DOCSLIB.ORG

Haile FEIS Chapter 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Haile FEIS Chapter 2 Chapter 2 Haile Gold Mine EIS Project Description and Alternatives 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Introduction This chapter begins with a summary description of the Haile Gold Mine Project proposed by the Applicant. The chapter also discusses connected actions (infrastructure actions needed to support the Project that are not part of Haile’s DA permit application) and the identification and selection process for alternatives to the Applicant’s proposed Project. The alternatives analysis was in part guided by comments received from the public, agencies, and tribes during scoping; and these comments are summarized in the chapter. The chapter also describes the No Action Alternative. 2.1.1 Project Description A detailed description of the Applicant’s proposed Project is necessary to perform a comprehensive environmental analysis. The project description should define the geographic Project area, the layout of facilities in the proposed Project area, and the facilities and operations to be conducted in the Project area. It should discuss the construction sequence for the Project; the construction schedule; labor force requirements; and any regulated air, water, or waste emissions that would occur routinely or that could occur as a result of a disruption in routine project operations. Upon completion of mining operations, a mine closure and reclamation plan also should be included. As part of mine permitting, financial assurance would be required pursuant to the South Carolina State Mining Act (R-89-200). The Applicant’s revised DA permit application (dated August 15, 2012) and supporting documents form the basis for the description of the proposed Project. This chapter contains a summary description of the Applicant’s proposed Project (see Section 2.2); the detailed Project description is in Appendix A. 2.1.2 Identification and Evaluation of Project Alternatives To comply with NEPA regulations, the EIS must identify and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project. In addition to meeting the requirements of NEPA, the evaluation of alternatives provides the basis for the USACE to make specific findings under Section 404(b)(1) of the CWA. The alternatives evaluation must comply with the following regulations and guidelines. The National Environmental Policy Act – To comply with NEPA, regulations developed by the CEQ and the USACE require a detailed analysis of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project and their associated potential environmental consequences so that their comparative merits may be considered by agency decision makers (40 CFR 1502.14[b]). The alternatives evaluation must include the applicant’s proposed project, the no action alternative, and a range of other potential reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The range of potential reasonable alternatives that should be considered includes alternative sites, alternative project configurations, alternative technologies, and alternative project sizes. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines – In addition to meeting the requirements of NEPA, the USACE’s regulations implementing the 404(b)(1) guidelines dictate that the USACE may not issue a DA permit without making a finding that no practicable alternative to the proposed project exists that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic environment (Waters of the U.S.), so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. This regulatory finding must be supported by an alternatives analysis. A USACE-prepared EIS involving a DA permit application should be thorough enough to determine compliance with NEPA and the 404(b)(1) guidelines. These regulations use different criteria for the Final EIS 2-1 July 2014 Chapter 2 Haile Gold Mine EIS Project Description and Alternatives types of alternatives that should be considered. NEPA considers “reasonable” alternatives, and the 404(b)(1) guidelines consider “practicable” alternatives. Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from a technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant (46 Federal Register [FR] 18026). An alternative is practicable if it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes. If it is otherwise a practicable alternative, an area not presently owned by the applicant which could reasonably be obtained, utilized, expanded, or managed in order to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed activity may be considered (40 CFR 230.10). As noted in Chapter 1, the regulations further require that the USACE alternatives analysis identifies the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). After a full range of alternatives has been identified and evaluated, the No Action Alternative, the Applicant’s Proposed Project, and the Modified Project Alternative (i.e., reasonable alternative) will be moved forward and evaluated in detail in the EIS (40 CFR 1502.14[a]). The USACE has completed an identification and evaluation of alternatives for the proposed Haile Gold Mine Project and has identified the alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the EIS. The alternatives analysis conducted by the USACE and described in this report complies with NEPA and provides the basis for the USACE to make the required findings under the 404(b)(1) guidelines. Section 401 Water Quality Certification – The SCDHEC reviews applications for 401 Water Quality Certification. This certification is required for projects requesting a federal permit for activities that, during construction or operations, may result in any discharge to Waters of the U.S. The SCDHEC must address and consider whether there are feasible alternatives to an activity proposed in an application. In accordance with R. 61-101, Water Quality Certification, an application for 401 Water Quality Certification will be denied if a feasible alternative to the activity would reduce adverse consequences on water quality and classified uses. The SCDHEC will use the alternatives analysis described in this EIS to address and consider whether there are feasible alternatives to the proposed Project. 