DOCSLIB.ORG

WATER QUALITY of the YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER SYSTEM, NORTH CAROLINA Variability, Pollution Loads, and Long-Term Trends

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
WATER QUALITY of the YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER SYSTEM, NORTH CAROLINA Variability, Pollution Loads, and Long-Term Trends WATER QUALITY OF THE YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER SYSTEM, NORTH CAROLINA Variability, pollution loads, and long-term trends U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 81-613 Prepared in cooperation with the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WATER QUALITY OF THE YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER SYSTEM, NORTH CAROLINA- VARIABILITY, POLLUTION LOADS, AND LONG-TERM TRENDS By Douglas Harned and Dann Meyer U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 81-643 Prepared in cooperation with the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Raleigh, North Carolina 1981 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Doyle G. Frederick, Acting Director For Additional Information Copies of this report may Write to: be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Post Office Box 2857 Open-File Services Section Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Branch of Distribution Box 25*125, Federal Center Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract........................................................... 1 Introduction....................................................... 3 Purpose and scope.............................................. 3 Recent water-quality studies................................... 4 Acknowledgments.................................................... 5 Basin description.................................................. 6 Climate........................................................ 6 Streamflow..................................................... 8 Geology and physiography....................................... 8 Population..................................................... 9 Water uses and waste disposal.................................. 9 Hydrologic modifications....................................... 13 Data collection.................................................... 13 Water-quality variation............................................ 15 Physical characteristics....................................... 16 Dissolved oxygen and water temperature.................... 16 pH........................................................ 21 Suspended sediment........................................ 21 Sediment transport........................................ 22 Turbidity................................................. 28 Diel variations................................................ 28 Observed diel patterns.................................... 29 Major dissolved substances..................................... 39 Trace elements................................................. 50 Nutrients...................................................... 54 Carbon.................................................... 54 Nitrogen.................................................. 56 Phosphorus................................................ 56 Nutrient balance.......................................... 59 Nutrient relations........................................ 59 Biological characteristics..................................... 61 Bacteria.................................................. 61 Biochemical oxygen demand................................. 63 Algae..................................................... 63 Summary of water-quality variation............................. 65 Pollution.......................................................... 67 Baseline water quality......................................... 6? Pollution loads................................................ 77 Trends............................................................. 83 Trend-analysis techniques...................................... 83 Results........................................................ 84 Long-term trends.......................................... 84 Water quality - population relations...................... 93 Summary............................................................ 99 References cited................................................... 103 iii ILLUSTRATIONS Page Figure 1. Locations of water-quality sampling stations used in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin study............... 7 2. Map of the percentage of the total basin population residing in each Yadkin-Pee Dee subbasin........... 10 3. Map of the percentage of total industrial and municipal point-source waste-water discharge originating in each Yadkin-Pee Dee subbasin.................... 12 4. Graph showing period of record for water-quality sample collection and discharge measurement at five stations in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin.............................................. 14 5. Graph of air and water temperatures versus time, for water year 1977, for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College............................................ 17 6. Graph of air and water temperatures during the flood of January 9-18, 1975, on the Yadkin River at Yadkin College............................................ 18 7. Graph of dissolved-oxygen concentration versus water temperature for water years 1970-78 at the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, the Rocky River near Norwood, and the Pee Dee River near Rockingham..... 20 8. Graph showing suspended-sediment concentration and discharge for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College through a storm event occurring January 9-17, 1975................................. 23 9. Graph of suspended-sediment concentration versus discharge for the 1974-78 water years at the Yadkin River at Yadkin College..................... 24 10. Graph of suspended-concentration versus discharge for the 1974-78 water years at the Rocky River near Norwood....................................... 25 11. Graph of suspended-sediment concentration versus discharge for the 1974-78 water years at the Pee Dee River near Rockingham...................... 26 12. Continuous monitor plots of water level, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, July 18-19, 1976.......................... 31 13. Continuous monitor plots of water level, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, May 15-16, 1976........................... 32 14. Continuous monitor plots of water level, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, August 8, 1976............................ 33 Page Figure 15. Graphs of mean hourly dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College during April 12-30, 1975.................................. 35 16. Graphs of mean hourly dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College during June 20-24, 1975................................... 