DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin North Carolina and Virginia, 1992–95

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin North Carolina and Virginia, 1992–95 science for a changing world Water Quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin North Carolina and Virginia, 1992–95 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1157 A COORDINATED EFFORT Coordination among agencies and organizations is an integral part of the NAWQA Program. We thank the following agencies and organizations who contributed data used in this report. Federal Agencies Universities National Marine Fisheries Service Duke University National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ferrum College National Park Service North Carolina State University National Resources Conservation Service University of North Carolina U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Virginia Commonwealth University U.S. Department of Agriculture Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Private Organizations Neuse River Foundation State Agencies North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund North Carolina Department of Agriculture Research Triangle Institute North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Union Camp Corporation North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Weyerhauser Corporation North Carolina Division of Water Quality North Carolina Division of Water Resources Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Special thanks to: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation All the farmers and landowners who kindly granted Virginia Department of Environmental Quality permission to install wells and collect data. Dr. Wendell Gilliam, North Carolina State University Local Agencies Dr. Greg Jennings, North Carolina State University Triangle J Council of Governments Agricultural Extension City of Durham, North Carolina Mr. Kris Matson, North Carolina State University City of Kinston, North Carolina Dr. Ted Mew, North Carolina Division of Water Quality City of Raleigh, North Carolina Ms. Elizabeth Morey, North Carolina Division of Water Franklin County Agricultural Extension Quality Town of Aurora, North Carolina Mr. Hassell Thigpen, Farmer, Edgecombe County, Town of Franklin, North Carolina North Carolina City of Roanoke, Virginia Dr. Henry Wade, North Carolina Department of City of Virginia Beach, Virginia Agriculture Hampton Roads Planning Agency The following U.S. Geological Survey employees whose contributions added substantively to the project: Douglas J. Newcomb, Larry J. Puckett, Stanley C. Skrobialowski, Janie B. Williams, and Carlton D. Woods FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT (NAWQA) PROGRAM: Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Study Unit, contact: Chief, NAWQA Program District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 3916 Sunset Ridge Road 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 413 Raleigh, NC 27607 Reston, VA 20192 Information on the NAWQA Program is also available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Study Unit’s Home Page: http://sgi1dncrlg.er.usgs.gov/albe-html/ALBEpage.html NAWQA Home Page: http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/nawqa_home.html Cover photograph: Neuse River at Cliffs of the Neuse State Park, North Carolina, during floodflow in 1996. Photographs in this report and on the front and back covers were taken by Douglas A. Harned, U.S. Geological Survey. Water Quality in the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin, North Carolina and Virginia, 1992–95 By Timothy B. Spruill, Douglas A. Harned, Peter M. Ruhl, Jo Leslie Eimers, Gerard McMahon, Kelly E. Smith, David R. Galeone, and Michael D. Woodside U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1157 CONTENTS The NAWQA Program ................................... 1 Summary of water-quality issues and major findings............................................... 2 Environmental setting and hydrologic conditions ...................................................... 4 Major issues and findings............................... 6 Water-quality conditions in a national context ............................................ 22 Study design and data collection................... 26 Summary of compound detections and concentrations .............................................. 28 References ......................................................... 34 Glossary............................................................. 35 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas J. Casadevall, Acting Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government 1998 Free on application to the U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25286 Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Water-quality assessment of the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage basin, North Carolina, and Virginia, 1992–95 / by Timothy B. Spruill . [et al.]. p. cm.—(U.S. Geological Survey circular ; 1157) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-607-89234-X 1. Water quality—North Carolina—Albemarle Sound Region. 2. Water quality—North Carolina— Pamlico Sound Region. I. Spruill, T.B. II. Series. TD224.N8W34 1998 363.739’42’09756—dc21 98-13016 CIP NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM EXPLANATION Began in 1991 Began in 1994 Began in 1997 Not scheduled yet Knowledge of the quality of the Nation's streams and aquifers is important because of the implications to human and aquatic health and because of the significant costs associated with decisions involving land and water management, conservation, and regulation. In 1991, the U.S. Congress appropriated funds for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to begin the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to help meet the continuing need for sound, scientific information on the areal extent of the water-quality problems, how these problems are changing with time, and an understanding of the effects of human actions and natural factors on water quality conditions. The NAWQA Program is assessing the water-quality conditions of more than 50 of the Nation's