Land Use Plan-1997

DCM COPY
DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
Division
X �
of Coastal Management Cop
f
Y
BEAU FORTT' COUNTY;
NC
a Y 2
1997 LAND USE PLAN
.
Adopted by the Beaufort County: Board, of Commissioners:
Certified by the Coastal ResourcesCommission'November
October W A- E
20, 1998
.1
Prepared By
Holland Consulting,Planners,anc
�Wilmington, North Carolina
§
R
R 3 £
$
The
:.. North
S
preparation of this document was financed jn "part, througha
Carolina_Coastal Mana `ement�Program; .through .funds
9
grant provided aby they'
.provided by the Coastal r
Zone
and
Management
Coastal'Resource`Management,
Act oUl972, as amended�;which is admin"stered
Na#tonal Ocearnc and Atmospheric
by the Office of Ocean F
Admirnstration :,'

BEAUFORT COUNTY
1997 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r
Page
SECTION SECTION I:
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A.
INTRODUCTION :...............
........................... 1. Establishment of Information Base
I-1
. I-1
2.
Goals/Objectives......................................
I-13
rB.
DEMOGRAPHICS, HOUSING, AND ECONOMY ....................
1-14
1.
Background .........................................
I-14
2.
Population .................... ... ...............
I-14
3.
Housing ................ ............ ... . ......
I-22
4.
5.
Economy ...........................................
Implications .............................. .........1-26
1-22
C.
LAND USE EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................
1. Introduction .................................... ...
1-30
I-30
2.
Agricultural and Forestland ...... ............. .....
I-30
3.
4.
Residential Development .................................
Industrial Development ..................................
1-34
I-36
5.
Recreational Development ................................
1-36
6.
7.
Transportation.............................
Land Use Concerns/Changes in Predominant Land Uses .........
I-37
I-38
8.
Implications .........................................
I-39
9.
Basinwide Water Quality Management ........................
I-40
10.
Development Controls ...................................
I-46
a. Regulatory Controls ................................
b. Local Development Policies ..........................
1-46
I-47
C. Development Plans ................................
I-48
D.
LAND AND WATER USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS ..............
I48
1.
General Discussion .....................................
I48
2.
3.
Unplanned Development .................................
Summary ...........................................
I49
I-50
E.
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY ...... . .......
1. Topography and Drainage
I-50
1-50
2.
Flood Hazard Areas ....................................
I-52
3.
Fragile Areas ........................................
I-56
r
1

Page I
a.
Coastal Wetlands ................................
I-56
b.
Estuarine Shorelines ...............................
I-56
C.
Public Trust Areas ................................
I-58
d.
Estuarine Waters .................................
I-58
e.
Natural Resource Fragile Areas ........................
I-59
f.
404 Wetlands ....................................
I-60
g.
Historic and Archaeological Sites .......................
I-60
4.
Soils
............................................
I-60
5.
Manmade Hazards ...................................
I-65
6.
Areas
of Resource Potential ...............................
I-65
a.
Agricultural and Forestlands ..........................
I-65
b.
Public Parks ....................................
I-66
c.
Public Gamelands.................................
I-66
d.
Private Wildlife Sanctuaries ..........................
I-66
e.
Valuable Mineral Resources ..........................
I-66
f.
Marine Resources/Water Quality ........................
I-66
7.
Slopes in Excess of 12% ...............................
I-75
F. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: PUBLIC FACILITIES ..............
I-75
1.
Introduction ..................... ....................I-75
2.
Water Supply ........................................
I-75
3.
Wastewater Disposal ....................................
I-80
4.
Solid Waste .... .... .............. ...............
I-81
5.
Schools..............................I..............
I-82
6.
Police/Fire/Rescue ......................................
I-83
7.
Transportation ........................................
I-83
8.
Library ............................................
I-88
9.
Electric Distribution ....................................
I-88
10.
Administration ........................................
I-89
SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A. PROJECTED DEMAND FOR DEVELOPMENT .....................
II-1
1.
Demographic Trends ...................................
II-1
2.
Housing Trends .......................................
II-2
3.
Commercial and Industrial Land Use .........................
II-2
4.
Transportation ........................................
II-3
5.
Public Land Use .............................. .......
II-4
6.
Water Systems ............... ..... .................
II-7
7.
Wastewater Systems ....................................
II-8
8.
Solid Waste ..........................................
II-9
9.
Electrical System ......................................
II-9
2

1
Page
10. Police Protection, Fire, and Emergency Medical Services ............ II-9
11. - Schools ............................................
II-9
12. Redevelopment Issues ................................
II-10
13. Areas Likely to Experience Major Land Use Changes .............
II-10
14. Intergovernmental Coordination and Implementation ..............
g P
U-11
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .......................
III-1
SECTION IV: POLICY STATEMENTS
A.
INTRODUCTION TO POLICY STATEMENTS .....................
IV-1
B.
VISION STATEMENT ..... .................... .......
IV-3
C.
D.
RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS .................
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES ..........
IV-3
IV-12
E.
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .................
IV-20
F.
CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES ................
IV-32
G.
STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY, AND
EVACUATION PLANNING GOALS ............................
IV-33
,.
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATION
B.
C.
D.
i
I
1
E.
F.
DEVELOPED.......... ................ ................ V-1
COMMUNITY CLASS ..................................... V-1
URBAN TRANSITION ...................................... V-1
LIMITED TRANSITION ..................................... V-2
RURAL WITH SERVICES .................................... V-2
CONSERVATION .......................................... V-2
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
TABLES
Total Population and Percent Change for CAMA-Regulated
Counties, 1970 - 1994 .......................... .
Regional Population ..................... ........ .
County Population ............................. .
Population Age Structure ...........................
1990 Housing Characteristics for Beaufort County ...........
Beaufort County Building Permits, 1992-1996 .. ... .. .
I-17
I-20
I-20
I-22
I-23
I-23

TABLES (continued)
Page
Table 7
Manufactured Housing ..............................
I-24
Table 8
Beaufort County Industries ..........................
I-26
Table 9
Beaufort County Employment ........................
I-27
Table 10
Gross Retail Sales (000s) ............................
I-28
Table 11
Beaufort County Labor Force .........................
I-28
Table 12
Beaufort County 1996 Generalized Land Use Summary ........
I-30
Table 13
Harvested Cropland (Acres) ..........................
I-32
Table 14
Beaufort County Watersheds .........................
I-41
Table 15
Beaufort County Soil Characteristics ....................
I-61
Table 16
Summary of North Carolina Water Quality Classifications and
Standards ......................................
I-71
Table 17
Beaufort County Marinas and Dockages ..................
I-74
Table 18
City of Washington List of Groundwater Sources - New Well Field
and Existing Well at Slatestone ........................
I-78
Table 19
City of Washington Average Monthly Water Use in MGD for 1992
I-79
Table 20
City of Washington 1992 Water Use by Type of User .........
I-79
Table 21
City of Washington 1992 System's Largest Water Users .......
I-80
Table 22
Beaufort County Wastewater Systems, 1997 ...............
I-81
Table 23
Beaufort County Solid Waste Disposal ...................
I-81
Table 24
Beaufort County School Enrollment, May 1997 .............
I-82
Table 25
Beaufort County Transportation Improvement Program ........
I-85
Table 26
Warren Field Airport Capital Improvement Program, 1996-2000
I-87
Table 27
Beaufort County and its Municipalities Summary of Projected Year-
Round Population Growth, 1995-2005
.
,
...................
II-1
Table 28
Selected Recreation Facility Standards ..................
II-6
Table 29
Beaufort County Recreational Facility Needs
...............
H-6
Table 30
Beaufort County Police, Fire, and Rescue Additional Needs, Non -
Municipal Areas
II-9
.................................
MAPS
Map 1
Beaufort County Regional Location Map ...................
I-15
4

MAPS (continued)
Page
Map 2
Beaufort County Existing Land Use ......................
I-31
Map 3
Beaufort County Watersheds ...........................
I-42
Map 4
Beaufort County Flood Hazard Areas .....................
I-53
Map 5
Beaufort County Storm Surge Inundation Areas ...............
I-55
Map 6
Beaufort County Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) and Other
Fragile Areas .....................................
I-57
Map 7
Beaufort County General Soils Map .......................
I-64
Map 8
Beaufort County Marinas/Dockage and Water Ratings ..........
I-69
Map 9
Beaufort County Primary and Supplemental Water Classifications ...
I-70
Map 10
Alternative Locations for US 17 Bypass ....................
II-5
Map 11
Beaufort County Land Classification Map ...................
III-4
GRAPHS
Graph 1
Beaufort County Population 1880-1995 ..................
I-18
Graph 2
Regional Population 1960-1995 .......................
I-19
Graph 3
Beaufort County Population Distribution .................
I-21
Graph 4
Per Capita Income, 1970-1994 ........................
I-25
Graph 5
Unemployment Rate, 1980-1995 .......................
I-29
Graph 6
Harvested Cropland, 1985-1994 .......................
I-33
Graph 7
Beaufort County Permits Issued, 1992-1996 ...............
I-35
DIAGRAMS
Diagram 1 City of Washington General Airport Layout ...............
I-37
APPENDICES
Appendix
I Beaufort County Index to Watersheds by Municipality and
Predominant Land Uses by Watershed
Appendix
II Beaufort County National Register Listing
�1
Appendix
III Beaufort County Policies Considered But Not Adopted
Appendix
IV Beaufort County Citizen Participation Plan
Appendix
V Beaufort County Survey Results

1
1
I
1
1
SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Establishment of Information Base
This 1997 Land Use Plan Update for Beaufort County is prepared in accordance with requirements
of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Specifically, this document
complies with Subchapter 7B, "Land Use Planning Guidelines," of the North Carolina
Administrative Code, as amended, September 28, 1995.
The 7B guidelines define the following intent of land use plans:
"Local governments, through the land use planning process, address issues and adopt
policies that guide the development of their community. Many decisions affecting
development are made by other levels of government, and local policies must take
account of and coincide with established state and federal policies. Most decisions,
however, are primarily of local concern. By carefully and explicitly addressing these
issues, other levels of government will follow local policies that deal with these
issues. State and federal agencies will use the local land use plans and policies in
making project consistency, funding, and permit decisions. Policies which consider
the type of development to be encouraged, the density and patterns of development,
and the methods of providing beach access are examples of these local policy
decisions.
The land use plan shall contain the following basic elements:
1) a summary of data collection and analysis;
2) an existing land use map;
3) a policy discussion;
4) a land classification map.
In addition to these basic elements, the 7B guidelines require that the following issues be addressed
in the plan:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Resource Protection
Resource Production and Management
Economic and Community Development
Continuing Public Participation
Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery and Evacuation Plans
I-1

This land use plan provides a guide for development of Beaufort County by addressing issues and
adopting policies that are relevant to the county. Specifically, this land use plan provides the
following:
1) an analysis of existing conditions, including a land use map;
2) a projected land development analysis;
3) a summary of public interests and participation;
4) a land classification system;
5) a detailed section on policy statements;
6) an analysis of the carrying capacity of public facilities with a demand/supply
analysis;
7) a discussion of the issue of failing septic tanks and permitting;
8) an analysis of the issues concerning the development of the US 17 and US 264
corridor;
9) a summary of 404 wetland areas and issues; and
10) an explanation of the relationship of the policies to the land classification.
It should be noted that the policy section of the plan is the most important part of the document.
State and federal agencies will use the local land use policies in making proj ect consistency, funding,
and permit decisions.
The 1992 Beaufort County Land Use Plan included policy statements which addressed the five
policy areas. Those policies supported, or in some cases exceeded, the 15A NCAC 7H minimum
use standards. The following provides a summary of the significant policies which were included
in the 1992 plan. It is emphasized that this is only a summary and not all inclusive. The only
policies included in the 1992 plan that exceeded 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards were those
addressing marina construction.
1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
A. Resource Protection Goals, Objectives and Policies
1. Preserve and protect Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) within Beaufort
County.
a. Support and complement Coastal Resources Commission efforts to protect,
preserve and manage Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs).
b. Developguidelines for 1 g o and development which conform to the general use
standards of the North Carolina Administrative Code (as amended) for development
within the defined estuarine system.
c. Support development in AECs only if such development meets the management
objectives in 15 NCAC 7H.0203 and the use standards in 15 NCAC 7H.0208 and
.0209.
I-2

1
1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
d.
Encourage development within the estuarine shoreline that does not significantly
interfere with existing public rights, usage and access to navigable water and other
public resources.
e.
Ensure that all land development plans within AECs have evaluated all possible
alternatives to controlling pollution, erosion, natural barrier impacts, limiting
drainage, and reducing other potentially negative impacts related to land use
activities.
f.
Support construction of marinas (for mooring of ten or more vessels) provided that
such construction meets the following standards:
•
new marinas are not to be located in Primary or Secondary Nursery Areas;
•
construction of marinas in Class SA and/or WS-111 waters are to be
provided with pump -outs;
•
the timing of marina construction involving dredging shall be determined
by Division of Marine Fisheries.
. g.
Study alternative local growth management techniques which would provide for the
controls of land use types, densities and development criteria within AECs.
h. Continue efforts to protect and enhance water quality in the Pamlico River and its
tributaries.
i. Support the expansion of the Agricultural Cost Share Program for counties in the
Pamlico/Tar drainage basin.
j. Consider the adoption of a subdivision ordinance which establishes appropriate
design standards for development of waterfront areas and areas with water
accessibility.
2. Identify and address areas of the county with land development constraints and guide
appropriate and compatible land development activities.
a. Define and delineate land areas with development constraints as a part of the Land
Use Plan Update process.
b. Review possible control through appropriate means; including a subdivision
ordinance which would control land development in areas with identified physical
land development constraints.
C. Encourage intensive land development activities only on lands in which land
development constraints can reasonably be overcome.
I-3

1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
d. Study local growth management techniques -- such as zoning -- which would
provide for the recognition and control of land use types, densities and development
criteria within areas having defined development constraints.
e. Continue to oppose air space restrictions imposed by the presence of military
bombing ranges in the region; support relevant position statements adopted by the
CRC in 1990.
f. Encourage land use proposals which will not have a negative impact on historic,
and/or archaeological resources in the county.
g. Encourage studies of the establishment of a land conservation fund which would
protect areas of environmental, recreational, and/or aesthetic importance by fee
acquisition, dedication and/or permanent easement.
h. Promote citizens' awareness programs and public educational opportunities for
county historic and natural resources, including the conservation, preservation and
maintenance thereof.
4. Protect the county's water supplies and potable water resources.
a. The county should make every effort to ensure that the protection of existing and
future potable water supplies and resources will be consistent with all State and
Federal policies and guidelines.
b. Ensure that the county's land development review process examines all land use
proposals to determine their impact on the county's potable water supplies and
resources.
C. Support and promote, to the extent feasible, land use regulatory requirements near
groundwater sources.
d. Continue to support capacity use groundwater monitoring by the Division of
Environmental Management.
e. Continue the development of public water supplies and distribution systems into
areas of the county.
f. Develop citizens' awareness programs related to expanding water supplies and
distribution systems, including information promoting access to these systems.
5. Guidelines and policies for the use of sewer treatment package plants in Beaufort
County.
a. The location of any proposed use of package treatment plants for sewage treatment
disposal must be approved by the proper permitting agency (i.e., the State or the
County Health Department).
I-4

1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
b. Private developers considering the use of private sewer treatment plants must
prepare facility impact statements which include consideration of maintenance and
operational requirements for the plant and provisions for the dedication of the plant
into the public system should the private operation fail to meet any and all public
guidelines.
C. Any request for the approval of a private package treatment facility must be
accompanied by documentation that all applicable State and Federal health
requirements will be satisfied.
6. Other Resource Protection Policies for Beaufort County.
• Stormwater runoff
The county supports State and Federal stormwater runoff criteria applicable to land
development.
• Marina and floating homes
The county encourages the development of marinas and dry stack storage facilities
at appropriate locations provided that such development is consistent with other
Resource Protection Policies on pages VIII-4 and VIII-5, as well as all State and
' Federal regulations.
• Industrial impacts on fragile areas
County policies related to industrial development impacts on fragile areas should
be consistent with other Resource Protection policies as well as general policies
addressing Resource Development and Economic and Community Development.
• Upland excavation for marina basins
The county will consider the possible inclusion of these State guidelines should the
county consider adoption of a subdivision ordinance.
• The damaging of existing marshes by bulkhead installation
Where installation is required, development plans should consider every feasible
alternative to minimize the damage to existing marshes.
B. Resource Production and Management Goals, Objectives and Policies
1. Encourage farming as a productive resource and preserve and protect productive
agricultural lands in Beaufort County.
a. Support State and Federal agricultural programs which assist county farming and
aid in identifying prime agricultural lands.
I-5

1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
b. Promote public awareness of agricultural Best Management Practices in the county,
while encouraging farmers to implement such practices to the benefit of their
natural resource production activities. The county will actively support continued
funding of State and Federal cost -share programs.
C. Continue to promote and support the Farmers Market in downtown Washington.
d. Future county public improvements should be planned and financed to avoid
adverse tax impacts on agricultural property where such agricultural use will not
directly benefit from the planned public improvements.
e. Continue to promote use -value assessment as a means of preserving the farming
base and encourage farmers owning parcels of 10 acres or more to apply for use -
value assessment.
f. Explore alternative land use guidelines, including subdivision or zoning ordinances,
which ensure that possible conversion of agricultural lands to other uses can be
achieved with minimal impact on adjacent agricultural lands.
2. Encourage forestry as a valuable resource industry and preserve and protect the
county's commercial forest lands.
a. Support State and Federal forestry programs which assist county commercial forests
'
and the forest industry.
b. Limit the degree of land use controls on commercial forest lands in order that land
clearance and adequate forestry drainage activities can be economically
implemented by the private sector, while at the same time supporting State and
Federal programs aimed at minimizing the practices of the uncontrolled drainage
of wetlands for silvicultural activities.
C. Promote public awareness of forestry Best Management Practices in the county,
while encouraging the private forestry industry to implement such practices to the
benefit of their natural resource production activities.
d. Future county public improvements should be planned and financed to avoid
adverse tax impacts on the owners of prime forestry lands where such lands will not
directly benefit from the planned public improvements.
e. Continue to promote use -value assessment as a means of preserving the forestry
resource base and encourage owners of parcels of 20-acres or more to apply for use -
value assessment.
f. Explore alternative land use guidelines and subdivision regulations which ensure
that subdivision of forestry land can be optimally achieved without adversely
impacting adjacent forestry lands.
I-6

I
1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
g. Encourage forestry operators to maintain vegetative buffers between cleared areas
and major county public roadways.
3. Support, encourage and protect the county's commercial and recreational fishing and
other water -based resources and production activities.
a. Commercial and recreational fishing resources and production activities, including
nursery and habitat areas, and trawling activities in estuarine waters, are recognized
as valuable contributors to the economy of Beaufort County.
b. The consideration of detailed policies, strategies and implementation programs
designed to protect and enhance commercial and recreational fishing activities in
the Pamlico River and its tributaries should be encouraged by the county.
C. The county should support State efforts to reduce nutrient loading in the county s
surface waters.
d. If the county considers the adoption of a subdivision ordinance, any proposed
guidelines should include incentives for private development to preserve areas
adjacent to Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas.
e. Initiate a study to review the need for the most appropriate location of additional
public river access sites in the county with a goal of a site on each side of the river.
f. Apply for grants which fund Beach Access studies and, based on study results,
apply for Beach Access Grant funding for implementation of physical
improvements.
g. Continue to support development of a fisheries management program and
regulations for both commercial and sports fisherman; support expansion of local
operations serving both commercial and recreational users.
h. Encourage activities such as "catch and release" and stocking programs which
attempt to preserve declining fish species.
i. Encourage and support Division of Marine Fisheries investigative efforts in the
county which focus on culling practices.
j. Encourage development of aquaculture in Beaufort County.
4. Other Resource Production and Management Policies for Beaufort County.
a Mineral production areas
The county continues to support mining activities when the projects are reviewed
and permitted by appropriate State or Federal mining regulations.
1
1 I-7

C.
1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
• Phosphate mining's impact on any resource
Phosphate mining provides a substantial economic benefit to Beaufort County and
its residents. The county supports continued development of the area's phosphate
deposits, provided that such developments are operated in accordance with
applicable State or Federal mining laws or regulations.
Economic and Community Development Goals, Objectives and Policies
1.
2.
3.
4.
General county goal for economic development:
The county encourages and supports all types of economic development which can be
shown to complement the existing demographic, economic and environmental base within
Beaufort County.
General county commitment to provision of supporting services to economic
development:
The county, in conjunction with its incorporated jurisdictions, is committed to providing
appropriate levels of public services, facilities, and infrastructure.
General locational and development characteristics for economic development
activities, including redevelopment:
a. The county emphasizes the importance of locating new economic development in
and around existing urban areas where public infrastructure and acceptable
transportation systems already exist or where such infrastructure and systems can
be reasonably extended.
b. The county places priority on encouraging new economic development which
provides employment -intensive opportunities for the local work force and, in
particular, offers viable job opportunities for the youth and underemployed of
Beaufort County.
C. The county encourages the redevelopment and revitalization of existing
underutilized industrially and commercially developed areas. The county also
encourages increasing development densities on properties which are capable of
supporting higher land use intensities without being deleterious to the environment
and public infrastructure.
Commitment to jurisdictional, regional, State and Federal economic development
activities:
a. The county will continue to support local, regional and State public interest groups
concerned with economic development.
I-8

1
t
5.
1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
b. Continue to support the Chamber of Commerce in their efforts to market the County
retail and industrial sites.
C. Continue to support and provide public information pertaining to groups such as the
Mid -East Commission, the Regional Development Institute, and the Small Business
Institutes at Beaufort Community College and East Carolina University, which
provide assistance to new and small businesses and to economic development
projects.
d. Continue to support the development of the Washington/Beaufort County Industrial
Park.
e. Continue to provide cooperative assistance in working with incorporated
municipalities to plan for and extend water and/or sewer services to industrial and
commercial firms locating outside municipal service areas.
f. Continue to advocate, plan and program a county -wide water and sewer system to
provide for long-term economic development provided that the feasibility of such
projects can be justified on economic and environmental grounds.
g. Consider appointing a county Committee on Economic Development to study and
recommend strategies which best serve the objective of promoting and soliciting
appropriate economic development and tourism activities which promote the
objectives and policies of the 1992 Land Use Plan.
h. Continue to support the four lane upgrade of US 17 and US 264 in Beaufort County
as close as feasible to the existing locations.
i. Continue to seek Community Development Block Grants or other applicable
funding sources for community development programs.
Land use trends and the management policies related to future county growth:
a. Employ the Land Classification Map as a means of aiding in selecting and
designing appropriate areas of the county for future commercial, industrial and
other economic development land areas.
b. Discourage intensive economic development activities in remote areas ofthe county,
which are not currently served by adequate public facilities and public access unless
such facilities can be provided within the definition of this plan.
C. Study the feasibility of using zoning as a mechanism to (1) select, designate, and
reserve optimal economic development sites for future industry and commerce, and
(2) establish minimal, but appropriate controls for the location, density and
standards for all types of intensive land uses.
I-9

1992 POLICY STATEMENT
SUMMARY
d.
Continue to provide for the orderly growth and economic viability of land
development in the county:
1. To provide guidance for possible subdivision development, the county will
consider the need for, and possible adoption of a subdivision ordinance.
2. Adopt, as a part of this plan, the Land Classification Map which designates
appropriate areas of the county for intensive economic development land
use activities.
3. Adopt, as a part of this plan, the Land Classification Map which designates
M
appropriate areas of the county for residential land use activities requiring
public services and infrastructure.
4. Adopt, as a part of this plan, the Land Classification Map which limits the
development of intensive commercial, industrial and residential land uses
in areas which are infeasible to develop and provide public services from
an environmental and economic standpoint.
5. Study the most appropriate means by which to link land use density
requirements to the county's Land Classification Map.
6. Update the Mobile Home Park Ordinance in order to incorporate more
contemporary and reasonable health, safety and general welfare standards
for manufactured housing and the siting thereof.
e.
Encourage the development of a regional landfill operation to serve Beaufort
P g P
County.
6. Coastal and estuarine beach access:
a.
Enhance opportunities in the county for beach access and undertake active efforts
to increase such access to public trust waters.
b.
It is the county's goal related to access to public trust waters to provide for the
diverse recreational needs of county residents as well as tourists to Beaufort
County.
C.
Coastal and estuarine water beach access (which may include urban waterfront
access) must comply with State standards for beach access locations as expressed
in 7M.0303. These locations should be studied and indicated on maps which could
be incorporated into the Land Use Plan.
d.
Study the feasibility of identifying, selecting and developing additional sites for
public access on both sides of the Pamlico River.
I-10

1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
e.
Undertake necessary efforts with the State Division of Coastal Management and
Division of Water Resources to obtain public trust water access assistance in
funding the planning, land acquisition and site development of these improvements.
7. Tourism in Beaufort County
a.
Continue county support aimed at promoting and enhancing levels of tourism and
tourism -related development opportunities in the county.
b.
Continue to support the activities of local and regional public interests groups
responsible for promoting tourism in the county.
c.
Continue to support the development of an annual calendar.of all special events to
be held throughout the county; publicize the periodic listing of events in appropriate
local, regional and national publications.
'
d.
Support the development of a museum to commemorate the life and works of Cecil
B. deMille.
e.
Support State efforts to develop a marine estuarine study center and museum in the
county.
8. Quality of life issues in the county:
a.
Continue to take active steps towards the preservation and enhancement of the
quality of life in the county.
b.
Continue to apply for funding for housing improvements under the Community
Development Block Grant program.
C.
Support the development and enhancement of urban waterfront areas, while
ensuring such projects are compatible with all local, State and Federal
environmental requirements.
d.
Provide active leadership in ensuring that NCDOT roads and streets in the county
are adequately maintained and upgraded in a fashion consistent with the 1992 plan's
land use objectives.
for Beaufort County.
9. Other Economic and Community Development policies
'
•
State and Federal Programs
The county remains committed to State and Federal programs in planning areas,
where applicable, related to community and economic development, including
erosion control, public access, highway improvements, port facilities, dredging, and
military facilities.
I-11

1992 POLICY STATEMENT SUMMARY
• Channel Maintenance
The proper maintenance of channels is a priority to Beaufort County. The county
remains committed to pursuing State and Federal program assistance for projects
for channel maintenance and beach nourishment projects, where applicable
(including financial aid, provision of borrow and spoil areas, provision of easements
for work).
1992 Policy Assessment
The Land Use Plan Committee voted on each implementation strategy suggested in the 1992 Land
Use Plan as to whether or not the county had attempted to implement that strategy over the past five
years. Participants had the option to vote "yes," "no," or "neutral." If the majority voted "yes, the
implementation rating was shown as +. The results of the vote were compiled to reflect a percentage
of implementation by simply calculating the number of+ strategies against the number of applicable
strategies (those which have surfaced in the past five years). The overall implementation rate for
Beaufort County is 84%. This breaks down as follows:
Resource Protection Policies rated 79% implementation. There were 38 total policy
strategies, but five were not applicable or neutral votes, leaving 33 applicable
strategies. Of these, 26 received a "+" consensus. The "-" consensus votes were
related to development of local land use controls and land conservation studies.
Resource Production and Management Policies rated 68% implementation. There
were 24 total strategies, but two were not applicable during the planning period,
leaving 22 applicable strategies. Of these,15 received a "+" consensus. The "-"
consensus votes related to subdivision ordinance adoption, downtown farmers market
support, vegetative buffers along highways for forestry, programs for promotion and
management of commercial and recreational fishing, and public beach access.
Economic and Community Development Policies rated 73% implementation. There
were 42 total strategies, but two were neutral or not applicable, leaving 40 applicable
strategies. Of these, 29 received a "+" consensus. The "-" consensus votes were
related to lack of pro -active efforts by the county toward economic development,
sewer development, discouraging of development in remote areas, development of
zoning and subdivision regulations, linking of development to the Land
Classification Map, and development of public access to Public Trust Waters.
Public Participation Policies rated 100% implementation. There were four total
strategies and all were carried out.
Storm Hazard Mitigation Policies rated 100% implementation. These were rated by
the county's emergency management personnel. There were 23 total strategies, and
in light of the hurricanes of 1996, all were applicable over the planning period.
There is general acceptance across the state that the FEMA response process needs
improvement, based on the recent experience.
I-12

The 1992 plan also included Public Participation Goals, Objectives and Policies and Storm Hazard
Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery and Evacuation Planning Goals, Objectives and Policies. The
reader should refer to the 1992 land use plan for a complete copy of these policies.
With the exception of the policy addressing marina development (page I-3), the 1992 CAMA policy
statements supported but did not exceed the 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards for areas of
environmental concern (AECs).
Listed below are some of the sources and documents utilized during preparation of this land use
plan:
Mid -East Commission
-- Beaufort County Staff
-- Beaufort County 1991 Land Use Plan Update
City of Washington 1991 Land Use Plan Update
-- USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Beaufort County
-- NCDOT, Planning and Policies Section
City of Washington Staff
-- Beaufort County School Board
- North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management
-- North Carolina Division of Archives and History
-- Flood Insurance Study, Beaufort County
' -- North Carolina Division of Community Assistance
-- North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
-- North Carolina Department of Economic and Community Development
-- U.S. Census, 1990
-- Beaufort County Mobile Home Park Ordinance/Manufactured Housing and Travel
-_ Trailer Park Ordinance
Beaufort County Zoning Ordinance (not county -wide)
-- Beaufort County Subdivision Ordinance (not county -wide)
-- Beaufort County General Transportation Plan
These sources were supplemented by "windshield" surveys conducted to obtain data on existing land
use patterns.
2. Goals/Objectives
The coup has the following goals/objectives for updating the land use plan:
county g g J P g
' -- An updated land use plan based on an effective citizen participation process.
-- Assessment of public facilities needs to serve areas in the county's planning
-- jurisdiction.
Development of new policies required to respond to the revised 15A NCAC 7B
planning requirements.

-- Assessment of actions needed to protect the water quality within the Tar/Pamlico
River.
-- Assessment of actions needed to protect AECs and other fragile areas.
-- Assessment of industrial and overall economic development needs.
-- Assessment of continuing housing replacement/redevelopment needs.
-- Assessment of actions needed to regulate shoreline development. ,
-- Assessment of regulatory measures for development in the approach to the Warren
Field Airport.
B. DEMOGRAPHICS, HOUSING AND ECONOMY
1. Background
Beaufort County occupies 958 square miles (827 square miles of land area) in central coastal North
Carolina (Map 1). It is the eighth largest county in the State. Originally called Pamptecough
Precinct when it was formed from Bath County in 1705, the name was changed to Beaufort in 1712
to honor Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort.
Beaufort County is an area rich in natural and cultural resources. Early settlers built a strong local
economy based on the county's environmental resources. Prosperous port communities developed
along the county's navigable waterways. Stately residences, office and commercial buildings were
built to service a wealthy merchant population; many of these remain today to distinguish the region. '
Water resources area major presence in the county. Water accounts for about 84,000 acres (13.7%)
of the county's total 613,200 acres. Numerous creeks drain the land. Many empty into the Pamlico
River which bisects the county in a northwest -southeast direction. The Pungo River forms a portion
ofthe county's eastern boundary, and the Pantego, Dismal, and Great Swamps occupy a large portion
of the county's northeastern area. The county has the state's second longest shoreline. Precipitation
in the county averages about 51 inches per year. Mean January temperature is 41 °F; mean July
temperature is 79°F.
The county has seven incorporated areas: Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, Chocowinity, Pantego, _
Washington, and Washington Park. As most of these communities have elected to prepare their own
land use plans, development issues within these localities will be addressed only as they affect land
uses in the unincorporated areas of the county.
2. Population
During the past 35 years, the twenty Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) counties have
experienced a total population increase of 63.1 %. This exceeded the North Carolina total population ,
increase of 55.8%. During that period, all CAMA-regulated counties except four experienced
population increases. These increases ranged from a low of 0.3% in Washington County to a high
of 347.5% in Dare County. Table 1 provides a summary of the population growth for the CAMA-
regulated counties from 1960 to 1995.
[J

r
� irr . rr iri �
wr irr � i� irr r
rr r
� irr r re rr
MAP 1
BEAUFORT COUNTY
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
WwOhinplon PO nlrpO
erlh OvO
The preparation of this map was financed in
part through a grant provided by the North
chotowlnlly
Both
Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended,
B E AU F O R T
which is administered by the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
AurorO
N
•1Nt \LL •w• 1Yww1 110.11
OC9100H.r
t.1Mit\t
"*$Ga Ow•r-
"Ran .Ow, nor
6.IV w.ld■
MIA,.t
nU.
1.0.10 1041.11.
OVJ\IOI.D
•\••
..tl
w•w OY
/01.0.01'
Olwl.t
Y11tN l YIw1
..
w.lN
tuft•
r.0100r
•,Owtlt
19011t O.V.
•uurolw •aow
.. 64.r•1
..at
1104c Or1
.y., 1 •a4♦ D
u• 10+ ...
-
cr.ro.r
,1b0r nn
wrcorrt r,00w4l\
1w.1r -
r.•v000
wY Nt w10J10
.uwu
.J.c Olr
.pJJwltOw
\l1 ll.t
•.a
"•�
J.0 VOw "1.01•
r ►oar
.t Or 1
c.O.wwul rGOu�M roowt .wan
J:alOw It.w\•
.1rIUw
alwO.w
w.r1r
r. Cu
••r
CN/.O.It
'
/CJtltwrrw
Yr.Ow
/•rllOw
N0.1 [lrOtw\.wD
•wWw JCNrOr
DYJ'lJr
pwll
•.
0
OUSLAw
..wllwll
LAID Wlpr r4D10
/lwOto
CoLtwoVl
to
N•w
Source: Mid -East Commission.

