The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutChowan-River-Basin-Public-CommentsD1 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 1 2/18/2021 North Carolina Draft 2021 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan Public Comment Document NC Division of Water Resources Contents Commenter: Ulrich and Mary Alsentzer ................................................................................................... 2 Commenter: North Carolina Coastal Federation ...................................................................................... 3 Commenter: Gary Perlmutter ................................................................................................................... 7 Commenter: Full Circle Crab Company, INC. ............................................................................................ 8 Commenter: Cypress Group of the NC Sierra Club ................................................................................. 10 Commenter: North Carolina Poultry Federation .................................................................................... 12 Commenter: Chowan Edenton Environmental Group ............................................................................ 14 Commenter: Southern Forests Conservation Coalition .......................................................................... 22 Commenter: Chowan River Basin Citizens .............................................................................................. 24 Commenter: Alliance of Native Seedkeepers, North Carolina Commission on Indian Affairs, Woman's Earth Alliance and Sierra Club, VA Chapter of the Sierra Club, Nottoway Indian Tribe of VA ................ 27 Commenter: North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, INC. .................................................................. 29 Commenter: Laura Smith ........................................................................................................................ 36 Commenter: Lloyd Webb ........................................................................................................................ 37 Commenter: Michael O’Driscoll .............................................................................................................. 38 Commenter: Green AP ............................................................................................................................ 39 Commenter: Elizabeth City State University ........................................................................................... 40 Commenter: Melody White .................................................................................................................... 45 Commenter: North Carolina Forest Service ............................................................................................ 51 D2 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 2 2/18/2021 Commenter: Ulrich and Mary Alsentzer Ulrich and Mary Alsentzer 103 Cabana Rd. Belhaven, NC 27810 October 20, 2020 Division of Water Resources Department Forest Shepherd, Basin Planner of Environmental Quality 1611 MSC Raleigh, NC, 27699 Re: Chowan River Basin Plan Dear Mr. Shepherd: With regard to Chowan River Basin Plan currently available for public comment: We would like to express our concern regarding the described ill effects of non-point source pollution in the basin which contribute directly to the impairment of the waterways and swamps in the watershed area. We support any future rule-making that would attempt to tackle some of the issues aptly described in the Executive Summary by putting real “teeth” into your recommendations. We would also hope that in circumstances where existing rules, in particular those related to logging operations, are known to be violated, those individuals and companies responsible will be aggressively targeted and fined in addition to being required to re- vegetate where transgressions have occurred. We thank you and your department for your extensive work on this plan and hope that your recommendations will become plans for action in the near future! Sincerely, Mary Alsentzer Ulrich Alsentzer D3 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 3 2/18/2021 Commenter: North Carolina Coastal Federation D4 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 4 2/18/2021 D5 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 5 2/18/2021 D6 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 6 2/18/2021 D7 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 7 2/18/2021 Commenter: Gary Perlmutter In the Chowan 2020 Fact Sheet:  "thethe" in the last sentence on the first page should be corrected to read "the" In the Executive Summary:  On page 1, lower half - "Consequently, the mixing of water in the Chowan River is typically driven by meteorological, wind and storm, tide rather than astronomical tides." is confusing, and might be easily corrected if the "," after "storm" is removed to read "storm tide".  Page 2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line - remove "the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality’s (NCDEQ) -" and insert it in the second paragraph on Page 1 where DWR is defined.  Page 3, under Story Map, first line - "StoryMap" should be two words.  Page 3, under Water Quality Monitoring - the second sentence lacks a verb.  