreational pressure at the existing Nivens Creek Access Area, which has a mean capacity of 

111 percent on non-holiday weekends, by providing other types of recreational opportunities 

including a swimming area and bank fishing. The proposed enhancements at the Allison Creek 

Access Area include a trail, parking, and picnic facilities, which would help alleviate some of the 

recreational pressure at the Nivens Creek Access Area and the Buster Boyd Access Area, which 

has a mean capacity of 47 percent on non-holiday weekends. Although located at the Mountain 

Island Development, the Riverbend Access Area is very close to the Mountain Island River Park, 

which has a mean capacity of 146 percent on non-holiday weekends, and would help alleviate 

some of the recreational pressure at the existing Mountain Island River Park. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease for Saddler Island to the U.S National 

Whitewater Center for environmental education programming would force a contract between 

two parties. This would be outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could 

pursue this measure as a non-license article measure. 

Fishing Creek Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Fishing Creek Development that would help 

meet future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements 

would provide additional facilities in the project boundary at the Fishing Creek Development for 

boating, non-motorized boating, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, a swimming area (if a suitable 

swimming area is feasible at the access area), and restrooms. The reservoir does not have an 

existing swimming area, but there is one proposed swimming area on Fishing Creek reservoir. 

303 
Great Falls and Dearborn Developments—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational 

enhancements would provide recreational opportunities at the Great Falls and Dearborn 

Developments where none previously existed. After evaluating safety concerns associated with 

boating near the Great Falls diversion dam, the Great Falls headworks, and the Great FallsDearborn dam, Duke Energy would provide the proposed recreational enhancements that would 

provide canoeing/kayaking facilities, portage trails, and restrooms where none previously 

existed. We find that the safety evaluation is necessary to ensure public safety. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational 

enhancements would provide increased recreational opportunities at the Rocky Creek and Cedar 

Creek Developments that would help meet future recreational need at the developments and 

provide a facility for non-motorized boating. Since the Cedar Creek reservoir is small, 

recreational opportunities are limited but can be found at other nearby public recreation access 

areas within the project. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for Cedar Creek 

reservoir island improvements would force a contract between two parties. This would be 

outside the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a nonlicense article measure since this measure would provide a new state park centered around the 

Dearborn Armory Site. 

Wateree Development—Duke Energy’s proposed recreational enhancements would 

provide increased recreational opportunities at the Wateree Development that would help meet 

future recreational need at the development. Specifically, the proposed enhancements would 

provide additional facilities in the project boundary at Lake Wateree for boating, non-motorized 

boating, picnicking, pier/bank fishing, swimming areas, trails, and restrooms. The Wateree 

regulated river reach would include additional facilities for parking and restrooms. The proposed 

expansion of the parking area at the Taylors Creek Access Area would alleviate some of the 

recreational pressure at the existing Wateree Creek Access Area, which has a mean capacity of 

50 percent on non-holiday weekends. 

Duke Energy’s proposal to offer a lease to South Carolina DPRT for the Lake Wateree 

State Park Management Zone would force a contract between two parties. This would be outside 

the Commission’s authority; however, Duke Energy could pursue this measure as a non-license 

article measure since this measure would allow the state park to enforce its regulations below the 

full pond elevation adjacent to the state park. 

Interior recommends that the license include provisions for the establishment and longterm sustainability of a water trail from Wateree dam to Congaree National Park. The requested 

measure would not serve project purposes and does not have a clear nexus to project operation. 

Duke Energy proposes to provide minimum flows and recreational flow releases from the 

Wateree Development which would enhance recreational use below Wateree dam. 

Proposed Enhancements Outside the Project Boundary 

In addition to those measures for which Duke Energy would be responsible for under any 

new license (i.e., those located in the project boundary and proposed for inclusion in the RMP), 

Duke Energy has partnered with others to enhance existing recreation access areas or to develop 

additional recreation areas. The measures as described below are commitments in the Revised 

CRA that are not proposed as license articles or to be included inside the project boundary. 

304 
Bridgewater Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Bridgewater Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 78). Additionally, the 

Revised CRA includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to 

provide cabins at the Black Bear Access Area which is proposed for inclusion in the project 

boundary. 

Interior recommends that the measure described below for the Overmountain Victory 

National Historic Trail Corridor be included as a license article and the easements provided by 

Duke Energy for the trail should be in perpetuity rather than for the term of the FERC license. 

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

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Black Bear 

Connector Trail 

Facilitate discussions about trail easement 

agreements among McDowell County, North 

Carolina, and the owners of Bear Cliff Development, 

Sunset Development Homeowner’s Association, and 

Crescent Resources, LLC to connect the Black Bear 

Access Area to the Lake James Loop Trail. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake James Loop 

Trail 

Provide up to $500,000 to either Burke County or 

North Carolina DENR to construct up to 5 miles of 

the Lake James Loop Trail, including the portion 

across the project dams (length to be determined by 

engineering feasibility). 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

North Bend 

Recreation Land 

Transfer approximately 550 acres of property 

adjoining the Bridgewater regulated river reach 

downstream of the Bridgewater Development to

North Carolina DENR for public recreation and 

permanent conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Catawba-Linville 

River Confluence 

Recreation Land 

Transfer approximately 420 acres of property 

adjoining the Catawba River downstream of the 

Bridgewater Development in the vicinity of the 

confluence of the Catawba River bypassed reach and 

the Bridgewater regulated river reach to North 

Carolina DENR for public recreation and permanent 

conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

305 
Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Paddy Creek 

Recreation Land 

Transfer or cause to be transferred 275 acres of 

property downstream of Paddy Creek and Linville 

dams to North Carolina DENR for public recreation 

and permanent conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

North Bend 

Recreation Land 

Access Area 

Transfer approximately 10 acres of property at the 

second Powerhouse Road bridge to North Carolina 

WRC and provide up to $225,000 for North Carolina 

WRC to develop and maintain a trailered boat 

access, bank fishing area, and parking area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Morganton Weir 

Take-out Area 

Provide up to $125,000 to the City of Morganton, 

North Carolina, or North Carolina DENR to develop 

a trailered boat ramp and approximately 10 gravel 

parking spaces upstream in the immediate vicinity of 

the Morganton weir. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake James-toMorganton 

Overmountain 

Victory National 

Historic Trail 

Corridor 

Provide up to $600,000 to Burke County, North 

Carolina DENR, or others to develop approximately 

6 miles of the Overmountain Victory National 

Historic Trail. Acquire easements (up to 300 ft in 

width) for approximately 6 miles of the 

Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail 

Corridor on the North Bend Recreation Land tract, 

the Paddy Creek tract, or the Catawba-Linville River 

Confluence tract and provide $600,000 to support 

land conservation in North Carolina if other entities 

develop the Overmountain Victory National Historic 

Trail in Burke County such that Duke Energy’s 

funding support is unnecessary. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Watermill Road 

Access Area 

The Licensee would provide up to $65,000 to the 

town of Glen Alpine, North Carolina, to modify the 

existing canoe/kayak facility to better accommodate 

trailered boats in addition to canoes and kayaks 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rhodhiss Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Rhodhiss Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 79). 

306 
Table 79. Proposed recreation measures at the Rhodhiss Development to be excluded from 

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Wilson Creek 

Access Area 

Acquire 50 to 100 acres of land along Wilson Creek 

between Adako Road and the confluence of Wilson 

Creek with the Johns River and offer it to Caldwell 

County, North Carolina, through the AAII. Duke 

Energy to develop bank fishing and picnic facilities 

if Caldwell County leases the site. Duke Energy 

funds the installation of a USGS streamflow gage on 

Wilson Creek near Adako Road if Caldwell County 

agrees to pay for annual USGS gage maintenance. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Upper Johns River 

Access Area 

Provide up to $125,000 to Caldwell County to 

develop a canoe/kayak access with parking at a 

location to be acquired by Caldwell County located 

on the Johns River, upstream of its confluence with 

Wilson Creek. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Johns River 

Gameland 

Support the acquisition of up to 2,882 acres of 

property by the Foothills Conservancy or North 

Carolina WRC in the vicinity of the confluence of 

Johns River and Lake Rhodhiss for public recreation 

and permanent conservation by effecting a reduction 

in price of $915 per acre purchased up to $2,640,000 

if the total tract is purchased. 

Between the effective 

date of the Revised 

CRA and August 1, 

2009 

Oxford Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreation enhancements proposed 

to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes several nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide enhancements at the 

Wittenburg Access Area (additional day use facilities), Lovelady Access Area (additional day 

use facilities including, but not limited to picnic areas, trails, restrooms), and Oxford Access 

Area (RV campground, dump station, marine pump-out, and bathhouse) which are proposed for 

inclusion in the project boundary. 

Lookout Shoals Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Lookout Shoals Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 80). 

307 
Table 80. Proposed recreation measures at the Lookout Shoals Development to be excluded 

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

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Riverbend 

Park/Upper Lookout 

Shoals Trail 

Provide up to $220,000 to Catawba County, North 

Carolina, or North Carolina DENR to support 

easement, acquisition and the development of a 50-

ft-wide, 1.5-mile-long trail between Catawba 

County’s Riverbend Park and the new Upper 

Lookout Shoals Access Area. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Cowans Ford Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Cowan’s Ford Development that are proposed to be outside 

the project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 81). The Revised 

CRA includes several additional non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties 

to provide additional enhancements at the Hagers Creek Access Area (RV campground, dump 

station, marine pump-out, and bathhouse), Little Creek Access Area (additional day use facilities 

such as picnic areas), and Island Point Access Area (RV campground, dump station, marine 

pump-out, and bathhouse), which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. 

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

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

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Mountain Creek 

Park 

Support the acquisition by Catawba County of up to 

600 acres of property at the mouth of Mountain 

Creek by effecting a reduction in price of $1,900 per 

acre purchased up to $1,140,000 if the total tract is 

purchased. If Catawba County does not acquire the 

property, the applicant would acquire 20-30 acres at 

this location and develop a canoe/kayak launch, 

restrooms, fishing pier, swimming beach, and paved 

parking. 

Between the effective 

date of the Revised 

CRA and August 1, 

2009 

308 
Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Hunsucker Park 

Offer an AAII lease to the town of Catawba, North 

Carolina, or another public entity for the applicant’s 

property on the south side of Lyle Creek near 

Hunsucker Park. If a lessee is located, the applicant 

would develop picnic facilities, 0.5 mile of trail, a 

trailered boat access, and parking on the applicant’s 

property. The applicant also would incorporate its 

property on the north side of Lyle Creek in the lease 

provided that the town’s or public entity’s operations 

and management plan for the park is acceptable. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Norman Trail 

Planning Assistance 

Provide technical assistance to facilitate any needed 

bicycle route crossings of the FERC project 

boundary and use of Duke Energy’s access areas 

along the North Carolina DOT’s proposed Lake 

Norman Bike Route. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Davidson Park 

Provide up to $130,000 to the town of Davidson, 

North Carolina, to acquire adjoining property or 

develop a canoe/kayak launch and fishing pier at 

Lake Davidson Park. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Mountain Island Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA commits Duke 

Energy to providing trail planning and technical assistance to state and local governments on an 

as-requested basis to connect existing multi-use trail systems in the vicinity of Mountain Island 

Lake. The Revised CRA includes an additional non-license article enhancement to offer a lease 

to a third party to provide a campground and bathhouse at the Riverbend Access Area, which is 

proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. 

Wylie Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements proposed 

to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes recreational 

enhancements for the Wylie Development that are proposed to be outside the project boundary 

and not included in the proposed license article (table 82) The Revised CRA also includes nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to a third party to provide RV campgrounds, marine 

pump-outs, dump stations, and bathhouses at the South Point and Allison Creek Access Areas, 

and additional recreational facilities at the Fort Mill Access Area. The Revised CRA also 

includes one non-license article measure that involves 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: to offer the South Carolina DPRT a nominalcost lease for the Landsford Canal State Park management zone. These are lands that are 

necessary for project purposes, in that they lie within the normal full pool elevation of the 

reservoir, and, as such cannot be removed from the project boundary. 

BIA expressed concerned about a measure in the Revised CRA whereby CIN would 

maintain a proposed canoe access not in the project boundary at the reservation. As a nonlicense article Revised CRA commitment, Duke Energy proposes to provide funding to CIN 

THPO to develop a canoe/kayak access and parking area at the CIN reservation. 

309 
Table 82. Proposed recreation measures at the Wylie Development to be excluded from the 

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Lake Wylie

Upper Wylie Access 

Area 

Provide up to $435,000 to Mecklenburg, North 

Carolina, or any other governmental entity to 

develop a double-lane concrete boat ramp with a 

metal courtesy dock and paved and lighted parking 

for 100 vehicles and trailers north of the Allen Steam 

Station. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

York County EMS 

Provide approximately 1 acre of property in York 

County, South Carolina, for the development of a 

dedicated marine law enforcement and emergency 

access facility for Lake Wylie. The property would 

be offered through the AAII lease to a state or local 

governmental entity for the term of the new license, 

provided the leasing entity agrees to develop and 

manage all approved facilities. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Wylie Regulated River Reach 

Upper Wylie 

Regulated River 

Reach Trail 

Develop approximately 1 mile of trail up to 4 ft in 

width downstream of the Wylie Development along 

the eastern shore of the river, if such a trail can be 

constructed consistent with the water quality 

mitigation conservation easement on the same 

property. The applicant would offer to lease the trail 

to York County, South Carolina, or another 

governmental entity. If the trail is not leased, the 

applicant would not develop the trail. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Catawba Indian 

Reservation or 

Highway 5 

Canoe/Kayak 

Access 

Provide up to $165,000 to CIN THPO to develop a 

canoe/kayak access and parking area at the Catawba 

Indian Reservation or the applicant would develop 

the canoe/kayak launch with gravel parking at the 

Catawba Indian Reservation to be maintained by 

CIN THPO. If this site is not developed as planned, 

Duke Energy would acquire the necessary lands and 

develop a canoe/kayak launch with associated 

parking in the vicinity of the Highway 5 bridge 

within 10 years of the effective date of the new 

license. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

310 
Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Landsford Canal 

State Park Access 

Area 

Provide up to $265,000 to South Carolina DPRT to 

develop a canoe/kayak access, gravel parking area to 

accommodate up to 50 cars, and a vault toilet at 

Landsford Canal State Park if South Carolina DPRT 

would provide any needed road enhancements and 

long-term facility maintenance. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Culp Island 

Offer an AAII lease to South Carolina DPRT to 

manage Culp Island as part of Landsford Canal State 

Park. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Simpson Island 

Retain ownership of Simpson Island for the term of 

the new license. If York County, South Carolina, 

acquires and develops a park on land adjoining 

Simpson Island, the applicant would offer an AAII 

lease with York County, South Carolina, to manage 

any facilities on the island and would provide 

funding of up to $265,000 to York County for the 

development of a canoe/kayak access and picnic 

shelter on the county-owned land adjoining the 

island. 

10 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Fishing Creek Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Fishing Creek Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 83). The Revised CRA 

also includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to provide 

additional recreational facilities at the Fishing Creek Access Area, which is proposed for 

inclusion in the project boundary. 

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

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

2006a; staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed schedule 

Highway 9 Access 

Area 

Provide up to $215,000 to an entity that would 

provide 1 to 5 acres of suitable property and develop 

and maintain a new 1- to 5-acre trailered boat access 

area with parking in the vicinity of the existing 

Highway 9 Access Area. 

20 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—In addition to the recreational 

enhancements proposed to be included in the proposed license article and the RMP, the Revised 

CRA includes recreational enhancements at the Cedar Creek reservoir islands, which are 

311 
dependent upon the South Carolina DPRT leasing the islands, that are proposed to not be 

included in the proposed license article. More specifically, Duke Energy would provide up to $1 

million to support the development and management of the new state park on Dearborn Island 

and construct a pedestrian bridge from the Lower Great Falls reservoir canoe/kayak launch to 

Dearborn Island. 

Wateree Development—In addition to Duke Energy’s recreational enhancements 

proposed to be included in the project boundary and the RMP, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Wateree Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article (table 84). The Revised CRA 

also includes non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide 

additional enhancements at Molly Creek Park (RV campground, bathhouse, marine pump-out, 

and dump station) and the Colonels Creek Access Area (additional recreation development) 

which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. 

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

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

staff) 

Recreation access 

area Proposed measure CRA proposed 

schedule 

East Wateree Access 

Improvements 

Provide up to $900,000 to Kershaw County, South 

Carolina, or other governmental entities to construct 

two motorized boat ramps with a courtesy dock, 

paved and lighted parking, and a swimming area 

with bath house on the east side of Lake Wateree. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Lake Wateree 

Recreation lands 

(Wateree 

Development) 

Transfer or cause to be transferred approximately 

800 acres of land adjoining the Heritage Tract to the 

South Carolina DNR for public recreation and 

permanent conservation. 

5 years of the 

Commission’s 

approval of RMP 

Our Analysis 

In addition to those measures for which Duke Energy would be responsible for under any 

new license (i.e., those located in the project boundary), Duke Energy has partnered with others 

to enhance existing recreation access areas or to develop additional recreation areas as discussed 

above. These measures are included in the Revised CRA and are not proposed to be included as 

license articles or in the RMP. We have evaluated each of these additional enhancements to 

determine if any of them might be appropriate to include in any license for the project. All of 

these non-license article measures were agreed to by the Revised CRA signatories. 

Bridgewater Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Bridgewater Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also 

includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to provide cabins at 

the Black Bear Access Area. There has not been a demonstrated need at the project for cabins at 

the Black Bear Access Area. Camping is already proposed at the Black Bear Access Area and is 

currently provided at the Lake James State Park. 

312 
We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 78 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need that would require these enhancements. Since none of the trails 

would connect two project facilities, we do not find that they are needed for project purposes 

and, therefore, do not need to be brought into the project boundary. The Watermill Road Access 

Area is owned by a town and, like the Morganton Weir Take-out Area, is not needed for project 

purposes. 

The land conveyances described in table 78 and in section 3.3.8.2, Land Use and 

Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, would transfer several areas of Duke Energy-owned lands, 

that are not associated with project operations, to federal, state, or local entities. The potential 

for land transfers is included in the Revised CRA, but is not considered under the proposed 

action for relicensing, and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

Interior recommends that the measure described for the Overmountain Victory National 

Historic Trail Corridor be included as a license article. Since this trail would not connect two 

project facilities, we do not find that it is needed for project purposes and, therefore, does not 

need to be brought into the project boundary.

Rhodhiss Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes recreational 

enhancements for the Rhodhiss Development that are proposed to be outside the project 

boundary and not included in the proposed license article. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements in table 79 to determine 

if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. The Wilson Creek and 

Upper Johns River Access Areas are both some distance from the project and are not needed for 

project purposes. 

The land conveyance described in table 79 and in section 3.3.8.2, Land Use and 

Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, would transfer an area of Duke Energy-owned land, that is not 

associated with project operations, to state, or local entities. The potential for land transfer is 

included in the Revised CRA, but is not considered under the proposed action for relicensing, 

and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

Oxford Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes several nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide enhancements at the 

Wittenburg Access Area, Lovelady Access Area, and Oxford Access Area which are proposed 

for inclusion in the project boundary. These day uses are available at other nearby recreation 

access areas and there has not been a demonstrated need at the project for RV camping. We 

have evaluated each of these non-license article enhancements to determine if any are 

appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. 

