2Final_Environmental_Impact_Statement

REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC I
Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................vii
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1
1 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Background.............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Existing Water Supplies.........................................................................................1-2
1.3 Population Growth.................................................................................................1-5
1.4 Water Demand Projections ...................................................................................1-6
1.4.1 Water Resources Conservation Efforts...................................................1-9
1.4.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities...........................................................1-11
1.5 Water Supply Shortage........................................................................................1-11
1.6 Potential Supply Alternatives.............................................................................1-12
1.6.1 Alternative 1 – Catawba River Basin....................................................1-13
1.6.2 Alternative 2 – Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin .......................................1-13
1.6.3 Alternative 3 – Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin .......................................1-13
1.6.4 Preferred Alternative..............................................................................1-15
1.6.5 Non-IBT Alternatives..............................................................................1-16
1.6.6 No Action Alternative ............................................................................1-16
2 Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences.........................................2-1
2.1 Source Basins...........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Catawba River Basin.................................................................................2-3
2.1.2 Yadkin River Basin....................................................................................2-3
2.1.3 Catawba-Wateree Project Modeling.......................................................2-3
2.1.4 Yadkin Hydroelectric Modeling..............................................................2-9
2.1.5 Catawba River Basin Sources ................................................................2-11
2.1.6 Yadkin River Basin Sources...................................................................2-11
2.1.7 Wetlands...................................................................................................2-12
2.1.8 Land Use...................................................................................................2-18
2.1.9 Fish and Wildlife Resources...................................................................2-30
2.1.10 Water Resources/Water Quality...........................................................2-40
2.1.11 Air Quality................................................................................................2-72
2.1.12 Groundwater Resources.........................................................................2-73
2.1.13 Noise Level...............................................................................................2-73
2.1.14 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes..................................................2-74
2.1.15 Environmental Justice.............................................................................2-76
2.1.16 Potential Impacts to Hydroelectric Projects.........................................2-77
2.1.17 Potential Impacts to Water Supply Withdrawals...............................2-84
2.2 Receiving Basin.....................................................................................................2-86
2.2.1 Wetlands...................................................................................................2-86
2.2.2 Land Use...................................................................................................2-88
2.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources...................................................................2-93
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC II
2.2.4 Water Quality/Water Resources...........................................................2-95
2.2.5 Air Quality................................................................................................2-98
2.2.6 Groundwater Resources.........................................................................2-99
2.2.7 Noise Level...............................................................................................2-99
2.2.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes................................................2-100
2.2.9 Environmental Justice...........................................................................2-101
3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in the Receiving Basin Study Area................3-1
3.1 Secondary Impacts .................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Installation of Water and Sewer Lines....................................................3-1
3.1.2 Growth in the Receiving Basin Study Area...........................................3-2
3.2 Cumulative Impacts...............................................................................................3-6
4 Alternatives Analysis.........................................................................................................4-1
4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Alternative 1 – Lake Norman/Catawba ................................................4-1
4.1.2 Alternative 2 – Tuckertown or Badin Lake/Yadkin.............................4-1
4.1.3 Alternative 3 – High Rock Lake/Yadkin...............................................4-2
4.1.4 Preferred Alternative................................................................................4-2
4.1.5 Non-IBT Alternatives................................................................................4-2
4.1.6 No Action Alternative ..............................................................................4-3
4.2 Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Criteria..........................................................4-3
4.2.1 Capital Cost................................................................................................4-3
4.2.2 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................4-5
4.2.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Receiving Basin.....................4-5
4.2.4 Impacts to Hydroelectric Power Projects...............................................4-6
4.2.5 Public Health Issues Related to Water Supply......................................4-7
4.2.6 Summary of Alternatives Analysis.........................................................4-8
5 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts........................................................................................5-1
5.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs..............................5-1
5.1.1 Federal Regulations...................................................................................5-3
5.1.2 State Regulations.......................................................................................5-5
5.2 Local Regulations and Programs .........................................................................5-9
5.2.1 Cabarrus County.......................................................................................5-9
5.2.2 Summary ..................................................................................................5-17
6 References............................................................................................................................6-1
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC III
Appendices
A Water Supply Options
B Water Balance Tables
C Alternative Analysis Details
D Low Inflow Protocol for the Catawba River Basin
E Low Inflow Protocol for the Yadkin & Yadkin-Pee Dee River Hydroelectric Projects
F Agency Involvement
Appendices on Compact Disk
CD-1 Local Ordinances & Information
CD-2 Division of Water Resources 2005 Catawba River Basin Modeling Results
CD-3 Division of Water Resources 2005 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Modeling Results
CD-4 Yadkin-APGI Shoreline Stewardship Policy
CD-5 Concord Land Use Plan
CD-6 Kannapolis Land Use Plan
Figures
ES-1 – Existing Raw Water Sources .......................................................................................... ES-11
ES- 2 – Existing Raw Water Sources ......................................................................................... ES-12
ES-3 – Current Service Area....................................................................................................... ES-13
ES-4 – Comparison of Bridgewater (Lake James) Elevations Showing the Impacts of
LIP...................................................................................................................................... ES-14
ES-5 – Comparison of Cowan Ford (Lake Norman) Elevations Showing the Impacts of
LIP...................................................................................................................................... ES-15
ES-6 – High Rock Lake Elevation.............................................................................................. ES-16
1-1 - Existing Raw Water Surfaces .................................................................................................1-4
1-3 – Existing Raw Water Sources................................................................................................1-14
2-1 - Study Area................................................................................................................................2-2
2-2 – Catawba River Basin Reservoirs...........................................................................................2-4
2-3 – Yadkin River Basin Reservoirs..............................................................................................2-5
2-4 - NWI Wetlands........................................................................................................................2-14
2-5 - Land Use .................................................................................................................................2-20
2-6 - NRHP.......................................................................................................................................2-24
2-7 - NHEO SNHA.........................................................................................................................2-35
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC IV
2-8 - 2008 Catawba River Water Users ........................................................................................2-42
2-9 - 2038 Catawba River Water Consumptive Uses.................................................................2-44
2-10 - Impacts of IBT Quantity on Lake Norman - 2008............................................................2-47
2-11 - Impacts of IBT quantity on Lake Norman - 2035 ............................................................2-48
2-12 - Impacts of IBT Locations on Lake Norman......................................................................2-49
2-13 - Impacts of IBT Locations on Mountain Island Lake.......................................................2-50
2-14 - Impacts of Increased Instream Flow Requirement with IBT on Mountain Island
Lake.......................................................................................................................................2-51
2-15 - Impacts of IBT Quantity on Lake Wylie...........................................................................2-52
2-16 - Impacts of IBT Locations on Lake Wylie..........................................................................2-53
2-17 - Impacts of Increased Instream Flow Requirement with IBT on Lake Wylie...............2-54
2-18 - Impacts of IBT Quantity on Elevation on Lake Norman During Drought of Record2-55
2-19 - Total Generation Plots for Cowan Ford (Lake Norman) to Compare the Impacts of IBT
Quanity.................................................................................................................................2-57
2-20 - Total Generation Plots for Cowan Ford (Lake Norman) to Compare the Impacts of IBT
Quanity.................................................................................................................................2-58
2-21 - Total Generation Plots Cowan Ford (Lake Norman) to Compare the Impacts of
Increased Instream Flows ..................................................................................................2-59
2-22 - Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake to Compare the Impacts of IBT
Quantity................................................................................................................................2-60
2-23 - Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake to Compare the Impacts of IBT
Locations ..............................................................................................................................2-61
2-24 - Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake to Compare the Impacts of IBT
Locations ..............................................................................................................................2-62
2-25 - Impacts of IBT Quantity on Elevation on Lake James During Drought of Record....2-64
2-26 - High Rock Reservoir – Lake Levels...................................................................................2-68
2-27 - Tuckertown Reservoir – Lake Levels................................................................................2-69
2-28 - Narrows (Badin) Reservoir – Lake Levels........................................................................2-70
2-29 - High Rock Reservoir – Lake Levels...................................................................................2-71
2-30 – Concentrated Livestock Operations and Hazardous Source Disposal Site................2-75
2-31 - Impacts of IBT Quantity on Hydropower Generation for Lake Norman....................2-78
2-32 - Impacts of IBT Locations on Hydropower Generation for Lake Norman...................2-79
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC V
2-33 - Impacts of IBT and Increased Instream Flows on Hydropower Generation for Lake
Norman.................................................................................................................................2-80
2-34 - Impacts of IBT Quantity on Hydropower Generation for Mountain Island Lake .....2-81
2-35 - Impacts of IBT Locations on Hydropower Generation for Mountain Island Lake....2-82
2-36 - Impacts of Increased Instream Flow Requirements with IBT on Hydropower
Generation for Mountain Island Lake..............................................................................2-83
2-37 - Rockingham Gage (02129000) - Streamflow ....................................................................2-85
2-38 - LIP Stages for All IBT Quantities.......................................................................................2-87
2-39 - Concord Existing Land Use................................................................................................2-90
5-1 – Concord Future Land Use Map...........................................................................................5-15
5-2 – Kannapolis Future Land Use Map......................................................................................5-16
Tables
ES-1 Areas of Potential Impacts to be Addressed by Permitting & NCEPA
Processes for Identified Projects in the Source and Receiving Basins....................... ES-3
ES-2 Areas of Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to be Addressed by
Permitting and Mitigation in the Receiving Basin....................................................... ES-6
ES-3 Summary of Catawba River Basin Low Inflow Protocol Stages................................ ES-7
ES-4 LIP Stage Summary – 2035.............................................................................................. ES-8
1-1 - Water Supply Classifications .................................................................................................1-3
1-2 - Safe Yield Analysis for Existing Water Supply Reservoirs in Cabarrus County............1-3
1-3 - Population Projections for Cabarrus County Water Service Areas..................................1-6
1-4 - Residential Water Use--Comparison of per Capita Water Demands (2002)...................1-7
1-5 - Concord and Kannapolis Recent Water Use History .........................................................1-8
1-6 - Current and Projected Water System Demands for the Water Service Areas.................1-9
1-7 - Summary of IBT Alternatives (MGD).................................................................................1-17
2-1 - Summary of Catawba River Basin Low Inflow Protocol Stages.......................................2-6
2-2 - IBT Monthly Distribution– Based on 2002 Water Use........................................................2-8
2-3 - Total Monthly Distributions with and without IBT from Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman)
and Mountain Island ............................................................................................................2-8
2-4 - NWI Wetlands – Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman............................................2-13
2-5 - NWI Wetlands – High Rock Lake .......................................................................................2-16
CONTENTS, CONTINUED
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC VI
2-6 - Land Cover Around Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman.....................................2-19
2-7 - Lake Norman Public Access Areas......................................................................................2-21
2-8 - NRHP – Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman ..........................................................2-23
2-9 - National Register Historic Sites – High Rock Lake...........................................................2-27
2-10 - LIP Stage Summary - 2035..................................................................................................2-46
2-11 - NWI Wetlands – Receiving Basin......................................................................................2-88
2-12 - National Register Historic Sites – Receiving Basin.........................................................2-92
2-13 - Receiving Basin Water Resources......................................................................................2-95
2-14 - Low Flow Statistics at Gauging Stations in the Rocky River.........................................2-97
2-15 - Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites – Receiving Basin...............................................2-100
4-1 - Capital Cost Evaluation..........................................................................................................4-5
4-2 - Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Receiving Basin....................................................4-6
4-3 - Summary of Alternatives Analysis .......................................................................................4-8
5-1 - Summary of Existing State and Federal Programs and Environmental Resources They
Protect ........................................................................................................................................5-2
5-2 - Summary of Water Supply Watershed II Rules ................................................................5-10
5-3 - City of Concord Typical Stream Buffer Widths.................................................................5-12
5-4 - Areas of Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to be Addressed by Permitting
and Mitigation in the Receiving Basin.................................................................................5-18
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC VII
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADD Average Daily Demand
APGI Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
AQI Air Quality Index
BMP Best Management Practice
CA Critical Area
cfs cubic feet per second
CGIA North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
CHEOPS Computer Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning Model Software
CMU Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
CP&L Carolina Power and Light (now Progress Energy)
CWMTF North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DPR North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation
DLR North Carolina Division of Land Resources
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
EA Environmental Assessment
EEP North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMC North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPT Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FY Fiscal Year
GIS Geographic Information System
gpcd gallons per capita per day
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS, CONTINUED
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC VIII
HQW High Quality Water
IBT Interbasin Transfer
ICI Industrial, Commercial, Institutional
LIP Low Inflow Protocol
MCDEP Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
MDD Maximum Daily Demand
MG Mutual Gain
MGD million gallons per day
NAA No Action Alternative
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCEPA North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
NCIBI North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NHEO Natural Heritage Element Occurrence
NHP Natural Heritage Program
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OASIS Operational and Simulation of Integrated Systems
ppm parts per million
PS Pump Station
SCDHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCI Secondary and/or Cumulative Impacts
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
SNHA Significant Natural Heritage Area
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UDO Unified Development Ordinance
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS, CONTINUED
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC IX
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
WRP North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (now known as EEP)
WSACC Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
WSW Water Supply Watershed
WTP Water Treatment Plant
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-1
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Cities of Concord and Kannapolis are requesting an interbasin transfer certificate to
meet their projected water supply shortfall during the next 30 years. The Cities and their
service areas in Cabarrus County (Figure ES-1) are within the Rocky River Subbasin and
they are requesting an average interbasin transfer (IBT) of 22 million gallons per day (MGD)
from a combination of the Catawba and Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basins. The associated
maximum day IBT being requested is up to 36 MGD from the Catawba River Basin and 10
MGD from the Yadkin River Basin. If the IBT is granted from the Yadkin River Basin, then
the amount of the transfer from the Catawba River Basin can be proportionately reduced.
The purpose of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to discuss the potential
impacts of transferring water from one river basin to another from the source basins, the
Catawba and Yadkin River Basins, and to the receiving basin, the Rocky River Subbasin.
This includes the direct impacts of moving the water as well as the secondary and
cumulative impacts of the growth and development facilitated by this additional water
supply. The EIS presents alternatives for water supply that require an IBT as well as
alternatives that do not require an IBT. The EIS does not discuss direct impacts of specific
infrastructure construction projects that may be required to actually transfer the water. Any
future construction associated with projects allowed by the IBT, if approved, will be
discussed under a different environmental document in accordance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA). Location(s) of specific infrastructure projects and
potential impacts are speculative at this time. Approval of an IBT certificate does not
provide any pre-approval for permits needed for any new or expanded infrastructure.
The Cities have been working diligently on addressing water supply needs since 1999 and
have been working with the N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) for the last five years
to develop an EIS that examines the potential impacts of the IBT (Section 1.1). It is important
to note that the Cities have coordinated their IBT planning and regulatory approval process
with the ongoing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing activities in
the Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba River Basins.
As the Cities worked to obtain additional water supply, the area experienced an extensive
drought which lasted from 1999 through the spring of 2003. The drought impacted the
Cabarrus County communities for a long time because of the small size of their drinking
water watersheds. This prompted the communities to adopt stringent water conservation
programs including a tiered rate structure that promotes water conservation and
discourages irrigation by making high levels of water use more expensive. Concord and
Kannapolis have been cited by State officials as having one of the most aggressive water
conservation programs and water rate structures in the State. Per capita water use has
remained low after restrictions have been removed since the end of the drought (Section
1.4.1).
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-2
Also during the evolution of this EIS, the Cabarrus County region lost their largest
employer, Pillowtex, in 2003 (Section 1.4). This loss of industry had a short-term effect of
further reducing water demand. However, redevelopment of the industrial site into a major
biomedical research complex has become a mission of a developer with support from the
communities, region, the University of North Carolina System, the NC General Assembly,
and U.S. Senate and Congressional delegation. This redevelopment effort is projected to
require a similar water demand during the planning period as the Pillowtex facility and will
further fuel the rapid growth that has occurred in Cabarrus County for more than the past
decade.
The preferred alternative is a regional solution that allows the Cities to obtain water from
neighboring communities in the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins. Approval of the IBT
certificate is a prerequisite to negotiating long-term agreements for water. Once these
agreements are in place, the associated infrastructure projects can be identified and the
review and permitting process can begin.
Water Supply Needs
Existing Water Supply
Current water supplies (Figure ES-2) for the communities are from reservoirs located near
the headwaters of the Rocky River Subbasin and a small creek in the South Yadkin
Subbasin. The City of Concord’s current raw water supplies include Lake Howell (Coddle
Creek Reservoir) operated by the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
(WSACC), as well as Lake Concord and Lake Fisher. The City of Kannapolis’ raw water
supply, Kannapolis Lake (Rocky River Subbasin), has a limited watershed of approximately
10 square miles. However, Kannapolis Lake is supplemented with raw water transfers from
Lake Howell (Rocky River Subbasin) and Second Creek (South Yadkin River Subbasin). The
transfer from Second Creek has a grandfathered IBT of 6 MGD, but only increases the safe
yield of Kannapolis Lake by approximately 2.5 MGD.
The available water supply in the Rocky River Subbasin is insufficient to meet projected
demands. The 50-year safe yield of the Cities’ current water supplies is 31 MGD and the 100-
year safe yield is 16 MGD. This latter yield is based on the recent drought of record from
1999 to 2003. Potential reservoir sites in the Rocky River watershed have already been
developed and Concord and Kannapolis already have more reservoir storage than they
have watershed yield to supply these reservoirs. Watershed yield is limited due to the area’s
location in the uppermost portion of the Rocky River watershed (Figure ES-2). The
possibility of constructing a reservoir on the Second Creek watershed was investigated, but
this reservoir only provided about 8 MGD of additional water supply, would still require an
IBT, and had stream and wetland impacts associated with new reservoir development. The
land for this potential reservoir was recently sold at below market value by the City of
Kannapolis to a land trust. While a reservoir will not be developed here, the City of
Kannapolis will maintain its water intake on Second Creek. Another reservoir on Dutch
Buffalo Creek was investigated but had limited yield and posed potential impacts to several
State listed species of concern (Section 1.6).
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-3
Future Water Demands
Water use and future supply needs were projected as part of a comprehensive water and
wastewater master planning effort for all of the communities within Cabarrus County
conducted in 2000 through 2002 (Black and Veatch, 2003). Water demand calculations are
based on projected populations and current water usage by type of use, such as residential,
commercial and industrial. Water usage has been updated since the master planning effort
to reflect the reduced demands after the adoption of aggressive water conservation
programs during and following the 1999 through 2002 drought (Section 1.4). Other factors
included recent development trends, planned transportation improvements, and changes to
the non-residential demands.
The projections from the master plan included no projected increase in industrial water
usage through 2050. Since the master planning effort, the City of Kannapolis’s largest
industrial water user, Pillowtex, closed its facility in 2003. Pillowtex’s average daily water
demand was approximately 5 MGD. For the purposes of this EIS, water demand for
redevelopment of the Pillowtex site as a biomedical research facility and surrounding area is
assumed to be back up to 5 MGD within the 30-year projection period.
Water demand projections have been made through 2050 as part of the master planning
effort. For the purpose of the IBT request, projections were based on a 30-year planning
period to 2035 based on discussions with DWR and previous IBT actions by the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC). According to current water demand
projections (Table ES-1), the combined demand will be about 42.5 MGD average daily
demand (ADD) by 2035 and 52 MGD in the year 2050. Maximum daily demand (MDD) for
2035 and 2050 are projected at about 67 and 83 MGD, respectively.
TABLE ES-1
Current and Projected Water System Demands for the Water Service Areas
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
2000 2010 2020 2035 2050
Service Area ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD
Concord/Harrisburg/
Midland
10.7 17.1 14.8 24.9 19.8 33.0 25.6 42.3 32.3 53.3
Mt. Pleasant 0.3 0.45 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.7
Kannapolis 8.6 11.8 11.6 16.6 14.0 20.4 16.0 22.9 18.7 27.6
Combined Total 19.6 29.3 26.75 42.2 34.3 54.4 42.5 66.5 52.0 82.6
Sources: Cabarrus County Water and Wastewater System Master Plan. December 2002; Cities of
Concord and Kannapolis
Water Supply Shortfall
The State Water Supply Plan requires local governments to prepare a local water supply
plan that assesses the ability of the system to meet water supply needs for a 20- to 25-year
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-4
period. If the ADD exceeds 80 percent of the available supply, a specific plan must be
developed to identify how water supply needs will be met. The proposed IBT certificate(s)
will be based on a 30-year planning period. Therefore, the IBT evaluation will be based on
projected demand information to year 2035, when the ADD is projected to be 42.5 MGD. In
order to meet the 80 percent criteria mentioned above, an available supply of 53 MGD is
required. Based on the 50-year safe yield of existing supplies of 31 MGD, there is a 22 MGD
ADD shortfall in available supply for the year 2035. This projected shortfall is the basis of
the IBT request (Section 1.5).
Environmental Impact Analysis
The purpose of this EIS is to discuss the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the
proposed IBT on both the source and receiving basins including wetlands, urban lands,
prime agricultural lands, forestry resources, public and recreational lands, archaeological
and historical resources, fish and wildlife resources, sensitive aquatic and terrestrial species
and habitats, water quality and water resources, air quality, groundwater, noise, and toxic
substances. This EIS process was developed in cooperation with DWR, the EMC, and legal
counsel from the North Carolina Attorney General’s office.
EIS Study Area
The study areas discussed in the EIS are shown in Figure ES-3. The receiving basin is the
Rocky River Subbasin which includes all of Cabarrus County. The City of Concord is
located in Cabarrus County, which is adjacent to Mecklenburg County where the City of
Charlotte is located. The Concord water system supplies areas within the Concord city
limits and adjacent county areas and provides supplemental water to the Towns of
Harrisburg, Mt. Pleasant, and Midland. The City of Kannapolis is located in northern
Cabarrus County and southern Rowan County. The Kannapolis water system supplies areas
within the Kannapolis city limits in both Cabarrus and Rowan Counties, and adjacent areas
including the Town of Landis. The Town of Landis is in the South Yadkin River Basin;
however water supplied to the town is not considered an IBT under the IBT statute.
Combined, the Concord and Kannapolis water systems supply almost 100 percent of the
public water supply in Cabarrus County.
In the Catawba River source basin, direct impacts on the immediate areas surrounding
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman are discussed. Secondary and cumulative impacts
(SCI) include impacts to the areas around these various reservoirs (i.e., the study areas) and
also include impacts to water levels and outflows from the reservoirs in the Catawba River
Basin from Lake James to Lake Wateree (Section 2.1.5).
In the Yadkin River source basin, direct and secondary impacts focused on the immediate
areas surrounding High Rock Lake, Tuckertown Reservoir, and Badin Lake (Section 2.1.6).
As part of this Final EIS, the impacts of the IBTs on water levels and outflows were assessed
using modeling tools developed as part of FERC relicensing efforts for both Duke Power’s
Catawba-Wateree Project, which includes reservoirs in both North and South Carolina, and
the Yadkin Hydroelectric Projects operated by Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI) and
Progress Energy.
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-5
IBT Alternatives
Four IBT alternatives and two non-IBT alternatives were considered in addition to the No
Action Alternative (NAA). These are summarized as follows:
x Alternative 1 requires the development of a water supply contract with Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) which would be for at least 10 MGD and up to 36 MGD
MDD of finished water. A combination of finished water transferred through existing
interconnections and transport of raw water from a new or existing intake on Lake
Norman could also be utilized.
x Alternative 2 would involve an IBT of up to 36 MGD MDD of water from Tuckertown
Reservoir or Badin Lake. For this alternative either raw water or finished water could be
transferred.
x Alternative 3 would involve an IBT of 22 MGD of raw water from High Rock Lake. The
22 MGD would be transferred from High Rock Lake and pumped through a new raw
water main that would discharge into Lake Howell in Cabarrus County and Kannapolis
Lake in Rowan County.
x The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 2, involving an IBT
from both the Yadkin-Pee Dee River and the Catawba River Basins to the Rocky River
Subbasin. This alternative would continue the use of the existing interconnections with
Charlotte, Salisbury, and Albemarle to meet short-term increases in demands, and allow
Concord and Kannapolis the opportunity to expand the amount of finished water
obtained from Charlotte, Salisbury, and/or Albemarle or obtain raw water from Lake
Norman in the Catawba River Basin. The Preferred Alternative IBT certificate would be
for up to 36 MGD (MDD) from the Catawba River Basin and up to 10 MGD (MDD) from
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin; however, the total IBT from both sources will not
exceed a MDD of 36 MGD or an ADD of 22 MGD. The IBT allowed from the Catawba
River Basin can be proportionately less if the IBT is granted from the Yadkin River Basin.
Two non-IBT alternatives are discussed that utilize flows in the Rocky River that are
augmented by wastewater discharges. In Alternative 4A, 22 MGD would be withdrawn
near Midland from the Rocky River approximately 10 miles downstream of the Rocky River
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and raw water would be pumped up to Lake Howell.
Alternative 4B would transfer 22 MGD of raw water from Lake Norman to Lake Howell,
and simultaneously withdraw 22 MGD from the Rocky River near Midland and pump it
over to McAlpine Creek near Mint Hill in the Catawba River Basin to mitigate the IBT.
These alternatives were not found to be feasible because of several factors. In particular, the
high proportion of flow in the Rocky River from wastewater significantly reduces its
potential use as a water supply under the North Carolina water supply protection
regulatory framework.
Alternatives that involved eliminating or reducing the IBT by returning wastewater to the
source basins were not considered practical because the discharges would need to be to very
small streams or directly to reservoirs in the systems. A summary of capital costs and
environmental considerations associated with each of the alternatives is presented in Table
ES-2.
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-6
TABLE ES-2
Summary of Alternatives Analysis
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative with
Water Source(s) Listed
Capital
Cost
Rating
Environmental
Consequences
Rating
SCI to
Receiving
Basin
Rating
Public Health
Issues related
to Water
Supply
Impacts to
Hydroelectric
Power
Generation
Rating
Alt. 1 - Lake
Norman/Catawba
$86.5 M Low Low Low Low
Alt. 2 – Tuckertown-Badin
Lake/ Yadkin $116.3 M Low Low Low Low
Alt. 3 - High Rock
Lake/Yadkin $80.4 M Middle Low Low Low
Preferred Alternative $138.7 M a Low Low Low Low
Alt. 4A – Indirect
Reuse/Rocky River $93.4 M Middle Low High Lowest
Alt. 4B – Reverse
IBT/Catawba $107.7 M Middle Low Low Low
No Action N/A b Lowest N/A N/A Lowest
a This price could be reduced based on negotiations with neighboring communities after an IBT certificate is
issued.
B Costs of the NAA are difficult to quantify, but could include the costs of pursuing a non-IBT alternative, the
development of private water systems, and other infrastructure.
Impact Summary
The direct impacts of the IBT in the source basins were evaluated using modeling tools
developed for FERC relicensing. Evaluation of direct impacts to the source basin focused on
water quality and water quantity, including reservoir levels and instream flows.
In order to address drought situations in the Catawba River Basin, a Low Inflow Protocol
(LIP) was developed during the FERC relicensing application process on the basis that all
users and parties with interests in water quantity will share the responsibility to conserve
water during low inflow conditions (see Appendix D). This LIP was developed with a
stakeholders group of water users and other interest groups. It includes five stages of water
management (Stage 0 to Stage 4) starting with public notification and voluntary restrictions
to extreme mandatory restrictions on water use (Table ES-3). The LIP is performance based
using several criteria including that there be no more than two and preferably only one
occurrence of LIP Stage 3 during the period of record and no occurrence of Stage 4.
Descriptions of the assumptions used for modeling the LIP are included in Appendix CD-2.
A LIP is also under development as part of the FERC process for the Yadkin River Basin
reservoir operations and the draft is included in Appendix E. The Catawba River Basin LIP
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-7
was model used for Yadkin River Basin LIP and also includes five stages of water
management (Stage 0 to Stage 4).
TABLE ES-3
Summary of Catawba River Basin Low Inflow Protocol Stages
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Stage Public Water Supply Actions Water Use Reduction Goals
0 Low Inflow Watch – DMAG Meets -
1 Voluntary Water Use Restrictions 3 to 5 percent
2 Mandatory Level 1 5 to 10 percent
3 Mandatory Level 2 10 to 20 percent
4 Emergency 20 to 30 percent
DMAG = Drought Management Advisory Group
Catawba River Basin Impacts
In the Catawba River source basin, the direct impact of the IBT was evaluated based on the
conservative assumption that all of the water requested by Concord and Kannapolis (22
MGD based on average demand) was obtained from the Catawba River Basin. The
modeling analyses indicate that the direct impact of the IBT on Lake Norman and Mountain
Island Lake are insignificant, particularly when compared to current and projected water
demands of other water users during the planning period. Impacts to lake elevation and
outflow from other reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree project are also considered
insignificant and are discussed in the EIS and the Catawba modeling summary included in
Appendix CD-2. The modeling analysis included all anticipated withdrawals, transfers of
water, and consumptive uses. The proposed IBT will not significantly change lake
elevations or minimum dam releases, except during extreme cases, mainly because the IBT
represents a small portion of the total consumptive use.
The modeling results show no significant impacts as a result of the IBT to other water users
in each basin. In addition to water users, water elevations and outflows were also
considered. Illustrations of the benefit of the LIP on managing water resources in the
Catawba River Basin are shown in Figure ES-4 and ES-5. These figures illustrate model
predictions of water levels in Lake James (Bridgewater dam) and Lake Norman (Cowans
Ford dam) during the drought conditions that occurred in 2001 through 2002 assuming
projected 2035 withdrawal conditions for all other water users with and without the IBT.
This modeling analysis was done with a 24 MGD average IBT (the original IBT request
before demands were updated since the original model runs). Therefore, the model results
represent an impact of an IBT that is 2 MGD greater than the current request, assuming the
entire request is provided from the Catawba River Basin.
There are several interesting observations from this analysis:
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-8
x During the drought of record, the model predicts that the proposed IBT would result in
earlier implementation of Stage 2 restrictions under the LIP. Stage 2 restrictions include
moderate mandatory restrictions from Owners of Public Water Supply Intakes.
x Because of the earlier restrictions on water use with the LIP, the model predicts that
further water use restrictions would not be required. In other words, no Stage 3
restrictions are predicted by the model.
x Without the proposed IBT, the model predicts that Stage 2 restrictions would be
implemented later and Stage 3, which includes more extreme water use restrictions,
would also be implemented.
x Because of the earlier implementation of moderate LIP water restrictions, water levels
during the drought of record are actually predicted to be maintained at slightly higher
levels. Figures ES-4 and ES-5 show the results for Lake James and Lake Norman.
It is important to note that these results are based on a set of assumed levels of water use
reduction associated with each of the LIP stages.
To reiterate, the LIP was developed by a stakeholders group of water users and other
interest groups through the FERC relicensing process, with the criteria that there be no more
than two and preferably only one occurrence of LIP Stage 3 during the period of record and
no occurrences of Stage 4. The model predicts that in fact, the 2035 water use scenario
including the proposed IBT shows no occurrences of LIP Stage 3 restrictions but an
increased number of months of Stage 2 restrictions. LIP restriction level occurrences are
summarized in Table ES-4. The total numbers of months of Stages 1 through 3 are about the
same, with and without the proposed IBT. This analysis shows the value of the LIP in
protecting all interests in the Catawba-Wateree Project.
TABLE ES-4
LIP Stage Summary - 2035
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
2035 Demands without IBT 2035 Demands with IBT LIP
Stage
Number of Occurrences
(months)
Percent of
Time
Number of Occurrences
(months)
Percent of
Time
-1 573 64% 576 64%
0 294 33% 292 32%
1 22 2% 13 1%
2 7 <1% 19 2%
3 4 <1% 0 0%
4 0 0% 0 0%
Note: Data are for time period of 1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-9
Yadkin River Basin Impacts
In the Yadkin River source basin, model results were used to assess the impact of the
proposed 10 MGD IBT on the lakes through several withdrawal scenarios including
purchasing finished water from the Cities of Salisbury and Albemarle. The model results
predict that the direct impacts of the IBT on High Rock Lake, Tuckertown Reservoir and
Badin Lake (Narrows Reservoir) would be insignificant. Figure ES-6 shows the impact of the
various IBT scenarios on High Rock Lake elevation frequency. This chart shows the percent
of time the elevation would exceed an elevation for the different scenarios. None of the
scenarios show that the impacts of the proposed IBT would cause a significant deviation
from the impacts of projected demands of all users in the basin. The results did show a
measurable change in elevation of Tuckertown Reservoir of about 6 inches for the scenario
in which the entire proposed IBT is withdrawn from Tuckertown Reservoir under moderate
drought conditions. However, the same scenario showed no difference in elevation under
extreme drought conditions. The LIP minimized changes in lake elevation under extreme
drought conditions.
Receiving Basin Impacts
Secondary impacts in the receiving basin will result from the proposed IBT because the
additional water supply will facilitate growth. Urbanization of portions of the service areas
may cumulatively cause degradation and/or loss of wetlands, aquatic resources and
habitats, forest resources, prime agriculture land, wildlife habitat, and archeological
resources. Specifically, land use development, if not properly planned and managed, can
alter the natural hydrology and riparian buffers of an area. Changes in land use have an
effect on both the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff.
In addition to State and Federal programs and regulations that will help offset these
potential impacts associated with increased growth, Concord, Kannapolis and other
Cabarrus County communities have adopted a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
(Appendix CD-1). Cooperative efforts between all municipalities within the County
contributed to the UDO’s development. The following is a summary of the measures to
address growth related impacts:
x Updates to the UDO have been implemented to address, and go beyond, Phase II
Stormwater Rule requirements, protect stream buffers, and other natural resources.
x Stream buffer rule updates are a part of the updated UDO. An undisturbed buffer of at
least 50 feet shall be established along both sides of perennial streams, as measured from
the top of the stream bank. Each ordinance also requires additional buffer width based
on slope up to a maximum buffer width of 120 feet. Buildings or structures may not be
placed within an additional 20 foot zone outside the buffer. Intermittent stream are
protected in accordance with the Phase II Stormwater Rules; however, when
development is planned, streams will be determined on-site by a qualified professional
to ensure proper application of stream buffer rules.
x Floodpain protection regulations limit land disturbing and fill activities within existing
floodpains, protecting and preserving their valuable water quality and flood control
functions.
x The City of Concord has developed and approved the use of a Stormwater Technical
Standards Manual (Manual).
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC ES-10
These efforts to address growth related impacts were reviewed and accepted by agencies
within NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) during the initial
EIS review.
In summary, the direct impacts associated with the IBT are not considered to be significant
in the source and receiving basins. Secondary and cumulative impacts to the source basins
are not likely to be significant. In the receiving basin, the local communities have worked
with NC DENR agencies on programs to minimize impacts as growth occurs.
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOME
IREDELL
RICHMON
Charlotte
Concord
Huntersville
Mint Hill
Kannapolis
Albemarle
Mooresville
Midland
Matthews
Cornelius
Locust
Harrisburg
Stanfield
Davidson
Landis
Badin
Norwood
Stallings
Oakboro
Richfield
Faith
Mount Gilead
Rockwell
China Grove
Granite Quarry
Denton
Gold Hill
New London
Indian Trail
Mount Pleasant
Unionville
Salisbury
Hemby Bridge
Coddle
Creek Lake
Concord
Lake
Fisher
Kannapolis
Lake
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
Dutch

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
Iri
s
h

B
uf
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
e
e
k
Rocky

R
i
v
e
r
Rocky
River
WWTP
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Ya
d
k
i
n
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
South Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-2
Rocky River
Subbasin 18-4
Catawba River
Subbasin 3-1
Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-1
5052.5 Miles
Figure ES-1
Existing Raw Water Sources
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
Existing Raw Water Source
IBT Subbasin Boundary
County Boundary
Rocky River WWTP
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
CABARRUS
ROWAN
IREDELL
Charlotte
Concord
Huntersville
Kannapolis
Salisbury
Mooresville
Cornelius
Harrisburg
Mount Holly
Albemarle
Davidson
Landis
Spencer
Catawba
Richfield
Troutman
Faith
Rockwell
China Grove
Granite Quarry
Cleveland
Gold Hill
East Spencer
New London
Mount Pleasant
Statesville
Belmont Locust
Lexington
Coddle
Creek Lake
Concord
Lake
Fisher
Kannapolis
Lake
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
Du
t
c
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
Iri
s
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
C
o
d
d
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
Rocky
River
WWTP
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Y
a
d
k
i
n
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
South Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-2
Rocky River
Subbasin 18-4
Catawba River
Subbasin 3-1
Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-1
5052.5 Miles
Figure ES-2
Existing Raw Water Sources
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
IBT Subbasin Boundary
County Boundary
Existing Raw Water Source
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
Water Source Watersheds
Water Intakes 01-80-065
Rocky River WWTP
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOME
IREDELL
RICHMON
Lake
Norman
Lake
Tillery
Badin
Lake
High Rock
Lake
Dutc
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
Ir
i
s
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
Ya
d
k
i
n
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
5052.5 Miles
Figure ES-3
Current Service Area
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
Service Areas (various colors)
County Boundary
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
Mountain
Island Lake
Pee Dee
River
Rocky

R
i
v
e
r
Source Study Area
Charlotte
Harrisburg
Midland
Concord
Mt. Pleasant
Kannapolis
1,155
1,165
1,175
1,185
1,195
1,205
2/
2
5
/
0
0
4/
2
5
/
0
0
6/
2
5
/
0
0
8/
2
5
/
0
0
10
/
2
5
/
0
0
12
/
2
5
/
0
0
2/
2
5
/
0
1
4/
2
5
/
0
1
6/
2
5
/
0
1
8/
2
5
/
0
1
10
/
2
5
/
0
1
12
/
2
5
/
0
1
2/
2
5
/
0
2
4/
2
5
/
0
2
6/
2
5
/
0
2
8/
2
5
/
0
2
10
/
2
5
/
0
2
12
/
2
5
/
0
2
2/
2
5
/
0
3
4/
2
5
/
0
3
6/
2
5
/
0
3
8/
2
5
/
0
3
10
/
2
5
/
0
3
12
/
2
5
/
0
3
Time
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

