20051457 Ver 1_Cleveland County Reservoir Update.msg_20130122

Strickland, Bev
From: Reeder, Tom [tom.reeder @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:58 PM
To: Gillespie, Mitch
Cc: Hobbs, Cindy E
Subject: Cleveland County Reservoir Update
Attachments: 53 - Cleveland Count #4AE7F7.doc; USACE -5 -25 -2010 letter to CCW[1].pdf; USACE- 10- 01 -09- letter to
CCW.pdf
Mitch - Attached is a 2 -page fact sheet from the Army Corps regarding the current situation of the Cleveland County Reservoir
project. I have summarized the contents of the fact sheet below:
• Although Cleveland County had been interested in constructing an impoundment of the First Broad River for some
time (Butch Smith tells me that their interest goes back 13 years), the project received renewed interest after the severe
drought of 2002.
• The Corps received an individual permit application from Cleveland County Water (CCW) on June 22, 2005 to
construct a 1200 acre water supply reservoir on the First Broad River. This proposal would impound approximately 24 miles of
the First Broad River and its associated tributaries.
• CCW's proposed reservoir is driven by drought concerns and potential future capacity needs. CCW is proposing a
regional facility to serve Cleveland, Rutherford, Gaston, and Lincoln Counties in NC; and Cherokee County in SC.
• Based upon initial comments received regarding the construction of the proposed reservoir, the Army Corps made a
determination to require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA).
• During the course of the EIS preparation several alternatives to the construction of the proposed reservoir on the First
Broad River were developed. These alternatives include possible side stream reservoirs on Crooked Run Creek and Knob
Creek with water pumped from the current First Broad River intake and pump station to these side stream reservoirs, or the
use of the Broad River as an additional supply of water. Broad River water could be accessed by either the development of a
new water treatment plant by CCW on the Broad or the purchase of finished water from the City of Shelby or the Town of
Forest City.
• In May and October of 2009, the Corps sent letters to CCW stating their concerns about the proposed reservoir
having significantly more environmental impacts than purchasing water supply capacity from nearby cities and towns, or
constructing an intake on the Broad River. According to the Corps, all of these alternatives appear to meet CCW's purpose
and need, have less environmental impact than a new reservoir, and would be less costly than the construction of a new
reservoir. The Corps stated that if CCW cannot provide information as to why these alternatives are not available to them, and
also demonstrate how the reservoir is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA); the Corps will have
no choice but to deny their request to construct a reservoir on the First Broad River. The Corps also stated that the continued
efforts toward the preparation of an EIS document were an unwise use of the resources of both CCW and the Corps. In the
light of these other alternatives, the Corps strongly urged CCW to reconsider its desire to pursue the reservoir alternative. On
March 24, 2010, and July 2, 2010, CCW responded stating that they still wanted to pursue the proposed reservoir and
continue the EIS process. (Copies of these letters from the Corps are attached to this e- mail.) [Butch Smith has told me on
repeated occasions that CCW does not feel that the Broad River is sufficient to satisfy everyone's needs. CCW bases this upon
their observations of the Broad during the drought of 2002 and other drought after this.]
• On April 4, 2012, CCW requested that the Corps stop working on the EIS. They stated that they were in discussions
with the Town of Shelby as a possible co- applicant for the First Broad River Reservoir. If Shelby became a co- applicant this
could potentially change the purpose and need for the proposed reservoir. On January 16, 2013 CCW contacted the Corps and
requested that they resume working on the EIS.
Just let me know what you would like to do next in regards to this . Thanks.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF: May 25, 2010
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW- 2003 -30194
Mr. Clyde Smith, Jr.
Cleveland County Water
Post Office Box 788
Lawndale, North Carolina 28090 -0788
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for the March 24, 2010 letter you sent in response to our October 1, 2009 and
June 1, 2009 letters, discussing our continued concerns with your plan to build a 24 -mile run -of-
river water supply reservoir on the First Broad River in Cleveland County, North Carolina. The
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers (USACE) continues to have serious concerns about the
environmental impacts of your project when compared to other, less environmentally damaging
practicable alternatives to meet your water supply needs. These alternatives include purchasing,
or right to purchase, finished potable water from the City of Shelby or the Town of Forest City,
and/or the construction of an intake and associated infrastructure on the Broad River to
supplement or meet your water supply needs.
We have reviewed your response, and have asked both HydroLogics, Inc., and the N.C.
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) to comment on the results of the flow study conducted
on the Broad River. In short, we remain concerned that the environmental impacts associated
with your proposed reservoir are substantial; we believe that binding agreements to provide
water in all situations can be obtained from Shelby or Forest City; and, as further explained in
the enclosed letters, we believe that a Broad River intake would meet all projected needs of
Cleveland County Water (CCW). Based on the information available, it is unlikely that your
proposed project is the least damaging alternative available to you. If that is the case, our
regulations preclude us from issuing a permit. The cost, time and effort of completing an
Environmental Impact Statement to your organization will be significant. The purpose of this
letter is to ensure you understand the difficulty your organization faces before you make the
decision to expend those funds in pursuing this project.
Environmental Issues Associated with Reservoirs
You have stated that until the environmental evaluation of the proposed reservoir is completed,
we would not know the impacts the proposed reservoir would have on the aquatic environment.
We have identified and discussed with you several direct impacts associated with the
construction of a run -of -river reservoir, including the potential take of endangered species,

