DOCSLIB.ORG

Basin 12 Albemarle Sound

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Basin 12 Albemarle Sound BASIN 12 ALBEMARLE SOUND BASIN DESCRIPTION The Albemarle Sound Basin comprises 3906 square miles of low-lying lands and expansive areas of open water in northeastern North Carolina. The basin encompasses Albemarle Sound, Currituck Sound, Croatan Sound, Roanoke Sound, and a portion of Pamlico Sound paralleling the outer banks as far south as Ocracoke Inlet. Albemarle Sound is the receiving waters of the Chowan, Roanoke, and Pasquotank Rivers. Together these basins drain over 18,000 square miles the LWSP population served with water from this basin and of northern North Carolina and southern Virginia. their water use for 1992. WATER USE 1992 LSWP System Water Use from Basin (mgd) Factors Affecting Water Demand LWSP Residential Non-resid. Total Sub-basin This basin is home to about 2% of the state’s Population Use Use Use* residents and contains all or part of 12 municipalities in 9 Albemarle Sound 93,695 5.89 1.73 10.1 counties. Currituck County is one of the state’s 12 major *Total Use also includes unaccounted-for water and sales to other systems. metropolitan areas and is actually part of the Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News Metropolitan Statistical Area. Three Residential water use accounted for 58% of total counties in this basin had population growth over 10% from water use of these systems, non-residential use accounted for 1990 to 1997. Currituck and Dare counties that include 17%, and 10% of use was unaccounted-for. portions of the Outer Banks, experienced population growth The Albemarle Sound Basin supplies water to some of greater than 20% over the same period. In the coastal areas, of the State’s fastest growing counties. LWSP systems expect especially on the Outer Banks, water systems must plan to to supply water to over 154,271 persons by the year 2020, a have adequate water supplies during the summer months 65% increase over 1992 levels. Their demand is projected to when major seasonal peak demands for water occur. increase 76% to 25.2 mgd, by 2020. In the 1992 LWSPs, 11 of the 22 systems using water Total Water Use in Basin from this basin reported that available supply was not The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 1995 adequate to meet estimated demand through 2002. summary of water use estimated total water use in the basin at DWR encourages systems to begin planning to 23.4 million gallons per day (mgd), with just over two-thirds manage and meet future water demands before average daily coming from surface water sources. USGS estimated total water use reaches 80% of a system’s available supply. Data basin population at 111,830. Residential demand was for 1992 indicated that 7 of the 23 LWSP systems in this basin estimated at 11 mgd, with over 80% of this demand being had average demand above this threshold. By 2020, 10 supplied by public water systems. Overall, public water systems project demand levels that will exceed 80% of their systems supplied 11.2 mgd from ground water and 0.5 mgd available supply. from surface water for both residential and non-residential uses. The remaining residential water demand was met by 1.9 Self-supplied Use mgd of self-supplied ground water. In addition, there was The USGS estimated that self-supplied users, about 7.6 mgd of self-supplied water withdrawn for non- excluding power generating facilities, accounted for 272 mgd residential water uses. of the 433 mgd total of water used from this basin, as shown in the table below. Irrigation use accounted for 57% of the Local Water Supply Plans (LWSPs) self-supplied uses followed by livestock (20%), domestic All units of local government that supply or plan to (20%), industrial (2%), and commercial (1%). supply water to the public are required to develop a LWSP. The Division of Water Resources (DWR) reviews LWSPs and USGS Estimated Self-supplied Water Use in mgd maintains a database of the LWSP information. Sub-basin Domestic Livestock Industrial Commercial Irrigation Total Albemarle LWSPs were submitted by 23 public water systems 1.86 1.91 0.22 0.07 5.36 9.4 Sound having service area in this basin or using water from this basin. These systems supplied 14.3 mgd of water to 93,695 Registered Water Withdrawals persons. DWR estimated that 83,912 of the 93,695 persons Before 1999, anyone withdrawing 1.0 mgd or more served by these 23 LWSP systems reside in the Albemarle of surface or ground water was required to registered that Sound Basin. Of the 14.3 mgd supplied by these 23 LWSP withdrawal with DWR. In this basin there are 12 registered systems, 10.1 mgd comes from water sources in the Albemarle withdrawals other than LWSP systems or power generating Sound Basin, with the remainder coming from ground water facilities, with the cumulative capacity to withdraw 628 mgd. sources in adjoining