Land Use Plan CAMA Update-1981

DCM COPY
DCM COPY
Please do not removemn
Division of Coastal Management Copy
BEAUFORT COUNTY
LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
CAMA -
REVISED SEPTEMBER 16, 1981
WI LLM MS WORKS
ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS / PLANNERS / GEOLOGISTS / ARCHITECTS
SANFORD. NORTH CAROLINA 27330

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Prepared by:
BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Ledrue Buck, Chairman
Frank Bonner
Grover'Boyd
Marion Dilday
Mrs. Arthur Lee Moore
BEAUFORT COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
R. H. Allen, Jr,., Chairman
Brown Boyd
John Edwards, Jr.
Hyram. Paul , Jr.
Jerol Selby
COUNTY -MANAGER
Jay Hodges
COUNTY CLERK
John Morgan
COUNTY.ENGINEER
Earl Bonner
The preparation of this report was financed in part through
a grant provided by the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

INTRODUCTION
The Congress of the United States enacted the Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) in 1972 because of the recognized need for increased protection
of the physical and biological resources of the coast. Population growth
and economic development have placed severe pressure on the ecological systems
of the coast as well as on the cultural, historic and aesthetic values of the
area.
CZMA authorized federal financial assistance to states covered by the
act for the purpose of designing and carrying out programs to manage these
resources more effectively than existing law allowed. The act was (and remains)
optional for the states, i.e., states were not required to participate in the
program and, indeed, four have withdrawn from it (Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota,
and Virginia). Participating states must meet federal planning and management
standards for continued financial assistance.
North Carolina has chosen to join the majority of eligible states in
recognition of the problems facing state and local governments in our.coastal
area. The state enabling legislation, the Coastal Area Management Act of 1974
(CAMA) has been characterized as one of the longest, most complex, and "most
amended" -pieces of legislation ever to be approved by the North Carolina
General Assembly. As planning legislation CAMA differs radically from all
other North Carolina law in several respects. First, it applies to only part
of the state: the twenty coastal counties, collectively termed the ".coastal
area." Second, CAMA requires rather than merely permits, the initiation of a
local land use planning program by the coastal area counties. Third, the
planning process and subsequent process of plan implementation is a respon
sibility shared by state and local government. The state, acting through the
Coastal Resources Commission, retains the power to approve local plans and
certain aspects of the plan implementation.
The land use plans prepared by the coastal area counties must be updated
every five years though amendments are permitted in the interim. The first roun
of CAMA plans, including Beaufort County's plan, was prepared during FY 1975-76.

Beaufort County's plan was prepared by the County Planning Board with profess-
ional assistance provided by the North Carolina Division of Community
Assistance. The plan was adopted in 1976 by the Beaufort County Board of
Commissioners following a public hearing. The plan was thereafter submitted
to and approved by the Coastal Resources Commission.
The present report is the first five year update of the 1976 plan, as
required by CAMA. The major purpose of the update is to identify and.analyze
emerging community issues and problems. The Coastal Resources Commission has
set the following objectives for the update process:
* To further define and refine local policies and issues;
* To further examine and refine the land classification system and
the local land classification map;
* To assess the effectiveness of the existing land use plan and its
implementation;
* To further explore plan implementation procedures; and
* To promote abetter understanding of the land use planning process.

ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN
The Coastal Resources Commission is responsible to the Governor and
General Assembly for carrying out the Act. The Commission is aided in this
task by the Coastal Resources Advisory Council (CRAC) and the Office of
Coastal Management (OCM), an agency of the Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. OCM serves as staff to the Commission.
Part of the Commission's responsibility is to set standards for the
preparation of the local land use plans to insure they meet the objectives
of CAMA. The Commission,Advisory Council and OCM have thus established an
outline by which plans are to be prepared. The outline is.set forth in the
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC). The checklist appearing on the
following pages represents a distillation of the Code requirements and is
also intended to serve as a device to facilitate review of the plan by state
and federal agencies.
The planning guidelines can be summarized as requiring:
* A statement of existing conditions in the community emphasizing
population, economic structure, constraints to development, growth
prospects, and other planning activity;
* A set of policy statements by the community setting forth its
intended course of action to deal with development issues identified
in the analysis of existing conditions;
* A land classification map showing those lands which are developed at
urban densities or are likely to be so developed within the next
few years, areas which should be maintained in their natural state,
small communities not likely to require water and sewer services
in the near future, and finally, rural areas;
* A mechanism for citizen participation in the planning process.
The guideline/requirements are set forth in more detail below.
4;;

GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE PLAN
I The updated land use plan deals principally with the unincorporated
area of the county. Most municipalities (Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, Choco-
winity, and Washington), have elected to prepare their own plans. Pantego,
Beaufort's remaining municipality, will be treated as part of the county
plan. CAMA planning guidelines, however, require consistency of plan pro-
posals between adjacent local governments. Thus, the county plan contains
frequent reference to these units regarding existing conditions, projected
future conditions, development policy, and land classification.
Coordination of proposals with adjoining counties is also required.
This will be effected by reviewing plans for those counties to identify
conflicting policies and proposals for the use of land and water along
mutual boundaries. If any are found, it will be the responsibility of
the respective county commissioners to resolve those differences. The
Coastal Resources Commission is authorized to intercede if resolution
cannot be accomplished by local government.
The counties adjoining Beaufort which are covered by CAMA are Craven,
Hyde, Pamlico, and Washingotn. Non-CAMA counties adjoining Beaufort are
Martin and Pitt.
iv

CHECKLIST FOR LAND USE PLANS
REQUIREMENTS
SECTION I. DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
Establishment of information base, including
1. manner in which data was assembled
2. statement of the major conclusion
Present conditions and economy, including
1. present population and economy analysis
2. impact of seasonal population
Existing land use analysis
1. significant land use compatibility problems
2. problems and implications from unplanned
development
3. identification of areas experiencing or
likely to experience changes in predominant
land use
4. areas of environmental concern
5. map of existing land use
Current plans, policies and regulations, including
1. listing and summary of significant existing
local plans and policies
2. listing and description of the means for
enforcement of all local existing land use
regulations
3. Listing of all relevant federal and state
regulation
v

Constraints: Land suitability
I. physical limitations to development
a. hazard areas (man-made/natural)
b. soil limitation areas (shallow, poorly.
drained, septic tank limitations)
c. water supply sources
d. excessive slope areas (over 12%)
2. fragile areas (minimum requirement 15NCAC 7H)
3. areas with resource potential
Constraints: Capacity of community facilities (Discuss)
1. existing water and sewer service areas
2. design capacity of the existing water and sewage
treatment plants, schools, and primary roads
3. percentage at which existing facilities are utilized
Estimated demand
1. population estimate for the upcoming ten years
2 future land need discussion
3. community facilities demand (types of facilities
and densities at which land is to be developed
SECTION II. POLICY STATEMENTS
Resource Protection Policies
1.• policies on types of uses appropriate within the
locality's AECs
2. constraints to development
3. specific local -resource development issues relative
to 15NCAC 7H
4. other hazardous or fragile land areas
5. hurricane and flood evacuation needs and plans
Resource Production and Management Policies
I. discussion of importance of agriculture, forestry,
mining, fisheries and recreational resources
a. identification of most productive areas
b.. discussion of values of protecting these areas
vi

2. policy statements on:
a. productive agricultural lands
b. commercial forest lands
c. existing and potential mineral production areas
d. commercial and recreational fisheries
e. off -road vehicles
Economic and Community Development Policies
1. discussion of types of development which are to be
encouraged
a. discussion of redevelopment of older areas/
creation of new subdivisions, etc.
2. policies on types and locations of industries desired
3. policies on local commitment to providing services'to
development
4. policies on types of.urban growth patterns desired
5. policies on redevelopment of developable areas
6. policies on commitment to federal and state programs
in the area
7. policies on assistance to channel maintenance and
beach nourishment
8. policies on energy facility siting and development
9. policies on tourism or beach and waterfront access
SECTION III. LAND CLASSIFICATION
Land classification map showing the following:
1. developed land
2. transition land
3. community land
4. rural land
.5. conservation land
6. additional breakdown of standard 5 classes (optional)
SECTION IV. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES
1. discussion of means by which public participation in
planning matters was encouraged in plan update process

2. description of the means to be used for public
education on planning issues
3. description of the means to be used for continuing
public participation
These guidelines are intended to insure comprehensive coverage of
development issues throughout the coastal area. Other issues of local
significance, of course, may be addressed in the plan. They also serve
as a useful working outline for plan format and will be used as such in
the Beaufort County plan.
The guidelines allow a great deal of freedom for the county to state
its development policies and land use proposals. There is, however, a genera l
requirement that the plan be consistent -with the policies established by the
Coastal Resources Commission for the coastal area as a whole.
V111

r ,
PLAN ADOPTION
CAMA provides for plan adoption by both the local government and,
subsequently, by the Coastal Resources Commission. If Beaufort County
fails to adopt the plan and submit it to the Commission, the latter may
unilaterally adopt and employ it as a development guide for state and
federal actions affecting Beaufort County.
The Board of County Commissioners must consult with the governing bodies
of the county's municipalities to insure planning consistency before adoption.
The plan must be the subject of a public hearing held by the Board of
County Commissioners. Notice of the hearing must be published and a copy
of the notice sent to 'the Coastal Resources Commission 30 days prior to the
hearing. -
Within 7 days of plan adoption, the County must notify the Coastal
Resources Commission of that action.

Rheasvdir i Jae recKsun _ .3 ,z __. _-_ 11 .. Trv�nc - Tilyl�" 37 -- I:�" San yc. , \. .S% ,11 '''1 _. 7
onit 11 - 3 125 12 Hr� �K 1 POlecasi I�' 9,/q 9 16 oheld �r ' O
5 9036 NO'+ II MPr 3 yn nola Unio 4 \ 1 vdle
s
alilaR Woodlan /H 45 ' j Elizaheth pl
R F O p �,�� I liden s\ Y Ar
-� eofgP A 4 1
35 r t 56I 2, Harrellsv Ilt' ,4 aj
a 5 /Y r Sault Juhr i • hoskie 6 1 PI idere \ \1THtF %•• 0�
BnnM a ville3 1 ' �' Bryaplown K.O 6 1 5 561 �: eY50
561 ,., i ( ��" 6 42 St.3 " 10 Ryland 37 Chapanok. 13 h
Heathsville g ci\ illery - �c Spuare _ OS r — — // `, q
ti �/ 3D1 115 IMAN lJ � 3
1 A 7 L, - / 6 $pang( 7 4 j o/ Aulander ow Ilsville% -'� T ner s.. yYinfall 1�Niaonlon
II2/ A H...IIIIII Ro obel ` 3 42 o erai (ti I� 32 /\1 .�_ %1 vv C
E 2 gel O Enfield 90,0 ) �.� t 2 1�lceltor s 11 3 1 Connarit a 13 '0 6 I AN\h—��" i Hertford
ew 33a 258 of"-. 42 Burden - Sky�iock 1 t0`� �, Durants Neck
j o oPp, / s Lewaton 5 I 11 Mount Gould Valhalla I2�a; 7
f ", Scotland Neck 0 B �\,
a• Askewville 3 Hnrmm•. l�
48 44 g hitakerr ` a 903 5/ W�oodvill I o t. Ashlan c H ncock Edenre Sro
d. b I I �, 3�7 3 2 Nor", PI.
Ros death g, P Imyra 8 308 45 q 1 \ t. • 2 5 i0 reerorM P1. _
g t 13 l 5 / Drew 1 5 Midway [dr•nhou ..Ed til� 37 -
Battleboro \ - ` ` It Cahaoa \ l7 g � - + / acle
ort e35, Rocky ' Lawrence dbgood B R 6 1 '� E , ` 2
6 Mount' 44 97 /. Wit r Merr !------ °`
-..8 4 y Hill fi �?
b 97 11 5*tt 6 / SPcelf Oak City 1 Quit f'I t7 45 - Bull Bay Nrwtow
E D G E CO B E \ 5 \ ' I� Grab ow 30a /,'Mackey s
P 5 41 am"to I1 I r., �. 6 5
Hear seas 61 g 1 Ri,v-r 11 t/ �� 64 'leasant Grove i i Columbia
SEAROARD �! l '� �3 117 1`I Woodard I /�
t g 1 4/ Ha;•:rll � I/ / ., ' WPttnuer Scupprmon 3 s) nnAley �.
a ti 6 Tarboro S \ nncevdle n r 11 > l+ 9 15 ► CrPswPl 94
Go it Point , 32 Ruprr�.
43 1, t . 4 l 1 1 \ 1lu•rf E
\ 42 [v fell
s Williamstort �� harden Plymouth — �.,.
I3 13' o 2 64 Jam Ville I', , 6 , s W A S H I N G T 0 Nam' �1°""'°' Pr""
yI netoe COi.{T obersonv�rlsle JjC I/NE _ /FsreR,,,. Sr. P1. own s Pinetops 25B o I a 6 ethel 1 , �a[mel f1 - 11 '
Creek ` 6 42 0 �\ 9 Bear Grass 16 N r I Phelps Lake 1 21
o`` 17 I ,g Hinson 32 B T Y R R
iID nks s 12q 2 g 9 a 9 v- r
42 6 Macclesfield Crisp / 71 p s 111 / 99 Wenona; ,
t 11 Stokes _,t,c N r ! unvo lake
Son 6/Falktan o 30 — — J -7
2 , \ 22 R 33 13 �I
Brucer` 7 O 7 O A!livalur
` N 5 arato a % fountain 111 t o se \w p 10 LaAPr rilkenny
a T� d a 43 4 __9Patt�=elns; B E A U F2� O R j
arm Ill ,� g ^ L1 7 't/ F 0 2� 6�nenl i Pinelown, :__<_,_. anteg
�NORFOIK g _',. , Gree ville t+ +` Acre Terra
,,,,AA , OurHERN� Wa$b� Cela 3 LeechvdlP H _ 94
Walstonb r 26u tBel e' c. i noon -132 U i 2 9 anscal
Simpsont 10�•� i 9 264 jnuac Fairfield
- 91 -I 3 - I3 'Grimesland "t` Bunyan
h 13 5 264 T t. T i 5 Yeates iIIP 92 h4ven, i"
13 10 259 1 13 90 i Ch wi d (1.- 2 3 ,to
r 4 164 y. 7 Ma
1 Lizzie } , 4 1y - '.. Gov e..e3 ' alb R ( crantun r
] 3 Mau�y Round ee 3 l Srer. P°.R 6 92 . • Hurw. eerA +. Wins{! vt11G• ;: ,(L
G R 3 g 11 10 �AYden 6 \x NVnr i� ;If 3 Ransomvill 17�' 1
r Snow Hill EO,mondsV ShelnuH a OI I4 6 c Sladesvdle e
13 Nle 11 Bayvi!
` 13 a 1 ♦ . pokerton .1 11 o 10 13 rN re
9n3 1 W Cahcn h° 33 i' = CorI.,FREE FY, 2rr \ . 1 ?Swa+Quarter I
s, 258 3 I .. N 0 0 'ilmar Y Pointl. 1 Pamlico Beach , Rose Bay 1` ,
Jason - Griffon - is SwANO0 AR
r _ l \ r 43 O 17 CoR Crossroad �� Bonner on \
Ins(i1u ` Ia f 58 ' g Z 5 1 •NArt AR
RIFDGE
6 -^� Dawson - i -.._�' 11a unl Creek' 3061 r•South. \
2 _ Ay 3 ,.� Creek` \ GREAT 1.\
' * raingers 5 1\ Vanceboro 1 Ed 'at 1 •4 -, 2 „�`wlantl POm6ce PL
i LaGrange 1 55 � � i I �
,,y,,, ,\ Fort Barnwell I I Aurora • Royal
I Iriston+l Ernul ,�'� 33 Hobucken " \. \N.
;er a.3r.' ' 0, y Cayton
ri C°rw.lr M `
,ngs. Gen6e rN " 7 - ��Dover /' g nllyville 5Mesic I%efe'
r .,55 f 70glWis �-!C p` A V E- N i r (Cash Come ,, .. \
i 13 _ w, Cave CdY as - '
E EA cA.eou M 6 5 per 7 �w ! + Maribe Bap t. Pr. /
L E N O I IFork \ �7 7 IVand Here Mew Pr. \
R 1 x " �J! NA 70 ,�..,.,.1! g 55 _ \ r 6ayboro g 01 Florence 'I /
\ OlYmoia 1 �newa ,
r Deep Run , - Tuscarfll q A Gr is Oro Alliance'
258 {r 7 \ # p Bridgeton 55
le41 , ♦ NewBer n ° ►er°cf1 9 Merriittt lia WhortonsvilleIt A ' ` 8 R E sM-r ..^2 \a es City •I A M L I C /';cbPamlico /��l Q � Rafran ' t
Pink Hill 4Pleasant Hill ,did° 58 Trenton - I Y' -� '� B°p -to,
Nurne a ' - q + 5 � • 1 ' / �' ,` Oriental/ �
I I B Y / JI 0 .N E R. :' $ 7 `��\ Arap�e / - weal Bay 2 '
I � I 9 < / _ _ e =1_ ComHOFMANN1., I Pollocksville / Riverdaak�any \ 'RfE 4 aneirr M nn \�—_— South �eQ ar liGnn r r Lnla
ld \ S uth River
4 CROATAN I \ r h% S/ Op s; r,0
\ 1 17 ti 1 i A Beat 1 td \E' cEDaa I,
PPrersburg �I �, \ _ / 2j� L°Ar A I ~ / INIRR IPIL�ru1�6) y r hnm n
eit
ulavdle Jf t� ` \Y . , . " E.irny y MCA T )i !•T. ,
BEAUFORT CO.
—CAMA—
—REGIONAL SETTING—
LAND USE PLAN
1980
t`�- (%_WORKS, INC.. SANFORD, NORTH CAROUNA�j
x

INFORMATION BASE
This document is an updated version of Beaufort County's first CAMA land
use plan which was published in 1976. Section I contains a description of
existing conditions within the county. Planning parameters covered in this
section include the following:
* Population
* Economy
* Land Use
* Current plans, policies, and regulations
* Constraints to development
* Estimated demand for community facilities over the next ten years
Because of its extensive treatment of these subjects, the 1976 plan has
served as the point of departure for the present work and as a major source of
reference. It has been updated to the extent possible through a review of
standard secondary sources of planning information in North Carolina. Citations
to these sources are provided throughout this report.
Secondary sources have been supplemented by personal interviews with local
officials (particularly, the County Manager and County Engineer). Interviews
with consultants to the Towns of Bath and Chocowinity provided essential
insights into county -municipal planning relationships as did Aurora's Director
of Community Development. Plans for the towns of Washington -and Belhaven were
also made,available to the consultant for identification of interjurisdictional
problems and policy consistency. Finally, personnel of the North Carolina
Division of Community assistance provided many hours of their time on technical
matters and the history of planning in Beaufort County.
1-1

