20051457 Ver 1_FW Cleveland County Alternatives (UNCLASSIFIED).msg_20120313

Strickland, Bev
From: Reeder, Tom [tom.reeder @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:58 AM
To: Jeff Warren (President Pro Tem's Office)
Cc: Kari Barsness
Subject: FW: Cleveland County Alternatives (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: alternatives analysis 13dec10.pdf
Jeff - Attached is a detailed summary from the Army Corps regarding the alternatives that are
still considered viable alternatives to meet Cleveland County's future water supply needs.
The way the process works is that eventually the Corps will select one of these alternatives
as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and that is the
alternative that they would move forward with for permitting and implementation. Just let me
know if you need anything else on this.
Thanks.
Tom Reeder
Director, NC Division of Water Resources
Phone: 919 - 707 -9027
email: tom.reeder(@ncdenr.gov
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.
On 3/12/12 8:19 PM, "Keith Webb" < keith .webb(@mcgillengineers.com> wrote:
> Attached is a copy of the latest alternatives analysis (in pdf format)
>for the Cleveland County Water (CCW) First Broad River Reservoir I have
>in my files.
> Keith Webb, PE
>Vice President
>McGill Associates, P.A.
>38 Orange Street I Asheville, NC 28801
> Phone: [phone] Mobile: [phone] Fax: [phone]
> Email: keith.webb(@mcgillengineers.com I Website:
>www.mcgillengineers.com
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Wicker, Henry M JR SAW [mailto: Henry .M.Wicker.]R(@usace.army.mil]
>Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 1:36 PM
1

>To: Keith Webb
>Subject: FW: Cleveland County Alternatives (UNCLASSIFIED)
>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>Caveats: NONE
> Keith and Robin,
> Could please provide Tom your latest version of the purpose and
need
>and alternatives analysis. Please water mark them as draft.
> Thanks,
> Henry
> - - - -- Original Message -----
>From: Reeder, Tom [mailto:tom.reeder(@ncdenr.gov]
>Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 4:20 PM
>To: Wicker, Henry M 7R SAW
>Subject: Cleveland County Alternatives
>Henry - Could you send me the latest list of viable alternatives
that are
>still on the table for Cleveland County. Thanks.
>Tom Reeder
>Director, NC Division of Water Resources
>Phone: 919 - 707 -9027
>email: tom.reeder(@ncdenr.gov
>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.
>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>Caveats: NONE
>Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
>Caveats: NONE
N

Chapter 2 Alternatives
: ®
� � 7
«

2.1 Development of Preliminary Study Alternatives
The identification and selection of alternatives for analysis in the DEIS is an iterative
process that begins with the project scoping. A number of alternatives have been
developed on the basis of the project's "purpose and need," objectives, and their
reasonability as described in Section 1. Each of the study alternatives must meet the
purpose of and need for the project, adhere to the project's goals and objectives, and be
reasonable.
The alternatives identified in this document conform to the requirements of Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which provide 1 direction regarding
implementation of the procedural provisions of National EnvioY le"t"hal Policy Act
(NEPA). It is anticipated that any build alternative selec�, `" it , rrequire U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits; therefore, the USA`C ]1as been designated as
the lead agency for the DEIS. The regulations pro iulgate' by the CEQ for the
implementation of the NEPA process require an objOctivv'' aluation of "all reasonable
r
alternatives." The USACE regulations for progessing' of Department of the Army
permits (33CFR Part 325) describe reasonable altetatives as "those that are feasible
and such feasibility must focus on the acco'i " fiment of the underlying purpose and
,,7 »„<,,
need (of the applicant or the public) tl ,#I wbuld be satisfied by the proposed Federal
action (permit issuance)." An imtial,f" w for reasonability provides an appropriate
level of detail to proceed with the process. Additional information obtained at
any time in the NEPA praiep may cause elimination of an alternative if that
alternative is found not to `9� reasonable or feasible in the future.
r.
B. Background, Intbrmation and First Broad River Capacity
`t
Cleveland Cou "", Water (CCW) currently utilizes the First Broad River as their raw
water supply source. An intake and raw water pumping station is located at the
confluence of the First Broad River and Knob Creek. The intake has a drainage area of
approximately 181 square miles. CCW has permission for the withdrawal of up to 10.0
MGD from the First Broad River from the NCDENR, Division of Water Resources
(DWR). However it should be pointed out that the current operational permit for the
water treatment plant issued by the NCDENR, Public Water Supply Section (PWS) is
only for 6.0 MGD which is the capacity of the water treatment plant. Withdrawals at
the existing intake are constrained by the normal flows of the First Broad River.

Historically "safe yield" for run -of river type intakes is dependent upon the 7Q10 flow
of the subject stream. The 7QI0 flow is defined as the average low flow that occurs
over seven (7) consecutive days with a recurrence interval of once every 10 years. The
United States Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated the 7QI0 flow at the CCW
intake to be 42.54 MGD.
The NCDENR, Division of Water Resources (DWR) has historically allowed water
withdrawals to a maximum of twenty percent (20 %) of the 7Q10 flow without the need
for additional site specific studies including in -stream habitat. Mr. Tom Reeder,
Director of the NCDENR, DWR stated in his December 9, 2010 letter "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 studge' "" , re required to
determine minimum in -stream flows (flow -bys) below the tpt e. �'�'his policy is
codified in NC Administrative Code under 15A (2) (b). If the
withdrawal capacity is less than the 7QI0 flow, a public water supply can withdraw
water at any given river flow condition up to their alSpred capacity. This includes
periods when flows in the river are below the 7Q10. Onmental review documents
r
(EA or EIS) would still need to be prepared fbKolanyYhew or added capacity that is
greater than or equal to 1.0 MGD, and consul;{'ati6n with the NC Division of Water
4,4 ssS377U s ,r,
Quality would be required to determine if axf `downstream wastewater dischargers
z�3
would be affected by the upstream withgv1° (Reeder, 2010).
While CCW has approval to withctfa p to 10.0 MGD from the First Broad River at
the current intake CCW becb concerned with the ability to actually withdraw this
amount of water during c�'i pglf't periods. During the 2002 drought there were days
when at withdrawal re' „f 3�0 MGD to 3.5 MGD the in- stream flows downstream of
J
the intake (flow -by %rt bre "`virtually non - existent. Similar conditions were repeated
during the 20(� „�, :n�d��, 08 droughts. Based upon these observed conditions CCW
believes that the �I'rst Broad River does not have the ability to meet future projected
demands and t de for some acceptable level of in- stream flow downstream of the
intake.
C. First Broad River Hydrology Model
To address the severity of low stream flow conditions a hydrology model of the First
Broad River utilizing historical stream flow data available from the USGS for the
period of 1940 to 2009 has been completed as a part of the DEIS. The model has been
utilized for a number of items associated with the DEIS. One of these items was to
determine the percentage of time, or number of days, over the period of record when