Page 3, under Biological Sampling - "macroinvertebrate community" should be plural for consistency with other sampled parameters in this sentence. Chapter 5  5.4 .1, 2nd line before numbered list: "facility" should read "facilitate". Chapter 6  6.1.2: the "CEEG" link returns a 404 error message Chapter 7  7.1.1: "NPDES Complex Permitting and NPDES Compliance and Expedited Permitting branches" should be combined as "NPDES Wastewater Permitting branch" to reflect recent reorganization of the permitting units; the linked website shows this.  7.1.2: the PERCS unit has been absorbed into the NPDES Municipal Permitting Unit, which is a part of the NPDES Wastewater Permitting Branch, in recent reorganization. This section needs to be updated, including the embedded link. D8 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 8 2/18/2021 Commenter: Full Circle Crab Company, INC. D9 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 9 2/18/2021 D10 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 10 2/18/2021 Commenter: Cypress Group of the NC Sierra Club D11 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 11 2/18/2021 D12 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 12 2/18/2021 Commenter: North Carolina Poultry Federation D13 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 13 2/18/2021 D14 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 14 2/18/2021 Commenter: Chowan Edenton Environmental Group D15 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 15 2/18/2021 D16 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 16 2/18/2021 D17 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 17 2/18/2021 D18 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 18 2/18/2021 D19 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 19 2/18/2021 D20 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 20 2/18/2021 D21 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 21 2/18/2021 D22 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 22 2/18/2021 Commenter: Southern Forests Conservation Coalition D23 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 23 2/18/2021 D24 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 24 2/18/2021 Commenter: Chowan River Basin Citizens October 29, 2020 Mr. Forest Shepherd Division of Water Resources NC Department of Environmental Quality 1611 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699 forest.shepherd@ncdenr.gov Comments on the draft Chowan River Basin Plan Dear Mr. Shepherd We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft plan for the Chowan River Basin which you have circulated. We care greatly about all aspects of water quality, flood control, biodiversity and migratory and resident fish populations in the Chowan River system. We are also very aware that these issues in the Chowan directly impact the same issues in the Albemarle Sound, the largest freshwater sound in the world. These are not just isolated issues but issues that have huge impact on commercial and recreational fishing, hunting, bird watching, boating, safe swimming, camping, property values, county drinking water systems and all the small businesses that rely on these activities and services. One has only to look at the massive Menhaden kill underway in the Neuse River to know how vulnerable the Chowan and the Albemarle are to the same issues that have caused the Neuse to be in such a desperate situation. This plan has great potential to rally your NC Department of Environmental Quality, our NC Legislature, local governments in the basin, environmental organizations and ordinary citizens to take actions to protect the Chowan and the Albemarle. By all rights this plan should be a strategic plan. A fundamental element, if not the most important element, of any effective strategic plan are its goals and the time lines for achieving those goals. These standards for strategic planning are not just applicable to for-profit businesses. The standards apply equally to organizations as diverse as educational institutions, arts organizations, health care organizations, charitable organizations, public agencies and churches. D25 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 25 2/18/2021 Such quantified goals with related timelines can and should be developed as arguably the most important part of this draft plan for the Chowan River Basin. If DEQ needs special assistance with that aspect of making this plan complete, such assistance is surely available from strategic planning practitioners and university professors in our state. We recommend that after such goals are added to this plan, that it be recirculated for further comments. We are confident that the interest in such a complete strategic plan will be huge, and that all stakeholders will feel a special obligation to do their parts to help insure that the goals are achieved. Thank you for considering our comments. We stand ready to assist you with all aspects of this process. Jack Spruill Julia Townsend Spruill Farm Conservation Project Artist, Owner www.facebook.com/spruillfarm The Peanut Factory jspruill@spruillfarm.org https://thepeanutfactory.org/ Spanish and art teacher Gates County Schools Bonnie Monteleone Co-founder Plastic Ocean Project https://www.plasticoceanproject.org Emily and George Henson Pauline Endo Farm and woodland owners Cape Fear Group On Kendrick Creek NC Sierra Club Washington County Robert Alexander Dr. Jinchun Yuan Farm owner Professor Albemarle Sound front Elizabeth City State University Washington County (See note below) Heber Coltrain Owner Donna Riley D26 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 