20080915 Ver 1_C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1)_20061222

Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Comprehensive Relicensing
Agreement
Explanatory Statement
for the
Catawba-Wateree Hydro Project
FERC Project No. 2232
December 22, 2006
Revision 1
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
(intentionally blank)
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Project No. 2232
SUBMISSION BY DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC OF
AGREEMENT AND REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW LICENSE
INCORPORATING THE ARTICLES AND APPENDICES AS
SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 602 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission ("Commission" or "FERC") (18 CFR 385.602), Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC (Duke), Licensee of the Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC Project No.
2232) (the "Project "), hereby (i) submits this December 22, 2006 revision to the August
12, 2006 Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement ( the "Agreement") resolving issues
among the Parties to the Agreement related to Duke's Application, inter alia, for a New
License for the Project that was filed by Duke with the FERC on August 29, 2006; and
(ii) requests that the Commission issue a New License for the Project incorporating the
proposed New License Articles and certain appendices to this revised Agreement as
specified in this revised Agreement and that are otherwise consistent with the terms and
provisions of this revised Agreement.
In accordance with Rule 602(c)(1)(ii) (18 CFR 385.602(c)(1)(ii)), set forth herein is a
revised Explanatory Statement (dated December 22, 2006) as to the Agreement and this
submittal.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Agreement Process
Effective August 12, 2006, Duke and 69 other participants (Parties) in its relicensing
process for the Project entered into the Agreement that resolves issues related to Duke's
Application for a New License for the Project that was filed with FERC on August 29,
2006. The participants in this process included state and federal resource agencies,
tribes, local governments and associations, businesses, non-governmental
organizations, and individuals. The relicensing process achieved a balance of
competing resource interests consistent with the public interests in the governing
statutes. This outcome was realized by identifying interests, developing objectives and
collaborating to develop measures to protect, mitigate and enhance the ecological and
cultural resources while providing for other beneficial uses of the Catawba and Wateree
rivers and their tributaries, including hydroelectric generation, consumptive uses of
Project water and recreation.
Multi-party Stakeholder Teams were formed in June 2003 and, with the help of a
facilitation team from Kearns & West, Inc., the Stakeholder Teams developed a charter
setting forth the ground rules to aid in the decision process and to guide discussions.
Over the course of the next three years, the Stakeholder Teams and various study
teams, Resource Committees and Ad Hoc Committees met regularly to identify interests
and key issues, to develop studies, to analyze study results, and to negotiate
alternatives related to the Project. The Stakeholder Teams developed a non-binding
Agreement-in-Principle (AIP), and those stakeholders in agreement with that AIP signed
it on April 13, 2006 in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Many stakeholders reconvened on July
26, 2006 to sign the binding Agreement. A window of opportunity until August 11, 2006
was also provided for the additional stakeholders to sign the Agreement.
In September and October 2006, Parties to the Agreement met to evaluate potential
changes to the original Agreement. A draft revised Agreement was prepared by Duke
and, in accordance with the Agreement's provisions, submitted on October 23, 2006 to
the other Parties for a 60-day opportunity to indicate objections. On November 3, 2006,
Duke also informed the Parties of its name change (effective October 1, 2006) from
1 The 70 Parties to the Agreement are Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Alexander County, North Carolina;
American Whitewater; Area II Soil & Water Conservation Districts; Bowater Incorporated; Burke County,
North Carolina; Caldwell County, North Carolina; Carolina Canoe Club; Catawba County, North Carolina;
Catawba Indian Nation; Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office; Catawba Lands
Conservancy; Catawba Regional Council of Governments; Catawba Valley Heritage Alliance; Catawba-
Wateree Relicensing Coalition; Centralina Council Of Governments; Chester Metropolitan District; City of
Belmont, North Carolina; City of Camden, South Carolina; City of Charlotte, North Carolina; City of Gastonia,
North Carolina; City of Hickory, North Carolina; City of Morganton, North Carolina; City of Mount Holly, North
Carolina; City of Rock Hill, South Carolina; Crescent Resources, LLC; Duke Energy Corporation; Foothills
Conservancy; Gaston County, North Carolina; Great Falls Hometown Association; Harbortowne Marina;
International Paper; Iredell County, North Carolina; Kershaw County, South Carolina; Kershaw County
Conservation District; Lake James Homeowners; Lake Wateree Association; Lake Wylie Marine
Commission; Lancaster County Water & Sewer District; Lincoln County, North Carolina; Lugoff-Elgin Water
Authority; McDowell County, North Carolina; Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Mt. Island Lake
Association; Mt. Island Lake Marine Commission; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources with its Divisions of Forest Resources, Parks and Recreation, Water Quality, and Water
Resources; North Carolina Wildlife Federation; North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission; R & N
Marina; South Carolina Department of Archives and History; South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources; South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism- South Carolina Electric & Gas;
South Carolina Wildlife Federation; Springs Global US, Inc.; Town of Davidson, North Carolina, Town of
Great Falls, South Carolina, Town of Valdese, North Carolina, Trout Unlimited, Inc.; Union County, North
Carolina; Wateree Homeowners Association - Fairfield County; Western Piedmont Council of Governments;
York County, South Carolina; York County Culture & Heritage Commission; William B. Cash; Shirley M.
Greene; Frank J. Hawkins; Timothy D. Mead; Merlin F. Perry; and Joseph W. Zdenek.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement - Explanatory Statement
Duke Power Company LLC to Duke Energy Carolinas, LCC and that the draft revised
Agreement would be modified to reflect this name change. Having received no
objections from the other Parties concerning the proposed revision of the original
Agreement, Duke in accordance with Section 24.2 of the original Agreement is now
submitting the revised Agreement dated December 22, 2006 to the Commission for its
consideration. This revised Agreement replaces the previously submitted original
Agreement dated August 12, 2006 in its entirety, except that the signature pages
showing the signatures of the Parties on the original Agreement also serve as the legally
binding signatures of the Parties on the revised Agreement.
REQUEST FOR COMMISSION ACTION
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE RELICENSING AGREEMENT
Duke respectfully requests that the Commission issue a New License for
the Catawba-Wateree Project incorporating the proposed New License Articles and
certain appendices to this revised Agreement as specified in this Agreement and that are
otherwise consistent with the terms and provisions of this revised Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
0
Jeffrey G. Lineb ger, PE
Manager, Hydro Licensing
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
526 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28202-1904
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 iii
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
(intentionally blank)
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 IV
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Overview and Organization of the Explanatory Statement ............. ...............1
2.0 Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement Overview ........................ ............... 1
3.0 Stakeholder Involvement Process .................................................. ...............2
4.0 The Project - Developments and Operation .................................. ............... 5
5.0 Operations Articles and Agreements .............................................. ...............6
6.0 Water Quality Articles and Agreements .......................................... ............. 23
7.0 Gaging and Monitoring Articles and Agreements ........................... .............24
8.0 Species Protection Article and Agreements ................................... ............. 25
9.0 Public Information Article and Agreements .................................... .............26
10.0 Recreation Articles and Agreements .............................................. ............. 27
11.0 Shoreline Management Plan Articles and Agreements .................. .............30
12.0 Cultural Resources Article and Agreements ................................... ............. 32
13.0 Other Resource Agreements .......................................................... ............. 33
ATTACHMENT A - COMPOSITE INTEREST STATEMENTS .......................................36
ATTACHMENT B - PROJECT FLOW ROUTING SCHEMATIC ....................................48
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 v
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
(intentionally blank)
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 VI
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
1.0 Overview and Organization of the Explanatory Statement
The Explanatory Statement begins with a general overview of the Comprehensive
Relicensing Agreement and then describes the Project and its operations to set a
context for the proposed New License Articles and provision S2 in the subsequent
resources sections of the Explanatory Statement. The operational complexity of the
Project required similarly complex evaluations and resolutions particularly on the
operations articles and provisions.
The Explanatory Statement then covers each resource area in sequence, beginning with
operations recommendations. Each resource area begins by summarizing the
significant stakeholder interests, reviewing the information from the related studies,
discussing the decision process and the significant elements of the decision making,
discussing the alternatives considered, describing how the agreements reached in the
stakeholder process were captured in the proposed New License Articles and
provisions, and, finally, listing some of the major conclusions for that resource area
provided in the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement.
2.0 Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement Overview
The Agreement addresses issues involving reservoir elevations, recreation flows, habitat
flows, water user needs, drought response, maintenance and emergency response,
public information, cultural resources, public recreation facilities, species protection,
shoreline management, water quality, compliance gaging and monitoring, and other
resource enhancement interests. The Agreement contains the following four distinct
aspects.
2.1 Proposed New License Articles - The Agreement contains 19 proposed New
License Articles for inclusion in the New License. These articles are clearly identified in
Appendix A of the Agreement and are referenced throughout the Agreement. Three of
the these articles (Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree Project, Maintenance
and Emergency Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree Project, and Shoreline Management
Plan) also refer to documents that are included both in the Application for the New
License and in Appendices C, D, and J, respectively, that are part of the Agreement and
request that the FERC approve these three documents as part of the New License.
Section 16.0 of the Agreement acknowledges that the Parties entered into the
Agreement with the express objective that the Commission would issue a New License
incorporating the proposed license articles without material modification. Material
changes to the proposed license articles would upset the balance and benefits
negotiated by the stakeholders and may lead to the potential for Parties to withdraw or
for the entire Agreement to be terminated. Therefore, the Parties to the Agreement
respectfully ask the Commission to regard the Parties' intentions and to adopt the
proposed New License Articles as submitted without material modification.
2.2 Non-License Agreement Terms - In addition to the proposed New License
Articles, the Agreement contains a number of provisions that the Parties have agreed to
undertake outside the New License and hence would not become license conditions or
2 "Provisions" refer to the agreements in the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement that are not also in the
proposed New License Articles.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
articles. These provisions are contractual in nature and, in many instances, require the
Licensee to undertake certain actions. In other instances, these provisions require other
Parties to take certain actions or prohibit Parties from engaging in certain activities.
Examples include cost-share funding for certain enhancements, providing public
information on the Licensee's Web site and telephone system, and undertaking certain
actions prior to the New License being issued.
2.3 General Terms - The Agreement also contains a number of general terms and
miscellaneous provisions related to administrative matters and to some substantive
matters, such as prohibiting Parties from seeking actions inconsistent with the terms of
the Agreement. There are terms dealing with the procedures to be invoked if an agency
or other entity with regulatory jurisdiction takes an action inconsistent with the
Agreement and terms dealing with typical contractual matters such as enforceability,
modification, controlling law, etc.
2.4 Attachments to Explanatory Statement Incorporated by Reference - Appended
to the Agreement are 15 appendices that are incorporated into the Agreement. These
appendices include Proposed License Articles, Parties and Designated Representatives,
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) for the Catawba-Wateree Project, Maintenance and
Emergency Protocol (MEP) for the Catawba-Water Project, Definitions, Water Quality
Monitoring Plan (WQMP), Abbreviations and Acronyms, Current and Projected (Year
2058) Water Withdrawals and Returns, Catawba-Wateree Public Recreation Amenities
and Other Key Land Areas, Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), Template for a
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Licensee and States, Counties, and
Municipalities, Flow and Water Quality Implementation Plan (FWQIP), Flow,
Groundwater and Water Quality Monitoring Summary, Catawba-Wateree Basin Water
Management Group (WMG), and Conceptual Conservation Easement Outline.
The appendix that the Parties to the Agreement request the Commission incorporate into
the New License is Appendix A: Proposed License Articles. The articles refer to the Low
Inflow Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree Project, Maintenance and Emergency Protocol
for the Catawba-Wateree Project, and Shoreline Management Plan that are included
both in the Application for the New License and in Appendices C, D, and J, respectively,
that are part of the Agreement.
2.5 Supporting Documentation - The Parties to the Agreement concur that the
information developed as part of the stakeholder process, which was included in the
Application for New License, supports the protection, mitigation and enhancement
measures contained in the Agreement, including the Licensee's obligations set forth in
the proposed New License Articles. A variety of studies conducted as part of the
relicensing process were completed before the finalization of the Agreement. Those
studies, along with other documents and information, serve as the basis for discussions
and negotiations leading to the consensus reflected in the Agreement.
3.0 Stakeholder Involvement Process
3.1 Stakeholder Teams Formation
3.1.1 The Licensee elected to use the FERC's Traditional Licensing
Process (TLP) and chose to significantly enhance the TLP's public involvement
with additional opportunities for stakeholder participation and input. The
Licensee filed its First Stage Consultation Document in February 2003 and
received initial scoping comments and 568 study requests in the spring of 2003.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 2
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
The Licensee also filed a timely Notice of Intent to Relicense with the FERC on
July 21, 2003.
3.1.2 In the spring 2003, the Licensee hosted a series of eight public
consultation meetings to share information about the Catawba-Wateree River
system, describe the relicensing process, and provide opportunities for
stakeholders to begin to identify relicensing interests. The Licensee invited and
actively recruited interested individuals to participate on relicensing Stakeholder
Teams (Teams). Interested individuals submitted interest forms to the Licensee
describing their organization, experience, resource interests and which Team
they would like join.
3.1.3 The Teams consisted of stakeholders who represented various
interests broadly summarized by the categories Adjacent Property Owners,
Local Governments, Other Organized Interest Groups, Power Producers,
Recreation Groups and Individuals, Water-Dependent Businesses and Federal
and State Resource Agencies.
3.1.4 The Licensee invited representatives of the Catawba Indian Nation,
state and federal resource agencies and regional non-governmental
organizations to join two State Relicensing Teams (SRT) (North Carolina and
South Carolina). These Teams met first in June 2003. Using the interest forms
submitted by interested individuals, the State Relicensing Teams then helped
select the four regional Advisory Groups (AG) (Foothills AG, Metro AG,
Piedmont AG, and Lower Catawba AG)3 that began meeting separately in
August 2003. The resulting six unique Stakeholder Teams together comprised
approximately 160 Team Members representing more than 80 organizations.
Nearly all of the individuals that filled out interest forms were eventually added to
one or more Stakeholder Teams.
3.2 Principal Purpose of the Stakeholder Process - The overarching purpose of this
stakeholder process was to develop a comprehensive agreement addressing the
continued operation of the Project. Early in the relicensing process the stakeholders
identified and discussed nearly 2,100 interests in the Project. These interests were
combined and summarized into 225 composite interest statements that are shown in
Attachment A to this Explanatory Statement. The stakeholders used these interests as
the basis for identifying and evaluating development and non-development alternatives
and recommending an acceptable balance of resource needs. The balance was
captured conceptually in a non-binding Agreement in Principle (AIP) (dated April 2006).
Team Members who agreed to the AIP provisions worked together to convert the AIP
into the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement (Agreement) for submittal to the
Commission. Provisions of the Agreement have been incorporated into the Application
for New License.