flows in the First Broad River are insufficient to meet the projected demands of CCW
as well as any projected in- stream flow requirements.
The key element associated with the modeling is the minimum flow -by requirement, or
in -stream flow, required in the First Broad River. The Division of Water Resources at
the request of CCW completed an update of the stream habitat model for the First
Broad River. Utilizing the habitat model and in consultation with various resources
agencies, DWR has established a desired goal for a minimum in- stream flow of 71.6
cfs downstream of the CCW intake should the proposed First Broad River Reservoir be
constructed. This minimum in -stream flow may be reduced to 36.4 cfs during low flow
periods provided CCW implements water restrictions for the customers of the water
system. �� #
A
Utilizing this in- stream flow the hydrology model was run %d`'t,,,6Niine the percentage
of time, if any, that the demands of CCW and the required it- stream flow conditions
could not be met from the First Broad River. Model resufr�over the 25,051 day model
period (68 years) indicates that 6.5% of the time (1,62v, u" of 25,051 days) both the in-
stream flow of 71.6 cfs and CCW demands cannot be ret. This percentage drops to
0.7% (180 out of 25,051 days) when the in stream ow is dropped to 36.4 cfs.
tilll} f'
7
Based upon the modeling results it appears t}af CCW can not meet the projected future
demands for the water system 100 %,6f £Ehe time utilizing the existing run -of -the -river
intake and assuming a future regula'fec d' wnstream flow requirement.
D. Alternatives Co'asidered
r
A list of initial „ltrnt es to be considered was compiled after review of previously
documentedaoncp from various sources. Those that do not meet the purpose and
need, the ob.ec” 6s, and the reasonability of the option will be eliminated from further
consideration. In addition, any alternatives that were considered to have a higher
magnitude of adverse impacts will also be eliminated from further consideration.
D -1 No- Action Alternative
Under the No- Action Alternative, CCW would continue to withdraw water from the
current run -of the river intake on the First Broad River. Under this alternative, there
would be no changes to the existing conditions within the project area and water flow
fluctuations in the river would continue to affect the dependability of the First Broad
River as an uninterruptable water supply for the CCW service area. The No- Action
3

Alternative would result in periods when the CCW would be unable to meet water
system demands during periods of drought and low stream flow from the CCW water
treatment plant.
The lack of an adequate water supply will restrict population growth and development
in Cleveland County, as well as portions of adjacent counties, and would not address
water supply during drought conditions.
A No- Action Alternative is required by NEPA, but does not meet the purpose of and
need for the project. Because the No Action Alternative would avoid any adverse
environmental impacts, it provides a basis for comparing the potential impacts and
benefits of the partial -build and build alternatives.
al!
D -2 Conserve Water '`'k, %r
The conservation of water and a resulting decrease In „per it water consumption has
the potential to decrease the projected future water defds of CCW. Per capita water
usage could possibly be decreased through the iiM, plementation of a more aggressive
water conservation program. CCW currently', a voluntary water conservation
ttii s38r, s,
program and enforces a mandatory programs o water conservation during periods of
drought. A Water Shortage Response I s6lution was adopted by CCW in February
2003. (See Appendix B.) The resgl'di1 stipulates conservation measures for both
voluntary and mandatory conseryatilh phases. These measures address indoor
k,
residential use, outdoor resid c4til i s and industrial use. While an aggressive water
conservation plan could fi� a impact of decreasing the average daily demand for
CCW the program wp” trI i n0 satisfy the requirements of the purpose and need and
provide for an adequ 'te water supply to meet future demands utilizing only the First
Broad River a,,e }sour °ire of supply in the event that some level of minimum in -stream
flow conditi6it is A andated to protect aquatic habitat.
According to CCW management, an aggressive water conservation plan will not
negate the demand for an additional water supply in the future. In addition, the
Conserve Water Alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need because it
would not ensure a dependable water supply.
D -3 Utilize Groundwater
Smaller community water systems and single family residences with lower water
demands have historically been served by groundwater supply wells. However,
groundwater has not been a dependable source of water with adequate capacity and
E

quality to meet the projected higher demands of CCW. There are no defined aquifers of
large enough capacity to serve large municipal systems in the Cleveland County area.
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).
Water quality is also a problem. 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). In addition, lithium has been detected in groundwater in the
Cherryville and Bessemer City vicinity of Gaston County, adjacent to Cleveland
County. Additional treatment can potentially be a significant expens' gtzer 2007).
Due to the shortage of groundwater and water quality c,}crrf� the alternative to
utilize groundwater, either from individual wells or large mtfficipal wells, does not
meet the project's purpose and need.
D -4 Increase Withdrawal at Existing Intake, Site
111,, o�U`�irrrl s
Withdrawals at the existing CCW intake sire constrained by normal flows of the
First Broad River and any future requiredd, i� ,tlstream flow requirements established by
the North Carolina Division of Water, °Resources. The calculated safe yield of the First
Broad River at the existing CCW tit " °' based upon previously published 7Q10 flows
is 10.0 MGD. However, dr i 002 drought the available supply dropped to less
than 4.0 MGD. As a partof the preparation of the EIS for the First Broad River
Reservoir additional ,0 11118 of the river has been completed to determine the
available water supf,ron the First Broad River. This modeling shows that based
upon historicaltttg for the First Broad River that the required 7.78 MGD future
demand for ' =C not available 6.50% of the time given the requirement to provide
an in- stream flo *'of 71.6 cfs below the CCW intake.
In the absence of some type of raw water storage capacity, this alternative would not
provide an adequate supply during drought conditions, is not considered dependable,
and does not meet the project's purpose and need.
D -5 Reservoir on the First Broad River, Site 1
This alternative consists of the construction of a reservoir on the main stem of the First
Broad River with a dam located just upstream of the CCW water treatment plant, and
downstream of the confluence of Crooked Run Creek. The proposed dam location is
5