largest river basins and aquifers, known as Study Units. Collectively, these Study Units cover about one-half of the United States and include sources of drinking water used by about 70 percent of the U.S. population. Comprehensive assessments of about one-third of the Study Units are ongoing at a given time. Each Study Unit is scheduled to be revisited every decade to evaluate changes in water- quality conditions. NAWQA assessments rely heavily on existing information collected by the USGS and many other agencies as well as the use of nationally consistent study designs and methods of sampling and analysis. Such consistency simultaneously provides information about the status and trends in water-quality conditions in a particular stream or aquifer and, more importantly, provides the basis to make comparisons among watersheds and improve our understanding of the factors that affect water-quality conditions regionally and nationally. This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Study Unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water- resource management. Indeed, this report addresses many of the concerns raised by regulators, water-utility managers, industry representatives, and other scientists, engineers, public officials, and members of stakeholder groups who provided advice and input to the USGS during this NAWQA Study-Unit investigation. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live. Robert M. Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1157 1 SUMMARY OF WATER-QUALITY ISSUES AND MAJOR FINDINGS NUTRIENTS IN STREAMS NUTRIENTS IN GROUND WATER • Of four river basins studied in the Albemarle-Pamlico • Water in about 4 percent of 49 shallow monitoring Drainage Basin—the Chowan, Roanoke, Tar, and wells randomly placed in agricultural areas of the Neuse—highest nitrogen and phosphorus yields Coastal Plain exceeded the 10 mg/L drinking-water occurred in the highly agricultural and urbanized Neuse standard for nitrate (U.S. Environmental Protection Basin; lowest nutrient yields occurred in streams of the Agency, 1986). Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in forested Chowan Basin (p. 7). shallow ground water of the inner Coastal Plain are significantly higher than nitrate-nitrogen • Suspended-sediment, suspended-solids, and dissolved- concentrations in the outer Coastal Plain (p. 8). solids concentrations have decreased throughout the Albemarle-Pamlico drainage system from 1980 to • Highest nitrate concentrations in shallow ground water 1995. Decreasing concentrations of suspended solids in are in well-drained, sandy soils in combination with the sounds and estuaries may result in clearer water and intensive agricultural activity, such as crop or livestock deeper light penetration which, in turn, enhance production. Residents in Coastal Plain areas having conditions for algal blooms in nutrient-enriched areas. high nitrate can avoid water with high nitrate As a result, reduction of nutrients will be even more concentrations by using water from deeper aquifers. important in controlling eutrophication (p. 15). Nitrate concentrations in shallow ground water can be decreased by limiting fertilizer and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mitigation Plan
    Little Contentnea Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration – Phase 3 Greene County, North Carolina MITIGATION PLAN December, 2005 GES Greene Environmental Services, LLC 90 Ham Produce Road Snow Hill, NC 28580 EEP contract 005020 Greene Environmental Services, LLC 90 Ham Produce Road, Snow Hill, NC 28580 (252) 747-8200 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 Summary .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Methods.................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Site preparation.............................................................................................................. 3 2.2.2 Implementation.............................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Success Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 5 4.0 Monitoring................................................................................................................................ 6 5.0 Mitigation ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Settling the Albemarle Sound 91 and George Took out Some of the Earliest Deeds in the Area
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________SettlingSettling thethe _ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine Study
    1991 Project No. 89-09 Classification of Pamlico Sound Nursery Areas: Recommendations for Critical Habitat Criteria ALBEMARLE PAMLICO ESTUARINE STUDY -·,' .. ·. ~J~~ ~t;; Funding Provided By North Carolina Department of Natural Enviro nmental Protection Agency Resources and Communi ty Development National Estuary Program NC DENR LIBRARY C1 1610MSC RAlEtGK.NC 27699•1610 509:C61 919-715-4161 CLASSIFICATION OF PAMLICO SOUND ~1JRSERY AREAS: RECOMMENDATIOXS FOR CRITICAL HABITAT CRITERIA By Elizabeth B. Noble and Dr. Robert J. Monroe North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources Division of Marine Fisheries P.O. Box 769 Morehead City, NC 28557 February 1991 "The research on which the report is based was financed, in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, through the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study." "Contents of the publication do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency , the ~orth Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, nor does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute their endorsement by the United States or North Carolina Government." A/P Project Number 89·09 r ( ........ .. · -- ....._ ··-······· · · · ··· -····· ................. ···-· The authors would like to thank M. Street for his encouragement and review, P. Phalen for his assistance with programming, statistics, and brain-storming, and also L. Mercer for her comprehensive review. Thanks to reviewers M. \Jolff, B. Burns, J. Ross, R. Holman, and anonymous external reviewers for their contribution to the quality of the manuscript. Thanks also to D. \Jillis and D. Tooele for manuscript preparation, and T.