-2-
impacts to existing fish and wildlife resources, and substantial adverse impacts and loss of
aquatic resources associated with the First Broad River, its associated tributaries, and adjacent
wetlands. Run -of -river reservoirs can significantly alter both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The
conversion of the First Broad River to a reservoir will result in the loss of natural stream
functions, alter the hydrology, and affect native ecosystem processes within and downstream of
the proposed reservoir site. The majority of native aquatic species are adapted to stream
conditions (flowing, highly oxygenated water and coarse sand, gravel and rocky bottoms). The
impoundments created by the construction of the dam eliminate spawning and foraging habitat.
Water depth increases, flow decreases, and silt accumulates on the bottom. Impoundments not
only destroy riverine habitat within the impounded portion of the river, but also alter the quality
and stability of the upstream and downstream reaches by adversely affecting water flow regimes,
velocities, temperature, chemistry, and nutrient cycles. The effect of impoundments results in
changes in fish and macroinvertebrate communities, often favoring non - indigenous species;
species that require clean gravel and sand substrate are lost. In addition, dams result in
fragmentation and isolation of populations of species, acting as effective barriers to the natural
upstream and downstream expansion of fish species. The reduction in range and isolation of the
populations greatly increase the vulnerability of a species to extirpation. It reduces the species'
ability to respond to changes (natural and manmade) within its environment and to recover from
impacts (large and repeated small scale impacts) to its numbers that a species with widely
dispersed, interconnected healthy populations would likely be able to overcome. Although
habitat will remain in an aquatic state, the fauna and ecosystem functions associated with rivers
are not alike and cannot be replaced with associated fauna and functions of a reservoir.
The conversion of these waters, and the loss of associated functions, would result in a
requirement'to provide mitigation to compensate for these losses. According to the best
available information concerning mitigation costs, it may require the expenditure of tens of
millions of dollars, or the removal of an existing dam on another river within the watershed, to
provide the necessary compensatory mitigation for the fill for the dam and the subsequent
upstream flooding impacts.
Purchasing Capacity from City of Shelby and /or the Town of Forest City.
Our earlier correspondence has thoroughly explained the possibility of water purchase from the
municipalities of Shelby and Forest City, each of which has a documented and published plan to
expand capacity to a degree satisfactory to meet CCW's needs. In your letter of March 24, 2010,
you conclude that "CCW does not expect that Shelby or Forest City would give CCW any
`guaranteed right' to draw water...." We are unclear what this assumption is based upon. Other
municipalities, including the City of Hickory, utilize Potable Water Service Agreements which
can indeed give an entity like CCW the guaranteed right to draw water. In his letter to USACE
of April 23, 2010, NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Director Tom Reeder noted, in
reference to your discussion of water purchase, that "[t]his letter may not fully address the
concept of actually purchasing permanent capacity from either Shelby or Forest City. Such an
agreement would include costs for CCW's `share' of the infrastructure and possibly a portion of
O &M costs. Under such an agreement, CCW would be able to get water whenever they choose
up to the capacity they own, but would only pay for the water when they use it." Until the issue
of purchased capacity from other systems is addressed more thoroughly, USACE will continue to