F
T
2035 Demand
without IBT
2035 Demand with
IBT
Critical Elevation
St
a
g
e

1
St
a
g
e

2

w
/

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

2

w
/
o

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

3

w
/
o

I
B
T
Figure ES-4
Comparison of Bridgewater (Lake James)
Elevations Showing the Impacts of LIP
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
745
750
755
760
765
2/
2
5
/
0
0
4/
2
5
/
0
0
6/
2
5
/
0
0
8/
2
5
/
0
0
10
/
2
5
/
0
0
12
/
2
5
/
0
0
2/
2
5
/
0
1
4/
2
5
/
0
1
6/
2
5
/
0
1
8/
2
5
/
0
1
10
/
2
5
/
0
1
12
/
2
5
/
0
1
2/
2
5
/
0
2
4/
2
5
/
0
2
6/
2
5
/
0
2
8/
2
5
/
0
2
10
/
2
5
/
0
2
12
/
2
5
/
0
2
2/
2
5
/
0
3
4/
2
5
/
0
3
6/
2
5
/
0
3
8/
2
5
/
0
3
10
/
2
5
/
0
3
12
/
2
5
/
0
3
Time
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

F
T
2035 Demand
without IBT
2035 Demand with
IBT
Critical Elevation
Figure ES-5
Comparison of Cowan Ford (Lake Norman)
Elevations Showing the Impacts of LIP
St
a
g
e

1
St
a
g
e

2
w/

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

2

w
/
o

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

3

w
/
o

I
B
T
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Figure ES-6
High Rock Lake Elevation
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement________________________________________________________________________________________________________
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-1
SECTION 1
Purpose and Need
1.1 Background
North Carolina Statute G. S. 143- 215.22G & G. S. 143.215.22I and North Carolina
Administrative Code Section T15A: 02G. 0400 regulate surface water transfers in the state.
An interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate is required from the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) for new transfers of 2 million gallons per day (MGD) or
more (maximum daily demand [MDD]) or once the amount of water transferred from one
subbasin to another reaches the full capacity of the transfer facilities that were existing or
under construction as of July 1, 1993 (referred to as the grandfathered capacity).
This environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses the reasonable alternatives for the
Cities of Concord and Kannapolis to obtain a public water supply sufficient to meet
foreseeable future demands. In summary, the Cities are requesting an average IBT of
22 MGD from a combination of sources, the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins to the Rocky
River Subbasin. This transfer is to meet water demands in excess of the safe yield available
from their existing reservoirs. This EIS evaluates the reasonable alternatives to meet this
need and identifies potential mitigation measures.
The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate the impacts to the source and receiving basins of the
proposed interbasin transfer. Its purpose is not to evaluate impacts of the specific
infrastructure construction projects that may or may not occur later. Only after a decision is
made on the IBT will the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis begin negotiations with
neighboring communities so that specific projects to implement the transfers can be
determined. If approved, any future construction associated with projects allowed by the
IBT will be reviewed under a different environmental document in accordance with the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA). An IBT certificate does not provide pre-
approval for permits needed for any new or expanded infrastructure.
This IBT approval process began in 1999. The timeline below illustrates key actions and
activities during this continuing process. It is important to note that Concord and
Kannapolis have coordinated their IBT planning and regulatory approval process with the
ongoing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) relicensing activities in the
Yadkin-Pee Dee and Catawba River Basins.
1999 Concord initiated a planning investigation and discussions with the City of
Albemarle regarding cooperation for future water supply from the Yadkin
River
2000 – 2002 The Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC) and
communities within Cabarrus County developed a Comprehensive Water
and Sewer Master Plan that included projection of future water supply needs.
2002 Scoping document and public notice issued through the State Clearinghouse
regarding IBT to the Rocky River Subbasin.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-2
2003 – 2004 Draft EIS developed, discussions with Duke Power and APGI regarding
input to the EIS, and agency review of draft EIS.
2005 Public hearings held on the IBT request concurrent with a 60-day comment
period.
1.2 Existing Water Supplies
The City of Concord is located in Cabarrus County, which is adjacent to Mecklenburg
County where the City of Charlotte is located. The Concord water system supplies areas
within the Concord city limits and adjacent county areas and provides supplemental water
to the Towns of Harrisburg, Mt. Pleasant, and Midland. The City of Kannapolis is located in
northern Cabarrus County and southern Rowan County. The Kannapolis water system
supplies areas within the Kannapolis city limits in both Cabarrus and Rowan Counties, and
adjacent areas including the Town of Landis and portions of Cabarrus County. The Town of
Landis discharges wastewater into the Yadkin River Basin (not the Rocky River Basin) and
is not considered in this EIS because their water use is not defined as an IBT under the IBT
statute. Combined, the Concord and Kannapolis water systems supply almost 100 percent
of the public water supply in Cabarrus County.
The City of Concord’s current raw water supplies include withdrawals from Lake Howell
(Coddle Creek Reservoir) operated by the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
(WSACC), as well as the Lake Concord Reservoir and the Lake Fisher Reservoir. All are
located in the Rocky River Subbasin (Figure 1-1).
The City of Kannapolis’ raw water supply, Kannapolis Lake (Rocky River Subbasin), has a
limited watershed of approximately 10 square miles. However, Kannapolis Lake is
supplemented with raw water transfers from Lake Howell (Rocky River Subbasin) and
Second Creek (South Yadkin River Subbasin). The transfer from Second Creek is a
grandfathered IBT of 6 MGD, but only increases the safe yield of Kannapolis Lake by
approximately 2.5 MGD.
Water supply reservoirs are classified by the Division of Environmental Health Public Water
Supply Section and all waters in the State have a beneficial use classification by the Division
of Water Quality, with several special designations for water supply watersheds. These
water supply classifications are shown in Table 1-1.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-3
TABLE 1-1
Water Supply Classifications
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Water Supply Division of Water
Qualitya
Division of Environmental Health
Public Water Supply Sectionb
Kannapolis Lake WS-III Class I
Lake Fisher WS-IV Class I
Lake Concord WS-IV Class I
Lake Howell (Coddle Creek Reservoir) WS-II; HQW; CA Class I
aSee Section 2 for definitions of water supply classes.
bA Class I reservoir is defined as one from which water flows by gravity or is pumped directly to a treatment plant
or to a small intervening storage basin and thence to a treatment plant.
Table 1-2 presents the 50- and 100-year safe yield amounts available from current water
supply sources in Cabarrus County. The combined 50-year safe yield of the local
governments is approximately 31 MGD. Table 1-2 also indicates that the available supply
can decrease by nearly 50 percent to 16.5 MGD during severe droughts such as the one
experienced in 1999 through 2003. Further detail regarding safe yield amounts is included in
Appendix A and in the WSACC Master Plan safe yield update report (Black & Veatch,
2003).
TABLE 1-2
Safe Yield Analysis for Existing Water Supply Reservoirs in Cabarrus County
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Water Source
Drainage Area
(mi2)
Reservoir Size
(acres)
50-Year Safe
Yield (MGD)
100-Year Safe
Yield (MGD)
Lake Howell 47.0 1,285.6 16.20 7.05
Lake Fisher 18.7 230.5 5.15 3.00
Lake Concord 4.7 83.7 1.20 0.70
Kannapolis Lake 10.6 269.8 8.50 5.70
Second Creeka 55.6 - - -
Total Combined Safe Yield 31.05 16.45
Source: Black & Veatch, 2003.
aWithdrawals from Second Creek are transferred to Kannapolis Lake for storage and included in Kannapolis
Lake safe yield analysis.
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOME
IREDELL
RICHMON
Charlotte
Concord
Huntersville
Mint Hill
Kannapolis
Albemarle
Mooresville
Midland
Matthews
Cornelius
Locust
Harrisburg
Stanfield
Davidson
Landis
Badin
Norwood
Stallings
Oakboro
Richfield
Faith
Mount Gilead
Rockwell
China Grove
Granite Quarry
Denton
Gold Hill
New London
Indian Trail
Mount Pleasant
Unionville
Salisbury
Hemby Bridge
Coddle
Creek Lake
Concord
Lake
Fisher
Kannapolis
Lake
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
Dutch

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
Iri
s
h

B
uf
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
e
e
k
Rocky

R
i
v
e
r
Rocky
River
WWTP
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Ya
d
k
i
n
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
South Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-2
Rocky River
Subbasin 18-4
Catawba River
Subbasin 3-1
Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-1
5052.5 Miles
Figure 1-1
Existing Raw Water Sources
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
Existing Raw Water Source
IBT Subbasin Boundary
County Boundary
Rocky River WWTP
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-5
The most recent drought, which ended for these watersheds in the Spring of 2003, caused
the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis to pursue water distribution system improvements to
interconnections with the Cities of Charlotte (< 5 MGD), Albemarle (< 2 MGD) and
Salisbury (< 2 MGD) to increase available supply during emergency conditions. IBT that
occurs from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) interconnections utilizes unused
permitted IBT capacity from CMU and is a short-term arrangement until a longer-term
contract can be negotiated based on an IBT certificate for Concord and Kannapolis. The
Salisbury and Albemarle interconnections are limited to less than 2 MGD to be in
compliance with IBT statutes. The long-range plan for Concord and Kannapolis is to
maintain these interconnections as emergency water sources.
1.3 Population Growth
Concord and Kannapolis continue to experience a growing demand for drinking water as
part of the rapidly growing Charlotte metropolitan area. The primary cause of the area’s
growth is a bustling economy despite the recent decline in manufacturing and textile
industries in the region. As a result of higher wages and low unemployment brought on by
this economic growth, the metropolitan area has experienced a steady influx of new workers
and residents. Many of these workers and residents are locating in Cabarrus County and the
Cities’ water service areas, as demonstrated by the recent 2001 Census. Cabarrus County, in
which the Cities are primarily located, grew 32 percent between 1990 and 2000. During this
same period, Concord grew 105 percent while Kannapolis grew approximately 24 percent.
In addition, the incorporated area of Concord has grown from 23 square miles in 1990 to
51 square miles in 2000, a 125 percent increase in size.
An extensive population and land use analysis was performed by WSACC for its 2002
Water and Wastewater System Master Plan (2002 Master Plan) (Blank & Veatch, 2002). This
analysis based future population projections for Cabarrus County on historical and regional
growth trends. These projections have been compared to data from the NC Office of State
Budget and Management as well as more recent information from metro-Charlotte Traffic
Analysis Zone (TAZ) data used for transportation planning. Table 1-3 illustrates these
projections.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-6
TABLE 1-3
Population Projections for Cabarrus County Water Service Areas
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Source Service Area 2000 2010 2020 2050
Concord/Harrisburg/
Mt. Pleasant/Midland
72,816 111,311 156,122 281,700
Kannapolis 40,032 63,722 86,207 136,587
Cabarrus County
Water & Wastewater
System Master Plan
(Dec. 2002)
Service Area Total 112,848 175,033 242,329 418,287
North Carolina Office
of State Budget and
Management– State
Demographics (2005)
Cabarrus County 131,063 168,682 209,070 -
Concord/Harrisburg/
Mt. Pleasant/Midland
89,192 124,772 165,467 -
Kannapolis 34,444 43,111 52,004 -
Metrolina TAZ data
(2005)
Service Area Total 123,636 167,883 217,471 -
1.4 Water Demand Projections
Future supply needs are predicted by performing water demand calculations that are based
on projected populations and current water usage by type of use, such as residential,
commercial and industrial. Other factors include recent development trends, planned
transportation improvements, and changes to the non-residential demands. The IBT request
is based on an extensive water and wastewater master planning effort for all of Cabarrus
County conducted between 2000 and 2002. Concord, Kannapolis, Harrisburg, Mount
Pleasant, and Cabarrus County all participated in the master planning process.
These demand projections were reviewed by the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (DWR). Recent per capita water usage in the service areas has decreased as a
result of actions taken during the drought of 1999 to 2003 to promote water conservation. A
comparison of 2002 per capita water demands is presented in Table 1-4. These residential
water use rates are generally on the low end of water use for systems in North Carolina.
The Cities have observed that water use did not return to pre-drought levels after drought-
related water restrictions were lifted. Water conservation measures are further described in
Section 5. The Cities retained a tiered rate structure which promotes water conservation and
discourages irrigation by making high levels of water use more expensive. The rate
structure adopted in 2001 further discourages irrigation by greatly increasing the rate for
water used above 7,500 gallons per dwelling unit per month. Further information on rate
structures and irrigation is included in Section 1.4.1.
To reflect the decrease in water use after the drought, it was assumed that a 10 percent
reduction in per capita use from pre-drought demands would continue into the future. A
history of how water demands have changed since the drought is presented in Table 1-5.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-7
Residential water use data from 2000, 2001, and 2002 were obtained from the Concord and
Kannapolis water systems to analyze their per capita water use during the severe drought.
This information indicates that even though these two water systems were experiencing
growth in population served year after year, their water conservation plans were effective in
maintaining consistent ADD by reducing per capita consumption. Copies of the Concord
and Kannapolis water conservation plans are presented in Appendix CD-1.
TABLE 1-4
Residential Water Use-Comparison of per Capita Water Demands (2002)
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Residential Demand
Water System Population Served
average daily demand
(ADD) in MGD
gallons per capita per
day (gpcd)
Concord/Harrisburg/
Midland
53,985 3.3a 60.0
Kannapolis 35,288 1.5b 54.8
Similarly sized systems in Charlotte area c
Monroe 23,051 1.6 71.2
Albemarle 24,105 0.9 38.2
Salisbury 28,077 2.4 87.3
Union County 41,810 3.2 75.6
Gastonia 65,343 4.7 72.6
a Concord noted ~ 0.3 MGD of Commercial demand reported as Residential. b A portion of Kannapolis’ Residential demand was likely reported in Industrial demand due to Pillowtex. All
unaccounted-for water was also attributed to Pillowtex.
c Similarly sized system information is from 2002 Water Supply Plans.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-8
TABLE 1-5
Concord and Kannapolis Recent Water Use History
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Water System Population Served
Residential Demand
(ADD in MGD) GPCD
Concord Master Plan - - 85
Concord/
Harrisburg
2000 57,714 4.1 71.7
2001 60,325 3.7 61.5
2002 63,136 3.8 60.0
2005b - - 77
Kannapolisa Master Plan - - 68
2000 45,387 2.7 60.4
2001 46,633 2.6 56.2
2002 47,557 2.6 54.9
2005b 68
Mt Pleasant Master Plan - - 85
2005b - - 77
aKannapolis per capita water use is lower than other entities because all unaccounted-for-water was absorbed in
Pillowtex water use and expected to continue with re-development.
b Estimated 2005 Unit Rate based on 10 percent reduction from Master Plan.
Sources: Cabarrus County Water and Wastewater System Master Plan. December 2002; Cities of Concord and
Kannapolis
The City of Kannapolis’s largest industrial water user, Pillowtex, closed its facility in 2003.
Pillowtex’s average daily water demand was approximately 5 MGD. Although this facility
is no longer in operation, the property is currently being redeveloped as a biomedical
research facility. Preliminary water demands for this area are of the same magnitude as
those for Pillowtex. The facility itself is expected to have a water demand of approximately
3 MGD, and spin-off development surrounding the facility will add additional water
demand. For the purposes of this EIS, water demand for redevelopment of the Pillowtex
facility and surrounding area was assumed to return to 5 MGD as development occurs and
not to increase beyond that during the 30-year projection period.
For industrial water use, the assumption in the Master Plan was that the major industrial
demand would remain constant through 2050 and that the remaining Industrial,
Commercial, Institutional (ICI) demand would increase in directly proportion to the
population increase. Unaccounted-for water data were difficult to quantify in the WSACC
system so an industry average of 10 percent of production was used for the purposes of
water demand projections.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-9
For the purpose of the IBT request, projections are for a 30-year planning period through the
year 2035 based on discussions with DWR and previous IBT actions by the EMC. According
to current water demand projections (Table 1-6), the combined demand will be about
42.5 MGD ADD by 2035 and 52 MGD ADD in the year 2050. This corresponds to a MDD of
67 MGD in 2035 and 83 MGD in 2050.
The demand projections are consistent with those for the major communities along the
Catawba River. Figure 1-2 shows projections for ADD for major water withdrawals in the
basin that were developed as part of the water supply planning effort coordinated by Duke
Power for the FERC licensing process underway in the Catawba River Basin. The
withdrawal projections for Cabarrus County and other users in the Charlotte metropolitan
region have a similar slope, which indicates similar projected rates of increase in use.
TABLE 1-6
Current and Projected Water System Demands for the Water Service Areas
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
2000 2010 2020 2035 2050
Service Area ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD ADD MDD
Concord/Harrisburg/
Midland
10.7 17.1 14.8 24.9 19.8 33.0 25.6 42.3 32.3 53.3
Mt. Pleasant 0.3 0.45 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.7
Kannapolis 8.6 11.8 11.6 16.6 14.0 20.4 16.0 22.9 18.7 27.6
Combined Total 19.6 29.3 26.75 42.2 34.3 54.4 42.5 66.5 52.0 82.6
Sources: Cabarrus County Water and Wastewater System Master Plan. December 2002; Cities of
Concord and Kannapolis
1.4.1 Water Resources Conservation Efforts
Concord and Kannapolis have been cited by State officials as having one of the most
aggressive water conservation programs and water rate structures in the State, which
together have reduced irrigation water use during and since the drought of 1999 through
2003.
Typically for a water system, irrigation and other consumptive uses such as cooling waters
can represent 50 to 70 percent of the peak day demand and 20 to 25 percent of average
annual consumptive water use. Since conservation measures and the new rate structure
were implemented in the Cities, metered irrigation use is only 1.6 and 1.3 percent of average
water use in fiscal year (FY) 2004 and 2005, respectively. Since the drought ended, peak
water demands have not returned to previous levels because the rate structure discourages
irrigation use. Metered irrigation includes larger users and does not include most residential
customers because the system does not differentiate between residential water use types.
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
1992 2003 2008 2018 2028 2038
Year
Wi
t
h
d
r
a
w
a
l

(
A
D
D
)

(
m
g
d
)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Mecklenburg WTP
Lincoln County
Town of Mooresville
Concord/Kannapolis/Cabarrus Co.
Rock Hill
Tega Cay
Town of Granite Falls
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Franklin and Vest WTP
City of Gastonia
Rock Hill (Emergency/Backup)
Union County/Lancaster County
Figure 1-2
Catawba-Wateree River Basin Withdrawal Demands
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-11
The aggressive mandatory conservation program includes a level that completely bans
irrigation. Mandatory water use restrictions were in place for nearly 3 years during the
drought, from February 2, 2001 through November 14, 2003. Irrigation was not allowed for
over 2 years, from February 2, 2001 through June 4, 2003. After that period, irrigation was
limited from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM. When Governor Easley called for a 20 percent reduction in
water use during the summer of 2002, Concord and Kannapolis had already achieved a
reduction in water use of nearly 30 percent, even though this resulted in substantial revenue
losses in water and wastewater funds.
The Cities aggressively enforced water use restrictions during the drought. Concord issued
fines totaling $72,600 during the drought, which made the headlines of USA Today and was
described by State officials as the most significant water use enforcement effort in North
Carolina’s history.
Concord and Kannapolis plan to keep these water conservation measures and tiered water
structure rates in place after the IBT is approved and expect that this will be a condition of
the IBT.
The per capita water use history for the Concord and Kannapolis water systems was
compared to the history of other similarly sized water systems in the Charlotte region
(Table 1-4). To account for fluctuations in industrial and commercial water demands that
can occur due to changes in the regional economy, only the more consistent residential
water demands were compared. Information on residential water use was extracted from
2002 Local Water Supply Plans available on the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) website. As shown in Table 1-4, the Concord and
Kannapolis water systems have a per capita water use generally lower than rates in
similarly sized systems in the Charlotte region.
1.4.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The majority of the service area is served by the WSACC’s Rocky River Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP), as shown on Figure 1-1. The current permitted capacity of the
Rocky River WWTP is 34 MGD (of which the current constructed capacity is 24 MGD). In
addition, the Muddy Creek WWTP in the southern portion of the County has a permitted
capacity of 0.3 MGD (of which the current constructed capacity is 0.075 MGD). According to
the WSACC Master Plan, the additional water supply provided by the IBT will not require
increases in permitted capacity of the WWTPs until the end of the planning period for the
IBT (after 2035).
1.5 Water Supply Shortage
Adequate water supply can be determined by comparing the total existing 50-year safe yield
(available supply) of the current sources to the predicted ADD. Safe yield is discussed in
Section 1.2. Section 6 of DWR’s State Water Supply Plan requires the submittal of a plan to
alleviate the available supply shortfall when the ADD is greater than 80 percent of available
supply (80 percent criterion). The ADD should be less than 80 percent of the system’s
50-year safe yield to allow for contingencies in the safe yield analysis. Also, this additional
supply can ensure adequate water supply during the planning period needed for securing
additional supply if water demands are expected to continue growing in the future.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-12
According to water demand projections in Table 1-6, the ADD will reach 80 percent of the
available supply (31 MGD) in about 2007.
According to future water demand projections, the combined ADD will increase to 52 MGD
in 2050, requiring a minimum available supply of 65 MGD to meet the 80 percent criteria,
creating a projected shortfall in 2050 of 34 MGD. This shortfall is based on the current
system’s 50-year safe yield of 31 MGD.
The State Water Supply Plan requires local governments to prepare a local water supply
plan that assesses the ability of the system to meet water supply needs for a 20- to 25-year
period. The proposed IBT certificate(s) will be based on a 30-year planning period.
Therefore, the IBT evaluation will be based on projected demand information to year 2035,
when the ADD is projected to be 42.5 MGD. In order to meet the 80 percent criteria
mentioned above, an available supply of 53 MGD would be needed. Based on the safe yield
of existing supplies, there is a 22 MGD ADD shortfall in available supply for the year 2035.
As noted above, this projected shortfall is the basis of the IBT request.
1.6 Potential Supply Alternatives
The Concord and Kannapolis water and sanitary sewer service areas are located entirely in
the Rocky River Subbasin of the Yadkin River Basin. This location is almost equidistant to
the two major rivers that are potentially sources of water supply for this region of North
Carolina--the Catawba River and the Yadkin River (Figure 1-3). The Rocky River flows
eastward into the Yadkin River between Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake.
Water resources within the Rocky River Subbasin are insufficient to meet projected demand.
Potential reservoir sites in the Rocky River watershed have already been developed.
Concord and Kannapolis already have more reservoir storage than they have watershed
yield to supply these reservoirs. Watershed yield is limited due to the area’s location in the
uppermost portion of the Rocky River watershed.
Dutch Buffalo Creek is the largest contributor to the Rocky River in the study area not being
used for a water supply. Options for additional water supply analyzed in the WSACC
Master Plan (Black & Veatch, 2002; Appendix A) included the possibility of damming Dutch
Buffalo Creek near Mt. Pleasant to form another reservoir. It was determined that this
reservoir would provide limited additional yield. This option was not retained for further
evaluation due to the “extensive permitting” the impoundment would require. Permitting
issues also include the presence of several rare and protected species and habitat identified
along this reach of Dutch Buffalo Creek. Section 2.2.3 includes discussion of these aquatic
species and their habitats. Aquatic habitats could be lost or impacted by the construction of
a reservoir on Dutch Buffalo Creek. In addition, development in the watershed would make
siting a new reservoir difficult in this area.
A reservoir site was investigated on Second Creek in the South Yadkin River Subbasin;
however, this site would provide only 6 to 8 MGD of additional safe yield, was determined
to be extremely costly, and could not be permitted until other alternatives have been
exhausted. No other sites for reservoirs have been identified and no other areas within
Cabarrus County are currently classified and protected for water supply use. Further details
of this investigation are included in Appendix A.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-13
Both the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins are potential sources for addressing the water
supply deficit. Both raw water and finished water alternatives have been identified to
address the projected 22-MGD (based on ADD) shortfall. Alternatives for additional raw
water would replenish the existing reservoirs in Cabarrus County and result in increasing
the available supply of the combined systems. Therefore, the IBT request for raw water
transfer is for 22 MGD.
Finished water alternatives will require that daily fluctuations in peak demands of the
distribution systems be accommodated. The 2002 Master Plan indicates that historical
maximum day peak factors between 1995 and 1999 range from as low as 1.21 to a high of
2.2. For master planning purposes, a maximum day peak factor of 1.6 was used in the 2002
Master Plan. To be consistent with the 2002 Master Plan, a maximum day peak factor of 1.6
is used for finished water alternatives. Therefore, the amount of IBT required for finished
water alternatives is 35 MGD on a maximum day basis (22 MGD times 1.6). Alternatives
with a combination of finished and raw water sources are adjusted accordingly to the
amount of finished water and raw water transferred.
Potential sources are discussed below by source basin. Further description of these
alternatives is included in Section 4.
1.6.1 Alternative 1 – Catawba River Basin
Alternative 1 is a combination of obtaining finished water from CMU and raw water from
Lake Norman. Initially, finished water would be obtained by utilizing existing and
proposed interconnections between the CMU water system and the Concord water system
up to about 10 MGD. Currently, Concord uses these interconnections for emergency supply.
Raw water would be transferred from Lake Norman via pumping through a new raw water
main and discharged into Lake Howell in Cabarrus County and Kannapolis Lake in Rowan
County. Alternative 1 would require the development of a water supply contract for
10 MGD with CMU to fund capacity upgrades to the CMU water system. The total of this
transfer would be an ADD of 22 MGD.
1.6.2 Alternative 2 – Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
Alternative 2 would involve a transfer of finished water from Tuckertown Reservoir or
Badin Lake. The finished water would be supplied from the Albemarle water system by
expanding its system capacity, or expanding the existing Albemarle intake(s) and
transferring raw water to a future water treatment plant (WTP) in northeastern Cabarrus
County. The total of this transfer would be an ADD of 22 MGD.
1.6.3 Alternative 3 – Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
Alternative 3 would involve an IBT of 22 MGD ADD of raw water from High Rock Lake.
Water would be transferred from High Rock Lake and pumped through a new raw water
main that would discharge into Lake Howell in Cabarrus County and Kannapolis Lake in
Rowan County.
CABARRUS
ROWAN
IREDELL
Charlotte
Concord
Huntersville
Kannapolis
Salisbury
Mooresville
Cornelius
Harrisburg
Mount Holly
Albemarle
Davidson
Landis
Spencer
Catawba
Richfield
Troutman
Faith
Rockwell
China Grove
Granite Quarry
Cleveland
Gold Hill
East Spencer
New London
Mount Pleasant
Statesville
Belmont Locust
Lexington
Coddle
Creek Lake
Concord
Lake
Fisher
Kannapolis
Lake
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
Du
t
c
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
Iri
s
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
e
e
k
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
e
e
k
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
Rocky
River
WWTP
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
e
e
k
Y
a
d
k
i
n
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
South Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-2
Rocky River
Subbasin 18-4
Catawba River
Subbasin 3-1
Yadkin River
Subbasin 18-1
5052.5 Miles
Figure 1-3
Existing Raw Water Sources
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
IBT Subbasin Boundary
County Boundary
Existing Raw Water Source
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
Water Source Watersheds
Water Intakes 01-80-065
Rocky River WWTP
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-15
1.6.4 Preferred Alternative
The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 2 which would involve an
IBT from both the Yadkin-Pee Dee River and the Catawba River to the Rocky River
Subbasin. In this alternative, the interconnections with the Cities of Charlotte, Salisbury, and
Albemarle would continue to be used to meet short-term increases in demands. This
alternative would also allow Concord and Kannapolis the opportunity to expand the
amount of finished water obtained from Charlotte and Albemarle or to obtain raw water
from Lake Norman. Raw water from Lake Norman could be transferred to Lake Howell or
directly to the water treatment plant. This alternative reflects a regionally cooperative
approach to water supply. The Preferred Alternative IBT request would be for up to
36 MGD (MDD) from the Catawba River Basin and up to 10 MGD (MDD) from the Yadkin-
Pee Dee River Basin; however, the total IBT from both sources would not exceed a MDD of
36 MGD or an ADD of 22 MGD. The Preferred Alternative represents a regional solution to
meeting water supply needs through cooperation with neighboring communities. A water
balance table that indicates the existing and projected IBT by source basin for Concord and
Kannapolis in the years 2010, 2020, and 2040 for the Preferred Alternative is provided in
Appendix B. If the IBT is granted from the Yadkin River Basin, then the amount of the
transfer from the Catawba River Basin can be proportionately reduced.
The preferred alternative could include a combination of the following:
x Utilize existing interconnections and provide system interconnection upgrades with
CMU - to supply up to 10 MGD in the short term.
x Construct 18 miles of water main from City of Albemarle WTPs – to supply up to 10
MGD.
x Construct intake/pump station/16 miles of raw water main from Lake Norman to Lake
Howell as a longer-term solution to providing additional water. Alternatively,
additional capacity could be negotiation with CMU to provide the additional required
capacity.
x Expand water treatment capacity for the additional water provided.
This alternative is the basis for comparing costs. This combination provides short-term
supply by using existing connections with CMU, providing time to plan for other
infrastructure improvements and interconnections with a supply from the Yadkin River
Basin. If an IBT is approved, negotiations with neighboring communities may identify other
cost-effective means to obtain the water. However, these negotiations cannot proceed in any
meaningful way until an IBT certificate is issued.
If necessary, the raw water pipeline routing will also be the subject of another subsequent
environmental impact document. Preliminary pipeline routes evaluated extend through
southern Iredell and northern Cabarrus Counties. Further detail describing these potential
routes is provided in Appendix C.
Various non-IBT alternatives are discussed below.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-16
1.6.5 Non-IBT Alternatives
1.6.5.1 Alternative 4A – Rocky River Supply (Indirect Potable Reuse)
In Alternative 4A, 22 MGD would be withdrawn from the Rocky River near Midland
approximately 10 miles downstream of the WSACC Rocky River WWTP and raw water
would be pumped up to Lake Howell. This alternative would take advantage of increased
river flows due to existing grandfathered and previously approved IBTs from the Rocky
River Regional WWTP in Cabarrus County and other upstream WWTPs in the Town of
Mooresville and Mecklenburg County. As a result of these wastewater discharges, this
source is a lower quality source of water supply..
While this alternative would not involve an IBT from the Catawba River Basin, the Rocky
River currently cannot be used for water supply without reclassification to one of four
categories of water supply class ranging from pristine watersheds to larger watersheds with
significant potential sources of pollutants. About 56 MGD of treated wastewater is
permitted for discharge into the river. Therefore, the only water supply classification for this
segment of the Rocky River is a Class WS-IV (the lowest class), because there are upstream
wastewater discharges and significant levels of development. Lake Howell is classified as
WS-II, a protective watershed designation that allows no wastewater discharges, so it could
not receive water pumped from downstream (because of the wastewater contributions)
unless its classification were downgraded. This alternative has the potential to lower the
water quality of the potable water supply in Lake Howell.
Alternative 4A would also represent indirect potable reuse for the Cabarrus County
communities served by the system. Although indirect potable reuse is not entirely unique to
the Southeast, the communities determined that other potential sources should be explored
through the IBT process rather than developing this alternative. Basic principles of water
supply planning and the State water supply program mandated by the General Assembly
encourage the use of the highest quality and most protective source water available at a
reasonable cost. None of the State agencies involved with water supply use and protection
recommended that Concord and Kannapolis use the Rocky River as a water supply given
the other alternatives available.
1.6.5.2 Alternative 4B – Reverse IBT
In Alternative 4B, 24 MGD of raw water would be transferred from Lake Norman to Lake
Howell, and 24 MGD would be simultaneously be withdrawn from the Rocky River near
Midland and pumped to McAlpine Creek near Mint Hill in the Catawba River Basin to
mitigate the IBT.
1.6.6 No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative (NAA) would not involve additional water supply to the Cities.
However, future population growth is still projected to occur. Individual systems or
community systems would serve future growth areas. These systems would rely on
groundwater for water supply. An IBT would not occur with this alternative.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 1-17
A summary of the alternatives is listed in Table 1-7.
TABLE 1-7
Summary of IBT Alternatives (MGD)
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative
Alt#1
ADD MDD
Alt#2
ADD MDD
Alt#3
ADD MDD
Preferred Alt
ADD MDD
Alt#4A, 4B &
No Action
ADD MDD
Source Basin
Yadkin-Pee Dee River 0 0 22 36 22 22 <6 <10 0 0
Catawba River 22 ~28 0 0 0 <22 <36 0 0
Total IBT 28 36 22 22a 36a 0
Receiving Basin Rocky River Rocky River Rocky River Rocky River N/A
a Under the preferred alternative, the total IBT would be limited to an MDD of 36 MGD and an ADD of 22 MGD
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-1
SECTION 2
Existing Environment and Environmental
Consequences
This discussion of the existing environment and environmental consequences for the IBT
study area (Figure 2-1) is divided into two subsections:
x Source Basins, which describes the five potential sources of water located in the
Catawba and Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basins
x Receiving Basin, which describes the portion of the study area where wastewater is
discharged in the Rocky River Subbasin
Each basin is further divided and described relative to the following potentially affected
areas: wetlands, land use, fish and wildlife resources, water resources/water quality, air
quality, groundwater resources, noise level, and toxic substances/hazardous waste. The
NCEPA requires environmental documents if these areas would be impacted due to a
proposed action; therefore, these topics will require further discussion. In addition, this
section addresses potential environmental justice issues.
For Source Basins, the existing environment is described for each area studied, followed by
a discussion of the direct and secondary/cumulative consequences, if any, on the area.
“Cumulative Effects” are defined in 15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(2) as “resulting from the
incremental impact of the proposed activity when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other
activities.”“Indirect Effects” or secondary impacts, are “caused by and result from the
proposed activity although they are later in time or further removed in distance, but they
are still reasonably foreseeable” (15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(4)).
For the Receiving Basin, the existing environment is described for each area studied,
followed by a discussion of the direct impacts, if any, for the area. Secondary and
cumulative impacts (SCI) in the receiving basin are discussed in Section 3.
The data for both sections were gathered through literature reviews, internet searches,
geographic information system (GIS) queries, phone conversations, letters, and meetings
with various resource agencies.
2.1 Source Basins
The Concord and Kannapolis service areas are located entirely in the Rocky River Subbasin
(receiving basin) of the Yadkin River Basin. This location is almost equidistant to the two
major rivers that are potentially major sources of water supply for this region of North
Carolina--the Catawba River and the Yadkin–Pee Dee River (source basins). Five potential
water sources are being considered for this study: Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake
in the Catawba River Basin and High Rock Lake, Tuckertown Reservoir, and Badin Lake in
the Yadkin-Pee
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOMERY
IREDELL
RICHMOND
Concord
Midland
Kannapolis
Harrisburg
Mt. Pleasant
Lake
Norman
Lake
Tillery
Badin
Lake
High Rock
Lake
Dutc
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
Iri
s
h
B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r
C
r
Ya
d
k
i
n
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
5052.5 Miles
Figure 2-1
Current Service Area
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
Service Areas (various colors)
County Boundary
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
Ca
t
a
w
b
a

R
i
v
e
r
Mountain
Island Lake
Pee Dee
RiverRocky

R
i
v
e
r
Source Study Area
Charlotte
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-3
Dee River Basin. In order to evaluate potential impacts to upstream and downstream water
users, the study area for the source basins was evaluated as follows:
2.1.1 Catawba River Basin
Direct impacts focused on the immediate areas surrounding Mountain Island Lake and Lake
Norman (Figure 2-1). These two reservoirs are currently used by CMU for water supply and
are identified in the Preferred Alternative as sources. These reservoirs are considered the
Catawba River source basin study area.
SCI included the areas above reservoirs (i.e., the study areas) and also included impacts to
the reservoirs in the Catawba River Basin from Lake James to Lake Wateree (Figure 2-2).
2.1.2 Yadkin River Basin
Direct impacts focused on the immediate areas surrounding High Rock Lake, Tuckertown
Reservoir, and Badin Lake. SCI analyses included these reservoirs and their study areas. As
part of this Final EIS, DWR has analyzed impacts of the IBTs using modeling tools
developed as part of FERC relicensing efforts for both Duke Power’s Catawba-Wateree
Project, which includes reservoirs in both North and South Carolina, and the Yadkin
Hydroelectric Project operated by Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI). The FERC licenses
for both projects expire in 2008. Figure 2-2 shows the Catawba-Wateree Reservoir system,
and Figure 2-3 shows the Yadkin River Hydroelectric Project. The results of these modeling
analyses are used throughout this section and separate reports summarizing the modeling
analyses are included in Appendices E and F. The models and the scenarios are summarized
below.
2.1.3 Catawba-Wateree Project Modeling
As part of the FERC relicensing, Duke Power developed a CHEOPS (Computer Hydro-Electric
Operations and Planning Model Software) model of the project for use in long-term analysis of
the effects of operational and physical changes made to the modeled hydro-system.
2.1.3.1 Model Features
The model was specifically updated for the FERC relicensing process and includes the
following features:
x A 75-year hydrological record from 1929 through 2003
x Inflow adjustments based on historical reservoir operations, modified to eliminate
negative inflow values from the data set
x Inclusion of daily evaporation from reservoirs (but direct rainfall input not included)
x Updated evaluation of water withdrawals/demands and return flows for all users
through 2058
1200
1150
1100
225
1050
1000
950
900
850
800
750
700
6
600
550
500
450
400
300
350
250
200
150
01530
4050
6580
95110
125140
150
160170
185200
210
Lake James
EL. 1200.00
Lake Rhodhiss
EL. 995.1
Lake HickoryL
EL. 935.0
Lookout Shoals Lake
EL. 760.0LakeNorman
Mtn. Island Lake
EL. 647.5
LakeWylie EL. 569.4
EL.417.2
EL. 355.8
EL. 284.4
EL. 225.5
Fishing Creek Lake
Great Falls Lake
Rocky Creek Lake
Lake Wateree
Distance in Miles
Lake James
Lake Rhodhiss
Lake Hickory Lookout Shoals Lake
Lake Norman
Mtn. Island Lake
Lake Wylie
reek Lakeng CrFishinn
Great Falls Lake
Rocky Creek Lake
Lake Wateree
North Carolina
South