Population within the county has increased steadily since 1880 except for the period 1960-1970
when total population declined slightly (Graph 1). Even so, total population has only doubled over
the past century. Population grew fairly rapidly (averaging 1.8% per year) until 1940. Between
1940 and 1970, growth slowed and the county experienced little change in population. Since 1970
however, the county has again experienced moderate growth. Between 1970 and 1980, the
population increased by 12.2% and between 1980 and 1990 population increased by 4.8%. From
1990 to 1995 the population increased only 2.5%.
The state has been divided into 18 regions for planning purposes. Beaufort County is included in
Region Q (Mid -East Commission), together with Bertie, Hertford, Martin, and Pitt Counties.
Beaufort County is the second most populous county in the planning region (Graph 2). Population
1 growth in the county has been greater than all other counties except Pitt (Table 2).
Currently, over two-thirds of all county residents live in unincorporated areas. Between 1980 and
1995, most of the county's total population growth occurred in rural (unincorporated) areas (Table
3). The City of Washington was the only municipality that experienced a population increase
between 1980 and 1990. In 1990 and 1995, more than two people lived in rural areas of the county
for every one person that lived in an urbanized place (Graph 3).
Following the national trend, the population of the county is aging. Between 1980 and 1990, the
percentage of the population under 19 years has declined from 32.7% to 28.8% (Table 4). At the
same time, the percentage 65 and older has increased slightly from 12.8% to 14.9%.
Unlike some of the coastal counties in the state, Beaufort County is not greatly affected by seasonal
fluctuations in population. The local county economy did however realize $38,190,000 in travel -
related expenditures in 1995, according to the Department of Commerce. While some migrant
workers find employment in the area, their numbers do not produce significant seasonal changes in
population. According to the Employment Security Commission, there were approximately 485
migrant workers in the county in 1995.
I-16

Table 1
Total Population and Percent Change
for CAMA-Regulated Counties, 1970 - 1994
County
1970
Year -Round Population
1980
1990
1994
Percent Change
'70 '80 '80290 '90294 ' '70 '94
Carteret
31,603
41,092
52,553
56,624
30.03%
27.89%
7.75%
79.17%
Currituck
6,976
11,089
13,736
15,402
58.96%
23.87%
12.13%
120.79%
Dare
6,995
13,377
22,746
24,804
91.24%
70.04%
9.05%
254.60%
Hyde
5,571
5,873
5,411
5,270
5.42%
-7.87%
-2.61%
-5.40%
Beaufort
35,980
40,355
42,283
43,237
12.16%
4.78%
2.26%
20.17%
Bertie
20,477
21,024
20,388
20,498
2.67%
-3.03%
0.54%
0.10%
Camden
5,453
5,829
5,904
6,221
6.90%
1.29%:
5.37%
14.08%
Chowan
10,764
12,558
13,506
13,993
16.67%
7.55%
3.61%
30.00%
Craven
62,554
71,043
81,613
84,410
13.57%
14.88%
3.43%
34.94%
Pamlico
9,467
10,398
11,368
11,779
9.83%
9.33%
3.62%
24.42%
Pasquotank
26,824
28,462
31,298
33,287
6.11%
9.96%
6.36%
24.09%
Perquimans
8,351
9,486
10,447
10,558
13.590/.
10.13%
1.06%
26.43%
Tyrrell
3,806
- 3,975
3,856
3,814
4..44%
-2.99%
-1.09%
0.21%
Washington
14,038
14,801
13,997
13,875
5.44%
-5.43%
-0.87%
-1.16%
Gates
8,524
8,875
9,305
9,740
4.12%
4.85%
4.67%
14.27%
Hertford
23,529
23,368
22,523
22,430
-0.68%
-3.62%
-0.41%
-4.67%
Brunswick
24,223
35,777
50,985
58,518
47.70%
42.51%
14.77%
141.58%
New Hanover
82,996
103,471
120,284
134,970
24.67%
16.25%
12.21%
62.62%
Pender
18,149
22,262
28,855
33,588
22.66%
29.62%
16.40%
85.07%
Onslow
103,126
112,784
149,838
147,144
9.37%
32.85%
-1.80%
42.68%
Total
509,406
595,899
710,896
750,162
16.98%
19.30%
5.52%
47.26%
Sources: 1991 Beaufort County Land Use Plan, 1990 U.S. Census, and the Office of State Planning.
I-17

rr r �r r� rr r� r■r rr r rr rr rr rr r■i ar rr �r rr r
GRAPH 1
Beaufort County
Population 1880 - 1995
46,000
41,000
36,000
0
w
lee
CL
0
31,000
00
26,000
21,000
16,000
43,330
1880 1890 1900 1910 1930 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995
Year

GRAPH 2
Regional Population
1960-1995
12(` nnn
11(
10(
9(
8(
_
7(
o
c
3
6(
a
0
a
5(
4(
3(
2(
1(
1960 1970 1980
Year
Source: U.S. Census, Office of State Budget and Management.
1990 1995
—♦— Beaufort
—t- Bertie
Craven
-X Hertford
- t Martin
-0 Pamlico
2 Pitt

Table 2
Regional Population
% Change
% Change
% Change
County
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
1970-80
1980-90
1990-95
Beaufort
36,014
35,980.
40,355
42,283
43,330
12.2%
4.8%
2.5%
Bertie
24,350
20,528
21,024
20,388
20,638
2.4%
-3.0%
1.2%
Craven
58,773
62,554
71,043
81,613
85,816
13.6%
14.9%
5.1%
Hertford
22,718
23,529
23,368
22,523
22,468
-0.7%
-3.6%
-0.2%
Martin
27,139
24,730
25,948
25,078
25,842
4.9%
-3.4%
3.0%
Pamlico
9,850
9,467
10,398
11,368
11,869
9.8%
9.4%
4.4%
Pitt
69,942
73,900
90,146
107,924
117,420
22.0%
19.7%
8.8%
Region
248,786
250,688
282,282
311,177
327,383
12.6%
10.2%
5.2%
State
4,556,155
5,082,059
5,881,766
6,632,448
7,194,238
15.7%
12.8%
8.5%
Source: U.S. Census; N.C. Department of Commerce; Office of State Planning.
Table 3
County Population
% Change
% Change
% Change
City/Town
1960
1970
1980
1990
1995
1970-80
1980-90
1990-95
Aurora
449
620
698
654
640
12.6%
-6.3%
-2.1%
Bath
346
231
207
154
190
-10.4%
-25.6%
23.4%
Belhaven
2,386
2,259
2,430
2,269
2,212
7.6%
-6.6%
-2.5%
Chocowinity
580
566
644
624
809
13.8%
-3.1%
29.6%
Pantego
262
218
185
171
170
-15.1%
-7.6%
-0.6%
Washington
9,939
8,961
8,418
9,160
9,421
-6.1%
8.8%
2.8%
Washington Park
N/A
517
514
486
482
-0.6%
-5.4%
-0.8%
Unincorp Area
22,052
22,608
27,259
28.765
29A06
20.6%
5.5%
2.2%
Total County
36,014
35,980
40,355
42,283
43,330
12.2%
4.8%
2.5%
Source: U.S. Census; N.C. Department of Commerce; Office of State Planning.
I-20

Table 4
Population Age Structure
1980
1990
Age
No.
%
No.
%
0-4 years
3,148
7.8%
2,823
6.7%
5-19 years
10,061
24.9%
9,351
22.1%
20-24 years
3,204
7.9%
2,488
5.9%
25-44 years
10,429
25.8%
12,389
29.3%
45-64 years
8,337
20.7%
8,938
21.1%
65 and older '
5,176
12.8%
6,294
14.9%
Total
40,355
100.0%
42,283
100.0%
Source: U.S. Census; and Office of State Budget and Planning.
3. Housinu
The county's 1990 population was housed among 19,598 dwelling units (Table 5). Sixty-seven
percent of all dwellings in the county are single-family units; the remainder are mobile homes and
multi -family dwellings. One in five dwellings in the county are rental units. In 1990, according to
the U.S. Census, approximately 17% of all existing units were vacant. This included seasonal
dwelling units. Only 3.7 percent of all residences were without complete plumbing. In 1990, single -
person households (typically elderly and young unmarried persons) accounted for about 25% of all
households. .In the years 1992 to 1996, mobile home development far outweighed site -built
development, and about twice as many single wide mobile homes were permitted each year than
double wide mobile homes. Between 1992 and 1996, mobile home permits outpaced single-family
unit permits at a rate of 3 to 1 (Tables 6 and 7). Multi -family development has made a strong
showing in 1995 and 1996 as well.
4. Economy
Per capita income in the county has increased steadily since 1970 (Graph 4). Local changes in per
capita income have closely paralleled those for the State as a whole. This recent trend toward parity
would indicate an improving local economy. The 1990 median income of families in the county
increased, though again lagging behind the statewide increase by $5,538. In 1980, the Median
Family Income (MFI) in the county had more than doubled to $14,461; statewide, the MFI had risen
to $16,792. In 1990, the county MFI was $26,010, compared to $31,548 for the State. As local
income has risen, the percentage of residents with incomes below the poverty line has decreased.
In 1980, the number of persons living below poverty line in the county was 21 % of all individuals
and 12% of all families, compared to 15% and 12% respectively for the state. In 1990, 19% of
county individuals and 16% of all county families fell below the poverty line (12% and 9.9%
respectively for the State).
I-22

Table 5
1990 Housing Characteristics for Beaufort County
1980
1990
No.
%
No.
%
Total Households
14,253
--
16,157
--
Single-person Households
3,021
21.2%
3,915
24.2%
Total Housing Units
15,792
--
19,598
--
Single-Family Units
12,501
79.2%
13,131
67.0%
Vacant Units
1,539
9.7%
3,441
17.6%
Renter Occupied
3,786
24.0%
4,184
21.4%
Condominium Units
70
0.4%
100
0.5%
Units w/out Plumbing
1,544
9.8%
723
3.7%
Person/Household
2.82
--
2.58
-
Median Value Unit
$31,200
--
$52,600
--
Median Rent
$101
--
$289
--
Source: U.S. Census.
Table 6
Beaufort County Building Permits,
1992-1996
Type of Structure
Year
Residential 1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Total
Single -Family
140
123
123
142
141
669
Multi -Family
3
0
0
12
17
32
Single Wide MH
266
307
309
301
275
1,458
Double Wide MH
94
131
149
159
182
715
Repair, Additions
83
96
105
102
106
492
TOTAL
586
657
686
716
721
3,366
Commercial
Commercial
46
42
44
40
41
213
Repair, Additions
4
1
3
5
6
19
TOTAL
50
43
47
45
47
232
Note: Permits are for Beaufort County, excluding City of Washington and Town of Belhaven
Source: County Inspections Department records.
I-23

Table 7
Manufactured Housing
1990 Census Mobile Homes % of Total
Housing Units
BEAUFORT COUNTY 19,598 4,850 24.7%
Aurora
296
25
8.4%
Bath
108
4
3.7%
Belhaven
980
284
29.0%
Chocowinity
271
58
21.4%
Pantego
86
12
14.0%
River Rd. Area
1,799
574
31.9%
Washington
3,873
119
3.1 %
Washington Park
193
--
0.0%
Remaining Area
11,992
3,774
31.5%
NORTH CAROLINA 2,818,193 430,440 15.3%
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
I-24

i
N
Cn
GRAPH 4
Per Capita Income
1970 -1994
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
0 12,000
C
ti
' y 10,000
c
Ar
t,.
a�
p" 8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
............................................................................................................... 6,275....................................... .................
...............................................................................................................................................................................
,
............................................................................................................................,..................................................
......................................................................................... ..g w.....................
of 7,348
................................................... ......... ................................................................................................................
...................... .........:..............................................................................................................................-----------
,23'3
'2.747
0' i
1970 1980
+ - -Beaufort Co.
Source: Office of State Budget and Management
1990
Year
--a —North Carolina
19,567
16,699

' The county appears to have a relatively strong economy. Major employers include PCS Phosphate,
located outside Aurora, and National Spinning and Hamilton Beach in Washington. In 1997, there
were approximately twenty (20) manufacturing firms in the county which employed about 6,500
people (Table 8). Just over one in four employed persons is employed by a manufacturing enterprise
(Table 9). Nineteen percent of all employed residents are involved in wholesale and retail trade, and
' about one in twelve persons is employed in either agriculture, forestry, or fishery. Retail sales in the
county during fiscal year 1996 totaled almost $396,506,000 (Table 10) which exceeded all other
counties in the region, except Pitt.
' r numbered about 19 500 persons Table 11 . Historical) the rate of
The 1995 labor force umb ed t p ( ) y,
unemployment in I the county has been higher than the state as a whole. In 1995, the local
' unemployment rate (8.2%) was, almost double the statewide average (4.3%) (Graph 5).
' Agriculture plays a major role in the county with over one quarter of all land being devoted to
agricultural uses. In 1994, harvested cropland accounted for 150,000 acres of county land, up from
139,900 in 1990. Although the total number of farms has been declining (from 630 in 1987 to 447
' in 1992), the average size of farms in the county has been increasing, from an average of 248 acres
in 1987 to 323 acres in 1992. Notably, Beaufort County ranked number one in the State in 1995 in
the production of corn and wheat, and second in the production of soybeans. At the same time, the
' value of local farm products has been increasing. Between 1987 and 1992, the average market value
of agricultural products per farm increased by about 54% - from $78,330 per farm in 1987 to
$120,476 per farm in 1992.
5.Im lications
1
As the county's population continues to grow, the need for sound land use and services planning
increases. As the county's population increases and local income rises, more people will find
themselves with time and money to spend on leisure activities. The need for services for the county's
older populationvill also increase. Residential development in outlying areas will compete with
agricultural, water -related, and open space uses for suitable land. Development in rural and urban
areas will have impacts on water quality in the county and beyond.
Table 8
Beaufort County Industries
Name Product/Service # of Employees
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. Bottling 21
Bafer, Inc. Plastic Injection Molding and 20
Finishing
Cox Direct, Inc. Marketing Specialist 280
Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex Electrical Appliances 200
OBI Linings, Inc. Applicators of Rubber and 25
Synthetic Linings for Tanks, Pipe,
and Fittings
Hackney & Sons, Inc. Truck Bodies 200
I-26

'
Name Product/Service
# of Employees
Mason Lumber Co. Millwork, Sawing, & Planing
60
National Spinning Co., Inc. Textiles
1,600
Samson Mfg, Co. Shirts
230
PCS Phosphate Phosphate
1,200
'
Washington Garment Co. Dressmaking
85
Washington Packing Meat Processing
25
Flanders Filters, Inc. Air clearing & purifying filters
265
,
Atwood & Morrill Valves
51
Flanders CSC Filters
65
Stanadyne, Inc. Diesel Components
350
t
Bonny Products, Inc. Kitchen Utensils
130
Fountain Powerboats Luxury Speedboats
235
'
Pamlico Technical Molding, Inc. Injection Molded Plastics
75
Mollison Golf Golf Equipment
Not Available
Source: Beaufort County.''
Table 9
Beaufort County Employment
Employment by Sector
Year
1980
1990
1994
,
Total Employment
20,902
23,537
23,744
Wage and Salary Employment
17,117
19,483
19,155
,
Total Proprietors
3,785
4,054
4,589
Farm Proprietors
1,176
680
632
Non -farm Proprietors
2,609
3,374
3,957
'
Farm Industry Employment
1,961
1,189
1,130
Non -farm Industry Employment
18,941
22,348
22,614
Private Industry Employment
16,541
19,356
19,446
'
Agricultural Service/Forestry/Fishing/Other Employment
394
516
842
Mining Industry Employment
0*
0*
0*
Construction Industry Employment
932
1,032
0*,
Manufacturing Industry Employment
5,490
5,651
6,515
'
Transportation and Public Utility Employment
519
808
938
Wholesale Trade Employment
990
1,118
926
Retail Trade Employment
2,821
3,791
3,661
'
FinanceAnsurance/Real Estate Employment
926
692
723
Service Industry Employment
0
0
0
Government Employment
2,400
2,992
3,168
'
Federal Civilian Government Employment
127
134
141
Military Employment
140
160
165
State/Local Government Employment
2,133
2,698
2,862
*Note: Zero represents suppressed data.
Source: U.S. Census.
I-27

M= M M M = = M= M � M r r M= i
Table 10
Gross Retail Sales (000s)
Area Name
Year
1980
1985
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Beaufort County
$223,745
$289,045
$333,998
$327,764
$320,662
$342,602
$364,489
$377,785
$396,506
Bertie County
$50,996
$64,487
$62,792
$65,774
$63,499
$66,904
$72,101
$69,774
$72,622
Hertford County
$120,747
$166,839
$204,101
$195,621
$188,348
$186,800
$205,933
$214,226
$240,316
Martin County
$103,241
$125,435
$157,937
$162,168
$172,761
$181,268
$184,670
$201,817
$217,133
Pitt County
$462,937
$735,826
$960,324
$886,750
$924,524
$987,563
$1,155,921
$1,294,650
$1,420,060
Source: NC Department of Commerce.
Table 11
Beaufort County Labor Force
Unemployment Rate
Year
Labor Force
Total Employment
County
State
1980
20,750
19,620
5.4%
6.5%
1985
19,320
18,130
6.2%
5.4%
1990
20,521
19,512
4.9%
4.2%
1991
20,309
18,833
7.3%
5.8%
1992
20,391
18,618
8.7%
6.0%
1993
19,487
18,170
6.8%
4.9%
1994
19,211
17,946
6.6%
4.4%
1995
19,505
17,897
8.2%
4.3%
Source: Employment Security Commission.
I-28

10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
0 6.0%
N C
�O �
a,
5.0%
C
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1980
GRAPH 5
Unemployment Rate
1980 -1995
1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
—0 County
— -0 — State

C. LAND USE EXISTING CONDITIONS
1. Introduction
Beaufort County has experienced modest population growth and land development over the last
decade. Several industries have located within the county limits and some commercial enterprises
have expanded. Nonetheless, the county remains rural in nature. The county's 1996 land use acreage
is summarized in Table 12. Undeveloped land accounts for 71% of all land in the county. Most of
this acreage is forestland (65% of the undeveloped total) with the remainder being crop and
pastureland (35.3% of the undeveloped total). Developed land accounts for 29% of all land in the
county. Incorporated communities and industrial areas account for 48% of the developed total.
Rural developed land, including residential areas beyond city and town limits, account for
approximately 44% of the developed total. The county's existing land use is generally delineated
on Map 2.
2. Agricultural and Forestland
A general summary of the county's 1996 land use acreage is provided in Table 12. Much of the
g asY ty
forestland in the county is maintained for commercial forestry. Weyerhaeuser owns the largest share
by far and in 1996 was the county's largest landowner. About one of every four acres of land in the
county is reported to be in Weyerhaeuser ownership.
Table 12
Beaufort County
1996 Generalized Land Use Summary
Land Use
Acreage
% of Total Land Acreage
Forestland
202,400
64.7%
Crop/Pastureland
110,400
35.3%
Total Undeveloped
312,800
71.4%
Incorporated Communities
60,000
47.9%
Industrial Areas
10,000
8.0%
Rural Developed Land
55,200
44.1%
Total Developed
125,200
28.6%
Sub -total Land Acreage
438,000
100.0%
Water
175,334
TOTAL
613,334
Source: Mid -East Commission and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
I-30

MAP z
Washington County Beaufort County
EEM Martin County
Land Uses
I liglll!IIIIII1 I II
-v�. IIIIII��I;I� II�IIII,�I �Illllllhm�llllll�iiiiii�l,h • + ' \
1lLljlil�lh.
1997
ec
® Industrial
2 Q Institutional
Municipal Planning Juridiction
Public Recreational
® Private Recreational
® Rural
0 Undeveloped
0 Urban
Note: The county's watershed boundaries have
been provided on Map 3.
0. Y
The preparation of this map was financed
in part through a grant provided by the MA
North Carolina Coastal ManagenbM Act V V v
of 197Z, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Managernert. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
T-31

Agricultural operations utilize the second largest share of all land uses in the county. The pattern
of agricultural activity was first established based on geologic conditions. The Suffolk Scarp, which
generally parallels NC 32, divides the county into eastern and western halves. Soil conditions on
either side of Suffolk Scarp differ and affect local growing conditions. The county's primary
agricultural products include corn, wheat, and soy beans. However, a few tobacco farms remain in
' the western half of the county in the Washington area. In 1997, Beaufort County experienced an
increase in intensive livestock operations. There are approximately 30 ILO's in the county. In the
eastern section of the county the hog farms are centered within a 10 mile radius of Pantego. In the
rsouthern and western portions of the county the hog farm locations are generally scattered.
Urban development has effected the pattern of agricultural activity in recent years as farmland has
' been converted to residential uses. Now, more land is devoted to agricultural uses in the eastern half
of the county (the Belhaven/Pantego area) than in the western half (Washington region). Further,
' more farming activity is noted in the northern half of the county than in the southern half where
much of the commercial forestry land is found. Although the number of farms have declined in
recent years, many large farming operations remain.
Beaufort Countyhas more harvested cropland than an other coup in the Mid -East Region
P Y h' g
(Beaufort, Bertie, Hertford, Martin, and Pitt counties). The acreage harvested for crops has
fluctuated over the years, depending in part on market conditions, weather, and local reporting. In
relation to other counties in the region, the acreage of harvested cropland in Beaufort County appears
to be increasing gradually (Graph 6). Except for Pamlico County, Beaufort County was the only
county in the area to have more land harvested for crops in 1994 than in 1985 (Table 13). For better
comparison, Pamlico and Craven counties have been added to Table 13. Statewide, harvested
cropland decreased by 19.6% between 1985 and 1994.
Table 13
Harvested Cropland (Acres)
Year County
Beaufort Bertie Craven Hertford Martin Pamlico Pitt
1985 144,100 89,200 58,400 52,500 81,700 35,200 157,500
1990 139,900 82,100 52,600 44,200 75,600 37,600 130,300
1991 142,800 83,100 55,700 46,800 78,800 38,300 130,800
1992 144,300 86,900 56,100 46,100 77,000 36,300 128,300
1993 144,600 83,100 56,100 44,100 67,900 37,900 111,200
1994 150,000 87,800 56,000 47,400 77,600 39,500 124,500
Source: N.C. Department of Agriculture.
I-32

�■. r .r �. � � rs �. rr �. r r� � r r �r r� � rr
GRAPH 6
Harvested Cropland
1985 - 1994
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
a
4, w 80,000
w �
60,000
40,000
20,000
157,500
--- ---- ,
-_ ..... ----.,--•�139;90a'..---..-......'.'. _--142-80U ............................. �-i44 300- — '--�-i44-GtTd
---.....--••---------------•-• ---
`X 430300•- - — - — - — - * 13OA00- _ -—X.128,300
�X-I f 1,200
.....................................-.....................................................
............................ --•-------------............---•-------..................
......
,200-•-86,90Q _.........
0-♦$2:100------------t83,100-...__..... ---------•93,-100---
--—A44;i00------A-46;80A-------A-46;190-------4#,i00-------i
0i
1985 1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
— ♦ — Beaufort - - - - Bertie — Hertford Martin —- - Pitt
Source: NC Department of Agriculture
150,000
124,500
87,800
77,600
47,400
1994

I
3. Residential Development
Residential construction has significantly increased developed land in the county. Between 1992
and 1996, 669 building permits were issued for single-family dwellings (Table 6, page I-22) in
Beaufort County, excluding the City of Washington and the Town of Belhaven. During the same
I
period, permits for the location of 2,665 mobile homes were issued. Single-family dwellings and
mobile homes continue to be the predominate type of dwelling in the county.
Between 1992-1996, a total of 32 permits for multi -family units (two or more units per structure)
were issued, accounting for less than 1% of the total residential permits issued during the five-year
period.
Single-family development has proceeded at a fairly steady pace in the county over the past six years
(Graph 7). On the average,134 permits were issued for single-family units between 1992 and 1996,
' with a high of 142 issued in 1995 and a low of 123 issued in both 1993 and 1994.
Most county residents live in urbanized areas surrounding the county's incorporated communities.
iHowever, a number of residents live in outlying regions. As shown on the Existing Land Use Map
(page I-30), urbanized areas include the incorporated areas of all seven cities and towns in the county
and the high density development that adjoins these communities. Urbanized areas contain a
mixture of land uses: single- and multi -family residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and
recreational. Areas of "rural concentration" adjoin the county's major highways, define "crossroads
communities", and as shown on the Existing Land Use Map, are found at various locations along the
waterfront.
Rural concentrations of development are primarily residential in nature. However, some limited
commercial development accompanies the residential development. Commercial operations are
primarily highway or service -oriented: gasoline stations, convenience stores, and small grocery
stores.
As previously noted in Table 3, over two-thirds of the county's population lives in unincorporated
areas outside of cities and towns. Historically, residential development has occurred at the
intersection of major roads. Beaufort County has a number of crossroad communities including
Bunyan, Pinetown, and Yeatesville. Recent residential development has primarily been strip
' development along existing roads although some subdivisions have been constructed.
Approximately 2,665 mobile home permits were issued between 1992 and 1996. New mobile homes
were located on individual lots within mobile home parks. In 1994, there were approximately 140
1 mobile home parks located within Beaufort County.
Waterfront property has attracted residential development since the county was formed over 200
' years ago. Five out of the county's seven incorporated communities are located on navigable
waterways. Much residential development has also occurred along the waterfront beyond city and
town limits. Summer camps (cottages) and increasingly, year-round dwellings are found on the
' banks of the county's rivers and creeks. Bayview, Pamlico Beach, Pungo Shores and Woodstock
Point are several ofthe older developments found along the county's waterfronts. Sawmill Landing,
River Hills, Schooner Point, Cypress Landing, Pamlico Plantation, and Dowry Creek are several of
the waterfront developments that have occurred in recent years. According to the county's building
1
I-34

rr rr rr r� rr rr rr r� rr rr r rr r rr rr r� ar rr r
GRAPH 7
Beaufort County Permits Issued
1992 - 1996
350
300
250
"O
a�
h
h
w+
200
a,
a
w
�
C
150
•r
M�
M
100
bill
0
1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
0 Single Family --®--Multifamily -A Single Wide MH
- X Double Wide MH —* Residential Repair, Additions '-♦—Commercial
Source: County Building Department, excluding City of Washington and Town of Belhaven
1996

permit records, during 1996 and 1997 combined, a total of 286 permits were issued for new single-
family housing units. Approximately 56%, or 160, of the 286 permits were for development located
in the floodplain and/or shoreline.
Residential construction since 1980 has occurred primarily in the western half of the county in the
' Washington area. Most new development has occurred in the area of Route 264, west to the county
line and east to Broad Creek. River Road from the Washington Park city limits to Broad Creek has
also experienced growth in the past five years, following the development pattern established over
the past decade.
4. Industrial Development
As shown on the Existing p Land Use Ma , the major industrial land use in the county is the PCS
Phosphate operation on the Pamlico River, north of Aurora. The company is one of the largest
producers of phosphate rock in the nation. Phosphate rock is mined on company landholdings along
the river where much of it is processed into fertilizer on -site. The plant produces more than a million
tons of fertilizer a year and employs about 1,200 people; many of these are local residents. In 1985,
' Texasgulf merged with the North Carolina Phosphate Corporation, and increased its landholdings
by almost 20,000 acres. Texasgulf, now PCS Phosphate, owns approximately 42,700 acres of land
in Beaufort County. making it the county's second largest landowner. Additional industrial
concentrations are beginning to develop along the U.S. 264 corridor west of Washington. This
includes the only industrial park located in the county.
5. Recreational Development
In addition to residential and industrial development, the county has two major public recreation
areas noted as "Public Open Space and Recreation" on the Existing Land Use Map. Goose Creek
State Park, owned by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, occupies 1,598 acres
on the north side of the Pamlico River between Washington and Bath. The park offers hiking,
swimming, picnicking, and a boat launching facility. In addition to its large holdings at the state
park, the state also holds title to Goose Creek Wildlife Management Area. This site, part of which
is located in Pamlico County, is located on Goose Creek on the. south side of the Pamlico River.
Another large publically-owned parcel is found in the northwestern corner of the county as shown
on the Existing Land Use Map. The Voice of America site on SR 1001 is the county's largest
institutional land use.
There are also a number of private recreational camps in the county. The East Carolina Council of
' the Boy Scouts of American operates Camp Bonner at two locations in the county. Recreation and
camping facilities have been developed on a 250 acre parcel on Blounts Bay on the south side of the
Pamlico River. A 390 acre tract near Broad Creek on the river's north side remains undeveloped.
' The Girl Scout Council of Coastal Carolina operates Camp Hardee on the Pamlico River south of
Chocowinity. The Roanoke Christian Service Camp is found on the north side of the Pamlico River,
east of Washington park off River Road.
The county's only CAMA funded shoreline access site is the Havens Garden Park site which is
located within the City of Washington. This is a regional access site which includes: handicapped
access, restrooms, showers, parking (60 spaces), gazebo, and pier. In addition, there are four land
I-36

and water conservation fund recreational projects located within the county's municipalities. The
following is a list of these facilities:
Municipality
Name of Proiect
Acres
Aurora
Aurora Marine Acquisition
1.08
Belhaven
Northside Community Park Land Acquisition
8.42
Washington
Havens Garden Park*
4.54
Havens Garden Park
1.43
Seventh Street Park
17.66
*CAMA funded regional access site.
6. Transportation
Other than street, highway, and railroad right-of-way, the largest transportation land use is the
Warren Field Airport which is located north of Washington west of the Market Street Extension.
The airport includes approximately 450 acres. The facility is a modern, nonprecision instrument
approach airport with a 5,000 foot runway. This provides the capability to serve most
business/corporate aircraft. There are 47 aircraft based at the airport and approximately 28,050
operations are conducted per year (each take -off and landing constitutes a separate operation).
Diagram 1 provides a general layout of the airport.
Diagram 1
City of Washington +eo Tree
General Airport Layout ° +
tll 1
TA
<0 A.6 +60' Trees
r�
+qp 10
Tree
+
Ts
z
0,
QP�
8' Ditch
a►
•
Mce
uel
.
Tom -Mangers
�o
r
m
Source: North Carolina Air Transportation System Plan.
7
A
I-37

fr--I
LJI
1
The airport and the surrounding area have been zoned Airport District in order to protect the
approach to runway 5-23, the primary runway.
7. Land Use Concerns/Changes in Predominant Land Uses
Beaufort County is growing. Growth has been slow compared to some other areas in the state, but
it is likely that the rate of growth and the pressures for development, especially along the waterfront,
will increase. The effects of development on the natural environment are an increasing concern.
There are several important issues. First, development in areas outside cities and towns will be
served primarily by septic systems. In -ground systems improperly installed or maintained threaten
public health and the quality of surface and ground water.
Surface run-off is an increasing concern. As land is developed, impervious surfaces replace open
undeveloped land. Recharge of ground water supplies diminishes and run-offincreases. Often urban
run-off contains sediments and hazardous materials which will enter the county's creeks and rivers.
Taken individually, most development projects expected in the next five years present only minor
land use concerns. It is the cumulative impact of all projects developed over the next decade that
now concerns the county.
It has only been in recent years that the seriousness of the non -point pollution problem has been
recognized. Non -point pollution stems from both urban and rural areas. Given the extent of
agricultural and silvicultural activity in the county, (agricultural and forestland comprise about 92%
' of all land in the county), it is likely that farming and forestry operations are the major non -point
pollution sources.
11
I
I
11
Non -point pollution occurs when sediments run-off from tilled farmland. Spray irrigation of treated
effluent also results in non -point pollution. The problem is exacerbated when fertilizers (nutrients)
and herbicides become absorbed on sediment material. Fertilizers and pesticides applied to
commercial forestland can wash off and enter surface waters. Beaufort County has not had serious
problems with malfunctioning septic tanks. However, history has shown in other areas that the
professional maintenance and monitoring needed to ensure proper functioning of these systems is
often lacking.
Point -source water pollution has been a land use concern in the county for a number of years. State
and federal programs have addressed the problem since the early 1970s. However, the effectiveness
of water quality regulations - both stringency and enforcement - has been subject to debate. Given
the sensitivity of the county's estuarine waters, point -source pollution continues to be a concern.
Industrial discharge and municipal wastewater treatment plants both contribute to the problem.
Several of the county's major industries have permits to discharge wastewater into the Pamlico River
and its tributaries. Municipal waste treatment systems also contribute phosphorus to the county's
estuarine waters. As the county's urbanized areas grow, system demand and wastewater discharges
will increase. In unsewered outlying areas, large projects are likely to propose use of small package
treatment plants to treat sanitary waste. These small private systems are of special concern as they
discharge nitrogen and phosphorus as do large public systems. The following provides a listing of
all National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued in Beaufort County.
I-38

I
Expiry
Facility Name
Permit #
Flows to Stream:
Year
Aurora Packing Co.
NC0004081
UT South Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Aurora Wwtp; Town of
NCO021521
South Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Beaufort County Sch-Beaufort
NCO036919
Pantego Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Elem.
Belhaven Tw; Wtp - Beau.
NC0002925
UT Pantego Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Belhaven Wwtp; Town of
NCO026492
Battalina Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Capt'n Buc's Seafood, Inc.
NCO084271
Pantego Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Carolina Seafood
NC0004057
Muddy Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Chocowinity; Town of
NCO083216
UT Maple Branch/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Coastal Water Systems, Inc.
NCO039268
UT Kennedy Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Cryotech Industries, Inc.
NCO038296
Muddy Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Harbour Pointe Associates
NCO069426
Pungo River/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
National Spinning Co.
NC0001627
Tar River/Tar-Pamlico River Basin
2000
Washington
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
NC0003255
Pamlico River/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Richland Township -
NCO084808
South Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
wwtf/wtr/swr
Sea Safari; Ltd.
NCO046647
Pantego Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Spencer's Rest Home
NCO040584
UT Pantego Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Washington Water T. Plant
NCO081191
Pamlico River/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
Washington Wwtp; Town of
NCO020648
Kennedy Creek/Tar-Pamlico River
2000
8. Implications
The county values its land and water resources. Residents and visitors alike enjoy the aesthetic
amenities and recreational opportunities the county holds. Many residents earn their livelihood from
the county's natural resource base. Many of the manufacturing firms listed in Table 8 are involved
in resource development; farming and forestry employ many local citizens; tourist and recreation -
related enterprises employ many others.
In its land use planning, the county should consider the effects of new development and develop
policies and regulations necessary to mitigate the negative impacts of growth. The county should
support development and enforcement of regulations which control point -source pollution.
The county should continue to support state efforts to reduce agricultural non -point pollution by
encouraging use of Best Management Practices and participation in the Agricultural Cost Share
Program. In the summer of 1986, the state legislature took major actions toward addressing the
problem of agricultural non -point pollution by increasing funding available in the Agricultural Cost
Share Program. Under this program, 75% of the costs of projects designed to reduce the input of
agricultural non -point sources will be reimbursed by the state. Projects eligible for cost -sharing
include conservation tillage, filter strips, field borders, water control structures, and animal waste
systems.
ri
u
n
J
I
F
Li
I-39

1
9. Basinwide Water Qualily Management
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has initiated a basinwide approach to state water
quality management. The overall goal of basinwide management is to develop consistent and
effective long range water quality management strategies that protect the quality and intended uses
ofNorth Carolina's surface waters while accommodating population increases and economic growth.
Basinwide management is not a new regulatory program. Rather, it is a watershed -based
management approach which features Basinwide permitting of discharges, integration of existing
point and nonpoint source regulatory programs, and preparation of basinwide water quality
management plans for each of the state's 17 river basins by 1998. Plans will be updated at five year
intervals.
The purpose of the basinwide management plan is to communicate to policy makers, the regulated
' community, and the general public, the state's rationale, approaches, and long-term strategies for
each basin. In general, this process involves the following five major phases of development:
n
11
== Collecting pertinent water quality and related information,
Analyzing the information and targeting problem areas,
-- ' Development management strategies,
Circulating a draft plan for public review and comment, and
Finalizing the plan.
Eight of North Carolina's major river basins cross the coastal area: Lumber, Cape Fear, White Oak,
Neuse, Tar -Pamlico, Roanoke, Chowan, and Pasquotank. The Division of Water Quality has further
subdivided these basins into smaller "sub -basins", which are currently used as the foundation for
their basinwide water quality plans. Even smaller watersheds were recently delineated for the entire
state by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. These watersheds are referred to as
"14-digit hydrologic units" (because of the unique 14-digit code assigned to each watershed) or
simply "small watersheds". These small watersheds generally range in size from 5,000 to 50,000
acres.
Beaufort County is located in the Tar -Pamlico basin. The Tar -Pamlico basinwide management plan
was completed and ready for staff review in 1994.
The long-range basinwide management goal is to provide a means of addressing the complex
problem of planning for reasonable economic growth while protecting and/or restoring the quality
and intended uses of the Tar -Pamlico Basin's surface waters.
In striving towards the long-range goal stated above, the Division of Water Quality's highest priority
near -term goals will be the following:
-- Identify and restore the most seriously impaired waters in the basin;
-- Protect those waters known to be of the highest quality or supporting biological communities
of special importance;
-- Manage problem pollutants, particularly nutrients, biological oxygen demand and sediment
and fecal coliform, in order to correct existing water quality problems and to ensure
protection of those waters currently supporting their uses.
I-40

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has identified 8 sub -basins including 27 watersheds
within the Tar -Pamlico Basin. Each sub -basin and watershed has been assigned a numerical code
for the purpose of identification. The county's planning jurisdiction includes portions of 3 sub -basins
and a1127 watersheds located in the Tar -Pamlico basin. The following table identifies the sub -bas
,
ins
and watersheds within Beaufort County. Map 3 illustrates the location of these watersheds in
relation to incorporated areas. Appendix I provides an index to the county's watersheds by I
municipality and a summary of predominant land uses within each watershed.
Table 14 '
Beaufort County
Watersheds
'
% of Watershed
14-Digit Code
in County*
River Basin
DWQ Subbasin
03020103080010
19.4
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-05, Lower Tar River
'
03020103090030
30.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-06, Tranters Creek
03020103090040
92.7
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-06, Tranters Creek
03020103090050
80.3
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-06, Tranters Creek
03020104010010
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104010020
100.0
.Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
'
03020104020020
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104020030
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104020050
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104030010
97.8
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104030020
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104030040
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104040020
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104040030
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
,
03020104040040
99.9
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104050010
50.1
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104050020
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104060010
81.3
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104060020
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
'
03020104070010
99.7
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104080010
47.1
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104090010
17.8
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
t
03020104090020
99.8
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104100010
99.9
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104100020
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
'
03020104110010
100.0
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
03020104110020
99.9
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07, Pamlico River
,
* Only those watersheds containing one percent or more of the total county area are shown.
Source: Division of Coastal Management.
I-41 ,

