DOCSLIB.ORG

Historical Trends in Abundance of American Shad and River Herring

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historical Trends in Abundance of American Shad and River Herring North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:257-271. 1996 American Fisheries Society 1996 Historical Trends in Abundance of American Shad and River Herrin Albemarln gi e Sound, North Carolina JOSEP . HIGHTOWEE H R National Biological Service. North Carolina Cooperative FishWildlifeand Research Unit 7617,Box North Carolina State University. Raleigh. North Carolina 27695-7617.USA ANTON M. WICKER AND KEITH M. ENDRES' U.S. FishWildlifeand Service Post Office Box 33726. Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726. USA Abstract.—The Albemarle Sound basin once supported large fisheries for American shad Alosa sapidissima and river herring (alewife Alosa pseudoharengus and blueback herring Alosa aestivalis combined); however, current landing f botso h stock extremele sar y lowusee W .d calch-per-unit- effort (CPUE) data from an 1845-1907 haul-seine fishery to estimate the historical abundance and productivity of these stocks. These historical data are valuable because we can measure (1) the respons stocke th f eo s toperioa fishino n f ) stoco dg(2 durinkd productivitan Civie r gth Wa l y before significant changes in water quality and habitat. We found that biomass-based models fitted the historical haul-seine CPUE data reasonably well t thebu , models appeare unreliable b o t d r efo forecasting. For river herring, an analysis that included 1977-1993 pound-net CPUE data appeared provido t e better management advice. Estimate populatioe th f so n growth rat ) rangee(r d fro5 m0. to 0.9 for American shad and 0.3 to 0.5 for river herring. We estimated that maximum sustainable yield was roughly 1-2 million kilograms for American shad, compared to 5-6 million kilograms for river herring. If the stocks can be restored and current productivity is similar to historical levels, both stocks should support much higher landings than are currently being made. American shad Alosa sapidissima rived an r her- Carolina 1980). Our goal was to compare estimates ring (alewife Alosa pseudoharengus and blueback of sustainable yields durin e 1800gth s with current herring Alosa aestivalis combined) once supported landing asseso t s potentiae sth l productio f thesno e large fisheries in Albemarle Sound, but landings stocks. have declined substantially from historical levels (Figur Chestnu; 1 e David an t s 1975 . WinslowS ; , Fishery Development and Catch Analysis North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, per- Development Historicalthe of Fishery sonal communication). For example, 1994 land- American shad and river herring were among ings of river herring (253,000 kg; Winslow, per- firse th exploitete b fis o ht d commerciall Nortn yi h sonal communication) were only 5% of the aver- Carolina because their oily flesh allowed them to age 1880-1970 landings (5.4 million kilograms; sale b t preserved withou r refrigerationo e ic t e Th . Chestnut and Davis 1975). Landings of American establishen fishera s wa y d industr time th f eo y yb shad have declined almost continuously from a Americae th n Revolution. Between 177 1776d 1an , peak of 3.3 million kg in 1897. The current low the Edenton, North Carolina, custom house cleared landings have led to concern about the status of 851 vessels carrying 24,432 barrel fisf so h destined these stocks adequatt ,bu e recen availt t no dat e -aar Britise foth r h West Indies, the Azores Canare ,th y abl evaluato et factore eth s responsibl- de e th r fo e Islands, southern Europe, and the New England cline (Winslow 1990). colonies (Taylor 1992). The objective of this study was to estimate the By 1846, there were 15 large haul-seine oper- historical abundanc d productivitan e f o thesy e ation Albemarln si e Sound employing about 1,000 stocks e analyzeW . d catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) people (Taylor 1992). These operations marketed data from the Greenfield fishery, which was a haul- their most valuable product, American shad, in seine fishery that operated wit same hth e gead an r Baltimore, Maryland, whereas river herring were procedures from 184 190o 5t 7 (Universit f Nortyo h shipped to markets in Richmond, Petersburg, and Norfolk, Virginia (Taylor 1992). 