2.2 Description of Applicant’s Proposed Project 2.2.1 Project Site The proposed Haile Gold Mine Project is located in north-central South Carolina, 3 miles northeast of the town of Kershaw in southern Lancaster County (Figure 1-1). The proposed Project boundary includes a total of 4,552 acres, of which approximately 2,612 acres1 would be used for Project features (Figure 2-1). The Project area includes the land inside of the Project boundary, with the exception of two land parcels that are not owned by Haile, as shown in Figure 2-1. Although the site was previously mined for gold and other materials, there is no active mining at present. The site is currently undergoing post-closure monitoring for the former mine workings and has no other ongoing commercial, industrial, or urban activities. 1 The area estimated for Project features does not include the area of a disturbance buffer around the design footprint of each mine component. (See Table A-1 in Appendix A.) Final EIS 2-2 July 2014 d R s n i a l P t n a s a e l P Holly TSF Borrow Area Tailings Beach Surface UV265 Duckwood TSF Hock TSF TSF Borrow Area Growth Media Reclaim Storage Area Pond E r n e s t Overpass S c o t t R d d R d l Rd l Mill Site Ow e y i Access Road w o h n S S Mill Site Utility Pond Kershaw Correctional James OSA Institution ¤£601 Lowgrade Robert OSA To m G r e g o r y R d Ore Stockpile Johnny's PAG Detention Structure Hayworth OSA R d i n e d M Overpass o l Ledbetter e G 601 OSA a i l Chase Pit H Champion Pit Pit Snake Pit Pits and Pit-Related Activities Hayworth Growth Media Mill Zone Pit Storage Area 601 Red Hill Pit Growth Media Small Haile Pit Snake Storage Area Pit Growth Media Storage Area Hilltop OSA Legend Ramona OSA Project Boundary Not Part of Project Mine Plan Mill Site LANCASTER COUNTY Utility Pond KERSHAW Pit-Related Activities COUNTY Detention Structure Growth Media Storage Areas Overburden Storage Areas Duckwood TSF Borrow Areas Figure 2-1 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Haul Roads Duckwood TSF 0 300 600 Meters Ê Haile Gold Mine Reclaim Pond Project Boundary Tailings Beach Surface Sources: ESRI 2008, Haile 2013. and Major Mine Features County Boundary Chapter 2 Haile Gold Mine EIS Project Description and Alternatives 2.2.2 Overview of Mine Development The proposed Project consists of opening new mine pits and processing available reserves to extract gold and other Mine Features associated precious metals from ore. Project facilities would include mine pits where overburden and ore would be Mine pit. An open excavation where extracted, overburden storage areas, growth media storage overburden and ore are mined. areas, a processing Mill to extract and refine gold with Overburden storage area (OSA). An area associated maintenance and administrative facilities, a designated for storage of the overburden tailings storage facility, water storage ponds, sediment removed from the mine pit. detention ponds, a water treatment plant, roads, laydown areas, borrow areas for construction materials, and Growth media storage area. Large temporary construction areas (Figure 2-1). The Glossary aboveground piles where the surface portion of the soil and overburden that may contains definitions of the scientific and mining terms used be re-used as soil is stored for later use. in this EIS. Mill. The facility where ore is crushed and Each major activity of the mining process is described concentrated, and from which gold is briefly in the subsections below. The active mining and chemically and physically extracted (separated) from the ore to be smelted into processing portion of the proposed Project is estimated to doré bars. last approximately 15 years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • S.C. Utility Demand-Side Management and System Overview 2006
    S.C. Utility Demand-Side Management and System Overview 2006 A Report by the South Carolina Energy Office Division of Insurance and Grants Services State Budget and Control Board ________________________ S.C. Utility Demand-Side Management and System Overview, 2006 Published by the South Carolina Energy Office Division of Insurance and Grants Services State Budget and Control Board 1201 Main Street, Suite 430 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 August 2007 ______________________________________________________________________________________ ii S.C. Utility Demand-Side Management and System Overview, 2006 Table of Contents Executive Summary...........................................................................................................iv Definition of Terms used in this Report..............................................................................v The Status of Demand-Side Management Activities 2006 ................................................1 Introduction .............................................................................................................1 Background.............................................................................................................1 Categories of Demand-Side Management Activities...............................................2 Results and Findings .........................................................................................................3 Electricity ................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina State Water Assessment, 2Nd Ed., Chapter 1
