20051457 Ver 1_More Info Received_20071023

1 0 ARCADIS
1 Infrastructure, environment, facilities
1
i
1
1
Cleveland County Sanitary District
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1
Preliminary Alternatives Report
1 (draft)
1 First Broad River Reservoir Environmental Impact Statement
Cleveland County, North Carolina
October 23, 2007
i
1
1
1
Imagine the result
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Preliminary Alternatives
Report
First Broad River Reservoir
Environmental Impact
Statement
Prepared for.
Cleveland County Sanitary District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared by.
ARCADIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
North Carolina 27607
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
Prepared in cooperation with:
McGill Associates, Inc.
Fish and Wildlife Associates
Our Ref.:
NC606005.0003
Date:
October 2007
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Project Purpose and Need 1
3. Development of Preliminary Study Alternatives 2
3.1 Methodology 2
3.1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 2
3.1.2 Reasonability 3
3.2 Initial Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 3
3.2.1 Conserve Water 3
3.2.2 Utilize Groundwater 3
3.2.3 Purchase Water from other Sources 4
3.2.4 Increase Withdrawal at Existing Intake Site 7
3.2.5 Construct an Intake System on the Broad River 8
3.2.6 Reservoir on First Broad River at the 870-Foot Elevation 8
4. Description of Preliminary Study Alternatives 9
4.1.1 No-Action Alternative 9
4.1.2 Reservoir on First Broad River at the 860-Foot Elevation 10
4.1.3 Reservoir on Crooked Run Creek at the 960-Foot Elevation 10
4.1.4 Reservoir on Knob Creek at 860-Foot Elevation 11
5. Summary of Potential Impacts 11
6. References 14
Tables
1. Summary of Potential Impacts
2. Roadway Impacts
Figures
1. General Vicinity Map
2. Reservoir Alternatives

1
1
' 1. Introduction
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
amended, a planning, environmental, and engineering study is under way to increase
the water supply for the Cleveland County Sanitary District (CCSD). An
' Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared to describe and evaluate
potential impacts to the natural, cultural and human environments associated with the
proposed action. This alternatives analysis will comprise the second chapter of the
EIS.
' The content of this document conforms to the requirements of Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which provide direction regarding
implementation of the procedural provisions of NEPA. It is anticipated that any build
' alternative selected will require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits;
therefore, the USACE is the lead agency for the EIS. The EIS is being prepared by a
third party in conformance with 33 CFR Part 325.
The purpose of this report is to document the development of the alternatives
recommended for detailed study in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
2. Project Purpose and Need
It is projected that the Cleveland County Sanitary District will need 8.88 million
gallons of raw water per day (mgd) by 2060 to meet demands. The First Broad River,
which is the water source for the Cleveland County Sanitary District, is insufficient to
' meet projected demands, based on the following conditions:
• Fluctuations in the normal stream flow of the First Broad River vary widely and
' affect water availability at the Cleveland County Sanitary District intake on a daily
basis. The estimated available safe yield of the First Broad River at the intake
during non-drought conditions is 10 mgd; however, the safe yield during
' conditions approaching drought is lower.
In the absence of an impoundment, the safe yield is a function of the lowest
recorded day flow. A review of 30-year monthly mean discharge data for the First
Broad River shows that there was insufficient flow in the river to reach a safe yield
of 8.88 mgd for 56 of 360 months.