POPULATION
Beaufort County's population structure and long term trends in population
growth are described in the 1976 plan. Table l summarizes population growth in
Beaufort County over the past century.
TABLE 1
BEAUFORT COUNTY POPULATION
1880 - 1980
YEAR POPULATION
1880 17,474
1890 21,072
1900 26,404
1910 30,877
1920 31,024
1930 35,026
1940 36,431
1950 37,134
1960 36,014
1970 35,980
1980 40,266
1-L

The most reliable source of information for population studies is the
decennial census of population. Because the 1980 Census is notyet complete,
it is not possible here to report changes in the age structure, racial
composition, male -female ratio, nor migration trends since the 1970 census. The
only data yet available from the 1980 Census is .the total permanent population
and number of dwelling units within the county's municipalities and townships.
These data are of much importance for this plan and are discussed below.
OVERALL POPULATION GROWTH
Preliminary results of the 1980 Census show that Beaufort County's
population grew by 11.9 percent in the past ten years. In 1970, county
population was officially recorded at 35,980 persons. The 1980 data show the
population of the county to be 40,266, an increase'of approximately forty-two
hundred persons.
Table 2 shows populations for all five counties of Region Q from 1950
through 1980, including Beaufort County. The table shows that Beaufort County
was outpaced only by Pitt County over the past ten years.
TABLE 2
REGION "Q" POPULATION
% Change
% Change
County
1950
1960
1970
1980
1970 - 1980
1950 - 1980
Beaufort
37,134
36,014
35,980
40,266
11.9
8.4
Bertie
26,439
24,350
20,528
21,024
2.4
-20.4
Hertford.
21,453
22,718
23,529
23,368
- 4.4
8.9
Martin
27,938
27,139
24,730
25,948
4.9
- 7.1
Pitt
63,789
69,942
73,900
83,651
13.2
31.1
Region
176,753
180,163
178,667
194,257
11Q11
Total
Beaufort
Co. 21%
19.99%
20.14%
20.72%
Share of
Region
1-3

Population growth in Beaufort County from 1970 to 1980 is significant
because it is a departure from the trend of decline which began around 1950.
This appears to be part of a statewide and nationwide trend toward increasing
populations in non -metropolitan counties. This in turn is the result of
industrial dispersion to rural or "ex -urban" areas.
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION
Beaufort County's population is not distributed uniformly throughout the
county's land area. Large tracts of virtually unpopulated territory exist along
both the northern and southern county lines. Approximately thirty-two percent
of the county's population resides within Beaufort's seven municipalities.
Nearly two-thirds of the population is located in Chocowinity, Long Acre, and
Washington Townships.
Table 3 illustrates the distribution of Beaufort County's population by
township since 1960. Chocowinity Township was by far the fastest growing
township for the decade 1970 - 1980.
TABLE 3
BEAUFORT
COUNTY
POPULATION
GROWTH
BY TOWNSHIP
1960 -
1980
1960
1970
% Change
1980
% Change
Township
Population
Population
1960 - 1970
Population
1970 - 1980
Bath
3,323
3,237
- 2.6
3,472
7.3
Chocowinity
4,628
4,661
0.7
6,241
33.9
Long Acre
5,318
6,976
31.2
7,636
9.5
Pantego
5,377
5,126
- 4.7
6,204.
21.0
Richland
3,462
3,626
4.7
3,809
5.0
Washington
13,906
12,354
-11..2
12,904
4.5
County Total
35,980
40,266
11.9
Source: U.S. Census
I - 4

1 - J

ECONOMY
Agriculture has long been the pre-eminent fact of economic life in Beaufort
County. Its dimensions and structure have been described in the 1976 land use
plan. Agriculture accounts for millions of dollars in personal income to
Beaufort County residents. Cash receipts from farm marketing in 1979 amounted
to over sixty-two million dollars, an increase of almost thirty percent since
1975. The use of land for agricultural production is a major feature of the
Beaufort County landscape and it appears to be on the rise. Cropland is
estimated at over one hundred sixty thousand acres, a thirty percent increase
since 1975.
As an employer, however, agriculture is clearly declining. Both the
manufacturing and non -manufacturing segments of Beaufort County's economy have
experienced sizeable percentage increases in employment while agricultural
employment has declined sharply in the past five years.
PMDInvmPNT
The availability of employment opportunities - jobs - is the key deter-
minant of the economic health of a community. Both the civilian labor force
and total employment among Beaufort County residents have shown strong gains
over the past ten years (24 percent growth in labor force, 23.6 percent growth
in total employment). The rate of increase has not been constant throughout the
decade. From 1970 - 1975, the labor force grew by 18.0 percent and total
employment by 15.7 percent. Between 1975 and 1979, the rates of increase in
these indicators declined to 5.1 percent for labor force and 6.8 percent for
total employment. These data are shown in Table 5.
For the decade as a whole, labor force and employment growth was faster
than the rate of population growth. This is indicative of an expanding economy.
The components of the expansion are not known at'this time: i.e., whether we
have increased labor force participation or an influx of new workers. The
reasons for the percent decline in growth rate are not clear, but they are
probably the result of external factors, e.g. high interest rates which
discourage investment in new and expanded business activity. An alternate
reason may be a lack of activity by Beaufort County to market itself as an
atractive location for industrial development.
1-b

TABLE 5
BEAUFORT COUNTY
ANNUAL AVERAGE LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES 1910-1979
1971 1171 1977 1276 1975 1174 1973 1072 1971 1171
CTVILIAR LABOR FORCE 1/ 11.010 19,660 16.640 11.310 11,090 16.500 I6.K0 16.S30 1S,750 1S,3A
UNENPLOYMENT. TOTAL 910 130 1.050 1.120 1,150 540 720 750 710 61)
Rate of Unespleyeest 4.1 4.2 5.6 G.I. 6.4 3.3 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.3
EMPLOYMENT, TOIAL 11.100 16.130 17.590 17.190 16.940 15.960 16,120 15.750 15.040 14.54
Agricultural Employment 1,420 1.540 1.710 2.020 1.940 1.150 2.020 2.060 1.240 2.113
Nomag. Wage C Salary Employ. 14.050 14.510 13,310 12.110 12,750 11.970 11.140 11.410 10,160 IO."Q
All Other Nonag. Empleyeast 2/ 2,630 2,710 2,500 2.360 2.250 2.240 I,260 2,210 2.240 2,133
---------------- •-- ---- - - - - -- ------- - - - - - -
INDUSTRY ENPLOYMENT BY PLACE OF WORK 3/
Manufacturing 5.200 5,060 4,690 4.300 3.920 4,510 4.640 4,310 4.130 3.754
Food 420 440 440 - 410 350 420 430 430 310 M
Apparel 650 700 510 570 500 540 620 650 720 744
Lumber C Wood 390 320 370 310 330 310 390 380 410 M
Other Ranufacturisg 3.740 3.S30 3.290 2.940 2.740 3,240 3.200 2.150 2.620 2.M
Nosessufacturieg 9,620 9.900 1,170 6,550 6.940 7,510 7.190 7.040 5.120 6,711
Constrectiee 510 550 550 570 1,270 400 450 420 330 361
Trans., Con. 1 P. Wtil. 450 450 430 420 400 400 440 430 390 379
Trade 3,090 3.120 3.010 2.320 2.6BO 2.560 2.460 2.300 2.140 2.0A
Fie., Ins., N Real Estate 330 320 300 310 320 290 300 290 210
Service 1,530 1.710 1.310 1,340 1.210 1.200 1,160 1.140 1,320 1.260
Government 2.060 2,220 1.630 1,790 1.120 1.620 I'M 1,600 1.620 1.600
Other Nonmanfacturiag S/ 1.650 1.530 •1.440 1.330 1.170 1.040 330 650 130 p0
1/ Data based am place of residence.
2/ Includes Nosagricultural golf-oopleyed workers, unpaid family workers, and domestic workers to private households.
7/ Industry segments are set additivs to the 09onag. Wage G Salary Emplay m shown Seder •CIVILIAN LABOR FOMCEw since labor fares data ire by
.place of Residence
4/ Includes Tobacco; Textiles; Furniture; Printing. Chemicals; Rubbor; $tooe, Clay, C Glass; Feb. Retain. Nonelec. Rachinary; Eloc. Rachinery;
end Trans. Eamipesot.
S/ Includes Agricultural Services, fisheries; and Misiog.
1
1-7

Table 5 also shows employment changes for specific sectors of the economy.
Agricultural employment, as noted previously, has declined by 32.7 percent since
1970 and 26:8 percent since 1975. Manufacturing employment has grown by 38.6
percent over the past ten years and 32.6 percent since 1975. Employment in the
non -manufacturing sector has grown by 43.4 percent over the past ten years. The
greatest gains in this sector were made by the mining -fisheries -agricultural
services group (98.8%), construction (50%), trade (52%), and governmental
service (28.8%).
It is not certain that all of the employment gains reported above are
accruing to Beaufort County residents since employment is calculated at the job
location rather than place of residence. Inter -county commuting is an
established fact in rural North Carolina. In the absence of data on commuting
patterns for 1980, Table 6 is an attempt to estimate the county's "job
balance."
TABLE 6
BEAUFORT COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT
1970-1979
(1)
(2)
(3)
(3)/(2)
CIVILIAN.
TOTAL
EMPLOYMENT
SHARE
YEAR
LABOR FORCE
EMPLOYMENT*
WITHIN COUNTY**
WITHIN COUNTY
1970
15,330
14,640
10,460
71.4
1971
15,750
15,040
10,950
72.8
1972
16,530
15,750
11,350
72.1
1973
16,840
16,120
11,830
73.4
1974
16,500
15,960
12,090
75.7
1975
18,090
16,940
12,860
75.9
1976
18,310
17,190
12,950
75.3
1977
18,640
17,590
13,550
77.0
1978
19,660
18,830
14,960
79.4
1979
19,010
18,100
14,820
81.8.
* By place of residence.
** By place of employment.
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission
1-8

UNEMPLOYMENT
Figure l illustrates the average rate of unemployment in Beaufort County on
a monthly basis for the years 1975-1979. The graph shows a clearly favor-
able trend toward a lower rate of unemployment. This is shown by the downward
slope of both the annual high and low points on the curve. In other words, both
the seasonal and chronic rate of unemployment have been declining from their
ten-year high levels experienced in 1975-1976.
PERSONAL INCOME
Personal income is an indicator of the flow of wealth in a community. It
can be expressed by several different measures to show various characteristics
of the community income structure.
Per capita income is simply the total amount of personal income divided by
the total population. Table 7 summarizes per capita income growth in Beaufort
County for the years 1970 - 1978.
1-9

RRAT0 Of UNIENn ym9I T
JAN
FEB.
AR
WAR.
1
1
fi
1
1.r
r��:{1
IT
I
+-;
1,"-,
♦1
T
I I
It.'
I!
!'
I
._'i-;!
+.I-.
�.
4
+.^1I
i .-�
L
11
1
I I
i I'
I I
t r.
11
I
I
rI
i,
APR.
y
"
}t
�'
�j-
..
1}1I1'
.
ij
.1I}ItI1I-_
!
1I
Ir-1
I. '..
Ir
T
i T
�
-.
1ir
"I
+Ii
L�I
+
{
MAY
JUNE
-
I'�
;I
jJ+JI
�I1
r'
�,(l
I
rtL
r-
I-+i
i11!
t!f1--
"
-_
}_I_
�
-
T-I,I,"
;
1
Y1I-r
JUIr
AUG.
lr'I
I
-
H
Ir
+
t
IIl �1'I
JI-1IIi
._
T+_;-.L._
,
Ii11-
.
1Il�-
I(
`1_
`
1j ,l
I .
I
1I
REPr
+
.
II,1 1LII
I
•1-I
j
T+
I'f-♦1
�}!ii''
1L
'.1I
�rt'
�
.T_+�1'_
;T
t_
I
�
iT
+
,I
Nov.
1III
TLIIlYr'I
4�rIjI
i
+_IIi1I+
tNI
ITII
.
t�I
tr;I�1
JI
rr1I1
?,_-I'r
.++f-`r
+ri.
I
T11
•oer.
{r
TIT -
DEC.
!
I
iiII(
It.
I
'
}
-�I1
�Ci
!I
I.!
t
-i
i;Iti�-�+:
-I
+
jL-
-
."
.tI
._ I
y_^
1
114
4y
�
Il
(
iJAN.
tFEB.
f1
4
4..-;'�T�l1'
MAR.
APR.
1 I
j
la
11
T
-
I1
y-rI,
•II
-
-.-te'--L...'!+
-1j}11}ItI
-
1�r�-_�.
,+,-,-t��
1-_,Y:;_iI
I
`'1I!I
LI
i 44+
MAY
I,
1
�'i.1i
..__♦F-�tj.Ir!
.'
�1i
�
f'-
11II
.II
1 _
' JUNE
j
4I
I'
t.
lt
.
.
�{JflTlj.I-•.lI�
!l.;;�IL11�
-
+j
-..(
11
1.
'I.',
,t
'
NN^AAAP
AUG.JULY
PT
�I_
t
Is
fi
i+
_
h
.1IIT{1�ii
L-I.
-
'ItI�I�r.T•I
•I'
i�
t+�
.a
.-i;�.
..'
''..r
I
,''
I
I
I'
41
1I}-1t''
Ij
•'S1
Nov.
I
1
I-7DCT.
r
r-Ii
'I
Ii�
iI'I-irl
i
tl.
14lII1III
tyy,
I",,"
t'!"`
_
_�
7
oec.
I
r+1I'
rj
11
i_^T'i!
+'�
I
+
I'
fftf
1
I
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
lt-1
;
I!
t
t
I
1
ji'II
APR.
MAY
+I
II�
IIl}t;I
t
-+
i
11,ry
1I„IamLI
i+1
.:
.`-'_1��.�
i
It
.'ij
-
---_.-ly
'Tr
.i._
-1_
!I�
T.t.I'-.�_i.-j
l
y-_1�lr,_..
i'
MALIIFt^rW
lV
JUNE
JLY
i�I+!
I
+�1I
�:iI`
r`I
i_--Y-,_L-�-.T:,
`-.
--+I
�.
•
lS
_
"'
1
-
.rttr~-�Il
..
{+tifIIjII1
�-1.1I+r
-
+(
-1I
'
I
I
�tL
-1;IIY+�1rII,•
+i
j
lI
I
.,
rI
+
w�
I.T.t.!.
+AUD.
I
I
DCT.
NOV.
Iry_I
�
II
il{
1
TTII
r
TTT
.�i
1
r-'
r-•
Th-1ilI1YLI•
tLi•1I!iI"
i.�''IIjI•}
y}i
1 I
yI
;
t.+ii1li�
DEC.
7
I
Ii-
1F
-1!
I
I
11
�'I
'-
{r
1
l
+
.-r.T
L
JAM,
FEB.
MAR.
`
t-1�
aII11II
+
!
-I
ti
i.!II1
+
-
}1iIIII
T_rT1r
rh
+
-.1
r
+
r
r
}'.}«i11ILlII
l
"t
APR.
{I
I. �
11It(ItIiI
Ytt{�+t
__
-1III
.
.}..}tI.+lrI1
-
I
t
MAY
JUNE
4
_
f
-I
'♦;!I
.-:-'lilI'Ii
r.1.i_
- -
-
..IT-.J*IL+I
�ijII.I�I
-I'.jj1�{I'l�'-"II
..
AUG.
SEPT
r'
-fI-ji'�rl
-
-III
1JI1tIIII1t�1
1
♦_+It'j1
1III
1t
1
1
�II
Y
-._.�,-'.i'
L1
-I.
I11y
NDV.
IDCT.
i�41
i
-r
ft!-i1.r
II
'1�
i�,
..t..r-
-
_
}I
Y
�y.I
i+.i
7
.Ih-;
..r:��III
.
II1t1Ir•T
_II
-.Tt?L�iIII1;iI
.DEC.
FEB.
I-�I�iI
it
'I
.1-1fi+I1jiI^I
�
}�+FIII
1:'_t
r'�1iT:.
-YI+t'iI1
;JAN.
-
-----.^r-.•
"-,--t
♦':-IIi•'
IY4
1I
MAR.
Ii�11I
j
,�1
r'�1.Ij-r.
.1i}_�j'IiII�;i!
1
a-�1lI
it•I,1
}
,'
APR
MAY
ir�
�.
_'1
:I,
-
:
_�r
.~
.L
!"�{II1
1-%-
IiII�I
T
'
—1r
_i-
jIW�E
JUNE
JUIrAUG.
' I
1
1
_ _ Y -
_-_
. (�
I
_ _
i-
1
t�
lL
1?{`
Y
L
�} • • y
•.
1. _
I•
}
.-i
«-
1
1
NDV.
._
}j
•t
__-
-
r• -
.�.

