Appendix-F_Agency_Correspondence_and_Public_Comments

Appendix F
Agency Correspondence and Public Comments
Comments Spreadsheet
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Public Hearing Comments
Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Commenters
Written Comments Received
1 George and Suzanne Johnson Residents of Nebo, NC (Lake James) June 29, June 23, July 15, July 11, July 25, 2005
2 David W. Treme City of Salisbury 06-Jul-05
3 Jeffrey V. Morse Town Manager, Valdese July 7 2005
4 Barry B. Edwards, PE Catawba County Utilities and Engineering June 22, June 24, June 29 2005
5 Gary Ruth VP/Gen Mgr, Philip Morris 16-May-05
6 Judson McAdams Real Estate Development Partners 19-May-05
7 Brian Hiatt Concord City Manager 22-Jun-05
8 John S. Cox Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce 21-Jun-05
9 Toby Prewitt Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce 22-Jun-05
10 George Johnson, Robert Long Lake James Environmental Association 21-Jun-05
11 Michele Nowlin Southern Environmental Law Center July 1, July 22, 2005
12 Eric Davis Town manager, China Grove July 7 2005
13 Mike Legg City Manager, Kannapolis 22-Jun-05
14 George A. Galleher Duke Power 17-Jun-05
15 Graham Morgan and Ron Kendrick SouthPointe Homeowner's Association 14-Jul-05
16 Charles R. Abernathy County Manager, McDowell County 18-Jul-05
17 William and Wanda Ledbetter Resident Nebo, NC 18-Jul-05
18 Gresham Orrison Community of Lake James, Inc. 15-Jul-05
19 Howard Morgan East Shores Homeowners' Association 12-Jul-05
20 Ned Y. Hudson Cabarrus Soil & Water Conservation District 21-Jul-05
21 Teresa B. Abernathy Waterglyn POA 22-Jul-05
22 Richard Garrison Morganton, NC 26-Jul-05
23 Donna Marie Lisenby Catawba Riverkeeper July 22, July 26, 2005
24 Ross M. Morrison, III Cabarrus County Watershed Improvement Commission 27-Jul-05
25 Jim Pearson Alba-Waldensain/Tefron USA 26-Jul-05
26 Linda Harwood Marion, NC 29-Jul-05
27 Neil Cantor Lenoir, NC 29-Jul-05
28 Rod Birdsong McDowell Chamber of Commerce 02-Aug-05
29 Gwen Straub Nebo, NC Aug 7, Aug 8, 2005
30 Maynard Taylor Burke County Board of Commissioners 08-Aug-05
31 Rik and Laurie Craig Morganton, NC 10-Aug-05
32 Robert Stone Morganton, NC 11-Aug-05
33 Alton Boozer South Carolina Dept of Health and Environmental Control 11-Aug-05
34 Danny Johnson South Carolina Dept of Natural Resources 08-Aug-05
35 Sarah McRae NC Natural Heritage Program 15-Aug-05
36 R. Douglas Taylor Western Peidmont Council of Governments 12-Aug-05
37 George Butler Lake View Shores Owners' Association 11-Aug-05
#Comment Commenter(s) EIS Section Response
1
Request additional time for comments.
McDowell County, South Carolina and USFWS
not notified directly of public hearing. 11,23,29,33 N/A
Notification of the public hearings was made according to the requirements of the IBT Statute. In addition to the requirements
of the statute, several other parties in the source and receiving basins were notified. The Final EIS will receive an additional 60
day notice in the State Clearinghouse with opportunity for comment prior to the EMC making a final decision regarding the IBT.
The following will be notified of this public review: All parties required to be notified in the IBT statute, persons involved in
Catawba and Yadkin River Basin hydropower relicensing, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
a selection of public libraries in the affected region, and all parties who commented on the draft EIS or expressed interest to
DWR. In addition, a weblink to the final EIS will be provided, and press releases will be made to the media.
2
IBT should not be considered/approved until
FERC relicensing of hydropower operations in
the Yadkin and Catawba basins has been
completed
1,10,11,15,16,2
1,23,30,33,36
Executive
Summary / 1.4
/ 2.1.2
This issue has been discussed since petitioners began the IBT process over four years ago. Duke Power has been very clear
that the process should move forward first so that the IBT proposal could be considered as part of FERC relicensing. Clearly,
there are some analyses being done as part of the FERC effort that could eventually impact the IBT request. The EIS has been
modified to incorporate the latest technical analyses, modeling, and safe yield information from the FERC process. A letter
from Duke Power addressing this issue is included as Appendix F.
3
The IBT application process is not following the
guidelines developed by DWR and published
on website. The process is a rule under the
NCAPA and cannot be changed without
meeting public notice requirements of the
NCAPA 1,11,23
Executive
Summary
The process was developed by the Division of Water Resources (DWR) in concert with the EMC legal counsel from the
Attorney General's Office and approved by the Water Allocation Committee of the EMC. The process being utilized is based
upon prior experience with other IBT certificates and EIS documents.
4
The DEIS violates the State Environmental
Policy Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act. Concord and Kannapolis appear to
have pre-decided that the IBT was the preferred
solution and the DEIS was not used as a
decision making document. 11,23
Executive
Summary / 1.6
The appropriate procedures have been followed in identifying and evaluating feasible alternatives. The EIS is a decision-making
tool for both the petitioners and the EMC. Alternatives are discussed in Section 1.6 and in Appendices A and C.
5
Decision by EMC before all data is available
would be arbitrary and capricious. 11,23 N/A
The EMC will not make the final decision until all pertinent information is available for evaluation and all comments have been
considered.
6
Inadequate documentation of need for water,
why is entire allocation being requested now
when not needed until 2035 1,11,23,32 1.4 / 1.5
NC General Statute 143-355(l) 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). Water demand projections listed in Table 1-6 indicate the
ADD will reach 80 percent of the available supply (31 MGD) in about 2007. DWR and EMC have established the use of a 30-
year time frame for the purpose of evaluating a planned IBT.
7
Petition states an anticipated 24 MGD average
day shortfall by 2035. Why is the request for 48
MGD, so much more the projected shortfall? 1,29
1.4 / 1.6.4 /
4.1.4
The IBT request has been updated to reflect water demand changes since the drought of 2000-2003. The total IBT from both
sources will not exceed a MDD of 36 MGD or an ADD of 22 MGD. The 36 MGD could come from both basins. The Preferred
Alternative represents a regional solution to meeting water supply needs through cooperation with neighboring communities.
These are the projected demands during the 30-year projection period used for IBT certificates. The actual withdrawal amounts
will gradually increase over time.
8
The IBT request is premature because the
cities base it on an alleged need for water that
is not urgent. 11,23 1.4 / 1.5
NC General Statute 143-355(l) 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 criteria). Water demand projections listed in Table 1-6 indicate the ADD will
reach 80 percent of the available supply (31 MGD) in about 2007.
8a
Need for water by applicants is overestimated.
According to Concord, "lawn watering accounts
for 60 percent of residential water use." 11,23,32 1.4 / 1.4.1
Water supply projections were calculated using the projected populations and current water usage by type of use such as
residential, commercial and industrial users. As shown in Table 1-5, the Concord and Kannapolis water systems have a per
capita water use very close to usage rates in similarly sized systems in the Charlotte region. Recent per capita water usage in
the service area has decreased as a result of actions taken during the drought. A comparison of 2002 per capita demands is
shown in Table 1-4.
Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Public Comments
Hearings held June 22-23, 2005
1 of 5
#Comment Commenter(s) EIS Section Response
Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Public Comments
Hearings held June 22-23, 2005
9
The feasibility and cost of a new reservoir in the
Rocky River basin has not been adequately
addressed. 1,21
1.6,
Appendix A
Potential reservoir sites in the Rocky River Basin have already been developed. Dutch Buffalo Creek is not a recommended
reservoir location due to environmental concerns. Additionally, Concord and Kannapolis have reservoir storage that already
exceeds watershed yield. A reservoir site was investigated on Second Creek; however, this site only provided an additional 6 to
8 MGD of additional safe yield and was determined to be cost prohibitive. The land acquired for the potential reservoir on
Second Creek has been sold at below market value to a land trust.
10
Request for clarification on reference to
Kannapolis supplying water to Landis in the
public hearing notice. Why were plans to sell
water by Kannapolis to Landis not mentioned in
the DEIS? 1,2,11,23,29 1.2
The EIS has been modified to state that any water sales to Landis do not constitute an IBT. This is because Kannapolis
currently receives water from Second Creek in the South Yadkin River Basin and the small amount of water going back to
Landis is returned to the South Yadkin River Basin.
11
Request to explain how the term "consumptive
use" is used in the DEIS. 2
1.4.1 /
2.1.10.1
For the purpose of IBT evaluations, consumptive use is any use of water withdrawn, that is not returned to surface waters as a
discharge. The EIS evaluated the impacts of consumptive use on lake levels in the Catawba basin. See Figures 2-8 & 2-9.
12
If IBT quantities are approved decades in
advance of actual need, the allowed quantities
should be time-phased to match needs 1,29,32 N/A
The IBT certificate will allow the petitioners to proceed with infrastructure projects to supply water. These infrastructure projects
require additional environmental reviews and regulatory approvals. The agencies will not allow a local government to build
excess capacity beyond their needs nor would this be a prudent use of funds by the local governments. It takes a considerable
amount of time and money to develop and build water supply infrastructure. The full IBT quantity will not be utilized for many
years.
13
A provision should be made for an interim limit
for the IBT to a maximum of 10 MGD from the
Catawba river basin until after Duke Power files
the Catawba Wateree Hydroelectric Project
FERC License Application. 14 NA The EMC will make the final determination concerning the IBT based on all available information.
14
Prefer the 38 MGD transfer come from an
existing water withdrawal allocation rather than
a new allocation. 3,4 4.1.4
The decision about where that allocation comes from will be determined through contract negotiations with water providers from
the Catawba River and/or Yadkin River through the FERC permitting process.
15
Have "safe yields" and IBT limits been
established for the Catawba Basin? 3,4,11,23 NA
Traditional "Safe Yield" analysis does not apply well to a complex system of 11 reservoirs. The better approach is to model the
whole system and evaluate the impacts to all 11 reservoirs. The results of the model runs are in Appendix CD-2 of the EIS.
The EMC is responsible for determining if an IBT will be issued based on all available information.
16
What is the justification for upstream and
downstream boundaries for analysis, i.e. Lake
Wylie and Lake Norman?
1,11,16,23,25,2
8,33
2.1.2 / 2.1.3 /
2.1.5
The available modeling for the draft EIS focused on IBT effects on flows from Lake Wylie. Updated modeling used for the Final
