1996 Land Use Plan-1999

I
I
. I
.1
1
CARTERET COUNTY, NC
1996 LAND USE PLAN
Adopted by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners: September 13, 1999
Certified by the Coastal Resources Commission: November 19, 1999
Prepared By:
Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
Wilmington, North Carolina
The preparation of this document 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.

1
CARTERET COUNTY
FY95/96 LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. INTRODUCTION..............................................I-1
1. ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION BASE .......................... 1-1
11. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1-5
B. PRESENT CONDITIONS
I. VISION STATEMENT ::::::::::::............................I-6
1-6
Il. DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING .................................
1-6
1. Carteret County Permanent Population .........................
a. Regional and County
1-6
1-6
b. Geographic Distribution of Growth .......................
1-8
C. Composition by Age ................................
d. Composition by Race and Sex
1-10
1-12
2. Carteret County Seasonal Population .........................
1-15
a. Introduction and Methodology .........................
b. Seasonal Demographic Trends
1-15
1-16
C. Seasonal Population Impact, Carteret County, 1970-90 .......
1-18
3. Carteret County Housing Characteristics .......................
a. Number and Type of Private Housing Units
1-19
1-19
b. Tenure and Condition of Year -Round Housing Units ..........
1-20
C. Single and Multi -Family Units ......................... 1-22
4. Summary 1-23
III.
ECONOMY ................................................
1-24
1.
Introduction ...........................................
1-24
2.
General Economic Indicators ...............................
1-27
3.
4.
Employment and Income ..................................
Education ............................................
1-28
1-31
5.
Tourism.............................................1-32
6.
7.
Commercial Fishing .....................................
Marine Research .......................................
1-33
1-36
8.
Manufacturing .........................................
1-37
9.
Agriculture ...........................................
1-40
10.
North Carolina State Ports Authority .........................
1-41
11.
Summary .............
1-43
1 IV. EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY ................................ 1-44
1. General Land Use Summary 1-44
2. Land Use By Township ................................... 1-53
a. Portsmouth ..... • ............... • ......... • ...... 1-53
b. Cedar Island 1-55

Page
C.
Atlantic .........................................
1-55
d.
Sea Level .......................................
1-56
e.
Stacy ..........................................
1-56
f.
Davis..........................................I-56
g.
Smyrna .........................................
1-57
h.
Marshallberg.....................................
1-57
i.
Harkers Island ....................................
1-57
j.
Straits .........................................
1-58
k.
Merrimon.......................................
1-59
I.
Beaufort ........................................
1-59
M.
Harlowe........................................I-61
n.
Morehead .......................................
1-61
o.
Newport........................................1-63
P.
White Oak .......................................
1-64
3. Global TransPark .......................................
1-65
4. Basinwide Water Quality Management ........................
1-67
C. LAND AND WATER USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS .................. 1-70
1. General Discussion ...................................... 1-70
2. Unplanned Development .................................. 1-71
3. Changes in Predominant Land Uses .......................... 1-71
4. Summary............................................I-72
D. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY ..................
1-74
1.
Topography/Geology....................................
1-74
2.
Flood Hazard Areas .....................................
1-74
3.
Groundwater Resources ..................................
1-77
4.
Areas with Soils Limitations ...............................
1-78
5.
Manmade Hazards ......................................
1-80
6.
Fragile Areas ..........................................
1-82
a. Coastal Wetlands ..................................
1-82
b. Ocean Dunes .....................................
1-82
C. Ocean Beaches and Shorelines ........................
1-82
d. Estuarine Waters ..................................
1-86
e. Estuarine Shorelines ................................
1-86
f. Public Trust Areas .................................
1-86
g. Maritime Forests ..................................
1-87
h. Historic and Archaeological Sites .......................
1-87
i. 404 Wetlands ....................................
1-88
j. Natural Heritage Areas ..............................
1-89
k. Outstanding Resource Waters .........................
1-91
I. Slopes in Excess of 12% ............................
1-91
M. Excessive Erosion Areas .............................
1-92
n. Sound and Estuarine Islands ..........................
1-92
7.
Areas of Resource Potential ...............................
1-92
a. Agricultural and Forestlands ..........................
1-92
b. Public Forests ....................................
1-93
C. Public Parks .....................................
1-93
2

1
1
1
iJ
Page
d.
Public Gamelands..................................
1-94
e.
Private Wildlife Sanctuaries ...........................
1-94
f.
Valuable Mineral Resources ...........................
1-94
g.
Marine Resources .................................
1-94
h.
Marinas and Mooring Fields ...........................
1-97
i.
Floating Homes ...................................
1-99
j.
Aquaculture.....................................
1-99
E. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: PUBLIC FACILITIES .................. 1-99
1.
Water Supply .........................................
1-99
2.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ........................
1-100
3.
Transportation ........................................
1-105
a. General ........................................
1-105
b. Roads.........................................1-105
C. Navigable Waters .................................
1-108
d. Air Transportation ................................
1-108
4.
Solid Waste Disposal ...................................
1-108
5.
Educational Facilities ...................................
1-109
6.
Parks and Recreation ...................................
1-111
7.
Other County Facilities ..................................
1-1 13
8.
Summary .................................... .....I-113
F. CURRENT PLANS, STUDIES, AND REGULATIONS .................
1 Plans
.
a.
..............................................
1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan .................. .
b.
A Plan for Parks and Recreation in Carteret County, 1974 ....
C.
Transportation Plan ...............................
d.
Regional Sewer Plan ...............................
e.
Hurricane Evacuation, Hazard Mitigation,
and Post -Disaster Plan, 1984 ........................
2. Regulations and Ordinances ............................. .
a.
Carteret County Subdivision Regulations .................
b.
Carteret County Zoning Ordinance .
C.
Carteret County Mobile Home Park and Camp Park Ordinance . .
d.
Group Housing Ordinance ...........................
e.
Bogue Banks Land Protection Ordinance .................
f.
North Carolina State Building, Electrical, Plumbing,
and Mechanical Codes .............................
g.
Septic Tank Regulations ............................
h.
National Flood Insurance Program .....................
i.
Carteret County Billboard Ordinance ....................
j.
Junkyard Control Ordinance .........................
k.
CAMA Minor Permit Program ........................
I.
North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act .........
M.
National Fire Prevention Regulations ....................
n.
"404" Wetlands Regulations ........................ .
3. Consistency of Local Policies and Ordinances with the Land Use Plan
4. Implementation/Effectiveness of the 1991 Land Use Plan
Update Policies .......................................
1-118
1 3

Paste I
SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
A. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .... II-1
1. General Discussion ...................................... II-1
2. Year-round Population Projections ........................... II-1
3. Seasonal Population ..................................... II-5
4. Projected Housing Characteristics ........................... II-5
B. PROJECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
AND
RELATED LAND USE ISSUES ................................
II-7
1.
General Economic Projections ..............................
II-7
2.
Tourism and Recreation ..................................
II-9
3.
Agriculture and Forestry ..................................
II-9
4.
Commercial Fishing ....................................
II-10
5.
Marine Research ......................................
II-10
6.
Manufacturing and Import/Export ...........................
II-11
7.
Real Estate and Construction ..............................
II-11
8.
Wholesale and Retail Trade and Services .....................
II-12
9.
Government Employment ................................
II-12
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND LAND USE ISSUES .......
II-13
1.
Water Supply ........................................
II-13
2.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal ........................
II-14
3.
Storm Drainage .......................................
II-15
4.
Transportation ........................................
II-15
5.
Solid Waste Disposal ...................................
II-18
6.
Educational Facilities ...................................
II-18
7.
Parks and Recreation ...................................
II-18
8.
Other County Facilities ..................................
II-19
D. REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES .................................... II-20
E. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ........ II-20
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS .......................... III-1
SECTION IV: POLICY STATEMENTS
A. INTRODUCTION TO POLICY STATEMENTS ......................... IV-1
B. VISION STATEMENT.........................................IV-3
C. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES ............................... IV-3
D. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES .............. IV-11
E. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES .............. IV-15
F. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES ..................... IV-24
G. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY,
AND EVACUATION PLANS .................................... IV-24
1
4

Paqe
SECTION V:
RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
A. DEVELOPED CLASS ..........................................
V-1
B. URBAN
TRANSITION CLASS ....................................
V-1
'
C. LIMITED TRANSITION CLASS
V-1
D. COMMUNITY CLASS .........................................
V-2
E. RURAL
WITH SERVICES CLASS .................................
V-2
F. RURAL
CLASS .
V-2
G. CONSERVATION CLASS .......................................
V-2
TABLES
Table 1
Total Population and Percent Change for CAMA-Regulated
Counties, 1970 - 1994 ..............................
1-7
Table 2
Carteret County, NC Summary of Year -Round Population Growth
by Township and Municipality, 1970 - 1994 ...............
1-9
Table 3
Carteret County, NC Total Population by Age and Percent
Table 4
Change, 1970-1994 ................................
Carteret County, NC Total Percentages of Total Population By
1-11
Age Group, 1970-1994 .............................
1-12
Table 5
Carteret County, NC Number and Percent Increase by Race and
Sex, 1970-1994 ....
1-13
Table 6
Carteret County, NC Percentages of Total Population By Race
and Sex, 1970-1994
1-14
Table 7
Carteret County, NC Summary of Seasonal Housing Units,
Table 8
1980-1990......................................
Carteret County, NC Summary of Peak Seasonal Population,
1-16
1980-90........................................
1-17
Table 9
Carteret County, NC Relationship of Seasonal/Permanent
Population, 1970-1990 ..............................
1-18
Table 10
Carteret County, NC Number and Percentage Increase of Year:
Round and Seasonal Private Housing Units, 1970-90
1-19
'
Table 11
Carteret County, NC Total and Average Annual Number of New
Year -Round and Seasonal Private Housing Units, 1970-90 .....
1-20
Table 12
Carteret County, NC Household Size and Tenure of Year -Round
Table 13
Housing Units, 1970-90 .............................
Carteret County, NC Housing Conditions, 1980-1990
1-20
1-21
Table 14
Carteret County, NC Total Housing Units and Percent Increase
by Units in Structure, 1980-90 ........................
1-22
Table 15
CAMA Regulated Counties: One, Five, and Ten -Year Composite
Table 16
Rankings of Economic Development .....................
Carteret County, NC Summary of Economic Indicators, 1970-94
1-25
1-27

Page
Table 17 Carteret County Non -Agricultural Wage and Salary Employment
by Industry, Employed Persons 16 Years and Over, 1994 ......
1-28
Table 18
Carteret County, 1990 Travel Time to Work, Workers 16 Years
andOver ........................................
1-29
Table 19
Carteret County, NC Household Income .................
1-30
Table 20
Carteret County, NC 1990 and 1994, Educational Attainment .
1-31
Table 21
Carteret County, NC Tourism Impact ...................
1-32
Table 22
Carteret County, NC Visitation at Major Tourist Attractions ...
1-33
Table 23
Carteret County, NC Commercial Landings Statistics, 1984-94 .
1-34
Table 24
Carteret County, NC List of Manufacturing Facilities, 1995 ...
1-38
Table 25
Carteret County, NC - Southeastern District Estimated Income
from Sale of Farm Products and Government Payments .......
1-40
Table 26
Total Tonnage Handled and Gross Revenue, 1986-1992,
N.C. State Port Terminal, Morehead City .................
1-42
Table 27
Carteret County, NC Subdivision Development, 1991-1995 ...
1-44
Table 28
Carteret County, NC Watershed Report - Base and Demographic
Information ......................................
1-45
Table 29
Carteret County, NC Estimated General Land Use - 1990 and
1995..........................................
1-50
Table 30
Carteret County Natural Heritage Areas ..................
1-90
Table 31
Carteret County, NC Agricultural Farmland - Soil Association and
Management Limitation Rate ..........................
1-93
Table 32
Carteret County, 1995 Outline of Municipal Wastewater Systems
1-100
Table 33
Carteret County, 1995 Public/Private Package Treatment and
Disposal Systems ..................................
1-101
Table 34
Enrollment in Carteret County Schools, 1989-1995 ..........
1-109
Table 35
Carteret County, NC Summary of Year -Round Population Growth
by Township and Municipality, 1990-2005 ................
II-2
Table 36
Carteret County, NC Average Annual Year -Round Population
Growth Rate and Percent Change, 1994-2005 .............
11-3
Table 37
Carteret County, 1990-2005 Total Population by Age and
Percent Change ...................................
11-4
Table 38
Carteret County, 1990-2005 Population and Percent Increase by
Race and Sex ....................................
11-4
Table 39
Carteret County, 1990-2005 Peak Seasonal Population and
Total Peak Population Projections .......................
II-5
Table 40
Carteret County, 1990-2005 Number and Percentage Increase
of Year-round and Seasonal Private Housing Units ...........
11-6
0

11
11
Page
Table 41 Carteret County, 1990-2005 Relative Growth of Income -
Producing Industries and Trades .......................
II-7
Table 42
Carteret County, 1990-2005 Rank of Industry by Employment
and Earnings .....................................
II-8
MAPS
Map 1
Carteret County Zoning Areas .........................
1-47
Map 2
Carteret County Subdivision Development 1991-1996 ........
1-48
Map 3
Carteret County Watersheds ..........................
1-49
Map 4
Carteret County Existing Land Use Map ..................
1-52
Map 5
Carteret County Townships ...........................
1-54
Map 6
Carteret County Point Source Discharges and Marinas/Dockage,
1995..........................................
1-69
Map 7
Carteret County Flood Hazard Areas ....................
1-76
Map 8
Carteret County Soils Map ...........................
1-79
Map 9
Carteret County General Delineation of Military Aviation
Restricted Areas ..................................
1-81
Map 10
Carteret County Areas of Environmental Concern ...........
1-83
Map 11 A
Carteret County Fragile Areas .........................
1-84
Map 11 B
Carteret County Significant Natural Heritage Areas ..........
1-85
Map 12
Carteret County Marine Resources ......................
1-95
Map 13
Carteret County Surface Water Classifications .............
1-98
Map 14
Carteret County Average Daily Traffic Counts ..............
1-107
Map 15
Carteret County Location of County -Maintained Parks and
Recreation Facilities ................................
1-112
Map 16
Carteret County Community Services ....................
1-1 14
Maps 17A
Carteret County Land Classification Map .................
III-7&8
and 17B
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Summary of 1991 Carteret County Policy Statements Which Exceed
15A NCAC 7H Use Standards
Appendix 2 Soil Types
Appendix 3 Hazardous Materials Locations
Appendix 4 Water Quality Classifications
Appendix 5 Policies Considered But Not Adopted
Appendix 6 Citizen Participation Plan
7

I SECTION I: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
' A. INTRODUCTION
I. ESTABLISHMENT OF INFORMATION BASE
This 1995 Land Use Plan Update for Carteret County is prepared in accordance with
requirements of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Specifically, this
document complies with Subchapter 76, "Land Use Planning Guidelines," of the North
Carolina Administrative Code, as amended, September 28, 1995.
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 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 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.
-- A policy addressing assistance in interstate waterways.
This land use plan update has been prepared in compliance with the revised guidelines dated
March 5, 1996.
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 consider and be consistent with established state and federal
1-1

policies. Most development -related decisions, however, are primarily of local
concern. Policies which address the type of development to be encouraged, the
density and patterns of development, and the methods of providing public
access to beaches and waterfronts are examples of these local policy decisions.
When such development issues are carefully and explicitly addressed in the
local Land Use Plan, other levels of government will follow local policies in their
actions that affect these issues. State and federal agencies will use the local
Land Use Plans and policies in making project consistency, funding, and permit
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) Resource Protection
2) Resource Production and Management
3) Economic and Community Development
4) Continuing Public Participation
5) Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery and Evacuation Plans
This land use plan provides a guide for development of Carteret County by addressing issues
and adopting policies that are relevant to Carteret County. Specifically, this land use plan
includes the following eleven elements which are mandated by the 7B guidelines:
(1) Executive Summary
(2) Introduction
(3) Goals and Objectives
(4) Data Collection and Analysis
(5) Present Conditions
(6) Constraints
(7) Estimated Demands
(8) Policy Statements
(9) Land Classification
(10) Intergovernmental Coordination and Implementation
(1 1) Public Participation
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 project
consistency, funding, and permit decisions.
The 1991 Carteret 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 1991 policy statements are summarized in Appendix 1.
1-2

In addition to these specific statements, the 1991 policy statements generally expressed the
following:
-- Support for increased central sewer service.
-- Support for participation in the FEMA flood insurance program.
== Support for conservation of groundwater resources.
Support for expansion of the North Carolina State Port.
-- Opposition to bulk storage of manmade hazardous materials in areas classified as
' developed, urban, transition, and limited transition which are not zoned for industrial
use.
-- Opposition to expansion of military airspace (MOA's).
=_ Support of state stormwater management regulations.
Support for construction of state -approved package treatment plants.
-- Support for bulkhead construction which is consistent with 15A NCAC 7H.
-- Support for construction of additional shoreline access areas within all areas of the
county.
-- Support for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service "Best Management Practices" program.
Encourages aquaculture which meets applicable federal, state, and local policies.
Support for forestry best management practices as defined in the Forest Best
Management Practices Manual.
== Opposes any peat mining.
Support for the provision of a county -wide water system.
-- Support for a regional multi -county approach to solid waste management.
_= Does not oppose offshore exploratory drilling for oil or gas.
Support for the state's shoreline area policies as set forth in NCAC Chapter 15,
Subchapter 7M.
1 =_ Support for environmentally safe industrial development.
Support for channel maintenance.
-- Support for a strong tourist industry.
Listed below are some of the sources and documents utilized during preparation of this land
use plan.
Data Sources
-- Carteret Community Action
-- Carteret County Department of Environmental Health
' == Carteret County Department of Health
Carteret County Department of Social Services
-- Carteret County Economic Development Council, Inc.
Carteret County Fire Marshal
Carteret County Manager's Office
-- Carteret County Planning Department
_= Carteret County School Board
North Carolina Department of Commerce, Business/Industry Development Division
-- North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
' -- Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, Groundwater Section
' I-3

-- North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, Solid Waste Management Branch
-- North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
-- North Carolina Division of Aging
-- North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
-- North Carolina Division of Shellfish Sanitation
-- North Carolina Division of Travel and Tourism
-- North Carolina Division of Veterans' Affairs
-- North Carolina Employment Security Commission, Labor Market Information Division
-- North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
-- North Carolina State Ports Authority, Morehead Terminal, General Manager's Office
-- Office of State Budget and Management, State Data Center
-- United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District Office
-- United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
-- United States Fish and Wildlife Service
-- United States Marine Corps, MCAS Cherry Point, Community Plans and Liaison Office
References
-- Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study. 1990 Carteret County Water Use Plan. Raleigh,
NC: Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study, 1990.
-- Armingeon, Neil Alan. An Analysis of Coastal Growth and Development in North
Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, 1989.
-- Atlantic Division , Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement - Mid -Atlantic Electronic Warfare Range IMAEWRI within Restricted
Airspace R-5306-A. Norfolk: Atlantic Division, NAVFAC, 1989.
-- Carteret County Planning Department. Carteret County Evacuation Plan. 1985. ,
Beaufort, NC: Carteret County Planning Department, 1985.
-- Carteret County Planning Department. Carteret County Land Use Plan, 1991.
Beaufort, NC: Carteret County Planning Department, 1991.
-- Carteret County Planning Department. Carteret County Storm Hazard Mitigation Plan
and Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan. Beaufort, NC: Carteret County Planning ,
Department, June, 1984.
-- Kasarda, John D. Transportation Infrastructure for Competitive Success in the Fast ,
Century. Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC,
1995.
-- LeGrand, Harry F. Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Wilmington -New Bern
Area. Raleigh, NC: 1960.
-- Management Assistance Office, MCAS Cherry Point, United States Marine Corps.
1990 Economic Impact Analysis. Cherry Point, NC: Management Assistance Office,
MCAS Cherry Point, 1989.
d
1-4

1
Ll
McDavid Associates. Environmental Impact Statement for Carteret County
Wastewater Disposal Alternatives. Beaufort, NC: Carteret County, 1989.
-- North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Draft Report on Coastal
Outstanding Resource Water Intensive Study. Raleigh, NC: N.C. Division of
Environmental Management, March 14, 1989.
-- North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Public Water Supplies of North
Carolina, Part 5, Southern Coastal Plain. Raleigh, NC: N.C. Division of Environmental
Management, 1977.
-- The Practice of Local Government Planning, Frank S. So, Editor. Washington, DC:
International City Management Association, 1988.
-- Town of Cape Carteret. Cape Carteret 1987 Land Use Plan Update. Cape Carteret,
NC: Town of Cape Carteret, 1987.
I -- Tschetter, Paul D. Characterization of Baseline Demographic Trends in the Year -Round
and Recreational Populations in the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area.
Greenville, NC: East Carolina University, 1987.
1
-- Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. Carteret County, North Carolina, 1989 Data
Pamphlet. Washington, DC: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., 1989.
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Carteret County has the following goals/objectives for updating the land use plan:
-- An updated land use plan based on an effective citizen participation process.
-- Development of new policies required to respond to revised 15A NCAC 7B planning
requirements.
-- Assessment of long-range county sewer service needs.
-- Assess the environmental, demographic, and economic impact of expansion of the
Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station on the county.
-- Assessment of the impact of 404 wetlands on Carteret County.
-- Establish policies addressing the widening of NC 24.
-- Assess the long-range plans for school system expansion.
-- Assess the potential impact of the incorporation of the Bogue community.
-- Coordination of the various sewer studies which are underway and will potentially
impact the county.
1
1-5

B. PRESENT CONDITIONS
VISION STATEMENT
Carteret County will strive to develop an atmosphere and infrastructure which will be
conducive to business development and continued growth of the tourist industry while striving
to maintain a balance with protection of the natural environment. The county desires to blend
the benefits of new development with the area's rich history. Carteret County's natural
resources and environment are extremely important to its culture and community, past,
present, and future. The county needs to be creative in taking steps for the protection of its
waters. The Board of Commissioners wishes to state that protection of the county's water
quality is equal to economic development as a priority for the future.
DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING
1. Carteret Countv Permanent Population
a. Regional and County
Seventeen of the twenty North Carolina counties regulated by the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) experienced a net permanent population growth from 1970 to
1994. As Table 1 indicates, the three counties with a negative population growth were Hyde,
Washington, and Hertford.
The dramatic increase in population growth in the North Carolina coastal counties since
1970 is representative of the nation as a whole. This migration began with the end of World
War II and continues to this day. By the early 1970's, North Carolina began to feel the
pressure of this growth on its infrastructure, and coastal planning became a necessity. A few
of the reasons for the population increase near the coast are expansion of military facilities,
industrial decentralization, and in particular, the development of recreation and retirement
centers.
The impact of growing retirement and recreation centers is important in this study for
three reasons. First, Table 1 illustrates how significant the shoreline resources of Carteret and
other oceanfront counties have been in attracting residents over the past twenty years. The
highest rates of permanent population growth from 1970 through 1994 have occurred in the
CAMA-regulated counties with the most attractive shoreline resources. The seven coastal
counties with the highest population growth rates from 1970-94 are oceanfront counties. The
value of these resources in the coastal counties of North Carolina is an important issue in
planning for these communities.
Second, the growing population of the coastal region as a recreational/retirement
center requires an assessment of seasonal or peak population. During the summer months,
May through August, many of the coastal communities in North Carolina experience an
increase in population of up to several times the normal year-round population. Many
decisions affecting land use and community facilities in oceanfront counties such as Carteret
must be based on an informed appraisal of these seasonal population trends.
IN

r rr rr Ir r iri r liar iirr Ir r Ir Ilr I»rr irr ir■ irr r irr
Table 1
Total Population and Percent Change
for CAMA-Regulated Counties, 1970 - 1994
Year -Round Population
County
1970
1980
1990
1994
Carteret
31,603
41,092
52,553
56,624
Currituck
6,976
11,089
13,736
15,402
Dare
6,995
13,377
22,746
24,804
Hyde
5,571
5,873
5,411
5,270
Beaufort
35,980
40,355
42,283
43,237
Bertie
20,477
21,024
20,388
20,498
Camden
5,453
5,829
5,904
6,221
Chowan
10,764
12,558
13,506
13,993
Craven
62,554
71,043
81,613
84,410
Pamlico
9,467
10,398
11,368
11,779
Pasquotank
26,824
28,462
31,298
33,287
Perquimans
8,351
9,486
10,447
10,558
Tyrrell
3,806
3,975
3,856
3,814
Washington
14,038
14,801
13,997
13,875
Gates
8,524
8,875
9,305
9,740
Hertford
23,529
23,368
22,523
22,430
Brunswick
24,223
35,777
50,985
58,518
New Hanover
82,996
103,471
120,284
134,970
Pender
18,149
22,262
28,855
33,588
Onslow
103,126
112,784
149,838
147,144
Total
509,406
595,899
710,896
750,162
Percent Change
'70280
180-190
'90294
'70294
30.03%
27.89%
7.75%
79.17%
58.96%
23.87%
12.13%
120.79%
91.24%
70.04%
9.05%
254.60%
5.42%
-7.87%
-2.61 %
-5.40%
12.16%
4.78%
2.26%
20.17%
2.67%
-3.03%
0.54%
0.10%
6.90%
1.29%
5.37%
14.08%
16.67%
7.55%
3.61 %
30.00%
13.57%
14.88%
3.43%
34.94%
9.83%
9.33%
3.62%
24.42%
6.11 %
9.96%
6.36%
24.09%
13.59%
10.13%
1.06%
26.43%
4.44%
-2.99%
-1.09%
0.21 %
5.44%
-5.43%
-0.87%
-1.16%
4.12%
4.85%
4.67%
14.27%
-0.68 %
-3.62 %
-0.41 %
-4.67 %
47.70%
42.51 %
14.77%
141.58%
24.67%
16.25%
12.21 %
62.62%
22.66%
29.62%
16.40%
85.07%
9.37%
32.85%
-1.80%
42.68%
16.98%
19.30%
5.52%
47.26%
Sources: 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan, 1990 U.S. Census, and the Office of State Planning.
1-7