1 Present address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- New markets were established afte e comth r - cy, E-MAP Mail Drop 75, Catawba Building, Research e Albemarlpletioth f o n d Chesapeakan e e Canal Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA. from Currituc Norfolko kt , Virginia 1869n i , e Th . 257 258 HIGHTOWKR ET AL. 4X1O6- American shad 3x1O6- I |2x106 1x106 0x10°- 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1x107- Rrver herring 8x1O6- 6x1 06- 4x1 06- 2x106- 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year FiGURt: I.—Total reported landings of American shad and river herring for Albemarlc Sound from 1880 to 1993. canal enabled steamboat transportatio Norfolkno t , the passag e sounth r df migratinfo e o g fish (Taylor Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York (Taylor 1992). Apparently, before passag f thio e s law, 1992). Ice also became available during this pe- spawning runs were completely blocke panely db s riod, allowing fresh American shad to be trans- f nettingo . ported to northern markets at premium prices Haul-seine operations rapidly disappeared after (Boyce 1917) responsn I . developine th o et g fresh the introductio f pounno d nets because haul seines fish market, the fishery was expanded with the were very expensive to operate and could be fished introduction of pound nets in 1870 (Earll 1887). on only a few sites that were free of snags. In The number of pound nets increased from 117 in comparison, pound nets were relatively inexpen- n 189i 0 0 18895 (Nort o t 0 h Carolina Boarf do sive to operate and could be fished anywhere. Agriculture 1896). By 1896, there were 1,125 Many were near the ocean inlet, whereas the haul pound nets in Albemarle Sound and its tributaries, seines were primaril western yi n Albemarle Sound resultin estimaten a n gi d tota f 242,21o l f o 0m nea mouthe Roanoke rth th f sChowao d ean n rivers deenettinm p3 7. (Nort go t fro 7 hm 3. Carolin a (Figure 2; McDonald 1887). Also, the haul seine Board of Agriculture 1896). Use of pound nets and industry had focused on salt processing of Amer- stake nets proliferated to such an extent that, by ican shad, which became obsolete wit availe hth - 1905, North Carolina found it necessary to establishmen e pasth d s an abilite ic f dail f o t yo y rail- the Vann Law, which require channeda l through road and steamboat connections to northern mar- HISTORICAL TREND ALOSAN SI ABUNDANCE 259 08.11. Blackwater River FIGURE 2.—Locatio e Greentielth f no d haul-seine fishery, which operate n Albemarldo e Sound from 184o 5t 1907 historicad an , lspawnine rangth r efo g migratio f Americano n shad. kets. Fifteen haul-seine operation- s Al wer n o e afted e r propert wated yan r rights were purchased bemarle Sound in 1846 (Taylor 1992), 12 operated in 1882 (State of North Carolina, Halifax County in 1880 (Boyce 1917), 4 were functional in 1896 Superior Court 1907). The dam was on the site (Stevenson 1899) y 190b ; 2 onle Greenfielth y d occupiew Roanoke thano th s i t y db e Rapidm sDa fishery remained, and it closed by 1907. (Figure 2) and averaged 3.6 m high, creating an Another factor havy thama te affected landings 18-ha reservoir (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of America lose n spawninf th ssha o s dwa g habitat. 1943). McDonald (1884b) believed that loss in McDonald (1884a) reported that migration up the American shad spawning habitat would result in Roanoke Rive blockes rwa t Weldonda , North Car- correspondina g reductio productivn ni e capacity. olina, whereas the natural limit to migration was An ye fisher th los o t sy attributabl a los f o o st e furthem k ove 0 r r25 upstrea m near Salem, Virginia spawning habitat would not have been evident in e (FigurobstructioTh . e2) t Weldona havy ma ne the 9 fisheryears3- r ,fo y becaus enume thath s -i t bee nfisa h slide, whic s describehwa Yarroy db w ber of years it takes for adult American shad to (1874) as a solid, substantial structure that cap- return from the ocean to spawn (Winslow 1990). ture l Americadal n shad attemptin migrato gt e fur- Direct effects of the fish-slide harvest at Weldon ther upstream. Later e Roanokth , e Rives wa r e unknownar t Yarrobu , w (1874) suggested that damme Roanoke th y db e Navigation, Water Power the harvessubstantiao s s wa t l that American shad and Manufacturing Company e specifiTh . c dats ei would disappear from those waters withiw fe a n unknown, but the dam would have been construct- years if that method of fishing was continued. TABLF. 