    SOUTH Carolina IN PERSPECTIVE SOCIOECONOMIC ENVironment influx of capital and population advanced the economy from an agricultural base to a 21st-century economy that Geography has played an important role in South is dominated by manufacturing and is well diversified by Carolina’s history and development. Archaeological agriculture and tourism. evidence shows us that early Indian inhabitants found the land and climate well suited for hunting and gathering Population and later for agriculture. Spanish, French, and English explorers discovered that South Carolina’s harbors and South Carolina’s population increased from rivers provided ingress to the New World and its vast about 250,000 in 1790 to more than 4 million in 2005 resources. The settlers who followed on the heels of (Figure 1-1). The nearly one-million person increase exploration exploited the land and streams of the lower between 1980 and 2005 accounted for 27 percent of the Coastal Plain, and for almost 200 years they enjoyed a state’s growth during the past two centuries. Population predominantly agricultural economy based first on indigo growth is above the national average and is expected to and rice and later on cotton, tobacco, and timber. Abundant continue at an above-average rate owing to factors such as land, water, and labor and a mild climate attracted the state’s mild climate, natural attractions, favorable tax national and international investment and a migration to and labor laws, and relatively low cost of living. the State during the middle and late 20th century. That 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 opulation, in thousands P 2,000 1,000 0 0 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 200 2010 2020 2030 Year Figure 1-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Site 3 40 Acre Rock
    SECTION 3 PIEDMONT REGION Index Map to Study Sites 2A Table Rock (Mountains) 5B Santee Cooper Project (Engineering & l) 2B Lake Jocassee Region (Energy 6A Congaree Swamp (Pristine Forest) Produ tion) 3A Forty Acre Rock (Granite 7A Lake Marion (Limestone Outcropping) Ot i ) 3B Silverstreet (Agriculture) 8A Woods Bay (Preserved Carolina Bay) 3C Kings Mountain (Historical 9A Charleston (Historic Port) Battleground) 4A Columbia (Metropolitan Area) 9B Myrtle Beach (Tourist Area) 4B Graniteville (Mining Area) 9C The ACE Basin (Wildlife & Sea Island ulture) 4C Sugarloaf Mountain (Wildlife Refuge) 10A Winyah Bay (Rice Culture) 5A Savannah River Site (Habitat 10B North Inlet (Hurricanes) Restoration) TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR SECTION 3 PIEDMONT REGION - Index Map to Piedmont Study Sites - Table of Contents for Section 3 - Power Thinking Activity - "The Dilemma of the Desperate Deer" - Performance Objectives - Background Information - Description of Landforms, Drainage Patterns, and Geologic Processes p. 3-2 . - Characteristic Landforms of the Piedmont p. 3-2 . - Geographic Features of Special Interest p. 3-3 . - Piedmont Rock Types p. 3-4 . - Geologic Belts of the Piedmont - Influence of Topography on Historical Events and Cultural Trends p. 3-5 . - The Catawba Nation p. 3-6 . - figure 3-1 - "Great Seal and Map of Catawba Nation" p. 3-6 . - Catawba Tales p. 3-6 . - story - "Ye Iswa (People of the River)" p. 3-7 . - story - "The Story of the First Woman" p. 3-8 . - story - "The Woman Who Became an Owl" p. 3-8 . - story - "The Legend of the Comet" p. 3-8 . - story - "The Legend of the Brownies" p. 3-8 . - story - "The Rooster and the Fox" p.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Rainfall and Record-Breaking Flooding from Hurricane Florence in the Pee Dee Watershed
    Journal of South Carolina Water Resources, Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages 28–35, 2019 Historic Rainfall and Record-Breaking Flooding from Hurricane Florence in the Pee Dee Watershed MELISSA GRIFFIN1, MARK MALSICK1, HOPE MIZZELL1, AND LEAH MOORE1 AUTHORS: 1SC State Climatology Office, SC Department of Natural Resources, 1000 Assembly Street Columbia, SC 29201 . KEYWORDS: Florence, flooding, average return intervals, rainfall, ARI . With the advancements of software packages and data visualization, much of the analysis and information on the impact and historical perspective of the rainfall from Tropical Storm Florence included in our online ERSI Story Map is not viable to translate into the print format standards required by many publications. However, with the newly enacted Journal of South Carolina Resources policy, our article creates a precedent in how the Journal will address submittals that include subject matter available on the internet, by permanently archiving the information, and applying a structured peer-review process to the content. Abstract. For the third time in four years, record-breaking flooding occurred in South Carolina. Hurricane Florence, which made landfall near Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, on September 14, 2018, moved slowly across South Carolina from September 14–17, 2018. Over those four days, heavy rain fell over portions of the Pee Dee Watershed and eastern North Carolina, with over 30 inches of rain measured by an observer in Swansboro, North Carolina. Most of the excessive rainfall was confined to the Pee Dee region, with reported totals of over 24 inches in Horry County, while closer to the Savannah River Valley observers measured less than an inch of rain.