030 rl
x
030204
2013090050
..... :1 o
Wash "
W.
Chgoeowinity
•
a
PR
The preparation of this map was financed in
part through a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
r0301 0 7 �10 001
03020104110010 41 11
03Q201 0
031026104020040
�Q091040A0010
%;
sr gton I
%
30201
A0201 20
• . . . .. ......
�12(10403
**.D30201
f
03ft1040300h10
0
0
Aurora
.• t
030201040600I0
J*
z
041
0
• arnego
.F
Belhaven
% I-
0104110020
0
03020104090020
MAP 3
BEAUFORT COUNTY
WATERSHEDS
........ WATERSHED BOUNDARY
= INCORPORATED AREAS
WATER
Note: The county's land uses have been
provided on Map 2.
0 5 10 20
1 1 1 1
ROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
142

I
i]
7
L
The Tar -Pamlico basinwide management plan provides the following descriptions and overview of
water quality within the three subbasins located in Beaufort County: Tranters Creek (entire Tranters
Creek watershed to Tar River), Pamlico River (from Highway 17 in Washington to Pamlico Sound),
and Lower Tar River (Tar River from Conetoe Creek to Tranters Creek).
Description - Tranters Creek: The entire Tranters Creek catchment is a very small subbasin contained
completely within the coastal plain ecoregion. Streams in this subbasin are typical swamp streams having
low current velocities, dissolved oxygen and pH. Many streams in this area were channelized prior to 1970.
There are no major metropolitan areas within this subbasin.
Overview of Water Quality: Very few biological investigations have been conducted in this subbasin.
Data has only been collected from the ambient location on Tranters Creek near Washington from 1983
through 1989. Bioclassifications from this station have been in the Fair to Poor range. However, the data
is difficult to interpret because of the possible influence of saline water. Several euryhaline benthic taxa are
collected at this location.
Description - Pamlico River: This area is primarily estuarine in nature, extending from tidal freshwater
areas around Washington to the mouth of the Pamlico River. Tides in these estuarine areas tend to be more
wind dominated than lunar. Freshwater streams in this subbasin are limited to headwaters of estuarine creeks
and the East Dismal Swamp. Most streams in the East Dismal Swamp are ditched canals. Primary land use
is agriculture, with an urban- area around Washington, and a phosphate mine near Aurora. Four major
discharges, the largest being the PCS phosphate mine, are permitted to discharge into this subbasin. The
subbasin includes primary nursery areas and waters classified as SA.
Overview of Water Quality: Extensive phytoplankton sampling and other types of water quality
monitoring have been conducted in this subbasin. Where the Pamlico River typically becomes brackish near
Washington, phytoplankton populations were comprised of a diversity of algal classes. This station hosts
both fresh and brackish water species of algae since the fresh -brackish water interface migrates depending
on flow and winds. Downstream, phytoplankton communities at mainstem stations were comprised of
typical estuarine phytoplanktors including bacillariophytes, dinoflagellates, and cryptophytes. Small
filamentous cyanophytes and bacillariophytes were also common by density estimates. Mainstem stations
often exhibited bloom numbers of algae during the summer. In addition, these stations exhibited winter
blooms of cool weather dinoflagellates, Heterocapsa triguetra and Prorocentrum minimum. These
dinoflagellate blooms cause little concern during winter months because sufficient oxygen is present in the
water column even with high levels of algal respiration. Concern has been expressed, though, that these
blooms result in nutrient enrichment in early summer due to recycling. Fish kills associated with the toxic
dinoflagellate have been documented in this subbasin.
Benthos data have been collected from estuarine sites, but no water quality ratings are associated with this
data. Fisheries data from Horse Creek gave a Fair -Good NCIBI rating. In 1993, fish tissue samples
indicated elevated mercury levels (above FDA action level) in fish from the Pungo River and Tranters Creek.
Lakes data note that Pungo Lake is a dystrophic lake that is considered eutrophic due to high nutrients. A
peak of total phosphorus values were noticeable at the ambient water quality site on the Pamlico River near
Gum Point. This station is just downstream of the Texasgulf phosphate mining facility.
Description - Lower Tar River: This subbasin contains the most downstream freshwater reach of the Tar
River and is completely within the coastal plain ecoregion. This area is characterized by large amounts of
agricultural land. The only major metropolitan area is Greenville. The Tar River becomes deeper and much
slower flowing in this area compared to upstream reaches.
1 I-43

Overview of Water Quality: The only ambient monitoring station on the Lower Tar River is the station
at Grimesland. Benthos data from this location have indicated Fair to Good/Fair water quality conditions
for the period of record. The Tar River at Grimesland is located below the Greenville area and is subjected
to the effects of urban runoff and numerous small dischargers. The lowest median dissolved oxygen values
for the Tar River and the highest median levels of nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen are found at this ambient station.
This station supports sparse populations of fresh water algae which are subject to washout following spate
events. All phytoplankton samples from this site were below the limits used to define an algal bloom for
density and biovolume. Several algal blooms of chlorophytes and cyanophytes have been reported from
Greenville Utilities Impoundment.
Benthos data from Chicod Creek have indicated Fair water quality. Fisheries data from the Chicod Creek
watershed also noted Fair ratings. The Chicod Creek watershed is targeted for nutrient reductions as part
of the Tar -Pamlico nutrient trading program. The lower ambient station on Chicod Creek has the lowest DO
values and the highest Total Phosphorus values of all Tar -Pamlico tributary stations. Grindle Creek was
rated Fair from Benthos data and Good from fisheries data.
Fish tissue samples in this subbasin were either below FDA criteria, or contained low levels of pesticides,
except for elevated mercury levels from some largemouth bass collected from the Tar River at US 264 near
Greenville and the Tar River near Grimesland.
Management control strategies have been established which effect both subbasins for BOD control
and toxic substances and nutrient control strategies for the Pamlico River Basin. The following
summaries these strategies:
BOD Control Strategies
Tranters Creek Subbasin: The Town of Robersonville and the Eagle Snacks Company discharge into Flat
Swamp which drains into Tranters Creek. These streams are relatively flat and have low velocities
particularly in the lower portion of Flat Swamp and Tranters Creek. A QUAL2E model was calibrated for
this section of stream which indicated that assimilative capacity is limited. Each of the above dischargers
was assigned advanced tertiary limits based on the modeling analysis. In addition to the modeling results,
substandard DO concentrations have been observed at an ambient site in Tranters Creek. Due to the limited
assimilative capacity, no new dischargers should be allowed into Flat Swamp and the upper portion of
Tranters Creek (to Turkey Swamp Creek). In addition, Robersonville and Eagle Snacks should be required
to do an engineering alternatives analysis prior to any expansions. If an environmental assessment is needed
for an expansion of either of these facilities, the alternatives analysis may be incorporated into the document.
Pamlico River Subbasin: Dissolved oxygen standard violations have occurred in Kennedy Creek. The City
of Washington discharges into the creek, and due to poor flushing, the effluent remains in the creek
contributing to the water quality standard violations. In 1994, the City of Washington wastewater treatment
plant point of discharge was moved from Kennedy Creek to the Tar River. No new discharges shall be
allowed to Kennedy Creek.
Lower Tar River Subbasin: Chicod Creek - The Chicod Creek subbasin has experienced substandard DO
concentrations as shown through data collected by USGS and the state's ambient network. There are no point
source discharges in the basin, and chicken and swine operations are the primary source of oxygen -
consuming wastes. In addition, the DO is being degraded by eutrophic conditions which are also resulting
from nonpoint sources. Intensive studies of Chicod Creek have begun to gather more information on the
problems.
1
I-44

L
Nutrient Control Strategies
' Pamlico River Subbasin: Kennedy Creek is tidally influenced and has little freshwater inflow. Since there
is little flushing in the creek and winds often push waters upstream, phytoplankton populations proliferate.
Algal blooms have been reported in the creek in 1987, 1988, and 1991. The City of Washington currently
J
11
discharges into the creek, but it has been told that no expansions will be allowed, and the city is trying to
remove its discharge. If the discharge is not removed, stringent nutrient limits will be applied to the NPDES
permit in the future. It is recommended that no new discharges be permitted in the creek.
In addition, there are basin wide nutrient concerns for the Tar River Basin. The Tar River Basin has
exceeded its assimilative capacity for nutrients. Due to its hydraulic conditions, the estuary from
Washington downstream to the Pungo River is experiencing degradation from excessive nutrient loadings.
Algal blooms are common in the middle reaches of the estuary, and winter blooms regularly occur. Lack
I f dissolved oxygen near the bottom of the sound (hypoxia) has been responsible for the die -off of bottom
dwelling (benthic) organisms.
This condition occurs during periods of water layer stratification (no mixing of waters between the top and
bottom layers) and warm temperatures. To address this problem, and based on the results of extensive
computer modeling of nutrient loadings and their impacts on the estuary, a 30% reduction in TN (total
nitrogen) and existing TP (total phosphorus) loading at Washington are recommended for the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin These loading targets correspond to 1,361,000 kg/vr of TN and 180,000 kg/yr of TP at
Washington.
Control of nutrients is necessary to limit algal growth potential, to assure protection of the instream
chlorophyll a standard, and to avoid development of nuisance conditions in the state's waterways including
anoxic conditions in bottom waters and fish kills. To meet this goal further reductions in both point and
nonpoint source loadings of TP and TN will be necessary. Point source controls typically involve NPDES
permit limits on total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN). Nonpoint controls of nutrients generally
include best management practices (BMPs) to control nutrient loading from areas such as agricultural land,
forests, and urban centers.
The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) declared the Tar -Pamlico River basin as nutrient
sensitive waters (NSW) in September, 1989. The NSW policy stated that new discharges greater than 0.05
MGD (50,000 gallons per day) and expanding dischargers to flows greater than 0.5 MGD (500,000 gallons
per day) would receive total phosphorus (TP) limits of 2 mg/l. New discharges greater than 0.1 MGD and
expanding discharges to flows greater than 0.5 MGD would also receive a summer total nitrogen (TN) limit
of 4 mg/1 and a winter TN limit of 8 mg/l. Nutrient budget work in the basin indicated that nonpoint sources
contributed the majority of the total nitrogen to the basin's waters and a considerable amount of the total
phosphorus, particularly when Texasgulf was eliminated from the analysis.
Lower Tar River Subbasin: The Chicod Creek subbasin is primarily agricultural. In the past decade a
dramatic increase in the number of confined animal operations has occurred. As a result, nutrient loading
in this watershed has become a major concern. Data collected through NAWQA have shown instream
concentrations of TP as high as 3 mg/1 and NH3 as high as 24 mg/l, and modeling by RTI shows high
predicted areal loads of TN. In order to reduce nutrient loading, the Association arranged for federal funds
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act to be
provided to the Division of Soil and Water to implement best management practices (BMPs). In addition,
DEM has begun an intensive survey of the watershed in which nutrients are collected daily at the USGS
gaging station on Chicod Creek at SR 1760. Turbidity, TSS, fecal coliform, pH, conductivity, DO, hardness,
I-45

and metals are sampled bimonthly in the creek. Benthic and fish tissue data are also being collected in the
basin. These data are being collected to demonstrate present conditions in Chicod Creek and to document
changes in nutrient loading and water quality resulting from the BMPs.
Toxic Substances Control Strategies
Pamlico River Subbasin: Benthic macroinvertebrate indicates that Kennedy Creek may have been
impacted by the Washington outfall and the old outfall location of National Spinning. Elevated sediment
concentrations of nickel, zinc, copper, cadmium, and lead have been found here. National Spinning has
relocated its discharge to the Tar mainstem, and Washington is working on removing its discharge. No new
outfalls will be allowed into Kennedy Creek.
Fish tissue data from several water bodies in this subbasin have revealed elevated mercury concentrations.
At Lake Mattamuskeet, five samples out of fifty exceeded the FDA criteria of 1.0 mg/kg, and five other fish
samples contained mercury ranging from 0.71 mg/kg to 0.97 mg/kg. Two largemouth bass samples collected
in 1992 on Tranters Creek near Washington exceeded the FDA action level for mercury. One fish tissue
sample collected in 1983 on the Pungo River near Pantego contained mercury in excess of the FDA criteria
although subsequent samples collected in 1985 yielded no metals above FDA criteria.
The source (or sources) of this mercury is unknown at this time. DEM's Environmental Sciences Branch is
conducting a major study throughout much of the state's coastal plain to identify the extent of elevated
mercury levels in fish tissues. Identification of the geographic extent of this phenomenon will hopefully lead
to source identification. The State Health Director has issued fish consumption advisories for waters in the
Lumber River basin.
Low Tar River Subbasin: Data collected by NAWQA have shown several pesticides to be present in the
Chicod Creek basin. In addition, toxic concentrations of ammonia have been detected. Agricultural
operations are the primary source, and 319 funds have been allocated for BMPs. Fish tissue data collected
on the Tar River near Greenville indicated that mercury was approaching the FDA action level of 1.0 mg/kg.
Sample values ranged from 0.64 to 0.92 mg/kg. The source of this mercury is unknown.
Land use planning and development should be closely coordinated with the identified management
strategies. The waters of the Tar -Pamlico watershed are an environmental and economic asset which
warrant protection and preservation.
10. Development Controls
Land development in the county is controlled by a variety of local, state, and federal regulations.
Plans and policies enacted by the county and various state agencies influence local land use decisions
as well.
a. Regulatory Controls
Widely utilized local ordinances controlling land use decisions are listed below. However,
it should be noted that Beaufort County has not adopted all the land use regulatory controls listed.
I-46
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

' Zoning Ordinance: No county wide zoning - a zoning ordinance was adopted in
March, 1994 to include Cypress Landing Subdivision, a Weyerhaeuser Real Estate
' Development - updated in 1996 to include Freshwater Subdivision, another
Weyerhaeuser Development.
' Subdivision Regulations: No county wide subdivision requirements - subdivision
regulations were adopted in March, 1994 to include Cypress Landing Subdivision,
a Weyerhaeuser Development - updated in 1996 to include Freshwater Subdivision,
another Weyerhaeuser Development.
Mobile Home Park Ordinance/Manufactured Housing & Travel Trailer Park
' Ordinance: The county's original ordinance was adopted in 1975 - updated and
revised in December, 1995.
Floodplain Regulations: The original plan was adopted in February,1987 - updated
in July,1993 - updated once in August,1993, again in November,1993 -the current
' ordinance was updated in January, 1997.
Building Regulations: County building inspectors enforce the State building code.
' The county adopted a building code conforming to the North Carolina Building Code
in July, 1985.
' Noise Ordinance: An ordinance prohibiting loud, disturbing, and unnecessary noise
was adopted in 1981 and updated in 1995.
Housing Code: No local housing code has been adopted.
Septic Tank Regulations: The County Health Department enforces regulations (Title
10 of the North Carolina Administrative Code) controlling the construction and siting
of sub -surface waste water disposal systems.
Historic District Ordinance:. No historic districts have been established in the
unincorporated area of the county.
Address Ordinance: The current Address Ordinance was adopted in June, 1993 to
assist in the Enhanced 9-1-1 emergency service.
Animal Control Ordinance: The current ordinance was adopted in September, 1995.
b. Local Development Policies
Utilities Extension Policy: The county has an official policy to work with any
municipality to assist in extending utilities to new development. For proj ect funding,
the proposal typically must demonstrate that projected tax revenues will return the
county's investment within a five-year period.
I47

Cl
C. Development Plans
Storm Hazard Mitigation Plan: The county's hurricane evacuation plan - Before the
Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's WaX was prepared in 1984.
Land use Plan, County of Beaufort, 1976, 1981, 1987, 1993: The county's initial
,
Land Use Plan was prepared in 1976, with updates in 1981, 1987, and 1993,
according to guidelines of the State Coastal Area Management Act.
Transportation Plans: The county's initial General Transportation Plan was prepared
in the early 1980s and was updated in 1987. The Plan coordinates transportation
services for human service organizations including the County Health Department,
'
the county's developmental center, the Tideland Mental Health Center, the Council
on Aging and the Department of Social Services. Local residents with transportation
'
needs - elderly, infirmed, handicapped or transportation disadvantaged - are served
by this Plan.
'
Capital Improvement Plan: The county's initial Capital Im rovement Plan was
P P
prepared in 1979 and was updated by the County Commissioners in 1986.
'
Open Space and Recreation Plan: When the 1981 Land Use Plan was prepared, the
county had a recreation advisory committee which directed the spending of funds for
recreation improvements. The committee has since been disbanded. Currently, the
county has no open space and recreation plan.
Beaufort County Water Supply Plan: The county completed a water supply plan for each of
'
its water districts for submittal to the Division of Water Resources in March, 1994.
Beaufort County Solid Waste Management Plan: In 1996, the North Carolina General
Assembly passed into law NCGS 130A-309.09A, which requires each unit of local
government (or a group of local governments) to prepare solid waste plans. Beaufort County
,
completed its latest Solid Waste Management Plan in July, 1997.
D. LAND AND WATER USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
1. General Discussion
Beaufort County is being confronted with an increasing number of land use compatibility issues.
The most pressing issue facing the county may be the need to protect the Areas of Environmental '
Concern (AECs) and other fragile areas from increasing development pressures. The following
summarizes the major land use issues confronting Beaufort County:
-- Protection of AEC's and other fragile areas, including the hardwood swamps located along
the Tar/Pamlico Rivers. ,
I-48 '

1
1
-- "404" wetland areas and associated federal regulations present obstacles to development. In
addition, development may damage valuable "404" wetland areas.
-- Continued waterfront development may pose challenges to protection of water quality within
the Tar/Pamlico Rivers and their tributaries.
-- Segments of the county's housing stock continue to deteriorate; 3.7% of the county's housing
inventory is without complete plumbing.
-- Strip commercial and residential development along the county's major highways (U.S. 264
and U.S. 17).
-- Extension of utility systems throughout the county.
-- Increased urbanization/expansion.
-- Continued growth and development in the vicinity of Warren Field.
-- Expansion/Increase of intensive livestock operations (ILO's).
-- Increasing employment and economic development opportunities.
2. Unplanned Development
The majority of Beaufort County continues to remain unzoned and without regulation by a
subdivision ordinance. Such lack of regulation could lead to the haphazard development of many
of the county's currently undeveloped areas. In addition, it is difficult, if not impossible, to
coordinate development with the construction of county -wide water and/or sewer systems.
An additional problem resulting from unplanned development is the degradation of water quality in
the Tar/Pamlico Rivers and their tributaries. According to the North Carolina Water
Quality report, the waters of the Tar and Pamlico Rivers are classified as partially supporting and
support -threatened waters.
The primary sources of pollution include agricultural run-off, septic tank and package treatment
plant use in areas of the county not served by municipal sewage treatment systems. The water
quality within the Tar and Pamlico Rivers and their tributaries must be maintained to sustain the
environment and to support overall economic development and tourism. It is emphasized that there
is a correlation between improper land use development and the degradation of nearby waters.
The county should carefully monitor the construction of the U.S. 17 and U.S. 264 by-pass around
Washington. The construction of either of these two routes may have a significant impact on the
county's land use planning and development. Development of a county thoroughfare plan would be
a valuable aide in deterring the adverse effects of unplanned development.
I-49

3. Summary
Beaufort County, like other CAMA counties, faces a wide range of land use issues and problems.
This section is intended to highlight the land use problems. This plan must be read in its entirety to
fully appreciate and understand the complexity of the issues confronting Beaufort County. The
policies included in this plan should address the following issues:
-- The development of "404" wetland areas.
-- The.regulation of shoreline development, in particular, in estuarine shoreline areas.
-- The protection of water quality within the Tar/Pamlico Rivers and their tributaries.
-- Replacement/redevelopment of substandard housing.
-- Stimulation of industrial and overall economic development.
-- The provision of county -wide water and sewer systems.
-- Regulation of strip commercial and residential development.
-- Protection of AEC's and other fragile areas.
-- Regulation of development in the approach to Warren Field to prevent land uses which
would be detrimental to safe aircraft operations.
E. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY
This section of the Beaufort County Land Use Plan focuses on the county's physical features which
pose serious limitations, or in some cases, definite obstacles to development. These areas are
divided into the primary categories of physical limitations, fragile areas, and areas with resource
potential. These areas are primarily defined by natural features with very little subjective choice
allowed in determining their locations. These constraints should influence the preparation of the
land classification map.
1. Topography and Drainage
Beaufort County is in the lower Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. It is
divided by the Suffolk Scarp into two distinct sections. The Suffolk Scarp is an old beach front
passing north to south through the county at an elevation of about 25 feet above sea level. The scarp
is parallel with North Carolina Highways 32 and 306 and State Road 1334. It is locally known as
the "Minesott Ridge." To the east of the scarp is the Pamlico Surface, which is in the Tidewater
Area major land resource area. To the west of the scarp is the Talbot Surface, which is in the
0
I
I-50

1
'1
Atlantic Coast Flatwoods major land resource area. The county is also divided into north and
southern areas by the Pamlico River, which is a wide, tidewater stream or estuary.
The surface of the county is low and generally level. In the western part, the county has undulating
or gently rolling areas near streams. Numerous streams, creeks, and rivers flow into the Pamlico
River in the county. In some places along the south side of the Pamlico River, the uplands terminate
in low bluffs at the edge of the river and relatively steep valley slopes have formed where small
streams have cut rather deep channels.
The larger level areas in the western part of the county occur as swamps, or pocosins, having a
relatively high elevation. The most important of these are the Great Swamp and the Dismal Swamp,
which are to the west and east of Pinetown in the north -central part of the county, and the Big
Pocosin, which is south of Chocowinity. The former extend north into Washington and Martin
counties, and the latter extends south into Craven County.
The topography of the Pamlico terrace in the eastern part of the county is partially level. Some
undulating areas are along the rivers and some of the small streams, but in many places the soil is
level to the edge of the water. In some places the streams are bordered by areas of tidal marsh or
swamp. Very few areas are lower than the adjacent uplands. However, in some places, higher,
intermittent strips of soils are between the level uplands and the water. These soils generally are
sandy.
Topography in the northern part of the county generally slopes in the same direction as the course
of the Pamlico River. The highest point in the county north of the river is at an elevation of 61 feet
above sea level. It is at Batts Crossroads, near the Martin County line. From that point the elevation
drops eastward toward the Pungo River. The elevation at Washington is about 10 feet. The
elevation in the extreme eastern part of the county, in the vicinity of Belhaven and Leechville, ranges
from 2 to 5 feet above sea level.
South of the Pamlico River, topography generally slopes eastward. However, in the extreme western
part of the county, it slopes northward toward the river. The highest point in the county south of the
river is 67 feet above sea level. It is about 3.0 miles north of the Craven County line on U.S.
Highway 17. The lowest points in the county are 1 to 2 feet above sea level. They are located in
Belhaven.
Drainage in the county is affected by the Pamlico River and its tributaries. The most important
tributaries are the Pungo River, which forms part of the eastern border of the county; Pantego and
Pungo Creeks, which are in turn tributaries of the Pungo River; North, Bath, Upper Goose, Broad,
and Tranters Creeks, which flow into the Pamlico River from the north; Goose Creek, which forms
another part of the eastern border; and South, Durham, Blount, and Chocowinity Creeks, which flow
into the Pamlico River from the south. The streams are comparatively short and slow moving. The
rivers and the lower parts of the creeks are broad. They have channels that are sufficiently deep to
accommodate boats of various sizes. Tidewater reaches as far west as Washington and flows a
significant distance up most of the creeks.
I-51

In most of the county, elevation is so low and slope is so nearly level that drainage systems are
necessary for farming. Most farms use small ditches for drainage. In some sections, such as East
Dismal, Pantego, and Jackson Swamps, drainage districts provide outlets for drainage systems and
assist local land managers.
2. Flood Hazard Areas
Beaufort County is affected by flooding from storm surge, local ponding of water, and some
flooding resulting from inland water discharge. The surface is low and generally level, sloping
slightly from west to east. The majority of the county's land area lies at 10 feet above mean sea level
or less and is potentially subject to flooding.
North Carolina frequently experiences hurricanes and tropical storms. Hurricanes have been
sporadic and normally pass over a coastal location in a day or less. Hurricane Fran (1996) inundated
the eastern portion of the county to depths of 6.5 feet above base flood elevation (BFE). Eight other
flood events with similar magnitudes have inundated the county since 1913 (1913 Hurricane,
Hurricane Hazel (1954), Hurricane Connie (1955), Hurricane Diane (1955), Hurricane Ione (1955),
Hurricane Helen (1958), Hurricane Donna (1960, and Hurricane Bertha (1996)).
One fatality occurred in Hurricane Bertha due to electrocution. However, the greatest risk to
Beaufort County from flooding is the massive property damage it has caused. Based on a
conservative estimate of $10,000 per house in damages, damages from Hurricane Fran alone totaled
$1,060,000.
Flood Insurance Rate Maps were prepared for Beaufort County in February, 1987, by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The 100-year flood serves as the base flood for the
purpose of floodplain management. The 100-year flood line represents the level that water would
reach or "rise to" during a flood that may be expected to occur on the average of once during a 100-
year period. Thus, there is a 1 % chance of a 100-year flood occurring during any one year.
Map 4 provides the approximate boundaries of the Beaufort County areas which would be inundated
by a 100-year flood and the floodway zone. These areas may also suffer some hazards resulting
from storm generated waves. Such wave action would normally be associated with strong coastal
storms. Because ofthe additional hazards associated with wave action, the National Flood Insurance
Program regulations require more demanding construction procedures in those areas affected by
wave action, including elevating structures on piles or piers.
Encroachments on floodplains, such as artificial fills, reduce the flood -carrying capacity and add to
flood heights, thus increasing flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of
floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against
the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the
concept of a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain
management. Under this concept, the area of the 100-year flood is divided into a proposed floodway
and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas,
that must be kept free of encroachment in order that the 100-year flood be carried without substantial
increases in flood heights.
I-52

co
w
J_
o
N -I Z
M
N
W
A
p
w
F"
ww
�A
°
O
LLJ ¢ w w w w
o 0 o z o o
Z
N N N D N N
8-
C
.C�
y � 10 W
LC1 C
U C
it
E�
7
L
N
.0
wd
��
80
N
:3E-0
C
N C
C
m0)
M
C j
`' " 0
NNa
o N
�a
v
0c
a
a7 C a)
3
3c
3
N
-apt
'ON
SCO
ocNpQ°c
" N
v �
N_
O N
°
O" N
°
C m
7
C N
W
.-. C
f0
co
C C
Cm
.rs E
° 1
�Q Nw
md
V
a) °
� C
Q m�
I�OL
aSt
COM
-E
3
c3
c.-
co'
Z J4 o
N'D
C p
N:5
C O
N
C 8
a) o v
C C N
C N
d
CNN
NNEU
N
C%J 0 M 0
p
pQ
p N
A.0 N
C
M •p N e-
n `-
m
CL
C
-o m m
y v
c o
>
m cam- o
N
a=
€
0)
C C rn N N
Cm4)
Q1
W
afNNdN
�M
N�
O
o
N
NN30)
LL
C a7 O
wC
N
C C C
m m
m
0 0 � "-'
O o t O`
r
C N
'
w
o
�¢¢� a
Qo
m
C m m= N n
C_-

1
In 1986, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers prepared maps of coastal North Carolina which
delineated the flooding which may be expected to occur as a result of hurricanes. The maps were
prepared utilizing a computer base model named SLOSH, Sea Lake Overlaid Surge From
Hurricanes. The model plots hurricane related flooding which may result from a number of
characteristics including wind speed, wind direction, time, tide, etc.
Map 5 indicates the areas of Beaufort County which may be affected by hurricane -generated storm
surge. The following defines the five storm surge categories:
Category. Winds of 74 to 95 miles per hour. Damage primarily to shrubbery, trees,
foliage, and unanchored mobile homes. No appreciable wind damage to other structures.
Some damage to poorly constructed signs. Storm surge possibly 4 to 5 feet above normal.
Low-lying roads inundated, minor pier damage, some small craft in exposed anchorage torn
from moorings.
Category 2. Winds of 96 to 110 miles per hour. Considerable damage to shrubbery and tree
foliage; some trees blown down. Major damage to exposed mobile homes. Extensive
damage to poorly constructed signs. Some damage to roofing materials of buildings; some
window and door damage. No major wind damage to buildings. Storm surge possibly 6 to
8 feet above normal. Coastal roads and low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising water
2 to 4 hours before arrival of hurricane center. Considerable damage to piers. Marinas
flooded. Small craft in unprotected anchorages torn from moorings. Evacuation of some
shoreline residences and low-lying island areas required.
Category 3. Winds of 111 to 130 miles per hour. Foliage torn from trees; large trees blown
down. Practically all poorly constructed signs blown down. Some damage to roofing
materials of buildings; some window and door damage. Some structural damage to small
buildings. Mobile homes destroyed. Storm surge possibly 9 to 12 feet above normal.
Serious flooding at coast and many smaller structures near coast destroyed; larger structures
near coast damaged by battering waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland
cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives.
Category. Winds of 131 to 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down; all signs
down. Extensive damage to roofing materials, windows, and doors. Complete failure of
roofs on many small residences. Complete destruction of mobile homes. Storm surge
possibly 13 to 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of structures near shore
due to flooding and battering by waves and floating debris. Low-lying escape routes inland
cut by rising water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives. Major erosion of beaches.
Category 5. Winds greater than 155 miles per hour. Shrubs and trees blown down;
considerable damage to roofs of buildings; all signs down. Very severe and extensive
damage to windows and doors. Complete failure of roofs on many residences and industrial
buildings. Extensive shattering of glass in windows and doors. Some complete building
failures. Small buildings overturned or blown away. Complete destruction ofmobile homes.
Storm surge possibly greater than 18 feet above normal. Major damage to lower floors of
all structures less than 15 feet above sea level. Low-lying escape routes inland cut by rising
water 3 to 5 hours before hurricane center arrives.
I-54

LEGEND
The preparation of this map was financed in part
Category 1 - 2 Surge Area
through a grant provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, through funds
r /
;`.
provided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of
' r
' f
Category 3 Additional Surge Area
1972, as amended, which is administered by the
n r s X A
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Category 4 —5 Additional Surge Area
Administration.
!
•. ' t x
•r f r
. Z- -
a
•r uu t
5.
SCALE
IN NpLES
��
o
4
l N A x t
r
•" �
r r,•
•r
.moo _'
«r ': .ice
..
�`•
..
f pK .: y ur 1 •dr �
fm . •.
u. •
`
��•nuwscu watnrrar �'�1(.
Ayt"Ti,77lT1, y;Y,.�;,:::VsiiF+tuF:..+.++d+.••'
P U N C O R `.
.rry
�G o
1 Q C
1 - Z
•r :.+
rrr,�
^. - r. ur
.. -7
It •Y
a iuwa� c
` 1 .
f
p
�"'�.'
'�
.
_ � w !.
.tea` ' .�„�! ..r...
c "`
•.•i
-
� �
•,,_,,,, �
ur
,
.
1 `` fra
O
••.
»�/A
��
MyP
�. •
i«'i N..
' V
• i�
1F,.f••l
�eS i.{.}...
tr Gr.r
�uY
•�. _
I a C a ! 1
'\�
X .r r
�,.
.:I^• �s
/
_
�
4_tn.. 0
�
1 Y' t Q s A M :::'
/•'•�4 • .HY
p
Ifr
�
YG
4
f•
1
�
•
r :
,
\\
•
it r• - :! '
m •••o
N �
fl•
• vv:r
4
MAP 5
m.
BEAUFORT COUNTY,
NORTH
CAROLINA

I
1
1
A Category 3 storm would inundate approximately 20% of the county's planning jurisdiction.
A long-range flooding problem could result from anticipated sea level rise. During the past century,
the sea has risen approximately one foot. Generally, experts expect the sea level rise to accelerate
during the next century and rise an additional four to seven feet. Such a rise in sea level would have
a significant impact on Beaufort County. Much of the county's shoreline and wetland areas could
be lost. This is a serious potential problem which must be carefully monitored by the county and
mitigative actions defined.
3. Fragile Areas
Fragile areas are areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed by inappropriate, unplanned, or
poorly planned development. These areas include both Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs)
and Natural Resource Fragile Areas as shown on Map 6. There are many conflicts in the
coastal/shoreline areas of the county's planning jurisdiction between development and AECs and
fragile areas. All development within AECs is subject to permitting by the Division of Coastal
Management.
a. Coastal Wetlands
The coastal wetlands are generally delineated on Map 6, Areas of Environmental Concern.
Within the county's planning jurisdiction coastal wetlands are scattered along the shoreline of the
Tar/Pamlico and Pungo Rivers. However, it is emphasized that the specific locations of coastal
wetlands can be determined only through on -site investigation and analysis. Coastal wetlands are
defined as salt marshes regularly- or irregularly -flooded by tides, including wind tides, provided this
shall not include hurricane or tropical storm tides. These areas contain some, but not necessarily all
of the following marsh plant species: Cordgrass, salt marsh, Black Needlerush, Glasswort, Salt
Grass, Sea Lavender, Bulrush, Saw Grass, Cat -tail, Salt Meadow Grass, and Salt Reed Grass (refer
to NCAC 7H for scientific names of coastal wetlands marsh plant species). The coastal wetlands
are vital to the complex food chain found in estuaries. They provide marine nursery areas and are
essential to a sound commercial fishing industry. Coastal wetlands also serve as barriers against
flood damage and control erosion between the estuary and uplands.
b. Estuarine Shorelines
Estuarine shorelines are those non -ocean shorelines that are especially vulnerable to erosion,
flooding, or other adverse effects of wind and water. They are intimately connected to the estuary.
In shoreline areas not contiguous to waters classified as outstanding resource waters by the
Environmental Management Commission, all land 75 feet landward from the mean high water level
or normal water level of estuarine waters are considered to be estuarine shorelines. Development
within the estuarine shorelines influences the quality of estuarine life and is subject to the damaging
processes of shorefront erosion and flooding.
I-56

O
Ln
�G
b �' gg
NG
� 4
ntego
A . o [�
Was o
US 264
7renters Cree B h ve
b
a 'n n Pa Pungo Creek
Chocomn
vXX
a_
Pungo River
W.
rlpft
Broad Creek p
:;:{o •: v:;11 • Bath Creek
2 •
•:•� �% i Bath •
• W
N
0
m
c
9
i
2
•
0
8bunts Creek
Nevil Creek
J
• Durham k
•
Cree
j\J^^\J������'' •••�•••Pamlico River:-.-:-:
:V.
0.
Q
•
d
•
G,
•
•
t0 south creek
CAM
Ujo
ZS
� Goose Creek
Au
The preparation of this map was financed in part
through a grant provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, through funds provided
by the Coastal .Zone Management Act of 1972, as
amended, which is administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
MAP 6
BEAUFORT COUNTY
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERN (AECs) AND OTHER
FRAGILE AREAS
INCORPORATED AREAS
WATER
PRIMARY NURSERY
AREA
Srt,
SECONDARY NURSERY
AREA
SPECIAL SECONDARY
NURSERY AREA
COASTAL WETLANDS
(SEE NOTE 1)
NATURAL HERITAGE
PRIORITY AREA
�����•� .
ANADROMOUS FISH
SPAWNING AREA
1) The coastal wetland areas are defined by 15A NCAC
7H.0205 as any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular
or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether
or not the tide waters reach the marshland areas through
natural or artificial water courses), provided this shall not
include hurricane ortropical storm tides. Precise locations of
all coastal wetlands must be determined in the field.
2) All 404 wetland areas are classified as conservation.
However, because
of map scale locations ' L s cannot be
delineate r d Precise locations must be determined through
on -site analysis and verification. Federal 404 permitting. and
regulatory requirements shall apply.
3) Estuarine Shoreline Areas - In shoreline areas not
contiguous to water
s classified ed as outstandingresource
waters bythe Environmental Management Commission, all
land 75 feet landward from the mean high water level or
normal water level of estuarine waters are considered to be
estuarine shorelines. In shoreline areas continguous to
waters classified as outstanding resource wat
ers by the
Environmental Management Commission, all land 575 feet
landward from the mean high water level or normal water
level are considered to be estuarine shoreline. There am
no outstanding resource waters in Beaufort County.
4) Public Trust and Estuarine Water Areas - All waters under
thejurisdiction of Beaufort County are either estuarine waters
or public trust areas as defined in 15A NCAC 7H.0206
Estuarine Waters and .0207 Public Trust Areas.
0 5 10 20
1 1 1 1
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES

71
1J
C. Public Trust Areas
Public trust areas are all waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from the mean
high water mark to the seaward limit of state jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject to
measurable lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean high water mark; all navigable natural
bodies of water and lands thereunder to the mean high water level or mean water level as the case
may be, except privately -owned lakes to which the public has no right of access; all water in
artificially created bodies of water containing significant public fishing resources or other public
resources which are accessible to the public by navigation; and all waters in artificially created
bodies of water in which the public has acquired rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedication,
or any other means. In determining whether the public has acquired rights in artificially created
bodies of water, the following factors shall be considered:
(1) the use of the body of water by the public,
(2) the length of time the public has used the area,
(3) the value of public resources in the body of water,
(4) whether the public resources in the body of water are mobile to the
extent that they can move into natural bodies of water,
(5) whether the creation of the artificial body of water
required permission from the state, and
(6) the value of the body of water to the public for
navigation from one public area to another public
area.
These areas are significant because the public has rights in these areas, including navigation
and recreation. The public trust areas also support valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have
aesthetic value, and are important resources for economic development.
It is impossible to map the public trust areas. The areas must be determined through in -field
analysis and definition.
d. Estuarine Waters
Estuarine waters are generally brackish waters found in coastal estuaries and bays. They are
' the dominant component and bonding element of the entire estuarine system, integrating aquatic
influences from both the land and the sea. The estuarine waters are among the most productive
natural environments. The waters support the valuable commercial and sports fisheries ofthe coastal
area which are comprised of estuarine dependent species such as menhaden, flounder, shrimp, crabs,
and oysters. Estuarine waters and estuarine shorelines make up the most significant components of
the estuarine system in Beaufort County's planning jurisdiction.
All waters of the Tar/Pamlico River above the north/south railroad bridge at Washington are
inland waters and all waters below the bridge are coastal waters. Inland waters are all inland waters
' except private ponds, and all water connecting or tributary to coastal sounds or the ocean extending
inland from the dividing line between coastal waters and inland waters. Coastal waters are the
Atlantic Ocean, the various coastal sounds, and estuarine waters up to the dividing line between
' coastal waters and inland waters.
I-58

e. Natural Resource Fragile Areas
Natural resource fragile areas are generally recognized to be of educational, scientific, or
cultural value because of the natural features of the particular site. Features in these areas serve to
distinguish them from the vast majority of the landscape.
These areas include complex natural areas, areas that sustain remnant species, pocosins,
wooded swamps, prime wildlife habitats, or registered natural landmarks. In Beaufort County, there
are fragile natural areas located within the hardwood swamps along the Tar/Pamlico River and its
tributaries.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program of the Division of Parks and Recreation works
to identify and facilitate protection of the most ecologically significant natural areas remaining in
the state. Natural areas may be identified because they provide important habitat for rare species or
because they contain outstanding examples of the rich natural diversity of this state.
Natural area inventories are often conducted county by county. Permission from landowners
is obtained before field work is undertaken. The information collected is important for land use
planning, especially planning for natural area conservation and greenways. High quality natural
areas are valuable resources that make North Carolina and its counties attractive to live in and to
visit. In addition to their educational and cultural uses, natural areas are important reservoirs of
native plants and animals and are key resources for recreation.
Among coastal counties, preliminary natural area inventories were completed for ten counties
during 1980-82. These inventories were conducted for Brunswick, Carteret, Craven, Dare, Gates,
Hyde, Pamlico, Pender, Tyrrell, and Washington counties under the Coastal Energy Impact Program
of Coastal Management. More thorough inventories were conducted for the northeastern coastal
counties as part ofthe Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study during 1989-1993. In 1995, amuch more
in-depth survey was conducted for Brunswick County; a similar inventory is currently underway for
Onslow County.
These inventories are funded with grants from the Natural Heritage Trust Fund which are
used to match local funding. The inventories generally take 18-24 months to complete and cost
approximately $30,000. CAMA planning grants may be considered for part of the local.match if
approved by the grant funding agency.
Within Beaufort County's planning jurisdiction, several areas have been identified as natural
heritage priority areas. These areas consist primarily of hardwood swamps scattered along the
Tar/Pamlico and Pungo Rivers and are delineated on Map 6.
In addition, within Beaufort County the natural resource fragile areas include the following:
-- Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest
-- Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest
-- Tidal Cypress - Gum Swamp
-- Tidal Water Marsh
-- Wet Pine Flatwoods
I-59

Additionally,g �' g the Natural Heritage Program has categorized individual species which fall into
four general headings: 1) vertebrates; 2) invertebrates; 3) vascular plants; and 4) non -vascular
plants. Several species of rare birds, including the Bald Eagle and the Red -Cockaded Woodpecker,
have been identified in the county.
' f. 404 Wetlands
404 wetlands are areas covered by water or that have water-logged soils for long periods
during the growing season. Plants growing in wetlands are capable of living in soils lacking oxygen
for at least part of the growing season. Some wetlands, such as swamps, are obvious. Others are
sometimes difficult to identify because they may be dry during part of the year. Wetlands include,
' but are not limited to, bottomlands, forests, swamps, pocosins, pine savannahs, bogs, marshes, and
wet meadows.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that anyone interested in depositing dredged or
fill material into "waters of the United States," including wetlands, must apply for and receive a
permit for such activities.
' Generally, 404 wetland areas are scattered throughout the county's planning jurisdiction. A
detailed wetlands map, provided by the Division of Coastal Management, will be left on file and
' available for public review at the Beaufort County Courthouse. This map is much too detailed to
be reduced and included in the land use plan. Although a wetlands map is available at the county
courthouse, the specific locations of wetlands areas must be determined through specific on -site
analysis by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Office.
Wetlands are a significant natural resource because they provide recharge areas for
' groundwater; serve as filter traps for sediment, pesticides and other pollutants; provide non-structural
flood control; buffer against shoreline erosion; serve as buffer zones between upland activities and
valuable aquatic systems; and provide habitats for numerous forbearing animals, endangered species,
' and other wildlife. All development which proposes to disturb wetlands must be properly permitted
by state and federal agencies.
g. Historic and Archaeological Sites
Within Beaufort County, there are a number of sites which have historical or archaeological
significance. The North Carolina Division of Archives and History is particularly concerned with
areas along and near creeks, rivers, and streams where development has not occurred. Such areas
may contain undisturbed and significant archaeological remains. The Division recommends review
of all plans for development in all undisturbed areas.
There are numerous historic and archaeological sites scattered throughout Beaufort County.
Appendix II provides a summary of these sites.
' 4. Soils
A detailed soils survey of Beaufort County was completed by the U.S. Natural Resources
' Conservation Service in 1983. The study was issued in September, 1995. This survey was made
to provide information about the soils in Beaufort County. The information includes a description
1 I-60

of the soils and their location, and a discussion of the suitability, limitations, and management of the
soils for specified uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of slopes; the
general pattern of drainage; and the kinds of crops and native plants growing on the soils.
Based on that survey, there are 44 different soils types located within Beaufort County's planning
jurisdiction. These soil types and their conditions for site development are provided in Table 15.
Most of the soils within the county's planning jurisdiction have severe limitations for septic tank
usage. In addition, the county includes extensive prime farmlands.
Table 15
Beaufort County
Soil Characteristics
Symbol
Series Name
Septic Restrictions
Prime Farmland?
AaA
Altavista fine sandy loam
Somewhat severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
AbA
Altavista -Urban land complex
Somewhat severe: wetness
Ap
Arapahoe fine sandy loam
Severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
At
Augusta fine sandy loam
Somewhat severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
Ba
Bayboro loam
Severe: wetness
Bb
Belhaven muck
Severe: wetness
BoB
Bonneau loamy sand
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
Cf
Cape Fear fine sandy loam
Mostly severe: wetness
CnB
Conetoe loamy sand
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
CrA
Craven fine sandy loam
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
CrB
Craven fine sandy loam
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
CsC2
Craven clay loam
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
Ct
Croatan muck
Severe: wetness
Cu
Currituck muck
Severe: wetness
Da
Dare muck
Severe: wetness
DgB
Dogue fine sandy loam
Somewhat severe: wetness
Do
Dorovan mucky peat
Severe: wetness
Ds
Dragston fine sandy loam
Somewhat severe: wetness
GoA
Goldsboro fine sandy loam
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
Hy
Hyde loam
Mostly severe: wetness
La
Leaf silt loam
Mostly severe: wetness
Le
Lenoir loam
Somewhat severe: wetness
Lo
Leon sand
Severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
I-61

'
Table 15 (continued)
'
Symbol
Series Name
Septic Restrictions
Prime Farmland?
Ly
Lynchburg fine sandy loam
Mostly severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
'
Me
Muckalee loam
Mostly severe: wetness
Pa
Pantego loam
Mostly severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
Pe
Perquimans silt loam
Severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
Pm
Pits, mine
'
Po
Ponzer muck
Severe: wetness
Pt
Portsmouth loam
Severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
Ra
Rains fine sandy loam
Severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
Ro
Roanoke fine sandy loam
Severe: wetness
Sb
Seabrook loamy sand
Moderate to somewhat
'
severe: wetness
Se
Seabrook -Urban land complex
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
'
StA
State sandy loam
Moderate to somewhat
Prime Farmland
severe: wetness
TaB
Tarboro sand
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
'
To
Tomotley fine sandy loam
Severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
Tr
Torhunta sandy loam
Mostly severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
Ud
Udorthents, loamy
Unknown
'
Ur
Urbanland
Unknown
Wa
Wahee fine sandy loam
Mostly severe: wetness
Wd
Wasda muck
Prime Farmland
(where drained)
WtD
Winton fine sandy loam
Moderate to somewhat
severe: wetness
YoA
Yeopim silt loam
Somewhat severe: wetness
Prime Farmland
Source: Soil
Survey of Beaufort County, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Septic
'
restrictions provided by the Beaufort County Sanitarian.
Prime farmland soils, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are soils that are best suited
to food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Such soils have properties that favor the economic
production of sustained high yields of crops. The soils need only to be treated and managed by
acceptable farming methods. The moisture supply must be adequate, and the growing season must
be sufficiently long. Prime farmland soils produce the highest yields with minimal expenditure of
energy and economic resources. Farming these soils normally results in the least damage to the
environment. Much of the prime farmland soils within the incorporated areas of the county have
I-62

rj
been converted to urban land uses. This conversion is expected to continue during the planning
period.
Commercial forests cover approximately 60% of Beaufort County. The predominant forest types
include: longleaf -slash pine, loblolly-short leaf pine, and oak -gum cypress.
The potential productivity of woodland depends on physiography, soil properties; climate, and the
effects of past management. Specific soil properties and site characteristics, including soil depth,
texture, structure, and depth to the water table, affect forest productivity primarily by influencing
available water capacity, aeration, and root development. The net effects of the interaction of these
soil properties and site characteristics determine the potential site productivity.
Table 15 provides a summary of the 44 soil types located within the county. For each soil type, the
suitability for septic tank usage and prime farmland designation is indicated. All of the county's soils
have some limitations for septic tank usage. Map 7 provides the delineation of the general soils.
The general soil map units are described as follows:
Soil Name Description
Leaf -Lenoir -Craven Nearly level to strongly sloping, poorly drained to moderately well
drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a predominantly
clayey subsoil; on uplands.
Augusta-Altavista-Tomotley Nearly level, moderately well drained to poorly drained soils that
have a loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil; on stream terraces
and marine terraces.
Lynchburg -Rains -Goldsboro Nearly level, poorly drained to moderately well drained soils that
have a loamy surface layer and a predominantly loamy subsoil; on
uplands.
Tomotley-Roanoke-Portsmouth
Nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that have
a loamy surface layer and a loamy or clayey subsoil; on terraces.
Bayboro-Leaf-Croatan
Nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that have
a loamy or mucky surface layer and a loamy or clayey subsoil or a
loamy subsoil; on broad flats and in depressions.
Arapahoe-Ponzer-Dare
Nearly level, very poorly drained soils that have a loamy or mucky
surface layer and a loamy or sandy subsoil or underlying material; on
broad flats and in depressions on the Pamlico marine terrace.
Muckalee-Dorovan-Currituck
Nearly level, poorly drained and very poorly drained soils that have
a loamy, mucky peat, or mucky surface layer and loamy, mucky, or
sandy underlying material; on floodplains
Torhunta-Leon-Bonneau
Nearly level and gently sloping, very poorly drained, poorly drained,
and well drained soils that have a loamy or sandy surface layer and
subsoil, on uplands.
Tarboro -Seabrook -State
Nearly level and gently sloping, somewhat excessively drained to
moderately well drained soils that have a sandy or loamy surface
layer and subsoil; on stream terraces.
J
1
I-63

WASHINGTON I COUNTY 45
Q y 3 99
c; 7 1 t�TIN co�- SOIL LEGEND*
3", 8 4
3 I 4
2 1� Leaf -Lenoir -Craven
i ry
3 _r
7 , 5 g- 4 E Augusta-Altavista-Tomotley
2 d,Fo i z - - 7 f- 3 Lynchburg -Rains -Goldsboro
Tomotley-Roanoke Portsmouth
S Bayboro-Leaf-Croatan
- � 3 4 6
9
' Arapahoe- Ponzer-Dare
f 6 r? 12U
.4 _7 Muckalee-Dorovan-Currituck
i n 7
4
Torhunta Leon Bonneau
7 9 .
9
Chocowinity 3
'
-
�?r�• Oak
QQ Pt
3 1
8 3
1
CO ,
� 3
U
1 f3
5
3
5 _
oZip,
77'
The preparation of this map was financed in part
through a grant provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program., through -furlds
by the Coastal Zone Management Act of
'provided
1972, as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
ch was —1kNd on fAh nW conshn ofm
V- am h/ad ofsa TheOW h thus
ontn oher vimo both
Edschtan on thr tttr eftpectlxtrxts ...
W14CO 76.45'
Hickory
Pt Indian island
Tarboro -Seabrook -State
a The units on this legend are described in the text
under the heading "Soils".
Compiled 1993
NOTE: GENERAL MAP
NOT TO BE USED TO DETERMINE
SUITABILITY FOR SEPTIC
TANK USAGE
MAP 7
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
FOREST SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
BEAUFORT COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
GENERAL SOIL MAP
BEAUFORT COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Scale 1:253A40 -
1 0 1 2 3 4 Miles
I-64
1 0 4 8 Krn
lI I I I t I i

5. Manmade Hazards
' There are few manmade hazards in the unincorporated area of the county. Except for the PCS
Phosphate operation which has several chemical plants on -site, most of the local industries which
might utilize, produce, or store hazardous materials are located in incorporated communities. One
' landfill site is located on the west side of SR 1334 about 12 miles east of Washington. This site
closed to municipal waste in October,1995, but still accepts construction/demolition materials and
inert debris. The other county landfill, now secured according to state regulations, is located just east
of Tranters Creek.
' A potential hazard facing county residents is the Military Operating Area (MOA) over Beaufort
County. The Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point established a MOA, which included Beaufort
County, to provide an area for performance of military training activities. Such activities include
air combat maneuvers, aircraft acrobatics, and air intercepts. As such activities could have negative
impacts on local farming activities, tourism, and wildlife, the county has officially expressed its
opposition to this proposal.
' 6. Areas of Resource Potential
' a. Agricultural and Forestlands
About 25% of all land in the county is currently being used as pasture or cropland. Some of
' this land and other areas as well have soils that make them areas of prime farmland. Agricultural
officials have observed that prime farmland will be of major importance in providing the nation's
short and long range needs for food and timber. Thus, ' conservation of prime farmland has become a national objective and an important state agricultural goal as well.
Prime farmland is defined by its current use (urban, built-up and water areas cannot be
considered prime farmland), and by the soils that comprise it. These soils have properties that are
favorable for the production of sustained high yields of crops. According to agricultural officials,
these soil produce the highest yields with minimal inputs of energy and economic resources, and
farming these soils results in the least damage to the environment. Nineteen of the county's 44 soils
are considered prime farmland soils. Areas of prime farmland soils total over 67,500 acres and
comprise almost 13% of all land in the county.
State forests and wildlife management areas are also considered areas of resource potential.
Beaufort County has two such areas: Goose Creek State Park located on the north side of the river
east of Bath, and the Goose Creek Gameland area located on the south side of the river on the
Beaufort/Pamlico county line.
As previously discussed in this plan, commercial forests cover approximately 60% of
BeaufortCounty. The predominant forest types include: longleaf -sash pine, loblolly-short leafpine,
and oak -gum cypress. Much of the forestland in the county is maintained for commercial forestry.
Weyerhaeuser owns the largest share by far and in 1996 was the county's largest landowner. About
one of every four acres of land in the county is reported to be in Weyerhaeuser ownership.
I ENI

b. Public Parks
The only significant public park located within Beaufort County is the Goose Creek State
Park. This facility, which includes approximately 1,598 acres, is located on the north shores of the
Pamlico River (S.R.1334). Facilities include: a boat ramp for water -oriented activities, 7-1 /2 miles
of hiking trails, 12 primitive camp sites, bird watching, fishing, and a picnic/swim area.
Improvements include: a 2,000 foot boardwalk over Hardwood Swamp and a 10,000 square foot
Environmental Education and Visitors Center, both to be opened in the Spring of 1998.
There are no other regionally significant parks located in Beaufort County.
C. Public Gamelands
The only public gameland located within Beaufort County is the Goose Creek Gameland
Area. This area accounts for only 11 acres and offers a public boat launch. However, in general,
the county provides significant habitats for many waterbirds and land mammals.
d. Private Wildlife Sanctuaries
There are numerous privately -owned or leased hunting clubs located within Beaufort County.
However, there are no significant private wildlife sanctuaries.
e. Valuable Mineral Resources
PCS Phosphate is currently mining a portion of the county's phosphate reserves on the south
side of the river near Aurora. Approximately 6,000,000 tons of phosphate ore is mined each year
at this facility. This results in approximately 1,200,000 tons of the finished product called P205.
Deeper phosphate deposits also occur along the north side of the river near Bath. However, no
mining activity has been initiated. Phosphate is not the county's only mineral resource. Limestone,
suitable for use as crushed rock, underlies phosphate deposits. Heavy mineral sands are found along
the Suffolk Scarp. Those sands contain a variety of minerals including ilmenite, pyroxene, rutile,
and sillimanite. Scattered deposits of galuconite, often used as a chemical filter, are also found. In
addition, the county contains some deposits of peat, a highly organic soil of decomposed vegetable
matter, which when cut out and dried, can be used as fuel. At this time however, phosphate appears
to be the only mineral resource for which extraction is economically feasible.
f. Marine Resources/Water Quality
Surface waters (streams, lakes or estuaries) are rated as either supporting (S), support -
threatened (ST), partially supporting (PS), or nonsupporting (NS). The terms refer to whether the
classified uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life protection, and swimming) are being
fully supported, partially supported, or are not supported. At specified sampling stations, water is
tested for dissolved oxygen, temperature, acidity (pH), turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, chlorophyll
a, ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, zinc, chloride, fluoride and
selenium. To be deemed "Fully supporting" the standard criteria for any one pollutant cannot be
I-66

exceeded in more than 10% of the measurements. "Partially supporting" status applies to those areas
in which any one pollutant exceeds standard criteria in 11-25% of the measurements. "Non
' supporting" status applies to areas in which any one pollutant exceeds the criteria in more than 25%
of the measurements. The support -threatened category for freshwater rivers and streams refers to
those waters classified as good -fair based on water quality data, in contrast to excellent or good
' which are considered fully supporting. An overall fully supporting rating, however, does include
both fully supporting and support -threatened waters. Streams which had no data to determine their
use support are listed as nonevaluated (NE). While there are numerous sources of pollution which
may adversely effect water quality, there are several marinas/dockages and point source discharges
located within the county's planning jurisdiction. Anyone who discharges into the surface waters
' of the state must have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The
issuance of an NPDES Permit follows the requirements contained in NCAC 15A 2H.0100.. An
application for permit must be made to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to obtain or renew an
NPDES Permit. The rating of all the waters and the location of marinas/dockages within Beaufort
County's planning jurisdiction are indicated on Map 8. A summary of NPDES Permits issued in
Beaufort County is provided on page I-37.
' The Use Classes for freshwater are: WS, B, C, SW, HQW, NSW, ORW. Class WS waters
are designated to support withdrawal for public water supply. Class B waters should support
' primary recreational uses (swimming on an organized or frequent basis) plus C activities. Class C
waters should support secondary recreation (swimming on an unorganized or infrequent basis),
aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture, and other non -water supply or non-food related
' uses. The supplemental classes of SW (Swamp Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters), and ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters) may apply to open water
areas where these descriptions are appropriate. Stormwater Disposal Rules apply to development
' that requires a CAMA. major permit or disturbs more than 1 acre of land along all Class B and C
waters in the coastal region. Salt water classifications are SA, SB, and SC with supplemental
' classifications the same as for freshwater environments. The SC classification should support
secondary recreation and aquatic life. SB Class should support primary (organized) recreation plus
the SC uses. SA Class waters must support shellfishing for market purposes, plus the SB and SC
uses. The state's water quality classification standards are summarized in Table 16.
Within Beaufort County, SA Class waters are located on the Pamlico River from North Creek
to South Creek and eastward, as well as waters of the Pungo River from Woodstock Point to Slade
Creek in Hyde County and southward to the Pamlico River. Class SB waters are located in the upper
reaches of the Pungo River and in the Pamlico from the SA line to a line crossing the river at
' Washington Park. Beyond this point, are Class SC waters to the Pitt County line as well as upstream
from a point in Chocowinity Bay extending from Cedar Creek to Silas Point. The creeks of Beaufort
County are classified as SC waters and their feeder streams are most typically Class C. Bath Creek
and Back Creek are classified as SB waters for most of the run of the creek. Far upstream the
classification changes to SC with class SC and C feeder streams.
' In addition, the state has supplemental classifications to the primary classifications. The
supplemental classifications include: high quality waters, outstanding resource waters, trout waters,
nutrient sensitive waters, swamp waters, and future water supply. The supplemental class of NSW
I-67

indicates that these streams and their receiving waters have a history of algae blooms, contributing
to fish kills, anoxia, odor and taste problems. Sources of these nutrients are typically attributed to
runoff from the drainage area of fertilizers, animal waste, and wastewater treatment outfall. Within
these waters, no increase of nutrients over background levels shall be permitted. However, domestic
and industrial wastewater discharges are allowed. Supplemental Class HQW (high quality waters)
are located in the planning jurisdiction of the Town of Belhaven. All of the major water bodies in
the county and most of the feeder stream miles are classified as NSW (nutrient sensitive waters).
The primary and supplemental water quality classifications are delineated on Map 9.
Beaufort County's planning jurisdiction includes some important fish spawning areas. Some
of the waters are classified as anadromous fish spawning areas. These areas are delineated on Map
6. An anadromous fish migrates upriver from the sea to breed in fresh water.
I-68

PARK BOAT I
b
I
lejo
N
■
D
VENS WHARF Pa"
TEWARTS� _ - COX RAILWAY_:
a 'ngt�n Pa 6 OBBS BOATYARD N
.: :•. /
IVINI LAKES CAMP N YA
MCCOTTERS MARINA
ROAD CREEK MARINA Ath,QUARTER DECK
W
H AND W GROCERY
O N
The preparation of this map was financed in
,part through a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.'
CRYSTAL
RIVER FOR
/V O
9�
�_k
k
s
J
� � o
:R CR_AB CO,rDONDOWRY CREEK MARINA
Oi2EST MART
MOTEL N
JORDAN CREEK MARINA
JORDANS SEAFOOD N MA
MAP 8
BEAUFORT COUNTY
MARINAS/DOCKAGE AND
WATER RATINGS
MARINA/DOCKAGE
INCORPORATED AREAS
S WATERS
ST WATERS
PS WATERS
MUM PS WATER AND
CLOSED SHELLFISHING
ST - SUPPORT -THREATENED
PS - PARTIALLY SUPPORTING
S - SUPPORTING
0 5 10 20
t I I I
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
N I-69
J.

a
G
S2
t. a
s�
D
Tianters Creek
C Sw NSW
rI
0
�a
B NSW
Dark
C NSW
ashin
on Pa
o°
SC NSW
Chocowinity,
:
lico ' er
SC NSW
+�+ ,
SB NSW
+`+`
+
`+
.`i i
,� ,B
Little G e Creek
,+
NSW
Bat ek
SC N
SC NSW
NS,+
`+`SW+ +
„
,,,, ,
,,,,,,,,
"iiiii+ i+ math
+`+'+
CP
+ `+ i +i`+ + + +
,,,,,,, ,
o ,
C NSW
C N NSW
The preparation of this map was financed in
part through a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
SC NSW ,+, z
+++++++++++++
i-
CD South
O
C'7
Z _ �S
SA
SA
SA N
Little
US 2b4
SC NSW i
+;++;
++ ++++++
Pungo River
SB NSW
SA NSW
i
Pungo River
Goose Creek
SA NSW
MAP 9
BEAUFORT COUNTY
PRIMARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL
WATER CLASSIFICATIONS
INCORPORATED AREAS
® CLASS B NSW (1)
CLASS C NSW (1)
CLASS C Sw NSW (1)
CLASS SA NSW (2)
CLASS SB NSW (2)
CLASS SC NSW (2)
_ CLASS SC NSW HQW (2)
CLASSES B,C,SA,SB,SC - See Text Page I - 67
(1) - Freshwater Classification
(2) - Saltwater Classification
NSW - Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Sw - Swamp Waters
HQW - High Quality Waters
0 5 10 20
1 1 1 1
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
N
I-70

� = = = = r = = = = = = = i M = = a
Table 16
Summary of North Carolina
Water Quality Classifications and Standards
Primary Classifications Best Usage Numeric Standards Stormwater Controls Other Requirements
Freshwater
Class C
Secondary recreation
Refer to NC Dept. of Marine
Stormwater disposal rules apply in
(standards apply to all
(including swimming on an
Fisheries for table on Water
the 20 coastal counties as
fresh waters, unless
unorganized or infrequent
Quality Standards for Freshwater
described in 15A NCAC 2H.1000
preempted by more
basis); fish and other aquatic
Classes; standards listed under
stringent standard for
life propagation and survival;
"Standards for all Freshwaters"
more protective
agriculture and other uses,
column (aquatic life and human
classification)
except for primary recreation,
health sections) apply to Class C
water supply or food -related
waters, unless preempted by
uses
more protective standard.
Class B
Primary recreation
Same as for Class C
Same as for Class C
(swimming on an organized
or frequent basis) and all
uses specified for Class C
(and not water supply or
other food -related uses)
WS-1
Water supplies in natural and
Refer to the NC Dept. of Marine
Not applicable since watershed is
Water Supply
undeveloped watersheds
Fisheries for table on "More
undeveloped
NOTE: Revised water
Stringent Standards to Support
supply classifications
Additional Uses": WS classes
and standards effective
heading; no point sources except
as of 8/3/92
groundwater remediation when
no alternative exists
WS-II
Water supplies in
Refer to NC Dept. of Marine
Local land management program
Water Supply
predominantly undeveloped
Fisheries for table on "More
required as per 15A NCAC
watersheds
Stringent Standards to Support
2B.0211(d): 2-acre lots or 6%
Additional Uses": WS classes
built -upon area in critical area; 1-
heading; only general permit
acre lots or 12% built -upon area
wastewater discharges allowed in
outside of critical area; up to 24%
watershed and groundwater
in the critical area and 30% built
remediation discharges allowed
upon area outside of the critical
when no alternative exists
area allowed with engineered
stormwater controls for the 1"
storm
I-71
Wastewater treatment reliability
requirements (dual train design; backup
power capability) may apply to protect
swimming uses (15A NCAC 2H.0124)
No landfills, sludge/ residual or
petroleum contaminated soils
application allowed in watershed
Buffers required along perennial
waters; no new landfills allowed in the
critical area and no new discharging
landfills outside of critical area; no new
sludge/residual or petroleum
contaminated soils application allowed
in the critical area; hazardous material
and spill/failure containment plan
required; spill containment structures
required for new industries in the
critical area using, storing, or
manufacturing hazardous materials

Primary Classifications Best Usage Numeric Standards Stormwater Controls Other Requirements
Saltwater
Class SC Saltwaters protected for
secondary recreation, aquatic
life propagation and survival
and other uses as described
for Class C
Class SB Saltwaters protected for
primary recreation and all
Class SC uses (similar to
Class B)
Refer to the NC Dept. of Marine
Fisheries for table on Water
Quality Standard for Saltwater
Classes; standards listed under
"Standards For All Tidal
Saltwaters" column (aquatic life
and human health sections) apply
to Class SC waters, unless
preempted by more protective
standard.
Same as Class SC except no
floating solids, settable solids or
sludge deposits attributable to
sewage, industrial or other
wastes.
Stormwater Disposal Rules (15A
NCAC 2H.1000) apply to all
waters in the 20 coastal counties;
low density option: 30% built -
upon area or 1/3 acre lots, or
structural stormwater controls with
higher density, as specified
Same as Class SC
Reliability requirements same as for
Class B
Class SA
Shellfishing and all Class SC Same as for Class SC, except
Same as for Class SC, except low
No domestic discharges and only
and SB uses fecal coliform = 14 colonies per
density option = 25% built -upon
nonprocess industrial discharges, such
100 ml of water; all other waters
area
as seafood packing house or cooling
= 200/100 ml fecal
water discharges
Supplemental Classifications are added to the primary classification as appropriate (Examples include Class C-NSW, Class SA-ORW, Class B-Trout, etc.) and impose
additional requirements.
Supplemental
Classifications
Best Usage Numeric Standards
Stormwater Controls
Other Requirements
High Quality Waters
(HQW) (categories: (1)
waters rated as Excellent
by DEM; (2) Primary
Nursery Areas; (3)
Native or Special Native
Trout Waters; (4)
Critical Habitat Areas;
(5) WS-1 and WS-II
water supplies; (6) SA
waters) since stormwater
control requirements
already apply
Waters with quality higher
than the standards (EPA's
Tier II waters; the minimum
standards for Class C and SC
define Tier I); see Standards
and Stream Classifications
Rules (15A NCAC 213.0100)
for detailed description (15A
NCAC 2B.0101(e)(5))
For new or expanded discharges,
advanced treatment requirement
are: BODS 5 mg/l; NH,-N=2
mg/l; DO=6 mg/l
I-72
Projects requiring Erosion/
Sedimentation Control Plan and
are within 1 mile and draining to
HQW waters: 1-acre lots or, 12%
built -upon area, or higher density
with engineered structural controls
(wet detention ponds); WS-1, WS-
II and 20 coastal counties exempt
Other treatment requirements may
apply, dependent upon type of
discharge and characteristics of
receiving waters (see pp. 1 and 2 of
Section .0200 Rules: 15A NCAC
213.0201(d) of Antidegradation Policy)

Water quality concerns provided by the Division of Coastal Management include SA waters
closed to shellfishing at Satterthwaite Creek, Wrights Creek, upper North Creek, South Creek and
' Bond Creek. However, closed shellfishing areas may change several times during the shelf life of
this plan. An up-to-date map showing all areas which are closed to shellfishing may be obtained
through the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Non -supporting feeder streams are found
' along the northeasternmost boundary of Beaufort/Hyde/Washington county line in the Pungo Lake
hydrologic unit (03020104090010); in the Broad Creek hydrologic unit (03020104100020); and near
Aurora in the Whitehurst Creek (03020104060020) and South Creek (03020104060010) hydrologic
' units; as well as a small area near Jack Creek in the Pamlico River (03020104030040) unit and in
the City of Washington planning area in the Herring Run hydrologic unit (03020104020020). All
of the navigable open waters which are classified as SB and SC waters are reported as "Partially
Supporting" in both the Pamlico and the Pungo Rivers. Hills Creek (03020104010010) unit near
Chocowinity includes several miles of "partially supporting" stream. Nevil Creek in the Pamlico
River unit mentioned above is also rated as "partially supporting". In the northwestern portion of
the county, Big Swamp unit (03020103090040) is mostly "support threatened". This rating is also
present in the Broad Creek (03020104020050 & 40) and Herring Run (03020104020010) units, and
in the Durham Creek unit in southern Beaufort County. SA class waters not otherwise mentioned
above are reported as "support threatened" with the exception of Pungo River between Woodstock
Point and Wrights Creek.
The vast majority of water area in Beaufort County is Class SB waters currently rated as
Partially Supporting. However, the vast majority of feeder stream miles in the county are Class C,
rated as "Supporting". No data was presented which links this Use Class status pattern to specific
Beaufort County causes. Most of the land in the northern section of the county, and portions of the
southern section has been drained for agricultural and forestry uses. Wastewater treatment and
drinking water treatment facilities are scattered; located in Dowery Creek, the Town of Belhaven,
the Town of Aurora, the Town of Bath, the Town of Chocowinity, and the City of Washington.
' Major industries utilizing water resources as permitted point source dischargers include National
Spinning, PCS Phosphate, and the crab processing operations around Aurora and Belhaven. Marinas
and dockage areas are generally concentrated in Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, Broad Creek, and
Washington, although dockages are also shown at Nevil Creek, Chocowinity Bay, Wright Creek,
Jordan Creek, and Dowery Creek. Residential uses which utilize on -site water and septic facilities
are scattered throughout the county. Beaufort County is situated at the lower end of Tar -Pamlico
drainage basin. The Tar River is receiving waters for wastewater effluent from the cities of
Greenville, Tarboro and Rocky Mount, as well as all industrial point source discharges and
agricultural runoff from much of Pitt, Edgecombe, and Nash counties and parts of 7 others. The
cumulative effect of these diverse discharges is perhaps the best explanation of water quality status
near the end of the line in Beaufort County. As the river widens into the Pamlico Sound, the
' assimilative capacity of the river appears to increase, reflecting staged improvement of water quality
ratings from partial to threatened to fully supporting status downstream.
The following table identifies all marina and dockage facilities located within Beaufort
County. These facilities are delineated on Map 8.
1
I-73

Table 17
Beaufort County
Marinas and Dockages
Washington
Contact
Ramp
Repair
Restroo
In
Pumpout
Fuel
Liftout
Restrnt
Wet Slips
Commercial
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
50
Broad Creek Marina &
Eastern Carolina Yachts
[phone]
McCotters Marina
Mark Henley
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gas &
Yes
No
200
[phone]
Diesel
Park Boat Co.
Larry or Terry
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Gas
Yes
No
Smithwick
[phone]
Pungo Creek Motel N
No Contact
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
50
Washington Yacht & CC
Aubrey Moore
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Gas &
No
Yes
176
[phone]
Diesel
Whichards Beach Marina
Billy Whichard
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Gas
No
No
29
[phone]
Public
Mason's Landing
Phillip W. Mobley
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
5
[phone]
Stewart Pkwy
Phillip W. Mobley
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
5
[phone]
Residential
Cypress Landing Marina
Kip Peregoy
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
84 Phase 1
[phone]
75 Phase 2
Dowry Creek Marina
[phone]
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
73
Pamlico Plantation
John McCormick
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
285
[phone]
Source: NC Division of Coastal Management, 1995.
I-74

Martin County to the north, and Beaverdam Swamp to the east. Through a cooperative agreement
effort, the District has entered into an agreement with the City of Washington to purchase water from
the city. Facilities include the following:
-- 1 each 300,000 gallon elevated storage tank.
-- 52 f miles of distribution piping serving 1,443 f users
-- 1 each Booster Pump Station
-- Interconnection with the City of Washington
District III
Beaufort County Water District III - Long Acre East (the District) is located in northern Beaufort
County. The District is a local unit of government created under NC General Statutes 162A Article
6. The District is bounded in general by the Pamlico River to the south, Upper Goose Creek to the
west, Washington County to the north, and Broad Creek to the east. Through a cooperative
agreement effort, the District has entered into an agreement with the City of Washington to purchase
water from the city. Facilities include the following:
-- 1 each 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank
-- 48 f miles of distribution piping serving 1,273 f users
-- Interconnection with the City of Washington
District IV
Beaufort County Water District IV - Bath Township (the District) is located in northeast Beaufort
County. The District is a local unit of government created under NC General Statutes 162A Article
6. The District is bounded in general by the Pamlico River to the south, Upper Goose Creek to the
west, Pungo Creek to the north, and the Pungo River and Hyde County to the east. Facilities include
the following:
-- 2 each 450 GPM deep wells.
-- 1 each 400,000 gallon elevated storage tanks.
-- 85 f miles of distribution piping serving 1,589 users
-- 1 each water treatment facility
District V
Beaufort County Water District V - Pantego Township (the District) is located in northeast Beaufort
County. The District is a local unit of government created under NC General Statutes 162A Article
6. The District is bounded in general by the Pungo Creek to the south, the Dismal Swamp to the
west, Washington County to the north, and the Pungo River and Hyde County to the east. The
District includes all territory and residents within the Town of Pantego and excludes all territory and
residents within the Town of Belhaven. Facilities include the following:
-- 2 each 350 GPM deep wells.
-- 1 each 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank
-- 90 f miles of distribution piping serving 1,104 f users
-- 1 each water treatment facility
I-76