approximately 5,800 feet upstream of the confluence of the First Broad River and
Knob Creek and the existing raw water intake. The reservoir site has a total drainage
area of approximately 146 square miles and would impound areas below 856 -feet msl
and create a 1.300 acre reservoir. .
The hydrology model for the First Broad River previously discussed was utilized to
estimate the safe yield of this main stem of the First Broad River reservoir. The model
included normal releases for downstream in- stream flows of 71.6 cfs under normal
demand conditions. As the reservoir levels drop to projected trigger points it has been
assumed that CCW would implement voluntary conservation measures and that the
minimum release is then reduced to 54 cfs. If the lake level continues to drop a second
model trigger point elevation requires CCW to implement mandXor„ conservation
,t
measures and that the minimum release is then reduced to 36,1 1 °'�h" estimated safe
yield of this alternative is 26.0 MGD. Lake pool level will oprt�Cr „elevation 849.5 msl
on time during the 68 year modeling period and the CCw `demands has met 100% of
it fy
the time with this alternative.
�ttttt4). is
Initial feasibility estimates indicate that the dam uldbe 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 felt 'e The dam would create a reservoir
" "', n,
with a surface area of approximately 1,29 6 S.
3.2.7 Side Steam (Pumped Storog'` eservoir
Over the past 10 to 20 ye ath use of side stream or pumped storage reservoirs has
gained much favor f6i, othwater supply and power production. Various resource
agencies as well as,,,, have indicated that alternatives for a "side stream"
reservoir be i a part of the DEIS. Side stream reservoirs often have the
advantage o bavpg less environmental impact and therefore less regulatory agency
feedback and o action. In many cases the side stream reservoir can be sited such as
there are no impacts to "perennial" streams. Perennial streams are defined as those
streams that have flow at all times.
Typically the operation of a "side stream" reservoir includes the use of pumps to pump
water from the source water into the reservoir during periods of normal or high flow.
The water is then withdrawn from the reservoir to meet water supply demands.
To develop this alternative topographic information available for Cleveland County in
the vicinity of the Cleveland County Water (CCW) water treatment plant and the
existing intake from USGS quadrangle maps was analyzed. It has been assumed that an
C~

off - stream reservoir site would need to be within approximately a 7 to 10 mile radius of
the existing CCW raw water intake. The 7 to 10 mile radius was selected due to the
cost to install new raw water transmission lines from the existing intake to the reservoir
site and a transmission line from the reservoir to the existing water treatment plant. At
a cost of approximately $600,000 per mile for a raw water line of adequate size to
convey the required flow the 10 mile maximum distance ($10 to $12 million dollars)
appears to be reasonable. The existing CCW raw water intake and pump station could
be used as the pump station to pump water from the First Broad River into the side
stream reservoir. Through the analysis two potential sites on Crooked Run Creek were
identified.
Crooked Run Creek is a small tributary of the First Broad River vit a confluence
approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the existing CCW raw water' e "located at the
confluence of the First Broad River and Knob Creek and s {,JrfEaf "drainage area of
6.9 square miles (4,416 acres).
177i,,
{f }J!
} {i31
i
)5 iYitA
11
rr7
1,
}r
tttJt }tljj a
%j r�rrrrf„
r {{
f
SJjr
r}
}, J
I°
7

The construction of a side stream reservoir on Knob Creek was also considered.
(A) Upper Crooked Run Creek
The first Crooked Run Creek site identified is the "Upper Crooked Run Creek"
site. This alternative site would have a dam just upstream of Kistler Road. The dam
would be approximately 3,600 feet long with a height of 65 feet and a top elevation
of 960' MSL. The full pool elevation will be 940' MSL and forms a reservoir with
a surface area of approximately 650 acres at full pool. The reservoir has the
potential to impact approximately 40,200 LF of perennial stream. The Upper
Crooked Run Creek reservoir site is shown on figure UCC -1.
k,ASSSS ttrrr 'ti,,
(B) Lower Crooked Run Creek
^iii31
N,;
The second potential Crooked Run Cr ek r serir site is identified as the "Lower
Crooked Run Creek" site. This al mrvr would have a dam just upstream of
Mooney Road. The dam would be 1 ately 1,700 feet long with a height of
90 feet and a top elevation of 890' e reservoir full pool elevation will be
a> �, s
880' MSL and forms a reservoir wife a surface area of approximately 220 acres at
full pool. The reservoix,t'h 4 potential to impact approximately 18,000 LF of
perennial stream. Figu3, L C -1 depicts the Lower Crooked Run Creek reservoir
site.
Once the tw6 po4ufal sites were identified stage /storage curves were developed for
each potential reservoirs utilizing topographic information from USGS quadrangle
maps. The stage /storage curves provide the relationship between pool elevation and
total storage and have been used in the safe yield model for each reservoir site.
For the purpose of modeling the safe yield of each site a computer model was
developed for the First Broad River by HydroLogics, Inc.. The model utilizes historical
flow information for the First Broad River from the USGS gauging station located at
Casar and other USGS gauging stations. The period of simulation for the model covers
68 years from 1940 to 2008.
0

Assumptions for the model were developed as to minimum in- stream flow protocol for
the First Broad River at the CCW raw water intake. Based upon consultation with the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, US Fish & Wildlife Services and others the following minimum in-
stream flow has been input into the model:
• Maintain a minimum in -stream flow downstream of the intake equal to 71.6
cfs when the reservoir is at full pool or other acceptable levels and CCW is
under normal water use protocol.
• Maintain a minimum in -stream flow downstream of the int 6)equal to 54 cfs
when the reservoir is below full pool level and CCW is i1'hde "xvdluntary water
use restriction protocol.
k r /1lq�af'
• Maintain a minimum in -stream now downsMaiq , &f the intake equal to 36 cfs
when the reservoir is below full pool level ands
"CCW is under mandatory water
F)'' iYitA•
use restriction protocol.
Two scenarios where modeled for each ,`;

