DOCSLIB.ORG

Hookerton Ped and Bike Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hookerton Ped and Bike Plan Sedalia Hookerton Saluda TOWNTOWN OFOF HOOKERTONHOOKERTON BICYCLEBICYCLE ANDAND PEDESTRIANPEDESTRIAN PLANPLAN North Carolina Department of Transportation | December 2015 Acknowledgements Thank you to the Steering Committee and local residents of the Town of Hookerton for their invovlement and support in this planning process and committeement to bicycle and pedestrian planning. This plan was funded through the North Carolina Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Grant Initiative. Key Partners The Town of Hookerton Greene County Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (DBPT) Town of Hookerton Mayor and Council Robert Taylor, Mayor Catherine Carraway, Commissioner Doris Jones, Commissioner Arthur Robinson, Commissioner Herb Stocks, Commissioner Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Steering Committee April Baker Lemmie Smith Doris Jones Bille Albriton Lou Ann Shackelford Timothy Chare Megan Ham Sandra Stocks NCDOT John Vine-Hodge, NCDOT Project Manager Consultant Team AECOM Tehnical Services of North Carolina Page i Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ v Brief History and Overview of the Community........................................................................................................ v Past Planning Efforts ..................................................................................................................................................... v Purpose, Goals, and Objectives of the Plan ............................................................................................................. vi Key Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ vi Key Action Steps .......................................................................................................................................................... vii 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Brief History and Overview of the Community .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Community Vision ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Purpose and Scope of the Plan ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Benefits of Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning ................................................................................................ 6 2.0 Existing Conditions Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Demographics ................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.2 Community Features ...................................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.4 Land Use and Development ......................................................................................................................... 26 2.5 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Traffic Counts and Crash Data ....................................................... 27 2.6 Existing Facilities and Activity Trends ........................................................................................................ 28 2.7 Opportunities and Constraints ..................................................................................................................... 31 2.8 Existing Plans and Programmed Projects................................................................................................... 32 Page ii 3.0 Public Input and Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 37 3.1 Steering Committee ........................................................................................................................................ 37 3.2 Public Open House ........................................................................................................................................ 38 4.0 Recommendations............................................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Facility Types ................................................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 Recommended Facilities ................................................................................................................................ 42 4.3 Signature Projects ........................................................................................................................................... 61 4.4 Policies .............................................................................................................................................................. 71 4.5 Programs .......................................................................................................................................................... 76 5.0 Implementation Strategy .................................................................................................................................... 85 5.1 Key Action Steps ............................................................................................................................................ 85 5.2 Project Development Strategies ................................................................................................................... 89 5.3 Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................................. 90 5.4 Performance and Evaluation Measures for Plan Implementation ......................................................... 93 References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 97 Tables Table 2-1: Community Features ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 2-2: Hookerton Road Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 23 Table 2-3: Utilities ............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Table 2-4: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Counts ........................................................................................ 27 Table 3-1: Steering Committee ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 4-1: Prioritization Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 4-2: Proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Shared Use Path Linear Facilities ................................................... 50 Table 4-3: Proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Shared Use Path Spot Facilities ...................................................... 52 Page iii Table 4-4: Main Street Linear Projects .......................................................................................................................... 62 Table 4-5: Main Street Spot Improvements ................................................................................................................. 63 Table 5-1: Key Action Steps ........................................................................................................................................... 85 Table 5-2: Performance and Evaluation Measures for Plan Implementation ......................................................... 94 Exhibits Exhibit ES-1: Town of Hookerton ................................................................................................................................. ix Exhibit 2-1: Community Resources ............................................................................................................................... 19 Exhibit 2-2: Existing Facilities ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Exhibit 4-1: Proposed Bicycle Projects ......................................................................................................................... 55 Exhibit 4-2: Proposed Pedestrian Projects ..................................................................................................................