1.—Number of American shad fry stocked in Albemarle Sound and its tributaries from 1877 to 1881 (North Carolina Departmen f Agriculturo t e 1881) recordo N . available sar r 1882-1884efo finae stockine th ,year3 lth f so g program (Winslow 1990). Numbe f Americao r n sha stockey dfr : din Location 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 Roanoke River 389,000 350.000 150,000 Mehcrrin River 150,000 230,(XX) Nottoway River 111.000 275,000 Blackwater River 220.000 550,000 675.000 Chowan River 200.000 Salmon Creek 1,508.000 210,000 1.075,000 1,860.000 Albemarle Sound 600,000 185.000 110.000 875.000 1.570,000 All 600.000 2,543,000 1.395,000 2,650.000 4.105.000 260 HIGHTOWE ALT RE .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • North Carolina's Connection to the Southern Watersheds of Virginia
    Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Partnership (APNEP) North Carolina’s Connection to the Southern Watersheds of Virginia Stacey Webb Feken Policy and Engagement Manager City of Virginia Beach Sea Level Rise Summer Symposium Series September 19, 2018 V B G O V . C O M / B U I L D I N G A S H A R E D V I S I O N All of Virginia Is *Not* in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed virginiaplaces.org Celebrate Estuaries Week, September 15-22 www.estuaries.org Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System: Nation’s 2nd Largest Estuary Chesapeake Bay Albemarle Sound Pamlico Sound Cape Hatteras Cape Lookout Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System • Complex estuarine system • Network of 8 major sounds –Back, Bogue, Core, Croatan, Currituck, Roanoke, Albemarle, Pamlico • Drained by 6 major river basins • Semi-enclosed lagoonal system • Approximately 3,000 square miles of open water. Estuaries: Where Rivers Meet the Sea Over 28,000 square miles of land drain to the sounds through more than 10,000 miles of rivers and streams. 6 River Basins: Chowan, Pasquotank, Roanoke, Tar- Pamlico, Neuse, White Oak (Carteret County) 3 major basins originate in Virginia Why is the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system important? Estuaries: “Nurseries of the Sea” • Among the most productive ecosystems in the world. • Home to unique plant and animal communities that have adapted to brackish water. • Many animals rely on estuaries for food, habitat, places to breed, and migration stopovers. Ecosystem Services of Estuaries Economic Valuation of the Albemarle-Pamlico Watershed (RTI, 2016) Wetlands act as natural filters of pollutants Protection from floods and storms Reduce shoreline erosion Over $3.7 billion from fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing Annual value of $640 million for visits to national seashores, wildlife refuges, and state parks.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. 64 Improvements Project Purpose and Need Statement
    Chapter 1 Project Purpose and Need PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1.0 Project Purpose and Need 1.1 Introduction This State Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA G.S. 113A, Article 1), for the purpose of evaluating the potential impacts of a proposed transportation improvement project. This is an informational document intended for use by both decision‐makers and the public. As such, it represents a disclosure of relevant environmental information concerning the proposed action. The action proposed in this state‐funded DEIS is located along a rural 27.3‐mile corridor of US 64 from east of Columbia in Tyrrell County to US 264 in Dare County. The NCDOT proposes to widen the existing road from two lanes to a four‐lane divided highway and build a new four‐lane bridge over the Alligator River. The posted speed limit along the improved roadway and new bridge would remain at the current 55 miles per hour (mph). The NCDOT 2012‐2018 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) allocates funds for the bridge replacement portion of the proposed project to begin design‐build activities (which include design, right‐of‐way acquisition, and construction) in FY 2014. This section also includes constructing highway on new location that will connect a new bridge to back to existing US 64, on both sides of the Alligator River. The project section in Tyrrell County is funded to start right‐of‐way acquisition in FY 2014 and start construction in FY 2016.
    [Show full text]