3.3 Study Teams - Although not formally part of the Stakeholder Process, Study
Teams included Stakeholder Team Members as well as resource experts from state and
federal resource agencies, the Licensee, and its consultants. The Study Teams
oversaw the development and performance of the studies, reviewed and evaluated the
3 The Foothills AG represented the area from the Lake James headwaters through Lookout Shoals Dam; the
Metro AG represented the area from Lookout Shoals Dam to the NC-SC state line; the Piedmont AG
represented the area from the NC-SC state line to the headwaters of Fishing Creek Reservoir (located at the
shoals adjoining Landsford Canal State Park); and the Lower Catawba AG represented the area from the
headwaters of Fishing Creek Reservoir to the confluence of the Wateree and Congaree rivers.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 3
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
results, and contributed to the study reports and analysis. Study results were reported to
the Stakeholder Teams.
3.4 Resource Committees - The Resource Committees (RCs) included study team
members, technical experts, and Team Members. The RCs were charged with (i)
consolidating and summarizing key study findings, (ii) merging the findings of resource-
related studies into a coordinated resource assessment, (iii) identifying relationships with
other resource areas (e.g., aquatics and terrestrial), and (iv) providing an assessment of
potential resource protection, mitigation and enhancement opportunities supported by
study findings. RCs bridged the gap between studies and stakeholders by translating
highly technical study data into effective alternatives for the Stakeholder Teams to refer
to as they negotiated the terms of the AIP. The RCs were as follows:
• Aquatics Resource Committee;
• Cultural Resources Resource Committee;
• Hydro Operations Resource Committee;
• Recreation Resource Committee;
• Shoreline Management Resource Committee;
• Terrestrial Resource Committee (subsequently combined with the Aquatics
RC); and
• Water Quality Resource Committee.
3.5 Ad Hoc Committees - Ad Hoc Committees were formed as a means to address
specific issues raised in the Teams that couldn't be resolved efficiently by the facilitated
discussion in the larger Teams. These Committees, made up of selected Team
Members with particular resource expertise or interest in the subject at-hand, conducted
detailed discussions and brought recommendations back to the Teams. Committee
membership was often drawn from more than one Team. These Committees provided
regular status reports to and gathered input from the Stakeholder Teams as the
negotiations proceeded. During 2004 and 2005, these Committees sometimes met
several times a month. The Ad Hoc Committees are listed below:
• Aquatics/Terrestrial Ad Hoc Committee (to finalize the aquatic flows and
species protection plans);
• Recreation Ad Hoc Committee (to finalize the recreation facilities package);
• CHEOPSTm Ad Hoc Committee (to develop operating scenarios, review
adjustments in the Low Inflow Protocol, and coordinate with the other
Committees and Teams);
• Sections 1/16 Ad Hoc Drafting Committee (to draft the General Agreements
and Procedures related to implementing the Agreement);
• Land Ad Hoc Committee (to integrate and coordinate the various land
interests in the negotiations);
• Water Withdrawers Committee (to address issues related to water
withdrawals, procedures for intake approvals, and a fund to protect and
improve the storage capability of the reservoirs and water quality); and
• Final Agreement Conversion Committee (to oversee the conversion of the
AIP into the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement).
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 4
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
4.0 The Project - Developments and Operation
4.1 Project Overview - The Catawba-Wateree Project is located on the Catawba
River in North Carolina and on the Catawba and Wateree rivers in South Carolina. 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
has 11 developments, including: Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Lookout Shoals,
Cowans Ford, Mountain Island, Wylie, Fishing Creek, Great Falls-Dearborn, Rocky
Creek-Cedar Creek, and Wateree. The Project spans more than 225 river miles and
encompasses approximately 1,795 miles of reservoir and island shoreline within nine
counties in North Carolina and five counties in South Carolina. In providing cooling water
to more than 8,100 megawatts of fossil and nuclear-fueled generation, it is the backbone
of Duke's power generation system in the Carolinas. The Project also provides 831
megawatts (MW) of renewable hydropower, enough electricity to power 116,000
average homes. The reservoirs provide industrial process and cooling water and
drinking water to more than 1.3 million people. The demand for public water supply is
expected to increase by over 200 percent in the next 50 years. Of particular interest to
the stakeholders was increasing flows in the regulated river reaches and the bypassed
reaches to enhance aquatic communities, river-oriented recreation, and aesthetics.
4.2 Project Operations - A Project flow routing schematic is shown in Attachment B
to this Explanatory Statement. Although the interests and use requirements are typically
listed reservoir-by-reservoir, the Project must be operated as an integrated "stair-
stepped" system to use its limited storage to satisfy the local demands on the Project.
Geographic and demographic factors complicate this approach because the local
demands do not often line up with the local inflows and storage capabilities. For
example, the population centers and heaviest water demands are currently in North
Carolina, but flows from only about 60 percent of the North Carolina portion of the Basin
enter the Catawba-Wateree River in North Carolina.
4.3 Bypassed Reaches - The bypassed reaches, which received considerable
attention in the stakeholder discussions, are:
4.3.1 Catawba River Bypassed Reach and Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach
at the Bridgewater Development (Lake James);
4.3.2 Mountain Island Bypassed Reach at the Mountain Island
Development (Mountain Island Lake);
4.3.3 Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach and Short Bypassed Reach at the
Great Falls-Dearborn Development (Great Falls Reservoir); and
4.3.4 Wateree Spillway Channel at the Wateree Development (Lake
Wateree).
4.4 Regulated River Reaches - The regulated river reaches, which also received
considerable attention in the stakeholder discussions, are:
4.4.1 Bridgewater (Lake James) Regulated River Reach;
4.4.2 Oxford (Lake Hickory) Regulated River Reach;
4.4.3 Lookout Shoals Regulated River Reach;
4.4.4 Wylie Regulated River Reach; and
4.4.5 Wateree Regulated River Reach.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 5
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.0 Operations Articles and Agreements
5.1 Overview
5.1.1 The following eight proposed License Articles in the Comprehensive
Relicensing Agreement have strong relationships to one another and define the
Project's proposed operation.
5.1.1.1 ARTICLE - Reservoir Elevations
5.1.1.2 ARTICLE - Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program
5.1.1.3 ARTICLE - Recreation Flows
5.1.1.4 ARTICLE - Minimum Flows (for aquatic resources)
5.1.1.5 ARTICLE - Wylie High Inflow Protocol
5.1.1.6 ARTICLE - Flows Supporting Public Water Supply and
Industrial Processes
5.1.1.7 ARTICLE - Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba-Wateree
Project
5.1.1.8 ARTICLE - Maintenance and Emergency Protocol for the
Catawba-Wateree Project
5.1.2 Stakeholder Evaluation - Stakeholders actively participated in
developing the technical content (i.e., study results, evaluations, and
recommendations) and, subsequently, the proposed license articles. As a
result, the preliminary technical content was developed independently for each
proposed license article by different Stakeholder Teams and Resource
Committees. The preliminary technical content for each article was also
developed independently of other operational considerations: the initial
minimum continuous flows were based solely on aquatic needs; the flows for
public water supply were based solely on the water suppliers' existing and
projected flow needs; and the recreation flows solely on the Recreation Flow
Study.4 At a later time these flow targets were integrated, analyzed by computer
modeling as applicable, evaluated against acceptance criteria pre-determined by
the different Teams and Resource Committees, and adjusted as needed into an
operational scenario that would ensure that the requirements for each of these
eight proposed operations articles could be simultaneously satisfied by the
physical system. There was enough overlap of Team Members on the
Resource Committees, in addition to participation by the Licensee and the
process facilitation team, to keep the various Committees regularly informed of
the numerous parallel activities. All of the technical content supporting these
proposed articles, as well as the principal tools for their evaluation, were
provided by existing information; the Licensee's relicensing studies resulting
from stakeholder study requests; computer models (CHEOPSTM 5 and water
4 Recreation Flow Study - June 27, 2006.
5 CHEOPSTM is a computer-based hydroelectric operations model that assesses the impacts of simulated
hydroelectric project operating conditions on flows and reservoir levels.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 6
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
quality); and Performance Measures Spreadsheets6 that were developed based
on stakeholder interests.
5.1.3 Highest Priorities - The studies, evaluations, and potential operational
scenarios led to an understanding that the Project with its resource demands is
already finely tuned and that, during dry and drought conditions, there is little
flexibility to significantly adjust operating scenarios. As a result of these
considerations, and recent stakeholder experience with the drought-of-record for
the region, which occurred between 1998 and 2002 in this and the neighboring
Yadkin River basins, the stakeholders generally accepted the following as their
highest priority operations interests:
5.1.3.1 Potable Water - Maintain potable water supplies for the
more than 1.3 million people in cities and towns that are dependent on
the Project for their water supplies (including Charlotte, the Carolinas'
largest city with a population of more than 540,000 people) (i.e., keep
elevations above the Critical Reservoir Elevations (CRE)7) for the term
of the New License. This also required that river flows not drop below
critical intake and effluent discharge support levels;
5.1.3.2 Electricity - Maintain electricity supply by assuring cooling
water for the thermal plants on the Project's reservoirs (more than
8,100 MW) (i.e., keep reservoir elevations above the CRE);
5.1.3.3 Fish and other Aquatic Organisms - Maintain flows in the
regulated river reaches and re-watered bypassed reaches to prevent
long-term or irreversible damage to aquatic communities in these
reaches and to maintain water quality (i.e., keep Minimum Continuous
Flows above the Critical Flowss); and
5.1.3.4 Drought Tolerance - Assure that the recommended
operational scenario would not result in a Low Inflow Protocol Stage 4
Condition9 during the next 50 years as assessed by using the past-51-
year-period-of-record inflows, adjusted to account for increased water
supply demands1o, and increased sedimentation into the reservoirs to
6 The Performance Measures Evaluation Spreadsheets are included in the PM&E Module included in the
Application for New License.
7 Critical Reservoir Elevation (CRE) - the highest water level in a reservoir below which any Large Water
Intake used for Public Water Supply or industrial uses, or any regional power plant intake located on the
reservoir, will not operate at its Licensee-approved capacity.
a Critical Flows - the minimum flow releases from the hydro developments that may be necessary to:
a. Prevent long-term or irreversible damage to aquatic communities consistent with the resource
management goals and objectives for the affected stream reaches;
b. Provide some basic level of operability for Large Water Intakes located on the affected stream
reaches; and
c. Provide some basic level of water quality maintenance in the affected stream reaches.
9 A Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) Stage 4 Condition is declared when the Remaining Usable Storage in the
reservoir system is small and can be fully depleted in a matter of weeks or months. Owners of Large Water
Intakes are asked to implement Emergency Water Use Restrictions. Groundwater recharge may also
contribute to the declining reservoir levels. For these reasons when in LIP Stage 4, the Licensee may not be
able to ensure that releases from its hydro developments will meet or exceed Critical Flows or that reservoir
elevations will be greater than or equal to the Critical Reservoir Elevations.
10 Water Supply Study; April, 2006. Also see the summary results in Appendix H of the Comprehensive
Relicensing Agreement.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 7
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
represent month-by-month inflow conditions for the ensuing 51-year
period.
5.1.3.5 Other Abnormal Conditions - Anticipate possible abnormal
conditions (in addition to low inflows) and outline in the Maintenance
and Emergency Protocol the mitigation actions and communications
the Licensee will take during those abnormal conditions.
5.2 Operations Scenario Development
As noted in the Paragraphs below, the preliminary operations recommendations for
flows, reservoir levels, and Low Inflow Protocol stage triggers and water use reductions
were first developed independently based on the resource targets and interests for those
specific operations areas. It remained to input these into the model of the actual system,
and, using realistic inflows, to test whether these preliminary independent
recommendations could actually be satisfied by the system. In the result, it was found
that many of the recommendations could be satisfied, but others could not. Resolution
of the latter required considerable analysis, innovation, and negotiation. Here's how the
eventual preferred operations scenario evolved.
An operations scenario has six elements:
• Reservoir elevations: targets, minimums and maximums;
• Minimum flows;
• Recreation flows and schedules;
• Low Inflow Protocol stage triggers and water-use reductions;
• Water supply demands and returns (current and future); and
• Reservoir sedimentation (current and future).
By agreement, a scenario "failed" if it could not meet all four priorities in Paragraph 5.1.3
or could not sustain all of the input license flows and/or reservoir level limitations for that
scenario for the entire period of record. Even if a scenario didn't fail, it "had problems" if
reservoir levels were too frequently off the normal targets, the LIP was activated too
often, water supply safe-yield reductions were too great, or hydro generation or value
losses were too large to be acceptable to stakeholders. Predictably, failures and
problems occurred most frequently for dry or drought conditions.
Experience using the CHEOPSTM operations model was gained concurrently with the
development of the independent operations recommendations. But with an infinite
number of possible operations scenarios, we needed a place to start. For the Catawba-
Wateree System, water storage (and flexibility to use it) was fundamental to addressing
the interests and water demands. With this recognition, the CHEOPSTm Ad Hoc
Committee worked with a Water Storage Flexibility Spectrum (WSFS) to consider
various operations scenarios.
The spectrum ranged from the storage flexibility (greatest) with no license limitations to
the flexibility (none) provided if there were no dams. The realistic spectrum ranged
between Baseline conditions (how the Project is currently operated) and Run-of-River
(outflows equal inflows). Except for a few stakeholders with interests in Run-of-River,
most stakeholders acknowledged that the eventual preferred scenario would be
somewhere within this realistic spectrum.
All scenarios looked out 51 years using day-by-day inflows from the previous 51-year
period-of-record, adjusted for increased water withdrawal demands and increased
reservoir sedimentation. Conservatism was added because the period-of-record drought
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 8
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
occurred near the end of the period-of-record inflows, and, therefore, in the projected 51
years, the timing of the worst drought inflows corresponded to the timing of greatest
projected water supply needs and greatest increased sedimentation.
Understanding the total system storage was complicated by both the unevenness of the
storage locations in the Project (86 percent of the Project's Total Usable Storage is in
lakes James, Norman, Wylie, and Wateree) and the unevenness of the demands on
storage. It was further complicated by the unevenness of the inflows due to the large
geographic area covered by the Project. These three factors caused the scenarios to be
driven more by certain inputs and led to "choke" points in the system.
To speed model processing time, the Committee identified three levels of analysis, each
with increasing complexity and processing time. The Level 1 analysis used only flow
inputs and calculated output for three 3-year periods - typical wet, normal and dry (but
not the driest). Level 2 included the full 51-year period-of-record inflows and outputs,
and Level 3 looked at output sensitivities to several variables (e.g., future inflows (very
sensitive)).
With the Level 1 analysis the Committee first looked at Baseline and Run-of-River
scenarios plus four additional Information Scenarios that each optimized the scenario
elements for one of the following: habitat, water use, river-based recreation flows, and
property interests. Graphical representations of the reservoir levels output also helped
stakeholders determine if their water quantity-related interests were being met.
Along with the flows, reservoir elevations, and energy outputs, the CHEOPSTm raw
output was processed to calculate a Performance Measure Evaluation Spreadsheet
(PMES). The elements of the PMES (developed by the CHEOPSTm Ad Hoc Committee)
were grouped into the relevant stakeholder interests to evaluate performance for fish
and aquatics interests, recreation interests, water users' interests, energy production
and other interests. The energy production performance measures were calculated for
the Project as a whole, but the other interests were calculated for each development and
affected river reach.
