AG19890320 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael Byrd January 17, 1989 cabarrus.ltr accordance with Charts 1 and 2 and Figure 1 of the Guidelines kppendices. Should such facilities be installed, we also recommend that local governments/utility authorities assume tho ultimate responsibility for their operation and maintenance You also need to take steps to effect the enactment of watershed protection ordinances by Iredell County and Rowan County to protect those portions of the watersheds of the subject creeks. Any city whose jurisdiction extends or will extend into one of these watersheds will also need to enact appropriate ordinances. We would appreciate your sending us a copy of the m~nutes, etc. from the January 27, 1988 Coddle Creek seeping meeting. We would also appreciate information, maps, etc. 8bowing the location(s) of the proposed Coddle Creek reservoir since the classification schedule will need to be modified. Thc resolutions from Kannapolis, Concord, and Cabarrus County requested reclassification of the subject creeks to WS-II. Mt. Pleasant however, requested reclassification of Dutch Buffalo Creek to WS-I. Since the watershed protection strategies for WS-I (Table 2) and WS-II (Table 3) are virtually the same, with the exception of permitted discharge type, of which there are none known of in either subject stream segment, WS-I classification would be feasible for both stream segments not withstanding land use information, which we do not have. You may therefore, wish to pursue a resolution requesting reclassification of the subject stream segments to class WS-I. We are very pleased with the positive actions Cabarrus County has taken. We look forward to continue working with you in developing a watershed protection program for your water supplies. If you have any questions concerning this, please contact me at (9~9) 733-5083. Sincerely, Sidney L. Harrell eabarrus.ltr Kay5 cc: Rex Gleason, MRO Chuck Shue, HDR Eng. enclosures: vicinity & watershed maps & classification schedules