Broad River and Crooked Run Creek is always the first priority prior to meeting the
water demands of CCW.
The final input parameter for the modeling effort is the projected demands of CCW.
Work associated with the "Purpose and Need Report" has projected the 2060 CCW
average daily water demand to be 6.23 MGD with a peak daily demand of 7.78 MGD.
The average daily demand of 6.23 MGD has been used as initial input for the model.
To account for the potential for reduced demand as a result of water conservation
efforts the average daily demand has been decreased to 5.61 MGD (a 10% reduction)
when CCW imposes voluntary water conservation measures. This flow reduction is
triggered in the model by a specific reservoir level and also triggers ,a reduction in the
minimum releases from the side stream reservoir and the minimii�n Yji-stream flow
requirement for the First Broad River.
rst
t,
The flow is once again reduced to 5.05 MGD (an ad itiOn 1,111,11, 1% reduction) when
CCW implements mandatory water restrictions. As with dw voluntary restrictions this
reduction is triggered in the model by a specific fe0ir level and also triggers a
reduction in the minimum releases from the side stream° eservoir and the minimum in-
stream flow requirement for the First Broad Rive'.
Once the various input parameters w,'' es "tailished various runs of the model were
conducted to determine the "safe yiel �each scenario. The "safe yield" is defined as
the flow from the reservoir for the pubse of water supply that results in the reservoir
level dropping to the failure pq� (mnimum low level) one time during the modeling
period (over 68 years). The`'foll(Aving results were obtained from the modeling:
r.
• Lower Crookedt , 6,n Creek scenario with a pump rate of 10.0 MGD results in
a safe yield" 0 x.60 MGD.
• Lower Crooked Run Creek scenario with a pump rate of 15.0 MGD results in
a safe yield of 8.50 MGD.
• Upper Crooked Run Creek scenario with a pump rate of 10.0 MGD results in a
safe yield of 10.70 MGD.
• Upper Crooked Run Creek scenario with a pump rate of 15.0 MGD results in a
safe yield of 12.00 MGD.
10

The model results indicate that there are a total of 1,673 days during the model
simulation period when the river flow of the First Broad River drops below the
established threshold and no water is withdrawn from the First Broad River. This
equates to 0.075% of the total days. The CCW demand of 6.23 MGD is met every
single day of the simulation period, either from direct withdrawals from the First Broad
River or from the Crooked Run Creek Reservoir, or a combination of withdrawals
from both.
(C) Knob Creek Side Stream Reservoir
This alternative consists of the construction of a reservoir on Knob Creek. Knob Creek
currently serves as a tributary to the CCW raw water intake wits,, ti'r intake being
located at the confluence of Knob Creek and the First Broad, , Riva-The reservoir
would be formed by constructing a dam across Knob Creek4�,p�o}mately 3,500 linear
feet upstream of the confluence with the First Broad iiver.the dam would be
approximately 2,000 feet in length with a height of fee�and forms a 498 acre
reservoir at the full pool elevation of 860' msl.h'fnage area of the proposed
Knob Creek Reservoir is approximately 35 squarel,tmiles,=
'A'
The hydrology model discussed previc
been used to estimate the "safe yield"
have been analyzed. Scenario 41 ass
5
reservoir functions only with inflow
that 10 MGD is pumped from Ein
Finally scenario 43 increaa" thpump
,ly fbr "th'& Crooked Run Creek alternatives has
11 .knob Creek alternative. Three scenarios
that there is no pumped storage and that the
m Knob Creek. The second scenario assumes
Broad River whenever flow conditions allow.
R rate to 15 MGD.
r
To account for in- strc,� rhAbw needs it has been assumed that 17 cfs will be released
from the Knob„ fir" 64 reservoir under normal flow conditions. The 17 cfs was
......
established ass rao of drainage area with the First Broad River and the in -stream flow
demands estabshed by DWR. The minimum release is decreased to 13 cfs with
voluntary conservation measures being implemented by CCW and again to 9 cfs with
mandatory conservation measures.
The proposed Knob Creek Reservoir will impact approximately 48,000 linear feet of
stream and some 3.1 miles of secondary roads.
The project will include a new raw water line would convey water from the reservoir to
the existing water treatment plant.
11

The various input parameters for Knob Creek were established and various runs of the
model were conducted to determine the "safe yield" of each scenario. The following
results were obtained from the modeling:
• Knob Creek scenario as a run of the river and no pumped storage results in a
safe yield of 7.80 MGD.
• Knob Creek scenario with a pump rate of 10.0 MGD results in a safe yield of
9.60 MGD.
ltlfl /Iji
• Knob Creek scenario with a pump rate of 15.0 MGD restilts fa safe yield of
9.80 MGD.
3.2.4 Purchase Water from other Sources
Under this alternative, additional water required to future demands of CCW
over and above that amount available on an unintgrrupted basis from the First Broad
River would be purchased on a wholesale basi.. from an existing municipal source.
Municipal sources that are located in the pixii` of CCW that can possibly meet the
demands of CCW are the City of Shel, ;tic Town of Kings Mountain, the Broad
River Water Authority (BRWA), the of Forest City, and /or the City of Hickory.
A description of each of these alternyes and the logistical components necessary to
t,
connect the two water systems is "de tibed in more detail in the following sections.
1
(A) City of $hplby
The City of Shelby depends on the First Broad River as the primary raw water
supply for t water system. A raw water intake located just north of West
1,
Grover Str eet tf e northwestern part of the City supplies water to the city's water
treatment plant. Treatment facilities include three (3) off - stream raw water reservoirs
for the storage of water prior to treatment. Shelby's water treatment plant has a design
capacity of 12.0 MGD with current average daily water demands being 4.2 MGD. The
City of Shelby also has a contract to provide up to 1.0 MGD of finished potable water
on a wholesale basis to the Town of Boiling Springs.
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 has
permission and an agreement on record by the NCDENR, DWR to withdraw up to 18.0
12

MGD from the First Broad River once the water treatment 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 and address future drought conditions and to assure an uninterruptable
water supply for its customers, the City of Shelby completed the construction of a 30-
inch raw water line from the Grover Street Water Treatment Plant to the Broad River
in 2003. The 30 -inch raw water line terminates at the site of a future raw water intake
and pump station at the Broad River, approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the NC
Highway 150 bridge, south of the Town of Boiling Springs. The raw water intake and
pump station have not been constructed to date. Until such time as a permanent intake
is constructed and to provide raw water in the event of an emer e40,y the City of
t
Shelby intends to install diesel driven pumps which are rented (tt a' "Monthly basis.
These pumps are sized to convey water to the Grover Streel ptapNuhng those periods
when low stream flows in the First Broad River dictate the 'need to utilize this
additional source.
35�
The Broad River has been reclassified for futurg, use, as a raw water source and is
currently classified as WS IV by the NCDENRbk. The estimated available supply
%
at the City of Shelby proposed Broad River ihfa%e location based upon 20% of the
end
7Q10 flow is 42.8 MGD. '}
CCW has an agreement and meterO ed nections in place with the City of Shelby that
44} rll
allow for the purchase of finn§hd; water on an as need basis and under emergency
conditions. The current a14 x nt does not define the maximum amount of water
available on a daily basi 1 CCW may purchase. The volume of water available to
CCW may be limite4,,,epends upon the current demands of the City of Shelby
system and theme ail" e water supply.
l�(f
A number omponents are necessary to ensure that this alternative is feasible
including the purchase of treatment plant capacity and the establishment of a fixed
price for finished potable water purchased from the City of Shelby. Both the purchase
of treatment plant capacity and the price for finished water would be established by a
binding agreement between CCW and the City of Shelby and must be an agreement
that cannot be terminated by either parry.
As previously mentioned a hydrology model of the First Broad River has been
completed as a part of the DEIS. Based upon model results and actual operational data
from the 2003, 2007 and 2008 droughts it has been assumed that CCW can safely
withdraw 3.50 MGD to 4.0 MGD from the First Broad River under all stream flow
13

