20051457 Ver 1_Cyndi Karoly Emails_20090317

Strickland, Bev
From: Karoly, Cyndi
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 2:06 PM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Cleveland County Water - document reviews by NCDWR
Attachments: 2009 -01 -13 - CCW alternatives analysis - DWR and WRC comments- 1.doc; 2008 -11 -26 - CCW purpose
and needs - DWR and WRC comments.doc
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Jim Mead [mailto:iim.mead(@ncmail.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:15 PM
To: Pugh, Robin; 'Wicker, Henry M JR SAW'
Cc: Goudreau, Chris J.; gwood(@lincolncounty.org; James.McRight(@ncmail.net,
John. Condrey (@rutherfordcountync.gov; Britt.Setzer(@ncmail.net; Linville, James R.;
Cyndi.Karoly(@ncmail.net; Alan.Johnson(@ncmail.net; renee .gledhill- earley(@ncmail.net;
russtown(@nc- cherokee.com; Holder, Michael L; fred.tarver(@ncmail.net; turnerle(@dhec.sc.gov;
allen ratzlaff(@fws.gov; Bryan Tompkins(@fws.gov; Fox.Rebecca(@epamail.epa.gov;
hortonil(@dhec.sc.gov; gormancm(@dhec.sc.gov; kfortner(@gbpw.com; 'Manager -';
Rick.Howell(@cityofshelby.com; marilyns(@cityofkm.com; Tom.Reeder(@ncmail.net;
Melba.Mcgee(@ncmail.net; 'ron mccollum'; elammt(@hotmail.com; stevek(@cityofkm.com;
eporter(@cityofkm.com; O'Quinn, Barney; fwa(@dnet.net; keithw(@mcgillengineers.com;
manager(@ccsdwater.com; 'Jones, Amanda D SAW'
Subject: Re: Cleveland County Water - document reviews by NCDWR
All,
DWR has completed its review of the 2 documents. Revisions and comments are included in the
two attached files in track changes format. I used the revised versions provided by Chris
Goudreau as a starting point.
Chris' comments are in red and mine are in green.
Jim
Goudreau, Chris J. wrote:
> All,
> Attached are NCWRC comments on the "Purpose and Needs" and
> "Alternatives Analysis" documents.
> Chris
Jim Mead, Environmental Specialist
Jim.Mead(@ncmail.net
919/715 -5428
fax - 919/733 -3558
****** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
NC Division of Water Resources - DENR
1

1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1611
(for overnight mail, UPS, or FedEx - contact me for street address)
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
N

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
1. Introduction
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended, a planning, environmental, and engineering study is under way to increase
the water supply for Cleveland County Water. An Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) will be prepared to describe and evaluate potential impacts to the natural, cultural
and human environments associated with the proposed action. This Purpose and
Need Statement will comprise the first chapter of the EIS.
The content of this document conforms to the requirements of Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which provide direction regarding
implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA. It is anticipated that any build
alternative selected will require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) permits;
therefore, the USACE is the lead agency for the EIS. The EIS will be prepared by a
third party in conformance with 33 CFR Part 325.
1.1 Proposed Action
The proposed action is to construct a water supply reservoir in the First Broad River
basin near Lawndale in Cleveland County, North Carolina.
1.2 Summary of Need for the Proposed Action
It is projected that Cleveland County Water will need 6.23 million gallons per day (mgd)
of raw water by 2060 to meet average day demands and 7.78 mgd to meet peak day
demands (see Section 4.4.2). At the Cleveland County Water intake on the First
Broad River, the estimated available raw water supply under low flow conditions is 5.97
mgd (see Section 2.4.1).
Historical records from 1940 through 2008 were used to assess the ability of
Cleveland County Water's existing run -of -river intake to supply future raw water
needs. Depending on the minimum instream flow requirement, the future daily peak
demand of 7.78 mgd would not be met on 9.7 percent of the days (2,420 out of
24,954 days). Of these, as many as 110 days would be Iconsecutivel_ Water
, , -
comment []M11: we agree that Cleveland
shortages lasting at least 10 consecutive days would occur 4.2 percent of the time
County needs to augment its water supply, However,
during periods of drought, is it reasonable to use the
(see Section 4.4.3).
projected PEAK demand for this analysis?
Hopefully, water conservation measures would
instead be implemented to reduce the daily demand,
and certainly to keep it from occurring for numerous
consecutive days.';

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
The First Broad River is insufficient to meet projected demands, based on the following
conditions:
• Fluctuations in the normal stream flow of the First Broad River vary widely and
affect water availability at the Cleveland County Water intake on a daily basis.
• Cleveland County suffered a severe drought that peaked in 2002. The county is
experiencing another drought in 2008 and is susceptible to future droughts. A
long -term solution is needed to ensure adequate drinking water, especially during
drought conditions.
• Groundwater is not a reliable source of water in the Cleveland County area, as
wells either run dry or have low water levels. Water quality is also a concern. It is
estimated that approximately 8,000 housing units (approximately 20,240 persons)
rely on individual groundwater wells as the sole source of potable water. It is
expected that most of these residences will become Cleveland County Water
customers through the planning period (2060).
The population of Cleveland County Water's current service area is projected to
increase by approximately 6,000 persons by 2060. It is expected that these new
residents will be Cleveland County Water customers.
• Based on continuing requests for service connections, it is evident that the need
for a dependable source of potable water does not stop at the county line.
Cleveland County Water already serves approximately 500 customers in Gaston,
Lincoln and Rutherford counties. Cleveland County Water plans to expand its
service area in areas that can be more easily and economically served by
Cleveland County Water rather than existing water systems in these counties.
1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure a dependable water supply for
Cleveland County Water that meets projected long -term (2060) needs. A "dependable"
water supply will provide the district's needs and maintain required instream flows
(assuming water conservation measures are implemented in accordance with an
approved drought management plan).

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
1.4 Project Objectives
Key project objectives, applicable to the Cleveland County Water service area, include
the following:
• develop an effective and efficient water supply system;
• provide adequate water infrastructure that supports population growth and
economic development;
• maintain sufficient instream flow to support aquatic habitat and other uses;
• sustain required flo levels for downstream users; and comment [JM2]: As amatter of policy, Dwx
q �FRStrea V1� ------------------ does not consider conveyance of water for offstream
withdrawal farther downstream to be an "instream"
• respond to the needs of existing and future water customers. flow need.
1.5 Project Setting
Cleveland County is located in the southwestern Piedmont of North Carolina in the
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Cleveland County is bordered by Gaston and
Lincoln counties on the east, Burke County on the north, Rutherford County on the
west, and South Carolina to the south. The primary transportation route is US 74,
which traverses the county in an east -west direction, connecting Interstates 85 and 26.
Interstate 85 traverses the southeastern corner of Cleveland County.
Shelby, the largest municipality in the county, is the county seat. Other municipalities
include Kings Mountain, Boiling Springs, Belwood, Casar, Earl, Fallston, Grover,
Kingstown, Lattimore, Lawndale, Mooresboro, Patterson Springs, Polkville, and Waco
(see Figure 1). The largest cities or towns, Shelby, Kings Mountain, and Boiling
Springs, are concentrated on or near the US 74 corridor. Despite the number of
incorporated towns, Cleveland County remains relatively rural overall. In 2000, most of
these municipalities had a population below 1,000 according to U.S. Census data.
(See Population and Demographic Trends, Section 4.1.)
1.6 Water Resources
Most of Cleveland County is located in the Broad River Basin. A small area of eastern
Cleveland County is in the Catawba River Basin (see Figure 2). In North Carolina, the
Broad River Basin encompasses a 1,513 square mile watershed with headwaters in

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
the mountains. The First Broad, Second Broad, and Green rivers are the major
tributaries of the Broad River. The First Broad River originates in Rutherford County
and flows into the Broad River in Cleveland County, just north of the South Carolina
border. The Broad River flows southeast into South Carolina, eventually flowing into
the Atlantic Ocean as the Cooper River at Charleston, South Carolina.
1.6.1 Sub -Basin 03 -08 -04
The Broad River Sub -basin (03- 08 -04) includes approximately 240 square miles and
encompasses the project area and approximately two - thirds of Cleveland County.
Land within this sub -basin is the transitional zone between the mountain and piedmont
eco- regions. According to the 2006 Basinwide Assessment Report for the Broad
River, land cover in this sub -basin is primarily forested (63 percent forest/wetland) and
pasture (31.2 percent pasture /managed herbaceous). Urbanized areas account for 2.7
percent of the land area in the sub - basin, while cultivated cropland includes 2.0 percent
of the land area in the sub - basin.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) reports that water quality in
this sub -basin is good overall. Benthic m ° ^r^ nvertbrate macroinvertebrate data from
three sites on the First Broad River resulted in "Good" bioclassifications. None of the
surface waters in this sub -basin are considered to be impaired.
1.6.2 Sub -Basin 03 -08 -05
The Broad River Sub -basin (03- 08 -05) includes approximately 181 square miles and
encompasses most of eastern Cleveland County. This area is considered to be in the
piedmont eco- region, although some streams in the northern portion of the watershed
exhibit some mountain characteristics. Land use is dominated by forest and
agricultural activities (48.5 percent forest/wetland and 40.5 percent pasture /managed
herbaceous). While urban uses account for only 5.1 percent of total land cover, residential
development is increasing. Kings Mountain is the largest urban area in the sub - basin.
The NCDWQ reports that water quality in this sub -basin is good overall. None of the
surface waters in this sub -basin are considered to be impaired, although some water
quality issues have been documented.

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
1.7 Project History
In 1989, the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) prepared the
Cleveland County Water Supply Study, at the request of the Cleveland County Board
of Commissioners. The study was prepared, in part, to project future water needs and
determine if future water needs (2030) will exceed existing supplies. The study
determined that existing systems were adequate to meet 2020 needs, with the
exception of the Town of Boiling Springs' well system. The town is now connected to
the City of Shelby's system. The study suggested that raw water supply availability
may be increased through capital improvements, such as reservoirs and off - stream
storage.
The possibility of an impoundment on the First Broad River has been explored for a
number of years. The USACE studied a potential reservoir on the First Broad River in
1990. It was determined that a reservoir was not feasible for flood control purposes;
however, a reservoir might be feasible for water supply purposes ( USACE 1990).
The 1995 Cleveland County Land Use Plan, adopted by the Cleveland County Board
of Commissioners in November 1995, included the following recommendation:
"Support the development of a 50 million gallon raw water reservoir for the Cleveland
County Sanitary District."
A feasibility study for the First Broad River Reservoir was completed by McGill
Associates in 1997. The study concluded that a reservoir would be needed by 2029
and recommended an impoundment on the First Broad River (McGill 1997).
The water shortages experienced during the 2002 drought demonstrated the need for
a more dependable water supply. Since that time, Cleveland County Water has
continued to work towards this goal. Additional information about drought conditions is
provided in Section 2.4.2.3.
The adopted 2005 Cleveland County Land Use Plan notes that a reservoir site has
been chosen and the project is in the environmental permitting stage. The 2005 plan's
Land Use Plan Map shows a reservoir site.

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
2. Cleveland County Water
2.1 Background
2.1.1 Sanitary Districts in North Carolina
Cleveland County Water was established under North Carolina statutes as a sanitary
district. In North Carolina, a sanitary district is a special governmental unit created for
the purpose of preserving and promoting the public health and welfare. A sanitary
district is formed with the consent of a majority of property owners in the proposed
district. The North Carolina Commission for Public Health and the Board of
Commissioners of the county (or counties) where the proposed district is located create
the sanitary district by adopting an ordinance setting the corporate boundaries of the
district. According to North Carolina general statutes (G.S.), a sanitary district may be
established without regard for county, township or municipal lines. (However, approval
by a municipality is required before including any part of a municipality in the sanitary
district.)
A sanitary district has the power to acquire, construct, maintain and operate water
supply systems and water purification or treatment plants and other utilities "within and
outside the corporate limits of the district, as may be necessary for the preservation of
the public health and sanitary welfare outside the corporate limits of the district, within
reasonable limitation" (G.S. 130A -55). Corporate powers set by North Carolina
statutes also include the power to levy taxes on property within the district; to acquire
by purchase or condemnation, property, easements, and rights -of -way inside or
outside the district; to negotiate and enter into agreements with other water suppliers in
order to carry out the purpose of the sanitary district. A sanitary district has the
authority to levy taxes only within its corporate boundaries but the sanitary district may
set a different rate for customers inside and outside the corporate boundaries of the
district. The statutes also set provisions for expanding the corporate boundaries of a
sanitary district. A complete list of corporate powers of a sanitary district is included in
G.S. 130A -55.
2.1.2 History of Cleveland County Water
Cleveland County Water was established in accordance with state statutes as the
Upper Cleveland County Sanitary District in 1980. In 1984, the Upper Cleveland
County Sanitary District started supplying water to 1,200 customers. By the late
1980s, the Piedmont Metropolitan Water District had formed in southern Cleveland