Finally, the growth of Carteret and other coastal counties as recreational/retirement
centers over the past twenty-five years has had a significant impact on the composition of the
permanent population, and ultimately, the economic structure of the coastal region. The
average household size has decreased and the median age has increased as coastal North
Carolina has grown as a recreational/retirement center. Also, oceanfront counties such as
Carteret, with high seasonal populations, have had a noticeable shift toward a non -basic
(service and retail) economy over the past twenty-five years. Increased retail trade and
growth of service industries are the result of seasonal demand and retiree in -migration to the
coastal region.
The increased military and industrial presence in coastal North Carolina has also
influenced permanent population growth, peak population growth, and changes in population
composition in Carteret and other coastal counties since 1970. The appeal of the region to
industry and the military -- availability of open space, low tax and wage structure, relatively
few "urban" problems -- also adds to its appeal to retirees and seasonal homeowners.
Carteret County is one of the state's fastest growing counties. Based on detailed
demographic estimates provided by the State Data Center for counties and municipalities,
between 1980-1994, Carteret County was the sixth fastest growing CAMA-regulated county
and the 24th in the entire state. Atlantic Beach, Emerald Isle, Cape Carteret, Pine Knoll
Shores, and Indian Beach have had exceptionally high growth rates compared to municipalities
of similar size within the state. Based on the growth rate from 1990 to 1993, Emerald Isle
was ranked 17th out of 117 municipalities with populations between 2,500-9,999; Cape
Carteret and Pine Knoll Shores were ranked 20th and 26th, respectively, out of 119
municipalities with populations between 1,000-2,499; and Indian Beach was ranked 23rd out
of 236 municipalities with populations less than 1,000. Based on the growth rate from 1990-
1994, Atlantic Beach and Cape Carteret were ranked 23rd and 24th, respectively, out of 116
municipalities with populations between 1,000 and 2,499.
Carteret County's rate of growth from 1970 to 1980 was twice the growth rate of the
1960's. Since 1980, population growth, although extremely high, has occurred at a
continually decreasing rate. This trend has been forecast to continue through the year 2003.
A large percentage of the growth in Carteret County from 1970-1994 has occurred in the
incorporated beach communities and in areas near the extraterritorial jurisdiction of existing
municipalities. This trend is evident in the growth of Newport, Morehead City, and White Oak
townships.
b. Geographic Distribution of Growth
Table 2 clearly indicates that during the period from 1970-80, when growth in the
county's unincorporated areas was almost double that of the municipalities, the fastest
growth in unincorporated areas appeared to be centered near areas with established
infrastructure and municipal government. This is demonstrated by the spurt in municipal
growth from 1980-90, which was as much the result of annexation of rapidly growing
unincorporated areas as growth within established city boundaries. The municipal growth rate
in Carteret County from 1980-90 was over 2-1/2 times as high as the rate for unincorporated
areas. As more land is annexed by the municipalities, the ratio of municipal: unincorporated
population rate will increase. Since 1990, the growth rate of municipalities has slowed and
the ratio of the unincorporated growth rate to the municipal growth rate is much more equal.
From 1990-94, municipalities grew at a rate of 9.54% and unincorporated areas at 6.59%.
W-9

r = r = = M = = M IM
Table 2
Carteret County, NC
Summary of Year -Round Population Growth by Township and Municipality, 1970 - 1994
Township
Municipality or Area
Year Round Population
1970
1980
1990
1994
1) Atlantic
Total Township
814
810
805
803
2) Beaufort
Beaufort
3,368
3,826
3,808
3,997
Unincorporated Areas
2,779
3,166
4,205
4,644
Total Township
6,147
6,992
8,013
8,641
3) Cedar Island
Total Township
290
333
385
407
4) Davis
Total Township
456
492
535
553
5) Harkers Island
Total Township
1,639
1,910
2,237
2,375
6) Harlowe
Total Township
762
956
1,190
1,289
7) Marshallberg
Total Township
525
580
646
674
8) Merrimon
Total Township
330
426
542
591
9) Morehead City
Atlantic Beach
300
941
1,938
2,267
Indian Beach
0
54
153
177
Morehead City
5,233
4,359
6,046
6,384
Pine Knoll Shores
0
646
1,360
1,543
Unincorporated Areas
6,396
9,803
10,985
11,485
Total Township
11,929
15,803
20,482
21,856
10) Newport
Newport
1,735
1,883
2,516
2,778
Unincorporated Areas
2,191
3,586
4,817
5,337
Total Township
3,926
5,469
7,333
8,115
11) Sea Level
Total Township
347
540
773
872
12) Smyrna
Total Township
517
637
782
843
13) Stacy
Total Township
257
322
401
434
14) Straits
Total Township
1,166
1,520
1,948
2,129
15) White Oak
Cape Carteret
616
944
1,008
1,179
Emerald Isle
122
865
2,434
2,798
Cedar Point
0
0
628
688
Unincorporated Areas
1,758
2,493
2,413
2,379
Total Township
2,496
4,302
6,483
7,044
Percentacie Channe
'70-'80
180-190
'90-'94
Overall
'70-'94
-0.49%
-0.62%
-0.26%
-1.37%
13.60%
-0.47%
4.96%
18.68%
13.93%
32.82%
10.45%
67.12%
13.75%
14.60%
7.84%
40.58%
14.83%
15.62%
5.71 %
40.34%
7.89%
8.74%
3.40%
21.31 %
16.53%
17.12%
6.18%
44.92%
25.46%
24.48%
8.31 %
69.15%
10.48%
11.38%
4.32%
28.36%
29.09%
27.23%
9.05%
79.10%
213.67%
105.95%
16.98%
655.67%
N/A
183.33%
15.69%
N/A
-16.70%
38.70%
5.59%
22.00%
N/A
110.53%
13.46%
N/A
53.27%
12.06%
4.55%
79.56%
32.48%
29.61 %
6.71 %
83.21 %
8.53%
33.62%
10.41 %
60.12%
63.67%
34.33%
10.80%
143.61 %
39.30%
34.08%
10.67%
106.71 %
55.62%
43.15%
12.74%
151.15%
23.21 %
22.76%
7.84%
63.11 %
25.29%
24.53%
8.33%
69.03%
30.36%
28.16%
9.29%
82.58%
53.25%
6.78%
16.96%
91.40%
609.02%
181.39%
14.95%
2193.44%
N/A
N/A
9.55%
N/A
41.81 %
-3.21 %
-1.40%
35.33%
72.36%
50.70%
8.66%
182.22%
Total Municipalities 11,374 13,518 19,891 21,811 18.85% 47.14% 9.70% 91.76%
Total Unincorporated Areas 20,229 27,574 32,662 34,813 36.31 % 18.45% 6.59% 72.09%
Total County 31,603 41,092 52,553 56,624 30.03% 27.90% 7.75% 79.19%
Sources: N.C. State Data Center; extrapolation of data for unincorporated areas by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
M

The three fastest growing townships from 1970-94 were White Oak, Sea Level, and
Newport. There was a dramatic increase in waterfront residential development in and near
the beach communities and along the estuarine shoreline in White Oak and Sea Level
townships during that period. Newport Township serves as a bedroom community for the
Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point, and its population growth is largely the result of base
expansion since 1960. Of the four currently "urbanized" townships (townships containing
incorporated municipalities), Beaufort was the only township which experienced a growth rate
slightly below the county's rate for the period.
The fastest growing townships with no incorporated areas in Carteret County from
1970-94 were Sea Level, Straits, and Merrimon. Most of the growth in these areas and in
the county's other rural townships can be attributed to residential development near
waterfront areas, particularly around estuarine areas and the Intracoastal Waterway. All of
the rural townships experienced a high degree of population growth between 1970-94, with
the exception of Atlantic Township. In spite of the rapid growth of the coastal region, the
majority of the land in the "rural" townships is still undeveloped. Much of the land within
these areas pose severe restrictions to development or are undevelopable due to
environmental restrictions. As in the previous land use plan, the conflict between these
restrictions and the continuing residential growth in the more rural areas of the county will be
an issue.
C. Composition by Age
From 1970-94, the percentage of individuals in Carteret County between 30-39 years
of age, and the retired segment of the population, increased substantially. These increases
are the result of a national trend toward a higher median age and an increasing investment in
waterfront property in Carteret County by retirees. Total population by age for Carteret
County from 1970-94 is shown in Table 3.
Valuable information concerning population trends can be quantified by studying Table
3. The top three fastest growing age groups in Carteret County since 1970 have been ages
30-39, ages 60-69, and ages 70 and up. The annual growth rate for these three age groups
remained relatively stable from 1970-1990, while the growth rates of the other age groups
fluctuated. For example, the preschool and age 40-49 populations experienced a growth in
population from 1980-90 which was several times the rate from 1970-80; while the 20-29
and 50-59 age groups decreased considerably from 1970-80 to 1980-90. The growth of the
30-39 and over 60 age groups can be explained by the positive net migration rates for these
age groups during the period 1970-94. A positive net migration rate means that the influx of
people into the county for these age groups was greater than the number of people moving
outside of the county. The growth rate of the 30-39 and over 60 age groups can also be
attributed to non -migratory demographic factors including birth rates, death rates, and aging
patterns.
1-10

r i = = = = = = = = Ml r = M M = = M 11M
Table 3
Carteret County, NC
Total Population by Age and Percent Change, 1970-1994
Age
Population by
Age Group
Percent Change
1970
1980
1990
1994
'70-'80
'80-'90
'90-'94
'70-'94
0-4
2,625
2,787
3,345
3,543
6.17%
20.02%
5.92%
34.97%
5-19
9,074
9,506
9,812
9,921
4.76%
3.22%
1.11 %
9.33%
20-29
4,821
7,455
8,024
8,226
54.64%
7.63%
2.52%
70.63%
30-39
3,590
5,661
8,301
9,238
56.69%
46.63%
11.29%
157.32%
40-49
3,936
4,301
7,099
8,092
9.27%
65.05%
13.99%
105.59%
50-59
3,261
4,616
5,524
5,846
41.55%
19.67%
5.83%
79.28%
60-69
2,535
3,880
5,830
6,522
53.06%
50.26%
11.87%
157.28%
70 & Up
1,761
2,886
4,621
5,236
63.88%
60.12%
13.32%
197.37%
Total
31,603
41,092
52,556
56,624
36.38%
34.08%
8.23%
101.47%
Source:
1970 and 1980 data provided
by the State Data
Center, N.C. Office of State Budget and Management;
1990 data provided
by U.S. Census; projections for 1994 provided
by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.

The growth rates of the preschool and school -age populations of Carteret County have
not kept up with the growth rate of the total population since 1970, and have continued to
shrink in terms of percentage of total population. The older working -age population (ages 40-
59) has grown at a similar rate as the total population. The younger working population (ages
30-39), and the age group 60 and above have grown at a rate much faster than the total
population since 1970, and now occupy larger percentages of the total population than they
did in 1970. These trends are outlined in Table 4, below.
Table 4
Carteret County, NC
Total Percentages of Total Population By Age Group, 1970-1994
Net Change
Age Group 1970 1980 1990 1994 1970-94
Preschool and School Age
37.0%
29.9%
25.0%
23.8%
-13.2%
Population (0-19)
Younger Working
26.6%
31.9%
31.1 %
30.8%
+4.2%
Population (20-30)
Older Working Population
22.8%
21.7%
24.0%
24.6%
+1.8%
(40-59)
Elderly Population
13.6%
16.5%
19.9%
20.8%
+7.2%
(60 and up)
Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
d. Composition by. Race and Sex
The analysis of Carteret County's racial composition is an important part of this study
of recent demographic trends, since changes in minority population profoundly affect issues
such as housing and local economic and community development in eastern North Carolina.
This information is provided in Table 5.
As Table 5 indicates, the black population in Carteret County grew at a rate well below
the white population from 1970-94. However, the total non -black minority population
(orientals, hispanics, etc.) grew almost twice as fast as the white population during the same
period. (Note: The substantial percentage increase in non -black minority population is
magnified by the relatively small non -black minority population in 1970. Nonetheless, the
growth trend in this sector of the population is significant.) The overall male population and
the male population for the white and black racial groups listed in Table 5 grew faster than
the comparative female population from 1970-94. During the same time period, the female
population of the other minorities category grew almost twice as fast as the males from the
same category.
1-12

Table 5
Carteret County, NC
Number and Percent Increase by Race and Sex, 1970-1994
Category Total Population
1970 1980 1990 1994
Percent Change
'70-'80 '80-'90 '90-'94 '70-'94
Total White
27,985
36,955
47,618
51,402
32.05%
28.85%
7.95%
83.68%
Males
13,814
18,397
23,626
25,482
33.18%
28.42%
7.85%
84.46%
Females
14,171
18,558
23,992
25,920
30.96%
29.28%
8.04%
82.91 %
Total Black
3,498
3,857
4,262
4,406
10.26%
10.50%
3.39%
25.97%
Males
1,719
1,872
2,100
2,181
8.90%
12.18%
3.87%
26.89%
Females
1,779
1,985
2,162
2,225
11.58%
8.92%
2.92%
25.08%
Other Minorities
120
280
676
816
133.33%
141.43%
20.71 %
580.00%
Males
44
120
228
266
172.73%
90.00%
16.88%
505.67%
Females
76
160
448
550
110.53%
180.00%
22.77%
623.68%
Total Males
15,577
20,389
25,954
27,929
30.89%
27.29%
7.61 %
79.30%
Total Females
16,026
20,703
26,602
28,695
29.18%
28.49%
7.87%
79.05%
Total County
31,603
41,092
52,556
56,624
30.03%
27.90%
7.74%
79.17%
Sources: 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan, 1990 U.S. Census, and projections for 1994 provided by Holland Consulting Planners.
1-13

In terms of percentage of total population, the most important population trends from
1970-94 by race and sex were the increase in white and non -black minority populations and
the corresponding decrease in the black population, as indicated in Table 6.
Table 6
Carteret County, NC
Percentages of Total Population By Race and Sex, 1970-1994
Category
Total White
Males
Females
Total Black
Males
Females
Total Non -Black Minoritv
Males
Females
Total Males
Total Females
Net Change '
1970 1980 1990 1994 1970-94
88.6%
89.9%
90.6%
90.8%
+2.2%
43.7%
44.8%
45.0%
45.0%
+1.3%
44.9%
45.2%
45.6%
45.8%
+0.9%
11.1 %
9.4%
8.1 %
7.8%
-3.3%
5.4%
4.6%
4.0%
3.9%
-1.5%
5.7%
4.8%
4.1 %
3.9%
-1.8%
0.3%
0.7%
1.3%
1.4%
+ 1.1 %
0.1 %
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
+0.4%
0.2%
0.4%
0.9%
0.9%
+0.7%
49.3%
49.6%
49.4%
49.3%
-0-
50.7%
50.4%
50.6%
50.7%
-0-
Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
The relative decrease in black population since 1970 indicates that the migratory
pattern in Carteret County in recent years has been dominated by an incoming white
population. This is substantiated by net migration rates formulated for the county by the N.C.
State Data Center. Net migration rate is the net change in area population attributable to
incoming or outgoing (migrating) households. For the decade 1980-90, the N.C. State Data
Center estimated a total net migration rate of plus 24.45% for Carteret County. However,
the non -white migration rate for the same period was estimated to be only plus 1.46%. In
1994, the Office of State Planning published additional data which further documents this
trend. In this publication, net migration for North Carolina counties has been forecasted for
the decade 1990-2000. Carteret County can expect an out -migration of 0-4% for the non-
white population and an in -migration of 4-8% for the white population. Since a large portion
of the non -white incoming population must be assumed to be non -black minorities (based on
the substantial growth of those groups since 1970), it is safe to state that black population
growth in Carteret County has been almost entirely dependent on birth and death rates since
1970. A black population relatively unaffected by migratory patterns is typical of coastal
North Carolina counties, and is reflective of several socioeconomic factors such as education,
housing availability, and industrial development, which will be addressed in the discussion of
economic conditions.
1-14

' 2. Carteret County Seasonal Population'
' a. Introduction and Methodology
In CAMA-regulated counties, a study of recreational or seasonal population is
' necessary to any overall analysis of demographic trends. In fact, seasonal population is often
more important than permanent population in defining the impact of growth on community
facilities and fragile areas. Additionally, the recreational population has a profound effect on
' the economy of the coastal region, accounting for a large portion of the non -basic (service and
retail) economy and indirectly impacting more basic industries such as fishing, agriculture,
import/export, and manufacturing.
In the preceding section, population data from the N.C. State Data Center and the
1990 Census was utilized to present year-round population trends. The estimation methods
utilized by the N.C. State Data Center for year-round population (ratio correlation and
administrative records) are not appropriate for estimating seasonal population. Enumeration
of housing units is the most appropriate method of estimating recreational population. In the
housing unit approach, the total number of housing units is multiplied by the average
household size to obtain estimated population.
The 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan provided estimates of seasonal population
by township. It has been determined that, due to the lack of current data on seasonal housing
units by township, the following discussion will address seasonal population on the county
level only. Extensive use will be made of a demographic analysis of recreational population
for the Albemarle -Pamlico region prepared by Paul D. Tschetter of East Carolina University in
1988. The advantage of the ECU analysis is that it relies on an extensive empirical
enumeration of marina boat slips, motel rooms, and campgrounds in addition to private
seasonal housing units. The study also includes an excellent approach to estimating average
population by type of individual housing unit. For purposes of the ECU study (and this
demographic analysis), "total seasonal housing units" includes 1) all single- and multi -family
private housing units used by the overnight tourist population rather than the permanent
population; 2) all motel/hotel rooms (including bed and breakfasts); 3) all seasonal and
transient campground sites; and 4) all individual marina wet slips capable of docking boats of
a size and type which can house people overnight. Marina facilities for fueling/repair only (no
overnight dockage), and those that only dock commercial fishing boats, are excluded from the
enumeration of seasonal housing units.
The ECU study provides estimates for seasonal housing units in Carteret County for
1980 and 1987. For the purpose of this plan, the number of motel/hotel rooms, campsites,
and boat slips in 1990 have been estimated by determining the growth rates for each of the
housing types from 1980-1987, which have been provided in the ECU study, and then
applying that rate to the 1987 figures to arrive at a 1990 estimate. The seasonal private
housing units for 1990 have been determined by adding the units classified as "vacant - held
for occasional use" and "other vacant" by the U.S. Census. The total number of seasonal
private housing units may be exaggerated due to the assumption that 100% of the units
This section does not address or include figures for "day visitor" usage of Carteret County recreational
facilities, beaches, waters, and natural areas. Thus, the actual daytime seasonal population figures are significantly
higher than those stated in this section. Accurate "day visitor" data is not available.
1-15

classified as "other vacant" are for seasonal use. Data for the total housing units and year-
round households has been taken directly from the 1990 Census.
The ECU study has been used in conjunction with permanent population trends to
prepare the following outline of recent seasonal demographic trends for Carteret County.
b. Seasonal Demographic Trends
Table 7
Carteret County, NC
Summary of Seasonal Housing Units, 1980-1990
Private Housing Units
Motel/Hotel Rooms
Campsites
Boat Slips
Number
of Units
1980 1990
Numerical Percent
Gain Increase
1980-90 1980-90
6,448
13,338
6,890
106.85%
1,527
2,604
1,077
70.53%
1,699
1,938
239
14.07%
1,261 1,424
163 12.93%
Total 10,935 19,304 8,369 76.53%
Sources: Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic Trends in the Year -Round and
Recreational Populations in the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area;" 1991 Carteret County Land
Use Plan; 1990 U.S. Census; and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
According to Table 7, Carteret County's total stock of seasonal housing grew 77%
from 1980-90. This high growth rate is largely attributed to the addition of private housing
units and motel/hotel rooms. Private housing units grew at a rate of 107% and motel/hotel
rooms at a rate of 71 % between 1980-90. Campsites and boat slips grew at a rate of
approximately 14% and 13%, respectively, for the same decade.
The rapid increase in the number of recreational housing units since 1980 has been
paralleled by the growth of seasonal population in the coastal counties. Although seasonal
population is difficult to quantify due to rapid fluctuations in occupancy rates, the occupancy
assumptions utilized for seasonal housing units in the ECU baseline study are based on sound
empirical data, and the seasonal population estimates included in that study will be utilized
here. Table 8 outlines estimated seasonal population trends from 1980-90 for Carteret
County.
In the ECU study (and in this demographic analysis), "peak seasonal population" is
defined as the population that would be enumerated in all seasonal housing units if all of those
units were occupied at full capacity, based on average assumed household sizes for each type
of unit. (One exception is that the ECU study assumed an 85% peak occupancy rate for
marina wet slips.) Although "peak seasonal population" is based on a number of variables,
it is a very useful statistic for planning purposes, since it provides a logically derived summary
of the possible total occupancy in seasonal units during peak overnight tourism periods
(Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Labor Day weekends).
1-16

Table 8
Carteret County, NC
Summary of Peak Seasonal Population, 1980-90
1980
1990
1980-90
Units Persons
Peak Seasonal Units Persons
Peak Seasonal
Percent Increase
Per Unit
Population Per Unit
Population
Population
Private Housing Units 6,448 4.5
29,016 13,338 4.5
60,021
106.85%
Motels/Hotels
1,527 3.5
5,344 2,604 3.5
9,114
70.55%
Campsites
1,699 3
5,097 1,938 3
5,814
14.07%
Boat Slips
1,261 3.25
3,483 1,424 3.25
3,934
12.95%
Total
10,935
42,940 19,304
78,883
83.71 %
Note: Peak seasonal population is based on 85% occupancy
for boat slips and 100% for all other categories.
Source:
Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic Trends in the Year -Round
and Recreational Populations in the
Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study
Area;" 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan; and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
1-17

C. Seasonal Population Impact, Carteret County, 1970-90
The seasonal population fluctuations in Carteret County create problems for local
planners and administrators. A large amount of municipal services planning must be based
on estimates of explosive growth patterns which affect only isolated portions of the county.
Permanent residents of areas that are relatively unaffected by seasonal population fluctuations
often feel left out of the planning process, since so much planning is directed toward serving
the seasonal population. The increasing impact of the seasonal population is depicted in Table
9, which outlines the increasing percentage of seasonal population in relation to permanent
population in Carteret County since 1970.
Table 9
Carteret County, NC
Relationship of Seasonal/Permanent Population, 1970-1990
% of Peak % of
Permanent Total Peak Seasonal Total Peak Total Peak
Year Population Population Population Population Population '
1970
31,603
65.9%
16,320
34.1 %
47,923
1980
41,092
48.9%
42,940
51.1 %
84,032
1990
52,556
40.0%
78,883
60.0%
131,439
% Increase
66.3%
-25.9%
383.4%
25.9%
174.3%
1970-90
Source: 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan, 1990 U.S. Census, and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc
' "Total Peak Population" is the sum of permanent population and peak seasonal population.
Table 9 illustrates the high growth of seasonal population since 1970 and the rising
need to plan for this growth. The peak seasonal population grew at a rate almost six times
that of the permanent population from 1970-90. The estimated total peak population of
Carteret County in 1990 was 2.5 times as large as the permanent population. This fluctuation
of population causes great pressure on the county's infrastructure and makes it increasingly
difficult to preserve fragile areas as the need for recreational access becomes greater. The
positive economic effect of the seasonal population generates a great deal of local support for
continued recreational development, but the natural resources which give the coastal region
its population should, at the same time, be preserved.
1-18

1
1 3
Carteret County Housing Characteristics
a. Number and Type of Private Housing Units
The summary of population trends above indicates that the seasonal population grew
much faster than the permanent population in Carteret County from 1980-90. This trend is
reflected by a higher development rate for seasonal private housing units than year-round units
over the same period.
Table 10
Carteret County, NC
Number and Percentage Increase of Year -Round and
Seasonal Private Housing Units, 1970-90
' Number of Units '
0
Type of Unit
1970
1980
1990
Year -Round
11,226
17,292
21,238
Seasonal2
1,494
6,448
13,338
Total
12,720
23,740
34,576
Percentage Increase
Overall
'70-'80 '80-'90 '70-'90
54.0% 22.8% 89.2%
331.6% 107.0% 792.8%
86.6% 45.6% 171.8%
' "Housing Units" is an enumeration of all individual units within multi -family developments as well as
single-family residential structures.
2 "Seasonal Units" includes units defined as "vacant - held for occasional use" and "other vacant" as
classified by the Bureau of the Census.
Sources: 1990 U.S. Census, and 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan.
Table 10 shows that the number of seasonal private housing units grew nine times as
fast as the number of year-round private housing units in Carteret County from 1970-90. A
growth in seasonal housing units from 1970-80 was particularly rapid, with an average annual
percentage increase of 33% over the decade. The annual growth rate for seasonal units
dropped to 10.7% from 1980-90, but was still over 4-1/2 times the growth rate for year-
round units from 1980-90. The average annual growth rate for year-round units dropped from
5.4% to 2.2% between the decades 1970-80 and 1980-90. The higher growth rate for
seasonal units since 1970 is reflected in the fact that the ratio of seasonal units/total units
increased from 11 % to 39% from 1970-90.