• Cleveland County suffered a severe drought that peaked in 2002 and is susceptible
to future droughts. A long-term solution is needed to ensure adequate drinking
water during drought conditions.
' The purpose of the proposed action is to ensure a dependable water supply for the
Cleveland County Sanitary District that meets projected long-term (2060) needs.
A "dependable" water supply will provide the district's needs and maintain required in-
stream flows (assuming water conservation measures are implemented in accordance
with an approved drought management plan).
' 3. Development of Preliminary Study Alternatives
3.1 Methodology
' The selection of alternatives to be carried forward for analysis in the DEIS was an
iterative process that began with project scoping. A number of alternatives were
' reviewed on the basis of the project's "purpose and need," objectives, and
reasonability. Based on this review, six potential alternatives were selected for
additional study.
All study alternatives must meet the purpose of and need for the project, adhere to the
project's goals and objectives, and be reasonable. The purpose of and need for the
project is described above in Section 2. The project's goals, objectives, and
reasonableness criteria used to evaluate alternatives, follow.
3.1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Project objectives are what the CCSD intends to accomplish by taking the proposed
action. The project objectives were developed in conjunction with the Purpose and
Need Statement and are based on CCSD management policies, as well as agency
' requirements.
Key project objectives, applicable to the CCSD service area, include the following:
• develop an effective and efficient water supply system,
• provide adequate water infrastructure that supports population growth and
economic development;
• maintain sufficient instream flow to support aquatic habitat and other uses;
• sustain required instream flow levels for downstream users; and
• respond to the needs of existing and future water customers.
2
D
3.1.2 Reasonability
The regulations promulgated by the CEQ for the implementation of the NEPA require
an objective evaluation of "all reasonable alternatives." The USACE regulations for
processing of Department of the Army permits (33CFR Part 325) describe reasonable
' alternatives as "those that are feasible and such feasibility must focus on the
accomplishment of the underlying purpose and need (of the applicant or the public)
' that would be satisfied by the proposed Federal action (permit issuance)." An initial
review for reasonability provided an appropriate level of detail to proceed with the
NEPA process. Additional information obtained at any time in the NEPA process may
' cause elimination of an alternative if that alternative is found not to be reasonable or
feasible in the future.
3.2 Initial Alternatives Considered but Eliminated
A list of initial options to be considered was compiled after review of previously
documented concepts from various sources. Those that did not meet the purpose and
need, the objectives, and the reasonability of the option were eliminated from further
consideration. In addition, any alternatives that were considered to have a substantially
' higher magnitude of adverse impact were eliminated from further consideration.
Alternatives initially considered but dismissed are discussed below.
3.2.1 Conserve Water
Per capita water usage could be decreased through the implementation of a water
' conservation program. The CCSD has a voluntary water conservation program and
enforces a mandatory program of water conservation during periods of drought. A
Water Shortage Response Resolution was adopted by the CCSD in February 2003.
t (See Appendix B.) The resolution stipulates conservation measures for both voluntary
and mandatory conservation phases. These measures address indoor residential use,
outdoor residential use, and industrial use. According to the CCSD, an aggressive
' water conservation plan will not negate the demand for an additional water supply in
the future. In addition, the Conserve Water Alternative would not meet the project's
purpose and need because it would not ensure a dependable water supply.
3.2.2 Utilize Groundwater
' Smaller communities and residences could be served by groundwater wells. However,
groundwater has not been a dependable source of water in Cleveland County. In
Cleveland County, the primary problem associated with dependence on groundwater as
3