conditions. For the purpose of determining the capacity of additional water needed it
has been assumed that CCW will need to purchase up to four million gallons of water
per day (4.0 MGD) from the City of Shelby to meet future demands. This alternative
assumes that peak daily demand will be met through system storage and the
implementation of conservation measures during future drought conditions.
For the purpose of the evaluation of this alternative and for this alternative to be
acceptable it has been assumed that CCW will purchase 4.0 MGD of treatment plant
capacity from the City of Shelby, assuring that this amount of water will always be
available to CCW. The cost for future water purchases will then be based upon the
actual cost to treat and deliver finished water to CCW and be established by a binding
contract between the two parties.
For this alternative to be feasible the City of Shelby must, ,gn§,tru�t a permanent raw
water intake and pumping station on the Broad River. This D"urnping station would
convey raw water to the Shelby Water Treatment Plan rocessing and treatment to
1tits55
supplement the available supply from the First Broad 6r:
4/l/
While the CCW and Shelby distribution systems "are currently interconnected with two
(2) metered connections for the purchase of �fer on an emergency, wholesale basis
the CCW distribution system is unde fed, in the vicinity of these connections to
efficiently transport the needed 4.0 1VIG purchase from the City of Shelby into the
CCW distribution system. Improve e#f8 to the CCW distribution system are therefore
required to allow for the pure and distribution of water from the City of Shelby
into the CCW system in an � 'cffidcnt manner.
r.
The CCW distributiptj system is currently divided into two fairly independent service
zones. One zoo „rv'e'`the western part of Cleveland County to the west of the First
11
Broad River' he ' tribution system in this area is served from the existing Polkville
tank which isIled from the water treatment plant by the dedicated Polkville high
service pumps. Under current development density approximately 1 /31d of the CCW
water supply demands exist in this western section of the system.
The other service zone lies to the east of the First Broad River and is served from the
Belwood tank. Similar to the Polkville service zone water for the Belwood zone is
pumped from the water treatment plant to the Belwood tank by dedicated high service
pumps. The distribution system then conveys water to the other sections of the zone
with additional storage tanks and booster pump stations providing for the demands
throughout this zone. Approximately 2 /3rds of the CCW demand is in this zone.
14

Those customers in the northern part of Cleveland County at the higher service
elevations are also served from the Belwood zone. Service to these higher elevations is
provided by the Upper Bald and Lower Bald Mountain tanks. These tanks are filled
from the Belwood tank by two booster pump stations.
Service to the southeastern section of the CCW service area along Highway 18 and
south of US 74 is provided from the Belwood tank and the Highway 18 tank. The
Highway 18 tanks serves as the main hub of the distribution system serving the
southeastern section of the CCW service area and provides service to the eastern and
southern parts of the system in the Waco, Patterson Springs and Mid Pines area.
Significant distribution system improvements are required to the distribution
system in order to transmit water efficiently from the Shelby �S�Sxri' "`into the CCW
distribution system. The Shelby water treatment plant is loe`c,ot the western side of
the city on West Grover Street. To efficiently convey pure "as ed beater from the City of
Shelby into the CCW distribution system it is propose"d . . " xn "ake a number of major
improvements to the CCW distribution system in fh Jc ity of Mooresboro. These
improvements are as follows:�'
• Replace the existing 350,00Q " ',g41I6n Mooresboro stand pipe with a 500,000
gallon elevated tank with a� ,trflow elevation of 1090 msl.
• Installation of 14,8QO
Q'16" water line from the Mooresboro tank along
NC 120 to US 741 siiess (Ellenboro Road) and then along Ellenboro Road
to Mooresboro oa �(,8 1327) and along Mooresboro Road to a connection
point with an g 6" water line.
• Construction new booster pump station on Mooresboro Road designed
to tr rt f "N'v e to the Polkville tank.
• New 'n tired connection with City of Shelby on Plato Lee Road (SR 1315)
near U }'F` 74.
• Construction of a new booster pump station on Plato Lee Road near US 74
designed to transfer water from the City of Shelby to the Mooresboro tank.
• Installation of 13,400 LF of 12" water line from the new Plato Lee Pump
Station along Beaverdam Church Road (SR 1158) to Skinner Road (SR
1159).
• Installation of 25,500 LF of 12" water line from Beaverdam Church Road
(SR 1158) northwest along Skinner Road (SR 1159) to US 74 business and
then along US 74 business to Mooresboro Road (SR 1327).
• Installation of 21,600 LF of 12" water line from Beaverdam Church Road
(SR 1158) south along Skinner Road (SR 1159) to NC 150 and then along
NC 150 to Burke Road (SR 1148).
15

• Construction of a new booster pump station on Burke Road near NC 150
designed to pump water to the Patterson Springs tank.
• Installation of 37,000 LF of 12" water line from Burke Road (SR 1148)
along to Sinai Church Road (SR 1140) southward to NC 150 and connect to
an existing water line at Davis Road (SR 1107).
• New metered connection with City of Shelby on Highway 18 near NC 150.
• Installation of 20,000 LF of 12" water line along NC 18 to Christopher Road
(SR 1105) and then to Sulphur Springs Road (SR 1100) to increase supply to
the Mid Pines tank.
The improvements to the CCW distribution system described above (, ee figure 1) are
required to efficiently transport water purchased from the City of h8by jnto the CCW
distribution system and convey water to both the western and eastern sections of the
distribution system.
The preliminary cost estimate for this alternative in table S -1. Cost for the
purchase of treatment plant capacity from the Cit� 'of Shelby as well as CCW
participation in the Shelby Broad River raw wa�cr intate and pump station have been
included in the project cost along with a�ynce for improvements to the CCW
distribution system to distribute water purq,}ia from Shelby throughout the system.
CCW must also purchase the exc; water needed from Shelby in the event of a
drought. A cost of $1.85 per .11{((l' gallons has been assumed for the purchase of
water.
{ {{ q 4
jJt
The annual operation',di,,xnaintenance cost for the proposed alternative is shown in
table 2.
TABLE S -2
PURCHASE WATER FROM CITY OF SHELBY ALTERNATIVE
ANNUAL OPERATING & MAINTENANCE COSTS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
1
Electrical Cost
323,400
Kw -hr
$0.12
$38,800
(pumping)
2
Water Purchases
108,000
1,000
$1.85
$199,800
gallons
3
Repairs /replacements
1
LS
$300,000
$300,000
4
Miscellaneous repairs
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
16