    [Show full text]
  • Geochemical Reconnaissance for Gold in East -Central Georgia
    A GEOCHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE FOR GOLD IN EAST -CENTRAL GEORGIA Vernon J. Hurst Thomas Kremer Parshall B. Bush DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION INFORMATION CIRCULAR 83 GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY Cover Photo: Mining Plant, Seminole Gold and Copper Mine, Lincoln County, Georgia. Photo courtesy of Georgia Department ofArchives and History A GEOCHEMICAL RECONNAISSANCE FOR GOLD IN EAST-CENTRAL GEORGIA by Vernon J. Hurst Thomas Kremer Parshall B. Bush Information Circular 83 GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES J. Leonard Ledbetter, Commissioner ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION Harold F. Reheis, Assistant Director GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY William H. Mclemore, State Geologist Atlanta 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Geologic Setting Sampling and Analytical Procedure . 2 Results . 2 Interpretation . 4 Geochemical Sampling Interval vs Expectable Size of Ore Bodies . 6 Exploration of Gold Anomalies . 6 References Cited . 18 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Study Area: A geochemical reconnaissance for gold in east-central Georgia. 2 2. Frequency distribution of gold values in saprolite and weathered rock samples from east-central Georgia. • . .. .• . 3 3. Greenwood gold anomaly, Warren County, showing sample localities with gold analyses in ppb. • . 8 4. Buffalo Creek gold anomaly, Oglethorpe County, showing sample localities with gold analyses in ppb. 9 5. Northwest McDuffie County gold anomaly, showing sample localities with gold analyses in ppb. .. 10 6. Brooks Creek gold anomaly, Oglethorpe County, showing sample localities with gold analyses inppb............................................................•................. 11 7. Raysville gold anomaly, McDuffie County, showing sample localities with gold analyses in ppb. 12 8. Sherrills Creek gold anomally, Taliaferro County, showing sample localities with gold analyses in ppb. 13 9. Leah gold anomaly, Columbia-Lincoln County, showing sample localities with gold analyses in ppb.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 303(D) List Due to Standard Attainment, Identified Pollutant Or Listing Error
    The State of South Carolina’s 2010 Integrated Report Part I: Listing of Impaired Waters INTRODUCTION The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Department) developed this priority list of waterbodies pursuant to Section §303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Federal Regulation 40 CFR 130.7 last revised in 1992. The listing identifies South Carolina waterbodies that do not currently meet State water quality standards after application of required controls for point and nonpoint source pollutants. Use attainment determinations were made using water quality data collected from 2004-2008. Pollution severity and the classified uses of waterbodies were considered in establishing priorities and targets. The list will be used to target waterbodies for further investigation, additional monitoring, and water quality improvement measures, including Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Over the past three decades, impacts from point sources to waterbodies have been substantially reduced through point source controls achieved via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Since 1990, steady progress in controlling nonpoint source impacts has also been made through implementation of South Carolina’s Nonpoint Source Management Program. In conjunction with TMDL development and implementation, the continued expansion and promotion of these and other state and local water quality improvement programs are expected to be effective in reducing the number of impaired waterbodies. In compliance with 40 CFR 25.4(c), the Department, beginning February 8, 2010, issued a public notice in statewide newspapers, to ensure broad notice of the Department's intent to update its list of impaired waterbodies. Public input was solicited.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Mining Resources of San Juan County, Colorado______Name of Multiple Property Listing State ______
