HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051457 Ver 1_Corps Meeting with DWR.msg_20120222Strickland, Bev
Subject: Corps Meeting with DWR
Location: DWR Conference Room
Start: Wed 2/22/2012 10:00 AM
End: Wed 2/22/2012 12:00 PM
Show Time As: Tentative
Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Not yet responded
Organizer: Peele, Linwood
Please see attached the resolution and 3 letters Henry sent me on Friday.
Colleagues,
We will meet with the Corp on Wednesday, February 22 at 10:00am to discuss DWR providing technical assistance to Cleveland
County Water in meeting their future needs. We will meet in our Division Conference Room on the 11th Floor of the Archdale
Building.
For Lee and Britt, the telephone number to call in to is (919) 501 -4273. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thanks,
Linwood
Linwood Peele, Supervisor
Water Supply Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
phone: 919-707-9024 fax: 919-733-3558
email: linwood.peele @ncdenr.gov
www.ncwater.or
Please note new telephone number.
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.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Wicker, Henry M JR SAW f mailto: Henry .M.Wicker.JR @usace.army.milj
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:34 PM
To: Peele, Linwood
Subject: RE: Corps Meeting with DWR (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
I'll be there.
Henry
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Peele, Linwood f mailto :linwood.peele @ncdenr.govj
1
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 12:33 PM
To: Wicker, Henry M JR SAW
Cc: Reeder, Tom; Dennis Ramsey (dennis.ramseydwr @gmail.com); LeeGSpencer @aol.com
Subject: RE: Corps Meeting with DWR (UNCLASSIFIED)
Henry,
Tom Reeder is available along with our staff to meet on Wednesday, February 22 at 10:OOam. We will meet in our Division
Conference Room on the 11th Floor of the Archdale Building. Please confirm.
Thanks,
Linwood
Linwood Peele, Supervisor
Water Supply Planning Branch
NCDENR - Division of Water Resources
phone: 919-707-9024 fax: 919-733-3558
email: linwood.peele @ncdenr.gov
www.ncwater.orR
Please note new telephone number.
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.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Wicker, Henry M JR SAW jmailto: Henry .M.Wicker.JR @usace.army.milj
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 9:22 AM
To: Peele, Linwood
Subject: Corps Meeting with DWR (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Linwood,
It looks like it may just be me (Monte may come if he is available). I am available Wednesday Thursday or Friday of next week.. I can
10:00 to 1:00 any of those days.
Henry
Henry Wicker
Project Manager
Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington NC, 28402
(910) 251 -4930 (Ph)
(910) 251 -4025 (Fax)
Fil
CANT DWR HB 601 etter to CCW.p... letter to CCW.pdf.. letter to CCW....
CCW CO
USACE- 10- 01 -09 -1
USACE 6 -1 -09
USACE -5 -25 -2010
CANT DWR HB 601 etter to CCW.p... letter to CCW.pdf.. letter to CCW....
RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR CLEVELAND COUNTY
WATER
WHEREAS, June 27, 2011, H.B.609 AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT
OF WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS AND OTHER WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES
TO PROVIDE THAT FUNDS FROM THE CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST
FUND MAY BE USED TO PRESERVE LANDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS, AND TOIMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF USE
OF NORTH CAROLINA'S RESOURCES was enacted; and
WHEREAS, The Cleveland County Water Board has need for and intends to construct a
Reservoir for Regional water supply for use to provide safe and reliable potable water for
the citizens of the City of Shelby, Cleveland County and other locales; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Commissioners of Cleveland County Water intends to
request assistance under the newly enacted law as to Water Supply Development: State -
Local Cooperation.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CLEVELAND COUNTY WATER:
That Cleveland County Water will apply for joint permit regarding the application for
construction of the Upper Cleveland Reservoir; and
That Cleveland County Water will arrange funding for costs of the State assistance not to
exceed $100,000.00; and
That Clyde E. Smith, District Manager and his successors or any assigns, so titled is
hereby authorized to execute and file an application on behalf of the Cleveland County
Water with the DWR for assistance in the construction of the Reservoir; and
That Clyde E. Smith, District Manager and his successors or any assigns, so titled, is
hereby authorized and directed to furnish such information as the DWR may request in
connection with such application or the project; to make the assurances as contained
above; and to execute such other documents as may be required in connection with the
application; and
That the Cleveland County Water has substantially complied or will substantially comply
with all Federal, State, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the
project pertaining thereto.
Adopted this the 14th of February 2012 at Lawndale, North Carolina.