TABLE 7
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PER CAPITA INCOME
PER CAPITA SHARE OF
YEAR INCOME STATE PCI
1970 $2,634 80.9
1971 2,733 78.7
1972 3,215. 83.4
1973- 3,775 88.5
1974 4,117 88.9
1975 4,369 88.4
1976 4,925 89.9
1977 5,110 86.3
1978 5,866 88.3
Source: North Carolina Department of Administration
Table 7 illustrates that per capita income in Beaufort County has been
rising over the past few years as a share of statewide per capita income.
Further, Beaufort County has improved its position among the one hundred North
Carolina counties: in 1973 Beaufort ranked 56th but rose to 54th by 1978.
Per capita income tells nothing about the distribution of money income
among county residents: it is a gross figure, averaged over all residents.
Measures of family income are better suited to planning analysis because they
recognize the combined purchasing power of small groups of persons.. A full
analysis of the Beaufort County family income structure cannot be presented
until completion of the 1980 Census. However, a good insight into the present
distribution of income can be obtained from a private source, the Survey of
Buying power. Table 8 shows the Effective Buying Imcome (EBI) for Beaufort
County in 1973 and 1978. EBI represents total family income less taxes, fines
and a few additional minor items. The EBI thus represents the amount of money
available to a family for housing, transportation, retail goods and similar
expenditures:
1-11

TABLE 8
-BEAUFORT COUNTY
HOUSEHOLD EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME
1973 - 1978
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS
INCOME GROUP 1973 1978
$ -$ 8,000 62.2 38.8
8,000 9,999 9.9 6.5
10,000 - 14,999 15.8 18.0
15,000 - 24,999 12.1 25.4
25,000+ N/A 11.3
100.0 100.0
Median EBI $5,928 $11,312
Mean EBI 8,521 13,569
Median/Mean 52.4% 83.3%
Source: Survey of Buying Power
The table shows that Beaufort County incomes are rising and that a shift toward
a "normal" distribution is occurring. The percentage and absolute number of
families having EBI less than $8000 has declined markedly since 1973. 'Several
inferences can be made from the table depending upon how the income ranges are
re -grouped. Looking at the total population, the tendency toward a
statistically normal distribution is indicated by the convergence of mean and
median income. As this ratio approaches unity (1), normality is approached.'
Incomes, however, are not typically distributed along a normal curve. The
general tendency is for more families to have high incomes. In Beaufort County,
the lowest income group has shrunk by half. The middle range,'$8,000 - $14,999:
has declined slightly over the past five years as a share of total famiTies.
The highest income group, $15,000 +, has more than tripled in that time.. A
comparison of the highest and lowest income groups reveal that they are approx-
imately the same size (the high income group is slightly smaller). Both: are
larger than the middle group. This means the income distribution curve is
actually taking on a bimodal shape: it bulges at the ends and sags slightly in
the middle. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Several interpretations are
possible. First, there may be an error in the compilation of data with respect
to the size of the middle class. Second, the middle class in Beaufort County

may be shrinking relative to the upper and lower income groups. This, of
course, would not be a favorable development. Third, the reduction in the size
of the middle class may be part of a longer term movement toward a more typical
distribution of incomes, masked by the rather broad income groupings reported in
the Survey of Buying Power. Given the growth in manufacturing employment.and in
some non -manufacturing groups, this last interpretation is the likeliest.
Table 8 shows changes in two other income distribution measures. The
median EBI divides the population in half, i.e., half the families in the county
earn more and half earn less. Median EBI in Beaufort County.rose by over
five thousand dollars between 1973 and 1978. Mean EBI is akin to per capita
income: it is calculated as total EBI in the county divided by the number of
families in the county. This figure, too, increased markedly over the five year
period 1973 - 1978.
RETAIL SALES
Table 9 summarizes the dollar value of retail sales in Beaufort County for
the period 1969 - 1979. The data are presented in terms of current dollars, not
corrected for loss of purchasing power. Corrected data would show a true gain
of .approximately 120% over that period. For the past five years, 1975 - 1979,
retail sales increased approximately 62 percent.
TABLE 9
BEAUFORT COUNTY
RETAIL SALES
FISCAL
YEAR
RETAIL SALES
9' INCREASE
1968 -
69,6 8,857—
----
1969 -
70
73,157,626
5.1
1970 -
71
79,997,110
9.3
1971 -
72
91,128,230
13.9
1972 -
73
107,879,256
18.4
1973 -
74
125,920,111
16.7
1974 -
75
135,562,128
7.6
1975 -
76
159,529,987
17.7
1976 -
77
177,794,659
11.4
1977 -
78
191,566,041
7.4
1978 -
79
219,682,966
14.6
Source: N.C. Department of Revenue
1 '1 A
1 - 1 T

EXISTING LAND USE
A field survey of existing land use was conducted as part of this plan
p y „.
u date in December, 1980. Information from the surve was recorded onthe '
county base map at a scale of one inch one mile. The survey included all of
Beaufort County minus the extraterritorial planning jurisdictions of the
county's municipalities. This map is available for inspection at the Beaufort
County Courthouse, Planning Department.
SIGNIFICANT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PROBLEMS
Land use compatibility problems are typically thought of in the urban
context: e.g. the incompatibility of locating a high rise apartment building
adjacent to single family homes, industrial buildings adjacent to schools, gas
stations in the central business district.
Beaufort County as all others, does have these problems but they tend to be
within the jurisdiction of the county's municipalities.
Strip commercial development is probably the most frequently cited type of
land use incompatibility. Beaufort County is remarkably free of this problem.
There is some tendency toward stripping NC 33 west of Washington and even more
so along U.S. 17 between Washington and Chocowinity. These, though, are largely
within municipal planning areas and beyond the control of Beaufort County.
The classic confrontation between land uses was the case of Auror"a vs.
Texas Gulf Sulfur Corporation during the middle 1970's. This subject'1was
discussed extensively during preparation of Beauforts first CAMA land' use plan.
Some accommodation seems to have been reached between the parties since `then and
it appears to be a non -issue at this time. This is not to say, however, that
future compatibility problems between mining and traditional growth patterns
have been forestalled. Section II "Development Policies" describes the
situation at present.

The most significant land use compatibility problems in Beaufort County
have to do with the natural rather than the built environment. Specifically,
the use of land for agriculture is thought to have adverse impacts upon surface
water quality unless certain precautions are taken in the disposition of
freshwater runoff. Mining for peat and phosphate may have undesirable effects
upon ground water supplies by lowering the water table and allowing intrusion of
salt. Conversion of timberland to row and field crops removes wildlife habitat.
All of these changes are taking place in Beaufort County.
PROBLEMS AND IMPLICATIONS OF UNPLANNED DEVELOPMENT
No development is completely unplanned. The -simplest decision to build a
residence above the known flood level of a river to escape property loss is the
outcome of a limited planning process. What is commonly found is development
based upon non -comprehensive planning and development which utilizes design
standards not acceptable to an independent observer. The term "unplanned" is
often used to denote "unregulated" development, development which occurs in the
absence of zoning and subdivision ordinances, building codes, septic tank
installation standards, and similar measures. Such development, however, is not
necessarily "bad" at the time of completion and for the intended use. The
passage of time tends to render obsolete many developments which were adequately
"planned" at the time of construction. Residential lot sizes, floor plans,.and
street right of way widths are classic examples of design standards which have
changed through time and appear today to be unplanned.
Beaufort County contains numerous examples of residential development which
was of inadequate original design or has now deteriorated to the point where.
rehabilitation, and in some cases, clearance is needed. The county has taken
the first step toward correcting this problem by applying for a community
development grant aimed at improving housing conditions.
The other major problem of unplanned development was cited in the 1976
plan, the pollution of ground and surface water by septic tanks located in
unsuitable soils. Four areas were specified in the 1976 plan:
1-16 1 --- J

The north shore of the Pamlico River from Washington
Park to Broad Creek. This area has very dense
development which is unsewered. There is probably
some direct discharge into the waterways. Marinas,
boat basins and heavy boat traffic on Broad Creek
constitute a potential problem. This whole area
presents potentially severe problems.
Bath - There is moderately dense development on Bath
and Back Creeks which is unsewered. There is pres-
sure for additional development and marinas. The
soil and water table is generally suitable for
septic tanks but continuing development poses a
potential for water quality degradation.
North shore of the Pamlico River below Bath - There
are isolated pockets of dense development with in-
creasing pressure for additional development. The
soil is marginal to unsuitable with a high water
table in some areas.
Chocowinity Bay Area - This area is developing with
pressure for additional development. Soil is
generally suitable for septic tanks. Should not
create water quality problems if density is
-nn+rn 1 1 or]
The first and fourth of these have been studied as part of wastewater
treatment facilities studies. All have been studied for possible public water
service since the 1976 plan was adopted. These are discussed further in later
sections of this plan.

AREAS LIKELY TO EXPERIENCE CHANGES IN PREDOMINANT LAND USE
The concept of change is central to land use planning. Briefly, if there
were no changes occurring or expected to occur in a community, there would be no
need to,plan: we would simply manage it. Planning generally deals with change
for these reasons:
* To prevent or ameliorate undesirable change.
* To encourage desirable change.
Changes of predominant land use are occurring in and near most of the
county's municipalities. Timberland is being cleared for farming, especially in
the northern part of the county.
Subdivisions are springing up along the Pamlico and Pungo rivers for
vacation homes.
There is renewed interest in phosphate mining in the Pamlico River and on
the north side of the river.
Peat deposits have been discovered in the southeast corner of the county
and may be mined within the .next five years.
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
The federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires participating states to
identify "areas of particular public concern" and to establish mechanisms for
protecting them from unwise development. North Carolina has responded to this
by establishing Areas of Environmental Concern ("AEC"). CAMA provides that
local land use plans "...give special attention to the protection and
appropriate development of Areas of Environmental Concern."
AEC's are land and water areas whose physical and biological nature render
them especially fragile and subject to rapid, and irreparable damage by careless
development practices. Their contribution to the economic, ecological and
aesthetic balance of the coastal region make their proper management a matter of
concern not just to Beaufort County but to the state as a whole. Accordingly,
CAMA establishes a joint program of management for AEC shared by the county and
the state.
...
1-18 , ,

CAMA requires that property owners obtain a permit for most types of
development proposed within an AEC. Permits for "minor" development are issued
by the Local Permit Officer: typically, the city or county buiding inspector or
zoning administrator. Permits for "major" developments are issued by the Office
of Coastal Management. Major development is any development that requires the
authorization, permission, certification, approval, or licensing of another
state agency; or will occupy a land or water area in excess of 20 acres; or
contemplates drilling for or excavating natural resources on land or under
water; or which occupies on a single parcel a structure or structures in excess
of a ground area of 60,000 square feet; or the siting of a utility facility that
is not subject to the authority of the State Utilities Commission. Any other
development is minor.
The Coastal Resources Commission has established thirteen types of AEC's,
four of which occur in Beaufort County. These include:
* Coastal wetlands: marshes, as defined in 15 NCAC 7H (Appendix C).
* Estuarine waters:'the Pamlico River and the Pungo River and portions
of the following:
Flax Boy Bay
George Best Creek
Toms Creek
Pungo Creek
Vale Creek
North Creek
South Creek
Lower Goose Creek
Campbell Creek
* Estuarine shorelines: a seventy-five foot wide strip, landward from the
mean high water mark of estuarine water.
* Public Trust Waters: virtually all surface water.
* Small surface water supply watershed: Tranters Creek.
1-19

CURRENT PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS
Beaufort County is largely rural in nature in spite of the concentration
of population within and near its seven municipalities. Its people tend.to live
close to the land and water in both the physical and spiritual sense. The idea
of planning and public intervention to deal with economic, physical and
sociological change in the county's future is relatively new; traditionally,
planning has been thought of as a process for local governments in urban areas.
.Yet changes are occurring even in the rural areas of Beaufort County and a good
deal of planning work has taken place to help guide the county in making
decisions. Most of this.has been "functional" planning as distinguished from
the more comprehensive approach embodied in the Coastal Area Management Act.
This section lists the various plans, policies and regulations affecting
the use of land and water in Beaufort County, including those prepared by local,
state, and federal government.
LOCAL ,LEVEL
Land Use Plan
The CAMA Land Use Plan was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in
1976 and will remain in effect until an updated version is adopted.
Community Facilities Plan
This was prepared by the Beaufort County Planning Department in 1979.
Demand for capital -intensive community facilities was projected and proposals
made for meeting the demand.
Capital Improvements Program
A'five year capital improvements program was prepared by the Beaufort
County Planning Department in 1979. It listed capital projects needed (from the
Community Facilities Plan) on an annual basis and included cost estimates.
5
Hurricane and Flood Evaluation
Adopted in 1979, the plan cites the county's emergency powers to assist the
evacuation of persons from the flood prone areas. Annual tests of effectiveness
are scheduled.
1_On

Water System
A county -wide water system plan was published in 1977. It delineated
proposed service areas, projected demand for water, outlined municipal -county
system tie-ins, and presented estimated costs and financing plan.
Sanitary Sewer
Planning for sanitary sewer service in Beaufort County is being conducted
under Section 201 of the federal Water Quality Act of 1972. Beaufort,County
contains three "201 facility planning areas:"
* Aurora
* Belhaven Pantego,
* Greater Washington
In each case, the municipalities are the "lead agents" in the program but each
area includes some unincorporated territory , thereby becoming a matter of
importance.to Beaufort County government. The 201 process consists of three
basic phases:
* Step 1 - The study or planning phase, in which point -source water
quality problems are identified and treatment needs
established. .
* Step 2 - Engineering design of the cost effective treatment facilities
identified in Step 1.
* Step 3 - Construction phase.
The status of each 201 project in Beaufort County is listed below.
* Greater Washington Step 1 plan approved by North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (DEM) in 1980, Step 2 should begin in 19811
.
* Belhaven - Pantego - Step 1 submitted in 1978, revisions now underway
and expected to be re -submitted in late 1981.
* Aurora - Step 1 in progress, draft to be submitted in late 1981.
In addition to the above, the Town of Bath has submitted an application
for a Step 1 grant. The DEM priority list for funding indicates that the
grant is not likely to be awarded before FY 1986.
Building Code
The Beaufort County Building Inspector enforces the North Carolina
Plumbing, Electrical, and Insulation Codes.
1-41

Septic Tank Regulations
The Beaufort County Health Department enforces septic tank regulations
.promulgated by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of
Health Services.
Flood Insurance
Beaufort County residents may obtain federally subsidized flood insurance
under the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance Program.
Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Ordinance
Beaufort County has enacted an ordinance governing the design of mobile
home parks and travel trailer parks. The Health Department enforces septic tank
regulations for such facilities while structural and design standards are en-
forced by the Building Inspector. As part of the ordinance, an Environmental
Impact Statement may be required of the developer. A sedimentation control plan
is also required.
CAMA Implementation and Enforcement
Beaufort County has qualified as a permit letting agency for minor develop-
ments within Areas of Environmental Concern. The permitting function has, at
this writing been temporarily turned back to the Office of Coastal Management,
pending the hiring and training of a new permit officer.
Recreation Policy
Beaufort County utilizes some of its general revenue sharing funds to
assist the construction and operation of local recreation facilities through a -
recreation advisory committee. The committee reviews requests from local
communities and prepares a budget for submission to the County Commissioners.
The current policy of the recreation committee and the County Commissioners is
to continue assisting communities in providing their own recreational
activities.
Utility Extensions
Beaufort County has a policy to participate financially in the construction
of water and sewer lines from municipalities to new industries. The extent of
county participation is based on the estimated tax returns over a specified
period of time.

North Carolina Rail Plan
The State of.North Carolina (NCDOT) has initiated a statewide planning
program for railroad service in response to the federal Railroad Revitalization
and Regulatory Reform Act ("4R") of 1976. The 4R Act authorizes planning
assistance funds to states for the purpose of determining current and future
rail service needs. The Act also authorizes financial assistance both to states
and, through the states, to railroad companies for railroad system rehabilita-
tion, operating subsidies, and outright purchase of lines subject to
abandonment.
Beaufort County is served by the Southern, Seaboard, & Norfolk Southern
Railroads. Railroads in Beaufort County have a general east -west orientation,
crossing the Pamlico River at Washington and converging in Chocowinity.
Branches extend to Belhaven on the north side of the river and to the Texas Gulf
i property at Lee's Creek on the south.
The Rail Plan classifies several lines in Beaufort County as "light
density" lines, i.e.,-they carry little traffic relative to the remainder of the
rail system. These, lines are listed in Table 10.
TABLE 10
BEAUFORT COUNTY
LIGHT DENSITY RAIL LINES
Annual
Company
Segment
Traffic
(GTM)
t Seaboard
Parmele-Washington
100,000
- 300,000
Norfolk Southern
Pinetown-Belhaven
100,000
- 300,000
Norfolk Southern
Chocowinity-Lee's Creek
5001000
- 3,000,000
Southern
Chocowinity-New Bern .
500,000
- 3,000,000
GTM = Gross ton -miles per mile per year.

RAIL ABANDOI
BRIDGE FEAIIBILITY STUDY `
BEAUFORT COUNTY
R
E
Aia` pr` �l�A! ti �1�� • II ,
FIGURE 3
1-24

For Beaufort County, the significance of the rail plan is that it has
identified low traffic levels on several lines. Most important is the possible
abandonment of the Seaboard line from Washington to Parmele. This line, because
of its unprofitability, may be studied for abandonment within the next three
years under the 4R Act.
None of the other three light density lines in Beaufort County are in this
particular situation though it should be noted that the Pinetown-Belhaven line
is also in the same traffic class. Washington would still be.served by rail
even if the Parmele line were abandoned, but Belhaven would be completely
without rail service if the branch from Pinetown were abandoned.
North Carolina Airport System Plan ("NCASP")
NCASP is prepared by NCDOT, Aeronautics Division. The plan presents
recommendations concening the type, location, and timing of airport development
needed to establish a balanced system of public airports in North Carolina over
the next twenty years.
NCASP deals in some detail with two airports in Beaufort County: Warren
Field in Washington and the proposed Belhaven-Pantego airport.
Warren Field: Warren Field is located within the City of Washington between U.S.
17 and Market Street. It is owned jointly by the City and Beaufort County,
operated by the Warren Field County Airport Commission. It is classified as a
Basic Transport field indicating its capability to serve nearly all propeller
driven -aircraft and most business jets when operated at less than full load.
Data for the three runways are shown below.
Orientation of Runway Length Width
05/23 5,000' X 150'
11/29 4,000' X 150'
17/35 5,000' X 150'
There are no plans for expansion of the field at this time though NCASP lists
several improvements as desirable for current and projected traffic.
1-25