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
County to address dry wells and poor water quality in the southern portion of the
county. The two districts merged in 1989 to form the Cleveland County Sanitary
District. By 1990, the sanitary district was serving 16,800 customers with 5,600
meters. In February 2008 upon approval of the North Carolina Commission for Health
Services, the Cleveland County Sanitary District changed its name to Cleveland
County Water.
In July 2008, Cleveland County Water was providing water to approximately 45,155
residential customers with 18,374 active meters. With approximately 3,000 inactive
meters also on the system, the total number of residential customers could increase to
over 52,700. Cleveland County Water covers approximately 80 percent of the
geographic area of the county and is one of the fastest growing water providers in
North Carolina. Cleveland County Water has averaged 520 new taps per year since
1999 and this trend is expected to continue over the next 5 years.
2.2 Facilities
2.2.1 Existing Facilities
Cleveland County Water uses the First Broad River as the source for a 6.0 mgd water
plant. Cleveland County Water operates raw water intakes and a pump station at the
confluence of the First Broad River and Knob Creek. The raw water intake facility can
withdraw a maximum of 10 mgd from the First Broad River and Knob Creek. The
current average daily withdrawal is 3.70 mgd. The distribution system includes
approximately 1,000 miles of water lines and several finished water storage tanks. In
addition, Cleveland County Water has emergency connections with Kings Mountain;
Shelby; the Broad River Water Authority; and Grassy Pond, a small system in southern
Cleveland County.
2.2.2 Planned Facilities
Cleveland County Water plans to expand its water treatment plant capacity in
anticipation of system growth. As the first phase of water treatment plant expansion,
Cleveland County Water plans to build off - stream storage sized to accommodate a 10
mgd water treatment plant. This off - stream storage is required by state code in order
to provide an unpolluted storage reserve in the event of contaminant spills. With a
capacity of 50,000 gallons ^°id), the off - stream storage will provide a 5 -day ------ comment [JMS]: Wouldn't afive -day supply for
supply of water. Planned for construction in 2009, the storage facility has been a to mgd plant be 50,000,000 gallons?'
permitted by the USACE (permit number 200531774). The next steps in the phased

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
expansion are to expand the filters to 8 mgd by 2010 and expand distribution pumps to
10 mgd by 2011. By 2012, Cleveland County Water plans to upgrade the water
treatment plant capacity to 8 mgd and eventually to upgrade the plant to 10 mgd.
2.3 Service Area
2.3.1 Existing Service Area
Cleveland County Water provides water to most rural areas of the county; the towns of
Belwood, Casar, Earl, Kingstown, Lattimore, Mooresboro, Patterson Springs, Polkville,
and Waco; and on a contract basis to the town of Fallston. Cleveland County Water
also has lines extending into Gaston, Lincoln, and Rutherford counties. Cleveland
County Water has connections extending to Boiling Springs, Fallston, and Lawndale for
emergency use. The Cleveland County Water service area boundary is based on
topography and the hydraulic grade line of the distribution system, which includes
existing finished water storage tanks. Cleveland County Water's service area is shown
in Figure 3.
2.3.2 Future Service Area
As evidenced by the existing service area and requests from property owners, the
need for water does not stop at the Cleveland County line. Cleveland County Water
plans to continue to expand its distribution system into areas of Rutherford, Lincoln,
and Gaston counties which can be more easily and economically served by Cleveland
County Water rather than existing water systems in these counties. Future service
area is shown on Figure 3.
Cleveland County Water owns a water storage tank in northern Cleveland County near
Casar, as well as a smaller water storage tank on Moriah School Road near the
Rutherford County line. These tank locations allow for service into the northern part of
Rutherford County. Near the Polkville area of Cleveland County, Cleveland County
Water owns a tank which provides water service to the areas of Cleveland County west
of the First Broad River. The location of this Polkville tank and the hydraulic service
area provided from the tank also permits economical service into the eastern part of
Rutherford County.
The boundary for the Rutherford County future service area is based on topography
and resulting hydraulic constraints and existing service areas for other water providers
in the county. For example, in the northern part of Rutherford County, Cherry

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
Mountain, located southwest of NC 226, provides a natural drainage boundary
between the First Broad River to the east and the Second Broad River to the west.
This natural geographic boundary makes the provision of water service farther
westward uneconomical due to hydraulic constraints.
Generally, the Rutherford County expansion area stretches from just north of the First
Broad River to the Second Broad River to the south. The western boundary follows
ridge lines and property lines. Future water service to the east of this boundary is not
feasible and water service to the west of the boundary will be provided by existing
water systems located in Rutherford County, either the BRWA, the Town of Ellenboro
or the Town of Forest City.
Future service to the east of Cleveland County by Cleveland County Water into Lincoln
and Gaston counties is limited by system hydraulics similar to those described above.
The eastern service area boundary in Lincoln County and Gaston County as shown on
the "Service Area" map (Figure 3) is the ridge line between the Broad River Basin and
the Catawba River basins. Future service into these two adjoining counties is
proposed entirely within the Broad River Basin and outside the Cherryville city limits.
2.4 Water Supply and Availability
2.4.1 Available Raw Water Supply
An updated 7Q10 was used as a basis for determining available raw water supply.
While changes in low -flow characteristics resulting from recent drought conditions have
not been formally investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), updated values
are likely to be 20 to 30 percent lower than previously reported values according to the
USGS (Weaver 2008). , - Comment [N4]: Why not perform a new
7Q10 analysis for the Casar gage? Even
though it would not be "official" it is
To determine a revised 7Q10 at the Cleveland County Water intake (181 square better than assuming it is 20 or 30 %.
miles), the 7Q10 for the Knob Creek drainage area (36 square miles) was added to the
7Q10 for the First Broad River drainage area (145 square miles). Updated 7Q10
values were determined as follows:
First Broad River
In June 2008, NCDWR updated an instream flow /aquatic habitat study - completed in
the 1990s for three locations on the First Broad River. A major revision to the previous
study was to include an updated and improved stream flow record. Based on merged

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
flow records from the Lawndale and Casar USGS gaging stations, the 7Q10 just
downstream of the Cleveland County Water intake was determined to be 36.4 cubic
feet per second (cfs), at a drainage area of 145 square miles. This 7Q10 value reflects
the lower flows during periods of drought experienced in recent years.
Knob Creek
In the absence of an ins +rearn f'^,., stud -stream gage records, the 7Q10 for Knob
Creek is based on USGS records for a similar upstream �ite1 (According to the USGS, - - - Comment []M5]: What USGS gage was used to
it would be appropriate to use the 7Q10 estimate at this site for application to the Knob determine the 7Q10 for Knob Creek?
Creek intake site [Weaver 2008].) To account for recent drought conditions, it was
assumed that the 7Q10 has declined by 30 percent. The updated 7Q10 for the Knob
Creek drainage area is estimated to be 9.84 cfs, at a drainage area of 36 square miles.
Therefore, the estimated 7Q10 is 46.24 cfs at the Cleveland County Water intake site.
Based on the new 7Q10 calculation, the available raw water supply
re l +G^ as 200% of the ,7Q!0 from the First Broad River at the Cleveland County
Water intake is estimated to be 9.25 cfs or 5.97 mgd. This is based on minimum
criteria under the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act that limit withdrawals
to no more than 20% of the 7Q10 flow in the absence of an instream flow study of
aquatic habitat showing that larger withdrawals are acceptable.
2.4.2 Issues Affecting Water Supply
The river's capacity to supply water to Cleveland County Water is substantially affected
by other demands on the river and by fluctuations in the normal stream flow.
Downstream from the Cleveland County Water intake, the City of Shelby also relies on
the First Broad River for water; therefore, downstream conveyance to the city's intake
is a concern. The First Broad River is able Reed -ed- f ^receives wastewater treatment
Ip ant discharges, mainly fof-from the City of Shelby, and is used for agricultural
irrigation purposeo. An instream flow regime is also required to sustain the aquatic - - - Comment [JM6]: Please provide any information
---------------------------------------- - - - - -- regarding number of irrigation withdrawals,
community ithin the river. Other instream uses for water c� include water quality Y q Y approximate locations and amounts.
maintenance and prevention of sediment build -up.
10

2.4.2.1 Aquatic Habitat
The NCDWR determines flow requirements for streams to ensure aquatic habitat
protection, paFtiG, earl y d,,r; ^g dry seas^^ flews The aquatic habitat target flow' was
determined to be 70 cfs (45.16 mgd) at the previous Cleveland County Water intake
(Sutherland 1992). Cleveland County Water was allowed to take 5 mgd without
instream flow limits, but could take an additional amount up to a total of 6 mgd if a flow
of 70 cfs was maintained immediately downstream of the intake. At the current intake
location, no minimum flow or withdrawal constraint is required (Sutherland 1997).
2.4.2.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are regulated through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program. The NPDES
program was established to control point- source discharges of water pollution.
Dischargers are required by law to register for a permit. The permitting process
includes determining the quality and quantity of treated wastewater that the receiving
stream can assimilate, incorporating input from stream modeling, collaborating with
NCDWQ Regional Office staff, and evaluation of the discharger's location.
According to NCDWQ, there are eleven permitted dischargers within the 03 -08 -04 sub -
basin, three of which are considered major dischargers. Of the eleven dischargers, the
City of Shelby Waste Water Treatment Plant (major), the City of Shelby Water
Treatment Plan (minor), Cleveland County Water (minor), and an industrial facility
(major) discharge to the First Broad River. The fir - First Broad River plays an
important role as a receiving stream for treated^ the this^°°' ^f wastewater.
2.4.2.3 Drought Conditions
Water systems such as Cleveland County Water that rely on run -of -river type intakes
are particularly susceptible to water shortages during+n drought conditions. The
' According to the Cleveland County Water Supply Survey ( NCDWR 1989), instream target
flows are based on maintaining one dominant instream use or a combination of uses. During
those times when natural flows are below the target flow, projects capable of flow augmentation
should maintain the target flow, while others without flow augmentation should use the naturally
occurring flow as the temporary target.
Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
11

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
drought that Cleveland County experienced from 1999 to 2002 highlighted the need for
a more dependable water source. The drought was so severe that Governor Michael
Easley declared a State of Disaster and State of Emergency existed in the Cleveland
County Water service area and the City of Shelby. Cherryville, located in Gaston
County to the east, was also named in the proclamation. In addition, local
proclamations were issued by Cleveland County, excluding the City of Kings Mountain,
and by the City of Shelby.
In July and August of 2002 the flow at the Cleveland County Water intake dropped to
3.0 mgd (McGill 2004). Also during that time, the available supply at the City of Shelby
water intake dropped to less that 1.50 mgd (McGill 2004). As a result, water
restrictions were imposed and Cleveland County Water and the City of Shelby were
forced to find alternative means to provide water to their customers. To provide some
relief, the Broad River Water Authority allowed an emergency connection to the
Cleveland County Water system. However, this connection could only supply water to
approximately 200 customers because of the six -inch pipe size and the difference in
elevation of the two systems' tanks.
Even during drought conditions, Moss Lake provided a more than adequate supply of
water to the Kings Mountain service area. The City of Kings Mountain was able to
provide water to Shelby customers through an emergency connection with the City of
Shelby water system. This connection is to provide water only during periods of a
declared emergency. Shelby also pumped water from a small privately owned lake,
and implemented water restrictions in order to continue to supply water to their
customers during the drought (McGill 2004). To prepare for future drought conditions,
the City of Shelby installed an emergency 30 -inch water line to the Broad River after
the 2002 drought. However, it should be noted that the Broad River is also at risk
during drought �onditionsl and the location of the intake requires water to bepumped_ Comment []M7]: Are there stream flow data
indicating that water availability would have been
As the demand for water in the Cleveland County Water and City of Shelby service limited at the Broad River intake during 2002?
areas increases, Moss Lake will not be sufficient to supply these areas during drought.
Droughts also occurred in the area in 1977 and 1986 (Cawthon 2005) and the area +s
was also in drought in 2008. According to the U.S. Drought Monitor,
Cleveland County+s- experienc+aged exceptional drought in August 2008. While the
area hoc did not experienced the degree of water shortage as these experienced
during the drought that peaked in 2002, water levels have °° ^were a cause for
concern. Such concerns are documented in news articles published in the Shelby Star
in the summers of 2005 (Cawthon 2005) and 2006 (DeLea 2006), and again in June
2008 (Wilson 2008).
12

Large amounts of rainfall that occur in relatively short periods of time are not helpful
towards easing drought conditions because there are no provisions for capturing water.
Steady rains over a longer period of time are needed to restore the water table and
increase stream flows.
2.4.2.4 Run -of -River Intake
Of the 32 water providers in North Carolina serving a population of 40,000 or more, 16
depend on reservoirs as their primary water source, while three depend on
groundwater. The remaining 13 water providers, including Cleveland County Water,
depend on run -of -river type intakes for water supply (see Table 1.) These intakes are
located on the Cape Fear River (Fayetteville, Wilmington, Harnett County, Brunswick
County, Sanford), Yadkin River (Davidson, Salisbury), Tar River (Greenville), Neuse
River (Johnston County), Catawba River (Union County), and the First Broad River
(Cleveland County). With the exception of the First Broad River, these are considered
major rivers in North Carolina. Table 2 compares the size of watersheds and river
volume for these water systems. Based on data from the gage at Casar, the First
Broad River in proximity to the Cleveland County Water intake has the lowest mean
and median flow.
Even in non - drought conditions, fluctuations in the normal stream flow can vary widely
and affect available water on a daily basis. The USGS maintains a surface water
gaging station on the First Broad River near Casar. For illustrative purposes, annual
discharge data beginning in 1960 is included in Table 3. As the table indicates, annual
discharge during the 45 -year period varied from a high of 139.3 cfs (89.9 mgd) in 1960
and 1975, to a low of 26.8 cfs (17.3 mgd) in 2002. A breakdown of this data by month
further illustrates the variation in flows of the First Broad River (see Table 4.) Daily
flows are recorded by the Casar gage beginning March 1, 1959. Daily records are
available on the USGS website: http: / /waterdata.usgs.gov /nwis.
3. Other Area Water Sources
The existing sources of potable water in Cleveland County are Moss Lake, the First
Broad River, and groundwater. The Broad River is a source of limited drinking water
during emergencies. Water sources and providers for Cleveland County are shown in
Table 5.
Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
13