When the preliminary recommended scenario elements were available, the Committee
had an improved knowledge of system limitations. Through more than 16 scenarios, the
CHEOPSTm Ad Hoc Committee and ultimately all the stakeholders, reviewed the output
and performance measures to conclude on the preferred operations scenario. Key
factors in reaching the preferred scenario are noted in the appropriate operations areas
below.
5.3 Reservoir Elevations
5.3.1 Interests Affecting Level Management -The proposed Reservoir
Elevations License Article would establish normal operational elevation limits in
the license for the first time, although the Licensee has voluntarily managed the
elevations to a set of guide curves over the last couple of decades. Reservoir
elevations are managed to support water quality, storage capacity, thermal plant
operations, hydro operations flexibility, water supply, habitat protection for near-
shore lands and shallow-water areas, and spring fish spawning, as well as a
diverse set of recreation interests and aesthetics, which in turn often support
community economic interests. Reservoir levels are also managed to address
downstream interests - flows for aquatic communities, recreation, water supply,
and water quality. All of these interests were represented in the Stakeholder
Teams.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 9
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.3.2 Studies - The results of several studies had to converge to evaluate
this and other operational articles. The CHEOPSTM Operation Simulation Model
was developed to evaluate the water storage capability of the system to operate
under various scenarios and therefore provide stakeholders with information on
how well or poorly any particular scenario met their individual and collective
interests related to water quantity. Input to the CHEOPSTM model includes LIP
stages, triggers and flow reductions; water withdrawal projections, Critical
Reservoir Elevations, recreation flow levels and schedules, minimum continuous
aquatic flows, Critical Flows, hydro unit performance, reservoir bathymetry,
sedimentation projections, and 51-year inflow history.
5.3.3 Decision Process
5.3.3.1 Competing Stakeholder Interests -Although there were a
large number of interests and considerations in the development of
the proposed Reservoir Elevations License Article, those that
dominated the considerations (both as a combination of priorities and
impacts on other priorities) were as follows. The interests related to
lake recreation, aesthetics, community economic interests, fish
spawning and near-shore habitat enhancement, and water supply, as
well as better assurance in providing required downstream flows to
enhance aquatic resources, river recreation, and assure water supply
and water quality, argued for higher reservoir levels, more restricted
level variation, and elimination or reduction of the winter drawdowns
at the four largest storage reservoirs. Hydro operations flexibility and
flood management interests argued for increased level variation, and
flood management interests argued for lower reservoir levels, taking
into consideration the high flow impacts of upstream reservoirs on
downstream reservoirs.
5.3.3.2 Sensitivities - The sensitivity of impacts on other interests
to the Normal Maximum Elevations was small; these elevations were
set to full-pond for all the reservoirs. The sensitivity of hydro
operational impacts, flood management and providing minimum flows
for aquatic communities to the Normal Minimum Elevations and
Normal Target Elevations (particularly on lakes James, Norman,
Wylie, and Wateree) was significant. There was also a requirement to
balance the potential for flooding (particularly on Lake Wateree) with
the need to maintain levels above the Critical Reservoir Elevations
which is of particular concern during drought conditions.
5.3.4 Other Alternatives Considered - Higher Normal Target Elevations, up
to full pond, were considered but not included because of the increased potential
for flooding but with no real improvement on recreation use and only slight
improvement in aesthetics. A more restricted operating band was considered
but not included because it further impacted the hydro developments' ability to
load follow and provide peak power generation, two of the key benefits of the
Project for the electric system, and it only produced a slight improvement in
aesthetics. Further decreasing or eliminating the spring drawdowns, including
run-of-river operations at or near full pond, was considered but not included
because of the decreased ability to manage flooding and the further reductions
on the hydro developments' ability to produce peaking energy and follow load.
The ability to use the reservoirs for flat-water recreation during the off-peak
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 10
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
recreation season (i.e., October 1 through March 31) was addressed by limiting
the depths of the winter drawdowns to ensure that at least one (and in most
cases, several) public motor boat launching ramps remained operational during
the winter drawdown.
5.3.5 Article - All of the normal target, minimum and maximum reservoir
elevations in the preferred operations scenario are included in the proposed
Reservoir Elevations License Article.
5.3.6 Conclusions - The proposed Reservoir Elevations License Article
identifies a balance of stakeholder interests that is consistent with the system's
capability to meet the requirements in this and the seven other proposed
operations articles. In general the article's content results in the following.
5.3.6.1 For the first time the License will have a fixed Normal
Operating Range for reservoir elevations.
5.3.6.2 The Normal Target Elevations will be at or slightly higher
than the guide curve elevations that have been used voluntarily for the
past 15 years.
5.3.6.3 The four large reservoirs with winter drawdowns (Lake
James, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Lake Wateree) will continue to
have drawdowns, but they will be regulated by the License, be
reduced in the elevation drop, and will begin later and end earlier to
keep higher reservoir levels for a longer period during the spring,
summer, and fall recreation seasons.
5.3.6.4 The day-to-day elevations will fluctuate more frequently
than in the past due in large part to the significantly higher minimum
flow demands in the proposed Minimum Flows License Article.
However, the fluctuations will be limited to a relatively small range.
5.4 Spring Reservoir Level Stabilization Program
5.4.1 Interests Influencing the Stabilization Program - The Licensee has
been voluntarily implementing a spring reservoir level stabilization program in
the four reservoirs with winter drawdowns (Lake James, Lake Norman, Lake
Wylie, and Lake Wateree) in consultation with state resource agencies for more
than 20 years. Stakeholders had a broad interest in protecting and enhancing
reservoir near-shore spawning habitat. Addressing this broad interest with more
specifics, the resources agencies were interested in formalizing the stabilization
program (putting it in the License) and fine tuning the initiation triggers to be
more closely linked to the beginning of spawning for the principal species of
interest (bass) in each of the four reservoirs.
5.4.2 Studies - No studies were completed to specifically address this
program; however, the fish communities in the reservoirs were generally
assessed in the Reservoir Fisheries Assessment" as part the Aquatics 01 study
plan. In addition, the Operations 02 (Reservoir Level) study evaluated lake level
fluctuations during fish spawning seasons for the period-of-record, and the
11 Relationships of Fish Community Characteristics to Environmental Parameters in the Catawba-Wateree
Reservoirs (Aquatics 01).
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 11
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Aquatics 02 (Reservoir Fish Habitat) study was completed to quantify the
shallow-water fish habitat gains or losses with changes in water levels.
5.4.3 Decision Process - The present voluntary implementation of the
program was based on a temperature trigger of Lake Wateree reaching 65°F or
observations of actual fish spawning. Once the trigger was reached in Lake
Wateree, there was a staged implementation schedule for the other three
reservoirs. A small group of interested agencies and the Licensee revised the
program to include separate temperature triggers (or direct observations of
spawning) at each individual reservoir with winter drawdowns. The program
was reviewed with the Stakeholder Teams.
5.4.4 Alternatives Considered - No significant alternatives were considered
other than discussions about the consultation protocols and where to locate the
temperature monitors. The conclusions appear in the proposed Spring
Reservoir Stabilization Program License Article and in the Agreement.
Consideration was given to implementing the program on additional reservoirs,
but the stable levels on those reservoirs make that unnecessary.
5.4.5 Article and Provisions - The proposed License Article formalizes the
program structure and identifies the consultation requirements for implementing
the program and for developing any future modifications to submit for
Commission approval. The Agreement also adds some additional context about
where to locate the monitors and how the locations will be determined in
cooperation with state agencies.
5.4.6 Conclusions - The already successful stabilization program promoting
fish spawning in the reservoirs with winter drawdowns has been formalized and
enhanced. There is no need for stabilization in other reservoirs because they
will have much less level variability over the entire calendar year, and these
levels were already stable during spawning.
5.5 Recreation Flows
5.5.1 Interests Influencing Recreation Flows - The Recreation Use and
Needs Study 12 indicated a considerable interest in river-based recreation, and
the Stakeholder Team interests supported that conclusion. The interests were
paddling, including whitewater experiences, and angling both by wading and by
boat. The angling was of particular interest in the stocked trout fishery of the
Bridgewater (Lake James) Regulated River Reach. Increased recreation flows
delivered mostly on weekends would reduce the capability for the Project to
provide peaking and load following during times when those capabilities were
more valued. Recreation flows also expend the water storage in the reservoirs
and contribute to lowering reservoir levels during periods of low inflow (but to a
lesser extent than the minimum continuous flows).
5.5.2 Studies - The Recreation Flow Study tested a range of potential
recreation flows with an experienced set of paddlers and anglers to identify the
optimum and minimum recreational flows in the reaches below the Bridgewater,
Oxford, Great Falls, Wylie, and Wateree developments. Because of the interest
in wade fishing below Bridgewater, a maximum acceptable recreational flow was
also assessed at that location.
12 Catawba-Wateree Recreation Use and Needs Study (Rec 01).
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 12
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.5.3 Decision Process - The Recreational Flow Study Team, many of
whose members were participants in the recreational flow assessments,
identified the optimum flows and recommended the flow schedules. Their
recommendations were regularly reviewed by the Stakeholder Teams and
adjusted accordingly. One of the last recommendations was to evenly divide the
number of days at Bridgewater with flows preferred by anglers and flows
preferred by paddlers to fairly accommodate both interests. The upper end of
the acceptable flow range for float angling and the lower end of the acceptable
flow range for paddling overlap. The recreational flow release schedule for each
of the five developments includes 10 hours of discretionary flow scheduling (20
hours at Great Falls), and the fixed schedules may be readjusted temporarily
each year by participants in the Recreational Flow Schedule Planning meeting.
5.5.4 Alternatives Discussed - Because the proposed flow rates are at or
are very close to the optimum rates developed in the study, there were no
significant alternative flows considered. While more frequent recreation flows
may have been preferred by some stakeholders, the proposed schedule
provided acceptable recreation opportunities. Even though the addition of
recreation flows, primarily on weekend days, reduces the energy production
values of the Project, these impacts tended to be small compared to the other
flow demands. Small increases or decreases in flow rates and scheduled times
tended not to have big impacts on the operational scenarios.
5.5.5 Articles and Provisions - The flows and the flow schedules are
captured in the proposed Recreation Flows License Article along with the
requirement for the annual Recreational Flow Schedule Planning meetings.
Limits are established for small temporary alterations in flow rates and
schedules within which Commission approval is not required. Details and
organization of the Recreational Flow Schedule Planning meeting are provided
in the Agreement to allow flexibility to make improvements in the meeting
processes.
5.5.6 Conclusions - Below are some of the important measures in the
Agreement.
5.5.6.1 Recreational flows will be released at five developments to
provide paddling opportunities in six reaches, including the long and
short bypassed reaches at Great Falls.
5.5.6.2 River-based recreationists will have a dependable
schedule (posted on the Licensee's Web site) for when the flows for
recreation will be released in the river.
5.5.6.3 Forecasts of near-term unscheduled river flows posted on
the Licensee's Web site and toll-free telephone system several days
ahead of their release will add to the scheduled opportunities.
5.5.6.4 Some flow schedules will remain discretionary to support
specific community-related events.
5.5.6.5 Each year the Licensee will convene a group of river-
based recreation users and specialists to review the previous year's
schedules and plan the current year's schedules and community
events.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 13
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.5.6.6 Canoe and kayak access points will be added or enhanced
along the river reaches during the first 20 years (mostly the first five
years) of the New License (see the proposed Recreation
Management Plan License Article).
5.6 Minimum Flows
5.6.1 Interests Influencing Minimum Flows - Stakeholders had general
interests in protecting and enhancing fish populations and aquatic communities
in the rivers and tributaries. They also had general interests in reestablishing
migration of populations of native, naturally reproducing diadromous species to
their historic reaches (including American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring,
American eel, striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon). The
Aquatics Resource Committee converted these broad species interests into
target species and developed detailed flow-versus-habitat relationships to
specifically address those species' needs. The Aquatics Resource Committee
considered minimum flows at all 11 developments, but was more focused on
flows from developments that fed regulated river reaches and bypassed reaches
rather than directly into the next downstream reservoir. It was also necessary to
address South Carolina requirements for adequate downstream navigation flows
in the regulated river reaches. Some stakeholders also had interests in
establishing run-of-river operations and had a related interest to adapt Project
operation to better approximate unregulated (i.e., natural) conditions especially
during spring spawning.
5.6.2 Studies - The aquatics related studies 13 provided information in two
broad categories: (i) assessments of the existing aquatic communities in
regulated river reaches, tributaries, and bypassed reaches and (ii) assessments
of aquatic habitat-versus-flow relationships based on using the Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology (IFIM). The IFIM assessments included both one-
dimensional and two-dimensional models. The two-dimensional models were
used for reaches with more complicated hydraulics and streambed topologies
such as the shoals near Landsford Canal State Park and the Great Falls Long
Bypassed Reach. To effectively study more than 100 miles of regulated river
habitat, the Licensee conducted video helicopter surveys of all river sections.
These videos helped Study Team members pick potential study sites and
transects which were subsequently confirmed with site visits. Three two-
dimensional study sites were modeled along with 104 one-dimensional transects
and 11 wetted-perimeter transects. A total of 37 aquatic species/life stages
(including fish, macroinvertebrates, slider turtle, and the Rocky Shoals spiderlily)
were evaluated.
5.6.3 Decision Process
5.6.3.1 Aquatics Resource Committee Efforts - The Aquatics
Resource Committee and Study Team held more than 60 all-day
meetings during relicensing. At first, the meeting topics focused on
13 Fish Community Assessment (Aquatics 01), Reservoir Habitat Assessment (Aquatics 02), Diadromous
Fish Study (Aquatics 03. 1), Fish Passage Feasibility (Aquatics 03.2), Instream Flow Assessment (Aquatics
04), Fish Entrainment Evaluation (Aquatics 05), Mussel Survey (Aquatics 06), Macrobenthic Survey
(Aquatics 07), Snail Survey (Aquatics 07), Crayfish Survey (Aquatics 07).
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 14
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
site visits, selection of appropriate study methodologies, study plan
development, and selection and approval of study sites and transects.
As the fieldwork was completed and results presented, the Committee
focused on using the modeling tools that were developed to evaluate
various flow regimens and ultimately determine minimum continuous
flow and critical flow recommendations. During these deliberations,
the analysis focused almost entirely on the habitat goals of the state
and federal resource agencies (typically flows providing 80 percent of
unregulated (i.e., natural) Index C habitat) regardless of whether or
not the existing equipment at the developments could actually operate
at the recommended flows or whether the flows could be reliably
coordinated among all the developments.