21,IVIZG12
SIGNAT Of COMM CHAIRMAN 2/14/2012
Don Melton
ATTEST:
Bill Cameron, Secretary
Chairman
(Seal)
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
June 1, 2009
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW- 2003 -30194
Mr. Butch Smith
Cleveland County Sanitary District
Post Office Box 788
Lawndale, North Carolina 28090 -0788
Dear Mr. Smith:
Please reference our May 7 and 18, 2009 teleconferences discussing Cleveland County
Water's (CCW) preferred project and other alternatives to be developed and studied in the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As you are aware, we continue to believe that there are
alternatives to the proposed project that may satisfy the purpose and need, but with less damage
to the aquatic environment; the purpose of this correspondence is to elaborate on those
alternatives.
The purpose of the teleconferences was to continue developing alternatives to be studied that
meet the requirements found in the purpose and need statement and which the Corps and CCW
developed together. The purpose and need for your project is "to ensure a dependable water
supply for Cleveland County Water that meets projected long -term (2060) needs. A
"dependable" water supply will provide the district's needs and maintain required in- stream
flows (assuming water conservation measures are implemented in accordance with an approved
drought management plan)."
CCW's preferred 1,200 acre water supply reservoir alternative would impound areas below
860 -feet msl, on the First Broad River, near Lawndale. This would provide an estimated safe
yield of 26 MGD. The estimated safe yield CCW will need by the year 2060 is 7.91 MGD; thus
the proposed project provides more than three times the amount of water CCW needs in 2060.
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.
-2-
Along with your preferred alternative we are also reviewing the following alternatives in
order to develop a reasonable range of alternatives as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA):
No action
• Development of a partnership to purchase water capacity from an existing public water
supply system. Potential systems to be considered are:
➢ City of Shelby
➢ City of Kings Mountain
➢ Town of Forest City
➢ Construction of a New Raw Water Intake on the Broad River
Reservoirs
• Development of a 1200 acre Reservoir on the First Broad River
• Knob Creek Reservoir with a full pool elevation of 860' and pumped storage from the
First Broad River at a rate of 10.0 MGD.
• Knob Creek Reservoir with a full pool elevation of 860' and pumped storage from the
First Broad River at a rate of 15.0 MGD.
• Upper Crooked Run Creek Reservoir with a full pool elevation of 960' and pumped
storage from the First Broad River at a rate of 10.0 MGD.
• Upper Crooked Run Creek Reservoir with a full pool elevation of 960' and pumped
storage from the First Broad River at a rate of 15.0 MGD.
• Lower Crooked Run Creek Reservoir with a full pool elevation of 880' and pumped
storage from the First Broad River at a rate of 15.0 MGD.
After an evaluation of the potential alternatives, a determination will be made as to the
reasonable range of alternatives to be fully evaluated in the EIS.
Issues of Concern
In the teleconference, we identified three main issues that CCW needs to be aware of with
respect to the required alternatives analysis:
1) the viability and potential of partnerships and purchasing water supply capacity from
nearby cities or towns;
2) the safe yield of the proposed project is more than three times what CCW needs by
the year 2060; and
3) the required evaluation of the permit request in accordance with the 404 b (1)
Guidelines.
-3-
During the teleconference, we suggested that, as an alternative to a reservoir, CCW might be
able to purchase 4.0 MGD of capacity from the City of Shelby, the Town of Forest City, or Kings
Mountain Water Plants to meet future demands. CCW would 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 may satisfy the
purpose and need of the proposed project and have less impact to wetlands and waters of the US
than the preferred alternative. For the purposes of our regulations, including the 404(b)(1)
Guidelines, if we make a finding that the purchase of water supply capacity represents the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), we would have no choice but to
deny your request to construct a reservoir on the First Broad River.
As you are aware, our primary concern with the proposed project is that it provides more
than three times the safe yield that CCW has identified that it needs by the year 2060. CCW
should strongly consider reducing the size of the project to make it commensurate with the actual
safe yield needed for the year 2060 if the above "purchase" alternative is not deemed practicable.
Although we will continue with the review and evaluation of your proposal in the most
expeditious manner, we believe it is our responsibility to inform you of our concerns relative to
our ability to render a favorable permit decision regarding the proposed reservoir.
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.
Sincerely,
�. r(11_
S. Kenneth Jolly
Chief, Regulatory Division
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
Rlow, I 't10
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 Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
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:
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 Thomas A. Reeder
Governor 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
NorthCarohna
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 cfs 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 Aereements
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