26 2/18/2021 Roanoke Outdoor Adventures Artist http://www.roanokeoutdooradventures.com/ Plymouth Andy Wood Director Nikki Jones Coastal Plain Conservation Group Founder and Director https://www.coastalplainconservationgroup.org/ Avon Needs Trees https://www.avonneedstrees.org.uk/ Willy Phillips Dr. Stan Riggs Owner Coastal and Marine Geologist Full Circle Crab Company Professor Emeritus https://www.fullcircleseafood.com/ East Carolina University www.nclandofwater.org Dr. Robert Parr Emergency Physician Mary and Ulrich Alsentzer Biological Oceanographer Belhaven Medical Advocates for Healthy Air malsentzer@rsnet.org Clean Air Carolina ualsentzer@rsnet.org www.cleanaircarolina.org Tom Brennan President Edenton Farmers Market http://www.edentonfarmersmarket.org/ Note added by Robert Alexander: This farm has been in my Alexander family for over a century with the house having been built in the 1830’s. The Albemarle Sound has been a source of wonder and beauty since I can first remember being a boy on our farm. We must treat the great estuary with humility and respect always with an eye to preserving it for posterity. D27 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 27 2/18/2021 Commenter: Alliance of Native Seedkeepers, North Carolina Commission on Indian Affairs, Woman's Earth Alliance and Sierra Club, VA Chapter of the Sierra Club, Nottoway Indian Tribe of VA Good morning, Forest. Thanks so much for your work on the Chowan River Basin Plan. I am excited to introduce myself and invite any further discussion on how to partner. While I'm not educated in water issues on a technical side, I am a long time public historian and natural resources interpreter (many years working for VA Dept of Conservation and Recreation). I spent 4 years managing grants for the James River Association and now I'm leading a Tribal Resilience project for the NC Commission on Indian Affairs in partnership with APNEP and NC State. I recently moved from Richmond to Bertie County, east of Windsor. As a Nottoway woman, I have been deeply interested in the Chowan River Basin as it relates to our tribal communities within it and with regards to how this watershed crosses state lines (bringing forth unique challenges). Please note the correct spelling of Nottoway. There are several places in the plan which are listed as Nottaway, this is a common mistake. Our tribe engages in annual river cleanups and paddles. We are very interested in learning how to be even better partners with river stewardship. I work with the Meherrin and Tuscarora folks in this watershed and would love to see us engage in dialogue around the health and history of the watershed. I would love to see how our stories can be interwoven with future plans for the watershed. Attached is a draft flyer for the social media campaign that we have created for the facebook presence of the project, Tribal Coastal Resilience Connections. In the spring, we will have a skills building workshop that will hopefully lead to a pilot project in the next phase. This initiative is studying coastal adaptation plans in tribal communities throughout the US. A great first step could be hosting a talk with interested tribal members to share what your office does and how we can become involved. The waters carry deep meaning for all of us and we would benefit from mutual dialogue and understanding. Please let me know how we can proceed forward together! Looking forward, Beth -- D28 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 28 2/18/2021 Beth Roach Co-founder, Alliance of Native Seedkeepers Tribal Resilience Program Director, North Carolina Commission on Indian Affairs US Grassroots Accelerator Program Lead, Women's Earth Alliance and Sierra Club Development Associate, VA Chapter of the Sierra Club Tribal Councilwoman, Nottoway Indian Tribe of VA 252 325 5651 https://www.allianceofnativeseedkeepers.com/ D29 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 29 2/18/2021 Commenter: North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, INC. D30 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 30 2/18/2021 D31 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 31 2/18/2021 D32 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 32 2/18/2021 D33 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 33 2/18/2021 D34 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 34 2/18/2021 D35 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 35 2/18/2021 D36 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 36 2/18/2021 Commenter: Laura Smith Dear Mr. Shepherd: Generations of my family have relied on the Chowan River for fishing and recreation. My own children have learned to fish and waterski in the same spots I did as a child. Sadly, in the last few years, our time on the river is extremely limited due to frequent harmful algal blooms. State water personnel sometimes herald the Chowan as the first successful nutrient plan in the state. Well, it worked for the 1980's and 90's, but now we need a new management plan. It is time for basin- wide riparian buffers of at least 50 feet. We also need closer monitoring of chicken farms to make sure they are not over-applying waste and contributing to nutrient and bacteria pollution. The state should increase funding for monitoring so that they can pinpoint where problems are arising. And there should be full watershed modeling to help figure out where the pollution is coming from and what scenarios will best address