EIS considers modeling impacts throughout the Catawba-Wateree project from Lake James to Lake Wateree and will focus
primarily on Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman. New model runs by the DWR evaluate impacts to all 11 (6 in NC)
reservoirs in the Catawba watershed. Results from the model runs are placed in Appendix CD-2 in the EIS.
17
Those living above Lake Norman were not
represented, and were not even shown on the
map. 1
2.1.1 / 2.1.2 /
2.1.5 / 2.1.6
Although the areas above Lake Norman are not shown on some of the Figures in the EIS, there are numerous references
throughout the document concerning the analysis of potential impacts to areas and reservoirs above and below Lake Norman.
Additional modeling completed by DWR evaluates the effects of the IBT on water levels in all potentially impacted reservoirs in
the Catawba and Yadkin Basins. Modeling results are included in Appendix CD-2.
18
Direct and cumulative impacts to entire
Catawba River Basin have not been adequately
addressed
1,5,6,8,9,11,12,
13,20,24,23,25,
33
2.1.1 / 2.1.2 /
2.1.3
DWR is using the latest version of the CHEOPS model developed as part of Duke Power's FERC relicensing process to re-
evaluate the analysis included in the draft EIS. This includes impacts throughout the Catawba-Wateree project. This
information is included in the Final EIS and will receive additional opportunity for public review.
19
Effect of severe drought on all lakes within the
Catawba system must be adequately
addressed.
3,4,10,11,16,21,
23,27,23,29,31,
32,33,36,37
2.1.1 / 2.1.2 /
2.1.3
DWR has used the latest version of the CHEOPS model developed as part of Duke Power's FERC relicensing process to re-
evaluate the analysis included in the draft EIS. This includes impacts throughout the Catawba-Wateree project and
conservation measures during drought conditions. This information is included in the Final EIS that will receive additional
opportunity for public review.
2 of 5
#Comment Commenter(s) EIS Section Response
Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Public Comments
Hearings held June 22-23, 2005
20
2002 drought should be used in analysis to
estimate impacts to Catawba basin. Use of
2000 and 2002 data is inconsistent. 1,11,23,27 2.1.3.2
Modeling scenarios used to predict future impacts of the proposed CMU withdrawal for the year 2035 were based on
consumptive use projections for the entire Catawba River basin. The model runs use 70 years of historic streamflow records
including the 2002 drought. This information has been updated based on the latest CHEOPS model and is included in the Final
EIS. Discussions of the Low Inflow Protocols to address drought situations are included in Section 2.1.3.1 & Appendices D and
E.
21
Cumulative effects of all IBT from given basin
should be considered.
1,3,4,11,23,30,
33,36
2.1.1 / 2.1.2 /
2.1.3
DWR is using the latest version of the CHEOPS model developed as part of Duke Power's FERC relicensing process to re-
evaluate the analysis included in the draft EIS. This will include impacts throughout the Catawba-Wateree project including Lake
James. The EIS for the IBT does not address FERC issues and decisions.
22
Cumulative impacts within source basin,
including impact on cost of treating drinking
water and assimilation of wastewater, and
impacts on species of concern
1,3,4,10,11,21,
23,33,36 2.1.3.1
The latest CHEOPS model was used to analyze the Catawba River basin. No significant impacts to the cost of treating drinking
water and assimilation of wastewater will occur as a result of the IBT. Because lake levels and minimum releases are not
significantly impacted, no impacts to species of concern will occur.
23
The CHEOPS model was developed to
evaluate withdrawal from Mountain Island lake,
application to this IBT request is not
appropriate. IBT petition based on an outdated
CHEOPS model that uses old data. Therefore,
the model results are no longer credible.
Underlying assumptions used in CHEOPS
model not included in DEIS 11,23
2.1.1 / 2.1.2 /
2.1.3
DWR has used the latest version of the CHEOPS model developed as part of Duke Power's FERC relicensing process to re-
evaluate the analysis included in the draft EIS. This includes impacts throughout the Catawba-Wateree project. This
information is included in the Final EIS that will receive additional opportunity for public review.
24
Impact of sedimentation/siltation within lakes of
upper Catawba should be considered and
addressed. 1,3,4,21,37 This is a lake maintenance issue to be addressed through the FERC relicensing process.
25
Guarantee of minimum lake level of 1194 for
Lake James 1,15,21,37 2.1.3
Minimum lake levels for all 11 reservoirs in the Catawba River Basin, including Lake James, will be addressed as part of the
Catawba River Basin relicensing process. In the EIS, water level effects of the IBT have been evaluated with the new
CHEOPS model for all 11 reservoirs. Lake levels will also be managed during drought conditions by implementation of the Low
Inflow Protocol (LIP). This LIP was developed by a group of water users and stakeholders. This information is included in the
Final EIS that will receive additional opportunity for public review.
26
EMC should consider the larger role for
Salisbury as a water source before making
decision including the capacity of the Salisbury-
Kannapolis line. Consider impacts on Salisbury
relative to its plans to provide water for Rowan
County 2
1.2 / 1.6.4 /
4.1.4
The Salisbury and Albemarle interconnections are currently limited to < 2 MGD to be in compliance with IBT statutes. Approval
of an IBT from the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin to the Rocky River subbasin would allow Kannapolis and Concord to negotiate
with either Salisbury or Albemarle regarding provision of water.
27
Lack of evidence in DEIS for conclusion of no
impact on threatened, rare, and endangered
species in the Rocky River Basin. 11,23,35
2.1 / 2.2 /
5.1.2 / 5.2
Sufficient mitigation measures have been, or will be, enacted by the local governments within the service area to mitigate the
secondary and cumulative impacts associated with increased population growth and development. The EIS identifies potential
impacts and measures proposed to minimize those impacts. The State Environmental Policy Act (113A-4a and b) requires the
EIS to document impacts which cannot be avoided. It does not require a conclusion of no impact.
28
Secondary and cumulative impacts in the
Rocky River Basin, including increased flows
and changes in water quality must be
adequately addressed in the EIS. 11,20,23,24,35 5.1
Mitigation measures have been, or will be, enacted by the local governments within the service area to mitigate the secondary
and cumulative impacts associated with increased population growth and development. Section 5.1 of the EIS addresses
mitigation to these impacts.
3 of 5
#Comment Commenter(s) EIS Section Response
Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Public Comments
Hearings held June 22-23, 2005
29
Concord and Kannapolis should make clear
commitment to enact and enforce ordinances
required to minimize SCI in receiving basin 20,24,35
Executive
Summary /
5.2.1
Concord and Kannapolis have adopted a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As part of the UDO, updated stream buffer
rules require an undisturbed buffer of at least 50 feet along both sides of perennial streams, as measured from the top of the
stream bank plus 20 feet of vegetated setback, totaling 70 feet. An intermittent stream buffer shall be an undisturbed area
measured from the top of the stream bank perpendicularly for a distance of 35 feet with an additional 20 feet of vegetated
setback, totaling 55 feet. Intermittent stream buffers will be protected in accordance with the Phase II Stormwater Rules.
30
Cumulative and secondary impacts of
development will result in stream bank
instability and stream morphology changes,
increased sediment loading, changes in
substrate characteristics, modified aquatic food
resources, changed stream temperatures,
increased nutrient loading, increased toxicant
loading, changed fish communities, and
reduced complexity of benthic habitats. 20,24
3.1.2 / 5.1.2 /
5.2.1
Sufficient mitigation measures have been, or will be, enacted by the local governments within the service area to mitigate the
secondary and cumulative impacts associated with increased population growth and development. See stream buffer
description above. The City of Concord is in the process of developing and approving the use of a stormwater Technical
Standards Manual.
31
Document does not address the transfer of non-
native species from source to receiving basin,
nor the impact of transfer on endangered
species and critical habitat 11,23
4.1.2 / 4.1.3 /
4.1.4
Alternatives 1 and 3 include the transfer of raw water to reservoirs or to water treatment facilities. If the IBT volumes are
transferred to water treatment facilities, no species transfer would occur. The preferred alternative involves obtaining finished
water through existing interconnections. If raw water transfer to a reservoir occurred the intake would be screened to prevent
the introduction of any but very small organisms. Also, a raw water transfer will require additional permits which will address this
concern at that time. Impacts of the transfer on endangered species and critical habitat are not likely to occur because lake
levels and minimum releases are not significantly impacted.
Request for conditions:
32
1) During drought, local jurisdictions in the
Catawba have first rights to water 3,4
1.4.1 /
2.1.10.1 /
5.2.1.10
Concord and Kannapolis currently have Water Shortage Response plans. These plans will be revised and when additional
water supply is approved for use. The DWR will review the revised plans prior to approval. The Cities would follow the policies
of the LIPs as users of water from the river basin. See the next response.
33
2) During drought, all voluntary and mandatory
water restrictions for the Catawba also be
applied to the IBTs. 1,3,4,21,37 5.2.1.10
During a drought situation, CMU, Concord, and Kannapolis would be following their Water Shortage Response Plans, which
include either voluntary or mandatory conservation measures depending on the severity of the drought and the policies of the
LIPs. The water shortage management plan must be approved by the DWR. The DWR will require the plan to include
measures describing the response to Catawba basin drought conditions. This may be included as a condition of the IBT
certificate, if issued.
34
3) Any recipient of an IBT should be required to
help fund programs on Catawba River, e.g.,
aquatic weed programs. 3,4 N/A
In an effort to offset any impacts the withdrawal may have in the Catawba Basin the participants are willing to pay for costs of
water from the Catawba River that are authorized through the FERC permitting process.
35
Clarification requested on discharges to the
Rocky River and potential expansion and
location of IBT lines. 35 2.2.1.2
The Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in the receiving basin already has a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for 34 MGD. Expansion of this facility is not projected until very close to the end
of the 30-year IBT planning period. Additional information is included in the Final EIS. At that time any required permitting for the
expansion will be done. A separate environmental document will address the impacts of any new water lines installed to
accommodate the IBT.
36
Native plants should be used in vegetated
setbacks for buffers. 35 5.2.1.3