Belhaven-Pantego: NCASP contains a proposal to build a new general aviation
airport in the vicinity of Belhaven and Pantego. It would be a Basic Utility
field with a single runway 3,000 feet long, 60 feet wide. Neither the: runway
orientation nor the specific site have yet been selected. These would be
determined as part of a master plan for the airport. NCASP proposes development
of the field during the period 1986-1990 but the planning stages could begin at
any time.
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan ("SCORP")
The purpose.of SCORP is to provide the Governor and General Assembly with a
tool.to assist in examining and selecting investment alternatives for outdoor
recreational facilities. The scope of the plan is to maintain an inventory of
existing recreational facilities in North Carolina; to determine current and
future demand for such facilities; to analyze the capabilities of various
providers of recreational opportunities to meet these needs; and to make
recommendations as to actions which would most effectively meet these needs.
SCORP is updated regularly by the Recreation Division, North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development.
The only proposal contained in SCORP for recreational -land acquisition in
Beaufort County is some additional acreage for the Goose Creek Wildlife
Management Area'.
Transportation Improvement Program
This is a statewide schedule of highway improvement projects to be under-
taken during the seven year period 1980 - 1986. The projects scheduled for
Beaufort County are described below.
* R-215-Widen U.S. 17 from Washington to S.R.1521 in Martin County. This
project would result in upgrading the highway to a four -lane divided
facility along the existing right-of-way.
* R-216-Widen U.S. 264 from Washington to SR 1538 in Pitt County. This
would result in completing the highway as a four -lane divided facility
from Greenville to Washington. The existing alignment would generally
be followed resulting in minimal right-of-way acquisition.
* X-4-Feasibility Study - Pamlico River Bridge. The program describes the
status of project X-4 as follows:
1-26

il'sas`�` Y/ 1 ���= ..� Sao.._, _. _� Ir�l::' � a s' `�1 ���.�i�ri+ra��•�,:..
1
L
s
F2
Roper V
PIYMOUTH: '�.
370
(345) ,
:r.
BELHAVEN—PANTEGO
(PROPOSED)
10
RE E co ATIONAL
\ \ *rK PYngo LIF REFUGE
EN.
Grift -�. -.
.57
, lico
.i` _, _
IonIS R/DER .,A
1
WELBOIlRN � r
E CREEK (Prt) Indian Bland
,�
36-40-'LI -
03-50
— —9 M
�
. +
rd Sour
`
1 i
ANDERSON(P onceboro •, -_ •
I
j
tr - Lowlan
ti
Barn II 3o- 18
�Auroro ,
i bu43
ore
y' 4J �ain
OR
•
y,-iMesic
2T0 NE
'BER
boy I
!� 113.8
EW C-
r
}
j7
Boy ro
i
`".
rIRAtE1GH ' C `
fU6HT WATCH
''
7
(278)�
S
Grontsboro orence
/
PEPSI-INiL ) :B
dpeton
--
„..,
32-1 _
- Merritt
Pomli
`SI ONS •N TT
,
~ .t+1049
pip OA f
Q�E 7 11 AR
I
•wor u.�
Q�
BEAUFORT COUNTY
—CAMA—
—AIRPORTS-
FIGURE' 4
LAND USE PLAN
i
WILUAMS 81 WORKS, INC. SANFORD,
NORTH CAROLINA
1-27

The Pamlico River is a geological barrier to fast`and
convenient ground transportation in Beaufort County
and Eastern North Carolina. A study of a new bridge
crossing.of the Pamlico River east of the City of
Washington has been added to the Highway Improvement
Program to establish the need, location and type of
facility. This special project is not a commitment
to build, but a commitment to study the feasibility
of such a new bridge facility in order that consider-
ation can be given to its construction in the future
if funds become available.
Construction of this bridge would replace the existing ferry service across
the river. No fixed location has yet been established, but the Transportation
Improvement Program indicates a crossing from NC 92 (east of Bath) to NC 306
(east of Lee's Creek).
STATE PERMITS AND REGULATIONS
Table 11 lists the various regulations under North Carolina law which
affect the development and use of land and water in the coastal area.
FEDERAL PERMITS AND REGULATIONS
Table 12 lists the various regulations under federal law which affect the
development and use of land and water in the coastal area.
1-28 ---

TABLE 11
STATE LICENSES AND PERMITS
Agency
Licenses and Permits
Department of Natural Resources and
- Permits to discharge to surface
Community Development
waters or operate waste water
Division of Environmental Management
treatment plants or oil discharge.
permits; NPDES Permits,
(G.S. 143-215
- Permits for septic tanks with a
capacity over 3000 gallons/day
(G.S. 143-215.3).
- Permits for withdrawal of surface
or ground waters in capacity use
areas (G.S. 143-215.15).
- Permits for air pollution abate-
ment facilities and sources
(G.S. 1 43-215.108).
- Permits for construction of com-
plex sources; e.g. parking lots,
subdivisions, stadiums, etc.
(G.S. 143-215.109).
Office of Coastal Management
Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Division of Earth Resources
- Permits for construction of a
well over 100,000 gallons/day
(G.S. 87-88).
- Permits to dredge and/or fill in
estaurine waters, tidelands, etc.
(G.S. 1137229).
- Permits to undertake development
in Areas of Environmental Concern
(G.S. 113A-118).
NOTE: Minor development permits
are issued by the local
government.
- Permits to alter or construct a
dam (G.S. 143-215.66).
- Permits to mine (G.S. 74-51).
- Permits to drill an exploratory
oil or gas well (G.S. 113-381).-
1-29 L

TABLE 12'
FEDERAL LICENSES- AND' PERMITS
Agency Licenses and Permits.
Army Corps of Engineers - Permits required under
(Department of Defense) Sections 9'and 10 of the Rivers
and Harbors of 1899'; permits to
construct in navigable waters.
Permits required under Section
103 of the Marine Protection,.
Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972.
Coast Guard
(Department of Transportation)
Geological Survey
Bureau of Land Management
(Department of Interior)
N uclear Regulatory Commission
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Permits required under Section
404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972;
permits to undertake dredging
and/or filling activities.
- Permits for bridges, causeways,,
pipelines over navigable waters;
required under the General
Bridge Act of 1946 and the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
- Deep water port permits.
- Permits'required for off -shore
drilling.
- Approvals of OCS pipeline
corridor rights -of -way.
Licenses for siting, construc-
tion and operation of nuclear
power plants; required under
the Automic Energy Act of 1954
and Title II of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974.
- Permits for construction,'
operation and maintenance of
interstate pipelines facilities
required under the Natural Gas
Act of 1938.
- Orders of interconnection of
electric transmission facilities
under Section 202 (b) of the
Federal Power Act.

1-3L

CONSTRAINTS:,LAND suiTABILITY
The fundamental premise of land use planning is that distinctions exist
between masses of land which make them suitable for various types of develop -
meet. Conversely; not all lands are suitable for the same types of deVelop-
meat. The plan is an attempt, first, to identify those distinctions, and
second, to guide 'public and private decisions ill a manner consistent with the
land's ability to absorb development.
The Coastal Resources Commission has identified a group of constraints to
,future development which must be examined as part of the land use plan update
process. These constitute one class of distinctions between tracts of land
which result in their varying development potential's. Most of these were dis-
cussed in the 1976 plan. This section contains references to that discussion
and provides additional data where changes have occurred since 1976.
HAZARD AREAS
Airports
The land, underlying approaches to airports is exposed to obvious "crash
hazards and inconveniences due to'noise from aircraft. The reverse situation is
also true: improper development causes hazards `to the safe operation of
aircraft,.e.g.'electrical power lines, tall buildings. The North Carolina
Airport System Plan includes references to several potential conflicts `between
airport.operation and the use of land surrounding Warren Field in'WasKington.
These are shown in Figure 5.
Causal Aviation Aetivillus
FIGURE 6
Cis"Inartbri
. operation.
Other cparat..
Noise activitrel
R
Recreation i natural
Q
Q
..
RawurcG maarage riam
Wildlife
0
0
0
i InereatWn areas
Forest
0
N/A
0
Historic
Q
0
- Q
is
Hlslorb
Archeological
0
N/A
0
Estuarine
0
N/A
0
n
sensitive Writer areas wetlands
0
N/A
0
E
Floodplains
0
N/A
0
Lakes. natural watercourses
Q
N/A
- Q
Endan siarlspecles Animals
'Q
Q
Q
6
Plants
0
N/A
o
Relocation
'411
Q
0
Sensitive human areas Hazards
0
N/A
0
Adiacent land use
Q
Q
Q
Air auallty
- 0
N/A
0
l." M P.I.n.Y D.arw W Env.mm.n10 G.M.l N A - NW Apul—W.
0 1- 3 3
`Q
5ieniAcanl Pul«n,Y conurcl
• PrpublN. pd..4Y Conaiq �

Flood Prone Areas
Large areas of Beaufort County are subject to flooding as reported in the
1976 plan (p.51).
Maps prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) indicate that
the entire western shore of the Pungo River is flood prone as far west as
Yeatesville. Similarly, the north and south banks of the Pamlico River are
flood prone from (approximately) Bayview and Long Point southeastward along
Goose Creek. Additional flood prone areas are found in the western part of the
county along Tranters Creek, around Chocowinity Bay and the north bank of the
Pamlico River from Washington to Duck Creek, near Bath.
FIA's standard for delineating flood prone areas is all land below 10' MSL.
Areas.with Soils Limitations
More than half of the land area of Beaufort County is characterized.by
soils which have severe limitations for non -farm uses, such as residences with
septic tanks. The major soil problems are susceptibility to flooding and high
water table.
Table 13 lists the soil associations in Beaufort County along with the
specific types of development limitations presented by each.
Water Supply
Tranters Creek is the major water supply for the Town of Washington. The
creek forms part of the western county boundary, joining the Tar -Pamlico system.
just west of Washington. A secondary source is located at Clark's Neck.
(Source: Land Development Plan, Washington, North Carolina, 1980)
All other domestic and industrial water in Beaufort County is taken from
the ground. The county's 1976 land use plan devotes virtually no discussion to
the county's groundwater supply. However, the water system plan (1977) contains
an excellent discussion of the subject and is reprinted here.
1-34

Ground water is an abundant and valuable resource in
Beaufort County. The water table is generally less than 20
feet below the surface, and it approaches or reaches, the
ground surface in flat woods along rivers and streams......
These shallow wells, yielding up to 20 gpm, are mostly
within the "surficial sands but they may locally extend
into the underlying sands or marls of the Yorktown
Formation. All large capacity municipal and industrial
wells, plus an increasing number of private domestic wells,
are drilled or jetted into the deeper aquifiers. These
aquifiers include shell marls and sands of the Yorktown
Formation, the Castle Hayne limestone, and sands of the
underlying sedimentary formations. Pumping rates of several
hundred gallons per minute are possible in these areas.
With the exception of the supply for the City of Washington,
which utilizes both ground and surface supplies, all public
and private water supplies in the county are obtained from
the walls. The stratified sand, gravel, and limestone
formations of the Coastal Plain are potentially the most
productive sources of groundwater in North Carolina. The
water is generally acceptable for most purposes, although
some wells yield waters that contain objectionalble amounts
of iron, hydrogen sulfide, or hardness; some waters are
corrosive.
Until phosphate mining operations began in Beaufort County,
near Aurora, there was never any question that the ground-
water supply of the area was not completely adequate. After
evaluations were made of the effects of the mining on the
acquifiers, especially the Castle Hayne acquifer, controls
were placed on the amounts of groundwater to be pumped.
These statutory.controls were a result of a 1967 study which
concluded that as the Castle Hayne aquifer was the principal
source of .water supply, remedial action was required to
prevent the continued reduction of capability and artesian
pressures which were caused by the mining operation pumping.
The real threat was that the pumping would cause contamina-
tion of the aquifer by inducing salt water intrusion.
The Castle Hayne limestone aquifer is important for not only
the planning area, but also for the surrounding counties
whose water supplies depend on its purity and capacity. Of
middle and late Eocene age, the limestone usually contains
fresh water, with the exception of areas east of the plann-
ing area where saline intrusion has occured. Water in the
Castle Hayne aquifer is under artesian pressure and the
piezometric surface is generally within 20 feet of the land
1-35

surface. Artesian conditions in some cases put the pressure
surface at 15 feet above the land surface. Recharge to the
aquifer occurs as both upward and downward leakage from
underlying and overlying confining beds. There is no direct
recharge from precipitation as the aquifer is overlain by
younger sediment and does not outcrop in most of the area
and is not -near the surface except in one small place in
Pitt County.
The chemical quality of the groundwater in Beaufort County
is not uniform. Shallow wells which take water from the
surficial sands may contain objectionable iron concentra-
tions and are frequently corrosive. Water from the shell
beds and impure limestone layers of the Yorktown Formation
is relatively hard. Castle Hayne limestone yields moder-
ately hard to very hard water which may contain objection-
able amounts of hydrogen sulfide particularly in the eastern
sections of the county. Water derived from the Beaufort and
Peedee formations are often soft, but may be hard if the
water is from calcareous strata. Several wells in
Washington and Belhaven yield water relatively high in
chloride, most likely derived from a lateral infiltration of
brackish surface water as the wells are pumped.
Quantitatively, the aquifers of Beaufort County are abun-
dant. Large supplies of groundwater are available for
aquifers of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age through the area.
Present use of groundwater is only a small amount of the
total water available. Countywide summaries of well data
reveal that the over 100 wells in the county yield an
average of 21 ,gpm at an average depth of 181 feet. The
mining operation in eastern Beaufort County as an exception,
investigation has revealed no current major problems that
have resulted from withdrawals for industrial use in
connection with quarry operations, wood products manufactur-
ing food processing, and textile manufacturing. Water in
the Quaternary aquifer not only moves laterally to the
streams and coast to discharge, but also moves downward into
the Yorktown Formation. Part of this water is discharged
laterally through the Yorktown and the remainder moves down-
ward into the Castle Hayne limestone aquifer. Transmissi-
vity of the Quaternary aquifer is estimate to be about
10,000 gallons per day per foot (1,340 ft /day). Lateral
discharge through the Yorktown is considered to be less, an
estimated 500 millions gallons/year from recharge through
an area of about 500 square miles. Castle Hayne transmissi
vity has ben estimated to be 150,000 gallons/day/foot
(20,000 ft /day). In its "North Carolina Water Resources
Framework Study", 1977, the Department of Natural Resources
states that in the Pamlico Basin, groundwater is available
for any forseeable municipal use in this area.

TABLE 13
SOIL INTERPRETATIONS
SOURCE: SCS
DWELLINGS -
GENERAL AGRICULTURE
W/O BASEMENTS
W/ BASEMENTS
TOBACCO, PEANUTS
CORN, SOYBEANS
SOIL
SEPTIC TANK
LANDFILL
SMALL COMMERCIAL
LOCAL ROADS
FORESTRY
PASTURE -
ASSOCIATIONS
FILTER FIELDS
(TRENCH)
BUILDINGS
and STREETS
AND TRUCK
AND SMALL GRAIN
-
CONET.OE-WANDO-DRAGSTON
SLIGHT
SEVERE seepage
MODERATE floods
MODERATE floods
MODERATE floods
-
SLIGHT
GOOD
FAIR. TO POOR
FAIR
GOOD
CONETOE
WANDO
SLIGHT
SEVERE
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
POOR TO FAIR
POOR
FAIR
FAIR
seepage, sandy
DRACSTON
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE. wetness
FAIR TO GOOD
GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD
FAIR
wetness, seepage
LENOIR-CRAVEN-BLADEN
LENOIR
SEVERE. wetness,
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE low strength
FAIR TO GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD
GOOD
GOOD -
parts slowly
wetness, too clayey
-
CRAVEN
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE too clayey
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
GOOD
Peres slowly
too clayey
wetness, too clayey
too clayey
BLADEN
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
POOR
FAIR TO GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
-
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
BLADEN-BAYRJRO-PORTSHOUTH_
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE.
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
POOR
FAIR TO GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
BLADEN
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
BAYBORO
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
POOR
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
PORTSMOUTH
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
POOP.
GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD
FAIR To GOOD
wetness, seepage
ALTAVISTA-BERTIE-WICKHAM
SEVERE TO MODERATE
SEVERE wetness
MODERATE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness _
SEVERE low strength
GOOD -
GOOD
GOOD
LOUD
ALTAVISTA
wetness
BERTIE
SEVERE. wetness
SEVERE wetness
MODERATE. wetness
SEVERE wetness
MODERATE wetness
MODERATE
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD•
wetness, law strength
WICKHAM
SLIGHT
SLIGHT.
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
LYNCHBURG-RAINS
LYNCHBURG
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE wetness
SEVERE
MODERATE wetness
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
wetness, corrosive
RAINS
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE-
SEVERE
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods-
floods, corrosive
wetness, floods
NORFOLK-WACRAM-GOLDSBORO
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD
COOD
NORFOLK
WAGRAM
SLIGHT
SEVERE
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
SLIGHT
GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD
FAIR
FAIR TO GOOD
seepage
-
GOLDSBORO
SEVERE TO MODERATE
SEVERE wetness
SLIGHT
MODERATE wetness
MODERATE wetness
SLIGHT
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
wetness
BELHAVEN-PONZER-WASDA
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness,
-
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness,
POOR
GOOD
POOR TO FAIR
GOOD
BELHAVEN
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
floods, organic
floods, organic
floods, organic
floods, organic
-
PONZER
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness,
POOR
GOOD
FAIR TO GOOD
GOOD
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
floods, low strength
floods, low strength
floods, low strength
floods, law strength
-
WASDA
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
POOR.
GOOD
GOOD
GOOD
..
wetness, floods.
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
'
DOROVAN-JOHNSTON
DOROVAN _
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness,
SEVERE wetness, organic,
SEVERE wetness, floods.
SEVERE wetness, floods,
SEVERE wetness, floods,
POOP.
POOR
I
POOR
POOR
floods, organic
floods, organic
floods, low strength
organic, low strength
low strength, organic
low strength,. organic
I
I
JOHNSTON
SEVERE
SEVERE -
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
POOR
POOR TO FAIR
GOOD
FAIR
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetne+s, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods %
TIDAL MARSH
SEVErX
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
SEVERE
POOR
POOR
POOR
POOR
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, floods
wetness, ffnnds
wetness, flno.ls
we tars?, fln.,ds

Excessive Ground Slope Areas
Excessive slopes are defined as areas where the predominant slope exceeds
twelve percent, i.e., where the change in elevation is 12 feet or more per one
hundred feet of horizontal run. The only areas in Beaufort County which can be
identified as having such slopes are the high banks and bluffs along the south
bank of the Pamlico River and Bath Creek. The highest and steepest of these
appear to be the bluffs on the eastern shore of Blounts Bay. These rise in
places to heights of twenty feet above the normal high water level of the river.
(Source: Riggs, et. al., 1978)
Fragile Areas
As defined�by the Coastal Resources -Commission, "fragile areas" are those
land and water environments whose physical and biological nature make them
especially vulnerable to damage or destruction by inappropriate or poorly
planned development. It would not be an overstatement to say that these areas
are precisely the features of North Carolina's coastal area which make it.so
attractive to new development. Thus, the region's natural beauty is the
engine - possibly - for its own destruction.
Specific types of fragile areas of concern to the coastal planning process
are listed below.
Coastal wetlands: - Identical with the wetlands noted previously under "Areas of
Environmental Concern."
'Sand dunes: Not found in Beaufort County.
Ocean -beaches and shorlines: Not found in Beaufort County.
Estuarine waters: The Pamlico and Pungo Rivers - identical with the estuarine
waters noted previously under "Areas of Environmental Concern."
Public trust waters: In essence, public trust waters include virtually all
surface water in Beaufort County, with the exception of privately -owned lakes to
which the public has no right of access.
1-30