    Historic Mining Resources of San Juan County, Colorado_________________ Name of Multiple Property Listing State _____________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents for Written Narrative Provide the following information on continuation sheets. Cite the letter and title before each section of the narrative. Assign page numbers according to the instructions for continuation sheet in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Fill in page numbers for each section in the space below. PAGE NUMBERS SUBJECT TO CHANGE E 1 Statement of Historic Contexts………………………………………………………...….1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………….….…..1 The Physical Environment of San Juan County………………………………….….….…....2 San Juan County’s Mining Districts………………..………………………...………...…….5 Las Animas Mining District…………………………………………………..……...5 Eureka Mining District…………………………………………….….…………..…6 Cement Creek Sub-District……………………………………...………….………6 Mineral Creek Mining District………………………………………...…………….7 Ice Lake Mining District……………………………………………………...……..7 Mineral Point Mining District…………………………….………………...……….7 Poughkeepsie Mining District………………………………………………...…….7 Bear Creek Mining District…………………………………………….………...…8 E 1 The History of Mining in San Juan County………………………………………...….…8 The Gold Rush, 1860 – 1861……………………………………………..……….8 Return to the San Juans, 1870-1874 ……………………………………………12 Settlement and Establishment of Industry, 1875-1881 ………………………….29 The Early 1880s Boom, 1882-1885 ..…………………………………………...53
    [Show full text]
  • Facilities from the Heath Springssprings )) Light &6 Power Company to I.Ynchesiynches )) River Electric Cooperative, Inc.Inc
    BEFOREBEFORE THETHE PUBLICPUBLIC SERVICESERVICE COMMISSIONCOMMISSION OFOF SOUTHSOUTH CAROLINACAROLINA DOCKETDOCKET NO.NO. 86-600-E86-600-E -—ORDERORDER NO.NO. 86-130286-1302 DecemberDecember 23,23, 19861986 ININ RE:RE: PetitionPetition ofof LynchesLynches RiverRiver ElectricElectric )) Cooperative,Cooperative, Inc.Inc. andand HeathHeath SpringsSprings )) LightLight. &6 PowerPower CompanyCompany forfor authorityauthority )) toto permitpermi. t LynchesLynches RiverRiver ElectricElectric )) Cooperative,Cooperative, Inc.Inc. toto purchasepurcha. se thethe )) electricelectric distributiondistribution facilities,facilities, )) ORDERORDER APPROVINGAPPROVING andand assetsassets ofof thethe HeathHeath SpringsSprings Light)Light. ) SALESALE OFOF SYSTEMSYSTEM andand PowerPower Company; and forfor thethe HeathHeath )) ANDAND REASSIGNMENTREASSIGNMENT SpringsSpr.ings LightLight. andand PowerPower CompanyCompany toto )) OFOF SERVICESERVICE AREAAREA sellsell such.uch assets,assets, and for thethe re-asre-as )) signmentsignment. ofof, the area served byby thesethese )) facilities from the Heath SpringsSprings )) Light &6 Power Company to I.ynchesIynches )) River Electric Cooperative, Inc.Inc. )) This matter comes before the Public Service CommissionCommi. ssion of South Carolina (the Commission) by way of a Petition jointly filed by Lynches River FlectricElectric Cooperative, Inc. (Lynches River) and HeathHeath Spr,Springsngs Light.Light and PowerPower Company (Heath Springs) (collectively(collectively referred tot.o asas "Pet."Petitioners").itioners")
    [Show full text]
  • The Fishes of the Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
    THE FISHES OF THE CAROLINA SANDHILLS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE by Larry L. Olmsted and Donald G. Cloutman Final Report to United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service March 1978 INTRODUCTION The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has established more than 300 national wildlife refuges for management of waterfowl, large mammals, and certain endangered species. Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1939 as a wildlife demonstration area (USlll, Fish and Wildlife Service 1968). Although management practices and developments are designed primarily to Improve the habitat of certain birds and mammals, the area also serves as a sanctuary for many other forms of life, including fishes. Little information is available concerning the fishes of the Sandhills region in South Carolina, and no detailed studies have been conducted previously on the refuge. Welsh (1916) reported on fishes he collected during a canoe journey in the Lumber, Pee Dee, and Waccamaw drainages from Pinebluff, North Carolina to Georgetown, South Carolina, and Carolina Power and Light Company (1976) has surveyed the fishes of Lake Robinson and Black Creek south of the refuge. This present study was initiated to provide distributional data on fishes of the Sandhills region and to formulate management recommendations for protecting threatened species or species of economic or ecological interest on the refuge. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA The Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge (Fig. 1) consists of 46,000 acres (18,600 ha) in a wide band of sandhills along the Fall Line between the Coastal Plain and Piedmont Plateau in Chesterfield County, South Carolina.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina's Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy