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]
  • 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]
  • Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-07
    Chapter 7 Neuse River Subbasin 03-04-07 Including the: Contentnea Creek, Little Contentnea Creek, Little Creek, Moccasin Creek, Turkey Creek, Hominy Swamp, Toisnot Swamp and Nahunta Swamp 7.1 Subbasin Overview This is the largest subbasin in the Neuse River basin, Subbasin 03-04-07 at a Glance encompassing over 1,000 square miles in 9 different counties, including portions of Franklin, Wake, Johnston, Land Cover (percent) Nash, Wilson, Wayne, Pitt, Lenoir, and almost all of Greene Forest/Wetland: 52.9 Surface Water: 0.6 County. It contains the entire Contentnea Creek watershed, Urban: 4.1 including Buckhorn Reservoir and its 2 primary tributaries, Cultivated Crop: 39.8 Moccasin Creek and Turkey Creek. Pasture/ Managed Herbaceous: 2.6 Over the past decade, the cumulative growth in population Counties for the 3 major municipalities is over 8,000. Zebulon and Franklin, Greene, Johnston, Lenoir, Nash, Pitt, Wake, Wayne and Wilson Wilson increased by 21.6 percent and 16.8 percent respectively. Farmville’s population has decreased by 0.6 Municipalities percent. Over half of the land cover is forest/wetland and Bailey, Middlesex, Lucama, Black Creek, Fremont, Pikeville, Saratoga, cultivated cropland covers the other portion. There are many Snow Hill, Grifton, Zebulon, Wilson and hog farms located throughout this subbasin. Additional Farmville information regarding population and land use changes Stream Statistics throughout the entire basin can be found in Chapter 16. Total Streams: 655.5 mi/1,307.9 ac Total Supporting: 165.3 mi There are 4 major and 12 minor NPDES wastewater Total Impaired: 84.6 mi Total Not Rated: 46.7 mi/510.5 ac discharge permits in this subbasin with a total permitted flow Total No Data: 358.9 mi of 23.4 MGD.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12
    Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 9831 D. The Paperwork Reduction Act of and requested comment from the public DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 1995 on this topic. HHS/CDC did not receive SECURITY HHS/CDC has reviewed the any public comment to this request. Federal Emergency Management information collection requirements of List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 71 the final rule and has determined that Agency the information collection requested in Communicable diseases, Public 44 CFR Part 67 the final rule is already approved by the health, Quarantine, Reporting and Office of Management and Budget recordkeeping requirements, User fees, [Docket ID FEMA–2013–0002] (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0920– Testing. 0263, expiration date June 30, 2014. The Final Flood Elevation Determinations final rule does not contain any new data For the reasons discussed in the collection or record keeping preamble, the Centers for Disease AGENCY: Federal Emergency requirements. Control and Prevention amends 42 CFR Management Agency, DHS. part 71 as follows: ACTION: E. National Environmental Policy Act Final rule. (NEPA) PART 71—FOREIGN QUARANTINE SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Pursuant to 48 FR 9374 (list of HHS/ Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified CDC program actions that are ■ 1. The authority citation for 42 CFR BFEs are made final for the categorically excluded from the NEPA part 71 continues to read as follows: communities listed below. The BFEs environmental review process), HHS/ Authority: Sec. 311 of the Public Health and modified BFEs are the basis for the CDC has determined that this action Service (PHS) Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • OUR STORIES: a County by County Journey Through East Carolina