District VI
Beaufort County Water District VI - Chocowinity/Richland Township (the District) is located in
southwest Beaufort County. The District is a local unit of government created under NC General
Statutes 162A Article 6. The District is bounded in general by the Pamlico River to the north, Pitt
County to the west, Craven County to the south, and Nevil Creek and NC 33 to the east. BCWD VI
excludes all territory and residents lying within the Town of Chocowinity. Facilities include the
following:
-- 2 each 300 GPM deep wells
-- 1 each 400,000 gallon elevated storage tank
== 38 f miles of distribution piping serving 1,036 users
1 each water treatment facility
District VII
Beaufort County Water District VII - Richland Township (the District) is located in southeast
Beaufort County and includes a majority of the territory within Richland Township. The District
is a local unit of government created under NC General Statutes 162A Article 6. The District is
bounded in general by the Pamlico River to the north, Nevil Creek and NC 33 to the west, Pamlico
County to the south, and Goose Creek to the east. The District excludes all territory and residents
within the Town of Aurora. Facilities include the following:
.2 each 350 GPM deep wells
1 each 300,000 gallon elevated storage tank
-- 62 f miles of distribution piping serving 1,071 t users
-- 1 each water treatment facility
The county does not operate a water treatment facility at this time. About 12 million gallons of
treated water is purchased from the City of Washington each month to serve the operational county
water districts. The county does operate a water, storage and distribution system.
Because of the county's dependence on the City of Washington water system, it is important to
understand the capabilities of the city's system. Thus, the following describes the capabilities of the
existing City of Washington system.
The water supply source for the City of Washington is groundwater -based. The well field is capable
of production of up to 4.5 mgd from eight wells pumping on an alternating 4 wells on/4 wells off
schedule for 12 hours each schedule. The wells produce groundwater from the Castle Hayne Aquifer
System. The locations, potential yields, etc., of production wells are presented in Table 18.
I-77

A
Table 18
City of Washington
List of Groundwater Sources - New Well Field and Existing Well at Slatestone
Well Yield or Max. Prod.
Facilities that limit total daily
Name or Number of Well
Well Depth
(Pumping Capacity)
output
Feet
MGD
Type
MGD
Slatestone Well
1
182
196
0.288
1.125
Well
1
0.288
4.50
2
252
1.125
1
4.50
3
278
1.125
1
4.50
4
222
1.125
1
4.50
5
213
1.125
1
4.50
6
202
1.125
1
4.50
7
261
1.125
1
4.50
8
214
1.125
1
4.50
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina.
Beaufort County lies entirely within the state's one and only Capacity Use Area (CUA) No. 1.'
Current users can be classified by type of use (such as agricultural, mining or public supply). The
demand for water may vary over time for different uses, being relatively constant for some uses
(public supply or industrial) or more variable for others (such as crop irrigation or filling of t�
aquaculture ponds). The most important aquifer in CUA #1 is the Castle Hayne Limestone, which
yields large quantities of usable water across most of the area. The top of the Castle Hayne aquifer
occurs at a depth of less than 10 feet along part of the southern edge of CUA #1 to a depth of greater
than 400 feet in eastern parts of the area. Most large capacity wells are completed in the Castle
Hayne. Locally, some wells withdraw water from the overlying surficial and Croatan aquifers. In
the western part of CUA #1, some wells are completed in the underlying Cretaceous aquifers. The
following summary is based on the usage reports submitted by permittees in CUA #1 from
September,1996 to August, 1997.
Currently, overall use of water in CUA #1 is within sustainable levels. No short term or localized
negative impacts have been identified in CUA #1, primarily because growth in the number of users
and increased development in the Coastal Plain have been offset by decreased withdrawals related
to phosphate mining, and because of the high yield of the Castle Hayne aquifer throughout CUA # 1.
DWR is preparing a groundwater flow model that will be used to evaluate cumulative impacts of
permitted withdrawals and to identify any regional problems and safe yield limits before the resource
has been negatively impacted. Other areas of the Coastal Plain are also being evaluated to identify
potential problems and to develop management strategies for effective and sustainable use of the
available water sources.
The average annual daily water use for the City of Washington in 1992 was 1.402 mgd. The i
maximum monthly average water use was 1.724 mgd in July, 1992, and the minimum monthly
average water use was 1.260 mgd in February, 1992. The maximum daily water use was 2.593 mgd
I-78 1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
i
during late May, 1992. Table 19 provides the average monthly water use in mgd for 1992. Water.
use by type of user is provided in Table 20. Table 21 provides information on the city's major water
users.
Table 19
City of Washington
Average Monthly Water Use in MGD for 1992
January
1.311
July
February
1.260
August
March
1.345
September
April
1.395
October
May
1.531
November
June
1.484
December
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington,
North Carolina.
Table 20
City of Washington
1992 Water Use by Type of User
Metered Connections
1.724
1.585
1.503
1.484
1.469
1.360
Nonmetered Connections
Type Number Water Use (MGD) Number Estimated Use (MUD)
Residential 3,286 .455
Institutional/ 811 .319 .336*
Commercial
Industrial 10 .220
Bulk Sales to 6 .072
Other Suppliers
Un-Accounted for
Water
Total 4,113 1.066 .336
*Includes backwash, accelerator, blowdown, filter, softner, and hydrants.
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina.
I-79

1
Table 21
City of Washington
1992 System's Largest Water Users
Avg Use Avg Use
Water User (MGD) Water User (MGD)
National Spinning Co. 0.134
Washington Housing Auth. W 1 Ith 0.030
Beaufort County Hospital 0.029
Hamilton Beach 0.027
Runyon Creek LTD Partnership 0.025
Washington Housing Auth. - 9th
0.018
Stanadyne
0.016
Ridgewood Manor, Inc.
0.013
Holiday Inn of Washington
0.012
Washington City Schools
0.012
Source: Water Master Plan, City of Washington, North Carolina.
The current capacity of the system is 4.5 mgd. Thus, the utilization is well under capacity.
In 1997, construction was scheduled to begin on a 750,000 gallon per day water treatment facility
to serve Water District VII (Richard Township). Completion is expected in 1998. Additionally,
Water Districts IV (Bath) and V (Pantego) will begin construction in late 1997.
According to the Division of Water Resources, between September,1996 - August, 1997, Beaufort
County withdrew an average of 110.6 million gallons of water per day from CUA #1. The largest
water user was PCS Phosphate in Aurora which withdrew approximately 40 MGD. In addition to
the City of Washington, municipal water systems are operated by Aurora, Bath, Belhaven, and
Chocowinity. In 1992, all of the municipal water systems in the county combined averaged
approximately 2.0 MGD. This represents just a fraction of overall water consumed by the county.
3. Wastewater Disposal
Five communities in Beaufort County provide wastewater treatment services. These are Aurora,
Bath, Belhaven, Chocowinity, and Washington. In addition, the subdivision of Dowery Creek
operates package treatment facilities funded by property owner fees. Residents of the Cypress
Landing subdivision are provided wastewater services via the Town of Chocowinity. All other
residents of Beaufort County rely on on -site septic systems. All five of the communities which
provide public service are currently involved in (or have recently completed) improvements to their
treatment systems. Both Aurora and Belhaven have significant problems with infiltration of water
from outside the engineered system, making capacity and demand subject to local weather
conditions. The Town ofAurora has established a constructed wetland facility to supplement normal
service. Bath and Belhaven are under state -ordered moratoriums on new hook-ups until
improvements can be made to expand capacity. The following table provides total capacity and
estimated demand for the five wastewater treatment facilities.
q
'I
a
1
11
IMR

1
Table 22
Beaufort County
Wastewater Systems, 1997
Municipality
Total Capacity
Aurora
120,000
Bath
18,000
Belhaven
500,000
Chocowinity
120,000
Washington
3,200,000
Estimated Demand (GPD)
Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
85,000
18,000
450,000
90,000
1,800,000
Demand as % of Capacity
70.8%
100.0%
90.0%
75.0%
56.3%
4. Solid Waste
The county landfill is located on the west side of SR 1334 about 12 miles east of Washington. The
facility opened in 1978 and closed to municipal waste in October, 1995. It still serves as a fill site
for construction/demolition material and inert debris. About 70 acres are currently operational. For
most solid waste, the county utilizes the regional landfill in Bertie County operated by East Carolina
Environmental. Municipal waste is transported to a transfer station which is located on Flanders
Filter Road in western Beaufort County. The county is a member of the Albemarle Solid Waste
Authority. The Solid Waste Authority has a 28-year landfill contract with East Carolina
Environmental, Inc., in Bertie County for use of the regional landfill.
The county's waste (non -municipal) is accumulated at 11 manned drop-off centers around the county
and transferred through the Flanders Filter Road transfer station to the regional facility. Tipping fees
are paid to the regional facility according to tonnage, and Beaufort County property owners are
assessed $60 per household to accommodate these costs. The following table lists the waste disposal
tonnage and per capita disposal rates for Beaufort County for FY91-92 through FY94-95.
Table 23
Beaufort County
Solid Waste Disposal
MSW MSW Tons MSW Tons MSW Tons % Waste
Managed Disposed Disposed Disposed Reduction
FY91-92 FY92-93 FY93-94 FY94-95 FY94-95*
Beaufort 41,769.03 47,546.61 52,044.09 51,972.27
(per capita) 0.99 1.11 1.22 1.20 21.97%
*Waste reduction formula: (base year per capita minus current year per capita) divided by base year per
capita.
Source: North Carolina 1994-95 Solid Waste Annual Report, Division of Solid Waste Management.
' I-81

1
The county is just beginning implementation of a July, 1997, solid waste management plan. The
state -imposed waste stream reduction goal of 40% for each county by 2001 is well off pace at this
time, with an increase of over 24% in reported waste from FY1991-1992 to FY1994-1995.
However, it is probable that a large portion of the increase is attributable to the summer 1996
hurricanes. There is no mandatory recycling program in the county, but voluntary recycling is
encouraged, and separation containers are available at the drop-off sites.
5. Schools
The Beaufort CountySchool System includes fourteen public and three
Y P
private schools. These
schools are dispersed throughout six communities.
School, Pungo Christian Academy, and Terra Ceia
The private schools are Emmanuel Christian
Christian School. The public school system is
summarized in Table 24. Construction is scheduled to begin soon on an additional
school, Southside
High School. A completion date is not available at this time. This facility will -primarily serve 9-12
grade students who live on the south side of the river in Beaufort County.
Table 24
Beaufort County
School Enrollment, May 1997
Building
Enrollment
Community School
Grades Enrollment
Capacity
as % Cap.
Aurora Aurora High School
9-12 161
350
48%
S.W. Snowden Elem.
Pre K-8 510
650
78%
Bath Bath Elementary School
Pre K-8 640
650
99%
Belhaven Belhaven Elementary School
Pre K-5 326
525
63%
Belhaven Jr. High School
6-8 245
475
52%
Chocowinity Chocowinity High School
6-12 525
700
77%
Chocowinity Primary School
Pre K-5 525
504
104%
Pantego Beaufort County Elem. School
Pre K-5 197
350
55%
Washington Eastern Elementary School
Pre K-1 687
700
100%
John Small Elem. School
4-5 573
650
88%
P.S. Jones Jr. High School
6-8 902
950
95%
J.C. Tayloe Elem. School
2-3 617
650
96%
Washington High School
9-12 960
1300
76%
Beaufort County Northside High School
9-12 551
750
79%
TOTAL
7,419
9,204
82%
'
Source: Beaufort County School System
NOTE: As of March 20, 1997, Belhaven Elementary School and Belhaven Jr. High School were closed
indefinitely due to high levels of bacteria as a result of flooding sustained during Hurricane Bertha and
Hurricane Fran in the summer of 1996. The students are currently attending classes at the Northside High
School. Belhaven Elementary School students are expected to attend Beaufort County Elementary School
next year which will raise the enrollment to approximately 340 students.
hi
I-82

I
1 6. - Police/Fire/Rescue
Beaufort County is served by 15 fire departments manned predominantly by volunteers. Only the
City of Washington provides paid service. Seven EMS providers answer emergency medical calls.
Again, the majority of service is provided by volunteers. This poses growing limitations for
adequate daytime fire and rescue services since most volunteers work (often elsewhere) during the
day.
The Beaufort County Sheriffs department provides law enforcement services throughout the county
with a staff of 41 deputies. This includes 7 investigators. Based on National Standards, a
community would normally provide two staff police personnel per 1,000 persons in population. The
unincorporated area of the county has a 1995 population of 29,406. While the county does not meet
the two per 1,000 population ratio, the Sheriffs Department personnel is supplemented by the
municipal police department. The department also maintains a S.W.A.T. team. Municipal police
departments are present in four of the incorporated areas, but two of the departments have only one
full-time officer. The 1995 crime rate was 43.5 (major crimes per 1,000 persons), ranking the county
40th highest among North Carolina's 100 counties.
7. Transportation
Beaufort County is traversed by two major highway routes. U.S. 17 is a major north -south Federal
route, known as "The Coast Highway" to travelers from New York to Florida. Once the scenic
alternative to U.S. Highway 301, it now serves mostly tourists, truck traffic, and regional travelers.
Proposed relocation westward ofthis highway has been expressed as a major concern by Washington
and Beaufort County businesses. Current plans call for a by-pass of Washington.
U.S. 264 is the major east/west route through the northern section of the county. This highway
accommodates traffic flows from the Greenville area to Hyde County. Widened to the intersection
with NC 32, this route is slated for additional widening improvements through Belhaven in the next
10 years. U.S. 264 is a vital link to interior areas of the county.
Beaufort County contains approximately 877 miles of roadway, of which 22%(±) are included as
part of the state's primary highway system. Paved roads accounted for 699 miles in 1995 with 178
miles of state -maintained roads remaining unpaved.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation maintains a Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The TIP is essentially an overview of transportation projects anticipated in the next five
years. It contains funding information and schedules for various transportation divisions including:
highways, aviation, public transportation, rail, bicycle and pedestrians, and the Governor's Highway
Safety Program. Table 25 provides a summary of the TIP highway construction project scheduled
from 1997 to 2003.
r
1
I-83

1
In addition, there are TIP improvements scheduled within the City of Washington which have local
significance within the city and county. These include:
-- SR 1501, SR 1306 (12th Street) to SR 1507, widen to five lanes with curb and gutter,
identified future need.
-- SR 1306 (15th Street) at SR 1422 (Market Street). Construct left turn lanes on SR 1306 at '
SR 1422 on both directions of travel and revise signal construction FY2000.
Other significant transportation improvement projects including the following:
-- The widening of Highland Drive to five lanes from East 12th Street to Slatestone Road.
-- ' Careful planning of commercial and industrial development along U.S. 264 and U.S. 17.
Strip development should be avoided and service roads encouraged.
-- Relocation of Spring Road to the north.
-- Widening of Brick Kiln Road to four lanes.
-- Extension of Brick Kiln Road from U.S. 264 to Old Bath Highway.
-- Widening of River Road to four lanes from Christian Service Camp Road to Broad Creek
Road.
-- Construction of new rest area at intersection of U.S. 264 and new alignment of U.S. 17.
-- Construction of left turn lanes on 15th Street at Market Street in both directions of travel and
revision of signal.
L�
1
1
I-84 1

r r � .r t•r rr r r � rw � � r r r� rr r�
Table 25
HIGHWAY PROGRAM
BEAUFORT COUNTY
ROUTE/CITY
ID NO.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
LENGTH
TOTAL
PRIOR
WORK TYPE 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
US 264
R-3422
BEAUFORT NORTHERN BYPASS, SR 1409 WEST OF
15.7
66300
IDENTIFIED FUTURE NEED
BEAUFORT TO SR 1600 EAST OF BEAUFORT.
25.3
CONSTRUCT A FOUR LANE DIVIDED FACILITY ON
NEW LOCATION.
BEAUFORT
U-2723
SR 1501, SR 1306 0 2TH STREET) TO SR 1507.
1.4
4300
IDENTIFIED FUTURE NEED
WIDEN TO FIVE LANES WITH CURB AND GUTTER.
2.3
NC 45
B-3478
PUNGO RIVER CANAL. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 30
-
400
C(POC) 400 CONSTRUCTION - FFY 02
NC 99
B-2805
BRANCH OF PUNGO CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 70
-
467
117
C(FA ) 350 CONSTRUCTION - FFY 97
NC 99
B-3611
PANTEGO CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 77
-
4950
R(FA ) 450 RIGHT OF WAY - FFY 02
C(FA ) 4500 CONSTRUCTION - FFY 03
US 264-NC 99
B-2806
CUCKOLD'S CREEK. REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 63
-
750
R(FA ) 25 RIGHT OF WAY - FFY 98
OO
C(FA ) 725 CONSTRUCTION - FFY 99
N
US 264
K-3300
PROPOSED REST AREA AT INTERSECTION OF US 264
-
1000
IDENTIFIED FUTURE NEED
AND NEW ALIGNMENT OF US 17 IN CONJUNCTION
WITH R-2510.
BEAUFORT
W-3429
SR 1306 (FIFTEENTH STREET) AT SR 1422 (MARKET
-
365
14
R(HES) 151 RIGHT OF WAY - FFY 97
STREET). CONSTRUCT LEFT TURN LANES ON
C(HES) 200 CONSTRUCTION - FFY 97
SR 1306 AT SR 1422 ON BOTH DIRECTIONS OF
TRAVEL AND REVISE SIGNAL.
SR 1100
Z-3415A
BLOUNTS CREEK AT SOUTHERN RAILROAD CROSSING
-
75
75
C(RR ) FUNDED - CONSTRUCTION NOT AUTHORIZED
466 372F. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
SR 1124
Z-3602A
WINDMILL ROAD NEAR CHOCOWINITY AT CAROLINA
-
75
C(RR ) 75 CONSTRUCTION - FFY 97
AND NORTHWESTERN RAILROAD CROSSING 466 365V.
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS.
BELHAVEN
Z-2915C
NC 99 AT CAROLINA COASTAL RAILROAD CROSSING
- t
75
75
C(RR ) FUNDED - CONSTRUCTION NOT AUTHORIZED
466 289E. REVISE AUTOMATIC WARNING DEVICES.
• INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT ALL SCHEDULES SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS

Table 25 (continued)
HIGHWAY PROGRAM BEAUFORT COUNTY
TOTAL PRIOR WORK TYPE SCHEDULE
ROUTE/CITY ID NO. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION LENGTH EST. YEARS (FUNDING) FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR
(MI) COST COST EST. COST
(KM) (THOU) (THOU) (THOU) 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
NC 306
US 17
0o US 17
O�
US 17
NC 32
US 264
X-4 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE AND APPROACHES ACROSS THE 3.4 50000 P
PAMLICO RIVER. 5.5 R(STP) 1000
POST YEAR CONSTRUCTION-49000
PROGRAMMED FOR TIERED EIS AND ROW
ACQUISITION
R-2510 * BEAUFORT BYPASS.. FOUR LANE DIVIDED FREEWAY 19.7 144680 1000 P
ON NEW LOCATION.. 31.7 D
R(NHS) 17180
C(T ) 14500
POST
YEAR CONSTRUCTION-112000
R-2511 *
BEAUFORT BYPASS TO MULTI -LANES SOUTH OF
6.7
16100
P
WILLIAMSTON. WIDEN ROADWAY TO A MULTI -LANE
10.8
D
FACILITY.
R(T )
1000
-*
POST
YEAR ROW AND CONSTRUCTION
15100
R-2513 *
NC 43 10 BEAUFORT BYPASS. WIDEN
18.8
41400
P
*—
ROADWAY TO A MULTI -LANE FACILITY.
30.3
D
R(T )
1000
—*
POST
YEAR ROW AND CONSTRUCTION
40400
R-1014
SR 1309 TO SR 1300. WIDEN ROADWAY 10 A
1.5
5150
1650 P
MULTI -LANE FACILITY.
2.4
D
R(S )
1000
C(S )
2500
PART
COMPLETE
R-2601
NC 32 TO NC 99 AT BELHAVEN. WIDEN ROADWAY TO
22.8;
48825
300 P
A MULTILANE FACILITY. ,
36.7 ti
D
R(STP)
1000
(
—*
POST YEAR ROW AND CONSTRUCTION-47525
* INDICATES INTRASTATE PROJECT ALL SCHEDULES SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
r m Mimi wiiiI 1m �'

Warren Field provides general aviation access to the nation's National Air Transportation System.
The facility is jointly -owned by Beaufort County and the City of Washington. Significant
improvements are scheduled for Warren Field. An updated Airport Layout Plan report was prepared
in 1995. In that report, a capital improvement program was scheduled through 2000. These
improvements are detailed in Table 26.
Table 26
Warren Field Airport
Capital Improvement Program, 1996-2000
TIP
Estimated
PhaseNear
Project Description
Funding
Quantity
Units
Cost
PHASE 1
1996 - 2000
1996-1
Height/Land Use Study
95 TIP
$6,000
1996-2
Approach Survey R/W 17-35
95 TIP
$8,000
1997-1
Rehabilitate Access Road
95 TIP
3,200
SY
$30,000
1997-2
T-Hangar Taxiway Site Prep
95 TIP
9,500
CY
$44,000
1997-3
DME; R/W 5
1997-4
Drainage Improvements
1997-5
Property Acquisition for FAR Part 77; R/W 5
21
Acres
1998-1
Approach Survey
95 TIP
$8,000
1998-2
T-Hangar Taxiway/Access Road/Parking Paving
195 TIP
4,700
SY
$44,000
1998-3
Terminal Apron Expansion
95 TIP
5,000
SY
$100,000
1998-4
Automated Weather Station (AWOS-III)
1998-5
Rehabilitate/Strengthen Taxiways and Aprons
66,600
SY
1998-6
Property Acquisition for Approach Lighting, R/W 5
2
Acres
1999-1
Glide Scope/Outer Marker, R/W 5
95 TIP
$280,000
1999-2
T-Hangar Construction (two complexes - 10 bays)
2000-1
Approach Lighting System (MALSF); R/W 5
2000-2
High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL); R/W 5-23
2000-3
Rehabilitate R/W 17-35
42,000
SY
TOTAL
$432,000
Source: Warren Field Airport Layout Plan Report.
These 1996-2000 improvements constitute Phase I of a long-range 20 year capital improvement
program. Ultimately, it is proposed to extend runway I-23 from 5,000 to 6,000 feet. This will
require closure of Cowhead Springs Road. The nearest air carrier airport is the Pitt/Greenville
Airport located in Greenville; North Carolina, approximately 25 miles west of Washington.
Passenger rail service is available in the City of Rocky Mount, about 75 miles west of Beaufort
County. Amtrak provides direct and connector service to all destinations in their service from this
point of departure. Bus service is available through Trailways, which operates a bus station on the
eastern edge of the City of Washington.
I-87

8.- Library
The BHM Regional Library, located in Washington, North Carolina, is one of three libraries in a
regional library system which encompasses Beaufort, Hyde, and Martin counties. In addition to the
regional library, there are several other public libraries located in Beaufort County. The following
lists the library name and location:
Name
Aurora Library
Bath Community Library
Ralph Memorial Library
Brown Library
9. Electric Distribution
Location
Aurora, North Carolina
Bath, North Carolina
Belhaven, North Carolina
Washington, North Carolina
Beaufort County is provided electrical service by the following companies:
Name
Approximate Number
of Customers
City of Washington 12,000
Town of Belhaven 1,200
Tideland Electric Membership Corporation 6,500
Carolina Power & Light 3,100
Edgecombe-Martin Electric Membership Corporation 200
North Carolina Power (also referred to as VEPCO) 200
NOTE: Greenville Utilities has one line which runs through the edge of Beaufort County and serves
approximately 5 to 6 customers.
Electrical distribution appears to be adequate to serve the county's existing needs.
Deregulation of the electric industry in North Carolina may have an impact on the supply of
electricity to Beaufort County. The electric power industry is the last public utility sector in this
country to undergo deregulation, also called restructuring, competition, and retail wheeling. In
theory, in a deregulated environment, customers would be able to purchase electricity from any
supplier. Suppliers could sell to any customer at rates determined by the market and not controlled
by regulation. In addition to paying for electric supply, customers also would pay for having that
electricity transmitted to their home or business. Charges that are part of the total rate package a
customer now pays would be broken down into their component parts: electric power generation,
transmission through the electric grid, and distribution to the individual customer's location.

1
1
UA
1
Large industrial customers in the state and nation are pushing for electric deregulation to be able to
shop for electric suppliers. Electricity is a major expense for many industries.
In 1997, the fate of the electric power industry in North Carolina was placed in the hands of the state
General Assembly. The General Assembly formed a study commission made up of individuals that
represent legislators, electric power companies, environmentalists, industries, businesses, and
residents in North Carolina. In late 1997, this 23-member group began studying how to proceed with
electric deregulation in North Carolina. The Commission will present an interim report for the
Legislature in 1998 and a final report in 1999. At that time, the State of North Carolina will take
action on how all of North Carolina's electric customers will be able to purchase electricity.
10. Administration
Beaufort County operates a manager -commissioners form of government. There are nineteen
departments which include: Office of County Manager/Finance Officer, Board of Elections, Tax
Assessor, Tax Collector, Land Records, Register of Deeds, Maintenance, Sheriff/
Communications/Jail, Emergency Management, Veterans Service, Inspections, County
Planner/Water Department, Animal Control, Health, Cooperative Ext., County Home, Social
Services, Solid Waste, and Soil Conservation. The county employs a total of 335 full-time
employees.
I-89

' SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A. PROJECTED DEMAND FOR DEVELOPMENT
1. Demographic Trends
Table 27 provides the forecast population for Beaufort County and its municipalities through 2005.
The data is based on 1997 population information which includes population annexed in 1996 by
the City of Washington. The forecast indicated that the municipalities percentage of the county's
population will remain at approximately 33% from 1997 to 2005. However, some municipalities
have indicated their intention to pursue annexation of adjacent areas. This could result in an increase
in the county's residents which reside within municipalities.
The county's total population is expected to increase from 43,330 to 44,962, an increase of 3.8%.
The population of the county's unincorporated areas is forecast to increase from 28,814 to 29,790,
an increase of 1.3%. The overall county growth rate of 3.8% falls behind that of 47.26% for all of
the CAMA counties.
Table 27
Beaufort County and its Municipalities
Summary of Projected Year -Round Population Growth, 1995-2005
Municipality/Area
Year -Round Population
Percentage Change
Overall .
1997
2000
2005
'97-'00
'00 '05
'97-'05
Aurora
640
626
618
-2.2%
-1.2%
-3.4%
Bath
190.
227
246
19.4%
8.5%
29.5%
Belhaven
2,212
2,154
2,123
-2.6%
-1.4%
-4.0%
Chocowinity
809
998
1,097
23.4%
9.9%
35.6%
Pantego
170
169
168
-0.6%
-0.3%
-0.9%
Washington
10,013
10,182
10,444
1.7%
2.6%
4.3%
Washington Park
482
478
476
-0.8%
-0.4%
-1.3%
Total Municipalities
14,516
14,834
15,172
2.2%
2.3%
4.5%
Total Unincorporated Areas
Total County
28,814.
43,330
29,567
44,401
29,790
44,962
2.2%
2.2%
1.1%
1.5%
3.4%
3.8%
Sources: North Carolina Office
of State Planning; extrapolation of data for municipalities from 2000-2005
by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
Note: 1990-1995 ratios of municipal/county growth utilized to extrapolate 1995-2005 municipal growth.
'
II-1

1
2. HousingTrends
During the period 1992 to 1996, an average of almost 134 single-family residential building permits
per year were issued in Beaufort County. During the same time, 434 permits per year were issued
for single and double wide mobile homes. During the 1992-1996 time period, the residential
construction activity significantly surpassed population growth. At an average of 2.3 persons per
household, the annual average issuance of 568 residential permits could have accommodated an
additional annual population of 1,306. During that period, the average annual population growth
was approximately 240 people. Some of the building permits never resulted in new construction or
mobile homes while others were issued for replacement homes. Precise data is not available.
Because of the lack of county -wide zoning and the availability of approximately 312,800 (1996)
acres of vacant land (some of which is not buildable), it is impossible to forecast when and if
residential build -out will occur in Beaufort County. However, ifthe average residential unit requires
.75 acres per unit, sustained average of 568 residential units per year would consume 426 acres.
With approximately 312,800 acres of vacant land, build -out would literally require hundreds of
years. -
There is clearly sufficient land available to accommodate residential growth throughout the planning
period. In addition to new construction, housing rehabilitation and the demolition of dilapidated
structures will continue to be a priority during the planning period.
3. Commercial and Industrial Land Use
During the planning period, no significant changes in commercial and industrial land use are
anticipated. From 1992 to 1996, an annual average of only 42 commercial building permits were
issued. This trend may be expected to continue throughout the planning period.
Commercial development may be expected to continue in the vicinity of municipalities and along
major transportation routes such as U.S. 264 and U.S. 17. Without county -wide zoning to regulate
the location of commercial land uses, "strip" commercialization could become a problem within
Beaufort County and commercialization could infringe on established residential areas.
Industrial development is expected to continue to be concentrated in and near municipalities where
water and sewer utilities are available. In addition, emphasis will be placed on continued
development of the Washington -Beaufort County industrial park.
Beaufort County will support the extension ofwater and sewer improvements throughout the county
as an aid to expanding economic development opportunities. However, most industrial development
within the county may be expected to occur along the U.S. 264 corridor west of the City of
Washington.
The following summarizes the factors which should influence commercial and industrial growth in
Beaufort County:
-- Continued expansion of water and sewer systems within the county will improve
development opportunities.
n
1
11
1
11-2

P
-- Without county -wide zoning, land use compatibility problems may become an increasing
issue.
-- Improvement of Warren Field will aid in industrial economic development.
-- The location of a corridor for the U.S.17 Washington bypass will have a long-term influence
on commercial and industrial development.
-- The county will continue to have good regional accessibility, especially highway access.
-- The existing Beaufort County -City of Washington industrial park will be a magnet for future
industrial development.
-- Beaufort County will give priority to industries with minimal environmental impact.
-- "404" wetland regulations may be expected to influence the location of industrial and
commercial land uses.
-- Commercial and industrial development should not be allowed to adversely effect the
county's shoreline areas.
4. Transportation
Beaufort County will support and encourage comprehensive transportation improvements throughout
r the planning period. Major highway and air transportation needs which will exist during the
planning period will, at a minimum, include the following:
Highway Transportation Improvements:
-- U.S. 264 northern bypass, SR 1409 west of Beaufort to SR 1600 east of Beaufort._ Construct
a four lane divided facility on new location.
-- SR 1501, SR 1306 (12th Street) to SR 1507. Widen to five lanes with curb and gutter.
-- Pungo River Canal. Replace bridge no. 30.
-- Branch of Pungo Creek. Replace bridge no. 70.
-- Pantego Creek. Replace bridge no. 77.
-- Cuckold's Creek. Replace bridge no. 63.
r-- Proposed rest area at intersection of US 264 and new alignment of US 17 in conjunction with
R-2510.
- SR 1306 (Fifteenth Street) at SR 1422 (Market Street). Construct left turn lanes on SR 1306
at SR 1422 on both directions of travel and revise signal.
-- Blounts Creek at Norfolk Southern Railroad Crossing 466 372F. Safety improvements.
' -- Windmill road near Chocowinity at Norfolk Southern Railroad Crossing 466 365V. Safety
improvements.
-- NC 99 at Carolina Coastal Railroad Crossing 466 289E. Revise automatic warning devices.
-- Construct bridge and approaches across the Pamlico River.

'
-- Beaufort bypass. Four lane divided freeway on new location.
-- Connect Bass Highway with U.S. 264 East.
-- Beaufort bypass to multi -lanes south of Williamston. Widen roadway to a multi -lane
facility.
-- NC 43 to Beaufort bypass. Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility.
-- SR 1309 to SR 1300. Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility.
-- NC 32 to NC 99 at Belhaven. Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility.
Air Transportation Improvements
-- Height/Land Use Study
-- Approach Survey R/W 17-35
-- Rehabilitate Access Road
-- T-Hangar Taxiway Site Prep
-- DME; R/W 5
-- Drainage Improvements
-- Property Acquisition for FAR Part 77; R/W 5
-- Approach Survey
-- T-Hangar Taxiway/Access Road/Parking Paving
-- Terminal Apron Expansion
-- Automated Weather Station (AWOS-III)
-- Rehabilitate/Strengthen Taxiways and Aprons
-- Property Acquisition for Approach Lighting, R/W 5
-- Glide Scope/Outer Marker, R/W 5
-- T-Hangar Construction (two complexes -10 bays)
-- Approach Lighting System (MALSF); R/W 5
-- High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL); R/W 5-23
-- Rehabilitate R/W 17-35
Based on the July 1994, Preliminary Build Alternatives Analysis for U.S. 17 Washington Bypass
from SR 1152 to NC 171. Pitt and Beaufort Counties, North Carolina, three alternative locations for
the U.S. 17 bypass are being considered. The three locations are delineated on Map 10. It is
emphasized that the final location has not been selected. The ultimate location will have a
significant impact on land use within Beaufort County. However, this impact is not expected to
occur within the planning period.
5. Public Land Use
With the possible exception of recreational land uses, no significant changes to public land use are
expected within the planning period. The county has not provided organized recreational facilities
for its residents. County residents have, through cooperative agreement with the City of
Washington, utilized facilities and programs offered by the city.
Based on accepted national recreational standards, Table 28 provides a summary of standards for
selected recreational facilities.
u
11-4
I

i
t
1 s
i
1_
_ ' �-HA K
• z
' o
0
�g
i
'1
' Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation.
NORTH CAROLINA
ALTERNATE LOCATIONS
FOR U.S 17 BYPASS
Beaufort County, North Carolina
The preparation of this map was financed in
part through a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended,
which is administered by the Office of Ocean
and Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
M

1
Table 28
Selected Recreation Facility Standards
Standards for Selected Facilities
Facility
Standard Per 1,000 People
Comment
Baseball
One (1) Per Ten Thousand (10,000)
Regulation, 90' Diamond
League Softball
One (1) Per Four Thousand (4,000)
Lighted, 270' Outfield
Practice Fields
One (1) Per Three Thousand (3,000)
None
'
Youth Fields
Tennis Courts
One (1) Per Three Thousand (3,000)
One Per One Thousand
None
Best in
(1) (1,000)
Batteries of Four (4)
Football/Soccer
One (1) Per SixThousand (6,000)
May Be Multi -Use Fields
Swimming
900 SF Per Thousand (1,000)
None
Source: National Parks and Recreation Association.
Based on the facility standards in Table 28, the following provides a summary of facility needs
through 2005 for the Beaufort County population. The need is based solely on the non -municipal
population.
Table 29
Beaufort County
' Recreational Facility Needs
(Assuming all facilities provided by Beaufort County)
Existing
Facility
Inventory
1997 Need
2000 Need
2005 Need
'
Baseball
0
3
3
3
League Softball
0
7
7
7
Youth Fields
0
10
10
10
Practice Fields
0
10
10
10
Tennis Courts
0
29
30
30
Football/Soccer Fields
0
5
5
5
Swimming
0
25,920 S.F.
26,550 S.F.
26,811 S.F.
It is emphasized that many, if not all, of these facilities may continue to be provided to Beaufort
County residents through cooperative agreement with the City of Washington.
II-6

6. Water Systems I
Within the United States, domestic potable water consumption rates normally range from 70 to 150
,
gpd per capita. However, these figures do not account for additional water uses in offices, stores,
or public buildings, etc. Thus, a "cushion" should be added to accommodate these uses.
'
Assuming an average of 110 gpd per capita for Beaufort County, the 1997 non -municipal population
of 28,814 would generate a daily water demand of 3.2 MGD. This should increase to 3.3 MGD by
2010. However, according to the Division of Water Resources data for all of Capacity Use Area
(CUA) #1 (discussed in Section I of this plan), domestic water consumption amounts to only about
17% of the total water demand. As a result, the county's water demand in the year 2010 will be
much higher than 3.3 MGD. In fact, between September, 1996-August, 1997, Beaufort County
,
withdrew an average of 110.6 MGD from CUA #1. It is near impossible to forecast water demand
for non -domestic water users and is certainly beyond the scope of this plan. However, according to
the Division of Water Resources, no short term or localized negative impacts have been identified
in CUA #1, primarily because growth in the number of users and increased development in the
Coastal Plain have been offset by decreased withdrawals related to phosphate mining, and because
of the high yield of the Castle Hayne aquifer throughout CUA #1. DWR is preparing a groundwater
flow model that will be used to evaluate cumulative impacts ofpermitted withdrawals and to identify
any regional problems and safe yield limits before the resource has been negatively impacted. Other
areas of the Coastal Plain are also being evaluated to identify potential. problems and to develop
management strategies for effective and sustainable use of the available water sources.
The following, taken from the county's water supply plans, summarizes the future water needs
,
within the county's seven water districts:
District I
,
Although population projections do not forecast a significant change in the population for the next 25 years,
it is the ultimate goal of the District to provide water service to every available rural user. After the initial
phase of construction there will remain approximately 285 homes that will not have access to central water.
As the water system is expanded to serve these unserved areas, additional well supply will be constructed
as needed. For projection purposes, it is assumed that all residents within the district shall be served by the
year 2010.
,
District H
Although population projections do not forecast a significant change in the population for the next 25 years, '
it is the ultimate goal of the District to provide water service to every available rural user. After the initial
phase of construction, there will remain approximately 30 homes that will not have access to central water.
As the water system is expanded to serve these unserved areas, additional well supply will be constructed
as needed. For projection purposes, it is assumed that all residents within the district shall be served by the
year 2010. The District will ultimately require additional sources of water through an amendment to the
water purchase agreement with Washington, increasing the allowance of water purchased. Such an '
amendment will be pursued at such time as additional water supply is deemed necessary.
District III
Although population projections do not forecast a significant change in the population for the next 25 years,
it is the ultimate goal of the District to provide water service to every available rural user. After the initial
phase of construction, there will remain approximately 606 homes that will not have access to central water.
As the water system is expanded to serve these unserved areas, additional well supply will be constructed '

' as needed. For projection purposes, it is assumed that all residents within the district will be served by the
year 2010. The District will ultimately require additional sources of water through an amendment to the
' water purchase agreement with Washington, increasing the allowance of water purchased. Such an
amendment will be pursued at such time as additional water supply is deemed necessary.
' District IV
Although population projections do not forecast a significant change in the population for the next 25 years,
it is the ultimate goal of the District to provide water service to every available rural user. After the initial
phase of construction there will remain approximately 350 homes that will not have access to central water.
As the water system is expanded to serve these unserved areas, additional well supply will be constructed
as needed. For projection purposes, it is assumed that all residents within the district shall be served by the
year 2010.
District V
Although population projections do not forecast a significant change in the population for the next 25 years,
it is the ultimate goal of the District to provide water service to every available rural user. After the initial
phase of construction there will remain approximately 30 homes that will not have access to central water.
As the water system is expanded to serve these unserved areas, additional well supply will be constructed
' as needed. For projection purposes, it is assumed that all residents within the district shall be served by the
year 2010.
' = District VI
Although population projections do not forecast a significant change in the population for the next 25 years,
it is the ultimate goal of the District to provide water service to every available rural user. After the initial
phase of construction there will remain approximately 1,517 homes that will not have access to central water.
As the water system is expanded to serve these unserved areas, additional well supply will be constructed
as needed. For projection purposes, it is assumed that all residents within the district shall be served by the
year 2010.
District VII
Although population projections do not forecast a significant change in the population for the next 25 years,
' it is the ultimate goal of the District to provide water service to every available rural user. After the initial
phase of construction there will remain approximately 482 homes that will not have access to central water.
As the water system is expanded to serve these unserved areas, additional well supply will be constructed
as needed. For projection purposes, it is assumed that all residents within the district shall be served by the
year 2010.
' 7. Wastewater Systems
Except for the urban areas, all county residents rely on septic tank systems for sewage disposal. A
commonly utilized planning figure for per capita domestic wastewater output is 116 gallons per day.
For comparison, the daily per capita wastewater flow for the City of Washington is 85 gallons per
day. At an average of 116 gallons per day, the 1997 non -municipal population of 28,814 would
generate a daily wastewater volume of 3,342,424 gallons. This should increase to 3,455,640 gallons
per day by 2010.