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
North Carolina
South

C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Catawba River Reservoir System
FIGURE 2-2
655.0 ft.High Rock
Lake
596.0 ft.Tuckertown
Reservoir
541.1 ft.Badin
Lake
364.0 ft.Falls
Reservoir
178.1 ft.
278.2 ft.
Blewett
Falls Lake
Lake
Tillery
Full PoolLakesFIGURE 2-3
Yadkin River Reservoirs managed by Alcoa and Progress Energy
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
178.1’
655.0’
596.0’
541.1’
364.0’
278.2’
Blewett Falls Lake
Falls Reservoir
Lake Tillery
Tuckertown Reservoir
Badin Lake
High Rock LakeElevation
Distance in Miles
83
14
43
46
54
64
28
0
High Rock Lake
Tuckertown
Reservoir Badin
Lake
Lake
Tillery
Blewett
Falls
Lake
Falls Reservoir
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-6
x Inclusion of a low inflow protocol (LIP) to comply with the established LIP adopted
during the relicensing process to simulate operational constraints effectively. The LIP
provides procedures for how the Catawba-Wateree River reservoir system as a whole will
be operated when inflow into the reservoirs is not enough to meet normal water demands
while also maintaining lake levels within their normal ranges. Trigger points for a series of
stages are established in the LIP, with the goal of taking action early so that the Catawba-
Wateree system’s available water storage inventory is not fully depleted (Table 2-1). The
LIP includes procedures for how Duke Power operates the system, as well as water
withdrawal reduction measures for other water users of the system. The LIP was
developed by a stakeholders group on the basis that all users and parties with interests in
water quantity will share the responsibility to conserve the limited water supply. A copy
of the LIP is included in Appendix D.
TABLE 2-1
Summary of Catawba River Basin Low Inflow Protocol Stages
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Stage Public Water Supply Actions Water Use Reduction Goals
0 Low Inflow Watch – DMAG Meets -
1 Voluntary Water Use Restrictions 3 to 5 percent
2 Mandatory Level 1 5 to 10 percent
3 Mandatory Level 2 10 to 20 percent
4 Emergency 20 to 30 percent
DMAG = Drought Management Advisory Group
x Development of a baseline scenario for evaluating impacts based on the demands for
municipalities or public use, to maintain recommended water levels at the reservoirs
and rivers within the normal ranges for a safe and sound ecosystem and seasonal public
recreational activities. This scenario is called Mutual Gain Scenario [MG] and uses
demands for municipal use for the year 2008. The current licensed condition is MG
scenario, which also includes operational constraint LIP. This scenario is modeled as
“MG 08” and is the base case for this comparison.
x The baseline scenario (referred to a MG 08) is the result of discussion of over 150
relicensing stakeholders through meetings and negotiations over a period of many
months. Though the final agreed-upon scenario is not yet known, this “Mutual Gains”
scenario represents the most likely eventual scenario.
2.1.3.2 Model Scenarios
Several variables relative to the IBT were modeled to evaluate the impacts to the reservoir
systems. The purpose was to analyze the impacts of IBT quantities, IBT withdrawal
locations, and IBT with increased instream flow requirements. The scenario “MG 08” is the
base case. It considers the baseline (current condition) operational, physical, and generation
conditions with the following exceptions: 1) sedimentation was not considered and 2) the
old LIP data set (version 9/27/2005) was used for all runs except the last one described
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-7
below. The Mutual Gains operational constraints (version 9/2005) included several water
withdrawal scenarios with and without IBT from proposed sources as follows:
x Scenario “MG 08” – Mutual Gains with 2008 demands.
x Scenario “MG 08 CF” – Mutual Gains with 2008 demands considering IBT from
Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman).
x Scenario “MG 35” – Mutual Gains with increased demands for 2035.
x Scenario “MG 35 CF” – Mutual Gains with increased demands for 2035 considering IBT
from Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman).
x Scenario “MG 35 MI” – Mutual Gains with increased demands for 2035 considering IBT
from Mountain Island Lake.
x Scenario “MG 35 NGO” – Mutual Gains with 2035 demands considering increased
instream flow requirements recommended by non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
x Scenario “MG 35 CF NGO” – Mutual Gains with 2035 demands and IBT from Cowan’s
Ford considering increased instream flow requirements recommended by NGOs.
x Scenario “MG 35 LIP” – Mutual Gains with 2035 demands considering new modified
LIP (Appendix D).
2.1.3.3 IBT Quantities and Distributions
A maximum of 10 MGD from Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman) in year 2008 was modeled. This
is considered a conservatively high estimate of short-term IBT. An average 24 MGD from
Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman) and Mountain Island Lake in year 2035 was modeled. The
original IBT request was based on a maximum average transfer of 24 MGD. While this
request has been reduced to 22 MGD based on updated demand and water supply
considerations, it is a conservative estimate of the maximum impact that can be expected
from the IBT. The monthly distributions of the two IBT transfer amounts based on 2002
water use are shown in Table 2-2. It is important to note that the CHEOPS model is not
sensitive to daily water use and thus, daily maximum transfers. This is because of the vast
amount of storage in the reservoir of the Catawba-Wateree Project. Therefore, the CHEOPS
model uses monthly values to simulate reservoir conditions.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-8
TABLE 2-2
IBT Monthly Distribution– Based on 2002 Water Use
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
2035 IBT 2008 IBT
Month MGD AC-FT MGD AC-FT
January 21.87 14.18 7.86 5.1
February 21.50 13.93 7.73 5.01
March 21.59 14 7.76 5.03
April 24.16 15.66 8.69 5.63
May 25.96 15.83 9.33 6.05
June 27.80 18.02 10 6.48
July 26.36 17.09 9.48 6.15
August 26.68 17.3 9.59 6.22
September 34.53 15.9 8.82 5.72
October 24.61 15.95 8.85 5.74
November 21.77 14.11 7.83 5.07
December 21.17 13.72 7.61 4.93
24.8 15.56 8.63 5.59
These monthly IBT amounts were added to 2008 and 2035 demands for scenario runs with
IBT from Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman) and Mountain Island Lake and simulated as “MG
08 CF” and “MG 35CF”, “MG 35 MI”, “MG 35 CF NGO.”
The total monthly distributions of demands/withdrawals for the entire Catawba-Wateree
Project with and without IBT for the years 2008 and 2035 are shown in Table 2-3. As stated
above, the water withdrawal distributions are based on 2002 water use.
TABLE 2-3
Total Monthly Distributions with and without IBT from Cowan’s Ford (Lake Norman) and Mountain Island
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Withdrawals, ac-ft
From
Scenario and
Condition Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Cowan’s Ford 2008 101 97 81 109 109 118 114 113 101 99 84 98
2008 with IBT 106 102 86 114 114 123 122 118 106 104 89 103
2035 189 184 169 209 216 233 229 217 195 191 172 183
2035 with IBT 204 198 183 225 233 251 246 235 211 207 186 197
Mountain Island 2035 246 238 239 286 333 368 357 337 292 274 246 236
2035 with IBT 260 252 253 302 350 386 374 354 308 290 260 250
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-9
2.1.3.4 Use of Model Results
The model results are used throughout the EIS to analyze impacts on specific parameters.
The parameters analyzed in the model results for the different scenarios presented in
Section 2.3.1.2 are the following:
x LIP Summary – System-wide occurrence of various LIP levels
x Annual duration of reservoir outflow and reservoir elevation for each of the reservoirs
in the system
x Hydropower generation summaries
x Lake elevation and Storage Conditions during Dry Season including year 2002 (drought
year)
x Charts of reservoir outflows and lake elevations for the 75-year analysis period for the
various scenarios
Under these parameters, the results of the modeling are summarized for comparison
purposes to assess:
x The impacts of IBT quantity on the system and its reservoirs
x The impacts of the IBT withdrawal locations on the system
x The impacts of the IBT along with new increased instream flow requirements
recommended by the NGOs that were involved in the stakeholder process
x Impacts of the new Modified LIP along with the IBT
2.1.4 Yadkin Hydroelectric Modeling
A hydrologic simulation model called OASIS (Operational and Simulation of Integrated
Systems) was used to assist with relicensing of four hydroelectric stations operated by
APGI, Yadkin Division on the Yadkin River. The model addresses all seven of the reservoirs
on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River in North Carolina even though APGI only operates four of
these reservoirs. The Yadkin-Pee Dee River reservoirs included in the OASIS model are:
Reservoir Names Power Company
1. Kerr Scott U.S. ACOE
2. High Rock APGI
3. Tuckertown APGI
4. Narrows (Badin) APGI
5.Falls APGI
6. Tillery Progress Energy
7.Blewett Falls Progress Energy
Details of the modeling analysis conducted by DWR using the OASIS model are included in
Appendix CD-3.
A LIP is currently under development for the Yadkin and Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Hydroelectric Projects (Appendix E). Because a draft is still under review, this LIP was not
used as part of the modeling analysis. This draft LIP is based on the same assumption as
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-10
that for the Catawba River; all parties with interests in the water storage in the Projects will
share responsibility to conserve the limited supply.
2.1.4.1 Model Features
OASIS uses a linear programming engine to simulate the movement (or routing) of water
through a system. In brief, OASIS is a generalized program for modeling the operations of
water resources systems. The main objective of OASIS is to support short-term and long-
term water supply planning in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The model is also being
used to address drought management and other environmental impacts due to water
supply planning. The model incorporates available data for the time period from January
1930 to December 2003, which is 74 years of daily hydrological data.
2.1.4.2 Model Base Case Scenarios
The scenario “BaseCase2008” represents the baseline [current condition] operational,
physical and generation conditions of the reservoir system. This scenario included all the
major water supply withdrawals and discharges in North Carolina. The water supply
demands are based 2008 estimates. This scenario was used since 2008 is when the new
hydropower licenses take effect. These simulations represent the best available estimate of
the new baseline conditions.
“BaseCase2038” is the scenario used to evaluate the cumulative effects. This scenario
includes all of the projected water demands in 30 years, at the end of the period used for IBT
planning purposes. It should be noted that these baseline scenarios do not include the IBT
but include predicted water demands of other users in the system.
2.1.4.3 IBT Quantities and Scenario
The IBT modeled was a maximum day IBT of 10 MGD, which corresponds to an average
day IBT of 6 MGD. This IBT was distributed monthly with a similar distribution throughout
the year as used for the Catawba modeling. Since there are multiple options for the Cities to
get water from the Yadkin River Basin, four modeling scenarios were used to assess the
impacts of the IBT:
x “Salisbury2038” – 2038 water use projections with the Concord-Kannapolis IBT being
supplied by the City of Salisbury
x “Tuckertown2038” – 2038 water use projections with the Concord-Kannapolis IBT being
supplied by the City of Albemarle from Tuckertown Reservoir
x “TuckertownNarrows2038” – 2038 water use projections with the Concord-Kannapolis
IBT being supplied by the City of Albemarle with water supplied equally from
Tuckertown and Narrows (Badin) Reservoirs
x “TuckertownSalisbury2038” – 2038 water use projections with the Concord-Kannapolis
IBT being supplied by the cities of Albemarle and Salisbury. The 10 MGD maximum day
transfer was evenly split between the City of Albemarle (Tuckertown Reservoir) and the
City of Salisbury (High Rock Lake)
2.1.4.4 Use of the Model
The model results are used throughout the EIS to analyze impacts on specific parameters.
The parameters analyzed in model results are the following:
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-11
x Lake level duration
x Stream flow duration
x Total hydropower energy generation
2.1.5 Catawba River Basin Sources
Alternatives for obtaining water from the Catawba River Basin include purchasing finished
water from CMU and/or obtaining raw water directly from Lake Norman. CMU obtains
raw water from both Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman. The reservoirs are part of the
12-reservoir Catawba-Wateree Project licensed by the FERC to Duke Power, as depicted in
Figure 2-2. Both reservoirs are described below.
2.1.5.1 Mountain Island Lake
Mountain Island Lake, an impoundment of the Catawba River, is included as one of the
potential sources of water because CMU currently operates a water supply intake on the
reservoir. As part of the chain of reservoirs on the Catawba River, it is downstream of Lake
Norman and upstream of Lake Wylie in the southwestern Piedmont region of North
Carolina. This reservoir forms a boundary between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties. The
reservoir has approximately 61 miles of shoreline and 5.1 square miles (3,281 acres) of open
water. The full pond elevation of the reservoir is 647.5 feet (Duke Power, 2005). This reser-
voir is the main drinking water source for the City of Charlotte and has little development
on its shores. Latta Plantation and Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge, both run by Mecklenburg
County, are adjacent to the reservoir. The boundary of the study area around water bodies
is offset 0.5 mile from the shoreline to incorporate floodplain areas as shown on Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone maps and on Figure 2-1.
2.1.5.2 Lake Norman
Lake Norman, an impoundment of the Catawba River located within the CTB 3-1 Subbasin
(as defined in G.S. 143.215.22G), is included as one of the potential sources of water.
Draining from the north, the 150–square-mile study area forms the border between
Catawba, Iredell, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg Counties in the southwestern Piedmont region
of North Carolina. Lake Norman is the largest man-made lake in the state, with
approximately 520 miles of shoreline and 50 square miles (32,510 acres) of open water. It
drains approximately 1,790 square miles of the Catawba River beginning in the mountains
upstream of Lake James. At full pool elevation (760 feet), the lake has available storage of
approximately 1,070,000 acre-feet. Located approximately 10 miles west of Concord and
Kannapolis and north of Charlotte, the Lake Norman area includes portions of the Cities of
Catawba, Mooresville, Cornelius, Davidson, and Huntersville. The boundary of the study
area around water bodies is offset 0.5 mile from the shoreline to incorporate floodplain areas
as shown on FEMA flood zone maps and on Figure 2-1.
2.1.6 Yadkin River Basin Sources
2.1.6.1 High Rock Lake
High Rock Lake, an impoundment of the Yadkin River straddling the border of Davidson
and Rowan Counties (Figure 2-1), is also a potential source of water. The Yadkin River is
part of the larger Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin that drains central North Carolina and
northeastern South Carolina. High Rock Lake, along with Tuckertown Reservoir and Badin
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-12
Lake, is part of the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project operated by Yadkin–APGI (APGI). The
project’s FERC license expires in 2008. The drainage area above High Rock Dam
encompasses 3,973 square miles. The dam impounds an available storage capacity of
approximately 234,000 acre-feet at a full pool elevation of 623.9 feet, resulting in a surface
area of approximately 15,1 80 acres.
Beginning just south of the Yadkin River’s confluence with the South Yadkin River, the
24-square-mile High Rock Lake is located in water-planning Subbasin 18-1. The boundary of
the study area around the lake is based on a half-mile buffer from the lake’s 356-mile
shoreline to incorporate floodplain areas as shown on FEMA flood zone maps. Located
approximately 20 miles northeast of Concord and Kannapolis, the source basin study area
includes a small portion of the Cities of Lexington to the north and Spencer to the west.
Similar to the Catawba source basin, the water resources and water quality impacts will be
examined down to Blewett Falls Lake Dam.
2.1.6.2 Tuckertown Reservoir
Tuckertown Reservoir is also a potential water source for Concord and Kannapolis. The lake
is located just south of High Rock Lake. This impoundment of the Yadkin River is located in
the Subbasin 18-1 and straddles the apex of Davidson, Rowan, Stanley, and Montgomery
Counties. The 23-square-mile study area around the Tuckertown Reservoir source basin is
based on a half-mile buffer from the lake’s shoreline to incorporate floodplain areas as
shown on FEMA flood zone maps. The study area is approximately 17 miles east of Concord
and Kannapolis, contains no incorporated areas, and much of the basin is managed as APGI
game lands.
The drainage area above Tuckertown Dam is 4,080 square miles. The dam impounds an
available storage capacity of approximately 6,700 acre-feet at the full pool elevation of
564.7 feet. At full pool, the surface area of the reservoir is approximately 2,560 acres. The
mean depth of the reservoir is 16 feet with a maximum depth of 55 feet (Yadkin-APGI,
2002).
2.1.6.3 Badin Lake (Narrows Reservoir)
Badin Lake is also a potential water source for Concord and Kannapolis. It is located just
downstream of Tuckertown Reservoir and is formed by Narrows Dam. This impoundment
of the Yadkin River is located in Subbasin 18-1 and straddles the apex of Davidson, Rowan,
Stanley, and Montgomery Counties. The Badin Lake study area is based on a half-mile
buffer from the lake’s shoreline to incorporate floodplain areas as shown on FEMA flood
zone maps. The study area contains one incorporated area, the Town of Badin, which is
approximately 30 miles east of Concord and Kannapolis.
The drainage area above Narrows Dam is 4,180 square miles. The dam impounds an
available storage capacity of approximately 129,100 acre-feet at the full pool elevation of
509.8 feet. At full pool, the surface area of the reservoir is approximately 5,355 acres. The
maximum depth of the reservoir is 175 feet (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
2.1.7 Wetlands
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wetlands are lands in
transition between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-13
the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at least part of the year. For regulatory
purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term “wetlands” means “those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs and similar areas.” In general, wetlands share three key characteristics:
wetland hydrology, wetland soils, and wetland plants. Wetlands and vegetated riparian
areas are valuable because they are biologically productive natural ecosystems, protect
wildlife and provide natural open spaces, protect water quality, control erosion, and limit
flooding damage. Figure 2-4 identifies wetlands within the receiving basin study area.
2.1.7.1 Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake
Existing Environment. The Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake source basins are
located in the western Piedmont physiographic province of the state and are characterized
by gently sloping to strongly sloping, well-drained and moderately well drained soils that
have a clay or loamy subsoil (U.S. Department of Agriculture ([USDA], 1980). Soils in the
region consist of an association of Cecil-Hiwassee-Goldston-Badin series.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) show approximately 510 acres of wetlands within the Mountain Island Lake
source basin and 576 acres of wetlands within the Lake Norman Basin (Figure 2-4 and Table
2-4), excluding the predominantly open water wetlands. Forested wetlands represent over
half of the total wetland acreage in each study area and are mostly located in the upper
reaches of each impoundment. Wetland field delineation was not performed for the source
basin study area due to the large size of the study area.
TABLE 2-4
NWI Wetlands – Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Description
Mountain Island
Lake (acres)
Percent of
Total
Lake Norman
(acres)
Percent of
Total
Forested wetlands 283 56% 307 53%
Non-tidal, emergent vegetation 41 8% 64 11%
Non-tidal, scrub-shrub 169 31% 202 35%
Other 17 3% 3 1%
Total 510 100% 576 100%

Direct Impacts.
Direct impacts to wetlands can result from removal of the water. Any construction of
proposed intakes, pumping stations, or conveyance lines associated with the transfer that
could impact existing wetlands will be permitted separately under appropriate state and
federal programs and their wetland and environmental impacts evaluated under a separate
NCEPA or National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.
BA
ROWAN
STANLY
GASTON
CABARRUS
MECKLENBURG
IREDELL
CATAWBA DAVIDSON
LINCOLN
UNION
ANSON
MONTGOMERY
RANDOLPH
RICHMOND
DAVIEALEXANDER
Rocky
River
WWTP
7073.5 Miles
Figure 2-4
National Wetlands Inventory Data
Concord / Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Receiving Basin
Study Area
Lake
Norman
High
Rock Lake
Badin
Lake
Tuckertown
Reservoir
Forested Wetlands
Non-tidal, Emergent Vegetation
Non-tidal, Scrub-Shrub
Non-tidal, Unconsolidated Shore
Predominantly Open Water
NWI WetlandsLegend
Rocky River WWTP
Hydrology
County Boundary
Receiving Basin Study Area
Source Study Area
Mountain
Island Lake
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-15
As discussed further in the aquatic resources section of this EIS, many of the rare plants in
the Catawba River Basin grow in the wet soils of bogs and can be indirectly affected by
water quality and quantity changes. The effects of the proposed IBT on water quality and
quantity are described in detail in the Water Resources/Water Quality discussion in this
section. The effect of the IBT was analyzed on the expected duration of lake level elevation
using Duke Power’s CHEOPS model. While a number of modeling scenarios were analyzed
(and included in Appendix CD-2), the most pertinent to wetlands direct impacts in
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman areas are the effect of the proposed IBT super-
imposed on 2008 demands of other water users during the modeling period of record (1929
through 2003). The IBT assumed applicable for this period was a maximum of 10 MGD.
There were no discernible differences in lake level frequency examining the impact of the
IBT using 2008 demand. In addition, several simulations superimposed the proposed 24-
MGD average IBT on top of the demands of other water users in 2035. Although there is a
change in lake level frequency between the 2008 and 2035 scenarios because of increased
overall water demands, there are no discernible differences in water levels with and without
the IBT. More details of this analysis are presented later in this section.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, the IBT project is not expected to have
significant direct impact to wetlands within the Lake Norman study area.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. Based on current information, the IBT is not expected to
affect the provision of water or sewer services in the Lake Norman/Mountain Island Lake
study area. Modeling was conducted to evaluate impacts to each of the reservoirs in the
system. The IBT will not change the existing pattern or rate of growth expected in the source
basin. The IBT will therefore not have any SCI to wetlands in the Lake Norman portion of
the study area.
SCI to wetlands around other reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree study area were also
evaluated as part of the modeling analysis included in Appendix CD-2. No discernible
impacts of the IBT on lake levels were identified on the other system reservoirs. Similar
results are reported for lake outflows, although the only areas where this would have a
direct impact to wetlands not evaluated through lake level frequency could be below Lake
James and below Lake Wylie since these are the only free-flowing portions of the river in the
study area.
2.1.7.2 High Rock Lake
Existing Environment. NWI data developed by USFWS identify approximately 1,464 acres of
wetlands within the High Rock Lake study area (Figure 2-4, Table 2-5) excluding the open
water wetlands, which account for approximately 13, 496 acres. Forested wetlands represent
the majority, 87 percent, of the total wetland acreage and are mostly located in the upper
reaches of the impoundment around Interstate 85 (I-85) near the APGI and Linwood Game
Lands and the Crane Creek embayment. This area consists of a large system of more than
1,000 acres of backwater sloughs, pools, potholes, sand and mud bars, islands, channels,
alluvial flats, and broad, gently sloping terraces. The remaining wetlands in the reservoir
are almost all relatively small fringe wetlands situated in coves and low-lying areas
associated with streams entering the reservoirs. (Yadkin-APGI, 2002). Wetland field
delineation was not performed due to the large size of the study area.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-16
TABLE 2-5
NWI Wetlands – High Rock Lake
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Description Acres Percent of Total
Forested wetlands 1,279 87%
Non-tidal, emergent vegetation 8 1%
Non-tidal, scrub-shrub 176 12%
Other 1 0%
Total 1,464 100%
Direct Impacts. Direct impacts to wetlands can result from removal of the water. Any
construction of proposed intakes, pumping stations, and conveyance lines associated with
the transfer that could impact existing wetlands will be permitted separately under
appropriate state and federal programs and their wetland and environmental impacts
evaluated under a separate NCEPA or NEPA process.
As discussed further in the Fish and Wildlife Resources section of this EIS, many of the rare
plants in the Yadkin River Basin grow in the wet soils of bogs and can be indirectly affected
by water quality and quantity changes. The effects of the proposed IBT on water quality and
quantity are described in detail in Section 2.1.0, the Water Resources/Water Quality
discussion. The effect of the IBT was analyzed on the expected duration of lake level
elevation using the OASIS model. Several options to transfer are available to the Cities. The
worst case modeling scenario for potential impact to High Rock Lake is if all of the water
was purchased from the City of Salisbury with an intake immediately upstream of High
Rock Lake. This scenario showed no discernable impact of the transfer on lake level
duration. Details of the modeling analysis are included in Appendix CD-3.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, the IBT project is not expected to have
significant direct impact to wetlands or Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) with
wetland components within the High Rock Lake study area.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. Based on current information, the IBT will not affect the
provision of water or sewer services in the source basin around High Rock Lake. However,
an updated water supply study is expected to be developed as a part of the FERC
relicensing of the Yadkin-Pee Dee Project. The IBT will not change the existing pattern or
rate of growth expected in the study area. The IBT will therefore not have any expected SCI
to wetlands in the High Rock Lake study area.
2.1.7.3 Tuckertown Reservoir
Existing Environment. NWI data developed by the USFWS identify only 10 acres of forested
wetlands within the Tuckertown Reservoir Basin (Figure 2-4) with the exception of the open
water wetlands, which account for 2,371 acres. Typically these wetlands are fringing type
wetlands with submerged/ emergent vegetation in the water to depths of 6 to 8 feet, and
scrub/shrub type wetlands along the shoreline. The most significant areas of wetlands
adjacent to Tuckertown Reservoir occur in the Flat, Ellis, and Riles Creeks embayments,
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-17
(Yadkin-APGI, 2002). Wetland field delineation was not performed due to the large size of
the study area.
Direct Impacts. Direct impacts to wetlands can result from removal of the water. Any
construction of proposed intakes, pumping stations, and conveyance lines associated with
the transfer that could impact existing wetlands will be permitted separately under
appropriate state and federal programs and their wetland and environmental impacts
evaluated under a separate NCEPA or NEPA process.
As discussed further in the Fish and Wildlife Resources section of this EIS, many of the rare
plants in the Yadkin River Basin grow in the wet soils of bogs and can be indirectly affected
by water quality and quantity changes. The effects of the proposed IBT on water quality and
quantity are described in detail in Section 2.1.10. the Water Resources/Water Quality
discussion ection. The effect of the IBT was analyzed on the expected duration of lake level
elevation using the OASIS model. Several options to transfer are available to Concord and
Kannapolis. The worst case modeling scenario for potential impact to Tuckertown Reservoir
is if all of the water was purchased from the City of Albemarle and withdrawn entirely from
that reservoir. This scenario showed that increased water demands in 2038 could show a
change in lake elevation of about 4 inches about 20 percent of the time and that the IBT
could lower the lake an addition 6 inches about 20 percent of time. These changes in lake
elevation are not considered significant and do not significantly impact wetlands because of
the small area wetlands (10 acres) in the watershed immediately around Tuckertown
reservoir. Details of the modeling analysis are included in Appendix CD-3.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, the IBT project is not expected to have
significant direct impact to wetlands or SNHAs with wetland components within the
Tuckertown Reservoir study area.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer
services in the study area. The IBT will not change the existing pattern or rate of growth
expected in the study area. The IBT will therefore not have any expected SCI wetlands in the
Tuckertown Reservoir study area.
2.1.7.4 Badin Lake
Existing Environment. NWI data developed by the USFWS identify 27 acres of forested
wetlands and 1 acre of scrub-shrub wetlands within the Badin Lake Basin study area (Figure
2-4), and open water wetlands account for 6,223 acres. Typically these wetlands are fringing
type wetlands with submerged/emergent vegetation in the water to depths of 6 to 8 feet,
and scrub/shrub type wetlands along the shoreline. Wetland field delineation was not
performed due to the large size of the study area.
Direct Impacts. Direct impacts to wetlands can result from removal of the water. Any
construction of proposed intakes, pumping stations, and conveyance lines associated with
the transfer that could impact existing wetlands will be permitted separately under
appropriate state and federal programs and their wetland and environmental impacts
evaluated under a separate NCEPA or NEPA process.
As discussed further in the Fish and Wildlife Resources section of this EIS, many of the rare
plants in the Yadkin River Basin grow in the wet soils of bogs and can be indirectly affected
by water quality and quantity changes. The effects of the proposed IBT on water quality and
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-18
quantity are described in detail in Section 2.1.10, the Water Resources/Water Quality
discussion. The effect of the IBT was analyzed on the expected duration of lake level
elevation using the OASIS model. Several options to transfer water are available to the
Cities. The worst case modeling scenario for potential impact to Narrows (Badin) Reservoir
is if the water was purchased from the City of Albemarle and 50 percent of the water came
from Narrows (Badin) Reservoir. This scenario showed that increased water demands in
2038 could show a change in lake elevation of about 4 to 6 inches about 5 percent of the time
and that the IBT could lower the lake an additional 2 to 3 inches about 5 percent of time.
These changes in lake elevation are not likely to be significant and would not significantly
impact wetlands because of the small area wetlands (27 acres) in the watershed immediately
around Narrows reservoir. Details of the modeling analysis are included in Appendix CD-3.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, the IBT project is not expected to have
significant direct impact to wetlands or SNHAs with wetland components within the
Narrows (Badin) Reservoir study area.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer
services in the study area. The IBT will not change the existing pattern or rate of growth
expected in the study area. The IBT will therefore not have any SCI to wetlands in the Badin
Lake source basin study area.
2.1.8 Land Use
2.1.8.1 Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake
Existing Environment.
Urban/Developed Lands. Due to Lake Norman’s close proximity to the Charlotte
metropolitan area and its popularity as a recreational destination, the southeastern portion
of the source basin consists of extensive residential development and some commercial
development around Davidson, Cornelius, and Mooresville. While Mountain Island Lake is
also close to Charlotte, its shoreline is less developed than that of Lake Norman. It is also
popular as a recreation destination, with many public access locations. Table 2-6 and Figure
2-5 illustrate the distribution of developed lands in the Lake Norman and Mountain Island
Lake study areas.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-19
TABLE 2-6
Land Cover Around Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Land Use
Mountain Island
Lake (acres)
Percent of
Total Land
Lake Norman
(acres)
Percent of Total
Land
Agriculture 1,353 9% 16,017 17%
Forested Land 10,077 69% 44,768 47%
High Intensity Developed 0 - 1,347 1%
Low Intensity Developed 80 <1% 1,023 1%
Mixed Shrubland 89 <1% 950 1%
Unconsolidated Sediment 0 - 0 0%
Water bodies 2,629 18% 31,918 33%
Wetlands 0a - 0a -
Total 14,508 100% 96,021 100%
a Acres shown for wetlands are from the 1996 land cover database available from the North Carolina Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA) while the wetlands data shown in Table 2-5 are from the NWI data
available from USFWS. Most of the wetlands coverages identified through NWI are included in the “Water
Body” land use category in this table.
ROWAN
STANLY
CABARRUS
IREDELL
MECKLENBURG
GASTON
DAVIDSONCATAWBA
LINCOLN
UNION
MONTGOMERY
RANDOLPH
ANSON RICHMOND
DAVIEALEXANDER
Rocky
River
WWTP
7073.5 Miles
Figure 2-5
Land Use
Concord / Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Receiving Basin
Study Area
Lake
Norman
High
Rock Lake
Badin
Lake
Tuckertown
Reservoir
Legend
Rocky River WWTP
Hydrology
County Boundary
Receiving Basin Study Area
Source Study Area
Land Use
High Intensity Developed
Low Intensity Developed
Agricultural Lands
Forested Lands
Mixed Shrublands
Unconsolidated Sediment
Wetlands
Water Bodies
MECKLENBURG
Mountain
Island Lake
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-21
Public Lands (Parks/Recreation Areas and Greenways). The Mountain Island Lake and Lake
Norman study areas provide many benefits to the public, including recreation, boating,
fishing, hiking, camping, wildlife preservation, and aesthetic enjoyment. Due to their
proximity to the Charlotte metropolitan area, the lakes and adjoining recreational lands are
popular destinations for local residents. This section describes park and conservation lands
primarily associated with human recreational activities; public game lands are discussed in
the wildlife habitat and resources sections.
The main recreational lands found in this study area are part of Latta Plantation Nature
Preserve, Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge, and Lake Norman State Park. Latta Plantation
encompasses 1,343 acres and is operated by Mecklenburg County but its history includes
functioning as a plantation in the early 1800s. Recreational activities within Latta Plantation
include 16 miles of hiking and horse trails, an equestrian center, boat access points to
Mountain Island Lake, picnic areas, canoe rentals, and the Carolina Raptor Center.
The Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge includes 668 acres on a peninsula that extends into
Mountain Island Lake. This facility includes a picnic area and wildlife observation deck.
Little public access is provided to most of the park in an effort to protect the natural
communities present.
Lake Norman State Park was formed in September 1962, when Duke Power donated
1,328 acres of land on the northeastern shore. Located in Iredell County, the park provides
approximately 8 miles of hiking trails, RV/tent camping, picnic areas, and a boat launch.
Duke Power also maintains 2 bank fishing areas and 8 public boating access areas along the
shoreline, (Duke Power, 2002). One of these sites is leased to Mecklenburg County and one
to Iredell County. Table 2-7 lists all of the public access areas on Lake Norman.
TABLE 2-7
Lake Norman Public Access Areas
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Upper Section
Long Island Access Area
Lake Norman State Park
Bill's Marina
Long Island Marina
Stumpy Creek Access Area (Leased to Iredell County)
McCrary Creek Access Area
Pinnacle Access Area
Marshall Fishing Area
North Bridge Marina
River City Marina
Skipper's Marina
Lower Section
Lake Norman Marina
Mountain Creek Marina
Lake Norman Motel, Restaurant & Marina
The Boat Rack Marina
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-22
TABLE 2-7
Lake Norman Public Access Areas
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Hager Creek Access Area
Little Creek Access Area
Westport Dry Storage
Holiday Harbor
Beatties Ford Access Area
Jetton Road County Park (Operated by Mecklenburg County)
Ramsey Creek Access Area (Leased to Mecklenburg County)
McGuire Fishing Area
Energy Explorium
Blythe Landing County Park (Operated by Mecklenburg County)
All Seasons Marina
Stutts Bait & Tackle
Inland Sea Marina
Source: Duke Power, 2002
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land. North Carolina Executive Order 96 charges all State
agencies to minimize the loss of prime agricultural and forested lands as defined in the
Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. Prime farmland is of major importance in meeting
the nation’s short- and long-range needs for food and fiber. Primarily based on soil
characteristics, these lands are best suited for producing high yields of food, feed, forage,
fiber, and oilseed crops with minimal input of energy and economic resources and the least
damage to other environmental resources. Soils that have a high water table and are
frequently flooded have severe limitations for management and use for agriculture even if
those soils qualify as prime agricultural land. These limitations would exclude almost all of
the soils in the floodplains of the water bodies in the study area from being considered of
significance as prime agricultural land.
The forested areas in the Mountain Island and Lake Norman study areas are primarily a mix
of pine and hardwood forests. Due to severe storms in 1989 and infestation by southern pine
beetles, the pine forests exist as smaller pockets surrounded by a forest of hardwoods.
Hickory, sweet gum, red maple, dogwood, and oak are the prevalent species. Mountain
laurel, wild hydrangea, box elder, strawberry bush, and other small trees and shrubs com-
prise the understory. Stream banks are dominated by sweet gum, ironwood, and river birch
while beech may be found in the coves. Alder and willow thickets grow along the lake's
edge, and marsh communities include a variety of grasses, rushes, and sedges (North
Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation [DPR], 2002).
According to the 2001 land use information, Table 2-6 and Figure 2-5, forest lands represent
approximately 69 percent of the Mountain Island Lake study area and about 47 percent of
the Lake Norman study area. Agricultural lands represent about 9 percent and 17 percent of
the Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman study areas, respectively.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-23
Cultural Resources/Archaeological and Historic Areas. NCEPA requires the conservation and
protection of the state’s natural resources and preservation of “the important historic and
cultural elements of our common inheritance.” Archaeological sites are important since they
contain the only material remains of extinct Native American cultures dating back 12,000
years, throughout North Carolina. Historic structures are significant since they preserve
North Carolina history. Historic districts consist of whole blocks of downtown areas
including many structures that are culturally and historically significant.
The area surrounding the Catawba River is rich in history. Artifacts including pottery
shards, flint chips and arrowheads, as well as burial sites near the river, indicate the
presence of Native Americans long before European settlement. The Catawba Indians had
an estimated population of 5,000 in 1600, but their number declined steadily due to disease
and warfare with Iroquoian tribes. By 1760, the Catawba tribe was reduced to 60 fighting
men. The Catawba left the area in 1762 and moved south. In the mid-1700s, Fort Dobbs was
built to protect area settlers during the French and Indian War. Daniel Boone helped to
defend this fort against the Cherokees. During the Revolutionary War, Lord Cornwallis set
up a camp in the area and a skirmish was fought at Cowan’s Ford, an area now covered by
Lake Norman (DPR, 2002).
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the formal repository of information
pertaining to historic structures and districts. Figure 2-6 and Table 2-8 indicate that 2 NRHP
historic districts and 15 structures are located within the Mountain Island Lake and Lake
Norman study areas.
TABLE 2-8
NRHP – Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Site Name Acres Description
Alexander Moore Farm 27 1843 Federal farmhouse
Bunker Hill Covered Bridge <1 1895 covered bridge
Catawba Historic District 70 19th Century farmhouses, residential/commercial district
Centre Presbyterian Church 18 1854 Greek Revival Church
Cornelius House 33 Circa 1820-30 Georgian/Federalist house
Eumenean Hall, Davidson College 0.5 1849 Greek Revival 2-story brick structure
Falls-Hobbs House 2.18 Circa 1820-30 Federalist w/Greek Revival
Holly Bend 8 Circa 1795 2-story house
George Houston House 31.5 Circa 1818 Federalist 2-story House with log cabin
Johnson-Neel House 9.9 Circa 1830 Federalist 2-story brick
Latta Plantation 3 18th Century plantation house and outbuildings
Munday House 5 19th Century small log house
Neill-Turner-Lester House <1 19th Century Federalist/Italian house
Perkins House 9 1790 Federalist 2-story brick
Philanthropic Hall, Davidson College 0.5 1849 Greek Revival 2-story brick
St Josephs Catholic Church 10 1844 Vernac temple
Terrell Historic District 150 Late 19th Century residential /commercial district
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOMER
IREDELL
RICHMON
Charlotte
Concord
Gastonia
Huntersville
Mint Hill
Kannapolis
SalisburyNewton
Albemarle
Matthews
Conover
Mooresville
Belmont Midland
Unionville
CorneliusLincolnton
Locust
Mount Holly
Maiden
Lexington
Stallings
Harrisburg
Stanfield
Davidson
Landis
Lowell
Pineville
Statesville
Cramerton
Spencer
Stanley
Badin
Ranlo
Norwood
Catawba
Dallas
Hickory Claremont
Denton
Oakboro
Richfield
Troutman
Mount Gilead
Faith
Rockwell
High Shoals
China Grove
Granite Quarry
Hemby Bridge
Cleveland
Ansonville
Indian Trail
Gold Hill
East Spencer
McAdenville
Bessemer City
New London
Mount Pleasant
Spencer Mountain
Lake
Norman
Badin
Lake
High Rock
Lake
Dutc
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
Iri
s
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
5052.5 Miles
Figure 2-6
National Register of Historic Places - Districts and Sites
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Rocky
R i ver
Tuckertown
Reservoir
Rocky
River
WWTPLegend
Hydrology
County Boundary
Receiving Basin Study Area
Source Study Area
National Register Historic Places
National Register Historic District
National Register Historic Site
Municipality
Service Area Boundary
Mountain
Island Lake
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-25
Due to the size of the project’s source and receiving basins, and the fact that no construction
would occur with the project, no archeological survey was prepared for the project.
Direct Impacts. The IBT will not have any expected direct impacts to urban/developed land,
public lands, prime agricultural land, forest land, or archeological or historic resources in
the study area. The expansion of raw water transmission lines, WTPs, and the finished
distribution system in Mecklenburg County that will implement the IBT may have a direct
impact to these land uses; however, the projects associated with the transfer of water will be
permitted separately under appropriate state and federal programs and their environmental
impacts evaluated under separate NCEPA documents. Many of the infrastructure improve-
ments that transfer finished drinking water to the Rocky River Subbasin are already in
place.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer
services in the study areas around Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman. The IBT is not
expected to significantly alter the availability of water to the study area to serve existing and
projected land uses and long-term water demand in the study area. The IBT will not, when
combined with other projected water withdrawals from the reservoir system, cause
significant cumulative elevation changes in any of the Catawba-Wateree project lakes, nor
will water quality in any of the water bodies change substantially. Minimum releases of
water from the various reservoirs in the chain will not change, even under severe drought
conditions.
The project will therefore not change the existing pattern or rate of growth, use of land or
water, or land uses from what is currently expected in the study area. No land uses, private
properties, public areas, recreational sites, archeological sites, historic structures, or water-
dependent structures will be flooded or drained with the IBT. The project will not induce,
impede, or alter growth from what is currently planned. The IBT will not have any SCI to
land uses or land resources in the source basin.
2.1.8.2 High Rock Lake
Existing Environment.
Urban/Developed Lands. Based on land use information developed for the Yadkin relicensing
project in September 2002, residential development is the second largest land use category,
accounting for 34 percent of shoreline land use. Most residential development is
concentrated in the middle and lower sections of High Rock Lake below Swearing Creek. Of
the 193 miles of shoreline found below Swearing Creek, 48 percent is residential
development. The majority of residences are found in subdivisions along the Abbotts,
Crane, Second, Flat Swamp, and Swearing Creeks tributary arms of the reservoir. In
addition, several large new residential subdivisions are being developed along Flat Swamp
Creek and Panther Creek. Figure 2-5 illustrates the digital 1996 land cover data that are
available, but the information described here is based on more recent information compiled
by Yadkin Inc.
Yadkin Inc. has reviewed environmental assessments (EAs) for several new subdivisions on
High Rock Lake, including Yachtman's Point, and major subdivisions on Panther, Flat
Swamp, and Abbotts Creeks. Yadkin Inc. estimates that approximately 300 new lots
adjoining the project will be created as a result of these subdivisions. Yadkin Inc. anticipates
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-26
that most of the individuals purchasing these properties will request private access to the
reservoir (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Yadkin-APGI has prepared a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) for the Yadkin project,
which includes High Rock Lake, Tuckertown Reservoir, and Badin Lake, to address the
continuing recreational and residential development in these study areas. The SMP is a
guide for future management of the reservoirs in the face of ever-increasing shoreline
development, including increasing requests for private piers (owned by individual property
owners or shared by owners of two adjoining lots) and multi-use recreation facilities (for
public, commercial, or private group use) (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land. Agricultural use accounts for 5 percent of the shoreline
land uses for High Rock Lake. The largest areas of agricultural land are found at the upper
end of the reservoir. Large pockets of agricultural land also occur along Second and North
Potts Creeks, while smaller scattered pockets occur throughout the reservoir (Yadkin-APGI,
2002).
The Yadkin project is located within the Piedmont Province of the Southern Pine Region.
The Southern Pine Region lies generally east of the Texas and Oklahoma prairies and south
of the Missouri, Ohio, and Potomac Rivers. Forested lands are the predominant land use
along the High Rock Lake shoreline, accounting for approximately 57 percent of shoreline
use. Forested areas occur primarily at the upper, more riverine end of the High Rock Lake
study area. Of the 167 miles of shoreline found along High Rock Lake above Swearing
Creek, 79 percent are forested. Some significant tracts of forested land also exist at the
extreme upper ends of Crane, Swearing, Abbotts, and Flat Swamp Creeks. These areas of
the reservoir are generally shallower and, therefore, less attractive for shoreline develop-
ment. On the lower portion of the main reservoir there are still some sizable tracts of
forested land on the eastern shore between Flat Swamp and Abbotts Creeks, where the
railroad runs along the shoreline and on the western side between Panther and Dutch
Second Creeks (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Public Lands (Parks/Recreation Areas and Greenways). The High Rock Lake study area
provides many benefits to the public, including recreational boating, fishing, hiking, wildlife
preservation, and aesthetic enjoyment. Due to its proximity to Salisbury, the lake and
adjoining recreational lands are popular destinations for local residents.
Recreational use is particularly high at High Rock Lake where shoreline residents make up a
significant portion of the total recreational users. There are 15 multi-use access areas open to
the public, 9 of which provide boat launching areas and 3 of which are commercially
operated marinas. In total, there are 15 boat launch ramps with a total of 19 boat launching
lanes. Parking at public recreation facilities is ample, with available space for an estimated
763 vehicles. Of the 15 public access areas located on the lake, 4 are primarily used for bank
fishing. Bank fishing also occurs at many of the larger boat launch areas, as well as at many
locations around the reservoir that are not formally designated for fishing. Public recreation
facilities also provide areas for picnicking, swimming, and day uses, as well as a canoe
portage trail around High Rock Dam. One commercial facility operates a campground with
approximately 80 campsites available for public use for a fee (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-27
Cultural Resources/Archaeological and Historic Areas. Table 2-9 lists the NRHP sites located
within the High Rock Lake study area. The three NRHP sites, totaling 12.5 acres, are all
located in Davidson County on the north side of the lake and just south of the City of
Lexington.
TABLE 2-9
National Register Historic Sites – High Rock Lake
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Site Name Acres Description
Becks Reformed Church Cemetery 2.5 1787; 500 gravestones
Jersey Baptist Church Cemetery 3.5 1755; 225 gravestones
Jersey Settlement Meeting House 6.5 1755 brick Greek Revival