Lookout Shoals Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Lookout Shoals Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. We have evaluated the nonlicense article enhancement described in table 80 to provide funding to Catawba County, North 

Carolina, for the development of a trail from a county park to a project recreation access area. 

313 
Since the trail would not connect two project facilities, we do not find that it is needed for project 

purposes and, therefore, does not need to be brought into the project boundary.

Cowans Ford Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes 

recreational enhancements for the Cowans Ford Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also 

includes several non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide 

additional enhancements at the Hagers Creek Access Area (RV campground, dump station, 

marine pump-out, and bathhouse), Little Creek Access Area (additional day use facilities such as 

picnic areas), and Island Point Access Area (RV campground, dump station, marine pump-out, 

and bathhouse), which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. There has not been a 

demonstrated need at the project for RV camping, but camping is provided at Lake Norman State 

Park. A number of day use facilities are proposed by Duke Energy for the Beatty’s Ford Access 

Area, which is located near the Little Creek Access Area, including, but not limited to, 

swimming areas, fishing piers, and non-motorized boating access. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 81 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. Since there 

is already a boat ramp at Hunsucker Park and the existing area is only at 4 percent capacity on 

non-holiday weekends (Study Team/Resource Committee, 2006), we conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need for the additional enhancements near Hunsucker Park. We also conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need for the Mountain Creek Park because the nearby proposed 

Island Point Access Area would provide the same recreational facilities as those that would be 

provided at Mountain Creek Park. There is no public access from Lake Norman proper to Lake 

Davidson, but Lake Davidson does have one existing public boat access. 

Mountain Island Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA commits 

Duke Energy to providing trail planning and technical assistance to state and local governments 

on an as-requested basis and to offer a lease to a third party to provide a campground and 

bathhouse at the Riverbend Access Area, which is proposed for inclusion in the project 

boundary. 

We have evaluated these non-license article enhancements to determine if they are 

appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. There has not been a 

demonstrated need specifically for camping at Mountain Island Lake. There are nearby camping 

areas at Lake Norman State Park on Lake Norman, and Ebenezer Park, McDowell Park, and the 

Copperhead Access Area on Lake Wylie. 

Wylie Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes additional 

recreational enhancements for the Wylie Development that are proposed to be outside the project 

boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also includes nonlicense article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to provide RV campgrounds, marine 

pump-outs, dump stations, and bathhouses at the South Point and Allison Creek Access Areas, 

and additional recreational facilities at the Fort Mill Access Area. There has not been a 

demonstrated need at the project for RV camping, but camping is provided nearby at Ebenezer 

Park, McDowell Park, and the Copperhead Access Area on Lake Wylie, and at Lake Norman 

State Park on Lake Norman. A number of day use recreation facilities are proposed by Duke 

314 
Energy for Rock Hill Park and are currently provided by McDowell Park, both of which are 

located near the Fort Mill Access Area. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 82 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is not a demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. There is 

already a boating access area (Highway 9 Landing) near the proposed Landsford Canal State 

Park Access Area and a boating access area near the proposed Upper Wylie Access Area. Since 

the Upper Wylie regulated river reach trail would not connect two project facilities, we do not 

find that it is needed for project purposes and, therefore, does not need to be brought into the 

project boundary. We cannot adopt any measure that would force a contract between two 

parties. 

BIA expressed concerned about a measure in the Revised CRA whereby CIN would 

maintain a proposed canoe access not in the project boundary at the reservation. As a nonlicense article Revised CRA commitment, Duke Energy proposes to provide funding to CIN 

THPO to develop a canoe/kayak access and parking area at the CIN reservation. The proposed 

facility would be located approximately 7 miles downstream of the Wylie Development and 

would not serve a project purpose or have a project nexus. 

Fishing Creek Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes a 

recreational enhancement for the Fishing Creek Development that is proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. The Revised CRA also 

includes a non-license article enhancement to offer a lease to a third party to provide additional 

recreational facilities at the Fishing Creek Access Area, which is proposed for inclusion in the 

project boundary. 

We have evaluated each of these non-license article enhancements to determine if either 

is appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that there is not a 

demonstrated need that would require these additional enhancements. There is already a boating 

access area (Highway 9 Landing) that is at 29 percent capacity on non-holiday weekends (Study 

Team/Resource Committee, 2006). 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—As described previously, the Revised 

CRA includes recreational enhancements at the Cedar Creek reservoir islands, which are 

dependent upon the South Carolina DPRT leasing the islands, that are proposed to not be 

included in the proposed license article. Duke Energy would provide up to $1 million to support 

the development and management of the new state park on Dearborn Island and construct a 

pedestrian bridge from the Lower Great Falls reservoir canoe/kayak launch to Dearborn Island. 

Since these enhancements would be specific to the leasing of the islands and the creation of a 

new state park, we conclude that there is not a demonstrated need that would require these 

additional enhancements to be included in any license issued for the project. We cannot adopt a 

measure that would force a contract between two parties. 

Wateree Development—As described previously, the Revised CRA includes additional 

recreational enhancements at the Wateree Development that are proposed to be outside the 

project boundary and not included in the proposed license article. Additionally, the Revised 

CRA includes additional non-license article enhancements to offer leases to third parties to 

provide additional enhancements at Molly Creek Park (RV campground, bathhouse, marine 

pump-out, and dump station) and the Colonels Creek Access Area (additional recreation 

315 
development) which are proposed for inclusion in the project boundary. There has not been a 

demonstrated need at the project for RV camping and additional development at the Colonels 

Creek Access Area. RV camping is provided at Lake Wateree State Park. 

We have evaluated each of the non-license article enhancements described in table 84 to 

determine if any are appropriate to be included in any license for the project and conclude that 

there is a demonstrated need for the East Wateree Access Area. This access area is proposed for 

the east side of Lake Wateree to provide two motorized boat ramps with courtesy dock, paved 

and lighted parking, and a swimming area with bathhouse. This access area would enhance 

recreation opportunities on the east side of Lake Wateree since there are only two access areas on 

the east side of Lake Wateree that provide four ramps and one fishing pier, but no other 

recreational opportunities. The west side of Lake Wateree currently 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 being the only access area 

providing non-boating or fishing activities on the east side of Lake Wateree. 

The land conveyance described in table 84 and in section 3.3.8.2, Land Use and 

Aesthetics, Environmental Effects, would transfer several areas of Duke Energy-owned lands, 

that are not associated with project operations, to a state entity. The potential for land transfers is 

included in the Revised CRA, but is not considered under the proposed action for relicensing, 

and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

3.3.7.3 Cumulative Effects 

The proposed and staff recommended recreational measures would improve recreational 

opportunities throughout the project. Enhancements to recreation facilities and increases in 

public access areas would distribute recreational visitors more evenly throughout the project’s 

recreation access areas as well as improve the quality of the recreational facilities and public 

access. The measures would improve recreational opportunities in the region, allowing the 

project to adapt to changing recreational use over time and develop new resources that address 

foreseeable recreational activities. 

The proposed recreational flows and minimum flows throughout the project would provide 

additional recreational opportunities and enhance angling and boating in the regulated river 

reaches. The scheduled recreational flows also would provide varying levels of whitewater 

opportunities at the project. Public safety at the project would be enhanced by the proposed and 

staff recommended public information and public safety measures. The proposed and staff 

recommended public information measures would improve the availability of reservoir 

elevations and flow information to the public. 

There are a number of measures in the Revised CRA that Duke Energy has committed to 

that are not recommended by staff; however, these measures also would improve recreational 

opportunities at the project. A number of new recreation access areas would be developed or 

enhanced under the Revised CRA that would be outside the project boundary but close to or 

adjacent to the project, that also will enhance recreation at the project. Duke Energy’s 

commitment to providing trails planning and technical assistance to state and local governments 

on an as-requested basis to connect existing multi-use trail systems in the vicinity of Mountain 

Island Lake also would enhance trails in the vicinity of the project. In the Revised CRA, Duke 

Energy committed to providing $4 million to North Carolina WRC, North Carolina DENR, or 

both, and $5.32 million to South Carolina DNR, South Carolina DPRT, or both, to support the 

316 
purchase of agency-selected land in Catawba-Wateree River Basin for public recreation, game 

management, and compatible permanent conservation. Duke Energy’s commitment to 

conveying lands for public recreation and permanent conservation would enhance recreational 

resources at the project, provide land conservation, and provide gamelands near the project. 

These land conveyances include 550 acres adjoining the Bridgewater regulated river reach 

downstream of the Bridgewater Development to North Carolina DENR, 420 acres adjoining the 

Catawba River downstream of the Bridgewater Development in the vicinity of the confluence of 

the Catawba River bypassed reach and the Bridgewater regulated river reach to North Carolina 

DENR, 275 acres downstream of Paddy Creek and Linville Dams to North Carolina DENR, and 

800 acres adjoining the Heritage Tract to South Carolina DNR. Duke Energy, North Carolina 

DENR, North Carolina WRC, and North Carolina WF have developed a plan to address 

waterfowl hunting in the Catawba River in the vicinity of the North Bend Recreation Land, 

North Bend Access Area, Catawba-Linville River Confluence Recreation Land, and Paddy 

Creek Recreation Land. 

Additionally, Duke Energy, in cooperation with North Carolina WRC, South Carolina 

DNR, and North Carolina DENR, currently uses public education and stakeholder outreach as 

the primary mechanism to prevent aquatic nuisance plant species from establishing and 

spreading in Catawba-Wateree Project waters. These aquatic nuisance plant species can 

potentially reduce boating and recreation access and reduce the aesthetic value of the recreational 

experience. Continued education of the residents and users of lands and waters within the 

project area will increase public awareness of potential new invasive weed species, methods of 

prevention for new and existing species, and accepted control methods for existing populations. 

These measures would have a significant positive cumulative effect on recreational 

opportunities at the project, public safety, and the quality of the recreational experience. 

3.3.7.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

None. 

3.3.8 Land Use and Aesthetics 

3.3.8.1 Affected Environment 

The Catawba-Wateree Project is located on the Catawba and Wateree Rivers in North 

and South Carolina. The majority of the project area is located within the Piedmont Province, 

with the exception of the headwaters of Lake James, which are located within the Blue Ridge 

Province, and the portion the Wateree River downstream of the Wateree dam, which is located in 

the Coastal Plain Province. 

In the mountain region of the watershed, the majority of the project area is characterized 

by oak-hickory forests dominated by white oak with an understory of dogwood, sourwood, and 

black locust. Although development in this region of the watershed is increasing, the area is 

predominately still rural, with large areas of forests, valleys, and some agricultural land, 

interspersed with scattered homes and small farms. 

The Piedmont portion of the watershed is more extensively developed than the mountain 

region. The Piedmont consists of a wide plateau of gently rolling hills, and is characterized by 

oak-hickory forests with primarily dogwood and sourwood in the understory. The Piedmont was 

intensively farmed in the past, and former agricultural fields are in various stages of succession 

317 
or have been converted to managed pine plantations. Considerable development also has 

occurred in the Piedmont region. 

The Fall Line marks the transition from the Piedmont to the Sandhills region. The 

Catawba River passes through a relatively short stretch of the Sandhills region before it 

continues into the lower elevations of the Coastal Plain. The Sandhills region is characterized by 

long leaf pines and open Savannahs (Kovacik, 1987). The lower portion of the watershed 

supports some development, but is generally more rural in character than the Piedmont region. 

Most of the development in the watershed is found within the Piedmont region. 

Considerable development is centered around the city of Charlotte, with additional development 

clustered in and around the cities of Morganton, Hickory, Mooresville, and Gastonia in North 

Carolina, and Rock Hill and Lancaster in South Carolina. 

There are several major travel routes in the project vicinity, most of which are found in 

the Piedmont region, including Interstate Routes 77, 85, and 40. There are also numerous U.S. 

and state highways in the project vicinity. These roads provide transportation connections 

between many of the communities, and support both residential and commercial/industrial 

development. 

Land Use 

Land use within the Catawba River Basin varies greatly, but is generally a mix of forest, 

agricultural, and developed lands. Within the watershed, approximately 5 percent of the land is 

developed. Most of the population in the watershed is located in the major metropolitan areas 

including the area around Charlotte, North Carolina. Table 85, provides a breakdown of the 

major land use categories within the basin. 

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

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

South Carolina DHEC, 2006) 

Land Use North Carolina South Carolina 

Forest 67% 81% 

Agriculture 24% 12% 

Urban/Developed 6% 4% 

Water 3% 3% 

Human uses of lands within the Catawba-Wateree River Basin include timber harvesting, 

agriculture, industry/commercial, residences, recreation, and other miscellaneous uses. Current 

land use within the immediate vicinity of the project is characterized as agriculture, forest (public 

and private), riparian buffer, residential (low and high density), recreational and public access, 

industrial/commercial, and utility use (including project works and transmission line corridors). 

Most of the forest lands in the vicinity of the project are privately owned forests. However, a 

portion of the Pisgah National Forest borders the Bridgewater Development along Lake James. 

318 
There are no wilderness areas within or adjacent to the project, nor are there any wild and 

scenic rivers or eligible river segments within the project. One designated wild and scenic river, 

Wilson Creek, is located in the Catawba River watershed but is not within the project boundary 

or within the influence of the project. Similarly, the Linville Gorge Wilderness Area is located 

along the Linville River, which is a tributary to the Bridgewater Development. However, none 

of the designated wilderness area is located within the project boundary or within the influence 

of the project. 

Bridgewater Development 

The Bridgewater Development is the most upstream of the project developments and 

consists of the Catawba dam, the Paddy Creek dam, the Linville dam, the Bridgewater 

powerhouse, and the resulting impoundment, Lake James. At a full pond elevation of 1,200 ft 

msl, Lake James has a surface area of 6,754 acres and 149 miles of shoreline. Project lands at 

this development include the land within the full pond elevation and land surrounding the dams 

and powerhouse. Most of the land adjoining Lake James is privately owned. The State of North 

Carolina owns and operates the 605-acre Lake James State Park, which is located adjacent to the 

Catawba dam. In 2004, the State of North Carolina announced the acquisition of 2,900 acres of 

property on the north side of Lake James for the expansion of Lake James State Park. 

The Bridgewater Development is the only one of the project developments located 

partially in the mountain region, and the lands immediately adjacent to Lake James are generally 

steep, forested slopes. Shoreline development around Lake James is limited, and excluding lands 

designated for public recreation, approximately 17 percent of the shoreline of the lake has a 

permitted shoreline use. Approximately 21 percent is classified as existing or future public 

recreation. 

Lake James provides scenic mountain views of the surrounding region from many 

locations, including views of Pisgah National Forest to the north and west, and the Blue Ridge 

Mountains to the west. Even where foreground views include residential housing developments, 

the background views are dominated by mountains. 

Rhodhiss Development 

The Rhodhiss Development consists of a concrete spillway, an earthen embankment, and 

a powerhouse. At a full pond elevation of 995.1 ft msl, Lake Rhodhiss has a surface area of 

2,724 acres and 95.5 miles of shoreline. Project lands include land within the full pond elevation 

of the reservoir and land surrounding the dam complex. 

The headwaters of Lake Rhodhiss begin approximately 19 miles downstream of the 

Bridgewater powerhouse near the confluence of the Johns River and the Catawba River. Lake 

Rhodhiss is a riverine reservoir with very limited development. Much of the land adjacent to the 

reservoir is forested, including areas of bottomland hardwoods and planted loblolly pine stands. 

The upper reaches of Lake Rhodhiss support large areas of submerged vegetation. Excluding 

lands designated for public recreation, approximately 6 percent of the shoreline of Lake 

Rhodhiss has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 3 percent is classified as existing or 

future public recreation. 

Oxford Development 

The Oxford Development consists of a dam, a powerhouse, and an impoundment known 

as Lake Hickory. At a full pond elevation of 935.0 ft msl, Lake Hickory has a surface area of 

319 
approximately 4,072 acres and 109.8 miles of shoreline. Project lands include lands within the 

full pond elevation of the reservoir and land surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

The lands adjacent to Lake Hickory are heavily developed. Development consists 

primarily of residential housing interspersed with other types of development. An invasive 

aquatic weed, parrot feather, has become established in the upper end of Lake Hickory. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 61 percent of the shoreline of 

Lake Hickory has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 3 percent is classified as existing 

or future public recreation. 

Lookout Shoals Development 

The Lookout Shoals Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Lookout Shoals Lake). At full pond elevation of 838.1 ft 

msl, Lookout Shoals Lake has a surface area of approximately 1,155 acres and 33.1 miles of 

shoreline. Project lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land 

immediately surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

Lookout Shoals Lake is a riverine impoundment with development located primarily 

along the lower half of the reservoir. Undeveloped areas upland of the shoreline retain 

predominantly rural characteristics and include both agricultural areas and planted loblolly pine 

stands. Two invasive aquatic plants, parrot feather and hydrilla, are present in Lookout Shoals 

Lake. Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 31 percent of the 

shoreline of Lookout Shoals Lake has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 4 percent is 

classified as existing or future public recreation. In addition to the public recreation areas 

provided by Duke Energy, Catawba County operates River Park located along the upper end of 

Lookout Shoals Lake. 

Cowans Ford Development 

The Cowans Ford Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, an earthen dike located east of the powerhouse complex, and an impoundment 

(Lake Norman). Lake Norman is the largest reservoir in the Catawba-Wateree Project, and the 

largest lake wholly within North Carolina. At a full pond elevation of 760.0 ft msl, Lake 

Norman has a surface area of approximately 32,339 acres and 562.3 miles of shoreline. Project 

lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately 

surrounding the dams and powerhouse. 

Lake Norman begins immediately downstream of the Lookout Shoals dam. This upper 

part of Lake Norman is riverine in nature and supports many wetland areas. Moving 

downstream, the lake becomes wider and shoreline development increases. Development 

adjacent to the reservoir is most dense along the southern portions of the lake, closest to the city 

of Charlotte, North Carolina. The shoreline of Lake Norman is heavily developed and the lake 

receives a considerable amount of recreational use. Much of the land adjacent to the reservoir is 

developed in single family and multi-family housing, commercial marinas, and to a limited 

extent, industrial facilities. Marshall Steam Station, a coal-fired power generating facility, and 

McGuire Nuclear Station are located on the shores of Lake Norman and utilize reservoir waters 

for cooling. 

Two areas of Lake Norman were cut off by the construction of Interstate 77. Although 

both of these “lakes” are now hydraulically connected to Lake Norman by culverts, these two 

320 
cut-off lakes are known locally as Lake Cornelius and Lake Davidson. The culverts connect the 

two cut-off lakes to Lake Norman, but do not provide boating access between the smaller lakes 

and Lake Norman. Because there is no boat access between the lakes, boating use of both Lake 

Cornelius and Lake Davidson is less than the boating use on Lake Norman. As a result both 

Lake Davidson and Lake Cornelius have a more secluded feel than the heavily utilized Lake 

Norman. 