According to County, Kannapolis, and Concord regulations the buffers are to be retained in their natural vegetated, revegetated
or reforested state through the preservation of appropriate perennial vegetation. Vegetation types have not been specified for
the setback areas.
4 of 5
#Comment Commenter(s) EIS Section Response
Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Public Comments
Hearings held June 22-23, 2005
37
Would like to see 50-foot native, forested
buffers on intermittent and 100-foot native,
forested buffer on perennial streams. 35 5.2.1.3
Concord and Kannapolis have adopted a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). As part of the UDO, updated stream buffer
rules require an undisturbed buffer of at least 50 feet along both sides of perennial streams, as measured from the top of the
stream bank plus 20 feet of vegetated setback, totaling 70 feet. An intermittent stream buffer shall be an undisturbed area
measured from the top of the stream bank perpendicularly for a distance of 35 feet with an additional 20 feet of vegetated
setback, totaling 55 feet. Intermittent stream buffers will be protected in accordance with the Phase II Stormwater Rules.
38
Maintain pre- and post- development
hydrographic conditions to extent practicable,
using control measures before impervious
surfaces reach 10% of the watershed area. 35 5.2.1.3
The UDO adopted by all municipalities within Cabarrus County requires all construction impacting more than 1 acre to install
BMPs that maintain the preconstruction runoff conditions. In addition, the City of Concord is developing a Stormwater Standards
Manual.
39
Strongly encourage the use of low impact
development techniques. 35 5.2.1.4
This recommendation has been incorporated into the UDO adopted by the Cities of Concord, Kannapolis, Harrisburg, Midland,
and Mt. Pleasant.
40
If wastewater treatment plants added or
upgrade, disinfection of discharge from the
Rocky River WWTP should be converted to
non-chemical processes, and not use chlorine. 35 N/A Recommendation noted.
41
Water and sewer lines should not be extended
into basins supporting populations of the
federally endangered Carolina Heelsplitter. 35 N/A Recommendation noted.
42
Updates to ordinances should be incorporated
in the latest version of the EIS. For example, p.
5-12 of the DEIS states, "Concord plans to
adopt updates to the UDO in the first quarter of
2005. Kannapolis is planning to adopt changes
to the UDO in 2005." 35
5.2 and
Appendix
CD-1 Updates are incorporated into the final EIS.
43
The water intake structures on reservoirs
upstream of Lake Norman should be lowered
by 6 feet. 1,21,37 N/A This issue is most appropriately addressed through the FERC permitting process.
44
There is no reason that Concord/Kannapolis
have to expand, particularly at the expense of
"quality of life" issues, recreational opportunities
for our State's citizens, and in some cases,
economic loss. 32
Executive
Summary
Concord and Kannapolis are required by DWR to plan for water supply into the future. Demand will increase over time; the full
IBT will not be needed for many years. Measures such as conservation plans and tiered water rate structures to discourage
irrigation are in place to protect quality of life and conserve water.
45
Has anyone looked into the reservoir that was
built just outside of Concord/Kannapolis about
10 years ago (Coddle Creek)? 1 1.2
This reservoir is the Lake Howell (Coddle Creek Reservoir) discussed throughout the EIS. 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 from 1999-2003. Further detail regarding safe yield amounts is
included in Appendix A.
46
IBT request seeks to lock in a commitment for
IBT water years in advance with no chance for
reversal at a later date. 32
Executive
Summary
EMC and DWR have determined the use of a 30-year projection period for the purpose of obtaining an IBT certificate. A
reopener clause has been included in all previous IBT permits.
47
If IBT quantities are approved decades in
advance of actual need, the allowed quantities
should be time-phased to match actual need. 1, 29
It takes a considerable amount of time and money to develop and build a water supply infrastructure. The full IBT quantity will
not be utilized for many years. This is a planning process under the guidance of DWR.
48 Multiple NHP comments. These comments were addressed in the NHP approved EA.
5 of 5
Scoping Responses
CH2MHILL
May 24, 2002
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Department of Administration, State Clearinghouse
Slh Floor Administration Building
1302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1302
Subject:Cities of Concord and Kannapolis Joint Study: Interbasin Transfers to the Rocky River
Subbasin, Environmental Assessment, Scoping Request
Dear Ms. Baggett:
The Cities of Concord and Kannapolis are in the process of looking at a variety of alternatives to meet
the future drinking water demands of their citizens. The Cities continue to experience a growing
demand for drinking water as part of the growing Charlotte metropolitan area. Each of the potential
alternatives would require an Interbasin Transfer (IBT) certificate and will be analyzed in an
Environmental Assessment (EA). The enclosed Scoping Document was prepared to assist in defining
the potential impacts of the alternatives and determining what aspects of the EA should be
emphasized.
The EA will consider a variety of mT alternatives from entities adjoining Cabarrus County. Options
include an mTfrom the Catawba River Subbasin basin to the Rocky River Subbasin (in the Yadkin-
Pee bee River Basin) and/ or for an mT from either the Yadkin River or South Yadkin River
Subbasins to the Rocky River Subbasin. The Cities' service areas are located entirely within the Rocky
River Subbasin. I have enclosed the &oping Document that contains more detailed information about
the project.
We are in the scoping phase of the EA and respectfully request that the enclosed Scoping Document
for the project be distributed to the appropriate agencies. We have also contac~ed Tom Fransen with
the Division of Water Resources, the lead agency, about the project.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone], ext. 217.
Sincerely,
"P~Chip Smith, P.E.
Project Manager
Enclosure
Bill Kreutzberger ICH2MHILL; Henry WaldrQup ICity of Concord
Wilmer Melton/City of Kannapolis;Tom Fransen/DWR;
(
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Gwynn T. Swinson, SecretaryMichael F. Easley, Governor
June 3,2002
Mr. Chip Smith
CH2MHill
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
Charlotte N C 28217-1968
Dear Mr. Smith
Subject: Scoping -Cities of Concord and Kannapolis Joint Study for the lnterbasin Transfer to
the Rocky River Subbasin
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 02-E-4300-0687. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Should you have anyReview of this project should be completed on or before 06/30/2002
questions, please call (919)807 -2425.
Sincerely,
e-£..,..
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
PLEASE NOTE NEW MAILING ADDRESS
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIA TEL y
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
1302 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1302
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-0 1-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Michael F. Easley, Governor Gwynn T. Swinson, Secretary
July 23,2002
Mr. Chip Smith
CH2MHill
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
Charlotte, N C 28217 -1968
Dear Mr. Smith'
SCH File # 02-E-4300-0687; Scoping Cities of Concord and Kannapolis Joint Study for the
lnterbasin Transfer to the Rocky River Subbasin
Re:
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 807-2425.
Sincerely,
~~
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
Region F
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
All Equal Oppol1ullity I Allinnallve Actioll Employcl
g~
~CDE~R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
William G. Ross Jr., SecretaryMichael F. Easley I Governor
,--
~
MEMORANDUM
\~
ca:
6'>
~
Chrys Baggett '£State Clearinghouse .
Melba McGee ~
Environmental Review Coordinator
FROM:
02-0687 Concord and Kannapolis Joint Study:
Rocky River, Cabarrus County
IBT to
2002July 18,DATE:
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the scoping notice for the proposed Interbasin
Transfer to the Rocky River Subbasin.
We support continued coordination of this project. The
issues raised by our divisions show the potential for
significant impacts to natural resources from both primary
and secondary project effects. If this is the case, the
applicant may need to consider a more detailed environmental
review in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond,
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR
An Equal Oppor1umty \ Affirmative Action Employer -50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
JU( 2002
RECEIVED
$acrefur}"s'6IliCe
OOA"
~~--
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
,:'
1
,~~ \1 '8 19 (0 ?1 d
~ J. ?~,.,.\' ~ v~
~. ~~~ JUL 2002 ~\
'~ rv'
TO:Melba McGee~ Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources
\:-
FROM:Ron Linville, Regional Coordinato(
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE:June 28, 2002
SUBJECT:State Clearinghouse Project No.02-0687 , Cities of Concord and
Kannapolis Joint Study: lnterbasin Transfers (IBT) to Rocky River,
Environmental Assessment (EA) Scoping Request, Cabarrus County
This correspondence responds to a request by you for our review and comments on the
Environmental Assessment (EA) scoping for the referenced project. These comments are
provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48
Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d.) and the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (G.S.113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC25).
The Cities of Concord and Kannapolis are in the early stages of looking at options to
increase drinking water needs for anticipated growth. Options indicated for study include
IBTs from the Catawba to the Rocky River and from the Yadkin or South Yadkin to the
Rocky River. The Cities service areas are presently located entirely in the Rocky River
subbasin.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) biologists are concerned
about long-tenn secondary and cumulative impacts (CSIs) to fish and wildlife associated
with IBTs. This concern goes beyond the physical project. These impacts can be far
reaching and cause significant ecosystem modifications. As the IBT certification is based
on 2035 demands of 69 million gallons per day (MGD), the EA may need elevation to an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) if substantial impacts and mitigative measures occur .
The State of South Carolina should be invited to participate in the EA or EIS review if
impacts could impact interstate waters.
The information provided is not sufficient for our review and comments. Attached are
NCWRC General Guidelines for Environmental Reviews and Utility Line Installations.
Although not specifically designed for IBT issues, these should assist in the preparation
of environmental review documents. We urge project proponents to fully evaluate the
economic benefits and reduced environmental quality related to development facilitated
M:lilin~ Addrr~~"i\hl'ri,21 \1;lil Si)iv 1111;1 IIi (:t'lllt'r.l{
Concord Kannapolis IBT EA Scope 2 June 28, 2002
by an IBT. CSIs will be a major component of any future reviews by this agency;
therefore, project proponents should provide substantial information about potential CSIs