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
3.1 John H. Moss Reservoir
The John H. Moss Reservoir (Moss Lake), an impoundment on Buffalo Creek, is the
raw water supply for the City of Kings Mountain and the Town of Grover. Moss Lake
has a total drainage area of approximately 68 square miles in eastern Cleveland
County. The City of Kings Mountain operates an 8.0 mgd water treatment plant
adjacent to the lake. The city provides water only within its corporate limits and to its
municipal customer, the Town of Grover. However, the city permitted the construction
of an emergency connection with the City of Shelby water system during the 2002
drought to provide water only for emergency purposes. According to the city, the water
provided by Moss Lake is sufficient to meet demands of its service area through 2050
and beyond. In 2007 Kings Mountain permitted the construction of an emergency
connection with Cleveland County Water.
3.2 First Broad River
In addition to Cleveland County Water, the First Broad River is also the water source
for the City of Shelby, the Town of Boiling Springs. (Boiling Springs purchases water
from Shelby.)
The City of Shelby has a raw water intake on the First Broad River which supplies
water to the city's water treatment plant. Treatment facilities include three off - stream
raw water reservoirs. The intake location has a drainage area of approximately 226
square miles. Shelby's water treatment plant has a capacity of 12.0 mgd and current
average daily water treated is 4.2 mgd. Demand has decreased in recent years as
several manufacturing plants in the city have closed. Current (2005�peak demand_ is - comment [N8]: Are more recent data
available? If has the downward trend
approximately 6 mgd compared to 8 to 9 mgd in p ast ears (City of Shelby Strategic continued, level ed
off, or increased?
Growth Plan 2005). The City of Shelby provides water on a wholesale basis to the
Town of Boiling Springs. The contract amount in 2002 was 1.0 mgd (Shelby Water
Supply Plan 2002).
The City of Shelby Water and Wastewater Planning Report sets a future water service
area boundary that extends beyond the current city limits. Shelby's water system is
encircled by the Cleveland County Water service area, which limits the ability of the city
to expand its water system. Expansion of Shelby's water service area and annexation
in areas already served by Cleveland County Water could affect the district's customer
base to some degree.
14

According to the city's Strategic Growth Plan, "when the city annexes new areas, it can
not take these annexed homes and businesses into its water system customer base."
However, according to Brad Cornwell, Shelby Public Utilities Director, "the city can
require connection to the public water system if the building or structure is within 300
feet of such public water main and the property abuts a street where a public water
main is available" (Cornwell 2007). There is no city policy to specifically address
annexation of areas served by Cleveland County Water. In the past, the city has
chosen not to provide water in most cases where the annexed area is already served
by Cleveland County Water, but reserves the right in the future to construct water
facilities if it is feasible (Cornwell 2007). At a minimum, the city is required to provide
increased flows for fire protection to these annexed areas.
Based on the City of Shelby's 2002 Water Supply Plan, average daily water demands
for the city's service area are projected to be 8.7 mgd by 2050, including contract sales
of 1.0 mgd. Assuming an average day to peak day multiplier of 1.25, approximately
10.88 would be needed in 2050.
3.3 Groundwater
In Cleveland County, the primary problem associated with dependence on
groundwater as a source for potable water is a natural shortage in water, with either
very low water levels in wells or wells running dry. It is sometimes necessary to drill
several wells before finding water (North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1989).
Property owners have to assume the risk and cost of drilling dry wells in their search for
a suitable yielding well. It is more cost effective to connect to a water system if
available.
Water quality is also a problem. For example, residents of the Town of Mooresboro
relied on wells as their source for potable water prior to 2005. Many residents had to
bleach their well water to sanitize it, and in 2003 E. coli bacteria were discovered in 6 of
11 wells tested (Scott 2004). Also, some wells ran dry during the 2002 drought. The
town was connected to the Cleveland County Water system in 2005.
In some areas of the county, both recharge and discharge areas display high
concentrations of iron and manganese in the groundwater. Water treatment for these
metals is necessary (North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1989). Where iron or
manganese is not a problem, the groundwater may require chlorination. In addition,
lithium has been detected in groundwater in the Cherryville and Bessemer City vicinity
of Gaston County. (Cleveland County Water already has nearly 100 customers in
Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
15

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
Gaston County.) Costs associated with water treatment, whether for a municipal
system or individual well, are ultimately borne by the end user. Additional treatment
can potentially be a significant expense (Setzer 2007).
3.3.1 Municipal Systems
The towns of Lawndale and Fallston rely on groundwater for their primary water supply.
Lawndale draws its water supply from two wells with a combined average daily
withdrawal of 0.058 mgd for 287 connections ( Lawndale Water Supply Plan 2002). In
the Town of Fallston, three wells provide an average daily withdrawal of 0.046 mgd.
Fallston supplements this supply with water purchases from Cleveland County Water.
In 2002, the average daily amount provided to Fallston was 0.001 mgd, with a contract
amount of 0.002 mgd, according to the draft 2002 Fallston water supply plan.
3.3.2 Private Wells
Groundwater is the water source for numerous residences throughout rural Cleveland
County. However, very little data is available regarding private wells in the county.
Until recently, Cleveland County did not require permits for private wells and the county
Health Department inspected wells only upon request. In July 2006, the state of North
Carolina mandated that all counties adopt drinking water well regulations. House Bill
2873 requires all North Carolina counties to implement a private drinking water well
permitting, inspection, and testing program. As a result, Cleveland County adopted
"Rules Governing the construction, Inspection, Repair, Abandonment, and Water
Quality Testing of Private Drinking Water Wells in Cleveland County." The ordinance
was effective July 1, 2007.
It is estimated that approximately 8,000 housing units in Cleveland County rely on
groundwater for potable water. A number of these have a metered connection to the
Cleveland County Water system; however, the meter is inactive. In 1992, the county
began requiring new residences to tie on to Cleveland County Water lines if they were
available (McCarter 2006).
3.4 Broad River
In Cleveland County, the Broad River is not currently used as a water source for
Comment [7M9]: The Shelby intake and pipeline
everyday use. The City of Shelby has an (emergency 30- inch_raw water line _from the for the road River may not be used routinely, but I
Broad River to its water treatment plant. The raw water line and a pumping station believe they have completed the classification
requirements to use this source on an everyday basis
were constructed as a result of the 2002 drought, as mentioned in Section 2.4.2.3. not just during emergencies.
16

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
Cleveland County Water is also equipped to obtain small quantities of water from the
Broad River in emergencies.
In Rutherford County, the Broad River is the primary water source for the Broad River
Water Authority. Several municipalities, including Forest City and some in South
Carolina, plan to use the Broad River as a water source.
4. Water Demand - - -
Increases in future water supply needs for Cleveland County Water will be affected by
new customers in the existing service area and service area expansion into adjacent
counties. Within the existing service area (Figure 3), new metered connections are
expected due primarily to well conversions and population growth. As discussed in
Section 2.2.3, groundwater is not expected to be a reliable source of potable water in
Cleveland County. Groundwater quality and drought conditions (wells drying up) will
likely result in increased demand for water from Cleveland County Water. Population
trends and economic conditions that may affect population growth in the county and
the type of users (e.g., commercial and industrial users) are discussed in the following
sections.
Cleveland County Water's service area and future demand will also be influenced, but
to a lesser degree, by annexation and government policies. For example, as
discussed in Section 2.2.1, it is the policy of the City of Kings Mountain not to provide
water outside its corporate limits (other than to the Town of Grover.) In addition, recent
state legislation requiring county well inspection programs could result in more
requests to connect to Cleveland County Water's system.
As previously noted, Cleveland County Water provides water to some customers in
adjacent counties. The sanitary district plans to continue to expand its service area
into these counties as requested. Demand in these areas will also be largely based on
population growth and problems with groundwater. Cleveland County Water's future
service area expansion in adjacent counties is shown in Figure 3.
4.1 Population and Demographic Trends
Comment [N10]: This section is the crux
of the document. It would benefit from a
series of clear statements explaining
exactly how future water demand was
calculated.
For example, in Section 4.1 data
population data are presented from US
Census Bureau and NC Demographics,
but it is not clear if both data sets were
used to estimate the future population.
If, as stated in Section 4.1.3, the NC
Demographics numbers were used,
explain why they were used instead of US
Census Bureau numbers.
It is stated in Section 2 that those parts
of adjoining counties that lie outside the
Broad River basin will not be served by
CCW. Section 4 should explain how the
population data for those counties was
used to project future demand. For
example, it is not likely that the census
tracts follow the basin boundaries. So,
how were the demographic data for
western Lincoln and Gaston counties used
to project population estimates in the
CCW service area?
4.1.1 Population GrowthL - - - Comment [N11]: The Census Bureau has
more recent data than 2000. The 2000
data is considered a census, but they also
Cleveland County experienced moderate population growth of approximately 14 have annual population estimates up to
percent from 1990 to 2000. Historical population data indicate similar growth rates in 2007. Do those data lead one to different
estimates of future population. ?
17

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
the 1960s and 1970s, but a substantially lower growth rate in the 1980s of less than 2
percent (see Table 6). While U.S. Census data indicate substantial growth in municipal
population from 1990 to 2000, some of that growth is due to expansion of corporate
limits. Shelby, in particular, can attribute most of its population gain during that period
to an aggressive annexation program. An examination of population growth by census
tract indicates that the highest population growth occurred in the southern and eastern
areas of the county, with population declines in the central areas of Shelby and Kings
Mountain. A breakdown of 1990 to 2000 population growth by municipality and census
tract is provided in Tables 7 and 8, respectively. Census tracts are shown on Figure 4.
From 1990 to 2000, approximately 4,066 county residents were added to the
Cleveland County Water service area. Population growth in the service area was
estimated by excluding population in Shelby, Boiling Springs, Kings Mountain, and
Grover from the overall county population. (Note: Fallston and Lawndale were
included in the service area because these municipalities use groundwater and are
potential Cleveland County Sanitary District customers.)
4.1.2 Housing]
- -
Comment [N12]: Other than the number
of people per house, how were the
housing data used to project future
The increase in housing units is another indicator of water demand. The number of
demand? Please explain how housing
housing units in Cleveland County increased by nearly 18 percent (6,085 units) from
data (Table 9) were used to calculate
future water demand (Table 17). If not,
1990 to 2000 Table 9 . The number of housing units added in the Cleveland County
this section could be deleted.
Water service area over this same time period is estimated to be 2,710 units Table 9 .
Like population growth, the increase in the number of housing units in Shelby is largely
due to annexation. The greater increase in the percentage of housing units as
compared to population increase could indicate a trend in the reduction of household
size or an increase in the supply of vacant housing during this period. According to the
US Census, the average household size for Cleveland County in 2000 was 2.53
persons, while the average household size in 1990 was slightly higher at 2.59. In
addition, the percentage of vacant housing rose from 6.4 percent to 8.1 percent of total
housing during this period. A breakdown of 1990 to 2000 housing units by state,
county, and municipality is provided in Table 9.
4.1.3 Population Projections
The North Carolina State Demographics Unit (Office of State Management and
Budget) projected county populations through 2030. Population through 2060 was
projected using an average annual growth rate based on the state's projected growth
18

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
from 2005 through 2025. It was assumed that each county would experience this
same average growth rate over the next 30 years through 2060.E
Comment [N13]: This is a major
--------------------
assumption that could be way off. It is a
good reason for projecting a +/-
Population growth in Cleveland County will continue to be influenced by proximity to
percentage around that estimate to
major metropolitan areas, the Charlotte- Gastonia area in particular, and proximity to
understand the water needs under
different scenarios.
major transportation routes. Within Cleveland County, population growth is expected
to a greater extent in the southern and southeastern portions of the county.
The North Carolina State Demographics Unit projects that Cleveland County will grow
by approximately 2.24 percent from 2010 to 2030, reaching a population of 99,370 by
2030. In comparison, the state of North Carolina is expected to grow by approximately
29 percent during the same 20 -year period. Assuming a constant growth rate for the
next 30 -year period, Cleveland County's population would reach nearly 103,000 by
2060.
In addition to growth in Cleveland County, growth in the adjacent counties of
Rutherford, Lincoln and Gaston will also play a role in future demand in the Cleveland
County Water water supply. The North Carolina State Demographics Unit projects that
Rutherford County's population will decrease by approximately 600 persons or
1 percent from 2010 to 2030. During the same period, Gaston County's population is
expected to increase by approximately 13.5 percent, while Lincoln County's population
is expected to increase by nearly 34 percent.L - - -
Population projections are shown in Tables 10 and 11 J
4.2 Economic Characteristics
4.2.1 Economic Base
Cleveland County is ranked one of the top ten best small markets by Southern
Business and Development magazine (Charlotte Regional Partnership 2006). The
county boasts easy access from four major interstate highways (1 -85, 1 -77, 1 -26, and
1 -40) and the Charlotte Douglas International Airport, making geography one of its
prime assets.
Although Cleveland County's economy was once dependent upon textile
manufacturing, the county's economy is diverse, with no dependence on any one
industry. From 1995 to 2005, manufacturing jobs in the county decreased by 7,609
Comment [N14]: The majority of growth
in Lincoln and Gaston will most likely be
in the eastern and central portions; less
so in the western parts of those counties.
Was this taken into account?
Comment [N15]: A major shortcoming of
this document is that it does not explain
exactly how the population data and the
housing data were used /combined to
make projections into the future. Please
provide text to explain this and give a
mathematical example from start to
finish.
Comment [N16]: All this is interesting, but
again, how were these data used to
project future demand (i.e., in Table 17).
19