The towns of Mooresville, Davidson, Cornelius, and Huntersville, North Carolina, adjoin 

Lake Norman. There are a number of parks located along the reservoir shoreline including the 

1,459-acre Lake Norman State Park, located on the northern half of Lake Norman. Excluding 

lands designated for public recreation, approximately 68 percent of the shoreline of Lake 

Norman currently has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 5 percent is classified as 

existing or future public recreation. 

 Mountain Island 

The Mountain Island Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Mountain Island Lake). At a full pond elevation of 647.5 ft 

msl, Mountain Island Lake has a surface area of 3,117 acres and 94.3 miles of shoreline. Project 

lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately 

surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

Mountain Island Lake is a long, narrow reservoir, the upper half of which is riverine in 

nature. Much of the land adjoining this portion of Mountain Island Lake has been acquired by 

state agencies and local entities for conservation purposes. Approximately halfway down the 

reservoir, the lake doubles back on itself, creating a peninsula, which is known locally as 

“Riverbend.” The reservoir supports extensive areas of emergent aquatic vegetation and is very 

shallow in the vicinity of the bend. Mountain Island Lake supports drinking water intakes for 

Charlotte, Mount Holly, and Gastonia, North Carolina. Riverbend Steam Station, a coal-fired 

generating facility, also is located on the reservoir. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 26 percent of the 

shoreline of Mountain Island Lake has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 16 percent 

is classified as existing or future public recreation. The remaining waterfront shoreline has been 

developed or is being developed with residential housing. 

Wylie Development 

The Wylie Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete gated spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Lake Wylie). At a full pond elevation of 569.4 ft msl, Lake 

Wylie has a surface area of 12,177 acres and 340.3 miles of shoreline. Project lands include 

lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the dam 

and powerhouse. 

Lake Wylie is the second largest reservoir in the Catawba-Wateree Project. Like Lake 

Norman, due to its proximity to the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, lands adjacent to the 

reservoir are generally developed as residential housing. In addition to the residential 

development, a number of industrial facilities, including a chemical plant, several textile mills, 

and two electrical generating facilities, are located adjacent to Lake Wylie. The upper reaches of 

the reservoir are more riverine in nature and, until recently, less developed than the downstream 

portions of the reservoir. In addition, at the confluences of large tributaries such as Allison 

321 
Creek and Crowder Creek, the reservoir supports areas of emergent aquatic vegetation and 

undeveloped hardwood bottomlands, and thus gives these areas a different feel from the main 

part of the reservoir. In addition to the public recreation areas operated by Duke Energy, there 

are several parks located on the shores of Lake Wylie that are accessible to the public including 

Mecklenburg County’s McDowell Nature Preserve and the privately owned Daniel Stowe 

Botanical Gardens. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 51 percent of the 

shoreline of Mountain Island Lake has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 4 percent is 

classified as existing or future public recreation. The remaining waterfront shoreline has been 

developed or is being developed with residential housing. 

Fishing Creek Development 

The Fishing Creek Development consists of an earthen embankment, a concrete gated 

spillway, a powerhouse, and an impoundment (Fishing Creek reservoir). Locally the facility is 

known as the “Nitrolee Plant.” At a full pond elevation of 417.2 ft msl, Fishing Creek reservoir 

has a surface area of 3,431 acres and 90.4 miles of shoreline. Project lands include lands within 

the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the powerhouse. 

The upper end of Fishing Creek reservoir is largely undeveloped. Landsford Canal State 

Park adjoins the upper end of the reservoir, and this area is very shallow with numerous shoals. 

A large colony of the Rocky Shoals spider lily is located in this portion of the reservoir. 

Downstream of Highway 9, the reservoir widens, and moving downstream the western shoreline 

is largely developed as residential housing. Eastern shoreline of the reservoir is largely 

undeveloped, but a large new residential subdivision is currently being developed on the eastern 

shore of the reservoir. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 7 percent of the 

shoreline of Mountain Island Lake has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 4 percent is 

classified as existing or future public recreation. The remaining waterfront shoreline has been 

developed or is being developed with residential housing. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments 

The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments consist of an ungated concreted diversion 

weir, an intake canal, the concrete Great Falls headworks, a concrete dam with two powerhouses, 

and an impoundment (Great Falls reservoir). At a full pond elevation of 355.8 ft msl, Great Falls 

reservoir has a surface area of 353 acres and 13.2 miles of shoreline. Project lands include lands 

within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the dams and 

powerhouses. 

There is no public access to the Great Falls reservoir due to safety concerns associated 

with the ungated spillways. Shoreline development along the Great Falls reservoir is limited, 

and due to safety concerns Duke Energy does not permit the construction of any private 

recreation facilities on Great Falls reservoir. 

Approximately 71 percent of the shoreline of Great Falls reservoir has a permitted 

shoreline use and approximately 19 percent is classified as existing or future public recreation. 

322 
The Great Falls and Dearborn Developments include two bypassed river reaches. The 

bypassed river reaches contain boulder fields, large potholes, and exposed rock cliffs. The 

shorelines of the bypassed reaches are undeveloped. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments 

The Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments consist of a dam, two powerhouses, 

and an impoundment (Cedar Creek reservoir). At a full pond elevation of 284.4 ft msl, Cedar 

Creek reservoir has a surface area of 748 acres and 22.3 miles of shoreline. Project lands include 

lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately surrounding the dam 

and powerhouses. 

Cedar Creek reservoir is a relatively shallow reservoir and is locally known as “Stumpy 

Pond.” Within the reservoir is a an island, known as Big Island or Dearborn Island, that rises 

almost 200 ft above the full pond elevation of the reservoir. The reservoir shoreline is 

characterized by steep hardwood forested slopes, and the uplands are primarily loblolly pine 

stands. The steep-sloped islands and lands surrounding Cedar Creek reservoir provide a 

mountain-like setting for the lake. Shoreline development is limited and is confined to one cove 

on the reservoir. The remaining shoreline is currently under option to a local land conservancy 

for purchase for permanent conservation. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 11 percent of the 

shoreline of Cedar Creek reservoir has a permitted shoreline use, and approximately 35 percent 

is classified as existing or future public recreation. 

Wateree Development 

The Wateree Development consists of an earthen dam, a concrete spillway, a 

powerhouse, and an impoundment (Lake Wateree). At a full pond elevation of 225.5 ft msl, 

Lake Wateree has a surface area of approximately 13,025 acres and 189.4 miles of shoreline. 

Project lands include lands within the full pond elevation of the reservoir and land immediately 

surrounding the dam and powerhouse. 

Lake Wateree is the lowermost development in the project. Downstream of the Wateree 

dam, the Wateree River takes on the characteristics of a Coastal Plain river, with meanders and 

adjacent swamps. The landscape around Lake Wateree marks the transition between the 

Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions of the watershed. Most of the area consists of former 

agricultural fields that have been converted to loblolly pine plantations. Much of the property 

adjacent to the reservoir on the western side and southern half of Lake Wateree is developed in 

residential housing. The upland areas remain relatively rural in nature. The upper half of the 

east side of Lake Wateree remains undeveloped, but a residential development is being planned 

for a 3,500-acre tract in this area. In addition to Duke Energy’s public access areas, Lake 

Wateree State Park, located on the west side of the reservoir, provides public access to the 

reservoir. 

Excluding lands designated for public recreation, approximately 48 percent of the 

shoreline of Lake Wateree has a permitted shoreline use and approximately 5 percent is 

classified as existing or future public recreation. 

323 
Land Ownership and Management 

Lands within the project boundary are generally limited to lands within the full-pond 

elevation contour of the project reservoirs and lands immediately surrounding project dams, 

powerhouses, and related facilities. Project lands are generally owned by Duke Energy. There 

are no federal lands within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. The Pisgah National Forest 

comprises federal lands adjacent to Lake James. State-owned or managed lands adjacent to the 

project include Lake James State Park, Lake Norman State Park, and Lake Wateree State Park. 

There also are several major county- or municipal-owned local parks adjacent to the project 

reservoirs. Most of the lands immediately adjacent to the project are privately owned. Private 

lands include agricultural lands, forest lands (managed or unmanaged), permanent or seasonal 

homes, and commercial use lands. Significant federal or state lands located adjacent to the 

project that are available for public use include the following. 

Pisgah National Forest 

The Forest Service manages the Pisgah National Forest adjacent to the project. The 

Pisgah National Forest covers 510,113 acres, a portion of which borders Lake James 

(Bridgewater Development), and includes diverse communities, habitats, and recreational 

opportunities. Management of the Pisgah National Forest is guided by the Nantahala and Pisgah 

National Forests land and resource management plan that establishes management standards and 

guidelines for the national forest lands. The goal of the plan is to provide a management 

program that has a mixture of management activities that allow use and protection of the forest 

resources; fulfill legislative requirements; and address local, regional, and national issues and 

concerns. 

Lake James State Park 

Lake James State Park is a state park located adjacent to Lake James that is owned and 

operated by the State of North Carolina (North Carolina DPR). The park provides a number of 

the recreational opportunities at Lake James including a swim area, picnic area, a fishing pier, 

trails, and campsites. Lake James State Park was established in 1987 by the North Carolina 

General Assembly and is one of the most recent additions to the North Carolina state park 

system. For the initial phase of development, 565 acres of land were purchased. An expansion 

in 2005 added almost 3,000 acres of land and almost 30 miles of shoreline. 

Lake Norman State Park 

Lake Norman State Park is a 1,328-acre state park located adjacent to Lake Norman 

(Cowans Ford Development) that is owned and operated by the State of North Carolina (North 

Carolina DPR). The park was established in 1962 when Duke Energy donated 1,328 acres of 

land for a state park. The park provides a number of the recreational opportunities at Lake 

Norman including boat ramps, a swim area, picnic area, bank fishing, trails, and campsites. 

Lake Wateree State Park 

Lake Wateree State Park is a 238-acre state park located adjacent to Lake Wateree 

(Wateree Development) that is owned and operated by the State of South Carolina (South 

Carolina DPRT). The park provides a number of the recreational opportunities at Lake Wateree 

including boat ramps, pier/bank fishing, trails, and campsites. Land for the state park was 

purchased in 1982. State parks in South Carolina conserve and protect the diverse natural and 

cultural resources found in the state parks. 

324 
State parks in North Carolina are managed by the North Carolina DPR under the 

Systemwide Plan for the North Carolina State Parks System. The plan outlines goals for 

interpretation and education, natural and cultural resource protection, park operations, capital 

improvements, planning, community outreach, and system expansion. The overall mission of 

North Carolina state parks is to conserve and protect representative examples of the natural 

beauty, ecological features, and recreational resources of statewide significance; to provide 

outdoor recreational opportunities; and to provide environmental education opportunities. 

Mountain Island Educational State Forest 

The Mountain Island Educational State Forest is a state educational forest operated by the 

North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (North Carolina DFR), a division within North 

Carolina DENR. The forest is still under development adjacent to Mountain Island Lake 

(Mountain Island Development) and is not yet open to the public. Once open, the forest will 

feature classes and exhibits designed to educate schoolchildren, forestry professionals, and the 

general public about the importance of North Carolina's forest health. North Carolina DFR’s 

primary purpose is to ensure adequate and quality forest resources for the state to meet present 

and future needs. 

City of Hickory, North Carolina, Local Parks 

The City of Hickory owns and manages two city parks adjacent to Lake Hickory (Oxford 

Development) that total about 224 acres, Bud Geitner Park and Glenn C. Hilton Park. These 

parks provide a variety of public recreational opportunities including a boat ramp, a canoe 

launch, bank/pier fishing and picnic areas. The city manages its parks under its Parks and 

Recreation Master Plan. 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Local Parks 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, owns and manages two county parks adjacent to 

Lake Norman (Cowans Ford Development), Jetton Road County Park and Blythe Landing 

County Park, that total about 131 acres. Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, also owns and 

manages a wildlife refuge (Cowans Ford Wildlife Refuge) and two county parks adjacent to 

Mountain Island Lake (Mountain Island Development), Rural Hill Park and Latta Plantation 

County Park, that total about 2,356 acres. The county also owns and manages a 956-acre park 

located adjacent to Lake Wylie (Wylie Development), McDowell Park. These areas provide a 

variety of public recreational opportunities including boat ramps, pier/bank fishing, sunbathing 

beaches, picnic areas, trails, volleyball courts, playgrounds, an observation deck, a wildlife area, 

and a formal garden. The county manages its parks in accordance with its Parks and Recreation 

Master Plan. 

Stowe Botanical Garden 

The Stowe Botanical Garden is a 100-acre botanical garden and wildlife area located 

adjacent to Lake Wylie (Wylie Development) that is owned and managed by the Daniel Stowe 

Family. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

An SMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project has been in effect since June 1, 1996, and was 

last updated and approved by the Commission in October 2003. Since its inception, the project 

325 
SMP has consisted of two primary components: (1) the SMG, and (2) the shoreline classification 

maps and associated lake use restrictions. 

Working with interested agencies and other stakeholders, Duke Energy has revised and 

updated both the shoreline classification maps and its SMG as part of its relicensing study efforts 

and is proposing the adoption of these revised maps and guidelines as part of a newly approved 

SMP for the project. The updated guidelines consist of revised criteria within each of the six 

lake use permitting programs, including: (1) shoreline stabilization, (2) private facilities, 

(3) commercial facilities, (4) conveyance, (5) excavation, and (6) miscellaneous reservoir uses. 

As the SMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project was last updated and approved in October 

2003 (Order Approving and Modifying the Shoreline Management Plan issued on October 15, 

2003) this EIS focuses on the incremental changes between the 2003 approved SMP and the 

proposed SMP, and we assess the effects of these proposed changes on environmental resources 

of the project. 

Shoreline Classifications 

The existing SMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project includes maps that classify the 

shoreline into various use categories. Each category carries with it a description of the area 

characteristics and established lake use restrictions. The classification maps are an integral part 

of the project SMP and are a critical component of the proposed action. The Catawba-Wateree 

Project shoreline classifications are summarized in table 86. 

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

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

Classification Summary description Lake use restrictions 

Environmental 

Vegetated areas or cove heads with 

stream confluences with either (1) stable, 

wetland-type habitat and emergent 

vegetation, or (2) intermittent or 

permanent streams entering the upper 

ends of shallow coves. 

No removal of vegetation, 

construction, excavation, or 

shoreline stabilization inside the 

project boundaries. 

Bottomland Hardwood 

Area 

Areas with diverse, well-developed tree 

canopies consisting of some combination 

of hydrophytic tree species. The soils are 

typically sandy, organically rich, alluvial 

soils that exhibit hydric soil conditions. 

These areas have gentle slopes and are 

often associated with a drainage area or 

stream confluence. 

No removal of vegetation, 

construction, excavation, or 

shoreline stabilization inside the 

project boundaries. 

326 
Classification Summary description Lake use restrictions 

Natural 

These areas have characteristics that 

make most types of development inside 

the project boundaries undesirable from 

an overall lake management standpoint. 

Natural areas exist where any of four 

criteria, summarized as follows, are met: 

(1) large areas of shallow water, 

(2) important terrestrial habitat areas, (3) 

significant cultural resource areas, or (4) 

narrow isolated berms within the project 

boundary. 

No removal of vegetation, 

construction, or excavation inside 

the project boundaries 

Impact Minimization 

Zones 

Areas that have specifically identified 

importance on a given lake from a scenic, 

environmental, or cultural standpoint. 

Applicants must first try to avoid impact 

minimization zones, but if complete 

avoidance is not a practicable alternative, 

then the lake use restrictions apply. 

No boat ramps except those 

required for public recreation, 

and no excavation.1

 Construction 

in these areas may have specific 

mitigation requirements imposed 

by the federal, state, or local 

resource agencies. Shoreline 

stabilization within the project 

boundaries must adhere to the 

Shoreline Stabilization 

Technique Selection Process. 

Commercial Marina 

Project lands and waters where boats can 

be launched, retrieved, or moored, and 

where provisions for food services, 

convenience retailing such as petroleum 

sales, wet and dry storage of watercraft, 

and other related activities take place. 

Per the SMG, new commercial 

marina facilities will not be 

authorized in areas within a halfmile radius of an existing 

commercial marina facility nor 

areas where more than 50 percent 

of the shoreline within a halfmile radius is residentially 

developed. 

Residential Marina 

Project lands and waters where boats can 

be launched, retrieved, or moored for the 

purpose of providing private access to the 

lake for specific residential properties 

including: (1) multi-family dwellings, 

(2) long-term campgrounds, and 

(3) subdivision access lots that provide 

boating access for owners of any 

residential lots that do not have project 

frontage. 

No commercial marina facilities. 

Residential 

Project lands and waters occupied by 

private facilities for project-front 

landowners, none of which can have 

multi-family dwellings. 

No commercial marina or new 

residential marina facilities. 

327 
Classification Summary description Lake use restrictions 

Business/Industrial 

Project lands and waters that are typically 

used by private businesses but which 

have little to no effect on boating. 

No facilities that have an 

appreciable effect on boating. 

Project Operations 

Project lands and waters associated with 

hydropower production including, but not 

limited to, dams, dikes, powerhouses, and 

other hydro plant properties. 

Downstream Clear Zones also are part of 

this classification and include project 

lands and waters immediately 

downstream of all operating hydro 

stations that are potentially subject to 

rapid and significant variations in flow 

rates based on plant operations. 

No new or expanded residential 

marina, commercial marina or 

residential facilities. 

Public Recreation 

Project lands and waters occupied by 

facilities supporting various public 

recreational amenities. 

No non-project uses except 

public infrastructure. 

Public Infrastructure 

Project lands and waters occupied by 

public, non-recreational facilities 

supporting regional needs. 

No new or expanded residential 

marina, commercial marina, or 

residential facilities. 

1 Different lake use restrictions apply for Lake James in the Impact Minimization Zone classification.

The classification of Bottomland Hardwood is a new classification under the proposed 

2006 modifications. Shoreline in this new classification is afforded the same level of protection 

as shoreline classified as Environmental. 

 The proposed 2006 classification maps designate classifications for the entire shoreline 

of the Catawba-Wateree Project. However, as the project boundary for this project generally 

follows the normal full pond elevation of the reservoirs, the classifications apply only to the 

immediate shoreline uses. The exceptions to this are project lands surrounding the dams and 

powerhouses, but these are all classified as project operations, within which no new residential 

marina, commercial marina, or residential facilities are permitted. 

Shoreline Management Guidelines 

The SMG are a set of detailed procedures and criteria that Duke Energy uses to regulate 

activities within reservoirs owned and managed by Duke Energy, including lands and waters 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project boundary. The revised SMG developed by Duke Energy in 

consultation with agencies and other stakeholders are designed to be consistent with the 

Commission’s Standard Land Use article. 

The SMG provide detailed guidance for allowable uses of project lands and waters in 

several program categories including the: (1) Marina Facilities Program, (2) Conveyance 

Program, (3) Excavation Program, (4) Private Facilities Program, (5) Shoreline Stabilization 

Program, (6) Miscellaneous Reservoir Uses Program, (7) General Policies that are not Lake 

Specific, and (8) Vegetation Management Requirements. The SMG also include sections that 

328 
329 

outline True Public Marina Requirements and the Shoreline Stabilization Technique Selection 

Process. In addition to providing specific criteria and procedures in each of the these program 

areas, the SMG also outline the step-wise review processes that Duke Energy utilizes in 

considering all lake use permit activity requests and in evaluating non-project uses. Overall, the 

review steps outlined in the SMG are intended to ensure consistency in reviewing all permit 

applications and considering all requests for non-project use of project lands and waters, 

consistent with its FERC license. 