    [Show full text]
  • An Inventory of the Natural Areas of Dare County, North Carolina
    AN INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AREAS OF DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Bruce A. Sorrie Inventory Biologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund July 2014 Cover photograph: Buxton Woods, Maritime Shrub Swamp (Dogwood Subtype) taken by Bruce A. Sorrie. AN INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AREAS OF DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Bruce A. Sorrie Inventory Biologist North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Office of Land and Water Stewardship Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC Funding provided by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund July 2014 ABSTRACT This inventory of the natural areas, biological communities, and rare species of Dare County was funded by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Trust Fund. The inventory identifies the most significant natural areas in the county, describes their features, and documents all natural communities and rare species of plants and animals associated with them. Habitat conditions, natural processes, and threats are also described. The inventory is intended to provide guidance for land use decisions by county, state, and federal governments, conservation and land management organizations, and interested citizens. Field work was carried out by Bruce A. Sorrie of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program during 2012 and 2013. The inventory identifies 34 areas of outstanding ecological significance as determined by criteria established by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many individuals and agencies contributed to the planning, progress, and completion of this inventory. Jame Amoroso, Misty Buchanan, John Finnegan, Harry LeGrand, Janine Nicholson, and Linda Rudd reviewed the draft report and maps and assisted in the production of the final copy.
    [Show full text]
  • North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Erosion Studies
    S h o r e l i n e E r o s i o n Chapter 3: North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Erosion Studies OVERVIEW they all come up with the same general erosion is severe in Pamlico Sound and is results and rates of recession. The studies ubiquitous throughout all subhabitats Numerous estuarine shoreline are briefly summarized below. (Table 3.2, page 39). erosion studies were previously done for portions of the N.C. coastal counties and REGIONAL STUDIES North Carolina Coastal Counties include the following: In northeastern North Carolina: Stirewalt and Ingram Pamlico Sound The USDA-SCS (1975) produced (1974); USDA-SCS (1975); Dolan and data for 15 coastal counties concerning Bosserman (1972); Hardaway (1980); Using 1938 to 1971 aerial photo- rates and types of estuarine shoreline and Everts et al. (1983). Bellis et al. graphs, Stirewalt and Ingram (1974) erosion (Table 3.3, page 40). Pender, New (1975); O’Connor et al. (1978); and evaluated the shoreline recession at 16 Hanover and Brunswick counties were Riggs et al. (1978) mapped 1,593 miles sites around the perimeter of the Pamlico judged to have minimal problems with of estuarine shorelines in the Albemarle- Sound (Table 3.1, page 38). Five of these estuarine shoreline erosion, and therefore Pamlico estuarine system. sites were situated on the backside of the were not included in their evaluation. Also, Hartness and Pearson (1977), barrier islands, and 10 sites were on Also, erosion processes along the back- summarized the estuarine shoreline shorelines that rim the mainland coast. barrier estuarine shorelines were consid- erosion in three southern coastal counties: The Stirewalt and Ingram (1974) ered to be beyond the scope of their Pender, New Hanover and Brunswick, study made no attempt to relate the study.