    OUR STORIES: A County by County Journey Through East Carolina Camden Gates Currituck Sunbury Currituck Hertford St. Peter's Episcopal Church St. Luke's Episcopal Mission Gatesville Elizabeth City St. Mary's Episcopal Church Christ Episcopal Church Ahoskie St. Thomas Episcopal Church Elizabeth City Perquimans Bertie Hertford Roxobel Holy Trinity Episcopal Church Pasquotank St. Mark's Mission Edenton All Saints Episcopal Church Lewiston-Woodville St. Paul's Episcopal Church Grace Episcopal Church Chowan Windsor St. Thomas Episcopal Church Nags Head Columbia St. Andrew's by the Sea Washington St. Andrew's Episcopal Church Martin Roper St. Luke's & St. Anne's Episcopal Church Plymouth Creswell Tyrrell Williamston Grace Episcopal Church Dare Church of the Advent Christ Episcopal Church Galilee Mission Greenville Farmville Belhaven Emmanuel Episcopal Church The Well Episcopal Lutheran Campus Ministry St. James Episcopal Church St. Timothy's Episcopal Church Wayne Washington Hyde Greene St. Paul's Episcopal Church Zion Episcopal Church Bath Goldsboro Pitt Chocowinity St. Thomas Episcopal Church Trinity Episcopal Church St. Peter's Episcopal Church Engelhard St. Francis Episcopal Church St. George's Episcopal Church Grifton St Andrew's Episcopal Church St. John's Episcopal Church St. Stephen's Church Kinston Beaufort Diocesan House Newton Grove Lenoir St. Mary's Episcopal Church Craven La Iglesia de la Sagrada Familia St. Augustine's Episcopal Church Seven Springs New Bern Fayetteville Holy Innocents Episcopal Church St. Cyprian's Episcopal Church Cumberland Trenton Pamlico Grace Episcopal Church Christ Episcopal Church Oriental Hoke Church of the Good Shepherd Jones St. Thomas Episcopal Church St. John's Episcopal Church Clinton St.
    [Show full text]
  • Interbasin Transfer Petition: from Tar River to Contentnea and Neuse River Subbasins
    B1 Interbasin Transfer Petition: From Tar River to Contentnea and Neuse River Subbasins Greenville Utilities Commission April 2009 Environmental Management Commission Meeting May 2009 B2 Greenville Utilities Commission Interbasin Transfer Petition Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Farmville, the Town of Winterville, and Greene County plan to purchase bulk finished water from the Greenville Utilities Commission (GUC) to comply with the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules and continue to meet customer needs. GUC relies on the Tar River for its water supply, and the Town of Farmville and the majority of Greene County are located within the Neuse River Contentnea Creek subbasin. Farmville and Greene County discharge wastewater into the Contentnea Creek subbasin via centralized treatment or on-site septic systems. Therefore, sales of finished water to the Town of Farmville and Greene County will constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River Contentnea Creek subbasin. The Town of Winterville water and wastewater systems and the southwestern portion of Greene County are located within the Neuse River subbasin. Therefore, sales of finished water to the Town of Winterville and Greene County will constitute an interbasin transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Neuse River subbasin. GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate for a water transfer from the Tar River subbasin to the Contentnea Creek subbasin to support the Town of Farmville and Greene County’s compliance with CCPCUA rules. GUC is requesting an IBT Certificate in the amount of 8.3 mgd to meet Farmville and Greene County’s maximum day demands through 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Billing Code 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 02/12/2013 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2013-03077, and on FDsys.gov 1 Billing Code 9110-12-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002 Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below. ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or (e-mail) [email protected]. 2 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lenoir Class: %
    Report Date: 09/01/07 North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by County Records Found: 84 Search Parameters: Note: Waterbodies are listed in more than one county if they cross county lines. County: Lenoir Class: % No Records Returned! SpDes: % Name: % Index#: % Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Basin Stream Index # Lenoir County Beaverdam Branch From source to Great C;Sw 04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-74-11-1 (Rouse Pond) Branch Sawyer Branch From source to C;Sw 04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-74-13-1 Matthews Creek Poley Branch From source to Buck C;Sw 09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-74-8-4 Marsh Branch NEUSE RIVER From City of Goldsboro C;NSW 08/01/02 Neuse 27-(56) water supply intake to a point 0.7 mile downstream of the mouth of Coxes Creek. NEUSE RIVER From a point 0.7 mile WS-IV;NSW 08/01/02 Neuse 27-(70.5) downstream of the mouth of Coxes Creek to a