basins. The following table summarizes In 1999, the registration threshold for all water uses except agriculture was lowered to 100,000 gallons per day. March 1, SUMMARY OF INFORMATION FROM 1992 LWSPs 2000 is the deadline for registering 1999 withdrawals. ! Per capita water use was 152 gallons in 1992 and is projected to increase to 155 gallons per day by 2010. WATER AVAILABILITY Local water supply plans indicate that there are 16 ! Three systems are not connected to another water supply systems with a total 12-hour supply of 14 mgd of ground water system. in this basin. LWSPs indicate that Nags Head is the only system in ! Four systems rely on purchase water as their sole supply. the basin with a surface water supply, a small fresh water pond with an estimated seasonal supply of about 0.3 mgd. Ground ! The reported raw water supply was 0.3 mgd surface water water for public use is limited due to high chlorides. Due to and a 12-hour groundwater supply of 16 mgd. the quality of ground water, treatment of ground water for public water supply on the Outer Banks and coastal areas ! There are six county-wide systems and one regional water requires a Reverse Osmosis (RO) process. There are plans for supply system additional RO plants in the basin. ! Water purchased by water systems in 1992 was about INTERBASIN TRANSFERS OF SURFACE WATER 11 mgd. Across the state many water systems move surface water between sub-basins to meet their needs. Only transfers ! In the coastal areas, especially on the Outer Banks, water of surface water are subject to regulation in North Carolina. systems must plan to have adequate water supplies during the While no surface water transfers affect this basin, nearly 4 mgd summer months when major seasonal peak demands for water of ground water is transferred into the Albemarle Sound Basin. occur. ! About 11 mgd of additional water supply will be needed by water systems to ensure that water demands in 2010 do not exceed 80% of available supply. !Demand-to-supply ratios for 1992 and 2010: 1992 2010 # of Systems reporting 23 23 # of Systems reporting ratio > 1.0 2 7 # of Systems reporting ratio > 0.8 7 8 # of Systems reporting ratio > 0.5 12 12 January 2000 Draft State Water Supply Plan DENR, Division of Water Resources GATES COUNTY CURRITUCK COUNTY Gates Co. Currituck Co. South Mills 4-1 Chowan River Pasquotank Co. Elizabeth City Perquimans Co. Inter County Water Assoc Winfall Colerain Hertford CAMDEN Chowan Co. COUNTY PASQUOTANK COUNTY Dare Co. PERQUIMANS Edenton COUNTY CHOWAN COUNTY Kill Devil Hills Columbia 14-1 Roanoke River Manteo Nags Head Washington Co Water System Tyrrell County Water Roper 12-1 Creswell Albemarle Sound WASHINGTON TYRRELL COUNTY COUNTY DARE COUNTY BEAUFORT COUNTY Belhaven Bath Hyde Co. HYDE COUNTY Aurora 15-3 Pamlico River & Sound Cape Hatteras PAMLICO COUNTY Ocracoke S.D. Pamlico Co. 10-1 Neuse River Oriental LEGEND Miles Basin 12 Albemarle Sound 0 2 4 6 8 (unshaded basin) County Boundary Basin Boundary ALBEMARLE SOUND 1992 and 2010 Population and Water Usage as reported by LWSP systems located in or using water from this basin Water systems showing "Demand as % of Supply" above 80% should be actively planning to control and meet future demand. Water Sources: g - ground water, s - surface water, p - purchased water mgd - million gallons per day 12 ALBEMARLE SOUND Water Total Service Population Total Water Use in mgd Reported Supply in mgd Demand as % of Supply County Water System Source* 1992 2010 1992 2010 1992 2010 1992 2010 CAMDEN SOUTH CAMDEN WSD p 0 3,800 0.00 0.25 0 0 --- --- SOUTH MILLS gp 3,413 5,573 0.25 0.40 0.416 0.51 59% 78% CHOWAN CHOWAN CO g 8,253 9,098 0.93 1.02 1.9 2.41 49% 42% EDENTON g 5,600 5,941 0.69 0.72 1.0845 1.3345 64% 54% CURRITUCK CURRITUCK CO g 7,280 10,031 0.45 0.70 0.5178 0.5678 87% 124% DARE CAPE HATTERAS g 6,900 11,000 0.70 1.21 0.8 1.19 87% 101% DARE CO p 3,658 6,246 0.89 1.52 2.3 2.3 39% 66% DARE CO RWS gp 0 0 3.17 5.06 -3.037 -0.445 -104% -1136% KILL DEVIL HILLS p 6,678 10,662 1.19 1.55 3.5 3.5 34% 44% MANTEO p 1,200 2,500 0.18 0.60 0.45 0.45 40% 133% NAGS HEAD sp 1,838 4,778 0.79 1.39 3 3 26% 46% HYDE OCRACOKE SD g 713 829 0.27 0.35 0.72 0.72 37% 49% PASQUOTANK ELIZABETH CITY g 14,292 22,000 2.19 3.37 1.14 1.74 192% 194% PASQUOTANK CO gp 12,000 18,876 0.86 1.50 1.368 1.368 63% 110% PERQUIMANS HERTFORD g 2,350 2,843 0.28 0.34 0.322 0.322 86% 106% INTER CO WA g 1,325 1,850 0.08 0.09 0.088 0.232 85% 39% PERQUIMANS CO g 6,469 7,000 0.60 0.68 0.697 0.697 86% 98% WINFALL g 501 520 0.05 0.05 0.1296 0.1296 39% 41% TYRRELL COLUMBIA g 900 1,200 0.09 0.11 0.398 0.398 21% 28% TYRRELL CO g 3,856 3,540 0.16 0.24 0.36 0.594 43% 40% WASHINGTON CRESWELL g 500 443 0.12 0.07 0.143 0.143 84% 47% ROPER g 669 689 0.11 0.12 0.138 0.138 80% 87% WASHINGTON CO p 5,300 7,750 0.24 0.34 0.532 1.032 45% 33% Total 93,695 137,169 14.26 21.66 17 22.
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]