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
jobs-, however, manufacturing still dominates in terms of number of jobs.1 Employment Comment [N17]: How much has this been
by industry is shown in Table 12. further reduced in the past year? Please
provide data through 2008.
4.2.2 Employment Centers and Major Employers
According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, the top manufacturers in
Cleveland County include PPG Industries Fiberglass Products, Eaton Corporation, and
Entertainment Distribution Company. The top non - manufacturing employers in
Cleveland County are Cleveland County Schools, Cleveland Regional Medical Center,
Cleveland County government, and Gardner -Webb University. Cleveland County's top
employers are listed in Table 13
As indicated on Table 13, the county's employment centers are primarily in and around
the cities of Shelby and Kings Mountain. In addition, major retail centers are the
Cleveland Mall in Shelby and the uptown Shelby, Kings Mountain, and Boiling Springs
areas.
There are several major industrial parks in Cleveland County. The Cleveland County
Industrial Park is located in Kings Mountain. The 250 -acre park is home to Sara Lee
Intimate Apparel, which recently expanded; MRA Industries; and Owens & Minor.
Cleveland County recently assembled a 210 -acre industrial park to help with industrial
recruitment efforts in the county. The site has rail access and is located near the
proposed US 74 Bypass, just west of Shelby.
The North Carolina Department of Commerce is currently marketing 18 buildings and
45 sites in Cleveland County for commercial or industrial use. According to marketing
information, Cleveland County Water would provide water to 21 of these properties. A
total of 30 properties would likely rely on the First Broad River for water supply.
Industrial recruitment efforts are enhanced by several tax credit and incentive
programs that are available to industries that locate or expand in Cleveland County.
For example, firms such as manufacturing and processing operations, warehousing
and distribution plants, and data processing firms that pay at least 110 percent of the
average county wage are eligible for tax incentives under the William S. Lee Quality
Jobs and Business Expansion Program.
fell;

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
4.3 Land Use and Development - - - Comment [N18]: Again, how was this
information used to estimate (or adjust)
future water demand? If was not used,
Development trends, projected future land use patterns, and local land use policies and then it is not necessary to provide it.
regulations were examined to determine the potential effect on future water demand
and the distribution of that demand.
Historically, development patterns in Cleveland County have largely been influenced by
transportation corridors. The arrival of the railroad spurred growth in the 1870s and
established Shelby as a cotton market and textile manufacturing center. Shelby and
Kings Mountain, the largest cities in the county, are located along US 74, an east -west
route that traverses North Carolina. Growth in the county continues to be influenced by
proximity to 1 -85, which traverses the southeastern corner of the county, and by
proximity to the Charlotte- Gastonia area. Gardner -Webb University, located in Boiling
Springs, also played a role in the growth and development of the southern area of
Cleveland County. According to the Cleveland County Planning Director, growth in this
southern portion of the county is expected to continue.
Cleveland County residents have favored rural or suburban areas to municipalities.
The distribution of municipal and rural /suburban population in the county for the period
1950 to 2000 shows that at least 57 percent of the population lived in rural and
suburban areas during that time. In 2000, 56,334 of the county's 96,287 residents, or
nearly 60 percent, lived in rural and suburban areas. Another trend is the loss of
population from the central -city areas in Shelby and Kings Mountain.
The Cleveland County Future Land Use Map, adopted as part of the Cleveland County
2005 Land Use Plan, identifies generalized land use patterns through 2015 (see Figure
5). The land use plan map indicates that growth in the county is expected in the
central and southern areas with rural residential uses primarily to the north and west.
(Rural residential includes residential uses with a 1 -acre minimum lot size and limited
commercial uses.) In addition, most of this northern area is in a protected water supply
watershed. The predominant land use designation in the central portion of the county
(outside municipalities) is residential. Much of this area, which is not in the protected
water supply watershed area, is zoned for a one -half acre minimum lot size. Also in
this central area, several large employment centers outside municipalities are indicated
by light industrial, heavy industrial and commercial designations. These areas are
located in proximity to major transportation corridors on the periphery of municipalities.
21

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
4.4 Water Demand Projections
4.4.1 Historical Water Demand
Available historical water plant records (1999 — 2007) were evaluated to provide a
basis for projecting future raw water supply needs. Historical records were provided by
residential and non - residential use categories. Non - revenue water usage and
unaccounted flow records were available for the previous five years (2003 — 2007).
Historical records are shown in Tables 14, 15, and 16.
The average residential demand was estimated to be 150.6 gpd per metered
connection. Using the Census reported average household size for Cleveland County
of 2.53 persons, water usage was 59.5 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
Average non - residential demand was estimated to be 465.9 gpd per metered
connection. Also, from 1999 to 2007 an average of 9.2 non - residential meters were
added to the system each year.
Non - revenue water includes water used for system processes such as backwash, line
cleaning and flushing, as well as water used for fire protection. From 2003 -2007, non -
revenue water usage averaged 2.8 percent of the total water plant production. In any
water system, a certain amount of water is lost due to leaks and unknown uses. From
2003 -2007, unaccountable water loss averaged 17 percent of the total water plant
production.
4.4.2 Water Supply Needs
Future water demand was projected for Cleveland County Water based on
population projections and historical water demand records. Average daily demands
for Cleveland County Water are projected to be 6.23 mgd by 2060, while peak daily
demands are expected to be 7.78 m d in 2060, based on the number of existing
p 9 9 -
- -
comment [N19]: why assume a ratio of
--------
_
wells, the projected population growth for Cleveland County, and the district's
o the c ual use demandf what
do the actual use patterns show for CCW
expansion plans (see Figure 3).
in the past 5 -10 years? If that ratio is
different than 1.25:1, wouldn't it be
better to use the actual ratio?
In addition to utilizing historical data, several assumptions were made to estimate
future water demand. First, it was assumed that the service area population as a
percentage of overall county population would remain constant. In Cleveland
County, this assumption is supported by past trends regarding the distribution of the
county's population in urban, suburban and rural areas. It was also assumed that
1110

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
new residential construction in Cleveland County Water's service area would connect
to Cleveland County Water. Projected water demands include an additional 375
connections per year through 2015 due to wells converting. It was assumed that by
2030, all estimated residential wells would be converted to Cleveland County Water.
In adjacent counties, it was assumed that Cleveland County Water's customer base
would continue to expand to include up to 98 percent of the Rutherford County,
Lincoln County and Gaston County expansion areas. In addition, an average of 9.3
new non - residential customers will be added to the Cleveland County Water system
per year with water usage continuing at rates similar to the previous nine years.
Future demand through 2060 for Cleveland County Water, including customers in
adjacent counties, is shown in Table 17.
4.4.3 No Build Modeling
A No Build scenario was modeled in order to assess the ability of Cleveland County
Water's existing run -of -river intake to supply future raw water needs. Specifically, the
purpose of the model was to determine the number of days when there is inadequate
water in the First Broad River to meet future needs, as described in Section 4.4.2.
The model is based on a synthesized period of record from two USGS gaging
stations (Casar and Lawndale) from March 1940 to September 2008.
Assuming a 70 cfs minimum flow requirement, the future peak daily demand of 7.78
mgd4ould_not be-met-on-9.7 percent of the days (or approximately 2,420 days out of
24,954 days). Of these,- as many as 110 days would-be consecutive. Water
shortages lasting at least 10 consecutive days would occur 4.2 percent of the time.
Also, based on historical records, water would not be available on 6.5 percent of the
days (or approximately 1,622 days out of 24,954 days). Of these, no water would be ,
available for periods of at least 10 consecutive days for 2 percent of the 0ays.1
5. Summary
With an estimated available raw water supply at the Cleveland County Water intake of
5.97 mgd, the First Broad River will not consistently meet Cleveland County Water's
projected needs. Today Cleveland County Water provides water for approximately 46
percent of Cleveland County's population, as well as for numerous commercial and
industrial establishments and adjacent areas of Gaston, Lincoln, and Rutherford
counties. With projected population increases, industrial development and the
unreliable nature of groundwater in the county, the number of people who depend on
Comment [N20]: Why is peak demand
used, not the average? First, the peak
demand is not needed every day of the
year. Second, the analysis should
assume a reduction in demand when
there is a water shortage, due to
voluntary, then mandatory, water
conservation measures.
What are the model results if the average
demand is used?
Comment [N21]: Were the only
assumptions a min flow of 70 cfs and a
demand of 7.78 mgd? Were there other
model constraints or operating protocols
for low flow periods?
Comment [7M22]: In DWR's letter of 11/12/08
to Henry Wicker, we indicated that using a 70 cfs
flow -by requirement for the no-build option would
be a reasonably conservative approach, but noted'
that for amounts up to 6 mgd, there are presently no
flow -by requirements, and so water is more available r
than this conservative approach will indicate.
Comment [N23]: It is hard to understand
the meaning of the phrases "water
shortages ", "water would not be
available ", and "no water would be
available ". Do they all refer to flows <70
cfs?
Again, a realistic operations protocol
would allow for withdrawal by reducing
the min release to 36.7 cfs. How do the
model results differ under that scenario?
23

Cleveland County Water will certainly increase. The First Broad River does not provide
an adequate water supply to meet future demands of Cleveland County Water, given
stream flow fluctuations, instream flow requirements and downstream flow needs. In
addition, the run -of -river type intake utilized by Cleveland County Water is particularly
susceptible to drought conditions such as those experienced in 2002. A more
dependable and abundant water supply is needed for Cleveland County.
Draft Purpose and
Need Report
First Broad River Reservoir
24

Draft Purpose and
Need Report
References
6. References
041

Table 3. Annual Discharge of First Broad River near Casa{ - - - Comment [N24]: Update this table to
Water Year include water years 2006 and 2007.
(Oct 1 - Sept 30) Discharge
cfs
mgd
1960 139.3
89.9
1961 94.7
61.1
1962 108.9
70.3
1963 63.4
40.9
1964 69.1
44.6
1965 129
83.2
1966 72.6
46.8
1967 63.2
40.8
1968 87.1
56.2
1969 79.9
51.5
1970 76.8
49.5
1971 83.1
53.6
1972 95.8
61.8
1973 110.3
71.2
1974 107.4
69.3
1975 139.3
89.9
1976 92.5
59.7
1977 101.7
65.6
1978 109.9
70.9
1979 99.4
64.1
1980 113.2
73.0
1981 54.9
35.4
1982 70.9
45.7
1983 106.5
68.7
1984 126.7
81.7
1985 70
45.2
1986 55.3
35.7
1987 91.1
58.8
1988 43.4
28.0
1989 60.6
39.1
1990 113.8
73.4
1991 99.7
64.3
1992 62.7
40.5
1993 135.2
87.2
1994 94.9
61.2
1995 97.8
63.1
1996 93.5
60.3
1997 99.1
63.9
1998 104
67.1
1999 51.8
33.4
2000 41.3
26.6
2001 29.5
19.0
2002 26.8
17.3
2003 151.7
97.9
2004 107.8
69.5
2005 113.4
73.2
Source: httD:Hwaterdata .usas.aov
/nc /nwis /monthly/ ?format= sites selection links &search site no
02152100 &amp; referred module =sw

