North Carolina stretches from a ribbon of sand known as the Outer Banks along the Atlantic shore, and 1.8 million acres of estuary to black water streams and pocosins of the coastal plans through the rolling hills of the Piedmont and into the Blue Ridge Mountains. It supports a diverse array of plants and animals, from sea turtles to royal terns, and hundreds of fish and other aquatic species. It is also home to a million hunters and anglers that contribute approximately $170 million to state and local economies. This connection between natural and economic resources is clear, but the state of North Carolina also finds itself in the path of a great deal of development that threatens some of its most important habitats and species. The North Carolina State Wildlife Action Plan strives to manage wildlife to conserve economic development as well as the priority status of 371 species and 23 habitat types in the state.

North Carolina State Wildlife Action Plan

Learn more about conservation in North Carolina here and here.

SARP Contact:  Robert Curry, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries

Key Focus Areas:

PUBLIC USE
Jockey’s Ridge Living Shoreline Protection

INTER-JURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES
Jockey’s Ridge Living Shoreline Protection

AQUATIC HABITAT CONSERVATION
Jockey’s Ridge Living Shoreline Protection

AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES (ANS)
NORTH CAROLINA ANS Management Project
Current Status of ANS Management Plan: Early revision stage.
SARP ANS Contact: Rob Emens, North Carolina Dept of Environment and Natural Resources
For more information: http://www.ncwater.org/Education_and_Technical_Assistance/Aquatic_Weed_Control/
SARP ANS Coordinator: Jeffrey Herod 

Program Activity:

NOAA COMMUNITY-BASED RESTORATION PROJECTS (NOAA CRP)
Jockey’s Ridge Living Shoreline Protection 

SOUTHEAST AQUATIC HABITAT PLAN (SAHP) & NATIONAL FISH HABITAT ACTION PLAN (NFHAP)
Jockey’s Ridge Living Shoreline Protection

SOUTHEASTERN INSTREAM FLOW NETWORK (SIFN)
North Carolina Instream Flow Project
Current Instream Flow Policy:  North Carolina General Statute G.S. 143-215.22H, originally passed in 1991 and amended in 2007 and 2008, requires surface water and ground water withdrawers who meet conditions established by the General Assembly to register and annually report their water withdrawals and surface water transfers with the State and update those registrations at least every five years.  Water withdrawal permits have conditions to meet site-specific instream flow requirements.  Specifics of the water project are used as guidance towards an instream flow recommendation: proposed or existing? water withdrawal with a dam or without a dam? hydropower or water supply? federal jurisdiction or state jurisdiction or no jurisdiction? a compliance issue or riparian rights issue? Some flow recommendations may be a percentage of a low flow value while others may be variable, seasonally dependent flows based on field work and consensus among numerous stakeholders. The dichotomous key provided at the website below is an attempt to illustrate the process the Division of Water Resources of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources uses to determine the appropriate procedure.   (http://www.ncwater.org/About_DWR/Water_Projects_Section/Instream_Flow/)

SIFN participant organizations:

• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• Duke University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Southern Environmental Law Center
• The Nature Conservancy

SARP Contact:  Chris Goudreau, Special Projects Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

SIFN Coordinator:  Scott Robinson

Instream Flow Updates:

1. In 2007: the North Carolina legislature passed a bill that the Environmental Review Commission (ERC), with the assistance of the DENR, conduct a comprehensive study of water resources in North Carolina.  SIFN team participants have been monitoring the study and contributing information to the ERC.
2. 2008-9: Hydrologic modeling studies are underway in several of North Carolina’s major watersheds to quantify water use and supplies in a comprehensive manner.  These models will serve as the basis of the anticipated state water management plan.  State resource agencies are contracting these studies and will provide instream flow criteria for instream needs of aquatic resources.
3. 2010:

   Ecological flow study bill that addresses statewide  watershed-based flow needs has been passed. EPA rejected a mitigation policy to trade acreage for flow.