Table 11
Carteret County, NC
Total and Average Annual Number of New
Year -Round and Seasonal Private Housing Units, 1970-90
Average Annual Increase
Total New Units
of New Units
Total
Overall
Type of Unit
1970-80
1980-90
1970-90
1970-80
1980-90
1970-90
Year -Round
6,066
3,946
10,012
606
395
501
Seasonal
4,954
6,890
11,844
495
689
592
Total
11,020
10,836
21,856
1,102
1,084
1,093
Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
The data in Table 11 is significant because it demonstrates that the number of new
housing units constructed annually has remained roughly the same for the 1970s and 1980s.
Although the growth rate remains high, the fact that it is remaining stable is important in the
regulation of the housing industry and the planning of municipal services and public facilities.
b. Tenure and Condition of Year -Round Housing Units
Table 12 shows average household size and tenure for year-round occupied housing
units in Carteret County since 1970.
Table 12
Carteret County, NC
Household Size and Tenure of Year -Round Housing Units, 1970-90
1970
1980
1990
Total Year -Round Housing Units
11,226
17,292
22,333
Vacant Units
1,229
2,164
1,095
Occupied Units
9,997
15,128
21,238
Renter Occupied
2,199
3,734
5,477
Owner Occupied
7,798
11,394
15,761
Average Household Size
3.16
2.72
2.5
Source: 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan, and the 1990 U.S. Census.
As Table 12 indicates, Carteret County has experienced a decline in the growth rates
of both year-round housing units and vacant units from 1970-80 to 1980-90. The growth
rate dropped from 54% to 29.2% during the time period for year-round housing units, and the
year-round vacant units decreased from 2,164 units in 1980 to 1,095 units in 1990. The
average household size also dropped, following the national trend, from 3.16 in 1970 to 2.5
in 1990.
1-20

' The most recent detailed information about housing conditions in Carteret County is
included in 1990 U.S. Census data. The following table summarizes the conditions and age
' of housing in Carteret County in 1980 and 1990.
Table 13
Carteret County, NC
Housing Conditions, 1980-1990
' 1980 1990
% of % of
Housing Characteristics Number Total Number Total
' Total Housing Units 20,589 100.0% 34,576 100.0%
Type of Unit
Frame -Built 15,619 75.8% 24,964 72.2%
' Mobile Homes 4,979 24.2% 9,612 27.8%
Age of Units
0-1 1,204 5.8% 1,076 3.1%
' 2-5 3,598 17.5% 5,808 16.8%
6-10 4,471 21.7% 7,173 20.7%
1 1-20 3,856 18.7% 9,401 27.2%
21-30 2,975 14.4% 4,209 12.2%
' > 30 4,494 21.9% 6,909 20.0%
Total Occupied Housing Units 15,128 100.0% 21,238 100.0%
['J Incomplete Plumbing 264 1.3% 136 0.4% ,
Includes all year-round units as well as units defined as vacant - held for occasional use by the
' U.S. Census Bureau that have been enumerated as "seasonal" in previous discussions. Does not
include units classified as strictly "seasonal" by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
Table 13 indicates an aging population of housing in Carteret County from 1980-90.
During this period, the percentage of total housing units less than eleven years old dropped
from 45.0% in 1980 to 40.6% in 1990. This, in turn, means that the percentage of housing
units older than ten years increased from 55.0% in 1980 to 59.4% in 1990. The percentage
' of new homes between 0-1 year of age also dropped from 5.8% in 1980 to 3.1 % in 1990.
This illustrates a trend away from the construction of new homes and toward the purchase
of existing homes. It should also be noted that if units defined as strictly "seasonal" by the
U.S. Census Bureau were included in this tabulation, the number of new homes would be
considerably higher than what the above table indicates. The conclusion that can be made
is not that there isn't as much new construction in 1990 versus 1980, but that what was
t constructed is considered "seasonal" housing and not year-round. It may also be noted
through review of Table 13 that the number of homes with inadequate plumbing dropped from
1.3% in 1980 to 0.4% in 1990, and the number of mobile homes grew from 4,979 to 9,612.
' The rapid growth of mobile home development which began in the early 1970s has
become an increasingly important issue impacting zoning, building inspection, and other
' planning activities in Carteret County over the last three decades. From 1980-90, the ratio
of mobile homes to total housing units increased 3.6% and in 1990 made up 27.8% of the

total housing stock. Recent data provided by the Carteret County central permit office shows
that there were a total of 389 new mobile home units located in the county between June,
1994 and June, 1995. The growth rate for this one year period is almost identical to that
experienced for a one year period between 1980-90.
Carteret County has remained dedicated to eliminating remaining concentrations of
substandard housing throughout the county. The county's policy concerning the
redevelopment of developed areas, which can be found on page IV-18, identifies specific
actions the county will undertake to correct its remaining substandard housing conditions.
The county was successful in obtaining over 1 million dollars in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds to finance FY96 CDBG community and economic development
projects. The FY96 CDBG application identified the communities of Merrimon and North River
as the areas containing the most severe substandard housing conditions in the county.
C. Single and Multi -Family Units
Table 14 shows the relative growth in single and multi -family housing unit construction
from 1980-90.
Table 14
Carteret County, NC
Total Housing Units and Percent Increase by Units in Structure, 1980-90
1980
1990
% Increase
1980-90
Total Housing Units
20,598
34,576
67.9%
Units in Structure
1
13,312
18,482
38.8%
2
836
1,236
47.8 %
3 & 4
450
981
118.0%
5 or More
1,021
4,044
296.1 %
Mobile Home
4,979
9,612
93.1 %
111 Includes all year-round units, as well as units defined as "vacant - held for occasional use" by the
U.S. Census Bureau that have been enumerated as "seasonal" in previous discussions. Does not
include units classified as strictly "seasonal" by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Note: There were 221 "other" units for 1990 not included in this tabulation.
Source: 1990 U.S. Census, and the 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan.
As Table 14 indicates, the growth rates of multi -family and mobile home unit
development were much greater than those of single-family and "townhouse" development
between 1980-90. Other than structures with 3 & 4 units, single-family units experienced
the lowest percent increase of all housing units between 1980-90. More recent data provided
by the Carteret County Central Permit Office shows that there were a total of 284 single-
family structures constructed between June, 1994 and June, 1995. This rate of growth is
even less than that experienced between 1980-90. It can be expected that the growth rate
of multi -family units will far exceed that of single-family units throughout the '90s.
1-22

1 4. Summary
I
The following provides a summary of significant demographic and housing findings:
-- From 1970-1994, Carteret County experienced a 79% population growth; 92% in the
I
incorporated areas and 72% in the unincorporated areas.
i I
I
-- The three fastest growing townships from 1970-1993 were White Oak, Sea Level, and
Newport, and the three fastest growing townships with no incorporated areas were
Sea Level, Straits, and Merrimon.
-- The top three fastest growing age groups in Carteret County since 1970 have been
ages 30-39, ages 60-69, and ages 70 and up.
-- The growth rates of the preschool and school -age populations of Carteret County have
not kept up with the growth rate of the total population since 1970, and have
continued to shrink in terms of percentage of total population.
-- The black population grew at a rate well below the white population from 1970-1994.
However, the total non -block minority population (orientals, hispanics, etc.) grew
almost twice as fast as the white population during the same time period.
-- Carteret County's total stock of seasonal housing grew 77% from 1980-1990; Private
housing units grew at a rate of 107%, motel/hotel rooms at 71 %, campsites at 14%,
and boat slips at a rate of 13%.
-- From 1980-1990 peak seasonal population increased 84% to a total of 78,883
persons. These figures do not include "day visitor" usage of Carteret County
recreational facilities, beaches, waters, and natural areas.
-- The number of seasonal private housing units grew almost nine times as fast as the
number of year-round private housing units from 1970-1990.
-- From 1970-1990, the county's total housing supply increased by 172%.
-- In 1990, 32% of the total housing stock was greater than twenty years of age.
-- From 1980-1990, the ratio of mobile homes to total housing units increased almost
4% and in 1990 made up 28% of the total housing stock.
-- The growth rates of multi -family and mobile home unit development were much greater
than those of single-family and "townhouse" development between 1980-1990.
1
1-23

III. ECONOMY
1. Introduction
Over the past ten years, the state of Carteret County's economy may be described as fair
when compared to the economies of all of the state's counties. According to the Economic
Development Yearbook for North Carolina, produced by Problem -Solving Research, Inc.,
Carteret County received a rank of 58th out of 100 North Carolina counties in terms of
economic growth and development between the years 1984-1994. The following provides
a summary, as stated in the Economic Development Yearbook, of the methodology used to
arrive at the composite rankings found in Table 15.
"The Composite Rankings were created to compare the characteristics of growth
between the 100 counties in North Carolina. Three rankings are provided. The one
year ranking provides a short term picture of growth. It consists of an overview of the
present health of the county coupled with the county's 1993-1994 economic
performance. The five year ranking provides a mid-term view of economic
development. Like the one year ranking, it assesses the present health of the county
but couples the assessment with the county's 1989-1994 economic variation. The ten
year index provides a long-term view of growth. This final measure assesses the
present health of the county with the county's 1984-1994 growth and development.
The Composite Ranking of Economic Development is a broadly defined measure of
relative economic well-being. Its construction has two major parts. First, it is
composed of four measures that describe the economic health of an area at a particular
point in time. Each of these components provides a unique gauge of the county's most
recent annual economic health. Second, the ranking is composed of five measures of
economic change. Thus, the Composite Ranking considers the present well-being of
the county and how the local economy has improved from one point to the next.
The nine components of the Composite Ranking are arranged according to five general
areas:
ABILITY TO CREATE JOBS
• Change in Employment measures the area's ability to create jobs.
ABILITY TO EARN AN ADEQUATE INCOME
• Per Capita Income measures the level of income from the wages & salaries
and other forms of income generating activity (such as investments and owner
profit).
• Change in Per Capita Income demonstrates the increase in income between
two points in time. Although this measure is correlated with the growth in
jobs, a pace of change in per capita income that lags the pace of job growth
implies that the area is adding lower paying jobs.
ABILITY TO KEEP THE LOCAL LABOR FORCE EMPLOYED
• Unemployment Rate measures the percentage of the population that is
willing to work but is unable to obtain employment.
• Change in the Unemployment Rate measures the improvement in an
individual's ability to find work from one period to the next.
1
'J
I
I
1-24

1 ABILITY TO ATTRACT INCOME FROM OTHER REGIONS
• Per Capita Retail Sales measures the ability of an area to attract persons to
a county to shop and play, thereby demonstrating the regional importance of
a local area.
• Change in Per Capita Retail Sales measures how the relative attractiveness
' of an area for shopping and play has changed over time.
ABILITY TO REDUCE POVERTY
• Per Capita Food Stamp Recipients serves as a proxy for a poverty index. It
shows the relative number of persons that are unable to adequately support
themselves or their families.
• Change in Per Capita Food Stamp Recipients shows how the level of poverty
has changed over time.
The Composite Rankings are created by assigning equal weights to the nine
components of development. First, the measure's nine components are computed for
each county in North Carolina. Second, within each component the counties are ranked
from most positive to most negative and assigned a ranking from 1 to 100. The
average of the nine rankings is tabulated and ranked from top to bottom. The
' Composite Ranking is this final result."
The composite rankings for the twenty CAMA regulated counties, as found in the Economic
Development Yearbook, have been included in Table 15.
Table 15
CAMA Regulated Counties
One, Five, and Ten -Year Composite Rankings of Economic Development
One -Year Five -Year Ten -Year
1993-1994 1989-1994 1984-1994
State CAMA State CAMA State CAMA
Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank
Beaufort 90 16 89 15 94 17
Bertie 100 20 96 20 100 20
Brunswick 76 13 68 8 75 9
Camden 82 15 71 10 83 13
Carteret 56 7 35 2 58 5
Chowan 70 11 82 14 89 15
Craven 62 8 57 6 76 10
Currituck 19 2 43 4 47 4
Dare 39 4 42 3 10 1
Gates 95 19 58 7 79 11
Hertford 52 6 91 18 99 19
Hyde 26 3 76 11 44 3
New Hanover 17 1 30 1 30 2
' Onslow 67 9 69 9 91 16
Pamlico 92 18 77 12 62 6
' Pasquotank 71 12 90 17 98 18
Pender 91 17 92 19 69 7
1 1-25

Table 15 (Continued)
One -Year
1993-1994
State
CAMA
Rank
Rank
Perquimans
49
5
Tyrrell
68
10
Washington
77
14
Five -Year
1989-1994
State CAMA
Rank Rank
Ten -Year
1984-1994
State CAMA
Rank Rank
78
13
80
12
49
5
70
8
88
16
85
14
Note: State rank out of 100 total counties and CAMA rank out of 20 total counties.
Source: Economic Development Yearbook for North Carolina, 1995.
The status of Carteret County's economy fares much more favorably when compared to the
economics of the twenty CAMA regulated counties rather then the economies of all of the
counties within the entire state. Out of the three periods included in Table 15, Carteret
County received its highest rankings for the five-year period 1989-1994.
The following provides a summary of positive and negative factors which influence the
county's economy:
Positive
-- Strong growth in the tourist industry.
-- Rapidly growing population.
-- ' Prosperous retail trade sector (also has negative implications).
-- Fiscally sound local government.
-- Desirable real estate.
-- Advanced transportation network including highway, air, and rail service.
-- Growth in the construction sector.
-- Strong industrial recruitment.
-- Reputable colleges, universities, and research facilities.
-- Continued growth in the service sector (also has negative implications).
-- Profitable, yet uncertain, commercial fishing industry.
Negative
-- Extremely low wage rates. According to the Employment Security Commission,
in 1994 Carteret County ranked 93rd out of 100 North Carolina counties in
insured wages.
-- Low wage rates and minimal benefits in the trade and services sectors of
employment. In Carteret County, these sectors combined make up 56.3% of
the county's total insured employment.
-- Loss of some of Carteret County's highest paying manufacturing companies
such as the Conner Corporation, Owens-Corning Fiberglas, and Diversified
Concrete Products.
-- Uncertainty of government jobs, primarily those provided by the Naval Aviation
Depot and Marine Corps Air Station.
-- Lack of an industrial park.
1-26

2. General Economic Indicators
Since 1970, Carteret County has experienced increases in per capita income, retail sales, and
employed labor force. The average unemployment rate of Carteret County has consistently
run at or slightly above that of the state. It is not unusual for coastal areas to have a higher
unemployment rate due to the high number of seasonally employed workers. Since 1990, the
monthly unemployment rate has fluctuated between a high of 11.6% in 1992 to a low of
2.5% in 1990. During 1994, the unemployment rate ranged from a high of 10.3% in
February to a low of 3.3% in June.
Key economic factors for Carteret County from 1970-1994 are outlined in Table 16, below:
Table 16
Carteret County, NC
Summary of Economic Indicators, 1970-1994
Average Annual
Indicator 1970 1980 1990 1994 % Change % Change
* * * 1970-1994 1970-1994
Per Capita Income*
2,771
7,644
13,227
16,392
492.0%
20.5%
Total Personal Income
247
443
648
923
273.7%
11.4%
(Millions $)**
Gross Retail Sales
147
238
343
614
317.7%
13.2%
(Millions $)**
Total Employed Labor
11,290
17,100
23,837
25,000
121.4%
5.1 %
Force*
Source: *U.S. Census.
**Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.
„r * * *All 1994 data taken from the Economic Development Yearbook for North Carolina, 1995.
Between 1970 and 1990, Carteret County's per capita income increased 492%, which
amounts to an annual average increase of 20.5%. Although there has been considerable
growth in per capita income, Carteret County dropped from a rank of 31 st in the state in 1980
to 54th in 1991. Total personal income and gross retail sales both experienced significant
increases in dollar amounts growing 273.3% and 317.7%, respectively, during the 24-year
period.
The total employed labor force, in Table 16, grew 39.4% between 1980-1990 compared to
a growth rate of 27.9% for the total year-round population. The relatively high growth rate
in employed working force compared to total population indicates that the working age
population has grown faster than the 0-19 age group since 1970. It also indicates that a
significant number of retirees are becoming involved with Carteret County's growing economy.
Although Carteret County has experienced considerable growth in retail sales, the implications
of this are not all positive. The jobs provided by the retail industry are generally low wage
with minimal benefits. A high percentage of jobs concentrated in the retail industry, coupled
with a lack of higher wage manufacturing jobs, has kept Carteret County's wages down.
1 1-27

3. Emr)lovment and Income
Table 17 provides a summary of Carteret County's insured employment by industry.
Table 17
Carteret County Non -Agricultural Wage & Salary Employment by Industry
Employed Persons 16 Years and Over, 1994
Total Non-Ag
Wage & Salary'
% of
1991 Total
17,070 100%
% Of
1994 Total
18,650 100%
% Change
1991-1994
9.3%
Goods Producing
2,600
15.2%
2,760
14.8%
6.2%
Construction
860
5.0%
1,000
5.4%
16.3%
Manufacturing
1,740
10.2%
1,760
9.4%
1.1 %
Food
110
0.6%
120
0.6%
9.1 %
Apparel
460
2.7%
200
1.1 %
-56.5%
Printing
140
0.8%
150
0.8%
7.1 %
Trans. Equipment
170
1.0%
210
1.1 %
23.5%
Other Mfg. 2
860
5.0%
1,080
5.8%
25.6%
Service Producing
14,470
84.8%
15,890
85.2%
9.8%
Trans., Comm., & Public
660
3.9%
800
4.3%
21.2%
Util.
Trade
5,980
35.0%
6,530
35.0%
9.2%
Fin., Ins., & Real Estate
910
5.3%
1,010
5.4%
11.0%
Service & Miscellaneous 3
3,630
21.3%
3,620
19.4%
-0.3%
Government
3,290
19.3%
3,930
21.1 %
19.5%
Total does not include jobs provided by agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining occupations.
2 Includes textiles; lumber & wood; furniture; chemicals; petroleum; stone, clay & glass; fab. metals,
nonelec. machinery, and misc. manufacturing.
3 Includes services, except domestic, agricultural services, and fisheries.
Source: Employment Security Commission.
Table 17 shows that the largest single employment category in 1994 was trade, which made
up 35.0% of all those employed 16 years of age or older. Government employment
accounted for the second largest category with 21.1 %. All service categories combined
provide employment for 27.7% of those employed who are 16 years of age and older.
Construction employment accounted for 1,000 jobs, or 5.4%, increasing 0.4% since 1991.
It is important to note that Table 17 includes only insured employment. Much of the
employment in the construction and commercial fishing occupations is not reported and not
reflected in this total.
1-28

Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station and Naval Aviation Depot combined is the leading
employer of Carteret County residents. In 1994, approximately 2,000 civilian and 700
military employees residing in the county worked at Cherry Point. Those 2,700 workers
earned approximately $107,000,000 in 1994 out of a total Cherry Point payroll of
$469,467,700. The total direct economic impact of the Cherry Point facility in Carteret,
Craven, Jones, and Pamlico counties combined was estimated to be $507,036,30O in 1994,
of which Carteret County received the second largest share.
According to the Employment Security Commission, in 1994 Carteret County had an average
wage rate of $6.99 per hour. This average wage rate ranked 93rd lowest of North Carolina's
100 counties. However, due to reporting methods, Carteret County's wage rate may be
slightly misleading. Jobs at the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and the related Naval
Aviation Depot are classified as Craven County jobs and are not reflected in the Carteret
County figures. In addition, wage rates are based entirely on insured employment and do not
include approximately 8,000 workers employed in fishing and construction industries.
In spite of these reporting deficiencies, Carteret County wage rates are low and should be a
topic of concern. The primary reasons for low wage rates are the disproportionate reliance
on retail and service employment, and the relatively low level of employment in the
manufacturing sector.
Most of Carteret County's labor force has succeeded in securing work locally. In 1990, the
mean travel time to work was 19.1 minutes. Table 18 provides a summary of travel time to
work.
Table 18
Carteret County, 1990
1
Travel Time to Work, Workers 16 Years and Over
Travel Time
Number
Percent
1
Did not work at home:
0-4 minutes
1,184
4.7%
5-9 minutes
3,839
15.4%
'
10-14 minutes
4,077
16.3%
15-19 minutes
4,627
18.5%
20-24 minutes
3,488
14.0%
'
25-29 minutes
1,486
5.9%
30-34 minutes
2,819
11.3%
35-39 minutes
586
2.4%
40-44 minutes
515
2.1 %
45-59 minutes
60-89 minutes
1,112
496
4.4%
2.0%
90 or more minutes
186
0.7%
Worked at home
573
2.3%
Total
24,988
100.0%
ISource:
1990 U.S. Census.
1 1-29

Over 36% of the county's labor force traveled 14 minutes or less to work in 1990. Only
28.8% of the population had to travel longer than 25 minutes to their place of employment.
These relatively low travel times indicate that many county residents have secured
employment within Carteret County. The majority of county residents who worked outside
of Carteret County were employed at Cherry Point.
In 1995, approximately 40.5% of the county's households had incomes less than $25,000,
compared to 39.7% for the state as a whole. Table 19 shows the 1995 household income
levels for Carteret County and all of North Carolina.
Table 19
Carteret County, NC
Household Income
Household Income, 1995*
Carteret County, NC
All of North Carolina
Population
Percent
Population
Percent
of Pop.
of Pop.
Total Households
23,910
2,781,291
$0-15,000
5,334
22.3%
631,667
22.7%
$15,000-25,000
4,435
18.2%
472,120
17.0%
$25,000-35,000
4,417
18.5%
426,279
15.3%
$35,000-50,000
4,150
17.4%
489,436
17.6%
$50,000-75,000
3,556
14.9%
447,878
16.1 %
$75,000-100,000
869
3.6%
144,764
5.2%
$100,000-150,000
662
2.8%
92,706
3.3%
$150,000 and over
577
2.4%
76,441
2.7%
1995 Average Income ($)*
39,826
42,276
1995 Median Income ($)*
30,797
33,634
Food Stamp Recipients
1992**
8.5%
8.9%
1993**
8.0%
9.1 %
1994**
8.4%
8.9%
April, 1996 * * *
7.4%
N/A
*Source: EQUIFAX National Decision Systems WEFA Group, 1995 Update.
**Economic Development Yearbook for North Carolina, 1995.
'Carteret *Carteret County Department of Social Services.
The $0-$15,000 income bracket contained the largest percentage of households for both
Carteret County and the state as a whole. This bracket contained 5,334 households, or
22.3% of the total number of Carteret County households. The 1995 average and median
incomes for Carteret County trailed the state income figures by $2,450 and $2,837,
respectively.
1-30