The Upper Piedmont has a rich history since being settled by Europeans in the early 1700s.
Several important historic sites and architecturally significant buildings have been identified
and protected in the area. The Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin contains many archeological sites
that have been surveyed and several sites where significant archeological resources have
been found from many native groups that lived in the region up until 200 years ago. Due to
the size of the project’s source and receiving basin study areas, and the fact that no
construction will occur with the project, no archeological survey was prepared for the
project.
Direct Impacts. The IBT will not have any expected direct impacts to urban/developed land,
public lands, prime agricultural land, forestlands, or archeological or historic resources in
the High Rock Lake study area. The expansion of WTPs and the finished distribution system
in the cities that will implement the IBT may have a direct impact to these land uses;
however, the projects associated with the transfer of water will be permitted separately
under appropriate state and federal programs and their environmental impacts evaluated
under separate NCEPA documents.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer
services in the study area around High Rock Lake. The IBT is not expected to significantly
alter the availability of water in the source basin to serve existing and projected land uses
and meet long-term water demand in the source basin. The IBT will not cause significant
cumulative change in instream flows in the Yadkin River, nor will water quality change
substantially.
The project is not expected to change the existing pattern or rate of growth, use of land or
water, or land uses from what is currently expected in the source basin. No land uses,
private properties, public areas, recreational sites, archeological sites, historic structures, or
water-dependent structures will be flooded or drained with the transfer. The project will not
induce, impede, or alter growth from what is currently planned. The IBT will not have any
SCI to land uses or land resources in the study area.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-28
2.1.8.3 Tuckertown Reservoir
Existing Environment.
Urban/Developed Lands. The 75-mile shoreline of Tuckertown Reservoir consists mostly of a
APGI-managed buffer surrounded by other game lands, a small housing development
along the west-central section of the reservoir, and a few other scattered residences. The
nearest communities to the Tuckertown Reservoir are the Towns of Richfield and New
London. There are some industrial uses (about 1 percent of the shoreline) along the
reservoir, including the City of Albemarle water intake and the Town of Denton water
intake and treatment plant discharge (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land. The predominant land use along the Tuckertown
Reservoir shoreline is forest, 81 percent, while agricultural lands represent 6 percent of the
total shoreline. The composition of the forested lands is similar to that described in the High
Rock Lake section.
Public Lands (Parks/Recreation Areas and Greenways). Portions of two State game lands are
adjacent to Tuckertown Reservoir. APGI has game lands located on both sides of the
reservoir, and small pockets of Uwharrie State Game Lands straddle the
Davidson/Montgomery County line. The APGI game lands include approximately 11 acres
utilized as an archery zone. The Uwharrie State Game Lands are publicly owned by the U.S.
Forest Service.
Recreational lands represent 10 percent of the Tuckertown Reservoir shoreline. These lands
support 12 public multi-use recreation and access areas, 4 of which accommodate boat
launching. These boat access points provide a total of 5 boat launch ramps and parking for
an estimated 298 vehicles. There are no commercially operated marina facilities and no boat
slips or dry dock storage spaces available to the public. The remaining public recreation
facilities are primarily fishing access (including tailrace fishing below High Rock Dam).
There are also a number of informal bank fishing areas located around the reservoir. Other
public access facilities include a canoe portage trail around Tuckertown Dam and a highway
overlook (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Cultural Resources/Archaeological and Historic Areas. There is one NRHP site located within
the Tuckertown Reservoir study area. Located along the eastern shore of the reservoir just
north of Cabin Creek, the 206-acre Reid Farm originally held mid-1800s Greek Revival
structures which have since been relocated. Due to the size of the project’s source and
receiving basin study areas, and the fact that no construction will occur with the project, no
archeological survey was prepared for the project.
Direct Impacts. The IBT will not have any expected direct impacts to urban/developed land,
public lands, prime agricultural land, forest lands, or archeological or historic resources in
the study area. The construction or expansion water treatment or transmission facilities that
will implement the IBT may have a direct impact to these land uses; however, the projects
associated with the transfer of water will be permitted separately under appropriate state
and federal programs and their environmental impacts evaluated under separate NCEPA
documents.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer
services in the study area around Tuckertown Reservoir, nor is it expected to significantly
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-29
alter the availability of water to the study area to serve existing and projected land uses and
meet long-term water demands. The IBT is not expected, when considered with other
projected water withdrawals from the reservoir system, to cause significant cumulative
elevation changes in any of the project lakes, nor change substantially water quality in any
of the water bodies. Minimum releases of water from the various reservoirs in the chain are
not expected to change, even under severe drought conditions.
The project is not expected therefore to change the existing pattern or rate of growth, use of
land or water, or land use types from what is currently expected in the study area. No land
uses, private properties, public areas, recreational sites, archeological sites, historic
structures, or water-dependent structures is expected to be flooded or drained with the
transfer. The project is not expected to induce, impede, or alter growth from what is
currently planned, nor have any SCI to land uses or land resources in the study area.
2.1.8.4 Badin Lake
Existing Environment.
Urban/Developed Lands. The land uses of the 115-mile shoreline of Badin Lake are
predominantly forest (48 percent) and residential development (43 percent). Nearly 10 miles
of the eastern shoreline are part of the Uwharrie National Forest. Badin Lake is more
developed than High Rock or Tuckertown Reservoirs, with moderate to large subdivisions
concentrated along Garr Creek, Beaverdam Creek, and the Palmerville area. Approximately
8 percent of the shoreline is recreational lands. There are some industrial uses (about
1 percent of the shoreline) along the shoreline, including the APGI’s Badin Works Plant and
the Narrows Dam and Powerhouse (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land. Most of the Badin Lake shoreline is forested,
48 percent. Agricultural lands are almost non-existent, comprising less than 1 percent of the
total shoreline. The composition of the forested lands is similar to that described in the High
Rock Lake section.
Public Lands (Parks/Recreation Areas and Greenways). At 2,698 acres, almost 15 percent of
the source basin’s total 18,338 acres is managed as state game lands (Figure 2-7). APGI owns
592 acres, while 2,106 acres are Uwharrie State Game Lands. The Uwharrie State Game
Lands are predominantly clustered on the southeastern shore of the lake. APGI owns the
islands on the lake as well as a portion of the western shore downstream of the Tuckertown
Reservoir Dam.
Recreational lands represent 8 percent of the Badin Lake shoreline. These lands support 17
public multi-use recreation and access areas, 4 of which are commercially operated marinas
with 13 commercial boat slips. There are five fishing access areas, including tailrace fishing
below Tuckertown Reservoir Dam and the Uwharrie National Forest pier. There are also a
number of informal bank fishing areas located around the reservoir. Other public access
facilities include picnicking, swimming, and a canoe portage trail around Narrows Dam.
Nearly 600 vehicles can be accommodated at the lake’s facilities (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Cultural Resources/Archaeological and Historic Areas. There are three NRHP sites located
within the Badin Lake study area. The 72-acre Narrows Dam and Powerhouse, completed in
1917, was then the world’s highest overflow dam. Two commercial and residential historic
districts, West Badin, circa 1920s, and Badin, 1912, are recognized at 87 and 170 acres,
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-30
respectively. Due to the size of the project’s source and receiving basin study areas, and the
fact that no construction will occur with the project, no archeological survey was prepared
for the project.
Direct Impacts. The IBT will not have any expected direct impacts to urban/developed land,
public lands, prime agricultural land, forest lands, or archeological or historic resources in
the source basin. The construction or expansion water treatment or transmission facilities
that will implement the IBT may have a direct impact to these land uses; however, the
projects associated with the transfer of water will be permitted separately under appropriate
state and federal programs and their environmental impacts evaluated under separate
NCEPA documents.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer
services in the source basin around Badin Lake, nor it is it likely to significantly alter the
availability of water to the source basin to serve existing and projected land uses and meet
long-term water demands. The IBT is not expected to, when considered with other projected
water withdrawals from the reservoir system, cause significant cumulative elevation
changes in any of the project lakes, nor will water quality in any of the water bodies change
substantially. Minimum releases of water from the various reservoirs in the chain will not
change, even under severe drought conditions.
The project is not expected to change the existing pattern or rate of growth, use of land or
water, or change in land uses from what is currently expected in the source basin. No land
uses, private properties, public areas, recreational sites, archeological sites, historic
structures, or water-dependent structures will be flooded or drained with the transfer. The
project is not likely to induce, impede, or alter growth from what is currently planned. The
IBT is not likely to have any SCI to land uses or land resources in the source basin.
2.1.9 Fish and Wildlife Resources
2.1.9.1 Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman
Existing Environment.
Wildlife Habitat and Resources. The Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman study areas
contain multiple areas dedicated to wildlife. In addition to currently undisturbed privately
held lands, Latta Plantation, Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge, Lake Norman State Park, and
Catawba Game Lands provide undisturbed wildlife habitat.
While also providing recreational opportunities, Latta Plantation provides habitat to a
diversity of wildlife and includes a 218-acre Natural Heritage Site, Beatties Ford Basic
Forest. This forest exhibits characteristics and species common to the Basic Oak-Hickory
Forest and Piedmont Alluvial Forest natural community types (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
A Piedmont Prairie restoration area is also managed within Latta Plantation (Mecklenburg
County Parks and Recreation, 2005).
The Cowan’s Ford Wildlife Refuge, located on a peninsula of Mountain Island Lake, has
limited public access in an effort to preserve wildlife habitat. Here, the Duck Cove Natural
Heritage Site includes a community of Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Schafale and
Weakley, 1990), a natural community that is threatened in North Carolina.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-31
While mainly focused on active recreation activities such as hiking and picnicking, Lake
Norman State Park on the northeastern shore of the lake does provide some undeveloped
habitat for wildlife. In addition to the state park lands, 853 acres of the privately owned
Catawba Game Lands are located within the source basin along the lake’s northwestern
shore generally south of Balls Creek and north of Mountain Creek (Figure 2-7). Some 2
million acres of public and private lands in North Carolina are managed by the NC Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) for public hunting, trapping, and fishing, and are designated
collectively as Game Lands (WRC, 2002).
At least 35 species of mammals have been found in this area (DPR, 2002). Upland
communities are home to Virginia opossum, eastern cottontail, gray squirrel, red and gray
foxes, and white-tailed deer, as well as the eastern mole and several species of shrews and
mice. Muskrat and raccoon may be seen in the marshes along the creeks and lake.
Amphibians and reptiles are abundant and diverse. Frogs, turtles, and water snakes inhabit
wetlands along the creeks and the perimeter of the lake. Unusual species observed within
the nature preserves include bobcat, river otter, and mink.
Bird life in the area is typical of the Carolina Piedmont. Wild turkeys, Carolina chickadees,
cardinals, pine warblers, rufous-sided towhees, and bobwhite quails make their homes in
the uplands. Red-tailed hawks and other raptors such as osprey also may be seen near the
lake. The waters of Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman attract a variety of waterfowl.
The Mountain Island Lake Important Bird Area was designated by the National Audubon
Society because of the diversity of waterfowl using the area for the purposes of over-
wintering, migration (songbirds), breeding, and year-round habitat. Along both reservoirs,
mallards, wood ducks, teal, and other ducks, as well as geese, may be seen during certain
seasons. Wading birds, including great blue herons, green-backed herons, and egrets, may
be encountered along lake shallows in summer. Shorebirds rest in these areas during spring
and fall migrations.
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources. The study area contains important fisheries and
aquatic resources. Popular game fish in Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman include
crappie, bluegill, and yellow perch, as well as striped, largemouth, and white bass. A
smaller lake located in Lake Norman State Park is also known for good fishing. These lakes
also support high recreational use by boaters, water skiers, and swimmers as discussed in
the Land Use section.
According to WRC records, the Catawba River Basin contains 88 fishery species, not
including hybrids. Two species, highfin carpsucker and Carolina darter, are listed as Special
Concern by the State. One-fourth of the species (22) are considered game species by the
WRC. Other popular sport fish include several catfish and sucker species. Most fishing
effort by anglers is targeted at a limited number of species including trout, largemouth and
smallmouth bass, striped bass, white bass, walleye, crappie, and sunfish.
Fisheries management activities within the Catawba River Basin by the WRC include
monitoring the abundance of fish populations, establishing harvest and size limit
regulations, stocking fish, and manipulating habitat. Largemouth and smallmouth bass in
the basin are managed under the WRC's Black Bass Management Plan. Striped bass are
maintained in Lake Norman through annual stockings of fingerlings. Occasionally,
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-32
threadfin shad are stocked in the spring in the upper four lakes to boost forage fish densities
(WRC, 1998).
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats. Specific regulations exist at the state and federal
levels to protect endangered and threatened species and their habitats from impacts due to
public or private projects and land-disturbing activities. The primary law that protects
sensitive wildlife species is the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. Some of these
species may or may not be present in the specific 0.5-mile study area around Mountain
Island Lake and Lake Norman. Since the proposed IBT certificate does not involve the
construction of any specific facilities, a field survey was not performed to substantiate North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records. If needed, site-specific follow-up studies
will survey and address any potential rare and protected species or habitats.
Information obtained in 2004 from the NHP’s Natural Heritage Element Occurrence
(NHEO) and SNHA databases as supplied by CGIA was used to identify locations of rare
and endangered species populations and occurrences of exemplary or unique natural
ecosystems (terrestrial and palustrine) and special wildlife habitats in the study area.
Figure 2-7 illustrates the distribution of these areas and occurrences within the IBT study
area.
Within Latta Plantation, which is along Mountain Island Lake, two federally endangered
vascular plants, Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Michaux’s sumac (Rhus
michauxii), are present as well as one federal species of concern, Georgia aster
(Symphyotrichum georgianum). These populations are present within the park’s Piedmont
Prairie restoration area. Other populations of these rare plants are present within the
Mountain Island Lake source basin. In addition, the largest Mecklenburg County population
of the rare puttyroot orchid grows here.
One vertebrate of special concern to the state and two that are considered significantly rare
are known to exist near the Lake Norman study area. There are also three locations of
vascular plant populations near the Lake Norman study area. Two of these populations
have been destroyed and one is a significantly rare peripheral species that has a known
historic occurrence, and no data are available to indicate it has been destroyed. In addition
to these state-designated occurrences, there are three natural communities clustered around
Lake Norman State Park and one special animal habitat located just east of Cowan’s Ford
Dam near Ramsey Creek.
The NHP has also identified the following locally significant natural heritage areas within
the study area.
Beatties Ford Basic Forest – 189 acres
Catawba Wildflower Glen - 6
Kidd Road Upland Swamp – 59 acres
Mount Olive Church Basic Forest – 77 acres
Lake Norman Slopes and Shoreline – 285 acres
Lyle Creek Corridor – 3 acres
Lyle Creek Wetland – 17 acres
Mountain Island Lake Dam Rare Plant Sites – 33 acres
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-33
Direct Impacts. In total, there are eight rare natural communities, one special animal habitat,
two rare and one special concern vertebrate species, and populations of sensitive, federally
protected vascular plant species potentially existing in the source basin. A substantial
number of recreational fishery species also exist in the lakes within the source basin. No
construction is associated with this project, so direct impacts to rare communities or species
are not likely to occur. Construction activities, if needed, would be permitted separately.
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lake or stream-side habitat, including
aquatic and wetland plants, freshwater mussels, and fisheries in the source basin, could be
directly affected by water quality and quantity changes from transfers of water out of the
basin, if lake elevations or the volume or rate of flow between reservoirs changes dramatic-
ally. Such changes could lead to either flooding or draining of sensitive species or habitat
areas, or shifts in water quality, depending on how the hydrology in the system changes.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in
the source basin, the IBT project is not likely to have any significant direct impact to fish,
aquatic, wildlife, or sensitive resources within the study area.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT is not likely to affect the provision of water or
sewer services or other infrastructure in the source basins around Mountain Island Lake or
Lake Norman. The IBT will not cause significant cumulative lake elevation changes or water
quality impacts, beyond those impacts associated with other projected water withdrawals
from the reservoir system. The project will therefore not have any SCI to fish, aquatic or
terrestrial wildlife resources, or sensitive species in the Mountain Island Lake and Lake
Norman study areas.
2.1.9.2 High Rock Lake
Existing Environment.
Wildlife Habitat and Resources. An abundance of wildlife species use the lands around High
Rock Lake as a source of food and water, as well as for nesting and bathing. Animals such as
white-tailed deer, fox, gray squirrels, and chipmunks may be found in the mature timber
stands. Along the edge of the timber stands and in the fields, animals such as bobcats, red
and gray foxes, field mice, cotton rats, several species of reptiles, weasels, shrews, and moles
may be found.
Bald eagles, osprey, great blue heron, and several egret species have been observed to use
the shoreline and open waters of High Rock Lake, Tuckertown Reservoir, and Badin Lake
on a regular basis. Other birds using the shoreline area include the wild turkey, bobwhite
quail, finches, robins, grosbeaks, bluebirds, warblers, nuthatches, flycatchers, vireos, doves,
wrens, and chickadees. Various species of woodpeckers such as the red-headed, pileated,
downy, and red-bellied, as well as the flicker and yellow-bellied sapsucker, can both nest
and feed in the mature timber. Also nesting in the mature hardwoods and feeding in the
fields are owls, such as the barred, great horned, screech, and barn owls. Hawks are also
found nesting in the hardwoods and feeding in and around the edges of the open shoreline
area. The common hawk species found include the red-tail, red-shouldered, Coopers, and
sharp-shinned hawks (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Waterfowl in the High Rock Lake study area include such species as mallard, teal, wood
duck, black duck, and Canada goose. Wetlands located in the upper section of High Rock
Lake from west of I-85 to the large south bend in the reservoir are significant because of
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-34
their habitat value for waterfowl. These wetlands provide valuable foraging, nesting, and
roosting habitat to resident and migratory waterfowl. This area of the source basin probably
has the highest concentration of waterfowl in the study area (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources. The High Rock Lake study area provides important
fishing and boating opportunities to the area and is particularly known for its crappie and
largemouth bass fisheries. The lake is actively managed by the WRC as a warm water sport
fishery and is currently stocked with striped bass. Fish populations primarily consist of
sunfish (bluegill, redbreast, pumpkinseed, red ear, and green sunfish), largemouth bass,
striped bass, white and black crappie, yellow and white perch, catfish (eight species), shad
(gizzard and threadfin), carp, suckers, and minnows. Historical records show
approximately 31 species associated with High Rock Lake (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
The WRC considers the High Rock Lake natural shoreline important to the fisheries
resource, especially backwater areas and wetlands that are extremely important as fish
nursery and refuge areas. During development of the SMP, the WRC recommended that
Yadkin Inc. protect these valuable fish habitat areas and also suggested implementing and
maintaining a 100-foot vegetated buffer zone around the reservoir. The SMP requires a
100-foot forested setback for new subdivision lots, platted and recorded after July 1, 1999, as
a condition of eligibility for new piers or private access to project lands and waters across
the APGI-managed buffer, Appendix CD-4. In order to protect wetlands and areas of
aquatic vegetation in High Rock Lake, Yadkin Inc. has designated 119 miles of shoreline
(38 percent of the total shoreline) around the lake as Conservation Zone (Yadkin SMP, 1999).
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has collected some limited data that
describe the aquatic resources/macroinvertebrate communities in the tributaries of High
Rock Lake and Tuckertown Reservoir but not in the impoundments themselves. The most
recent collections were made in 1996 and 2001. The DWQ uses available macroinvertebrate
data to classify streams according to their level of impairment due to water pollution.
Classifications range from Poor to Excellent based on the number of taxa present in the
pollutant-intolerant groups Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tricoptera (EPT). Higher EPT
taxa richness is associated with better water quality (Yadkin-APGI, 2002). The
macroinvertebrate data record for Grants Creek, a tributary to High Rock Lake, supports a
classification of Fair, a decline from its quality rating of Good-Fair in 1996. The North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) was used to evaluate the fish communities in
streams. Classifications range from Poor to Excellent. The fish community monitoring on
Grants Creek in 2001 was classified as Good-Fair. It was not evaluated in 1996 (DWQ, 2002).
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOMER
IREDELL
RICHMON
Lake
Norman
Badin
Lake
High Rock
Lake
Dut
c
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
Iri
s
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
5052.5 Miles
Rocky
R i ver
Tuckertown
Reservoir
Rocky
River
WWTP
Mountain
Island Lake
Figure 2-7
Public Lands, Natural Heritage Element Occurrences,
and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Concord / Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Rocky River WWTP
Hydrology
Source Study Area
Receiving Basin Study Area
County Boundary
Significant Natural Heritage Area
Public and Private Game Lands
State/County Parks Natural Community
Natural Heritage
Element Occurrences
Vertebrate Animal
Invertebrate Animal
Special Animal Habitat
Vascular Plant
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-36
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats Figure 2-7 illustrates the distribution of SNHAs and
NHEOs within the IBT study area. The NHEO database identifies two state endangered
vertebrates, and two significantly rare vascular plants, that were historically listed, though
no recent data are available to indicate that they are potentially located in the High Rock
Lake study area. The vascular plants are clustered around I-85 at the northern end of the
lake, while the endangered animals are located in the lake. There are four significant natural
heritage areas in the High Rock study area. The Flat Swamp Gabro Forest, located in
Davidson County on the eastern shore just above the confluence of Flat Swamp Creek and
the lake, is considered an area of state significance and is the location of three NHEO natural
communities. High Rock Mountain, an area of regional significance, is located directly east
of the dam and south of Flat Swamp Creek. A NHEO natural community is located on
another SNHA, the Smith Grove Slopes, near Swearing Creek. Leonard Road Slopes is a
locally significant natural heritage area. There is also a special animal habitat area located on
APGI game lands along Crane Creek.
The bald eagle is listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened and is classified in
North Carolina as endangered. In the spring of 2001, three bald eagle nests were located,
two active and one inactive, in the study area. One active nest is located along the east
shoreline of High Rock Lake in the Smith Grove Slopes on a bluff between the mouths of
North Potts Creek and Swearing Creek (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Direct Impacts. In total, there are four SNHAs, eight rare natural communities, two
endangered vertebrate species, and two significantly rare sensitive vascular plant species
potentially existing in the High Rock Lake study area. In addition, a substantial number of
recreational fishery species exist in High Rock Lake.
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lake or stream-side habitat, including
aquatic and wetland plants, freshwater mussels, and fisheries in the source basin, could be
directly affected by water quality and quantity changes from transfers of water out of the
basin, if lake elevations or the volume or rate of flow between reservoirs changes dramatic-
ally. Such changes could lead to either flooding or draining of sensitive species or habitat
areas, or shifts in water quality, depending on how the hydrology in the system changes.
The drought that ended in 2002 created low-water conditions in numerous North Carolina
reservoirs. High Rock Lake on the Yadkin River experienced the most pronounced decrease
in water levels. The WRC notes that fish populations—particularly in highly productive
reservoirs such as High Rock Lake—are typically resilient to short-term (less than 1-year)
environmental changes. It is likely that many of the fish that were in the lake proper have
moved into the main river channel and should avoid being trapped in any isolated pools
created by the drawdown of High Rock Lake (WRC, 2002).
WRC fisheries biologists most recently conducted surveys on High Rock Lake in 2000 for
crappie and 2001 for largemouth bass. Both surveys indicated good population conditions
for crappie and bass. These surveys also indicated that reproduction has been fairly constant
during the past few years (WRC, 2002).
With no significant changes to lake elevation, lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in
the source basin due to the IBT, the proposed IBT is not likely to have any significant direct
impact to fish, aquatic, wildlife, or sensitive resources. The proposed IBT does not require
the construction of additional water intake structures in High Rock Lake. Any proposed
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-37
pumping stations and conveyance lines associated with implementing the transfer would be
permitted separately under appropriate state and federal programs and their fish, wildlife,
and sensitive species impacts evaluated under a separate NCEPA or NEPA process.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT transfer is not likely to affect the provision of
water or sewer services or other infrastructure in the source basin around High Rock Lake.
The project will not change the existing pattern or rate of growth expected in the source
basin. The IBT will not, when considered with other projected water withdrawals from the
reservoir system, cause significant cumulative lake elevation changes or water quality
impacts. The project will therefore not have any SCI to fish, aquatic or terrestrial wildlife
resources, or sensitive species in the source basin.
2.1.9.3 Tuckertown Reservoir
Existing Environment
Wildlife Habitat and Resources. A significant portion, 4,960 acres of the source basins total
14,625 acres or 34 percent, of the Tuckertown Reservoir study area is managed as state game
lands (Figure 2-7). While the majority of these lands are owned privately by APGI, 84 acres
of the Uwharrie State Game Lands are publicly owned by the U.S. Forest Service. The
Uwharrie State Game Lands are clustered to the east of Tuckertown Dam on the Davidson
and Montgomery County line. An abundance of wildlife species, similar to that of High
Rock Lake, use the Tuckertown Reservoir study area lands as a source of food and water, as
well as for nesting and bathing (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources. Tuckertown Reservoir is actively managed by the
WRC as a warm water sport fishery and is currently stocked with striped bass. Fish
populations primarily consist of sunfish (bluegill, redbreast, pumpkinseed, red ear, and
green sunfish), largemouth bass, striped bass, white and black crappie, yellow and white
perch, catfish (eight species), shad (gizzard and threadfin), carp, suckers, and minnows.
Historical records show approximately 36 species as associated with the Reservoir (Yadkin-
APGI, 2002). The SMP identified fairly extensive areas of aquatic vegetation and
submerged/emergent wetlands in many of the shallow coves and embayments of
Tuckertown Reservoir, which are important for water quality, fish cover, and fish nurseries.
As a result, 49 miles of the reservoir’s shoreline (65 percent of the total) has been designated
as Conservation Zone to protect the habitat.
Macroinvertebrate data from Lick and Cabin Creeks, tributaries to Tuckertown Reservoir,
support a bio-classification of Fair and Good-Fair, respectively. Cabin Creek drains an
agricultural and forested area while Lick Creek receives both urban runoff and a WWTP
discharge. Long-term data from Cabin Creek suggested no change in water quality based on
macroinvertebrate data, but long-term data from Lick Creek suggest a decline in water
quality (DENR, 1997). The NCIBI was used to evaluate the fish communities in streams.
Classifications range from Poor to Excellent. Lick Creek and Cabin Creek received ratings of
Good-Fair and Good, respectively in both 1996 and 2001 (DWQ, 2002).
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats. Figure 2-7 illustrates the distribution of SNHAs and
NHEOs within the IBT study area. The NHEO database identifies two threatened
vertebrates. There are also five occurrences of significantly rare vascular plants and one
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-38
historical account of a state endangered vascular plant. There are three significant natural
heritage areas:
Tuckertown Bluffs– 42 acres
Newsom Bluffs and Slopes – 21 acres
High Rock Mountain – 87 acres
Tuckertown Bluffs is located on the western shore of the reservoir, just south of Flat Creek,
while Newsom is located on the eastern side approximately 3 miles upstream of the dam.
Both SNHAs and the one natural community occurring north of Riles Creek in the source
basin are located on APGI game lands.
Direct Impacts. In total, there are three SNHAs, three natural communities, two threatened
vertebrate animal species, five significantly rare sensitive vascular plant species, and one
state endangered vascular plant potentially existing in the study area. In addition, a
substantial number of recreational fishery species exist in Tuckertown Reservoir.
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lake or stream-side habitat, including
aquatic and wetland plants, freshwater mussels, and fisheries in the source basin, could be
directly affected by water quality and quantity changes from transfers of water out of the
basin, if lake elevations or the volume or rate of flow between reservoirs changes
dramatically. Such changes could lead to either flooding or draining of sensitive species or
habitat areas, or shifts in water quality, depending on how the hydrology in the system
changes.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in
the source basin due to the IBT, the proposed IBT is not likely to have any significant direct
impact to fish, aquatic, wildlife, or sensitive resources. The proposed IBT does not require
the construction of additional water intake structures in the reservoir. Any proposed
pumping stations and conveyance lines associated with implementing the transfer will be
permitted separately under appropriate state and federal programs and their fish, wildlife,
and sensitive species impacts evaluated under a separate NCEPA or NEPA process.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT is not likely to affect the provision of water or
sewer services or other infrastructure in the source basin around Tuckertown Reservoir, nor
will it change the existing pattern or rate of growth. The IBT is not likely to, when
considered with other projected water withdrawals from the reservoir system, cause
significant cumulative lake elevation changes or water quality impacts. The project will
therefore not have any SCI to fish, aquatic or terrestrial wildlife resources, or sensitive
species in the source basin.
2.1.9.4 Badin Lake
Existing Environment. Wildlife Habitat and Resources. Areas encompassing 2,698 acres,
almost 15 percent of the source basin’s total 18,338 acres, are managed as state game lands
(Figure 2-7). APGI owns 592 acres, while 2,106 acres are Uwharrie State Game Lands, which
are publicly owned by the U.S. Forest Service. The Uwharrie State Game Lands are
predominantly clustered on the southeastern shore of the lake. APGI owns the islands and
the western shore downstream of the Tuckertown Reservoir dam. An abundance of wildlife
species, similar to those of High Rock Lake, use Badin Lake as a source of food and water, as
well as for nesting and bathing (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-39
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources. Badin Lake is actively managed by the WRC as a
warm water sport fishery and is currently stocked with striped bass. Fish populations
primarily consist of sunfish (bluegill, redbreast, pumpkinseed, red ear, and green sunfish),
largemouth bass, striped bass, white and black crappie, yellow and white perch, catfish
(eight species), shad (gizzard and threadfin), carp, suckers, and minnows. Historical records
show approximately 35 species associated with the reservoir (Yadkin-APGI, 2002). The SMP
identified fairly extensive areas of aquatic vegetation and submerged/emergent wetlands in
many of the shallow coves and embayments of Badin Lake, which are important for water
quality, fish cover, and fish nurseries. As a result, an area encompassing 54 miles of the
reservoir’s shoreline (47 percent of the total) has been designated as Conservation Zone to
protect the habitat.No macroinvertebrate data for tributaries to Badin Lake are available.
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats. Figure 2-7 illustrates the distribution of SNHAs and
NHEOs within the IBT study area. There are five SNHAs:
x East Badin Basic Forest – 32 acres
x Pee Dee River Bald Eagle Foraging Habitat – 831 acres
x Machine Branch Mafic Rock Area – 26 acres
x Uwharrie Mafic Rock Area 1– 17 acres
x Uwharrie Mafic Rock Area 2 – 16 acres
East Badin Basic Forest is located on the southernmost shore of the reservoir. The bald eagle
foraging habitat is near the Narrows Dam tailrace. The mafic areas are located within the
Uwharrie National Forest along the southeastern shore of Badin Lake.
Direct Impacts. In total, there are five SNHAs, seven natural communities, one endangered
and one special concern vertebrate animal species, and one threatened and one significantly
rare vascular plant species potentially existing in the Badin Lake study area. In addition, a
substantial number of recreational fishery species exist in the study area.
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lake or stream-side habitat, including
aquatic and wetland plants, freshwater mussels, and fisheries in the source basin, could be
directly affected by water quality and quantity changes from transfers of water out of the
basin, if lake elevations or the volume or rate of flow between reservoirs changes dramatic-
ally. Such changes could lead to either flooding or draining of sensitive species or habitat
areas, or shifts in water quality, depending on how the hydrology in the system changes.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in
the source basin due to the IBT, the proposed IBT is not likely to have any significant direct
impact to fish, aquatic, wildlife, or sensitive resources. The proposed IBT does not require
the construction of additional water intake structures in the lake. Any proposed pumping
stations and conveyance lines associated with implementing the transfer will be permitted
separately under appropriate state and federal programs and their fish, wildlife, and
sensitive species impacts evaluated under a separate NCEPA or NEPA process.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The IBT is not likely to affect the provision of water or
sewer services or other infrastructure in the source basin around Badin Lake, nor will it
change the existing pattern or rate of growth. The IBT is not likely to, when considered with
other projected water withdrawals from the reservoir system, cause significant cumulative
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-40
lake elevation changes or water quality impacts. The project will therefore not have any SCI
to fish, aquatic or terrestrial wildlife resources, or sensitive species in the source basin.
2.1.10 Water Resources/Water Quality
This section addresses water resources and water quality in the source basins. Water
resources topics include water supply classifications and water elevations within the
reservoirs.
Within both the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins, classified water supplies are present.
The DWQ identifies the extent of protected and critical areas (CAs) and stream
classifications for areas around water supplies in which development directly affects a water
supply intake. These classifications are as follows:
x Class WS-I: Waters protected as water supplies that are in natural and uninhabited
drainage basins, and by definition also classified as High Quality Water (HQW)
x Class WS-II: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in predominantly
undeveloped drainage basins, and by definition also classified as HQW
x Class WS-III: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in sparsely to
moderately developed drainage basins
x Class WS-IV: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally in moderately to
highly developed drainage basins
x Class WS-V: Waters protected as water supplies that are generally upstream of and
draining to Class WS-IV waters
2.1.10.1 Catawba River Basin
Existing Environment.
Consumptive Use in the Catawba River Basin The main factor affecting reservoir operations
analyzed by the CHEOPS model is water not returned to a reservoir as a result of
consumptive use. “Consumptive water use” for this evaluation refers to the difference
between the volume of water withdrawn by water users and the volume of water returned
to the river. The principal consumptive water users in the Catawba River Basin are
municipal water supply, industrial power plants (cooling water use), and irrigation and
agriculture. IBTs are part of the estimated consumptive use (Figure 2-8).
For the purposes of analyzing the impacts of the proposed IBT, the average 22 MGD IBT
was superimposed on top of the cumulative 2030 consumptive use and the impacts re-
evaluated. Figure 2-8 depicts the various types of consumptive use in the Catawba River
Basin and illustrates that IBT represents a fraction of water leaving the Catawba River Basin.
Mountain Island Lake is classified as WS-IV from Cowan’s Ford Dam to the water intake at
the River Bend Stream Station and as WS-IV, B from the water intake to Mountain Island
Dam. WS-IV waters have moderately to highly developed watersheds and the water
requires a high degree of treatment. Municipal and industrial point sources are allowed in
WS-IV waters. Waters classified as B waters are protected for recreation on an organized
basis. The major tributaries to Mountain Island Lake are Gar Creek and McDowell Creek.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-41
Mountain Island Lake has been classified as oligotrophic, meaning it lacks plant nutrients
and has an abundance of dissolved oxygen. Elevated nutrient concentrations have been
observed in the McDowell Creek arm of the lake from both the McDowell Creek WWTP
effluent and nonpoint source runoff.
Lake Norman is formed by Cowan’s Ford Dam and is located in Subbasin 030832. Its
primary tributaries include Mountain, Reeds, Cornelius, and Rocky Creeks. The water of
Lake Norman is used in two ways to provide electricity to the Carolina Piedmont: to power
the generators at Cowan’s Ford Hydroelectric Station and by Marshall Steam Station and
McGuire Nuclear Station to cool the steam that drives the turbines. This steam is then
condensed so it can be pumped back through the plants and used again (Duke Power, 2002).
The waters of Lake Norman are classified WS-IV CA from Lookout Shoals Dam to Lyle
Creek and WS-IV, B CA from Lyle Creek to Cowan’s Ford Dam (DWQ, 2000). According to
the DWQ (DENR, 1998), Lake Norman is oligotrophic and fish tissue samples analyzed from
the lake have not exceeded U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or EPA criteria. In
addition, results from other water quality parameters sampled in the lake indicate that the
lake water quality is good.
Lake Wylie. Lake Wylie is classified as WS-IV CA from Mountain Island Dam to I-85, WS-IV,
B CA from I-85 to the upstream side of the Paw Creek arm, and WS-V B from the Paw Creek
arm to the state line. The South Carolina portion of Lake Wylie has been classified as FW,
which is similar to the WS-V classification within North Carolina.
DWQ has classified Lake Wylie as eutrophic, indicating elevated biological productivity
related to an abundance of available nutrients; eutrophic lakes have the potential for water
quality problems associated with algal blooms. A similar classification was assigned by the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC, 1996).
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-42
Note: Consumptive use is measured at Lake Wateree
Water Remaining in Basin
93.7%
Power
3.0%
Industrial
0.1%
Agriculture
1.2%
Interbasin Transfer
0.5%Public Water Supply
1.5%
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Public Water Supply - Interbasin Transfer
Agriculture/Irrigation
Power
Water Remaining in Basin
Note: Consumptive uses are defined
as those uses that remove water from
the Catawba River system without
returning it to the basin.
FIGURE 2-8
2008 CATAWBA RIVER WATER USERS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-43
303(d) Listed Streams and TMDLs. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states
develop a list of waters that are not meeting water quality standards or that have impaired
uses. DWQ must prioritize these water bodies and prepare a management strategy or total
maximum daily load (TMDL). Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie are not
included on North Carolina’s 303(d) list for the Catawba River Basin (2004). However, Long
Creek, a tributary of Lake Wylie, is included on the list for turbidity. Catawba Creek, a
tributary to Lake Wylie, is included for biological impairment due to municipal point source
discharges, urban runoff, and stormwater. McDowell Creek, a tributary to Mountain Island
Lake, is included for biological impairment; sources of impairment are undetermined at this
time but are thought to relate to land development.
The Crowders Creek arm of Lake Wylie has been included on the South Carolina 303(d) list
due to fecal coliform violations related to urban runoff, stormwater, and point sources
(SCDEHC, 2004). Lake Wylie itself has had water quality standard violations for chlorophyll
a. With high nutrient concentrations, especially in the Crowders Creek cove of the reservoir,
DWQ and SCDEHC developed a nutrient management plan for Lake Wylie. In 1991, a
TMDL was adopted. Elevated dissolved oxygen levels have also been an issue, especially in
the Crowders Creek, Catawba Creek, and Allison Creek arms located along the western
edge of Lake Wylie. DWQ and SCDHEC will re-evaluate this TMDL to determine if
additional nutrient removal requirements are needed. In the interim, no new nutrient loads
from point sources will be allowed (DENR, 2004).
Direct Impacts. The direct impacts of the proposed IBT may be related to the use of Lake
Norman and Mountain Island Lake as water supplies and any potential water quality
impacts related to the IBT. Measures of these impacts can be examined using results of the
CHEOPS modeling analysis described above. For the purposes of analyzing the impacts of
the proposed IBT, the average 22 MGD IBT was superimposed on top of the cumulative
2038 consumptive use and the impacts re-evaluated. Figure 2-9 depicts the various types of
consumptive use in the Catawba River Basin and illustrates that the IBT represents only a
small fraction of water leaving the Catawba River Basin. The indicators used for the
CHEOPS analysis are lake elevation duration and reservoir outflow duration from Lake
Norman, Mountain Lake, and Lake Wylie.
The impact of the IBT on lake elevation has been estimated through several modeling
scenarios, which are shown in Figures 2-10 through 2-18. Lake elevations can be compared
to the critical elevation of each reservoir. Critical elevation is defined as the lake elevation
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-44
Note: Consumptive use is measured at Lake Wateree
Other Interbasin Transfers
1.2%
Public Water Supply
4.5%
Power
5.2%
Water Remaining in Basin
86.4%
Agriculture/Irrigation
1.7%Industrial
0.2%
Concord-Kannapolis IBT
0.8%
Industrial
Public Water Supply
Other Interbasin Transfers
Concord-Kannapolis IBT
Agriculture/Irrigation
Power
Water Remaining in Basin
Note: Consumptive uses are defined
as those uses that remove water from
the Catawba River system without
returning it to the basin.
FIGURE 2-9
2038 CATAWBA RIVER WATER CONSUMPTIVE USES
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-45
below which an operation, such as a municipal water intake or hydropower, is restricted.
Model run scenarios are defined in Section 2.1.3.2. The following observations can be made
based on these results:
x For all scenarios during all conditions, the impact of the IBT on lake level duration is so
small that it has no measurable affects on lake levels or stream flows (Figures 2-10
through 2-17). For example, Figure 2-10 depicts the duration of lake levels on Lake
Norman using the Mutual Gains 2008 scenario with and without the IBT. There is no
measurable difference in water surface elevation duration with and without the IBT.
Figure 2-11 presents the same situation at Lake Norman using the Mutual Gains 2035
scenario. The same conclusion can be drawn. While overall demands in the system are
different, there is no measurable difference in water surface elevation with and without
the IBT. Figures 2-12 through 2-17 present the 2008 and 2035 scenarios on the same
graphs.
During the drought of record, the model predicts that the proposed IBT would result in
earlier implementation of LIP Stage 2 restrictions, including moderate mandatory water use
restrictions. Figure 2-18 depicts Lake Norman elevations during the drought of record and
the associated LIP stages as they would be implemented.
x Because of the earlier restrictions on water use with the LIP, the model predicts that
further water use restrictions would not be required. In other words, no LIP Stage 3
restrictions are predicted by the model (Table 2-10).
x Without the proposed IBT, the model predicts that Stage 2 restrictions would be
implemented later and Stage 3, which includes more extreme water use restrictions,
would also be implemented (Table 2-10).
x Because of the earlier implementation of moderate LIP water restrictions, water levels
during the drought of record are actually predicted to be maintained at slightly higher
levels.
x While there are differences in elevation durations between the scenarios evaluated, these
differences are driven by either increased demands from all the users or changes in the
downstream flow requirements as being supported by NGOs during the FERC
relicensing process.
Since the IBT has no measurable affects on lake levels or stream flows in both Lake Norman
and Mountain Island Lake, there is no difference between the IBT being withdrawn from
Lake Norman versus Mountain Island Lake. This is also partially due to the system-wide
operational approach for the Catawba-Wateree Project.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-46
TABLE 2-10
LIP Stage Summary - 2035
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
2035 Demands without IBT 2035 Demands with IBT LIP
Stage
Number of Occurrences
(months)
Percent of
Time
Number of Occurrences
(months)
Percent of
Time
-1 573 64% 576 64%
0 294 33% 292 32%
1 22 2% 13 1%
2 7 <1% 19 2%
3 4 <1% 0 0%
4 0 0% 0 0%
Note: Data are for time period of 1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-47
Exceedance Curves of Cowan Ford (Lake Norman) Elevations
Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
Showing the Impacts of IBT quantity
748
750
752
754
756
758
760
762
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
MG 08
MG 08 CF
Crtitical Elevation
Mutual Gain 2008
Mutual Gains 2008Mutual Gains 2008
Critical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2008 w/ IBT
FIGURE 2-10
IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY ON LAKE NORMAN - 2008
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-48
Exceedance Curves of Cowan Ford (Lake Norman) Elevations
Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
Showing the Impacts of IBT quantity
748
750
752
754
756
758
760
762
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
MG 35
MG 35 CF
Crtitical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2008Mutual Gains 2035
Mutual Gains 2035
Critical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2035 w/ IBT
FIGURE 2-11
IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY ON LAKE NORMAN - 2035
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-49
FIGURE 2-12
IMPACTS OF IBT LOCATIONS ON LAKE NORMAN
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
0
Exceedance Curves of Cowan Ford (Lake Norman) Elevations
Between Jan 1, 1929 and Dec 31, 2003
Showing the Impacts of IBT Locations
748
750
752
754
756
758
760
762
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
Elevation (ft)
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 MI Critical Elevation
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-50
FIGURE 2-13
IMPACTS OF IBT LOCATIONS ON MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Exceedance Curves of Mountain Island Lake Elevations
Between Jan 1, 1929 and Dec 31, 2003
Showing the Impacts of IBT Locations
Elevation (ft)
640
642
644
646
648
650
652
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 MI Critical Elevation
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-51
Exceedance Curves of Mountain Island Lake Elevations
Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
to Show the Impacts of Increased Instream Flow requirements over IBT
640
642
644
646
648
650
652
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
MG 08 MG 35
MG 35 CF Crtitical Elevation
MG 35 NGO MG 35 CF NGO
Mutual Gains
2008
Mutual Gains 2035
w/ IBT
Mutual Gains 2035
NGOs
Mutual Gains
2035
Critical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2035 w/
IBT NGOs
FIGURE 2-14
IMPACTS OF INCREASED INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENT WITH IBT ON MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-52
Exceedance Curves of Lake Wylie Elevations
Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
to Show the Impacts of IBT Quantity
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
MG 08 MG 08 CF
MG 35 MG 35 CF
Crtitical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2008
Mutual Gains 2035
Critical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2008 w/ IBT
Mutual Gains 2035 w/ IBT
FIGURE 2-15
IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY ON LAKE WYLIE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-53
Exceedance Curves of Lake Wylie Elevations
Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
to Show the Impacts of IBT locations
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
MG 08 MG 35
MG 35 CF MG 35 MI
Crtitical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2008
Mutual Gains 2035 w/ IBT
Critical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2035
Mutual Gains 2035 w/ IBT
Mountain Island Lake
FIGURE 2-16
IMPACTS OF IBT LOCATIONS ON LAKE WYLIE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-54
Exceedance Curves of Lake Wylie Elevations
Between Jan 1,1929 and Dec 31, 2003
Showing the Impacts of increased instream flow requirments over IBT
554
556
558
560
562
564
566
568
570
572
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Exceedance
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
MG 08 MG 35
MG 35 CF Crtitical Elevation
MG 35 NGO MG 35 CF NGO
Mutual Gains 2008
Mutual Gains 2035 w/
IBT
Mutual Gains 2035 w/
NGOs
Mutual Gains 2035
Critical Elevation
Mutual Gains 2035 w/ IBT
Lake Norman
FIGURE 2-17
IMPACTS OF INCREASED INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENT WITH IBT ON LAKE WYLIE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-55
FIGURE 2-18
IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY ON ELEVATION ON LAKE NORMAN DURING DROUGHT OF RECORD
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
745
750
755
760
765
2/
2
5
/
0
0
4/
2
5
/
0
0
6/
2
5
/
0
0
8/
2
5
/
0
0
10
/
2
5
/
0
0
12
/
2
5
/
0
0
2/
2
5
/
0
1
4/
2
5
/
0
1
6/
2
5
/
0
1
8/
2
5
/
0
1
10
/
2
5
/
0
1
12
/
2
5
/
0
1
2/
2
5
/
0
2
4/
2
5
/
0
2
6/
2
5
/
0
2
8/
2
5
/
0
2
10
/
2
5
/
0
2
12
/
2
5
/
0
2
2/
2
5
/
0
3
4/
2
5
/
0
3
6/
2
5
/
0
3
8/
2
5
/
0
3
10
/
2
5
/
0
3
12
/
2
5
/
0
3
Time
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