Complex natural areas: These are areas that have remained essentially unchanged
by human activity. No such areas were identified in the 1976 land use plan.
These areas of the county, however, 'appear to be reverting to their natural
state:
* The area around Upper Goose Creek on the north side of the Pamlico
River '(i.e., Goose Creek State Park)
* Part of the Tranters Creek watershed
* Chocowinity Bay Woods
(Source: Beaufort County Planning Department, 1980)
Areas that Sustain Remnant Species: These areas support rare and endangered
species of plants and animals. Three such species have been verified or
reported in recent years. (Sources: Beaufort County Planning Department;
NRCD).
Beaufort County is the most northern range of the rare plant Pronaea
muscipula, or Venus Flytrap. These plants were last collected in 1967, near
Chocowinity. An attempt to locate the 1967 site was fruitless, and the
assumption is made that extensive clear -cutting and drainage must have destroyed
the bogs along Highway U.S. 17 south of Chocowinity where these plants were
reported. However, the upper end of Chocowinity Bay is a wetland habitat which
could harbor the Venus Flytrap.
The American Alligator is making a strong comeback in Beaufort County.
American Alligator sitings have been reported in both Campbell Creek and
Chocowinity Bay.. Alligators have been verified as having established a
permanent habitat in these locations.
There have been several reports of people seeing a Bald Eagle near Mauls
Point, but no nest has been discovered. In addition, a nest and actual sitings
of Bald Eagles has occurred near Belhaven on Pantego Creek. This nest is
located in wetlands on the south side of Pantego Creek and west of Highway N.C.
92.
Areas Containing Unique Geological Formations: Beaufort County contains no known
unique geological formations. (Source: NRCD, Land Quality Section).
1--iy

Registered Natural Landmarks: These are features of the land or water of such
natural significance as listed in the federal Register of Natural Landmarks. No
such landmarks have been designated in Beaufort County and none are under
study; for this purpose. (Source: Federal Register)
Sites of Archaeological and Historic Interest: Beaufort County contains numerous
sites of archaeological and historic interest. Records of the N.C. Department
of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, indicate sixty-nine
known sites of interest. Six of these are listed in the prestigious National
Register of Historic Places and it should be assumed that many more will be
found eligible for listing after further study. One is a shipwreck in Battalina
Creek near Belhaven. The most well known sites are listed in Table 14. Other
Were listed in the 1976 land use plan (pp. 56B-56J). A survey conducted by the
Mid East Commission in 1979 revealed twenty buildings of interest in Belhaven.
These are shown in the appendix. State and federal regulations governing
projects with impacts on properties of historic and archeological significance
are listed in Table 15.
Other Fragile Areas: Beaufort contains much land which is prime habitat for
deer, possibly black bear, and a variety of small game. Wooded swamps occur
along the Pungo River, Tranters Creek, at Goose Creek State Park, and southwest
of Chocowinity.
1-40

TABLE 14
HISTORIC PROPERTY INVENTORY
B AUFORT - NATIMAL REGISTER
Washington Historic District
Bank of Washington
Bath Historic District
Beaufort Co. Courthouse (ashington)
Belfont Plantation (Latham vie., W side SR 1411, near jet. with SR 1410)
Belhaven City Hall
Bonner House (Bath)
Palmer I•'larsh House (B:,,2IZ},,
St. Thomas Episcopal Church (Bath)
37AU?ORT - STUDY LIST AND OTHER PROPERTIES
SL - Rutledge House (Aurora)
SL - Pantego Academy (Pantego)
SL = Pantego Historic District
Zion. Episcopal Church
Trinity Episcopal Church (Chocowinity)
Bright House (Chocowinity vie., W co=er::SE.IMA
Mills House (Chocowinity vac., S side US 264)
Col James Reading Grist House (Chocowinity vie., II side SR 1143)
Smaw House (Bunyan vie., S side US 264)
Hardison House (Leggetts Crossroads, W side SR 1411)
Smallwood House (Washington vie., E side SR 1422)
Norfolk and Southern Railroad Depot (dashington)
Norfolk and Southern Railroad Bridge over Pamlico River 0%lashington vie.)
Bonner House .(Jessama vie., S side SR 1331)
House I
Aurora, W side 5th Street)
House Aurora, W side 5th St. at Chapin)
N.C. Phosphate Corp. (Aurora vic., 11 side SR 1946)
River Forest Manor (Belhaven)
Lucas -Taylor House (Washington vie., II side SR 1517)
Eayo House (Washington vic., N side US 264)
Respress House (Jessama vie., VE corner -SR 1331)
Cutler House (Jessama vic., 1� side SR 1332)
Athens Chapel Church of Christ (Whitepost vie., II side SR 1334)
Source: N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives
and History
1-qI

TABLE 15
FEDERAL AND STATE CONTROLS
AFFECTING HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Public Law 93-291
Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the.Cultural
Environment, 16 U.S.C. 470 (Supp. 1, 1971)
National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C.
4321 Et. Seq. (1970)
Community Development Act of 1974, Public Law 93-383: Environmental
Review Procedures for the Community Development Block Grant Program
(40 CFR Part 58)
Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties
(36 CFR Part 800)
Comprehensive Planning Assistance Program (701) as Amended by Public
Law 93-393
The Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Public Law 89-670
Identification and Administration of Cultural Resources: Procedures
.of Individual Federal Agencies
STATE
.G.S. 121-12(a) Protection of Properties in the National Register
State Environmental Policy Act, Article 1 of Chapter 113A of the
General Statutes
Executive Order XVI
Indian Antiquities, G.S. 70.1-4
Salvage of Abandoned Shipwrecks and Other Underwater Archeological
Sites: G.S. 121-22, 23; 143B-62 (1) g, (3)
Archeological Salvage in Highway Construction, G.S. 136-42.1
Provisions for Cultural Resources in Dredging and Filling
..Operations, G.S. 113-229
1-42 ... ,

CONSTRAINTS: CAPACITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
WATER SYSTEMS:
Beaufort County does not have a countywide water system. Residents obtain
water either from individual wells or from municipal systems. As noted
previously, a water system feasibility study was prepared for Beaufort County in
.1977. The study contained an inventory of municipal systems. These are
summar ized below.
TABLE 16
MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS
Capacity (1) Current Excess (2) Storage
System (MGD) Demand (MGD) Capacity (MGD) (MG)
Aurora 0.28 0.09 0.05 0.100
Bath 0.28 0.02 0.06 0.010
Belhaven 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.275
Chocowinity 0.20 0.06 0.14 0.225
Washington 2.90 1.50 1.4 2.200
1) Pumping capacity based on 24-hour operation.
2) Sources: Freeman Assocs., 1977; Leary & Assocs., 1980; Williams & Works,
1981.
The excess capacity figures indicate the ability of each system to serve
additional development. However, this ability is not quite so great as may be
presumed at first because these data presume 24-hour operation of pumps at the
various treatment plants. Such a presumption is unsound for it allows no "down
time" for routine maintenance, power failures, equipment breakdowns, and major
fire flows. Standard engineering practice is to estimate capacity based upon
16-hour operation. Thus, excess capacities shown above (except for Aurora) are
overstated by approximately fifty percent.
I-43

SEWER SYSTEMS
The Towns of Washington, Belhaven and Aurora operate the only sanitary
sewer systems in Beaufort County. Existing facilities are summarized in Table
17
TABLE 17
SANITARY
SEWER SYSTEMS
Treatment
Current
Excess
System
Capacity
Usage
Capacity
Aurora
0.12 MGD
0.05 MGD
0.07 MGD
Belhaven
0.50 MGD
0.4 MGD
0.10 MGD
Washington
2.00 MGD
1.4 MGD
0.60 MGD
Each of these three systems is the subject of a 201 wastewater facility plan.
Each,planning area includes territory outside the corporate limits of the towns.
The Washington planning area includes Chocowinity and Washington Park. The
Belhaven area includes Pantego. The Aurora area includes the community of Royal
and some additional rural areas to the south.
-SCHOOLS
There are two public school systems 'in Beaufort County: the Washington City
Schools, which serve all of Washington Township and the portion of Long Acre
Township west of Broad Creek, and the.Beaufort County Schools, which serve all
of the..county outside of Washington City School District.
The schools in Washington City are organized on a K-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-9, 10-12
basis. The schools range in size from John Small with 540 students, to Jones
Junior High, with 1,012 students. In the Beaufort County School System, the
communities of Chocowinity, Aurora, Bath, Pantego, and Belhaven have schools
serving Grades K-12. Pinetown has a K-8 school with high school students
attending at Bath. In the past, the Beaufort County and Washington City
Administrative Units have experienced some out -migration of students. At the
present, this situation has reversed and there is some in -migration.
1 AA

.41
cr
TABLE 18
PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES
Schools
Projected
and
Present
Present
Membership
Year
Service Area
Organization
Membership
Capacity
1985/1990
Built
Additions
Aurora
Snowden
568
650
499 522
1920
50 53 56
K - 7
74
Aurora H.S.
455
875
329/386
1915
28/37/54
8 - 12
72/77
Bath
Bath School
758
950
628/652
1918
23/38/43
K - 12
48/53/67
72/74/76
78/79
Belhaven
Belhaven
497
500
436/543
1938
50/53/56
K - 6
60/75
John Wilkinson
427
575
358/421
1938
51/53/61
7 - 12
65/68/78
Chocowinity
Chocowinity School
1181
1100
1005/1044
1937
48/52/64
67/78
Pantego
Beaufort County
323
350
312/326
1920
50/53/56
_
School
74
K - 8
Pantego H.S.
188
500
189/195
1924
39/52/63
9 - 12
72/76
Pinetown
P.inetown Elementary 2210 -
200
249/261
1937
50
K - 8

Washington Eastern Elementary 930
900
843/1050
1966
69/72/75
K - 2
Tayloe Elementary 650
650
582/724
1960
62/65/75
3-4
John Small 565
550
566/512
1922
5 - 6
Jones Junior High 914
1250
933/845
1922
52/56/58
7 - 9
65/70/76
Washington H.S. 911
1075
685/807
1952
65/77
10 - 12
SOURCE: Beaufort County Board of Education
Washington City Board of Education

Proposals have been made for new construction and reorganization. These
include:
* Merger of city and county systems.
* Construction of two new high schools - one in Washington and :one near
Yeatesville.
* Discontinuance of older school buildings and reorganization of K-8 by
moving into vacated high school and junior high school buildings.
Table 18 lists each attendance area, schools and organizations, present
membership, present capacity, projected membership 1985/1990, the Year the
school was built, and each year additions were made. It should be pointed out
that the projected membership will drop in some cases, because even with an
overall population increase, the age groups will not remain constant.
ROAD SYSTEM
Beaufort County's primary roads consist of U.S. 17, running north -south in
the western part of the county; U.S. 264, running east -west on the north side of
the Pamlico River from Pitt County to Hyde County; N.C. 33, running east -west on
the south side of the Pamlico River; N.C. 306, running from N.C. 33 west of
Aurora, south; N.C. 92 running from 264 to Bath and rejoining 264 at Belhaven;
N.C. 32 running north from U.S. 264 to Plymouth; and N.C. 99 from Pantego to
N.C. 32.
In order to determine the percent of utilization, a 24-hour traffic count
was taken at several locations along the route and averaged. The average was
then divided into the design capacity to give the percent of utilization.
Utilization is used to determine driving habits and the need for road
improvements. Since 1974, the overall percent of utilization has increased.
(See Table 19)
Beaufort's secondary road system totals approximately 724 miles. The
county has approximately 300 miles of unpaved roads.

-,to

INTRODUCTION:
DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
The most prominent feature of virtually every land use plan is the plan map
itself, showing proposals for new streets, community facilities, and the land
use pattern to be developed in coming years.
The land classification maps and others.showing,the location of Areas of
Environmental Concern fulfill this function in CAMA and, typically, they receive
the bulk of attention from elected officials and the general public during the
plan design and review process. Those maps, however, do not by any means
constitute the entire plan. They are merely graphic representations of certain
goals, objectives, and policies adopted by the community as the real guides to
future development.
The Coastal Resources Commission recognizes the limitations of maps as
policy documents and requires that communities covered by the Act specify their
development policies, in written form, for several broad topics:
* Resource protection
* Resource production and management
* Economic and community development
'This section contains recommended policy statements on a variety of topics
identified by the Coastal Resources Commission as necessary components of local
land use plans.
The format of this section is as follows. First, a brief description of
how each topic relates to Beaufort is provided. Second, a set of alternative
policies which the County might adopt to deal with each issue is presented along
with comments on the likely consequences of each. Finally, a preferred'
recommended - policy is identified with a suggested implementation scheme.
Where alternatives to existing policy were regarded as superfluous, none are
described. In many cases a "no action" alternative is described and in a few
cases this is the preferred alternative. Where the issue is not germane to
Beaufort County the reason is given.
2-1

APPROPRIATE USES FOR AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Areas of Environmental Concern were established by CAMA in response to the
requirements of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Development within
AECs is managed -through a cooperative system of local, state, and federal
permits.
n
Beaufort County contains five types of AECs:
Coastal wetlands
* Estuarine shoreline
* Estuarine water
* Public trust water
Small surface water supply watersheds
CAMA planning guidelines require that the plan contain a list of land uses
which the county feels may appropriately be developed within each type of AEC.
As a practical matter, this choice is not made solely by local government for
the Act assigns this responsibility to the Coastal Resources Commission.
Beaufort County, then, has the following options:
It may find that the uses presently allowed by the Coastal Resources
Commission are sufficient to protect the county's AECs;
* It may recommend to the Commission that additional uses be allowed within
AECs;
* It'may recommend that fewer uses be allowed within AECs thus making the
list of 'acceptable uses more restrictive but providing a higher level of
protection for AECs.
Uses presently allowed within Beaufort County's AECs are set forth below.
Coastline Wetlands.AEC
Use Standards. Highest priority of use 'shall be allocated to the
conservation of existing coastal wetlands. Second priority of coastal
wetland use shall be given to those types of development activities that
require water access and cannot function elsewhere.
2-2

Unacceptable land uses may include, but would not be limited to; the
following examples: restaurants and businesses; residences, apartments,
motels, hotels, and trailer parks; parking lots and private roads and
highways; and factories. Examples of acceptable land uses may include
utility easements, fishing piers, docks, and agricultural uses, such as
farming and forestry drainage, as permitted under North Carolina's Dredge
and Fill Act and/or other applicable laws.
Estuarine Shoreline AEC
Use Standards. No uses are absolutely prohibited. The shoreline tends to
be impacted by uses of land and water on either side of the shoreline,
however, and may as a practical matter be limited thereby.
Estuarine Waters AEC
Use,Standards. Highest priority of use shall be allocated to the
conservation of estuarine waters and its vital components.. Second priority
of estuarine waters use shall be given to those types of development
activities that require water access and use which cannot function
elsewhere such as simple access channels; structures to prevent erosion;
navigation channels; boat docks, marinas,.piers, wharfs, and mooring
pilings.
Public Trust Areas AEC
Use Standards. IF —the absence of overriding public benefit, any use which
significantly interferes with the public right of navigation or other
public trust rights which the public may be found to have in these areas
shall not be allowed. The development of navigational channels or drainage
ditches, the use of bulkheads to prevent erosion, and the building of
piers, wharfs, or marinas are examples of uses that may be acceptable
within public trust areas, provided that such uses will not be detrimental
to the public trust.rights and the biological and physical functions.of the
estuary. Projects which would directly or indirectly block or impair.
existing navigation channels, increase -shoreline erosion, deposit spoils.
below mean high tide, cause adverse water circulation patterns, violate
water quality standards, or cause degradation of shellfish waters are
generally considered incompatible with the management policies of public
trust areas.
General Use Standards - Estuarine Group
All four of the preceeding AEC types are governed by the following use
standards which supplement those for individual AEC types.
2-3

Uses which are not water dependent will not be permitted in coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust waters. Restaurants,
residences, apartments, motels, hotels, trailer parks, private roads,
factories, and parking lots are examples of uses that are not water
dependent. Uses that are water dependent may include: utility easements;
docks; wharfs; boat ramps; dredging; bridges and bridge approaches;
revetments, bulkheads; culverts; groins; navigational aids; mooring
pilings; navigational channels; simple access channels and drainage
ditches.
Small Surface Water Supply Watershed AEC
Use Standards. The CRC or local designated official shall approve an
application upon finding that the project is in accord with the following
minimum standards:
(1) Ground absorption sewage disposal systems shall be located a
minimum of 100 feet from A -II surface waters.
(2) Development requiring a national pollution discharge elimination
system (NPDES) permit will be denied an AEC permit until the
NPDES permit is secured.
(3) Land -disturbing activities (land clearing, grading, and surfac-
ing) shall be in compliance with the mandatory standards of the
North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
(G.S. 113A-57).
(4) In instances where a detailed hydrologic study of a small surface
water supply watershed has been made, more detailed standards
may be applied.
Development in each AEC is also subject to certain design and construction
standards. These are listed in the North Carolina Administrative Code.
Due to their great length they are not reproduced in this plan. They are
available for inspection at the Beaufort County Courthouse.
Beaufort County recognizes that the identification and protection of AECs
is one of the central concerns of CAMA. Governmental intervention in the
land development market place is necessary to assure the proper functioning
of the physical and biological systems represented by AECs.
The county's basic position on the use of AECs was established in its
decision to issue permits for minor developments within AECs. By so
choosing, it agreed that the uses permitted under state administrative
regulation were necessary and represented the best available information.
No information has since become available to the county which would allow
it to argue effectively for a less restrictive set of uses. Nor has any
information come to the county which makes apparent the need for a higher
2-4

:,level of protection than offered by existing regulation. Therefore, it is
the county's intent to continue to guide the development of AECs in
accordance with existing regulations.
Beaufort County will exercise its option from time to time to advise the
Coastal Resources Commission of changes in AEC development standards and
permitted uses which seem appropriate as new information becomes available.
One such topic is the placement of spoil material resulting from
agricultural drainageway construction and maintenance. Beaufort County's
economy is heavily oriented to agriculture. The land lies at a low
elevation and the water table tends to high especially in the eastern half
of the county. Agricultural production consequently is dependent upon the
ability of farmers to construct and maintain drainageways through
marshland. Spoil management policies instituted by the state and federal
governments have placed restrictions on this ability resulting in increased
production costs. Beaufort County recommends that the Coastal Resources
Commission re-examine applicable -state and federal policies, particularly
AEC regulations, with the objective of allowing spoil placement upon
irregularly flooded marsh.
Beaufort County will also exercise its option to comment on permit
applications for major developments within AECs.
2-5

CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
Much of Beaufort County is subject to flooding due to wind tides. Flood
hazard maps showing these areas have been prepared by the Federal Insurance
Administration. The county is enrolled in the Emergency Flood Insurance program
which offers federally subsidized insurance against flood damage. The county
will be eligible for enrollment in the regular program upon completion of
additional studies to determine the depth of flooding in various areas.
It is proposed that the county maintain its insurable status by keeping its
program current with federal regulations. It is proposed, too, that Beaufort
County urge the federal agency to complete its flood elevation studies so that
the regular program becomes available. This would have the effect of lowering
premiums on property subject to less probability of damage and increasing
premiums on those with higher probability of damage.
Alternatives to maintenance of federal subsidy eligibility include: (1)
complete reliance on the private sector and (2) adoption of local building
regulations requiring a higher level of protection than necessary under the
federal program. Reliance on the private sector is thought to be unrealistic
since,premiums would certainly be much higher than at present. The other
alternative would commit the county to a series of studies and decisions as to
the desirable level of flood protection and possibly a more elaborate
enforcement program than necessary under the present program.
2-6

FRAGILE AREAS
Beaufort County contains many properties of historic, architectural, and
archaeological significance. The county also contains natural areas which are
of scientific interest and are important elements of the overall natural system
of the county. Management decisions concerning this latter group must.be made
in light of the contrasting present and future uses. In some cases, the
question is as simple as: "Clear and plant it now or hunt deer there later."
With respect to the first group of fragile areas, the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, has prepared
the following statement as a guide to local governments in the CAMA program.
Historic and architecturally significant buildings can be adversely
affected, both directly and indirectly, by a large number of activities.
All construction projects have the potential to require the demolition of
important, though simple, structures on a site as well as to alter the use
of nearby land, thereby causing secondary impacts to a building of historic
or architectural importance. Existing buildings may be amenable to
adaptive reuse, often for uses quite different from.that intended at the
time of a building's construction. Rehabilitation has been cited as more
energy conservative and job intensive than new construction, and recycles
elements of the coastal historic character into everyday use.
.Archaeological resources are fragile and nonrenewable. Such.resources
include both historic and prehistoric sites on land. These sites are found
in urban and rural areas, as well as along the shores. Archaeological
sites contain vast amounts of information about our past; information that,
at times, can be found nowhere else.
Due to the fragile nature of these resources, many different types of
activities damage or destroy archaeological sites. Most activities that
involve ground disturbance, such as construction, grading, excavation, and
even agricultural and timbering activities that do not necessarily involve
ground disturbances can also affect archaeological sites. These activities
include recreational use, flooding, erosion and soil compaction.
Underwater cultural resources often hold a wealth of information due
.to excellent artifact preservation and their normally undisturbed
condition. Exploration and study of historic waterfronts, abandoned or
wrecked vessels, etc., can shed light on many aspects of maritime history
associated with this planning area which might otherwise be unknown.
Therefore, the understanding and proper management of these Iirreplaceable
cultural resources is extremely important to prevent their loss during
future development.
2-7

Disturbance of submerged bottom lands, particularly during new channel
dredging and extensive waterfront development, should consider possible
effects to underwater cultural resources during the earliest stages of.
planning. In areas that have been historically for maritime activities,
documentary investigations should be initiated to determine whether an
underwater archaeological survey is necessary. Known shipwrecks, many of
which are plotted on.USGS maps or Coastal Geodetic Survey charts, should be
avoided or investigated and assessed for.historical significance prior to
final planning stages.
The Beaufort County Board of Commissioners endorse this assessment and
propose to employ it as a statement of policy. The County will observe federal
and state regulations relating to the protection of historic properties listed
in Table 15. The County proposes also to continue its support of the Historic
Properties Commission. Alternative methods of protecting individual properties
will be considered as proposals for the development of nearby areas are made.
One alternative, historic district zoning, does not seem useful at this time
because of the great distances between historic properties in the unincorporated
areas of the county. The County does, however, recognize that such districts
may be feasible within municipalities. The County will assist municipalities in
establishing such districts if requested.
The natural fragile areas present a different set of problems. The demand
for cleared agricultural land may conflict with the desire to preserve wildlife
habitat and with the need to maintain a given level of salinity in the Pamlico
and.Pungo Rivers. Areas that sustain remnant plant and animal species may
adjoin and be adversely impacted by urban development.
A serious problem exists in attempting to protect these areas. The North
Carolina Coastal Area Management Plan has not yet resulted in the development of
a systematic program to identify and establish these resources as Areas of
Environmental Concern on a region wide basis. Presently, this task is left to .
the vagaries of a nomination system which may not ensure their evaluation in
time to prevent damage by unwise development. The nomination process allows for
establishment of the following fragile areas of AECs:
* Coastal areas that.sustain remnant species
* Coastal complex natural areas
''

°* Significant coastal archaeological resources
* Significant coastal historic architectural resources
* Unique geological formations
These lands include some of North Carolina's most fragile coastal
resources. Yet their locations are not sufficiently known, nor their signif ance
adequately measured to allow designation without site specific studies. This is
beyond the technical and financial capability of most county governments
including Beaufort County.
Protective measures for fragile areas, then, are those inherent in the Land
Classification map, those established in the non -AEC regulations. Beaufort
County will not extend or participate in the extension of water and/or sewer
lines to fragile areas designated as Conservation lands on the land
classification map unless there is no reasonable alternative to supplying those
services to other areas. The County will continue to enforce the standards for
minor developments in fragile areas designated as AECs by the Coastal Resources
Commission. The County will also participate actively in the review of
applications for major development permits in such areas. Finally, the County
is mindful that some fragile areas may be protected by state and federal
regulations other than those governing AECs, (See Tables 11, 12, 15). Pending
further analyses by the Coastal Resources Commission of the need to establish
additional AECs, Beaufort County will attempt to preserve fragile areas through
enforcement of those requlations.
2-9

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TYPES AND LOCATIONS OF DESIRED INDUSTRY
Beaufort County has attracted a good deal of new industry in recent years.
Prospects for additional investment are good.
It is assumed that Beaufort County citizens wish to see additional
industrial development occur, consistent with existing environmental law and
traditional life styles. To achieve this goal the choices confronting the
county include:
* The level of involvement by county government in the industrial
recruitment effort;
* The types of industries to be sought;
Proposed locations for industrial development
The role of government in guiding private investment is well established in
theory, law, and practice. The alternative is a purely Laissez f aire approach
in which 'government is only passively involved in economic development. All
decisions would be made exclusively in the private sector and county government
would merely accept or reject proposals made there. Beaufort County is not the
only possible location.for many industrial developments, however, and it is
certain that neighboring communities will compete for the investment dollar.
This plan, therefore, reaffirms the County's intent to ,influence futures
industrial development in a positive manner.
In general, new industry in Beaufort County should be located with'.in the
service areas of municipal water and sewer systems. The obvious exception is
for industries whose locations are dictated by proximity to raw materials such
as mining and forest products. Others may have special transportation,
requirements. Development of sites adjoining railroads, airports, and .water
transpoetation'routes is strongly encouraged for these.
Beaufort County would welcome a wide variety of industrial firms. Pending
further analysis of the county's suitability for varioustypes (below), itwould
appear that marketing efforts should be aimed at industries related 'to :existing
industrial development and natural resources. These would include the following
suggested groups:

Food Processing
* Fuel alcohol
* Mining equipment
* Transportation equipment (airplanes, boats, railroad equipment,
automotive)
Proposed implementation activities include:
* Preparation of an industrial profile for the county to determine
its suitability for various types of industry
* Identification of specific sites or possible locations for
industrial parks, site plans and cost estimates. One site should
be identified for each of the three 201 study areas: Washington
Chocowinity, Belhaven-Pantego, and Aurora
* The preservation of rail freight service is regarded as a
central element in Beaufort County's industrial development
strategy. The proposed abandonment of service west of Washington
is inconsistent with this strategy. The area contains existing
.rail customers and the vacant land here is suitable for the
development of additional industrial firms. Abandonment of rail
service here should not be allowed in the absence of an alternate'
mode of freight transportation at costs comparable to those of
rail transportation.
2-11

PROVISION OF SERVICES
Demand for public services is likely to increase in future years, possibly
outstripping the rate of population growth.
Beaufort County will continue to meet its responsibilities for traditional
county services. Water and sewer services are relatively new to most North
Carolina county governments but it is recognized that some unincorporated areas
of Beaufort County may require these in the near future.
Sanitary sewer service at this time is primarily the responsibility of
z
municipal government. Beaufort County's role in providing sewer to
unincorporated areas, if any, will be spelled out in the 201 facility plans.
Unfortunately, 201 facility planning areas are not based upon comprehensive
analysis of point source water quality problems on a county -wide basis. In
Beaufort County they are based upon conditions within close proximity to
existing sanitary sewer systems. There may be other areas of the county with
water quality problems which could be addressed by the delineation of additional
study areas. Beaufort County could, of course, choose to do nothing in which
case existing water quality problems would go unsolved for many years. It is
proposed, however, that Beaufort County take a more active posture by
identifying additional areas for which sanitary sewer service might be
economically feasible. The county proposes to document water quality problems
near Bath, Pamlico Beach, and Jordan Creek and to consider alternative
wastewater treatment processes for these areas as funds become available.
A county wide water system plan has been developed by Beaufort County. The
plan sets forth the implementation responsible for each affected unit of
government in the county.
The rejection of a bond referendum to finance its construction does not
alleviate the need for the system. The issue, then, is whether the county
should maintain the plan or allow it to become obsolete.
2-12

2-13

DESIRED URBAN GROWTH PATTERNS
Beaufort County's overall settlement pattern consists of several rather
densely developed urban clusters separated by vast expanses of rural territory.
The latter is characterized by literally thousands of farm and rural non -farm
residences along the.county's highways. In addition, the River Road area east
of Washington Park is distinctly suburban in character.
North. Carolina law provides many tools by which the county can influence
the pattern of future development. The ability to shape the future settlement
pattern has important meaning for environmental protection, for efficiency in
providing local government services, and economic development. Taken together,
these amount to nothing less than insuring Beaufort's desirability as a place to
live.
It is, of course, utterly impractical to consider a wholesale re -design and
reconstruction of the present settlement pattern regardless of the efficiency
benefits which might result. Too, the amount of growth anticipated in`Beaufort
County over the next twenty years is relatively small compared to the land
resources available to accommodate that growth.
The Land Classification map adopted as part of this plan illustrates the
proposed growth pattern. It reflects the existing pattern to a great degree: a
series of urban clusters centered upon the county's municipalities. These are
separated by rural areas of predominantly agricultural orientation. Finally,
areas to be retained in their natural state are delineated in accordance with
the policies of the Coastal Resources Commission.
The principal tools for bringing about this pattern are:
* Utility construction plans for public water and 'sanitary sewer service
* CAMA regulations governing development within Areas of Environmental
Concern
* Septic tank regulations promulgated by the N. C. Division ofHealth
Services and enforced by the Beaufort County Health Department.
* Municipal land development codes, (i.e. zoning and subdivision
regulations)
"L- 14

`* Coastal Zone Management Act provisions for consistency of federal
actions with state plans
* Preferential assessments for farm and forest land
* Beaufort County's voting membership in the Mid -East Commission,
empowering it to participate in discussions and decision making on
projects of regional significance which might affect the proposed
settlement pattern.
The 1976 land use plan contained a proposal that Beaufort County adopt a
zoning ordinance as a major tool for shaping the county's development pattern.
No hard criteria exist by which to judge the necessity of such an ordinance. It'
is not at all certain that such an ordinance is necessary given the array of
state and federal permits required for various types of development. Many of
the permits and licenses cited in Tables 11, 12, and 15 have a direct influence
on the use of land and virtually all have an indirect effect. Too, it is
anticipated that a large share of new development will occur in areas now zoned
by the county's municipalities. Finally, the actual volume of development
expected over the next few years does not appear to be so great that the
settlement pattern of the county is likely to be substantially changed.
The single exception to this scenario would be with respect to new
industrial development in the eastern half of the county where mining and energy
related firms may expand or come into being. These installations do have the
potential to make significant changes in the physical and economic landscape of
the county. Accordingly, supplements to existing regulatory mechanisms are
explored in a later section of this report, "Phosphate Mining. Beaufort County
can, in addition, exert leverage on such firms to meet even higher standards of
environmental protection if they seek public financial assistance as part of the
development proposed.
2-15

REDEVELOPMENT
Every county in North Carolina contains at least some neighborhoods
characterized by substandard housing and, usually, inadequate public facilities.
Beaufort is no exception: the Mid -East Commission estimated that in 1977 the
county contained approximately 3,700 substandard.dwelling units (i.e., lacked
some or all plumbing or were structurally dilapidated). Hundreds of others were
overcrowded. The 1980 Census is not yet available to update these figures but
it can be safely assumed that many residences still do not provide adequate
shelter.
Three of Beaufort's municipalities - Aurora, Belhaven and Washington - have
undertaken community development programs aimed at improving housing conditions.
Cho cowinity has also applied for a grant under this program. In January, 1981,
Beaufort County applied for a community development grant targeted at two
neighborhoods in the southeast portion of the county: Bonnerton and South Creek.
The county's application for this grant is, in effect, a statement of
policy: that inadequate housing exists in the county and that governmental
action is necessary to compensate for failures of the market system. Hopefully,
the county's application will be approved and that other projects will follow.
It is proposed that the county conduct a detailed review of the 1980 Census
to determine its redevelopment needs on a county -wide basis. The needs
assessment would identify areas of the county requiring community development.
programs, the type of treatment cost estimates, and priorities for undertaking
the projects. This will probably not be possible until FY 1983, depending upon
the delivery dates for the required Census data.
2-16

COMMITMENT TO STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Several state and federal programs are in progress within Beaufort County
in addition to those mentioned heretofore. These include:
* Maintenance of the Intercoastal Waterway
* Maintenance of the Pamlico River channel
* Ferry service across the Pamlico River
* Soil and water conservation district
* Wildlife Resources Commission programs
* Boating access points
* Gamelands
* Goose Creek.Wildlife Management Area
Beaufort County supports the continuation of all these programs. The County
specifically takes objection to recent proposals for reducing or terminating
ferry service across the Pamlico. This service is absolutely necessary - in the
absence of a bridge crossing - for commuting purposes. It also has some
significance as a tourist attraction and for intra-county commerce.
The County also favors expansion of the gamelands program and the
construction of additional boating access points by the Wildlife Resources
Commission.
2-17

CHANNEL -MAINTENANCE
The Intracoastal Waterway follows the eastern'boundary.-oU Beaufort County-
along Goose Creek and the Pungo River. This is-a!major'avenuefor recreational,
boating and'commercial'goods movement.
The` Pamlico' River channel -branches westward from the Intracoastal" Waterway
at the confluence of the Pamlico with the Pungo. A third channel follows
Pantego Creek to'the`NC 92 bridge.in Belhaven. Channels have also been
constructed'iW Wright's Creek and Smith Creek'.
Four of these' are 12 feet deep; the channelin Wright's`• Creek: is 14'4feet
deep'. They offer direct connections to the deep -water port at Morehead City.
In''an energy scarce future,: they represent potential economic resources,of"great
s i gn i f f6ance due to the energy efficiency of waterborne freight movement ..
The maintenance of these channels istheresponsibility of the U.S.. Army
Corps of Engineers. Beaufort County strongly supports the maintenance of these
facilities. The county will assist, if requested, in obtaining easements for
work required to' maintain the channels and in obtaining sites for deposition of
dredge spoil material.
2-18

ENERGY FACILITY SITES
Peat deposits found in eastern North Carolina have given rise-lto a proposal
to construct `a fuel alcohol plant in the Belhaven=Pantego area. Little is known
about the proposal at this time. Peat would be used as:fue Vto distill alcohol
from"corn grown`'locally. Presumably, corn would .be trucked:in and the final'
product exported by rail.
Due to the acreage requirements, it should be presumed=that-the..plant.:would
be constructed in the unincorporated area of the county.: Therefore,..Beaufort-_
County government will be involved in,its development' but -to an extent not°known
at this time. Further, it should be presumed that the plant will require
several permits from state government agencies before-it'is-approved:
In general; Beaufort County policy encourages the development'.of'resource -
based industry and particularly the development -of such industry in the eastern
part' of the county.
Beaufort County has the option of adopting'a zoning ordinance:which-could;
influence the final location of this (or any) plant as -well as certain aspects:
of its design: height and bulk of buildings, setbacks°.from property lines,.
off-street parking and loading facilities, landscaping, and other features.. The.
regulation of these aspects of plant construction are clearly, subordinate to the
central question of whether such a facility should be built in this part -,of the
county.
Accordingly, it is judged that a zoning -ordinance for this purpose,is not
appropriate at this time. County government will continue to monitor the
project as information becomes available and will participate in reviewing and
commentingupon applications for state and federal permits required for its.
I .
construction.
2-20
a

2-21

RIVER ACCESS
Because the water plays such a large part in providing recreation, access
to the water is important. Beaufort County's access to the water is measured
two ways: boating access and pedestrian access. The boating access does not
appear to be a major problem. The county has 33 boat ramps, 5 of which are
publicly owned, 2 charge nothing, and the rest charge about $1.00. For the
larger motor yachts and sailboats the access is somewhat limited. There are 5
marina sites which can accommodate a total of 450 ,yachts. As the county's
population increases, pressure will be increased to develop more marina spaces.
As with other recreational activities, it is within the county's .authority
to develop additional boating access points. At this time, financial demands
upon county government are such that a boat access point building program must
be given a low priority. Land -oriented recreational facilities are judged to
have a higher priority of claim on county funds._
The county will, however, support municipal boat ramp construction if
proposals are consistent with the local and county land use plans. The county
also offers moral support to private developers of such facilities and prompt
evaluation of building and CAMA permit applications, if required
Pedestrian access to the water is defined as a person making a special trip
to the water without having access to a boat. People who live or vacation
on the shoreline are not included in the pedestrian access group. Beaufort
County has two public beaches, Goose Creek State Park and Belhaven, that can be
used for pedestrian access; however, there are several private beaches that
`cater to pedestrian access for a nominal fee.
L-LL

The county's position on beach access is virtually the same as its position
on boat ramp development. In addition, Beaufort Countyencourages the State of
North Carolina to conduct detailed studies of the demand for riverine beach
facilities as part of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Specific sites ought to be identified for acquisition and development. The
study should distinguish clearly between demand generated within Beaufort County
and that generated by visitors. In making such distinctions, the responsibility
of providing the facilities can be assigned to the appropriate parties.
2-23