A cornerstone of Duke Energy’s SMG for the Catawba-Wateree Project is its Lake Use 

Policy Statements (Lake Policy). The Lake Policy delineates the types of access and activities 

that may be allowed on all reservoirs owned or managed by Duke Energy. With respect to the 

Catawba-Wateree Project, Lake Policy allow for review of four basic types of lake access: 

(1) private access, (2) public recreational access, (3) public infrastructure access, and 

(4) business/industrial access on the lakes with existing private and business development 

(James, Rhodhiss, Hickory, Lookout Shoals, Norman, Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, 

Cedar Creek, and Wateree). Public infrastructure and business/industrial access will be allowed 

in accordance with the Commission’s standard land use articles. However, the Lake Policy will 

not allow any additional private access on Great Falls reservoir, but public recreational access 

will be allowed as required to meet the terms of any new FERC licenses. 

Duke Energy is proposing changes to the SMG. Table 87 summarizes the SMG changes 

being proposed for inclusion in the revised SMG. 
Table 87. Summary of proposed modifications to the Shoreline Management Guidelines. (Source: Duke En

SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria Fees 

Applicant proposes fees for permitting of private and commercial docks, marinas, and other recrallowed under the SMP. Some fees are earmarked for inclusion in the Habitat Enhancement Pro

to be used to help purchase or otherwise protect lands outside the project boundary for conservat

use purposes. The revised SMP establishes no caps on fees. 

Enforcement The SMP and SMG both include provisions and restrictions for activities that can be authorized 

boundary. Specific restrictions and consequences for violations are included within each SMG p

Areas with an average eroded bank height less than or equal to 3 ft can only be stabilized utilizintechniques, or riprap, or both: seawalls are not allowed. This is a change over the previously ap

allowed seawalls regardless of bank height. Seawalls

A layer of riprap must be placed along the entire base of all bulkheads extending 6 ft lakeward fr

a change over the previously approved SMP, which did not require 6ft extension of riprap, resul

of bulkheads. 

Plantings 

The type of plantings utilized in bioengineering and landscape planting projects should be native South Carolina, or both, and must be reviewed and approved by Duke Energy prior to introducti

approved SMP did not limit plant introduction to native species. Excavation is not allowed within water willow beds except as necessary to maintain access to pr

facilities. The previously approved SMP did not limit excavations in areas of water willow. Excavation activities must not occur during the months of March, April, May, and June because to fish spawning areas. The previously approved SMP allowed excavations during these months Carolina portion of the project. 

Excavation Excavation permits will not be issued for the following activities: (a) channeling to create additi

channeling that would alter the project boundary or the full pond contour elevation; (b) excavatiothreatened or endangered species, historic properties, or environmentally important areas; and (cactivities not associated with maintaining access to an existing permitted facility or a proposed f

owner had made application and received written approval from Duke Energy for its constructioexpand restrictions on excavation over what was allowed in the previously approved SMP. 

Sand Mining 

Sand mining operations for the removal of sand from within the project boundary, usually on he

the reservoir, may be authorized in accordance with the Excavation and Conveyance Program gu

maximum practical extent. The previously approved SMP did not address sand mining in projec

330 
SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria 

Placement of Excavated Materials 

All excavated material must be handled following best management practices unless special conwriting by South Carolina DHEC or North Carolina DENR. The previously approved SMP did excavated materials were to be handled. 

Commission Review of Excavation Application 

Commission review is required for: (a) all excavations, except for maintenance excavations, tha

cubic yards of material removed; and (b)any excavation activity that is required to support anothrequest that requires Commission review. The previously approved SMP did not specify the neereview of these excavation projects. 

Protection of Water Willow Beds 

Applicants are encouraged to avoid activities that could have an adverse impact upon existing wUnavoidable impacts should be confined to the sides of water willow beds to minimize disruptioshallow water fish habitat. No floating structures or other extraneous facilities may be constructbeds. The width of walkways over water willow beds will be limited to less than 3 ft. Removal 

continued lake access may be allowed provided only that necessary for limited access in specificis approved in writing. The previously approved SMP did not limit or encourage limitations on areas of water willow beds. 

Private Boat Ramps The SMP will no longer allow boat ramps for private use. The previously approved SMP allowe

but placed some restrictions on when such boat ramps could be constructed. 

Material Requirements 

Floatation for all facilities and boat mooring buoys must be constructed of materials manufacturMaterials will resist puncture and penetration and will not be subject to damage by animals. The 

polystyrene will not be permitted for any new construction or as replacement for existing faciliti

metal, or other previously used drums or containers for encasement or flotation purposes is prohapproved flotation is authorized until it has severely deteriorated and is no longer serviceable, at be replaced with approved flotation. 

No Permanently Moored Houseboats 

Watercraft used for habitation shall not be permanently moored at private docks. Permanent momarinas with sewer facilities. The previously approved SMP did not limit mooring of houseboa

Limitations on Watercraft Moored at Common Use Facilities 

Common use facilities with three or more slips are not eligible for mooring additional watercraft 

watercrafts. The previously approved SMP did not specifically limit the number of watercraft at 

facilities. 

331 
SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria 

Common Use Boat Slips per Waterfront Lot 

Unless grandfathered, no more than one common use boat slip per waterfront lot will be conside

Ownership or interest in a common use facility eliminates the option of having a separate facility 

a slip in a common use facility. The previously approved SMP did not specifically limit commo

lot. 

Shoreline Structures 

Decks, gazebos, covered boat slips, and boat shelters must be single-story structures. They may 

designed to allow second story use; however, the second story must not be roofed creating a twostructure. The previously approved SMP did not restrict two-story structures. 

Lot Width 

Unless grandfathered, a lot having less than 100 ft of shoreline that is suitable for residential use 

considered for a pier or common use slip. The previously approved SMP required 75 ft of shorepier. 

Inflatable Recreation Equipment 

The use and placement of large water-based recreational equipment will not be allowed within thThe previously approved SMP did not restrict the use of water-based recreational equipment. 

Water Withdrawals 

The applicant may authorize a single water withdrawal pump for private home use provided the horsepower of less than or equal to 2 horsepower and is used exclusively for the adjoining water

previously approved SMP allowed withdrawal pumps that did not exceed 1 mgd for home and a

Private Swim Areas Private individuals will not be authorized to rope off or exclude the public from a portion of the 

purpose of creating a private swim area. The previously approved SMP did not include this prov

Wildlife Enhancement Activities 

The applicant may authorize wildlife enhancement activities such as wood duck boxes and other regardless of the shoreline classification, provided the activity does not pose a hazard to public sthe state wildlife agency approves of the activity, and there are no objections from adjacent prop

Shoreline Vegetation 

Any new developer that desires to provide off-water access for interior lots within a developmen

aside a minimum of 20 percent of the entire development’s shoreline, in addition to any shorelin

habitat classification. The SMG also encourage owners and developers of shoreline property to 

property upland of the project boundary either associated with these preserved shoreline areas or protected shoreline classification. 

True Public Marinas 

Facilities operated as true public marinas may be considered for a maximum length of 200 ft promeets all other requirements and continues to be operated as a true public marina. The previousnot allow commercial facility piers (including those that would meet the definition of true public than 120 ft. 

332 
333 

SMG section Description of new or modified policy or criteria Expansion of True Public Marinas 

Expansion of existing true public marinas may be exempted from adhering to certain requiremenof other existing commercial facilities even if: (a) The facility is behind a constriction point of 2

facility expansion would exceed the maximum of 200 boat slips, or (c) the facility expansion is wsetback from the outermost project front property corners or from any privately owned in-holdin

Petroleum at Commercial Facilities 

New, expanding, or rebuilding commercial marina facilities that dispense gasoline within the pro

provide petroleum absorbent materials or similar best available technology at all the slips dedicagasoline dispensing. The previously approved SMP had no spill or clean-up requirements for mpetroleum products. 

Commercial Boat Ramp Construction 

New boat ramps for residential marina facility use shall not be located in the backs of coves if an

between the proposed boat ramp location and the main channel is less than 200 ft in width. The 

SMP had no restrictions on the location of commercial boat ramps. 

Pump-out Installation 

Any proposed new or rebuilding residential marina facility must provide onsite sanitation facilitdisposal of waste if any of the following criteria are met: (a) the facility will have more than 65 spaces, (b) The facility will moor more than 25 watercraft with marine sanitation devices, or (c) 

watercraft that will be used for human habitation. The previously approved SMP did not require for any size residential marina facilities. 

Extraneous Facilities New extraneous facilities that are not required to provide lake access (e.g., gazebos, that are not 

boating facilities) are prohibited. The previously approved SMP did not have this restriction. 

Watercraft per Boat Slip 

Unless a boat slip or docking/mooring location is specifically designed to accommodate addition

capacity is specified, only one watercraft at a time shall be moored within a boat slip or dockingThe previously approved SMP did not specify any limitations on boats per slip. 

Water Withdrawals/ Intakes 

New, expanding, or rebuilding large (greater than 1 mgd) permanent water intakes should be fulbelow the critical lake elevation. The previously approved SMP did not specify this requiremen

Waste Water Discharges 

New, expanding, or rebuilding waste water effluent outfalls should be completely submerged an

or below the critical lake elevation. 

Private Bridges/Causeways 

New construction of non-public bridges that will cross the full pond contour of the project, excepprovide access to privately owned islands, will not be authorized. The previously approved SMP whether private bridges across the project were allowed. 

Non-Project Use of Project Lands/Waters 

Conveyance proposals for non-project use activities should generally avoid crossing an applicanaccess area. The previously approved SMP was silent on this issue. 
SMP Review and Update 

Duke Energy proposes to review and update the SMP at 10 years following the issuance 

of a new project license and every 10 years thereafter for the term of the new license. In 

developing the revised SMP, Duke Energy proposes to convene and consult with a working 

group consisting of North Carolina DENR, North Carolina WRC, South Carolina DPRT, South 

Carolina DNR, FWS, local governments, and other interested parties to review the 

implementation of the SMP and recommended potential modifications. Coincident with filing 

the revised SMP, Duke Energy proposes to update and file revised shoreline classifications maps 

that have been updated to reflect changes in the project’s shoreline development. 

Visual Aesthetics 

The visual quality of the Catawba-Wateree Project developments is highly variable. 

Starting at the top of the watershed, the Bridgewater Development is set partially within the Blue 

Ridge Province, and the lands immediately adjoining Lake James are generally steep and 

forested slopes. The lake affords scenic views of Pisgah National Forest and the Blue Ridge 

Mountains. With only 17 percent of the shoreline in permitted uses, much of the Lake James 

shoreline remains in a natural state, adding to the overall aesthetic quality of the reservoir. Just 

downstream from Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss offers a riverine type reservoir with very limited 

shoreline development. In contrast, the lands adjacent to Lake Hickory (Oxford Development) 

are heavily developed, and most views of the reservoir shoreline include homes and other types 

of development. At the next downstream development, Lookout Shoals Lake, the shoreline 

development is clustered primarily along the lower half of the reservoir, while the upper part of 

this reservoir retains a natural, riverine character. 

Lake Norman (Cowans Ford Development) is the largest of the project reservoirs, and 

one of the most heavily developed. Visually, much of the reservoir shoreline supports residential 

development, and boating use of the reservoir is very heavy. The two areas of the reservoir that 

were cut off from the main reservoir by the construction of Interstate 77, Lake Davidson and 

Lake Cornelius, get less use and provide a more secluded setting than does the main part of the 

reservoir. Despite the preponderance of development along much of the Lake Norman shoreline, 

portions of the reservoir shoreline, particularly at the upper end of the reservoir, remain 

undeveloped and provide a more natural visual setting. The most frequently observed view of 

Lake Norman is undoubtedly the view of the reservoir from the Interstate 77 causeway. From 

this perspective, passing motorists get a good view of the lake, with a moderately developed 

shoreline in the background. Excellent views of the Cowans Ford dam and powerhouse also are 

available to the public at the visitor’s overlook. 

Mountain Island Lake (Mountain Island Development) is a long narrow lake, the upper 

half of which is riverine in nature. Much of the land adjacent to this part of the reservoir has 

been purchased for conservation. Key viewpoints of Mountain Island Lake for the public 

include the Highway 73 Bridge that crosses the reservoir downstream of Cowans Ford Hydro 

and the Highway 16 Bridge that crosses the reservoir near Riverbend Steam Station. 

The second largest of the project reservoirs, Lake Wylie (Wylie Development), has a 

shoreline that also is heavily developed. In addition to considerable residential development, 

several industrial facilities dot the shoreline. Views of Lake Wylie are accessible from 

334 
Highway 273, Highway 27, and Interstate 85, on the northern end of the reservoir, and from 

Highway 49 which crosses the southern half of the reservoir. 

Fishing Creek reservoir is a moderate sized reservoir which is largely undeveloped. Only 

7 percent of this reservoir’s shoreline has a permitted shoreline use. However, a large new 

development is planned for the eastern side of the reservoir, and may alter the aesthetic quality of 

the reservoir in the future. Views of Fishing Creek reservoir are accessible primarily from the 

Highway 9 Bridge crossing on the upper end of the reservoir and limited views on the western 

side from Highway 21. The public is afforded an excellent view of the Fishing Creek dam and 

powerhouse from the Highway 200 Bridge, which crosses the river just downstream of the dam. 

Due to safety concerns, there is no public access provided to the Great Falls reservoir, so 

views of the reservoir are generally limited to private individuals with residences located along 

the reservoir shoreline. Moreover, while there is considerable development along the Great Falls 

reservoir shoreline (71 percent of the shoreline has a permitted use), Duke Energy does not 

permit the construction of private piers on this reservoir, so the shoreline remains uncluttered. 

The primary view of the reservoir afforded to the public is from the Highway 200 bridge as it 

crosses the reservoir just downstream from the Fishing Creek dam. 

 Cedar Creek reservoir is one of the least developed of the project reservoirs. Only 

11 percent of the shoreline of this small reservoir has permitted shoreline use. The reservoir’s 

unique features are two large islands, Big Island which rises almost 200 ft above the full pond 

elevation, and Mountain Island which rises 506 ft above msl. The reservoir shoreline is 

characterized by steep hardwood forested slopes, interspersed with stands of loblolly pine in 

upland areas. Much of the Cedar Creek reservoir shoreline is under option to a local land 

conservancy and is likely to be conserved in a natural state in the future. 

Lake Wateree has a moderately developed shoreline with nearly half of the shoreline 

(48 percent) in permitted use. As this development is located in the transition region between the 

Piedmont and the Coastal Plain, much of the land surrounding the reservoir is flat, and views 

from the reservoir are generally limited to the immediate shoreline. Lake Wateree State Park 

provides the public with outstanding views of the lake. Views from public roads are limited to 

bridge crossings on the west side of the reservoir and the Highway 97 bridge crossing at Beaver 

Creek on the east side of the reservoir. 

3.3.8.2 Environmental Effects 

Minimum Flows, Recreational Flows, and Reservoir Levels 

Duke Energy is proposing to provide new or increased minimum flows at several of the 

project developments including the Bridgewater, Oxford, Lookout Shoals, Wylie, Great Falls, 

Dearborn, and Wateree Developments. 

Additionally, Duke Energy proposes to provide minimum average daily flows at the 

remaining project developments, including Rhodhiss Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Fishing 

Creek, and Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek. Minimum flows are discussed in detail in section 

3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects. 

In addition to its proposed minimum flows Duke Energy proposes to provide dedicated 

recreational flow releases at rates and on schedules to support paddling, wade fishing, boat 

fishing, and other activities. These new scheduled flows would be provided in the Bridgewater, 

Oxford, Wylie, and Wateree regulated river reaches in addition to scheduled flow releases for 

335 
canoeing and whitewater boating into the Great Falls bypassed reaches. Recreational flows are 

discussed in detail in Section 3.3.7, Recreational Resources. 

There were no comments regarding the potential effect of the proposed recreational flows 

on land use, ownership, or development. There were comments from the public in support of the 

proposed flow releases into the Great Falls bypassed reaches. South Carolina DNR commented 

that Great Falls will be greatly enhanced with the flows proposed in the Revised CRA. The 

Great Falls Hometown Association expressed its support of the proposed flow releases noting 

that the flows will help to restore the sound of the Great Falls, which historically were described 

as “a great wonder, that could be heard for miles.” Similarly, the Honorable H.C. Sterns, Mayor 

of Great Falls, commented that with the planned release of water through the old river bed, the 

historic sounds of the Great Falls of the Catawba will be heard again. 

Duke Energy also is proposing some changes to reservoir water level regimes. These 

proposed modifications are discussed in detail in section 3.3.2, Water Resources. There were no 

comments regarding the potential for the proposed reservoir water level regimes to adversely 

impact land use, shoreline management, or project aesthetics. 

Our Analysis 

The changes in minimum flows proposed for the Catawba-Wateree Project developments 

would have minimal to no effect on land use, ownership, or management. Proposed minimum 

flows at most of the developments represent a modest to moderate increase in minimum flows 

over what is currently provided. At nearly every development where Duke Energy has proposed 

an increase in continuous minimum flows, it would be anticipated that the increased minimum 

flows would enhance the scenic quality of the river or bypassed reach. This is particularly true 

of the bypassed reaches at the Great Falls Development, where Duke Energy’s proposal to 

provide a continuous minimum flow 100 cfs in the Short bypassed reach and 450-850 cfs 

(depending on the season) in the Long bypassed reach will significantly enhance the aesthetic 

quality of the falls that historically distinguished this river reach. 

Recreational flows proposed for a number of the developments also are anticipated to 

enhance the visual quality of these river reaches during periods of higher recreational flow 

releases, and greater recreational use. As part of the studies used to evaluate and consider 

appropriate recreational flow release levels for each of the developments, the aesthetic quality of 

the range of recreational flows being considered for each of the river reaches was assessed. The 

aesthetic quality of the recreational boating flows proposed for the Bridgewater, Oxford, Wylie, 

Great Falls, Dearborn (Long and Short bypassed reaches), and Wateree Developments were all 

rated as “Acceptable” to “Totally Acceptable.” 

Provisions of recreational flows in the various development reaches, as proposed, will 

result in an increase in recreational use of these reaches. In turn, unless appropriate facilities and 

accommodations are provided to handle the increased recreational use, having more users along 

the shorelines could result in an increase in shoreline disturbance and eventually lead to 

additional shoreline erosion. Littering, and other unsightly forms of human disturbance could 

result. Duke Energy’s proposal for adding and modifying planned recreation sites to 

accommodate the expected increase in recreational use along these river reaches, should be 

adequate to more than offset any adverse impacts to the shoreline or the aesthetics of the 

bypassed reaches that might result from increased use. We conclude that the proposed 

336 
recreational flows will have no significant adverse effect on the project shorelines or land use, 

and will further enhance the aesthetic quality of these reaches. 