point 0.6 mile upstream of Lenoir County proposed water supply intake. NEUSE RIVER From a point 0.6 mile WS-IV;NSW,CA 08/01/02 Neuse 27-(75.3) upstream of Lenoir County proposed water supply intake to Lenoir County proposed water supply intake. NEUSE RIVER From Lenoir County C;NSW 08/03/92 Neuse 27-(75.7) proposed water supply intake to mouth of Contentnea Creek. NEUSE RIVER From mouth of C;Sw,NSW 05/01/88 Neuse 27-(85) Contentnea Creek to Streets Ferry Trent River From source to mouth C;Sw,NSW 05/01/88 Neuse 27-101-(1) of Deep Gully Running Branch From source to Trent C;Sw,NSW 05/01/88 Neuse 27-101-1.5 River Beaver Creek From source to Trent C;Sw,NSW 05/01/88 Neuse 27-101-15 River Vine Swamp From source to Beaver C;Sw,NSW 05/01/88 Neuse 27-101-15-1 Creek Ash Branch From source to Vine C;Sw,NSW 05/01/88 Neuse 27-101-15-1-1 Swamp Page 1 of 4 Name of Stream Description Curr.
    [Show full text]
  • Wilson County Comp Plan.Pdf
    2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILSON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Credits 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILSON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA “BALANCING GROWTH & THE PRESERVATION OF RURAL CHARACTER” Prepared for Wilson County Board of Commissioners Board of Commissioners Frank E. Emory, Chairman R.S. ―Sid‖ Boyette, Vice-Chairman Roger Lucas Grady M. ―Bucky‖ Robbins Josephine Edwards Bobbie D. Jones Tim Williford County Manager Ellis Williford Planning and Inspections Director Mark Johnson Date Prepared May 2008 Prepared by Benchmark CMR, Inc. 118 South Main Street Kannapolis, North Carolina 28081 www.benchmarkplanning.com Wilson County i Comprehensive Plan Credits Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Randy Davis Wilson County Planning Board Chairman Charles Davis Wilson County Planning Board Member Rae Flowers Wilson County Planning Board Member Carroll Coleman Wilson County Planning Board Member Alex Fuller Wilson County Board of Adjustment Member Nicole Dunlop Wilson County Board of Adjustment Member Selby Brewer Wilson City ETJ Resident/City Planning Board Member/Realtor Robert Bartlett Bartlett Engineering and Surveying William E. Ford Small Business Owner / Interested Citizen Roger Lucas Wilson County Board of Commissioners Citizens of Wilson County Thanks to all who participated! Wilson County ii Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………… 1-1 2. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...... 2-1 3. BACKGROUND……………………..………………………………………. 3-1 4. PLANNING AREAS………………………………………………………….. 4-1 5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION…………………………………… 5-1 6. POPULATION AND HOUSING…..………………………………………….. 6-1 7. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT………………………………………………… 7-1 8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES……………………………………………………. 8-1 9. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES……………………………….. 9-1 10. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES…………………………………….. 10-1 11. LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT………………………………… 11-1 12. NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION…………………………………………… 12-1 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS……………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • TOWN of SNOW HILL, NORTH CAROLINA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2035 December 2013 Prepared Under Agreement By: Urban and Regional Planning
    TOWN OF SNOW HILL, NORTH CAROLINA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2035 December 2013 Prepared Under Agreement By: Urban and Regional Planning Program Department of Geography, Planning, and Environment East Carolina University Greenville, North Carolina PREFACE This comprehensive plan was funded in part by a Region 10 Community Transformation Grant awarded to the Town of Snow Hill, North Carolina. The town hired East Carolina University’s urban and regional planning program through the University’s Office of Sponsored Programs to complete the comprehensive plan. Jerry Weitz, Ph.D., FAICP, Associate Professor and Director of the Urban and Regional Planning Program, was the chief planner. Undergraduate students (pictured below) of PLAN 4096 (Planning Studio) worked with Weitz to complete the plan. The Snow Hill Student Planning Team (pictured from left to right) Kelsey Morrow, Katie Benedek, Joseph Samuels, Stephen Herendeen, Brandon Hackney, and Cameron Ray ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1 Location 1 Prior Planning Efforts 2 Public Participation and Input 2 Vision Statement 3 CHAPTER 2. NATURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 4 Physiography and Topography 4 Climate 5 Soils 6 Habitat and Endangered Species 8 Flood Plains 9 Wetlands 10 Historical Narrative 10 Historic Resources 12 Greene County Courthouse 12 St. Barnabas Episcopal Church 12 Snow Hill Colored High School 12 Snow Hill Historic District 13 Snow Hill Historic District Boundary Increase 13 Issues, Opportunities, and Assessment 14 Maintenance of Greenbelt Surrounding Town