Total Annual O& M
To compare each alternative the present worth value of each will be determined. The
present worth value takes into account both the estimated project cost and the
anticipated annual operation and maintenance cost. A twenty (20) year planning period
has been utilized for the comparison of alternatives. The present worth value of this
alternative is based on a 20 year period, at a discount rate of 2.8%
(http: / /www.whitehouse.gov /omb/ circulars /a094 /a94_appx- c.html) .
i7t &fJ
The 20 -year present worth cost for this alternative is therefore`'
rJ,t
$26,211,500 + 663,600 * 15.589 = $41,645,560.
t IDJI�
J rr,
111 })
Purchase Water From Shelby Present Worth Co 556,360
0
1t }� iYitA
it
(8) Kings Mountain
John Henry Moss Lake provides th ra* water supply for the City of Kings Mountain.
ss
The City of Kings Mount ",a, an 8.0 (MGD) water treatment plant adjacent to
the lake to meet the demand o "'the city's water system. The city provides water only
within its corporate 1 anc to its single municipal customer, the Town of Grover.
CCW entered into an% ent with Kings Mountain dated June 26, 2007 to purchase
finished potab \tq,,rr at�r This agreement states that the metered connections may be
used only d,'&nergency" conditions. 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 CCW, during such
emergency or conservation situation.
John Henry Moss Lake reservoir was formed in 1973 by impounding Buffalo Creek
and has a total drainage area of 67.5 square miles. The 2002 Kings Mountain Water
Supply Plan reports the safe yield of Moss Lake as 37.60 MGD. However in a letter
dated January 15, 2009 to CCW the City indicates that "the City of Kings Mountain is
currently refining the safe yield of John Henry Moss Lake in support of a permit
modification to withdraw more than their permitted amount from Moss Lake"
(Murphrey 2009) . The letter goes on to indicate that Kings Mountain has adequate
$663,600
17

water capacity to sell up to 5.0 MGD of finished water to CCW today and in the near
future, but that regional demands make it difficult for Kings Mountain to commit to a
long term arrangement and that Kings Mountain sees the need to develop additional
regional water supplies.
The drought conditions experienced during the past decade have demonstrated the
vulnerability of Moss Lake and verify Kings Mountain's need to redefine the safe
yield. For example in the 2002 drought the water level of Moss Lake dropped by
approximately 8 feet below the normal pool level and dropped to approximately 3 feet
again in the 2008 drought.
As a part of the evaluation of alternatives for additional water suppl}r thy, City of Kings
Mountain has initiated preliminary studies as to the feasibility,,cqfAih struction of a
second water supply reservoir on Muddy Creek to supp119m,0111 t he available water
supply from Moss Lake.
fyJ.
Given the fact that the City of Kings Mountain will' arantee that water will be
available to meet the projected long term demand�.),of C C W and that Kings Mountain is
actively pursuing an additional supply of raw w,atef this alternative is not considered a
dependable alternative and does not meet'e` project's purpose and need. This
alternative will therefore not be carried 'for additional consideration.
(C) Broad River Water Aitfrity
ttttttt,,,,,,,,,' °,,,,,, ,
In adjacent Rutherford Co,the Broad River Water Authority (BRWA) serves the
towns of Ruth, Ruthe)r` hhfdtoif an indale; and rural areas of Rutherford County.
The BRWA utilize&,, the "'$road River as its water source with an intake near
Rutherfordton,,1 e'ti ss confluence of the Green River. BRWAcurrently operates an
8.0 MGD weer tatinent plant. BRWA has indicated that many of the components
are in place for" lhe expansion of the WTP to a capacity of 12.0 MGD. The estimated
safe yield of the Broad River at the BRWA intake is 13.0 MGD. (The Broad River is
shown in Figure 1.) 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. They have an agreement with Grassy Pond Water
Corporation in South Carolina for the sale of 0.50 MGD of finished water and an
agreement with Inman - Campobello Water District in South Carolina and with Polk
County, North Carolina for the sale of approximately 4.0 MGD of finished potable
18

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.
Therefore, it is not likely that the BRWA could meet the future daily needs of the
BRWA and CCW in the absence of an additional source of raw water. Therefore, this
alternative is not considered to be a reasonable alternative. This alternative will
therefore not be carried forward for additional consideration.
(D) Town of Forest City
This alternative is similar to alternative A (purchase of water from the City of Shelby)
previously discussed and consists of the purchase of treatment Ja4 capacity and
Yh,
finished potable water from the Town of Forest City to suppler„e,,,nt t,, ater produced
from the CCW First Broad River water treatment plailtYV, °�kd alternative A this
alternative assumes that CCW will purchase 4.0 MGD of treatment plant capacity from
the Town of Forest City and will enter into a long term d' eei'i'ment for the purchase of
finished water on an as need basis.3;{'`
n77, ptD�
Y1}
The Town of Forest City currently utilizes the Sedond Broad River as its raw water
source with an intake located north of the t e existing water treatment plant has
a permitted design capacity of 8.0 MqP, The plant underwent a major upgraded in
2003 and the majority of the treatmei�t 'lant components were designed and sized to
Y ,mss
allow for the expansion of the WTE fo a`'capacity of 12.0 MGD.
Forest City is permitted to ithcaw up to 12.0 MGD from the Second Broad River by
the NCDENR, DWQ "„we er, li ke CCW, the Town of Forest City was severely
impacted by the drou f 2002, 2007 and 2008 and came to realize that adequate
water may not „b.4va41able from the Second Broad River to meet future water supply
demands durin 'Ot conditions.
Forest City has been planning for alternatives to meet future water supply needs for
more than a decade. The Broad River has been identified as the most attractive
alternative for a potential source to meet these future demands. The Town has
negotiated the rights to a 50 acre tract of property located adjacent to the Broad River
in southern Rutherford County for the use as a future raw water intake site and possible
WTP site. Environmental planning and permitting has been completed for the
construction of a new raw water intake and pump station at the site. The pump station
will be designed to deliver up to 12.0 MGD of raw water to the Town of Forest City
Vance Street WTP.
19