Table 4. Monthly Mean Discharge (cfs) of First Broad River near Casa{ - - Comment [N25]: Include all years from
19en - ?nn7.
Water
May
Jun
Jul
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
1975
119.1
141.1
385.6
1976
132.3
95.2
90.2
1977
87.8
78.5
141.4
1978
200.0
85.9
157.0
1979
138.4
163.0
173.0
1980
124.8
75.6
174.8
1981
47.2
70.2
63.1
1982
115.3
151.2
70.0
1983
96.9
165.1
155.0
1984
150.3
94.0
234.7
1985
71.5
125.0
59.0
1986
54.8
57.5
87.5
1987
88.1
154.7
228.8
1988
88.1
50.8
44.6
1989
44.4
79.0
97.0
1990
133.5
247.4
194.5
1991
124.5
85.7
143.5
1992
55.5
77.8
78.4
1993
222.9
135.1
287.3
1994
121.0
122.4
180.9
1995
273.0
122.8
177.0
1996
162.6
133.8
134.5
1997
89.0
141.9
188.3
1998
176.9
185.9
173.2
1999
84.3
84.6
57.0
2000
49.8
48.4
77.9
2001
30.9
37.8
76.5
2002
49.0
43.8
56.7
2003
48.7
95.8
156.7
2004
55.4
130.5
57.8
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
149.1
254.4
167.7
94.4
59.4
97.4
193.7
99.9
85.0
89.0
92.8
84.9
52.8
45.7
47.3
223.9
86.9
146.4
163.1
74.7
64.7
42.1
41.7
66.4
53.5
191.2
87.0
98.3
135.1
78.1
61.7
117.4
50.9
40.8
41.5
59.9
156.7
104.7
87.3
77.1
54.1
101.5
119.4
114.9
74.4
212.8
138.9
114.6
90.6
53.7
63.3
75.3
73.2
51.7
59.3
67.7
39.4
42.3
32.7
37.4
29.1
27.3
57.8
87.4
65.7
99.6
62.0
57.6
35.1
44.5
50.9
116.5
291.2
131.6
92.3
59.5
40.0
41.6
45.6
60.1
150.3
157.7
191.2
171.8
99.1
137.7
126.4
55.6
56.9
62.9
58.0
41.4
27.7
77.7
153.2
53.2
40.1
127.6
76.8
52.7
50
32.7
20.5
26.2
38.9
32.5
65.7
100.6
127.8
88.5
74.6
45.9
32.8
58.3
34.9
51.5
60.2
67.5
33.9
23.4
19.2
19.5
37.2
28.5
35.9
26.6
55.4
67.8
74.1
45.4
46.9
130.0
149.5
71.8
100.6
126.3
108.3
66.9
63.3
69.2
42.7
160.0
63.1
72.2
176.4
112.8
88.7
58.4
67.6
41.1
35.0
38.0
45.3
139.2
80.8
86.2
39.0
35.5
44.7
74.4
178.9
142.2
219.1
138.5
80.6
52.4
54.6
35.6
31.1
46.8
56.8
102.1
57.5
89.6
92.6
172.3
66.1
62.7
56.8
69.8
77.1
63.8
97.2
56.4
65.7
49.7
106.5
98.4
62.4
103.4
81.8
69.0
45.4
69.1
56.5
44.5
64.3
116.4
167.8
104.9
99.4
79.9
51.8
44.4
45.6
47.2
58.2
183.7
147.5
78.9
63.1
55.8
37.9
42.9
42.2
52.2
76.4
56.0
37.7
44.7
22.6
22.8
32.5
41.1
40.4
87.1
37.5
23.8
19.2
16.2
22.6
17.6
23.3
30.0
38.0
18.3
19.9
23.0
14.7
24.9
17.4
17.2
22.7
36.1
23.9
14.9
11.4
8.09
21.0
32.9
69.2
111.5
300.2
218.7
260.9
242.8
196.1
85.4
74.1
79.5
85.3
94.5
79.7
135.0
108.7
53.9
347.7
77.2
149.0
171.5
Source:
http : / /waterdata.usgs.gov /nc /nwis /monthly / ?referred module =sw &site no= 02152100 &por 02152
100 1= 1032180, 00060,1,1959- 03,2005 -09 &format =html table &date format= YYYY -MM-
DD &rdb compression =file& submitted form = parameter selection list

Table 13. Cleveland County Top Industries[ _
Company Name
Cleveland County Schools
Cleveland Regional Medical
Center
County of Cleveland
Gardner -Webb University
Wal -Mart Distribution Center
PPG Industries Fiberglass
Products
Eaton Corporation
Entertainment Distribution
Company
White Oak Manor, Inc.
City of Shelby
Cleveland Community
College
Shelby Personnel Services
Reliance Electric Industrial
Company
Curtiss Wright Flight
Systems Inc.
Copeland Corporation
BFS Diversified Products
Honeywell International
Industry
Education and Health Services
Education and Health Services
Public Administration
Education and Health Services
Trade, Transportation, Utilities
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Manufacturing
Education and Health Services
Public Administration
Education and Health Services
Professional and Business
Services
Manufacturing
Employment
Range
1,000+
1,000+
500 -999
500 -999
500 -999
500 -999
500 -999
500 -999
259 -499
259 -499
Location
countywide
Shelby
Shelby
Boiling Springs
Shelby
Shelby
Kings Mountain
Grover
Shelby
Shelby
259 -499
Shelby
259 -499
Shelby
259 -499
Kings Mountain
Manufacturing
259 -499 Shelby
Manufacturing
259 -499 Shelby
Manufacturing
259 -499 Kings Mountain
Manufacturing
259 -499 Shelby
Source: North Carolina Department of Commerce, NC Profile
hftp://eslmi23.esc.state.nc.us/ncptindlnfo/topTen.aspx
Comment [N26]: What year are these
data?
Are any of these now out of business? or
reduced in size?
At any rate, how were these data (and
Table 12) used to project future water
demand?

Title I7: "lAfdtet''�em tftl %r "4T1wml rftl Coudty:#Afd e
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060
County Population
96,618
97,190
97,784
98,384
99,040
99,370
99,936
100,505
101,078
101,654
102,233
102,815
Estimated Service Area Population
62,931
63,174
63,560
63,950
64,376
64,591
64,958
65,328
65,701
66,075
66,451
66,830
Percent Service Area Population Served
82.3%
89.8%
97.3%
99.3%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
Population Served
51,787
56,754
61,865
63,515
64,332
64,547
64,915
65,284
65,657
66,031
66,408
66,786
Number Residential Metered Connections
20,469
22,432
24,453
25,105
25,428
25,513
25,658
25,804
25,951
26,099
26,248
26,398
Rutherford County
Population
62,806
62,843
62,782
62,696
62,556
62,239
62,127
62,015
61,903
61,791
61,679
61,568
Estimated Service Area Population
3,633
3,613
3,610
3,605
3,597
3,579
3,572
3,566
3,559
3,553
3,547
3,540
Percent Service Area Population Served
8.5%
11.1%
14.4%
18.7%
24.4%
31.7%
41.2%
53.5%
69.6%
90.5%
98.0%
98.0%
Population Served
310
401
520
676
876
1133
1471
1909
2477
3214
3476
3469
Number Metered Connections
127
164
213
277
359
464
603
782
1,015
1,317
1,424
1,422
Lincoln County
Population
69,174
76,737
83,445
89,609
96,343
102,343
112,158
122,914
134,701
147,619
161,776
177,290
Estimated Service Area Population
2,271
2,509
2,729
2,930
3,150
3,347
3,668
4,019
4,405
4,827
5,290
5,797
Percent Service Area Population Served
2.9%
4.0%
5.7%
7.9%
11.1%
15.5%
21.7%
30.4%
42.6%
59.6%
83.4%
98.0%
Population Served
66
101
154
232
349
519
796
1222
1875
2877
4413
5681
Number Metered Connections
25
39
59
89
133
198
304
466
716
1,098
1,684
2,168
Gaston County
Population
193,212
207,696
215,548
222,485
229,697
235,699
246,065
256,887
268,185
279,980
292,293
305,148
Estimated Service Area Population
1,453
1,558
1,617
1,669
1,723
1,768
1,845
1,927
2,011
2,100
2,192
2,289
Percent Service Area Population Served
6.1%
8.5%
11.9%
16.7%
23.4%
32.8%
45.9%
64.2%
89.9%
98.0%
98.0%
98.0%
Population Served
89
133
193
279
403
579
847
1238
1809
2058
2148
2243
Number Metered Connections
35
53
76
110
159
229
335
489
715
813
849
886
Total Population Served
52,251
57,389
62,733
64,702
65,961
66,779
68,029
69,653
71,817
74,179
76,445
78,180
Residential Flow (mgd)
3.11
3.41
3.73
3.85
3.92
3.97
4.05
4.14
4.27
4.41
4.55
4.65
Non-residential Flow (mgd)
0.420
0.442
0.464
0.486
0.508
0.530
0.552
0.574
0.596
0.618
0.640
0.662
gjt�rpveitu8 W$Stftgd):BAln,�
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.15 _
Unabcodntdd'Flow, (mddi 0'I40%1
0.45
0.56
0.60
0.62
0.64
0.65
0.66
0.68
0.70
0.72
0.75
0.76
Maximum day demand
5.09 5.65 6.15 6.35 6.49 6.60 6.74 6.91 7.13 7.37 7.60 7.78
Notes:
2005 base data provided by CCW; the number of metered connections includes active and inactive meters
Average household sizes provided by the 2000 US Census for each county
Per capita residential water usage is 59.5 gpd based on actual usage from 1999 - 2007
Non - residential usage per tap is based on actual usage from 1999 - 2007 of 465.9 gpd /tap
Non - revenue water is 2.8% of total usage based on average for 5 year period (2003 - 2007)
Unaccounted water averaged 17% of total usage for 5 year period (2003 - 2007)
CCW service area includes 65% of county population
Assumptions:
Service area population as percentage of county population will remain constant (service area population growth will be at same rate as the county overall)
In the Cleveland County service area, new construction will be served by CCW
In the Cleveland County service area, 375 new taps /year will be due to wells converting to CCW through 2015; by 2025 more than 4,000 estimated residential wells would be converted to CCW
In Rutherford County service area, assume 30 percent growth in customers per 5 year period, up to 98 percent of population
In Lincoln County and Gaston County service areas, assume 40 percent growth in customers per 5 year period, up to 98 percent of population
Non - residential usage assumes an additional 47 taps per 5 -year period based on actual number of taps added from 1999 - 2007 (average of 9.3 non - residential taps added per year)
The maximum day demand (peak flow) is 25 percent more than the average day demand
Average unaccounted water will be reduced to 14% of total usage
Comment [1427]: Explain how the various
data in tables 6 -11 were used to arrive at
the population estimates here in table 17.
Were the averages given more weight
than the census tract data? How were
housing numbers used?
Similarly, how were the non - residential,
business, etc. data combined to project
the future?
Comment [1428]: Is it valid to assume that
non - revenue water will remain at 2.8%
over the 50 year period?
Comment [1429]: Why is there no
projection of reducing the unaccounted
for demand over the next 50 years?
Other systems have shown rapid
improvements in reducing this amount to
well below 10% in less than 10 years.

Cleveland County Water
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Preliminary Alternatives Report
(draft)
First Broad River Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Cleveland County, North Carolina
January 12, 2009

Table of Contents
Page
Project Purpose and Need ..................................................................... ............................... I
Initial Alternatives Considered .................................................................................... ..............................2
No- Action Alternative .................................................................................................. ..............................3
Implementation of an Aggressive Water Conservation Plan to Reduce Demands ..... ..............................3
Implementation of the Use of Recycled Treated Wastewater ..................................... ..............................4
Increased Utilization of Groundwater Supplies ........................................................... ..............................5
Increased Withdrawal from the CCW Existing First Broad River Intake ................... ..............................6
Construction of Additional Finished Water Storage Tanks ......................................... ..............................7
Purchase Water from other Sources ............................................................................. ..............................8
Cityof Shelby ..................................................................................................... ............................... 10
Cityof Kings Mountain .................................................................................... ............................... 11
Broad River Water Authority (BRWA) ............................................................ ............................... 12
Townof Forest City ........................................................................................... ............................... 13
Cityof Hickory ................................................................................................... ............................... 14
Construction of a New Raw Water Intake on the Broad River ............................... ............................... 15
Reservoir on First Broad River ................................................................................ ............................... 16
Development of a Reservoir on Knob Creek ........................................................... ............................... 16
Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Knob Creek
with Pumped Storage from the Existing CCW First Broad River intake and
PumpStation ........................................................................................................... ............................... 17
Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Crooked Run
Creek (upper site) with Pumped Storage from the Existing CCW First Broad
River intake and Pump Station ................................................................................. ............................... 17
Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Crooked Run
Creek (lower site) with Pumped Storage from the Existing CCW First Broad
River intake and Pump Station ............................................................................... ............................... 18
Alternatives for Further Consideration ..................................................................... ............................... 19
AppendixA ............................................................................................................... ............................... 20
AppendixB ............................................................................................................... ............................... 21