    [Show full text]
  • New Voyages to Carolina: Reinterpreting North Carolina History
    New Voyages to Carolina This page intentionally left blank New Voyages to Carolina Reinterpreting North Carolina History EditEd by Larry E. Tise and Jeffrey J. Crow The University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill This book was published with the assistance of the Blythe Family Fund of the University of North Carolina Press and grants from Martin H. Brinkley and James W. Clark Jr. / North Caroliniana Society and William S. Price Jr. © 2017 The University of North Carolina Press All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Set in Miller by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. The University of North Carolina Press has been a member of the Green Press Initiative since 2003. Cover illustration: A manuscript field map of the Carolina coast sketched by Christoph von Graffenreid (1661–1743), founder of New Bern, in 1710. Reproduced with permission from Burgerbibliothek Bern Mss. Mül.466.ma. Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Names: Crow, Jeffrey J., author, editor. | Tise, Larry E., author, editor. Title: New voyages to Carolina : reinterpreting North Carolina history / edited by Larry E. Tise and Jeffrey J. Crow. Description: Chapel Hill : The University of North Carolina Press, [2017] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017013225| iSbN 9781469634586 (cloth : alk. paper) | iSbN 9781469634593 (pbk : alk. paper) | iSbN 9781469634609 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: North Carolina—Historiography. | North Carolina—History. Classification: LCC F253.2 .N49 2017 | ddC 975.6—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017013225 Contents Preface, ix Introduction, 1 Larry E. Tise and Jeffrey J. Crow An Uncompromising Environment: North Carolina’s “Land of Water” Coastal System, 14 Stanley R.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Assessment of Fish Health: a Prototype Methodology and Case Study for the Albemarle Pamlico River Basin, North Carolina
    EPA/600/R-02/067 September 2002 Regional Assessment of Fish Health: A Prototype Methodology and Case Study for the Albemarle Pamlico River Basin, North Carolina by M. Craig Barber Robert M. Baca1 Sandra L. Bird John Doherty2 Linda R. Exum John M. Johnston Ray R. Lassiter3 Brenda Rashleigh Michael J. Cyterski Susan Colarullo4 Nicholas T. Loux Lourdes M. Prieto Christina J. Wright5 published by Ecosystems Research Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Athens, GA 30605-2700 1 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Road, Unit 150 Riverdale, MD 20737-1236 2 Department of Civil Engineering University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia 3 Department of Marine Sciences University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602 4 U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Trenton, NJ 5 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior 4598 Mac Arthur Blvd, NW Washington, DC 20007 National Exposure Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Notice The research described in this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Office of Research and Development. The research described herein was conducted at the Ecosystems Research Division of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Exposure Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Acknowledgments Many persons outside of the immediate BASE (Basin-scale Assessment of Sustainable Ecosystems) research team contributed to this report. Shelly Miller of the Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries provided assistance in compiling data on fish from Virginia, and Tom Jobes of Aquaterra provided assistance in the application of HSPF described in Chapter 6.2.
    [Show full text]