Reservoir water level regimes proposed for each of the project developments will have 

minimal or no effect on project land use, shoreline management, or aesthetics. None of the 

proposed water level regimes will result in significant increases in reservoir draw-down or 

fluctuation levels. Modified guide curves for Lake James and Lake Norman will reduce the 

maximum winter draw-down of the reservoir. At Lake James and Lake Norman, the proposed 

guide curves will reduce the winter draw-down from a current maximum of 8 ft to a new 

maximum of 6 ft. Modifications proposed for the operating levels of the other reservoirs are all 

within 1 ft of the current operating levels and would have no effect land use or the visual quality 

of the reservoirs. 

Lake Wateree Flooding 

As discussed in detail in section 3.3.2, Water Resources, high intensity rainfall events 

cause Lake Wateree to rise above the normal full pool elevation of the reservoir, causing 

flooding in low-lying shoreline areas around the reservoir. Lake Wateree property owners have 

indicated that flooding increases shoreline erosion and causes impacts to roads, structures, land, 

septic systems, docks, and other recreation facilities. 

Our Analysis 

To help reduce the magnitude, frequency, and duration of flooding at Lake Wateree, 

Duke Energy is proposing to install a bladder dam in the Wateree spillway. As discussed in 

section 3.3.2, Water Resources, the proposed spillway and bladder dam would increase the 

discharge capacity at the 103-ft flood stage by approximately 33 percent, and is anticipated to 

reduce the peak flood elevation at the Wateree dam from 104.9 ft to approximately 104 ft, and 

reduce the duration the reservoir elevation is above 103 ft from 20.5 to 15 hours. Much of the 

shoreline in the lower portion of Lake Wateree has minimal topographic relief and is therefore 

prone to flooding. Historically, these same areas have been developed with little consideration 

of the location of structures and facilities within the flood zone. Even with the proposed bladder 

dam, flooding of portions of the Lake Wateree shoreline would be expected to continue, albeit at 

a reduced frequency and magnitude. Unless steps are taken to modify existing development 

within low-lying shoreline areas, flooding of roads and structures, including private and public 

recreation facilities, will continue to occur. To reduce the impact of flooding on property and 

structures, the SMP should be modified in such a way as to strictly limit all new shoreline 

development within the flood zone. To do this, we recommend that the shoreline classification 

map for the Wateree Development be revised to create a new “flood zone” shoreline 

classification, and that no new development be allowed within this classification zone. 

Shoreline Management Plan 

Duke Energy is proposing changes to the existing project SMP in two areas: (1) revised 

shoreline classification maps, and (2) revised SMG. The proposed changes to the shoreline 

classification maps are important in that they reflect a comprehensive review of the existing 

shoreline classifications for all the project reservoirs, by Duke Energy, in consultation with 

resource management agencies and other interested stakeholders. Table 88 provides a summary 

of the proposed shoreline classifications project-wide and compares these classifications to the 

currently approved classifications. In the project settlement agreement Duke Energy reserves the 

337 
right to make changes to the classification maps to protect newly discovered resources such as 

archeological or historic sites, threatened or endangered species, special concern species, or to 

correct errors. 

Under the proposed classification maps, project-wide, the Residential classification 

makes up the single greatest shoreline classification accounting for 37.7 percent of the total 

project shoreline. Combined with the other development categories, both current and future, 

development classifications account for 65.3 percent of the project shoreline.18 Public 

Recreation areas, both existing and future, account for approximately 7.0 percent of the project 

shoreline. Project-wide, approximately 79.6 miles of shoreline would be classified as Natural 

areas (4.7 percent), 322.3 miles would be classified as Environmental (19.0 percent), 9.9 miles 

would be classified as Bottomland Hardwood areas (0.6 percent), and 54.5 miles would be 

classified as Impact Minimization Zones (3.2 percent). In all, 470 miles (27.7 percent) of the 

total project shoreline would be afforded some sort of protection from development with the 

proposed modifications to the classifications. This is nearly the same as the 27.3 percent of the 

project shoreline classified in protective classifications in the 2003 approved maps. 

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

(Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

2003 Approved SMP classification type and 

percent of total shoreline in each classification 

2006 Proposed SMP classification type and 

percent of total shoreline in each classification 

Commercial/Non-Residential 1.2% Commercial Marina 1.1% 

Commercial/Residential 1.9% Residential Marina 1.9% 

Residential 34.4% Residential 37.7% 

Public Recreational 0.5% Public Recreation 0.6% 

Project Operations 1.5% Project Operations 1.4% 

Environmental 18.3% Environmental 19.0% 

Natural Areas 5.7% Natural 5.4% 

Business/Industrial 0.3% Business/Industrial 0.6% 

Public Infrastructure 3.2% Public Infrastructure 3.9% 

Impact Minimization Zone 3.3% Impact Minimization Zone 3.2% 

Future Commercial/Non-Residential 11.5% Future Commercial Marina 5.5% 

Future Commercial/Residential 7.4% Future Residential Marina 2.0% 

Future Residential 4.8% Future Residential 10.8% 

Future Public Recreation 6.0% Future Public Recreation 6.5% 

Bottomland Hardwood 0.6% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 

 18 Development categories include Commercial Marina, Residential Marina, Residential, 

Business/Industrial, Public Infrastructure, Project Operations, Future Commercial Marina, Future 

Residential Marina, Future Residential, Impact Minimization Zone Developed.

338 
339 

At the development level, Table 89 summarizes the proposed percent classification of 

shoreline for each of the 13 project developments. As proposed, the two developments with the 

greatest amount of shoreline in development classifications remain the Oxford and Cowans Ford 

Developments, which have 79.9 and 82.3 percent of their shorelines classified in development 

categories, respectively. In total, 7 of the 13 project developments have greater than 50 percent 

of their shorelines classified for development (not including public recreation areas). In addition 

to Oxford and Cowans Ford, these developments include Bridgewater, Wylie, Great Falls, and 

Wateree. The greatest percentage of shoreline classified in protected natural or environmental 

areas occur at the Rhodhiss (56.6 percent), Fishing Creek (52.9 percent), and Mountain Island 

(50.65 percent) Developments. Public Recreation classification (both existing and future) is 

greatest at the Bridgewater (21.5 percent), Mountain Island (15.5 percent), and Great Falls and 

Dearborn Developments (18.9 percent). 
Table 89. Proposed shoreline classifications by development (percentage). (Source: Duke Energy, 2007) 

Classification Bridge- water Rhodhiss Oxford Look- out Shoals Cowans Ford Mountain Island Wylie Fish- ing Creek Great Falls Commercial Marina 1.0% 0.4% 1.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 2.0% 0.1% 0.0% Residential Marina 2.7% 0.3% 2.0% 0.9% 3.8% 0.7% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% Residential 11.3% 1.6% 51.9% 25.1% 56.8% 10.8% 40.7% 4.2% 0.0% 

Business/ Industrial 0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 1.0% 0.3% 0.8% Public Recreation 0.5% 0.4% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.9% 0.2% 0.0% Project Operations 0.4% 2.6% 2.6% 1.2% 4.9% 9.5% 5.6% 1.4% 1.5% Natural 1.7% 0.3% 1.5% 4.2% 0.7% 3.0% 0.5% 0.8% 50.0% 

Natural Isolated Berm 5.0% 27.7% 0.1% 10.6% 1.1% 4.7% 6.8% 2.8% 1.5% Bottomland Hardwood 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% 4.7% 0.2% 3.2% 0.0% Future Commercial Marina 

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 6.8% 1.5% 

Future Residential Marina 

14.7% 19.1% 1.2% 6.6% 1.3% 0.0% 1.5% 18.8% 0.0% 

Future Residential 1.3% 0.9% 2.6% 0.9% 1.9% 3.3% 2.7% 0.4% 0.0% 

340 
341 

Classification Bridge- water Rhodhiss Oxford Look- out Shoals Cowans Ford Mountain Island Wylie Fish- ing Creek Great Falls Future Public Recreation 19.5% 15.0% 15.2% 7.9% 10.3% 5.1% 8.4% 16.9% 0.0% Impact Minimization Zone 

21.1% 2.3% 2.6% 3.9% 4.6% 15.3% 3.0% 3.9% 18.9% 

Impact Minimization Zone Developed 

6.0% 1.7% 1.5% 10.6% 1.8% 3.3% 2.6% 0.6% 0.0% 

Environmental 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 1.2% 0.5% 1.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 
Several agencies commented on the proposed revisions to the Catawba-Wateree Project 

SMP. South Carolina DPRT comments that improvements to the SMP will help protect scenic 

integrity and improve water quality and natural habitat. South Carolina DNR concurs with 

proposed revisions to the SMP and supports the inclusion of the revised SMP in the new license. 

Catawba County states that the revised SMP will improve shoreline preservation by providing 

incentives for buffers and reduced the number of multi-slip boat facilities. EPA recommends 

that the EIS discuss the extent to which the revised SMP will help to protect sensitive wetlands 

and riparian and terrestrial habitat. Interior comments that the EIS should include a review of 

various SMP modeling scenarios to determine the impact of existing and future watershed land 

development, both within and beyond the project boundary, on current and future water quality 

in the Catawba-Wateree system. 

North Carolina WRC expressed its support of the proposed revisions to the SMP noting 

that the revised SMP would be a considerable improvement over the existing SMP. North 

Carolina WRC also noted its strong support for the provisions of the Revised CRA to continue 

stakeholder involvement in the periodic review and revision of the SMP throughout the term of 

the new license. 

Specific to the proposed revisions to the SMG, a number of comments were received. 

Ms. Suzanne Johnson raised concerns that the revised SMG do not cap fees, and in particular 

noted that there was a lack of restrictions on dock fees. A number of commentors, including 

Ms. Michelle Mann, Ms. Donna Lisenby, Ms. Sarah Williams, Mr. Robert Anderson, and 

Ms. Rebecca McSwain, raise concerns that the enforcement provisions of the SMG are 

inadequate and that Duke Energy does not adequately enforce the current SMG. Regarding 

seawalls, North Carolina WRC comments that the EIS should consider the effects of the SMP on 

shoreline erosion and sedimentation. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed changes in shoreline classifications for the project will have a modest 

effect on land use, ownership, or management of the project shoreline. Overall, there is very 

little change in project-wide classifications between the 2003 approved classification maps and 

the 2006 proposed classification maps. The greatest changes in classification proposed projectwide are the future use classifications. Future Commercial Marina classification has been 

reduced from 11.5 to 5.5 percent. Future Residential Marina classification has been reduced 

from 7.4 to 2.0 percent. Conversely, Future Residential classification has increased from 4.8 to 

10.8 percent. Future Public Recreation classification remains nearly unchanged, as does the 

project-wide amount of shoreline in natural and environmental classifications which accounted 

for 27.3 percent in the 2003 classification maps and 27.7 percent in the 2006 classification maps. 

With these proposed changes in the classification maps, there would be little to no impact 

on project resources, compared to the 2003 approved classifications. Minor decreases in the 

Future Commercial Marina and Future Residential Marina classifications could result in fewer 

marinas being developed project-wide, with a corresponding benefit to project resources. 

However, any such benefits would likely be offset by the proposed increase in the Future 

Residential classification. Increases in the Future Residential classification indicate that more of 

the project shoreline will be developed with private homes and residential dwellings, and that 

many of these residences will construct docks and other related private recreation facilities as 

allowed under the SMG. Construction activities would lead to short-term and localized impacts 

342 
on aquatic habitats due to increased shoreline erosion, disturbance of bottom substrates, elevated 

turbidity, and sedimentation. 

Many of the development activities would involve permanent shoreline modifications, 

such as alteration of shoreline vegetation (as allowed under the SMG), and the installation of 

seawalls and shoreline riprap. Removal of forested shoreline vegetation and elimination of the 

natural shoreline slope would reduce the availability of cover, eliminate sources of submerged 

woody debris, and increase the potential for shoreline erosion and sedimentation. Loss of 

shoreline cover, especially woody debris, and increased sedimentation of benthic habitats may 

locally alter shallow water spawning and rearing habitats for fishes. 

Natural shoreline cover would be replaced in part by constructed docks, piers, and other 

structures. These features would seasonally harbor largemouth bass, crappie, sunfish, and other 

species seeking overhead cover. However, the increased boating activities, and associated 

increases in wave action and bottom disturbance, could disrupt the spawning behavior of 

shallow-water fish species. Development of the shoreline would result in incremental losses of 

some shoreline fish habitat (including spawning and nursery areas) and invertebrate food 

sources; however, many of the most productive shallow water areas have been classified in the 

natural or environmental categories and therefore are afforded protection from development 

under the proposed SMP. 

Given the potential impacts associated with the development that would be allowed 

under the revised SMP, the classifications and associated lake use restrictions for natural, 

environmental, and impact minimization zones are critical for the protection of project resources. 

As with the previously approved classification maps, the proposed classification maps designate 

reservoir shoreline areas as either “Environmental” or “Natural.” Environmental areas include 

vegetated areas or cove heads with stream confluences. Natural areas are areas of isolated berms 

or those areas that have important resource characteristics such as shallow water, significant 

cultural resources, or significant terrestrial habitats. No development is allowed to occur in areas 

classified as Natural or Environmental. Similarly, areas classified as Bottomland Hardwood are 

afforded this same level of protection. 

The proposed revisions to the SMG will have a variety of affects on project resources. 

The most significant of these are discussed in more detail below. 

Vegetation Management 

Under the proposed SMG, Duke Energy has proposed several modifications to SMG 

provisions designed to strengthen beneficial vegetation management practices at the project 

reservoirs. These include provisions to better protect existing aquatic vegetation including water 

willow, and shoreline vegetation, as well as provisions for vegetative plantings along the 

shoreline. 

Plantings—Under the proposed SMG, the type of plantings used in bioengineering and 

landscape projects should be native species and must be reviewed and approved by Duke Energy 

prior to introduction. This is a change from the 2003 approved SMP which did not limit plant 

introduction to native species. The requirement to use native species in shoreline plantings is an 

improvement over the previously approved SMP in that it reduces the potential for the accidental 

introduction of invasive non-native plant species along the project shorelines, which have the 

potential to spread and crowd out other native species. The use of native species in plantings 

343 
also will be of greater use and benefit to wildlife species that might utilize such plantings for 

food or cover. Native plantings also have the potential to be more aesthetically pleasing as they 

blend more naturally into the surrounding landscape. 

Water Willow—Under the proposed SMG, applicants for use permits are encouraged to 

avoid activities that could impact water willow beds. Unavoidable impacts should be confined to 

the sides of beds to minimize disruption of their function as shallow water fish habitat. No 

floating structures or other extraneous facilities may be constructed over water willow beds. The 

width of walkways over water willow beds will be limited to less than3 ft. Removal of water 

willow for continued lake access may be allowed provided only that necessary for limited access 

in specifically identified areas is approved in writing. The previous SMP did not limit or 

encourage limitations on facilities and uses in areas of water willow beds. These new provisions 

and restrictions will help to minimize the impacts of shoreline development on water willow 

beds which provide important habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. The water willow 

beds also are beneficial for maintaining reservoir water quality. 

Shoreline Stabilization 

Seawalls—Under the proposed SMG areas with an average eroded bank height of 3 ft or 

less can only be stabilized utilizing bioengineering techniques, riprap, or both. Seawalls are not 

allowed in these situations. This represents a change from the 2003 approved SMP which 

allowed seawalls to be installed along the shoreline regardless of bank height. In addition, under 

the revised SMG a layer of riprap must be placed along the entire base of all bulkheads 

extending 6 ft lakeward from full pond. The previously approved SMP did not require this 

riprap installation, resulting in undermining of bulkheads. The additional restrictions on the 

installation of seawalls along the project shoreline will benefit both terrestrial and aquatic 

resources by limiting the installation of seawalls, which significantly limit the use of the 

shoreline edge by many species. Installation of riprap in these situations is preferable in that it 

provides some useable habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic species, and provides some useable 

interface between the water and the land. Similarly, the requirement to install riprap at the base 

of bulkheads will provide some additional habitat for aquatic species and will help to maintain 

installed bulkheads and reduce undermining and resulting shoreline erosion. 

Excavation and Mining 

Excavation—Under the proposed SMG, excavation is not allowed within water willow 

beds except as necessary to maintain access to previously approved facilities. In addition, 

excavation is prohibited during the months of March, April, and June because of potential 

impacts to fish spawning. The proposed SMG do not allow excavation for several specified 

activities, including: (a) channeling to create additional shoreline or to alter the project 

boundary; (b) excavation that would impact threatened or endangered species, historic 

properties, or environmentally important areas; or (c) excavation not associated with maintaining 

access to an existing permitted facility. Under the proposed SMG, all excavated material must 

be handled following best management practices unless given special consideration by South 

Carolina DHEC or North Carolina DENR. Finally, the proposed SMG require that the 

Commission review: (1) all excavations, other than maintenance excavations, that exceed 

2,000 cubic yards, and (2) any excavation that is required to support another proposed lake use 

that requires Commission review. None of these restrictions on excavation were included in the 

previously approved SMG. Taken as a whole, these additional restrictions on excavation in the 

344 
project reservoirs will significantly benefit project resources. Water willow beds will be 

protected from excavation, as will other important aquatic habitat or environmental areas. 

Excavations will be more limited in nature, since under the proposed SMP, excavation can be 

undertaken only to provide access to a permitted facility. These restrictions will help to protect 

habitat and reduce the potential for impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat that would 

results from more extensive excavations. 

Sand Mining—Under the proposed SMG, sand mining operations for the removal of sand 

from within the project boundary may be authorized in accordance with the Excavation and 

Conveyance Program guidelines. The previously approved SMG did not address sand mining. 

This new provision will benefit project resources by allowing a consistent review of proposed 

sand mining operations before such operations are approved. 

Private and Common Use Facilities 

Private Boat Ramps—Under the proposed SMG, private boat ramps will no longer be 

allowed. The previously approved SMG allowed private boat ramps under certain restrictions. 

This proposed change in the SMG will greatly benefit project resources by reducing the impact 

to the shoreline from future residential development. 

Shoreline Structures—Under the proposed SMG, decks, gazebos, covered boat slips, and 

boat shelters constructed within the project boundary must be single-story structures. The 

previously approved SMP did not restrict two-story structures. This proposed change in the 

SMG will enhance recreational safety on the project reservoirs by reducing the impacts of 

potential sight impairment of boaters and other recreationists to oncoming boat traffic. These 

restrictions also will help significantly to reduce the aesthetic impact of new structures installed 

along the reservoir shorelines by limiting the vertical intrusion of shoreline structures to a single 

story. 