36 17. Graphs of mean hourly dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, and specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College during February 1-19 and 27-29, 1976...................... 37 18. Graphs of mean diel stage for the periods of April 12-30, 1975, June 20-24, 1975, and February 1-19 and 27-29, 1976, for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College............................ 38 19. Graph showing cation-anion diagrams for water years 1974-78 for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, Rocky River near Norwood, and the Pee Dee River near Rockingham.................................... 39 20. Graph showing frequency distributions of dissolved solids for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, and the Pee Dee River near Rockingham (1974-78 water years)....................................... 42 21. Graph showing frequency distribution of dissolved solids for the Rocky River near Norwood (1974-78 water years)....................................... 43 22. Graph showing frequency distributions of daily specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College (1974-77 water years) and the Pee Dee River near Rockingham (1975-77 and 1979 water years)............................................. 44 23. Graph showing frequency distribution of daily specific conductance for the Rocky River near Norwood (1977 and 1979 water years)................ 45 24. Graph showing regression lines of dissolved-constituent concentration over the known range of specific conductance for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College (1974-78 water years).............................. 46 25. Graph showing regression lines of dissolved-constituent concentration over the known range of specific conductance for the Rocky River near Norwood (1974-78 water years).............................. 47 26. Graph showing regression lines of dissolved-constituent concentration over the known range of specific conductance for the Pee Dee River near Rockingham (1974-78 water years).............................. 48 27. Graph of total dissolved solids versus instantaneous streamflow for water years 1974-78 for the Rocky River near Norwood................................. 49 28. Graph showing trace-element and dissolved-solids concentration and discharge for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College through a storm event occurring January 9-17, 1975................................. 54 Page Figure 29. Graph showing frequency distribution of nitrite + nitrate nitrogen concentrations for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, Rocky River near Norwood, and the Pee Dee River near Rockingham (197M-78 water years).............................. 57 30. Graph showing frequency histograms for total phosphorus for the Yadkin River at Yadkin College, Rocky River near Norwood , and Pee Dee River near Rockingham (1970-78 water years)............................................. 58 31.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009
    French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 What is a River Basin Restoration Priority? 1 Criteria for Selecting a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 2 French Broad River Basin Overview 3 French Broad River Basin Restoration Goals 5 River Basin and TLW Map 7 Targeted Local Watershed Summary Table 8 Discussion of TLWs in the French Broad River Basin 10 2005 Targeted Local Watersheds Delisted in 2009 40 References 41 For More Information 42 Definitions 43 This document was updated by Andrea Leslie, western watershed planner. Cover Photo: French Broad River, Henderson County during 2004 flood after Hurricanes Frances and Ivan French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009 1 Introduction This document, prepared by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), presents a description of Targeted Local Watersheds within the French Broad River Basin. This is an update of a document developed in 2005, the French Broad River Basin Watershed Restoration Plan. The 2005 plan selected twenty-nine watersheds to be targeted for stream, wetland and riparian buffer restoration and protection and watershed planning efforts. This plan retains twenty-seven of these original watersheds, plus presents an additional two Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) for the French Broad River Basin. Two 2005 TLWs (East Fork North Toe River and French Broad River and North Toe River/Bear Creek/Grassy Creek) were gardens, Mitchell County not re-targeted in this document due to a re-evaluation of local priorities. This document draws information from the detailed document, French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan—April 2005, which was written by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
    [Show full text]
  • 15A Ncac 02B .0100-.0300
    NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Division of Water Resources Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 02B .0100: Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards 15A NCAC 02B .0200: Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina 15A NCAC 02B .0300: Assignment of Stream Classifications Amended Effective: November 1, 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA This document available at: https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/csrrb/tri_rev_17to19/15A_NCAC_02B_.0100- .0300.pdf SUBCHAPTER 02B - SURFACE WATER AND WETLAND STANDARDS SECTION .0100 - PROCEDURES FOR ASSIGNMENT OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 15A NCAC 02B .0101 GENERAL PROCEDURES (a) The rules contained in Sections .0100, .0200 and .0300 of this Subchapter, which pertain to the series of classifications and water quality standards, shall be known as the "Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to the Surface Waters and Wetlands of North Carolina." (b) The Environmental Management Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), prior to classifying and assigning standards of water quality to any waters of the State, shall proceed as follows: (1) The Commission, or its designee, shall determine waters to be studied for the purpose of classification and assignment of water quality standards on the basis of user requests, petitions, or the identification of existing or attainable water uses, as defined by Rule .0202 of this Subchapter, not presently included in the water classification. (2) In determining the best usage of waters and assigning classifications of such waters, the Commission shall consider the criteria specified in G.S. 143-214.1(d). In determining whether to revise a designated best usage for waters through a revision to the classifications, the Commission shall follow the requirements of 40 CFR 131.10 which is incorporated by reference including subsequent amendments and editions.
