Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 59/Wednesday, March
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Phase I ESA Dicey Mills
Phase I ESA Dicey Mills 430 Neisler Street Shelby, North Carolina H&H Job No. DCY-001 July 29, 2016 #C-1269 Engineering #-245 Geology Phase I ESA Dicey Mills 430 Neisler Street Shelby, North Carolina H&H Job No. DCY-001 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................1 1.1 Property Summary .................................................................................................................1 1.2 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions ....................................................................................2 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................8 2.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ..............................................................................................8 2.2 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................8 2.3 Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment ...........................................................................9 2.4 Special Terms and Conditions ...............................................................................................9 2.5 Data Gaps and Limitations ..................................................................................................10 3.0 Site and Area Description ....................................................................................................11 -
Duke Energy WSL III Units 1 & 2 COLA
William States Lee III Nuclear Station Environmental Report, Chapter 2 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................ 2.0-1 2.1 STATION LOCATION ................................................................................................. 2.1-1 2.1.1 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 2.1-1 2.2 LAND........................................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1 THE SITE AND VICINITY ..................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.1 The Site........................................................................................................... 2.2-1 2.2.1.2 The Vicinity...................................................................................................... 2.2-2 2.2.2 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AND OFF-SITE AREAS..................................... 2.2-5 2.2.3 THE REGION........................................................................................................ 2.2-5 2.2.4 REFERENCES...................................................................................................... 2.2-6 2.3 WATER ....................................................................................................................... 2.3-1 2.3.1 HYDROLOGY ...................................................................................................... -
Nutrients in Waters of the Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages, North and South Carolina, 1973-93
Nutrients in Waters of the Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages, North and South Carolina, 1973-93 By Terry L. Maluk, Eric J. Reuber, anc/W. Brian Hughes U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4172 Prepared as part of the NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Columbia, South Carolina 1998 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Stephenson Center-Suite 129 Branch of Information Services 720 Gracern Road Box 25286 Columbia, South Carolina 29210-7651 Denver, Colorado 80225-0286 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time. earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa Improve understanding of the primary natural tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- and human factors that affect water-quality ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound conditions. decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and This information will help support the development trends is an important part of this overall mission. and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni One of the greatest challenges faced by water- toring decisions by other Federal, State, and local resources scientists is acquiring reliable information agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. -
The Status of Freshwater Mussels in Some Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina Waters
THE STATUS OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS IN SOME GEORGIA, SOUTH CAROLINA AND NORTH CAROLINA WATERS Eugene P. Keferl AUTHOR: Professor of Biology, Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Brunswick College, Altama at Fourth, Brunswick, Georgia 31523. REFERENCE: Proceedings of th£ 1993 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held April 20 and 21, 1993, at The University of Georgia, Kathryn J. Hatcher, Editor, Instit\J.te of Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Abstract. Freshwater mussel populations in eastern had a devastating effect on these organisms (Fuller United States are in trouble. Surrey data indicates a 1974 and 1977, Ahlstedt 1984, Neves 1984, Oesch 1984, significant decline in mussel populations in North Caroli and Moser 1991). na, South Carolina, and Georgia. Additional work needs to be done to assess the status of mussels in all major drainages. All freshwaters need to be managed to prevent CAROLINA SURVEYS further loss. Since 1986 I have examined 896 sites on some 421 different streams and rivers in North Carolina and South A THREATENED FAUNA Carolina. My sampling efforts have focused on the Edisto River system in South Carolina, the Cooper.Santee River The management of our freshwater resources is a very system and the Pee Dee River system in North and South important issue in the United States. This vital resource Carolina, and the Neuse River system of North Carolina. is currently managed for drinking water, waste disposal, Most of this survey work was done as a part of work spon industry, agriculture and recreation. It is not being sored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct managed very well to preserve our biodiversity. -
Santee Basin Diadromous Fish Restoration Plan
SANTEE BASIN DIADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PLAN PREPARED BY: NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 2017 1 | Page Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------- 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 I. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 A. Need for a Plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 B. Santee Basin Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 C. Santee River Basin Historical Perspective -------------------------------------------------------- 23 D. Santee Basin Diadromous Fish Accord ------------------------------------------------------------ 26 E. Review of Migration Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 II. Fishes Targeted for Restoration and Their Current Status ----------------------------------- 36 A. Atlantic Sturgeon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 B. Shortnose Sturgeon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 C. American Eel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------