that may be attributed to the proposed IBT .
Any federal or state listed species that may be impacted by an IBT must be professionally
evaluated. It is very probably that extensive reviews will be necessary if listed species
may be impacted by the IBT. Mitigation and protection measures should be provided to
avoid and minimize species and habitat impacts. The IBT evaluation should discuss non-
listed species, including game fish and wildlife species that may be reduced or imperiled
by direct, secondary or cumulative impacts. Enforceable land use planning ordinances
and regulations as well as biological monitoring of impacts for both the receiving and
sending watersheds may be appropriate. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
concurrence may be appropriate and necessary .
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336/769-9453.
Attachment:
General Guidelines for Environmental Reviews and Utility Lines
Utility Line and Sewer Line A voidance and Minimization Recommendations
Concord Kannapolis IBT EA Scope 3 June 28, 2002
General Guidelines for Environmental Reviews
Due to staff limitations, this standardized response was developed. Although
some of the information, requests and comments may not be applicable to certain
projects, these guidelines should facilitate preparation of fish and wildlife Environmental
Assessments (EA) or Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). In addition to addressing
site specific concerns, the environmental document should include a detailed assessment
of existing natural resources within the areas of potential development and should discuss
the potential of mitigating development impacts to wetlands, streams and high quality
floodplain and upland habitats. To provide a meaningful review of the EA or EIS
prepared for the project(s) secondary and cumulative impacts, we request that project
consultants and sponsors provide the following information:
I)Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area, including a
listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered, or special concern
animal and plant species in the project area and any areas that may be impacted
by secondary or cumulative impacts within the sub-basin. A listing of designated
species can be developed through consultation with: Mr. Steven Hall of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (919/715-8703) or Mr. Mark Cantrell of the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (828/258-3939, ext. 227).
2)Description of waters and/or wetlands affected by the project(s).
3)Project map identifying wetlands and intermittent as well as perennial streams in
the area. Identification of wetlands may be accomplished through coordination
with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Corps is not consulted, the person
delineating wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4)Description of activities that will occur within streams and wetlands, such as fill
or channel alteration. Acreage of wetlands impacted and linear feet of streal1!
channels to be relocated, channeled, culverted or disturbed by some other means
by alternative project designs should be listed.
5)Description of project site and non-wetland vegetative communities
6)Description and cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat
impacted by the project.
7)Discuss the extent to which the project(s) will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat.
8)Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to
mitigate for unavoidable habitat losses.
Concord Kannapolis IBT EA Scope 4 June 28,2002
9)Discuss the cumulative impacts of secondary development facilitated by the
proposed utility improvements and any interrelated infrastructure projects,
especially the impacts to water quality and habitat in the impacted watershed(s).
Such discussion should weigh the economic benefits of such growth against the
costs of associated environmental degradation.
(a) Include specific measures that will be used to address stormwater at the
source. Include specific requirements for both residential and industrial
developments and BMPs that will be required.
(b) Include specific measures that will be used to protect stream corridors,
riparian habitat and a minimum of a 100-year floodplain.
( c ) Include specific measures that will be implemented to promote water
conservation and wastewater reuse.
( d) Include a discussion of any other local ordinances or programs ( e.g.,
industrial pretreatment, infiltration and inflow management, farmland
preservation, habitat restoration/preservation, and recycling) that will mitigate the
impacts of development.
10)Discuss the use of any mitigation, preservation, deed restrictions, and
conservation plans and management objectives. These should include detailed
site descriptions and maps. A determination concerning which agency or entity
(e.g. land conservancy) will own and manage the easements or property should be
included.
Note: A list of document preparers should be provided that provides each individual's
professional background and qualifications.
Concord Kannapolis IBT EA Scope 5 June 28, 2002
Utility Line and Sewer Line A voidance and Minimization Recommendations
Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including wetlands,
should be implemented during all phases of construction associated with the area. Where
impacts to wetlands (and waters) are unavoidable, we will recommend mitigation of the
losses. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas perform the important
functions of flood control and water quality protection. Whenever possible, utility lines
should be placed along existing right-of-ways along roads and previously impacted
corridors. Pumping may be economically feasible where direct or secondary impacts can
be avoided in sensitive habitats. To avoid or minimize stream and wetland impacts
during construction of utility lines, we offer the following generalized recommendations
that should be incorporated into project plans:
I)Construction corridors should be no wider than absolutely necessary .The 401
certification for Nationwide 12 stipulates that wetland construction corridors are
not to exceed 40 feet and permanent maintained corridors are not to exceed 10
feet except at access points. The NC division of Water Quality's 401
Certification for utility lines should be followed specifically for all jurisdictional
impacts.
2)Where crossings are necessary , sewer lines should cross streams at right angles to
minimize impacts to riparian areas. Disturbed stream banks and wetlands must be
restored to original contours and revegetated with native plant materials such as
silky dogwood (Cornus amonum), silky willow (Salix sericea) and hazel alder
(AInus serrulata). Riprap may be used to stabilize the bank in the area of the
ordinary high water stage and vegetation (bioengineering) should be used above
this stage. Aquatic life passage must not be hindered during low flows upon
project completion. Directional boring is the preferred method of crossing
jurisdictional waters and wetlands.
3)Utility lines crossing streams should be buried in the stream bottom or attached to
existing bridges to maintain fish movement upstream and downstream and
prevent debris from collecting at the pipe and causing a hydrologic change. We
do not recommend installing priers in a stream channel to support a sewer line.
4)If concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water. This will lessen the chance of altering the stream' s water
chemistry and causing a fish kill.
5)An undisturbed buffer zone should be left between streams and all construction.
We prefer a buffer zone of at least 100 feet to control sedimentation into streams,
provide shade, and maintain a travel corridor for wildlife. Buffers should also be
left along intermittent drains or streams. Following floodplain edge contours with
utility lines is preferable to following the riparian zones and streams.
Concord Kannapolis IBT EA Scope 6 June 28,2002
6)Temporarily disturbed wetlands should be reseeded with annual small grains
appropriate for the season ( e.g. oats, millet, rye, wheat, annuallespedeza or rye
grass) and be allowed to revert to native natural wetland vegetation.
7)A portion of the upland right-of-way (minimum of one acre) should be planted
with V A- 70 lespedeza, Korean lespedeza, ladino clover, and/or partridge pea to
provide food and additional habitat for wildlife.
8)Slash and/or large trees available form corridor construction through forested and
stream corridors should be placed along the permanent right-of-way in the form of
brush piles and downed logs to provide cover and nesting habitat for wildlife.
9)If necessary, ROW areas should be mowed not more than once every 2-3 years.
Mowing should not occur between Aprill through September 30 in order to
avoid disturbing wildlife utilizing the project corridor during the critical stages of
nesting and rearing of young.
10)Stringent erosion control measures should be impleme'nted where soil is disturbed
and maintained until project completion.
I)Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 5 to 10 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion
control. We prefer a "seed as you go" strategy rather than allowing a large area to
remain bare.
Michael F Easley. Governor
William G Ross Jr. Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, p .E. Director
Division of Water Ouality
~
>
0
July 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO Melba McGee
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM J. Todd Kennedy ~
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
SUBJECT:Concord and Kannapo1is Interbasin Transfers
DENR #O2E-0687; DWQ# 13108
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Water Quality (Division) has reviewed the subject
Environmental Assessment (EA) scoping request. We have the following comments regarding EA
preparation:
Identify streams within the project service area and discuss their current classification, use support
rating, and present water quality condition. Information on use support and existing water quality
conditions is available in Basinwide Water Quality Plans htt :llh2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/).
Stream classifications are available from the Classifications and Standards Unit
(httR:llh2o.enr .state.nc.us/cs~.
Discuss the impact of the new raw water withdrawal alternative on assimilative capacity and
permitted dischargers of the affected streams in the Catawba, South Yadkin and Yadkin River
subbasins. Contact the NPDES Unit for more information at 919.733.5083 x517.
3,Discuss land use, population, zoning, development density, and growth trends within the project
service area. Describe potential land use changes and impacts from induced growth effects of the
project.
4 Maintaining predevelopment hydrologic functions is an important goal in watershed development.
Planning design that reduces the creation of impervious area, provides for pervious green
infrastructure, and maintains natural detention and retention functions should be encouraged.
Disconnecting impervious surfaces, connecting pervious surfaces, and routing flow through vegetated
conveyances can reduce impacts. When development in a watershed or subwatershed exceeds lO% to
l5% impervious surface coverage, streams and the hydrologic regime are negatively impacted. At
increasing levels of imperviousness, it becomes especially important to implement appropriate
stormwater control to reduce pollution, maintain groundwater recharge and minimize stream channel
erosion.