11
i
�J
II�
According to the Carteret County Department of Social Services, the number of food stamp
recipients provides the best indicator for the number of Carteret County residents below the
poverty level. It should be noted that some people who may be considered below the poverty
level choose not to apply for food stamps. Therefore, the actual number of people below the
poverty level would be slightly higher than the number of people on food stamps.
Between 1992-1994, the percentage of people receiving food stamps in Carteret County was
less than that of the state as a whole. In addition, between 1992 and April, 1996, the
percentage of food stamp recipients in the county decreased from 8.5% to 7.4%. This
indicates that the approximate number of people at or below the poverty level in Carteret
County was less than the state average between 1992-1994, and that the number of people
below the poverty level in the county has decreased over the past four years.
4. Education
In 1990, Carteret County ranked ahead of the state as a whole in terms of high school
degrees, some college, no degree, and number of associate degrees. Between 1990-1994,
9th to 12th grade, no diploma and some college, no degree were the only segments of
educational attainment for Carteret County which did not experience an increase in percent
of total population. Table 20 provides a summary of the 1990 and 1994 county, and 1990
state educational attainment.
Table 20
Carteret County, NC, 1990 and 1994
Educational Attainment
Less than 9th grade
9th to 12th grade, no
diploma
High school graduate
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Graduate or professional
degree
Total
Carteret County
North Carolina
1990*
1994**
1990*
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
Total
Percent
3,517
8.6%
5,436
9.6%
557,739
11.1 %
6,399
15.7%
8,494
15.0%
892,459
17.8%
13,041
32.0%
17,440
30.8%
1,496,296
29.8%
8,923
21.9%
11,948
21.1 %
958,965
19.1 %
2,883
7.1%
4,133
7.3%
324,173
6.5%
4,165
10.2%
6,285
11.1 %
559,144
11.1 %
1,839
4.5%
2,888
5.1%
231,368
4.6%
40,767
100.0%
56,624
100.0%
5,020,144
100.0%
Note: 1990 educational attainment includes those 18 years of age and older, and 1994 educational attainment
includes those 25 years of age and older.
Sources: *1990 U.S. Census; **Carteret County Economic Development Council, Inc.
1-31

Approximately 32.0% of the Carteret County population 18 years of age or older in 1990 had
graduated high school as compared to 29.8% for the state. Almost 22% of those over 18
years had some college but not degree, while in the entire state only 19.1 % had some college
training but not degree. In college degree attainment, the county trailed the state by only
0.10%. In 1990, 21.8% of the county's population held college degrees. Within the state
as a whole, 22.2% of the population held college degrees. A comparison between 1994 ,
county and state educational attainment has not been provided due to the fact that 1994
estimates of North Carolina educational attainment are not available.
5. Tourism
With 65 miles of south -facing beaches, Carteret County is a primary vacation destination area
for domestic and international visitors. Restaurants, accommodations, the fishing industry,
retail trade, services, construction, and the real estate and finance industries benefit directly
from the impact of tourism. Approximately 20% of all the jobs in the county are tourism-
,
related and tourism prevails as Carteret County's number one industry. Table 21 shows how
quickly the tourism industry grew from 1989-1993.
'
Table 21
Carteret County, NC
Tourism Impact
'
Payroll Employment State Tax Receipts Local Tax Receipts
($Millions) (Thousands) ($Millions) ($Millions)
1993 34.83 3.25 7.42 9.01
1992 32.99 3.16 6.81 8.41
1991 30.54 3.24 5.53 7.02
1990 29.43 3.12 4.94 6.95
1989 25.73 2.85 4.36 6.39
i
Source: Tourism Management Office, N.C. State University.
■
Over the five year period, the county's state and local tax receipts attributable to tourism j
increased 70.2% and 41.0%, respectively. The impact that tourism has on the county is
extremely high. In 1993 Carteret County ranked 10th among the 100 North Carolina counties '
in tourism expenditure impact.
Table 22 shows the growth in Carteret County's major tourist attractions between 1990- '
1994.
t
1-32 1

1
11
LJ
1
L
Table 22
Carteret County, NC
Visitation at Major Tourist Attractions
Fort Macon
North Carolina
Cape Lookout
State Park
N.C. Aquarium
Maritime Museum
National Seashore
1990
1,280,430
306,533
189,945
287,874
1991
1,433,252
353,884
189,439
317,906
1992
1,377,600
325,027
216,609
340,081
1993
1,347,502
454,506
203,288
314,600
1994
1,462,052
302,228*
205,005
305,253
*Note: In 1994, the aquarium changed its method of counting vehicle passengers. Therefore,
comparisons should not be made between the 1994 figure and previous years.
Source: Carteret County Tourism Development Bureau.
All of the major tourist attractions in Carteret County experienced significant growth between
1990-1994. By far the most popular attraction in the county is Fort Macon State Park with
almost 1.5 million visitors in 1994. The total number of visitors increased 14.2% at Fort
Macon State Park, 7.9% at the North Carolina Maritime Museum, and 6.0% at the Cape
Lookout National Seashore, between the years 1990-1994. Between 1990-1993, the total
number of visitors increased 48.3% at the North Carolina Aquarium. This rate of growth was
greater than any of the other major tourist attractions during the three-year period.
It is very difficult to determine the exact number of visitors to the area and the revenue earned
from tourism in the coastal counties. However, a figure for revenue generated from travel and
tourism is estimated to be $210 million in 1990 and approximately $230 million in 1994
(figures provided by the Carteret County Tourism Bureau). These dollars also have a
significant indirect or "multiplier" effect. This means that a dollar, once spent, does not
disappear but continues to move through the local economy until it is incrementally exported
from the community. The revenue from tourism and recreation is unquestionably the most
important single source of jobs and income in the county.
6. Commercial Fishing
Since the late 1970s, Carteret County has been the number one ranking county in the state
in terms of total licensed commercial fishing vessels, total seafood landings (pounds), and
total dockside value of seafood landings. The dockside value of Carteret County's landings
has remained relatively stable between 1984-94, while the amount of landings in terms of
pounds has shown more variation. The exceptionally high poundage of landings experienced
in 1984 fell within an unprecedented and unexplained five-year period (1979-1984) of
exceedingly high finfish populations. Carteret County accounted for about 23% of the 1994
total dockside value for the entire state. Table 23 summarizes the total number of finfish and
shellfish in terms of pounds and dockside value for Carteret County between the years 1984-
94.
1
1-33

Table 23
Carteret County, NC
Commercial Landings Statistics, 1984-1994
1984
1985
1986
1987**
1988**
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Total Finfish*
Lbs.
Value
175,266,156
$11,350,134
121,766,943
9,060,015
91,368,013
10,024,133
76,980,567
9,290,428
99,390,139
11,122,155
83,676,277
11,064,470
93,220,875
10, 518,471
127,559,508
10,224,833
71,202,285
7,789,074
81,883,380
9,112,175
88, 338,444
10, 242, 041
Source: North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries.
Total Shellfish
Lbs.
Value
10,002,625
$9,948,889
11,408,140
13,647,331
7,531,467
14,454,772
8,830,934
13,499,824
10,552,883
14,983,028
9,531,541
14,087,943
8,033,195
12,165,468
9,028,474
12,441,021
7,547,899
7,748,013
8,060,848
9,193,256
8,563,792
11,945,172
Combined Total
Lbs.
Value
185,268,781
$21,299,023
133,175,083
22,707,346
98,899,480
24,478,905
85,811,501
22,790,252
109,943,022
26,105,183
93,207,818
25,152,413
101,254,070
22,683,939
136,587,982
22,665,854
78,750,184
15, 537,087
89, 944,228
18,305,431
96,902,236
22,187,213
*In recent years, menhaden and thread herring have collectively accounted for approximately 70% of the finfish pounds harvested and 15% of the finfish value.
**A Red Tide occurred from November 1987 through February 1988, closing approximately 365,000 acres of shellfish waters in N.C.
1-34
m m� M M= M 11M s M= M m m= r r.» 1=1 r

' In an article included in the March, 1992, edition of the Carteret County Economic
Development Council newsletter entitled Carteret County Economic Resources, the following
' three obstacles were identified which hinder efforts to accurately estimate the economic
impacts of commercial fishing:
' -- Much of the potentially available data relating to employment and
landings is not required to be reported by those persons involved in the
industry, and much of what is reported is subject to material inaccuracy;
-- The available information exists in a multitude of sources, some of
which use different assumptions, and there has been little effort to
accumulate all of the available data in a single resource with a
consistent methodology for reporting; and
-- The labels and categories utilized by the reporting agencies tend to
understate significantly the full impacts of commercial fishing by
reporting much activity which is directly attributable to commercial
fishing as non -fishing enterprises, including manufacturing, retailing,
wholesaling, and government.
Commercial fishermen, when applying for a commercial fishing license, are asked to indicate
whether they are full-time, part-time, charter, head boat, or pleasure boat owners. The criteria
for determining a full-time fisherman is one which earns more than 50% of his or her income
' from commercial fishing. In 1995 there were a total of 2,992 commercial vessel licenses
issued in Carteret County, of which 1,354 were full-time vessels, 87 were part-time vessels,
53 were charter boats licensed for hire, 2 were head boats, 573 were considered pleasure
vessels in which the vessel owner used their pleasure boat for commercial activities, and 133
were considered unknown. The number of commercial vessel licenses may not precisely
portray the actual number of commercial fishermen in Carteret County. Information reported
by commercial fishermen is not confirmed for accuracy, and some boat owners who do not
fish commercially choose to obtain commercial licenses to receive benefits, such as exemption
from sales taxes on purchases of certain gear.
In addition to the captains and crews required to operate fishing boats, commercial fishing
provides on -shore employment in seafood processing, boat building, and related enterprises.
A portion of the wholesale and retail trade in the county is dependent on commercial fishing.
' Since 1977, Carteret County has run either slightly ahead of or behind Brunswick County as
first or second in the state in total number of licensed seafood dealers. In 1994, there were
141 licensed seafood dealers in the county. In addition, several manufacturing firms in the
county are involved in commercial boatbuilding, and many marine service facilities owe a
major portion of their income to the commercial fishing industry.
According to the U.S. Census, in 1990 there were 1,219 Carteret County residents employed
in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries occupations combined, out of a total civilian
workforce of 23,837 and total county population of 52,553. This represents approximately
5 % of the county's total workforce. The U.S. Census did not attempt to separate commercial
fishing employment from the agricultural and forestry occupations. In addition, the figure
provided above does not take into consideration persons employed on -shore in fishing -related
activities. The actual number of people employed by commercial fishing was much higher
1
1-35

than the census data indicated. According to estimates the Carteret County Economic
Development Council in 1991, approximately 20% of the county's civilian labor force was
directly or indirectly employed as a consequence of commercial fishing. Using such a
percentage, in 1994, out of a total Carteret County labor force of 27,180 persons, 5,436
individuals would have been employed either directly or indirectly by commercial fishing.
In terms of land use policies, commercial fishing in Carteret County is in a sensitive position
because approximately 50% of shellfish landings and 20% of finfish landings are from
estuarine waters. Finfish and shellfish in estuarine waters are particularly prone to pollution
from point and non -point sources -- both of which have increased with residential and
commercial development despite strict environmental regulations governing septic tank
placement and stormwater retention. Of the 5,638 oyster, clam and scallop licenses granted
by the state in 1994, 1,686 (29.9%) were granted for Carteret County -- the highest
percentage of any county in the state.
7. Marine Research
The research in marine science and fisheries conducted in Carteret County is recognized
throughout the world. Scientists and researchers at Carteret County laboratories receive tens
of millions of dollars of competitively -awarded research grants annually in a variety of
disciplines. The research being conducted will contribute significantly to the ability of
policymakers to predict human impacts on coastal ecosystems and to assist government and
industry in planning for the inevitable strains that human activities will place on the natural
environment. The following provides a list of marine research facilities located in Carteret
County.
-- Duke University Marine Laboratory
-- UNC-Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences
-- NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Beaufort Laboratory
-- Cooperative Institute for Fisheries Oceanography (CIFO)
-- NOAA National Weather Service Center
-- N.C. State University Seafood Laboratory
-- North Carolina Sea Grant College Program (office at Pine Knoll Shores Aquarium)
-- North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
-- North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation Branch
-- Carteret Community College
-- Maritime Emergency Services Consortium (MESCO)
-- North Carolina Aquarium
-- North Carolina Maritime Museum
The following summary of science and research facilities located in Carteret County has been
taken directly from a brochure published by the Carteret County Economic Development
Council.
The Duke University Marine Laboratory, the UNC-Chapel Hill Institute of Marine
Sciences and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Marine Fisheries Service Beaufort Laboratory have been fixtures in Carteret
County for decades. The recent growth of those laboratories, combined with
new facilities and collaborative research activities with other universities and
1
1
I
JA
1
`J
1-36

I
' government research agencies outside of Carteret County, have entrenched
Carteret County as a future world leader in marine, fisheries and atmospheric
sciences.
In addition to academic research, Carteret County institutions provide
educational opportunities, applied research and advisory services. Duke
University offers undergraduates and graduate students curricular offerings in
marine and environmental sciences, and the UNC-Chapel Hill Institute of Marine
Sciences maintains a nationally recognized graduate program. University
graduate students from across the nation conduct masters and doctoral
research at NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Beaufort Laboratory.
1
Other UNC system campuses, including N.C. State University, East Carolina
University, UNC-Wilmington and Elizabeth City State University, regularly
collaborate with Carteret County scientists and faculty members. The
Cooperative Institute for Fisheries Oceanography (CIFO) and Maritime
Emergency Services Consortium (MESCO) represent unique collaborations
between public and private entities engaged in research and applied science.
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the North Carolina Shellfish
Sanitation Branch are agencies of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources dedicated to fisheries habitat and management.
North Carolina Sea Grant, the N.C. State Seafood Laboratory, Carteret
Community College, the North Carolina Aquarium and the North Carolina
Maritime Museum all perform valuable education functions for the public, as
well as providing opportunities for members of the public to learn about new
technologies relating to maritime industries. The NOAA National Weather
Service provides current atmospheric data for Carteret County scientists, as
well as fishermen and residents in the North Carolina coastal region.
The Projected Economic Development Trends and Related Land Use Issues
section of this plan, page II-10, discusses planned expansions in marine
research.
8. Manufacturing
Manufacturing has continued to grow in terms of total employment in Carteret County since
1970. The total manufacturing industry (nondurable and durable goods combined) increased
from 8th to 3rd in employment from 1980 to 1990 (in terms of county employment sector
ranking). This growth has come from a direct result of strong industrial recruitment efforts.
Table 24, provides a listing of manufacturing facilities in Carteret County. The top five
facilities in terms of total employment are indicated with an asterisk.
1-37

Table 24
Carteret County, NC
List of Manufacturing Facilities, 1995
Location by
' Facility Name
Township
Product
Clayton Fulcher Seafood Co.
Atlantic
Seafood
WW Shrimp Stop Too
Atlantic
Shrimp and finfish processing
Atlantic Veneer Corporation*
Beaufort
Veneers, plywood, lumber, logs
Aqua 10 Corporation
Beaufort
Extract chemicals, agricultural
chemicals, trace elements, micro
nutrients, enzymes
Atlas Design, Inc.
Beaufort
Office & store fixtures
Beaufort Fisheries, Inc.
Beaufort
Menhaden fish meal
Bock Marine Builders, Inc.
Beaufort
Steel fishing trawlers, trawler
repairs, other steel & aluminum
vessels, steel & aluminum
fabrication
By The Sea Publications, Inc.
Beaufort
Travel guide publishing
Everett's Seafood
Beaufort
Finfish processing
K & B Seafood
Beaufort
Crab processing
Parker Marine Enterprises, Inc.
Beaufort
Fiberglass boats and products
Pittman's Seafood Company
Beaufort
Seafood processing
Taylor Seafood
Beaufort
Shrimp and finfish processing
T.B. Smith Fish House
Beaufort
Shrimp and fish
Thomas Seafood of Carteret, Inc.
Beaufort
Crab picking and processing
TA Taylor & Sons Seafood, Inc.
Cedar Island
Finfish processing
Luther Lewis & Son Crab Co.
Davis
Canned crab meat; shrimp; crab
cakes & deviled crabs
James Styron Fish Company
Davis
Seafood packing
Bismarc
Harkers Island
Fish scopes/marine electronics
M.W. Willis & Sons Boat Works
Marshallberg
Pleasure and commercial boat
building and repair
Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc.*
Morehead City
Sheet metal fabrication;
refrigeration and cooling units
Carolina Atlantic Seafood
Morehead City
Seafood processors
Enterprises
Carteret Pallets, Inc.
Morehead City
Standard and custom pallets
Carteret Publishing Company,
Morehead City
Newspaper publishing
Inc.
Creative Outlet Inc.
Morehead City
Hospital scrub uniforms,
sportswear
Dawn Printing Company
Morehead City
Commercial printing
1-38

11
r]
Table 24 (continued)
Location by
Facility Name
Township
Product
Double R Millwork & Cabinetry
Morehead City
Wood kitchen cabinets; millwork
EJW Outdoors, Inc.
Morehead City
Shrimp processing
Micro -Machine, Inc.
Morehead City
Ornamental iron works
Morehead Block & Tile Company
Morehead City
Concrete & lightweight blocks
Morehead Machine Shop
Morehead City
Industrial & commercial
machinery and equipment
Palmetto Wiping Cloth Co., Inc.
Morehead City
Cotton wiping cloths
Sea Brim Screen Printing, Inc.
Morehead City
Advertising specialties; fabric
screen printing
Sea Striker, Inc.
Morehead City
Fishing tackle and lures;
embroidery
Taylor Boat Works
Morehead City
Boat building and repairing
Trumbull Asphalt (Division of
Morehead City
Asphalt paving mixtures and
Owens Corning)
blocks; asphalt felts and coatings
Cross Creek Apparel Corp.*
Newport
Womens, misses & juniors
blouses, shorts, outerwear; mens
and boys clothing
Hankison International (Division
Newport
Compressed air dryers; filter
of Hansen, Inc.) *
products
Ladies Touch of Newport
Newport
Upholstered furniture; draperies
& window treatments;
bedspreads, cushions & pillows
Mill Creek Crab Co.
Newport
Crab processing
Ready Mixed Concrete Co.
Newport
Ready mixed concrete
Veneer Technologies, Inc.*
Newport
Softwood veneers; hardwood
veneers and edgebanding
*Indicates five largest manufacturing employers.
Source: Carteret County Economic Development Council.
In 1995, approximately 10% of Carteret County workers were employed by manufacturing,
compared to approximately 27% statewide. Adding to this problem is the fact that the
Conner Corporation, Owens-Corning Fiberglass, and Diversified Concrete Products have all left
Carteret County in recent years. These companies provided some of the county's highest
paying manufacturing jobs. As a result, manufacturing employment has become
disproportionately concentrated in the low -wage, low -skill sectors.
In recent months, the Carteret County Economic Development Council has experienced an
increase in the level of interest from mid -sized companies interested in Carteret County.
However, recruitment and expansion efforts have been handicapped by a shortage of high
1
1-39

quality buildings and developed sites. The need for an industrial park in Carteret County will
be discussed later in the Projected Land Development Analysis section of the plan.
9. Agriculture
Although the agriculture, forestry, and fishing industries combined made up only 5.2% of the
insured employment for Carteret County in 1990, agriculture still provides a significant
economic contribution to the county. Table 25 below shows a total farm income of
$18,103,385 for 1993. This amount is 9.9 % higher than in 1992.
Table 25
Carteret County, NC - Southeastern District
Estimated Income from Sale of Farm Products & Government Payments
Commodity
Tobacco -Flue -Cured
Cotton
Corn
Soybeans
Other Grains
Potatoes
Fruits & Vegetables
Greenhouse & Nursery
Hay & Other Crops
Farm Forestry
Total Crop Income
1991
1992 (Revised)
1993
$ 2,523,360.00
$ 2,601,973.00
$ 2,513,270.00
452,987.00
582,399.00
655,817.00
4,640,130.00
4,740,750.00
5,643,750.00
3,234,000.00
2,928,420.00
3,445,200.00
600,698.00
670,640.00
653,200.00
1,123,695.00
828,150.00
876,250.00
1,812,646.00
1,513,195.00
1,671,173.00
353,000.00
330,000.00
330,000.00
15,675.00
13,750.00
19,750.00
1,221,500.00
1,007,650.00
1,007,650.00
$15,977,691.00 $15,216,927.00 $16,816,060.00
Hogs
$ 324,300.00
$ 308,825.00
$ 336,300.00
Cattle
1,006,230.00
946,350.00
949,750.00
Other Livestock & LS/Products
1,300.00
1,275.00
1,275.00
Total Livestock & LS/Prod Income
$1,331,830.00
$1,256,450.00
$1,287,325.00
Total Farm Income
$17,309,521.00
$16,473,377.00
$18,103,385.00
Government Payments
69,971.29
73,180.30
73,180.30
Total Farm Income & Gov. Payments
$17,379,492.29
$16,546,557.30
$18,176,565.30
Seafood
Non -farm Forestry
$22,666,932.00 $14,628,628.00 $16,118,279.00
$6,211,100.00 $6,869,900.00 $6,869,900.00
Source: Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics.
]

From 1991 to 1993, the county's crop production income showed a substantial increase rising
from an annual total of $15,977,691 to $16,816,060. There was a slight decrease in 1992.
' The income of total livestock dropped slightly by only $44,505 from 1991-1993.
The largest 1993 income producing commodities were: 1) corn, 2) soybeans, 3) tobacco, and
' 4) fruits and vegetables.
Open Grounds Farm, located in the "Down East" section of Carteret County, is the county's
' largest farm. Of the farm's 44,189 acres, approximately 9,600 acres are in pasture, 13,000
acres are in corn, 13,000 acres are in soybeans, and 4,000 acres are double cropped with
winter wheat each year. The livestock operation at Open Grounds Farm, which is the largest
in the county, is currently being phased out. In 1993, the estimated income from livestock
was approximately $1.3 million, most of which was attributable to Open Grounds Farm
' 10. North Carolina State Ports Authority
Morehead City is the location of one of the two deep water ports in North Carolina. The other
' port is located in the City of Wilmington. The State Port Terminal, Morehead City, is owned
and operated by the North Carolina State Ports Authority, a state agency.
' Located approximately four miles from the open sea, the Morehead City terminal is situated
along the Newport River and Bogue Sound. Morehead City is the closest port to the center
of the southeastern U.S. market and is located in the middle of the North and South Atlantic
' shipping lanes. The shipping channel is one of the deepest on the east coast, with water
depth in the channel and turning basin maintained at 45 feet, mean low water.
1
I
The Morehead City terminal also offers the following:
-- 5,500 ft. of continuous wharf.
-- Two berths served by modern shiploader and maximum loadout rate of
3,000 tone per hour of bulk cargo.
-- Dry bulk facility (used mainly for phosphate) with 225,000 ton capacity
warehouse, conveyor system, and shiploader.
-- Hard wood chips handling facility which can outload 1,000 tons per hour
with a two million ton annual capacity.
-- Soft wood chips handling facility which can outload 1,000 tons per hour
with a two million ton annual capacity.
-- Concrete capped sheet pile bulkhead, solid fill with a 1,000 psf concrete
deck with rubber and/or timber fender system.
-- Deck height averages 10 ft. above mean low water.
-- Apron widths from unrestricted to 45 ft. opposite transit sheds.
1
1-41

-- Roll-on/roll-off ramp.
The Morehead City terminal functions as Foreign Trade Zone 67, with two approved foreign
trade sites. Services provided by the Ports Authority include 24-hour security, cargo handling,
dockage, storage, fumigation, railroad switching, and miscellaneous support facilities. The
terminal has certified public truck and rail scales, and railroad service is provided by Norfolk
Southern Railroad.
The Morehead City terminal is the regular port of embarkation for the Second Marine Division,
Camp Lejeune, and the Second Air Wing, Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station.
The terminal has experienced growth in terms of both gross revenue and total tonnage since
1980. The major export from Morehead City is phosphate rock, phosphate fertilizer, and
phosphoric acid from the PCS Phosphate Company in Aurora, NC. The total phosphate
exported has fluctuated widely from year to year. Other commodities handled at the port
include logs, wood pulp, lumber, wood chips, tobacco, coal, veneer/hardboard, salt, fishmeal,
potash, colemanite ore, rubber, and military cargo.
Table 26, below, shows the total tonnage handled at the port and gross revenues from land
rental, storage, and operations from 1986-1992.
Table 26
Total Tonnage Handled and Gross Revenue, 1986-92
N.C. State Port Terminal, Morehead City
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Tonnage Handled 3.33 4.51 4.76 4.97 4.48 4.15 5.00
(millions of short tons)
Gross Revenue 7.68 8.82 8.80 9.57 9.82 9.41 9.42
(millions of $)
Source: General Manager, Morehead City Terminal, N.C. State Ports Authority.
The continued growth and success of the port's operation is very important to the wage
earners and businesses of Carteret County, many of whom benefit directly and indirectly from
the import/export activities conducted there. In particular, Carteret County's manufacturing
industry must continue to work closely with port officials and economic development leaders
to integrate the county's manufacturing and shipping capabilities. The identification of foreign
or waterway imported domestic markets for Carteret County -produced products will provide
an immediate and convenient impetus for increased manufacturing production.
In 1991, the state enacted legislation and allocated funds to facilitate the development of the
Global TransPark (GTP). The intent of the GTP is to fully integrate air, rail, road, and sea
forms of transportation to serve the logistics requirements of manufacturing, distribution,
agribusiness, and transportation -related industries throughout the eastern United States. In
the event that the GTP is constructed, the Morehead City terminal will play a significant role
in its operation. The GTP has been discussed in detail in the Existing Land Use Summary
portion of this plan, page 1-65.
1
�1
I�
1
1
1-42