    South Carolina’s Statewide Forest Resource Assessment and Strategy Conditions, Trends, Threats, Benefits, and Issues June 2010 Funding source Funding for this project was provided through a grant from the USDA Forest Service. USDA Nondiscrimination Statement “The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.” A Message from the State Forester South Carolina is blessed with a rich diversity of forest resources. Comprising approximately 13 million acres, these forests range from hardwood coves in the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains to maritime forests along the Atlantic Coast. Along with this diversity comes a myriad of benefits that these forests provide as well as a range of challenges that threaten their very existence. One of the most tangible benefits is the economic impact of forestry, contributing over $17.4 billion to the state’s economy and providing nearly 45,000 jobs.
    [Show full text]
  • Carolina Sandhills
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge The National Wildlife Refuge System Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge encompasses approximately 45,000 acres of land and water in This blue goose, northeastern South Carolina and is designed by J.N. one of more than 500 refuges in the Ding Darling, National Wildlife Refuge System, the has become the world’s most outstanding network of symbol of the lands and waters dedicated to wildlife. National Wildlife Consisting of more than 90 million Refuge System. acres in all 50 states, these refuges protect and enhance a wide array of habitats, ensuring the survival and continuing welfare of America’s fauna, flora, and other natural resources. USFWS History When Carolina Sandhills Refuge was purchased by the federal government in 1939 under the provisions of the Resettlement Act, the land was badly eroded and very little wildlife was to be found. Efforts began immediately to restore this damaged, barren land to a healthy, rich habitat for the plants and animals that once lived here. The longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem, the characteristic habitat of the refuge, once covered more than 90 million acres across the southeastern United States from Virginia to Texas. This unique ecosystem, shaped by thousands of years of natural fires that burned through every two to four years, has been reduced to less than two million acres. USFWS Today, only scattered patches remain with most occurring on public lands. Factors contributing to the demise of this ecosystem include aggressive fire suppression efforts, clearing for agriculture and development, and conversion to other pine types.
    [Show full text]
  • Outstanding Resource Waters
    61–69. Classified Waters. (Statutory Authority: 1976 Code Section 48–1–10 et seq.) TABLE OF CONTENTS A. Criteria for Classes B. Tributaries to Classified Waters C. Status of Classifications and Reviews D. No Discharge Zone Designations E. Class Abbreviations F. Notations for Site-Specific Standards and Previous Class G. County Abbreviations H. List of Waterbody Names, County(ies), Class, and Descriptions A. Criteria for Classes. All adopted classifications must conform to the standards and rules contained within R.61–68, Water Classifications and Standards or site-specific standards listed within this regulation. Unless noted, site- specific standards apply only to the water named and not to tributary or downstream waters. B. Tributaries to Classified Waters. Where surface waters are not classified by name (unlisted) in this regulation, the use classification and numeric standards of the class of the stream to which they are tributary apply, disregarding any site- specific numeric standards for the named waterbody. In tidal areas, where an unlisted tributary may affect or flows between two differently classified waterbodies, regardless of whether the location is upstream or downstream, the more stringent numeric standards of the classified waters apply to the unlisted tributary, disregarding any site-specific numeric standards for those waterbodies. C. Status of Classifications and Reviews. The classification for all bodies of water contained herein supersedes all previous classifications. The classifications listed within this regulation shall be open to review to ensure that the classification use is still valid and justified. D. No Discharge Zone Designations. The Department may determine in accordance with Section 312 of the Clean Water Act that for some waterbodies (or portions of waterbodies), the designation of No Discharge Zone (NDZ) for Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs) shall be enacted with application of the existing classified standards of the waterbody.
    [Show full text]