The EA should describe specific ordinances and regulations in detail and discuss how and to what
degree they mitigate impacts to water resources. In the event that existing state and local programs
do not provide adequate mitigation, additional local protection may need to be considered. Emphasis
should be placed on actual implementation of mitigation measures,
1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh. NC 27699-1617 919) 733-70
..,K..A
~.~~
Water Quality
II"""' \ 7
IC
'-I
1"",
NCD[~:i"
ustomer Service
1 BOO623774R
('ollcord/Kallllapolis IBT
Page 2
Stormwater controls should protect against stream damage due to increases in volume. velocity and
peak rates of stormwater. While controls based on large storm events (e.g.. I O-yr and 25-yr) may
provide overbank flood protection and safely pass larger storm events. they fail to protect water
quality and stream integrity. Smaller. more frequent storms are responsible for the majority of
channel erosion in streams. And as imperviousness in the watershed increases. the frequency of these
bankfull and mid-bankfull flows typically increases in response. For stream channel protection.
design criteria should mimic the pre-development sediment transport characteristics of the stream.
The typical two-year peak discharge control (to predevelopment levels) is often insufficient for
channel protection: it does not properly address increases in detention-associated flow duration and
development-associated peak runoff frequency. Extended detention of the one-year. 24-hour storm
event will likely be needed to adequately protect channels. Equivalent control measures may also be
considered. In addition. appropriate treatment of stormwater for water quality protection should be
implemented.
5 Discuss measures designed to protect the critical ecosystem functions of riparian buffers? Vegetated
buffers are a typical component required for protection of streams. Widths of 50 feet for intermittent
streams and 100 feet for perennial streams are recommended. A significant portion of the buffer
adjacent to the streambank should be undisturbed, natural vegetation: Alternative measures suitable
for this area may be considered given they provide a similar level of protection.
A stream reclassification may be required if the new raw water sources are not presently classified for
water supply. Contact Elizabeth Kountis with the Classifications and Standards Unit for assistance
(919.733.5083 x369). The reclassification process takes approximately 2 years to complete.
6
may be contacted at 919.733.5083 x555. Thank you
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
: ~
Project Number
02 f. -C>b67-
County
~-Inter-Agency Project Revie~'R~,$p~orise, ~, / / ---J ~~~~~ject~ e /' ~ 1.1).-
':'(]~ , 6 L"~.7..v.l~ I/~
r~ s: j'~- ~ 'd~
'e';! /r1z... ¥" .
-Project Nam4('!N'~
4jT t::>/y;~s ~Comments provided by:2~3S-
0
.\, "r~; ..c; ,
Regional Program Person, \ ," '. , -~
..~.$i'\ " ..
Regional Engineer tor Public "'later Supply Se'Ci~~~1.~ft
~;.,( ~~t~' (~E~~. ;f t J:: r~.~ ," ,-""." ¥"lb .,J ~ " , ~~"..J.j ,- , ""~ , , ~ ,," ;I,.~.
~OO2
ate:
Program within Division or Environmental Health:
%Public Water Supply
N('DC:
/\J:",.'...I t: .,
l)i\,is;on (:f t:rlvironrri(\:1!'::;!! ~1~?lth
c:;~.-.::::-:;,~~:~~;;~~r ~U~i~:C:~ ::;<;:,:;;;~l.''.';It\J R",g,(Jrld, (,J,ti-~--,0 Other I N~me of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
i No objection to project as proposed
O No comment
0 Insufficient information to. complete review
~
O Comments attached
')( See comments below
-rhe. ~ddrC".rH'1) e. ~-c-,-;~ S.ppli
:5ec. -f1 o t"\ S c r fa ...+r ~ ~ p;'C J' <:: (. + .-r-J1c. <C Ci, b q y ~ ~ t4 #f""
~y~q h~5 q C-c~,.~d C;Y-~J~k;L;+o cr- S"Lc~C..-
~~ ~ I n~ J- l'i'pfl'1J vc.t?
S'"~pL<~-t'J
~BT -(jvc:.J-e.~
d~~J+J1Js
/'f1"? .L M (
)'l-n -fo
",
...,
'I
Return to:
.,.Public WaterSupply Section
"f
111 -.e.e.. + i 11 ~ A.J e.. J
t:nvlronmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
'.::."SrA~
,,~c..;...@@~w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L s Brook, Administrator
Division of Historical Resources
David J Olson. Director
,v1ichael F Easley, Govemor
'-isheth C Evans, Secretal"y
Jeffrey J Crow, Deputy Secretal"y
Ol1ice of Archives and Histol"y
.June 25,2002
Chip Smitl1
CH2MHILL
4824 Parkway Plaza Boulevard Suite 200
Charlotte N C 28271-1968
Re Concord and Kannapolis Joint Study: lnterbasin Transfers to the Rocky River,
Cabarrus County, 02-E-4300-0687
Dear Mr. Smith
We have received notification from the State Clearinghouse concerning the above project
The Environmental Assessment (EA) outline does not address cultural resources. We recommend
these be addressed. This would include background research for the study area presented in the EA
along with a commitment to conduct an archaeological survey of the preferred corridor/ alignments
to be constructed on new location. If alignments are located within existing rights of way for roads
or utilities, no archaeological survey is recommended for these disturbed areas. Results of the
archaeological survey should be presented in the FONSI.
For Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties more than 1,200 archeological resources are recorded in
the flies at the Office of State Archaeology in Raleigh. Some of these archaeological sites have been
determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Soil Conservation
Service mapped Cabarrus County as a mix of noneroded, eroded, and urban soil. Potential exists for
unreported archaeological sites exhibiting integrity. Reed Gold Mine State Historic Site is recorded
in the county .Numerous other gold mines exist and some are recorded as sites. Other gold mines
not recorded to date, exist in the county and only archaeological evidence may remain. Numerous
archeological sites, some eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, are located in the
Rocky River floodplain and adjacent terraces. In addition to archaeological sites, we are especially
concerned about the possibilit) that human graves are located in this study area. Some human graves
are associated with archaeological ~ites. Others may be in abandoned or unmarked cemeteries.
Human graves are protected by a variety of North C=arolina State Statutes.
Please notify the State Archaeologist, Stephen R. Claggett, at 919- 733- 7342, if human remains are
uncovered during the SU1-vCy or any earth moving activities. Our flies are open to project planners
]>Ieasc feci frcc to make an appointmcnt with john Mintz, the Site Registrar, to review flies at the
( )ffice of Statc i\rchacol(>gy.
\s plans arc a,.ailablc for th~
\)ntlnuc ()ur revlcw.
corridor, plcasc for\vard them to us so that wc mayxact proJ(;
Telepll
(919) I
())'J) i
( () ) (J I i
Mailing Addrcss
4('17 Mail So:rvio:o:Co:nter. Raleigh 27699-4617
401 J M;III So:rvlO:O: \O:Il!O:r Ralo:igi12769<)-4(,1 J
cI()I~~:";I';l:I,lc,(t.lllt.rKal",!!11270<)l)-40tX
Localioll
SO7 N BlouI11 SI. Ralcl[!ll. N(
') I S N 111(IUI1I SI. 1{,\lcl[!l, N'
')1') ~ 111",1\'1 SI f{,\I,\"I\ ,<
Administration
Restoration
';'JrV('V ,~ Planllin,
ne/fax
3-4703 °
3-0\47 °
3-4703°
3-8653
~-4ROI
'i-4RO)
Page 2
Chip Smith
june 25,2002
If there are any structures more than fifty years old on or adjacent to the project site, please send us
photographs (I}olaroid t)'Pe snapshots are fine) of each structure. These photographs should be
keyed to a map that clearly shows the site location. If there are no buildings over fifty years old on
or adjacent to the project site, please notify us of this in writing.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory' Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/13.3-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
SCHcc:
BUREAU OF W A TER
'v1MlSSIONER
~arl Hunter
Chip Smith, P .E.
CH2M Hill
4824 Parkway Plaza Blvd, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28217ARD:
i ford W. Wyche
linnan
Cities of Concord and Kannapolis Joint Study: Scoping DocumentRerk B. Kent
~ Chairman
Dear Mr. Smith'
""ard L. Brilliant, MD
;retary
(I L. Brazell Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Scoping Document and potential
interbasin transfers. Although the considered transfers are entirely within North Carolina
and subject to North Carolina law, we appreciate your consideration of downstream users in
South Carolina.
isiana W. Wright
rry R. Chewning, Jr., DMD
Water transferred from the Yadkin or South Yadkin River Subbasins to the Rocky River
Subbasin will remain in the larger Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. A transfer from the
Catawba River Basin to the Rocky River Subbasin would create a loss in the Catawba River
system. As such, the Yadkin-Rocky transfer is preferable to us because neither river system
will lose water .
Should you have any questions or comments, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
() N r I~ O lIIIIN I)1{NM()!\ 1{MII:\ 1{ ( )
Tricia Henman Kilgore
Environmental Engineer Associate II
Water Supply and Recreational Waters Section
Water Facilities Permitting Division
Draft EIS Responses
Concord/Kannapolis IBT Public Hearing Comments
Concord Kannapolis Interbasin Transfer Commenters
Written Comments Received Notes
1 George and Suzanne Johnson Residents of Nebo, NC (Lake James) June 29, June 23, July 15, July 11, July 25, 2005 Include only latest version in record
2 David W. Treme City of Salisbury 06-Jul-05
3 Jeffrey V. Morse Town Manager, Valdese July 7 2005
4 Barry B. Edwards, PE Catawba County Utilities and Engineering June 22, June 24, June 29 2005 Include only latest
5 Gary Ruth VP/Gen Mgr, Philip Morris 16-May-05
6 Judson McAdams Real Estate Development Partners 19-May-05
7 Brian Hiatt Concord City Manager 22-Jun-05
8 John S. Cox Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce 21-Jun-05
9 Toby Prewitt Cabarrus Regional Chamber of Commerce 22-Jun-05
10 George Johnson, Robert Long Lake James Environmental Association 21-Jun-05
11 Michele Nowlin Southern Environmental Law Center July 1, July 22, 2005 Include only latest version
12 Eric Davis Town manager, China Grove July 7 2005
13 Mike Legg City Manager, Kannapolis 22-Jun-05
14 George A. Galleher Duke Power 17-Jun-05
15 Graham Morgan and Ron Kendrick SouthPointe Homeowner's Association 14-Jul-05
16 Charles R. Abernathy County Manager, McDowell County 18-Jul-05
17 William and Wanda Ledbetter Resident Nebo, NC 18-Jul-05
18 Gresham Orrison Community of Lake James, Inc. 15-Jul-05
19 Howard Morgan East Shores Homeowners' Association 12-Jul-05
20 Ned Y. Hudson Cabarrus Soil & Water Conservation District 21-Jul-05
21 Teresa B. Abernathy Waterglyn POA 22-Jul-05
22 Richard Garrison Morganton, NC 26-Jul-05
23 Donna Marie Lisenby Catawba Riverkeeper July 22, July 26, 2005 Submissions different, include both.
24 Ross M. Morrison, III Cabarrus County Watershed Improvement Commission 27-Jul-05
25 Jim Pearson Alba-Waldensain/Tefron USA 26-Jul-05
26 Linda Harwood Marion, NC 29-Jul-05
27 Neil Cantor Lenoir, NC 29-Jul-05
28 Rod Birdsong McDowell Chamber of Commerce 02-Aug-05
29 Gwen Straub Nebo, NC Aug 7, Aug 8, 2005 Include only latest version
30 Maynard Taylor Burke County Board of Commissioners 08-Aug-05
31 Rik and Laurie Craig Morganton, NC 10-Aug-05
32 Robert Stone Morganton, NC 11-Aug-05
33 Alton Boozer South Carolina Dept of Health and Environmental Control 11-Aug-05
34 Danny Johnson South Carolina Dept of Natural Resources 08-Aug-05
35 Sarah McRae NC Natural Heritage Program 15-Aug-05
36 R. Douglas Taylor Western Peidmont Council of Governments 12-Aug-05
37 George Butler Lake View Shores Owners' Association 11-Aug-05
Public Comments
Page 1 of 7
Oral Statement of Gary Faulkenberry