    [Show full text]
  • PROPOSED RULES Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife Resources Commission
    NORTH CAROLINA REGISTER VOLUME 33 ● ISSUE 11 ● Pages 1103 – 1266 December 3, 2018 I. EXECUTIVE ORDERS Executive Order No. 80 .................................................................................. 1103 – 1106 Executive Order No. 81 .................................................................................. 1107 II. IN ADDITION Labor, Department of - Notice Of Verbatim Adoption Of Federal Standards 1108 III. PROPOSED RULES Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife Resources Commission ..................................................................... 1109 – 1147 Public Health, Commission for ....................................................................... 1147 – 1180 Occupational Licensing Boards and Commissions Barber Examiners, Board of ........................................................................... 1180 – 1181 Landscape Contractors' Licensing Board ........................................................ 1181 – 1186 IV. APPROVED RULES........................................................................................ 1187 – 1253 Elections and Ethics Enforcement, Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, Board of Labor, Department of Department Public Safety, Department of Department Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife Resources Commission Public Health, Commission for Occupational Licensing Boards and Commissions Dental Examiners, Board of Locksmith Licensing Board Midwifery Joint Committee Physical Therapy Examiners, Board of V. RULES REVIEW COMMISSION ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Ecosystems
    February 19, 2014 Nantahala and Pisgah NFs Assessment Aquatic Ecosystems The overall richness of North Carolina’s aquatic fauna is directly related to the geomorphology of the state, which defines the major drainage divisions and the diversity of habitats found within. There are seventeen major river basins in North Carolina. Five western basins are part of the Interior Basin (IB) and drain to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico (Hiwassee, Little Tennessee, French Broad, Watauga, and New). Parts of these five river basins are within the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (NFs). Twelve central and eastern basins are part of the Atlantic Slope (AS) and flow to the Atlantic Ocean. Of these twelve central and eastern basins, parts of the Savannah, Broad, Catawba, and Yadkin-Pee Dee basins are within the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs. As described later in this report, the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs, for the most part, support higher elevation coldwater streams, and relatively little cool- and warmwater resources. To gain perspective on the importance of aquatic ecosystems on the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs, it is first necessary to understand their value at regional and national scales. The southeastern United States has the highest aquatic species diversity in the entire United States (Burr and Mayden 1992; Williams et al. 1993; Taylor et al. 1996; Warren et al. 2000,), with southeastern fishes comprising 62% of the United States fauna, and nearly 50% of the North American fish fauna (Burr and Mayden 1992). Freshwater mollusk diversity in the southeast is ‘globally unparalleled’, representing 91% of all United States mussel species (Neves et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetation Differences in Neighboring Old-Growth
    ABSTRACT B. CLAY JACKSON. Vegetation Differences in Neighboring Old Growth and Second Growth Rich Coves in the Joyce Kilmer Wilderness Area: A Thirty-two-year Perspective. (Under the direction of H. Lee Allen). I surveyed vegetation in neighboring old growth and second growth rich coves in the Joyce Kilmer Wilderness Area, North Carolina. This data, combined with data from three previous studies, provide a 32 year perspective of stand structure, species frequencies of occurrence at the 1 m2 scale, and species richness at the 1 m2 scale. I sampled one 0.1 ha plot in each cove. I subdivided each plot into ten 10 m by 10 m modules and sampled percentage cover of all species present in each module, plus stem diameter for woody stems. Additionally, I sampled presence absence in a variety of subplots at scales of 0.01 m2, 0.1 m2, 1 m2, 10 m2, and 100 m2. A cohort of 30-40 cm diameter at breast height Liriodendron tulipifera trees dominated the second growth cove, while the old growth site had a broader mix of species with an inverse J-shape diameter distribution. In both rich coves, the frequencies of occurrence at 1 m2 appeared highly variable for individual species between sample years and distances of 200 m or less. The four studies provided species richness comparisons at the 1 m2 scale between the old growth and second growth (at ages 16, 35, 39, and 47 years). I concluded that the differences in second growth species richness between studies demonstrated rich cove forest succession. High species richness following disturbance reflected a surge of opportunistic species (age 16).