-3-
assume that such alternatives are available to CCW, at much less cost and substantially fewer
aquatic impacts than a new reservoir.
Broad River
North Carolina Division of Water Resources Instream Flow Determination.
Based on the information available to us at this time, the USACE continues to believe that a run -
of -river raw water intake on the Broad River is a viable alternative to your proposed project.
According to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources ( NCDWR), and codified at 15A
NCAC 01 C.0408(2)(b), if the requested withdrawal amount (total instantaneous withdrawal rate)
is less than 20% of the 7Q10 flow established for a specific intake location, then no additional
studies are required to determine minimum instream flows ( "flow -bys ") below the intake. This
review has already been conducted for Shelby's existing intake and the intake planned by Forest
City, and both are substantially less than 20% of the 7Q10. In fact, even if 7.9 MGD (CCW's
projected water demand in 2060) is considered in addition to either the Forest City or Shelby
withdrawal (as opposed to being part of their capacity), the threshold of 20% of the 7Q10 flow is
still not reached. If the withdrawal capacity is less than 20% of the 7Q10 flow, a public water
supply can withdraw water at any given river flow condition up to its approved capacity. This
includes periods when flows in the river are below the 7Q10. Environmental review documents
would still need to be prepared for any new or added capacity that is greater than or equal to 1.0
mgd, and consultation with the NC Division of Water Quality would be required to determine if
any downstream wastewater discharges would be affected by the upstream withdrawal.
In its evaluation of your response on this issue, NCDWR confirmed that adding a CCW
withdrawal on the Broad River, either separately or as a part of other approved municipal
withdrawals, would not exceed the threshold for establishing "flow -by" requirements. DWR
also noted that "a new water source for CCW from the Broad River could likely be implemented
much more quickly than a new reservoir. Completing the EIS is no guarantee that a new
reservoir on the First Broad River would receive permit approval."
Water Supply Model for the Broad River
USACE asked Mr. Brian McCrodden, P.E., of HydroLogics to review your letter with respect to
the modeling of the Broad River, and we offer the following information from his response,
which we have enclosed in full. Specifically, Mr. McCrodden indicates that "there is insufficient
evidence to eliminate the Broad River as an alternative to CCW's proposed reservoir." He states
that, so long as existing state water usage policies remain in place, "there would be adequate
water in the Broad River every single day in the 59 -year hydrologic record to satisfy CCW's
entire projected demand. This is true even if one assumes no conservation measures on the part
of CCW or any other users in the basin."
A key assumption in CCW's analysis is the possibility that State water withdrawal policies
might change, making the Broad River a less secure water supply option. To our knowledge, no
changed policies have been proposed, and none is reasonably likely to be implemented in the
near future. Both Mr. Reeder, whose Division is in charge of such policy, and Mr. McCrodden

-4-
believe that it is likely that, were such usage policies to change, provisions would be made to
exempt, or at least protect, existing users. We understand that while the State may change water
intake policies at some time in the future, it also has the authority to change the minimum release
from a reservoir, with similar effects on the user. Given that no change in policy is imminent, it
would be exceedingly difficult for USACE to grant a permit which relied heavily on the
assumption that these rules would change, and that existing uses would not be protected in any
way. In making a permit decision, USACE will focus on existing policies, or those that are
reasonably forseeable within the planning timeframe.
CCW also states that, in formulating its model, some provision should be made for
potential demands for water downstream in South Carolina. While USACE does understand that
it is important to consider all users in the watershed when developing water usage plans, this
agency will rely heavily on the existing policies of the NC Division of Water Resources when
considering downstream users. Regarding the ongoing matter with South Carolina, Mr. Reeder
states that "CCW is in an enviable position where regional approaches will not involve approval
of an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) certificate. The ongoing lawsuit by South Carolina in the
Catawba River Basin pertains to IBT issues." Absent a State position regarding an adjustment of
minimum flows for downstream users in other states, USACE cannot concur that adjusting or
imposing instream flow minimums for South Carolina water usage is appropriate.
Finally, it is important to note that the water usage numbers used to run the models for the
Broad River include no substantial conservation measures. As recent droughts have confirmed,
and the Environmental Protection Agency has stressed in comments on this project, reasonable
conservation measures will need to be considered and applied to any projections of water needs
within CCW's planning horizon. Reasonable measures will reduce consumption at all times, but
particularly in times of drought, potentially alleviating a considerable amount of need during
low -flow periods. While we note that current policies would allow for Broad River withdrawals
at any flow condition, we strongly support, and any reservoir alternative must include,
substantial conservation measures to reduce consumption and thereby reduce impacts.
Corps Conclusion on Continuing EIS Process
In short, CCW asks USACE to continue its investigation of a 24 -mile run -of -river reservoir, and
the associated environmental impacts, based upon the assumptions that:
1. Binding agreements for purchase of water capacity are not possible with either the City of
Shelby or the Town of Forest City;
2. State water withdrawal policies, which currently would allow for all of CCW's projected
needs to be met through a Broad River intake, will change;
3. Changed water withdrawal policies would not provide any relief or protection for existing
users;
4. Specific allocations should be made for downstream water usage in South Carolina.
The USACE cannot, at this time, agree with any of these assumptions.

