N&O Index Card Listings

Displaying 21-24 of 24 results.
Watersheds
  • Officials begin reviews of Swift creek land plan (WATERSHEDS) - Ja 4 89 2C
  • Durham County delays WATERSHED discussion - Ja 11 89 2C
  • Environmentalist faults Swift Creek proposal (WATERSHEDS) - Ja 19 89 3C
  • Tar Heel editors speak: Who's doing more for the watershed? - Fe 26 89 7D
  • N.C. House tentatively OKs watershed-protection bill - Mr 28 89 1
  • House approves bill for watershed rules - Mr 29 89 10A
Watersheds
  • Residents fear effect of roads on watershed (Map) - Ja 11 90 1F
  • Triangle watersheds (Map) - Ja 16 90 7A
  • Meeting urged on Falls watershed - Ja 19 90 2B
  • Conflicts muddy watershed issue - Ja 25 90 1F
  • Triangle watersheds (Map) - Ja 25 90 8F
  • Rural residents assail Orange watershed plan - Ja 31 90 2B
  • Cary joining Wake, 3 towns in backing Swift Creek plan - Fe 7 90 7B
  • Editorial: Runoff-pond logjam broken - Fe 9 90 14A
  • New study of Falls Lake watershed sought - Fe 22 90 6B
  • Builders seek water controls for all - Fe 23 90 3B
  • Accords sought on development in Swift Creek basin (Map) - Mr 19 90 4B
  • Wake OKs Swift Creek watershed plan - Ap 3 90 1B
  • Wake, Raleigh officials discuss watershed - Ap 17 90 5B
  • Panel backs stricter rules to protect drinking water - My 1 90 4B
  • Editorial: - No dilution of water rules - My 4 90 20A
  • Editorial: Watershed study needed now - Jn 25 90 8A
  • Manager seeks watershed report; Durham official asks planners to describe role in developing 1985 rules - Au 18 90 2B
  • Editorial: Keeping it safe to drink - Au 21 90 10A
  • Durham maps wrong; Finding could affect Treyburn, landfill - Se 7 90 1
  • Work on Falls Lake ordinance defended - Se 11 90 2B
  • Revised map puts N. Raleigh site on road to growth - Se 17 90 1B
  • Treyburn attorney (Spaulding) enters water debate - Se 23 90 2C
  • Durham residents debate issue of redrawing map of Falls Lake - Se 25 90 6B
  • Bulldozers may alter watershed; Landowner proposes changing lay of land - Se 26 90 1B
  • City, county plan watershed study - Oc 3 90 2B
  • Durham leaders disagree on Falls Lake rules - Oc 3 90 1B
  • Officials spar over Falls Lake protection - Oc 10 90 1B
  • 2-state authority proposed for (Catawba) river - Oc 13 90 4B
  • Officials urge watershed pollution study - Oc 16 90 2B
  • Watershed site denied for school - Oc 16 90 1B
  • Durham County board's leadership, Falls Lake stand at stake in election - Oc 30 90 1B
  • Board reverses stance on watershed limits - No 6 90 1B
  • School site in watershed reconsidered - No 20 90 1B
  • School decision involves more than education - No 22 90 1B
  • Panel OKs watershed building; Board approves school construction and rezoning; critics assail moves - No 27 90 1B
  • Durham to check Falls Lake maps - De 12 90 2B
  • Phosphorus levels declining in Triangle watersheds (Chart) - De 20 90 11A
  • Joint study of watershed wins OK; City and county hope for policy concensus - De 27 90 2F
Watersheds
  • Basin plan encounters resistance - Ap 24 89 1C
  • Swift Creek watershed (Map) - Ap 24 89 18C
  • Council adopts plan, vows not to urbanize watershed - My 3 89 1
  • Swift Creek watershed management plan (Map) - My 3 89 6A
  • Garner studies project; Developer requests watershed zoning (Map) - My 4 89 1C
  • Editorial: The Swift Creek fallacy - My 6 89 16A
  • Garner rezones watershed acreage - Jn 7 89 3C
  • Wake board backs plan to protect watershed - Jn 8 89 3C
  • Planned chemical plant near High Point stalled - Jn 27 89 2C
  • Report says Outer Loop's impact on watershed would be slight (Map) - Jy 8 89 1
  • Panel endorses YMCA project (Map) - Jy 13 89 1C
  • Editorial: Use tools to fence the Y - Jy 14 89 10A
  • Garner aldermen to allow shopping center in watershed - Au 9 89 10B
  • Erosion prompts fine against Raleigh builder (Fitzpatrick) - Se 27 89 2C
  • Wake officials want talks on Falls Lake watershed - No 9 89 3T
  • Editorial: Wake up on watershed No 13 89 12A
  • Battle brews over watershed zoning (Map) No 28 89 1
  • Editorial: Delay endangers watershed No 30 89 12A
  • County aims to regain watershed - De 5 89 1
Watersheds
  • Statewide water protection rules suggested - No 11 88 1C
  • Watershed plan (Lake Benson) may give area more protection (Map) No 15 88 lC
  • Swift creek watershed pact reached No 17 88 2C
  • Panel endorses protection plan for watershed No 23 88 1C
  • Safeguards for Orange watershed would be costly, consultant says - De 1 88 4C
  • Council OKs Atlantic Ave. growth plan (and other actions) - De 14 88 2C