it. The modeling should include the Virginia portion of the watershed with close attention paid to older point sources/leaky sewer pipes and ag/forestry non-point sources. Sincerely, Laura Smith Durham, NC D37 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 37 2/18/2021 Commenter: Lloyd Webb In the last 5-7 years, we have seen an increase in algae near the mouth of the Chowan River. The more algae, the less we can fish and swim with our children and grandchildren. We want to see more enforcement of pollution violations, closer tracking of chicken farms, more funding for monitoring, and buffers to protect the river. The algae has appeared to caused death to turtles we found many shells on the shoreline. When it is at it’s peak of bloom the shoreline is often blue green and with a white foam these conditions cause a foul smell. It looks like the inside of a clothes washer when opended mid cycle. Thank You for your efforts to help clean up this wonderful river. Sincerely, Lloyd Webb 251 Steeleplace Lane P O Box 224 Merry Hill N C D38 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 38 2/18/2021 Commenter: Michael O’Driscoll Thanks Forest, Nora, and Jim, Great Job! Since you asked, I was thinking that one aspect that may help for a future meeting would be to see how some of the important water quality variables like nutrients, turbidity and chla vary over time vs discharge (maybe at one of the lower sites on the Chowan). That approach could help to see how the system behaves during baseflow vs stormflow conditions and if the chl-a problems tend to coincide with very low flow conditions when residence time might be much longer (and if turbidity is more associated with terrestrial inputs- those might be lower during baseflow so wouldn’t cause light limitation, so allow better conditions for algal growth). Also, that kind of analysis might show if with the monthly sampling might be more representative of baseflow conditions, I wasn’t sure if storm events are sampled directly but they might be represented in some of the monthly samples. Anyways since the turbidity is probably related to flows, more insights on that aspect could be helpful. If you don’t have time, I could take a look at that aspect later. Thanks, have a great weekend! Mike D39 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 39 2/18/2021 Commenter: Green AP Mr. Shepherd, I am writing to offer comment on the plan being prepared for the Chowan River Basin. I am concerned about all aspects of water quality, flood control, biodiversity and migratory and resident fish populations in the Chowan River system. I am also aware that these issues in the Chowan directly impact the same issues in the Albemarle Sound. My family has lived on this water for about 300 years. I would like the plan you are making to ensure that these waters will sustain life and livelihoods for another 300 years. To do so effectively, the plan must have specific goals and timelines. I do not see that there is enough rigor as-is and I hope you will make the correction. Sincerely, Susan Inglis -- Susan Inglis, Executive Director / GREEN AP Sustainable Furnishings Council m) 919 621 2202 www.sustainablefurnishings.org "Sustaining Healthy Environments, Inside and Outside" D40 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 40 2/18/2021 Commenter: Elizabeth City State University October 30, 2020 Mr. Forest Shepherd Division of Water Resources NC Department of Environmental Quality 1611 MSC Raleigh, NC 27699 forest.shepherd@ncdenr.gov Dear Forest: Thank you for your effort on improving the aquatic environment for the Northeast North Carolina. We noted that the current version of the plan is based mostly on monitoring data obtained from selected locations (i.e. AMS, RAMS etc.) that lacked spatial coverage therefore we have following two comments/suggestions. Figure 1. Algae bloom on the Chowan River on August 12, 2019. D41 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 41 2/18/2021 Figure 2. Algae bloom on the Pasquotank River at the Elizabeth City on October 12, 2019. First, please consider apply unmanned aircraft vehicle (UAV) to monitor the water quality of the Chowan River. UAV can be equipped with RGB camera, infrared camera, and multispectral sensors to acquire images of the river. Fig. 1 is a RGB image of the algae bloom on the Chowan River on the August 12, 2019. Fig. 2 is a RGB image of the algae bloom on the Pasquotank River at Elizabeth City on the October 12, 2019. Fig. 3 is a picture of duckweeds and algae patch on the Spruill Conservation Farm on the southern shores of the Albemarle Sound on March 16, 2019. If it is programmed properly, UAV could acquire images of the river systemically to cover a large area. Additionally, if it is equipped with an infrared camera or multispectral sensor, UAV could acquire images for processing of various aquatic parameters including NDVI to detect submerged aquatic vegetation and/or algae bloom (Fig. 4). D42 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 42 2/18/2021 D43 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 43 2/18/2021 Figure 3. Duckweeds and algae patch on Spruill Conservation Farm on the southern shores of the Albemarle Sound on March 16, 2019. Figure 4. Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) at the Spruill Farm determined from a drone based multispectral sensor. Three types of land are detected: forest, farmland, and plowed land. Several trees and submerged vegetation in the Albemarle Sound adjacent to the farm showed similar NDVI signature as farmland and plowed land. Second, please consider apply satellite remote sensing to monitor water quality of the Albemarle Sound. We noted that one previous study that you quoted (Smith et al., 2015) discounted satellite remote sensing for studying Albemarle Sound, but that study was heavily influenced by in situ samples collected near shore. As we pointed out previously (Yuan et al., 2005), satellite pixels in coastal water possess larger in pixel variations that renders one-one correlation between satellite data and in situ measurement hard. Surface water chlorophyll a can be determined from NASA MODIS sensor aboard Aqua satellite since 2002. It can also be determined with other satellite sensors (i.e. ESA MERIS) at better spatial resolutions. Figure 5. Decadal variation of the surface water chlorophyll a in Albemarle Sound near the mouth of Chowan River (35.937N, 76.6015W, 36.0516N). We took a quick look at MODIS chlororphyll a data for two regions in the Albemarle Sound. For a region near the mouth of the Chowan River (35.937N, 76.6015W, 36.0516N), area-averaged chlorophyll a in surface D44 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 44 2/18/2021 water appears to spike a few time from 2008 to 2012 and then in the last few years (Fig. 5). For a region near the mouth of the Pasquotank River (76.06W, 36N, 75.9W, 36.15N), area-averaged surface water chlorophyll a were significantly higher in the last decade than the previous (Fig. 6). These higher concentrations of chlorophyll a might be related to the nutrient fluxes from these rivers. Figure 6. Decadal variation of surface water chlorophyll a in Albemarle Sound near the mouth of Pasquotank River (76.06W, 36N, 75.9W, 36.15N). Over the years, faculty members and students of Elizabeth City State University has been conducting water quality studies of Albemarle Sound based on discrete samples, in situ sensors, sensors aboard UAV, and satellite images. We would be more than happy to assist in implementing the plan. Reference Yuan, J., Dagg, M., Del Castillo, C. In pixel variations of chl a fluorescence in Northern Gulf of Mexico and their implications for calibrating remotely sensed chl a and other products. Continental Shelf Research, 25, 1894-1904, 2005. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Jinchun Yuan Professor, Department of Natural Sciences Elizabeth City State University A member of the Spruill Conservation Farm Steering Committee. Dr. Francisco San Juan Professor (retired) Department of Natural Sciences Elizabeth City State University A member of the Spruill Conservation Farm Steering Committee. Jack Spruill Spruill Farm Conservation Project www.facebook.com/spruillfarm jspruill@spruillfarm.org D45 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 45 2/18/2021 Commenter: Melody White D46 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 46 2/18/2021 D47 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 47 2/18/2021 D48 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 48 2/18/2021 D49 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 49 2/18/2021 D50 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 50 2/18/2021 D51 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 51 2/18/2021 Commenter: North Carolina Forest Service Executive Summary (p. 13-14) Forestry Nearly 36 percent of the land use in the Chowan River basin in NC is identified as forested. Forests often play a significant role in protecting water quality by absorbing and filtering precipitation, anchoring soil, intercepting particulate matter, and reducing instream water temperatures. Special attention is needed to ensure that water quality is protected while timber is being harvested in the basin. Inappropriate management practices can impact water quality by altering instream habitat and increasing sediment load. These impacts can also alter the interface of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem and change watershed functions. Without appropriate best management practices in place during and after harvests, sediment entering a waterbody can have a negative impact on water quality. Sediment can stem from exposed cuts for skid trails, slopes with bare soil, and improperly constructed stream crossings, forest roads, and log decks. As a result, the majority of regulations and erosion control recommendations pertaining to forestry focus on preventing debris and sediment from entering waterbodies. Properly planned and executed forest management plans facilitate the sustainable harvest of forest products while protecting water quality. Between July 2007 and June 202017, the North Carolina Forest Service (NCFS) inspected 1,74303 timber harvesting operations on 110,51682,064 acres. Thirty-threeEighteen were found to be out of compliance with the Forest Practice Guidelines (FPG). The most common violations were related to streamside management zones (SMZ), debris entering streams, stream crossings, or rehabilitation of the project area. Because landowners are not required to notify NCFS of timber harvesting or related forestry activities, the numbers reported may not be a full representation of the timber harvests in the basin. There has been growing concern in recent years over forest management and its influence on algal blooms in the Chowan River basin. In August 2016, NCFS personnel conducted an aerial assessment via aircraft along the Chowan River to see if algal blooms