5.6.3.2 Interactive Time Series Analysis OTSA) Spreadsheet to
Relate Flows and Habitat - Based on the studies and additional
agency information and input, the Committee identified the aquatic
species (i.e., fish, m acroi nve rteb rates, slider turtles and the Rocky
Shoals spiderlily (a South Carolina-listed plant)) for each of the
regulated and bypassed river reaches. The Licensee, with input and
oversight from Committee members, developed the ITSA tool to
evaluate the IFIM habitat results for various flow regimes. The ITSA
program operates in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and provides
indices to compare the habitat provided for a given flow regime to
both the existing regulated flow regime and the unregulated flow
regime. It uses a habitat-duration-curve metric such as Index C or
Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) to compare the habitat availability over
time between one scenario and another. Index C, the principal metric
chosen for use by the Committee, is defined as the mean of the total
weighted useable area (WUA) values between 50 and 100 percent
exceedance on the habitat duration curve. There is an individual
Index C value associated with each study subreach, for each flow, for
each month, and for each species and life stage. The portion of the
habitat duration curve between 50-100 percent exceedance
represents the lower half of the WUA values. The lower half of the
WUA values can be the result of flows that are either too high or too
low depending on the species and life stage being evaluated. Using
Index C as a metric is relevant because it is associated with the lower
or more critical end of the habitat scale and, as such, is a
conservative means of evaluating aquatic habitat gains. The AUC
metric is very similar to Index C except that it is the total area under
the habitat duration curve between 50-100 percent exceedance,
instead of the mean value between 50-100 percent exceedance.
5.6.3.3 Flow Development Process - The Committee worked
towards a goal of attaining flows providing 80 percent of unregulated
Index C habitat and used the ITSA Spreadsheet to develop
recommended flows. This involved an iterative process to determine
aquatic species/life stages that showed the largest sensitivity to
changes in flow of each modeled reach. The Committee then used
habitat results for these driver species to establish a preliminary flow
recommendation for each development. With that preliminary
recommendation, the Committee then reviewed the ITSA
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 15
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Spreadsheet habitat results at that flow for all of the other species and
guilds and made flow adjustments if necessary. Seasonal variations
in flows were also considered. The process required some trial and
error, but effectively determined the desired flows from each
development.
5.6.3.4 Peaking and Velocities Profiles - Once the Committee had
reached a flow recommendation, it reviewed individual transect
velocity profiles using the RHABSIM model to consider whether or not
the preliminary recommended flows needed further adjustment. Most
were left as calculated by the ITSA Spreadsheet. The Committee
then used "dual-flow" analysis to assess potential habitat losses due
to peaking operations to consider whether or not further flow
adjustments were suggested. Both analyses informed, but did not
drive the flow recommendations with the exception of spring stable
flow periods recommended below Lake Wateree (see next
Paragraph).
5.6.3.5 Additional Flow Considerations: Wateree Spring Stable
Flow Periods - To enhance spring spawning conditions for
diadromous fish species in the Wateree River (extending 76.8 miles
below the Project's most downstream development), the Committee
recommended and the Licensee agreed to endeavor in good faith to
provide two, 10-day stable flow periods each spring, one between
February 15 and April 1 and another between April 1 and May 15, if
the inflow conditions would sustain the flows without violating
reservoir level requirements.
5.6.3.6 Additional Flow Considerations: Wateree Floodplain
Inundation - To enhance floodplain spawning habitat (e.g., blueback
herring and other species) below the Wateree Development, the
Committee recommended that, when high inflows created spill
conditions at Wateree Hydro, the flow from the Wateree Development
be reduced gradually to extend the duration of floodplain inundation to
the extent possible to simulate natural conditions and still maintain
reservoir level requirements.
5.6.3.7 Catawba River Bypassed Reach - Both the analysis and
the determination of appropriate flows for this reach were complicated
by several factors. The most significant factor was Catawba Dam flow
release temperatures. Releases that are too cold were predicted to
have a negative impact on a population of mussels in the downstream
portion of the bypassed reach; while higher volume releases that are
too warm were predicted to have a negative impact on the stocked
cold-water trout fishery below the point at which the Catawba River
Bypassed Reach joins the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach (5.6
mi downstream from the Catawba Dam). Detailed temperature and
flow models were used to evaluate many different scenarios to find an
acceptable balance between mussel and trout habitat. Although the
agencies' interest was in having a self-sustaining (not stocked) trout
fishery in the Bridgewater Regulated River Reach, the water quality
model temperature results showed that the capacity of Lake James to
deliver cold water was not always adequate for that purpose. This
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 16
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
was particularly the case during high inflow conditions when warm
water flow contributions from tributaries (such as Muddy Creek)
elevate temperatures.
5.6.3.8 Great Falls Bypassed Reaches - In the Great Falls Short
Bypassed Reach (0.8 mi long), flow recommendations were made
based on 1-D IFIM modeling results in the upper portion of the reach.
In the Great Falls Long Bypassed Reach (2.2 mi long), flow
recommendations were based on 2-D IFIM modeling results from the
upper and lower portions of the reach, a wetted area photogrammetry
study of the entire reach, and a wetted perimeter study of the heavily
braided middle portion of the reach.
5.6.3.9 Critical Flows for the Low Inflow Protocol - Using
principally the ITSA Spreadsheet, the Committee determined the
Critical Flows to be used in connection with the Low Inflow Protocol
and the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol for each regulated
river reach and each re-watered bypassed reach. All Critical Flows
except from the Linville Dam (Bridgewater) were established at a 95
percent exceedance flow using the 51-year period-of-record inflows.
The flows at Linville Dam were set at a 97 percent exceedance flow
based on the smaller drainage area associated with Lake James, the
first reservoir on the system.
5.6.3.10 Flow Iterations - As described in Section 5.2, many flow
and reservoir level recommendations converged and were analyzed in
the CHEOPSTM computer model. When scenarios consisting of a set
of flow and reservoir level recommendations did not meet established
criteria (see Section 5.1.3), flow, reservoir level and LIP
recommendations were adjusted until all criteria were met. The result
yielded the minimum continuous flows presented in the Agreement.
5.6.4 Alternatives Discussed
5.6.4.1 Potential Ten-Year License Amendments - Filing the
Wateree Floodplain Inundation provisions as a proposed License
Article was considered, but ultimately rejected because of the difficulty
of establishing Commission-enforceable rules before having
experience with its implementation. The same situation existed for
the Wateree Spring Stable Flow periods. In both cases it was agreed
that the appropriate Parties would evaluate the experience with both
protocols after ten years and consider if the ten-year experience was
adequate to establish enforceable rules for either or both flow
regimens. If the experience did lead to appropriate rules, the
Licensee would propose New License Article(s) as an amendment to
the New License at that time.
5.6.4.2 Bypassed Reaches - The possibilities of providing flows in
the Paddy Creek Bypassed Reach (Bridgewater, 0.5 mi long) and the
Mountain Island Bypassed Reach (Mtn. Island Development, 0.5 mi
long) were considered by the Aquatics Resource Committee.
However, because of the limited potential increase in overall habitat
and the negative impacts of bypassing water on hydro generation, it
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 17
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
was agreed that, in exchange for adequate mitigation, no flow in these
bypasses would be required. There were also no recommended flows
in the Wateree Spillway Channel (Wateree Development). In the
course of the Aquatics Resource Committee discussions, the USFWS
stated that NOAA Fisheries had identified the Wateree Spillway
Channel (1.3 mi long) as prime shortnose sturgeon spawning habitat.
Because of the large capital cost of installing flow delivery devices,
lost generation, and minimal habitat gains (increases in shortnose
sturgeon spawning habitat of approximately 0.2 percent), no flows
were recommended by the Aquatics Resource Committee for this
spillway channel.
5.6.4.3 Oxford and Lookout Shoals - Oxford has a relatively short
regulated river reach (2.8 mi long) that would require a large capital
expenditure plus substantial loss of hydro value to meet the desired
habitat flows. Although the minimum flows at Oxford were increased
over existing flow conditions, they fell short of habitat targets, and
instead, it has been agreed to provide mitigation. There is a similar
situation at Lookout Shoals where the area downstream of the dam
(up to 1.3 mi long) is seasonally riverine depending on Lake Norman's
level. 14 Again, it was agreed to provide an increase in the continuous
minimum flows plus mitigation for this location.
5.6.5 Article - The seasonal minimum continuous flows for all the
developments are provided in the proposed Minimum Flows License Article.
The Agreement includes the potential to file two additional proposed New
License Articles after ten years of operational experience.
5.6.6 Mitigation - To mitigate for the Project impacts to the Paddy Creek
Bypassed Reach, the Oxford Regulated River Reach, the Lookout Shoals
Regulated River Reach and the Mountain Island Bypassed Reach, the
Agreement identifies a mitigation package for North Carolina. The mitigation
package was based on the methodology described in Stream Mitigation
Guidelines developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality in 2003. The
same methodology was used to formulate a mitigation package for South
Carolina to mitigate for unavoidable Project impacts to the Wylie Regulated
River Reach (25.6 mi long), the Great Falls Long and Short Bypassed Reaches,
and the Wateree Spillway Channel. These mitigation packages will be
recommended for consideration and approval in the 401 Water Quality
Certification processes for each state.
5.6.7 Conclusions - Below are some of the important measures in the
Agreement.
5.6.7.1 Continuous minimum flows will be provided in three
bypassed reaches with highest stakeholder interest for the first time in
more than 80 years.
14 The releases from the Lookout Shoals Development flow directly into Lake Norman. During Lake
Norman's winter drawdown, the very short reach just below the Lookout Shoals Development has some
characteristics of a regulated river reach.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 18
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.6.7.2 The Project's principal regulated river reaches will have
significantly higher aquatic habitat flows than under current conditions.
5.6.7.3 Typically the Wateree Regulated River Reach will have
two, 10-day spring stable flow periods to enhance spawning.
5.6.7.4 Inundation of the Wateree River floodplain will be
enhanced through gradual reductions of operations at the end of high
inflow events.
5.6.7.5 Critical Flows in the LIP and MEP will provide a level of
aquatic habitat protection that has never existed before.
5.7 Wylie High Inflow Protocol
5.7.1 Interests Influencing the Wylie High Inflow Protocol -After the
recommended preliminary aquatic flows below Wylie Hydro were combined with
the recommended reservoir elevations, the recreation flows, the water user
flows and the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) stage triggers in the CHEOPSTM
operations model, the operational scenario could not satisfy the four high priority
criteria listed in Paragraph 5.1.3. Some trial runs lowered Mountain Island Lake
elevations well below the Critical Reservoir Elevation and severely lowered Lake
James; other scenarios caused the LIP to enter Stage 4 (a potentially
unsustainable stage involving emergency water-use restrictions). Based on
numerous alternative runs, the minimum continuous flows from the Wylie
Development emerged as the dominant factor affecting scenario outcomes.
5.7.2 Studies - No additional studies were performed, but additional
CHEOPSTm runs for various operational scenarios were completed and
compared, along with checks on habitat gains or losses using the ITSA
Spreadsheet.
5.7.3 Decision Process - It was clear to most but not all members of the
Aquatics Resource Committee that the higher minimum continuous flows
recommended for the spring at Wylie Dam could not be maintained during dry
and drought conditions without leading to serious consequences to the reservoir
system. After much discussion on both the flows and what conditions would
trigger the High Inflow Protocol, the Committee concluded on the conditions in
the proposed Wylie High Inflow Protocol License Article.
5.7.4 Alternatives Considered - The Aquatics Resource Committee
considered several options to access more storage in North Carolina reservoirs,
including eliminating the winter reservoir drawdowns, using the storage in the
reservoirs in the near-term before the onset of additional growth in public water
supply requirements, increasing the drawdown at Lake James, and additional
high inflow protocols at Bridgewater and Oxford. None of these alternatives
proved viable because they either resulted in excessive reservoir drawdowns,
excessive hydro operational impacts, or were ineffectual.
5.7.5 Article and Provisions - The proposed New License Article defines
the inflow conditions that would trigger the Wylie High Inflow Protocol and also
the conditions determining its duration.
5.7.6 Conclusions - Implementation of the Wylie High Inflow Protocol
enables the flows to approach the desired flows for habitat needs in many years
when inflows are sufficient, but adequately preserves Project storage to reduce
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 19
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
the possibility of severe upstream consequences (LIP Stage 4) during drought
conditions.
5.8 Flows Supporting Public Water Supply and Industrial Processes
5.8.1 Interests Influencing Flows for Public Water Supply - Stakeholders
had general interests in assuring long-term water availability and quality for
public water supply. The public water suppliers represented on the Stakeholder
Teams, who in turn formed an advisory group of more than 35 public water
suppliers, had more specific interests. Overall, they wanted to assure that their
current and projected water needs would be given at least equal consideration
to other likely license requirements (e.g., aquatic flows) and wished it to be
generally recognized in the deliberations that the availability of Project waters for
drinking water directly impacted more than 1.3 million people in the region.
More specifically, they wanted to assure perpetual storage at or above the
amounts needed to meet long-term demands (safe yield). They also focused on
the process and procedures used by the Licensee and the FERC to approve
adding or expanding water intakes on the Project. There are also several
industries including a paper mill and a steam plant located on regulated river
reaches that require certain minimum flows to meet their requirements.
5.8.2 Studies - The Water Supply Study projected water withdrawal
requirements and flow returns for 50 years. These withdrawals and returns
were used in the CHEOPSTM operations model to develop the preferred
operations scenario (see Section 5.2). The Low Inflow Protocol Study provided
a framework for the staged water use reductions during low inflow conditions.
5.8.3 Decision Process - Most of the detailed discussion and conclusions
reached were with the Water Users Group (an Ad Hoc Committee), which
included the Licensee, public water suppliers and the three regional Councils of
Government. Not specifically related to relicensing, but being concurrently
considered, was the Licensee's proposal to charge withdrawal fees, under the
Commission's standard joint-use article. Although the Licensee's proposal
would use the fee collections to reinvest in improving the system storage, the
fee issue became one of the most broadly contentious issues in the relicensing
process.
The water suppliers offered a counter proposal that would create a voluntary
group of users that pay dues to fund projects that would protect and enhance
water quantity and quality. The proposal was acceptable to the stakeholders
and the Licensee, and much of the remaining discussion focused on developing
membership requirements, projects to be funded by the dues, dues amounts,
and a dues collection schedule. The results are shown in Appendix N of the
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement. Two important provisions also appear
in Appendix N: the Licensee will not charge withdrawal fees to members in
good standing of the WMG for the term of the New License, and the Licensee
will also pay dues to be a WMG member.
Much of the remaining discussion centered on capturing the legal language of
the fee issue (preserving everyone's rights), addressed procedures for obtaining
permits and easements for expanded or new water withdrawal facilities, and the
future use of models and studies developed during relicensing.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 20
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.8.4 Alternatives Discussed - No significant alternatives other than those
described in the above Paragraph were considered.
5.8.5 Article and Provisions - The proposed License Article includes the
flows that will permit continued operations of the existing water intakes for public
water supplies and industries on the regulated river reaches. The
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement captures the provisions related to
easements and permits, use of studies and models, and water withdrawal fees.
5.8.6 Conclusions - Below are some of the important measures in the
Agreement.
5.8.6.1 Operations under the New License and the LIP drought
response plans are based on the most extensive assessment of
current and future water demands ever completed in the Basin.
5.8.6.2 Public water supply needs were projected to Year 2058,
and these projections were incorporated into the operational
scenarios analyzed by the CHEOPSTM model.