F
T
2035 Demand
without IBT
2035 Demand with
IBT
Critical Elevation
St
a
g
e

1
St
a
g
e

2

w/

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

2

w
/
o

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

3

w
/
o

I
B
T
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-56
For lake outflow, the effects of the IBT are shown for outflows from Lake Norman and
Mountain Lake in Figures 2-19 to 2-24. The following observations can be made based on
these results:
x For all scenarios, the impact of the IBT on outflow duration is so small that it has no
measurable affect on lake levels or stream flows.
x While there are differences in outflow durations between the scenarios evaluated, these
differences are driven by either increased demands from all the users or changes in the
downstream flow requirements as being supported by NGOs during the FERC
relicensing process.
x Since the IBT has no measurable affects on lake levels are stream flows in both Lake
Norman and Mountain Island Lake, there is no difference between the IBT being
withdrawn from Lake Norman versus Mountain Island Lake. This is also partially due
to the system-wide operational approach for the Catawba-Wateree Project.
A major assumption of the modeling analysis is that Concord and Kannapolis would
conform to the requirements of the LIP developed for the Catawba FERC relicensing
consistent with other users. Concord and Kannapolis already have Water Shortage
Response Plans (Appendix CD-1), which include either voluntary or mandatory
conservation measures depending on the severity of the drought. It is expected that any IBT
certificate issued will require these plans to be modified consistent with the LIP.
There are no expected significant direct impacts in water quality in the source basin as the
result of the 22-MGD transfer of water from Lake Norman. Direct impacts to surface water
quality in the source basin are not expected because no major changes in the hydrology of
the system due to the increased transfer would occur. Since the hydrology of the system will
not be affected in a major way due to the proposed transfer, water quality is not likely to be
affected in Lake Norman or the downstream lakes. Lake Wylie, which is considered
impaired as a result of eutrophication, is primarily impaired in the South Fork and
Crowders Creek portions of the lake. Therefore, minor changes in hydrology of the lake
should not have an impact to water quality in the impaired portion of the lake. The
assimilative capacity of the surface waters in the source basin is not expected to change due
to the proposed transfer of water.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-57
Total Generation Plots for Cowan Ford (Lake Norman)
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Quantity
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 08 CF
FIGURE 2-19
TOTAL GENERATION PLOTS FOR COWAN FORD (LAKE NORMAN) TO COMPARE THE IMPACTS OF IBT QUANITY
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-58
Total Generation Plots Cowan Ford (Lake Norman)
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Locations
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 MI
FIGURE 2-20
TOTAL GENERATION PLOTS FOR COWAN FORD (LAKE NORMAN) TO COMPARE THE IMPACTS OF IBT QUANITY
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-59
Total Generation Plots Cowan Ford (Lake Norman)
to Compare the Impacts of Increased Instream Flows
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 NGO MG 35 CF NGO
FIGURE 2-21
TOTAL GENERATION PLOTS COWAN FORD (LAKE NORMAN) TO COMPARE THE IMPACTS OF INCREASED INSTREAM FLOWS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-60
Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Quantity
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 08 CF
FIGURE 2-22
TOTAL GENERATION PLOTS MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE TO COMPARE THE IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-61
Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Locations
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 MI
FIGURE 2-23
TOTAL GENERATION PLOTS MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE TO COMPARE THE IMPACTS OF IBT LOCATIONS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-62
Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake
to Compare the Impacts of Increased Instream Flows
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 NGO MG 35 CF NGO
FIGURE 2-24
TOTAL GENERATION PLOTS MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE TO COMPARE THE IMPACTS OF IBT LOCATIONS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-63
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. Secondary impacts associated with expanding pumping
facilities, existing WWTPs, raw water transmission lines, WTPs, and the finished
distribution system would be permitted separately under appropriate state and federal
programs. Their environmental impacts would therefore be evaluated under a parallel
NCEPA process.
The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer services in the Catawba River source
basin. The project will therefore not change the existing pattern or rate of growth expected
in the source basin. There are no expected SCI in the source basin directly related to the
transfer of water.
SCI to lake elevation and outflow from other reservoirs in the Catawba-Wateree project
were also evaluated as part of the modeling analysis included in Appendix CD-2. Modeling
analyses included all anticipated withdrawals, transfers, and consumptive uses. No
measurable impacts of the IBT on lake levels or outflows were identified on the other system
reservoirs, with the exception of impacts to Lake James during the drought of record. The
analysis in Appendix CD-2 and depicted in Figure 2-25 shows that with the proposed IBT,
the system operation would go to LIP Stage 2 nearly 7 months sooner than without the IBT.
However, the model then predicts that LIP Stage 3 is not required, as it is in the run without
the IBT. Stage 3 requires more extreme water use restrictions. Therefore, with the LIP, the
model showed that the IBT extended the duration but reduced the magnitude of the low
elevation condition in Lake James.
The model predicts that the 2035 water use scenario including the proposed IBT shows no
occurrences of LIP Stage 3 restrictions but an increased number of months of Stage 2
restrictions. LIP restriction level occurrences are summarized in Table 2-10. The total
numbers of months of Stages 1 through 3 are about the same, with and without the IBT.
Economic costs associated with the implementation of LIPs are beyond the scope of
assessment of this EIS. However, it can be noted that the economic benefits of avoiding the
implementation of Stage 3 water restrictions outweighs the costs associated with longer
periods of Stage 2 implementations. Also, longer periods of Stage 2 implementation help to
balance recreational impacts to water levels because water levels remain more constant than
with the implementation of Stage 2, especially in Lake James. This analysis shows the value
of the LIP in protecting all interests in the Catawba-Wateree Project.
2.1.10.2 Yadkin River Basin
Existing Environment.
High Rock Lake. The study area of the Yadkin River source basins begins with the water
resources of the Yadkin River south of its confluence with the South Yadkin River just
upstream of High Rock Lake. To examine the direct impacts to water quality and water
resources, the source basin study area was extended down to Blewett Falls Dam. The
following tributaries also form part of the water resources in the vicinity of High Rock Lake
source basin:
x Rowan County – Grants Creek, Crane Creek, Second Creek (near the City of Rockwell),
and Panther Creek
x Davidson County – Potts Creek, Swearing Creek, Abbotts Creek, and Flat Swamp Creek
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-64
FIGURE 2-25
IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY ON ELEVATION ON LAKE JAMES DURING DROUGHT OF RECORD
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
1,155
1,165
1,175
1,185
1,195
1,205
2/
2
5
/
0
0
4/
2
5
/
0
0
6/
2
5
/
0
0
8/
2
5
/
0
0
10
/
2
5
/
0
0
12
/
2
5
/
0
0
2/
2
5
/
0
1
4/
2
5
/
0
1
6/
2
5
/
0
1
8/
2
5
/
0
1
10
/
2
5
/
0
1
12
/
2
5
/
0
1
2/
2
5
/
0
2
4/
2
5
/
0
2
6/
2
5
/
0
2
8/
2
5
/
0
2
10
/
2
5
/
0
2
12
/
2
5
/
0
2
2/
2
5
/
0
3
4/
2
5
/
0
3
6/
2
5
/
0
3
8/
2
5
/
0
3
10
/
2
5
/
0
3
12
/
2
5
/
0
3
Time
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

F
T
2035 Demand
without IBT
2035 Demand with
IBT
Critical Elevation
St
a
g
e

1
St
a
g
e

2

w
/

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

2

w
/
o

I
B
T
St
a
g
e

3

w
/
o

I
B
T
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-65
Due to lack of measured data, Yadkin-APGI, Inc. has historically calculated streamflows
into High Rock Lake on a daily basis. The streamflows were computed using monitored
changes in reservoir elevation, flow releases through the powerhouse, and flow releases
through the spillway. The records reflect information determined based on the original
project reservoir storage elevation curve and the original turbine performance curves. The
average daily streamflow during the 1980 through 2000 time period ranged from a high of
approximately 11,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the spring to a low of less than 1,800 cfs
in the late fall/early winter. The average daily streamflow in the Yadkin River at High Rock
Lake was 4,435 cfs for the 1980 to 2000 time period (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
A flow duration curve of the Yadkin River at High Rock Lake has also been developed
using the High Rock Lake streamflow data. A flow duration curve is a graphical
representation of the flow rate in a river and the duration of time that the flow is equaled or
exceeded. The flow duration curve was developed using the available data from High Rock
Lake for the period of 1980 to 2000 and results in a median flow (exceeded 50 percent of the
time) at High Rock Lake during this time period of 3,020 cfs (Yadkin-APGI, 2002).
The only stream gage located in this portion of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River is located 3.3 miles
downstream of Blewett Falls Dam. According to the period of record established at this
gage, 90 percent of the flows exceed 1,644 cfs, and the average annual flow is 7,967 cfs.
The upper portion of High Rock Lake is classified as WS-V to Crane and Swearing Creeks.
The classification then changes to WS-IV, B to a point within 0.6 mile of the dam. At this
point, the classification becomes WS-IV, B, CA. Water quality in High Rock Lake is
considered fair and some degree of eutrophication has led to high algal productivity and
reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations (APGI, 2002).
Tuckertown Reservoir. Tuckertown Reservoir is a long, narrow impoundment covering an
area of 2,560 acres at full pool elevation (564.7 feet). It receives most of its water from High
Rock Lake and is classified as WS-IV, B, CA. Its main tributaries include Riles, Ellis, Flat,
Cabin, and Lick Creeks. According to the DWQ (2002), Tuckertown Reservoir is eutrophic
as evidenced by high surface dissolved oxygen and pH values along with secchi depths less
than 1 meter. Fish tissue samples from the lake have not exceeded FDA or EPA criteria. In
addition, results from other water quality parameters sampled in the lake indicate that the
lake water quality is good.
Badin Lake. Badin Lake is a hydroelectric power reservoir controlled by Yadkin, Inc. A
relatively broad body with two major arms, the lake covers an area of 5,355 acres at full pool
(509.8 feet). The area just below Tuckertown Dam, the main inflow source, is 175 feet deep,
which creates a notable thermocline. It is classified as WS-IV, B, CA. Municipal and
industrial point sources are allowed in WS-IV waters. Historically, the DWQ considered the
lake to be eutrophic, but based on data collected in 1990 and 1994, the State now considers
the lake to be mesotrophic. This shift in trophic status may be partially influenced by higher
levels of precipitation in the early 1990s. Although the lake is now considered mesotrophic,
algal blooms occur on the lake. In 2001, a nuisance blue-green algal bloom formed. In 2000
and 2001, fish kills involving striped bass, sunfish, and catfish were reported to the DWQ.
Fish tissue samples from the lake have not exceeded FDA or EPA criteria. Overall water
quality is considered better than in High Rock or Tuckertown Reservoirs (DWQ, 2002).
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-66
Falls Lake. Falls Lake is formed by Falls Lake Dam. Sampling data collected in 1994
indicated that the lake is oligotrophic. Falls Lake is classified as WS-IV, B to a point 0.5 mile
above its dam. At that point, the supplemental CA designation is added to the classification.
Lake Tillery. Lake Tillery is also a hydroelectric power lake, but it is owned by Carolina
Power and Light (CP&L, now Progress Energy). The lake is rated as mesotrophic and is
classified as WS-IV, B, CA.
Blewett Falls Dam. Blewett Falls Dam is the last Yadkin-Pee Dee chain lake in North
Carolina. It is also a hydroelectric power impoundment operated by Progress Energy. The
Rocky River enters the Pee Dee River between Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake. The
reservoir is considered eutrophic and has elevated surface dissolved oxygen and pH values
and low secchi depths. The reservoir has a short retention time, which has helped prevent
algal blooms. Blewett Falls Lake is rated as WS-V, B to Turkey Top Creek. At this location,
the classification changes to WS-IV, B to a point 0.8 mile downstream of Savannah Creek. At
this location, the supplemental CA designation is added.
303(d) Listed Streams. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states develop a
list of waters that are not meeting water quality standards or that have impaired uses. DWQ
must prioritize these water bodies and prepare a management strategy or TMDL. The 2002
list identifies Grants Creek, a tributary to the Yadkin River just upstream of High Rock Lake,
as impaired for fecal coliform, turbidity, and biological impairment, mainly due to
agriculture, construction, municipal point sources, and urban runoff. DWQ has assigned a
low priority to this stream. The 2002 list also includes a tributary to Second Creek. The Pee
Dee River, including Blewett Falls Lake, has been listed due to low dissolved oxygen values.
Lick Creek, a tributary to Tuckertown Reservoir, is also listed as impaired due to biological
impairment.
Direct Impacts. No significant direct impacts in water quality are expected in the source
basin as the result of the transfer of water from the Yadkin lakes. Direct impacts in surface
water quality in the source basin are not expected because no major changes in the
hydrology of the system due to the increased withdrawal would occur. The OASIS model
has been used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed transfer of up to 10 MGD (maximum
day) from various locations between High Rock Lake and Narrows Reservoir. Key
indicators used are lake level in High Rock, Tuckertown and Narrows Reservoirs and
stream flow at key locations upstream and downstream of these projects. At the
downstream reservoir on the system, Blewett Falls Lake, a large portion of the water will be
returned to the Pee Dee River through the Cabarrus County WWTP discharge into the
Rocky River.
The impact of the IBT on lake elevation has been estimated through several modeling
scenarios, which are shown in Figures 2-26 through 2-29. It should be noted that these
modeling analyses do not include implementation of the Draft Yadkin River Basin LIP.
These results clearly represent a worst case scenario. Lake elevations for the four IBT
scenarios are compared to the levels for “BaseCase2008” and “BaseCase2038” scenarios.
Model run scenarios are defined in Section 2.1.4.3. The following observations can be made
based on these results:
x For all scenarios, the impact of the IBT on lake level duration in High Rock Lake or
Narrows Reservoir is so small that it has no measurable affects on lake levels.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-67
x In Tuckertown Reservoir, the IBT can have up to a 6-inch impact on lake elevation about
20 percent of the time if all of the water is taken from this reservoir. There is little impact
of the transfer during extreme droughts and the effect on Tuckertown Reservoir levels is
not considered significant.
There are lesser effects on Tuckertown Reservoir levels for withdrawal scenarios involving
some or all of the water coming from other reservoirs, as shown in Figure 2-27. For stream
flow, there are no observable effects of the IBT on flow duration. Since stream flows are a
major factor in FERC relicensing, OASIS results were used to predict the effects of the IBT
scenarios on flows for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River near Rockingham, which is below all of the
reservoirs, and the location where flow targets may be established as part of the FERC
permit. Figure 2-29 shows that with increased withdrawals in the future, proposed
operating requirements will actually slightly increase flows under extreme conditions.
There are no expected significant direct impacts in water quality in the source basin as the
result of the 10 MGD transfer of water the basin. Direct impacts to surface water quality in
the source basin are not expected because no major changes in the hydrology of the system
due to the increased transfer would occur. Since the hydrology of the system will not be
affected in a major way due to the proposed transfer, water quality is not likely to be affect
in the reservoirs. The assimilative capacity of the surface waters in the source basin is not
expected to change due to the proposed transfer of water.
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts. The proposed transfer does not require the construction
of additional water intake structures. Secondary impacts associated with expanding
pumping facilities, existing WWTPs, raw water transmission lines, WTPs, and the finished
distribution system would be permitted separately under appropriate state and federal
programs. Their environmental impacts would therefore be evaluated under a parallel
NCEPA process.
The proposed transfer will not result in significant adverse impacts related to water
availability for other existing and future users of water in the source basin.
There would be no expected secondary impacts to water quality or water supply related to
growth due to the transfer of water from the source basin. No significant cumulative
impacts in the source basin directly related to the transfer of water are expected to occur.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-68
FIGURE 2-26
HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR – LAKE LEVELS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-69
FIGURE 2-27
TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR – LAKE LEVELS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-70
FIGURE 2-28
NARROWS (BADIN) RESERVOIR – LAKE LEVELS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-71
FIGURE 2-29
HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR – LAKE LEVELS
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-72
2.1.11 Air Quality
2.1.11.1 Existing Environment
A stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone was established by
EPA in 1997, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region has been struggling to meet this new
standard. The 0.08-parts-per-million (ppm) 8-hour average standard took effect in 1997. On
February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the new standard and directed EPA to
create an implementation plan. The State of North Carolina has recommended that a nine-
county area, including two counties in South Carolina, be designated as a non-attainment
area.
Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed when sunlight reacts with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). According to the NC Air Awareness
program, NOx is the limiting factor on the formation of ozone in North Carolina because of
the abundance of naturally occurring VOCs from trees, which cannot be controlled. In
North Carolina urban areas, more than 60 percent of NOx emissions are from automobiles.
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is used to report
ambient air quality conditions and includes five categories: good, moderate, unhealthful,
very unhealthful, and hazardous. According to the 2002 State of the Environment Report:
Mecklenburg County, NC (Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
[MCDEP], 2002), the overall ambient air quality has steadily improved since 1983. In 2001,
Mecklenburg County recorded the AQI as “good” on 51.5 percent of the days, and
“moderate” on 44.7 percent of the days. DENR’s web site provides AQI reports for the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg region (also includes counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan,
and Union, as well as York County in South Carolina). For 2001, this region recorded the
AQI as “good” on 64.3 percent and ”moderate” on 32.4 percent of the days. Mecklenburg
County had been a non-attainment area for ozone and carbon monoxide but was re-
designated in 1995 as an attainment area.
High Rock Lake, Tuckertown Reservoir, and Badin Lake. An AQI is used to report ambient air
quality conditions, and the AQI ranges from good, moderate, unhealthful, very unhealthful,
to hazardous. The DENR web site provides AQI reports for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
region (also includes counties of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan, Union, and York
County in South Carolina). In 2001, Rowan County recorded the AQI as “good” on
59.5 percent of the days, and “moderate” on another 29.8 percent of the days. For 2001, the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg region recorded an AQI as “good” on 64.3 percent and ”moderate”
on 32.4 percent of the days.
2.1.11.2 Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of water will
not affect air quality. Therefore, no direct air quality impacts would occur in the source
basin.
2.1.11.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Any change in lake elevations due to the IBT will not affect air quality. The IBT will also not
affect the provision of water, sewer, or other infrastructure elements in the project source
basin; therefore, no SCI to air quality would occur in the source basin.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-73
2.1.12 Groundwater Resources
2.1.12.1 Existing Environment
All five water sources are located in the physiographic region described as the Piedmont
region, which is between the Blue Ridge and the Coastal Plain regions. According to the
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the crystalline bedrock aquifer in the
Piedmont region has relatively little storage capacity, and the well yields tend to be low
(around 5 to 35 gal/min). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) indicates that the major
groundwater-related issues in North Carolina are (1) declining water levels (especially in
the Coastal Plain region), (2) contamination from hazardous wastes and landfill leachate,
and (3) effects of land use on water quality (especially the effects of urbanization). While
individuals and some community systems in the region use groundwater, it is not an
appropriate source for centralized use by the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis because of
insufficient yield and the costs associated with combining surface- and groundwater
resources.
2.1.12.2 Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of water is
not likely to affect groundwater resources. Groundwater recharge in North Carolina occurs
by precipitation in all inter-stream areas (areas except along streams and their adjoining
floodplains) (Heath, 1980),. Streams and floodplains are, under most conditions, discharge
areas for groundwater, so the project would have no expected direct impacts to
groundwater resources.
2.1.12.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
As described in the Direct Impacts section above, no significant changes in lake levels will
result from the IBT and the IBT will not affect groundwater resources. Thus, no significant
SCI to groundwater resources are expected to result from the project.
2.1.13 Noise Level
2.1.13.1 Existing Environment
Quiet is generally conducive to psychological and physiological well-being for humans. Just
as excessive noise has been documented to negatively affect human health and welfare,
elevated noise levels from human activities can disrupt the normal behavior patterns of
wildlife, interfering with migration, breeding, hunting, and predator avoidance.
The source basins currently exhibit the day-to-day normal noise conditions representative of
mainly forested and open land cover areas surrounding the four lakes. Seasonal use of the
lakes for recreational purposes contributes to increased noise sources, including watercraft
noise during the warmer months. Lake-front living continues to be popular; therefore,
construction of new subdivisions, homes, and commercial development surrounding the
lakes results in increased noise.
2.1.13.2 Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and therefore no increase in noise levels
from the IBT. The increased withdrawal of water will not affect noise levels in the source
basins, so no direct noise impacts would occur in the source basins.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-74
2.1.13.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
The IBT will not facilitate growth or recreational use in the source basins. Therefore, no
noise-related SCI will result from the proposed project.
2.1.14 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes
2.1.14.1 Existing Environment
Potential sources of toxic substances present in the source basins of the study area are
agriculture-related substances such as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Other common
toxic substances are used in the construction of homes and commercial buildings such as
glues, solvents, and paints. Typical household hazardous wastes would include oils,
cleaners, solvents, paints, herbicides, and fertilizers. Figure 2-30 shows the location of
hazardous waste disposal sites and concentrated livestock operations within the source
basins.
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman. There are no operating hazardous waste disposal
sites or concentrated livestock operations in the Mountain Island Lake or Lake Norman
study areas.
High Rock Lake. The only hazardous substance disposal site in the High Rock Lake study
area encompasses 6 acres owned by Fieldcrest Mills and located just upstream of the point
where I-85 crosses the lake. There are two concentrated livestock operations in the High
Rock Lake study area, each with a waste lagoon (DWQ, 2000). This includes a swine
operation on the south side of Cranes Creek with approximately 3,150 animals and a cattle
operation on the east side of Potts Creek with approximately 250 animals.
Tuckertown Reservoir. There are no operating hazardous waste disposal sites or
concentrated livestock operations in the Tuckertown Reservoir study area.
Badin Lake. There is one operating hazardous substance disposal site in the Badin Lake
study area—133 acres at the APGI Badin Works. No concentrated livestock operations are in
the basin.
MECKLENBURG
UNION ANSON
STANLY
CABARRUS
ROWAN
MONTGOMERY
IREDELL
RICHMOND
Charlotte
Concord
Huntersville
Mint Hill
Gastonia
Kannapolis
Salisbury
Albemarle
Mooresville
Matthews
Belmont Midland
Cornelius
Locust
Mount Holly
Lexington
Harrisburg
Stanfield
Davidson
Landis
Lowell
Statesville
Cramerton
Stallings
Spencer
Stanley
Badin
Ranlo
Norwood
CatawbaClaremont
Mount Gilead
Denton
Oakboro
Richfield
Troutman
Faith
Dallas
Conover
Rockwell
China Grove
Granite Quarry
Cleveland
UnionvilleIndian Trail
Gold Hill
East Spencer
McAdenville
New London
Mount Pleasant
Hemby Bridge
Newton
Spencer Mountain
Maiden
Lake
Norman
Badin
Lake
High Rock
Lake
Dutc
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
Iri
s
h

B
u
f
f
a
l
o

C
r
C
o
d
d
l
e

C
r
R
o
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r
C
o
l
d
w
a
t
e
r

C
r
5052.5 Miles
Figure 2-30
Concentrated Livestock Operations and
Hazardous Source Disposal Sites
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Rocky