    [Show full text]
  • Tourism Asset Inventory
    Asset Asset Management Overview Natural/Scenic Asset Details Cultural/Historic Asset Details Event Asset Details Type: Brief Description Potential Market Draw: Access: Uses: Ownership Supporting Critical Asset is Key Tourism Opportunities are Land Visitor Use Management Interpretation Ranger at Site Visitor Potential Land Protection Species Represents the Type of Cultural Representation has Promotion of event Attendance of Event Event results Event has a NGOs Management marketed through Impact Indicators provided to businesses, Management Policy or Plan Plans Included at Site Facilities at Hazards Status Protection cultural heritage of the Heritage Represented: the support of a is primarily: event is Duration: in increased specific Natural, Cultural, Day Visit, Overnight, 1 = difficult Hiking, Biking, Issues Destination are Being visitors, and community Plan in Place Stakeholder Site Status region diverse group of primarily: overnight marketing Historic, Scenic, Extended 5 = easy Paddling, Marketing Monitored on a members to donate Input Tangible, Intangible, stakeholders Locally, Regionally, One Day, stays in strategy and Event, Educational, Interpretation, Organization / Regular Basis time, money, and/or Both Nationally, Locally, Multiple Days destination economic Informational etc. TDA and Reported to other resources for Internationally, All Regionally, impact TDA asset protection Nationally, indicators Internationally, All Pisgah National Forest Natural Established in 1916 and one of the first national Day Visit, Overnight, 5; PNF in Hiking, Biking, U.S. Federal Pisgah Overcrowding Yes Yes, in multiple ways Nantahalla and y,n - name, year Yes; National At various placs at various At various Any hazard Federally protected See Forest forests in the eastern U.S., Pisgah stretches across Extended Transylvania Rock Climbing, Government Conservancy, at some popular through multiple Pisgah forest Forest listed below locations below locations below associated with public lands for Management several western North Carolina counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Authorize Dan River State Trail
    HOUSE BILL 360: Authorize Dan River State Trail. 2021-2022 General Assembly Committee: House Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the Date: April 22, 2021 House Introduced by: Reps. K. Hall, Carter Prepared by: Kellette Wade Analysis of: First Edition Staff Attorney OVERVIEW: House Bill 360 would authorize the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (Department) to add the Dan River Trail to the State Parks System. CURRENT LAW: The State Parks Act provides that a trail may be added to the State Parks System by the Department upon authorization by an act of the General Assembly. All additions are required to be accompanied by adequate authorization and appropriations for land acquisition, development, and operations. BILL ANALYSIS: House Bill 360 would authorize the Department to add the Dan River Trail to the State Parks System as a State Trail. The use of any segment of the trail crossing property not owned by the Department's Division of Parks and Recreation would be governed by the laws, rules, and policies established by that segment's owner. This addition would be exempt from having to be accompanied by adequate appropriations for land acquisition, development, and operations. Lands needed to complete the trail would be acquired either by donations to the State or by using existing funds in the Land and Water Fund, the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, and other available sources of funding. EFFECTIVE DATE: This act would be effective when it becomes law. BACKGROUND: The Dan River is important to North Carolina, flowing 214 miles through Virginia and North Carolina, crossing the state line 8 times.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Water Supply & Wastewater
    Piedmont Triad Climate Resiliency Tool Kit Water Supply & Wastewater Introduction Water is a scarce natural resource in the Piedmont region. As the Piedmont Triad continues to grow and develop, and the demand for potable water increases, it has become increasingly important to monitor the surface water capacity available to fulfill our regional water demand. Short-term solutions to water issues are generally quick and necessary steps in reaction to immediate concerns. However, a long-term planning approach will better prepare local governments for the unique challenges facing our region. Investment in a deeper understanding of the complex and challenging political, regulatory, and environmental issues surrounding water supply will help guide decision-makers to consider future ramifications of options in resource planning. This assessment of current and future (20-50 years) water resource needs and wastewater treatment plant capacity includes the 12-county Piedmont Triad Regional Council (PTRC) Region (Alamance, Caswell, Davidson, Davie, Forsyth, Guilford, Montgomery, Randolph, Rockingham, Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin Counties). Water supply and wastewater capacity are assessed within the context of surface water availability, projected population growth, geography, current laws and regulations, water quality, and patterns of water use (water conservation and water reuse). Background Drinking water comes from two primary sources, surface water or groundwater. Surface water is the water found above ground in the form of rainwater runoff, streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Groundwater is unseen and deep in the ground saturating porous sandy soils or fractures of bedrock. Surface water and groundwater affect each other. Groundwater comes to the surface (springs) and can help replenish surface water.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Route Name Crossing Type Year Built