5.8.6.3 The Licensee will maintain the CHEOPSTM model,
including updates in water withdrawals and other input parameters, for
use by the Licensee, water withdrawers, and state agencies in
considering future withdrawal requests.
5.8.6.4 The Licensee will make the comprehensive, basin-wide
water supply study available for use by water suppliers and state
agencies for evaluations of future water withdrawal requirements.
5.8.6.5 The LIP provides a drought response that coordinates
actions by the Licensee and the public water supply systems over the
Basin, extending the point at which water demands exceed safe yields
of some reservoirs by a decade or more.
5.8.6.6 A Water Management Group (WMG) of public water
suppliers and the Licensee will form in 2007 to identify and fund
projects to improve the capability of the reservoir system to provide
public water supply, industrial and irrigation water, cooling for larger
power plants and enhanced water quality.
5.8.6.7 Normal Minimum Elevations, which among other things
improve the management of storage, will be in the License for the first
time.
5.8.6.8 The Low Inflow Protocol defines a set of progressive
staged procedures implemented to preserve water supplies and
endure even the more severe droughts like the one in 1998-2002.
5.8.6.9 Critical Reservoir Elevations and Critical Flows are
established based on relicensing studies and included in the Low
Inflow Protocol and the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 21
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.9 Low Inflow Protocol
5.9.1 Interests Influencing the Low Inflow Protocol (LIP) - Managing the
available water supply and drought management were the most requested study
topics received in the Catawba-Wateree relicensing process.
5.9.2 Studies - The Low Inflow Protocol Study (Operations 05) developed a
LIP. The first drafts were developed by a group that included the Licensee,
public water suppliers, and state agencies. The LIP became an element of the
operations scenario development (refer to Section 5.2).
5.9.3 Decision Process - The basic staged structure of the initial LIP drafts
changed little throughout the development of the preferred operations scenario.
However, the water quantity demands on the system required earlier and more
aggressive reductions in water use in the LIP than was initially anticipated.
Because discretionary hydro generation stops during LIP Stage 0, the modeling
calculated discretionary hydro generation would be lost 39 percent of the time
during the next 50 years.
5.9.4 Alternatives Discussed - No alternatives to implementing an LIP were
discussed. The actual protocol did, however, undergo the intensive scrutiny of
water users and was validated via CHEOPSTM modeling. Numerous iterations
of stage triggers, corresponding flow reductions and Critical Flows were
necessary in conjunction with iterations in flow releases and reservoir levels to
achieve the sustainable balance and benefits of this Agreement.
5.9.5 Article and Provisions - Because the LIP was filed with the License
Application, the article anticipates Commission approval of the LIP and inclusion
in the New License. The article also anticipates improvements to the LIP when
it is used. The Agreement calls for the Drought Management Advisory Group
(DMAG) to periodically assess whether improvements are warranted and for the
Licensee to submit to the Commission for approval any major LIP improvements
to which the DMAG agrees by consensus.
5.9.6 Conclusions - It became evident during the relicensing process that
this protocol is absolutely necessary to meet the escalating basin water and
power needs and protect and enhance environmental resources through low
water conditions. The LIP requires basin-wide coordinated reductions in water
use during droughts, and it is this coordination that will allow the Project to
sustain the expected growth in water demand.
5.10 Maintenance and Emergency Protocol
5.10.1 Interests Influencing the Maintenance and Emergency Protocol (MEP)
- Stakeholders were interested in establishing notification, consultation,
communications, and mitigation approaches to use during times when the
Project is required to be operated abnormally resulting either from a planned
condition (e.g., maintenance) or an unplanned condition (e.g., dam safety, high
water, or power grid emergencies).
5.10.2 Studies - Other than the effort to prepare the MEP, no studies
specifically related to the MEP were conducted. However, the knowledge from
the IFIM studies used to relate flows in the regulated river reaches to aquatic
habitat was considered informally in assessing the mitigation suggestions.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 22
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
5.10.3 Decision Process - The Licensee identified the most likely abnormal
conditions (in addition to low inflows, which are addressed in the Low Inflow
Protocol) and proposed the mitigation actions and communications that the
Licensee would take during abnormal periods through its Maintenance and
Emergency Protocol. Some conditions were added from the Licensee's initial
proposal, and the discussions centered on who would be notified and how
mitigation could be improved to minimize the impacts of abnormal operations.
5.10.4 Alternatives Discussed - No significant alternatives were discussed
other than as indicated in the above Paragraph.
5.10.5 Articles and Provisions - Because the MEP was filed with the License
Application, the article anticipates Commission approval of the MEP and
inclusion in the New License. The article also provides that the MEP be
evaluated after each use to assess whether improvements are warranted and
whether to submit a revision to the Commission for approval.
5.10.6 Conclusions - The MEP will establish approaches that can be
anticipated and understood during abnormal operating conditions.
6.0 Water Quality Articles and Agreements
6.1 The following proposed License Articles address the Licensee's water quality
improvement and monitoring requirements.
6.1.1 ARTICLE - Water Quality Monitoring Plan
6.1.2 ARTICLE - Flow and Water Quality Implementation Plan
6.2 Interests Affecting Water Quality - All stakeholders acknowledge the Licensee's
responsibility to meet state water quality standards that are related to Project operations.
These standards are primarily temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) in hydro station
flow releases.
6.3 Studies - The Licensee combined years of historical water quality monitoring
records with supplemental water quality sampling conducted in 2004 to develop
extensive and highly calibrated hydrodynamic and water quality computer models of the
tailrace and the downstream riverine systems (River Management System) and
reservoirs (CE-QUAL-W2). These models were used individually and collectively to
characterize the downstream temperatures and dissolved oxygen concentrations (and
transport of other water quality constituents) under a variety of Project operations, which
is beyond the capability of empirical data collection. The models were used to establish
the extent of Project influence and non-point (nutrient) influence on downstream water
quality, to evaluate feasible alternative operating or engineering scenarios, and to test
the water quality implications of certain aquatic in-stream flow proposals and low-inflow
situations.
6.4 Decision Process - Neither the Agreement nor the License Application finalizes
the terms of the North Carolina or South Carolina Section 401 Water Quality
Certifications. Rather, the focus of the Agreement and proposed License Articles is to
develop stakeholder recommendations to be submitted during both states' water quality
certification processes.
6.5 Alternatives Considered - There are no alternatives to securing the required
water quality certifications other than a waiver by the applicable state agency of the
requirement to get a water quality certification. Water Quality Resource Committee
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 23
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
members reviewed model results of various operational scenarios and concluded that
primary hydro project impacts on water quality would be relatively unaffected under the
various operating scenarios. Nutrient concentrations, while not a hydro project
operational impact, were shown not to respond significantly to the spectrum of operating
scenarios ranging from current operations to run-of-river operations. Water Quality
Resource Committee members developed a "good faith" list of potential flow and water
quality improvement modifications, but acknowledge that the governing process and final
decision will be rendered by each state's water quality agency.
6.6 The Article's Structure - Based on consultation, stakeholders will recommend a
Flow and Water Quality Implementation Plan (FWQIP) that includes station modifications
for dissolved oxygen compliance; implementation schedules; mitigation plans and
monitoring plans to be considered in each state's water quality certification process. The
FWQIP will include interim flow measures to implement between issuance of the New
License and completion of equipment modifications. At several locations, the water
quality equipment modification is also the means to deliver minimum continuous flows.
6.7 Conclusions - After these recommendations have been modified and/or
accepted in approved water quality certifications, they will be included in the
implementation plan that will be filed with the FERC after issuance of the New License.
In addition to operating existing DO-enhancing equipment, the Licensee will replace
hydro runners with new aerating runners at the Bridgewater, Rhodhiss, Oxford, Wylie,
and Wateree developments to provide minimum continuous flows and increased
dissolved oxygen; make modifications at the Great Falls diversion dams to provide flows
into the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches; and add aerating flow valves at the Oxford
Development and Catawba Dam to provide minimum continuous flows and improved
dissolved oxygen.
7.0 Gaging and Monitoring Articles and Agreements
7.1 The following two proposed License Articles address the Licensee's gaging and
monitoring requirements.
7.1.1 ARTICLE - Flow and Reservoir Elevation Monitoring
7.1.2 ARTICLE - Funding for USGS Streamflow Gages
7.2 Interests Influencing Gaging and Monitoring - Compliance monitoring and
reporting will be required to validate the Licensee's compliance with flow release, water
quality and reservoir level requirements of the New License and 401 Water Quality
Certifications.
7.3 Studies - Data collected in 2004 and modeling were used to determine the
downstream extent of dissolved oxygen enhancements. Also the Water Quality
Resource Committee discussed the continued accuracy of current water quality monitor
locations given recent station modifications (buttresses) for flood stability.
7.4 Decision Process - Stakeholders used study findings coupled with site-by-site
assessments of viable and accurate water quality monitor locations to develop a Water
Quality Monitoring Plan.
7.5 Alternatives Considered - None.
7.6 The Articles' Structure - The Water Quality Monitoring Plan requires the
Licensee to monitor minimum continuous flows and recreation flows at applicable
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 24
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
developments, dissolved oxygen and temperatures at all developments, and reservoir
levels at all developments. By June 30 of each year, the Licensee will submit monitoring
results in an Annual Report for the previous full calendar year. In addition to
compliance-related monitoring and reporting, non-compliance-related requirements
include providing monthly interim water quality data summaries to each state water
quality agency from April through November of each year, supplemental trout habitat
monitoring below Bridgewater Hydro and water quality trend monitoring in major
tributaries that enter the Project in both North Carolina and South Carolina.
7.7 Conclusions - As with the FWQIP, stakeholders will recommend the Water
Quality Monitoring Plan to be considered in each state's water quality certification
process. After these recommendations have been modified and/or accepted in an
approved water quality certification, they will be included in the implementation plan that
will be filed with the FERC after issuance of the New License.
8.0 Species Protection Article and Agreements
8.1 The following proposed License Article addresses the Licensee's Species
Protection Plans.
8.1.1 ARTICLE - Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Protection
Plans
8.2 Interests Affecting Species Protection - There was considerable general
stakeholder interest in protecting Rare, Threatened and Endangered (RTE) species, but
specific interests in the species and their locations were mostly represented by the
federal and state resource agencies. There was one exception: a South Carolina-listed
species, the Rocky Shoals spiderlily, received considerable general interest because of
its beautiful spring flowers, its location in the river at the Landsford Canal State (SC)
Park, and its rarity in the southeast. These spiderlilies are an important public attraction
during their spring flowering period.
8.3 Studies - Several studies evaluated the potential for the occurrence of rare,
threatened or endangered plant, aquatic or wildlife species in the Project area as well as
the potential Project impacts. These studies included Fish Community Assessment
(Aquatics 01); Diadromous Fish Studies (Aquatics 03); Mussel Survey (Aquatics 06);
M acroi nverteb rate Surveys of the Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Facilities (Aquatics
07); Macro-Snail Surveys for Catawba-Wateree Relicensing (Aquatics 07); Crayfish
Surveys for Catawba-Wateree Relicensing (Aquatics 07); Botanical Study of the Great
Falls Bypassed Reaches of the Catawba River (Terrestrial 03); Rare, Threatened, and
Endangered Amphibians and Reptiles within the Catawba-Wateree System (Terrestrial
04); Rare, Threatened, and Endangered (RTE) Mammals of the Catawba-Wateree
Project Area in North and South Carolina (Terrestrial 04); A Biological Survey For
Breeding, Migratory, Wintering, and Resident Avian Species Associated with the
Catawba-Wateree Relicensing Project Area in North Carolina and South Carolina
(Terrestrial 05); Herpetological Inventory of the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches, South
Carolina (Terrestrial 06); and, The Mammals of the Great Falls Bypassed Reaches
(Great Falls-Dearborn Development) in South Carolina (Terrestrial 06).
8.4 Decision Process - Most of the Terrestrial Resource Committee's efforts
focused on identifying the RTE species for the Project area, establishing procedures for
maintaining the RTE lists for the most current information, and establishing some
approaches for dealing with the RTEs that would be further detailed in the actual
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 25
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Species Protection Plans (SPPs). The structure of the SPPs was also established. The
SPPs for each state- and federal-listed species were prepared during the relicensing
process and were commented on by stakeholders and appropriate other agencies that
were not Stakeholder Team Members. The SPPs for federally listed species are filed
with the License Application. In establishing the minimum flows in the proposed
Minimum Flows License Article, the Aquatics Resource Committee considered a habitat
suitability curve for the Rocky Shoals spiderlily to evaluate flow impacts on the plants in
the same way as it did for various aquatic species. Although the USFWS and NOAA
Fisheries were invited to be participants in the Stakeholder Teams, neither chose to
participate as Team Members. However, USFWS representatives remained active in
the relicensing as interested parties and were active on the Aquatics and other Resource
Committees. The relicensing process did not conclude with an agreement on a fish
passage prescription or a reservation of authority. After much discussion about
protecting the negotiated gains in other resource areas in case there is a future fish
passage prescription, the Licensee agreed that construction costs and operation and
maintenance costs related to facilities to implement any future fish passage prescription
would not affect other aspects of the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement. However,
if any agency prescribed different flows, the Agreement includes provisions for dealing
with this inconsistency with the Agreement.
8.5 Alternatives Considered - Other than alternatives discussed in relation to the
minimum flows for aquatic communities (see Paragraph 5.17), there were no significant
alternatives considered that were not addressed in the proposed License Articles or in
the provisions.
8.6 Article Structure - Because the SPPs for federally listed species were filed with
the License Application, the proposed License Article anticipates Commission approval
of the Plans and inclusion in the New License. The proposed License Article also
requires maintaining the federal RTE list for the Project in accordance with the protocol
established by the stakeholders. Although not in the proposed License Article, the
Agreement outlines a similar approach for maintaining the list for NC- and SC-listed
species.
8.7 Conclusions - In addition to the SPP and the protocols for maintaining the lists,
important measures in the SPP and the Agreement include:
8.7.1 The Licensee will collect bald eagle information (e.g., new nest sites,
existing status, recruitment estimates) related to the Project area after five years
and then every three years for the term of the New License.
8.7.2 The Licensee will form a partnership with SCDPRT to jointly develop
and implement a monitoring plan for the spiderlilies at Landsford Canal State
Park.
9.0 Public Information Article and Agreements
9.1 The following proposed License Article addresses the Licensee's public
information requirements.
9.1.1 ARTICLE - Public Information
9.2 Interests Influencing Public Information - Stakeholders' interests in public
information can be grouped into three general categories: (i) Information to advise the
public about the Project's recreational opportunities; (ii) information to enhance the
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 26
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
public's use of these recreation resources such as appropriate signage and interpretive
information about Project-area cultural and historic resources; and (iii) public safety
information (including warnings) related to use of the Project's recreational resources.
9.3 Studies - Because of the widespread interests and both general and local
stakeholder knowledge related to public information needs, the Stakeholder Teams did
not create an Ad Hoc Committee to address public information. Instead, the four
regional Advisory Groups addressed the needs and spent considerable time discussing
possible improvements. Except for the Recreation Flow Communications Study, the
Stakeholder Team discussions provided the information that may have otherwise been
provided by a study.
