HomeMy WebLinkAbout3FEIS Executive SummaryCLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC 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 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 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 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 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:
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 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 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 8
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 IBTLIP
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%
122 2%131%
27 <1%192%
34 <1%00%
40 0%00%
Note: Data are for time period of 1/1/1929 to 12/1/2003
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC 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:
• Updates to the UDO have been implemented to address, and go beyond, Phase II
Stormwater Rule requirements, protect stream buffers, and other natural resources.
• 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.
• Floodpain protection regulations limit land disturbing and fill activities within existing
floodpains, protecting and preserving their valuable water quality and flood control
functions.
• The City of Concord has developed and approved the use of a Stormwater Technical
Standards Manual (Manual).
CLT\CKIBTEXECSUMM_05022006V5.DOC 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
MONTGOMERY
IREDELL
RICHMOND
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
CoddleCreek LakeConcord
LakeFisher
KannapolisLake
Rocky River
Dutch Buffalo CreekIrish Buffalo Creek
Coddle Creek
R o c k y R iv e r
RockyRiverWWTP
C
old
w
ater
C
re
e
k
YadkinCatawba
South Yadkin RiverSubbasin 18-2
Rocky River Subbasin 18-4
Catawba RiverSubbasin 3-1
Yadkin RiverSubbasin 18-1
5 0 52.5 Miles Figure ES-1Existing Raw Water SourcesConcord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
Existing Raw Water Source
IBT Subbasin Boundary
County Boundary
Rocky River WWTP
HydrologyService 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
CoddleCreek LakeConcord
LakeFisher
KannapolisLake
R
o
c
k
y
R
iv
e
r
Dut
c
h B
uff
al
o Cr
ee
k
Irish B
uffalo Cre
ek
C
o
d
dle
C
r
e
e
k
R
o
c
k
y
R
i
v
e
r
Rocky
River
WWTP
C
ol
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
5 0 52.5 Miles Figure ES-2
Existing Raw Water SourcesConcord/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
MONTGOMERY
IREDELL
RICHMOND
LakeNorman
LakeTillery
BadinLake
High RockLake
Dutch Buffalo CrIris
h B
uffalo
C
r
Coddle Cr
R
o
c
k
y
R
i
v
e
r
C
ol
d
w
a
t
e
r
C
r
YadkinCatawba
5 0 52.5 Miles Figure ES-3
Current Service AreaConcord/Kannapolis IBT Environmental Impact Statement
Legend
Municipality
River Basin Boundary
Service Areas (various colors)
County Boundary
Hydrology
Service Area Boundary
Catawba River
MountainIsland Lake
Pee DeeRiver
R o c k y R iv 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________________________________________________________________________________________________________