F-
L
I
L
H
1
11. Summary
The following provides a summary of the most significant economic trends in Carteret County.
-- The state of Carteret County's economy may be described as fair compared to the
economies of all of the state's counties.
-- The total employed labor force increased from 11,290 in 1970 to 25,000 in 1994.
-- Retail trade constitutes the county's largest single employment category followed by
government and service.
-- Cherry Point is the leading employer of Carteret County residents.
-- Employees have a mean travel time to work of 19.1 minutes.
-- Between 1992-1994, the percentage of people receiving food stamps in Carteret
County was less than that of the state as a whole.
-- In 1995, Carteret County trailed the state in terms of average and median incomes.
-- The Carteret County population 18 years of age or older in 1990 had a higher
percentage of high school graduates than that of the state. In 1994, approximately
75% of the Carteret County population held high school degrees.
-- The tourism industry is the single most important contributor to the county's economy.
In 1993, Carteret County ranked 10th among the 100 North Carolina counties in
tourism expenditure impact.
-- Since the late 1970s, Carteret County has been the number one ranking county in the
state in terms of total licensed commercial fishing vessels, total seafood landings, and
total dockside value of seafood landings.
-- The research in marine science and fisheries conducted in Carteret County is
recognized throughout the world.
-- Carteret County continues to be plagued by low wage rates due to the lack of higher
paying manufacturing jobs.
-- The largest 1993 income producing commodities were: 1) corn, 2) soybeans, 3)
tobacco, and 4) fruits and vegetables.
1-43

IV. EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY
1. General Land Use Summary
Carteret County has two distinct areas in terms of general land use. One consists of the
"Down East" area which lies east of the Intracoastal Waterway connecting Core and Adams
Creeks. The second area lies west of the Intracoastal Waterway and is referred to simply as
Western Carteret County. This division between Western Carteret County and the "Down
East" area is slightly different than that described in the 1991 land use plan. The 1991 land
use plan divided Western Carteret County from the "Down East" area at a line connecting the
North River and Adams Creek. Using the Intracoastal Waterway as the new dividing line
provides a physical separation between these areas and more accurately represents the
"Down East" area, due to its inclusion of the Beaufort Township. The factors influencing
growth, development, and land use are different for each area. The "Down East" area
continues to be predominantly rural with large areas of wetlands and agricultural land usage.
The population is concentrated in the Town of Beaufort and in numerous unincorporated
communities scattered along the shoreline areas. Western Carteret County contains the major
development and population base. This is concentrated in the incorporated areas on Bogue
Banks and in sound side areas along N.C. 24 west of Morehead City. Since 1990, there has
been heavy residential subdivision development along the N.C. 24 highway corridor from
Morehead City west to Cape Carteret in the White Oak and Morehead townships. The
majority of the county's zoned areas are in Western Carteret County in the areas experiencing
the heaviest growth (Map 1).
Table 27 provides a summary of the subdivision development since 1991. The locations are
depicted on Map 2.
Table 27
Carteret County, NC
Subdivision Development, 1991-1995
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total
# Subdivisions 13 17 20 26 12 88
# Lots 146 155 223 444 151 1,119
During the five-year period, an average of 18 subdivisions with 224 lots were approved per
year. Twenty-two (22) subdivisions with a total of 175 lots were located in the "Down East"
area. Of the 22 subdivisions, nine were located in the Straits Township, nine in the Beaufort
Township, three in the Merrimon Township, and one in the Harlowe Township.
North Carolina's 17 major river basins have been divided into "sub -basins" which are currently
utilized as the foundation for basinwide water quality plans. Map 3 delineates the watersheds
which are located in Carteret County. Each watershed has been assigned a 14-digit code for
the purpose of identification. Most of Carteret County's subdivision development occurred
in watersheds 03020106020040 (King Creek, Neuse River), 03020106030050 (Adams
Creek), and 03020106030060 (Great Lake, Hunters Creek). Less significant residential
development occurred in watershed 03020106030010 (South River, Turnagain Bay) along
the U.S. 70 corridor. In all of these watersheds, the average persons per acre increased from
1980 to 1990. Table 28 provides a summary of the demographic distribution by watershed.
1
1-44

Table 28
Carteret County
Watershed Report - Base and Demographic Information
Estimated Population
Persons Per Acre
Area (Acres)
Incorporated
River
% Change
Areas
14-digit Code
Basin
Primary Waterbody
Total
Land
Water
1980
1990
180-90
1980
1990
Overlapping
Watershed
Township
03020106050010
Neuse
Long Bay, Pamlico
174,997.2
31,496.6
143,500.6
228
292
28.0%
0.01
0.01
Davis, Stacy, Sea
Sound
Level, Atlantic,
Cedar Island
03020204050020
Slocum Creek (East,
31,714.4
27,618.7
4,095.7
16,890
19,409
14.9%
0.61
0.70
Havelock
White Oak,
Southwest Prongs)
Newport
03020204050030
Hancock Creek,
19,091.7
15,381.5
3,710.2
2,950
3,390
14.9%
0.19
0.22
Havelock
Newport
Neuse River
03020204050040
King Creek, Neuse
28,346.9
21,082.8
7,264.0
1,664
1,918
15.2%
0.08
0.09
Newport,
River
Harlowe
03020204050050
Adams Creek
45,794.6
34,773.7
11,020.9
748
901
20.4%
0.02
0.03
Harlowe, Straits,
Merrimon
03020204070010
South River,
73,686.1
40,776.7
32,909.4
146
188
28.7%
0.00
0.00
Merrimon,
Turnagain Bay
Straits, Smyrna,
Davis
03020106010060
White
Great Lake, Hunters
21,695.8
18,906.2
2,789.5
46
323
602.1 %
0.00
0.02
White Oak
Oak
Creek
03020106020020
Hadnot Creek,
16,635.3
15,385.3
1,250.0
520
666
28.0%
0.03
0.04
White Oak
White Oak River
03020106020030
Pettiford Creek,
15,696.0
13,830.9
1,865.0
1,150
1,471
27.9%
0.08
0.11
White Oak
White Oak River
03020106020040
Goose Creek, Deer
8,170.8
6,627.9
1,542.8
1,643
2,103
28.0%
0.25
0.32
Cape Carteret
White Oak
Creek
03020106020050
White Oak River,
4,077.5
569.5
3,508.0
2
4
100.0%
0.00
0.01
Emerald Isle
White Oak
Bogue Sound
03020106020052
Bogue Sound
3,982.5
2,964.4
1,018.0
1,710
2,188
27.9%
0.58
0.74
Emerald Isle
White Oak
03020106030010
Newport River
19,627.1
19,627.1
0.0
651
9,285
1,326.2%
0.03
0.47
White Oak,
Headwaters
Newport
03020106030020
Newport River
24,366.0
24,345.9
20.1
6,608
8,452
27.9%
0.27
0.35
Newport
Newport,
Morehead
03020106030030
Newport River
12,632.3
12,217.2
415.1
225
288
28.0%
0.02
0.02
Newport,
Harlowe
03020106030040
Core/Harlowe Creek,
23,142.4
19,170.6
3,971.7
1,592
2,037
27.9%
0.08
0.11
Harlowe,
Newport
Beaufort
03020106030050
Broad Creek, Bogue
6,032.9
5,496.8
536.0
1,315
1,682
27.9%
0.24
0.31
White Oak,
Sound
Morehead
1-45

Table 28 (Continued)
Estimated Population I
Persons Per Acre
Area (Acres)
Incorporated
River
% Change
Areas
14-digit Code Basin
Primary Waterbody
Total
Land
Water
1980
1990
180-90
1980
1990
Overlapping
Watershed
Township
03020106030060
Gales Creek, Bogue
4,856.5
4,118.5
738.0
1,755
2,246
27.9%
0.43
0.55
Morehead,
Sound
Newport
03020106030070
Newport River
17,327.8
11,138.5
6,189.2
11,640
14,887
27.9%
1.05
1.34
Beaufort
Morehead,
Morehead City
Beaufort
03020106030080
Bogue Sound
13,180.5
49.4
13,131.0
0
0
0.00
0.00
Indian Beach
Morehead, White
Morehead City
Oak
Pine Knoll Shores
03020106030082
Bogue Sound
8,588.0
4,702.7
3,885.2
3,301
4,222
27.9%
0.70
0.90
Atlantic Beach
Morehead, White
Indian Beach
Oak
Pine Knoll Shores
03020106040010
North River
42,338.3
32,339.8
9,998.5
4,588
5,869
27.9%
0.14
0.18
Beaufort
Beaufort, Straits
03020106040020
Core Sound, Back
7,462.0
2,314.6
5,147.3
1,375
1,759
27.9%
0.59
0.76
Harkers Island,
Sound
Marshallberg
03020106040022
Back Sound
17,911.9
5,567.5
12,344.4
1
2
100.0%
0.00
0.00
Beaufort
Harkers Island
03020106050020
Core Sound,
42,137.8
34,337.1
7,800.6
2,133
2,728
27.9%
0.06
0.08
Atlantic
Marshallberg,
Thorofare Bay, Nelson
Smyrna, Davis,
Bay
Stacy, Sea Level,
Atlantic
03020106050030
Core Sound
15,187.0
4,608.4
10,578.5
0
0
0.00
0.00
Smyrna, Davis,
Stacy, Sea Level,
Atlantic
03020106050040
Core Sound
16,934.1
0.0
16,934.1
0
0
0.00
0.00
Smyrna, Davis,
Stacy, Sea Level,
Atlantic
03020106050050
Cedar Island Bay,
9,901.4
5,500.5
3,590.8
59
76
28.8%
0.01
0.01
Atlantic, Cedar
Core Sound
Island
03020106050060
Core Sound
7,238.1
0.0
7,238.1
0
0
0.00
0.00
Atlantic, Cedar
Island
03020106050070
Core Sound
23,803.5
3,846.6
19,956.9
0
0
0.00
0.00
Portsmouth
Source: North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
1-46

---
}
Z
D
0
U
0
to
Z
0
Carteret County
COUNTY
.'13
•'•'.'••••.•.'•••�•�•.'•�•••••.'•�•�•.'.'.'•
•. •.• • �M• • • • •• o
B
�.�
••••• • • •,,�'
0 100 • .
d
.' v.,• o e p m
erwt
.i
�'
• �•� t+e►cN
�t? _.. a I7►t
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.
• . •
RT R1leER ••••••••
r -All
• Ot
QiY •: (G
NUMIX eeot �1�
E,FORU ..
MAP 1
CARTERET COUNTY ZONING AREAS
4TLANT1C OCEAN
Note: Carteret County is responsible for
zoning in Cedar Point and Bogue
SCALE
1 O 1 2 3 4 MILES
LEGEND
i.•••.•.••.� AREAS ZONED BY COUNTY
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NO 1
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION

CARTERET COUNTY ,
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
1991 # of Lots # of Lots '
1 -Martin Creek ......................... 11 8 -Susan E. Carroll ........................ 1
2 - Hickory Shores ........................ 56 9 - Ocean Associates ....................... 4
3 - Black Creek Phase III ................... 22 10 - Salty B Section IV ..................... 22
4 - Mitchell Village Lakes ................... 13 11 - Deer Park Sect Two .................... 26
5 - Mike Brakefield ......................... 3 12 - Brynita MHP .......................... 9
6 - Loy Graham ........................... 1 13 - Cherry Ridge ................ .. .. 8 '
7 - L. V. Sammons ......................... 1 14 - Carey Park ........................... 5
8 - White Oak Bluffs ........................ 5 15 - Woodridge ........................... 37
9 - Bell Creek Phase V ..................... 8 16 - Brandywine Place Phase II ................ 6 '
10 - Tracy Bowling (Green Tree) .............. 11 17 - Thelma LaCroix ........................ 2
11 - McFarlane ............................ 3 18 - Clifton Lynch .......................... 2
12 - Pender Park Camp - Commercial North ....... 4 19 - R. Clarence Beachum ................... 2
13 - L. B. Mann ........................... 8 20 - Edgewood Estates ...................... 8 '
21 - Marvin Spencer ........................ 1
• 1992 22 - Ocean Associates S/D ................... 4
1 - Ron Schnick ........................... 1 23 - Crystal Shores ........................ 52
2 - Chawick Place ......................... 5 24 - Cox Acres ............................ 2 '
3 - Bay Club (Brandywine Bay) Phase I .......... 2 25 - Black Creek Phase V .................... 7
4 - James Robinson ........................ 1 26 - Country Side ......................... 34
5 - Green Tree Phase II ..................... 5 27 - Cedar Creek Woods .................... 17
6 - White Oak Bluffs Section IV ............... 5 '
7 - Ward's Landing Phase I ................. 20 ■ 1995
8 - D. T. Estates .......................... 7 1 - Karobi MHP .......................... 10
9 - E-Z Breeze MHP ...................... 10 2 - Walnut Place .......................... 6
10 - Salty Shores Campsite Phase III ............ 4 3 - Paul Duclos ........................... 2 '
11 - Salty B Section V ...................... 14 4 - E. Marvin Blount ........................ 2
12 - Honours at Brandywine Bay Section IV ...... 11 5 - Graystone Landing ..................... 63
13 - L. V. Sammons ........................ 1 6 - Hardesty Farms Section II Phases I and II .... 12
14 - Bay Pines ............................ 1 7 - Mill Creek Village ...................... 19 ,
15 - Radford Estates ....................... 21 8 - Cedar Creek Woods Phase II .............. 3
16 - Wayne See ........................... 1 9 - Five Aprils Plantation Phase II ............. 19
17 - Azalea Acres .......................... 5 10 - Eaglewood .......................... 14
18 - Joe Caton ............................ 2 11 -William F. Hooper ...................... 1
19 - Rolling Woods Phase IV ................. 25
20 - George Hams ......................... 1 44000.1996
1 - Lonnie & Margaret Boyd .................. 2 '
�1993 2 - Southwest Ridge ........................ 5
1 - George & Mildred Hams .................. 1 3 - Creek's End ........................... 6
2 - Jack Phillips ........................... 4 4 - Robert & Hyacinth Rice ................... 7
3 - Hartley/Ball ............................ 6 5 - Ethel Dudley ........................... 1 '
4 - Forks of the Creek ...................... 8 6 - White Oak Bluff, Sec. V .................. 3
5 - Hidden Harbor ........................ 28 6 - Brandywine North I -A .................... 7
6 - Michael Bell ........................... 1 8 - Brandywine North VI .................... 11
7 - Black Creek Phase III ................... 18 9 - Elbert & Austin Guthrie ................... 1 '
8 - Austin Place Phase 11 .................... 4 10 - Sandy Point, Sec. I, Phases I & II .......... 37
9 - Brookewoods ......................... 76 11 - Nicholas & Karen Sue Gridinic ............. 2
10 - Diana McGavock ....................... 3 12 - Waterway RV Park, Phase I ............ 163
11 - Calvin Willis ........................... 1 13 - J. Wallace Fulcher ...................... 1 '
12 - White Oak Bluffs Section IV ............... 4 14 - Wards Landing, Phase III ................ 18
13 - Ward's Landing ....................... 17 15 - Kearney Merrill ........................ 2
14 - Bud's Retreat ......................... 24 16 - Audrey Kay Beacham .................... 1
15 - Goose Creek Landing MHP ............... 4 17 - Hammock Place ....................... 39 '
16 - Walter Wetherington ..................... 4 18 - Goose Creek Resort Campground Add....... 44
17 - Ann Goguen .......................... 1 19 - Silver Creek Golf Course .............. 4TR
18 - John A. Barbour ........................ 1 20 - Silver Creek Town Home Condo I .......... 12
19 - Whaler's Ridge ....................... 14 21 - Silver Creek Town Home Condo II ......... 12 ,
22 - Silver Creek Town Home Condo III ......... 12
1994 23 - Silver Creek Town Home Condo IV ......... 12
1 - Goose Creek MHP ..................... 30 24 - Camp Morehead By The Sea ............. 58
2 - Bryan Berger .......................... 2 25 - Sandy Point, Sec. I .................... 11 '
3 - Stonegate Section V .................... 13 26 - Harkers Point ......................... 28
4 - Hidden Bay .......................... 30 27 - Cedar Creek Woods, Phase III ............. 2
5 - Magen's Bay ........................ 123 28 - Brandywine North, Phase IB ............... 4
6 - Robert Fetterolf ........................ 2 29 - Leonard Safrit ......................... 1 ,
7 - Ethel Dudley ........................... 4

CRAVEN COUNT-y —
— —�
—
14
J
5 13
ONES
1 l
11 10 -
rr�✓ L
1 +2
16t,
1 8
8.
3.
13
l,-
7
_
\\
1
to
19
� 4
3
4
q_, 2 15 1
0 U
F
10
-
18
Ab
29
t a � E A N
A T L A N T I C
v
CAPE LOOKOUT
PAMUCO SOUND
1�
O
\ yd`
\ N
The preparation of this map was financed in t-T\
part through a gram provided by the North \
Carolina Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972. as amended, which �r-
m adrrmmtered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
,., Towns of Cedar Point and
Bogue Corporate Limit Line
CARTERET COUNTY
SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT
1991-1996
MAP 2

�y
aJd
G
'
\GO
'
O
0
O
O
LO
O
O
�
t� p40'
3Q2040 9
CRAVEN COUNTY 0 _020
03020204050020
/
VoJlk / ^ O1OD/, _ _
030201060300 0
O
30 01060
o
0i
O
' D SOW
"'/ ---
03020106020020 030201 6Q 0
� EN
0201330
_.- 0 b1060300070
O7Os 03020106030060
03020�p6
�efi RO i S 03020106030080
6 0 GUE SpuNO
Q2Q10Q03QQ8
U
U
�o1o6p200
3
�
r r 2pp5p o 'pe
o
�-p O, 0602p0
2
i a
0C EAN
ATLANT'C
LOOKOUT
CARTERET COUNTY
WATERSHEDS
MAP 3
LEGEND
— -- COUNTY BOUNDARY
-- RIVER BASIN BOUNDARY
----- WATERSHED WATERSHED BOUNDARY
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACON
NOT UNDER CARTERET COUNTY
PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS
NOT UNDER CARTERET COUNTY
PLANNING JURISDICTION
Towns of Cedar Pant and
Bogue Corporate Unut line
NOTE: Shackelford Banks, Cape Lookout,
Core Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a
part of the National Seashore System and
not under the planning jurisdiction of
Carteret County.
Note: The Emerald Isle Beach Corporate
Limit Line extends 1,200 feet into Bogue
Sound and parallels the Bogus Sound
•horeltna
e
� r1

F
It is difficult to provide detailed statistics on the land areas committed to particular land uses
in a county which is primarily rural and sparsely populated. The overall pattern of land use is
far more important. Table 29 provides a general analysis of land usage in Carteret County for
1990 and 1995.
Table 29
Carteret County, NC
Estimated General Land Use - 1990 and 1995 '
Federal and Non -Wetland Areas
Urban and Built-up 3
Agricultural Land
Forest and Fresh Water Wetlands
Salt Water Wetlands
Small and Large Water Bodies
Total Land Area
Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
19902
1995
Acres
%
Acres
%
92,637
13.6%
91,637
13.6%
25,172
3.7%
26,672
3.9%
60,000
8.8%
59,500
8.7%
160,969
23.6%
159,969
23.5%
55,000
8.1 %
55,000
8.1 %
287,310
42.2%
287,310
42.2%
681,088
100.0%
681,088
100.0%
' A complete comparison of each land use category is not possible because consistent land use
categories were not available for all three years.
2 Source: 1985 Carteret County Land Use Plan.
3 Includes incorporated areas.
Federal land holdings have remained unchanged since 1981. The largest single federal land
holding in Carteret County continues to be the Croatan National Forest. Approximately
57,000 acres of the forest's total 158,000 acres lie within Carteret County. The second
largest holding is the Cape Lookout National Seashore which includes approximately 28,400
acres on Core and Shackelford Banks. Only a portion of these areas are non -wetlands
properties and are identified as federal areas in Table 29. The third largest federal holding
consists of military properties at Atlantic Airfield, Bogue Airfield, and on Marsh/Piney Island.
In addition to the residential development, there has been scattered commercial and industrial
development. Concentrated commercial and industrial development has occurred along the
U.S. 70 corridor between Newport and Morehead City. Development in the "Down East" area
of the county has continued to be very limited. The areas converted to urban land use have
been concentrated in Baymeade-Onslow-Lynchburg, Altavista -Augusta -State, and Newhan-
Corolla-Beaches soil associations. While these areas are well drained and suited for
development, they are also some of the county's areas best suited for agricultural production.
The developed areas of the county extend well beyond the municipality's central water and
sewer systems. Some relief to this problem has been provided in Western Carteret County
with the construction of the West Carteret Water System. However, the lack of central sewer
service in rapidly developing areas continues to be a serious problem.
Ice

Ll
The development of Western Carteret County has created some transportation problems. The '
only direct east -west traffic artery is N.C. 24. Congestion has increased annually, and further
development of the N.C. 24 corridor will only serve to compound the problem. Most of the '
subdivisions approved from 1991 to 1995 have been located in this corridor.
The largest single land use category in Carteret County continues to be the forest and fresh
'
water wetlands category. The following are the top four unaltered wetland types found in
Carteret County:
Salt/Brackish Marsh 53,000 acres
Pocosin 37,000 acres
Pine Flat 32,000 acres
'
Managed Pineland 30,000 acres
Approximately one-third of the pocosin and wooded swamp wetlands areas are located in the
'
Croatan National Forest. The remaining pocosin and swamp areas are scattered throughout
Carteret County and are subject to "404" wetlands regulations. These areas are
environmentally significant areas and will continue to be deterrents to development.
'
The final significant land use category is coastal wetlands or salt marshes . Most of these
areas are subject to CAMA regulations and permitting requirements. They are extremely
'
important to the marine ecological system. Because of their environmental importance and
regulatory limitations, the salt marshes will remain primarily undisturbed.
Map
'
4 delineates the existing land use. In order to be consistent and to allow for comparison,
the same land use categories have been utilized which were used in the 1991 Carteret County
Land Use Plan.
,
Urban or Build-up Land - Urban or built-up land includes unincorporated
communities, villages, strip development along highways, transportation, power
'
and communication facilities, as well as areas occupied by shopping centers,
mills, industrial areas, commercial complexes, and residential development.
Agricultural Land - Agricultural lands are areas used primarily for producing food
'
and fiber, harvested croplands, pasture, and generally land committed in any
way to agricultural production.
'
Barren Land - Barren land is comprised of lands with limited capacity for
supporting life. Those lands include beaches and sand dunes. All of the
county's barren areas are located in the outer banks areas (included in Table 29
'
in the Federal Non -Wetlands category).
Forest Land - Forest lands are stocked with trees which can be used for the '
production of timber and other wood products. Forest lands can also be used
for wildlife refuges and recreational facilities including national and state parks '
and forests. Forest lands normally occur on either moderately to well -drained
mineral soils or ditched -and -managed shallow organic soils. Most of the forest
category areas contain 404 wetlands. Exact locations may be determined only '
through specific in -field site analysis.