R
i
v
e
r
Tuckertown
Reservoir
Rocky
River
WWTP
Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Concentrated Livestock Operation
Rocky River WWTP
Municipality
Legend
Major Road
County Boundary
Receiving Basin Study Area
Source Study Area
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-76
2.1.14.2 Direct Impacts
No construction would be associated with the IBT. Therefore, no potentially significant
impacts to the environment would result from releases of toxic substances or hazardous
wastes associated with the proposed IBT.
2.1.14.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Any change in lake elevations due to the IBT will not affect the potential release of toxic substances
or hazardous wastes; therefore, SCI are not expected.
2.1.15 Environmental Justice
2.1.15.1 Existing Conditions
Population information was obtained from the Census 2000 data prepared by the U.S.
Census Bureau and summarized by the North Carolina State Data Center at
www.census.state.nc.us. According to the information on that website, the State of North
Carolina as a whole has a median income of $39,184 and 12 percent of the state’s population
is below the poverty level.
Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman. In each of the counties surrounding Mountain Island
Lake and Lake Norman (Gaston, Lincoln, Catawba, Iredell, and Mecklenburg), the 2003
median incomes are close to or higher than the state’s median income, and there is a lower
percentage of people below the poverty line (NC State Data Center, 2003). Iredell County’s
median income for the black population was lower than the state average (95 percent of
state average); the median income for the black population in each of the other counties
exceeded the state median.
High Rock Lake. Rowan and Davidson Counties border High Rock Lake. These counties
compare reasonably well to state averages in terms of median income. In Rowan County,
the median income is approximately 96 percent of the state average, and the median income
among the black population is 97 percent of the state average. Ten percent of the county is
below the poverty line, compared to 12 percent throughout the state. Davidson County
shows similar numbers among the population as a whole. The median income is 99 percent
of the state average, and 10 percent of the population is below the poverty level. The black
population earns 88 percent of the state’s median income.
Tuckertown Reservoir. Rowan, Davidson, and Stanly Counties border Tuckertown Reservoir.
These counties compare reasonably well to state averages in terms of median income. In
Rowan County, the median income is approximately 96 percent of the state average, and the
median income among the black population is 97 percent of the state average. Ten percent
of the County is below the poverty line, compared to 12 percent throughout the state.
Davidson County shows similar numbers among the population as a whole. The median
income is 99 percent of the state average, and 10 percent of the population is below the
poverty level. The black population earns 88 percent of the state’s median income. Stanly
County has lower income than the other counties. The population as a whole earns
94 percent of the state’s median income, but the black population earns only 81 percent of
the state median. Approximately 10 percent of the population lives below the poverty level.
Badin Lake. Montgomery, Davidson, and Stanly Counties border Badin Lake. These counties
compare reasonably well to state averages in terms of median income. In Montgomery
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-77
County, the median income is approximately 84 percent of the state average, and the median
income among the black population is 80 percent of the state average. Fifteen percent of the
County is below the poverty line, compared to 12 percent throughout the state. Davidson
County shows similar numbers among the population as a whole. The median income is
99 percent of the state average, and 10 percent of the population is below the poverty level.
The black population earns 88 percent of the state’s median income. Stanly County has lower
income than the other counties. The population as a whole earns 94 percent of the state’s
median income, but the black population earns only 81 percent of the state median.
Approximately 10 percent of the population lives below the poverty level.
2.1.15.2 Direct Impacts
No construction would be associated with this project, so there would be no expected direct
environmental justice issues.
2.1.15.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
This IBT will not facilitate growth in the source basins. In addition, there will be no SCI to
water resources and other resources within the source basins. Thus, there are no
environmental justice issues within the source basins. The IBT will not disproportionately
affect a subset of the population more than any other.
2.1.16 Potential Impacts to Hydroelectric Projects
2.1.16.1 Catawba – Wateree Project
As indicated previously, the DWR has used an updated CHEOPS model to evaluate the
impacts of the proposed IBT on operations of the Catawba-Wateree Project. Details of the
analysis are included in Appendix CD-2, and the impacts of the IBT on lake elevation and
reservoir outflow are evaluated in Section 2. This section presents information regarding the
impact of the IBT on hydroelectric power generation. It is important to note that
maintaining minimum levels for power generation intakes is built into the LIP used for the
modeling analysis. Therefore, the main indicator to be considered is hydropower
generation. Figures 2-31 to 2-36 indicate the direct impacts of the IBT on power generation
from Cowan’s Ford Dam (Lake Norman) and the Mountain Island Lake Dam.
The following observations can be made based on these results:
x For all scenarios, the impact of the IBT on hydropower generation is so small that it has
no measurable affects on lake levels or stream flows.
x While there are differences in hydropower generation among the scenarios evaluated,
these differences are driven by either increased demands from all the users or changes in
the downstream flow requirements as being supported by NGOs during the FERC
relicensing process.
x Since the IBT has no measurable affects on lake levels are stream flows in both Lake
Norman and Mountain Island Lake, there is no difference between the IBT being
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-78
Total Generation Plots for Cowan Ford (Lake Norman)
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Quantity
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 08 CF
FIGURE 2-31
IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY ON HYDROPOWER GENERATION FOR LAKE NORMAN
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-79
Total Generation Plots Cowan Ford (Lake Norman)
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Locations
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 MI
FIGURE 2-32
IMPACTS OF IBT LOCATIONS ON HYDROPOWER GENERATION FOR LAKE NORMAN
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-80
Total Generation Plots Cowan Ford (Lake Norman)
to Compare the Impacts of Increased Instream Flows
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 NGO MG 35 CF NGO
FIGURE 2-33
IMPACTS OF IBT AND INCREASED INSTREAM FLOWS ON HYDROPOWER GENERATION FOR LAKE NORMAN
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-81
Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Quantity
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 19591964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Generation, MWh
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 08 CF
FIGURE 2-34
IMPACTS OF IBT QUANTITY ON HYDROPOWER GENERATION FOR MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-82
Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake
to Compare the Impacts of IBT Locations
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 MI
FIGURE 2-35
IMPACTS OF IBT LOCATIONS ON HYDROPOWER GENERATION FOR MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-83
Total Generation Plots Mountain Island Lake
to Compare the Impacts of Increased Instream Flows
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
1929 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Year
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

M
W
h
MG 08 MG 35 MG 35 CF MG 35 NGO MG 35 CF NGO
FIGURE 2-36
IMPACTS OF INCREASED INSTREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS WITH IBT ON HYDROPOWER GENERATION FOR MOUNTAIN ISLAND LAKE
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-84
x withdrawn from Lake Norman versus Mountain Island Lake. This is also partially due
to the system-wide operational approach for the Catawba-Wateree Project.
2.1.16.2 Yadkin River Projects
As indicated previously, the DWR has used the OASIS model to evaluate the impacts of the
proposed IBT on operations of the reservoirs on the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. Details of the
analysis are included in Appendix CD-3, and the impacts of the IBT on lake elevation and
reservoir outflow are evaluated previously in Section 2. This section presents information
regarding the impact of the IBT on hydroelectric power generation.
The indicator used for impact to hydropower generation in the OASIS model is total system
energy. Figure 2-37 shows the impacts of the 10 MGD from the four different transfer
scenarios evaluated. There is no discernable impact of the proposed IBT on hydropower
generation. It should also be noted that for withdrawals from either Tuckertown or Narrows
Reservoirs from the City of Albemarle’s intakes, APGI is compensated directly, based
existing contracts, for lost generation based on the amount withdrawn.
2.1.17 Potential Impacts to Water Supply Withdrawals
2.1.17.1 Catawba River Projects
As part of the FERC relicensing process, Duke Power has worked with water users in the
Catawba River Basin to develop updated water use projections for use in the CHEOPS
model. The LIP for the Catawba-Wateree Project used for the modeling analysis has built-in
operational schemes and water use restrictions to protect water supplies within the basin.
The purpose of the LIP is to establish procedures for reductions in water use during periods
of low inflow to the Catawba-Wateree Project. The LIP was developed on the basis that all
parties with interests in water quantity will share the responsibility to establish priorities
and to conserve the limited water supply.
This LIP provides trigger points and procedures for how the Catawba-Wateree Project will
be operated by the Licensee, as well as water withdrawal reduction measures and goals for
other water users during periods of low inflow (i.e., periods when not enough water flows
into the project reservoirs to meet the normal water demands while maintaining remaining
usable storage in the reservoir system at or above a seasonal target level).
The goal of the staged LIP is to take actions needed in the Catawba-Wateree River Basin to
delay the point at which the project’s available water storage inventory is fully depleted. No
human actions can guarantee that the Catawba-Wateree River Basin will never experience
operability limitations at water intake structures due to low reservoir levels or low
streamflows. However, the LIP is intended to provide additional time to allow precipitation
to restore streamflow, reservoir levels, and groundwater levels to normal ranges.
A good indicator of the potential impact of the IBT on water supply is the frequency of
occurrence of LIP stages, which reflect the severity of water use restrictions. Figure 2-38
shows a summary of LIP stages for the various modeling scenarios.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-85
FIGURE 2-37
ROCKINGHAM GAGE (02129000) - STREAMFLOW
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-86
The proposed IBT creates some change in the occurrence of LIP stages. With the IBT, the
frequency of reaching Stage 1 LIP levels decreases, while the frequency of Stage 2 LIP
increases. An example of this occurs in the drought of record in the 2001 to 2003 time frame.
The model predicts that Stage 2 LIP levels would be reached earlier in the year with the IBT.
However, since the model assumes system-wide water use and lake release reductions
when Stage 2 LIP levels are reached, the model then does not predict that Stage 3 level
would have been reached. Without the IBT, Stage 2 levels would have been reached later in
the year and Stage 3 levels would have been also later reached. Table 2-10 summarizes these
slight shifts in LIP stage occurrences. These LIP shifts are modest and demonstrate the
benefits of a coordinated LIP for reservoir operation.
2.1.17.2 Yadkin River Projects
As discussed in Section 2.1.16, no significant lake level changes will occur with the IBT in
the Yadkin River Basin. While there are other water supply withdrawals in this system, their
water intakes and withdrawals are not likely to be impacted by the maximum day 10 MGD
IBT.
2.2 Receiving Basin
The 399–square-mile study area within the receiving basin includes Cabarrus County, a
small portion of Rowan County, and the mainstem of the Rocky River to Norwood
(Figure 2-1). It encompasses existing and potential future sewer service areas for Concord
and Kannapolis, as well as Mount Pleasant and Harrisburg. With the exception of the far
northeast corner of Cabarrus County, the service areas are located entirely in the Rocky
River Subbasin of the Yadkin River Basin and include Coddle, Irish Buffalo, and Coldwater
Creeks.
This section describes the existing environment for the receiving basin as illustrated in
Figure 2-1, followed by a discussion of the direct impacts of the proposed IBT, if any, for the
area. SCI in the receiving basin are discussed in Section 3.
2.2.1 Wetlands
2.2.1.1 Existing Environment
Figure 2-4 and Table 2-11 illustrate the distribution of the approximately 3,769 acres of
wetlands located in the receiving basin study area as identified by NWI data excluding open
water wetlands, which account for 2,118 acres. A wetlands field delineation was not
performed for the receiving basin due to the large study area.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-87
FIGURE 2-38
LIP STAGES FOR ALL IBT QUANTITIES
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-88
TABLE 2-11
NWI Wetlands – Receiving Basin
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Description Acres Percent of Total
Forested wetlands 3411 91%
Non-tidal, emergent vegetation 133 4%
Non-tidal, scrub-shrub 221 6%
Other Wetlands 4 0%
Total Wetlands 3,769
The majority, 91 percent, of this wetland acreage represents forested wetlands, including
larger clusters of wetlands along Coddle Creek, Rocky River, and Clarke Creek in the
western quarter of Cabarrus County. Included in this acreage is the 37-acre Clarke Creek
Wetlands and Rookery site acquired by the Land Trust of Central North Carolina and
located near the western edge of Cabarrus County on Clarke Creek.
2.2.1.2 Direct Impacts
There is no construction proposed, and therefore no expected direct impacts to wetlands
possible, as a result of the IBT. In addition, the Rocky River Regional WWTP in the receiving
basin will not require expanded or amended National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits to process the increased wastewater expected in the basin as a
result of the IBT. Current NPDES permits for these facilities have complied with NCEPA
requirements. The IBT will therefore not significantly impact wetlands in the receiving
basin. Overall, the potential direct impacts of the IBT on wetlands in the receiving basin are
considered insignificant.
2.2.2 Land Use
2.2.2.1 Existing Environment
Urban/Developed Lands. The Cities of Concord and Kannapolis expect growth to occur both
as infill development and development of currently vacant parcels. Included for the City of
Concord are Figures 2-39 and 2-40 depicting vacant land and existing land uses as of March
2005. These maps are based on parcel boundaries; however, for clarity reasons the parcel
boundaries are not included in the figures. The majority of the City is already developed.
Vacant land exists along US 29, along the Irish Buffalo Creek corridor, near Speedway
Boulevard, and along I-85. Much of the vacant land along US 29 is owned by Philip Morris
and is expected to remain as open space. Growth is likely to occur along the I-85 corridor
and near Speedway Boulevard due to surrounding existing commercial and industrial land
uses that will spur further growth.
In the City of Kannapolis, approximately 7,200 acres of vacant land are currently available
for development. This vacant land does not include approximately 600 acres of vacant land
within undevelopable areas such as flood zones.
Both of the Cities have undertaken significant land use planning efforts beyond that
required by the state. Many factors contribute to this growth, including proximity to I-85,
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-89
the Charlotte metropolitan region, and the growing NASCAR industry in the area. The
availability of water, as facilitated by the IBT, is just one factor influencing the growth of the
area and land use changes.
The analysis of land cover using 1996 GIS data layers from the CGIA was utilized to
characterize lands in the receiving basin (Figure 2-5). At that time, there were a total of
13,167 acres of high- and low-intensity urban development, 147,278 acres of forest,
90,184 acres of agricultural cropland and pasture, and 2,592 acres of vacant shrubland in this
area.
Public Lands (Parks/Recreation Areas and Greenways). There are no state parks or recreation
areas within the study area. Cabarrus County has two parks: Frank Liske Park and North
Cabarrus Park. Both have recreational fields and trails. A portion of Frank Liske Park is
designated as a significant natural heritage area.
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land. According to the Soil and Water Conservation District
for Cabarrus County, 21 percent of the total soils in the County are considered suitable for
prime farmland.
The original forest communities of Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Union, and Stanly Counties are
being progressively cleared out for wood products, crop production, and residential and
industrial development. Wetland forests known to exist in the receiving basin are listed in
the Wetlands section.
Common trees found in these forest lands are beech, red maple, tuliptree, scarlet oak,
chestnut oak, white oak, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, southern red oak, Spanish oak, post
oak, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, Carolina shagbark hickory, red hickory, Virginia
pine, yellow-poplar, and sweetgum (Schafale and Weakley, 1990; USDA, 1980).
Undeveloped forest land currently occupies a total of approximately 147,278 acres or about
58 percent of the receiving basin study area. The distribution of forest land is presented in
Figure 2-5.
City of ConcordCity of Concord
Town of HarrisburgTown of Harrisburg
City of KannapolisCity of Kannapolis
I-8
5
SR

1
0
0
2
NC

7
3
CORB
A
N

A
V
US

H
W
Y

2
9
OLD

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

R
D
IN
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L

D
R
NC

H
W
Y

4
9
RO
C
K
YR
IV
E
R

R
D
ROBERTA

R
D
U
N
I
O
N
S
T
N
C

1
3
6
WEDDINGT
O
N

R
D
POPLAR

T
E
N
T

R
D
C
H
U
R
C
H

S
T
S
T
O
U
G
H

R
D
CO
N
C
O
R
D
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
WI
N
D
Y

R
D
G OLD

H
I
L
L
RD
ZION

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
DE
BO
Y

S
C
O
U
T

C
A
M
P

R
D
M
O
R
E
H
E
A
D

R
D
S
P
E
E
D
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
DE
R
I
T
A

R
D
OD
E
L
LS
C
H
O
O
L
R
D
PITT
S

S
C
H
O
O
L

R
D
WILSH
I
R
E

A
V
E
B
R
A
N
C
H
V
I
E
W

D
R

S
E
T
R
I
N
I
T
Y

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
C
RE
S
T
M
O
N
T

D
R
B
U
R
R
A
G
E

R
D

N
E
OL
D

C
H
AR
L
O
T
T
E

R
D
CO
N
C
O
R
D

M
I
L
L
S

B
L
V
D
CE NTER
G
R
O
V
E

R
D
LI
N
C
O
L
N

S
T
MAL
L

D
R

N
E
CO
X

M
I
L
L

R
D
PI
T
T
S

S
C
H
O
O
L

R
D
NC

1
3
6
²
021
Miles
Legend
Land Use
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL - APARTMENTS
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL - TOWNHOUSES
INSTITUTIONAL
SCHOOLS OR COLLEGES
CHURCHES
GOVERNMENT
AIRPORT
PARKS AND RECREATIONALAREAS
INDUSTRIAL
LANDFILL
AGRICULTURAL
SPEEDWAY RELATED
UTILITY
VACANT
MISC.
Streets
Lakes & Ponds
City of Concord
Cabarrus Co.
3/2005
Land Use
Figure 2-39
City of ConcordCity of Concord
Town of HarrisburgTown of Harrisburg
City of KannapolisCity of Kannapolis
I-8
5
SR