VACATION HOMES DEVELOPMENT
No one knows the precise number of vacation or second homes in Beaufort
County. The 1980 Census is expected, however, to provide a count of these. It
is apparent from the land use survey that there has been a good deal of this
kind of development in recent years. Most of it, of course, has been built
along the Pamlico River shore though the Pungo'and several creeks have attracted
development as well.
Problems associated with vacation homes development are much the same as
for permanent residences in rural areas:
* Septic tank installations in marginal soils
* Potential for increased shoreline erosion
* Distance from public services
* Unpaved streets
* Potential for flood damage
* Inefficient site planning
Beaufort County has already taken some actions to improve the quality of
new development. These include:
* Enforcement of plumbing, electrical, and insulation codes.
* Enrollment in the federal flood insurance program
* Enforcement of state regulations respecting installation of
-wells and septic tanks
* CAMA implementation program for development of AECs.
North Carolina Department of Transportation has established design
standards for secondary roads where the developer proposes to dedicate the
streets to the state for maintenance.
2-24

Further improvements in the quality of new development particularly with
regard to street design and lot planning could be achieved through the adoption
of subdivision regulations. Such an ordinance cannot be made applicable
exclusively to vacation homes. It would have to apply to all development;
meeting the definition of a subdivision under state law. It could be made
applicable to limited areas of the county, one or two townships, for instance.
Alternatively, the ordinance could apply to all subdivisions within a specified
distance of the county's major water bodies.
It is proposed that Beaufort County again consider adopting a subdivision
ordinance . The ordinance would be subject to several public hearings to
determine public opinion on the need for the ordinance.Before and after the
hearings, press releases would explain the purpose and applicability of the
ordinance, its impact upon agriculture, and relationship to CAMA and other
permits required by existing law.
Once adopted, there must be some mechanism for administering the ordinance.
Plat reviews would be conducted by the Planning Board and approved in final form
by the Board of Commissioners. Both groups, of course, should receive some
professional assistance in reviewing plats. In Beaufort County, this might be
done by the County Engineer. Alternatively, the county might hire a full-time
planner within the office of County Manager. Finally, the county might sign a
contract with the City of Washington under which the City's Planning Director
provided review assistance on an hourly basis or at a "piece" rate with total
fee based upon the number of lots or acreage.within a subdivision.
2-25

PHOSPHATE MINING
Phosphate mining and the processing of ore is major industry in Beaufort
County. Current operations here are among the largest of their kind in the
world. The industry is directly related to agriculture since phosphate is an
absolutely essential mineral, used along with nitrogen and potash, to enhance
the growth of crops. With the increasing United States and world demand for
food, the usage of phosphate fertilizers will continue to expand, while sources
of the raw materials diminish.
Phosphate mining has a tremendous impact on Beaufort County's economy.
Texasgulf facilities in the county are valued in excess of $500 million and
employ approximately 1,400 people from the area. Salaries for 1979 were $28
million and local purchases of supplies amounted to approximarely $12 million.
North Carolina Phosphate Corporation plans to begin construction of a $300 mine
and processing facility in 1981 which will initially employ approximately 600
people.
Large tracts of potentially recoverable phosphate reserves are owned by
Texasgulf, Inc., North Carolina Phosphate Corporation, FMC, and Weyerhaeuser.
Also, 10,000 acres of state-owned lands in the Pamlico River are now under lease
for possible extraction. Open pit mining is currently employed by Texasgulf,
Inc. to recover the phosphate sediments at Lees Creek. A similar mining
operation is planned by North Carolina Phosphate Corporation. A hydraulic
process using bore holes has been tested by FMC. This procedure may become
important in the future with respect to deposits lying under the river.,
Mining in the Pamlico River is of great importance to Beaufort County
because of the possible adverse effects on water quality. It is of great
consequence also to the State of North Carolina for the same reason. The basic
question of. whether government should allow or disallow mining in Beaufort
County was answered years ago and is not in question here. What is in question
is the location of future mining activities, operational matters, i.e extraction
and processing techniques, and industry - community relationships.
It should be assumed that Texasgulf is still actively considering mining
the river since its lease is current. Development of these reserves, if
undertaken, would be subject to a number of governmental regulations including
2-26

As -,noted, -the land underlying the river is owned by the State of North
Carolina. At least three state agencies plus the Corps of Engineers will be
involved in the decision to allow or prohibit mining there. These agencies
are:
* N. C. Department of Administration
* N. C. Mining Commission
* N. C. Coastal Resources Commission
Overriding all other considerations is the need for these agencies to
notify the County of all permit applications which are related.to mining in the
river. Within that frame work, three broad policy options are open to Beaufort
County at this time. First, Beaufort County might determine that the mining of
mineral deposits is of overriding importance to the county's economic welfare
and that -the county will do nothing to delay or.otherwise impede maximum
production at lowest dollar cost to the industry. If this policy were adopted,
the county's action would not significantly reduce regulations or red tape for
the industry. The industry would still be responsible to state and federal laws
and regulations. This policy would prohibit the county from taking an active
role in the decision -making process dealing with mining. The county would
abrogate its authority to protect the county's natural resources and this policy
could have detrimental effects on Beaufort County's natural and built
environment.
A second policy option would recognize the economic contributions of the
mining industry but that these are subordinate to the values of traditional life
styles and certain environmental standards attendant thereupon. Further,
existing state and federal standards are inadequate to assure continuation of
those values. Therefore, Beaufort County will develop standards for the
location and operation of mining activities in addition to existing regulations.
This policy will do much to ensure the overall protection of the county's
natural environment. Beaufort County staff would need to be expanded to:provide
the manpower necessary to administer this policy. Under this policy the county
would have to develop, adopt, and enforce Air Qualiy Standards, Groundwater
Extraction Controls, Sedimentation Control Standards, Mine Safety Standards,
Mining Engineering Standards, and other regulations deemed necessary to supple-
ment existing law.
2-27

li
Under the third option Beaufort County would re -state its 1976 Land Use
Plan policy. This recognizes the economic importance of the mining industry
as well as the potential for conflicts in the use of land and water resources.
Mining would be controlled largely by existing state and federal regulations
but Beaufort County would take an active role in reviewing all permit requests
from the industry. Moreover, Beaufort County would take a more active role in
I the resolution of "land -side" issues.arising from mining impacts. This is the
preferred policy and includes the following specific elements
* To protect the quality and natural setting of the county's
waterways."
* To oppose any land using project or development such as mining or
damming of the river which cannot be shown by competent studies to
have no harmful impact on the natural setting environmental quality
of our waterways.
* To 'discourage location of industries or development in Beaufort
County which would be detrimental to water quality.
*. To encourage the further development of phosphate mining while
ensuring that the natural environment and lifestyle of Beaufort
County is protected.
* To register with the State, which regulates mining, the county's
desire to ensure that the environment is protected during and after
mining activities.
* To oppose mining of the rivers and creeks until a competent study
can be conducted as to the impact on such mining.
* To zone existing unincorporated residential areas to protect them
from undesirable land uses.
* Mining should not be allowed to jeopardize the ground water supply
of the area.
e_eo

Under this policy, the County would actively participate in the permit
review process. Mining would remain approved in principle, as it is now.
Applications for permits intended to allow extraction of phosphate from the
river bottom would be approved only if competent studies show that mining can
be accomplished without unacceptable short or long term losses of environ-
mental quality. Environmental impact statements submitted as part of permit
applications would be expected to discuss alternatives to the proposed
project, including the use of various technologieSfor phosphate extraction.
The county would voice its opinion on specific permitting issues as they
arise. The policy would provide a forum in which state and federal agencies,
the industry, and the county could work closely to insure that mining operations
would continue to have a positive effect on the economy without unnecessary
environmental damage. The county may hold public hearings on permit actions
if those held by State and Federal agencies are found inadequate to secure
local -interests.
The area of primary impact, of course, is the river itself, at and
downstream of the mine site. However, land -side impacts could be substantial
across the southeast quarter of the county - the area near Aurora. This area
also contains peat deposits which appear to be of commercial significance.
Thus, peat mining becomes an issue in the area as well as phosphate mining.
Land side impacts include such things as the specific land parcels to be
disturbed by mining, changes in traffic flows both for employees and the
transportation of commodities, worker housing, utilities, ancillary commercial
development, and reclamation plans. Of these, the establishment of site
boundaries and evaluation of likely impacts upon existing communities are
perhaps the most crucial parts of the entire process. Much of this is evaluated
during the permit review process by higher levels of government and permits, it
can be expected, will be based upon the applicant's ability to meet conditions
imposed by law.
2-29

The trouble with leaving these decisions to higher levels is that it
requires absolute faith in their dedication to Beaufort County's welfare. Such
faith could prove unwarranted. Thus, a fourth policy option, in addition to
those above, would be for Beaufort County to adopt a zoning ordinance for the
area east of Durham Creek. The primary purpose of this ordinance would be to
guide the secondary development induced by mining. It would also affect mining
itself but only to the extent that Beaufort County feels other regulations are
inadequate to meet local needs. The ordinance could, as noted be adopted and
enforced by Beaufort County under G.S. 153A-342:
A county may determine that the public interest does not require that
the entire territorial jurisdiction of the county be zoned and may desig-
nate one or more portions of that jurisdiction as a zoning area or areas.
A zoning area must originally contain at least 640 acres and at least 10
separate tracts of land in separate ownership and may thereafter be ex-
panded by the addition of any amount of territority. A zoning -area may be
regulated in the same manner as if the entire county were zoned, and the
remainder of the county need not be regulated.
Alternatively, Beaufort County might find it more practical to seek special
legislation from the General Assembly to expand Aurora's planning and zoning
jurisdiction. This could accomplish the same objective but leaving the decision
closer to the source of the problem. Aurora, of course, would have to agree to
such an arrangement and participate in the request to the General Assembly.
z-.5u

ADDENDA
1. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has recently advised
Beaufort County as follows (ref. p. 1-23):
SCL (Seaboard Coast Line Railroad) does now
have the line from Parmele to Washington under
study. Abandonment application expected in 1981.
The County should be aware that rail traffic on
Chocowinity-New Bern line may increase dramati-
cally due to movement of coal to Morehead City
for export. Projections of State Ports Authority
are for 8-10 million tons/yr. (6 trains per day)
within five years. This line in one of two alter-
nate routes for this movement.
2. The proposal to construct a peat -fired alcohol plant in the Belhaven-
Pantego area has been withdrawn by its developers (ref, p. 2-20).
,3. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater
Section, has made the following comments:
a. Saltwater occurs in part or all of the eocene in approximately the
eastern third of the county (ref. p. 1-35).
b. Artesion pressure not at 15 ft. above land surface since the mid 1960s
(ref. p. 1-36).
.c. Mesozoic aquifer are brackish over the majority of the county.
2-31

LAND CLASSIFICATION
DESCRIPTION
A land.classification system has been developed as a means of assisting in
the implementation of the policies adopted by the County. By delineating land
classes on a map, local government and its citizens can specify those areas
where certain policies (local, state and federal) will apply. Although specific
areas are outlined on a land classification map, it must be remembered that land
classification is merely a tool to help implement policies and not a strict
regulatory mechanism.
The designation of land classes allows the County to illustrate its policy
statements as to where and to what density it wants growth to occur, and where
it wants to conserve natural and cultural resources by guiding growth.
The land classification system includes five broad classes. These may be
subdivided into more specific land use designations. Any sub -classes which are
used should be able to be aggregated back to the original five broad classes.
The five general land classes are: Developed, transition, community, rural and
conservation.
(1) DEVELOPED
A Purpose. The purpose of the developed class is to provide for
continued intensive development and redevelopment of existing
cities.
(B) Description. Areas to be classified developed include lands
currently developed for urban purposes at or approaching.a
density of 500 dwellings per square mile that are provided with
usual municipal or public services including at least public
water, sewer, recreational facilities, police and fire
protection. Areas which exceed the minimum density but which do
not have public sewer service may best be divided into a separate
class to indicate that although they have a developed character,
they will need sewers in the future.
(2) TRANSITION
A Purpose. The purpose of the transition class is to provide for
future intensive urban development within the ensuing ten years
on lands that are most suitable and that will be scheduled for
provision of necessary public utilities and services. The
trans ition lands also provide for additional growth when
additional lands in the developed class are not available or when
they are severely limited for development.
3-1

(B) Description.
( i) Lands to be classified transition may include: (1) lands
currently having urban services, and,(2) other lands
necessary to accommodate the urban population and economic
growth anticipated within the planning jurisdiction over
the ensuing ten year period.
( ii) Lands classified transition to help meet the demand for
developable anticipated population and economic growth
must: (1) be served by public water, sewer, and other
urban services including public streets, and (2) be
generally free from severe physical limitations for urban
development. In addition, the transition class should not
include: (1) lands of high potential for agriculture,
forestry, or mineral extraction, or land falling within
extensive rural areas being managed commercially for these
uses, when other lands are available; (2) lands where
urban development might result in major or irreversible
damage to natural systems or processes of more than local
concern.
(iii) In determining the amount of additional transition lands
necessary to meet projected urban population and economic
growth, the County may utilize estimates of average future
urban population density that are based upon local land
policy, existing patterns and trends of urban development,
and densities specified in local zoning, if any; an
estimate of additional Transition class lands should be
based upon a guideline density of 2,000 persons or 500
dwellings per square mile.
(
C) Discussion. The developed and transition classes should be the
only lands under active consideration for intensive urban
development requiring urban services. The area within these
classes is where detailed local land use and public investment
planning must occur. State and Federal expenditures on projects
associated with urban development water, sewer, urban street
systems, etc. will be guided to these areas. Large amounts of
vacant land suitable tor urban development within the Developed
class should be taken into account when calculating the amount of
additional lands needed to accommodate projected growth. The
total area shown as Transition should be equal to the land needed
for proposed population increases that can not be accommodated in
the vacant developed areas. The desiqnation of Transition lands
will be a very difficult and political process. Counties and
municipalities with declining populations may show some limited
transition lands as an inducement for future growth. As will be
the case in all areas, however, the amount of transition lands
shown should remain within reasonable limits, taking into account.
any significant amounts of undeveloped lands within the developed
class.
(3) COMMUNITY
A Purpose. The purpose of the community class is to provide for
clustered land development to help meet housing, shopping, ,
employment, and public service needs within the rural areas of.
Ithe county.
MWA

(C)
Description. Lands to be classified community are those areas
within the rural areas of planning jurisdictions characterized by
a small grouping of mixed land uses, (residences, general store,
church, school, etc.), and which are suitable and appropriate for
small clusters of rural development not requiring municipal sewer
service. -
Discussion. It should be stressed that the -community class
applies to clustered rural development which usually occurs at
crossroads. Some "communities" that nonetheless should not be
classified developed or transition may have, or may require,
public services to correct an existing condition or to avert an
anticipated public health.problem. Many of these communities
might have their own water system because the.de6sity of the
development precludes having both private wells and septic tanks.,
Due to the small size of most communities, it might suffice to
identify them by a symbol on the land classification map.
(4) RURAL
(A -Purpose. The purpose of the rural class is to provide for
agriculture, forest management, mineral extraction and other low
intensity uses. Residences may be located within "rural" areas
where urban services are not required and,where natural resources
will not be permanently impaired.
(B) Description. Lands that can be identified as appropriate for
resource management and allied uses include lands with high
potential for agriculture, forestry, or mineral extraction; lands
with one or more limitations that would make development costly
and hazardous; and lands containing irreplaceable, limited, or
significant natural, recreational or scenic resources not
otherwise classified.
(C) Discussion. The rural class is the broadest.of the five classes.
In order to manage these lands effectively local governments will
be encouraged to create sub -classes within the rural class. For
example, the rural class could be subdivided into two classes,
rural -production to provide for the effective management of large
agricultural, forestry, and mineral extraction areas, etc., and
rural -residential for low density rural residences.
(5) CONSERVATION
A Purpose. The purpose of the conservation class is to provide for
effective long-term management of significant limited or
irreplaceable areas. This management may be needed because of
its natural, cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values.
These areas should not be identified as transition lands in the
future.
(B) Description. The conservation class should be applied to lands
that contain: major wetlands; essentially undeveloped shorelands
that are unique, fragile, or hazardous for development; necessary
wildlife habitat or areas that have a high probability for
providing necessary habitat conditions; publicly owned water
supply water sheds and aquifers; and forest lands that are
undeveloped and will- remain undeveloped for commercial purposes.
3-3

Land Classes Purpose
Developed To provide for continued inten-
sive development and redevelop-
meat of existing cities
SUMMARY OF LAND CLASSIFICATIOi1S
Charac1.erIstIc-.:
Lands currently developed for urban
purposes with urban t.ervir_es available
Transition To provide for fuuture intensive
Lands being developed for urban pur-
urban development on lands that
poses but which do not yet have usual
are most suitable and that area
urban services, lands necessary to
most likely to be scheduled
accommodate population qrowth for the
fur provision of necessary
next ten year period, lairds which
public utilities and services
can be readily serviced with usual
urban services, lands generally free
from severe physical limitations for
development
Conmunity To provide for clustered mix
Lands characterized by it cloister of
uses to help shopping, housing,
residential and commercial land
r eii1loyment and public service
uses in rural areas
needs within the surrounding
area
Rural To provide for ar)rictrlture,
forest management, mineral ex-
tractions and various low
intensity uses on large sites -
including residences where urban
services are not required and
natural resources will not be
unduly impaired
Conservation To provide for effective long-
term management of tracts of .
land consistent with their sig-
nificant, limited, or
Irreplaceable natural,
recreational, productive or
scenic resources with the intent
dial they wiII not be identified
as Transition lands in the
immediate future
Lands identified as aul•tt.rrt..ttc
locations for natural r :,utre
management and allied terse:•,. lands
with one or more 1 imi tat icssss : that
would make developnent costly and
hazardous
Lands that contain major wetlands,
necessary wildlife habitats, -
publicly owned water-s+rpply watershed,
and icquifers, lands providing siq-
nificant recharge to groundwater, and
lands which contain significant natural
scenic, recreational or productive
resources
Services
Usual municipal or public services
including water, sewer, recreation
facilities, police, and fire
protection
Usual municipal or public services
to be made available at the time
of development or soon thereafter
I.imiled municipal type 'i rvices
such as fire protection, etc.
may have public water but no
public sewer syster-­.. Pu131 it.
sewers possible o„ly t!) tstrrect
an existing or projected public
health hazard
Private septic tank., and wcllc,
(It.her %ervices such as rC%LU-!
squads, police and fire pro-
tection. etc.
No services and limited access
only

d
1.L.
M
developed
o°° o -o o o ° °o°o
0 0 °oo o °e°e o pO eo° oe °e o°o o pO ° o '�••
po o °oo°o o ` ee ° e oeoe o oe 000 ° o 0 opO° \oilt
e°oe° o o °e°000 a °000° ° °o°
o °o°e oopO poo°oe o pO oe° e ° °e°o o pO o°° \
°epee e e oe°e peep ° eo ooeooe eoeoo 0 0 0 conservation
0
oe opp o 0000 0 0 �po
0 0 0
transition
I r L` t `.
rural'
e
Under the land dstsification system all land will be placed Into one of five classes.
The Developed dais will include existing urban aloes which
are currentlylyjusupplied with a full range of public services including
water and sewer lacdilies.
the ttamilllon t1jil will itlgnlily thole nfeas with land qu(fJ
le •irban developmenf which will be supplied with public serv.ces
• rxornotfate, future population and etonomlc growth,
The Community dais will include existing clustered rural
residential and commercial areas such as crossroads* developments.
These areas may require a public water system bul public sewers
should not be allowed.
The Rural class will Identify those lands good for agriculture,
forestry, mining. and other land uses such as rural housing
depending on private wells and optic ranks.
......... The Conletvatlon clatl will identify those areas which due to
their significant• limllert, or irreplaceable natural, recreational, or
scenic tesourcet need to he protected.