CRAVEN COUNTY
- — —T
,vcvs e.-M-.
uOUN SExH
��.EAN
A-TL ANT;C
/
SCALE
0 1 2 3 4 MILES
CAPE, LOOKOUT
PAMLICO SOUND
CARTERET COUNTY
EXISTING LAND USE MAP
MAP 4
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
Coota! Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended, which Is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coasted Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Admin4tratkwL
LEGEND
®
URBAN OR BUILT-UP LAND
AGRICULTURAL LAND
BARREN LAND
FOREST LAND"
0
POSSIBLE 404 WETLANDS'
—�—
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
Towns of Cedar Point and
Bogue Corporate Limit Line
NOTE: Shocideford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and PortsmouthIsdend are a pert of the
Nottoad Seashore System and not under the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS LZOO FEET INTO ROGUE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE BOOZE SOUND
SHORELINE.
r
NOTE: EXACT LOCATIONS OF 404 WETLAND
AREAS MAY BE DETERMINED ONLY THROUGH
SPECIFIC IN -FIELD SITE ANALYSIS.
**NOTE FOREST LANDS ARE MIXED WITH
SALT MARSHES. ADDITIONALLY, MOST OF
THE FOREST CATEGORY AREAS CONTAIN
404 WETLANDS.
1-52

' Wetlands - Wetlands are defined as areas where the water table is at, near, or
above the ground surface for a significant part of most years. Specifically,
these areas include coastal wetlands, wooded swamps, and "404" wetlands
as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended in 1977. It is emphasized that
some areas shown on Map 4 as wetlands areas may not be wetlands, and that
some areas not shown as wetlands may be wetlands. Specific in -field
determinations are necessary to clearly delineate wetlands areas. The existing
land use map provides only a general indication (included in Table 29 in the
Forest and Fresh Water Wetlands, and Salt Water Wetlands categories).
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Areas - These areas include areas within Carteret
County which are under the planning jurisdiction of adjacent incorporated areas,
as provided for under NCGS 160A-360. Towns and cities may extend
' extraterritorial jurisdiction up to one mile beyond its corporate limits. With the
approval of the state legislature and the County Board of Commissioners, a
town or city of more than 10,000 but less than 25,000 may extend its
' extraterritorial jurisdiction up to two miles beyond its corporate limits (included
in Table 29 in the Urban and Built-up category).
Incorporated Areas - These areas include all incorporated towns and cities
(included in Table 29 in the Urban and Built-up category).
2. Land Use By Township
The existing land use is summarized by township. (This is the same format which was utilized
in the 1991 land use plan.) The land use descriptions are intended to provide general and not
detailed analyses. Map 5 provides a delineation of the township areas. In order to increase
the legibility of the data on the other maps contained in this plan, the township boundaries
were not included. The "Down East" area includes the Portsmouth, Cedar Island, Atlantic,
Sea Level, Stacy, Davis, Smyrna, Marshallberg, Harkers Island, Straits, Merrimon, and
Beaufort townships. Western Carteret County includes the Harlowe, Morehead, Newport, and
White Oak townships. Other than residential development in Western Carteret County, only
minor changes in land use have occurred since 1991.
a. Portsmouth
Portsmouth Township is the only township located entirely on an outer bank area. The
township is located within watershed 03020106050070, and includes all of Core Banks north
of Drum Inlet and Portsmouth Island. The entire township is included within the Cape Lookout
National Seashore and is considered a fragile area. The township may be expected to remain
uninhabited.
1-53

JOJ PAMLICO SOUND
AGO
��VSti r�
�a CEDAR ISL ND
••,
T W D w�-_ �`
CRAVEN COCNTY /
____ _ -------- HARLOW
— —i — — NEWPORT a TWP
TWP.
WHITE OAK
t
TWP.
I .. MO A _W.
\ s�
\ GG
- orrr, E
I— % .
z
�Q
;u�
�`'�u.I •. SOUND
�. �O6DE
►�,,.
o
..�..,,� ..a
.._ � iarf r.00M
ATLANTIC OCEAN
1 0 1 7
Fr �
PO SMOOTH
TWP.
The preparation of this mop ras
flnancsd In part Through a grant
provided by the North Caro1Na
Coastal Management Program,
throLZ fwds provided by the
Coos al Zone Management Ad of
1972, as amended. rhlch Is
administered by the Offl a of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, Notlonai Oceank and
Atmospheric Administration.
:S
MMUNTIES
AND FORT
ARTERET
.1RISOICTION
RISDICTION AREAS NOT
JNTY PLANNING
and
t Line
ks, CA" Lookout. Con
Wad am a part of Me
ern and not under the
Carteret Couety.
ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
200 FEET INTO 806UE
LS THE BOGOE SOLING
1-54

b. Cedar Island
I Cedar Island Township is located at the eastern end of Carteret County. The township
is located within watershed 03020106050050, the eastern portion of watershed
03020106050020, and a portion of watershed 03020106050010. In all of these
1
1
watersheds, the average persons per acre remains well below one. The majority of the
township's 31 square mile area is occupied by regularly and irregularly flooded salt marsh.
Approximately 11,000 acres of the township are included in the Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge
area. Other significant natural areas include the Cedar Island -North Bay Barrier Island, Back
Bay area, and Cedar Island marshes.
The only significant settlement is the Cedar Island community which is located adjacent
to N.C. 12 near the Cedar Island -Ocracoke ferry terminal. One marina, the ferry terminal, and
adjacent commercial service facilities are the only economic/employment activities other than
limited farming and commercial fishing. A harbor of safe refuge is located on the northwest
shoreline of Cedar Island Bay. Public service facilities include the Cedar Island Volunteer Fire
Department and the Cedar Island Community Center.
There are several obstacles confronting development. The township is at an extremely
low elevation and is vulnerable to Atlantic storms. Wetlands regulations prohibit certain types
of development in many areas of the township, and mosquito control is a perennial problem.
Also, the Marine Corps maintains a major active bombing range in nearby Rattan Bay. An
electronic warfare bombing facility has been established at Piney Island. The township has
severe limitations for septic tank usage. Central water and sewer facilities are not available,
and there is a limited state road network.
C. Atlantic
Atlantic Township is located in extreme northeastern Carteret County adjacent to
Thorofare Bay and Core Sound. It is located mostly within watershed 03020106050020,
which had a 1990 persons per acre density of .08, and a portion of watershed
03020106050010, which had a 1990 population density of .01 persons per acre. The
township extends across Core Sound to include a section of Core Banks. The township is
primarily composed of wetlands, irregularly and regularly flooded salt marsh areas, and natural
areas.
The largest concentration of population occurs in the community of Atlantic. However,
the largest single manmade land use is the Marine Corps outlying field in Atlantic which
occupies 1,477 acres. The airfield is located just northwest of the Atlantic community.
Commercial fishing, the primary commercial activity, is centered in the Atlantic community.
Other economic activities include five marinas. A harbor of safe refuge is located immediately
north of the Atlantic community. Public service facilities are limited to the Atlantic Elementary
School and the Atlantic Volunteer Fire Department.
There are several obstacles to development. The township is at a very low elevation
and subject to threat from Atlantic storms. The majority of the township is composed of
either inland "404" or coastal wetlands. Continued use of the Marine Corps Airfield could
result in conflicting land usage. Severe limitations exist for septic tank usage. There are no
central water and sewer services provided, and there is limited ground transportation access.
1-55

d. Sea Level
Sea Level Township is located in the northeast section of the county. Most of the
township is located in watershed 03020106050020 which has a population density of .08
persons per acre. The northern portion of the township is located in watershed
03020106050010. The area extends from Long Bay across the northeast land area to
include an area of the Core Sound and a section of the Core Banks. With the exception of the
unincorporated Sea Level community, the township is primarily undeveloped. Sea Level is a
commercial fishing village with some limited second home development occurring. The
township's other economic activities include three marinas. The Sea Level Hospital and the
Sailors Snug Harbor are major employers within the township. Public service facilities include
the Sea Level Volunteer Fire Department and Eastern Park.
The township has some limitations to development which include extensive wetland
areas, low elevation, and limited transportation access to land areas. No public water and
sewer services are provided.
e. Stacy
Stacy Township lies along U.S. 70 adjacent to Core Sound in the "Down East" area.
Most of the township is located in watershed 03020106050020. The northern portion of the
township is located in watershed 03020106050010. The township includes a portion of Core
Banks. The population is concentrated in the unincorporated communities of Masontown and
Stacy. The majority of the township's area is owned by the Open Ground Farms. There are
also numerous small farm holdings. Commercial fishing and farming support the majority of
the township's population. Public facilities are limited to the Stacy Volunteer Fire Department.
Limitations to development include low elevation, wetland areas, septic tank
limitations, limited transportation access, and a lack of central water and sewer facilities.
f. Davis
Davis Township is the most sparsely populated township in the county. The township
is located within portions of watersheds 03020204070010, 03020106050010, and
03020106050020. Average population density is below one person per acre. The township
extends from the Rattan Bay marsh area in Pamlico Sound south to Core Sound, and includes
a portion of Core Banks. Almost all of the township's population is concentrated in the
unincorporated community of Davis, a commercial fishing village. The Rattan Bay area
includes the site of the Piney Island electronic warfare range and an active Marine Corps
bombing range.
Most of the township is isolated, having very limited ground transportation
accessibility. The economic activity consists primarily of four marinas and one fish processing
facility. Much of the township is being cultivated as part of the Open Grounds Farm. Public
service facilities are limited to the Davis Volunteer Fire Department and the Davis Community
Center.
1
1-56

Limitations to development include the Marine Corps bombing range and Piney Island,
low elevation, wetlands areas, no central water and sewer facilities, and poor ground
' transportation accessibility.
g. Smyrna
' Smyrna Township includes a narrow stretch of land generally lying between the head
water of South River and Jarrett Bay, and extends across Core Sound to include an area of
Core Banks. The township is primarily located in watershed 03020106040020. On the
north, it includes a portion of watershed 03020204070010, and on the southwest a portion
of watershed 03020106040010. Watershed 03020204070010 is not inhabited. The other
two watersheds are sparsely populated. Most of the township's population is concentrated
in the commercial fishing village of Smyrna. Fishing, farming, and boat building comprise the
main economic activities. Most farming activity consists primarily of small private farm
holdings. Public facilities include Smyrna School and the Eastern Park.
Limitations to development include low elevation, susceptibility to storm flooding, lack
' of central water and sewer facilities, limited ground transportation accessibility, and extensive
"404" wetland area.
' h. Marshallberg
Marshallberg Township is located adjacent to the eastern end of the Straits and Core
Sound. The east end of Marshallberg is in watershed 03020106050020, while the west end
is located in watershed 03020106040010. Marshallberg is the county's smallest township
and is composed primarily of the unincorporated community of Marshallberg. The community
' has more economic diversity than many "Down East" communities. Economic activities
include boat building and repair, a marina, fish house facilities, and agricultural -related
activities. Public services are limited to the Marshallberg Volunteer Fire Department.
' Limitations to development consist primarily of low elevation, susceptibility to storm
flooding, and a lack of central water and sewer facilities.
MI. Harkers Island
Harkers Island Township includes Harkers and Browns Islands, Shackleford Banks,
M Cape Lookout, and a small portion of Core Banks. Only Harkers Island is permanently
inhabited. The township is located within watersheds 03020106040020 and
03020106040022. Watershed 03020106040020 had a 1990 population density of .76
' persons per acre while watershed 03020106040022 was uninhabited. Through the years,
several dwellings have been constructed on Browns Island. The Harkers Island unincorporated
community is the largest "Down East" development. In 1990, the island contained
approximately 1,756 permanent residents. This permanent population is complemented by
a large seasonal population during the summer months. During this period, the overall
population may reach two or more times the year-round population.
The development on Harkers Island has been largely uncontrolled, with congestion and
conflicting land uses being the result. Approximately one-half of the 19 miles of roads on
' Harkers Island are unpaved. The majority of the island's developable land has been utilized
1 1-57

for residential purposes. Other urban land uses occupy only a small percentage of the island's
area. Less than 50 acres of land area is devoted to boat building, marinas, fish houses, and
commercial/retail activities. Water -related developments include five commercial marinas
(commercial defined by CAMA as having more than ten slips), one fish packing facility, and
three fish houses. A harbor of safe refuge is located on the western end of Harkers Island.
Several public service facilities are located on Harkers Island, including the Harkers
Island Volunteer Fire Department and the Harkers Island Elementary School. The National Park
Service has 91 acres of property at the east end of Harkers Island. The facilities currently
located on this property include a ferry terminal for service to Cape Lookout, a marina, park
headquarters and maintenance facilities, visitor contact station, and picnic area. The National
Park Service plans to lease approximately 16 acres of this land for the construction and
maintenance of a new Core Sound Waterfowl Museum. The purpose of the museum is to
bring together the historical, cultural, artistic, environmental, and educational elements needed
to preserve the rich waterfowl heritage of eastern North Carolina.
The Harkers Island Township includes a greater concentration of fragile areas and other
areas of environmental concern than any other township. These include Browns Island, Core
Banks, Shackleford Banks, regularly and irregularly flooded salt marshes, maritime forest
areas, Core Sound outstanding resource waters, Morgan Island, and Middle Marshes. These
areas are described in detail in the Fragile Areas chapter. Development pressures will result
in increasing conflicts with environmentally sensitive areas.
Accessibility to the Harkers Island Township area is limited. The island lies across the
North River from Beaufort. However, it is a twenty -mile drive to reach Harkers Island by land.
The only land route is from Highway 70 across the Straits on S.R. 1335. Browns Island,
Middle Marshes, Shackleford Banks, and Core Banks are accessible only by boat.
Harkers Island is unusual for a "Down East" community because it has a central water
system. However, no central sewer system is in place to serve the increasing development.
Limitations to development include numerous environmentally sensitive areas, lack of
central sewer service, limited regional accessibility, low elevation, and susceptibility to storm
flooding.
j. Straits
Straits Township is one of the larger townships in Carteret County. It is located
entirely within watershed 03020106040010 which had a 1990 population density of .18
persons per acre. Most of the population is concentrated in the unincorporated communities
of Straits, Bettie, Gloucester, and Otway. Economic activities include farming, forestry,
commercial fishing, and commercial/retail trades. This area has significant marine resources
consisting of primary nursery areas and concentrations of subaquatic vascular plants. The
western edge of the township includes a portion of the North River marshes which are an
important salt water nursery area. Substantial areas of well drained soils with good conditions
for development exist, especially along areas of the township's shoreline.
7
u
H
Ll
1-58
r,

The largest single land use is the Open Grounds Farm which occupies approximately
one-third of the township. Public service facilities are limited to the Otway Volunteer Fire
Department.
Limitations to development include low elevation, susceptibility to storm flooding, and
a lack of central water and sewer services.
k. Merrimon
Merrimon Township is located in the northwest corner of the "Down East" area
between Adams Creek and the South River. It is the fourth largest township in the county
and is sparsely populated. The eastern one-half of the township is located in the watershed
03020204070010, while the western one-half is located in watershed 03020204050050.
Watershed 03020204070010 is unpopulated, while watershed 03020204050050 had an
average 1990 population of .03 persons per acre. The majority of the development activity
in the Merrimon Township has occurred off of S.R. 1321, adjacent to Adams Creek, in the
Forks of the Creek and Hidden Harbor subdivisions. Debate continues over the impact of the
Open Grounds farming activity on Adams Creek, South River, and Nelson Bay. Tributaries in
all of these contain primary nursery areas. Most of the remaining land is owned by timber
companies. The township continues to be primarily a commercial fishing and farming area.
Other economic development is limited to scattered commercial/retail activities. The only
public service is the South River-Merrimon Volunteer Fire Department.
In April, 1996, the Weyerhaeuser Company received final approval for Section 1,
Phases I and II, of the Sandy point subdivision. This subdivision includes 37 single-family lots.
As of June, 1996, Section 1, Phase III of Sandy Point had received preliminary approval for
an additional eleven lots. Weyerhaeuser is currently investigating the possibilities for Sections
2 and 3 of Sandy Point, which combined would include approximately 60 lots.
' Limitations to development include poor ground transportation accessibility, lack of
central water and sewer service, some erosion on Adams Creek along the Intracoastal
Waterway, wetlands areas, and limitations for septic tank usage.
I. Beaufort
Beaufort Township lies at the center of Carteret County and is primarily bordered on
' the east by the North River and on the west by the Newport River and the Intracoastal
Waterway. The majority of the township lies within watersheds 03020106030070,
03020106040010, and 03020106030040. The extreme northern portion of the township
extends out of the White Oak River Basin and into the Neuse River basin and watershed
03020204050050. The southern boundary of the township extends into small portions of
watersheds 03020106030082 and 03020106040022. The largest concentration of
' population lies within the Newport River township which experienced a 1990 persons per acre
of 1.34. The remainder of the watersheds in the township had a population density below .20
and watersheds 03020106030082 and 03020106040022 were uninhabited. Beaufort is the
easternmost township in the county having significant development and population base. The
developed areas are concentrated in and around the Town of Beaufort, the county seat.
Carteret County does not have any planning jurisdiction within the Town of Beaufort or its
' extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
1 1-59

The majority of the township's developed areas outside of the Beaufort planning
jurisdiction are scattered along both sides of Highways 70 and 101 north of Beaufort. Most
of this development consists of residential usage with some scattered commercial activity.
The township's land area is predominantly tidal flat and considered to be "404" wetlands.
Significant areas of agricultural usage are scattered along Highways 70 and 101 on areas
containing some of the township's better drained soils. '
The Beaufort Township includes the Michael J. Smith Field, a general aviation facility
which is located off Highway 101 between Beaufort and the Newport River. The airport is
county owned and is managed by the Beaufort -Morehead City Airport Authority. It is located
within the Town of Beaufort extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. The facility serves as an
important general aviation airport and is maintained in extremely good condition. Service is '
provided to general business, the State Port, medical facilities, and the traveling public. The
North Carolina Airport System Plan of 1992 prepared for the Department of Transportation
recommends that in order to provide for additional demand at the airport, the following
improvements be made prior to the year 2001: land acquisition of 250 acres, purchase
additional navigation equipment, runway and taxiway lighting improvements, expansion of the
terminal building and storage hangar, and additional automobile parking. If offshore drilling '
were to occur or the Global TransPark constructed, the significance of the airport could rapidly
increase. The airport is an asset which must be developed and protected to maximize its
future service capability in Carteret County.
The southern two-thirds of the township within Carteret County planning jurisdiction
is zoned. The majority of the area is zoned single-family residential. Concentrations of
commercial zoning are scattered along Highways 70 and 101. Some industrial zoning exists
north of the airport and along the Intracoastal Waterway.
There are numerous public service facilities located in Beaufort Township; however,
most of them are located in the Town of Beaufort or its ETJ. Those include the Beaufort
Community Center, Beaufort Fire Department, Beaufort Middle School, Beaufort Elementary
School, Freedom Park, and the Carteret County Courthouse and Administrative Offices '
complex. Public facilities within the township and within the county's jurisdiction include the
North River Volunteer Fire Department, the North River Community Center, and the East
Carteret High School. 1
Several significant fragile areas are located within the township. These fragile areas
are the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Sanctuary which includes Carrot Island, Horse Island, ,
Bird Shoal, and Town Marsh, and is located within the Town of Beaufort ETJ; and a large
portion of the North River marshes located on the eastern boundary of the township north and
south of Highway 70. Additionally, extensive "404" wetlands areas exist within the
township.
Another fragile area is the 240-acre Radio Island. The island is located in the Newport ,
River and was created in 1936 as a spoil area for the dredging of the Morehead City Channel.
It also provides a naval vessel loading/unloading facility. Most of the island is zoned for port -
industrial development. However, some public interest has been expressed for preservation
of areas of the island for shoreline access.
The Town Creek Marina is located in Town Creek, adjacent to the southern edge of
Michael J. Smith Field. Town Creek is classified as SC waters and has been closed to ,
1-60 1

1
F
Ci
11
shellfishing for many years. The marina was issued a CAMA permit in 1988. Issuance of the
permit had considerable support within the county. Its location was viewed as the ideal type
of area in which marinas should be constructed, thereby avoiding marina construction in
pristine waters.
The township's limitations to development include the following: low elevation,
susceptibility to storm flooding, wetlands, lack of central water and sewer facilities outside
of the Beaufort extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, and accessibility to the northern and
western areas of the township.
M. Harlowe
The Harlowe Township lies north of the Newport River. It is bordered on the east side
by the Intracoastal Waterway and on the west by a line extending south from the intersection
of Highway 101 and the northern Carteret County line to approximately the headwater area
of the Newport River. The majority of the township lies within watershed 03020106030040
with portions extending east into watershed 03020106030030 and north into watershed
03020204050050. The highest population density for the township in 1990 was .11 persons
per acre watershed 03020106030040. The other watersheds experienced population
densities under .04. The township has been primarily devoted to agriculture and commercial
fishing. Commercial activity is scattered along Highway 101. One fish house, four seafood
dealers, a boat building facility (currently not operating), and a marina are located along the
Intracoastal Waterway. Residential growth has occurred since the early to mid-1980s.
Residential development should continue to occur because of the existence of good soil
conditions along areas of Highway 101, the Intracoastal Waterway, and the Newport River
shoreline. The Sea Gate Woods fragile area which is located in the northeast corner of the
township near the Intracoastal Waterway, and the coastal wetlands along Harlowe Creek
should be protected in the event of increased development. None of the township is zoned
with the exception of parts of the Sea Gate community, a mixed residential community along
the west bank of the Intracoastal Waterway.
Public service facilities are limited to the Mill Creek Community Center. Fire protection
is provided by the Harlowe Volunteer Fire Department which is located in Craven County on
Highway 101 and the Mill Creek Fire Department. The Mill Creek Rescue Squad serves the
entire Harlowe Township.
Limitations to development include "404" wetlands areas primarily north and east of
Highway 101, fragile areas, and a lack of central water and sewer facilities. The Sea Gate
community has not been successful in their attempts to obtain central sewer service.
n. Morehead
The Morehead Township extends along Bogue Sound from the Newport River to Broad
Creek. There is generally a landward extension northward to Black Creek and the Town of
Newport. The township lies within portions of watersheds 03020106030010,
03020106030070, 03020106030050, 03020106030060, 03020106030080, and
03020106030082. With the exception of watershed 03020106030080, all watersheds in
the township are populated and in 1990 averaged .67 persons per acre. Morehead is the
most heavily populated township within the county. In 1990, there was a total population of
1-61