a source for potable water is a natural shortage in water, with either very low water
levels in wells or wells running dry. There are no aquifers of large enough capacity to
' serve large municipal systems in the Cleveland County area. The North Carolina
Division of Environmental Health estimates that it is very unlikely that wells with the
pumping capacity needed to meet CCSD demands can be found in Cleveland County
(Setzer 2007).
' Water quality is also a problem. In some areas of the county, both recharge and
discharge areas display high concentrations of iron and manganese in the groundwater.
Water treatment for these metals is necessary (North Carolina Division of Water
' Resources 1989). Where iron or manganese is not a problem, the groundwater may
require chlorination. In addition, lithium has been detected in groundwater in the
Cherryville and Bessemer City vicinity of Gaston County. (The CCSD already has
more than 100 customers in Gaston County.) Additional treatment can potentially be a
significant expense (Setzer 2007).
' Due to the shortage of groundwater and water quality concerns, the alternative to
utilize groundwater, either from individual wells or large municipal wells, does not
meet the project's purpose and need.
3.2.3 Purchase Water from other Sources
Under this alternative, water would be purchased from an existing municipal source,
such as the City of Shelby, the Town of Kings Mountain, the Broad River Water
Authority (BRWA), the Town of Forest City, or the City of Hickory.
3.2.3.1 Shelby
' The City of Shelby has a raw water intake on the First Broad River which supplies
water to the city's water treatment plant. Treatment facilities include three off-stream
raw water reservoirs. Shelby's water treatment plant has a capacity of 12.0 mgd and
current average daily water treated is 4.2 mgd. The City of Shelby provides water on a
wholesale basis to the Town of Boiling Springs. The contract amount in 2002 was
1.0 mgd (Shelby Water Supply Plan 2002).
Based on the City of Shelby's 2002 Water Supply Plan, average daily water demands
for the city's service area are projected to be 8.7 mgd by 2050, including contract sales
of 1.0 mgd. Assuming an average day to peak day multiplier of 1.25, approximately
10.88 mgd would be needed in 2050. The available safe yield of the First Broad River
at the City of Shelby intake is 18.0 mgd (McGill 2004).
4
I