8. Solid Waste
The county will continue to rely upon the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority and the Bertie County
Regional Landfill throughout the planning period. No problems with solid waste disposal are
anticipated. In July,1997, the county was beginning implementation of a Solid Waste Management
Plan which will place the county in compliance with the state's requirements for waste volume
reduction. At the time of preparation of this plan, it was to early in the process to assess the
effectiveness of the management plan.
9. Electrical System
The county will continue to rely upon the following electrical distributors throughout the planning
period: City of Washington Electric Utilities, Town of Belhaven, Tideland Electric Membership
Corporation, Carolina Power and Light, Edgecombe-Martin Electric Membership Corporation, and
North Carolina Power. No problems with the electrical. system are anticipated.
10. Police Protection, Fire and Emergency Medical Services
To estimate the impact of growth, planning standards for public services have been estimated; the
following figures are averages, and are intended to help quantify the impacts of growth: Per 1,000
persons in population, a community is likely to need 2 staff persons. Likewise, fire protection will
involve 1.65 personnel for every 1,000 persons. Increased demand on emergency medical services
amounts to 36.5 calls per 1,000 population.
Table 30 provides a summary of the police, fire, and rescue additional staffing needs.
Table 30
Beaufort County
Police, Fire, and Rescue Additional Needs, Non -Municipal Areas
1997 2000 2005
Police
Personnel 58 59 60
Fire Protection
Personnel 48 49 49
Emergency Medical
Calls/Year 1,051 1,077 1,088
Source: Division of Coastal Management Standards.
11. Schools
Currently, five of the fourteen schools serving Beaufort County are at or over capacity. These
schools include: Bath Elementary, Chocowinity Primary, Eastern Elementary, P.S. Jones, Jr. High,
and J.C. Tayloe Elementary. During the planning period, the Beaufort County School System
II-9

anticipates constructing one new elementary school and one new high school. The addition of these
two schools should alleviate the capacity problems.
12. Redevelopment Issues
Beaufort County is not normally subject to major coastal storm damage. Convectional storms and
tornadoes pose a more regular threat. However, wind and water damage could result from the inland
movement of a major hurricane. This situation occurred in 1996 with Hurricanes Bertha and Fran.
While storm -related damage is not a significant redevelopment issue, the county will support the
reconstruction and/or relocation of all storm destroyed structures when reconstruction complies with
all current local, state, and federal regulations and the policies contained in this plan.
The preservation and renovation of housing for its low -to -moderate income families and individuals
should be the most significant redevelopment issue confronting Beaufort County. Based on the
county's application for Fiscal Year 1995 Community Development Block Grant funding,
approximately 24% of the county's housing inventory is deteriorated and 3.7% still does not have
bathrooms. In addition, 21% of the county's population is low -to -moderate income.
The county will undertake the following in support ofresidential development: Support applications
for North Carolina Community Development housing rehabilitation funds; support applications for
North Carolina Housing Finance Agency home improvement funds; and stress enforcement of its
minimum housing code and update the minimum housing code in 1997.
A long range concern may be the issue of sea level rise. During the next 30-year period,
approximately 15 to 20 percent of the land area within the county's planning jurisdiction could be
inundated by rising sea water. Most of these areas are located along the county's shoreline areas.
During the planning period, the county should begin planning for possible sea level rise. Local
ordinances should be reviewed for determination of changes which may need to be made to protect
developments from rising sea level and to accommodate the movement of structures to higher
ground. However, sea level rise should not be an issue during the planning period.
13. Areas Likely to Experience Major Land Use Changes
Significant changes in land uses within Beaufort County are not anticipated during the planning
period. The following land use patterns should continue to deteriorate:
-- The shoreline areas will attract residential development.
-- Strip commercialization along major transportation arteries will continue to occur unless
regulated.
-- Most high density development will continue to occur in the vicinity of the municipalities.
-- The majority of the county's non -municipal areas will remain in undeveloped to low density
land use.
II-10

The county should monitor development along both U.S. 264 and U.S. 17. Construction of
the U.S. 17 bypass may alleviate some of the existing development pressure on these two
traffic arteries. However, construction of the bypass is not expected within the planning
period.
14. InterQovernmental Coordination and Implementation
All Beaufort County municipalities were notified in writing of the opportunity to review this plan
prior to public hearing certification by the Coastal Resources Commission. Intergovernmental
coordination and cooperation will continue through the ten-year planning period. This will be
essential to accomplish effective planning for public facilities, thoroughfare projects, community
facilities, housing needs, and environmental protection. The Beaufort County Land Use Planning
Committee will be responsible for ensuring adequate coordination with the Beaufort County
municipalities and other government entities as required.

11
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
As explained in the introduction to the policy statements, land use plans prepared to comply with
15A NCAC 7B regulations have three areas of impact on application: (1) to set policy to guide
local planning and land use management decisions; (2) review of projects for consistency with
local planning policies; and (3) the establishment of local policies for areas of environmental
concern. The CAMA regulations require the establishment of a specific land classification system
to support the local government's policy statements. The CAMA 15A NCAC 7B regulations
state: .
"The land classification system provides a framework to be used by local
governments to identify the future use of all lands. The designation of land
classes allows the local government to illustrate their policy statements as to where
and to what density they want growth to occur, and where they want to conserve
natural and cultural resources by guiding growth."
The CAMA regulations provide for the following land classifications: Developed, Urban
Transition, Limited Transition, Community, Rural with Services, and Conservation. These
classifications may be further defined by a local government. In applying these classifications,
a local government should carefully consider where and when various types of development
should be encouraged. Additionally, the areas of environmental concern requiring protection
should be identified and mapped. Each applicable land classification must be represented on a
land classification map (see Map 11). The following land classifications apply in Beaufort
County:
DEVELOPED -- Areas included in the developed land classification are currently predominantly
urban in character. This classification is limited to the municipalities and their extraterritorial
jurisdiction areas. Municipal types of services are in place or are expected to be provided within
the next five to ten years. Land uses include residential (single-. and multi -family), commercial,
institutional, transportation, open space, industrial, and other urban land uses at high or moderate
densities. Residential densities are allowed in excess of an average of three dwelling units per
acre. All uses allowed by 15A NCAC 7H shall be permitted.
COMMUNITY -- Areas included in the community classification are presently developed at low
densities and are suitable for septic tank usage. This classification includes the following areas:
U.S. 17 corridor south of Chocowinity; areas north, east, and west of Washington; Pantego
community; areas along NC 33 west and south of Aurora, Old Ford, Cox Crossroads/Blount
Creek, Bonnerton, Yeatsville, Acre, and Ransomville. Uses include single-family residences,
isolated general and convenience stores, churches, public facilities, health care facilities,
businesses, industrial development, and mixed land uses at low densities. Very limited municipal
type services, including water service, may be available. Sewer service may be provided to
correct an existing or projected public health hazard. Residential densities shall average two
dwelling units per acre. All uses allowed by 15A NCAC 7H shall be permitted.

URBAN TRANSITION -- Areas included in the urban transition classification are presently being '
developed for urban purposes, or will be developed in the next five to ten years. These areas will
eventually require complete urban services. This classification includes areas immediately
adjacent to the municipalities, areas of extraterritorial jurisdiction, scattered areas along the north
shoreline of the Pamlico River, NC 33 west of Aurora, and areas in the vicinity of Chocowinity
which are or can be provided municipal services. The urban transition areas include mixed land '
uses such as residential (single- and multi -family), commercial, institutional, industrial, industrial
parks, transportation, and other uses approaching high to moderate densities. Residential densities
are allowed in excess of an average of three dwelling units per acre. All uses allowed by 15A
NCAC 7H shall be permitted.
LIMITED TRANSITION -- Areas included in the limited transition classification are those which '
will experience increasing development during the next five to ten years. Some municipal type
services will be required. The limited transition areas are widely scattered along the county's '
shoreline areas. The limited transition classification is intended for predominantly residential
uses. However, some scattered commercial, health care, and industrial development may occur.
Clustering, or development associated with planned unit developments may be appropriate.
Residential densities at an average of three dwelling units per acre or less are acceptable. All
uses allowed by 15A NCAC 7H shall be permitted.
RURAL WITH SERVICES -- Areas included within the rural with services classification are '
developed at very low density. Land uses include residential use where limited water services
are provided in order to avert existing or projected health problems, public facilities, health care
facilities, commercial, and industrial uses. All uses allowed by 15A NCAC 7H shall be
permitted. Lot sizes will be large, and the provision of services will not disrupt the primary rural
character of the landscape. Residential densities shall average two dwelling units per acre. '
Development should be low density in order to maintain a rural character. All areas of the
county not otherwise classified are considered classified as rural with services.
CONSERVATION ,
Coastal Wetlands: This classification includes all areas of salt marsh or other marsh subject '
regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides. However, tidal flooding is
understood not to include hurricane or tropical storm tides. Because of map size and scale, these
areas cannot be accurately mapped. Precise locations must be determined in the field. '
Development which meets the minimum use standards of 15A NCAC 7H and the policies
contained in this plan shall be allowed in areas classified as coastal wetlands.
404 Wetlands: This classification includes areas of 404 wetlands which meet the wetlands ,
definition contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Only uses consistent with the policy
statements section of this plan will be allowed. These areas are generally delineated on the Land
Classification Map. Specific locations must be determined in the field by representatives of the
Washington office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The county concurs with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' standards and does not intend to develop more restrictive standards.

Estuarine Shorelines: All areas lying 0-75 feet landward of the mean high water level of
estuarine waters are classified as estuarine shorelines. Because of map size and scale, these areas
cannot be accurately mapped. Precise locations must be determined in the field. Uses consistent
with the policies contained in this plan, and the 15A NCAC 7H use standards shall be allowed
in estuarine shoreline areas.
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters: All public trust areas and estuarine waters are included
in this classification. All waters in Beaufort County's planning jurisdiction are classified as
estuarine waters as described by 15A NCAC 711.0206 or public trust areas as described by 15A
NCAC 711.0207. Because of map size and scale, these areas cannot be accurately mapped.
Precise locations must be determined in the field. Uses consistent with 15A NCAC 711.0207 will
be allowed. The county opposes the permanent location of floating structures in public trust
waters and in marinas. Except for floating structures and prohibition of signage in public trust
waters policies, the conservation policies are not more restrictive than the use standards included
in 15A NCAC 7H.
Natural Resource Fragile Areas: These areas include the hardwood swamps along the
Tar/Pamlico River and its tributaries.
111-3

N - -
The preparation of this map was financed cn
W E 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles in part through a grant provided by the
North Carolina Coastal Management Act
of 197Z as amended, which is
administered by the Office of Ocean and
S Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Beaufort County
Land Classification
1997
� Community
0 Developed
Limited Transition
� Rural with Services
Urban Transition
� Municipal Districts
Conservation
Coastal Wetlands: This classification includes all
areas of salt marsh or other marsh subject regular or
occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides.
However, tidal flooding is understood not to include
hurricane or tropical stone tides. Because of map size
and scale, these areas cannot be accurately mapped.
Precise locations must be determined in the field.
Development which meets the minimum use standards
of 15A NCAC 7H and the policies contained in this
plan shall be allowed in areas classified as coastal
wetlands.
404 Wetlands: This classification includes areas of
404 wetlands which meet the wetlands definition
contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Only
uses consistent with the policy statements section of
this plan will be allowed. These areas are generally
delineated on the Land Classification Map. Specific
locations must be determined in the field by
representatives of the Washington office of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The county concurs with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' standards and
does not intend to develop more restrictive standards.
Estuarine Shorelines: All areas lying 0.75 feet
landward of the mean high water level of estuarine
waters are classified as estuarine shorelines.
Because of map size and scale, these areas cannot
be accurately mapped. Precise locations must be
determined in the field. Uses consistent with the
policies contained in this plan, and the 15A NCAC 7H
use standards shall be allowed in estuarine shoreline
areas.
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters: All public trust
areas and estuarine waters are included in this
classification. All waters in Beaufort County's planning
jurisdiction are classified as estuarine waters as
described by 15A NCAC 7H.0206 or public trust areas
as described by 15A NCAC 7H.0207. Because of
map size and scale, these areas cannot be accurately
mapped. Precise locations must be determined in the
field. Uses consistent with 15A NCAC 7H.0207 will be
allowed. The county opposes the permanent location
of floating structures in public trust waters and in
marinas. Except for floating structures and prohibition
of signage in public trust waters policies, the conservation policies are not more restrictive than the III-4
use standards included in 15A NCAC 7H.
Natural Resource Fragile Areas: These areas
include the hardwood swamps along the Tar/Pamlico
River and its tributaries.

r
r
SECTION IV: POLICY STATEMENTS
r
A. INTRODUCTION TO POLICY STATEMENTS
r
The previous sections of this plan identify a number of areas of concern dealing with growth,
' development, and the environment. The plan also discusses many opportunities and assets that exist
within Beaufort County. This section provides policies designed to address growth management and
protect the county's assets. The policy statements should address the desires and objectives of the
' citizens of Beaufort County; and respond to the policy statement requirements of the Coastal
Resources Commission -as defined by 15A NCAC 7B.
The policy statements are extremely important and have a day-to-day impact on businesses and
individual citizens within the county. The statements have an impact in three areas:
• CAMA minor and major permitting as required by NCGS 113A-118 prior to
undertaking any development in any area of environmental concern.
' • Establishment of local planning policy.
r • Review of proposed projects requiring state or federal assistance or approval
to determine consistency with local policies.
' For the issuance of CAMA permits within areas of environmental concern, the state's minimum
acceptable use standards are defined by 15A NCAC 7H. A local unit of government must adopt
policies which are, at a minimum, equal to and consistent with the state's minimum use standards.
r A local unit of government may adopt policies which are more stringent than the minimum use
standards. For example, the state standards allow marinas to be located within primary nursery areas
if some minimum conditions are met. A local government may adopt a policy stating that marinas
rwill not be permitted within primary nursery areas. If this were to occur, a CAMA permit for marina
construction in a primary nursery area would not be issued. IT IS CRUCIAL THAT A LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF ITS POLICIES WITHIN AREAS OF
rENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN.
r The second area of land use plan application is that of establishing policies to guide the county's
local planning. This may apply both within areas of environmental concern where CAMA
regulations apply and in non-CAMA regulated areas of the county. Under North Carolina
legislation, land use plans are not regulatory controls. Non-CAMA related recommendations must
be implemented with local land use ordinances such as zoning or subdivision ordinances. If a land
use plan recommends that the average residential density should be three dwelling units per acre
within a particular area, then that density must be achieved through local zoning ordinance or other
regulatory control. (This should not be confused with the interaction of the land use plan with the
CAMA regulations and 15A NCAC 7H use standards.)
r
r IV-1

The final area of application is that of "Consistency Review." Proposals and applications for state
and federal assistance or requests for agency approval of projects are normally reviewed against a
jurisdiction's land use plan to determine if the project is consistent with local policies.
Inconsistencies of a project with local policies could serve as grounds for denial or revision of a
project. For example, an individual or agency may request state or federal funding to construct a 30-
unit low -to -moderate income housing project. If the proposed location of the project is within an
area in which the land use plan states that the residential density should not exceed two dwelling
units per acre, the project may be judged to be inconsistent with the local land use plan.
The Coastal ommissionre it 1 v ' C C requires all governments to specify stated development policies
under each one of five broad topics. These topics include:
-- Resource Protection
-- Resource Production and Management
-- Economic and Community Development
-- Continuing Public Participation
-- Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and Evacuation Plans ,
During 1995 and 1996, the 15A NCAC 7B CAMA planning guidelines were revised. The revised
guidelines included new requirements for the development of policy statements. These changes '
included the following policy statement additions:
-- A general vision policy statement describing the type of community ,
that the local government would like to become within the next ten
years.
-- A basic statement of the community attitude toward resource ' protection.
-- A policy addressing the protection of wetlands identified as being of '
P Y g p g
the highest functional significance on maps supplied by the Division
of Coastal Management.
-- A policy addressing moorings and mooring fields.
-- A policy addressing water quality problems and management
measures designed to reduce or eliminate local sources of surface '
water quality problems.
-- A statement of the community attitude toward resource production I
and management.
-- A policy addressing commitment to state and federal programs, '
including housing rehabilitation, community development block
grants, housing for low and moderate income level citizens, water and
sewer installation, and rural water systems.
IV-2 I

F
I-- A policy addressing assistance to interstate waterways.
Based on the analysis of existing conditions and trends, suggestions from the county's citizens, and
substantial input and guidance from the Beaufort County Land Use Planning Committee, the policies
in the following sections have been formulated to provide a guide for regulating growth,
' development, and resource management throughout the planning period. In developing these
policies, many alternatives were considered by the Planning Board. The alternatives that were not
adopted are included as Appendix III.
' B. VISION STATEMENT
Beaufort County will strive to preserve its natural environment as a valuable physical and economic
' asset while endeavoring to expand economic opportunities. The county desires to nurture an
environment conducive to business development, growth of seasonal population, development of
the tourist industry, and expansion of the county's industrial base. As a foundation for overall
growth, the county will work to improve its educational and cultural opportunities. Beaufort County
desires to become a stable, diversified, and attractive community.
' C. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Community Attitude Toward Resource Protection
While Beaufort County is concerned with resource protection, the county places emphasis on broad
based economic and community development. However, the county will implement resource
' protection policies which meet the state's 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards for the protection
of areas of environmental concern. The county is especially concerned ,with the preservation of
' water quality within its rivers and tributaries and extensive estuarine system. Its shoreline, especially
the hardwood swamp areas, is a valuable resource.
Physical Limitations
Soils
' To mitigate existing septic tank problems and other restrictions on development posed by soil
g g eP
limitations, Beaufort County will:
a Enforce during the development process, all current regulations of the N.C. State Building
�) � g P P �
Code and North Carolina Division of Health Services relating to building construction and
septic tank installation/replacement in areas with soils restrictions.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Building Inspector and Sanitarian.
Schedule: Continuing Activity
I
IV-3

1
(b) Coordinate all development activity with appropriate county and state regulatory personnel,
and in particular with the Beaufort County Building Inspector and Sanitarian.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Building Inspector and Sanitarian.
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) Beaufort County opposes the installation of package treatment plants and septic tanks or
discharge of waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands, 404 wetlands, or natural
heritage areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Building Inspector and Sanitarian.
Schedule: Continuing Activity
'
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 1
'
(d) Beaufort County will cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
regulation/enforcement of the 404 wetlands permit process but objects to the establishment
of any state 404 wetland regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Schedule: Continuing Activity
,
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 2
Flood Hazard Areas
(a) Beaufort County will continue to coordinate all development within the special flood hazard
area with the county's Inspections Department, North Carolina Division of Coastal
'
Management, FEMA, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
(b) Beaufort County will continue to enforce its flood damage prevention ordinance and follow
the storm hazard mitigation plan herein.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Building Inspector
Schedule: Continuing Activity
'
Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Supplies
(a) The county should make every effort to ensure that the protection of existing and future
potable water supplies and resources will be consistent with all State and Federal policies and
guidelines.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 3
IV-4 I

E
I�
(b) Continue to support capacity use groundwater monitoring by the Division of Water Quality.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered:. Appendix III, policy 3
(c) Land uses near groundwater sources are regulated by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality through N.C.A.0 Subchapters 2L and 2C. Beaufort County recognizes the
importance of protecting potable water supplies and therefore supports the enforcement of
these regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 4
(d) Continue the development ofpublic water supplies and distribution systems into areas of the
county.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Manmade Hazards
(a) Beaufort County will support the technical requirements and state program approval for
underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts 280 and 281), and any subsequent state
regulations concerning underground storage tanks adopted during the planning period.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) Beaufort County opposes the disposal of any toxic wastes, as defined by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Listing ofHazardous Substances and Priority Pollutants
(developed pursuant to the Clean Water Act of 1977) within its planning jurisdiction.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) Expansions of Aviation Military Restricted Areas or Military Operations Areas in eastern
North Carolina must be consistent with civil aviation regulations, must comply with other
applicable state, and federal regulations, and must be supported by environmental impact
statements addressing the cumulative impact of such airspace uses.
Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate Federal Agencies
Schedule: Continuing Activity

(d) Beaufort County supports the following aircraft operations standards which were adopted ,
by the Coastal Resources Commission on December 1, 1989, and were effective March 1,
1990:
1. Minimum Altitudes: No development involving airspace activity shall be allowed
in any AEC which would result in violation of minimum altitude standards adopted
'
by the Federal Aviation Administration and codified at 14 CFR Part 91.79. Future
amendments by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be deemed to be
incorporated into this rule pursuant to G.S. 150B-14(c) unless the Commission
objects within ninety (90) days of publication of the action in the Federal Register.
Upon objection by the Commission to a change, the Commission shall initiate rule-
making proceedings on incorporation of the amendment into this rule. The
'
amendment will not be incorporated into this rule pending a rule -making hearing and
final action by the Commission on the proposed amendment.
'
2. Noise Pollution: Except as required for safe aircraft takeoff and landing operations,
airspace activity associated with coastal development shall not impose an increase
in average noise exceeding 10 dBA above background levels. Noise measurements
shall be normalized DNL as set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in its
report 550/9-74-004 entitled Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect the Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safe . The maximum noise level associated with any single event shall not exceed
85 dBA. These limits shall not apply where noise impacts are confined to surface
areas owned or controlled by the proj ect's proponent. Any noise monitoring required
to ensure compliance with this rule shall be the responsibility of the proponent.
3. Policies on Use of Coastal Airspace
-- Declaration of General Policy: It is hereby declared with the use of aircraft by
state, federal, and local government agencies for purposes of managing and
protecting coastal resources, detecting violations of environmental laws and 1 regulations, and performing other functions related to the public health, safety and
welfare serves a vital public interest. The Commission further finds that future
economic development in the coastal area and orderly management of such '
development requires air access to and among coastal communities.
-- Policy Statements
a) It is the policy of the State of North Carolina that access corridors free of special '
use airspace designations shall be preserved along the length of the barrier islands
and laterally at intervals not to exceed 25 miles to provide unobstructed access both
along the coastline and from inland areas to the coast. Such access corridors shall
extend from the surface to an altitude of 6,000 feet above sea level except where
communication and radar services allow positive aircraft control at lower altitudes.
IV-6 I

b Development of aviation -related projects and associated airspace management
practices shall, to the maximum extent practicable, facilitate use of aircraft by local,
state, and federal government agencies for purposes of resource management, law
enforcement, and other activities related to the public health, safety, and welfare. In
any case, access to restricted areas shall be provided on a periodic basis for routine
enforcement flights, and access shall be provided on an emergency basis when
required to respond to an immediate threat to public health and safety.
4. Policies on Water and Wetland Based Target Areas for Military Training Activities
-- Declaration of General Policy: The use of water and wetland based target areas
for military training purposes may result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and
on the exercise of public trust rights. The public interest requires that, to the
maximum extent practicable, use of such targets not infiinge on public trust rights,
cause damage to public trust resources, violate existing water quality standards, or
result in public safety hazards.
' -- Policy Statements
a) It is the policy of the State of North Carolina that all public trust waters subject
to surface water restrictions pursuant to 33 USCS 3 for use in military training shall
be opened to commercial fishing at established times appropriate for harvest of the
fisheries resources within those areas.
b) Where laser weaponry is used, the area of restricted surface waters shall be at
least as large as the recommended laser safety zone.
c) Water quality shall be tested periodically in the surface water restricted areas
surrounding such targets and results of such testing shall be reported to the
department.
' Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate Federal Agencies
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 6, 7, & 8
Stormwater Runoff
(a) The county recognizes the importance of private management of stormwater runoff
associated with agriculture, residential development, phosphate, or peat mining and their
impacts on coastal wetlands, surface water, or other fragile areas. If the county considers the
adoption of a subdivision ordinance, it should have guidelines and land development criteria
for stormwater management and runoff related to private land uses. The county supports
State and Federal stormwater runoff criteria applicable to land development.
County Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort Co ty Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 9,10, & 10A
IV-7

Cultural/Historic Resources
(a)
Beaufort County shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/redevelopment projects with
the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to attempt to ensure that any significant
architectural details or buildings are identified and preserved.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Building Inspector
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b)
Beaufort County will coordinate all county public works projects with the N.C. Division of
Archives and History, to ensure the identification and preservation of significant
archaeological sites.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Building Inspector
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c)
Encourage land use proposals through subdivision review and approval which will not have
a negative impact on historic, and/or archaeological resources in the county.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(d)
Encourage citizens' awareness programs and public educational opportunities for county
historic and natural resources, including the conservation, preservation, and maintenance
thereof.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners '
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas
(a) Industrial development which can comply with the use standards specified by 15A NCAC
7H, Beaufort County zoning ordinance (where applicable, see page I-47), and federal '
regulations may be located within conservation classified areas. Beaufort County
aggressively encourages the development of industry. The county does not want any policies
contained within this plan to prohibit industrial development which meets all applicable state
and federal regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Division
of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 11,12, and 13
(b) Beaufort County, in cooperation with the City of Washington, will continue to support an
active industrial recruitment program.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity I
IV-8 I

Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 14
Miscellaneous Resource Protection
Packaize Treatment Plant Use
(a) With the exception of Soils policy (c) on page IV-4, the county will not oppose the
construction of state -approved package treatment plants in areas not provided with central
sewer service. The county supports effective monitoring by the state of the operation of
package treatment plants.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 15
The location of an proposed use of package treatment plants for sewage treatment disposal
�) YP P P g P g p
must be approved by the proper permitting agency.
# (c) If any package plants are approved by the state, Beaufort County supports the requirement
of a'specific contingency plan specifying how ongoing private operation and maintenance
of the plant will be provided, and detailing provisions for assumption of the plant into a
public system should the private operation fail. Operational plans should also address
elimination ofpackage treatment plants when the system owner elects to connect to a central
sewer system.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 16
Marina and Floating Home Development
(a) The county encourages the development of marinas (for mooring often or more vessels) and
dry stack storage facilities at appropriate locations provided that such development is
consistent with all State and Federal regulations and the following conditions:
-- new marinas are not to be located in Primary Nursery Areas;
-- construction of marinas in Class SA and/or WS-111 waters are to be provided with
pump -outs;
-- the timing of marina construction involving dredging shall be determined by
Division of Marine Fisheries.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management
P P
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 20
IV-9

1:
(b) The county encourages continued State study of development guidelines for marinas with
particular emphasis on upland excavations for marina basins. The county will consider the
possible inclusion of these State guidelines should the county consider adoption of a
subdivision ordinance.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Division
of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 21 and 22
(c) Beaufort County supports the construction of drystack storage facilities which comply with
the policies contained in this plan and 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 23
(d) The county does not have a policy on floating homes at this time because of the absence of s
these homes in the county. If at a future date the need arises for policies concerning floating
homes, the county will amend the Land Use Plan at that time.
Implementation Responsibility: Not applicable
Schedule: Not applicable I�
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 24, 25, and 26
MooringFields
ields
Beaufort County will prepare a water use plan as a prerequisite to state certification of a mooring
field(s).
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 27 and 28
Bulkhead Construction
Beaufort County supports the construction of bulkheads which fulfill the use standards set forth in
15A NCAC 7H.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management \i
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 29 and 30
I
IV-10 1

Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands
The development of sound and estuarine system islands has not been an issue for Beaufort County.
it Although a specific policy has not been provided, the county does not consider any of its estuarine
islands to be suitable for development at this time.
Alternative Considered: Appendix III policies 31 and 32
PP �
1
Sea Level Rise
Beaufort County recognizes the uncertainties associated with sea level rise. The rate of rise is
difficult to predict. Those factors combine to make it difficult, ifnot impossible, to establish specific
policies to deal with the effects of sea level rise. N
Beaufort Countywill implement the following policy to respond to sea level rise:
P g
It is the county's position that a policy to address the restriction of development that might be
susceptible to sea level rise and wetland loss is worthy of continued research and investigation.
However, as of this point in time, no specific policy has been finalized for adoption.
Alternative Considered: Appendix III policies 33 34 and 35
PP �P >
Maritime Forests
Based on the Maritime Forest Protection Initiative, May 24,1990, there are no major maritime forest
sites that are under Beaufort County jurisdiction.
Water Quality Management
i
_(a) Beaufort County will undertake a review of all local land use regulation ordinances to
determine if revisions should be undertaken to respond to specific water quality management
problems.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(b) The county supports state and local actions intended to improve water quality within the
Tranters Creek, Lower Tar River, and Pamlico River subbasins of the Tar -Pamlico
watershed.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Division
of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-11

(c) The county supports preservation of the natural heritage priority areas which are delineated
on Map 6, page I-56 of this plan.
Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate State Agencies
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(d) , Beaufort County supports the management strategies contained in the Tar -Pamlico Basin
Water Quality Management Plan.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(e) The county should support State efforts to reduce nutrient loading in the county's surface
water.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(f) If the county considers the adoption of a subdivision ordinance, any proposed guidelines
should include incentives for private development to preserve areas adjacent to Primary and
Secondary Nursery Areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period -
D. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Community Attitude Toward Resource Production and Management
Beaufort County supports responsible resource production and management. The county will
support policies which meet or exceed 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards. Beaufort County
desires to protect its shoreline areas as valuable economic and natural resources. However,
responsible resource production and management should be used to support economic development
and expand job opportunities.
Recreation Resources
(a) Subj ect to available funding, Beaufort County supports comprehensive recreational programs
to provide a broad range of recreational activities for its citizens.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-12

(b) The county will seek donations of land, bargain sales, or grant funds in order to obtain sites
suitable for development as recreational facilities.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) Beaufort County considers coastal wetland areas to be valuable passive recreation areas.
These areas should be protected in their natural state. Only uses which are permitted by 15A
NCAC 7H will be allowed.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(d) The county will consider development of a shoreline access plan to define the need for
public -owned waterfront recreational facilities within its planning jurisdiction. This effort
should be closely coordinated with shoreline access planning by the City of Washington.
* Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
rt County encourages the establishment of a land conservation fund which would
(e) Beaufort C ty g
protect areas of environmental, recreational, and/or aesthetic importance by fee acquisition,
dedication, and/or permanent easement.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
Productive Agricultural Lands
(a) Beaufort County supports and encourages use of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation
Service "Best Management Practices" program. This includes agricultural practices which
minimize the runoff of sediment and nutrients. The county will actively support continued
funding of State and Federal cost -share programs.
li Private Farm
Implementation Responsibility: Operators/Owners P
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 38
(b) Because of the soil types and topography, the county recognizes that proper drainage is
essential and must be allowed to continue as needed if it does not result in irreversible
damage to environmentally sensitive areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-13

(c)
Explore alternative land use guidelines, including subdivision or zoning ordinances, which
ensure that possible conversion of agricultural lands to other uses can be achieved with
minimal impact on adjacent agricultural lands.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
IL
(d)
Support State and Federal agricultural programs which assist county farming and aid in
identifying prime agricultural lands.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(e)
Continue to promote and support the Farmers Market in Downtown Washington.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(f)
Future county public improvements should be planned and financed to avoid adverse tax
impacts on agricultural property where such agricultural use will not directly benefit from
the planned public improvements.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(g)
Continue to promote use -value assessment as a means of preserving the farming base and
encourage farmers owning parcels of 10 acres or more to apply for use -value assessment.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(h) Support the expansion of the Agricultural Cost Share Program for counties in the
Pamlico/Tar drainage basin.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Productive Forestlands
(a) Beaufort County encourages and supports utilization of the Forest Best Management
Practices Manual, 1989, North Carolina Division of Forest Resources for all forestry
operations. Promote public awareness of forestry Best Management Practices in the county.
Implementation Responsibility: Private Forestry Companies
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 39
IV-14

A
1
1
1
0
11
1
1
Support State and Federal forestry programs which assist county commercial forests and the
forestry industry.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) Minimize the degree of land use controls on commercial forest lands in order that adequate
forestry drainage activities can be economically implemented by the private sector, while,
at the same time, supporting State and Federal programs aimed at minimizing the practices
of the uncontrolled drainage of wetlands for silvacultural activities.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(d) Future county public improvements should be planned and financed to avoid adverse tax
impacts on the owners ofprime forestry lands where such lands will not directly benefit from
the planned public improvements.
Implementation Responsibility: BeaufortCounty Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(e) Continue to promote use -value assessment as a means of preserving the forestry resource
base and encourage owners of parcels of 20-acres or more to apply for use -value assessment.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(f) Explore alternative land use guidelines and subdivision regulations which ensure that the
subdivision of forestry land can be optimally achieved without adversely impacting adjacent
forestry lands.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(g) Explore alternative land use guidelines and subdivision regulations which will encourage
forestry operators to maintain vegetative buffers between cleared areas and major county
public roadways.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
N-15