    [Show full text]
  • Manteo Harbor Report
    A CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF SUBMERGED LANDS AFFECTED BY THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION Manteo, North Carolina Conducted By Underwater Archaeology Branch North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Richard W. Lawrence, Head Leslie S. Bright Mark Wilde-Ramsing Report Prepared by Mark Wilde-Ramsing November, 1983 Abstract Field investigations of the submerged bottom lands at Manteo, North Carolina were carried out by the Underwater Archaeology Branch, Division of Archives and History, Department of Cultural Resources. The purpose of these investigations was to identify historically and/or archaeologically significant cultural materials lying within the area to be affected by construction of a bridge and canal system and berthing area proposed for the 400th Anniversary Celebration (1984 to 1987) on Roanoke Island. Initially, a systematic survey of the project area was performed using a proton precession magnetometer to isolate magnetic disturbances, any of which might be generated by cultural material. Following this, a diving and probing search was conducted on isolated magnetic targets to determine the source. With the exception of the remains of a sunken vessel, Underwater Site #0001ROS, all magnetic disturbances were attributed to cultural debris of recent origin (twentieth century) and were determined historically and archaeologically insignificant. Recommendations for the sunken vessel located on the south side of the proposed berthing area are (1) complete avoidance of the site during construction activities, or (2) further
    [Show full text]
  • Population Structure of River Herring in Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, Inferred from Geometric Morphometrics and Otolith Shape Analysis
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ScholarShip Population Structure of River Herring in Albemarle Sound, North Carolina, Inferred from Geometric Morphometrics and Otolith Shape Analysis By Walter Douglas Rogers April, 2015 Director: Dr. Roger A. Rulifson Department of Biology Abstract Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus and Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis, collectively known as River herring, use tributaries of the Albemarle Sound, North Carolina as spawning and nursery habitats. Stocks of these anadromous fish have experienced dramatic declines in North Carolina, and show no sign of recovery. Although the state has designated considerable resources to the management of river herring, we still do not fully understand river herring utilization of North Carolina’s estuaries, and know little about the structure and composition of populations. Determining the population, or “stock” structure of species is crucial for the proper distribution of management efforts. We utilized two robust stock identification methods to identify distinct groups of River Herring. Using geometric morphometric analysis, we found that groups of juvenile Alewife and Blueback herring from different tributaries of the Albemarle Sound had significantly different overall body shapes, despite apparent mixing between groups. Overall body shape of adult Blueback Herring was not significantly different at the tributary level, but did differ significantly at the state level between North Carolina and New Jersey. Elliptical Fourier analysis of otolith shape revealed the same pattern as geometric morphometric analysis on adult Blueback Herring, with significant differences in otolith shape at the state level but not the tributary level. Our results suggest that a portion of spawning adult River Herring returning to the Albemarle Sound may return to non-natal tributaries to spawn.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Fisheries Management Program Implementation for North Carolina
    INTERSTATE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION FOR NORTH CAROLINA By Kevin Brown and Blake Price Completion Report for NOAA Award No. NA16FG1220 Segment 3 Study II DOCUMENTATION AND REDUCTION OF BYCATCH IN NORTH CAROLINA FISHERIES JOB 3: Commercial Gillnet Observations in the Large (> 5 inch stretch mesh) and Small (< 5 inch stretch mesh) gillnet fisheries throughout the Albemarle Sound, Pamlico/Pungo Rivers, and the Neuse River, North Carolina September 2004 Abstract Observations were made of commercial gillnet fisheries throughout the Albemarle Sound Management Area, the Neuse River, and the Pamlico/Pungo River from January through June 2004. These observations were used to characterize the fishery and determine relative effort and discards of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and other federally managed species of finfish. Observations were made on 101 trips, consisting of 985 nets with a total length of 125,042 yards. Three different gear types were observed: anchored sink gillnets, anchored floating gillnets, and runaround gillnets. There were 423 striped bass observed in this study, with 92% of these caught in the winter. The Albemarle Sound was the most productive area for striped bass. The at-net mortality of striped bass in the winter was low (7% in the large mesh fishery and 2% in the small mesh fishery, respectively). The at-net mortality of striped bass in the large mesh spring fishery was 53%. No striped bass were observed in the spring small mesh fishery. Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) were only observed in the large mesh spring fishery and all were released alive. The results of this study offer insights for fishery managers developing Fishery Management Plans and may assist in bycatch mortality estimates.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Currituck Bridge Final Re-Evaluation of the Final
    MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY Currituck County and Dare County, NC Federal-Aid Project Number: BRSTP-000S (494) WBS Element: 34470.1.TA1 STIP No. R-2576 REEVALUATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Turnpike Authority a Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation March 6, 2019 Date Edward T. Parker Acting Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Date Rodger D. Rochelle, PE NCTA Chief Engineer North Carolina Department of Transportation North Carolina Turnpike Authority MID-CURRITUCK BRIDGE STUDY Currituck County and Dare County, NC Federal-Aid Project Number: BRSTP-000S (494) WBS Element: 34470.1.TA1 STIP No. R-2576 REEVALUATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration North Carolina Turnpike Authority a Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation Documentation Prepared By: WSP USA Date Lynn Purnell, PE, ENV SP Southeast Traffic, Planning and Environment Manager Date John Page, AICP Project Manager Documentation Prepared For: North Carolina Turnpike Authority Date John G. Conforti, REM Senior Project Manager, Project Management Unit-Eastern Region North Carolina Department of Transportation REEVALUATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), is evaluating proposed transportation improvements in the Currituck Sound area, including construction of a Mid‐Currituck Bridge. The proposed action is defined as a bridge across Currituck Sound from the mainland to the Outer Banks. A bridge across Currituck Sound is a part of the Preferred Alternative identified in the FEIS. The proposed action is included in the NCDOT’s 2018 to 2027 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) (August 2017) as project R-2576.