To prepare for future drought conditions, the City of Shelby installed an emergency 30-
inch water line to the Broad River after the 2002 drought. However, it should be noted
' that the Broad River is also at risk during drought conditions. Also, the location of the
intake requires water to be pumped, which is not cost-efficient. The CCSD has an
emergency use agreement and pipeline connection in place with the City of Shelby.
The volume of water offered to the CCSD is limited and depends on the available
water supply.
r Although the City of Shelby appears to have some excess capacity now and in the
future, the city's water supply is also susceptible to fluctuations in stream flow and
drought conditions. Therefore, the option to purchase water from the City of Shelby is
not "dependable," as defined in Section 2, and does not meet the project's purpose and
need.
r 3.2.3.2 Kings Mountain
' Moss Lake provides potable water to the Town of Kings Mountain. The City of Kings
Mountain operates an 8.0 million gallon per day (mgd) water treatment plant adjacent
to the lake. The city provides water only within its corporate limits and to its
' municipal customer, the Town of Grover. In 2002, an emergency pipeline connection
with the City of Shelby was constructed to supplement the city's water supply during
the drought. There is currently no direct connection between the town and CCSD.
However, on June 26, 2007 the CCSD entered into an agreement with the City of
Kings Mountain to purchase water. The agreement stipulates "that if in the event of an
emergency situation or need for conservation of the water resources by the City, the
city does reserve the right to refuse to supply water to the District, during such
emergency or conservation situation.
Because the City of Kings Mountain will not guarantee that water will be available to
the CCSD at times of need, it is not considered a dependable alternative. This
alternative does not meet the project's purpose and need.
3.2.3.3 Broad River Water Authority
' In adjacent Rutherford County, the BRWA serves the towns of Ruth, Rutherfordton,
and Spindale; and rural areas of the county. The BRWA utilizes the Broad River as its
water source with an intake near Rutherfordton and a 12.0 mgd water treatment plant.
The safe yield at the BRWA intake is estimated to be 13 mgd. (The Broad River is
shown in Figure 1.) The CCSD has an emergency use agreement and pipeline
connection in place with the BRWA. However, it is not likely that the Broad River
could meet the future daily needs of the BRWA and the CCSD in the absence of an
impoundment or other type of water storage system. Therefore, this is not considered
' to be a reasonable alternative.
3.2.3.4 Town of Forest City
The Town of Forest City utilizes the Second Broad River as its water source with an
intake located north of the town and a 8 mgd water treatment plant. The town's system
includes elevated tanks with a storage capacity of 2.5 mgd. The town's distribution
system extends outside the city limits to serve outlying areas and other communities.
Forest City sells water, under contract, to the towns of Bostic, Ellenboro, and the
Concord Community Water System. The CCSD does not currently have a connection
in place with the Town of Forest City.
Current average daily demand in the Forest City service area is approximately 5 mgd.
During the 2002 drought, the safe yield of the Second Broad River at the city's intake
was less than 4 mgd. Forest City owns a site on the Broad River and has plans to
construct a new raw water intake and pump station to provide additional capacity for
their system.
It is not known if the city will be able to supplement the CCSD's water supply to meet
` projected demands. This is not considered to be a dependable alternative.
3.2.3.5 Hickory
The City of Hickory uses the Catawba River (Lake Hickory) as a raw water supply.
The city currently has available excess capacity. In addition to costs of transporting the
quantity of water needed by the CCSD, this alternative would require permission from
the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission to transfer the required
amount of flow from the Catawba River basin to the Broad River basin.
M The Cabarrus County cities of Kannapolis and Concord have an interbasin transfer
certificate, approved in January 2007, to transfer 10 mgd from the Catawba River basin
' and 10 mgd from the Yadkin River basin to the Rocky River basin. The cities
requested a transfer of up to 36 mgd from the Catawba River basin; however, up to 10
mgd was approved. The city of Hickory, as well as a number of towns and counties in
' the Catawba River basin, passed resolutions in opposition to the transfer. Some of the
reasons given for opposing the transfer of water from the Catawba River basin are:
6
• permanent removal of water from the Catawba River will reduce lake levels in
all 11 Catawba River lakes including Lake Hickory;
• aquatic life would lose water during critical summer low flow conditions;
• reduced water levels in the basin would result in additional conservation
measures during drought ;
• the transfer would result in reduced revenues needed to operate the public
water and sewer systems inside the basin; and
• cities and counties within the Catawba River Basin would lose water resources
for future economic and population growth.
A consortium of Catawba River basin local governments, joined by the Catawba River
Foundation, appealed the decision by the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission to grant the interbasin transfer certificate. In addition, a bill is pending in