20,502, or 39% of the county's population. By 1993, the population has been projected to
have been 21,596, indicating increasing strength in the township's population growth. Much
of the township's population and development are located in the incorporated areas of
Morehead City, Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, and Indian Beach. With the exception of
a small section of Bogue Banks lying between the west and east sections of Indian Beach, all
areas of the township under Carteret County's planning jurisdiction are located on the
mainland. Since Carteret County's Land Use Plan was last updated in 1991, approximately
667 acres of land in the county's jurisdiction have been annexed by Morehead City.
Annexation consisted of two major phases: one in July, 1994, consisting of 133 acres and
the other in June, 1995, consisting of 530 acres. The remaining four acres were the result
of several small annexations which occurred at various times throughout the period. The
Morehead City ETJ has not yet been shifted to reflect these recent annexations and currently
extends west to the intersection of U.S. 70 and N.C. 24. In general, the county jurisdiction
extends westward along U.S. 70 from the City of Morehead ETJ to the Newport ETJ and
westward along both sides of N.C. 24 to Broad Creek.
All areas within the township under county jurisdiction are zoned except Crab Point.
Generally, the area lying one-half mile north and south of U.S. 70 is zoned for commercial
purposes, with some industrial zoning intermixed. The area along N.C. 24 is primarily
residential, with some commercial zoning intermixed.
Development pressure within the township has been heavy. This is especially true for
residential development along N.C. 24 and the Bogue Sound area. The completion of Phase
I of the West Carteret water system will serve as an additional stimulant to growth extending
service from Cedar Point along N.C. 24 to McCabe Road.
The township has been the strongest area of the county for commercial and industrial
development. It is anticipated that commercial growth will accelerate along U.S. 70 between
Morehead City and Newport. In addition, industrial growth will expand. This growth will be
somewhat contained by the growth of central water and sewer services within the township.
Continued development of the State Port will also serve as a stimulant to industrial
development. If offshore drilling does occur, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial
impact on highway and rail transportation facilities extending westward from Morehead City
through the township.
The extension of water and sewer services into the township from the incorporated
areas will accelerate growth. In addition, the West Carteret Water Corporation has extended
water service into the western edge of the township in the Broad Creek area. Densities will
increase and uninterrupted strip development may occur along U.S. 70 and N.C. 24. Both
highways will be subject to increasing traffic congestion. In fact, N.C. 24 may already have
become ineffective as a major thoroughfare.
Shoreline -related commercial development within the Morehead Township has been
extensive, both within and outside of areas under municipal control. Within Morehead City
and its ETJ, there are nine marinas and numerous fish house facilities. Within the township
area, under county jurisdiction, there are seven marinas and one fish packing facility. Further
development of shoreline -dependent facilities is expected.
71
L
7
1-62

f]
77
I
1
1
Numerous public facilities and services are located within the township. However,
most are located within Morehead City and its ETJ. These include the Morehead City Fire
Department, Morehead City Community Center, Morehead Elementary at Camp Glenn,
Morehead Middle School, the new Morehead Primary, Cape Lookout High School, West
Carteret High School, Swinson Park, and the Carteret Community College. A new County
Senior Center is also being constructed in Morehead City. Facilities located within the
county's jurisdiction include Broad Creek Middle School, Broad and Gales Creek Volunteer Fire
Department, Broad and Gales Creek Community Center, and the Salter Path Volunteer Fire
Department. The county is considering the Morehead Township as an alternative site for the
location of a new middle high school and high school. The preferred site is located within the
White Oak Township because the plot of land there is large enough to accommodate both
schools.
Morehead Township has only a small portion of its total area affected by fragile areas.
These include the ocean hazard area on Bogue Banks, wetlands areas (including significant
pocosin areas), a portion of the Bogue Sound outstanding resource waters area, marsh areas,
and some wooded swamps. The majority of the land within the township is suitable for
development.
The township's limitations to development include increasing traffic congestion on U.S.
70, N.C. 24, and N.C. 58, and some potential conflicts with the outstanding resource waters
designation on a part of Bogue Sound. Despite recent water system improvements sponsored
by the West Carteret Water Corporation, lack of central water and sewer service also limits
development in the township.
o. Newport
Newport Township is located in the northern portion of Carteret County and is centered
on the Town of Newport and U.S. 70. Except for a small portion of the Newport River
shoreline, the Newport Township is located entirely inland. It has less shoreline area than any
other township. The majority of the township is located within watersheds
03020106030010, 03020106030020, and 03020106030030 with small portions extending
into watersheds 03020106030050 and 03020106030060. Population densities in these
watershed areas averaged .34 persons per acre in 1990.
Outside the Town of Newport and its extraterritorial area, the township's land use is
dominated by the Croatan National Forest. The National Forest includes the following
significant fragile areas: a portion of Masontown pocosin, Union Point pocosin, limited
Newport River marsh areas, and extensive wooded swamp areas. The National Forest and
related fragile areas will continue to limit development within the township. (Refer to Section
I.F., Development Constraints.)
The growth within the township outside of Newport's planning jurisdiction is located
almost entirely along the U.S. 70 highway corridor. This area of the township is zoned. The
zoning is primarily commercial with some scattered residential and industrial zoning. The
Town of Newport and Morehead City are currently discussing the location of a common
boundary, along Highway 70, in which to extend their ETJ's. Once this agreement has been
reached and the ETJ's extended, the county will no longer have any jurisdiction along the
Highway 70 corridor. Away from Newport and the U.S. 70 corridor, development is primarily
1-63

scattered at low densities. Limited concentrations of residential and light commercial
development exist in the unincorporated community of Mill Creek, along Ninefoot Road west
of Newport, and in agricultural settlements along Deep and Little Deep Creeks.
Except for the Mill Creek Volunteer Fire Department and the Newport Prison, all public
facilities in the township are located within the Town of Newport. Those include the Newport
Fire Department, Newport Elementary School, Newport Park, Newport Public Library, and the
NOAA weather station.
Limitations to development include lack of central water and sewer facilities, extensive
fragile areas, and lack of a developed road system outside the U.S. 70 corridor and the
Croatan National Forest.
P. White Oak
The White Oak Township is located on the western end of Carteret County. The
eastern boundary is delineated by a line extending from Broad Creek north to the county line.
The western boundary is formed along the White Oak River by the western Carteret County
line. The township extends across Bogue Sound to include the majority of the Town of
Emerald Isle. The remainder of the town is located within the Morehead Township. The
county has recently lost some of their area of jurisdiction within the White Oak Township due
to the incorporation of Bogue as a municipality. There are more watersheds located in this
township than in any other in the county. Watersheds 03020106010060,
03020106020020, 03020106020030, 03020106020040, 03020106020050,
03020106020052, 03020106030010, and 03020106030050 are all located within the
township. The greatest population densities per acre experienced in 1990 were watersheds
03020106020052 (.74), 03020106030010 (.47), and 03020106030050 (.31).
The majority of the township's land area lies within the Croatan National Forest.
Development has been concentrated along N.C. 24 and the Bogue Sound shoreline, and along
U.S. 58 and the White Oak River. Much of the commercial activity lies within the towns of
Cedar Point and Cape Carteret. Cape Carteret and Emerald Isle maintain their own planning
jurisdiction and authority. Cedar Point has contracted with the county for the provision of
planning, zoning, and building inspections. Thus, this plan will address land classification and
policies within the Cedar Point planning jurisdiction. Development has been encouraged along
the White Oak River and Bogue Sound by the existence of well -drained soils. The southern
two-thirds of the township is zoned. The majority of the area is zoned for low -density
residential development, with some scattered commercial zoning along Highways 24 and 58.
Development of shoreline -dependent activities has been limited to Cedar Point and
Cape Carteret where seven and three marinas, respectively, have been constructed. One
marina exists on Bogue Bank in Emerald Isle. A fish processing facility is located on the White
Oak River.
The U.S. Marine Corps Air Station operates Bogue Field as an outlying landing field.
The facility is regularly utilized by jet aircraft. An increasing conflict exists with development
near the airfield, especially residential usage. Close coordination and planning must be
maintained between Carteret County and Marine Corps officials to prohibit increased land use
conflicts and to reduce the noise impacts from use of the facility.
1
1
1
1-64

Central sewer facilities do not exist. However, the West Carteret Water Corporation
has completed Phase II of its water system in White Oak. This phase included the extension
' of service from Highway 24 north of Highway 58 to the Parkerton Inn, just outside Cape
Carteret's ETJ. With this provision, the amount of development in the area should increase.
There are plans for a Phase III of construction which would extend service even further north
Iup Highway 58.
The White Oak Township contains extensive fragile areas. These include the sound
' and shoreline areas under CAMA jurisdiction, and extensive inland and fresh water areas. The
areas are: the Croatan National Forest, wooded swamps, regular and irregularly flooded salt
marshes, numerous pocosins, "404" wetlands areas, Bogue Sound outstanding resource
waters, and numerous islands in the Bogue Sound and White Oak River. (A detailed
description of the fragile areas is provided in Section I.F., Development Constraints.) Because
of the environmentally sensitive areas and generally poor conditions for construction,
' development will continue to be extremely limited in the area north of N.C. 24 and east of
U.S. 58.
' Public facilities are limited. The only facility currently within the county's area of
jurisdiction is the Stella Community Center. The county has acquired a plot of land within the
White Oak Township and is constructing a new elementary school and high school scheduled
for occupancy in the fall of 1998. The White Oak site is considered optimal by the county
since it is large enough to allow both schools to be located on the same plot. The facilities
located within incorporated areas include the Emerald Isle Volunteer Fire Department, the
Cape Carteret Volunteer Fire Department, the White Oak Elementary School, and the Western
Park Community Center.
There are numerous limitations to development in the White Oak Township. Most of
the limitations are fragile areas. Others include the Bogue Sound outstanding resource water
designation, lack of central sewer facilities, air operations at the Marine Corps Bogue outlying
landing field, and rapidly increasing traffic congestion on N.C. 24.
3. Global TransPark
' In 1991, the state enacted legislation and allocated funds to facilitate the development of the
Global TransPark (GTP). The intent of the GTP is to fully integrate air, rail, road, and sea
forms of transportation to serve the logistics requirements of manufacturing, distribution,
' agribusiness, and transportation related industries throughout the eastern United States.
The GTP has been sited at a large, underutilized FAA airport located in Kinston, approximately
' 80 miles east of North Carolina's Research Triangle Park and accessible to interstates, rail,
and the Morehead and Wilmington ports. The park will consist of a 5,000 acre international
air cargo -industrial complex centered by two long-range runways of over 11,500 feet each.
' Manufacturing and distribution facilities will be located along approximately 10 miles of
customized taxiways and ramps, enabling planes to dock adjacent to manufacturing and
distribution facilities. A computer -controlled tram network will move raw materials,
' components, and final products within the TransPark and to and from connecting intermodal
transportation systems.
1
1-65

I
J
Development of the GTP is being led by three groups - the Global TransPark Authority, the
Global TransPark Foundation, Inc., and the Global TransPark Development Commission. The
Global TransPark Authority is chaired by James B. Hunt, Jr., the Governor of North Carolina,
and is responsible for the planning, development, and operation of the GTP. The Global
TransPark Foundation, Inc., is raising funds through private donations to assist the Authority
with the development of the GTP. It will also play an important role in industrial recruitment.
The Global TransPark Development Commission is a coalition of thirteen counties, of which
Carteret County is a member, that form an Economic Development Zone established by the
General Assembly. The Commission will financially support economic development initiatives
in the member counties to accommodate businesses drawn to the region by the GTP.
The GTP will provide eastern North Carolina with the infrastructure necessary to become a
major center for industry and commerce. The GTP will provide additional jobs which will help
provide economic stability, reducing unemployment and poverty levels in the region. By the
time the Global TransPark reaches its twentieth year, it is expected to generate about 50,000
direct and indirect jobs. Ultimately, more than 90,000 jobs will have ties to the GTP site.
The Global TransPark will be a very significant asset to Carteret County's fishing industry.
By having quick access to international markets from Carteret County, Carteret County
fishermen and dealers will have opportunities to reach markets where the price for seafood
is much higher than in domestic U.S. markets, while at the same time minimizing
transportation overhead. In addition, the ability to reach international destinations within 24
hours will provide access to new markets for Carteret County seafood products, including live
fish and other fresh fish that can not currently be shipped internationally through other airports
due to the potential quality compromise resulting from extended truck transportation and
potential delays.
A second benefit will potentially derive to the Carteret County tourism and hospitality industry.
If the Global TransPark realizes its anticipated goals, there will be a significant influx of
population to Lenoir County and the surrounding counties, many of which have experienced
little population growth in recent years. It is likely that Carteret County will emerge as a
popular tourism destination for those new residents of the county surrounding the Global
TransPark, which will have a positive economic impact on area businesses and provide
significant sales and occupancy taxes for local governments in the county.
A third potential benefit to Carteret County will be the recruitment of new business and
industry in the region and increased business for the Port of Morehead City. The Port of
Morehead City will provide the only direct port/rail four -lane highway link to the Global
TransPark. If the Global TransPark is successful in generating new business activity in Lenoir
County and in the surrounding region, the Port of Morehead City should also benefit from
increased imports and exports. In addition, having the Global TransPark located approximately
70 miles from Carteret County will enhance Carteret County's ability to recruit additional
business and industry to the county which could utilize port and air transportation. Carteret
County is in the process of developing two industrial parks which will provide an opportunity
to accommodate new business and industry employing more workers at higher wages with
benefits on a year-round basis.
It is likely that representatives of companies which locate at the Global TransPark will in some
cases wish to own second homes at or near the coast. Carteret County should benefit from

I
�i
11
additional second home investments in new houses and condominiums. This type of
investment provides good employment in the construction trades, and it provides significant
tax base without significant demands on services. From a cost/benefit standpoint, second
home development on high -value real estate provides a significant positive economic return
to Carteret County, which is one of the reasons that Carteret County currently has the lowest
property tax rate in North Carolina.
4. Basinwide Water Quality 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 of North Carolina's surface waters while accommodating population increases and
economic growth.
The State of North Carolina has been divided into seventeen major river basins. For each river
basin, water quality problems are identified and appropriate management strategies developed.
The plan features basinwide permitting of pollution discharges, integration of existing point
and non -point source control programs, and preparation of a basinwide management plan
report.
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. Preparation of a basinwide management plan is a five year process.
In general, this process involves the following five major phases of development:
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.
The majority of Carteret County is located in the White Oak basin. A small portion of the
county, along its northern boundary with Craven County, extends into the Neuse Basin. The
White Oak basinwide management plan was submitted for staff review in January, 1996, and
received Environmental Management Commission approval in January, 1997. The Neuse
basinwide management plan received EMC approval in February, 1993.
Some of the major issues addressed in the White Oak and Neuse basinwide plans are as
follows:
Long-term Growth Management
-- Wastewater management (non -discharge, regionalization, ocean outfall).
-- Urban stormwater runoff/water quality.
-- Role of local land use planning.
Shellfish Water Closures
-- Increases in number of acres closed.
-- Examine link between growth and closures.
-- Opportunities for restoration and prevention.
1-67

Animal Operation Waste Management '.
-- Between 1990-1991, swine population has more than doubled.
Nutrients/Toxic Dinoflagellate '
-- Reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous levels.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has identified 24 watersheds within the White
'
Oak Basin, and six watersheds within the Neuse Basin which are located in Carteret County.
Each watershed has been assigned a fourteen -digit code for the purpose of identification.
These 14-digit watersheds are used as the basic unit for CAMA land use planning and are
different from the larger watersheds which are utilized as the basis for Basinwide Water
,
Quality Plans such as the White Oak and Neuse Basinwide Water Quality Management Plans.
Table 28, page 1-45, includes data for these watersheds.
'
To further define land use patterns within Carteret County and to aid in the correlation of
water quality problems and land use, the existing land use map is supplemented with Map 6,
Point Source Discharges and Marinas/Dockage. The point source discharge map shows
,
shoreline -related or water -dependent facilities, including marinas, many of which are
considered point source waste dischargers.
"point" "non
Sources of water pollution are classified as either or -point." As the name
implies, "point" sources are things you can point to, such as a pipe that empties treated
sewage into a river or a canal that carries industrial waste. These sources of pollution are
'
easy to identify and regulate. However, it has been estimated that 83% of the pollution in
North Carolina's estuaries is the result of "non -point" sources. Non -point sources include, but
are not limited to, impervious surfaces such as driveways, streets, and parking lots; roofs; golf
'
courses; lawns; pastures and farms. Stormwater runoff from these land uses carries
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, gasoline, oil, heavy metals, and other chemicals into streams,
rivers, and estuaries. The cumulative effects of these non -point sources are devastating to
the water quality in North Carolina's coastal areas.
'
Within Carteret County, the largest "non -point" source of water pollution comes from
agricultural runoff. Approximately 60,000 acres of land in the county are for agricultural use.
The majority of the agricultural acreage is located in the "Down -East" section of Carteret
County in the Merrimon, Straits, Smyrna, Davis, and Stacy townships. Non-agricultural non -
point sources of pollution are concentrated in the county's municipalities where the majority
of the land is developed. Approximately 25,000 acres of land in the county may be
considered urban and built-up. '
1-68 1

'
GOv
NCO
PTV
Legend
a
*Marina/Dockage
0 Point Source Discharge
— — — COUNTY BOUNDARY
/
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACON
/
NOT UNDER CARTERET COUNTY
/\
PLANNING JURISDICTION
/
'
EXTRA ERRrTORiAL JURISDICTION
�
I AREAS
NOT UNDER CARTERET COUNTY
4
PLANNING JURISDICTION
'
Towns of Cedar Point and
Bogue Corporate Lunt Line
NOTE: Shackelford Banks, Cape Lookout
Con Banks, and Portsmouth Island an a
part of the National Seashore System and
not under the planning jurisdiction of
Carteret County.
1
Note: The Emerald We Beach Corporate
Limit Line extends 1,200 feet into Bogue
Sound and parallais the Bogus Sound
/
shoreline.
CRAVEN COUNTY
/
i
i
COIN
NFWPORT RIVER
'
A
Y
\ ¢
0
o
o
o
UE 5
,0
~►,
eo
'ao
' ��
'
rare
Q
J
b� . .o+ri"
I
OCEA
A N T I C
A T L
i
1
1
1
f \
The preparation of this map was financed in 1T\ \
part through a grand provided by the NON+ \
PAMLICO SOUND Carolina Coastal Management Program.
through finds provided by the Coastal Zone f3
Management Act of 1972. as amended, which
is adminisf d by the Office of Ocean and
Coashai Resource Management, National
Oceamc and Atmospheric Administration.
1NTY
AARINAS/DOCKAGE, 1995
1-69

IC. LAND AND WATER USE COMPATIBILITY ANALYSIS
' 1. General Discussion
The development constraints of this plan will detail the importance of Carteret County's water
' areas. Bogue, Back, Core, and Pamlico Sounds are all significant marine water resources.
These environmentally sensitive areas also attract development to Carteret County. The 1989
designation of Core Sound, the western half of Bogue Sound, Back Sound, and southeast
' Pamlico Sound as outstanding resource waters (ORWs) will have strong implications for the
control of development. In addition, numerous primary nursery areas exist outside the ORW
designated areas on Bogue Sound, Newport River, West Bay, Long Bay, South River, Adams
I
Creek, White Oak River, and Neuse River. These nursery areas are environmentally important
and may also limit development.
' Existing land and water use compatibility problems in Carteret County's planning jurisdiction
are summarized as follows:
-- Continued development of scattered point discharge sources of pollution
along the county's shoreline.
'
-- Continuing marina development.
-- Continued development in areas not having central sewer service,
especially along the N.C. 24 corridor in Western Carteret County.
-- Conversion of extensive "404" wetlands areas to agricultural usage and
'
increased agricultural run-off of surface drainage.**
-- Increased impervious areas resulting in greater fresh water run-off.
-- Increased dredging activities associated with marinas and other shoreline
developments.
'
-- Military air operations over residential areas, water areas utilized for
recreation, commercial fishing, and natural areas.
'
-- A lack of county -wide zoning, especially in the "Down East" area.
-- Increased development of recreational vehicle parks.
t--
Increasing commercial and industrial development in the U.S. 70 corridor
between Morehead City and Newport.
'
-- Continued threat to marine resources from agricultural run-off.
Although Carteret County expects some net loss of wetlands, residential, commercial, and
' industrial development should not be allowed in coastal wetlands or freshwater wetlands as identified
on the land classification map provided in this plan (Map 17A and B).
1-70

2. Unplanned Development
Problems resulting from unplanned development have decreased during the 1980s and early
1990s. While the county has established some zoning and subdivision regulations, there
continue to be areas scattered within the county's planning jurisdiction where significant
problems have resulted from unplanned development.
The 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan cited Harkers Island as having "piecemeal site
development and an extensive amount of unpaved road." This situation still exists. As traffic
increases and the peak population grows, the problems of congestion and conflicting land uses
will intensify. As recommended in the 1991 land use plan, the county should consider zoning
Harkers Island to limit density and regulate land usage. Also, although no central sewer is yet
in place on Harkers Island, the community has already prepared a sewer feasibility study and
is pursuing construction of a sewer system.
The N.C. 24 corridor in Western Carteret County is zoned. However, strip development and
numerous residential and commercial entrances to this highway have been constructed. There
has been little comprehensive transportation planning. A comprehensive carrying capacity
study and transportation plan for the N.C. 24 corridor should be developed. The county
should investigate the possibility of requiring developments to install acceleration and
deceleration lanes at entrances. In addition, planning for the N.C. 24 corridor should consider
the impact of the construction of a third bridge connecting the mainland and Bogue Banks.
Since 1991, the proliferation of growth along the U.S. 70 corridor has continued. The county
should develop a comprehensive transportation plan for the U.S. 70 corridor.
Perhaps the county's greatest problem stemming from a lack of planning continues to be the
failure to deal comprehensively with sewage treatment. Only Morehead City, Beaufort, and
Newport provide municipal sewage treatment. With the exception of shoreline -related
development served by package treatment plants, and some areas adjacent to the three
municipalities with existing central sewer systems, the unincorporated areas of the county are
without central sewer service. The comprehensive development of a central sewer system
is crucial to the proper development of Western Carteret County. Continued low density in
most of the "Down East" area will probably prohibit construction of central sewer systems
within the next five to ten years.
3. Changes in Predominant Land Uses
The existing land development patterns are expected to continue. However, the following
land use changes may be expected during the planning period:
-- Each year "404" wetlands areas will continue to be lost to either
agriculture or development.
-- Agricultural areas adjacent to incorporated areas and along the N.C. 24
and U.S. 70 corridors will continue to be converted to urban uses.
-- Residential use in the "Down East" area will increase as the significance
of the area for retirement develops.
1-71

' -- "Down East" development will increase sewage disposal problems.
' -- The Bogue and Core Sound ORW designations will slow or prohibit
shoreline developments that cause additional point source pollution
discharge.
-- Aggressive annexation actions by municipalities may be expected to
continue.
4. Summary
' Carteret County is confronted with the complete range of land use issues and problems being
experienced by North Carolina's coastal counties. Many of those issues are the same ones
that existed in 1991. The following provides a summary of these issues:
' -- Increasing density of development in areas not serviced by central water
and sewer facilities.
' -- Increasing marinas and dry stack facilities.
' -- Low elevation and sea level rise.
-- Continued increasing traffic congestion in the U.S. 70 and N.C. 24
' corridors.
-- Conflicts between adjacent/nearby land uses and operation of aircraft at
' the Atlantic and Bogue Marine Corps outlying landing fields.
-- Extensive military operations areas and restricted airspace areas within
' Carteret County.
-- Offshore drilling and the receipt and transfer of oil or natural gas at the
' State Port facilities.
-- The development of "404" wetlands areas.
' -- The development of a strategy for sewage disposal, including the
county's position on the development of package treatment plants.
' Regulation of "non -point" sources of water pollution.
-- Continued operation of the Piney Island bombing range.
' -- Control of development in fragile and other areas of environmental
concern.
-- Protection of important commercial fishing areas.
' -- Development of the aquaculture industry.
' I-72

-- Usage of off -road or all -terrain vehicles in areas of environmental concern.
-- Regulation of "corporate" farms and increased run-off of agricultural
drainage.
-- Development of alternatives to the existing county solid waste disposal
system.
-- Provision of public shoreline access and shoreline and non -shoreline
related recreation areas.
-- Improvement of Bogue Banks access with possible construction of a
third bridge.
-- Continued development of the Michael J. Smith Airport.
-- Continued development of the N.C. State Port.
-- Development of an industrial park with water and sewer infrastructure.
-- The greatest concentrations of point and nonpoint pollution occur in the
following 14-digit watersheds:
03020106030050 (Broad Creek, Bogue Sound)
03020106030060 (Gales Creek, Bogue Sound)
03020106030070 (Newport River)
03020106040020 (Core Sound, Back Sound)
03020106050020 (Core Sound, Thorofare Bay, Nelson Bay)
03020106050050 (Cedar Island Bay, Core Sound)
1-73

ID. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: LAND SUITABILITY
This section of the land use plan focuses on those features of the county's landscape that
pose serious limitations, or in some cases, definite obstacles to development. These areas
may be divided into the categories of physical limitations, fragile areas, and areas with
' resource potential. These areas are primarily defined by natural features, and there is very
little subjective choice allowed in determining their locations. These constraints will strongly
influence the preparation of the land classification map.
1. Topography/Geology
' Carteret County is located in the south-central part of the North Carolina coastal plain. In
general, the county's land surface is a plain representing a former sea floor that has been
elevated above sea level in the relatively recent geologic past. The existing plain slopes
' toward the Atlantic Ocean at an overall rate of less than three feet per mile, and the
topography is flat and largely swampy. The sea has gradually returned to cover much of the
low ground in the coastal bays and extends up the streams to form broad estuaries. Wave
' and tidal action have built up a chain of offshore bars or banks which border the ocean and
are separated from the remainder of the county by Bogue, Back, and Core Sounds.
The south-central part of the Carteret County mainland is drained by the Newport and North
Rivers, the western part by the White Oak River, and the eastern and north -central parts by
the Pamlico Sound and Neuse River estuary system. Commonly, terraces extending in width
up to a mile border the more inland extent of the rivers, composing much of the freshwater
' wetlands in the county. The lower estuarine system is bordered primarily by saltwater
wetlands and ultimately sand beaches at the ocean juncture.
t The county is underlain by an eastward -thickening wedge of sedimentary deposits of
Pleistocene -age ranging from 2,000 feet thick in the northwest portions of the county to
almost 7,000 feet thick beneath the easternmost sections of offshore strand. Because of the
t depth of the surficial sand/siliceous deposits, little is known of the composition of underlying
deposits. Well logs indicate that shell fragments and calcareous material are consolidated into
a limestone at a depth of less than 120 feet west of Morehead City and at increasing depths
further eastward. Microfossils obtained from some well samples indicate that the uppermost
consolidated limestone is probably part of the Yorktown formation.
2. Flood Hazard Areas
Carteret County is affected by flooding from storm surge, local ponding of water, and some
limited flooding resulting from inland water discharge. The county is generally flat. From the
highest inland elevations of 45 feet, the land areas gradually slope toward the shoreline areas.
Approximately 60 percent of the county's land area lies at 15 feet mean sea level or less and
is potentially subject to flooding.
North Carolina frequently experiences hurricanes, tropical storms, and northeasters.
Hurricanes generally pass over a coastal location in a portion of a day, while a northeaster
may blow from the same direction for several days. Flooding from northeasters regularly
occurs in the lowlying areas, in particular the "Down East" portion of the county and along
the Outer Banks.
1-74

1
Within the county as a whole, the greater storm surge impact occurs from hurricanes. Map
7, Flood Hazard Areas, shows the areas of Carteret County which may be affected by
hurricane -generated storm surge. The various categories of storm surge areas are defined as
follows:
Category 1. 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 4. 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 of mobile 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.
H
r
n
1-75

LEGEND
CATEGORY I-2 SURGE AREA
' � CATEGORY 3 ADDITIONAL SURGE AREA
1
� C CATEGORY 4-5 ADDITIONAL SURGE AREA
'
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 cf
'
1972, as amended, which is
administered by the Office of
,
Ocean and Coastal Resource
`
Management, National Oceanic and
E ° f�--•
Atmospheric Administration.
_
, o_N S�: , -J
V
°
yam,• �..
P .4 li L t C C
i-76