9.4 Decision Process - The stakeholders addressed both the general needs (e.g.,
what information might apply to all access areas) and specific needs (e.g., warning
sirens at Riverbend Park). The results are combined in the proposed New License
Article and the provisions in Section 8.0 of the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement.
9.5 Alternatives Considered - The topic receiving the most attention was whether
and how to address non-English-speaking recreation users; notably Spanish speakers.
Some wanted all signage to include Spanish; others thought it was not needed. The
conclusion, captured in the provisions, was to include (i) English and universal symbols
at all access areas; (ii) warning signs at all the developments' tailraces in both English
and Spanish because no appropriate universal symbols exist for warning of potential
rising water in the tailraces; and (iii) a review of the demographic needs of recreation
users with local governments, state demographers, and marine commissions at ten-year
or less intervals.
9.6 Article and Provisions - The proposed New License Article identifies the
information to appear on the Licensee's Web site and includes detailed information
about reservoir levels and recreational flows that are prescribed in other proposed New
License Articles. Not included in the Article is information that will appear in the
Licensee's Public Safety Plans or Recreation Management Plan filed with the
Commission. The provisions cover several additional details, such as completing a
communication technology review and maintaining the list of Parties to the Agreement.
9.7 Conclusions - Information regarding reservoir level ranges, water release times,
generation schedules, and maps to public access areas will be provided. River paddlers
and anglers will have access to information on releases from dams. Information posted
on signs will be provided in English and universal symbols with signage also in Spanish
at the tailraces. A map of historic canoe trails in South Carolina will also be developed.
10.0 Recreation Articles and Agreements
10.1 The following two proposed License Articles address Project recreation facilities
and future planning for the Project-related recreation needs of the area.
10.1.1 ARTICLE - Recreation Management Plan
10.1.2 ARTICLE - Recreation Planning
10.2 Interests Affecting Recreation - The adequacy of current recreational facilities at
the Project, new recreational interests, and anticipating future recreational needs via
land protection were prevalent interests during the relicensing process. The
stakeholders also had strong interest in adding swimming beaches, trails, and additional
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 27
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
facilities for recreation on the regulated river reaches. In addition the stakeholders
identified many specific facility needs throughout the Basin.
10.3 Studies - The Recreation Use and Needs (RUN) Study developed and used
ground and mail surveys and updated population projections to predict current and
future recreation needs. The Stakeholder Teams and Recreation Ad Hoc Committee
(AHC) included a number of city and county planners and councils of government.
Although the RUN Study identified needs for very specific locations, it (along with non-
relicensing studies) also pointed to the following general areas:
10.3.1 The Licensee has had in place for a number of years an Access Area
Improvement Initiative (AAII). The AAII is a program in which the Licensee
offers to lease access areas to state agencies, local counties, municipalities and
commercial operators. The lessee then has the opportunity to add facilities and
amenities that address the local recreation needs. During the relicensing
process, the Licensee convened representatives from the region's cities, towns,
counties and councils of government to review and revise the AAII lease
program. The AAII was modified to be more appealing to the local
governments. The most significant change was to lengthen the term of the
lease to better justify investments into the facilities.
10.3.2 The Licensee's focus on providing access to the reservoirs for
motorized boating has been in place for many years. While there were some
isolated recommendations to improve facilities supporting motorized boating,
much of the data indicated a need to focus future recreational facility
development on non-motorized boating and land-based recreation.
10.4 Decision Process - The Recreation AHC developed a table of potential
recreation amenities and prioritized them. The Licensee then used the AHC-prioritized
list and made a proposal for recreation amenities the Licensee could develop, either
alone or in partnership through the AAII. The AHC completed several iterations of this
process and formulated a recommendation for the Stakeholder Teams that identified a
20-year recreation amenities plan which it then further discussed and modified.
10.5 Alternatives Considered - Many different types of facilities and activities at
different locations were evaluated by the Recreation AHC.
10.6 Structure of the Articles and the Recreation Management Plan - The Agreement
identifies a Recreation Management Plan (RMP) that addresses recreation needs for the
first 20 years of the New License. Components of the RMP are included in both the
proposed recreation license articles and the resource provisions.
10.6.1 RMP Measures - The proposed RMP License Article lists the
recreation measures that the Licensee would complete within 20 years following
FERC's approval of the RMP. The RMP will include these measures, along with
the additional detail required by the proposed RMP License Article, for
development in five-year increments. The RMP measures in each increment
are listed in the Section 10.0 of the Agreement along with recreation measures
that are not proposed to be governed by the New License - typically those
measures that will be owned by other entities and/or have little or no nexus to
the Project. In the 20 years, the measures are front-end loaded: approximately
61 percent (by the Licensee's implementation dollars) will occur in the first five-
year period; 29 percent in the second, 6 percent in the third, and 4 percent in the
fourth five-year period.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 28
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
10.6.2 Future Recreation Planning - The proposed Recreation Planning
License Article identifies the timeframes (first 20 years and then every 10 years
thereafter) for the next thorough reviews of the of the Project-related recreation
use and needs leading to filing a RMP supplement with the Commission. It also
identifies the public involvement required in the development of the supplement:
the agencies, local governments and other interested parties. While the
Recreation AHC and the stakeholders are confident of their 20-year planning,
they nevertheless recognized that uses and needs may change over that period
and therefore incorporated into the Agreement two intermediate reviews - at 7
years and 14 years - to consider both changes to the 20-year plan and/or some
limited additions (up to $2 million for each seven-year period). Neither
intermediate review will include a comprehensive RUN Study, but would use the
FERC Form 80 conclusions and any information available from the recreation
departments in the state and local governments as their input. Any changes
within the Project Boundaries recommended in these interim reviews will be filed
with Commission in a supplement or revision to the RMP.
10.7 Conclusions - Below are some of the important public recreation measures in
the Agreement.
10.7.1 A full 20-year Recreation Management Plan will be submitted within
one year following the issuance of the New License;
10.7.2 A Planning Team of stakeholders will review the recreation uses and
needs at 7 and 14 years and agree on any adjustments that the Licensee will
submit to the FERC.
10.7.3 The Licensee will develop or partner with others to develop
enhancements to existing public recreation facilities or construction of new
facilities at 88 locations.
• Restrooms will be added at 28 sites;
• Swimming areas will be added at 10 sites;
• New fishing piers will be added to 13 sites;
Canoe/Kayak launches will be added at 16 sites;
• 5 courtesy docks will be constructed;
• Parking will be added, expanded, or improved at 33 sites;
• Picnicking will be added or improved at 21 sites;
Portage trails will be added or improved at 8 sites;
Approximately 270 acres of property will be set aside for new Licensee-
owned access areas or expansions of the approximate 2,000 acres total of
existing Licensee-owned access areas;
Ownership of approximately 2,100 acres will be transferred to the States for
permanent conservation and public recreation; and
• Approximately 3,400 acres will be offered to the States at discounted prices
for permanent conservation and public recreation.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 29
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
11.o Shoreline Management Plan Articles and Agreements
11.1 The following two proposed License Articles address the Licensee's Shoreline
Management Plan (SMP).
11.1.1 ARTICLE - Shoreline Management Plan
11.1.2 ARTICLE - Shoreline Management Plan Review and Update
Procedures
11.2 Interests Affecting Shoreline Management - The major interest related to the
Licensee's shoreline management was to balance habitat, water quality and natural
aspects of the reservoirs with development. The interest, in effect, translated into
determining the role (if any) the Licensee's Shoreline Management Plan should have in
limiting development and to provide widespread buffers around the lakes. Although
controlling development on properties outside the Project Boundaries is the
responsibility of the local governments' zoning and land conservation, to many
stakeholders, these tools alone have not met their interests. A closely related interest
for many stakeholders was to toughen the SMP's Shoreline Management Guidelines to
increase the identification and protection of environmentally sensitive and prime aquatic
and near-shore habitat. One particular issue was to eliminate what came to be known
as "double counting" - permitting one marina slip AND one private dock for each 100-ft
of developable shoreline.
11.3 Studies - There were four main elements from the studies that went into the
preparation of the Shoreline Management Plan Maps, Lake Use Restrictions, and
Shoreline Management Guidelines: 15
11.3.1 High-resolution digital orthophotography that provided detailed
photographs of the entire shoreline of the Project;
11.3.2 Aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDar) technology that provided
digital elevations and planimetric mapping of the entire shoreline of the Project;
11.3.3 Estimates of the end effects on boat carrying capacity on each
reservoir for four different assumed future build-out scenarios; and
11.3.4 Meetings with stakeholders during the relicensing to complete a
comprehensive review and revision of the existing Shoreline Management
Guidelines.
11.4 Decision Processes
11.4.1 Shoreline Mapping, Classifications, and Lake Use Restrictions -A
monumental level of effort was applied to review all the aerial photographs for
the entire 1,795 miles of shoreline (including islands) and confirm or revise the
classifications. The effort consumed seven hours a day, three days a week, for
three months and was completed mostly by the Licensee's Lake Services
personnel, with occasional oversight by members of the Shoreline Management
Resource Committee (RC). Most of the classifications were straight forward, but
about 10 types of complicated shoreline areas were reviewed by the full RC to
establish protocols for the continued revisions. In one instance, the protocol led
15 Shoreline Management Plan Mapping Study Team Report (SMP01), April 2005; Shoreline Management
Plan Shoreline Management Guidelines Study (SMP02) Report, May 2005. The Lake Use Restrictions and
Shoreline Management Guidelines appear in Appendix J of the Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 30
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
to an additional restricted-use classification: the Natural Isolated Berm. The RC
also received periodic updates as did the full Stakeholder Teams. After much
discussion in the RC, the future-use SMP classifications were based on the
characteristics of the shoreline within the Project Boundaries and not on upland
zoning or the desire to control the lands outside the Project Boundaries.
11.4.2 Shoreline Management Guidelines - A small, dedicated group of
stakeholders from the Shoreline Management RC met regularly during 2005 and
2006 to review and revise the guidelines from front to back. Addressing the
balance between development and environmental interests, the Committee
recommended a more restricted set of guidelines and added two new restricted
classifications: the Natural Isolated Berm and the Bottomland Hardwood Area.
The Shoreline Management Guidelines document nearly doubled in size
compared to the previous version.
11.5 Alternatives Discussed - Each complicated shoreline area type received
considerable discussion to establish its classification protocol. During the long process
of updating the SMGs, numerous alternatives were considered and negotiated. There
was a strong interest to control development outside the Project Boundaries, but the end
result was additional guidelines for increased protection of environmentally sensitive
areas within the Project Boundaries. Some of the results are shown in the Conclusions
Paragraph below. One of the most contentious proposals was to require buffers outside
the Project Boundaries as a condition of receiving a dock permit. This was not agreed
to; however, the Committee instead developed an incentive program for developers to
preserve shoreline and also to leave undeveloped land upland and adjacent to restricted
shoreline. Another approach addressing development was to draft a memorandum-of-
understanding (MOU) template that would improve the coordination between Licensee
and local governments and the States in four areas: (i) data sharing, (ii) coordination for
enforcement of buffer regulations, (iii) coordination of permitting review, and (iv)
agreement that the SMP classifications do not supersede government's authority to
control lands outside the Project Boundaries.
11.6 Articles and Provisions - Because the SMP, including the Shoreline
Classifications, Lake Use Restrictions, and Shoreline Management Guidelines, was filed
with the License Application, the proposed New License Article anticipates Commission
approval of the SMP. The article also anticipates modifications to the SMP. The
provisions add the formation of a stakeholder workgroup to discuss SMP implementation
and its effectiveness in protecting near-shore habitat.
11.7 Conclusions - The Agreement adds considerably to the environmental
protection measures and partially accommodates the interests for controlling
development outside the Project Boundaries while still allowing for substantial new
reservoir uses. A full summary of the important changes is provided in the Study Report.
Some of the more significant changes are listed below:
11.7.1 Two new restricted shoreline classifications;
11.7.2 Removed "double counting" for shoreline length requirements for
docks and marina slips;
11.7.3 New water willow protection;
11.7.4 Limits on marinas in narrow coves;
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 31
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
11.7.5 Increased minimum developable shoreline length requirements for
docks from 75 feet to 100 feet;
11.7.6 Criterion to encourage shallow-water fish attractors;
11.7.7 Requirements for new or modified water intakes to protect and
increase Total Usable Storage;
11.7.8 A developer incentive program to preserve undeveloped shoreline
and conservation areas abutting shoreline with environmentally restricted
classifications;
11.7.9 Improved protection of wetlands and cultural and historic sites; and
11.7.10 A MOU template for the Licensee and governmental entities that
oversee lands abutting the Project Boundaries to better coordinate the
responsibilities in four areas:
11.7.10.1 Data sharing;
11.7.10.2 Improved coordination with the Licensee for enforcement
of buffer regulations;
11.7.10.3 Better coordination of permitting reviews (required from
both the Licensee and the governmental entity); and
11.7.10.4 Agreements that SMP classifications do not supersede
local government plans or authority related to land use.
12.0 Cultural Resources Article and Agreements
12.1 The following proposed New License Article addresses the Licensee's Historic
Properties Management Plan.
12.1.1 ARTICLE - Historic Properties
12.2 Interests Affecting Historic Properties - There was considerable general
stakeholder interest in both protecting cultural resources and in providing
communications and education programs about cultural resources. There was also a
focused interest in preserving and/or protecting several well-known sites in the area -
notably Dearborn Island, site of a Jefferson-era armory, and the Mulberry Mound, a pre-
contact Native American site located on private property adjoining the Wateree
Regulated River Reach. Some stakeholders also believed that the Licensee should
mitigate for cultural resources inundated when the Project developments were
constructed, most notably the Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail in the Lake
James area. The State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO) from both NC and SC and
the Catawba Indian Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) focused their
attention primarily on complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and ensuring protection for Historic Properties (HPs), those sites eligible or
potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
12.3 Studies - During the relicensing process, the Licensee conducted
archaeological surveys of approximately 1,900 acres of islands within the Project
reservoirs, assessed Project Structures to determine which are Historic Properties, and
evaluated the effects of Project operations on the Mulberry site located downstream of
Wateree Dam. The studies identified locations of HPs and assessed current or potential
future Project effects. The findings are detailed in the relicensing studies.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 32
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
12.4 Decision Process - The Licensee worked closely with representatives of the
Cultural Resources Resource Committee (CRRC) on all aspects of cultural resources
management associated with the relicensing effort. Recognizing that some of the
stakeholders' interests were not clearly within the scope of the Section 106 process, the
CRRC worked to identify activities that would ensure compliance with Section 106 while
also meeting the interests of relicensing process participants.