June 22, 2005, UNC-Charlotte

Good afternoon and thanks for the opportunity of presenting some thoughts to you in front of the
Commission. I am Gary Faulkenberry and I one of your neighbors south of the border. I am
South Carolina resident in the small town of Liberty Hill, SC on Lake Wateree, one of the towns
on the Catawba River Basin System. I am a stakeholder for 3 reasons; my drinking water
currently comes from the Catawba River, my home is on the Catawba River, and I love to
recreate on the river, so I have plenty of reasons to be attentive and concerned about anything
that impacts our river system. I also work at the [unintelligible] and that is who I represent it is
a little bit difficult for me to answer because I work in several different organizations who are
focused on health and welfare of the river. I am vice chair of the Wateree Homeowners
Association, on the Catawba Waterway Foundation Group Keeper Board, I am a board member
of Clean Water South Carolina. I also am very happy with the current work going on earlier in
the hydro relicensing process and boy has that been an education and a much bigger scope than
any of us ever anticipated [unintelligible] . And most recently I was appointed by the South
Carolina Senate to the newly formed My State Catawba-Wateree Basin Commission, which is
charged for looking futuristic about the river basin. At stake today, to illustrate hopefully to you
that I am an advocate who doesn’t just oppose things from an environmental prospective. I’m an
advocate for the river who tries to walk the line in trying to do a lot of work personally and be
involved, personally in what happens to the future of our river. I relate the work that goes on in
organizations to this IBT into [unintelligible]. First of all, this new five-state commission. Some
earlier thinking in that is the principal based statement, this is one river, it is not a North Carolina
and South Carolina river, its not a river, it’s the Catawba and maybe if we do put our heads
together between the two states instead of acting in a vacuum perhaps as we do today, we will
together realize that the smarter ways to manage this resource on the Catawba for the future
generations of both states. Maybe through this Commission in some future months or years there
maybe a different way of looking about the process and the rules we use for such things as this
exact IBT. So I see a lot of hope in that, I see a lot of opportunity in that, of improving the way
we manage this river resource. I also relate this IBT to my work with water quality because
being downstream of this tremendous growing region called the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region
brings a lot of challenge. Most of the effluent from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area reaches back
into the river between Rock Hill and the lower Catawba region where myself and many others
live and recreate. It is important to us that flows are sufficient to assimilate with that tremendous
volume of effluent to try to mitigate some of the water quality problems that we already
experience from a very high phosphorus flow that creates a [unintelligible] in our water quality.
Flows depend on water quantity so I am very sensitive as other stakeholders in South Carolina
are to anything that takes water quantity from this Catawba River basin. It not only involves
quantity, it involves quality from this respective mixing with the effluent. The other thing I
relate to this IBT and my river work if you will, is my experiences with the Duke relicensing
process. The number of studies, the amount of data, the number of hours and technology that is
going into that is very [unintelligible] and a tremendous amount of work, but we are getting it
and there are a lot of questions still being answered about water quantity, water quality, and
many other aspects. We are close but we aren’t there yet and I just urge you not to be premature
in making a decision on this IBT until that work is complete, the new CHEOPS model is
improved over something that has been done in the past. It is going to tell us some different
Page 2 of 7
stories. One of the engineers who is responsible for that model made a statement to me many
months ago, Gary I hear you talking about water quality a lot but if you had an insight on what I
think this model is going to show us you may be even more concerned about water quantity than
you are water quality as you take it out 30 to 50 years and the growth of this [unintelligible] both
in the Charlotte region and downstream in the Carolinas. So from that perspective, I see a lot of
new understanding that we are going to be aiming in the latter stages of this relicensing process
and I think it would be unwise for us to make important decision such as this IBT without benefit
of that knowledge. So in conclusion based upon my work in water quality, based upon my work
with the relicensing effort, based upon the hope and the opportunity that I see in what this
Commission might be able to do in looking at the resource as one resource not a North and South
Carolina resource, I encourage the IBT not to be approved and at minimum delayed until some
of the results from these other related activities can be better understood. Thank you very much
Page 3 of 7
.