Project Purpose and Need
A "Purpose and Need Report" for the project has been completed and from that study it is projected that
Cleveland County Water (CCW) will need 6.23 million gallons per day (MGD) of raw water by 2060 to
meet average day demands and 7.78 MGD to meet peak day demands. At the Cleveland County Water
intake on the First Broad River, the estimated available raw water supply under low flow conditions is 5.97
MGD.
Historical records from 1940 through 2008 were used to assess the ability of Cleveland County Water's
existing run -of -river intake to supply future raw water needs. Depending on the minimum instream flow
requirement, the future peak daily demand of 7.78 MGD would not be met on 9.7 percent of the days
(2,420 out of 24,954 days). Of these, as many as 110 days would be consecutive. Water shortages lasting
at least 10 consecutive days would occur 4.2 percent of the �imeU ,
-
comment [)MI]: similu to WRC comment, see
DWR comments in P &N document.
Demonstration of Need
Comment [N2]: See our comments in the
4P &N! document. If the P &N; document is
adjusted, new text will be needed here.
The First Broad River is insufficient to meet projected demands, based on the following conditions:
• Fluctuations in the normal stream flow of the First Broad River vary widely and affect water availability
at the Cleveland County Water intake on a daily basis.
• Cleveland County suffered a severe drought that peaked in 2002. The county is experiencing another
drought and is susceptible to future droughts. A long -term solution is needed to ensure adequate
drinking water, especially during drought conditions.
• Groundwater is not a reliable source of water in the Cleveland County area, as wells either run dry or
have low water levels. Water quality is also a concern. It is estimated that approximately 8,000 housing
units (approximately 20,240 persons) rely on individual groundwater wells as the sole source of potable
water. It is expected that most of these residences will become Cleveland County Water customers
through the planning period (2060).
• The population of Cleveland County Water's current service area is projected to increase by
approximately 6,000 persons by 2060. It is expected that these new residents will be Cleveland County
Water customers.
• Based on continuing requests for service connections, it is evident that the need for a dependable source
of potable water does not stop at the county line. Cleveland County Water already serves
approximately 500 customers in Gaston, Lincoln and Rutherford counties. Cleveland County Water
plans to expand its service area in areas that can be more easily and economically served by Cleveland
County Water rather than existing water systems in these counties.
Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure a dependable water supply for Cleveland County Water that
meets projected long -term (2060) needs. A "dependable" water supply will provide the district's needs and

maintain required instream flows (assuming water conservation measures are implemented in accordance
with an approved drought management plan).
Initial Alternatives Considered
The regulations developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for implementation of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process require the development of alternatives for the
proposed project and an objective evaluation of "all reasonable alternatives ". In order to meet the CEQ
regulations the following alternatives have been identified:
• No- Action
• Implementation of an Aggressive Water
• Implementation of the Use of Recycled'
• Increased Utilization of Groundwater Su
• Increased Withdrawal from the CCW Existing First
• Construction of Additional Finished Water Storage
• Purchase Excess Water Demands from an Existn€
continued utilization of the CCW intake. Potential
➢ City of Shelby
➢ City of Kings Mountain
Broad River Water Authority (BRWA)
City of Hickory
Demands
Intake
Public Water Supply System in addition to the
vstems to be considered are:
• Construction of a New Raw Water Intake on the Broad River
• Development of a Reservoir on the First Broad River
• Development of a Reservoir on Knob Creek
• Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Knob Creek with Pumped Storage
from the Existing CCW First Broad River intake and Pump Station
• Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Crooked Run Creek (upper site)
with Pumped Storage from the Existing CCW First Broad River intake and Pump Station
• Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Crooked Run Creek (lower site) with
Pumped Storage from the Existing CCW First Broad River intake and Pump Station
2

No- Action Alternative
Under the No- Action alternative, CCW would continue to withdraw water from the current raw water intake
located at the confluence of the First Broad River and Knob Creek. This alternative would result in no
changes to the existing conditions within the project area and water flow fluctuations in the First Broad
River would continue to affect the dependability of the river as a water supply for the CCW service area. A
review of historical stream flow records and modeling of the river basin as a part of the draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS) indicates that the First Broad River has inadequate flow to meet the projected
CCW demands as well as in- stream flow requirements imposed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality and other resource agencies. Approximately 10% of the time the flow in the river is inadequate to
meet both of these demands-1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ comment [)M3]: see DWR comment on page 23
of P &N document.
Implementation of the "No-Action" alternative would result in periods when CCW would be unable to meet Comment [N4]: see comment on page r.
current and projected future water demands, especially during periods of drought or low stream flow. The
lack of an adequate water supply has the potential to adversely impact public health and would likely limit
population growth and development in Cleveland County, as well as portions of adjacent counties served by
CCW.
The "No-Action" alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project given the fact that under
current demands the current source is inadequate to supply the required amount of raw water and is certainly
inadequate to meet projected future demands. While the ` No- Action" alternative would avoid any adverse
environmental impacts, it does not meet the requirements of the purpose and need for the project.
Requirements of NEPA require that the "No-
of the alternatives analysis; therefore this a
consideration as a baseline' condition.
of an
tive be carried forward through the completion
be carried forward for additional review and
Plan to Reduce Demands
The purpose of this alternative would be to implement a more aggressive water conservation plan that would
result in a substantial reduction in per capita consumption to a level that would possibly allow CCW to meet
future demands without the need for an expansion or development of new water sources.
CCW has experienced drought conditions since 2000 and as a result had in place a successful program of
water conservation. This program is a volunteer program but management has the option to implement
mandatory restrictions in the case of a severe drought conditions or a water emergency. CCW also has in
place a "Water Shortage Response Resolution" that was adopted by CCW in February 2003. (See Purpose
and Need Section) The resolution stipulates conservation measures for both voluntary and mandatory
conservation phases. These measures address indoor residential use, outdoor residential use, and industrial
use.
The water conservation program has been successful and has resulted in a reduction in per capita demands
and the efficient use of the available water supply by the customers of the district. As a part of the DEIS
water usage records for CCW were reviewed from 1999 to present. This review indicates that the current

residential per capita water consumption over the nine year period is 59.5 gpd. However, this number has
decreased to 58.9 gpd /person over the past 5 year period as a result of the water conservation �neasuresj. _The
59.5 gpd /person average daily flow demand has been used to project future residential water demands. This
per capita water consumption is less than more standard accepted per capita recommended demands such as
the 400 gpd /connection recommended by the North Carolina Public Water Supply Section in the "Rules
Governing Public Water Systems ".
Comment [3116115]: This change is small enough
(0.6 gpd) that it may be a stretch to attribute it to
water conservation measures.
The current water conservation measures in place have contributed to this lower than normal residential per
capita consumption.t A review of information provided by the North Carolina Public Water Supply Section- , - Comment [N6]: The ccw conservation
indicates that other water systems serving basically residential customers in the general vicinity of CCW Plan would benefit from including clearly
.'
have documented per capita water consumption numbers of 70 to 120 gpd per person. .defined trigger points.
Unlike many public water systems the majority of the CCW service area is rural by nature and the use of
potable water for irrigation purposes is minimaL1Therefore there are no measures that could be implemented , , - Comment what data are available to
------------------------------ support this statement. Does nobody in
to reduce per capita consumption by reducing the use of water for irrigation. the service area water lawns?
As a stand alone alternative a more aggressive water conservation plan would not satisfy the requirements of
the purpose and need.1 However, the continued implementation of a water conservation; plan will be a vital__ _ -
part of all other alternatives to be considered and the demand projections being used reflect the effectiveness
of the current program. -
Implementation of the Use of Recycled Treated Wastewater
The use of potable water for irrigation purposes by CCW customers is minimal: therefore the use of treated
wastewater for reuse purposes including irrigation supply would have minimal impact on the future
demands of CCW` A program to utilize treated wastewater effluent is dependent on a customer base that
utilizes larger quantities of water for initiation and other non - notable uses. This is not the case for CCW.
In order to adequately utilize treated wastewater will require the upgrade of existing wastewater treatment
plants to supply the treated wastewater effluent. CCW does not own or operate an existing wastewater
treatment plant. The City of Shelby, City of Kings Mountain and Town of Boiling Springs own wastewater
treatment plants that could potentially be utilized and upgraded to produce treated wastewater effluent for
reuse purposes. However, it would be more cost effective to identify areas close to these treatment facilities
for the reuse of the treated effluent. Any reduction in water demand as a result of the reuse of treated
effluent would contribute to the reduction in demand for the City of Shelby, City of Kings Mountain and
Town of Boiling Springs, and would not result in a decrease in demands for CCW.
The use of treated wastewater effluent to reduce the demand for potable water is not an option for CCW and
the program would not satisfy the requirements of the purpose and need and provide for an adequate water
supply to meet future demands associated with growth of the system and is therefore will not be carried
forward for future consideration.

Increased Utilization of Groundwater Supplies
The use of groundwater to meet potable water supply demands in the foothills section of North Carolina has
been somewhat limited due to the geology of the area. Granite rock is underlying much of the area and
groundwater sources are located within fractures in these rock structures. While smaller communities and
residences in Cleveland County with lower water demands have historically been served by groundwater
wells, the limited capacity of water from these bedrock fractures limits the ability of larger water users such
as CCW to utilize groundwater and depend on it as a source.
Groundwater in Cleveland County is obtained by developing wells into fractures in the underlying bedrock.
Historically groundwater production wells with capacities of 50 to 150 gpm are typical. There are no well
defined aquifers in the Cleveland County area to support the required demands of CCW. To meet the
projected demands of CCW well capacity of 7,000 gallons per minute ,(gpm) would be required. Given the
typical well yield the development of an adequate number of wells to meet the projected demands would be
very difficult. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Health estimates that it is very unlikely that
wells with the pumping capacity needed to meet CCW demands can be found in Cleveland County (Setzer
2007).
The recent drought conditions have and continue to impact the capacity of groundwater; supplies. Based
upon records of new home construction and new meter connections by CCW during the past eight years
over 1,000 new customers have connected to the CCW system that were previously served by groundwater
supplies. The following table shows the number of new taps, number of new homes and the number of
connections attributed to poor eroundwater supplies for CCW: --

TABLE I
NEW CONNECTIONS AND GROUINDWATER SUPPLY COMPARISON CCW
Year
New Construction
New CCW Taps
Taps Abandoning Use
of Groundwater
2000
420
529
109
2001
344
567 `'
223
2002
395
651
256
2003
291
402
111
2004
313
349
36
2005
318
336
18
2006
244
309
65
2007
148
332
184
TOTALS
2,473
3,475 "
1,002
Water quality may also be a problem. In some areas of the county, existing wells display high
concentrations of iron and manganese in the groundwater. Water treatment for these metals is necessary
(North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1989). In addition, lithium has been detected in groundwater
in the Chenyville'and Bessemer City vicinity of Gaston County. (The CCW already has more than 100
customers in Gaston County.) Additional treatment can potentially be a significant expense (Setzer 2007).
Due to the shortage of groundwater capacity and water quality concerns, the alternative to utilize
groundwater, either from individual wells or large municipal wells, does not meet the project's purpose or
therefore will not be carried forward for future consideration.
Increased Withdrawal from the CCW Existing First Broad River Intake
Withdrawals at the existing CCW intake site are constrained by normal flows of the First Broad River and
the required instream flow requirements established by the North Carolina Division of Water Resources.
Safe yield for run of the river type raw water intakes is dependent upon the 7Q10 flow of the stream. 7Q10
flow is defined as the average low flow over a 7 consecutive day period that occurs once every 10 years.
Water withdrawals of up to 20% of the 7Q 10 flow are typically permitted. The calculated available yield of

the First Broad River at the existing CCW intake based upon previously published 7Q10 flows for the
stream is 10.0 MGD. However, during the 2002 drought the available supply dropped to less than 4.0
MGD.
As a part of the preparation of the DEIS for the proposed First Broad River Reservoir additional modeling
of the river has been completed to determine the available water supply. This modeling shows that based
upon historical flow records for the First Broad River that the required 7.78 MGD future peak daily demand
for CCW is not available 10% of the time.tThe modeling was conducted with an instream flow of 71.6 cfs , - Comment [Nii]: see comment on page 1.
below the CCW intake. The 71.6 cfs was recently determined as the acceptable required flow by the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) based upon a site- specific study of aquatic habitat and
instream flows (see Appendix A).
In the absence of some type of raw water storage
supply during drought conditions, is not considered
need. Therefore this alternative will not be carried fi
Construction of Additional Finished Water Storage
This alternative would consist of the construct
various locations in the CCW distribution syst
the water treatment plant would be operated i
would then be stored until the ttime !needed for
CCW currently has storage tanks with
the system. These tanks are located tc
periods of peak instantaneous demai
Administrative Code, Title 15A, Di
requires that a minimum of one -half d
storage within the system meets these
this alternative will not provide an adequate
e, and does not meet the project's purpose and
future consideration.
water storage tanks to be installed at
[equate flow in the First Broad River
anacity of 6.0 MGD. Treated water
of 5.1 million gallons at various locations within
ed to maintain adequate system pressures during
,ming Public Water Systems" (North Carolina
iment and Natural Resources, subchapter 18)
d water be provided (Section .0805). The current
Section .1500 of the "Rules Governing Public Water Systems" also address water quality standards and
require certain quality parameters as mandated by USEPA and the Safe Drinking Water act as amended.
One of these requirements has to do with the formation of various disinfection by- products within the
system. The age of the water in the system has a direct impact on these parameters. Implementation of this
alternative to build additional finished water storage in the capacities necessary to provide water supply over
the periods of low stream flows will have a negative impact on these parameters. The increased water age
contributes to increased levels of disinfection by- products and violations of the standards.
This alternative will not meet the purpose and need of the project since it will not provide the additional
capacity needed to meet the demands of CCW. Therefore this alternative will not be carried forward for
future consideration.

Purchase Water from other Sources
This alternative consists of the purchase of finished water on a wholesale basis from an existing municipal
source. Water would be purchased in those amounts necessary to supplement the available supply from the
First Broad River. Based upon the reviews of historical stream flow for the First Broad River and available
withdrawals by CCW during low flow or drought conditions a minimum of 5.0 MGD of finished water will
be needed by CCW to supplement the existing supply during these periods.1 E acl � of the proposed
alternatives for this option must have the capacity to meet this demand. In addition it should be noted that
the purchase of finished water from other suppliers will be on an intermittent basis and only utilized during
those periods of low stream flows.
Municipal sources which are located in the proximity of CCW that can possibly meet the requirements of
this alternative are:
• City of Shelby
need
Comment [)M13]: The 5.0 mgd minimum
available for purchase from other sources needs
further consideration and discussion in the
document. Note that the projected average demand
in 2060 is 6.23 mgd
To adequately address
additional
to CCW.
I water systems associated with this alternative
to their ability and willingness to supply water
reauested information from each of the water
information requested is:
excess water supply capacity to meet the projected
period (2008 — 2060) for CCW during periods of
If so, is there adequate water treatment plant capacity currently in place to supply the CCW
demand? If not, are there plans for such capacity, including all associated appurtenances
such as raw water pumps, raw water transmission mains, finished water pumps and finished
water transmission mains, to be added?
• If there is adequate supply and treatment capacity, would the water system be willing to
enter into an agreement with CCW in which the water system would agree to sell CCW up
to 5.0 MGD during periods of OroughtL , - Comment PM14]: The wording of these
questions seems to eliminate the potential for CCW
to partner with another system to expand their
treatment capacity and other infrastructure.