12.5 Alternatives Considered - Section 106 requires that a Historic Properties
Management Plan (HPMP) be developed. The CRRC focused its discussions on the
appropriate management strategies for known HPs within the Project Boundaries and
the Project's Area of Potential Effects and whether it was more appropriate to direct
resources towards management of HPs within the Project Boundaries or whether
providing mitigation at other sites provided a greater benefit. Much debate focused on
the appropriate management considerations for the Mulberry site given the lack of a
proven Project effect on the site as evidenced by the Licensee's evaluation of Project
effects. However, by reallocating resources that would have been directed to
management of less significant HPs within the FERC Project Boundaries to activities at
the Mulberry site, the Agreement not only mitigates for Project effects on HPs within the
FERC Project Boundaries, but also meets a significant stakeholder interest.
12.6 The Article Structure - The Article anticipates that, because the HPMP has been
accepted by the Catawba Indian Nation THPO and the North Carolina and South
Carolina SHPOs and was filed with the License Application, the FERC will approve the
HPMP and order the Licensee to implement it. The Article also anticipates that the
FERC will develop and enter into a Programmatic Agreement with the North Carolina
and South Carolina SHPOs and the Catawba Indian Nation THPO as is required by
Section 106.
12.7 Conclusions - The HPMP addresses management of Historic Properties in
accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. Activities stipulated in the HPMP include:
12.7.1 Management of historic hydroelectric structures;
12.7.2 Monitoring of known HPs;
12.7.3 The consideration and protection of HPs in conjunction with the
implementation of the Shoreline Management Plan; and
12.7.4 Site-specific management plans for a number of Historic Properties.
13.0 Other Resource Agreements
13.1 Interests Influencing Other Resource Enhancements
13.1.1 Land Conservation - When the Licensee and its predecessor
companies began developing the hydro facilities, they purchased tremendous
amounts of land. Much of the land was ultimately inundated, but much of it also
became lakefront property. For many years, these lands remained undeveloped
and much of it was leased at nominal costs to state wildlife agencies for wildlife
management areas. The lands came to be seen as public lands even though
the property was owned by an investor-owned corporation. As property became
more valuable, it was sold to private developers and leased at higher cost to
private entities. This history colored the relicensing discussion, and some
stakeholders had expectations that large amounts of land (perhaps 50,000 acres
or more) would be conserved in the process. Land preservation and
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 33
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
development control became central interests influencing the direction of the
negotiations.
13.1.2 Invasive Weed Management - Many stakeholders had direct
experience with the impacts of invasive weeds in the reservoirs. And while
generally recognizing the difficulties in managing them, they wanted the
Licensee and the state agencies to continue their invasive weed management
programs.
13.1.3 Trash Management - Stakeholders were interested in reducing the
trash and floating debris in the reservoirs and river reaches and ensuring proper
disposal.
13.1.4 Flood Management - Stakeholders and particularly residents around
Lake Wateree had a strong interest in reducing the incidences of flooding.
13.2 Studies
13.2.1 Land Conservation - The Land Ad Hoc Committee was formed to
oversee the creation of a GIS Database with all the land parcels that had been
identified by a variety of means during the relicensing. The database, which
included desired land attributes, along with stakeholder priority weightings,
helped focus the wide-ranging land conservation interests.
13.2.2 Invasive Weed Management - There were no specific studies, but the
Reservoir Level Study (Ops 02) provided some context because one
management strategy is to drawdown the reservoirs when there is a possibility
that cold temperatures could kill the weeds.
13.2.3 Trash Management - A trash management plan (Ops 03) was
developed using operations experience. An important recognition was that
Fishing Creek Hydro was a significant trash accumulation point.
13.2.4 Flood Management - The Wateree High Water Level Study (Ops 08)
reviewed Lake Wateree's historic reservoir levels and evaluated the
effectiveness of several alternative approaches to reduce the incidences and
severity of flooding. One conclusion was that varying hydro system operations
would only have minimal improvements in flood management at Lake Wateree.
13.3 Decision Processes
13.3.1 Land Conservation - With the information from the Land Database,
and through many long discussions, several strategies emerged. A strategy for
preserving lands was to provide significant funding to NC and SC state agencies
to purchase land of their choice but with certain agreed-to preservation criteria.
A second strategy was to add funding to the existing Habitat Enhancement
Program (HEP) for preserving habitat in each state. Other strategies included
direct conveyance (at no cost) of selected properties to state agencies, bargain
sales of certain properties to public entities, and establishing conservation
easements on some properties.
13.3.2 Trash Management - The trash management plan was reviewed and
adjusted by the stakeholders and agreements were reached on the schedule for
installing a new trash rake at Fishing Creek Hydro by December 31, 2007.
Appropriate disposal approaches were discussed and agreed to.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 34
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
13.3.3 Invasive Weed Management - Led by the state agencies, the
discussion concluded with an agreement for the Licensee to continue funding
these programs at existing funding levels and continue partnerships on the
programs with the state agencies.
13.3.4 Flood Management - For the stakeholders representing Lake
Wateree residents, this was a difficult issue. Residents wanted large flood
management modifications to Wateree Dam with capability to pass 40,000 cfs or
more. Other stakeholders regarded the potential cost of this alternative as out of
balance with enhancements of other resources for the Basin, all competing for
the same funding resources. After much discussion, a compromise was
reached to install the still-expensive 10,000 cfs bladder dam alternative, but only
if the New License term was for 50 years, which many stakeholders viewed as
possible.
13.4 Provisions - All of the provisions were captured in Section 14.0 of the
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement. No article was proposed for these other
resource enhancements. The specific land conservation funds or HEP enhancements
were not in proposed License Articles because of the limited nexus to Project effects.
No license article was proposed for the trash rake addition because it will be completed,
with Commission approval, under the Existing License. The agreement to partner for
invasive weed management will continue and allow the flexibility to adjust the program
year-by-year and reservoir-by-reservoir as appropriate to the situation at the time. The
flood management agreements are not proposed for a License Article at this time, but
provided the New License term is 50 years and the other requirements noted in the
Agreement are met, the Licensee will request FERC approval in the future to install the
agreed-upon improvements.
13.5 Conclusions
13.5.1 Land Conservation and Habitat Improvement - The Licensee will
provide $1 million to each States' HEP to support, protect, and enhance fish and
wildlife habitat. The Licensee will contribute $5.32 to $6.82 million to SC state
agencies and $4 to $5.5 million to NC state agencies (depending on the term of
the New License) for additional land conservation. In all, more than 2,500 acres
of property owned by Crescent Resources (part of Duke Energy) will be
dedicated for public recreation and Crescent will offer state and local
governments more than 3,400 additional acres at reduced prices.
13.5.2 Invasive Weed Management - The Licensee will continue to fund its
aquatic weed management program in partnership with state agencies at recent
levels plus escalation.
13.5.3 Trash Management - The Licensee will financially support annual
clean-ups and will improve its trash management and disposal for trash found in
the reservoirs and streams.
13.5.4 Flood Management - Wateree Dam modifications totaling
approximately $6 million will be made to install a bladder dam provided several
requirements are met including a 50-year New License term.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 35
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
ATTACHMENT A - COMPOSITE INTEREST STATEMENTS
Cultural Resources
Identify Cultural Resources Sites
1. Identify sites eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion in the national register
of historic places including power houses and dams.
2. Identify cultural resources: historic fords, revolutionary war use
(encampments, skirmishes), historic family homes, pre-European contact sites
and towns, burial grounds, fish weirs, military sites, canals, and grist mills, and
significant Native American areas.
Protect and Enhance Cultural Resource Sites
3. Ensure that operations, including lake level effects, do not negatively affect
cultural resources (including Wateree Mound).
4. Protect historic canal works downstream of Rocky Creek hydro.
5. Protect and preserve historic properties.
6. Mitigate the effects of operations on historic properties.
Public Education - Cultural Resources
7. Educate the public on the history of cultural resources in the Catawba-
Wateree Project.
8. Develop education material for the public that discuss site stewardship and
the importance of preservation.
Tribal Resources
9. Protect Tribal fishing rights.
10. Provide education/training/studies for fish and wildlife species that may be
unique to the Tribe for subsistence or for traditions.
Process and Procedures - Cultural Resources
11. Seek partnerships with local, state, federal, and non-governmental
organization to protect cultural resources.
12. Base cultural resource protection on regional priorities (i.e., not on Duke
Energy properties).
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 36
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Fish and Aquatics
General
13. Support sustainable recreational (including tailwaters) and commercial
fisheries.
14. Enhance fish populations and aquatic communities in rivers and tributaries.
15. Enhance aquatic biodiversity.
16. Provide run-of-river flows through every dam.
17. Protect and contribute to the recovery of rare species and/or declining fish
populations.
18. Maintain a healthy and diverse community of benthic macroinvertebrates.
19. Prevent the introduction of and/or control non-native aquatic species.
20. Enhance and restore diadromous fish populations within the C-W Basin.
21. Enhance aquatic habitat connectivity, and reduce and mitigate effects of
habitat fragmentation from project dams.
Habitat Creation, Enhancement and Maintenance
22. Protect and enhance shallow-water fish habitat, including fish-spawning
habitat during spring months (e.g., March through June).
23. Maintain moist-soil areas to enhance aquatic vegetation for fish and waterfowl.
24. Protect, enhance, and expand riparian habitats.
25. Maintain, improve, and expand the aquatic communities in Wateree River
below the Wateree Dam and in the river section from the Lake Wylie Dam to
Fishing Creek Lake.
Fish Migration and Diadromous Species
26. Reestablish migrations and populations of native, naturally reproducing
diadromous species to their historic reaches (including American shad,
Hickory shad, blueback herring, American eel, striped bass, Atlantic sturgeon,
and shortnose sturgeon) in synergy with natural biodiversity and ecosystem
management needs of other native fish and wildlife species.
27. Support and enhance aquatic resource habitats and migrations of, for
example, fish, macroinvertebrates and other fauna including rare, threatened,
and endangered (RTE) species including the Carolina heelsplitter (mussel).
28. Provide diadromous species access to historic spawning habitats.
29. Provide safe and effective upstream and downstream fish passage at dams,
where warranted, for riverine and diadromous species.
Fish Protection
30. Minimize/prevent fish mortality (from DO, stranding, temperature extremes,
and entrainment) including target and RTE species.
31. Minimize impact on aquatic resources from peaking flows.
32. Maintain and enhance instantaneous seasonal flows below Wateree Dam for
migration and spawning of diadromous fish.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 37
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Target Fish Species
33. Maintain, improve, and expand the trout water fisheries below Lake James
Dam and its bypass areas and in Muddy Creek including the original Paddys
Creek run of the river below Lake James and the original run of the river below
the current Catawba Dam.
34. Maximize the quantity and quality of habitat in all downstream and bypassed
reaches for targets species: brown trout below Lake James, mussels in
Catawba bypass, white bass below Lake Hickory, striped bass below Lookout
Shoals, and amphibians in Mt. Island bypass.
Ecological Process Connectivity
35. Maintain, enhance, and restore proper stream morphology, connectivity, and
ecological processes, including sediment transport, for all downstream and
bypass reaches.
36. Mimic day, month, and annual natural flow patterns including natural floods in
riverine and bypass areas.
37. Provide over-bank flows to enhance floodplain and wetland ecology in
regulated river reaches.
Bypass Reaches
38. Restore run-of-river flows to the Great Falls.
39. Provide instream flow for all river and bypass segments from Lake James to
the Congaree National Park: Paddy Creek, Old Catawba River, unnamed
tributaries below the Lake James dams, and Great Falls.
Hydro Operations and Water Quantity
Hydro Operations Flexibility and Optimization
40. Minimize hours of generating at power levels that are off the best efficiency
points.
41. Minimize value lost from spills.
42. Minimize risks of hydro project operations on regional thermal power plants.
43. Schedule off-peak recreation releases during the highest recreational-use
periods.
44. Maximize system value of hydro stations for peaking and load following
capabilities.
45. Retain substantial long-term operating flexibility for the Project to support
efficient, cost-effective electric service.
46. Maintain license flexibility during maintenance and emergency situations.
47. Minimize bypassing of flows around hydro stations.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 38
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Aesthetics, Property, and Economic Values
48. Protect or enhance property values by protecting aesthetics (typically:
maintain near-full pools and minimize fluctuations).
Flood Prevention
49. Eliminate exposure to personal health risks from isolation created by flooding
of roads.
50. Minimize economic losses due to personal property damage from flooding and
flood flows.
51. Minimize flooding impacts on water quality (typically: reduce frequency and
severity of floods).
Low Inflow Protocol (LIP)
52. In partnership with all water users, develop a low inflow protocol that shares
the burden among power production, public water supply, waste assimilative
needs, recreation, water quality, and protection of aquatic resources. (Note:
there are stakeholders whose interests favor each of these areas.)
53. Tie the low inflow protocol to both water conservation and energy
conservation.
54. Assure that the low inflow protocol fully protects aquatic resources, water
quality, and recreation.
Water Quantity and Water Supply
55. Assure perpetual storage ("safe yield") for water supply withdrawal
requirements.
56. Meet all current and projected water supply requirements
57. Protect all water intake facilities and sites.
Other
58. Manage water levels to meet downstream flow requirements.
59. Minimize conflicts among water users and with other interests.
60. Balance hydropower production with other uses.
61. Include the best available knowledge of total water quantity demands
throughout the next 50 years in the evaluation of future operating scenarios.
Licensing Process
General
62. Mitigate for land that has been lost through project operations and impacts.
63. Restore habitat lost from project operations including shoreline development
64. Mitigate impacts in these steps: avoidance, minimization, rectification, and
compensation.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 39
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
65. Increase FERC attendance and involvement in the process including meeting
with local governments and NGOs.
66. Achieve an appropriate and timely balance of stakeholder interests.
67. Evaluate the project on at least two temporal levels: existing conditions
(FERC baseline) and conditions without the project.
68. Include the consideration of other dams in the watershed even if not licensed
by FERC or operated by another licensee.
69. Minimize the risk of non-local decision making.
70. Establish appropriate trade-offs to address stakeholder interests that go
beyond hydro project-related issues.
71. Thoughtfully consider the stated interests of all stakeholder team members.
72. Establish basic respect and trust for the stakeholder team process.
Monitoring and Modifying the Agreement
73. Ensure that the agreement does what it is intended to do.
74. Monitor effects of the agreement (and license) on the health of the Catawba-
Wateree system and provide procedures to modify them during the term of the
license.
75. Ensure accountability for Final Agreement terms.
76. Establish benchmarks to measure agreements' success.
77. Make timely applications for the 401 Water Quality Certifications.
Current and Future Stakeholder Relationships
78. Continue to use the collaborative spirit and relationships established during
relicensing to make future decisions affecting project resources.
79. Allow for water quality monitoring data to be used in basin wide assessments
and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development by establishing a Quality
Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) with NC DWQ.
80. Avoid inconsistencies and/or conflicting goals between NC and SC particularly
within the context of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
81. Improve Duke Energy's working relationship with state and local governments
and volunteer organizations to support future planning needs.
82. Coordinate with North Carolina to ensure their 401 WQ Certification
addresses SC requirements.
83. Ensure a strong working relationship between NC and SC.
84. Form partnership with the community and/or agencies to monitor the process
after the license has been filed.
85. Partner with other water users to continue improving water quantity and water
quality management.