Aquaculture
(a) Beaufort County encourages all aquaculture activities which meet applicable permit
requirements. However, Beaufort County reserves the right to comment on all aquaculture
activities.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Division
of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 40 and 41
Off -Road Vehicles r
The county does not consider off -road vehicles to be an issue of significant concern requiring that
it be addressed in this policy statement.
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 42, 43, and 44
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Impacts on Resources
1
(a) Residential, commercial, and industrial development which meets 15A NCAC 7H use
� -
standards will be allowed in estuarine shoreline, estuarine water, and public trust areas. In
all other areas, development will be allowed that is consistent with applicable local, state,
and federal regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 45 and 46
(b) Consider the adoption of a subdivision ordinance which establishes appropriate design
standards for development of waterfront areas and areas with water accessibility.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(c) Define and delineate land areas with development constraints as a part of the Land Use Plan
Update process.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
1
IV-16

I
I
r
(d) Review possible control through appropriate means; including a subdivision ordinance which
would control land development in areas with identified physical land development
constraints. `
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(e) Encourage intensive land development activities only on lands in which land development
constraints can reasonably be overcome.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(f) Study local growth management techniques -- such as zoning -- which would provide for the
recognition and control of land use types, densities, and development criteria within areas
having defined development constraints.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(g) Study alternative local growth management techniques which would provide for the controls
of land use types, densities, and development criteria within AECs.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(h) Encourage development within the estuarine shoreline that does not significantly interfere
with existing public rights, usage, and access to navigable water and other public resources.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management
!� Schedule: Continuing Activity
(i) Ensure that all land development plans within AECs have evaluated all possible alternatives
to controlling pollution, erosion, natural barrier impacts, limiting drainage, and reducing
other potentially negative impacts related to land use activities.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(j) Support and complement Coastal Resource Commission efforts to protect, preserve, and
manage Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs).
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-17

(k) Develop guidelines for land development which conform to the general use standards of the
North Carolina Administrative Code (as amended) for development within the defined
estuarine system.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(1) Beaufort County does not oppose the construction of signs in public trust or estuarine waters.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 47
Solid Waste
(a) Beaufort County supports a regional multi -county approach to solid waste management. The
county will support and dispose of its solid waste in the Bertie County Regional Landfill
through the Albemarle Solid Waste Authority.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) The county will cooperate with any efforts to educate people and businesses on waste
reduction and recycling. The county vigorously supports recycling by the county and other
users of the landfill and supports setting ' up practical collection methods and education
efforts to achieve a high degree of county -wide recycling.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) Beaufort County favors the siting of recycling centers within all land classifications except
those within the conservation category.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Division
of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Marine Resource Areas
(a) Beaufort County supports the use standards for estuarine waters and public trust areas as
specified in 15A NCAC 7H.0207.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-18

(b) The policies .and requirements of the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries are
constantly changing. Decisions made by the Division of Marine Fisheries have an impact
on Beaufort County. In response, Beaufort County reserves the right to comment on the
individual policies and requirements of the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) The county will support enforcement of septic tank placement regulations as defined by title
18A of 15A NCAC .1900.
11 Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Sanitarian
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(d) The county will consider applying for funds through the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries'
Reef Development Program to develop artificial reefs in selected locations along the Pamlico
Sound. The reefs should attract fish and enhance commercial and sports fishing in Beaufort
County.
Implementation. Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(e) Commercial and recreational fishing resources and production activities, including nursery
and habitat areas, and trawling activities in estuarine waters, are recognized as valuable
contributors to the economy of Beaufort County. These activities are subject to regulation
by the Divisions of Coastal Management, Marine Fisheries, and Wildlife Resources. The
consideration of detailed policies, strategies, and implementation programs designed to
protect and enhance commercial and recreational fishing activities in the Pamlico River and
its tributaries should be encouraged by the county.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(f) Continue to support development of a fisheries management program and regulations for
both commercial and sports fisherman; support expansion of local operations serving both
commercial and recreational users.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(g) Encourage activities such as "catch and release" and stocking programs which attempt to
preserve declining fish species.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Marine Fisheries
Schedule: Continuing Activity
I IV-19

Peat or Phosphate Mining and Mineral Production
(a) Phosphate mining provides a substantial economic benefit to Beaufort County and its
residents. The county supports continued development of the area's phosphate deposits,
provided that such developments are operated in accordance with applicable State or Federal
mining laws or regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) The county continues to support mining activities when the projects are reviewed and
permitted by appropriate State or Federal mining regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
E. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Attitude on Economic and Community Development
In anticipation of the continued growth in Beaufort County over the coming decades, the community
generally favors the ongoing implementation of responsible economic and community development
projects throughout the area. The county's encouragement and active support of local employment
that generates land uses are considered to be an important goal of the 1997 Land Use Plan Update.
The county has helped create two new economic development commissions, the Beaufort County
Economic Development Commission and the North Eastern Beaufort County Economic Development
Commission. Each commission has a full-time director.
The county will emphasize the following:
-- The county encourages and supports all types of economic development which can be shown
to complement the existing demographic, economic, and environmental base within Beaufort
County.
-- The county, in conjunction with its incorporated jurisdictions, is committed to providing
appropriate levels of public services, facilities, and infrastructure.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 50
Economic Growth/Expansion
(a) The county emphasizes the importance of locating new economic development in and around
existing urban areas where public infrastructure and acceptable transportation systems already
exist or where such infrastructure and systems can be reasonably extended.
IV-20

Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
) The county places priority on encouraging new economic development which provides
employment -intensive opportunities for the local work force, and in`particular, offers viable
job opportunities for the youth and underemployed of Beaufort County.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) The county encourages the redevelopment and revitalization of existing underutilized
industrially and commercially developed areas. The county also encourages increasing
development densities on properties which are capable of supporting higher land use
intensities without being deleterious to the environment and public infrastructure.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Water Sunnly
(a) Beaufort County supports all efforts to secure available state and federal funding for the
construction and/or expansion of public and private water systems. Beaufort County will
continue to advocate, plan, and program a county -wide water system to provide for long-term
economic development provided that the feasibility of such projects can be justified on
economic and environmental grounds.
` Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 52 and 53
(b) The county is aware that inappropriate land uses near well fields increase the possibility of
well contamination. Land uses near groundwater sources are regulated by the NC Division
of Water Quality through NCAC Subchapters 2L and 2C. Beaufort County recognizes the
importance of protecting potable water supplies, and therefore supports the enforcement of
these regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Division of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Sewer System
(a) Beaufort County recognizes that most areas of the county will not be provided central sewer
service within the planning period. However, the county supports development of a county-
wide plan for the provision of efficient and cost-effective wastewater disposal.
IV-21

Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) Beaufort County supports the extension of the City of Washington's sewer system into areas
of the county when service is requested by the citizens in those areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) Beaufort County supports the possibility of discharge of effluent into 404 wetland areas.
Wetlands "created" to aid in treating waste effluent shall be allowed.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(d) Beaufort County supports all efforts to secure available state and federal funding for the
construction and/or expansion of public and private sewer systems.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(e) Beaufort County supports construction of sewer lines through conservation areas to serve
development which meets all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Division
of Coastal Management
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Stormwater
(a) Beaufort County will cooperate with the NCDOT, the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality, and other state agencies in minimizing the impact of stormwater runoff on all
conservation classified areas. The county will actively support the Division of Water Quality
stormwater runoff retention permitting process through its subdivision approval process.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and Division
of Water Quality
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) Beaufort County supports the policy that all North Carolina Department of Transportation
projects should be designed to limit to the extent possible stormwater runoff into estuarine
waters.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-22

IEnergy Facility Siting and Development
(a) The siting of OCS energy facilities is not an issue with the county at this time.
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policies 54, 55, and 56
(b) At this time, the county does not have any energy siting priorities. There are no electric
generating plants located in or proposed for Beaufort County. However, the county will
review proposals for development of electric generating plants on a case -by -case basis,
judging the need for the facility by the county against all identified possible adverse impacts.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Redevelopment of Developed Areas
The most significant redevelopment issues facing Beaufort County through 2007 are substandard
housing, deteriorating commercial structures, and reconstruction following a hurricane or other
natural disaster. The county will allow the reconstruction of any structures demolished by natural
disaster which will comply with existing state and local codes. During the planning period, the
county will attempt to correct its substandard housing conditions by:
(a) supporting the enforcement of a Minimum Housing Code;
(b) applying for Community Development Block Grant Community Revitalization and North
Carolina Housing Finance Agency funds;
(c) coordinating redevelopment efforts with the county Building Inspection Department;
(d) preparing a county -wide housing strategy to increase the quantity and quality of affordable
housing.
(e) Reconstruction following a hurricane or other natural disaster is a concern. The Storm
Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and Evacuation Plan provides policies for
responding to hurricanes and other natural disasters. Those policies address reconstruction
needs. The county will allow the reconstruction of any structures demolished by natural
disaster when the reconstruction complies with all applicable local, state, and federal
regulations.
(f) Implementation of hazard mitigation projects.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-23

Types and Locations of Desired Industry
Industrial development is extremely important to the continued economic growth and stability of
Beaufort County. The county's heavy reliance on employment in the service and retail trade sector
should be balanced by the development of a stronger base of industrial/manufacturing employment.
The following industrial development policies will be applied:
(a) Beaufort County encourages the development of industrial sites which are accessible to
municipal/central water and sewer services.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) Beaufort County does not encourage intensive economic development activities in remote
areas of the county which are not currently served by adequate public facilities and public
access unless such facilities can be provided within the definition of this plan.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) The county will study the feasibility of using zoning as a mechanism to (1) select, designate,
and reserve optimal economic development sites for future industry and commerce, and (2)
establish minimal, but appropriate, controls for the location, density and standards for all
types of intensive land uses.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(d) Beaufort County will continue to support the development of the Washington/Beaufort
County Industrial Park.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(e) Beaufort County will continue to provide cooperative assistance in working with
incorporated municipalities to plan for and extend water and/or sewer services to industrial
and commercial firms locating outside municipal service areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(f) Industrial development should not infringe on established residential development.
However, the county does not have a county -wide zoning ordinance to regulate the locations
of industrial development.
IV-24

Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(g) The county believes that all industrial prospects should be given a fair, case -by -case
assessment in order to carefully compare possible economic benefits with possible negative
environmental effects.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Estuarine Access
(a) Beaufort County supports the state's shoreline access policies as set forth in NCAC Chapter
15, Subchapter 7M. The county will conform to CAMA and other state and federal
environmental regulations affecting the development of estuarine access areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) Beaufort County will consider the need to apply for CAMA funding to assist in the
preparation of a shoreline access plan and construction of shoreline access sites.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
Commitment to State and Federal Programs
The county remains committed to State and Federal programs in planning areas, where applicable,
related to community and economic development, including erosion control, public access, highway
improvements, port facilities, dredging, and military facilities.
In addition, the coup will support the following activities:
county Pp g
-- The county will continue to support local, regional, and State public interest groups
concerned with economic development.
-- Continue to support the Chamber of Commerce in their efforts to market the county retail
and industrial sites.
-- Continue to support and provide public information pertaining to groups such as the Mid -
East Commission, the Regional Development Institute, and the Small Business Institutes at
Beaufort Community College and East Carolina University, whichprovide assistance to new
and small businesses and to economic development projects.

-- Continue to support the four lane upgrade of US 17 and US 264 in Beaufort County as close
as feasible to the existing locations within Beaufort County.
-- Continue to seek Community Development Block Grants or other applicable funding sources
for community development purposes.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Community Facilities
During the planning period, Beaufort County will consider developing a community
services/facilities plan (as a stand-alone document, not as an expansion of this plan), which will
define existing deficiencies in police protection, fire protection, local administrative buildings, public
recreational facilities, public shoreline access, and public parks. This plan will not address school
system needs. The plan will prioritize needs and make specific recommendations concerning
financing and budgeting the high priority needs. The county will coordinate facility planning with
the school system and the municipalities.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Land Use Regulation
Beaufort County will review the need for a county -wide subdivision ordinance. This will be done
to make the ordinances more responsive to current county needs and conditions. Funding assistance
for revision of the ordinance will be requested from the North Carolina Division of Community
Assistance.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
Assistance in Channel Maintenance
The proper maintenance of channels is a priority to Beaufort County. The county remains
committed to pursuing State and Federal program assistance for projects for channel maintenance
and beach nourishment projects, where applicable (including financial aid, provision of borrow and
spoil areas, provision of easements for work). The county supports reducing the Pamlico River
channel width to 100 feet between the U.S. 17 Bridge and the Railroad Bridge.
Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate state and federal agencies.
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 65
IV-26

I
IAssistance in Interstate Waterways
Beaufort County considers the interstate waterway to be a valuable economic asset and encourages
adequate maintenance.
Implementation Responsibility: Appropriate state and federal agencies.
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Alternative Considered: Appendix III, policy 66
Tourism
Tourism is extremely important to Beaufort County and will be supported by the county. The county
will implement the following policies to further the development of tourism:
(a) Continue to encourage efforts aimed at promoting and enhancing levels of tourism and
tourism -related development opportunities in the county.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(b) Continue to encourage the activities of local and regional public interests groups responsible
for promoting tourism in the county such as the Beaufort County Economic Development
Commission and the North Eastern Beaufort County Economic Development Commission.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(c) Continue to support the development of an annual calendar of all special events to be held
throughout the county; publicize the periodic listing of events in appropriate local, regional,
and national publications.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort Coun Board of Commissioners
Ph'
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(d) Support the development of a museum to commemorate the life and works of Cecil B.
deMille.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort Coun Board of Commissioners
Ph'
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(e) Support State efforts to develop the North Carolina Estuarium.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
'' IV-27

(f) Beaufort County will support North Carolina Department of Transportation projects to
improve access to and within the county.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and
NCDOT
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(g) Beaufort County will support projects that will increase public access to shoreline areas.
,Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(h) The county will continue to support the activities of the North Carolina Division of Travel
and Tourism; specifically, the monitoring of tourism -related industry, efforts to promote
tourism -related commercial activity, and efforts to enhance and provide shoreline resources.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and NC
Division of Travel
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Transportation
Beaufort County supports the following transportation projects/improvements:
Adoption of a county -wide thoroughfare plan.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and NC
Department of Transportation
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Transportation Improvements Program:
-- Beaufort northern bypass, SR 1409 west of Beaufort to SR 1600 east of Beaufort. Construct
a four lane divided facility on new location.
-- SR 1501, SR 1306 (12th Street) to SR 1507. Widen to five lanes with curb and gutter.
-- Pungo River Canal. Replace bridge no. 30.
-- Branch of Pungo Creek. Replace bridge no. 70.
-- Pantego Creek. Replace bridge no. 77.
-- Cuckold's Creek. Replace bridge no. 63.
-- Proposed rest area at intersection of US 264 and new alignment of US 17 in conjunction with
R-2510.
-- SR 1306 (Fifteenth Street) at SR 1422 (Market Street). Construct left turn lanes on SR 1306
at SR 1422 on both directions of travel and revise signal.
-- Blounts Creek at Southern Railroad Crossing 466 372F. Safety improvements.
-- Windmill road near Chocowinity at Carolina and Northwestern Railroad Crossing 466 365 V.
Safety improvements.
IV-28

1
-- U.S. 17 Washington By-pass to be located in Beaufort County.
-- NC 99 at Carolina Coastal Railroad Crossing 466 289E. Revise automatic warning devices.
== Construct bridge and approaches across the Pamlico River.
Beaufort bypass. Four lane divided freeway on new location.
-- Beaufort bypass to multi -lanes south of Williamston. Widen roadway to a multi -lane
facility.
-- NC 43 to Beaufort bypass. Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility.
== SR 1309 to SR 1300. Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility. .
NC 32 to NC 99 at Belhaven. Widen roadway to a multi -lane facility.
Implementation Responsibility: NC Department of Transportation
Schedule: Implement as funding is available
Warren Field Capital Improvement Program
-- Height/Land Use Study
-- Approach Survey R/W 17-35
Rehabilitate Access Road
--
T-Hangar Taxiway Site Prep
-- DME; R/W 5
Drainage Improvements
_=
Property Acquisition for FAR Part 77; R/W 5
�.
-- Approach Survey
-- T-Hangar Taxiway/Access Road/Parking Paving
-- Terminal Apron Expansion
-- Automated Weather Station (AWOS-III)
-- Rehabilitate/Strengthen Taxiways and Aprons
-- Property Acquisition for Approach Lighting, R/W 5
-- Glide Scope/Outer Marker, R/W 5
r
-- T-Hangar Construction (two complexes - 10 bays)
-- Approach Lighting System (MALSF); R/W 5
High Intensity Runway Lighting (HIRL); R/W 5-23
_=
Rehabilitate R/W 17-35
11
Implementation Responsibility: Warren Field Airport Commission
Schedule: Implement as funding is available
�. Affordable Housine
Beaufort County will implement the following to aid in providing affordable housing:
(a) Support moderate income housing.
i (b) Apply for Community Development Block Grant Community Revitalization and North
Carolina Housing Finance Agency funds.
IV-29

(c) Pursue state- and federal funding of projects to improve and increase moderate income
1
housing.
(d) Support state and federal programs which assist with housing rehabilitation.
pp P �' g
(e) Support low to moderate income housing.
(f) When economically feasible, the county will support extension of water and sewer lines to
serve new residential developments.
(g) Support hazard mitigation grants.
Implementation Responsibility (a)-(g): Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
Land Use Trends
The following policies address management strategies relating to the future growth of the county:
(a) Employ the Land Classification Map as a means of aiding in the selecting and designing
appropriate areas of the county for future commercial, industrial, and other economic
development land areas.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(b) To provide guidance forpossible subdivision development, the county will consider the need
for, and possible adoption of a county -wide subdivision ordinance.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(c) Adopt, as a part of this plan, the Land Classification Map which designates appropriate areas
of the county for residential land use activities requiring public services and infrastructure.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(d) Study the most appropriate means by which to link land use density requirements to the
county's Land Classification Map.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
IV-30

e Review the Mobile Home Park Ordinance in order to incorporate more contemporary and
() 1P p �'Y
reasonable health, safety, and general welfare standards for manufactured housing and the
siting thereof
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(f) Continue to take active steps towards the preservation and enhancement of the quality of life
in the county.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: During the Five (5) Year Planning Period
(g) Support the development and enhancement of urban waterfront areas, while ensuring such
projects are compatible with all local, State, and Federal environmental requirements.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners
Schedule: Continuing Activity
(h) Provide active leadership in ensuring that NCDOT roads and streets in the county are
adequately maintained and upgraded in a fashion consistent with the 1997 plan's land use
objectives.
Implementation Responsibility: Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and North
Carolina Department of Transportation
Schedule: Continuing Activity
IV-31

F. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES
Beaufort County recognizes that a basic element in developing and implementing a land use plan is
the successful involvement of a jurisdiction's citizenry in the development of the plan. As the initial
step in the preparation of this document, a "Public Participation Plan" was adopted. The plan
outlined the methodology for citizen involvement (see Appendix IV). Public involvement was to be
generated through public information meetings, advertising in local newspapers, and meetings with
both the Land Use Planning Committee and Board of Commissioners.
The Beaufort County Land Use Planning Committee was instrumental in the development of this
plan. Input was provided by the Land Use Planning Committee to guide plan development. The
following individuals served as members of the Land Use Planning Committee: Chris Furlough,
Henry Riddick, Stan Deatherage, Paul Clark, James Smallwood, John Hooker, Martin Mayo, Ivan
"Tex" Gilmore, John Wehrenberg, Al Gerard, Gil Robbins, Kristen Rowles, Dan Windley, and John
Rodman.
A public opinion survey was distributed to 1,500 people at the outset of the project. The results of
the survey are included as Appendix V. Subsequently, meetings ofthe Land Use Planning Committee
to discuss the land use plan update were held on March 12,1997; April 3,1997; April 24,1997; May
1, 1997; July 17, 1997; August 7, 1997; September 4, 1997; September 25, 1997; October 9, 1997;
November 5,1997. All meetings were open to the public and, starting with the July 17 meeting, were
advertised in a local paper.
The preliminary plan was submitted to the Division of Coastal Management for comment on April
8, 1998. Following receipt of DCM comments, the plan was amended and a formal public hearing
on the final document was conducted by the Board of Commissioners on October 5, 1998. The
public hearing was advertised in the Washington Daily News on September 4, 1998. The plan was
approved by the Beaufort County Board of Commissioners on October 5,1998, and submitted to the
Coastal Resources Commission for certification. The plan was certified on November 20, 1998.
Citizen input will continue to be solicited, primarily through the Land Use Planning Committee, with
advertised and adequately publicized public meetings held to discuss special land use issues and to
keep citizens informed.
IV-32

1
G. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY, AND
EVACUATION PLANNING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
Coastal storm hazard mitigation policies for Beaufort County are a mandatory requirement of the
Coastal Area Management Act of 1972 and are included in the 1997 Land Use Plan. As related to
contemporary land use issues in Beaufort County, CAMA's primary aim in establishing these
policies is to ensure that the county government fully recognizes the need to promulgate reasonable
guidelines for land development so that the risk of damage to property and the threat of harm to
human life from coastal storms is kept to a minimum level.
The Board of Commissioners fully recognize that Beaufort County faces the potential threat of maj or
storms each and every year. In July,1996, Hurricane Bertha has a 7.2' storm surge, while Hurricane
Fran, in September of the same year, had an 8.45' surge. While there has been a substantial
reduction in the overall frequency and severity of significant coastal storms over the past several
decades, this does not diminish the reality of the resulting havoc when the long expected "big one"
finally, but predictably, arrives. All indications from Colorado State University's Dr. William Gray's
predictions are for more active seasons over the next few years as the past histories of storms evolve
into a current cycle. A restudy is currently underway by the National Hurricane Center, the Corps
of Engineers, FEMA, and the North Carolina Division of Emergency Management. The restudy
should be completed by the 1998 calendar year. This surge information is based on SLOSH (Sea,
Lake, Overland Surges for Hurricanes) models by the Storm Surge Group at the National Hurricane
Center.
The new information from this study indicates that a surge of water in the Pamlico River at
Washington could rise to a level of 17 feet in a Category IV or V storm. This estimate would be
based on a worst case scenario of storm track, level of intensity, speed, point of landfall, and other
factors.
Even though Beaufort County does not have the direct coastal exposure of many other CAMA
communities, the county's estuarine and other inland areas are considered to be potentially threatened
by hurricanes and tropical storms. In recognition of this, the county completed a detailed storm
hazard mitigation plan in 1984 entitled "Before the Storm in Beaufort County: Avoiding Harm's
Way." This plan provides information on areas at risk from storm damage, outlines policies on
storm hazard mitigation, presents a detailed plan for evacuation of the county, and includes a
reconstruction plan to guide the rebuilding of impacted areas after the storm. The Eastern NC
Hurricane Evacuation Study in 1987, completed by the North Carolina Division of Emergency
Management, the Corps of Engineers, FEMA, the NWS, and Beaufort County Emergency
Management decided to provide local data input into the Emergency Operations Plan. The Beaufort
County Emergency Operations Plan of 1992 with annual updates is used presently for emergency
operations. A new planning document currently being developed provides for better plan of
emergency operation with the input of all agencies/municipalities to create a more pro -active
concept.
IV-33

In preparing the updated policies for the 1997 Land Use Plan, the 1984 "Before the Storm" study
was thoroughly reviewed in the context of (a) updated CAMA policies for storm hazard mitigation
and (b) its application to this document. While not specially presented in the format of the new
CAMA policy guidelines, the 1984 study was found to be consistent in most issues with the recently
amended CAMA code and is referenced herein as being the source of the most current and
competently researched plan of action on this issue. In addition, the county's 1992 Land Use Plan
incorporates a discussion of storm hazard planning and policies. This issue is also addressed on a
more expanded level in the new quality planning document under development by Emergency
Management. Again, the 1992.P1an is not consistent with the format and mandatory topical headings
of the amended CAMA code, but it presents considerable relevant background data which remains
relevant, applicable and, to a limited extent, is hereinafter incorporated by reference. A copy of these
plans are available for review at the Beaufort County Department of Emergency Management office.
For storm hazard management and planning purposes, there are three categories of impacted land
in Beaufort County which must be considered in preparing policies: (1) Areas of Environmental
Concern (AECs), (2) areas subject to flooding, and (3) areas with highly erodible soils. The AECs
in the county are defined as public trust areas, estuarine waters and shorelines, and coastal wetlands.
Areas which are subject to flooding generally adjoin the AECs and the many small creeks and
streams in the county. Flood prone areas are mapped by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency; these areas are graphically depicted on official Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) which
are on file at the Office of Emergency Management and the Beaufort County Building Inspector's
office. Areas with highly erodible soils are defined on maps of the Soil Conservation Service.
Following the heavy flooding and damage by winds to homes during Hurricane Fran in September,
1996, Beaufort County applied for a Hazard Mitigation Grant through the State of North Carolina
to FEMA. Because of the acquisition, relocation, and elevation topics of the grant, Beaufort County
officials discussed all of the options in grant guidelines. It was decided that elevation of homes was
the best plan to serve citizens and be acceptable to the public. Many citizens were adamant about
resuming living at present locations in Whichard's Beach, Pamlico Beach, Swan Point, and other
areas of the county. Many of the citizens undertook the elevation and repair of damages to their
homes at their own expense, not knowing if the hazard mitigation grant would receive approval from
FEMA. These homes- were not in areas that were greatly interested in acquisition or relocation.
Better education of the public through all media and other outlets will help citizens to better
understand hazard mitigation and its goals. This objective had not been placed in emphasis prior to
1996. The county had over 100 applications for the elevation of residences as a prerequisite for the
grant process.
The hazard mitigation program can be promoted and stressed through the land use plan, flood
ordinances, and the NC State Building Codes. Those who participate in these programs to elevate
will receive insurance rates from NFIP reflecting their effort. Residents should be made aware that
there are coverage policies on both property and contents to ensure that they have full coverage.
IV-34

1
Residents should be discouraged from building rooms, utility rooms, restrooms, and any other
projects under an elevated structure. They must realize that these additions can add to water and
wind force damages to structures. Breakaway walls should be utilized to ensure minimal damage
from the debris, wind, and water of a storm.
The state has heard comments from residents who had to elevate structures due to flood ordinance
regulations who opposed this action at the time it was required. However, today they are saying
"thank you" for the regulations that saved their homes. Many suffered little or no. damage during
Hurricanes Bertha and Fran due to compliance with the flood ordinance and building code
requirements.
We must learn to respect nature's forces in the future by doing everything possible to prevent
monumental disaster damage from occurring from future storms. The monetary expense affects
every citizen. NFIP maps are available for viewing at the county Building Inspector's office and the
county Emergency Management office. City/town maps are available for viewing at the city/town
inspector's offices and planning offices.
1. Coastal Storm Hazard Mitigation Planning Activities and Studies:
A. Effects of Coastal Storms on Beaufort County
As presented in the 1992 plan, the description of the effects of coastal storms to
which the community will be subjected -- such as high winds, storm surge, flooding,
wave action, erosion, and the like -- remains current and applicable, and is
incorporated herein by reference.
B. Composite Hazards Map
The 1992 plan included a composite hazards map based on the best available
information including NFIP maps and data, the Eastern N.C. Evacuation Study, and
AEC data. The county has examined each hazardous area in terms of type of
potential storm hazard and the relative severity of risk presented at that particular
location, and has determined that the veracity of this map has not changed since the
adoption of the previous County Land Use Plan. The 1997 Land Use Plan includes
flood hazard and storm surge inundation area maps on pages I-51 and I-53,
mow respectively.
WW C. Existing Land Use Inventory
In conjunction with the existing land use analysis for the 1992 Land Use Plan, the
county conducted an inventory for each of the most hazardous areas for the purpose
of determining the amount of existing development at risk for each area. The impact
of this analysis is achieved by overlaying each hazard area shown on the Composite
Hazards Map upon the updated Existing Land Use Map. A discussion of this impact
1 is found in Chapter 3 of this document.
IV-35

2. Coastal Storm Mitigation Policies:
Based on the preceding analysis, the county has incorporated and adopted the following
Coastal Storm hazard mitigation policies into the 1997 Land Use Plan:
A. Policies Related to High Wind, Surge, Flooding and Erosion:
• The county supports the enforcement of the North Carolina Building Code
construction standards for wind -resistive factors and design wind velocity.
There are insurance premium reductions given for extra protective measures
such as tie -straps and other anchoring devices.
• The county, through its building inspection activities, will periodically
review and report on violations of the Building Code related to wind
standards, including matters related to the tie -down of mobile homes.
Presently, there is a 100-E mph wind zone in place one mile from the
Pamlico River and its waterways. This particular zone, while technically a
100 mph zone, is inspected by the standards of a 110 mph zone.
• The county remains supportive of the enforcement of CAMA and 404
wetlands permitting processes in areas potentially susceptible to flooding.
B. Policies Related to Discouraging Development in Most Hazardous Areas:
• The county will continue to discourage development, especially high density
or large structures, in its most hazardous areas.
• The county remains supportive of CAMA permitting processes for
development standards for shoreline stabilization and drainage along the
county's estuarine shoreline areas.
• The county will explore the need for development criteria which are
supportive of and complementary to state and federal policies related to most
hazardous areas.
C. Policies Related to Land Acquisition in Most Hazardous Areas:
•
The county, at this time, does not intend to commit local funds to implement
any widespread public acquisition of land in the most hazardous areas,
provided that certain areas may be deemed appropriate for purchase where
specific circumstances dictate.
IV-36

I
ID. Policies Related to Citizen Evacuation:
• The county continues to support its adopted Emergency Operations Plan as
the primary guidance resource for county evacuation efforts.
• The county supported limited development density in most hazardous areas
so as to decrease the number of people needing to be evacuated.
• The county encourages the adequate planning, development, and use of
motels, condominiums, and other large-scale residential structures for
adequate and sufficient emergency shelter for their occupants and residents.
The concept, known as "shelter -in -place," applies if the structure is
substantial and out of harms way. It is advisable for mobile home residents
to seek shelter in a more substantial structure.
• The county supports a policy of ensuring that new public buildings can be
adequately prepared and used as emergency evacuation shelters.
• The county continues to support ongoing refinements and participation in the
regional evacuation planning process.
3. Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan and Policies
Post -disaster reconstruction policies are required by CAMA as part of the 1997 Land Use
Plan in order to guide new development and redevelopment during the reconstruction period
following a natural storm disaster. In this regard, the county leadership's major goal is to
ensure that, as reconstruction activities are planned, programmed and implemented, Beaufort
County will be less vulnerable to coastal storms than it was before the disaster.
A. Previous County Planning Studies Related to Post -Disaster Recovery:
• The post -disaster reconstruction program the county shall be generally guided
by is the Beaufort County Emergency Operations Plan, which was originally
adopted in 1992, and has since been updated.
Priority 1: Repair and rebuild essential service facilities such as
electricity, water, and sewer.
Priority 2: Repair other public facilities as necessary for shelter.
Priority 3: Use a triage (worst damage last) approach to staging and
permitting the private sector reconstruction effort.
IV-37

B. Updated County Policies Governing the Support, Direction, and Management of
Post -Disaster Recovery Activities:
• The Board of Commissioners shall appoint a Post -Disaster Recovery Task
Force before any major storm occurs for the purpose of overseeing the
potential reconstruction process as well as establishing any recovery -related
policy issues which might arise after a given storm disaster. Included on the
task force should be Health Department, Building Inspector, County Planner,
Red Cross representative, and other designated agencies.
• The Emergency Management Coordinator shall serve as chairman of the
Post -Disaster Recovery Task Force and shall be directly responsible to the
Board of Commissioners.
• The county's Post -Disaster Recovery Task Force shall be responsible for the
establishment of a schedule for staging and permitting repairs, including the
implementation of construction moratoria. Any moratorium shall be in full
accordance with the task force's established priorities assigned to the
restoration of essential services, minor repairs, major repairs, and/or new
development based on the impacts of the particular storm.
• Upon adoption of this plan, the Emergency Management Coordinator and the
Post -Disaster Recovery Task Force shall be directed to convene to review,
update, and reformulate a set of generalized action plans, logistical structures,
and management strategies to be used for any given potential post -disaster
recovery program, including (1) reconstruction scheduling and priority
setting routines, (2) public information dissemination, (3) damage
assessments and accounting systems, (4) appropriate coordination and
communication links with state and federal agencies, (5) coordination of
private and public inquiries to appropriate sources, and (6) assistance
programs as may be deemed appropriate. The results of this study shall be
presented to the Board of Commissioners and other appropriate agencies for
review and adoption.
C. The County Supports the Establishment of General Guidelines Related to the Long -
Term Recovery and Restoration Process Subsequent to Natural Disaster:
• Reconstruction shall be implemented under at least the minimum standards
in effect prior to the given storm.
• Structures not conforming to minimum standards and storm hazard
mitigation policies which were destroyed must be redeveloped to those
standards and policies.
IV-38

'i
• The county will support the authority of the Sanitarian in decisions related to
prohibition of septic permit issuance and reissuance in those areas where
redevelopment of shoreline properties will be injurious to the public's health,
safety, and general welfare.
• The Chairman of the Board of Commissioners or his designee shall serve as
the overall Emergency Management Coordinator for intermediate to long-
term post -disaster recovery activities. The chairman shall delegate the
oversight of the reconstruction and recovery effort as well as implementation
of the long-term recovery plan to appropriate personnel.
• Upon receipt of sufficient information from the Post -Disaster Recovery Task
Force pertaining to any given storm disaster, the Emergency Management
Coordinator shall prepare and recommend a long-term post -disaster recovery
plan for adoption by the Board of Commissioners. The plan shall include,
but not be limited to, the following: (1) development moratoria, (2) repair
and reconstruction priorities, (3) repair and reconstruction phasing and
scheduling, (4) fiscal and economic impacts of the plan, (5) emergency
regulations governing all facets of land use and land development permitting,
(6) repair and/or replacement ofpublic infrastructure, (7) relocation ofpublic
infrastructure to less hazardous areas, and (8) setting time frames and
schedules for planning and redevelopment activities.
• The Emergency Management Coordinator shall establish a Damage
Assessment Committee. The Damage Assessment Committee shall conduct
surveys of damaged structures for the purpose of estimating the physical and
economic impacts of storm damage. Damage classification criteria shall be
in terms of the following:
Destroyed: Repairs costing more than 80% of value
Major:. Repairs costing more than 30% of value
Minor: Repairs costing less than 30% of value
Habitable: Repairs costing less than 15% of value
Note: The Beaufort County Flood Ordinance addresses a 50%
requirement before application is made to repair damaged
structures. This is a process administered by the county
Building Inspector's office.
Hazard mitigation must be addressed with special emphasis on our
undeveloped land to protect people from harms way, for we know there will
be storms of significance in the future. The question is no longer "if," but
"when!" Hurricane Fran was a lesson learned in flood management
procedures. Beaufort County received a hazard mitigation grant in July,
1997, of $2,110,000 to.elevate 106 homes out of harms way. This project is
expected to begin in the near future.
IV-39

f!
1
A
1
1
1
1
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES
AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
As required by 15A NCAC 7B planning guidelines, the Beaufort County land use plan must relate
the policies section to the land classification map and provide some indication as to which land uses
are appropriate in each land classification. Beaufort County does not have a county -wide zoning
ordinance. Therefore, consistency of the land classification system with the zoning ordinance is not
relevant.
A. DEVELOPED
All municipalities in the county with the exception of Washington Park are subject to their own
individual land use plans. The county cannot express policies or land classifications for these
jurisdictions.
Beaufort County's primary growth should continue to occur near incorporated areas and along the
U.S.17 and U.S. 264 corridors. Those areas are classified as developed. The areas will require basic
urban services. The developed class is specifically designated to accommodate intense development
and land uses, including single and multi -family residential, commercial, industrial parks and open
space, community facilities, and transportation. Industrial development should occur in concentrated
locations. Population densities will remain moderate at an average of approximately two persons
per acre. The greatest demand for urban services will exist within this classification. The
classification is located near incorporated areas and along the U.S. 17,and 264 corridors.
B. COMMUNITY CLASS
Moderate density development, three dwelling units per acre or less, will be allowed in this
classification. Water and sewer utilities should be provided to eliminate health hazards. Land uses
will be limited to single and multi -family residential usage and commercial/service uses necessary
to support residential development. Support uses shall include: general and convenience stores,
public facilities, health care facilities, service facilities, and offices. The community class may
include some light industrial development. This classification includes the following areas: U.S.
17 corridor south of Chocowinity; areas north, south, east, and west of Washington; Pantego
community; areas along NC 33 west and south of Aurora, Old Ford, Cox Crossroads/Blount Creek,
Bonnerton, Yeatsville, Acre, and Ransomville.
C. URBAN TRANSITION
Urban transition areas will provide lands to accommodate future urban growth within the planning
period. The average development densities will be less than the developed class densities.
Development may include mixed land uses such as single and multi -family residential, commercial,
institutional, industrial, and other uses at high to moderate densities. Uses will be allowed which
are consistent with the county's zoning ordinance where applicable. Urban services may include
V-1

water, sewer, streets, police, and fire protection. The urban transition class is located in the
municipalities areas of extraterritorial jurisdiction, scattered areas along the north shoreline of the
Pamlico River, NC 33 west of Aurora, and areas in the vicinity of Chocowinity. During the planning
period, population density may be expected to increase.
D. LINIITED TRANSITION
The limited transition classification provides for controlled development with some urban services.
The limited transition areas are widely scattered along the county's shoreline areas. This
classification will require the development of some urban services including water and sewer
utilities. The predominant land use will be moderate density residential development. However,
other urban land uses including the following will be allowed: commercial, public and semi-public,
multi -family residential, service, office, institutional, commercial, and light industrial.
E. RURAL WITH SERVICES
The rural with services classification is to provide for low density land uses including residential use
where limited water services are provided in order to avert an existing or projected health problem.
Areas meeting the intent of this class are appropriate for low density residential uses where lot sizes
are large and where the provision of services will not disrupt the primary rural character of the
landscape. Most development may be supported by a central water system. All areas of the county,
not otherwise classified, are considered classified as rural with services.
F. CONSERVATION
The conservation class is designated to provide for effective long-term management of significant
limited or irreplaceable areas which include Areas of Environmental Concern, 404 wetlands, and
Natural Resource Fragile Areas. Development in the AECs should be restricted to uses which satisfy
15A NCAC 7H use standards and the policies included in this plan. Policies which exceed the 15A
NCAC 7H minimum use standards including the following: Soils policy (c) on page IV-4
(limitations on waste discharge in AECs) and Solid Waste policy (c) on page I-17 (prohibition of
the location of recycling centers in AECs).
V-2

W
C.�
Z
W
a
a.
a

APPENDIX I
BEAUFORT COUNTY
INDEX TO WATERSHEDS
BY MUNICIPALITY
% of watershed
% of town in
occupied by
DWQ
Municipality
14-digit code
watershed*
town*
River Basin
Sub -basin
Aurora
03020104060010
27.4%
0.6%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
03020104060020
72.5%
1.1%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
Bath
03020104040030
100.0%
1.7%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
Belhaven
03020104100010
100.0%
6.2%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
Chocowinity
03020103080020
20.8%
1.2%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-05
03020104010010
19.4%
0.4% '
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
03020104010020
59.7%
2.4%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
Pantego
03020104080010
5.0%
0.0%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
03020104100010
94.9%
1.8%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-07
Washington
03020103090050
28.1%
6.7%
Tar -Pamlico
03-03-06
Washington Park
03020104020020
03020104020020
71.4%
100.0%
36.7%
2.3%
Tar -Pamlico
Tar
03-03-07
03-03-07
-Pamlico
*Only those watersheds containing one percent or more
of the total town area are shown.
Consequently,
totals may not add to 100 percent.