1
0
0
2
NC

7
3
CORB
A
N

A
V
US

H
W
Y

2
9
OLD

A
I
R
P
O
R
T

R
D
IN
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L

D
R
NC

H
W
Y

4
9
RO
C
K
YR
IV
E
R

R
D
ROBERTA

R
D
U
N
I
O
N

S
T
N
C

1
3
6
WEDDINGT
O
N

R
D
POPLAR

T
E
N
T

R
D
C
H
U
R
C
H

S
T
S
T
O
U
G
H

R
D
CO
N
C
O
R
D
PA
R
K
W
A
Y
WI
N
D
Y

R
D
G OLD

H
I
L
L
RD
ZION

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
DE
B
O
Y

S
C
O
U
T

C
A
M
P

R
D
M
O
R
E
H
E
A
D

R
D
S
P
E
E
D
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
DE
R
I
T
A

R
D
OD
E
L
LS
C
H
O
O
L
R
D
PITT
S

S
C
H
O
O
L

R
D
WILSH
I
R
E

A
V
E
B
R
A
N
C
H
V
I
E
W

D
R

S
E
T
R
I
N
I
T
Y

C
H
U
R
C
H

R
D
C
RE
S
T
M
O
N
T

D
R
B
U
R
R
A
G
E

R
D

N
E
OL
D

C
H
AR
L
O
T
T
E

R
D
CO
N
C
O
R
D

M
I
L
L
S

B
L
V
D
CE N TERG
R
O
V
E

R
D
LI
N
C
O
L
N

S
T
MAL
L

D
R

N
E
CO
X

M
I
L
L

R
D
PI
T
T
S

S
C
H
O
O
L

R
D
NC

1
3
6
²
021
Miles
3/2005
Vacant Land
Legend
Non Vacant Land
Vacant Land
Streets
Lakes & Ponds
City of Concord
Cabarrus Co.
Figure 2-40
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-92
Cultural Resources/Archeological and Historic Areas. Table 2-12 lists the 21 NRHP sites
located within the study area. This includes 7 historic districts and 14 NRHP structures,
totaling 1,761 acres, all located in Cabarrus County.
TABLE 2-12
National Register Historic Sites – Receiving Basin
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Site Name Acres Description
Barber-Scotia College Historic District 4 1867 Italianate style
Bost Mill Historic District 265 1811-1912 trading center
Cabarrus County Courthouse 2 1875 Victorian government architecture
Favoni (burned 1990) 10.65 1840 Greek Revival
First Congregational Church 1.3 1918-21 Gothic Revival
George Matthias Bernhardt 323 1850s Greek Revival plantation
John Bunyan Green Farm 371.2 1880 Italianate farmhouse
Lentz Hotel 0.5 1853 "bracketed mode"
McCurdy Log House 9.5 1773 log construction
Mill Hill 9 1821 Federal/Greek Revival
Mt Pleasant College Historic District 10 1852 vernacular frame/brick
Mt Pleasant Historic District 42 19th Century residential / business
North Union Street Historic District 131.4 Mid-19th Century residential
Odell-Locke-Randolph Cotton Mill 11.9 L-19th Century textile mill
R H Morrison House 27.7 E-19th Century Greek Revival
Reed Gold Mine (NHL) 350 19th Century
Rev John E Presley House 21.26 1837-51 Federal/Greek Revival
Rocky River Presbyterian Church 43 1839 Greco-Italianate
South Union Street Historic District 13.5 19th Century resident
Spears House 38.5 19th Century log dogtrot house
Stonewall Jackson Trail School Historic District 76.25 1909-30 Colonial Revival
The Upper Piedmont has had a rich history since being settled by Europeans in the early
1700s. Several important historic sites and architecturally significant buildings have been
identified and protected in the area. The Catawba River Basin and the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin contain many archeological sites that have been surveyed and several sites where
significant archeological resources have been found from many native groups that lived in
the region until 200 years ago. Due to the size of the project’s source and receiving basins,
and the fact that no construction will occur with the project, no archeological survey was
prepared for the project.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-93
2.2.2.2 Direct Impacts
Because no construction is planned with the IBT, and because significant changes in system
hydrology are not expected, the IBT is not expected to have any direct impacts to natural
communities, SNHAs, fisheries, or sensitive species and their habitats in the study area.
2.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources
2.2.3.1 Existing Environment
Wildlife Habitat and Resources. There are no state game lands within Cabarrus County.
However, a recent inventory completed in Cabarrus County revealed the presence of
several significant natural heritage areas, which are described in the Rare and Protected
Species and Habitats section below.
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources. Rocky River supports an important recreational
fishery and is known for its flathead catfish fishery. Other fish species caught include
sunfish, carp, crappie, and largemouth bass. Both hook and line fishing and grabbling
(taking fish by hand) are popular. Rocky River grabblers have reported catching flathead
catfish in the range of 30 to 60 pounds. Grabbling exposes citizens to prolonged contact with
the waters of the Rocky River.
The WRC’s Fisheries Management Plan for the basin identified fish species in the four basic
stream habitats in the watershed: coldwater, coolwater, warmwater of the Piedmont, and
warmwater of the Coastal Plain. The warmwater streams of the Piedmont, which are more
turbid and generally support fewer game fish than the coolwaters of the foothills, contain
various sunfish, catfish, minnows, and suckers.
Although seven mainstream reservoirs are located on the main corridor of the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River, none are located within the receiving basin. Many small lakes and thousands of
ponds are scattered throughout the basin. Impounded waters generally provide a
warmwater fishery consisting of largemouth bass, crappie, other sunfish, catfish, and
miscellaneous other species (WRC, March 1998).
Fishing pressure and angler use of the fishery resource vary within the basin. Heavy fishing
pressure and harvest occur on mainstream reservoirs. Stream fishing pressure is moderate
to heavy on coldwater and coolwater streams. Fishing pressure is light on most of the
warmwater streams where low populations of game fish occur due to persistent water
turbidity (WRC, March 1998). Nonpoint source pollution is a major contributor to water
quality problems in the Rocky River (DWQ, 1997).
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats. Figure 2-7 illustrates the distribution of SNHAs and
NHEOs within the IBT study area. Several additional rare animal species exist in the basin
that require pools or ponds in floodplains for all or part of their lifecycles, including rare
amphibians like the mole salamander, four-toed salamander, and bog turtle (WRC, March
1998; DWQ, 1997). Due to the programmatic nature of this document, specific locations and
species types within the precise boundaries of the receiving basin were not field-surveyed.
Site-specific field studies will be performed for follow-up NEPA documents.
One rare fish species, the Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), is listed in the Rocky River
drainage basin, and the central Piedmont population is classified as a state species of special
concern. The Carolina darter is found in the Clarke Creek drainage. Other reports of the
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-94
species have been made in Afton Run, Coddle Creek, Mill Creek, and Dutch Buffalo Creek
(NHP, 2002).
Several rare mussels have also been found in the study area. The eastern creekshell (Villosa
delumbis), a significantly rare species, has been found in Cabarrus County. In addition, the
Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), a federal and state species of concern, has been
found in Clarke, Jennie Wolf, Back/Fuda, and Dutch Buffalo Creeks. Finally, historic
occurrences of the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) have been noted in the area.
Of all the rare species potentially existing in the source basin, the one known to be present
in the receiving basin is Schweinitz’s sunflower. This is a federally listed endangered plant
species that is endemic to the upper Piedmont area of North Carolina. Thirty-five
populations are known—19 are centered around Charlotte, and the others are around Rock
Hill, South Carolina. This species occurs in relatively open habitats—early successional
fields, forest ecotonal margins, or forest clearings. It thrives in full sun but also grows in the
light shade of open stands of oak-pine-hickory. Schweinitz’s sunflower generally occurs in
moist to dry clay soils or soils that are clay-loams or sandy-clay loams with high gravel
content. Formerly, the species probably occurred in prairie-like habitats or oak savanna
maintained by fires set by lightning or Native Americans. Loss of this open habitat to fire
suppression and urbanization has resulted in the decline of the species and its reduction to
marginal and vulnerable sites such as roadsides, power line easements, and old pastures
(USFWS, 1994). There are four occurrences of Schweinitz’s sunflower in the study area
(NHP, 2002).
In total, there are eight vertebrate species of concern within the receiving basin. There are
five invertebrate animal occurrences: three state endangered, one significantly rare, and one
extirpated. There are a total 53 rare vascular plant species occurrences: 5 extirpated, 41
significantly rare, 2 threatened, and 5 state endangered. In addition, the following
significant natural heritage areas are found within the study area:
New Testament Baptist Church Knoll and Seep – 724 acres
Old Bell Mission Church – 69 acres
Suther’s Wet Prairie – 9 acres
Charity Church Hardwood Forest – 430 acres
Dutch Buffalo Creek Dam – 750 acres
Lower Butcher Branch Depression Swamps – 255 acres
Butcher Branch Forest – 73 acres
Lentz Harness Shop Road Upland Depression – 84 acres
Miami Church Hill Schweinitz’s Sunflower Site – 291 acres
Stephens Church Forest – 18 aces
Georgeville Schweinitz’s Sunflower Site – 5 acres
Reed Gold Mine Forests – 831 acres
Hartsville Road Mesic Forest – 16 acres
Everett Voncannon Property – 29 acres
Jesse Slagle Knoll - 55 acres
Blackwelder Hill Plant Site - 54 acres
Reedy Creek Knoll and Beaver Pond - 103 acres
Back Creek Gabbro Hill - 29 acres
Bellefont Church Oak-Hickory Forest - 128 acres
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-95
Concord Ring Dike/Jackson School Natural Area - 13 acres
Frank Liske Park - 183 acres
Rocky River Corridor - 158 acres
Clarke Creek Heron Rookery - 264 acres
Lake Howell - 1286 acres
Richardson Creek Slopes - 16 acres
Kinza Slate Bluffs - 52 acres
Rocky River/Morgans Bluff - 27 acres
Long Creek Slate Slopes – 47 acres
Goose Creek/Duck Creek Aquatic Habitat – 58 acres
2.2.3.2 Direct Impacts
The IBT itself will not have any expected direct impacts to natural communities, SNHAs,
fisheries, or sensitive species and their habitats in the study area since no construction is
planned with the IBT.
2.2.4 Water Quality/Water Resources
2.2.4.1 Existing Environment
Table 2-13 shows a list of major water resources within the receiving basin, including use
support ratings. Figure 1-3 depicts major water resources and the service areas of the
communities that will be served through the IBT.
TABLE 2-13
Receiving Basin Water Resources
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Stream Classification Use Support Rating
Located in
Service Area?
Rocky River C Impaired Yes
Coddle Creek to reservoir WS-II; HWQ Not rated Yes
Coddle Creek downstream of reservoir C Impaired Yes
Irish Buffalo Creek C Supporting Yes
Coldwater Creek C Supporting Yes
Dutch Buffalo Creek WS-II HQW; C Supporting No
Clarks Creek C Supporting Yes
Mallard Creek C Supporting & Not rated Yes
Source: DENR 2003
Upper Rocky River. The upper reach of the Rocky River and its tributaries in Subbasin
030711, including Mallard Creek, drain the populous area of eastern Mecklenburg County
and the southern portion of Iredell County. The Rocky River at SR 2420 has been sampled
on several occasions. The most recent data collected in 2001 resulted in a Fair
bioclassification. The upper reach of the Rocky River, above the confluence with Reedy
Creek, is classified Impaired. More detail related to impairment is discussed in Section
2.2.4.2.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-96
Mallard Creek is an urban stream, primarily in the service area for CMU, and receives the
discharge of the CMU/Mallard Creek WWTP. DWQ has no ambient monitoring stations on
Mallard Creek, but Mecklenburg County monitors two locations on Mallard Creek. The
DWQ has done biological monitoring on Mallard Creek, and the creek received Good/Fair
(in 1985) and Good (in 1996) biological ratings below the CMU/Mallard Creek WWTP
(DENR, 1997). In 2001, fisheries data were collected on Mallard Creek, which resulted in an
Excellent rating (DWQ, 2002).
Coddle Creek at NC 49 was sampled in 1996 and 2001 and received a Fair biological rating
for both years. Coddle Creek is considered impaired below Lake Howell. Fish data collected
in Reedy Creek resulted in a Good-Fair rating. The Reedy Creek site is downstream of an
area that has a number of package WWTPs.
Middle and Lower Rocky River. The Rocky River, below the confluence of Reedy Creek,
drains the watersheds of Irish Buffalo, Dutch Buffalo, Anderson, Muddy, Clear, Goose, and
Crooked Creeks. This section of the Rocky River receives the discharge of the Rocky River
Regional WWTP located just upstream of the confluence of the Rocky River and Irish
Buffalo Creek.
There is an ambient monitoring station (at U.S. 601) in this section of the Rocky River, near
Concord. This station monitors water quality conditions in this middle section of the river.
The ambient data indicate concentrations above the NC action levels for copper, iron, and
zinc. The same parameters have been reported in similar concentrations upstream, in the
Rocky River at NC SR 2420 near Davidson. These parameters are included as action levels as
opposed to standards in the State rules because total recoverable measurements for these
parameters are not necessarily indicative of toxicity-related problems associated with bio-
available fractions of the metals. A Fair water quality rating was assigned to this section of
the Rocky River based on data collected in 2001 (DWQ, 2002).
Ambient water quality sampling is also conducted along the tributaries to this section of the
Rocky River. Ambient water quality sampling in the Irish Buffalo Creek watershed has
revealed high phosphorus and turbidity levels. Also, fecal coliform bacteria levels are often
above water quality limits for primary recreation. Coldwater Creek, including Lake
Concord, is a tributary to Irish Buffalo Creek. Fecal coliform bacteria levels in Coldwater
Creek are also often above water quality limits for primary recreation. While the Irish
Buffalo Creek watershed is developed, most of the Coldwater Creek watershed is currently
rural. Dutch Buffalo Creek is listed as supporting in the Basinwide Plan (NC DWQ, 2003)
and is outside of the service area for the requested IBT.
Benthic data collected on Irish Buffalo, Coldwater, and Dutch Buffalo Creeks in 2001 all
resulted in Good-Fair water quality ratings. Fish data collected on these creeks resulted in a
Good rating for Irish Buffalo and Dutch Buffalo Creeks and a Good-Fair rating for
Coldwater Creek.
DWQ has also monitored Kannapolis Lake, Lake Concord, and Lake Fisher in this subbasin.
Kannapolis Lake is classified as WS-III and supplies drinking water to the City of
Kannapolis. Access to the lake is strictly controlled, and the watershed consists of
residential, agricultural, and forested land. The monitoring data indicate that the lake is
eutrophic. Lake Fisher is classified as WS-IV and supplies water to the City of Concord.
Access to the lake is strictly controlled, but the data indicate eutrophic conditions. Lake
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-97
Concord is used as a back-up water supply for the City of Concord and is classified as WS-
IV. The watershed is primarily urban, but there is a forested buffer surrounding the lake.
Monitoring data indicate the lake is eutrophic (DWQ, 2002). Lake Howell (Coddle Creek
Reservoir), which is classified as WS-II, HQW, CA, was not monitored by DWQ during the
last 5-year sampling period.
There are three continuous gauging stations on the mainstem of the Rocky River. They are
located above Irish Buffalo Creek (0212433550), near Stanfield (02124742), and at Norwood
(02126000). The two upstream stations have been in existence since April 2000, and the gage
at Norwood has been operating since 1930. The USGS developed a low flow report for the
Rocky River Basin, and the low flow statistics outlined in Table 2-14 were outlined in the
report (USGS, 2003). The average flow near Norwood is approximately 1,333 cfs.
TABLE 2-14
Low Flow Statistics at Gauging Stations in the Rocky River
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Site
Drainage Area
(sq mi) 7Q10 (cfs) 30Q2 (cfs)
Rocky River above Irish Buffalo Creek
(0212433550) 278 25.2 40.6
Rocky River near Stanfield (02124742) 628 42.3 103
Rocky River near Norwood (02126000) 1372 45.7 114
2.2.4.2 303(d) Listed Streams
According to North Carolina’s Draft 2004 303(d) list, Coddle Creek and the Rocky River
from its source to the mouth of Dutch Buffalo Creek are listed as Impaired. Coddle Creek is
listed based on impaired biological integrity, and has been listed since 1998. The Rocky
River also has been listed since 1998 for impaired biological integrity and water quality
standard violations for fecal coliform and turbidity. Fecal coliform bacteria levels are often
above water quality limits for primary recreation. Sources of impact include, but are not
limited to, urban runoff and storm sewers. EPA approved a fecal coliform TMDL for the
segment of river in Mecklenburg County in 2002.
2.2.4.3 Direct Impacts
The transfer of water will result in additional wastewater being discharged into the
receiving basin through the Rocky River Regional WWTP (existing). It is estimated that in
addition to the proposed IBT, previously approved IBTs and grandfathered amounts will be
added cumulatively to the Rocky River from this point source. No increase in the permitted
flow capacity at the treatment plant will be needed to accommodate the increased flows
from the IBT.
Direct impacts to water quality from the IBT originate from the operation of existing
wastewater treatment facilities. These NPDES permits were issued to protect instream water
quality. The permitting process for each of these facilities has complied with the NCEPA
requirements. DWQ’s anti-degradation policy requires that only the alternative that causes
the least amount of environmental damage can be permitted under the NPDES program.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-98
Direct impacts related to flooding and streambank erosion due to an increase in stream flow
are not expected to be significant. The permitted NPDES flows will include the proposed
IBT flow amounts. Average annual stream flow in the Rocky River, downstream from
Crooked Creek, is expected to increase from 663 cfs to approximately 690 cfs at permitted
flows, or about 4 percent. The expected increase is minor and well within the historical
stream flow variability based on a flow duration analysis conducted in conjunction with the
USGS Raleigh office.
Finally, the ratio of the additional wastewater (26 cfs) to the drainage area of the Rocky
River (683 square miles), below Crooked Creek, is less than 0.40 cfs per square mile. DWR
has asserted, based on studies conducted in Piedmont streams (DWR, 1987), that floodwater
carrying capacity, streambank erosion, and fish habitat need not be considered in detail for
NCEPA documentation or for NPDES permit decisions when the aforementioned ratio is
less than 0.40 cfs per square mile. In light of the above and the fact that current NPDES
permitted flows will accommodate the IBT, the proposed IBT is not expected to result in
significant flooding and/or additional streambank erosion from current levels. Therefore,
further analyses, such as stream flow modeling or estimates of streambank erosion, were not
considered necessary.
2.2.5 Air Quality
2.2.5.1 Existing Environment
An AQI is used to report ambient air quality conditions, and the AQI ranges from good,
moderate, unhealthful, very unhealthful, to hazardous. The DENR web site provides AQI
reports for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region (also includes counties of Cabarrus, Gaston,
Lincoln, Rowan, Union, and York County in South Carolina). In 2001, Cabarrus County
recorded the AQI as “good” on 62.5 percent of the days, and “moderate” on another
36.7 percent of the days. For 2001, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region recorded an AQI as
“good” on 64.3 percent and ”moderate” on 32.4 percent of the days.
However, a new, more stringent NAAQS for ozone was established by EPA in 1997, and the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg region has been struggling to meet this new standard. The new 0.08-
ppm 8-hour average standard took effect in 1997; on February 27, 2001, the U.S. Supreme
Court upheld the new standard, and directed EPA to create an implementation plan. The
State of North Carolina has recommended that a nine-county area, including two counties in
South Carolina, be designated as a non-attainment area.
Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed when sunlight reacts with VOCs and NOx.
According to the NC Air Awareness program, NOx is the limiting factor on the formation of
ozone in North Carolina because of the abundance of naturally occurring VOCs from trees,
which cannot be controlled. In NC urban areas, more than 60 percent of NOx emissions are
from automobiles.
2.2.5.2 Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the additional discharge to the Rocky
River Subbasin due to the IBT will not affect air quality. Thus, there are no expected direct
air quality impacts.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-99
2.2.6 Groundwater Resources
2.2.6.1 Existing Environment
Cabarrus County is located in the physiographic region described as the Piedmont region,
which is between the Blue Ridge and the Coastal Plain regions. According to the North
Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the crystalline bedrock aquifer in the Piedmont
region has relatively little storage capacity, and the well yields tend to be low (around 5 to
35 gal/min). The USGS indicates that the major groundwater-related issues in North
Carolina are (1) declining water levels (especially in the Coastal Plain region); (2) contam-
ination from hazardous wastes and landfill leachate; and (3) effects of land use on water
quality (especially the effects of urbanization). While groundwater is used by individuals
and some community systems in the receiving basin, it is not an appropriate source for
centralized use because of insufficient yield and the costs associated with combining
surface- and groundwater resources.
2.2.6.2 Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the additional discharges of water is
not likely to affect groundwater resources. According to Basic Elements of Ground-Water
Hydrology with References to Conditions in North Carolina (Heath, 1980), groundwater recharge
occurs by precipitation in all inter-stream areas (areas except along streams and their
adjoining floodplains). Streams and floodplains are, under most conditions, discharge areas
for groundwater and therefore no direct impacts to groundwater are expected. However,
according to the USGS (2003), there is a losing reach in the lower Rocky River where surface
water flows into groundwater. Since NPDES permits are written to protect water quality
standards, and no increase in permitted flow will be necessary to accommodate the IBT,
there are no expected direct impacts to groundwater associated with the project.
2.2.7 Noise Level
2.2.7.1 Existing Environment
Quiet is conducive to psychological and physiological well-being for humans. Just as
excessive noise has been documented to negatively affect human health and welfare,
elevated noise levels from human activities can disrupt the normal behavior patterns of
wildlife, interfering with migration, breeding, hunting, and predator avoidance.
The receiving basin currently exhibits the day-to-day normal noise conditions representative
of forested and open land cover areas. With the growth that is anticipated in the area, the
noise level will increase temporarily during construction of new subdivisions, homes, and
commercial development. A long-term increase in noise levels can be expected due to
increasing mobile source traffic.
2.2.7.2 Direct Impacts
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the additional discharge to the Rocky
River Subbasin due to the IBT will not affect noise levels. Therefore, no expected direct
impacts are expected due to noise.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-100
2.2.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes
2.2.8.1 Existing Environment
The North Carolina hazardous substance disposal site database identifies 20 sites totaling
1,487 acres in the receiving basin study area (Table 2-15 and Figure 2-39). Other common
toxic substances are used in the construction of homes and commercial buildings such as
glues, solvents, and paints. Typical household hazardous wastes would include oils,
cleaners, solvents, paints, herbicides, and fertilizers.
TABLE 2-15
Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites – Receiving Basin
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Company Acres
Hartsoe Brothers 1
Cannon Mills / Fieldcrest Plant #1 237
Cannon Mills Plant #1 277
Martin’s Battery Salvage, Inc. 8
Rainbow Drive Battery Site 1
S & S Metals Recycling 23
Cabarrus County Landfill 195
Reichhold Chemical 1
Concord Coal Gas Plant 2
Southern Latex Corp 5
Bypass 601 groundwater contamination 7
Love Battery Site 4
Brey McNar WWTP 25
Whites Gravel Pit 2
Harrisburg Battery 1
Mineral Research & Development Corp 107
Cabarrus Disposal Company, Inc 3
Concord Rocky River Regional WWTP 55
Carolina Solite Corp/Aquadale 524
Galvan Industries, Inc 8
In addition to agriculture-related hazardous substances such as fertilizers, weed control
chemicals, and pesticides, the receiving basin also includes two concentrated livestock
operations (Figure 2-8). A cattle operation with approximately 190 animals and 2 waste
lagoons is located on Reedy Creek in South Cabarrus County. There is also a 2,100-head
swine operation with one waste lagoon on Dutch Buffalo Creek south of Mount Pleasant.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 2-101
Further downstream, along the Union County side of the Rocky River, is an 1,100-head
swine operation with one waste lagoon.
Direct Impacts. There is no construction associated with the IBT. The additional discharge to
the Rocky River Subbasin due to the IBT could affect the release of toxic substances and
hazardous wastes; however, the NPDES permitted capacity is sufficient to accommodate the
IBT flows. The NPDES permit is written to protect water quality standards.
2.2.9 Environmental Justice
2.2.9.1 Existing Environment
Cabarrus County’s median income is approximately 117 percent of the state’s median
income. The median income of the black population is approximately 116 percent of the
state’s median. Approximately 7 percent of the population within Cabarrus County is below
the poverty level, compared to 10 percent of the state’s population.
2.2.9.2 Direct Impacts
No construction would be associated with the IBT, so no expected direct environmental
justice impacts would occur.
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 3-1
SECTION 3
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in the
Receiving Basin Study Area
This section provides an evaluation of the potential SCIs that may result from development
facilitated by the proposed action. Secondary impacts are expected to occur only in the
receiving basin portion of the study area. This section contains an overview of the potential
secondary impacts for the receiving basin. This evaluation considers the potential impacts of
growth associated with full build-out of the study area, including the development of water
and sewer lines, other public infrastructure projects, and private development. A build-out
scenario is being considered as a conservative assumption representing a “worst case”
scenario. The SCI of build-out are discussed because the IBT approval would be a step
toward future growth. It is important to recognize that the IBT is one of several projects
being implemented to accommodate growth in the service area.
This discussion is an analysis of the potential for urbanization to impact specific resources in
the receiving basin. Methods to mitigate these impacts are presented in Section 5.
Consultation with divisions within DENR and local agencies in Cabarrus County
contributed to the mitigation planning for this project.
3.1 Secondary Impacts
3.1.1 Installation of Water and Sewer Lines
Although many major water lines are in place, the provision of additional water supply may
induce demands for additional water distribution and municipal wastewater collection
systems in the receiving basin, given the following:
x Regional soils are often inappropriate for on-site septic systems.
x DWQ may not permit additional package treatment plants in the receiving basin study
area given the proximity to municipal treatment plants. In addition, smaller tributaries
may have zero flow under low flow conditions, although the USGS was unable to
develop a drainage area threshold where flows are likely zero (USGS, 2003).
x Constructing and operating water and sewer lines in the receiving basin (considered a
secondary impact of the IBT) may have direct environmental impacts. However, due to a
lack of specific details regarding these potential future projects at this time (including
their type, size, location, design, operational details, and information on the potential
environmental resources they may impact), this EIS cannot adequately address the
potential direct impacts of these future infrastructure projects. These impacts may or
may not be found to be significant, once adequate details are known. The direct impacts
will be assessed during the planning and environmental review phase of specific
projects.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 3-2
3.1.2 Growth in the Receiving Basin Study Area
Policies of Concord, Kannapolis, and other communities in Cabarrus County accommodate
managed growth within defined future utility service areas. In accordance with these
defined utility service areas, the northeastern portion of the county should remain relatively
rural with the exception of residential growth supported by private well and on-site
wastewater disposal systems. The regional transportation improvements planned for the
area, including the new I-485 outer loop, and local thoroughfare improvements, have been
collectively planned to accommodate growth. The availability of municipal water and sewer
services is a component of the planning for growth.
The absence of an IBT in Cabarrus County by itself will not likely impede growth in the
receiving basin study area. However, the subsequent installation and operation of water and
sewer lines as a secondary effect of the IBT, in combination with other infrastructure
projects, may change the pattern and rate of growth. Some urban development has occurred
in the receiving basin without public water and sewer services (through the installation of
private or community wells and on-site wastewater disposal systems or package treatment
plants). However, the provision of water and sewer systems may lead to more intense land
use types and densities than are currently possible on limited-capacity private systems.
Changes in land uses facilitated by the proposed IBT, combined with the cumulative effects
of road construction and development of other urban infrastructure and public services,
could create potentially significant direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to
environmental and human resources in the receiving basin, as discussed below.
The most significant secondary impact of the proposed IBT is predicted to be growth and
development in the underdeveloped and rural portions of southern and western Cabarrus
County in the receiving basin. Growth will not be facilitated in the river corridor portions of
the receiving basin study area within Mecklenburg, Union, and Stanly Counties, since those
areas will not receive any of the transferred water from the IBT. In addition, the north-
eastern portion of the County is not expected to grow at the rates predicted for other
portions of the County. Mount Pleasant and areas to the north, including the Dutch Buffalo
Creek watershed, are expected to remain rural. Impacts from growth will generally not be
felt in these rural areas. In addition to land use planning, this growth philosophy is
consistent with the WSACC 50-year infrastructure master plan.
3.1.2.1 Wetlands
As discussed in Section 2, wetland habitat found in the receiving basin includes 3,769 acres
of forested, non-tidal, emergent vegetation, non-tidal, scrub-shrub, and other wetland in
Cabarrus County. Full build-out of the area could have significant impacts to these
wetlands. Impacts could be direct, in terms of filling or draining of wetlands for
construction of roads, building sites, or utilities. For example, the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP), formerly the Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP), showed
that in Rocky River Subbasins 11 and 12 (within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin), there
were 19 acres of wetlands drained or filled due to development activities during 1996 and
1997 (WRP, 1998b). The acreage of wetlands impacted by growth may increase as the level
and intensity of land use changes increase in the basin.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 3-3
Urban development could also have significant secondary impacts to wetlands, in terms of
increased levels of silt and sediment from grading activities and the increasing amount of
nonpoint source pollutants entering the wetlands over the long term from upland
development activities and urban land uses.
Typical urban stormwater pollutants include sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus),
bacteria (fecal coliform as indicators), and potential toxicants (metals, oil and grease,
hydrocarbons, and pesticides). It is widely accepted that increased amounts of stormwater
runoff from elevated impervious surfaces in developed areas can cause erosion and collapse
of stream banks, leading to loss of riparian canopy trees and degraded stream habitat.
Under current rules, sites must comply with both federal and state 404 and 401 permitting
regulations. Under federal regulations, isolated wetlands are not considered jurisdictional.
While these waters are not offered protection under the Clean Water Act, state regulations
protect these waters. These wetlands may also be protected under other regulations, such as
local floodplain protection ordinances.
3.1.2.2 Land Use
Impacts of land use changes would result from converting more rural land to urban uses.
For example, the loss of forest and open shrub lands not only means a loss of timber
resources, but also the loss of wildlife habitat, which can have significant impacts to various
sensitive species in the area. Impacts of land use changes could also include degradation of
the resource through the introduction of incompatible urban land uses adjacent to the
resource. For example, the loss of farm income can occur when subdivisions are built
adjacent to farmland. Because the value of the farmland rises as urbanization of the area
occurs, farmers can be forced out of business due to increased property taxes. Land use
changes will affect currently agricultural areas. Comparing existing and future land use
maps, it is apparent that some land already cleared for agricultural use will be converted to
other uses.
3.1.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources
Further urbanization of the region may have significant secondary impacts to fish and
wildlife resources through the continued:
x Loss, fragmentation, or degradation of sensitive and non-sensitive aquatic and terrestrial
species and their habitats through conversion of land and wetland areas and filling or
piping of streams for residential, business, or public facility uses.
x Degradation of water quality and negative impacts to aquatic resources, fisheries, and
wetlands through increasing erosion and sedimentation from construction activities;
changed hydrology from increased impervious surfaces; and increased stormwater
runoff containing high levels of nonpoint source pollutants.
x Degradation of air resources through increased automobile usage and traffic congestion
related to urban sprawl.
x Loss of species diversity through the combined impacts listed above.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 3-4
Both the water quality and sensitive species aquatic habitat in the receiving subbasins could
be significantly impacted without protective measures in place. As urban land uses replace
rural land uses in the receiving basin study area, increases in impervious cover and water-
shed hydrology occur. These changes lead to increased sedimentation and can deliver more
stormwater pollutants to the system, reduce the stability of stream banks, and cause other
channel modifications. The Federally endangered status of the Carolina heelsplitter may
have been caused in part by sedimentation and erosion (Fridell, 1997). While this species
does not exist in the receiving basin, it is found downstream in Goose Creek, a tributary to
the Rocky River in Union County. The Recovery Plan for this species, prepared by USFWS
(Fridell, 1997) lists the Rocky River as potential habitat. This species is unlikely to be
released in the Rocky River, but its fish host during larval stages may occur within the
Rocky River. Other rare mussel species, including the state-listed Eastern creekshell and
Federal Species of Concern Carolina creekshell, are present within Cabarrus County and
could be impacted due to habitat degradation if adequate mitigation is not in place.
Further loss of terrestrial natural communities to urban development is a concern, since
many of the threatened or endangered species in the basin are vascular plant species living
in marginal habitats such as the Schweinitz’s sunflower (USFWS, 1994, 1997). A mainten-
ance plan for Schweinitz’s sunflower populations along NC Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) rights-of-way is in place to promote continued existence of the species along
roadside marginal areas.
Impacts to terrestrial natural resources such as forests and wildlife habitats will be limited
by the open space requirements set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Based on development densities, subdivisions must set aside from 8 percent (where
densities are less than 2 dwellings per acre) to 30 percent of their total sizes within cluster
developments. These values are above and beyond the setbacks required for floodway
areas, wetlands, and open water. In both cases, vacant land within flood zones will not be
developed. Clustering development will preserve larger tracts of open space, limit habitat
fragmentation, provide wildlife corridors, and present recreational opportunities.
3.1.2.4 Water Quality/Water Resources
Dense urban development from full build-out of the receiving basin may continue a
downward trend for water quality in the receiving basin. Potentially significant secondary
impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat in areas adjacent to and downstream of the
receiving basin area may occur with full urbanization.
Short-term declines in water quality from installation of sewer and water lines, public
facility construction projects, and long-term declines in water quality from land use changes
may have significant impacts to water quality and subsequent impacts to aquatic habitat,
wetlands, and sensitive aquatic and amphibian species in the receiving basin.
Changes in land use have a major effect on both the quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff. Urbanization and land use development, if not properly planned and managed, can
dramatically alter the natural hydrology and riparian buffers of an area. Impervious
surfaces increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. These changes lead to more
frequent and severe flooding and also to degradation of water quality from the various
stormwater pollutants that wash off impervious areas during rain events (e.g., sediments,
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 3-5
nutrients, pathogen-indicators). As imperviousness increases, the more impacted surface
waters become from pollution and flooding. The cumulative effects of stormwater runoff are
evident in the frequent correlation between the location of a stream and its water quality,
where urban streams overall have poorer water quality than rural streams.
A positive secondary impact of the IBT and the construction of regional public water and
wastewater collection systems in the receiving basin would be the potential elimination of
privately owned package treatment plants. Potential reductions of discharges into low flow
streams from existing public WWTPs, adequate maintenance of sewer lines to prevent
overflows, and public enforcement actions on failing septic systems would protect surface
waters from discharges of wastewater in the study area.
3.1.2.5 Air Quality
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg region has been struggling to comply with the new ozone
standard of 0.08 ppm. Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed when sunlight reacts
with VOCs and NOx.According to the NC Air Awareness program, NOx is the limiting
factor on the formation of ozone in North Carolina because of the abundance of naturally
occurring VOCs from trees, which cannot be controlled. In NC urban areas, more than
60 percent of NOx emissions are from automobiles.As growth occurs within the County,
traffic volumes will increase, and NOx emissions will likely increase. This may lead to more
ozone pollution and ozone action days.
3.1.2.6 Groundwater Resources
Development of most urban areas has followed the construction of major roads. These roads
facilitate the installation of water supply systems from municipal sources. This is expected
to be the case during development of the receiving basin study area. The increased roads,
houses, and other infrastructure will increase the imperviousness in the receiving basin
study area.
Land use activities and growth in the receiving basin could impact groundwater quality by
introducing toxic contaminants into or onto the soil, where they can seep into the
groundwater. Such contamination can ruin drinking water wells for communities and
individual homes. Potential sources of groundwater contamination include solid waste
disposal sites, storage or use of hazardous substances, poorly designed or maintained septic
systems, accidental spills, and leaking underground storage tanks.
As more of the area is served by centralized water and wastewater services, a significant
number of septic tank/ground absorption systems serving residences would be eliminated.
This would result in a beneficial secondary impact to groundwater in the study area by
reducing the public health risk of groundwater contamination in the service area from
leaking or failing septic tanks.
3.1.2.7 Noise Level
The predicted full urbanization and build-out of the project service area would produce
greater amounts of noise from greater density of land uses, more people living in the study
area, more businesses and industries operating in the area, and a significant increase in the
number of vehicles using local roads and highways. As development occurs with the
provision of sewers in the service area, existing residential developments, once isolated in
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 3-6
the countryside, would be joined by additional subdivision developments in adjacent areas.
Businesses and industries would move into the area also, potentially bringing elevated noise
levels to existing residential areas. The continued growth and development of the study area
would significantly impact the community noise levels through the introduction of
additional domestic and commercial traffic and intensification of industry. Urbanization
would also increase the base level of noise in the receiving basin, potentially impacting
wildlife behavior.
3.1.2.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes
As urbanization continues in the receiving basin, the potential for release of toxic substances
from residential and commercial sources increases. These substances, if improperly
disposed of, could have adverse impacts to the environment by entering the groundwater
system through landfill leachate or entering the sewer system and reaching the WWTPs.
As the amount of traffic and urban uses in the receiving basin increase, stormwater runoff
will contain increasing levels of water pollutants, some of them toxic. Typical urban
stormwater pollutants include sediment and silt, nitrogen and phosphorus, oils and greases,
rubber deposits, toxic chemicals, pesticides and herbicides, and road salts. Unless contained
and treated before entering into surface waters, this urban stormwater can significantly
impact the water quality and sensitive species living within the receiving basin.
The long-term impact of new toxic discharges to the surface- and groundwaters from urban
stormwater, landfill leachate, and accidental and/or intentional spill of household and
industrial chemicals in the receiving basin would likely lead to declines in water quality.
This could contribute to the potential loss of wildlife, and potentially the elimination of the
existing endangered species in the subbasin.
3.2 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts related to growth are expected to be essentially the same as those
identified as secondary impacts in the previous section. Full urbanization of portions of
Cabarrus County may cumulatively cause degradation and loss of certain wetlands, forest
resources, prime agricultural land, sensitive wildlife habitat, and archeological resources.
Conversion of these land uses and the resultant urban development activities that normally
accompany these changes in the receiving basin may cumulatively impact water quality and
aquatic habitat adjacent to and downstream of this urbanizing area. Streams, lakes, and
other surface waters in Cabarrus County may be impacted by the cumulative effect of urban
nonpoint source pollutants and hydrologic modification. Increased levels of silt, sediment,
and other nonpoint source pollutants entering surface waters in the service area from
development activities and urban land uses pose a long-term threat to the natural system.
Long-term declines in water quality from ongoing nonpoint pollution and urban
stormwater can have significant impacts to aquatic habitat, wetlands, and sensitive aquatic
and amphibian species in urbanizing areas. According to USFWS studies, such impacts have
historically occurred in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area as a result of urbanization, and may
have led to the decline of sensitive aquatic species (USFWS, 1997; Keferl and Shelley, 1988).
In general, unless stormwater is properly managed, and wetlands and stream buffers are
protected, erosion and urban stormwater could cause significant cumulative impacts to the
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 3-7
water quality and/or the sensitive species living within the service area and in downstream
environments (USFWS, 1997; Keferl and Shelley, 1988).
As land uses change and open spaces are developed and cut off from other open areas, fish
and wildlife habitat will be lost and fragmented, and species diversity potentially dimin-
ished. Loss of terrestrial natural communities to urban development is a particular concern
for the sensitive vascular plant species living on marginal habitats (such as the Schweinitz’s
sunflower) in the receiving basin (USFWS, 1994). Sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species
and their habitats may be lost to development or may be degraded over time by the
negative impacts of urban uses in close proximity, especially as a result of degradation of
water and air resources. Both the water quality and sensitive species habitat in the receiving
subbasins may be significantly impacted through the increase in stormwater, increased
sedimentation and erosion, loss of stream banks, and increased amount of nonpoint source
pollutants entering the surface waters from urban land uses (USFWS, 1997).
Public and recreational lands and waters could receive additional use from an increased
population, creating stress on wildlife populations that are trying to occupy the few natural
areas remaining. Overall, the project study area would evolve from a fairly quiet, rural area
to an urban and suburban area, with greater numbers of noise sources combining
cumulatively to raise the base exterior noise level in the area. The cumulative effect of lawn
mowers, leaf blowers, barking dogs, etc., will rise accordingly.
Urbanization of the area would result in a loss of acres of prime agricultural and forestland.
Stormwater runoff may increase, causing stream bank erosion and increased frequency and
severity of flooding damage to public and private properties. Archeological and historical
sites may be lost to development activities. The additional vehicle miles traveled due to
increased population growth will likely result in higher concentrations of ozone formed
during the hot summer months. Urbanization in high-growth areas like the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg region has in the past contributed to a decrease in air quality, and this trend is
likely to continue as a result of the proposed project.
A potentially negative impact to groundwater availability is the reduced infiltration
capacity of the soil due to increased impervious areas. This change would be a cumulative
impact of full build-out of the service area, thus affecting the recharge capacity of the
groundwater storage areas. Land use activities and growth could also impact groundwater
quality by introducing toxic contaminants in recharge areas. The long-term impact of new
toxic discharges to the surface- and groundwaters from urban stormwater, landfill leachate,
and accidental and/or intentional spill of household and industrial chemicals in the
receiving basin could lead to declines in water quality. This could contribute to the potential
loss of wildlife, and potentially the elimination of the existing endangered species in the
subbasin.
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-1
SECTION 4
Alternatives Analysis
4.1 Introduction
The Concord and Kannapolis water and sanitary sewer services areas are located entirely in
the Rocky River Subbasin of the Yadkin River Basin. This location is almost equidistant to
the two major rivers that are potentially major sources of water supply for this region of
North Carolina--the Catawba River and the Yadkin-Pee Dee River. The Rocky River flows
eastward into the Yadkin River between Lake Tillery and Blewett Falls Lake.
Both of these rivers are a potential source for eliminating the water supply deficit. Both raw
water and finished water alternatives have been identified to address the projected 22-MGD
(based on ADD) shortfall. Alternatives for additional raw water could replenish the existing
reservoirs in Cabarrus County or be taken directly to the WTPs for treatment.
Finished water alternatives will require meeting daily fluctuations of peak demands of the
distribution systems. Table 3-6 of the Cabarrus County Water and Wastewater System 2002
Master Plan (Black & Veatch, 2002) indicates historical maximum day factors between 1995
and 1999 range from as low as 1.21 to a high of 2.2. For master planning purposes, a
maximum day factor of 1.6 was used in the 2002 Master Plan. To be consistent with the 2002
Master Plan, a maximum day peak factor of 1.6 is used for finished water alternatives in this
analysis. Therefore, the amount of IBT required for finished water alternatives is 36 MGD on
a maximum day basis (22 MGD times 1.6). Alternatives with a combination of finished and
raw water sources are adjusted accordingly to the amount of finished water and raw water
transferred.
4.1.1 Alternative 1 – Lake Norman/Catawba
Alternative 1 requires the development of a water supply contract with CMU which would
be for at least 10 MGD and up to 36 MGD of finished water. It would also be necessary001 to
fund capacity improvements to the CMU water system. If all of the water is obtained as
finished water, the maximum day IBT necessary would be 36 MGD. There is also the
potential to obtain some of the water directly from Lake Norman. In this case, up to 16 MGD
of raw water would be transferred from Lake Norman, pumped through a new raw water
main, and discharged into Lake Howell in Cabarrus County and Kannapolis Lake in Rowan
County or be sent directly to water treatment plants. The remaining 10 MGD (6 MGD ADD
times 1.6) of finished water would be obtained by using existing and proposed
interconnections between the CMU water system and the Concord water system. Under this
combination alternative, the maximum day IBT would be reduced and would be
approximately 28 MGD.
4.1.2 Alternative 2 – Tuckertown or Badin Lake/Yadkin
Alternative 2 would involve an IBT of up to 36 MGD (22 MGD ADD) of water from
Tuckertown Reservoir or Badin Lake. Thirty-six MGD of finished water would be supplied
from the Albemarle water system by expanding its system capacity, or expanding the
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-2
existing Albemarle intake(s) and transferring 36 MGD of raw water to a future WTP in
northeastern Cabarrus County.
4.1.3 Alternative 3 – High Rock Lake/Yadkin
Alternative 3 would involve an IBT of 22 MGD of raw water from High Rock Lake. The
22 MGD would be transferred from High Rock Lake and pumped through a new raw water
main that would discharge into Lake Howell in Cabarrus County and Kannapolis Lake in
Rowan County.
4.1.4 Preferred Alternative
The most recent drought that ended during the spring of 2003 caused the Cities of Concord
and Kannapolis to pursue water distribution system improvements with the Cities of
Charlotte, Albemarle, and Salisbury to increase available supply during emergency
conditions. A short-term agreement with CMU allows water to be transferred within the
constraints of the unused permitted IBT capacity from CMU’s IBT certificate up to 5 MGD.
The Salisbury and Albemarle interconnections are limited to less than 2 MGD to be in
compliance with IBT statutes. The long-range plan for Concord and Kannapolis is to
maintain these interconnections as emergency water sources.
The Preferred Alternative is a combination of Alternatives 1 and 2, involving an IBT from
both the Yadkin-Pee Dee River and the Catawba River to the Rocky River Subbasin. This
alternative would continue the use of the existing interconnections with Charlotte,
Salisbury, and Albemarle to meet short-term increases in demands, and allow Concord and
Kannapolis the opportunity to expand the amount of finished water obtained from
Charlotte and Albemarle or obtain raw water from Lake Norman. The Preferred Alternative
would be for up to 36 MGD (MDD) from the Catawba River Basin and up to 10 MGD
(MDD) from the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin; however, the total IBT from both sources will
not exceed a MDD of 36 MGD or an ADD of 22 MGD. The IBT allowed from the Catawba
River Basin can be proportionately less if the IBT is granted from the Yadkin River Basin.
The decision about where the water comes from will be based on contract negotiations with
water providers along the Catawba River and the Yadkin River and through the FERC
permitting process. The Preferred Alternative represents a regional solution to meeting
water supply needs through cooperation with neighboring communities.
4.1.5 Non-IBT Alternatives
No feasible alternatives were identified for eliminating the need for an IBT through
returning wastewater to the Catawba or Yadkin River Basins. These would require exten-
sive pumping of wastewater and siting discharges on low flow streams or discharging to
reservoirs outside of their jurisdictions. Since the entire service area is in the Rocky River
Subbasin, consumptive uses would still require an IBT certificate.
Two alternatives to eliminate the need for an IBT were identified, as discussed below.
4.1.5.1 Alternative 4A – Indirect Potable Reuse/Rocky River Supply
In Alternative 4A, 22 MGD would be withdrawn near Midland from the Rocky River
approximately 10 miles downstream of the Rocky River WWTP and raw water would be
pumped up to Lake Howell. This alternative would take advantage of increased river flows
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-3
due to existing grandfathered and previously approved IBTs from the Rocky River Regional
WWTP in Cabarrus County and other upstream WWTPs in the Town of Mooresville and
Mecklenburg County.
4.1.5.2 Alternative 4B - Reverse IBT/Catawba
Alternative 4B would transfer 22 MGD of raw water from Lake Norman to Lake Howell,
and simultaneously withdraw 22 MGD from Rocky River near Midland and pump it over to
McAlpine Creek near Mint Hill in the Catawba River Basin to mitigate the IBT.
4.1.6 No Action Alternative
Individual systems or community systems would serve future growth areas. These systems
would rely on groundwater for water supply. An IBT would not occur with this alternative.
Growth without proper planning would lead to environmental impacts, both directly and
with SCI. SCI are of particular concern with the NAA because of the importance of adequate
infrastructure in providing potable water and sewer service, thus avoiding septic tank
failures and groundwater impacts.
The No Action Alternative does not meet the purposes of providing additional water supply
to Cabarrus County communities. It is assumed that development will continue under this
alternative primarily served by private water systems.
4.2 Alternatives Analysis Evaluation Criteria
To effectively evaluate and compare these alternatives to each other, each alternative was
evaluated using the same criteria concerning costs, environmental impacts, and other
considerations. A rating was assigned to each alternative as a means of comparison, creating
a relative ranking to inform decision makers and the public of reasonable alternatives that
were considered. The evaluation criteria are described below and a detailed analysis of
conveyance is presented in Appendix C.
4.2.1 Capital Cost
A conceptual capital cost estimate was developed for each alternative. Capital costs are the
anticipated total cost to implement each alternative. Since the various alternatives are
similar, the operation and maintenance costs will also be similar. Capital costs need to be
considered because of the potential impacts to the service rates of the water system
customers. Since each of the alternatives provides the same amount of water supply,
comparisons will be made to the least cost alternative. Listed below are the assumptions
used to develop conceptual cost estimates:
x New WTP facilities and capacity purchase costs are $2.50 per gallon.
x Expansion of existing WTP facilities is $1.50 per gallon.
x Pipeline unit costs are based on WSACC Water and Wastewater Master Plan unit costs.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-4
Infrastructure improvements and costs for each alternative are summarized below:
4.2.1.1 Alternative 1 – Lake Norman/Catawba
1. System interconnections with CMU (Already Exist) $0
2. 10 MGD water system capacity contract with CMU ~ $25.0M
3. Pump Station (PS)/Intake & 16-miles raw water main from Lake Norman ~ $35.4M
4. Expand Existing WTP Capacity ~ $27.0M
Total: $86.5M
This alternative was priced assuming future use of raw water from Lake Norman. If all the
water was obtained as finished water from CMU, it is anticipated that the capital cost would
be approximately the same.
4.2.1.2 Alternative 2 – Tuckertown or Badin Lake/Yadkin
1. 36-MGD new WTP or 36-MGD capacity contract w/Albemarle ~ $90.0M
2. 18 miles of water main w/ booster station ~ $26.3M
Total: $116.3M
4.2.1.3 Alternative 3 – High Rock Lake/Yadkin
1. PS/Intake & 24-miles raw water main from Yadkin River ~ $42.9M
2. Expand Existing WTP Capacity ~ $37.5M
Total: $80.4M
4.2.1.4 Preferred Alternative
1. System interconnections with CMU (Already Exist) $0
2. 10-MGD water system capacity contract with CMU ~ $25.0M
2. PS/Intake & 16-miles raw water main from Lake Norman ~ $35.4M
3. 18 miles of water main w/ booster station ~ $26.3M
4. Expand Existing WTP Capacity ~ $27.0M
5. 10-MGD water system capacity from Albemarle ~ $25.0M
Total: $138.7M
This alternative includes some redundant components which could be reduced based on
negotiations with neighboring communities after an IBT certificate is issued.
Alternative 4A – Indirect Potable Reuse/Rocky River Supply
1. PS/Intake & 34-miles raw water main w/ booster station from Rocky River ~ $55.9M
2. Expand Existing WTP Capacity ~ $37.5M
Total: $93.4M
Alternative 4B – Reverse IBT/Catawba
1. PS/Intake & 16-miles raw water main from Lake Norman ~ $35.4M
2. Expand Existing WTP Capacity ~ $37.5M
3. PS/Intake & 16-miles raw water main from Rocky River $34.8M
Total: $107.7M
Table 4-1 provides the rating of each alternative and a summary of the conceptual costs.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-5
TABLE 4-1
Capital Cost Evaluation
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative with
Water Source(s) Listed
Approx. Length of
Pipe (Miles)
Approximate
Cost ($Million)
Relative Capital
Cost Rating
Alt. 1 - Lake Norman/Catawba 16 $86.5M Low
Alt. 2 - Tuckertown-Badin Lake/Yadkin 18 $116.3M High
Alt. 3 - High Rock Lake/Yadkin 25 $80.4M Low
Preferred Alternative 34 $138.7M Highest
Alt. 4A - Indirect Reuse/Rocky River 27.5 $93.4M Middle
Alt. 4B - Reverse IBT/Catawba 32 $107.7M High
No Action Unknowna Unknowna Higha
a The length of pipe and capital costs cannot be estimated at this time. Generally the cost to customers for private and
community systems is higher than for public systems.
4.2.2 Environmental Impacts
The potential environmental impacts of the alternatives are considered in terms of their
direct impacts and SCI on the environment that would be caused by the IBT. Since the
receiving basin is constant among the alternatives, only the impacts on the source basins are
considered in this analysis.
As discussed in Section 2, the potential direct impacts to the existing environment in the
source basins would result from the loss of water due to the IBT. Potential impacts relating
to lake levels could affect other resources, such as wetlands, fish, and hydropower
generation. However, as data presented in Section 2 show, no significant impacts to lake
levels in the source reservoirs from the preferred alternative are expected. Therefore,
resources in the source basins will not be impacted by the withdrawal of water for the IBT.
4.2.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Receiving Basin
The SCI to the receiving basin due to anticipated growth in the water distribution system (to
meet future demands) are described in Section 3. However, implementation of several of the
alternatives would result in the extension of finished water transmission mains through
underdeveloped areas in the receiving basin that could spur unplanned growth and
accelerate projected increases in water demands.
Alternatives that result in the construction of additional water transmission mains to
increase the water supply would have a greater impact to the SCI to the receiving basin than
alternatives that only increase the raw water supply. Table 4-2 provides the rating of each
alternative and a summary of the potential SCI.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-6
TABLE 4-2
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Receiving Basin
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative with
Water Source(s) Listed
Approx. Length of Finished Water
Transmission Main inside
Cabarrus County (Miles)
SCI to Receiving Basin
Rating
Alt. 1 - Lake Norman/Catawba 1 Lowest
Alt. 2 - Tuckertown-Badin Lake/Yadkin 18 Low
Alt. 3 - High Rock Lake/Yadkin 0 Lowest
Preferred Alternative 18 Low
Alt. 4A - Indirect Reuse/Rocky River 18 Low
Alt. 4B - Reverse IBT/Catawba 0 Lowest
No Action Unknowna Low
Notes:
a The length of pipe cannot be estimated at this time
b Not applicable
4.2.4 Impacts to Hydroelectric Power Projects
Since each of the potential source basins is a component of hydroelectric power generation
projects, the amount of the IBT for each alternative can have a direct impact to power
generation. Listed below is a brief description of each alternative and water transfers that
would impact the hydroelectric projects. In Section 2, a discussion of hydroelectric power
impacts is presented for the Preferred Alternative. Due to the relatively small size of the IBT
compared to the volume of water used for power production in the Catawba River Basin
(Figure 2-8) and in the Yadkin River Basin (Figure 2-39), impacts to hydroelectric power
generation for each of the alternatives are considered not significant. Table 4-3 provides the
rating of each alternative and a summary of the potential impacts to hydroelectric power
projects.
4.2.4.1 Alternative 1 (Catawba River Basin):
In Alternative 1, 22 MGD ADD would be transferred from Lake Norman in the Catawba
River Basin to the Rocky River Subbasin, which discharges to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin between Falls Lake and Blewett Falls Lake.
4.2.4.2 Alternative 2 (Yadkin River Basin – Tuckertown/Badin Lake):
In Alternative 2, 22 MGD ADD would be transferred from either the Tuckertown Reservoir
or Badin Lake/Narrows Reservoir in the Yadkin River Basin to the Rocky River Subbasin,
which discharges back to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin between Falls Lake and Blewett
Falls Lake.
4.2.4.3 Alternative 3 (Yadkin River Basin – High Rock Lake):
In Alternative 3, 22 MGD ADD would be transferred from High Rock Lake in the Yadkin
River Basin to the Rocky River Subbasin, which discharges back to Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin between Falls Lake and Blewett Falls Lake.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-7
4.2.4.4 Preferred Alternative:
In the Preferred Alternative, up to 36 MGD (22 MGD ADD) would be transferred from the
Catawba River Basin and 10 MGD would be transferred from the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin to the Rocky River Subbasin, which discharges to the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
between Falls Lake and Blewett Falls Lake. However, the total IBT from both sources would
not exceed 22 MGD on an ADD basis.
4.2.4.5 Alternative 4A Rocky River Supply (Indirect Reuse)
In Alternative 4A, 22 MGD would be withdrawn from Rocky River near Midland
approximately 10 miles downstream of the Rocky River WWTP and raw water would be
pumped up to Lake Howell. This alternative would take advantage of increased river flows
due to existing grandfathered and previously approved IBTs from upstream WWTPs in the
Town of Mooresville, Mecklenburg County, and the Rocky River Regional WWTP in
Cabarrus County.
4.2.4.6 Alternative 4B Reverse IBT
In Alternative 4B, 22 MGD of raw water would be transferred from Lake Norman to Lake
Howell and simultaneously 22 MGD would be transferred from the Rocky River near
Midland and pumped over to McAlpine Creek near Mint Hill in the Catawba River Basin to
mitigate the IBT. McAlpine Creek discharges downstream of Lake Wylie on the Catawba
River.
4.2.5 Public Health Issues Related to Water Supply
A major consideration in the selection of a source of water supply is the suitability of the
water as a source of supply, ability to provide adequate water quality protection in the
water supply watershed, and avoidance of known potential sources of contamination. The
water quality classifications for surface water supplies were revised in the 1980s to reflect
the ability to protect water supplies and avoid the potential for contamination. The rules
include requirements for protecting entire water supply watersheds, critical areas, and
protected areas. These classifications also limit categories of point source discharges to
certain types of classifications. For instance, Lake Howell is a WS-II classified watershed that
requires local ordinances limiting development, requiring stormwater management, and
preventing any point source discharges.
Reservoirs in the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins considered as potential sources of water
for IBT, are classified as WS-IV waters and include provisions to protect these waters as
water supplies. Water quality in these reservoirs is discussed in Section 2.1.10.
The Rocky River is currently classified as Class C (recreation and aquatic life protection)
waters and thus cannot be used for water supply without reclassification. Current permitted
wastewater dischargers to Rocky River total about 56 MGD, with much of this wastewater
being discharged as a result of interbasin transfer; thus the highest water supply classification
the Rocky River could receive is a Class WS-IV segment. It could only receive this
classification after thorough investigation of its suitability as a water supply and
implementation of local water supply ordinances to protect this water source. In addition,
Lake Howell is classified as Class II, a protective watershed designation that allows no
wastewater discharges. The County also owns the reservoir so that no lakeshore development
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 4-8
is allowed. Lake Howell would either have to be reclassified to Class WS-IV to receive water
pumped from downstream or the rules would need to be modified.
Clearly, existing classified water supplies with protection measures in place provide a better
source of water supply than waters that presently are not afforded any protection as sources
of water supply.
4.2.6 Summary of Alternatives Analysis
Listed in Table 4-3 are the results of the alternatives analysis. In summary, the Preferred
Alternative provides the flexibility to meet long term demands and the reliability of
multiple water source options.
TABLE 4-3
Summary of Alternatives Analysis
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Alternative with
Water Source(s) Listed
Capital
Cost
Rating
Environmental
Consequences
Rating
SCI to
Receiving
Basin
Rating
Public Health
Issues related
to Water
Supply
Impacts to
Hydroelectric
Power
Generation
Rating
Alt. 1 - Lake
Norman/Catawba
$86.5 M Low Low Low Low
Alt. 2 – Tuckertown-Badin
Lake/ Yadkin
$116.3 M Low Low Low Low
Alt. 3 - High Rock
Lake/Yadkin
$80.4 M Middle Low Low Low
Preferred Alternative $138.7 M a Low Low Low Low
Alt. 4A – Indirect
Reuse/Rocky River
$93.4 M Middle Low High Lowest
Alt. 4B – Reverse
IBT/Catawba
$107.7 M Middle Low Low Low
No Action N/A b Lowest Low N/A Lowest
a This price could be reduced based on negotiations with neighboring communities after an IBT certificate is
issued.
B Costs of the No Action Alternative are difficult to quantify, but are considered high. These could include the
costs of pursuing a non-IBT alternative, the development of private water systems, and other infrastructure.
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-1
SECTION 5
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
The proposed IBT of raw water to the Rocky River Subbasin is not expected to cause
significant direct impacts to the environment, as discussed in Section 2. The IBT, however,
may have the potential to significantly impact the environment through SCI as a result of
facilitating growth in the receiving basin, as discussed in Section 3.
In order to evaluate the potential significance of the impacts discussed in Section 3, CH2M
HILL reviewed existing regulations and programs at the federal, state, and local levels to
determine if these existing programs may mitigate the anticipated impacts of urbanization
of the study area. A discussion of federal, state, and local programs is provided below, along
with a summary of planned updates to local ordinances.
With the implementation of existing regulatory and non-regulatory environmental
protection programs in effect at the local, state, and federal levels, the impacts from the
proposed IBT will be minimal.
5.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs
The following is a brief description of existing regulations and programs at the federal and
state levels in the receiving basin (Table 5-1). The discussion emphasizes the extent to which
existing programs may adequately mitigate the anticipated impacts of urbanization of the
service area.
Therefore, the following discussion addresses relevant regulations and programs from an
environmental management and land use policy analysis perspective. The discussion
provides an overview of the existing regulatory and non-regulatory mitigation framework
that protects natural resources from the effects of urbanization. The evaluation is used to
show when local governments have regulations in place or planned to enhance
environmental protection and thus reduce or offset any environmental impacts.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-2
TABLE 5-1
Summary of Existing State and Federal Programs and Environmental Resources They Protect
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Program or Regulation
Local Govt.
Program
Required Wetlands
Land
Use
Fish and
Wildlife
Sensitive
Species
Water
Quality
Air
Quality
Ground-
water Noise Toxics
Endangered Species Act X X X X X
CWA Section 404 X X X X X
CWA Section 401 X X X X X
National Flood Insurance
Program X X X X X X
NPDES Stormwater X X X X X X
NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program X X X X
Archaeological Protection X
Sediment & Erosion Control X X X X X X
Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Regulations. X X X X X X X
Clean Water Management
Trust Fund (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Groundwater X X X
Water Supply Watershed X X X X X X
Land Conservation Incentives (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
X = Demonstrates clear environmental benefits
(X) = Shows potential for environmental benefits (policy only, program not mandatory, or regulation not yet adopted)
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-3
5.1.1 Federal Regulations
5.1.1.1 Endangered Species Act
The 1973 Endangered Species Act conserves ecosystems upon which threatened and
endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, through Federal action and State
programs (USFWS, 1992). The Act:
x Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened
x Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species
x Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and
water conservation funds
x Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States that
establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants
x Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or
regulations
x Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest
and conviction for any violation of the Act of any regulation issued thereunder.
x Requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out
by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify
their critical habitat
5.1.1.2 Section 303(d) of Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify waters that do not support
their classified uses. These waters must be prioritized, and a TMDL must subsequently be
developed. TMDLs are calculations that determine the maximum amount of a pollutant that
a water body can assimilate and still maintain its uses. As part of the TMDL development
process, the sources of the pollutant must be identified, and the allowable amount of
pollutant must be allocated among the various sources within the watershed.
5.1.1.3 Sections 404/401 of the Clean Water Act
Two main regulatory programs currently regulate impacts to jurisdictional waters, including
streams and wetlands in the service area, both of which originate from the Federal Clean Water
Act: Section 404, regulation of dredge and fill activities (which is administered by the US Army
Corps of Engineers [ACOE]), and Section 401, certification that a project does not violate the
State’s water quality standards (which is administered by DWQ). All private and public
construction activities over a specific acreage that affect jurisdictional waters are required to
obtain certifications and permits from DWQ (Section 401 WQ Certification) and ACOE (Section
404 Permits), respectively.
Although the State’s 401 Water Quality Certification Program and the Federal 404 Wetlands
Protection Programs protect jurisdictional waters by requiring avoidance and mitigation for
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-4
wetlands across the state, it is possible for permits to be issued under both the State and
Federal programs that allow small impacts to jurisdictional waters.
One common problem in the adequate protection of jurisdictional waters is the shortage of
personnel at both State and Federal levels to enforce the regulations. Effective March 1999,
DWQ stepped up the enforcement of regulations for wetlands protection, particularly those
related to hydrologic conditions necessary to support wetlands function (15A NCAC
2B.0231(b)(5)) and biological integrity (15A NCAC 2B.0231(b)(6)). DWQ is joined in this
initiative by the North Carolina Division of Land Resources (DLR), which is also looking at
possible violations of the State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
5.1.1.4 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
The NFIP is a federal non-regulatory program that may afford some protection to stream
riparian areas and wetlands and also protect water quality by restricting floodplain
development. NFIP, which is managed by FEMA, was created in the 1960s in response to
the rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount
of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available in
communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce
future flood damage. The NFIP, through partnerships with communities, the insurance
industry, and the lending industry, helps reduce flood damage by nearly $800 million a
year.
Floodplain management under the NFIP is an overall program of corrective and
preventative measures for reducing flood damage. It includes but is not limited to emerg-
ency preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management regulations, and
generally covers zoning, subdivision, or building requirements and special-purpose flood-
plain ordinances. Examples include mapping communities to identify flood-prone areas,
elevating buildings above the base flood, and relocating structures out of the floodplain.
An important element in making flood insurance available to home and business owners is
a community's agreement to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances,
particularly with respect to new construction. It is up to local governments to adopt and
enforce ordinances that meet or exceed the minimum floodplain management requirements
of the FEMA and NFIP.
All local governments in the receiving basin service area (including Cabarrus County,
Concord, and Kannapolis) are participating in the FEMA Flood Insurance Program. This
program prohibits filling in the floodways. It also limits construction of buildings in the
floodplain fringe area unless an engineer certifies that the bottom floor of the structure is at
least 1 foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Concord had implemented a more
stringent policy, requiring the bottom finished floor of a structure to be at least 2 feet above
the 100-year base flood elevation. In addition, Concord requires that any fill placed in the
floodplain be balanced by an equal removal of material.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-5
5.1.2 State Regulations
5.1.2.1 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program, formerly known as the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program, was established as a non-regulatory program within DENR to:
x Provide a systematic approach for meeting DOT’s compensatory mitigation
requirements
x Maximize the ecological benefit of compensatory mitigation projects
x Reduce delays in the construction of transportation improvement projects associated
with compensatory mitigation requirements
While the program focuses on regional efforts at a watershed scale, it does not specifically
provide a mechanism to protect wetlands on a regional basis from widespread urban
development impacts (WRP, 1998a). The program has targeted two hydrologic units (11 and
12) within the project receiving basin for wetland restoration actions (WRP, 1998a).
5.1.2.2 Archaeological Protection
Archaeological resources are protected on private and public lands through the NC
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal
Remains Protection Act, the NC Archaeological Record Program, the NC Environmental
Policy Act, and various federal laws. Unfortunately, these laws are only applicable to
projects that are state or federally approved, permitted, or funded, or exist on state or
federal lands. Although this often exempts many private development projects, the ACOE
requires a archaeological reviews for any project that needs a Section 404 (federal wetlands)
permit.
5.1.2.3 Stormwater Regulations
There are several components to the Phase II Stormwater requirements, including :
x Illicit discharge detection and elimination
x Construction site runoff control for sites of 1 acre or more
x Post-construction runoff control
x Pollution prevent and good housekeeping
x Public education and outreach
x Public participation and involvement
For the post-construction runoff control, DWQ requires local governments subject to
Phase II to require new developments (where density exceeds 24 percent built-upon area) to
treat the first inch of stormwater runoff volume. The discharge rate for this treatment
volume must be at or below the pre-development discharge rate.
The Cities’ stormwater programs created to address this rule are further discussed in the
“Local Regulations and Programs” section, Section 5.2.2.1.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-6
5.1.2.4 Sediment and Erosion Control
The DLR administers programs to control erosion and sedimentation caused by land-
disturbing activities on 1 or more acres of land. Control measures must be planned,
designed, and constructed to provide protection from the calculated peak rate of runoff
from a 10-year storm, except for projects in HQW zones, which require control of 25-year
storms. Enforcement of the program is at the State level, but can be delegated to local
governments (usually counties or large municipalities) with certified erosion control
programs. Cabarrus County enforces its own erosion and sedimentation control program
based on DLR requirements. Concord currently uses the County’s program. Kannapolis
plans to switch to the County program by the end of 2006. Using the County’s program
provides a greater level of local involvement and control for water quality protection.
5.1.2.5 Water Supply Watershed Protection Programs
The EMC and DWQ have administered a Water Supply Watershed Protection Program
since 1986. The measures included limitations on the number and type of wastewater
discharges that were allowed in the WSWs.
The goals of the Water Supply Watershed Protection Program include:
x The protection of surface drinking water supplies in North Carolina from nonpoint
source and point source pollution from urban runoff and wastewater discharges
x The provision of a cooperative program of watershed management and protection that
is administered by local governments consistent with minimum statewide standards
x DWQ manages the program through oversight of local planning ordinances and
monitoring of land use activities. Local WSW programs must be approved by the EMC.
Cabarrus County Water Supply Watershed rules are discussed in Section 5.2.1.2.
5.1.2.6 Regulations for Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Extensions
State regulations (15A NCAC 01C .0100 – .0500) establish procedures and regulations for the
extension of water mains, sanitary sewer, and other utility infrastructure expansions and
new facilities that must conform to the NCEPA. The regulations require the development of
environmental documents for WTP and WWTP development and expansions. In addition,
water main extensions must comply if they are greater than 5 miles in length, and sewer
mains if they are greater than 3 miles in length unless site-specific adverse environmental
impacts are identified.
5.1.2.7 Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)
State regulations (15A NCAC 2B.05.06) require municipalities and other wastewater
treatment facility operators to report wastewater spills from discharges of raw sewage or
leaks from broken sewer lines and malfunctioning pump stations within 24 hours. DWQ
adopted the following policies, effective July 1, 1998:
x Municipalities and other wastewater treatment operators will be fined a minimum of
$4,000 if they do not comply with the reporting requirement within 24 hours for all spills
exceeding 1,000 gallons that reach surface waters or the ground, regardless of whether
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-7
they are contained or reach waters. A point system is used to determine whether to
assess fines for reported spills.
x Wastewater collection system operators were required to prepare a Spill Response Plan
Evaluation by July 1, 1998, and an Operation and Maintenance Evaluation of their
systems by July 1, 1999. Operators must develop a plan including a schedule to deal
with any maintenance and operational deficiencies uncovered. For spills occurring after
July 1, 1999 related to maintenance or operational problems covered in the plan, the
penalty will be increased.
x When a serious spill occurs, wastewater collection system operators could face not only
higher fines but also requirements to publish public notices in local media, undergo
training, or submit to an injunctive action and/or a moratorium on new connections to
the system.
The NC Clean Water Bill of 1999 provides for the development of permits for collection
systems that would include requirements for inspections, sewer maintenance, and other
operational items. DWQ developed a "shell" Wastewater Collection System Permit, and
WSACC received its collection system permit in July 2001.
In addition, EPA is considering regulations that will address sanitary sewer overflows. EPA
has prepared documents that provide draft language for proposed regulations to establish
guidance and/or standard NPDES permit conditions for the following:
x Record keeping, reporting and public notification requirements for SSOs
x Capacity assurance, management, operation, and maintenance requirements for
municipal sanitary sewer collection systems
x Prohibitions on SSO discharges to waters of the United States
x NPDES permit coverage for satellite municipal sewer collection systems
In addition to the above regulations dealing with SSOs, the following performance
standards apply to proposed sewer collection system and pump station permits issued by
DWQ:
x The wastewater collection system shall be effectively maintained and operated at all
times so that there is no discharge to land or surface waters, nor any contamination of
groundwater.
x The Permittee must maintain a contingency plan for pump failure at each pump station.
x The Permittee shall maintain on hand at least one fully-operational spare pump capable
of pumping the design flow rate at the appropriate total dynamic head for each simplex
pump station that serves more than one building.
x Each pump station shall be clearly and conspicuously posted with a pump station
identifier and an emergency contact telephone number which is able to get to an
individual that can initiate or perform emergency service for the collection system 24
hours per day, 7 days per week.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-8
x An infiltration/exfiltration test shall be performed on all newly constructed sewer lines
to ensure that the infiltration/exfiltration rate is less than 100 gallons per day per inch of
pipe diameter per mile of pipe.
x At a minimum, an emergency power source or plugged emergency pumping connection
shall be provided along with an approved contingency plan for all newly-constructed or
modified pump stations.
5.1.2.8 North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
The CWMTF was created by the 1996 Legislature to help finance projects that specifically
address water pollution problems. The Fund is a non-regulatory program that focuses on
upgrading surface waters in distress, eliminating pollution, protecting and conserving
unpolluted surface waters, and establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways for
environmental, educational, and recreational benefits. According to the enabling legislation,
6.5 percent of the unreserved credit balance remaining in the State’s General Fund at the end
of each fiscal year is allocated to the CWMTF for disbursement. The minimum amount
available must be $30 million.
Possible use of CWMTF monies could be for wetland and/or riparian corridor identification
and preservation (through acquisition and easement techniques) in the receiving basin
portion of the study area to allow comprehensive protection of wetlands and riparian
buffers in the service area to protect water quality and sensitive aquatic species.
5.1.2.9 Groundwater Protection
Several regulations and programs exist at the state and local levels that protect groundwater
from urban growth:
x Wellhead Protection Program
x Regulation of potential contamination sources
x Management of groundwater contamination incidents
x Ambient groundwater monitoring
x Regulation of well construction
These programs may afford some protection to groundwater wells from the most common
forms of groundwater pollution – point sources such as chemical manufacturing facilities,
underground storage tanks, and accidental spills. However, more diffuse and evasive
groundwater pollutants from agricultural uses (livestock facilities and chemical application
on crops) and urban land uses (over-application of fertilizers and improper use of toxic
household chemicals) may not be well managed under these programs.
5.1.2.10 Miscellaneous Incentive Programs
Other, voluntary strategies exist at the federal and state levels that provide incentives to
protect natural lands, wetlands, agricultural lands, and sensitive species habitat and forest
lands from development. These non-regulatory approaches include providing tax credits for
donating lands to specific organizations (usually land trusts) and providing funding for
various grants and trust funds to purchase or protect undeveloped lands.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-9
5.2 Local Regulations and Programs
The following is a brief description of existing regulations and programs at the local
government level in the project receiving basin. Specific attention is given to determining if
these existing programs may, when combined with existing federal and state regulations,
adequately mitigate the anticipated impacts of urbanization of the receiving basin.
The following analysis addresses relevant regulations and programs from an environmental
management and land use policy analysis perspective. These local initiatives to prevent
impacts to natural resources will offset the majority of future impacts resulting from
growth.
5.2.1 Cabarrus County
5.2.1.1 Phase II Stormwater Programs
Concord, Kannapolis, and Harrisburg have developed and are in the process of
implementing stormwater management programs under NPDES Phase II regulations. The
Phase II permit applications have been submitted to the State and are included in
Appendix CD-1. Concord has developed a Phase II stormwater program that exceeds the
minimum requirements of Phase II regulations.
To address Phase II rules, the community working group involved representatives from
Concord, Kannapolis, Harrisburg, Cabarrus County, developers, and area residents. A
Stormwater Ordinance (Section 5.2.1.3) was developed with input from the community
working group. A copy of this ordinance is provided in Appendix CD-1. The goal of this
ordinance was that each City could then modify and adopt the ordinance as needed. The
municipalities, including the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis, as well as Cabarrus County,
have adopted the Unified Development Ordinance, which is described in Section 5.2.1.3.
5.2.1.2 Water Supply Watershed Protection
The County has adopted a WSW protection program, which has been approved by the State,
to ensure sustainability of its current water supply reservoirs and their watersheds.
Watersheds that are protected under the WSW program have a classification of WS-I
through WS-V, where WS-I has the most restrictive controls. Within the County Zoning
Ordinance, a Watershed Overlay Zone is designated for the Coddle Creek and Dutch
Buffalo Creek watersheds.
The Coddle Creek watershed is classified as WS-II, the most stringent classification that can
be provided for a relatively new WSW in the Piedmont. Rules applying to WS-II watersheds
are presented in Table 5-2. All lots within each watershed’s critical area, defined as land
within ½ mile of the high water mark of the reservoir, must have a minimum size of 2 acres.
In the case of cluster development, overall density of the site must be the same, 1 dwelling
per 2 acres of development. This clustering encourages the preservation of undisturbed
open space. Within this critical area, no commercial or industrial development is permitted.
A 150-foot buffer must be maintained around each reservoir.
In the remainder of the watershed within Cabarrus County, one dwelling unit per acre or
the requirements of the Cabarrus County Zoning Ordinance must be met, whichever is
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-10
more stringent. Within Rowan County, development densities must meet the WSW overlay
district requirements for the WS-II watershed. Thus, the entire Coddle Creek watershed,
including its headwaters, is protected by WSW ordinances.
TABLE 5-2
Summary of Water Supply Watershed II Rules
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
WS - II
Watershed
Wastewater
Discharges
Allowed
Low Density
Option
High
Density
Optionc Stream Buffers
Agriculture &
Transportation
Best
Management
Practices
(BMPs)
Landfills
Allowed
Critical
Areaa
General
Permitsb
1 du/ 2 ac or
6% Built Upon
Area
6 – 24%
Built Upon
Area
Low Density – 30’
High Density – 100’ Yes No New
Landfills
Rest of
Watershed
General
Permits
1 du/ 1 ac or
12% Built
Upon Area
12 – 30%
Built Upon
Area
Low Density – 30’
High Density – 100’ Yes
No New
Discharging
Landfills
a Critical Area – ½ mile and draining to water supply, including river intake or reservoir. b General Permits – cover relatively insignificant wastewater discharges.
c High density option requires control of runoff from first 1 inch of rainfall.
5.2.1.3 Unified Development Ordinance
Cabarrus County and all of its municipalities have adopted a UDO. Cooperative efforts
between all municipalities within the County contributed to the UDO’s development.
Updates to the UDO are planned to address, and go beyond, Phase II Stormwater Rule
requirements and protect natural resources.
Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Each City has developed a
version of the Stormwater Quality Management and Discharge Control Ordinance
(Stormwater Ordinance), to be incorporated into each UDO. The City of Concord has
developed and approved the use of a Stormwater Technical Standards Manual (Manual).
These collaborative efforts will limit the impacts of development in the service areas of the
Cities. Discussion in this document pertains to aspects of the UDO, including the additional
stormwater provisions that address SCI that may result from the project. Further details of
the UDO include:
x Post-construction stormwater requirements that:
Require on-site stormwater management to attenuate runoff to pre-development
levels at the 1-year 24-hour storm level
Require 85 percent total suspended solids removal by stormwater protection
measures
Encourage the use of low-impact development techniques
x No net loss in floodplain storage within the 100-year floodplain
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-11
x Fill in the floodplain balanced by an equal cut
x Increase in stream buffer widths
As part of the UDO, new developments that disturb 1 acre or more and existing
developments that disturb more than 20,000 square feet require preparation of a Stormwater
Management Plan, which must be approved by the Stormwater Administrator. This process
gives the local government the ability to ensure that proper preparations for stormwater
treatment are being made in accordance with the UDO. Provisions are included to ensure
continued protection of water quality over the long term. Maintenance of BMP structures, to
be conducted by the owners, is required.
The City of Concord’s manual also identifies stormwater drainage requirements to control
and treat any increase in the volume of stormwater runoff from pre-development
conditions, peak discharge, total suspended solids, fecal coliform, and other pollutants to
levels identified in the manual.
These efforts will help to prevent changes in stream hydrology and morphology, preserve
floodplain storage, and limit sediment loading.
Buffer Requirements. Within the UDO, the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis have adopted a
river/stream overlay district that establishes a 50-foot minimum buffer along both sides of
all perennial streams. The following buffer specifications were adopted and implemented by
both Cities:
x An undisturbed buffer of at least 50 feet shall be established along both sides of
perennial streams, as measured from the top of the stream bank. Each ordinance also
requires additional buffer width based on slope up to a maximum buffer width of
120 feet.
x Buildings or structures may not be placed within an additional 20 foot zone outside the
buffer. This vegetated setback zone may be maintained by property owners.
x Intermittent streams are protected in accordance with the Phase II Stormwater Rules.
x When development is planned, streams will be determined on-site by a qualified
professional to ensure proper application of stream buffer rules. Intermittent streams
will be determined based on guidance developed by the DWQ. This provides a more
accurate determination of stream type and location than the current method of using
USGS topographic quadrangles.
x The buffers “shall be retained in their natural vegetated, revegetated or reforested state
through the preservation of appropriate perennial vegetation in order to minimize soil
erosion, reduce the velocity of overland stormwater flow, trap sediment and soil …and
limit other pollutants from entering the waterways.”
Under these rules, vegetated buffer widths are usually wider than the minimum 70 feet
(50 feet plus 20 foot setback). The buffer width is increased by 4 times the average percent of
slope of the area adjacent to the stream. The greater the slope, the wider the stream buffer.
Implementation examples of stream buffers are provided in Table 5-3.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-12
Floodplain storage and riparian wetlands are also protected with the adoption of floodplain
protection overlay districts by both Cities which limit development and impacts within the
designated floodplain. The Towns of Midland and Harrisburg have adopted identical
riparian and floodplain ordinances.
TABLE 5-3
City of Concord Typical Stream Buffer Widths
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Subdivision or Development Name Average Stream Buffer Width (feet)
Afton Village Subdivision Parcels #619 and #620 have a buffer of 80’ + 20’ setback
Cannon School Buffer of 70’ + 20’ setback
Glen Grove Subdivision Buffer of 70’ to 75’ + 20’ setback
Yates Meadow Subdivision Buffer of 65’ + 20’ setback
Source: City of Concord, 2004
Implementation of these more stringent buffer rules, as well as BMPs described in the UDO
to control and minimize the quantitative and qualitative impacts of stormwater on receiving
streams, is proposed as mitigation for the SCI addressed in this EIS. Including intermittent
streams in this rule will help protect critical headwater habitat areas.
In any annexation situation or where the Cities agree to provide utility services to land
under the jurisdiction of the County, the mitigation measures proposed herein will be
required.
5.2.1.4 Parks and Open Space Program
Cabarrus County’s “Livable Community Blueprint” was initiated with the goal of
developing a parks and recreation master plan in 2001. This completed plan now includes
provisions for parks, greenways, leisure and recreational facilities, open space, and bicycle
and pedestrian transportation routes. This multi-jurisdictional project was completed in
response to rapid population growth and accompanying development that has been
occurring in Cabarrus County over the past decade. Open space helps reduce the conversion
of undeveloped lands to impervious surfaces, provides recreational opportunities, and
preserves riparian buffers and wetlands that directly help protect water quality.
Impacts to terrestrial natural resources such as forests and wildlife habitats will be limited
by the open space requirements set forth in each City’s UDO. Based on development densi-
ties, subdivisions must set aside from 8 percent where densities are less than 2 dwellings per
acre) to 30 percent of their total sizes within cluster developments. These values are above
and beyond the setbacks required for floodway areas, wetlands, and open water. Clustering
developments, and in the process setting aside larger tracts of open space, limits habitat
fragmentation, provides wildlife corridors, and offers recreational opportunities. In
addition, Concord encourages the use of LID planning as part of its Phase II Stormwater
Permit, though it is not requiring the use of LID.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-13
5.2.1.5 Sediment and Erosion Control Program
Another way that the City of Concord is furthering its environmental oversight during
development is by entering into an agreement with Cabarrus County for use of the County’s
Sediment and Erosion Control Program. Using the County’s Program provides a greater
level of local involvement and control for water quality protection. Also, the City of
Kannapolis is currently considering using the County program.
5.2.1.6 NC Stream Watch Program
Cabarrus County Soil Conservation, in conjunction with NC Stream Watch, facilitates the
“adoption” of streams in Cabarrus County. With Stream Watch, citizens groups "adopt" a
stream segment and act on its behalf. The activities of a Stream Watch group range from
monitoring, to organizing clean-ups, to working with local governments to protect green
space. In Cabarrus County, the group raises awareness by participating in a storm drain
stenciling program and placing signs at stream crossings.
5.2.1.7 Land Use Planning
Cabarrus County is in the process of completing long-range land use plans, referred to
collectively as the “Envision Cabarrus Plan.” These plans are being prepared by area, with
some approved by the County and some still in draft form. Public involvement has been a
large factor in developing these plans. The goal of this planning process is to improve
quality of life for those currently living in the community and for future residents.
The Concord Planning and Community Development Program adopted a land use plan in
2004 (Figure 5-1; Appendix CD-5). Goals of the plan include maintaining a balance of
compatible land uses, providing vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, achieving a
sustainable community, promoting the preservation of unique character, providing
adequate infrastructure, promoting farmland, natural resource and open space preservation,
and linking plans and strategies with neighboring towns and the County. Concord’s plan
focuses on mixed use districts and village centers as a means of limiting sprawl. The use of
LID practices is encouraged. The City also preserves the historic nature of downtown with
its Center City Plan.
Kannapolis has developed its Draft 2015 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which was
adopted on July 26, 2004 (Figure 5-1; Appendix CD-6). The purpose of the land use plan is to
establish policies to define the future city, such as quality of life indicators, rate of growth,
and location of growth.
Overall, these plans provide the cities and county with decision making tools to guide
appropriate development and growth. The development of a UDO is just one component of
the efforts the area is undertaking to promote sustainable growth and protect natural
resources as growth occurs. Another example is occurring in the Coddle Creek watershed;
public WSWs are afforded protection by limiting development densities and activities that
may introduce toxic substances to the watershed. The Coddle Creek watershed is protected
as a WS-II watershed, and this was taken into account during land use planning.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-14
5.2.1.8 Other Ordinances
The County has several ordinances that help protect environmental resources. These
include:
x Allowance for cluster development – clusters of home sites on smaller lots, resulting in
the remaining “saved” space being retained as open space.
x Requirement that subdivisions which contain 30 or more houses include a mini-park.
x Decreased traffic in residential areas – part of a customized development standard to
protect residential areas from high traffic volume, traffic speed, noise, and fumes.
x Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance: If a subdivision is planned within 150 feet of any
water course, the prospective subdivider shall provide evidence to the Planning and
Zoning Commission (by referencing maps prepared by FEMA [dated 1994]) that the lots
within the subdivision will not be flooded. The prospective subdivider shall make a
determination of the crest elevation of a flood of 100-year probable frequency in
accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. During the construction,
preparation, arrangement, and installation of subdivision improvements, and facilities
in subdivisions located at or along a stream bed, the developer shall maintain the stream
bed of each stream, creek, or backwash channel contiguous to the subdivision in an
unobstructed state.
x River Stream Buffer: All subdivisions containing or located adjacent to all rivers or
streams shown on USGS Quadrangle Maps as a solid blue line shall be subject to all of
the regulations set forth in Chapter 4, Part II (River/Stream Overlay Zone) in the
Cabarrus County Zoning Ordinance. These current regulations include:
retaining natural vegetation to avoid erosion and reduce the velocity of overland
flow
trapping sediment and other pollutants and keeping them from entering the
waterway
using BMPs in farming
installing and maintaining 50-foot (minimum) to 120-foot (maximum) stream buffer,
depending on development
submitting a progress report by those disturbing the land to the Planning and
Zoning Department
x Cabarrus County Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance
x Stormwater Drainage: Must provide adequate drainage of all surface water.
Modifications of streams and other natural water courses are prohibited.
x Water and Sewer Systems: Private wells and septic tanks must be approved by the
Cabarrus County Health Department.
x Connection to public water and sewer systems shall be in accordance with the policies
and regulations of WSACC.
City of
Charlotte
City of
Charlotte
Town of
Huntersville
Town of
Huntersville
City of
Charlotte
City of
Charlotte
City of
Kanapolis
City of
Kanapolis
Town of
Harrisburg
Town of
Harrisburg
O:\Planning\Land Use Plan\Land Use Plan\MapsO:\Planning\Land Use Plan\Land Use Plan\Maps
Ha
r
r
i
s