    Year Deck Super Sub Culvert Func Struc Last Structure Structure Avg Daily Road Jurisdiction Route Name Crossing Type Built Cond Cond Cond Cond Obslt Defic Inspected Length (FT) Width (FT) Traffic System Henry County Parkway Drive 1714 220 Bypass Bridge 1983 7 7 7 N 8/23/2018 198.2 33.8 720 Secondary Henry County Kings Mtn Rd 174 Little Beaver Creek Culvert 1990 N N N 6 1/9/2019 32.0 115.0 14480 Primary Henry County Old Liberty Road 620 Leatherwood Creek Bridge 1964 6 7 7 N 12/4/2017 99.7 29.0 1995 Secondary Henry County Daniels Crk Rd 609 Daniels Creek Bridge 1962 6 6 6 N 10/30/2017 23.0 37.9 4827 Secondary Henry County Irisburg Road 650 Leatherwood Creek Bridge 1955 7 6 7 N FO 3/7/2019 133.5 25.9 1391 Secondary Henry County 58 Bypass WBL NS Railway Bridge 1990 7 7 7 N 2/19/2019 133.0 49.8 5476 Primary Henry County Camilla Dr 1270 Little Reed Creek Culvert 1989 N N N 6 1/23/2019 43.0 32.0 128 Secondary Henry County Joseph Martin Hwy Br. of Marrowbone Creek Culvert 1932 N N N 9 12/21/2015 13.2 59.0 1956 Secondary Henry County DILLONS FORK RD609 RTE 220 Bridge 1976 6 7 6 N 1/15/2018 200.1 38.1 6136 Secondary Henry County Eliza Reamy Av1110 Daniels Creek Culvert 1972 N N N 6 11/12/2015 12.1 70.0 329 Secondary Henry County 220 Bus Main St.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan
    Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan South Carolina Department of Natural Resources February 2017 Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan Prepared by Lorianne Riggin and Bob Perry1, and Dr. Scott Howard2 February 2017 Acknowledgements The preparers thank the following South Carolina Department of Natural Resources staff for their special expertise and contributions toward the completion of this report: Heritage Trust data base manager Julie Holling; GIS applications manager Tyler Brown for mapping and listing of protected properties; archeologist Sean Taylor for information on cultural resources; fisheries biologists Kevin Kubach, Jason Marsik, and Robert Stroud for information regarding aquatic resources; hydrologist Andy Wachob for information on hydrologic resources; and wildlife biologists James Fowler, Dean Harrigal, Sam Stokes, Jr. and Amy Tegler for information regarding wildlife resources. 1 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental Programs. 2 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey. i Little Pee Dee-Lumber Focus Area Conservation Plan The goal of this conservation plan is to provide science-based guidance for future decisions to protect natural resource, riparian corridors and traditional landscape uses such as fish and wildlife management, hunting, fishing, agriculture and forestry. Such planning is valuable in the context of protecting Waters of the United States in accordance with the Clean Water Act, particularly when the interests of economic development and protection of natural and cultural resources collide. Such planning is vital in the absence of specific watershed planning. As additional information is gathered by the focus area partners, and as further landscape-scale conservation goals are achieved, this plan will be updated accordingly.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Executive Summary During its fifth full year of operations in fiscal year 2007-08, the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) took on new challenges and continued to register fresh successes in meeting its goals of improving North Carolina’s environment while facilitating responsible economic growth for the state and its residents. EEP continued to collaborate with federal, state and local governments, contractors and willing landowners to provide goods and services, basing its work on a solid foundation of watershed plan- ning that goes beyond mere environmental permitting and compliance. The initiative also extended its record of carrying out its mission without a single transportation-project delay due to the lack of mitigation, helping to move forward more than $4.8 billion in transportation-infrastructure im- provements since becoming operational in 2003. Key developments in FY 2007-08 included: • Responding to changes to federal rules guiding aquatic-resource mitigation. Under the leadership of the Governor’s office, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and EEP petitioned the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in late 2007 to promote in- lieu fee programs such as EEP as a method to providing third-party mitigation for public- and pri- vate-sector development. The new rule, which became effective in June of 2008, gave recognition to EEP’s unique national status and maintained ILFs as a viable option. The rule will require EEP to make operational adjustments and the details of these changes are being evaluated.
    [Show full text]