   North Carolina worked with a consultant (Environmental Flow Specialists) to develop a hydrologic stream classification system for the state.  Their initial work was completed last December and is based on analysis of 185 USGS gages across the state with at least 18 years of relatively unaltered flow records.  The resulting classification system showed similarities to analysis performed by a graduate student at Virginia Tech – even though the two efforts were done independently of one another.

   NC is also developing basinwide hydrologic models for each of the 17 major river basins in the state.  This will take several years and they are being done in order of priority.  The model for the Neuse basin has been completed and older models for the Roanoke and Cape Fear basins are being updated.  Hydrologic models for the Broad and Tar River basins are just beginning development and should be completed in about 18 months.

   The main reason for developing the stream classification system for NC was the assumption that sorting streams by hydrologic type would also sort them by type of aquatic community.  This in turn could be used in developing approaches to recommend ecological flows for each type, rather than a single approach for the entire state.  A group of experts in aquatic ecology and hydrology met last December to review the classification system.  The relationship of hydrologic classification to geology/geography – although not intentional – increased our confidence in the approach.  The expert group decided to further divide two of the seven classifications by temperature regime to reflect aquatic community differences not captured by hydrologic analysis.  They also divided two classifications of flashy stream types according to whether this was a natural phenomenon or due to land use changes.

   To be useful in recommending ecological flows, the classification software must work with simulated daily flow data from the river basin hydrologic models, not just from USGS data.  Using the completed Neuse basin hydrologic model, we compared stream classifications at each USGS gage in the basin using both actual records and simulated data.  We also evaluated the results of using records of different lengths or for different periods within the 78 year record of simulated flows.  About 9 of 31 gages showed differences for each of these two comparisons.  The same consultant who developed the classification system was retained to investigate these differences.  About a third of the differences were corrected by a revision to the classification algorithms.  Another third were explained by the existence of man-made alterations in the actual flow data that are not included in the unregulated set of simulated flow data.  The last third were due to the original hydrologic model not having a node at these particular gages, and thus when a node was added after-the-fact, the simulated flows were not calibrated to the actual gage data, but rather ratioed from other locations in the watershed.  The analysis for different periods of record at the same site showed that the classification system is fairly robust, but as expected, longer records are preferred.

   The most recent development in NC was the passage of legislation during the 2010 state legislative session that directs our department to develop basinwide hydrologic models and plans.  Most notably it requires inclusion of ecological flows in the models and defines ecological flows and ecological integrity.  The legislation also required establishment of a Science Advisory Board (SAB) to advise the department on how ecological flows will be determined.  The SAB is made up of 16 members representing interests specified in the legislation – including various state and federal agencies; different types of water users including agriculture, local governments, and power producers; and a representative of environmental NGO’s.  As required by the legislation, all of the members have a strong background in aquatic ecology.  This should be helpful as the SAB focuses on the science of ecological flows.  This science will also inform later discussions by policy makers that bring in other societal issues.

   One of the first tasks of the SAB will be to review the hydrologic stream classification system.  The next step, pending consideration by the SAB, will be to conduct a trial evaluation at two sites on a river in the upper Neuse basin where there are existing habitat versus flow models.  Using the completed basinwide hydrologic model, various flow scenarios will be analyzed with the habitat models to see if this suggests an approach for determining the ecological flow for this classification of stream.  If this use of hydrologic and habitat models shows promise, there are other existing habitat models at various sites and stream types across the state that could be used similarly.

   The 2010 legislation in NC is not a water permitting bill.  The ecological flow approach determined for basin models is intended for medium and long range planning purposes throughout each basin.  Specific project proposals will still be evaluated by site-specific studies and flow recommendations will be attached to other related permits such as 401/404, FERC licenses, dam safety permits, and mitigation or operating conditions developed during preparation of EA/EIS documents under NEPA or its state equivalent.  If NC does transition into a water permitting system, this is not likely to occur for at least a few years.

   The Division of Water Resources has launched an ecological flows web page, which also includes a section for the SAB.  The URL link is  http://www.ncwater.org/Data_and_Modeling/eflows/ .