-5-
All of the alternatives to a reservoir described above appear to fully meet CCW's purpose
and need, have significantly less environmental impact than a new reservoir, and be far less
costly than the construction of a new reservoir. Unless you can show otherwise, your project fails
to comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, which state, in
part, that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable
alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences." (40 CFR 230.10 (a)).
If CCW requests that we continue the permit process, USACE will do so. Upon receipt of
a request to proceed, USACE will consider the information at our disposal, and either re- initiate
the EIS process or make a permit decision with the information in hand.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence, please do not
hesitate to contact Henry Wicker, in the Wilmington Regulatory Division Office, at
910 - 251 -4930, or Scott McLendon, Acting Regulatory Chief, at (910) 251 -4630.
Sincerely,
erson MJ4s age
olonel, U. S. y
District Commander
Enclosures
Copies furnished:
Donald Melton, Chairman
Post Office Box 147
Casar, NC 28020
Dewey Cook, Vice Chairman
307 Wes Cook Road
Casar, NC 28020
CJ Pete Pedersen, Treasurer
Post Office Box 156
Polkville, NC 28136
Bill Cameron, Secretary
3016 Bettis Road
Grover, NC 28073

-6-
Amy Bridges, Commissioner
1920 Zelda Drive
Shelby, NC 28150
Jerry Self, Commissioner
PO Box 327
Lattimore, NC 28089
John Taylor, Commissioner
PO Box 629
Boiling Springs, NC 28017
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Tom Reeder, Director
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Jim Mead
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611
Hydrologics Inc.
Attn: Brian McCrodden
811 Mordecai Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Robin Pugh and Barney O'Quinn
Arcadis G &M of North Carolina, Inc.
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Keith Webb
McGill Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 2259
Asheville, NC 28802
Pam Boaze and John Boaze
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc.
Post Office Box 241
Whittier, North Carolina 28789 -0241

USFWS
Bryan Tompkins
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
USEPA
Wetlands Regulatory Section — Region IV
Becky Fox
1307 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
NCWRC
Chris Goudreau
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, North Carolina 28572

Affl1*_WVWA
4*w�-A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue Thomas A. Reeder
Governor Director
April 23, 2010
Henry Wicker
Project Manager, Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Dear Mr. Wicker:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
On March 10, 2010 Division of Water Resources (DWR) staff met with you, other agencies, and
Cleveland County Water (CCW) and their consultants to discuss the modeling of the Broad
River in the context of a potential water supply withdrawal. This is a follow -up to that meeting
and your request that we confirm DWR's position regarding this water supply alternative.
DWR must follow existing rules and guidelines when reviewing any proposal to develop a new
or expanded water supply. A letter from DWR to CCW dated 12/9/09 is attached which explains
the minimum threshold for establishing "flow -by" requirements associated with run -of -river
withdrawals. Withdrawals from the Broad River by Shelby and Forest City do not exceed this
threshold. Adding a withdrawal by CCW — either separately or as part of either of the two
approved municipal withdrawals — also does not exceed this threshold.
It is impossible to predict when or if the rules affecting water withdrawals might be changed by
the General Assembly. However, it is also possible that if additional withdrawal rules are
enacted, existing or approved projects might be exempt from new requirements.
HydroLogics has performed extensive modeling of the Broad River under existing and projected
withdrawal scenarios to determine the effects of withdrawing water for CCW when its needs
cannot be fully supplied by the First Broad River. Based on the information presented by
HydroLogics at the 3/10/10 meeting, additional water withdrawn from the Broad River for CCW
would have little effect on downstream flows.
A new water source for CCW from the Broad River could likely be implemented much more
quickly than a new reservoir. Completing the EIS is no guarantee that a new reservoir on the
First Broad River would receive permit approval.
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611 One
Phone: 919 - 733 -4064 \ FAX: 919 - 733 -3558 Internet: www.ncwater.org NorthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper Natmallry

Tom Reeder to Henry Wicker, April 23, 2010
CCW Withdrawal from Broad River, Page 2 of 2
Our Department supports regional solutions to meet water supply needs, particularly when those
needs are most prominent during drought. CCW is in an enviable position where regional
approaches will not involve approval of an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) certificate. The ongoing
lawsuit by South Carolina in the Catawba River Basin pertains to IBT issues.
Thank you for providing a copy of the letter you received from CCW dated 3/24/10 with regards
to alternatives being evaluated during preparation of the EIS for a new water supply source. This
letter may not fully address the concept of actually purchasing permanent capacity from either
Shelby or Forest City. Such an agreement would include costs for CCW's "share" of the
infrastructure and possibly a portion of O &M costs. Under such an agreement, CCW would be
able to get water whenever they choose up to the capacity they own, but would only pay for the
water when they use it.
We hope this helps clarify the conclusions from the 3/10/10 meeting. Please contact me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Reeder
Director
attachment
cc: Tom Fransen & Jim Mead- DWR