APPLICATION TO BEAUFORT COUNTY: 1976
The application of the Land Classification System to Beaufort County
adopted as part of the 1976 land use plan is summarized as follows:
* Developed: Within the corporate limits of Aurora, Belhaven, and
Washington
* Transition: West of Washington along U.S. 264 and U.S. 17; within the
Towns of Chocowinity, Bath, and Washington Park; along SR 1166; east
of Washington between Warren Field and Washington Park.
* Community: Several communities throughout the county.
* Conservation: Goose Creek State Park and Wildlife Management Area,
marsh land, all surface waters.
* Secondary Transition: Pantego; Bath Creek environs; south and west of
Chocowinity; numerous areas characterized by vacation homes along the
Pamlico River; east of Washington, generally encompassing the River
Road area as far north as Bunyan.
* Rural: The .remainder of the county.
The Secondary Transition class identifies areas where moderate density
growth is encouraged but where local governments could not reasonably make a
commitment to providing water and sewer services within the next ten years.
As noted, the application of the Land Classification System should.be
accomplished with some relationship to anticipated growth. Population
projections underlying the 197.6 plan are shown below.
TABLE 20
BEAUFORT COUNTY
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
AS OF 1976
Year Population
1980 37,400
1990 38,900
2000-41,000
-W.-7 77t7
3-6

APPLICATION TO BEAUFORT COUNTY: 1981
Since 1976 the Coastal Resources Commission has refined the Land
Classification System to deal with problems found in earlier applications.
These have resulted in a general loosening of mapping standards for the
Developed and Transition classes. This is important for Beaufort County in view
of proposals for a county water system, and.the proposals for sewer service
which may result from the 201 plans. They are important, too, because of the
greater amount of growth anticipated under revised population projections (Table
21).
The 1981 Land Classification Map .is summarized below.
The map explicitly recognizes the planning area boundaries of the county's
municipalities. Land is classified within these areas by the municipal
governing bodies consistent with the County's decision to allow them.to prepare
their own land use plans. All Developed class land in Beaufort County lies
within these areas reflecting.their high population density and provision of
water and sewer facilities.
Transition class land is mapped only within areas covered by 201 Wastewater
Facilities Plans. A good deal of this lies outside municipal planning
jurisdictions. Beaufort County's financial participation, if any, in
constructing these facilities will be set forth in detail as part of the
wastewater facilities plans.
Community class land is also mapped in a number of locations across the
county. The Community class is retained for most areas so mapped in the 1976
plan. It is also used to indicate areas for which public water service is
proposed in the county water system plan. This application results in a much
expanded use of the Community class. The intent of this expansion is to keep
Beaufort County's options open for water system construction if county residents
desire the service in the future. If the County's interest in the water system
is not made clear in this plan, there exists a possibility that future loans and
grants necessary for its construction might be delayed or withheld due to its
inconsistency with the plan.
3-7

TABLE 21
BEAUFORT COUNTY
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1980 - 2000
YEAR POPULATION RANGE
1980 39,600 - 41,600
1990 44,100 46,300
2000 48,000 - 50,500
Source: DEM; March 24, 1980
TABLE. 22
REGION Q
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1980 - 2000
COUNTY
1980
1990
2000
BEAUFORT
39,600 -
41,600
44,100 -
46,300
48,000 -
50,500
BERTIE
21,0007
22,100
22,000 -
23,100
23,100 -
24,300
HERTFORD
24,400 -
25,600
25,000 -
26,200
24,500 -
27,100
MARTIN
25,600 -
26,900
26,900 -
28,300
27,500 -
28,900
PITT
81,100 -
85,300
91,400 -
96,000
98,600 -
103,700
REGION TOTAL
191,700 -
201,500
209,400 -
219,900
221,700 -
234,500
BEAUFORT
Share of
Region* 21.2%
21.1%
21.6%
*Mean Values
Source: DEM; March 24, 1980

Secondary Transition class is retained for those areas of the county in
which they were mapped previously and which are not now included within a
municipal planning area These include (but are not limited to) Pamlico Beach,
Wades Point, Core Point, Bayview, areas south and west of Chocowinity, and the
River Road U.S. 264 corridor. These areas are characterized by a relatively
high density of residential development at this time. Additional development of
this nature may occur here in future years but Beaufort County cannot commit
itself to providing water and sewer services to all of them at this time. If
these facilities are to be provided, they will have to be constructed by private
enterprise or, perhaps, by a sanitary district.
The Conservation class covers Goose Creek State Park, Goose Creek Wildlife
Management Area, estuarine waters (including the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers), and
coastal wetlands by reference.
The remainder of the county is within the Rural class. It includes all
land not within any of the other classes and is intended primarily as a resource
production area including farming, mining, and forestry.
3-9 ► ^`

' .. •)•'ALL
77 _
J i
_ °..,o.. � s , ' .. � r� � s ..., I [F„Z, j• .r� � � � ` ice` \ �I ��� —_ _`..
R
N
r....r... t�
' LAND CLASSIFICATION Imo\ ( R /�� " \\
O-DEVELOPED
T_TRANSITN
h R
gI •. _ j
.._ S-SECONDARY TRANSITIONt l f _ —••l/ _ _ '
C-COMMUNITY 1 t �.. / 1
R_RURAL
I
N_CONSERVATION .umn cm.m........ ........
.c.
I
MUNICIPAL PLANNING AREAS \ - S ,-k n - �'�>s-c .�� BEAUFORT COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
� ��`-' _I � `�°•\ D - �' \ � � � � � � , ' �� .a.nt u�a.+. °eoAir.� e+'.� .r.rioN
'_.� ,T—M

COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Measures to coordinate county and municipal planning and to insure public
participation were undertaken over the two fiscal years during which the
Beaufort County plan was in preparation. Activities are described below.
Fiscal Year 1980 ,
On May 7, 1980, a meeting of Beaufort County planning` agencies was held to
assure consistency between county and municipal plans.
Beaufort County and each municipality engaged in the CAMA planning process.
was represented by a delegation of elected officials, appointed officials, and
planners. Plans for the City of Washington were presented jointly by the City's
'Community Development Director, Mr. Marvin Davis, and by the City's planning
consultant, Mr. Robert M. Leary, representing the firm of Robert M. Leary &
Associates. The Beaufort County plan was presented by Mr. John Prevette,
Planning Director. Belhaven's plan was presented by Mr. Lee Downie, represent-
ing the firm of Williams & Works.
Each participant described the major planning/policy issues under study
Within the community and proposals for dealing with them. It was noted that
these proposals were still in draft form at the time of the meeting, but that
significant departures from the drafts were unlikely before submission of plans
to the Coastal Resources Commission in June, 1980.
. The conclusion of the participants was that there appeared to be no
conflicts between the plans of the three planning units represented at the
meeting.
During FY 1980, public participation activities for the Beaufort County
Plan were under the direction of the county's Planning Director. The principal
mechanism employed was a series of public meetings by the Planning Board.
4-1

Fiscal Year 1981
In March, 1981, the Beaufort County land use plan was completed in draft
form, having been started in the preceeding year. The Towns of Aurora, Bath,
and Chocowinity also began land use plan preparation at this time.
The planners for Beaufort county, Aurora, and Chocowinity met in Aurora at
the invitation of Mayor Bonner in February, 1981, to discuss the various
development issues facing the county and its municipalities. Consultants for
'Bath were unable to attend this meeting but subsequently discussed county -Bath
relationships by telephone.
On April 23, the county's consultant presented the draft plan to the
Beaufort County Mayors' Association.
Leadership for public participation passed to the Board of County
Commissioners in December, 1980. At this time, the Board became actively
involved in finalizing the draft plan following lengthy deliberations by the
Planning Board. The Commissioners held a series of five special meetings during
the months of February and March, 1981, to review and revise the draft. These
meetings were attended by members of the general public, by representatives of
special interest groups. Local newpaper reporters attended these meetings and
the results were published both locally and in newspapers with statewide
circulation.
The Commissioners met again on July 21, 1981 to review changes in the plan
proposed by the Coastal Resources Commission. This meeting, too, was announced
in the local newspaper, covered by reporters, and summarized in a subsequent
issue.
The final public participation activity was the public hearing, advertised
and conducted as required by law.
4-&

Public Participation: Recommendations for the future
The nature and extent of future public participation activity is dependent
upon the types of planning activity for which participation is sought. Beaufort'
County's future planning program is not well-defined at this time, however.
Recommendations are consequently of a general nature.
As implied above, the appropriate first step is to design a planning
program aimed at meeting Beaufort County's most pressing needs. The land use
plan contains a number of suggestions for further planning but it does not
presume to prioritize those activities.
Second, the Planning Board should be officially designated by the County
Commissioners as the lead agency for obtaining citizen input to the planning
program and reporting that input to the Commissioners.
Third, Planning Board meetings should be held on a regular basis so that
the citizens of Beaufort County can rely on a schedule. Notices should be
published both for regular and special meetings.
Fourth, the Board of Commisioners must make its needs known to the Planning
Board so that the latter can respond effectively. This includes both the scope
of a given project as well as its schedule, i.e., the deadline, for Planning
Board recommendations to the County Commissioners.
Fifth, public participation activities should be designed consistent with
the work at hand. The Planning Board - or Commissioners in later stages of a
project —ought to hold special meetings in various parts of the county rather
than all at the courthouse. This would be particularly useful for ,projects with
a specific geographic area of impact.
4-3 -

Finally, the County Commissioners should continue their active participation
in the planning process notwithstanding the more prominent role outlined above
for the Planning Board. Because of Beaufort County's great size and the
complexity of development issues here, there will be a continuing diversity of
opinion on appropriate actions by county government. Thus, the Commissioners
should request from the Planning Board not only a majority -vote recommendation,
but also a minority report on the same question. Given contrasting viewpoints
Iand the likely outcomes of alternative actions on a regular basis, Beaufort
County will be well-equipped to make important decisions for its future.
4-4

APPENDIX A
`NRECD -`COASTAL MANIGEMENT
SECTION .0400 -
7B .0400
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS 611
. 04 01 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
613
The land use plan may be amended as a whole by a single 615
resolution .or :in parts by successive resolutions. The successive 616
resolutions may address geographical sections, county divisions, 617
or functional units of subject matter.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-110;
Eff. May 10, 1978. 620
621
.0402 PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED
�a) The land use plan may be amended only after* a properl625
held public hearing. Notice of public hearingmust a y 62
least 30 days prior to the public hearing and must state. the 627
date, time, place, proposed action, and that copies of the
amendment may be viewed at a particular office in the county 628
courthouse. during designated hours. The notice must a
lea st -once in -a news a er o f � appear at 6 29
P P general circulation in the county. 630
Sb) When the land use plan subject to amendment is a city land 631
use plan, the amendment shall also. be made available during 632
specified hours at a particular office in the town .hall or
equivalent facility and the public hearing notice shall so state. 633
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113 A-110;
Ef f. May 10, 1978.
636
637
.01:03 NOTICE TO COASTAL RESOURCES COMMISSION
Sa) The executive secretary shall receive written notice of
the public hearing, a copy
639
641
of the proposed amendment, and the
reasons for amendments 30 days
642
prior to the public hearing.
After the public hearing, the executive secretary shall receive
.643.
Copp of the amendment as adopted. a
Sb) The unit of government amending the land use plan shall645
submit the full text of
644
any proposed amendment in full e646
as it would. appear in the land use
plan if adoptedinnthe
proposed form. Any maps (such as the land classification map)
that
647
are the .subject of the amendment or that will be affected by
the amendment shall also be submitte3
648
as they would appear if the
proposed amendment were adopted. Proposed amendments shall be
submitted to the
649
650
executive secretary with the notice of the
public hearing.
Sc) The executive secretary shall receive a coy of the
amended text or naps, or certification
651
of.. adoption aspproposed
within _seven days after adoption. If the adopted
652
amendment
varies from the proposed revision, the adopted amendment shall be
653
NORTH CAROLIRA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 02/20/80
7-18

NRS CD - COASTAL MANAGEMENT
submitted in the manner described in (b) of
proposed amendments.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. .113A-110;
Eff. May 10, 1978.
7B .6400
this Rule for 654
657
658
.0404 WAIVER OF FORMAL REVIEW BY THE CRC •660
Sa) When the governmental unit amending the land use plan 662
deems the amendment sufficiently insubstantial, it shall request.663
a waiver of the formal amendment procedure when giving notice to 664
the executive secretary. The executive secretary shall. make such
determination in accordance with specific CRC standards and 665
policy, and mail written notification to the local government- no 666
later than two weeks after receipt of notice.
1b) If the waiver is granted and the amendment is -adopted as 667
proposed, it shall become final upon local adoption and is. not 668
subject to commission review as noted in Rule .0405 of this 669
Section. The executive secretary shall receive certification
that the amendment was adopted as proposed within seven days 670
after adoption.
(c) If the waiver is granted and the amendment is not .adopted 671
as proposed, the adopted amendment shall be submitted 'to the 672
executive secretary, shall be subject to commission review as 673
noted in Rule ..0405 of this Section, and shall become final only
after such commission review.
Sd) If the request. for waiver is denied by the executive 674
secretary, the waiver provisions of these rules shall not apply. 675
The amendment finally adopted shall be reviewed by the commission 676
as if the waiver had been requested.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-110; 679
Eff. May 10, 1978. 680
.0405 CONSISTENCY AND ADOPTION 682
Sa) The amended land use plan must remain consistent with 15 684
NCAC 7B, Land .Use Planning Guidelines, and 15 NCAC 7D, Generally 685
Applicable Standards of Review, and adjacent city or county 686
plans.
Sb) The Coastal Resources Commission shall review locally 687
adopted land use plan amendments that are not subject to the 688
waiver provisions ` at the first regularly scheduled meeting held
after the executive secretary has received notification of local 689
adoption.
jc) Failure of the CRC to take negative action at its first 690
regularly scheduled meeting after notification to the executive 691' _
secretary of the adopted amendment indicates compliance with 692
these standards and commission approval of the amendment.
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 02/20/80

NP.SCD - COASTAL MANAGEMENT
7B .0400
1d) Any final amendments to the teat or maps of the land use 693
plan shall be incorporated in context in
the land use plan and
shall be dated to indicate the date the amendment became final.
The amended land
694
695
use plan shall be maintained as required by G.5..
113A-1 10 (g) .
_
696
History Note: Statutory Authority G. S. 113A-110;
Eff. May 10, 1978.
699
,
700
.0406 STANDARDS FOR WAIVER OF FORMAL REVIEW
The
executive secretary's authority to waive formal review of
proposed land. use plan amendments is
2
70
limited to the . following
instances:
704
11) minor changes in' policy statements or objectives that the result of public pare
articipation,
707
12), modification of any classification that does affect
transition
.not
or conservation classes,
13) new data compilations and
.709
associated statistical
adjustments that do not 'sabstantiye
7.10
suggest' major
revisions,
712
14) more detailed identification of existing land uses or
Additional maps of existing or natural
713
conditions,
15) identification of fragile areas
714
to be brought under
locally initiated protection,
7'15
16) changes in 1 an d classifications to reflect new
designations or deletions
7 ��
of AECs,
17) changes certified by the executive . secretary to :be' .718
consistent
719
with specific CRC comments.
720
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-110;
Eff. May 10, 1978.
723
724
NOPTA CAROLINA .ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 02/20/80
7-20

NORTH CAROLINA
HISTORIC BUILDINGS INVENTORY
SOURCE: MID -EAST COMMISSION.
• APPENDIX B
Interstate
0, 'age uins
Coo pera q Ho.
_Inte4t
JtJj vL RR
De
a rk H is
IV 7-
ou
0
Trinity Met otij s
Churn
Luckton Hou
Belhaven tist
Mir
House
Boyd
House';,
MCA
Alb
i Wil!":
mil
C. Credle
rook '0 �_
Town Hall
%t�._Al a r c isco Jiq- pal Cl
`7
..�5 CppingZouse
u / lock -house
r-/
Riyer,rFaY st Manor
Terrill -Dawson House
Kift-Blshop House
/ddick House.:.

APPENDIX C
COASTAL WETLANDS DEFINED
SOURCE: 15 NCAC 7H
.0205 COASTAL WETLANDS 204
j a) Description. C oa sta 1 wetlands are defined as any salt 206
marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by 207
tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide Waters reach 208
the marshland areas through natural or artificial watercourses),.
provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical storm 209
tides.
Coastal wetlands contain some, but 'not necessarily all, of the 210
follcwing marsh plant species:. 211
(1) Cord Grass (Spartina alterniflora) , 213
(2) Black Needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), 214
(3) Glasswort (Salicornia spp.) , 215
(4) Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata) , 216
(5) Sea Lavender (Limoniu m spp.) , 217
(6) Bulrush (Scirpus spp.),
218
(7) Saw Grass (Cladium jama.icense) , 219
(8) Cat -tail (Typha spp.),
220
(9) Salt Meadow Grass (Spartina patens) , 221
(10) Salt Reed Grass (Spartina cynosuroides) . 222
T'ncluded in this definition of coastal wetlands is "such 224
contiguous.land as the Secretary of NR&CD reasonably deems 225
.necessary to affect by any such order in carrying out the
purFoses of this Section." [G.S. 113-230(a)) 226