the North Carolina General Assembly that would change the laws governing the
transfer of water from one river basin to another. This legislation may make future
transfers an impossibility and could inhibit regional and intergovernmental
cooperation, according to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
(North Carolina Association of County Commissioners 2007).
At present, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities also has an interbasin transfer certificate
(March 2002) to transfer water (33 mgd) from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky
River basin.
Given the opposition expressed by the city of Hickory to the interbasin transfer request,
it is unlikely that the city would support such a request by the CCSD. Because of
potential legal issues and costs associated with implementation, this is not considered
to be a reasonable alternative.
3.2.4 Increase Withdrawal at Existing Intake Site
Withdrawals at the existing CCSD intake site are constrained by normal flows of the
First Broad River and the required instream flow requirements established by the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources. The projected safe yield of the First Broad
River at the existing CCSD intake is 10.0 mgd. However during the 2002 drought the
available supply dropped to less than 4.0 mgd. In the absence of some type of water
storage capacity, this alternative would not provide a benefit during drought conditions,
is not considered dependable, and does not meet the project's purpose and need.
7
The CCSD is in the process of obtaining permits to construct a small reservoir just west
of the treatment plant. The reservoir would provide a five-day supply of water as
required by state statutes.
3.2.5 Construct an Intake System on the Broad River
This alternative would consist of construction of a new run-of-river type intake on the
Broad River and the utilization of the river for a raw water supply in addition to the
First Broad River. This alternative would require the classification of a portion of the
watershed for use as a water supply. The safe yield of the Broad River is estimated to
be 25 mgd, based upon a withdrawal of 20 percent of low flow.
In adjacent Rutherford County, the Broad River is the water source for Rutherfordton,
Spindale, Ruth, and rural areas of the county and the Second Broad River, a Broad
River tributary is the water source for Forest City, Bostic, and Ellenboro. Forest City
owns a site on the Broad River and has plans to construct a new raw water intake and
pump station to provide additional capacity for their system. The City of Shelby
recently constructed an intake on the Broad River for use in emergencies and a portion
of the river and watershed were reclassified for use as a water supply. Several other
municipalities have expressed interest in future utilization of the Broad River for water
supply.
In consideration of the available safe yield, other demands for water from the river will
impact the amount of water available for the CCSD. While the water supplied by the
Broad River would supplement the supply from the First Broad River, in the absence
of storage capability, this increased water supply would also be susceptible to drought
conditions, is not considered dependable, and does not meet the project's purpose and
need.
3.2.6 Reservoir on First Broad River at the 870-Foot Elevation
A reservoir could provide a dependable water source for Cleveland County.
Impoundments of the First Broad River that would meet the needs of the CCSD were
considered. Preliminary studies eliminated several sites and elevations.
An impoundment at the 870-foot elevation would impound those areas below 870-feet
msl, providing an estimated safe yield of 56.5 mgd. (The safe yield is based on the
release of 40 cfs for in-stream flow needs.) An earthen dam would be constructed
across the First Broad River upstream of the existing CCSD raw water intake. The
' dam would create a reservoir with a surface area of approximately 1,822 acres. The
8
total drainage area upstream of the dam location is approximately 181 square miles.
The impoundment would extend west of NC 10 and NC 266 (Polkville Road). A new
bridge on NC 10 would likely be required.
Due to the capacity greatly exceeding the project need and potential impacts to
roadways and bridges, this alternative was eliminated from consideration.
4. Description of Preliminary Study Alternatives
After consideration of initial options, three preliminary study alternatives were
developed. (See Figure 2.) The three build alternatives would meet the project's
purpose and need by ensuring a dependable water supply for the CCSD that meets
long-term needs. The preliminary study alternatives would provide water for the
CCSD, as well as guarantee a minimum release to preserve the aquatic habitat of the
river.
The preliminary study alternatives include:
• No-Action Alternative;
• a reservoir on the First Broad River at 860 feet msl,
• a reservoir on Crooked Run Creek (a tributary of the First Broad River) at 960
feet msl, and
• a reservoir on Knob Creek (a tributary of the First Broad River) at 860 feet
msl.
The proposed reservoir sites and elevations are discussed below. The descriptions of
preliminary alternatives are subject to change as analysis and additional design are
completed. All build alternatives would include a 100-foot buffer beyond the flood
elevation.