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Thomas A. Reeder
Director
December 9, 2009
Mr. Butch Smith
Cleveland County Water
Post Office Box 788
Lawndale, North Carolina 28090 -0788
Dear Mr. Smith:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
I am writing to follow up on a recent meeting between the Division of Water Resources (DWR)
and consultants for Cleveland County Water (CCW). McGill and Associates was represented by
Keith Webb and Forrest Westall, and HydroLogics, Inc. was represented by Brian McCrodden.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a request that DWR establish a minimum flow to be
maintained downstream of a potential withdrawal from the main Broad River. Such a
withdrawal is an alternative being considered by CCW as a means to ensure adequate water
availability during periods when sufficient water is not available at the existing intake on the
First Broad River. A withdrawal from the main Broad River might be made directly by CCW, or
through an interlocal agreement with either Shelby or Forest City.
The first step in DWR's review of this type of intake is to determine whether the withdrawal
amount is less than 20% of the 7Q10 low flow. This review has already been conducted for
Shelby's existing intake and the intake planned by Forest City, and both are substantially less
than 20% of the 7QlO. CCW's projected total demand for the year 2060 is about 7.9 mgd, and
some of this need could still be met by the First Broad River intake. Even if this entire amount
of 7.9 mgd is considered in addition to either the Forest City or Shelby withdrawal (as opposed
to being part of their capacity), the threshold of 20% of the 7Q10 flow is still not reached.
If the requested withdrawal amount (total instantaneous withdrawal rate) is less than 20% of the
7Q 10 flow established for a specific intake location, then no additional studies are required to
determine minimum instream flows ( "flow -bys ") below the intake. This policy is codified in the
NC Administrative Code underl5A 1`.CAC O1C.0408(2)(b).
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611
Phone: 919 - 733 -40641 FAX: 919 - 733 -3558 Internet: www.ncwater.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer —50% Recycled 110% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarolina
Natmallty

Cleveland County Water, Broad River Withdrawal Flow -by
December 9, 2009, Page 2 of 2
If the withdrawal capacity is less than 20% of the 7Q 10 flow, a public water supply can
withdraw water at any given river flow condition up to their approved capacity. This includes
periods when flows in the river are below the 7Q 10. Environmental review documents (EA or
EIS) would still need to be prepared for any new or added capacity that is greater than or equal to
1.0 mgd, and consultation with the NC Division of Water Quality would be required to
determine if any downstream wastewater discharges would be affected by the upstream
withdrawal.
Please contact Jim Mead (919/715 -5428 or jim.meadgncdenr.gov )if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
Tom Reeder
cc: Jim Mead, Fred Tarver, Linwood Peele, Steve Reed — DWR
Britt Setzer - PWS
Chris Goudreau — WRC
Henry Wicker - USACE
Keith Webb — McGill and Associates
Brian McCrodden - HydroLogics

May 10, 2010
Mr. Henry Wicker, Special Projects Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Dear Mr. Wicker:
You asked that I review both the March 10, 2010 PowerPoint presentation related to
modeling results for the Broad River and also Cleveland County Water's March 24, 2010,
letter in response to the Corps' letter of October 1, 2009, and provide my opinion as to
whether there is adequate water in the Broad River to meet Cleveland County Water's year
2075 demand.
Based solely on the availability of raw water, I concur with the conclusion in the
PowerPoint presentation that there is insufficient evidence to eliminate the Broad River as an
alternative to CCW's proposed reservoir. Second, there is nothing in the CCW letter of
March 24 that would cause me to alter my opinion. The NC Division of Water Resources
has stated repeatedly (see, for example, the Director's letter to CCW dated December 9,
2009) that so long as an aggregate withdrawal does not exceed 20 percent of the 7Q 10, a
permit to build or expand a water treatment plant will not be denied based on the availability
of water. That is, once a permit is issued, withdrawals up to the permitted limit are allowed
even when flows in the river are below the 7Q10. Put another way, if there is enough water
in the river, the permittee can always withdraw up to the limit of the permit. Our modeling
showed that so long as this policy is in place, there would be adequate water in the Broad
River every single day in the 59 -year hydrologic record to satisfy CCW's entire projected
demand. This is true even if one assumes no conservation measures on the part of CCW or
any other users in the basin. The minimum daily flows at Forest City and Shelby are 44 and
34 cfs, respectively. In my mind, the only relevant question is whether it is actually possible
to withdraw water at these flows, which is a question I am not qualified to answer.
CCW hypothesizes that these rules could change and that a minimum streamflow
requirement might be imposed in the future. Even if this should happen, I am confident that
the State would seek a way to implement the change without imposing an onerous burden on
current permit holders. CCW asserts that only a reservoir will provide adequate assurance of
a reliable source of water. What they do not say, however, is that it is that the State also has
the authority to change the minimum release from a reservoir and thereby alter its reliability.