Oral Statement of Bill Connolly

Public Hearing, June 23, 2005, Albemarle City Hall

Good evening my name is Bill Connolly, I am resident of Kannapolis, a banker in Concord and
Kannapolis, and I am here tonight on behalf of the Cabarrus Economic Development
Corporation so thank you for your time and this opportunity. Cabarrus EDC is continually
pursuing the sustainabilities of our community and our future and we believe the interbasin
transfer agreement is essential to that sustainability of the Cabarrus County communities. There
are several reasons for that: Cabarrus County is not blessed with the Yadkin River or Catawba
River, we have very limited water resources within our natural drainage areas. Because of that,
our communities have been good stewards of our water resources, we have implemented
aggressive drought management and conservation efforts in the last five years, we are a
voluntary water conservation county so the state is never had to force us to implement water
restrictions, we have done that on a voluntary basis through cooperation with industry and public
support to control water usage in our area. We think a regional solution to the area water supply
is needed and our communities are committed to these environmental protection and natural
resource preservation and we are working to develop programs everyday to help in those areas.
Perhaps the most important issue that we think the interbasin transfer represents is really an
economic development issue for Cabarrus County. Just to take you back a couple of years, I
think most everyone knows that Cabarrus County was a textile based economy, Pillowtex closed
about 2 years ago, we lost some 4,000 jobs at that time and so through private and public efforts
everyone is working to replace those jobs, very important to our communities that we do that.
And so basically part of recruiting new industries is natural resources and one of those most
important natural resources is a stable water supply. We think the interbasin transfer agreement
would be a mechanism to virtually assure any industrial commercial prospect considering
relocating to Cabarrus County that they have adequate water and adequate natural resources to
operate their business. I think everyone would agree that an adequate and plentiful water supply
is integral to the industrial and commercial development, it’s just a must. Therefore, approving
the interbasin transfer agreement will virtually assure an adequate water supply for Cabarrus
County and its communities, it would allow Cabarrus County to assure new industrial prospects
as well as existing industrial business in Cabarrus County that their water requirements can be
met. So based on the importance of the industrial development for Cabarrus County and our
region and our communities, the Cabarrus County Economic Development Corporation urges the
approval of the interbasin transfer.
Page 4 of 7
Oral Statement of Bill Kreutzberger

Public Hearing, June 23, 2005, Albemarle City Hall

I am Bill Kreutzberger with CH2MHill. I am a consultant for the cities of Concord and
Kannapolis. I wanted to provide just a few clarifying comments on the background of the
request and the request itself. First, in terms of the need for the additional water, the cities of
Concord and Kannapolis in cooperation with all of the communities of Cabarrus County and the
Water and Sewer Authority of the county went through an extensive water and sewer master
planning process about 3 or 4 years ago where they really looked at the entire system, what they
needed to do, growth projections in the community, and in particular, did a detailed analysis of
their available water supply to clearly establish how much they had and as part of that using sort
of accepted procedures by the State, and everything else, that is where we identified a short fall
of 24 MGD based upon an average annual amount within the 30 year time frame that the
Division of Water Resources and EMC established for interbasin transfers. So that is where that
24 MGD short fall has come from. Now the next thing, we looked at a number of alternatives,
we have been working on this process close to 5 years and part of the, while the master plan was
established the need for the water really didn’t look in detail at alternatives and we evaluated
well over 20 different alternatives including various combinations for meeting that shortfall and
the environmental impact statement just includes 5 of those that we had boiled it down to for
final analysis, so we spent extensive time with the staff of both communities and making
presentations to their councils regarding the alternatives that we needed to evaluate to meet their
water supply needs. The requested interbasin transfer, which is a combination of up to 38 MGD
from the Catawba Basin and up to 10 MGD max day from the Yadkin Basin, basically represents
a regional solution. It will allow those communities to negotiate with their neighbors in
Charlotte, their neighbors in Albemarle, they already have the interconnections up to the City of
Charlotte to allow them to meet their needs through a regional approach to water supply and that
has been the intent and the message that we had all along as part of this effort. I also want to
mention drought management, when you go through water supply planning your needs are based
upon your needs during normal or non-drought conditions. I think that 24 MGD represents that
amount. You already heard presentations from the utility directors of the extensive efforts that
the community went through in the past drought and have in place in case short term or longer
term drought conditions occur. Clearly, those drought management efforts would reduce the
demand the communities have during any future drought conditions. The last thing that I wanted
to mention was a little bit of the timeline of the process. We, as I mentioned, started this process
nearly 5 years ago. We recognize that there is an ongoing FERC relicensing process not only in
the Catawba River basin but also in the Yadkin River basin, that we have had discussions with
both applicants during the course of this effort and we determined that it would, with agreement
from them, that it was important to this interbasin transfer request to go forward first so that the
IBT could be appropriately considered as part of the FERC process. We have taken information
from the, that was available, to analyze the draft EIS, based upon comments through this first
notice and hearing process that the EIS has to be revised and then renoticed, we fully intend to
take all of the current information from the FERC process that is available working with the
Division of Water Resources so that we are maximizing our use of studies and analysis being
done as part of that FERC process. I want to thank the Commission for their consideration of my
comments and of the whole process, and urge that the Commission favorably consider the
request. Thank you.
Page 5 of 7
Oral Statement of Al Brown

Public Hearing, June 23, 2005, Albemarle City Hall

My name is Al Brown, I am Mayor Pro Tem for the City of Concord. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to speak for this cause. At the time, and somewhat in retrospect,
Brian eluded to earlier about the implementation of water restrictions that when we realized at
some point that we were in the midst of a drought I think that people realize even in our rank-
and-file community that the lifestyle that we know as a community and economic aspects of it as
well could not continue without an adequate source of water. Water is taken for granted, water to
me is life and without it we don’t have anything as far as our style of living or anything else. So I
think that we began to realize as a community and region that without water we were in serious
trouble. I think the drought provided a number of difficult challenges for businesses, citizens,
and the development community. Each one of these have distinct concerns. Businesses
depending on perhaps what type of business it is may need more water than others, but as a good
way to turn off business for wanting to come to your area or to maintain the ones that we have
certainly an adequate water supply is necessary. The development community of which we’ve
had certainly one of the largest development surges in the Southeast in the last number of years
has brought a number of challenges for our city and I think Concord is better because of the
leadership style that we have tried to take has been to be progressive to look ahead and to see
what we need to do to provide solutions rather than run away from it. I think our citizens
deserve a lot of credit for the willingness to participate in this process of sacrificing somewhat
for a long term cause of what we are trying to accomplish here. Communities obviously need
additional water for the growth that we have had. If we took the growth that we have had for the
last 20 years and had that same percentage of growth for the next 20 years without an adequate
water supply we wouldn’t be able to sustain that, to have it to support it. The Concord City
Council and our citizens are concerned about the environment and the natural resources of the
county. I think in all sincerity our City Council looks on our efforts towards this as somewhat of
a [unintelligible]. I think it is very important that we have that attitude. We have had discussions
in other venues that we have participated in our community and I think the one thing I know I
[unintelligible] a good many times is the land, the land as we know it is slowly diminishing and
the more we take care of the land the better of we are going to be in terms of our water supply.
The City of Concord was originally a partner in the conservation easement program that was
started in the past year in Cabarrus County, by which people that own large tracts of land or
family farms or whatever it may be have the prerogative to participate in this program if they so
desire. We think this is a good thing because it encourages various forms of open spaces, a
commitment to the natural resources and our natural setting. We also support a proposed solution
that is regional in nature and will allow the Cabarrus County communities to work flexibly with
others and regarding this water supply. Concord was also a prime initiator of the unified
development ordinance when it was started and most of the people that make up the governing
bodies in Cabarrus County most have the unified development ordinance. Recently Cabarrus
County has adopted some new development standards and land use policies that we think will
work hand in hand with our efforts with the UDO. We think the UDO is not perfect but we think
it is a tool that we can better manage the growth that we have. We are grateful for this
opportunity to be here today to present our case and hopefully we will be approved for option
one.
Page 6 of 7
Oral Statement of Henry Waldroup