In conjunction with this planning effort the Broad River has been re- classified by the
NCDENR, DWQ as a WS -IV Water Supply and the re- classification has been
supported and implemented by both Rutherford County and Polk County. The location
of the proposed Forest City raw water intake is an excellent location with only a
limited number of small point source discharges located above the intake location. The
three largest point source discharges are the Town of Lake Lure WWTP (0.99 MGD),
Town of Rutherfordton WWTP (3.0 MGD), and the Town of Columbus WWTP (0.8
MGD).
The Town of Forest City has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
construction of the new raw water intake, pump station and raw water line to convey
raw water to the Forest City Vance Street WTP. The EA i- emJ i6d the need to
1
withdraw up to 12.0 MGD of raw water from the Broad River. >I A" "Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) has been issued for the proje}�,£d d ie project has been
approved by all agencies. Plans for the proposed improvement 7 ave been completed
by the Town and an Authorization to Construct (A to 11)jts been issued by the North
s. ,
Carolina Public Water Supply Section.
A
N,;
CCW does not currently have a connection in pac with the Town of Forest City. In
i�1� t, rr;
order to connect the two water systems an iitexonnection will be required. The Forest
City distribution system in the area of osed interconnection is served from the
Trade Street tank with an overflow eli aeon of 1118 msl (mean sea level). This tank
produces an operating hydraulic r'e'ne of approximately 1000 msl at the proposed
rr,
connection point. The existing,,, ` Mooresboro standpipe has an overflow elevation
of 1041 msl. The stand pipe "'elevation is not adequate to properly serve the surrounding
service area. N" tl,))„
{
t} ,
In addition to ,c$' ofruction of an interconnection between the CCW and Town of
Forest City ter'yStems there are also significant distribution system improvements
required to theGW distribution system in order to transmit water efficiently from the
Forest City system into the CCW distribution system. To efficiently convey purchased
water from the Town of Forest City into the CCW distribution system it is proposed to
make a number of major improvements to the CCW distribution system in the vicinity
of Mooresboro. These improvements are as follows:
New metered connection with Town of Forest City on US 74 business
(Ellenboro Road) near Bostic Road.
20

• Construction of a new booster pump station on US 74 business near the new
metered connection designed to transfer water from the Town of Forest City
to the Mooresboro tank.
• Installation of 43,400 LF of 16" water line from the new Forest City master
meter along US 74 business to Oak Grove Church Road, then along Oak
Grove Church Road to Bugger Hollow Road and then Webb Road to the
CCW Mooresboro tank.
• Replace the existing 350,000 gallon Mooresboro stand pipe with a 500,000
gallon elevated tank with an overflow elevation of 1090 msl.
• Installation of 14,800 LF of 16" water line from the Mooresboro tank along
NC 120 to US 74 business (Ellenboro Road) and then along Ellenboro Road
to Mooresboro Road (SR 1327) and along Mooresboro Road to a connection
s....
point with an existing 6 water line.
• Construction of a new booster pump station on Moorps s r " "koad designed
to transfer water to the Polkville tank.
• Installation of 25,500 LF of 12" water line al6n VS 74 business from
Mooresboro Road (SR 1327) to Skinner Ro45,S 159) then southeast
along Skinner Road to Beaverdam Churchi1a },(R 1158).
• Installation of 21,600 LF of 12" water line frbm Beaverdam Church Road
(SR 1158) south along Skinner Road .(,'_ 1159) to NC 150 and then along
NC 150 to Burke Road (SR 1148)x,,
• Construction of a new booster pump 'station on Burke Road near NC 150
designed to pump water to the Ed fSon Springs tank.
• Installation of 37,000 LF a�. �� water line from Burke Road (SR 1148)
along to Sinai Church R, (2 1140) southward to NC 150 and connect to
an existing water 11n fil iJ)a is Road (SR 1107).
• New metered conrictio with City of Shelby on Highway 18 near NC 150.
• Installation of"20 00\ of 12" water line along NC 18 to Christopher Road
(SR 1105) an then to Sulphur Springs Road (SR 1100) to increase supply to
the Mid Plnb §,tank.
I°
The improvements to the CCW distribution system described above (see figure 1) are
required to efficiently transport water purchased from the City of Shelby into the CCW
distribution system and convey water to both the western and eastern sections of the
distribution system.
The preliminary cost estimate for this alternative and is shown in table FC -1. Cost for
the purchase of treatment plant capacity from the Town of Forest City as well as CCW
participation in the Forest City raw water intake, pump station and raw water line have
been included in the project cost along with an allowance for improvements to the
CCW distribution system to distribute water purchased from Forest City throughout the
21

system. The CCW ƒR65uo system i p o eme G include two new b m%£
pumping Rao 6
: ®
� � 7
22

The implementation of this alternative requires the construction of a booster pump
station to transfer water from the Forest City system to the CCW system. An analysis
23
TABLE FC -1
PURCHASE WATER
FROM FOREST CITY ALTERNATIVE
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$125,000
$125,000
2
16" DIP
45,200
LF
$110
$4,972,000
3
Roadway /Creek Crossings
1,200
LF
$300
$360,000
4
New Duplex 2,800 gpm pump
1
LS
$450,000
$450,000
station
5
300,000 gallon elevated tank
1
LS
t!t
$550,000
$550,000
6
Pavement Repairs
30,000
LF A` �`'_�
$40
$1,200,000
7
16" Gate Valves
15
a
$7,500
$112,500
8
Air Release Valve
8 Eath
$4,500
$36,000
9
Fire Hydrant Assembly
45
ach
$3,200
$144,000
10
Pump and SCADA Improvements
1 �,ty -`
Each
$225,000
$225,000
11
CCW Booster Pump station
2 o,
llit
N%
Each
$450,000
$900,000
12
CCW Water Distribution System
��
LF
$75
$1,875,000
Improvements (12" water line) 0
13
Master Meter Vault
Each
$25,000
$50,000
strr,:.
'''
sub-total >��
$10,999,500
>,r1 ��,,,,,.
Contingencies „t
$1,200,000
,,
r,
Engineering , ,
$1,600,000
t
Construction AdiYistration
$950,000
sub -tota o! }t
$14,749,500
'l
Purcha��4 MGD Treatment Plant
4,000,000
Per Gallon
$3.50
$14,000,000
Capacity from Forest City
Purchase 33% of the Forest City
0.33
Project
$15,500,000
$5,115,000
Broad River Raw Water Intake
Cost
facilities
$33,864,500
TOTAL
The implementation of this alternative requires the construction of a booster pump
station to transfer water from the Forest City system to the CCW system. An analysis
23