Common Use Facilities—Duke Energy is proposing two changes to the SMG regarding 

common use facilities. First, under the proposed SMG, common use facilities with more than 

three boat slips will not be eligible for mooring additional watercraft including personal 

watercrafts. The previously approved SMG did not limit the number of watercraft moored at 

common use facilities. Also under the proposed SMG, unless grandfathered, no more than one 

common use boat slip per waterfront lot will be allowed, and ownership or interest in a common 

use facility will eliminate the eligibility of that person to have a separate slip at another common 

use facility. The previously approved SMG did not limit common use slips to one per lot. These 

proposed changes in the SMG will significantly benefit project resources by reducing total 

number of watercraft that can be moored on each reservoir and by reducing the overall total 

number of boat slips ultimately developed on the project reservoirs. If each lot owner is 

restricted to a single common use boat slip, then the total number of boat slips, and therefore the 

total area of the project impacted by the construction of additional common use boat docks, will 

be reduced. This reduction in total boat slips along with limitations on watercraft moorings will 

help reduce recreational crowding in certain areas of some of the project reservoirs, particularly 

Lake Norman, and will generally benefit the aesthetic quality of all the project reservoirs. Fewer 

boat slips and fewer moored boats will help to preserve more of the reservoir area in a natural 

undeveloped condition, which in turn will benefit reservoir water quality and aquatic habitat. 

Lot Width—Under the proposed SMG, unless grandfathered, a lot having less than 100 ft 

of shoreline that is suitable for residential use will not be considered for a pier or common use 

345 
facility. The previously approved SMG required only 75 ft of shoreline to qualify for a pier. 

This proposed modification to the SMG will significantly benefit all the natural and 

environmental resources of the project by reducing the total number of new piers that ultimately 

will be developed along the reservoir shorelines. The additional lot width requirement will force 

adjacent private property developers to plat larger lots, thereby reducing the total portion of the 

adjacent shoreline that is disturbed and developed with homes and other related structures. The 

resulting reduction in the total number of homes developed along the shoreline will help to better 

preserve the aesthetic quality of the reservoir shorelines. It also will help to limit the total 

number of new piers and other private recreation facilities that will be developed, which will 

help prevent over-crowding of the reservoirs and preserve the recreational experience. Reduced 

development along the shorelines also will help to better protect reservoir water quality by 

reducing the impacts to water quality due to construction activities, and the resulting increase in 

stormwater runoff and non-point source pollution that results from the conversion of natural 

shoreline to developed. 

New Extraneous Facilities—Under the proposed SMG, new extraneous facilities that are 

not required to provide lake access will be prohibited. These include gazebos and other facilities 

and structures not incorporated into the access facilities. The previously approved SMG did not 

include this provision. The proposed restriction on the development of extraneous shoreline 

facilities will benefit project resources by reducing the total amount of development along the 

reservoir shorelines. Fewer structures will result in less disturbance of shoreline vegetation and 

soils and will benefit reservoir water quality and habitats. Limitations on shoreline structures 

also will help to better preserve the aesthetic quality of the shoreline. 

Watercraft 

Houseboats—Under the proposed SMG, watercraft used for habitation shall not be 

permanently moored at private docks. Permanent mooring must be at marinas with sewer 

facilities. The previously approved SMP did not limit mooring of houseboats. This proposed 

change in the SMG will benefit the project reservoirs by helping to eliminate the potential for 

overboard discharges from live-aboard boats, which will benefit reservoir water quality. 

Watercraft per Boat Slip—Under the proposed SMG, only one watercraft at a time shall 

be moored within a boat slip or docking/mooring location, unless the boat slip or mooring is 

specifically designed to accommodate a specified number of additional watercraft. The 

previously approved SMG did not specify any limitations on boats per slip. This proposed 

change in the SMG will benefit project resources by serving to help limit the total number of 

watercraft on the reservoirs. In turn, a reduction in the total number of watercraft will help to 

prevent overcrowding on the reservoirs and preserve the quality of the recreational experience. 

Boating safety also will benefit by a reduction in the total number of watercraft being moored on 

a particular reservoir. 

Swim Areas and Swimming 

Private Swim Areas—Under the proposed SMG, private individuals will not be allowed 

to rope-off or exclude the public from a portion of the project area for the purpose of creating a 

private swim area. The previously approved SMG did not include this provision. The inclusion 

of this new provision will benefit recreational users of the project reservoirs by ensuring that all 

of the reservoir remains available for public use. It will benefit boaters on the reservoirs by 

ensuring that ropes and buoys deployed by private individuals do not become navigational 

346 
hazards. Through its current and proposed recreational facilities, Duke Energy has ensured that 

safe public swimming areas are available for use on nearly all the project reservoirs. 

Inflatable Recreational Equipment—Under the proposed SMG, the use and placement of 

large water-based recreational equipment will not be allowed within the project boundary. The 

previously approved SMG did not include this provision. Eliminating the placement and use of 

large inflatable recreational equipment will enhance recreational user safety on the project 

reservoirs. The removal of large inflatables also will improve the overall aesthetic quality of the 

reservoirs, particularly in areas of dense shoreline development. 

Marinas 

True Public Marinas—The current and proposed SMG establish a definition for a true 

public marina. For establishments that meet the definition of a true public marina, Duke Energy 

is proposing several modifications to provisions in its SMG regarding facilities allowed at true 

public marinas. First, under the proposed SMG, facilities operated as true public marinas may be 

considered for a maximum length of 200 ft, provided the facility meets all the other requirements 

of a true public marina. The previously approved SMP did not allow commercial facilities to be 

longer than 120 ft. Second, the proposed SMG allows for the expansion of existing true public 

marinas, which when they expand may be exempted from adhering to certain requirements that 

would apply to other types of commercial facilities. Taken together, these two modified 

provisions would be expected to benefit project resources. Extending the maximum facility 

length from 120 to 200 ft will result in some additional impacts to reservoir water quality and 

aquatic habitat. The longer facilities also will have an adverse affect on project aesthetics and, 

depending on the location of the facility, the potential to disrupt or impair recreational use of 

some small portion of the reservoir. However, these impacts would be offset by other benefits. 

Of particular note would be the benefit of allowing existing marinas to expand, rather than 

developing new marinas, in order to accommodate increased recreational use and demand. In 

essence these provisions will encourage a clustering of additional boat slips and other marina 

facilities at a fewer number of larger facilities. 

Commercial Boat Ramp Construction—Under the proposed SMG, new boat ramps at 

residential marinas will not be allowed to be located in the backs of coves if any portion of the 

cove between the proposed boat ramp and the main channel is less than 200 ft in width. The 

previously approved SMG had no restrictions on the location of boat ramps in coves. This 

provision will benefit project resources by not allowing the development of commercial boat 

ramps in smaller coves. The backs of coves and the smaller coves are generally areas of 

shallower water habitats that are likely to support aquatic vegetation, and which would be more 

significantly impacted by the development of a commercial boat ramp. Recreational resources 

also will benefit from this provision, as restrictions on boat ramps in small coves will help to 

prevent boating congestion in the cove, and will reduce the potential for unsafe boating 

conditions. 

Petroleum at Marinas—Under the proposed SMG, new or expanding Commercial 

Marina facilities that dispense gasoline within the project boundary must provide petroleum 

absorbent materials or similar best available technology at all the slips dedicated for gasoline 

dispensing. The previously approved SMG did not have spill or clean-up requirements for 

marinas dispensing petroleum products. The addition of this new provision will significantly 

benefit project resources by helping to ensure that the impacts to water quality, fish, aquatic life, 

347 
water willow, and recreational users is minimized in the event that a spill of petroleum products 

occurs at a marina. 

Pump-out Installation—Under the proposed SMG, any proposed new or rebuilding 

residential marina facility must provide onsite sanitation facilities for pump-out and waste 

disposal if the facility has more than 65 mooring/docking spaces, or will have more than 

25 watercraft with marine sanitation devices, or the facility will moor watercraft used for human 

habitation. The previously approved SMG did not require pump-out facilities for any size 

residential marina. The addition of this provision to the SMG will benefit project resources by 

helping to reduce the impact of overboard discharges on reservoir water quality. 

Fees and Enforcement 

Under the previously approved SMP, Duke Energy established fees for permitting of 

private and commercial docks, marinas, and other recreational use facilities. Consistent with 

Commission policy, fees collected by a licensee can be used to help defray the cost of 

administering the shoreline management program for the project, but cannot exceed the total cost 

of program administration. As it has in the past, under the proposed revisions to the SMP, some 

of the fees collected by Duke Energy are earmarked for inclusion in the HEP and will be used to 

help purchase or otherwise protect lands outside the project boundary for conservation or other 

public use purposes. So long as the total amount of the fees collected does not exceed the total 

cost to Duke Energy of administering its SMP, the use of fees to help protect lands adjacent to 

the project, but outside the project boundary will generally be of great benefit to project 

resources, and will help to protect the natural resources and aesthetic quality of the project 

reservoirs. 

The previously approved SMP and SMG both include provisions for Duke Energy’s 

enforcement of the provisions of the SMP. Specific provisions and consequences for violation of 

SMP and SMG requirements will continue to be provided in each of Duke Energy’s SMG 

permitting programs. Generally, the enforcement provisions will remain unchanged under the 

proposed SMP 

Recreation Improvements 

Duke Energy proposes within 1 year of license issuance to develop and file with the 

Commission an RMP for the Catawba-Wateree Project that describes certain proposed recreation 

enhancements for the project. The proposed recreation measures are described in detail in 

section 3.3.7.2, Recreational Resources, Environmental Effects and are summarized in 

tables 67 through 77. 

Our Analysis 

The proposed recreational enhancement to be included in the project RMP would have 

positive environmental effects by guiding recreational land use and management for the license 

term, and may help avoid conflicts by coordinating interagency management of recreation and 

land use. The proposed recreational enhancements would be expected to have little or no impact 

on project visual resources. Improvements to existing facilities would not affect land use, 

management, or visual aesthetics, provided that such improvements are made consistent with the 

guidelines set forth in the SMG. 

Bridgewater Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Bridgewater Development, including three new public recreation access 

348 
areas and significant improvements at three existing recreation access areas. Modifications and 

additions to the existing recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline 

management, land use, or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public 

recreation areas, and the addition of facilities at these areas as proposed will result in no 

additional impacts. The new facilities proposed for the new Linville Access Area will result in 

the development of a portion of 10 acres with boat ramps and related facilities. Addition of these 

facilities will have a minor impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the 

provision of an additional boat launch area available for public use on the popular Lake James. 

Similarly, the development of additional facilities for the proposed pocket park at the existing 

canoe portage take-out will have a minor impact on the shoreline in this area that will be offset 

by the improvement in public access to this portion of the project. In addition, a proposed 

photographic overlook at this location will provide the public with additional access to the high 

visual quality of the Bridgewater Development. Downstream of the dam, in the regulated river 

reach, Duke Energy’s proposal to acquire 1-3 acres to develop a canoe/kayak access area with 

gravel parking will have a minor impact on natural aesthetics of the river shoreline. However, 

these impacts would be small and would be more than offset by the benefits to the recreating 

public of having a new canoe/kayak access in this location. 

Rhodhiss Development—Duke Energy proposes a new public recreation access area and 

improvements to four existing recreation sites at the Rhodhiss Development. Modifications and 

additions to the existing recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline 

management, land use, or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public 

recreation areas, and the addition of facilities at these areas, as proposed, will result in no 

additional impacts. The new facilities proposed for the new Corpening Bridge Access Area will 

result in the development of a portion of 10 acres for a trailered boat ramp and approximately 

10 gravel parking spaces at the Corpening bridge. Addition of these facilities will have a minor 

impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the provision of a new boat launch 

which will provide additional public access to Lake Rhodhiss. 

Oxford Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at 

the Oxford Development, including three new public recreation access areas and significant 

improvements at six existing recreation access areas. Modifications and additions to the existing 

recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline management, land use, or 

project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public recreation areas, and the 

addition of facilities at these areas as proposed will result in no additional impacts. The new 

facilities proposed for the Wittenburg Access Area will result in the development of a portion of 

15 additional acres with restrooms, picnic facilities, and additional paved parking. Addition of 

these facilities could have a minor impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the 

provision of additional public recreation areas on Lake Hickory. Similarly, the new facilities 

proposed for the Oxford Access Area, including a primitive campground, paved parking, picnic 

facilities, restrooms, and trails, will have a minor impact on the reservoir shoreline, but the 

impacts will be more than offset by the benefits to the public of additional recreational access on 

Lake Hickory. Downstream of the dam, Duke Energy proposes to develop a tailrace fishing 

area. This new access area would have little or no impact on the shoreline or the aesthetic 

quality of the tailwater area. Any impacts that may occur would be offset by the benefit of 

providing anglers access to the Oxford Development tailwaters. 

349 
Lookout Shoals Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Lookout Shoals Development, including three new public recreation access 

areas and improvements at one existing recreation access area. The proposed improvements to 

the Lookout Shoals Access Area would have no impact on shoreline management, land use, or 

project aesthetics. This area has already been designated as a public recreation area, and the 

addition of restrooms at this site, as proposed, will result in no additional impacts. The new 

facilities proposed for the new Upper Lookout Shoals Access Area will result in the development 

of 1-5 acres with a boat ramp, parking, and restroom facilities. Addition of these facilities will 

have a minor impact on the shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the provision of an 

additional boat launch area available for public use on Lake Lookout Shoals. Downstream of the 

dam, on the regulated river reach, Duke Energy is proposing two new public recreation sites, a 

canoe portage trail and a public tailrace fishing area. Development of these facilities will have 

little or no impact on land use or visual aesthetics in this area. 

Cowans Ford Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Cowans Ford Development, including one new public recreation access area 

and significant improvements at five existing recreation access areas. The proposed 

improvements to the five existing access areas would have no impact on shoreline management, 

land use, or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public recreational 

areas, and the addition of new facilities at these sites, as proposed, will result in no additional 

impacts. Downstream of the dam, the new facilities proposed for the Cowans Ford dam portage 

and overlook area will have minimal to no effect on the shoreline or the visual quality of the 

project. Moreover, the addition of the overlook area will provide the public with improved 

visual access to the project. 

Mountain Island Development—Duke Energy proposes several recreational 

enhancements at the Mountain Island Development, including three new public recreation access 

areas and significant enhancements at one existing recreation access area. The proposed 

improvements to the Riverbend Access Area will have no impact on shoreline management, land 

use, or project aesthetics. This area has already been designated as a public recreation area, and 

the addition of new restrooms, bank fishing, and swimming facilities at this site, as proposed, 

will result in no additional impacts. The new facilities proposed for the Highway 73 Access 

Area will result in the development of approximately 2 acres of Duke Energy-owned property as 

a canoe/kayak access with gravel parking. A similar canoe/kayak access area is proposed for 

development at the Lucia Access Area. The addition of these canoe access facilities will have 

little to no impact on the project shoreline, and any impacts that do occur will be offset by 

providing the public with two convenient put-in locations for canoes and kayaks. In addition, 

Duke Energy proposes to develop a canoe portage trail to give paddlers a route around the 

Mountain Island dam. As with the two canoe put-in areas, the proposed canoe portage trail will 

have a negligible effect on the project shoreline, and will have no effect on land use and project 

aesthetics. 

Wylie Development—Duke Energy proposes several recreational enhancements at the 

Wylie Development, including three new public recreation access areas and significant 

improvements at four existing recreation access areas. The proposed improvements to the 

existing recreation access areas will have no impact on shoreline management, land use, or 

project aesthetics. These areas have been designated as public recreation areas, and the addition 

of new facilities proposed for these areas will result in no additional impacts. Duke Energy 

350 
proposes a significant new recreational area, Rock Hill Park, on Lake Wylie in the vicinity of the 

city of Rock Hill’s water intake. Creation of this recreation area will result in the development 

of a portion of 17 acres of land and the installation of a swim area, restrooms, bank fishing sites, 

and parking. The development of this site will result in minor impacts to the shoreline in this 

area, but these impacts will be more than offset by the benefits to the public of having a new 

recreational area that provides access to this portion of Lake Wylie. The canoe/kayak access and 

associated gravel parking proposed for the Dutchmans Creek Access Area will have little to no 

impact on the project shoreline, and any impacts that do occur will be offset by providing the 

public with an additional put-in for paddlers on the western side of Lake Wylie. Downstream of 

the dam, the proposed Fort Mill Access Area will provide restrooms and picnic facilities. These 

facilities will have little or no impact on the shoreline of the Wylie regulated river reach. 

Fishing Creek Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational 

enhancements at the Fishing Creek Development, including one new public recreation access 

area, the replacement of an existing access area, and significant improvements at one existing 

recreation area. Modifications to the existing Fishing Creek Access Area, as proposed, will have 

no impact on shoreline management, land use, or project aesthetics. This area has already been 

designated as public recreational area, and the addition of new facilities at this area, as proposed, 

will result in no additional impacts. The relocation of the Cane Creek Access Area will result in 

the development of a portion of about 18 acres with two trailered boat ramps, a fishing pier, 

parking, and other related facilities. Addition of these facilities will have a minor impact on the 

shoreline, but such impacts will be offset by the improved recreational access provided at the 

new access area. Downstream of the dam, Duke Energy proposes to develop a public fishing 

pier and paved parking. The development of these facilities will have a minor impact on the 

shoreline, but no impacts on project aesthetics and land use. Impacts to the project shoreline 

would be small, however, and would be more than offset by the benefits to the recreating public 

of having a new tailwater fishing pier in this location. 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments—Duke Energy proposes a number of 

recreational enhancements at the Great Falls and Dearborn Developments, including five new 

public recreation access areas. Duke Energy proposes several canoe portage trails for these 

developments including a portage trail on the north end of Mountain Island, a portage trail on 

Mountain Island around the Great Falls headworks, and a portage trail along the Great Falls 

Short bypassed reach. The addition of these portage trails will have minor impacts to the project 

shoreline that will be more than offset by the improved public access to the bypassed reaches for 

paddlers. Similarly, Duke Energy’s proposal to acquire a 1- to 7-acre site and develop a 

canoe/kayak launch on Great Falls reservoir downstream of the Great Falls headworks will result 

in minor impacts to the reservoir shoreline that will be offset by providing improved public 

access to the reservoir. Duke Energy proposes to acquire and develop a 1- to 5-acre site to create 

the Highway 200 Bridge Access Area. This site would include a canoe/kayak launch, restrooms, 

and a gravel parking lot. Impacts to the shoreline from the development of this site would be 

minimal and would be offset by improved public access to the reservoir for paddlers. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments—Duke Energy proposes a new recreation 

access area at the Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek Developments. The proposed Mudcat Inn 

Access Area would result in the development of approximately 1 acre into a canoe/kayak access 

site with associated gravel parking. The addition of this canoe/kayak access facility will have 

351 
little or no impact on the project shoreline, and any impacts that do occur will be offset by 

providing the public with a new put-in location for canoes and kayaks. 

Wateree Development—Duke Energy proposes a number of recreational enhancements at 

the Wateree Development, including one new public recreation access area and significant 

improvements at four existing recreation access areas. Modifications and additions to the 

existing recreation areas as proposed would have no impact on shoreline management, land use, 

or project aesthetics. These areas have already been designated as public recreational areas, and 

the addition of facilities at these areas as proposed will result in no additional impacts. For the 

proposed new Molly Creek Park, Duke Energy would acquire approximately 100 acres and 

would develop a small portion of this acreage with a swimming area, restrooms, fishing pier, 

picnic facilities, trailered boat access, and parking. The development of Molly Creek Park 

represents a significant addition to public recreational access on Lake Wateree. While the 

construction of some of the planned facilities would have some minor impact on the reservoir 

shoreline, and would result in a visual modification to the shoreline in this vicinity, the majority 

of the park land would remain undeveloped and would be protected for the future. This benefit, 

combined with the benefit of additional public access to the project, would more than offset any 

small impacts to the shoreline and project aesthetics resulting from the installation of the 

recreation facilities. 