Technical Information and Studies
86. Ensure negotiations on significant issues (like instream flow) do not begin
before adequate data is available and the studies completed.
87. Make relicensing decisions based on good information.
88. Consider all cumulative impacts when assessing the net effect of hydropower
projects on fish and wildlife resources.
89. Consider reservoir and downstream interests to mutually optimize resource
enhancement opportunities.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 40
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
90. Analysis of secondary impacts should be based on existing trends with the
project or similar projects in the state.
91. Consider major non-hydropower activities in the watershed that may affect, or
be affected by the project. Particular attention should be given to affects of
water withdrawals and interbasin transfers.
Elements of the Agreement
92. Build in adaptability to ensure further improvements.
93. Ensure that adaptive management is used appropriately and not to postpone
enhancement measures.
94. Minimize uncertainties in the license (e.g., reopeners, adaptive management,
etc.)
95. Avoid or minimize the need to obtain future amendments to the FERC license.
Stakeholder Education
96. Educate stakeholders to better understand: their desired future conditions for
the Project, the relicensing process, outcomes of other relicensings, the FERC
process
Recreation
Goals for Public Recreation (presumably at any location)
97. Promote physical exercise and healthy, active lifestyles for citizens.
98. Provide for economic development and associated tax base.
99. Attract visitors via ecotourism and recreational opportunities.
100. Meet the recreation needs of current and future populations while protecting
reservoirs.
101. Provide quality recreational experiences.
102. Balance use between public and private facilities.
Goals of the Public Recreation Plan
103. Address local, state, federal and NGO recreational interests.
104. Diversify, increase, strategically position, and improve recreational
opportunities, access, and choices.
105. Enhance flows for water-based recreational activities.
106. Protect traditional fish and wildlife-based recreation.
107. Increase access for lake and non-lake users who don't own property around
the Project or who don't own a boat.
108. Provide links between urban areas and recreation trails and sites.
109. Assure compatibility of all public recreation activities including operation of
current and future state parks.
110. Identify and minimize user conflicts.
111. Avoid crowding and overuse of recreation facilities.
112. Assure safe use of all recreational opportunities.
113. Support Access Area Improvement Initiative.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 41
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
114. Meet SCDNR navigational criteria.
115. Minimize impacts of project operations on recreational activities.
116. Implement plan to manage, improve, maintain water quality to support all
recreational activities.
117. Provide adequate regular maintenance to ensure the long life of all facilities.
Process Recommendations
118. Partner with NCDPR to address recreational deficiencies noted from studies.
119. Seek partnerships to address recreational needs and make recreational
facilities available quicker.
120. Partner with adjacent landowners to develop comprehensive recreational
opportunities in the watershed.
Non-Boating (Land-Oriented) Recreation
(Swimming and wading, sunning, educational events, day use, dispersed camping,
picnicking. beach blankets, walking, hiking, and biking on trails, wildlife observation
in specific areas, hunting in special areas, waterfowl hunting, bank and pier fishing,
wade fishing, enhanced public viewsheds, areas with exceptional interpretive
value and wildlife viewing (e.g., raptors, wading birds, songbirds, amphibians,
reptiles and mammals as well as wildflower concentrations).)
121. Increase access, facilities, and lands available for non-boating recreation
activities on reservoirs, riverine reaches, and bypasses.
122. Build fishing piers keeping buffer areas on either side.
123. Provide flow regime appropriate for safe wade fishing in riverine and bypass
reaches.
Boating Recreation
Motorized: boat fishing, deep-water fishing, boating, motor boating, water skiing,
and jet skiing. Non-Motorized: canoes, kayaks and other small boats, and
paddling
124. Increase access, facilities, and lands available for recreational boating on both
the river (more put-ins and take-outs) and lakes.
125. Provide flow regime appropriate for safe float fishing in riverine and bypass
reaches.
126. Ensure adequate winter boating access and year-round use of boat docks and
ramps.
127. Add paddling trails including safe, well-maintained portages around all dams
and camping facilities.
128. Maximize river boating days.
129. Provide predictable recreation releases on river sections (i.e., allow recreation
users to plan ahead for river use).
130. Provide predictable recreation releases on bypass sections including the
Great Falls bypass.
131. Enhance boat fishing in tailraces and ponds (including Stumpy Pond)
Facilities (at parks, trails, access areas, etc.)
132. Improve existing access areas.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 42
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
133. Provide handicapped access at public recreation facilities.
134. Include boat ramps, courtesy docks, fishing piers, canoe portage around
dams, public fishing areas at facilities.
135. Make facilities (if possible) universally accessible, free, and open at all hours.
136. Provide appropriate trash removal, restrooms, parking and lighting.
137. Remove trash to prevent overflow even at peak usage.
138. Improve management of islands. (?)
139. Maintain or improve ramps, docks, and parking lots at boat access areas.
140. Provide ample public parking.
141. Minimize launch time at boat access areas.
142. Minimize petroleum runoff from impervious surfaces (e.g. boat ramps, parking
lots).
Safety Issues
143. Minimize nuisances such as hazardous floating logs and debris.
144. Promote more efficient ways of restricting areas without the use of "no wake"
buoys.
145. Assure public safety for people using the lakes and river.
146. Minimize safety hazards due to shoreline development.
147. Provide tailwater caution signs around dam facilities and power lines.
148. Separate sailboat, canoe, and kayak users from speedboat users (i.e.,
minimize user conflicts)
149. Provide adequate lake depth for boating safety
150. Remove the Morganton weir.
151. Operate all public recreation facilities in safe condition
Public Information - Recreation
152. Promote nature trails
153. Inform public of recreation opportunities
154. Provide maps on web sites for recreational points of interest
155. Promote historic and recreation sites and all the use of "heritage sites"
156. Provide appropriate interpretive facilities for fish- and wildlife-based recreation.
157. Increase citizen and visitor awareness of unique opportunities at Lake Wylie
and Mt Island Lake.
158. Inform public of locations and types of safety hazards
159. Provide flow-release schedules
160. Improve public information systems to maximize usability of recreational flow
releases.
161. Provide for the installation of audible devices at dams for public safety
reasons.
162. Providing multi-lingual public information to communicate flow levels for
recreational opportunities.
Public Education - Recreation
163. Provide boating safety instruction and learning opportunities for the public
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 43
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Shoreline Management Plan
General
164. Protect/enhance the quality of life with habitat protection, sediment controls,
buffers, viewshed protection, fueling guidelines, dock construction
materials/maintenance guidelines, quality enforcement.
165. Minimize the impacts of shoreline use on water quality.
166. Protect and enhance natural resources and cultural sites.
167. Provide a stable, predictable plan with fairly and consistently applied benefits
and restrictions.
168. Enrich the natural features that contribute to the basin's aesthetics and unique
identity.
169. Protect and enhance aesthetics.
Procedural
170. Recover reasonable costs associated with the Lake Management Program.
171. Coordinate shoreline management activities with federal, state, and local land-
management agencies.
172. Develop the plan and its modifications in a stakeholder-driven, collaborative
manner.
173. Provide a fair and equitable process for establishing agreements for minor
encroachments of the FERC project boundaries.
174. Incorporate appropriate review cycles and flexibility to modify the SMP and the
shoreline management guidelines.
Shoreline Management Plan Classifications and Mapping
175. Protect sensitive, unique, and critical habitat aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial
habitats.
176. Provide and improve the quantity and quality of naturally vegetated shoreline
around each reservoir, tailraces, and bypass and on other protected lands
(dams, transmission lines, etc.).
177. Reduce erosion associated with permitted shoreline activities.
178. Consider including County's (Catawba) Natural Heritage Inventory in revisions
of the Shoreline Management Plan.
179. Properly characterize existing and proposed parks (and, presumably,
everything else that's mapped).
180. Limit development and/or minimize its impacts: (To protect water quality, to
account for Lake Wateree's burden from upstream development and its water
quality impacts, for scenic preservation and aesthetics, to relieve pressure on
recreation (Mt. Island), to protect natural resources, to limit development to 50
percent of shoreline (for water quality on Lake Wateree), to obtain about 10
percent lands for recreation and 40 percent lands remaining natural, and to
limit development to single-family homes.)
181. Balance development with shoreline preservation (include areas for private
commercial access such as marinas, restaurant, office buildings, etc.). Keep
the current balance.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 44
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
182. Prohibit incompatible activities in adjacent lands (e.g., hunting next to a state
park)
183. Protect buffers along lakeshore and streams.
184. Protect streamside corridors for ecosystem health and recreation
opportunities.
Shoreline Management Guidelines
185. Add permanent conservation easements to protect habitat.
186. Redraft conveyance guidelines and License Article 39 (for what purpose?)
187. Implement boating restrictions to improve water quality. (Examples: no anti-
fouling paints, spill prevention and control at marinas, restrict old boat motors,
limit boat size, minimize on-water storage, prohibit flushing heads, monitor fuel
storage on multi-slip docks, reduce free-pouring spills, and limit weed transfer
between lakes).
188. Retain reasonably enforceable lake use criteria.
189. Implement fines for violations of guidelines and buffer rules and use this (and
mitigation) fund to enhance and restore habitat and acquire lands.
Socioeconomics
190. Ensure that the outcomes of the relicensing have no negative consequences
on the local and regional economies.
191. Use the lakes as the basis for sustainable development and a regional draw.
192. Promote economic development to surrounding communities to provide jobs,
tax base, and amenities not otherwise available.
Water Quali
General
193. Assure high water quality in river, tailrace areas, and lakes to enhance
aesthetics, quality of life, and property values; promote tourism, ecotourism,
and economic development (other than tourism?); provide habitat
enhancement and wetlands protection; protect fishery resources, aquatic
communities, and benthic macroinvertebrates; minimize water treatment costs
and ease permitting (e.g., NPDES); enhance recreation and recreation safety;
eliminate water-borne disease, and assure public health and safety.
194. Increase waste assimilation capacities.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 45
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
Operational Compliance
195. Ensure hydro discharges (from powerhouses and spillways) and reservoirs
meet or exceed state water quality standards as defined by their NC surface
water classification, including, but not limited to, standards for DO, fecal
coliform, Chl A, PH, nutrients, and temperature.
196. Maintain sufficient water quality and quantity to meet water quality
classifications and designated uses.
197. Maintain toxics concentrations in fish below NCDWQ and SCDHEC
standards, FDA action levels or EPA screening values for protection of human
health.
198. Establish and maintain a long-term monitoring strategy to ensure water quality
standards are met.
199. Ensure that project maintenance operations (e.g., trash rack cleaning) do not
create water quality problems.
Watershed Management
200. Reduce nutrient loading and associated eutrophication and algal blooms.
201. Reduce non-point-source pollution including organic compounds (pesticides,
chlorine components, petroleum), toxics, MBTE
202. Reduce silt, sedimentation, and turbidity.
203. Reduce trash washing in from tributaries.
204. Support future watershed-level modeling and monitoring efforts to address
sediment and nutrient load reduction management strategies, particularly in
the Lake Rhodhiss/Lake Hickory watershed.
Wetlands, Wildlife and Botanical
Wildlife
205. Provide migratory bird areas enhanced for waterfowl and passerine species.
206. Protect and enhance rare, threatened and endangered wildlife populations.
207. Restrict access to breeding areas for wildlife sensitive to intrusion.
Wildlife Habitat
208. Enhance biodiversity in floodplain habitats and associated bluff communities.
209. Improve floodplain functions (plant appropriate plants).
210. Enhance native (natural) fauna and a diversity of habitat types.
211. Reduce upland, riverine and shoreline habitat fragmentation; provide wildlife
corridors.
212. Conserve and enhance functional reservoir and riparian ecosystems.
Native Plant Species and Botanical Habitat
213. Protect, maintain, and improve terrestrial habitat quality.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 46
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
214. Promote biological diversity and native aquatic plants.
215. Protect (including restricting access) and contribute to the recovery of rare
species and species with declining populations including rare, threatened, and
endangered species including the dwarf flowered heartleaf, Rocky Shoals
spiderlily, and Schweinitz's sunflower.
216. Reduce and mitigate for the effects of habitat fragmentation.
Non-Native and Invasive Plants
(Note: algal blooms are addressed in Water Quality)
217. Control invasive, non-native (noxious, nuisance) plant species - hydrilla,
parrot feather - to improve water quality, for aesthetics, to reduce navigation
hazards, to minimize impacts to recreation, to minimize impacts to aquatic
habitats, and to decrease maintenance required for water intake structures.
218. Decrease habitat for disease-carrying vectors.
219. Consider alternative (non-chemical) weed-control measures.
Process
220. Develop an agency-reviewed aquatic plant management plan.
221. Develop and implement wildlife management plans and processes including
enhancement programs
222. Coordinate riparian and floodplain protection strategies with local
governments.
223. Support integrated management of invasive plants.
224. Establish a regional aquatic weed management partnership.
Public Education - Wetlands, Wildlife and Botanical
225. Educate the public on the value of plant diversity.
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 47
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
ATTACHMENT B - PROJECT FLOW ROUTING SCHEMATIC
Catawba River
Cataviba
Ann of Lake James
Lake I-1
-inville
Dam
Linville River
Johns
River
Lake Rhodhiss
Dam' I Powerhouse
Lake Hickory
Notes:
1. Overflow spillway
2. Spillway with gates
3. With flash boards
LEGEND
Powerhouse release
Recreation release
Continuous release
Regulated reach or
Creek tributary inflow
--- Bypassed reach
Lake Reservoir
Dam Structure
Powerhouse Dam2
Catawba River
Lookout Shoals Lake
Lookout Lookout
Shoals Dam' Shoals PH
Lake Norman
Ford PH I Ford Dam2
Mountain Island Lake
Mountain Mountain
Island PH Island Dam'
(continued)
Lower
Little
C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 48
Catawba-Wateree Project (FERC No. 2232)
Comprehensive Relicensing Agreement- Explanatory Statement
(cominuea)
Mountain Island Lake
South Fork
Catawba
River
Notes:
1. Overflow spillway
2. Spillway with gates
3. With flash boards
Ivlountaln Ivlountaln
Island PH Island Dam'
B
- I Lake Wylie
Wylie Wylie Sugar
Dam 1,2 Powerhouse Creek
1 Catawba River
Cane
Creek
Fishing Creek Reservoir
Fishing Fishing
Creek PH Creek Dame
Lovier Great Falls Reservoir upper
Pond Pond Camp
Great Falls Dearborn Great Falls Great Falls Creek
PH + Dam Powerhouse Headworks''3 Diversion"
® r
Rocky ®® ®®
Creek Short
Bypass/
®® ®® Long®
®®®e Bypass
Cedar Creek Reservoir
PH + Dam 1,2 I Creek PH
Big
Wateree
Creek
Lake Wateree

Wateree Wateree
Powerhouse Dam'

Wateree River
Beaver
Creek
LEGEND
Powerhouse release
Recreation release
Continuous release
Regulated reach or
Creek tributary inflow
®®® Bypassed reach
Lake Reservoir
Dam Structure

C-W Explanatory Statement (Rev 1) 12-22-06 49