of the two systems indicates that 75 horsepower pumps will be required to deliver the
proposed 2800 gpm flow.
CCW must also purchase the excess water needed from the Town of Forest City in the
event of a drought. A cost of $1.85 per 1,000 gallons has been assumed for the
purchase of water.
The annual operation and maintenance cost for the proposed alternative is shown in
table 2.
rug;,
To compare each te� e the present worth value of each will be determined. The
present word " �he �1'takes into account both the estimated project cost and the
anticipated anYt at' peration and maintenance cost. A twenty (20) year planning period
has been utilized for the comparison of alternatives. The present worth value of this
alternative is based on a 20 year period, at a discount rate of 2.8%
(http: / /www.whitehouse.gov /omb/ circulars /a094 /a94_appx- c.html).
The 20 -year present worth cost for this alternative is therefore:
$33,864,500 + 663,600 * 15.589 = $41,645,560.
Purchase Water From Forest City Present Worth Cost = $44,209,360
24
TABLE FC -2
PURCHASE WATER FROM FOREST QtY ALTERNATIVE
ANNUAL OPERATING & MAIN, iNAN E COSTS
UNIT
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UN t..�,,,
PRICE
TOTAL
1
Electrical Cost 323,400
KW- rr,, "''� «�,- $0.12 $38,800
(pumping)
2
Water Purchases 108,000 "'A"""""'000
$1.85 $199,800
hllons
3
Repairs /replacements 1 °`r;
LS $300,000 $300,000
4
Miscellaneous repairs 1
LS $125,000 $125,000
7
Total Annual O& M
$663,600
,1111
rug;,
To compare each te� e the present worth value of each will be determined. The
present word " �he �1'takes into account both the estimated project cost and the
anticipated anYt at' peration and maintenance cost. A twenty (20) year planning period
has been utilized for the comparison of alternatives. The present worth value of this
alternative is based on a 20 year period, at a discount rate of 2.8%
(http: / /www.whitehouse.gov /omb/ circulars /a094 /a94_appx- c.html).
The 20 -year present worth cost for this alternative is therefore:
$33,864,500 + 663,600 * 15.589 = $41,645,560.
Purchase Water From Forest City Present Worth Cost = $44,209,360
24

(E) Hickory
The City of Hickory uses the Catawba River (Lake Hickory) as a raw water supply.
The city currently has available excess capacity. In addition to costs of transporting the
quantity of water needed by CCW, this alternative would require permission from the
North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to transfer the
required amount of flow from the Catawba River basin to the Broad River basin.
The Cabarrus County cities of Kannapolis and Concord have an inter -basin 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 36.0 MGD from the Catawba River bassi; however up to
10.0 MGD was approved. The City of Hickory, as well as an n *b r "of towns and
counties in the Catawba River basin, passed resolutions ipj� },9 " ogition to the transfer.
Some of the reasons given for opposing the transfer of water from the Catawba River
basin are:
35�
• permanent removal of water from the Cat `�vbaRiver will reduce lake levels in
all 11 Catawba River lakes including Lie ickory;
1111 trJ�, s,
• aquatic life would lose water during irtcal summer low flow conditions;
i
• reduced water levels in the-, would result in additional conservation
measures during drought , , "-
• the transfer would "r "'o §y}1tvih reduced revenues needed to operate the public
water and sewer sysforn inside the basin; and
• cities and couri e§� *ithin the Catawba River Basin would lose water resources
for future ipc /6#0mic and population growth.
rf
l
A consorti Catawba River basin local governments, joined by the Catawba River
Foundation, appealed the decision by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission to grant the inter -basin transfer certificate. In addition, a bill is pending in
the North Carolina General Assembly that would change the laws governing the
transfer of water from one river basin to another. This legislation may make future
transfers an impossibility and could inhibit regional and intergovernmental
cooperation, according to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
(North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 2007).
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.
25

Given the opposition expressed by the City of Hickory to the inter -basin transfer
request, it is unlikely that the city would support such a request by the CCSD. Because
of potential legal issues and costs associated with implementation, this is not
considered to be a reasonable alternative. This alternative will therefore not be carried
forward for additional consideration.
3.2.8 New Water Treatment Plant on Broad River
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. e °City of Shelby
recently constructed a temporary emergency intake on the BroaA, River for use in
emergencies and a portion of the river and watershed wer,,,e'�asifed to WS N for
use as a water supply. Several other municipalities have expressed interest in future
utilization of the Broad River for water supply.
This alternative would consist of construction of 4,�newt lun -of -river type intake on the
Broad River and the utilization of the river for "d T w water supply in addition to the
111 ;ttrt se
First Broad River. Both the City of Shell, and the Town of Forest City have
documents plans for the future use of ad River as an alternative water source.
The safe yield of the Broad River is "eslixnated to be between 25.0 MGD and 42.0
a>
MGD depending upon the proposed ixtf ke location and based upon a withdrawal of 20
percent of low flow.
s,
{
t
26

1. References
ARCADIS. 2007. Purpose and Need Report, First Broad River Reservoir, Cleveland
County, NC. October 18.
Catawba Riverkeepers Foundation. No date. http : / /www.catawbariverkeeper.org /.
Accessed October 2007.
City of Hickory. 2007. http:// www .hickorygov.com/hickoryitb.html Accessed
October 8.
City of Kings Mountain and Cleveland County Sanitary Di, jrl . Contract for
Purchasing of Water. June 26.
City of Shelby. 2006. Shelby Water Supply Plan N(? ision of Water Resources
Review Draft. September 6.
tcw
tlh srJ7,r �,
Forest City. No date. http: / /www.townoffoit °fy.com /waterdept.html. Accessed
October 2007. �}
McGill Associates. May 2004. En, lg l ental Assessment for the Proposed First
Broad River Reservoir ,,-V w, t, ell d County, NC. Asheville, NC.
North Carolina Associ46' o ounty Commissioners. 2007. Legislative Bulletin
407 -25. July 11r
t
North Carol' D ion of Water Resources ( NCDWR). April 1989. Cleveland
County ''I'll, r Supply Survey.
Setzer, Britt. 2007. NCDENR Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section. Personal communication with B. Smith (CCSD) [E -mail] on
October 4.
Murphrey, Rick. City of Kings Mountain. Letter dated January 15, 2009 to Clyde E.
Smith, Jr., Manager, Cleveland County Water.
27