Cultural Resources 

As part of its relicensing efforts, Duke Energy conducted cultural resource surveys that 

identified 20 sites that are considered potentially eligible within the Catawba-Water Project. To 

address potential ongoing project effects on these sites, Duke Energy prepared and is proposing 

to implement an historic properties management plan for the project that includes site-specific 

management plans for maintaining and protecting the eligible sites. In general, Duke Energy’s 

proposal to implement the HPMP and site-specific management plans will have no direct affect 

on land use or aesthetics, but indirect or synergistic affects, particularly those that could occur as 

a result of the proposed SMP could occur. 

Our Analysis 

Duke Energy’s proposed implementation of the HPMP includes site-specific 

management plans for seven significant cultural sites. Implementation of these management 

plans will have no adverse effect on project land use. Mitigation plans for each of these sites 

varies, but in no case will the management actions proposed for protection of the sites have an 

adverse effect on project land use or aesthetics. To the contrary, several of the eligible sites are 

actively experiencing erosion, and implementation of the proposed management plans will 

ensure that appropriate measures are taken to prevent additional site erosion, which also should 

benefit the project shoreline and would help to improve the general aesthetic character of the 

reservoir. 

As discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.6, Cultural Resources, the Dearborn Armory 

Site (38CS307) is located on Dearborn Island, also known as Big Island, in the Rocky Creek and 

Cedar Creek Developments. The site was originally constructed in the early nineteenth century 

as one of three national armories. The HPMP proposed by Duke Energy for implementation 

includes a site specific management plan for the Dearborn Armory Site. This site is located on 

an island that is proposed for inclusion in a conveyance of project land to the state of South 

Carolina for the development of a new state park. Specifically, Duke Energy proposes to offer a 

352 
lease of the islands associated with the Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar Creek 

Developments (including Big Island) to South Carolina DPRT for purposes of establishing and 

maintaining a new state park centered on the Dearborn Armory site. Implementation of the 

Dearborn Armory site management plan, in conjunction with Duke Energy’s proposal to lease 

the land on which this site is located to South Carolina to create a new state park, will benefit the 

public and protect a cultural resource, and would be an appropriate non-project use of project 

lands. 

Land Conveyances 

As part of its relicensing settlement agreement, Duke Energy has agreed to transfer 

several areas of Duke Energy-owned lands, that are not associated with project operations, to 

federal, state, or local entities through sale or deed. Table 90 summarizes the lands included in 

the settlement agreement that are proposed for transfer. The potential for land transfers is 

included in the settlement agreement, but is not considered under the proposed action for 

relicensing, and would be decided by Duke Energy at a later time. 

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

Development(s)/area Conveyance agreement 

Bridgewater 

North Bend Recreation 

Land 

Approximately 500 acres of non-project property adjacent to the Catawba 

River at the second Powerhouse Road Bridge downstream of the 

Bridgewater powerhouse to be conveyed to North Carolina DENR for 

development and management of public recreation access and permanent 

conservation. 

North Bend Access Area 

Approximately 10 acres of non-project property adjacent to the Catawba 

River at the second Powerhouse Road Bridge downstream of the 

Bridgewater powerhouse to North Carolina WRC for development and 

maintenance of a public recreation access area. 

Catawba-Linville River 

Confluence Recreation 

Land 

Approximately 420 acres of non-project property adjacent to the Catawba 

River in the vicinity of the confluence of the Catawba River bypassed reach 

and the Bridgewater regulated river reach to North Carolina DENR for 

public recreation and permanent conservation. 

Paddy Creek Recreation 

Land 

Approximately 275 acres of non-project property downstream of the Paddy 

Creek and Linville dams to North Carolina DENR for public recreation and 

permanent conservation. 

Rhodhiss 

Johns River Gameland 

Duke Energy shall support the acquisition by the Foothills Land 

Conservancy, North Carolina WRC, or both of up to 2882 acres of nonproject land in the vicinity of the confluence of the Johns River and Lake 

Rhodhiss for public recreation and permanent conservation. 

353 
Development(s)/area Conveyance agreement 

Cowans Ford 

Mountain Creek Park 

Duke Energy shall support the acquisition by Catawba County of up to 600 

acres of non-project land at the mouth of Mountain Creek for the 

development of a public park. 

Wateree 

Lake Wateree Recreation 

Lands 

Approximately 800 acres of non-project land adjoining the Heritage Project, 

Cedar Creek Access Area, and Lake Wateree to South Carolina DNR for 

public recreation and conservation. 

There are some project-related land conveyances, however, mostly in association with 

existing recreation access areas, that are being proposed by Duke Energy, and that are included 

in the proposed action for relicensing, and therefore are considered herein. The proposed land 

conveyances are summarized in Table 91. 

Table 91. Proposed conveyances of project lands. 

Development/area Proposed conveyance 

Bridgewater

Lake James State Park 

Islands Management 

Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for the term of the new 

license for the Lake James State Park management zone (300 horizontal 

feet lakeward from full pond elevation) along the shoreline adjoining the 

state park, including three islands. 

Cowans Ford

Lake Norman State Park 

Management Zone 

Offer North Carolina DENR a nominal-cost lease for the term of the new 

license for the Lake Norman State Park management zone (300 horizontal 

feet lakeward from full pond elevation) along the shoreline adjoining Lake 

Norman State Park) including one island. 

Wylie

Saddler Island 

Offer an AAII lease of the approximately 37-acre island to the U.S. 

National Whitewater Center for individual and group environmental 

education and outdoor recreation programming. 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek

Cedar Creek Reservoir 

Island Improvements 

Offer a lease of the islands associated with Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky 

Creek, and Cedar Creek Developments to South Carolina DPRT to 

establish and maintain a new state park centered on the Dearborn Armory 

site. 

354 
Development/area Proposed conveyance 

Wateree

Lake Wateree State Park 

Management Zone 

Offer South Carolina DPRT a nominal-cost lease for the Lake Wateree 

State Park management zone (up to 300 horizontal feet lakeward from full 

pond elevation along all the shoreline adjoining the state park) along the 

shoreline adjoining the state park. 

Several comments were received regarding the land protection measures and land 

conveyances proposed by Duke Energy both as part of the Revised CRA and/ or as proposed 

license articles. The Great Falls Hometown Association expressed its support for the Cedar 

Creek reservoir island improvements, noting that, as proposed, the Dearborn Armory Site and 

several other islands totaling more than 900 acres that would be protected as a new state park 

would be consistent with local efforts to establish nature-based tourism in the region, and would 

all create several thousand acres of contiguous public lands in the vicinity of Great Falls. 

North Carolina DENR commented in support of the land conveyance proposals included 

in the Revised CRA, noting that the proposed conveyance of the Paddy Creek, Catawba-Linville 

Confluence, and North Bend lands will provide diverse recreational opportunities in the upper 

river basin. North Carolina DENR also indicated its support for the provision of the Revised 

CRA under which Duke Energy would support North Carolina WRC’s efforts to acquire certain 

lands for conservation and future public access. The Lake Wateree Homeowners Association 

expressed its support for the land conveyance proposals embodied in the Revised CRA noting 

that the agreement preserves a significant track of shoreline in the upper section of Lake 

Wateree. Several other agencies and NGOs made comment in general support of the land 

conveyance measures included in the Revised CRA (including both those that were and were not 

proposed as license articles) including North Carolina WRC and the Foothills Conservancy. 

Our Analysis 

We have reviewed the lands proposed by Duke Energy for conveyance to different 

entities for the purpose of providing additional recreational access and public use. All of the 

land conveyances agreed to in the Revised CRA that are not proposed as license articles involve 

lands that are outside of the project boundary. Upon review of these lands we conclude that the 

non-project lands being proposed for conveyance are not needed for project purposes, and 

therefore require no further consideration in this review of environmental effects. 

All of the lands proposed for transfer under new license articles are currently within the 

FERC project boundary. Two of the proposed project land conveyances involve islands that are 

currently within the project boundary. At the Wylie Development, Duke Energy proposes to 

lease the approximately 37-acre Saddler Island to the U.S. National Whitewater Center. In the 

event that the U.S. National Whitewater Center does not go forward with its plans for the use of 

Saddler Island, it is necessary that property rights for the island revert back to Duke Energy, so 

that the island can be managed consistent with the purposes of the project. Therefore, we find 

that the land that makes up Saddler Island, above the normal full pool elevation of Lake Wylie, is 

necessary for project purposes and should remain within the project boundary. In order to allow 

the U.S. National Whitewater Center to develop and operate whitewater facilities on the island, 

consistent with the standard land use article, Duke Energy could lease the island to the U.S. 

National Whitewater Center as proposed. At the Great Falls, Dearborn, Rocky Creek, and Cedar 

355 
Creek Developments, Duke Energy proposed to lease the islands associated with the four 

developments to the State of South Carolina DPRT for the purpose of establishing a new state 

park centered on the Dearborn Armory site. We find that the islands proposed for lease are 

necessary for project purposes and should remain within the project boundary. Consistent with 

the standard land use article, Duke Energy could lease the islands to the State of South Carolina 

as proposed, to allow the development of a new state park. 

The remaining land conveyances 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. We find that these are lands that are necessary for project 

purposes, in that they lie within the normal full pool elevation of the reservoir, and are subject to 

changes in water levels that may occur as a result of project operations. As such, these lands 

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

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

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

we find that it would be appropriate for Duke Energy to apply to the Commission for approval 

for non-project use of project lands, and to enter into a lease agreement with the states, as 

proposed in the relicensing settlement agreement. Such an arrangement would benefit the 

recreating public, and would allow the states to better manage these existing and popular state 

parks. 

Land Conservation 

As mitigation for reduced flows at several of the project developments (discussed in 

detail in Section 3.3.2, Water Resources), Duke Energy is proposing to establish permanent 

conservation easements in the riparian corridor along certain sections of the river. As proposed, 

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

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

conservation easements on 6.6 bank miles of stream. The conservation easements are 100-ft 

wide 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 within 18 months of the 

issuance of the license. In South Carolina, the 100-ft-wide perpetual easements are to be located 

on tributaries to the Catawba River. 

In addition, under the terms of the Revised CRA, Duke Energy proposes to make onetime contributions of $1 million to the HEP funds in North and South Carolina, respectively, in 

addition to the $80,000 annual contribution per state contributed by Duke Energy through 2009. 

HEP funds may be used by the states to support long-term management of conservation 

easements established through the Revised CRA or add land as conservation easements. 

The Catawba River Keeper Foundation commented that it did not think that the “land for 

water mitigation scheme” negotiated as part of the Revised CRA was a good thing. They did 

note that, in general, the proposed land conservation would help to ensure open space for 

generations to come, and more specifically that the agreement would result in the protection of 

28.6 miles of riparian corridor in Burt and Caldwell Counties, and about 6 miles of riparian 

corridor in Chester and Lancaster Counties in South Carolina. However, they expressed concern 

regarding the inequity in riparian land protection between the two states, with South Carolina 

receiving only 6 miles of riparian corridor protection, compared to 28 miles in North Carolina. 

356 
Interior commented that one of the highest priorities in the region is the protection and 

conservation of Piedmont rocky shoals, as such reaches are increasingly scarce and often support 

unique assemblages of plant and animal species. At the Catawba-Wateree Project, Interior notes 

that the protection, restoration, and recovery of these areas, including the Mountain Island 

bypassed reach, the Great Falls of the Catawba, and the Wateree bypassed reach, are extremely 

important. 

Our Analysis 

Some of the lands proposed for the establishment of conservation easements are 

considered necessary for project purposes, in that they are consistent with the need to preserve 

the natural aesthetic character of the project shorelines and to protect important riparian habitat. 

Some of the lands proposed for permanent conservation easement are with the existing project 

boundary, and the establishment of permanent conservation easements on these lands will ensure 

their protection from development and other uses that may be inconsistent with the need to 

preserve their values as riparian corridor. Protection of these lands, combined with Duke 

Energy’s other proposals for conveying both project and non-project lands to various entities for 

future preservation or the establishment of parks or other public access areas, will greatly benefit 

the project but further limit the potential for new development along the shorelines of the 

reservoirs and tailwater areas, and will help to maintain aesthetic quality of the reservoirs and 

riparian corridors. 

3.3.8.3 Cumulative Effects 

Duke Energy’s proposed revisions to the SMP, including both the classification maps and 

the SMG, would have positive cumulative benefits to water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat, 

and the Catawba-Wateree Project’s long-term scenic qualities. The proposed revisions to the 

SMP have the potential to negatively affect shoreline property owners or commercial developers 

if construction is restricted or not permitted under the classification maps or the regulations and 

policies that make up the SMG. These effects would be experienced on an individual, case-bycase basis, as shoreline classifications vary among the reservoirs. 

Revisions to the SMG that target stormwater runoff, waste water effluent, and shoreline 

erosion are expected to result in less nutrients, turbidity, and other non-point-source pollution 

entering project waters. The maintenance of natural vegetation and the requirement to use native 

vegetation in shoreline plants would attenuate surface water runoff, capture and filter nutrients, 

and reduce shoreline erosion by anchoring soils. 

Duke Energy proposes several revisions to the SMG that over time would reduce the total 

amount of shoreline development that occurs along the project reservoirs. The most significant 

of these revisions is the proposal to increase the minimum lot width necessary in order to be 

eligible for a private pier from 75 to 100 ft. This revision alone will significantly reduce the 

number of new shoreline homes that are constructed along the reservoir shoreline, which in turn 

will have significant positive effects on reservoir water quality, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and 

aesthetics. 

Duke Energy also proposes several revisions to the SMG that over time would reduce the 

total number of piers and docks constructed on the reservoirs. The development of fewer docks 

and piers on the reservoirs will have a cumulative benefit to recreational users of the reservoirs 

357 
by helping to alleviate over-use and crowding. The aesthetic quality of the project reservoirs 

also will benefit from having fewer docks and piers developed along the shoreline. 

There are several proposed revisions to the SMG that are aimed at reducing the total 

number of watercraft that can be moored or docked on a reservoir. The most significant of these 

proposals is the SMG revision that would restrict pier owners to mooring only a single boat or 

personal watercraft at each dock, pier, or slip, unless that facility was specifically designed and 

approved to moor additional watercraft. As shoreline development continues and recreational 

use of the reservoirs increases, these SMG revisions will have a significant positive cumulative 

effect in helping to reduce overcrowding on the reservoirs, and to improve boating safety and the 

quality of the boating experience. 

The proposed conveyance and conservation of Duke Energy-owned project and nonproject lands would add positively to efforts of land managing agencies. These measures are 

designed to protect the shorelines from development that could affect the aesthetics, water 

quality, recreational opportunities, and wildlife throughout this project. 

3.3.8.4 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

The proposed revisions to the project SMP including the classification maps and SMG 

will allow shoreline development to continue. In turn, continued development of the project 

shoreline will have an unavoidable adverse effect on project resources including, most 

particularly, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife habitat. Shoreline development by its very 

nature results in disturbance to the vegetation and soils and conversion of natural pervious 

surfaces to impervious surfaces. These effects combined result in an increase in runoff, nonpoint source pollutant loads, and soil erosion, resulting in a decline in water quality and adverse 

impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. 

However, the revisions to the SMP proposed by Duke Energy will strengthen the SMP, 

and will generally result in less shoreline development, with fewer structures constructed on the 

reservoir, than would have occurred under the existing approved SMP. 

3.3.9 Socioeconomic Resources 

3.3.9.1 Affected Environment 

The Catawba River begins in western North Carolina and flows easterly and southerly 

into South Carolina, where it joins Big Wateree Creek to form the Wateree River. The project 

spans over 225 RM within nine counties in North Carolina and five counties in South Carolina. 

The counties bordering the project area are diverse in nature, ranging from urban to rural. These 

counties include Alexander, Burke, Caldwell, Catawba, Gaston, Iredell, McDowell, and 

Mecklenberg, North Carolina; and Chester, Fairfield, Kershaw, Lancaster, and York, South 

Carolina (table 92). 

358 
Table 92. Counties associated with the Catawba-Wateree Development. 

Development County/state 

Bridgewater Development Burke/McDowell, North Carolina 

Rhodhiss Development Burke/Caldwell, North Carolina 

Oxford Development Alexander/Burke/Caldwell/Catawba, North Carolina 

Lookout Shoals Development Alexander/Catawba/Iredell, North Carolina 

Cowans Ford Development Mecklenburg/Iredell/Catawba/Lincoln, North Carolina 

Mountain Island Development Mecklenburg/Lincoln/Gaston, North Carolina 

Wylie Development Gaston/Mecklenburg, North Carolina; York, South 

Carolina 

Fishing Creek Development Lancaster/Chester, South Carolina 

Great Falls and Dearborn Developments Chester/Lancaster/Fairfield, South Carolina 

Rocky Creek and Cedar Creek 

Developments Chester/Lancaster/Fairfield, South Carolina 

Wateree Development Lancaster/Kershaw/Fairfield, South Carolina 

Population and Demographics 

North Carolina’s population grew from 8.05 million in 2000 to 8.9 million in 2006 

(10 percent) and is projected to grow to 10.3 million by 2015 (16 percent) (Duke Energy, 2007; 

North Carolina State Data Center, 2008). South Carolina’s population grew from 4.0 million in 

2000 to 4.3 million in 2006 (8 percent) and is projected to grow to 4.7 million by 2015 (9 

percent) (Duke Energy, 2007; South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 2006). The population 

changes between 2000 and 2006 and the population estimate for 2015 for each county within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project are displayed in table 93. 

359 
Table 93. 2000 and 2006 population size by county within the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

County State 20002 20063 Percent 

change 

Population estimate 

20154,5 

Burke North Carolina 89,148 90,054 1.0 % 88,074 

McDowell North Carolina 42,151 NA1 -- 46,217 

Caldwell North Carolina 77,415 79,841 3.1% 81,210 

Alexander North Carolina 33,603 NA -- 39,208 

Iredell North Carolina 122,660 146,206 19.2% 183,685 

Mecklenburg North Carolina 695,454 827,445 19.0% 1,067,396 

Catawba North Carolina 141,685 153,784 8.5% 167,119 

Lincoln North Carolina 63,780 71,894 12.7% 83,445 

Gaston North Carolina 190,365 199,397 4.5% 215,548 

York South Carolina 164,614 199,035 20.9% 221,910 

Lancaster South Carolina 61,351 NA -- 67,300 

Chester South Carolina 34,068 NA -- 34,910 

Fairfield South Carolina 23,454 NA -- 25,540 

Kershaw South Carolina 52,647 NA -- 63,800 

1

 NA – 2006 data unavailable for those counties with a population less than 65,000. 

2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau [USCB], 2000. 