were emanating from timber harvests. At that time, the NCFS found no visible algal growth originating from past timber harvests of varying ages. NCFS met with stakeholders in the basin, including the Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) and the Albemarle Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. (ARCD), to discuss riparian buffer incentives for landowners wanting to harvest timber adjacent to known nutrient-sensitive waters. Working collaboratively with landowners, state and federal agencies, and researchers, NCFS continues to explore how forest management may influence water quality in the Albemarle region. Chapter 1 (p. 14-18) 1.6.2. Forestry Special attention is needed to ensure that water quality is protected while timber is being harvested. Inappropriate management practices can impact water quality by altering in-stream habitat, increasing sediment load, and increasing stream temperature. These impacts can also alter the interface of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem and change watershed functions. Without appropriate practices in place during and after harvests, sediment entering a waterbody can have a negative impact on water quality. Sediment can stem from exposed cuts for skid trails, slopes with bare soil, and improperly constructed stream crossings, forest roads, and log decks. As a result, the majority of regulations and erosion control recommendations pertaining to forestry focus on preventing debris and sediment from entering waterbodies. Properly planned and executed forest management plans facilitate the sustainable harvest of forest products while protecting water quality. Forest Practices Guidelines (FPG) Related to Water Quality The North Carolina Forestry Service (NCFS) is delegated the authority to monitor and evaluate forestry operations in North Carolina. NCFS staff regularly inspect timber harvests for compliance with the Forest D52 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 52 2/18/2021 Practice Guidelines (FPG) for Water Quality. The FPGs are a set of results-based guidelines meant to protect water quality and are mandatory, statewide requirements defined by North Carolina Administrative Code (02 NCAC 60C .0100-.0209). All forestry-related, site-disturbing activities must comply with the FPGs if that activity is to remain exempt from permitting and other requirements specified in the North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA) of 1973 (NCFS, 2017). Inspections often involve NCFS staff visiting the same site multiple times to provide forest operators and landowners technical assistance for BMPs to minimize impacts of forestry on water quality. Locations of Harvests Over the last ten years, timber harvests were scattered throughout the entire basin. Compared to other counties, however, there have been relatively fewer harvests in portions of Bertie and Chowan counties, particularly in the Cypress Swamp, Edenhouse Point-Chowan River, and Mount Gould Landing-Chowan River watersheds (Figures 1-7 and 1-8). Between July 2007 and June 2012, the NCFS inspected 569 timber harvests in the Chowan River basin, totaling 37,395 acres (Figure 1-7). NCFS found 12 harvests to be out of compliance, resulting in a compliance rate of 97.9%. The most common violations were related to streamside management zones (SMZ), debris entering streams, stream crossings, or rehabilitation of the project site. Between July 2012 to June 2017, the NCFS inspected 734 timber harvests, totaling 44,669 acres (Figure 1- 8). Six harvests were out of compliance, resulting in a compliance rate of 99.2%. The most common violations were related to debris entering streams (Table 1-8). Between July 2017 to June 2020, the NCFS inspected 440 timber harvests, totaling 28,452 acres, and found 15 harvests to be out of compliance. The most common violations were related to stream crossings. Because landowners are not required to notify NCFS of timber harvesting or related forestry activities, the numbers reported here are not be a full representation of the timber harvests in the basin (Coats, 2017). Table 1-8: Number of Inspections Conducted by NCFS in the Chowan River Basin Time Period  # Inspected Timber Harvests  Total Acres  # Out of Compliance  07/2007-06/2012 569  37,395  12  07/2012-06/2017 734  44,669  6  07/2017-06/2020 440 28,452 15 Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) Knowing the soils and hydrology of a site can help with addressing harvest schedules, equipment types, flooding potential, and reforestation options. Silvicultural, or forestry, activities in wetlands, regardless of size, should be conducted in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on the unique hydrologic and ecological functions of those ecosystems. Implementing forestry BMPs is strongly encouraged to protect the water resources of North Carolina efficiently and effectively. The NC Forestry BMP Manual details specific tools and methods which can be used during forestry operations to reach compliance with the FPGs. From 2013 to 2016, the NCFS carried out surveys across the state to assess the implementation of BMPs on timber harvests. These surveys gave a snapshot of practices used in different areas of the state and helped to understand where additional recommendations may be needed. In the Chowan River basin, the NCFS conducted surveys on seven sites, assessing 542 total BMPs. Seventy-nine percent of the BMPs assessed were implemented successfully. NCFS