    [Show full text]
  • Piping Plovers in North Carolina
    Compilation and Assessment of Piping Plover Wintering and Migratory Staging Area Data in North Carolina Susan Cameron and David Allen NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Marcia Lyons Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC Jeff Cordes Cape Lookout National Seashore, NC Sidney Maddock Buxton, NC Piping Plovers in North Carolina • North Carolina is unique because piping plovers can be observed twelve months out of the year • North Carolina is at the northern extent of the wintering range and is an important stopover area during spring and fall migration • All three populations are known to use our coastline during the non-breeding season 1 Threats - Development/Beach Stabilization S. Maddock S. Maddock Threats – Chronic Human Disturbance 2 History of Non-breeding Piping Plover Program • In the past, surveys for migrating and wintering piping plovers were conducted mostly in an opportunistic fashion with data stored in multiple formats • In 2001, NCWRC obtained a grant from USFWS to create an Access database for non-breeding piping plover observations • Observations were compiled in an effort to identify some of the most important areas for piping plovers History of Non-breeding Piping Plover Program • In recent years, systematic surveys have been conducted at various locations including Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores and at several sites in association with beach stabilization projects • An observation form has been created and distributed in an effort to increase the number of sightings reported 3 Non-breeding Piping Plover
    [Show full text]
  • Hominy Swamp Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Plan
    Hominy Swamp Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Plan 1 Introduction 1.1 Background The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP; formerly the NC Wetlands Restoration Program) received a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1999 to develop a watershed assessment and restoration plan for one or more 14-digit hydrologic units within the Contentnea Creek watershed (Subbasin 7 of the Neuse River Basin). Hominy Swamp Creek (HU # 03020203020040; Figure 1.1), in Wilson, NC, was selected for the study in part because there were obvious nonpoint source water quality problems, the watershed appeared to have need and opportunity for watershed restoration planning, and there were noted concerns about flooding and associated resource and financial impacts in the City. Natural resource agencies in the community (federal, state, and local) expressed a willingness to participate in the watershed planning process; a summary of local participation and watershed goals is presented in Appendix A. Components of the grant were developed between 1999-2004 and are incorporated in this assessment and restoration plan. Other elements and deliverables for the grant are summarized in Appendix C. 1.2 Project History Earlier studies: The EPA grant was used to develop a watershed assessment and management plan for the upper portion of Hominy Swamp Creek (KCI, 1999), and a stream restoration project was implemented in Recreation Park (Figures 1.2, 1.3, 1.4) as a result of that assessment. Funding from the grant was also used to develop a land use/land cover characterization using high resolution satellite imagery (Center for Earth Observation, North Carolina State University, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Fort Hatteras Captured
    Fort Hatteras Captured http://civilwar150.longwood.edu Since the humiliating rout at Manassas a month before, the giddy confidence of many in the North had been replaced by gloomy acceptance that this would be a real war. Abraham Lincoln and the Northern public were anxious for some good news in the growing conflict. In late August, 1861, Union forces finally achieved their first significant victory of the Civil War. The barrier islands of North Carolina were strategically important as they provided protection to the Albemarle Sound and a number of important North Carolina coastal cities. Perhaps more importantly, they provided protection for Confederate raiders who would pounce upon merchant ships riding the Gulf Stream from the Caribbean to northern cities. Ships could slip quickly out of Hatteras Inlet, between Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island, raid a merchant ship and then scurry back to the safety of the Carolina sounds. These waters had long been known for this sort of activity, dating back to the pirate Blackbeard in the early 1700s. Shortly after secession, North Carolina authorities quickly constructed two rudimentary forts at Hatteras Inlet. Fort Clark had five small guns and was located near the inlet itself. Fort Hatteras had ten guns and was situated a half mile farther back toward the sound side of Hatteras Island. None of the guns in either fort was large enough to be suitable for coastal defense. As the number of merchant ships attacked grew during 1861, there was pressure in Washington to do something about it. Naval officials realized that if the forts at Hatteras Inlet were captured, they would not only stop the raiding of merchant ships but would also effectively blockade the North Carolina cities on the sounds from receiving supplies by sea.
    [Show full text]