3 Source: USCB, 2006. 

4 Source: North Carolina State Data Center, 2008. 

5 Source: South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 2006. 

The fastest growing counties between 2000 and 2006 were York, South Carolina 

(20.9 percent); Iredell, North Carolina (19.2 percent); and Mecklenburg, North Carolina 

(19.0 percent). The slowest growing counties include Burke (1 percent), Caldwell (3.1 percent), 

and Gaston (4.5 percent) Counties. Population data for 2006 is not available for those counties 

with a population less than 65,000. The population increase from 1990 to 2000 for these 

counties are as follows: McDowell (18.1 percent), Alexander (22.0 percent), Lancaster 

(12.5 percent), Chester (5.9 percent), Fairfield (5.2 percent), and Kershaw (21 percent) (USCB, 

1990). 

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, has the largest population of all counties within 

the project area. This county includes the city of Charlotte. Mecklenburg County was one of the 

fastest growing counties from the year 2000 to 2006. The population is expected to grow by 

29 percent to more than one million by 2015 (table 93). Iredell County is expected to grow 

25.6 percent to more than 183,000 by 2015. Caldwell and Chester Counties are projected to 

experience slow growth increasing 2 and 2.5 percent, respectively, by 2015. Burke is the only 

county within the project expected to lose population by 1.2 percent. Moderate growing counties 

360 
361 

include Mc Dowell (9.6 percent), Alexander (16.7 percent), Lincoln (16.0 percent), York 

(11.5 percent), and Lancaster (9.7 percent). 

In 2005, the population of North Carolina was 67.7 percent White, 21.2 percent African 

American, 6.7 percent Hispanic or Latino, 1.8 percent Asian, 1.2 percent persons of two or more 

races, 1.1 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.2 percent persons of some other race, and 

0.1 percent Native Hawaiian (USCB, 2006). The minority population, defined as the non-white 

and multi-racial population of a given area which includes African American, Asian, American 

Indian, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, persons reporting some other race, 

and persons reporting two or more races, comprised 29 percent of North Carolina. The 

population of South Carolina in 2005 was 65.3 percent White, 28.6 percent African American, 

3.4 percent Hispanic or Latino, 1.2 percent persons of two or more races, 1.1 percent Asian, 

0.25 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.1 percent persons of some other race, and 

0.05 percent Native Hawaiian (USCB, 2006). Minorities in South Carolina comprised 35 

percent of the total population. Table 94 displays the demographic breakdown of each of the 

counties associated with the Catawba-Wateree Project. 

Mecklenburg was the only county in North Carolina with a high minority population 

(44.7 percent). The minority population was comprised of 66 percent African Americans, 

22 percent Hispanic or Latino, 9 percent Asian, and 3 percent of other race. Approximately 10 to 

20 percent of the total population of Burke, Caldwell, Alexander, Iredell, Catawba, and Lincoln 

Counties was comprised of minorities. The lowest minority population in North Carolina was 

McDowell County (9.7 percent). The counties within South Carolina have a higher minority 

population than those counties within North Carolina. In 2000, the total population in Fairfield 

County was 23,454, which comprised of 60.8 percent minorities, the highest minority population 

within the Catawba-Wateree Project. Approximately, 96 percent of the minority population was 

African American. The remaining counties in South Carolina had minority populations ranging 

from 25 to 40 percent, comprised of predominantly African Americans. 
Table 94. Demographic breakdown (percent of total population in 2006) of Catawba-Wateree Project area. 

2000 and 2006) 

County White African American Hispanic American Indian/ Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian Two or More Races Som

R

Burke 84.0 6.5 4.9 0.2 3.2 0.0 1.2 McDowell1 89.6 4.0 2.8 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.8 

Caldwell 89.1 4.1 3.6 0.1 1.5 0.0 1.2 

Alexander1 89.8 4.6 2.4 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.8 

Iredell 79.8 11.8 5.2 0.1 0.9 0.3 1.8 

Mecklenburg 55.3 29.5 9.8 0.4 3.9 0.0 0.9 

Catawba 79.3 7.7 8.4 0.3 3.0 0.0 1.3 

Lincoln1 85.4 6.1 5.4 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.9 

Gaston 78.2 13.7 5.2 0.3 1.1 0.1 1.4 

York 74.9 18.9 3.2 0.5 1.1 0.1 1.3 

Lancaster1 69.9 26.4 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 

Chester1 59.5 38.4 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 

Fairfield1 39.1 58.5 1.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 

Kershaw1 70.4 25.9 1.7 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.8 

1 Based on 2000 data; 2006 data unavailable. 

362 
Economic Base 

Table 95 displays the economic and employment data for the counties within the 

Catawba-Wateree Project area. The 2006 median household income in Burke ($37,677), 

Caldwell ($34,052), Lincoln (38,433), and Gaston ($42,410) Counties in North Carolina were 

below the state median of $42,265. Iredell, Mecklenburg, and Catawba Counties had higher 

median household incomes of $43,307, $51,945, and $42,349, respectively (USCB, 2006). The 

2000 median household income in the counties of McDowell ($32,396) and Alexander ($38,684) 

were lower than the state median of $39,184 (2006 data unavailable) (USCB, 2000). The 

percentage of people living below the poverty level in North Carolina grew from 12.3 percent in 

2000 to 14.7 percent in 2006. Counties in the project area with higher poverty rates include 

Burke (17.6 percent), Gaston (15 percent), and Caldwell (14.9 percent). All other counties 

within the project area in North Carolina had poverty rates lower than the state rate (USCB, 2000 

and 2006). 

The median household income in South Carolina in 2006 was $41,100. The only county 

within the project area in South Carolina that had a higher median household income than the 

state was York County ($45,739) (USC 2006). The 2006 economic data for Lancaster, Chester, 

Fairfield, and Kershaw Counties is unavailable. The 2000 median household incomes in the 

counties of Lancaster ($34,688), Chester ($32,425), and Fairfield ($30,376) were lower than the 

state median of $37,082. Kershaw County ($38,804) was slightly higher than the state median 

(USCB, 2000). The percentage of people living below poverty level in South Carolina was 

14.1 percent in 2000 and 15.7 percent in 2006, which was slightly higher than the rates in 

North Carolina. Chester and Fairfield Counties had higher poverty rates in 2000 (15.3 and 

19.6 percent, respectively) when compared to the state. 

Employment in the project area is quite diverse and includes jobs ranging from white 

collar or professional, to blue collar or labor-intensive. Some of the industries include farming 

and forestry; government employment; education and health services; leisure and hospitality; 

trade; retail; and manufacturing. The two largest industries of employment in both North 

Carolina and South Carolina are education services, health care, and social assistance; and 

manufacturing. These industries represented more than 50 percent of the workforce in the 

majority of the counties within the project area. 

The unemployment rate in North Carolina grew from 5.3 percent in 2000 to 6.6 percent 

in 2006. The following counties in North Carolina had unemployment rates equal to or higher 

than the state in 2000 or 2006: Caldwell (10.1 percent), Burke (8.4 percent), Catawba 

(7.4 percent), Mecklenburg (7.0 percent), and Lincoln (6.6 percent) (USCB, 2000 and 2006). 

Gaston, McDowell, and Alexander Counties had unemployment rates of 6.4, 4.5, and 

2.5 percent, respectively, which were lower than the state rate. The unemployment rate in South 

Carolina also grew from 5.9 percent in 2000 to 7.4 percent in 2006. Fairfield (6.9 percent), 

Chester (6.8 percent), and Lancaster (6.4 percent) Counties had higher unemployment rates than 

the state in 2000. York and Kershaw Counties had unemployment rates of 5.6 and 5.3, 

respectively, which were lower than the state rate. 

363 
Table 95. 2006 economic and employment data of the Catawba-Wateree Project area. (Source: USCB, 200

County 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Average 

Household 

Size 

Median 

Value of 

Home 

% 

Unemployed 

% Living 

Below 

Poverty 

Level 

Largest Industry of Employment 

% SchGror 

Burke $37,677 2.58 $99,700 8.4 17.6 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance McDowell $32,396 2.45 $72,000 4.5 11.6 Manufacturing 

Caldwell $34,052 2.55 $105,600 10.1 14.9 Manufacturing 

Alexander $38,684 2.54 $95,600 2.5 8.5 Manufacturing Iredell $43,307 2.61 $156,600 6.5 12.0 Manufacturing 

Mecklenburg $51,945 2.41 $172,000 7.0 11.3 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance 

Catawba $42,349 2.62 $127,700 7.4 10.7 Manufacturing 

Lincoln $38,433 2.58 $129,900 6.6 13.9 Manufacturing 

Gaston $42,410 2.65 $114,000 6.4 15.0 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance York $45,739 2.61 $143,400 5.6 11.8 Education, Health Care, Social Assistance 

Lancaster $34,688 2.56 $77,100 6.4 12.8 Manufacturing 

Chester $32,425 2.62 $62,800 6.8 15.3 Manufacturing 

Fairfield $30,376 2.63 $69,900 6.9 19.6 Manufacturing 

Kershaw $38,804 2.58 $88,000 5.3 12.8 Manufacturing 

1 Based on the population 25 years and over. 

364 
3.3.9.2 Environmental Effects 

Employment in the project area is quite diverse and includes farming and forestry; 

government employment; education and health services; leisure and hospitality; trade; retail; and 

manufacturing. The two largest industries of employment in both North Carolina and South 

Carolina are education services, health care, and social assistance; and manufacturing. These 

industries represented more than 50 percent of the workforce in the majority of the counties 

within the project area. The primary contribution that the project currently makes to the local 

economy is related to recreational use. 

Changes to reservoir water surface elevations and instream flows could affect the water 

uses in varying ways. Higher reservoir water levels year-round are more desirable to both 

visitors and residents resulting in more recreational use, visitor spending, income to local 

recreation-related businesses, recreation-related employment, and higher property values and tax 

revenues. On the other hand, lower reservoir levels would be associated with less recreation use, 

spending, income, employment, property value, and tax revenue. Recreational flow releases and 

recreation facility enhancements are proposed for the project. Details on the proposed recreation 

enhancements are discussed in section 3.3.7, Recreational Resources. 

General Recreation User Characteristics 

During the 2004-2005 recreation use and needs study period, total visitation to the project 

site was more than 10.1 million visits. Lake Norman and Lake Wylie received the highest level 

of visitation, followed by Lake Hickory, Lake Wateree, and Lake James. 

Of the people who were interviewed at the public recreation areas, 28 percent were 

female and 72 percent were male, and the average age was 44 for females and 45 for males. For 

shoreline residents, 5 percent were less than 35 years old, 47 percent were between the ages of 

35 and 54, 27 percent were between the ages of 55 and 64, and the remaining 21 percent were 

over the age of 64. For potential visitors, about 13 percent were less than 35 years old, 

42 percent were between the ages of 35 and 54, 21 percent were between the ages of 55 and 64, 

and the remaining 24 percent were over the age of 64. 

In terms of race, for public recreation area visitors, 79 percent indicated they were 

Caucasian, 15 percent African American, 4 percent Hispanic or Latino, and 2 percent Asian. 

For shoreline and backlot residents, 98 percent indicated they were Caucasian, and less than 

1 percent each indicated they were African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, or American 

Indian and Alaska Native. For potential visitors, 91 percent indicated they were Caucasian, 

6 percent African American, and less than 1 percent each indicated they were Hispanic or Latino, 

Asian, or American Indian and Alaska Native. 

For shoreline residents, 13 percent indicated they had an annual income of less than 

$50,000, 32 percent were between $50,000 and $99,999, and the remaining 55 percent indicated 

an annual income of more than $100,000. For potential visitors, 42 percent indicated they had an 

annual income of less than $50,000, 40 percent were between $50,000 and $99,999, and the 

remaining 18 percent indicated an annual income of more than $100,000. 

Economic Value of Recreation Assessment 

The socioeconomic effects of Catawba-Wateree Project recreation on the local economies 

of North and South Carolina was assessed utilizing recreation use estimates combined with 

365 
expenditure information. The IMPLAN model (MIG, 1999) was used to estimate the economic 

effects of recreation expenditures in the study area based on the value of income, jobs, and taxes 

attracted to the region due to project-related recreation. IMPLAN is a widely used regional 

economic impact model. Visitor use data collected during the recreation study was used to 

populate the model. 

Key Findings 

• More than 11 million people visited public recreation areas in the Catawba-Wateree 

Project study area from March 1, 2004, to February 28, 2005. 

• Visitation is projected to increase by about 11 percent per decade through 2050. 

• Fifty percent of the visitors went to Lake Norman or Lake Wylie. 

• The primary recreation activities were motor boating, boat fishing, bank/pier fishing, 

and swimming. 

• The peak recreation season for the Catawba-Wateree system is April through 

September, and the peak visitation months are May and July. 

• More than 3,000 boats used the 11 reservoirs during July 4th weekend (the peak 

holiday weekend in 2004), but only Lake Hickory was at more than 50 percent 

capacity. 

• On a typical weekend during the peak recreation season, 2,000 boats use the 

11 reservoirs. 

• People using the public recreation areas typically spent money on food and 

beverages, lodging, entrance fees, boat rental and supplies, bait and tackle, gasoline, 

and other related services. These expenditures directly support almost 1,700 jobs and 

provide more than $24 million dollars in total economic benefits. 

• Ninety percent of the visitors to the public recreation areas were satisfied with both 

the condition of the areas, and the types of recreation opportunities available at the 

areas. 

• During the peak recreation season, visitors did not feel crowded at the public 

recreation areas on weekdays, and felt slightly to moderately crowded on weekends. 

• People rated the reservoirs as not crowded or only slightly crowded during the 

weekdays, and between slightly crowded and moderately crowded during the 

weekends. 

• Visitors using the public recreation areas generally felt safe but were concerned about 

uncontrolled operation of personal watercraft, excessive boat speeds on the reservoirs, 

and deadheads and floating logs. 

Recreation spending at the Catawba-Wateree Project areas accounts for a small fraction 

of the regional economies of North and South Carolina. Individuals using the project for 

recreational purposes typically make expenditures (approximately $50 per group per visit) on 

food and beverages, lodging, entrance fees, boat rental and supplies, bait and tackle, gasoline, 

and other related services. These expenditures directly support almost 1,700 jobs and provide 

more than $24 million dollars in direct labor income to the region. The total labor income 

366 
(direct, indirect, and induced) associated with recreation expenditures is almost exclusively in the 

service sector; however, this is less than 1 percent of the total labor income for the 14 counties 

surrounding the project. The sectors most significantly influenced by recreation visits to the 

project include: restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, sporting goods, hotels/motels, and 

general merchandise stores. 

The surrounding counties and states benefit from this spending through recreation-related 

sales tax revenues that bring in approximately $10 million and gasoline tax revenues that bring in 

approximately $7 million to counties and states. Counties with the largest tax benefits from 

recreational use of project area waters are Mecklenburg (North Carolina) and York (South 

Carolina). 

Management directives and policy that support and potentially enhance recreation 

resources and opportunities along the Catawba-Wateree Project, as discussed in section 3.3.7, 

Recreational Resources, would ultimately increase visitation to project waters. Higher visitation 

numbers would increase the amount of expenditures related to recreational activities within the 

region, which in turn would have a positive effect on the regional economy. 

Our Analysis 

Lake and river users contribute substantially to local economies (e.g., boat and equipment 

purchases, gas, food, and lodging), and their purchases of hunting and fishing licenses and boat 

registrations help the state wildlife agencies fund management programs. Additionally, the 

growth of the area due to the presence of the project has allowed the tax base and economy of the 

counties and areas surrounding the project reservoirs to increase substantially since construction 

of the project reservoirs. 

Recreational flow releases and recreation facility enhancements proposed for the project, 

as well as continued operation of the project, are unlikely to change the social and economic 

conditions of the project vicinity. However, not relicensing the project could have a negative 

impact on the area by increasing future electricity rates, thereby increasing living and business 

costs and causing fewer businesses to be attracted to the area, as well as lowering the tax base for 

the local economies. 

Population 

There is no reason to expect that implementing the proposed recreational enhancements 

will cause any appreciable or permanent migration to or from the area. 

Employment 

No local impacts to employment are expected due to the proposed recreational 

enhancements of the project. The economic future of the area will remain tied to its traditional 

employment sources. 

Housing 

Housing in the project area should not be affected by the proposed recreational 

enhancements of the project. No additional housing will be required. No residences or 

businesses will be displaced, and local government expenditures are not expected to increase. 

367 
Recreation 

Recreational opportunities in the project area will be increased by implementing the 

proposed action due to the recreation enhancement PM&E measures. A full description of 

recreational resources is discussed in section 3.3.7, Recreational Resources. 

Existing Socioeconomic Resource Protection, Mitigation, and Enhancement 

Measures 

There are no existing socioeconomic PM&E measures associated with the project. 

3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms 

and conditions of the existing license, and there would be no change to the existing environment. 

Under this scenario, there would be continued energy production and no enhancement of existing 

natural resources. We use the no-action alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions 

for comparison with other alternatives. 

Specifically, under the no-action alternative, water supply throughout the project area 

would not be appropriately managed, especially in periods of drought; water quality, especially 

DO, would be affected during periods of low flow and would in turn continue to affect aquatic 

resources; reservoir levels and flow releases would not provide protection or enhancement of 

aquatic resources and bypassed reaches would not receive water flow below Lake James or at 

Great Falls. Low flows, high inflows/flooding would continue to occur and affect fish 

populations in downstream reaches. Reservoir levels and the elevation of existing public boat 

ramps in development reservoirs could continue to limit access to the reservoir during periods of 

low water levels. Special status aquatic and terrestrial species, including federally listed species 

within the project area, while still potentially affected by some project operations would not be 

provided with monitoring or habitat enhancements provided through the implementation of 

specie-specific protection plans. Bald eagles and heron rookeries would continue to be 

threatened by inadvertent disturbance from recreation use along the shorelines. Historic 

properties and archaeological resources would not receive protective management including 

monitoring of erosional processes, monetary support for a number of initiatives. Interpretive 

displays and opportunities for education on the historical and archaeological importance of the 

area would not be made available to the residents, visitors and children of the Catawba-Wateree 

area. Recreational flows for the support of whitewater, paddling, and boat fishing activities 

would not be made available to enhance recreational use of the project area. Without the new 

license, enhancements to existing public facilities or the construction of new facilities at 88 

locations would not occur. The revised SMP provides modifications to shoreline classifications, 

lake use restrictions, the SMG, and land conservation that would otherwise not be implemented 

or receive periodic review and updates to continue to improve water quality and shoreline and 

riparian habitat within the project area. Implementation of proposed flows would not be made 

available to improve habitat for diadromous fish species. 

3.5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 

Continued operation of the existing project would continue to commit lands and waters 

previously developed for energy production. This commitment would not necessarily be 

irreversible or irretrievable because removal of the project dams and restoration of disturbed 

368 
areas could return the project areas to near pre-project conditions. However, given the substantial 

costs and loss of energy, recreational, and socioeconomic benefits, removal of the dams is 

unlikely in the foreseeable future. 

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

Under all alternatives considered, the project would continue to generate power 

for customers of Duke Energy, as well as provide recreation and socioeconomic benefits for the 

duration of any new licenses. The proposed action with staff-recommended modifications would 

provide significant long-term protection and enhancement of biological, cultural, and 

recreational resources in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, although energy generation at the 

existing project would be somewhat reduced. 

369 
370 

This page intentionally left blank.