In my view this is as likely as the possibility that the State might impose minimum flows in
the Broad River.
Hydrology is a statistical science, and there is always some risk that there may not be
adequate water to satisfy all needs. If there is no minimum flow requirement in the Broad
River, however, the risk to CCW is almost infinitesimal and is probably less than the risk
associated with any reservoir that CCW could get permitted.
Feel free to contact me if you have additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely yours,
HydroLogics, Inc.
Brian J. rodden, P.E.
Vice President

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF October 1, 2009
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW- 2003 -30194
Mr. Butch Smith
Cleveland County Water
Post Office Box 788
Lawndale, North Carolina 28090 -0788
Dear Mr. Smith:
This letter is in reference to Cleveland County Water's application to build a 24 -mile run -of -the -river
reservoir on the First Broad River in Cleveland County, North Carolina, and the ensuing process that the U.S. Army,
Corps of Engineers (Corps) has engaged in to review the application. As you know, the Corps is the lead federal
agency preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will be required for issuance or denial of a permit
for the reservoir under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps has continued to work with your organization,
affected stakeholders, the North Carolina Divisions of Water Quality (DWQ) and Water Resources (DWR), as well
as other local, state, and federal agencies, in the review of your request. As a result of our ongoing investigation and
review, we are concerned that we may not be able to permit your proposed project, in light of the other available
alternatives outlined below.
Please reference our June 1, 2009 letter to you in which we identified several significant issues of concern
with your proposal to construct a water supply reservoir on the First Broad River in Cleveland County, North
Carolina. To date, we have not received an adequate reply from you regarding the issues addressed in our June 1
letter. We continue to have serious concerns regarding the viability of your proposed project in light of several
potential alternatives that would appear to meet Cleveland County Water's (CCW's) projected needs, have fewer
environmental impacts than your proposal, and cost less than a reservoir. Specifically, it appears that the purchase
of treated water supply capacity from nearby cities or towns, and/or the construction of a new raw water intake on
the Broad River, would satisfy the purpose and need for water supply with much less adverse impacts than the
proposed reservoir. In addition, we remain concerned that the safe yield of the proposed project appears to be more
than what CCW projects to need by the year 2060. As we discussed in our June 1 letter, the Corps may issue Clean
Water Act permits only for the alternative or alternatives found to be the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). Given that a number of identified alternatives appear to be both practicable to
CCW and less environmentally damaging than your proposed project, unless we receive specific information
regarding the impracticability of all of these less damaging alternatives, we will have no choice but to deny your
permit request.
Revised Safe Yield of CCW Preferred Reservoir Alternative.
Recently the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) reviewed the methodology used for
calculating the downstream flow requirement for CCW's preferred 1,200 -acre water supply reservoir alternative and
provided guidance on correcting previous safe yield calculations. Under the revised method for determining
downstream flows, CCW's 1,200 -acre preferred alternative will now have a safe yield of 8.9 MGD. While this
provides a safe yield closer to what CCW needs by the year 2060 (7.91 MGD), the Corps continues to have concerns
about the substantial impacts to the aquatic environment from the proposed project.
CCW's preferred alternative is to construct a 1,200 -acre water supply reservoir that would impound areas
below 860 feet msl, on the First Broad River, near Lawndale, North Carolina. An earthen dam would be constructed

across the First Broad River upstream of the existing CCW raw water intake. Initial feasibility studies indicate that
the dam would be approximately 83 feet high and 1,245 feet wide at the base. The associated emergency spillway,
located south of the dam, would be approximately 1,000 feet wide. The resulting dam would cause the subsequent
upstream flooding of 24 miles of the First Broad River, as well as an undetermined length of associated tributaries.
The conversion of these waters, and the loss of associated functions, would likely result in a requirement to provide
mitigation to compensate for these losses. According to the best available information concerning mitigation costs,
it may require the expenditure of approximately $22 to $43 million, or the removal of an existing dam on another
river within the watershed, to provide the necessary compensatory mitigation for these flooding impacts.
We have identified many significant environmental impacts associated with the reservoir alternative that will
have to be addressed before we can render a final decision. These impacts include, but are not limited to, the
potential take of endangered species, impacts to existing fish and wildlife resources, and substantial adverse impacts
and loss of aquatic resources associated with the First Broad River, its associated tributaries, and adjacent wetlands.
As discussed in our previous letter, potential alternatives to the proposed reservoir include the purchase 4.0 MGD of
treated water supply capacity from the City of Shelby or the Town of Forest City to meet future demands.
The City of Shelby
The City of Shelby, like CCW, 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.
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 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 efs in the First Broad River.
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. CCW provided
approximately $1.1 M in funding to help with the construction of this line. The Corps assumes that, given this
expenditure, that CCW could claim some right to the water supplied by this intake. 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.
Available water supply from run -of -river type intakes is typically based upon the 7Q 10 flow of the river.
Based upon the Corps discussions with North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR), Department of Water Resources (DWR) 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. A review of flow
information for the Broad River during the drought period from 2001 to 2008 shows that during certain periods
stream flows have decreased. In an e -mail dated March 3, 2009, USGS estimates that the 7Q 10 flow for the Broad
River is 306 cfs (197.8 MGD) at the Boiling Springs gauging station including flow data through 2008. Utilizing
the 20% rule from DWR a withdrawal of 39.5 MGD is possible.
Given the current design capacity of the City of Shelby water plant and their projected growth demands, the
City of Shelby appears to have adequate capacity to meet their demands as well as the required future demands of
CCW, provided improvements are made to their water infrastructure. In order to meet these demands the City of
Shelby will be required to expand their water plant. A part of the water plant expansion would include the