Public Hearing, June 23, 2005, Albemarle City Hall

Good evening Mr. Green, with your permission. My name is Henry Waldroup, I am the Water
Resources Director (of Concord). Mr. Melton and I are going to have a joint presentation. Mr.
Melton is from Kannapolis. What I am here to talk to you about are the impacts to our
community and actions taken during the five-year drought. We developed a partnership with our
business communities. We have met with our car wash leaders, our hotel industry, our industrial
water users and we have assisted them, working with them to promote water conservation. Our
largest industry, Phillip Morris, reduced their water consumption by 25% and they continue to
this day to have a 25% lower water use than they had prior to the drought. The partner with our
hotels, as you know our area is the home of Lowes Motorspeedway, during the five years we had
10 major events that draws over 200,000 people to our community. We work with our hotels, our
restaurant industry to continue to provide those services they needed, however by reducing their
water consumption during this period of time. We were very successful. We didn’t go into it as a
dictatorship, we went into it as a partnership. We told them what we expected them to reduce the
numbers by and they met those without us telling them how to do it and we feel like that was the
proper way to do it. Both communities continue to encourage water conservation through
educational programs, meeting with civic groups and home owners associations, implementation
of an inclining tiered block water structure and higher irrigation rates. We use mass mailers for
our customers including in monthly water bills. We distribute to the low flow devices to
homeowners at no charge to help in cutting down those aerators and so on that they use in their
homes. Concord collected over $72,500 in violation penalties unofficially more than any other
community in the state. Concord-Kannapolis has spent much effort and money developing a
strong drought management plan for our existing supplies. This plan was included with the IBT
petition. We monitor inflow to our reservoirs, we have worked with USGS to install stream
monitoring devices. We monitor current lake levels and rainfall. We base it on the time of the
year. We establish trigger points that will be used to implement further water conservation when
necessary. An example in late May of this year, our water supply reservoirs were close to being
full, however, we were experiencing less than normal rainfall. Our stream flow in our reservoirs
was unusually low for the time of the year. We were very close to implementing water
conservation management strategies. Fortunately, on Memorial Day we got a 2 ½-inch rainfall
that filled our stream flows back up to the normal points it should be, it wasn’t necessary for us
to do that. Concord and Kannapolis have adopted a water conservation philosophy. We manage
our reservoirs effectively and make decisions based on our supply availability not on maintaining
our revue streams through the sale of water. The action mentioned above was shared by other
municipalities in our counties, the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County at large. The
Cities of Concord and Kannapolis spent over $4 million on interconnections to Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities, the City of Salisbury, and internal systems of interconnections between
our systems. In addition to improvement to the water plant facilities at a cost of over $23 million
while losing revenue due to lost water sales. Prior to the drought conditions our peak flow
demands went up by 40% due to irrigation. After the drought, after water conservation measures
are taken, our peak water flow demands go up about 2.14%,. As you can see we are serious
about water conservation in Cabarrus County. Thank you, turn it over to Mr. Melton.
Page 7 of 7
Oral Statement of Wilmer Melton

Public Hearing, June 23, 2005, Albemarle City Hall

My name is Wilmer Melton, Director of Public Works for the City of Kannapolis. As a follow
up to some of Mr. Waldroup’s comments, during the drought the City of Concord-Kannapolis
experienced revenue losses of approximately $3.4 million in water sales. We had numerous
campaigns as Mr. Waldroup had indicated, educational campaigns to our citizens as well as the
purchase of low flow water devices that we distributed to our citizens in order to further reduce
those impacts on our system during the drought. Following those actions, as our supplies still
plummeted, we were left with little alternative but to seek, finish water purchase contracts with
adjacent cities and building those pipelines to connect in order to supply water for our customers.
Those supply connections, at a cost of $1.3 million annually to our community, to bring water in
during those periods of time. In addition, we have also continually updated our master plan
working through the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County to ensure true
regionalization with the approach to better manage and protect our water resources. As many are
aware, in 2002 Governor Easley came down to Concord-Kannapolis and challenged the
communities in North Carolina to reduce their consumption by 10%. At that time, the Cities of
Concord-Kannapolis had already reduced by 25% of their overall production. Communities
contracted regional or national recognized engineering firms to come in and assist us and
determine to help with the drought effects with our master planning efforts as well as our lake
operational procedures and better management of our resources. Both communities continue to
feel the effects of the drought as our customers have come into a way of life of conservation and
not rebounded in terms of our revenues. As Public Works Director for the City of Kannapolis, I
meet with a number of developers from time to time and one of the first questions that generally
comes up is the stability of our water resources and without a stable water supply for our
communities it makes it difficult for business to relocate to our area. In closing, Concord-
Kannapolis have a regional support of our efforts and our ability to manage our existing and
future water supplies. We are hopeful that the agencies, the public understand our commitment to
protect and manage our water supplies. Upon approval of interbasin transfer certificate, we are
committed to work with our neighbors to develop additional drought management efforts as
necessary to ensure the continued protection of our environment and our water resources. Thank
you.

Western Piedmont Council of Governments
Over 30 Years of Regional Leadership
736 Fourth Street SW, Hickory, NC 28602 P. O. Box 9026, Hickory, NC 28603828-322-9191 - Fax: [phone] - www.wpcog.org
R. Douglas Taylor, Executive Director · Alden E. Starnes, Chairman · Nicky E. Setzer, Vice - Chairman · Kitty W. Barnes, Secretar y · Bruce E. Meisner, Treasurer Jack F. Roberts, Past Chairman · At - Large Members: Wayne F. Abele, Sr. · Carl W. Evans, Sr. · Granville W. Morrow · W. Darrell Robertson Alexander County · Taylorsville · Burke County · Connelly Springs · Drexel · Glen Alp ine · Hildebran · Morganton · Rutherford College · Valdese · Caldwell County · Cajah’s Mountain Cedar Rock · Gamewell · Granite Falls · Hudson · Lenoir · Rhodhiss · Sawmills · Catawba County · Brookford · Catawba · Claremont · Conover · Hickory · Long View · Maiden · Newton
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

August 10, 2005

Mr. Phil Fragapane
Division of Water Resources
NC DENR
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611

Subject: Comments on the interbasin transfer petition for the cities of Concord and Kannapolis

Dear Mr. Fragapane,

The Catawba River Study Committee consists of individuals representing local governments, nonprofit organizations and
businesses from Alexander, Burke, Caldwell and Catawba Counties in western North Carolina. This Committee, which is staffed
by the Western Piedmont Council of Governments (WPCOG), serves in an advisory role for 28 local governments within the
Hickory Metro on issues including water quality, water safety and recreation, and land use within the upper Catawba River basin.

Residents within this region depend on the Catawba River for water supply, electricity and recreation. Concerning the proposed
interbasin transfer request made by the Cities of Concord and Kannapolis, the Committee has concerns that water withdrawals of
the magnitude under current consideration could affect the ability of currently permitted local governments’ to meet the region’s
future consumptive and nonconsumptive needs. Therefore, based on the Committee’s review and discussion of the draft
environmental impact statement and interbasin transfer request, the Committee offers the following comments and requests on the
interbasin transfer proposed by Concord and Kannapolis.

1. The decision on whether to grant the petition request should be delayed until the current relicensing studies have been
completed by Duke Power Company. Duke Power is currently evaluating the water supply needs for the basin over the next 50
years. Because we anticipate that enhanced flows to support recreation and aquatic life will be required under the terms of the new
license, we believe it is advisable to determine what the actual negotiated flow requirements will be so the CHEOPS Model can
provide state staff and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) with more certainty regarding future long-term water
needs within the basin.

2. It is unclear whether the staff analysis and resultant environmental impact statement adequately addresses the impacts of a
severe drought on water supply, similar in magnitude to that experienced by the state just a couple of years ago. We would urge
state staff to ensure that this and future water supply forecasts for the Catawba River take a very conservative approach in lieu of
the challenges many water providers found themselves facing not long ago.

3. The Committee requests that the EMC direct staff with the Division of Water Resources to develop policies and regulations for
eventual EMC consideration that provide guidance statewide on how future interbasin transfer requests will be evaluated. The
current evaluation and issuance of such requests on a first-come, first-serve basis appears to provide a poor framework for making
decisions regarding a finite natural resource.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this petition.

Sincerely,

R. Douglas Taylor
Executive Director

cc: Hickory Metro Local Governments