found that when BMPs were properly implemented, there was no risk to water quality (Coats, 2017). To protect the waters of NC and promote the use of bridgemats, the NCFS allows loggers and timber buyers to borrow the NCFS's bridgemats for use during forestry-related operations. A bridgemat consists of a panel that establishes a temporary D53 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 53 2/18/2021 crossing over streams, ditches, or small water channels. Temporary bridges can be a very effective solution for stream crossings since the equipment and logs stay out of the water channel. When installed and removed correctly, bridgemats cause very little soil disturbance. Bridgemats are free to borrow from the NCFS for forestry use in the Chowan River basin and have been for several years. More information about bridgemats is available on the NCFS website. Forestry and Algal Blooms In recent years, there has been growing concern over forest management and its influence on algal blooms in the Chowan River basin. In August 2016, NCFS personnel conducted an aerial assessment via aircraft along the Chowan River to see if algal blooms were emanating from timber harvests. At that time, the NCFS found no visible algal growth originating from past timber harvests of varying ages. NCFS met with stakeholders in the basin, including the SWCD and the ARCD, to discuss riparian buffer incentives for landowners wanting to harvest timber adjacent to known nutrient-sensitive waters. NCFS continues to explore how forest management may influence water quality by collaborating with landowners, state and federal agencies, and researchers (Coats, 2017). Forestry: Next Steps Several state and local entities are working together to understand forestry's impacts on water quality in the Chowan River basin. SMZs are "an area along both sides of intermittent streams and perennial streams and along the margins of perennial waterbodies where extra precaution is used in carrying out forestry related, land-disturbing activities to protect water quality" (02 NCAC 60C .0102). Per administrative code, the SMZ shall be of sufficient width to "confine visible sediment resulting from accelerated erosion" (02 NCAC 60C .0201). Chapter 4 of the North Carolina Forestry BMP Manual includes information about SMZs and riparian buffers, and it states the general recommendation for SMZ width is "50 feet along each side of intermittent streams, perennial streams and perennial waterbodies" (NCFS, 2006). The width of the SMZ may vary depending on the purpose of the SMZ and the site's conditions. Wider SMZs are needed for sites that exhibit highly erodible soils, soil areas with little or minimal groundcover near the waterbody, and special waters such as trout, water supply watersheds, nutrient-sensitive waters and shellfish waters (NCFS, 2006). Because waters in the Chowan River basin have been designated as nutrient-sensitive waters (NSW), a wider SMZ is recommended for forestry-related, land-disturbing activities in the basin to best protect water quality. A wider SMZ could also minimize the number of trees damaged and the amount of woody debris entering a waterbody after heavy rainfall or extreme storm events. Forestry-related, land-disturbing activities can alter hydrologic processes and influence water quality. It can take months to years for water quality to return to pre-harvest conditions (Ensign and Mallin, 2001), but forestry research studies also demonstrate that properly implemented BMPs effectively protect aquatic and riparian ecosystems (Cristian et al., 2016). More research specific to the Chowan River basin and silviculture in forested swamps is needed to understand the relationship between forestry-related operations, groundwater, nutrients, and algal blooms within the basin. Stakeholders throughout the watershed have acknowledged that there is no one clear source, or cause, of the algal blooms, however, this also does not rule out forestry practices as a significant contributing source. Continued monitoring could help pinpoint some of the point and nonpoint sources of nutrients entering the basin. In addition, NCFS has recommended a "comprehensive water quality study" of forestry-related activities in coastal bottomland swamp forests to help understand the relationship of silviculture and algal blooms. The study would require substantial new funding for five or more years, landowner commitment, and experienced foresters and researchers to conduct the study. “Although not in a position to fund such a project, NCFS has offered to assist with project scoping, selecting foresters and researchers willing to participate in such a project, provide technical expertise on forestry practices, provide applicable references for literature review and general review and oversight” (Brogan, 2018). Local stakeholders D54 Chowan River Basin Water Resources Plan – Public Comments Document 54 2/18/2021 have been working with local foresters to identify ways to protect forested areas in the Chowan River basin. One recommendation is to establish a conservation program for swamp forest buffers similar to existing federal and state cost-share programs for agricultural lands. The program could provide an economic incentive to landowners to conserve and manage swamp forest buffers. Conserving and managing the swamp forest buffers, in turn, could protect critical drainage areas, protect water quality and provide aquatic and terrestrial habitat throughout the basin.