BEAUFORT COUNTY
PREDOMINANT LAND USES BY WATERSHED
Watershed*
Predominant Land Use
03020103080010
Undeveloped, Rural
03020103090030
Undeveloped, Institutional
03020103090040
Undeveloped
03020103090050
Undeveloped, Urban
03020104010010
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104010020
Undeveloped, Urban
03020104020020
Undeveloped, Urban
03020104020030
Undeveloped
03020104020050
Undeveloped, Urban
03020104030010
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104030020
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104030040
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104040020
Undeveloped, Public Recreational
03020104040030
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104040040
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104050010
Undeveloped
03020104050020
Undeveloped, Industrial
03020104060010
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104060020
Undeveloped, Urban
03020104070010
Undeveloped, Public Recreational
03020104080010
Undeveloped
03020104090010
Undeveloped
03020104090020
Undeveloped
03020104100010
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104100020
Undeveloped, Rural
03020104110010
Undeveloped, Urban
03020104110020
Undeveloped, Rural
*Only those watersheds containing one percent or more of the total county area are shown.
Source: Mid -East Commission and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.

M M USSIO M M mom ones M 40 r m us m m m
APPENDIX II
Page No. 1 Beaufort County
05/10/96
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
NR Number / Survey Site Number Owner Information SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
Property/HD Name SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
Town/vicinity REMOVED
** County: Beaufort
NR# SS#:BF 287 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
/ /
List: 4
Institute for Intnat'l Maritime Research
Ada Mae Shad Boat
Mr. G. P. Watts
04/13/95
Post Office Box 2454
Washington
Washington NC 27889
Conditn:
/ / President
List: 1
NR# 68 SS#:BF 1 LOCAL STATUS:
Date:
North Carolina National Bank
Bank of Washington
09/19/69
12/11/70
02/18/71
216 Main Street
P. O. Box 792
12/11/70
12/22/70
Washington
Washington NC 27889
Conditn:
Mayor
List: 1
NR# 2 SS#: LOCAL STATUS: D Date:
/ /
Town of Bath
Bath Historic District
The Honorable Jim Richardson
09/19/69
01/06/70
02/26/70
P.O. Box 6
/ /
01/12/70
Bath
Bath NC 27808
Conditn:
List: 3
NR# SS#:BF 289 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
/ /
Expansion of Bath (Structures 1,2,3) Historic
District
E sd of King St N of Craven St
/ /
/ /
06/29/95
Bath
Conditn:
List: 1
/ / Chairman
NR# 74 SS#:BF 3 LOCAL STATUS:
Date:
Beaufort County Historic Properties Com.
(former) Beaufort County Courthouse
09/19/69
12/18/70
03/31/71
Corner W. Second and Market sts.
W. Second & Market Sts.
/ /
12/29/70
Washington
Washington NC 27889
Conditn:
/ /

Page No. 2
05/10/96
NR Number / Survey Site Number
Property/HD Name
Town/vicinity
Beaufort County
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
Owner Information
NR# 479 SS#:BF 4 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Belfont Plantation
W. side SR 1411, 0.3 mi. N. of jct. w/SR 1410
Latham vicinity
NR# 721 SS#:BF 24 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Belhaven City Hall
Main Street
Belhaven
NR# SS#: LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Belhaven Historic District HUD
NR# 3 SS#:BF 5 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Bonner House
Front Street
Bath
NR# SS#:BF 217 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Bower -Tripp House
1040 N. Market Street
Washington
Mr. and Mrs. Grover Boyd
Rt. 3, Box 463
Washington NC 27889
Mayor
Town of Belhaven
The Honorable Charles O. Boyette
P.O. Box 220
Belhaven NC 27810
Director
N.C. Division of Archives and History
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow
109 E. Jones Street
Raleigh NC 27601-2807
Mr. Richard W. Tripp
1040 North Market Street
Washington NC 27889
SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
REMOVED
List: 1
09/19/74 09/27/76 12/12/76
08/13/76
Conditn:
List: 1
07/15/80 11/07/80 01/27/81
10/16/80 11/12/80
Conditn:
List: 3
08/09/95
Conditn:
List: 1
09/19/69 01/06/70 02/26/70
/ /
01/12/70
Conditn:
List: 4
10/14/93
Conditn:
/
/

m m w M M M M M MI= M M = i M M M us=
Page No. 3
05/10/96
NR Number / Survey Site Number
Property/HD Name
Town/vicinity
Beaufort County
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
Owner Information
SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
REMOVED
NR# SS#:BF 81 LOCAL STATUS:
Date: /
/
List: 8
Havens Warehouse
04/16/71
S side Main St b/t Bridge & Van
Norden Sts
Washington (In Washington HD)
Conditn:
NR# 4 SS#:BF 6 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
/ /
Director
List: 1
N.C. Division of Archives and History
Palmer -Marsh House (NHL)
Dr. Jeffrey J. Crow
09/19/69
01/06/70
02/26/70
E. side Main Street
109 E. Jones Street
/ /
01/12/70
Bath
Raleigh NC 27601-2807
Conditn:
NR# 982 SS#:BF 18 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
/ /
List: 1
Pantego Alumni Association, Inc.
Pantego Academy
Mrs. Emaline Winfield
09/20/78
09/25/84
10/25/84
Academy Street
P.O. Box 66
07/12/84
10/01/84
Pantego
Pantego NC 27860
Conditn:
NR# SS#:BF 168 LOCAL STATUS:
Date: /
/
Mayor
List: 4
Town of Pantego
Pantego Historic District
The Honorable John Jefferson
07/15/80
US 264
P. 0. Box 87
Pantego
Pantego NC 27860
Conditn:
NR# SS#:BF 169 LOCAL STATUS:
Date: /
/
Mayor
List: 4
Town of Pantego
(former) Pantego Jail
The Honorable John Jefferson
10/14/82
W of US 264 beside Pantego Town
Hall
P.O. Box 87
Pantego
Pantego NC 27860
Conditn:
/
/

Page No. 4 Beaufort County
05/10/96
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
NR Number / Survey Site Number Owner Information SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
Property/HD Name SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
Town/vicinity REMOVED
NR# 724 SS#:BF 54 LOCAL STATUS: Date: / /
Rosedale
NW. of Washington off SR 1407
Wharton vicinity
NR# SS#:BF 173 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Rutlege House
SE. corner Main and Third sts.
Aurora
NR# 47 SS#:BF 7 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
S. side Craven Street
Bath
NR# SS#:BF 215 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Ware Creek Community School
SR 1103 - Maul's Point Rd
Blounts Creek vicinity
NR# 575 SS#:BF 69 LOCAL STATUS: D Date:
Washington Historic District
Washington
Mr. J.D. Briley
Rt. 5, Box 2728
Greenville NC 27858
Mayor
Town of Aurora
The Honorable Grace H. Bonner
P.O. Box 86
Aurora NC 27806
St. Thomas Episcopal Church
Craven Street
Bath NC 27808
Trustees of the Ware Creek Comm. School
Mr. Chairman et al
Route 1, Box 195 A
Blounts Creek NC 27814
Mayor
City of Washington
The Honorable J. Stancil Lilley
P.O. Box 1988
Washington NC 27889
List: 1
09/30/75 11/07/80 04/29/82
10/16/80 11/12/80
Conditn:
List: 4
09/22/77
Conditn:
List: 1
09/19/69 09/16/70 11/20/70
/ / 09/22/70
Conditn:
List: 4
10/14/93
Conditn:
List: 1
09/19/74 07/13/78 02/09/79
Conditn: / /

Page No. 5
05/10/96
NR Number / Survey Site Number
Property/HD Name
Town/vicinity
NR# SS#: LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Woodstock Town Site (Archaeology)
Beaufort County
NATIONAL REGISTER AND STUDY LIST ENTRIES
LOCAL LANDMARK/DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS
Owner Information
NR# SS#:BF 182 LOCAL STATUS: Date:
Zion Episcopal Church
S side US 264, 0.2 mi E of jct w/ SR 1601
Jessma vicinity
Zion Episcopal Church Trustees
Rt. 2, Box 501
Washington NC 27889
SPRC-SL NOMdate LISTdate
SPRC-NR RECdate DOEdate
REMOVED
List: 4
Conditn:
List:
4
10/06/92
Conditn:
/ /

APPENDIX III
BEAUFORT COUNTY
POLICIES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADOPTED
C. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
IPhysical Limitations
Soils
1. Beaufort County does not oppose the installation of package treatment plants and septic
tanks or discharge of waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands, 404 wetlands, or
natural heritage areas.
2.
Beaufort County supports reduction of the 404 wetlands regulations by the federal
government, and objects to the establishment of any state 404 or freshwater wetlands
regulations.
Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Su lies
3.
It is the policy of Beaufort County to conserve its surficial' groundwater resources by
supporting CAMA and N.C. Division of Environmental Management stormwater run-off
regulations, and by coordinating local development activities involving chemical storage
or underground storage tank installation/abandonment with Beaufort County Emergency
Management personnel and the Groundwater Section of the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management.
4.
Ensure that the coup 's land development review process examines all land use proposals
t3' P P P P
to determine their impact on the county's potable water supplies and resources. Support
and promote, to the extent feasible, land use regulatory requirements near groundwater
sources. (92)
5.
Develop citizens' awareness programs related to expanding water supplies and distribution
systems, including information promoting access to these systems. (92)
Manmade Hazards
6.
Continue to oppose air space restrictions imposed by the presence of military bombing
'
ranges in the region; support relevant position statements adopted by the CRC in 1990.
(92)
' Groundwaters which are at or just below the surface.
1

7. Beaufort County opposes the expansion of any restricted airspace into Beaufort County.
tY.
Beaufort County does not favor the continued existence or expansion of the existing
airspace restriction imposed by the presence of U.S.A.F. bombing ranges in the Albemarle
Sound area near the county.
8. The county opposes any low level military training flights that are not in compliance with
the minimum safe altitudes for aircraft operation as described in the Federal Aviation
Regulations, Part 91.
Stormwater Runoff
9. Beaufort County recognizes the value of water quality maintenance to the protection of
fragile areas and to the provision of clean water for recreational purposes. The county will
support existing state regulations relating to stormwater runoff resulting from development
(Stormwater Disposal Policy 15A NCAC 2H.001-.1003).
10. Beaufort County supports control of agricultural runoff through implementation of U.S.
Soil Conservation Service 'Best Management Practices" program, and/or North Carolina
State Best Management Practices.
10A. Beaufort County supports control of forestry runoff through implementation of Forestry
Best Management Practices" as provided by the North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources.
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas
11. Industrial development which can comply with the use standards specified by 15A NCAC
7H and applicable ORW management plans may be located within conservation classified
areas. Beaufort County aggressively encourages the development of industry. The
development of a diversified economic base and jobs are crucial to a stable future for
Beaufort County. The county does not want any policies contained within this plan to
prohibit industrial development which meets all applicable state and federal regulations.
,
Beaufort County objects to enforcement of the 404 wetlands permitting process by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers preventing any industrial development. However, the
county recognizes that this position may have no effect on Corps' action because local
policies/legislation cannot supersede more restrictive federal legislation.
12. County policies related to industrial development impacts on fragile areas should be
consistent with other Resource Protection policies as well as general policies addressing
Resource Development and Economic and Community Development. (92)
13. Industrial development shall not be located within conservation classified areas.
14. Beaufort County, in cooperation with the City of Washington, will continue to support an
active industrial recruitment program, seeking low pollution, light manufacturing
industries, and those which do not require large commitments of water and/or sewer.
2

IMiscellaneous Resource Protection
Package Treatment Plant Use
15. The county recognizes that private treatment plants may be appropriate in certain locations
i for the support of future land development activities in the county. (92)
16. Private developers considering the use of private sewer treatment plants must prepare
facility impact statements which include consideration of maintenance and operational
requirements for plant and provisions for the dedication of the plant into the public system
should the private operation fail to meet any and all public guidelines. (92)
' 17. Any request for the approval of a private package treatment facilitYmust be accompanied
by documentation that all applicable State and Federal health requirements will be
satisfied. (92)
18. Any request for the approval of a private package treatment facility must be accompanied
by environmental assessments or, if required, environmental impact statements and
documentation of assurances that all applicable state and federal health requirements will
be satisfied. Prior to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a
report will be prepared which examines the possibilities for wastewater disposal
alternatives. This report will follow the prescribed format outlined in the Division of
Environmental Management's (DEM) Guidance for Evaluation of Wastewater Disposal
Alternatives: Proposed Discharge. When an EIS is determined necessary, it will be
prepared in accordance with 15A NCAC 1D.0201.
19. Beaufort County supports the discharge of package treatment plant effluent into 404
wetland areas.
Marine and Floating Home Development
20. Beaufort County shall permit marina construction which is consistent with the 15A NCAC
7H minimum use standards and the county's zoning ordinance.
21. The county shall permit upland marina construction which is consistent with the 15A
NCAC 7H minimum use standards and the city's zoning and subdivision ordinances.
22. Beaufort County opposes upland marina construction.
23. Beaufort County opposes the construction of drystack storage facilities.
24. Floatinghomes have not been an issue within Beaufort Coun 's planning jurisdiction.
tY P g J
However, the county would oppose the location of floating structures within its
jurisdiction and will consider adoption of an ordinance to regulate floating homes if they
become a problem.

25. Beaufort County will permit floating homes which are consistent with the 15A NCAC 7H
minimum use standards.
26. Beaufort County opposes the location of floating structures in all marinas, primary nursery
areas, public trust areas, and estuarine waters. Floating structures are defined as any
structure or vessel used, designed, and occupied as a permanent dwelling unit, business,
office, or source of any occupation or any private or social club, which floating structure
or vessel is primarily immobile and out of navigation or which functions substantially as
a land structure while moored or docked on waters within county jurisdiction. Floating
structures shall not be used commercially or inhabited in one place for more than a period
of time specified by local ordinance.
MooringFields
ields
27. Beaufort County is concerned with the potential for the development of mooring fields.
The county opposes the development of mooring fields and will pursue the development
of an ordinance to regulate the establishment of mooring fields.
28. Beaufort County will allow all mooring fields which comply with minimum state
standards.
Bulkhead Construction
29. Bulkhead installation should employ appropriate construction and resource protection
techniques. Where installation is required, development plans should consider every
feasible alternative to minimize the damage to existing marshes. (92)
30. Beaufort County opposes the construction of bulkheads to control the effects of migrating
shorelines.
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands
31. Beaufort County does not oppose the development of sound and estuarine islands which
meet the requirements of 15A NCAC 7H.
32. Beaufort County opposes the development of sound and estuarine islands. The county
will revise its zoning and other local ordinances to regulate such development.
Sea Level Rise
33. In response to anticipated sea level rise, the county will review all local building and land
use related ordinances to establish setback standards, long-term land use plans, density
controls, bulkhead restrictions, buffer vegetation protection requirements, and building
designs which will facilitate the movement of structures.
34. Beaufort County encourages migrating shorelines in coastal wetland areas in order to
preserve coastal wetlands. The county supports establishment of a state policy which will

protect the natural migration of coastal wetlands. Any state policy addressing migrating
shorelines should provide for the protection of developed areas.
"solid"
35.
Beaufort County believes that this issue is currently not enough to propose a
realistic policy statement at this time, since it is one still being debated in scientific
circles.
Water
Qualily Management
36.
Beaufort County will enforce its local ordinance to regulate swine production and other
intensive livestock operations.
D.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Recreation Resources
37.
The county will develop a shoreline access plan to define the need for public -owned
waterfront recreational facilities within its planning jurisdiction. This effort should be
closely coordinated with shoreline access planning by the City of Washington.
Productive Agricultural Lands
38.
Promote public awareness of agricultural "Best Management Practices" in the county,
while encouraging farmers to implement such practices to the benefit of their natural
resource production activities. The county will actively support continued funding of
State and Federal cost -share programs. (92)
Productive Forestlands
39. Promote public awareness of forestry Best Management Practices in the county, while
' encouraging the private forestry industry to implement such practices to the benefit of
their natural resource production activities. (92)
Aquaculture
40. Beaufort County supports the development of aquaculture and mariculture facilities.
41. Aquaculture is considered the cultivation of aquatic plants and animals under controlled
conditions. The following policies shall apply.
-- The county encourages all aquaculture uaculture activities which meet applicable federal,
g
state, and local policies and permit requirements. However, Beaufort County
reserves the right to comment on all aquaculture activities which require Division
of Environmental Management permitting.
5

-- Beaufort County objects to any discharge of water from aquaculture activities that
will degrade in any way the receiving waters. Beaufort County objects to
withdrawing water from aquifers or surface sources if such withdrawal will
endanger water quality or water supply from the aquifers or surface sources.
-- The county will support only aquaculture activities which do not alter significantly
and negatively the natural environment of conservation areas as shown on the
Land Classification Map.
Off -Road Vehicles
42. The use of off -road vehicles has not been an issue or problem within Beaufort County's
planning jurisdiction. Therefore, a policy is not required.
43. The county does not object to the use of off -road vehicles.
44. There are no recreational beaches in Beaufort County; therefore, the conventional threat
of off -road vehicles is not relevant to Beaufort County. Off -road vehicles are important
in some sections of the county because of the necessity for landowners to travel in bog
or swamp areas. As this property is private and not available to the public as public
beaches are, the use of these vehicles is acceptable in these cases.
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Impacts on Resources
45. Residential, commercial, and industrial development which meets 15A NCAC 7H use
standards will be allowed in estuarine shoreline, estuarine water, and public trust areas.
In all other areas, development will be allowed that is consistent with applicable local,
state, and federal regulations. However, development should not be prohibited by the
enforcement of 404 wetland regulations.
46. Support development in AECs only if such development meets the management objectives
in 15 NCAC 7H.0203 and the use standards in 15 NCAC 7H.0208 and .0209. (92)
47. Beaufort County opposes the construction of any signs, except public regulatory signs, in
public trust or estuarine waters.
Marine Resource Areas
48. The county will support enforcement of septic tank placement regulations by the Health
Department and the Soil Conservation Service to minimize the likelihood of effluent from
septic systems in unsuitable soils contaminating fishing waters.
49. Encourage and support Division of Marine Fisheries investigative efforts in the county
which focus on culling practices. (92) 1
6 1

E. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Community Attitude on Economic and Community Development
50. Beaufort County supports growth in the form of environmentally responsible economic
and community development. The county favors all types of development as long as it
does not adversely affect the environment, especially designated critical areas. These
critical areas include AEC's (areas of environmental concern), and fragile areas.
Therefore, development is desired if it can occur in an orderly, environmentally safe
manner in areas that are suitable for development. Suitable includes consideration of
physical constraints and limitations of community facilities and services. While economic
' development is a county priority, the county does desire to protect its shoreline areas and
water quality.
Water Supply
51. Water systems must be constructed with lines designed and sized for adequate fire
' protection and sufficient water pressure. Beaufort County should review its Subdivision
Ordinance to ensure adequate water system design standards.
52. Beaufort County supports all efforts to secure available state and federal funding for the
construction and/or expansion of public and private water systems.
53. Beaufort County supports the extension of central water service into all areas of the
county not classified as rural, including the construction of lines to and through
conservation areas to serve development which meets all applicable state. and federal
regulations.
Energy Facility Siting and Development
54. Beaufort County opposes off -shore drilling operations.
55. Beaufort County will not oppose drilling operations and onshore support facilities for
which an environmental impact statement has been prepared with a finding of no
significant impact on the environment.
56. Beaufort County does not oppose offshore exploratory drilling for oil or gas. In the event
' that oil or gas is discovered, Beaufort County will not oppose drilling operations and
onshore support facilities for which an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared
with a finding of no significant impact on the environment. Beaufort County supports and
requests full disclosure of development plans, with mitigative measures that will be under-
taken to prevent adverse impacts on the environment, the infrastructure, and the social
systems of the county. The county also requests full disclosure of any adopted plans.
Offshore drilling and the development of onshore support facilities may have severe costs
for the county as well as advantages. The costs should be borne by the company(ies) with
revenues from offshore drilling and onshore support facilities.
7

Types and Locations of Desired Industry
57. Industries which are noxious by reason of the emission of smoke, dust, glare, noise, and
vibrations, and those which deal primarily in hazardous products such as explosives,
should not be located in Beaufort County.
Estuarine Access
58. Beaufort County will initiate a study to review the need for the most appropriate location
of additional public river access sites in the county with a goal of a site on each side of
the river. (92)
59. The county will apply for grants which fund Beach Access studies and, based on study
results, apply for Beach Access Grant funding for implementation of physical
improvements.
60. The county will enhance opportunities for beach access and undertake active efforts to
increase such access to public trust waters. (92)
61. It is the county's goal related to access to public trust waters to provide for the diverse
recreational needs of county residents as well as tourists to Beaufort County. (92)
62. Coastal and estuarine water beach access (which may include urban waterfront access)
must comply with State standards for beach access locations as expressed in 7M.0303.
These locations should be studied and indicated on maps which could be incorporated into
the Land Use Plan. (92)
63. Undertake necessary efforts with the State Division of Coastal Management and Division
of Water Resources to obtain public trust water access assistance in funding the planning,
land acquisition, and site development of these improvements. (92)
Commitment to State and Federal Programs
64. Beaufort County is generally receptive to state and federal programs, particularly those
which provide improvements to the county. The county will continue to fully support
such programs, especially the North Carolina Department of Transportation road and
bridge improvement programs, which are very important to Beaufort County.
Examples of other state and federal programs that are important to and supported by
Beaufort County include: drainage planning and erosion control activities carried out by
the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, which is valuable to farmers; dredging and
channel maintenance by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; federal and state projects
which provide efficient and safe boat access for sport fishing; and community
development block grants, low -to -moderate income housing, housing rehabilitation,
housing for the elderly, and - North Carolina Housing Finance Agency housing
improvement programs. However, Beaufort County does not support expansion of
military restricted airspace in eastern North Carolina, or the expansion of state and federal

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
lands within the county for activities which do not generate jobs or revenues for the
county.
Assistance in Channel Maintenance
65. Proper maintenance of channels is very important in Beaufort County because of the
substantial economic impact of commercial fisheries, boating, and sport fishing. If silt
or other deposits fill in the channels, this could impede efficient docking of the
commercial fishing and transport vessels. The county will provide assistance to the U.S.
Corps of Engineers and state officials by either helping to obtain or providing spoil sites.
Assistance in Interstate Waterways
66. Beaufort County considers the interstate waterway to be a valuable economic asset. The
county will provide assistance in maintaining the waterway by helping to obtain or
providing dredge spoil sites and, when possible, providing easements across county -owned
property for work.
Land Use Trends
67. Adopt, as a part of this plan, the Land Classification Map which designates appropriate
areas of the county for intensive economic development land use activities. (92)
68. Adopt, as a part of this plan; the Land Classification Map which limits the development
of intensive commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in areas which are infeasible
to develop and provide public services from an environmental and economic standpoint.
(92)
Z

APPENDIX IV
A RESOLUTION
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN FOR INPUT IN THE
1997 CAMA LAND USE PLAN
In accordance with the provisions of North Carolina Administrative Code 15
NCAC 711.0207 regarding public participation in land use planning efforts, the
Land Use Plan Committee of Beaufort County, North Carolina hereby resolves to
support public educational efforts and participation techniques to assure that all
segments of the County's population have full and adequate opportunity to be
informed of proceedings and decisions relating to the 1997 Beaufort County CAMA
'
Land Use Plan Update.
The elements of this citizen participation plan shall include but not be limited to the
following:
(1) The Land Use Plan Committee, an appointed, diversified citizen group, under the
supervision and direction of the County Planner and the Planning Consultant, shall be
the principal responsible work group for the project and shall make recommendations
to the County Commissioners regarding the preliminary and final draft versions of the
Land Use Plan Update.
(2) An opinion survey shall be developed to solicit public opinion by publication in the
Washington Daily News and by any other methods as may seem appropriate to assure
wide access to county citizens.
(3) All meetings of the Land Use Plan Committee shall be public meetings and shall be
publicized for the public's information.
(4) The County Commissioners shall hold a public hearing prior to final adoption of the
plan, as described in T15A:NCAC 713.0402(a).
THIS RESOLUTION IS HEREBY ADOPTED THIS THE 12th DAY OF
MARCH, 1997.
Chairman
Planner

APPENDIX V
' PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
BEAUFORT COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
1997 UPDATE
The County is in the process of updating its Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA) Land Use Plan. We are seeking the input of citizens (with special emphasis on.
those who are not subject to municipal plans within the county)., There are Also a few
questions related to transportation issues for use with an upcoming DOT thoroughfare.
plan. Please respond BY MAY 30, 1997 to the questions below and return this survey to:
Jane Daughtridge, Planning'Director, Mid -East Commission, P.O. Box 1787,.I Harding
Square, Washington, NC 27889.
GENERAL INFORRMATION:
Beaufort County is growing. In 1990, the population in Beaufort County was 42,283:
persons. The. 1995 estimate was 43,330 or about 209 people per year.. The size of the
' county is just over 827 square miles, Our Pitt County neighbor is home to nearly 120,000
persons, having gained about 1,788 people each year since 1990. They are only 4/5 the
size of Beaufort County but have nearly three times as many people living there. Our:Hyde
County neighbor occupies about 630 square miles (or 3/4 the size of Beaufort. County)
and is home to.a declining population of 5,211 persons, The table below shows population
growth for Beaufort County and our neighbors between 1990 and 1995.
POPULATION POPULATION PERCENT
COUNTY 1990 1995 CHANGE
BEA.UFORT 42,283 43,330 2.5%
Pamlico 11,368 11,869 4.4%
' Craven 81,613 85,816 5.1%
Pitt 108,480 117,4210 8.2%
Martin 25,078 25,842 3.0%
Washington 13,997 13,766 -1.7° o
Hyde 5,411 5,211 -3.7"%
rThere are some fundamental assumptions we can make about growth in Beaufort County.:
I) It is inevitable; 2) It is expensive, and even grants are tax dollars --there's no free ride; 3)
It generates both positive.and negative impacts. More people may mean more business;
recreational, and cultural opportunities and more new ideas from different places. But
more people also bring more traffic, more encroachment on rural lifestyles; more crime,
more property damage from storms, more demand for public services such as schools;
' roads, water, and sewer,
11

Please mark the -Paces or fill in the blanks that best rc•presc•nt your fi�elinb�s' abort[ land
rise issues in Bear fort County.
YOUR VISION:
1) If the current popul;ttion is 43,000 people, what would be the maximum
number of people you would personally want to ever have residing in Beaufort
County?
Less than now, if possible 23
Stop now. We have enough. LQ�
(52 people per square mile)
Double what we have would be ideal. 5-Q
(About 100 people per square mile)
Something like Pitt County would be desirable.,}
The sky is the limit. Pack'em in like sardinesl
I have no opinion on this.
2) Is there a county you can name which you would like to see Beaufort County,
patterned after?
Pitt 41 Hyde 5 Craven 5
Dare 3 Pamlico 2 New Hanover 2
Wake I Wilson 1 Martin 1
Lenoir I York Co. VA. I
In what way?
Employment 19
Business Opportunity 11
Growth 9
Shopping 6
Restaurants 3
Business Restrictions 3
Economy 2
Lower Taxes 2
Industry
Agricultural Appreciation
Municipal Water
Schools
Services
Safety
Commercial
Residential Development
Water Qunlity
Environment
Entertainment
Law Enforcement
Roads
Recreation
Beauty
Water

3) The thing I like best about Beaufort County is:
Rural Environment 52 People 40
Taxes 30 River 28
Quality of Life 23 Environment 17
Fishing 4 Limited Population 3
Hunting 3 Recreation 3
Lack of Traffic 2 Schools 2
Employment 2 Tranquility 2
Low Poverty History
Farming Shopping
Natural Resources Water Services
Low Crime Rate Economic Balance
4) How Important Are the following land or water use issues in Beaufort County?
Please rate
I=Critical 2=Important 3=Some Concern 4,-Not a concern
Average
In -ground Septic Systems
LU
Disposal of solid waste (trash)
L
Recycling of solid waste
L7
The effects of crop farming on waterways or groundwater
"9
The effects of livestock farms on waterways or groundwater
1�ISt
The effects of industry on waterways or groundwater
The effects of forestry on waterways
2 .0
Quality of drinking water
L95.
Open moorings in the river
2 2A
Marina numbers and locations in the county
2AL
Mobile honie development in the county
Conversion of farmland to subdivisions
2,
Regulation oftlie fishing industry$
If you would like to explain any of your Answers or add other concerns,
please do:
Environmental Controls 17 Zoning
I I
Water Quality 7 Hogfarms
4
Less Fishing Regulations 4 Less Development
4
County Water and Sewer 2 Less Restriction on Agriculture 2
Mobile Home Regulation 2 Recycling Programs
2
Improve Quality of Life 2 Anti-Retirie
Lack of Entloyment Lack of Recreation
Equal Opportunity Waste Programs
Watenviy AcceSS

5) flow important are the following issues in Beaufort County? Please rate_
1-Vcry Important 2=11mportant 3=Moderate Need 4=Not Important $=I'm
against it!
Attracting new jobs
im
Attracting retirees and other new full-time residents to the area
M3.
Marketing our natural resources to attract tourists
Z.0
Planning for county -wide sewer service
x,QQ
Creating government incentives for new business development
2,22
Residential development along the river
1�2Z
Educating residents in storm hazard areas to avoid property loss
LIZ
Protecting property values
Protecting wetlands and other natural areas
L$4
Providing more public access to local water bodies
Preserving historic resources
Z.R9
County zoning
2.52
Controlling development
2X
County sub -division regulations
2M
6) If you could earmark your tax dollars to be spent on one particular issue in the
county, what would be your priority?
Education
57
County Water and Sewer
37
Roads Inprovements
34
Water Quality
13
Law Enforcement
I 1
Environmental Protection
10
Employment
9
New Business
6
flospital/Health
4
Recreation
4
Senior Activities
4
Polution Control
3
Better County Administration 3
Mobile Home Park Regulation
2
Route 17 Expansion
2
Industry
2
Wetland Preservation
2
Tax Reduction
2
Handicapped
2
Fire Station
2
Hog Farm Controls
Farmers
Child Care
Waterway Access
Natural Disaster Preparation
Clean Creeks
Prenatal Care
Tourism
Zoning
Prison
Landfill
Drainage
7) Should the county have a county -wide recreation program? '
Yes 133 No 83
i

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D.O.T. QUESTIONS:
A thoroughfare plan is a long-range plan that identifies the major transportation
improvements that will be needed over the next 25-30 years. These improvements may
include new road constnution, widening projects, realignments, pedestrian and bicycle
projects and public transit.
8) Please rank the following transportation considerations from I.(mast
important) to S (least Important). -The issues considered during a Thoroughfare
Plan should be
1 Community elilmnccments (bettor roads, quiet neighborhoods, bike & pedestrian. facilities.
,I Community prescrvation
-4 Environmental preservation
1 Individual home or business preservation
1 Now Economic growth
9) Please rank the following transportation options from I (most important) to 6
(least important)
-In Beaufort County, a road's ability to carry traffic should be increased by:
1 Building additional traffic lanes on existing roads
2 Controlling strip development
A Encouraging people to ride together
2, making improvements to intersections
5. Providing public transportation
A Providing alternative modes of travel, e,.g. walkways or bike facilities
10) What do you feel are the key transportation issues in Beaufort County?
Road Quality 92 Public Transportation 20
Expand HWY 17 17 Expand HWY 264 13
Another Bridge Across Panilico 13 HWY 17 By -Pass 8
Intersection of HWY 17 and 264 6 Poor Driving 4
School Busing 3 Road Alignment 3
Senior Transportation 2 Gas Prices 2
Traffic Big Trucks
Walking and Bike Paths Intersection
Electric Buses Commuter Trabis
Car Pooling

11) Are you concerned with sifety or accident problems at any specific locations? If
yes, please describe the location
Douglas Crossroads at HWY 264
11
HWY 92 and HWY 264
7
Kmart in Washington
7
Main St and Bridge St
5
15th street intersections
5
Hudnell and River Rd
4
HWY 264 & Free Union Churd Rd
4
Railroad Crossing Site Distances
4
Whichard Beach Rd & HWY 17
4
River Rd in Washington Park
4
HWY 264 & HWY 32
3
Market St & 15th st
3
Speeding Log Trucks
3
Hwy 33
2
15th St & HWY 264
2
Harvey Rd & HWY 264
2
HWY 264E & Lizzislip Rd
2
HWY 17S & Fredricks Rd
2
HWY 99 & HWY 264
2
HWY 17 Intersections -
2
Schools
2
HWY 17 & HWY 33
2
HWY 17 & Singer
2
Widen HWY 99
2
Which Township do you live in?
Bath Township
28
Chocowinity Township
60
Long Acre Township
50
Pantego Township
32
Richland Township
12
Washington Township
32
Are you a permanent resident?
Yes 223
No 1
Do you live wi(hin a city or town?
Yes 75
No 158
Which?
Aurora
3
Washington Park
5
Washington
5
Pantego
2
Belhaven
1
Bath
3
Chocowinity
7
Thank you for sharing your
ideas and feelingsl