4.1.1 No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, the CCSD would continue to take water from the
current intake on the First Broad River. Under this alternative, there would be no
changes to the existing conditions within the project area and water flow fluctuations in
the river would continue to affect the dependability of the First Broad River as a water
supply for the CCSD service area. The No-Action Alternative would limit population
growth and development in Cleveland County, as well as portions of adjacent counties,
and would not address water supply during drought conditions. A No-Action
Alternative is required by NEPA, but does not meet the purpose of and need for the
9
project. Because the No-Action Alternative would avoid any adverse environmental
impacts, it provides a basis for comparing the potential impacts and benefits of the
partial-build and build alternatives.
4.1.2 Reservoir on First Broad River at the 860-Foot Elevation
This alternative would impound areas below 860-feet msl, providing an estimated safe
yield of 37.5 mgd. (The safe yield is based on the release of 25 cfs for in-stream flow
needs.) An earthen dam would be constructed across the First Broad River upstream of
the existing CCSD raw water intake. The impoundment would extend west of NC 10.
The total drainage area upstream of the dam location is approximately 146 square
miles.
Initial feasibility estimates indicate that the dam would be approximately 83 feet high
and 1,245 feet wide at the base. The associated emergency spillway, located south of
the dam, would be approximately 1,000 feet wide. The dam would create a reservoir
with a surface area of approximately 1,200 acres.
4.1.3 Reservoir on Crooked Run Creek at the 960-Foot Elevation
This alternative would consist of the construction of an "off-stream reservoir" on
Crooked Run Creek to provide for the storage of raw water. The impoundment would
be located just north of Kistler Road (SR 1514) and extend upstream in a northwest
direction to Walker Road (SR 1517).
The reservoir would be maintained at full pool elevation during periods of normal to
high flows in the First Broad River by pumping water from a new First Broad River
intake to the reservoir up to a pump capacity of 15 mgd. (Normal to high flow is
defined as any river flow above that needed to maintain 25 cfs instream flow and 12
mgd Shelby demand, or a total of 43.6 cfs, in the river.) During periods of low flow in
the First Broad River, raw water would be withdrawn from the "off-stream reservoir"
for use in the CCSD's water treatment plant. A new raw waterline would convey
water from the reservoir to the existing water treatment plant. The 650-acre reservoir
would have a safe yield of 10.4 mgd, assuming 12 mgd is pumped from the First Broad
River (when water is available from the river) and up to 10 mgd is conveyed from the
reservoir to the water plant. The minimum instream flow for Crooked Run Creek is
estimated to be 3 cfs.
The lack of flow or low flow into the reservoir would likely result in odor and algae
growth in the untreated water. Therefore, the cost for processing water and the quality
10
of finished water are concerns with this alternative. Operation and maintenance costs
have not yet been determined.
4.1.4 Reservoir on Knob Creek at 860-Foot Elevation
This alternative would impound areas below 860-feet msl, providing an estimated safe
yield of 8.6 mgd. (The safe yield is based on the release of 11 cfs for in-stream flow
needs.) A new raw waterline would convey water from the reservoir to the existing
water treatment plant.
To impound Knob Creek, an earthen dam would be constructed east of the CCSD
water treatment plant and Lawndale-Casar Road. Initial feasibility estimates indicate
that the dam would be approximately 1,400 feet wide at the base. The dam would
create a reservoir on Knob Creek with a surface area of approximately 498 acres. With
buffers, the area required for this alternative is approximately 650 acres. The total
drainage area upstream of the dam location is approximately 35 square miles.
i 5. Summary of Potential Impacts
Preliminary studies on several sites were performed to consider the volume; surface
area; shoreline; safe yield; and number of roads, bridges, cemeteries and schools, and
other resources that would potentially be affected by an alternative. Results of this
initial review are summarized in a comparison matrix shown in Table 1 and are subject
to change as planning and designs progress and additional research and analyses are
conducted for the DEIS. The results of this initial review will assist in the decision to
determine which preliminary study alternatives to carry forward for more detailed
evaluation in the DEIS. Avoidance and minimization of impacts will be included
during the next phase of the planning process.
Based on the preliminary analysis, issues to be addressed in the DEIS are the impacts
of the project related to hydrology (including floodplains, floodways, and
geomorphology), water quality, aquatic habitat and wildlife, jurisdictional waters,
terrestrial habitat and wildlife, protected species, soils, topography, geology, soils,
farmland, hazardous materials, underground storage tanks, transportation network,
recreational opportunities, air quality, noise, cultural resources, aesthetics,
socioeconomics, and land use. In addition, the DEIS will address indirect and
cumulative effects.
11
Table 1: Preliminary Summary of Potential Impacts (subject to change based on
further analysis)
Alternatives: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