• If the water system can not commit to supplying 5.0 MGD during periods of drought, how
much could you commit to supplying?
• Please identify the source of the excess capacity the water system would be willing to sell.
• Identify those locations where CCW may purchase the supply of finished water.
• Identify the hydraulic grade line at the proposed connection points.
A copy of the letter may be found in Appendix B.
Three of the potential sources either currently utilize or plan to utilize the Broad River as a raw water
source. Therefore, a discussion of the Broad River and its impact on water supply in the Cleveland County
region is important prior to additional discussion about each of the alternatives. The Broad River forms in
the mountains of Western North Carolina in Buncombe, Henderson and Polk counties and flows into
Rutherford and Cleveland Counties prior to crossing into South Carolina. The river and its tributaries
provide the potable water supply for much of the area. In recent years increased emphasis has been placed
on the river for use as a future water supply. The BRWA currently utilizes the river as their source and a
section of the river upstream of their intake is protected under the rules for public water supplies and source
water protection developed by the Division of
In anticipation of the future use of the river both the Town of Forest City and the City of Shelby have
successfully permitted the reclassification and protection of others areas of the river for future water supply.
The Broad River plays a vital role in the economy of Cleveland County and the surrounding region. The
river also provides water supply for power production in the area. Duke Energy has a major power facility
located at the Rutherford County /ClevelandCounty line at Cliffside. This is a fossil fuel fired facility that is
currently being expanded and upgraded. Water is withdrawn from the Broad River at this location for use in
the production of power. There are also hydro power facilities near Gaffney in South Carolina owned by
Duke Energy. In addition there are smaller hydro power facilities in the upper reaches of the Broad River
basin at Lake Summit, Lake Adger, and Lake Lure.
Duke Energy recently completed a study of the Broad River basin entitled `Broad River Basin Water
Supply Study" that evaluated the ability of the river to meet all of the projected water demands including
potable water supply, power production, and agricultural needs. The study indicates that the river can meet
the projected demands of the region, but with very little margin of error with the assumptions made in the
study.
USGS maintains a number of stream flow gauging stations in the watershed. One of these stations is located
on the Broad River in southern Cleveland County near Boiling Springs (station # 02151500). At this
location the Broad River has a drainage area of 875 square miles. USGS has calculated the 7Q10 flow at
this location to be 198 MGD. A review of records from the gauging station shows a low flow of 53.6 MGD

during the 2002 drought. As previously discussed the NCDWR historically has allowed for the withdrawal
of up to 20% of the 7Q10 flow for water supply. Therefore the available supply from the Broad River near
the Boiling Springs gauge is 39.6 MGD.
Average daily demand for the Cliffside Steam Station was projected to increase from the current of 6.7
MGD to 20.7 MGD in the Duke Energy `Broad River Basin Water Supply Study. These projected demands
will have an impact on water supply availability from the Broad Riveij_ - - comment [)M15]: These projections for
Cliffside may need to be revised depending on
permitting decisions for their proposed expansion.
In addition to the current demands from existing water users on the Broad River other communities have
expressed an interest in the development of the river as future water supplies. Polk County has expressed an
interest in the construction of a water treatment plant on the Green River. Spartanburg Water System has
expressed an interest in development of an intake on the Broad River for the withdrawal of water to
supplement their existing supplies from the Pacolet River. Like the Duke Energy demands these potential
withdrawals, if developed, will have an impact on the availability of water from the Broad River to meet
future water supply demands.
The City of Shelby
The City of Shelby, like CCW also depends on the First Broad River as the supply for the City's water
system. A raw water intake located just north of West Grover Street in the northwestern part of the City
supplies water to the city's, water treatment plant. The treatment plant has a design capacity of 12.0 MGD
and components include three (3) off - stream raw water reservoirs for the storage of water prior to treatment.
Current average daily water demands for Shelby are 4.2 MGD. The City of Shelby also provides water on a
wholesale basis to the Town of Boiling Springs. The contract amount in 2002 was 1.0 MGD (Shelby Water
Supply Plan 2002).
Based onl the City of Shelby's 2002 Water Supply Plan, average daily water demands for the city's service
area are projected to be 8.7 'MGD by 2050, including the contract sales of 1.0 MGD. Assuming an average
day to peak day multiplier of 1.25, approximately 10.88 MGD would be needed in 2050. The City of
Shelby is permitted to withdraw up to 18.0 'MGD from the First Broad River raw water intake once the
water plant is upgraded and expanded, provided stream flows are adequate to permit the 18.0 MGD
withdrawal and also maintain a downstream flow of 25 cfs in the First Broad River. (McGill 2004).
To prepare for future drought conditions, the City of Shelby installed a 30 -inch raw water line from the
Grover Street Water Plant to the Broad River immediately following the 2002 drought. The project was
planned to include a future raw water intake and pump station but these facilities have not been constructed
to date. A temporary diesel driven pump has been installed to withdraw water from the Broad River and
pump to the Grover Street plant during those periods when low stream flows in the First Broad River dictate
the need to utilize this additional source.
The Broad River has been reclassified for future use as a raw water source and is currently classified as WS
-IV by NCDENR, DWQ.
10

Available water supply from run of river type intakes is typically based upon the 7Q10 flow of the river.
Water suppliers are normally allowed to withdraw up to 20% of the 7Q 10 flow without the need for special
environmental studies and permitting. Based upon these criteria the estimated available supply at the City
of Shelby proposed Broad River intake location is 42 MGD. However, it should be noted that the recent
drought conditions experienced in the Cleveland County area have resulted in a decrease in stream flows,
including those in the Broad River. A review of flow information for the Broad River during the drought
period from 2001 to 2008 shows that stream flows have decreased. In an e -mail dated September 23, 2008
USGS estimates that the 7Q 10 flows for the Broad River watershed may be reduced as much as 28% due to
the impact of the recent drought. Should the 7Q10 flows be reduced the available water supply at the
proposed City of Shelby intake location would be decreased to 30.8 MGD.
CCW has an emergency use agreement and metered
volume of water currently offered to the CCW is limited
As previously discussed CCW has requested certain
to supply up to 5.0 MGD of water to CCW.
As of this date CCW has not received a response to the
Given the current design capacity of the City'
City of Shelby does not have adequate car
demands of CCW without improvements to t
City of Shelby will be required to expand If
include the construction of a raw water intake
water capacity for the
The purchase of water on
acceptable alternative that s
with the City of Shelby. The
available water supply.
from the City of Shelby as to their ability
water plant and their projected growth demands the
meet their demands as well as the required future
,r infrastructure_ In order to meet these demands the
r plant. A part of the water plant expansion would
p station on the Broad River to provide adequate raw
from the City of Shelby appears to have potential as an
at analysis as an alternative for the CCW project. Therefore
this alternative will be carried forward for future Onsideratiox - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ comment [JM1e]: Evaluation of this alternative
should include a partnership between CCW and
Shelby to upgrade infrastructure for use of the Broad
River intake, rather than relying on Shelby alone to
complete these improvements and then sell finished
water to CCW.
The City of Kings Mountain
Moss Lake provides the raw water source for the City of Kings Mountain water plant. The City of Kings
Mountain operates an 8.0 MGD water treatment plant adjacent to the lake. The city provides water only
within its corporate limits and to its single municipal customer, the Town of Grover. In 2002, an emergency
pipeline connection with the City of Shelby was constructed to supplement Shelby's water supply during the
drought.
In June 26, 2007 CCW entered into an agreement with the City of Kings Mountain to purchase water on an
as needed, emergency condition. The agreement stipulates "that if in the event of an emergency situation or
need for conservation of the water resources by the City, the city does reserve the right to refuse to supply
water to the District, during such emergency or conservation situation.
11

The approximately 1,000 acre Moss Lake reservoir was formed in 1973 by impounding Buffalo Creek and
is supplied from the 68 square mile drainage area. Information obtained from the Kings Mountain Water
Supply Plan prepared in 2002 and reports prepared by HDR for the Kings Mountain water system indicated
that the safe yield of Moss Lake as 23.0 MGD. The HDR report indicates that the Moss Lake reservoir has
approximately 12,700 million gallons of storage.
The City of Kings Mountain has seen a decrease in average daily water demands over the past several years
due to the loss of several major industrial water users. Many of these were within the textile industry sector
and their loss has resulted in a significant decrease in average daily water demands.
The City of Kings Mountain has initiated preliminary studies as to the feasibility of the construction of a
second water supply reservoir on Muddy Creek to supplement the available water supply from Moss Lake.
Information provided by HDR indicates that the Muddy Creek reservoir is estimated to provide an
additional capacity of 11.1 MGD.
The Duke Energy study of the Broad River basin entitled `Broad River Basin Water Supply Study"
estimates that the demand of the Kings Mountain system will increase to 7.37 MGD over the study period.
Based upon the estimated safe yield of Moss Lake at 23.0 MGD the City of Kings Mountain has adequate
capacity to meet both their projected demands and the future demands of CCW.
As previously discussed CCW has requested certain information from the City of Kings Mountain as to their
ability to supply up to 5.0 MGD of water to CCW.
The City of Kings Mountain has responded to the original request and has requested additional information.
A copy of the letter may be found in the appendix A. CCW provided a response to the initial City of Kings
Mountain letter on December 29, 2008
Given the current design capacity of the City of Kings Mountain water plant and their projected growth
demands the City of Kings; Mountain does not have adequate capacity to meet their demands as well as the
required future demands of CCW without improvements to their water infrastructure. In order to meet these
demands the City of Kings Mountain will be required to expand their water plant and portions of the water
distribution system.
The purchase of water on a wholesale basis from the City of Kings Mountain appears to have potential as an
acceptable alternative that should have additional analysis as an alternative for the CCW project. Therefore
this alternative will be carried forward for future consideration.
Broad River Water Authority
In adjacent Rutherford County, the Broad River Water Authority (BRWA) serves the towns of Ruth,
Rutherfordton, and Spindale; and some of the rural areas of Rutherford County. The BRWA utilizes the
Broad River as its water source with an intake near Rutherfordton, upstream of the confluence of the Green
River. BRWA has an 8.0 MGD water treatment plant and has indicated that many of the components are in
12

place for the expansion of the WTP to a capacity of 12.0 MGD. The estimated safe yield at the BRWA
intake is 13.1 MGD.
CCW has an emergency use agreement and pipeline connection in place with the BRWA.
BRWA has made and continues to enter into agreements for the wholesale of water to a number of regional
customers. BRWA has an agreement with Grassy Pond Water Corporation in South Carolina for the sale of
0.50 MGD of finished water and have recently entered into an agreement with Inman - Campobello Water
District in northern Spartanburg County, South Carolina and Polk County, North Carolina for the sale of
finished water. These contracts, as well as the predicted growth of BRWA will approach the available safe
yield of the BRWA source during the planning period.
As previously discussed CCW has requested certain
to 5.0 MGD of water to CCW.
In a letter dated December 31, 2008 the Broad
have the capacity required to meet the future
carried forward for future consideration.
Town of Forest City
WA as to their ability to supply up
ater Authority (BRWA) indicated that they do not
of CCW. Therefore this alternative will not be
The Town of Forest City utilizes the Second Broad Raver as its water source with an intake located north of
the town. The Town has an 8.0 MGD water treatment plant with many of the components in place for the
expansion of the WTP to a capacity of 12.0 MGD. The town's system includes elevated tanks with a storage
capacity of 2.5 MGD. The town's distribution system extends outside the city limits to serve outlying areas
and other communities. Forest City sells water, under contract, to the towns of Bostic, Ellenboro, and the
Concord Community Water System.
CCW does not currently have a connection in place with the Town of Forest City.
Current average daily demand in the Forest City service area is approximately 3.0 MGD. During the 2002
drought, the available yield of the Second Broad River at the city's intake was less than 4.0 MGD.
In planning for future growth and in anticipation of increased water demands the Town of Forest City has
planned to develop the Broad River as an additional water source. The Town owns a site on the Broad River
in the southern part of Rutherford County and has plans to construct a new raw water intake and pump
station with a capacity of 12.0 MGD to supplement the existing Second Broad River intake and to provide
additional raw water capacity for their system. The estimated available supply at the Town of Forest City
proposed Broad River intake location is 25.0 MGD based upon the criteria for run of the river type intakes
and available withdrawal discussed in the City of Shelby section above.
As previously discussed CCW has requested certain information from the Town of Forest City n-as to their
ability to supply up to 5.0 MGD of water to CCW.
13