R
d
P
o
p
l
a
r

T
e
n
t

R
d
Od
e
l
l

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
G
e
o
r
g
e

W
.

L
i
l
e
s

P
k
w
y
PoplarTentRd
Ro
c
k

H
i
ll
C
hu
r
c
h
R
d
C
h
u
r
c
h

S
t
Cabar
r
u
s

A
v
Corba
n

A
v
U
n
i
o
n

S
t
Cop
p
e
rfie
l
d

B
l
v
d
Old

S
a
l
i
sbu
r
y
-
C
o
n
c
o
r
d

R
d
Gold

H
i
l
lRd
C
o
l
d

S
p
ri
n
g
s

R
d
Co
l
d

S
p
r
i
n
g
s

R
d
Wa
r
r
e
n

C
.

C
o
l
e
m
a
n

B
lvd
Wedd
i
n
g
t
o
n

R
d
R
o
b
e
r
t
a

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Pit
t
s
Sc
h
o
o
l

R
d
Rob
e
r
t
a

R
d
Pitts

S
cho
o
l

R
d
Sp
e
e
d
w
ay

B
l
vd
Ro
c
k
y

R
i
v
e
r

R
d
De
r
i
t
a

R
d
Legend
Cabarrus County
LUP Boundary
Concord City Limits
Roads
Green Corridors
Greenways
Village Center
Open Space Encouraged
Center City Boundary
Mixed Use District
Residential
Multi Family Residential
Public
Open Space
Office
Commercial
Open Space Preservation
Industrial
Motorsports Related
85
601
2929A
73
49
85
601
29
29
601
73
73
493
3
Figure 5-1
Figure 5-2
Central Kannapolis
Recommended Land Use
Concord/Kannapolis
IBT Environmental Impact Statement
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-17
5.2.1.9 Water Reclamation
The WSACC does not have a reclaimed water system at this time. The 2002 “Water and
Wastewater System Master Plan” for WSACC provides the results of a conceptual
investigation of developing a start-up reclaimed water system by identifying current state
compliance regulations, potential customers, infrastructure improvements, and capital cost
estimates for a pilot project and a 2-MGD system.
5.2.1.10 Water Conservation Programs
As a follow-up to the completion of the WSACC Master Plan in 2002, a regional drought
management plan was prepared. This report re-evaluated the safe yield of existing water
sources available to Cabarrus County, and established a drought operations plan for the
county (Black & Veatch, 2003).
This plan is based on the implementation of drought operating curves for Lake Howell that
indicate drought severity. Five conditions, normal and Stages 1 through 4, were identified
and are based on the useable volume available in the reservoir and the current reservoir
inflow. The current reservoir inflow is compared to the historical mean monthly inflow for
the current month and a historical percentage is identified. The ultimate goal of the five
conditions is to preserve usable volume in the reservoir and increase restrictions on the
withdrawals as a drought increases in severity from “normal“ conditions up to Stage 4.
These plans will be revised when additional water supply is approved for use. The DWR
will review the revised plans prior to approval to assure the protection of supply in both
watersheds. The DWR will require the plan to include measures describing the response to
Catawba or Yadkin Basin draught conditions.
The Cities of Concord and Kannapolis have developed city ordinances to protect and
preserve their water supply. Concord amended its Water Management Plan Ordinance in
March 2003 to address future connections and extensions of its water system. The City of
Kannapolis has been following its amended ordinance since March 2001.
Both the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis implemented water conservation measures
during the drought and have kept them in place after water supplies returned to normal
levels. These water conservation measures apply to their entire service areas and not just to
the city limits. The water conservation measures were extremely effective during the
drought of 1998 through early 2003. Concord and Kannapolis had already exceeded the
Governor’s requested reduction in demand when he made the request during the summer
of 2002. These water conservation measures will be kept in place, regardless of the
alternative chosen to provide future water supply.
5.2.2 Summary
Table 5-4 identifies existing and proposed regulations and ordinances that will reduce the
environmental impacts that may occur as a result of the IBT and associated infrastructure
improvements. The local ordinances exceed State requirements or guidance in many areas
and represent a comprehensive approach to mitigating the potential impacts as a result of
continued growth and development supported by the additional water supply.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-18
TABLE 5-4
Areas of Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to be Addressed by Permitting and Mitigation in the Receiving Basin
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Resource
Potential for
SCI Mitigation Programs
Wetlands LI
Riparian Buffers (all)
County Zoning Ordinance, 150-foot buffer required around reservoirs
Section 404 and Section 401 regulations
Urban / Developed Land PI
UDOs (Concord and Kannapolis) and Zoning ordinances (all) - buffers required between adjacent land uses
Encouragement of use of Low Impact Development (Concord)
Water Supply Watershed Regulations limit development densities
Land Use Planning recently updated by County, Concord, and Kannapolis
Public Land / Recreation Uses LI
Land Use Planning recently updated by County, Concord, and Kannapolis – plans include greenway and park plans and
open space considerations
Subdivision Ordinance – Recreational Areas requirements (all)
County Zoning Ordinance – Recreational District Overlay Zone; Watershed Overlay Zone provides for 150 foot buffer
surrounding reservoirs.
Prime Agricultural Land PI Land Use Planning recently updated by County, Concord, and Kannapolis
Forestry Land PI
Riparian buffers (all)
UDO open space requirements for new development (Concord and Kannapolis)
County Zoning Ordinance, 150-foot buffer required around reservoirs
Archaeological / Historical
Areas LI
Land Use Planning recently updated by County, Concord, and Kannapolis
Concord-Center City Plan for historic area
Wildlife Habitat PI
Riparian buffers provide habitat and corridors (all)
County Zoning Ordinance, 150-foot buffer required around reservoirs
UDO open space requirements (Concord and Kannapolis)
Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources LI
Riparian buffers (all)
State SSO regulations
NPDES permitting including Phase II stormwater regulations
UDO (Concord and Kannapolis)
Sensitive and Threatened
Species & Habitat LI
Endangered Species Act
NEPA and NCEPA regulations
Cabarrus County Natural Heritage Inventory
Water Resources & Water
Quality PI
Riparian buffers (all)
Stormwater Ordinances (all) & UDO (Concord and Kannapolis)
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 5-19
TABLE 5-4
Areas of Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to be Addressed by Permitting and Mitigation in the Receiving Basin
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Resource
Potential for
SCI Mitigation Programs
County Sediment and Erosion Control Ordinance
Clean Water Management Trust Fund projects
Cabarrus County and Rowan County Zoning Ordinances -Water Supply Watershed Overlay Zones
Air Quality LI
Public transportation available
Land Use Plans encourage connectivity for pedestrians proper thoroughfare planning (all)
Encourage use of Low Impact Development (Concord)
Groundwater LI
Failing septic systems taken offline as infrastructure developed
Availability of infrastructure reduces future increase in septic tanks.
Noise LI
Land use planning (all) encourages transportation planning
Landscape buffers between adjacent land use types to reduce noise levels (County Zoning Ordinance; Concord and
Kannapolis UDOs)
Toxic & Hazardous
Substances LI
Land use planning and zoning encourage growth in appropriate areas.
NPDES Phase II stormwater education programs
Brownfield Assessment Demonstration Pilot Project (Concord)
Notes:
PI = Areas of Potential Impact (major relevance in NCEPA documents and permitting applications)
LI = Areas of Limited Impact (minor relevance in NCEPA documents and permitting applications)
This table is meant to show the relevance of each of the environmental issues in terms of potential for secondary and cumulative impacts. “PI” indicates areas where there
is a potential for secondary and cumulative impacts to occur without adequate mitigation programs in place. The listed mitigation programs will reduce these impacts
to below a level of significance. Coordination with public agencies contributed to the mitigation plans outlined in this document.
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 6-1
SECTION 6
References
Black & Veatch. 2002. Water and Wastewater System Master Plan, Water and Sewer
Authority of Cabarrus County.
Black & Veatch. 2003. Safe Yield Update and Regional Drought Operations. Water and
Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County.
Duke Power. 2005. Mountain Island Lake Facts.
http://www.dukepower.com/community/lakes/lakefacts/mtnisland.asp
Duke Power. 2002. Lakes and Recreation.
http://www.dukepower.com/content/default2.asp?wpn=DP06b12.
ENTRIX. 2001. Environmental Assessment: Catawba-Wateree Project. Draft Report
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Insurance Program.
http://www.fema.gov/nfip/
Fridell, John A. 1997. Recovery Plan for Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) Lea. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Asheville, North Carolina.
Heath, Ralph C., 1980. Basic Elements of Ground-Water Hydrology with Reference to
Conditions in North Carolina.
Keferl, Eugene P. and Shelley, Rowland M. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the
Carolina Heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata and the Carolina Elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta,
prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NC State Museum of Natural Science.
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. State of the
Environment Report. Charlotte, North Carolina.
Mecklenburg County Department of Parks and Recreation. 2005. Charlotte, North Carolina.
http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Park+and+Rec/Inside+The+Department/Divisi
ons/Natural+Resources/Nature+Preserves/Latta.htm#Flora
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA). 1996. Land Use
GIS data. http://cgia.cgia.state.nc.us/
North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF). 1995. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
http://www.cwmtf.net/
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR). 2002. Lake Norman State Park.
http://www.ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/lano/do.html.
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR). July 2000. Natural Heritage
Program. BasinPro.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 6-2
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2004. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section - Planning Branch. 2004.
North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List Draft 2004 Integrated
305(b) and 303(d) Report. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2003. Draft Internal Policy,
Determination of the Origin of Perennial Streams v1.0. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2003. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). October 2003. Water Quality Planning
Section. Water Supply Watersheds. BasinPro. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Basinwide Assessment Report
Support Document Catawba River Basin.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. Basinwide Assessment Report
Support Document Yadkin River Basin.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 1987. Potential Effects of Proposed
Wastewater Discharges to Middle Creek on Flooding, Streambank Erosion, and Fish
Habitat.
North Carolina Executive Order 96. 1984. Conservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest
Lands. James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor.
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu:8050/wq/LandPreservationNotebook/statutes/nc/executiveor
ders/ExecutiveOrder96.htm
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2002. An Inventory of the Significant Natural
Areas of Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
North Carolina State Data Center. 2005. Census Information. http://census.state.nc.us/
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (EEP). 1998a. Basinwide Wetlands and
Riparian Restoration Plan for the Catawba River Basin. Division of Water Quality.
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (EEP). 1998b. Basinwide Wetlands and
Riparian Restoration Plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. Division of Water Quality.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). 2002.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg03_Fishing/pg3g.htm#drought
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). April 1998. Draft Fisheries
Management Direction for the Catawba River Basin.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). March 1998. Draft Fisheries
Management Plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. “Classification of the Natural Communities
of North Carolina.” Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation. DENR.
CONCORD/KANNAPOLIS IBT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REVISED EIS 051706 VER2.DOC 6-3
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 2004. The
State of South Carolina’s 2004 Integrated Report. Columbia, South Carolina.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). 1996.
Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy: Catawba-Santee Basin. Technical Report
No. 002-96. Columbia, South Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Data.
http://wetlands.fws.gov
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). January 1997. “Recovery Plan for Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) Lea.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). April 1994. “Recovery Plan for Schweinitz’s
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species
Recovery Program. Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. http://endangered.fws.gov
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Low Flow Characteristics and Profiles for the Rocky River in
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, North Carolina, through 2001. Draft report
Yadkin Hydroelectric Project, FERC NO. 2197 NC Project Relicensing Initial Consultation
Document. September 2002.
Yadkin Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). 1999. Yadkin-APGI, Inc. http://www.yadkin-
apgi.com/shoreline/default.asp. Accessed 9/23/2002 by H. Dyke.