construction of a raw water intake and pump station on the Broad River to provide adequate raw water capacity for
the plant during periods of reduced stream flow in the First Broad River. Under current demand conditions it
appears that the City of Shelby has adequate water to supply the additional needs of CCW, and could easily
accommodate future demands through expansion of its plant. It is our understanding that the City of Shelby has
agreed to discussions necessary to consider an agreement of water supply capacity with CCW. The Corps notes that
this alternative would require little or no additional work in waters of the United States to accomplish, and appears
to be significantly less expensive than construction of a reservoir.
Town of Forest Cit
The Town of Forest City utilizes the Second Broad River 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. The
purchase of treated water supply from the Town of Forest City appears to be a readily available alternative.
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 should have the additional capacity
to supply the needs of CCW. Major improvements to the distribution system would be required to transport the
water to the CCW system. The purchase of water on a wholesale basis from the Town of Forest City appears to
have potential as an acceptable alternative provided that the major improvements to their water treatment and
distribution system described are made. These improvements, however, are expected to cost far less, and have much
less environmental impact, than a new reservoir.
Inter -local Afreements
Once CCW has worked out the details of purchasing capacity with either Shelby or Forest City it could then
enter into an inter -local agreement with one of the Towns for the purchase of water on an as- needed basis with the
cost for water being equal to the cost for treatment and delivery of finished water to the CCW metered connections.
The costs for water would be based upon the approved budget for the Town's Water Plants and the budget would be
open to review by CCW on an annual basis. CCW would only pay for water purchased on an as- needed basis.
Based on the information available to us, it appears that purchasing additional water supply capacity from the
adjacent Towns would satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed project and have vastly less impact to wetlands
and waters of the US than CCW's preferred alternative.
CCW use of Broad River
An option that also appears to be readily available to CCW is an intake on the Broad River, which appears to
have adequate flows through drought events to meet all anticipated needs. As mentioned above, CCW has already
contributed significant funds to build a pipeline from the Broad River to Shelby, and could potentially draw water
directly from this pipeline, if necessary. Even if this is not possible, CCW needs to explore an alternative that would
involve pumping water directly from the Broad River. While this may involve some minor impacts to waters and

wetlands, it would still appear to be less environmentally damaging and far less costly that the construction of a
reservoir.
All of these alternatives appear to be to fully meet CCW's purpose and need, have significantly less
environmental impact than a new reservoir, and be far less costly than the construction of a new reservoir. Unless
CCW can provide information as to why these alternatives are not available to you, and also demonstrate that the
reservoir is the LEDPA, the Corps will have no choice but to deny your request to construct a reservoir on the First
Broad River. Accordingly, we feel that continued efforts toward the preparation of an EIS document are an unwise
use of the resources of both CCW and the Corps. In the light of these other, feasible alternatives, we strongly urge
CCW to reconsider its desire to pursue the reservoir alternative at this time. We believe that consideration of one or
a combination of the alternatives outlined in this letter will potentially save CCW significant effort and costs, while
meeting the purpose and need for the proposed project.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence, please do not hesitate to contact
Henry Wicker, in the Wilmington Regulatory Division Office, at 910 - 251 -4930, or Ken Jolly, Regulatory Chief, at
(910) 251 -4630.
Sincerely,
e M. R s v
Colonel, U. S. rmy
District Commander
Copies furnished:
Don Melton (Chairman)
5638 Casar Road
Casar, North Carolina 28020
Dewey Cook (Vice- Chair)
307 Wes Cook Road
Casar, North Carolina 28020
J. Alan Norman
568 Oak Grove - Clover Hill Church Road
Lawndale, North Carolina 28090
C. J. Pete Pedersen (Secretary)
Post Office Box 166
Polkville, North Carolina 28136
Timothy B. Brooks
1551 Mountain View Circle
Shelby, North Carolina 28150
Bill Cameron
3016 Bettis Road
Grover, North Carolina 28073
Freddie Harrill
833 Ivywood Drive
Shelby, North Carolina 28150