As of this date CCW has not received a response to the letter.
Major improvements to the Town of Forest City water system infrastructure will be required to allow the
Town to meet the projected demands of CCW. These improvements include the expansion of the existing
WTP and the construction of a new raw water pump station and transmission line to utilize the Broad River
as an additional source of raw water. With these improvements in place the Town of Forest City could have
the additional capacity to supply the needs of CCW. However, major improvements to the distribution
system would be required to transport the water to the CCW system. In addition water quality could be a
concern due to the residence time of the fmished water and the impact this residence time could have on
water quality.
The purchase of water on a wholesale basis from the Town
acceptable alternative provided that the major improvements
described are made. Therefore this alternative will be carried
City of Hickory
The City of Hickory uses the Catawba River (L
Water Plant has a design capacity of 32.0 MGD,
has current contractual agreements with the City
6.30 MGD in the future. The city currently ha!
Hickory, part of the Catawba River as the source
City appears to have potential as an
ter treatment and distribution system
r future consideration.
water supply. The City of Hickory
rveraging 12.1 MGD. The City also
ider County to provide an additional
city." This alternative utilizes Lake
North Carolina regulations require that all flows in excess of 2.0 MGD must be approved by the
Environmental Management Commission and may require the development and approval of an
environmental assessment; prior to approval. To meet the required average daily demand of 5.0 MGD
implementation of this alternative would require permission from the North Carolina Environmental
Manaaement Commission for an'interbasintransfer from the Catawba River basin to the Broad River basin.
The Cabarrus County cities of Kannapolis and Concord have an interbasin transfer certificate, approved in
January 20007, to `transfer 10 MGD from the Catawba River basin and 10 MGD from the Yadkin River
basin to the Rocky River basin. The cities requested a transfer of up to 36 MGD from the Catawba River
basin; however, only up to 10 MGD was approved. The City of Hickory, as well as a number of towns and
counties in the Catawba River basin, passed resolutions in opposition to the transfer. Some of the reasons
given for opposing the transfer of water from the Catawba River basin are:
• permanent removal of water from the Catawba River will reduce lake levels in all 11 Catawba River
lakes including Lake Hickory;
• aquatic life would lose water during critical summer low flow conditions;
• reduced water levels in the basin would result in additional conservation measures during drought;
• the transfer would result in reduced revenues needed to operate the public water and sewer systems
inside the basin; and
14

• Cities and counties within the Catawba River Basin would lose water resources for future economic
and population growth.
A consortium of Catawba River basin local governments, joined by the Catawba River Foundation,
appealed the decision by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to grant the
interbasin transfer certificate
At present, Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utilities also has an interbasin transfer certificate (March 2002) to
transfer water (33 MGD) from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin.
As previously discussed CCW has requested certain information from the City of Hickory as to their ability
to supply up to 5.0 MGD of water to CCW.
In a letter dated December 29, 2008 from Kevin B. Greer, P.E., and the City of Hickory has indicated that
they do have the excess capacity to provide for the future demands of CCW. , However the letter indicates
that the purchase of water will be required on a continuous basis. There are also numerous contractual issues
that would have to be addresses. Of these the most significant is the approval of an interbasin transfer.
Given the opposition expressed by the City of Hickory to
interbasin transfer and opposition from other; groups in the
to obtain the required 5.0 MGD of water from the City of E
not need to purchase water on a daily basis as required by
alternative will not be carried forward for future'considerati
Construction of a New Raw Water Intake on the
e cities of Kannapolis and Concord approved
itawba River basin it appears that an approval
gory would be difficult. In addition CCW does
City of Hickory. Based upon these factors this
River
This alternative would consist of the construction of a new run -of -river type intake on the Broad River and
the utilization of the Broad River for a raw water supply by CCW to supplement the existing First Broad
River source. As previously discussed both the City of Shelby and the Town of Forest City have
documented plans for the future use of the Broad River as an alternative water source. The safe yield of the
Broad River is estimated to be between 25.0 MGD and 42.0 MGD depending upon the proposed intake
location and based upon a withdrawal of 20 percent of documented 7Q1 0 low flow.
In adjacent Rutherford County, the Broad River is the raw water source for the BRWA and will be utilized
by the Town of Forest City in the near future. The Second Broad River, a Broad River tributary is the raw
water source for Forest City, Bostic, and Ellenboro. The City of Shelby recently constructed a temporary
emergency intake on the Broad River for use in emergencies and a portion of the river and watershed were
reclassified to WS IV for use as a water supply. Several other municipalities have expressed interest in
future utilization of the Broad River for water supply, including Spartanburg Water System in South
Carolina.
Polk County, in the upper reaches of the Broad River basin has expressed a desire to construct a new raw
water intake, pump station and water treatment plant on the Green River, a major tributary of the Broad
15

River. In consideration of the available safe yield, other demands for water from the river will impact the
amount of water available for CCW.
The Broad River has adequate supply to meet the projected demands of CCW and to supplement the current
First Broad River source. The absence of raw water storage capability however will make this option,
susceptible to drought conditions, but the river appears to have adequate capacity to meet the projected
CCW demands. Therefore this alternative will be carried forward for future consideration.
Reservoir on First Broad River I
This alternative would consist of the construction of a dam on the First Broad River, immediately upstream
of the existing CCW raw water intake and treatment plant. The initial proposed alternative would impound
areas below 860 -feet msl, providing an estimated safe yield ofpQb MGD.J (The safe yield is based on the
release of 71.6 cfs for in- stream flow ileedsj.) An earthen dam would be constructed across the First Broad_,
River upstream of the existing CCW raw water intake. The impoundment would extend west of NC 10 and
have a surface area at full pool of approximately 1,300 acres. The total drainage area upstream of the dam
location is approximately 146 square miles_
Different scenarios of this option will also be evaluated with pool elevations at 850 and 840. Each of these
scenarios will result in smaller impoundments which will also decrease the safe yield of the reservoir.
This alternative meets all of the requirements of the purpose and need of the project and will provided the
required raw water needed for future potable water demands. This alternative also ensures a more reliable n'
source for the City of Shelby from the First Broad River and will enhance the aquatic conditions in the First
Broad River due to increased stream flows as a result of controlled releases from the new reservoir.
Therefore this alternative will
This alternative would con
860 -feet msl. The propose
Based upon modeling resu
is based on the release of
11
Comment [N17]: This document should
list all assumptions and model operations
protocols used to calculate the safe yield
°estimates for all of the reservoir
alternatives. For example:
1. min flow of X
2. min flow does (or does not) change
with season or inflow
3. demand is reduced (or not) under
mandatory conservation
4. pump size of X mgd
5. etc.
Were the results of the instream flow
study done by NCDWR used in the
assumptions? If not, these safe yield
estimates might be off and none of the
alternatives should; be discarded until new
model runs are performed equivalent to
ALT 2 and ALT 3A.
Comment [N18]: Provide updated safe
yield estimates for all reservoir
alternatives.
Formatted: Highlight
Comment [)M19]: I concur with Chris
Goudreau's comment above. The instream flow
study completed by DWR and described in a letter
dated 6/20/08 did NOT recommend a downstream
flow regime of 71.6 cfs. Evaluation of this
alternative should use downstream release alternative
lction of a dam on Knob Creek and would impound areas below 3A described in the 6/20/08 letter, and possibly
d have a total drainage area o approx imately 35 square miles. release attema ive 2 as well
safe yield of this alternative would be.i MGD. (The safe yield , - Formatted: Highlight
cfs minimum release was calculated based upon the minimum
release for the first Broad River of 71.6 cfs 4sl determined by NCDWR and adjusted to the smaller drainage _ _ - Comment [)M20]: We suggest using the
basin.) For this alternative water would be released from the dam to the existing raw water pump station at study c m l releases described in the instream flow
tuudy completed by DWR described in the 6/20/08
which point the water will be picked up and pumped to the water plant. letter. These numbers are 150 cis (Feb thru April)
and 100 cfs (other months) — ratioed from 146 square
miles to the 35 square mile drainage of Knob Creek.
To impound Knob Creek, an earthen dam would be constructed east of the CCW water treatment plant and
Lawndale -Cesar Road. See Figure I for a map of the lake. The dam would create a reservoir on Knob
Creek with a surface area of approximately 498 acres. With buffers, the area required for this alternative is
approximately 650 acres.
16

This alternative will meet the requirement for projected demands for CCW, but with very little margin for
error in demand projections and other assumptions as to water demands for minimum release and
evaporation. Therefore this alternative will be carried forward for future consideration.
Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Knob Creek with Pumped Storage
from the Existing CCW First Broad River intake and Pump Station
This alternative is identical to the alternative previously discussed for Knob Creek with the exception that
this alternative will have a much larger safe yield[as raw water from the First Broad River will be pumped_- - - Comment [N21]: Provide a number.
from the existing CCW raw water intake at the confluence of the First Broad River and Knob Creek. The
pumped storage option will increase the safe yield of this alternative to _15.0 �4GD[ - - Comment [JM22]: Re- evaluate this amount given
DWR comments above on the minimum release to
use.
This alternative will meet the requirement for projected demands for CCW as described in the purpose and
need statement. However as this alternative will utilize the pumped storage option stream flows below the
existing intake will be decreased to those minimum amounts required by the Division of Water Resources.
This alternative will be carried forward for future consideration.
Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Crooked Run Creek (upper site) with
Pumped Storage from the Existing CCW First Broad River intake and Pump Station
This alternative would consist of the construction of an "off -stream reservoir" on Crooked Run Creek to
provide for the storage of raw water. Two locations have been identified as potential reservoir sites. The
upper impoundment would be located just north of Kistler Road (SR 1514) and extend upstream in a
northwest direction to Walker Road (SR r 1517). This option would form a reservoir with a surface area of
approximately 650 acres and has a drainage area of 5.7 square miles.
The proposed reservoir will utilize the pumped storage option and would be maintained at full pool
elevation during periods of normal to high flows in the First Broad River by pumping water from the
existing CCW raw water intake and pump station located at the confluence of the First Broad River and
Knob Creek to the Crooked Run Creek reservoir. The existing pump station will be upgraded to increase
the pumping capacity to a pump capacity of 15 MGD.
During periods of low flow in the First Broad River, raw water would be withdrawn from the "off- stream
reservoir" for use in the CCW water treatment plant to supplement flows from the First Broad River. A new
raw waterline would convey water from the reservoir to the existing water treatment plant.
The upper site and the resulting 650 -acre reservoir would have a safe yield of Sl[v GDI_ See Figure II for - - comment [�MZS7: Re- evaluate his amount given
a map Of the reservoir. DWR comments above on the minimum release to
use.
Formatted: Highlight
This alternative requires the daily withdrawal of water from the First Broad River to the reservoir from the
existing CCW raw water intake. The daily flow will be required to maintain water quality in the reservoirs
due to the small drainage areas and the resulting normal inflow.
17

-This alternative meets the requirement for projected demands for CCW as described in the purpose and
need statement. This alternative will be carried forward for future consideration.
Construction of a Side Stream (Pumped Storage) Reservoir on Crooked Run Creek (lower site) with
Pumped Storage from the Existing CCW First Broad River intake and Pump Station
This alternative would consist of the construction of an "off - stream reservoir" on Crooked Run Creek to
provide for the storage of raw water. This scenario has a reservoir location located further downstream on
Crooked Run Creek closer to the First Broad River. This option would form a reservoir with a surface area
of approximately 220 acres and has a drainage area of 6.9 square miles.
The proposed reservoir will utilize the pumped storage option and would be maintained at full pool
elevation during periods of normal to high flows in the First Broad River by pumping water from the
existing CCW raw water intake and pump station located at the confluence of the First Broad River and
Knob Creek to the Crooked Run Creek reservoir. The existing pump station will be upgraded to increase
the pumping capacity to a pump capacity of 15 MGD.
During periods of low flow in the First Bn
reservoir" for use in the CCW water treatme
raw waterline would convey water from the
The lower site and the
map of the lake.
This alternative requires the daily witt
existing CCW raw water intake. The
due to the small drainage areas and the
-This alternative meets the requiremej
need statement. This alternative willbc
lad River, raw water would be withdrawn from the "off- stream
nt plant to supplement flows from the First Broad River. A new
reservoir to the existing water treatment plant.
ervoir would have a safe yield of�$�,6 �4GD. See Figure III fora , - comment [�MZa7: Re- evaluate this amount given
DWR comments above on the minimum release to
use.
al of water from the First Broad River to the reservoir from the Formatted: Highlight
flow will be required to maintain water quality in the reservoirs
t for projected demands for CCW as described in the purpose and
carried forward for future consideration.
18

Alternatives for Further Consideration
After consideration of initial alternatives the following selected alternatives are recommended to be carried
forward for future evaluation: Comment [N25]: The alternatives list
should repeat the statement from page 4 r
that water conservation and leak
• No action detection will be used in conjunction with
each alternative.
• Purchase Excess Water Demands for an Existing Public Water Supply System. Potential systems to
be considered are:
➢ City of Shelby
➢ City of Kings Mountain
➢ Town of Forest City
• Construction of a New Raw Water Intake ontb
• Development of a Reservoir on the First Broad
• Development of a Reservoir on Knot
• Construction of a Side Stream (Purr
from the Existing CCW First Broad I
• Construction of a 'Side Stream,(Pur
with Pumped Storage from the Existi
CCW
19
River
b Creek with Pumped Storage
Reservoir on Crooked Run Creek (upper site)
Broad River intake and Pump Station
- servoir on Crooked Run Creek (lower site) with
d River intake and Pump Station

APPENDIX A
20

APPENDIX B
21