actors First Broad
River
860 rnsl
Elevation Crooked Run
Creek
960 msl
Elevation Knob Creek

860 msl
Elevation
Safe yield (mgd) 37.5 10.4 8.6
Capacity (million gallons) 8,374 6,330 2,520
Capacity (million cubic feet) 1,344 1,016 405
Total land inundated (acres) [reservoir footprint] 1,200 650 495
Total land required (acres) [area in acres required
after applying the 100-foot buffer] 1,650 1,100 650
Residences (in footprint) 16 15 0
Businesses 0 0 0
Railroad crossings 0 0 0
Bridges/culverts 12 2 4
Roads closed 2 1 3
Roads realigned 1 0 0
Power transmission line Yes No Yes
Schools 0 0 0
Parks/recreation areas 0 0 0
Existing trails or greenways 0 0 0
Churches/religious facilities 2 0 2
Cemeteries 0 0 1
Fire stations 0 0 0
Hospitals 0 0 0
Known occurrences of Threatened and Endangered
species (NHP occurrence) 1 TBD 1
Known occurrences of rare state species (NHP
occurrences or other publications) 3 TBD 3
Presence of habitat for Threatened and Endangered
species (number of species) 1 TBD 1
Farmlands (acres)* 325 305 111
Wetland natural systems (acres)** 1.5 TBD TBD
Length of river/streams impacted (miles) 24 3 8
Forested land (acres)* 875 345 384
** The largest wetland (>3 acres) is located west of NC 10. Impacts to wetlands are to be determined (TBD).
12
Table 2: Roadway Impacts: Length of Roadway in Reservoir Footprint (feet)
Note: This table is based on nreliminarv manning-
Alternatives: Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
First Broad
River
860 msl
Elevation Crooked Run
Creek
960 msl
Elevation Knob Creek
860 msl
Elevation
Hicks Hill Road (SR 1501) 356 0 0
Harris Creek Road (SR 1503) 169* 0 0
Mauney Road (SR 1513) 354 0 0
Kistler Road (SR 1514) 34 0 0
Oak Grove Clover Hill Church Road (SR 1509) 342 0 0
Delight Road (SR 1512) 423 0 0
NC 10 102 0 0
Joe Hoyle Road 50 0 0
Jackson White Road [gravel] 83** 0 0
Dobbs Road [gravel] 637*** 0 0
NC 226 (Polkville Road) 5 0 0
Covington Road (SR 1506) 201 0 0
Bracket Road (SR 1641) 0 0 175*
Elam Road (SR 1639) 0 0 209*
Warlick Road 0 0 342
Guy Warlick Road (SR 1516) 0 639* 0
Walker Road (SR 1517) 0 599 0
Total 2,756 1,238 726
..Vila ? L ¦vau %,lVOUIG
**'Me bridge over the First Broad was removed
*** Consider road closure and possible realignment
13
6. References
ARCADIS. 2007. Purpose and Need Report, First Broad River Reservoir, Cleveland
County, NC. October 18.
Catawba Riverkeepers Foundation. No date. http://www.catawbariverkeeper.org/.
Accessed October 2007.
City of Hickory. 2007. hUp://www.hickorygov.com/hickoryitb.html Accessed
October 8.
City of Kings Mountain and Cleveland County Sanitary District. 2007. Contract for
Purchasing of Water. June 26.
City of Shelby. 2006. Shelby Water Supply Plan. NC Division of Water Resources
Review Draft. September 6.
Forest City. No date. http://www.townofforestcitv.con-dwaterdept.html. Accessed
October 2007.
McGill Associates. May 2004. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed First
Broad River Reservoir. Cleveland County, NC. Asheville, NC.
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. 2007. Legislative Bulletin
#07-25. July 12.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). April 1989. Cleveland
County Water Supply Survey.
Setzer, Britt. 2007. NCDENR Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section. Personal communication with B. Smith (CCSD) [E-mail] on
October 4.
14
Figures
Burke County ?o - Catawba
N?/--- County

Lincoln
a
l County
?Cj2sar)

4. Cleveland;,
County
Belwood NC27
Rutherford
County
0
roc i az
a

Kingstown b -L 11

z 2C, ,-' r-
7boro t1
0
.
t Lkdmdre
C` Z
_
Gaston
IJs?4
o - .- ?`
doresb _ _
r County
ti ?
G?
Moss
Lake
B emer CF

s
!ling spAg "
'
r
,.. Broad ? ?• 1( ? G??? 5?? '- c,1
r 9iye / %E4ri as niis
South Carolina U
Vicinity Map Figure
AW First Broad River Reservoir Environmental Impact Statement
Cleveland County, North Carolina
Scale 1:220,000 N
Sources: North Carolina Department of Transportation;
0 1.25 2.5 5 North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Miles

`tl
1
m==== m m m ? = m w= w= i m m m