M
US Army Corps
of Engineers.
WiWnyWn Distrid
Permit application to construct a 1,200 acre
water supply reservoir on the First Broad
River near the Town of Lawndale,
Cleveland County, North Carolina.
Current issues are related to the continuing
drought and water supply meeting present
and future demands, in stream flow
requirements and endangered species,
(Hexastylis naniflora).
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: NC- 10
1. PURPOSE:
Date: 7 September 2012
To provide information on the Cleveland County Water's (CCW) proposal to construct an
impoundment on the First Broad River, Cleveland County, North Carolina to provide a potable water
supply source.
2. BACKGROUND:
a. A technical feasibility study for constructing an impoundment on the First Broad River, to serve the
growing potable water needs of Cleveland County, was published in February, 1997. Four reservoir
locations were selected for evaluation. The chosen alternative is to impound approximately 24 miles of
First Broad River (and associated tributaries) with a pool elevation of 856' MSL.
b. The proposal received renewed interest due to drought conditions which occurred in the summer
of 2002. CCW's proposed reservoir is driven by drought concerns and potential future capacity needs.
CCW is proposing a regional facility to serve Cleveland, Rutherford, Gaston, and Lincoln Counties in
NC; and Cherokee County in SC.
c. Several populations of the federally threatened dwarf- flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora)
have been identified within the proposed impoundment area. Formal Section 7 consultation with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required if the proposed reservoir is authorized, but has not
started at this time.
d. The Corps received an individual permit application from CCW on June 22, 2005. Based upon
comments received from our June 28, 2005 public notice, a determination was made to require the
preparation of an EIS pursuant to NEPA.
e. A public notice was issued on April 7, 2008 notifying the public of a scoping meeting that was held
in Shelby, NC on April 17, 2008. The meeting was attended by about 200 people.
Page 1 POC Henry Wicker (910) 251 -4930

PROJECT INFORMATION — Cleveland County Water 1,200 Acre, First Broad River Reservoir
Cleveland County, NC (Regulatory) — Continued
f. As a result of the interagency /stakeholder meetings and the scoping meeting, the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources performed an update of the In- stream Flow Study (completed on June
20, 2008) for the First Broad River to address the amount of water that will be available to CCW for
water supply.
g. On February 5, 2009 an interagency/ stakeholder meeting was held in Mooresville to review and
discuss the updated purpose and need and alternatives report. The agencies and stakeholders
provided comments on the draft documents.
h. The Corps updated the purpose and need and alternative report to address agency's and
stakeholder's concerns and developed a tentative final reasonable range of alternatives to meet the
purpose and need statement. These alternatives are a reservoir on the First Broad River, side stream
reservoirs on Crooked Run Creek and Knob Creek with water pumped from the current First Broad
River intake and pump station to the reservoirs, and use of the Broad River as an additional supply of
water. This could be either through the development of a new water treatment plant by CCW or the
purchase of finished water from the City of Shelby or the Town of Forest City.
i. On June 1, and October 1, 2009, the Corps sent letters to CCW stating our concerns about the
proposed reservoir having significantly more environmental impacts than partnering and purchasing
water supply capacity from nearby cities and towns, or constructing an intake on the Broad River. All
of these alternatives appear to fully meet CCW's purpose and need, have significantly less
environmental impact than a new reservoir, and will be far less costly than the construction of a new
reservoir. The Corps stated that if CCW cannot provide information as to why these alternatives are
not available to them, and also demonstrate how the reservoir is the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative; the Corps will have no choice but to deny their request to construct a reservoir
on the First Broad River. The Corps also stated that the continued efforts toward the preparation of an
EIS document are an unwise use of the resources of both CCW and the Corps. In the light of these
other, feasible alternatives, the Corps strongly urged CCW to reconsider its desire to pursue the
reservoir alternative at this time. The Corps believes that consideration of one or a combination of the
alternatives will potentially save CCW significant effort and costs. On March 24, 2010, and July 2,
20107 CCW responded stating that they still wanted to pursue the proposed reservoir and continue the
EIS process.
3. CURRENT STATUS:
The Corps resumed the EIS process at CCW's request in September, 2010. On September 1,
2011, the Corps had an interagency /stakeholder meeting to get comments on the proposed project
and alternatives. The Corps received comments from the agencies and stakeholders and began
reviewing them to determine the appropriate response and incorporation into the document.
Page 2 POC Henry Wicker (910) 251 -4930

On April 4, 2012, CCW requested the Corps to stop working on the EIS. They stated that they
were in discussions with the Town of Shelby as a possible co- applicant for the First Broad River
Reservoir. If Shelby became a co- applicant this could potentially change the purpose and need for the
proposed reservoir. On January 16, 2013 CCW contacted the Corps and requested us to resume
working on the EIS.
Page 3 POC Henry Wicker (910) 251 -4930