The most severely affected section of the county during a major storm would be the "Down
East" area. A Category 3 storm would inundate over 50 percent of eastern Carteret County
and flood almost all highways. Only a small area west of the Atlantic community would be
spared flooding. In Western Carteret County, the areas of storm -induced flood lie along sound
and river shoreline areas and on Bogue Banks. The impact of the 1996 hurricanes on Carteret
County has been discussed in Section II, Part D, Redevelopment Issues, of this plan.
A long-range flooding problem may 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. If the
L
1
anticipated increase in sea level occurs, the impact on Carteret County will be substantial.
The areas shown on Map 7 as the Category 1 and 2 storm surge areas would be almost
totally inundated by a seven foot sea level rise. This would result in the loss of approximately
20 percent of the mainland land area, almost all of Shackleford and Core Banks, and
approximately half of Bogue Banks. With the exception of the Atlantic community and
portions of Harkers Island and Cedar Island, all "Down East" communities would be inundated.
In addition, substantial salt marsh areas would be lost. The whole issue of sea level rise has
serious implications for Carteret County, and the rate of rise must be carefully monitored.
Although Carteret County does not oppose bulkheading as a means of shoreline stabilization,
negative impacts from sea level rise are not anticipated during the planning period.
3. Groundwater Resources
In Carteret County, two chief types of geologic water -bearing formations, or aquifers, exist.
The surficial sands that cover the entire county supply water for most private domestic and
commercial use. The water table in the surficial sand aquifer is within ten feet of ground level
throughout the county. However, in the western portion of the county, the sands extend only
10-30 feet deep and do not yield enough water for industrial or heavy commercial use. In the
eastern portion of the county, the surficial sands extend down 300-400 feet. In these areas,
well yields of up to several hundred gallons per minute are possible, provided salt water
encroachment is not a problem at shallow depth. Generally, water from the surficial aquifer
has a high mineral content and is often treated by residents for potable use.
The surficial sands are underlain by unconsolidated and consolidated limestone formations.
The uppermost formation is the Yorktown, which is underlain by the Castle Hayne formation.
Together, the two limestone formations contain the tertiary limestone, or artesian, aquifer for
Carteret County. Although both formations contain unconsolidated sand and calcareous sand
beds, almost all wells entering the limestone draw water from consolidated or rock areas. All
existing municipal wells and domestic water association (Rogue Banks, Harkers Island) wells
in Carteret County draw fresh water from the artesian limestone aquifer.
The potential yield from the limestone aquifer is contingent upon location. The tertiary
limestone layer thickens from 600 feet to 1,400 feet moving eastward through the county;
however, depth to the top of the aquifer and the potential for salt water intrusion increase in
the eastern part of the county. Based on these considerations, potential yields are highest in
the western and central portions of the county's mainland. In certain areas, yields of up to
several thousand gallons per minute are conceivable. Smaller yields of a few hundred gallons
per minute from limestone artesian wells in the eastern mainland and southern banks are
1-77

possible, and artesian wells may provide a suitable resource for small municipal water
associations in these areas.
Water pumped from the artesian limestone aquifer is hard, with high levels of dissolved
calcium and bicarbonate. Test wells have not indicated an aquiclude or impermeable stratum
separating fresh and salt water layers in the limestone. However, it appears that in the
western and central areas of the county, where yields are the highest, salt water
encroachment is not yet a problem due to the high permeability of the limestone. Increasing
fresh water withdrawal, resulting in a larger depression of the artesian water surface, will
increase the potential for brackish water intrusion. About 2,500 square miles of the Castle
Hayne aquifer, including the portion underlying Carteret County, have been designated as a
capacity use area by the North Carolina Groundwater Section due to large groundwater
withdrawals by the PCS phosphate mine near Aurora. A capacity use area is defined as an
area where the use of water resources threatens to exceed the replenishment ability to the
extent that regulation may be required.
The surficial sands and artesian limestone aquifers rely on a natural cycle of groundwater
discharge and recharge. This cycle acts as a built-in regulator for the amount of stored
groundwater contained in the aquifers. The locations of groundwater discharge/recharge sites
within Carteret County are shown on Map 13, page 1-98. These sites are of importance since
water quality in these areas plays a critical role in the overall groundwater quality in the
aquifers.
Below the limestone aquifer there is a lower sandy aquifer that ranges from 1,400 feet thick
in the western portion of the county to over 4,000 feet thick in the east. However, salt water
intrusion makes this aquifer unsuitable for domestic supply.
4. Areas with Soils Limitations
A detailed soils survey has been completed for Carteret County. There are 53 different soil
types in the county. These are identified in Appendix 2. Twenty-three (23) of these are
considered hydric (wet) soils, and only ten are considered to be soils having only slight
limitations for construction. It is impossible to provide detailed soils maps in this plan because
of map size and scale; however, Map 8 provides a general soils map of Carteret County.
In general, the soils in Carteret County have limitations for many uses because of wetness,
rapid permeability, slow permeability, or low strength. Most of the soil types, however, are
suitable for various agricultural uses if proper drainage is provided.
With the county's rapidly increasing development and the absence of centralized sewer
service in many areas, the extent of soils suitable for urban development and septic tank
usage is extremely important. These soils are shown on the general soils map as Area
8/Baymeade-Onslow-Lynchburg association and Area 9/Altavista-Augusta-State association.
Most of these areas are located in Western Carteret County along the White Oak River, Bogue
Sound shoreline, Newport River, and on Bogue Banks. These will be the areas in the county
most suited for development. The Newhan-Corolla-Beaches association is located on Bogue
Banks and is also suited for development.
�J
1-78

C..Ouv�t t`F
Each area outlined on this Mao consists of
more than one kind of soil. The map Is thus
meant for general planning rather than a basis
for decisions on the use of specific tracts.
The preparation of this mop 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.
CR.aVEN
l a n t 1
A c
V e u , e
R I c e r
_ l
Swan Islands
101
76'10'
GENERAL SOIL MAP
Idi
LEGEND
VERY POORLY DRAINED AND POORLY DRAINED.
�1
MINERAL SOILS: ON UPLANDS AND TERRACES
12 Q`a
4 G
�
Delos-iomoher-Anwnoe: Nearly level. very Ddorly
atlantic 0 Z
drained and odory aratnea. loamy sons: on low marine and
• �+
stream terraces
%
�lasontowrt
ealevel o '`
Z
Tornunra•Pantego•Rams: Nearry level, very 000ny aralneo
loamy
^o
z ?-1
and Doorty aramea. sons: on uolanas
,
'JERY POORLY GRAINED. ORGANIC ANDMINERAL
J`
SOILS. IN SALT MARSHES
_—�4.50'
3
aJ
_ '
Lallne-HocucxenGrteret: Nearry level, very poorly
0 0
t
aramea. mucxv and sandy Sons: in marshes tlopaea
i 6.20'
freauentty wtm salt water
S.
Davis 3 10
EXCESSIVELY DRAINED TO VERY POORLY DRAINED.
•
G
MINERAL SOILS: ON UPLANDS AND TERRACES
a
a
C c •v
y
Loon-MurvJk-ManWrm: Nearly lavet to gently sbotrtg.
_
GO a O�
l�1
1 • I
poorly drained. very Poorly drained. And somewhat
t�
poorly
arari sandy soils that have,a suDsdn In wntch organic
V Davis
�'� �� `
matter has ancumuuted: on uounas and low manna
3Island
�
terraces
Inv�
a
qpi-�3
a/ r`
®
Wando-Seabrook-Kureb: Nearly level to gently sloomg, welt
1 arshallbe
drained. moderately well drained. and excessively drained.
o�m
SanitySolis: on uolands and tenects
`
ns
and
a^��
7v
VERY POORLY DRAINED. ORGANIC SOILS AND MINERAL
SOILS THAT HAVE A MUCKY SURFACE LAYER: ON
Youth V
�e
UPLANDS AND TERRACES
PonM-Wasaa-Belhaven: Nearty level. very owny drained.
a l 34.40'
—
muctry low on w marine terraces
Croatan: Nearly level, very Doony drained, mucky sons: on
uounas
i• 30'
WELL DRAINED TO SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED.
MINERAL SOILS: ON UPLANDS AND TERRACES
Baymeade-Onsbv.lynchburg: Nearty level to gently sloo-
ing, well drained to som"nat poorly drained. sandy and
loamy soils: on uolands
®AlUvtsta-Augusta-State:
Nearly level. moderately well
drained, somewhat Poorly drained. and well drained. sandy
Solis: on taw marine and stream terraces
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. FOREST SERVICE
EXCESSIVELY DRAINED APOMODERATELYWELL
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DRAINED TO SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED. MINERAL
SOILS AND BEACHES: ON THE OUTER BANKS
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
Ne""aLOTdlu-eea`Nearry lWelld moderately steed.
excessively aratnad and moderately well drained to some -
CA RT E R ET COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
what 000ny aratned. sandy sous and Beaches: on the outer
GENERAL SOIL MAP
Banks
VERY RLY DRAINED.
ON MINERAL AND ORGANIC
CARTERET COUNTY
SOILS: FLOOD PLAINS
NORTHCAROLINA
1i.
Masontown-0orovan: Nearly level. very poorly drained.
mucky sous mat are flooded frequently: on flood plains
Scale 1: 316,800
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles
The texture given in the numbered desenotkxn refers to
me texture of the surface layer of the maw sods.
1 0 5 10 Km
COMPILED 1986
MAP 8
1-79

5. Manmade Hazards
' There are numerous manmade hazards which will serve as obstacles to development in
Carteret County. These include:
' -- Radio Island Aviation Fuel Terminal
-- Marine Corps Bogue Air Landing Field
-- Atlantic Outlying Field
_= Point of Marsh and the Piney Island Mid -Atlantic Electronic Warfare Range
Restricted Air Military Operations Area R-5306A
-- Beaufort -Morehead Airport
' In addition, there are numerous locations throughout the county where hazardous materials
are stored. The specific locations are provided in Appendix 3.
' The most serious conflicts with development are the military air operations (MOAs) and
bombing range facilities. Development near Bogue Field is causing increasing conflicts, and
' aircraft operations have serious noise impacts on developed areas. There is also the potential
for aircraft crashes. Since the land use plan was last updated in 1991, there has been no
significant expansion of MOAs which would increase manmade hazards in the county. There
' has been an increase in the use of the Mid -Atlantic Electronic Warfare Range (MAEWR) at
Piney Island, but due to its isolation from developed areas, no additional hazard is imposed.
Atlantic Field remains partially closed, and no additional activities are expected during the
' planning period. The bombing range and restricted area R-5306A (see Map 9, General
Delineation of Military Aviation Restricted Areas) restrict civilian aircraft operations and are
incompatible with many nonmilitary land uses, including recreational and residential uses.
The Radio Island Aviation Fuel Terminal is the largest hazardous materials facility in the
county. The terminal is under county planning jurisdiction. Shipments of aviation fuel
regularly travel by rail to Cherry Point Marine Corps Air Station through Morehead City and
Central Carteret County.
1 The Beaufort -Morehead Airport is located within the Town of Beaufort's planning jurisdiction.
Presently, the airport's general aviation activity has limited adverse impact on surrounding
areas. However, expansion of the airport and the introduction of jet aircraft could lead to
conflicts and increased hazards for surrounding development. The establishment of offshore
drilling, or the construction of the Global TransPark, would provide strong stimulants for airport
development.
' There are no electric generating plants located in or proposed for Carteret County. However,
Carteret County supports the development of responsible and environmentally safe energy
' production and distribution facilities.
1
1-80

PAMLICO CO.
7
10
i
CD
1
5 \` 7
ONSLO11V Co. \ EAUFORT
III MOREHEA
1 �V CITY
/II
MAP 9
CARTERET COUNTY
GENERAL DELINEATION MILITARY AVIATION
RESTRICTED AREAS
M
BOUNDARY RESTRICTED W5�����
AREAS
SCALE
0 5 10 20 SCALE OF MILES
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.

' 6. Fragile Areas
' Fragile areas are areas which could easily be damaged or destroyed by inappropriate,
unplanned, or poorly planned development. These areas include Areas of Environmental
Concern (AEC's) as shown on Map 10; wooded swamps, salt marshes, and 404 wetland
' areas as shown on Map 11 A; and natural heritage areas as shown on Map 11 B. Most of the
inland fragile areas are located away from high growth areas. However, there are many
conflicts in the coastal/shoreline areas of the county between development and AECs and
I
fragile areas.
a. Coastal Wetlands
' The coastal wetlands are generally delineated on Map 10, Areas of Environmental
Concern. 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 by
the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) as salt marshes regularly- or irregularly -flooded by
tides, including wind tides, provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical storm tides.
' This area contains 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. 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.
Ib. Ocean Dunes
As defined by the CRC, ocean dunes include both primary dunes and frontal dunes.
All of the county's ocean dune areas are located on Bogue, Shackleford, and Core Banks. The
only area under county jurisdiction is approximately a 3,000 foot stretch of Bogue Banks at
Salter Path. Primary dunes are the first mounds of sand located landward of the ocean
beaches having an elevation equal to the mean flood level (in a storm having a one percent
chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given space) for the area plus six feet. The
primary dune extends landward to the lowest elevation in the depression behind that same
' mound of sand. In areas where there is a primary dune, that dune shall be deemed to be the
frontal dune. Where there is no primary dune, the frontal dune is deemed to be the first
mound of sand located landward of the ocean beach having sufficient vegetation, height,
' continuity and configuration to offer protective value. The dunes are essential to the
protection of oceanfront areas.
' C. Ocean Beaches and Shorelines
Ocean beaches are defined by the CRC as lands consisting of unconsolidated soil
' materials that extend from the mean low water line landward to a point where either (1) the
growth of vegetation occurs, or (2) a distinct change in slope or elevation alters the
configuration of the land form, whichever is farther landward. The only area of ocean beach
' under Carteret County planning jurisdiction is a 3,000 foot stretch of Bogue Banks at Salter
Path.
1
1-82

CRAVEN COUNTY
A I LAN-TJL
APE LOOKOUT
CARTERET COUNTY
AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
preparallgon of this i p was
/ financed in port Through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal funs emend Pro ram,
Through funds provided by the
/ I Coastal Zone Management Act of
administered
as amended, which 13
adminislered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
/ Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
r
LEGEND
_ COASTAL WETLANDS
See Note 3
See Note I ESTUARINE WATERS
Sae Note 2 ESTUARINE SHORELINE
See Note I PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
_ PRIMARY NURSERY AREAS
SPECIAL SECONDARY NURSERY AREAS
NOTES: ® OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
I. All waters under the Jurisdiction of Carteret
County are either Estuarine Waters or Public _ _ _ COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
Trust Areas as defined In 15 NCAC 7H.0206
Estuarine Waters and .0207 Public Trust Areas.
Outstanding Resource Waters areas are Public INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
Trust Areas of Environmental Concern. MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
2.In shoreline areas not contiguous to waters
classified as Oustonding Resource Waters by the EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
Envlronmenfal Management Commissar, all land 75 UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
feet landward from the mean high water level or JURISDICTION
normal wale' level are considered to be Estuarine
Shorelfnes. In shoreline areas contiguous to HIGH HAZARD FLOOD AREAS: Refer to Map 7,
waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters Flood Hazard Areas
by the Environmental Management Commission, oil
land 575 feel landward from the mean high water
level or normal water level are considered to be .� Towns of Cedar Point and
Estuarine Shorelines. Bogue Corporate Limit Line
3, Throughout Carteret County, locations of Coastal
Wetland areas must be determined through on -site
analysis.
4. Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning Jurisdiction of Carteret County.
5. The Emerald Isis Beach corporate
limit line extends 1,200 feet Into Bogus
Sound and parallels the Bogus Sound
shoreline.
6. A portion of the Theodore Roosevelt Natural
Are: has been designated a Outstanding Resource
Waters. The designation does not extend Into the
sagne waters of Bogue Sound. This entire ORW
Is under the Jurisdiction of Pine Knoll Shores and
Is not delineated on the Carteret County Land
Classification Map.
7. The locations of Significant Natural Heritage Areas have been
provided on Map 11 b.
i

■ SITES LISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
OF HISTORIC PLACES
1. CAPE LOOKOUT COAST GUARD STATION
2. CAPE LOOKOUT LIGHT STATION
3. PORTSMOUTH VILLAGE
G0J
E5
JO mil_
T
F-
Z
C)
0
U
0
0
Z
0
. SITES ON THE STUDY LIST FOR FUTURE
INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER
I. RUFUS BELL HOUSE
2. HANOT CREEK PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH
CRAVEN COUNTY
CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY LINE
O C E A N
A T L A N T I C
'Cy
ccJN
Q �Lv�R
N��SE
\ sJs. �• r/
SCALE
I 0 1 2 3 4 MILES
�, • 2
CAPE LOOKOUT
PAMLICO SOUND
/J
�O
J
O
C2 er' ;r .
WOODED SWAMPS
IRREGULARLY FLOODED
SALT MARSH
REGULARLY FLOODED
pO
SALT MARSH
c
NON -WETLAND
POSSIIBBLE 404 WETLAND
ARE
MAP 1 1 A
CARTERET COUNTY
FRAGILE AREAS
�v
CIO
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.
LEGEND
Towns of Cedar Point and
Bogue Corporate Limit Line
CROATAN NATIONAL FOREST:
Some scattered parcels ore
located within the boundaries
Of the Crootan National Forest
which are not federally owned
properties.
-- COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNDER CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
OEXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
NOTE: Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning jurisdiction of Carteret County.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS 1,200 FEET INTO BOGUE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE BOGUE SOUND
SHORELINE.
1-84

. ... . . ..... ..
. . .... .... ... ......... .
I
all
280
1465
MY
10 1 "MA
Note: See Tabic3ofor description of the National
Heritage areas as indicated on this map

d. Estuarine Waters
Estuarine waters are generally brackish waters found in coastal estuaries and bays.
The boundary lines between inland and coastal fishing waters are set forth in an agreement
adopted by the Wildlife Resources Commission and the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, and are provided in the most current revision of the North Carolina Marine
Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters, codified at 15A NCAC 3Q-0200. It should be noted
that this boundary line changes regularly, and the Marine Fisheries Regulations should be
frequently consulted. Within Carteret County, estuarine waters include waters located within
the Bogue, Core, and Pamlico sounds. 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 of
Carteret County. The waters support the valuable commercial and sports fisheries of the
coastal area which are comprised of estuarine dependent species such as menhaden, flounder,
shrimp, crabs, and oysters.
e. Estuarine Shorelines
Estuarine shorelines are defined by the CRC as 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. The estuarine shoreline area extends from the mean high
water level or normal water level along the estuaries, sounds, bays, and brackish waters for
a distance of 75 feet landward. For those estuarine shorelines immediately contiguous to
waters classified as Outstanding Resource Waters, the estuarine shoreline shall extend
landward from the mean high water level for 575 feet. Development within the estuarine
shorelines influences the quality of estuarine life and is subject to the damaging processes of
shorefront erosion and flooding.
f. Public Trust Areas
Public trust areas are defined by the CRC as 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
I I
3M

(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.
g. Maritime Forests
Maritime forests are defined by the CRC as areas containing native salt tolerant
vegetation. Exposure to salt spray causes the vegetation to have a sheared appearance that
is shaped according to contours of adjacent land forms. The forests contain loblolly pine,
sweet gum, live oak, and red maple as the dominant tree types. The trees grow slowly
because of very low available water capacity, occasional salt water flooding, and exposure
to salt spray. The forests are important animal habitats. The Maritime Forest Protection
Initiative, May 24, 1990, identified the following major maritime forest sites within Carteret
County:
Site Name
Shackleford
Hoop Hole Creek
Atlantic Station
Ocean Ridge
Roosevelt Natural
Area
Indian Beach
Salter Path
Piney Point
Emerald Isle Canal
Emerald Isle Bridge
Emerald Isle Woods
Location
Size/Acres
Ownership
Shackleford Banks
90
Private
Atlantic Beach
12
Private
Atlantic Beach
45
Private
Atlantic Beach
15
Private
Pine Knoll Shores
310
Public/Private
Indian Beach
33
Private
Salter Path
52
Private
Emerald Isle
50
Private
Emerald Isle
64
Private
Emerald Isle
86
Private
Emerald Isle
75
Private
None of these sites are under the jurisdiction of Carteret County. Development has
occurred in many of these areas since 1990. Such developed areas may no longer be
considered a significant part of the state's maritime forest inventory.
h. Historic and Archaeological Sites
Carteret County contains many historically significant sites. However, many of those
sites are located within incorporated areas, most notably the extensive historically significant
properties in Beaufort. The following identifies the properties located within Carteret County's
1-87

' planning jurisdiction which are on the National Register of Historic Places or are being studied
for inclusion (see Map 11 A):
' Sites Listed in the National Register of Historic Places
1. Cape Lookout Coast Guard Station Core Banks National significance
2. Cape Lookout Light Station Core Banks National significance
3. Portsmouth Village Cape Lookout National National significance
Seashore northern end
of Portsmouth Island
' Sites on the Study List for future inclusion in the National Register
1. Rufus Bell House West side of N.C. 101, 0.6 mi. north of the
junction with S.R. 1155, Harlowe.
2. Hadnot Creek East side of S.R. 1104, 1.5 mi. north of S.R.
Primitive Baptist Church 1104's south junction with N.C. 58, Pelletier
vicinity.
' There are 245 recorded sites within the county which have archaeological significance;
however, a complete survey has not been performed. The recorded sites are generally located
' along the sound side shoreline of western Bogue Banks, the White Oak River shoreline, within
Cape Carteret, along Gales Creek, along Harlowe Creek and ditch, the western shoreline areas
of the Newport River, Fort Macon, Harkers Island, and the Beaufort waterfront. Specific site
' locations are not available for release to the general public (see North Carolina General Statute
70-5). Anyone undertaking land -disturbing activities in these areas should contact the North
Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History.
L 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.
1
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.
Map 11 A, Fragile Areas, provides a general delineation of wetlands areas. A more
detailed map provided by the Division of Coastal Management will be left on file, and available
for public review, at the Carteret County Planning and Inspections Department. This map is
much too detailed to be reduced and included in the land use plan. However, 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. This map is for general information only.
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 furbearing animals,
endangered species, and other wildlife.
The following provides a summary of the Division of Coastal Management's estimated
wetland acreage by wetland type for Carteret County.
Area
(acres)
Wetland Type
Unaltered
Drained
Cutover
Total
Salt/Brackish Marsh
53,000
4,700
0
57,700
Freshwater Marsh
450
360
0
810
Estuarine Shrub Scrub
6,400
340
200
6,940
Pocosin
37,000
4,200
380
41,580
Bottomland Hardwood
1,700
160
110
1,970
Riverine Swamp Forest
5,000
300
0
5,300
Depressional Swamp Forest
1,800
370
98
2,268
Hardwood Flat
7,100
280
430
7,810
Pine Flat
32,000
4,100
3,000
39,100
Managed Pineland
30,000
N/A
N/A
30,000
Estuarine Forest
170
0
0
170
Maritime Forest
150
0
46
196
Headwater Swamp
4,300
280
1,000
5,580
Human Impacted
1,700
N/A
N/A
1,700
Total
180,770
15,090
5,264
201,124
j. Natural Heritage Areas
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program compiles the N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources' list of significant "Natural Heritage Areas" as required by
the Nature Preserves Act (NCGS Chapter 113A-164 of Article 9A). The list is based on the
program's inventory of the natural diversity in the state. Natural areas (sites) are evaluated
on the basis of the occurrences of rare plant and animal species, rare or high quality natural
communities, and geologic features. The global and statewide rarity of these elements and
the quality of their occurrence at a site relative to other occurrences determine a site's
significance rating.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has identified 1,678 significant natural
heritage areas within North Carolina of which 45 are located within Carteret County. Table
30 provides a summary of the natural heritage areas in Carteret County. The sites included
on this list are the best known representatives of the natural diversity of the county and
therefore have priority for protection. Inclusion on this list does not mean that public access
exists or is appropriate. Permission of the landowner is recommended in all cases. Inclusion
on this list does not confer protection to a site, nor does it give it regulatory status. The list

includes both protected and unprotected areas. This list of sites and their significance ratings
are based on the best available information as derived from the Natural Heritage Program staff
' and databases. More information on these natural areas may be obtained from the Natural
Heritage Program.
' Table 30
Carteret County
Natural Heritage Areas
Site Number*
Site Name
Significance
Acres
29
Atlantic Natural Area
B
7,559.74
133
Billfinger Road Flatwoods
B
73.54
168
Bogue Inlet Outcrop
B
2.00
169
Bogue Inlet/Bogue Sound Bird Nesting Islands
B
4,742.40
193
Browns Island
C
671.78
313
Cedar Island Flatwoods and Bays
C
3,148.56
314
Cedar Island Marshes
A
10,460.38
315
Cedar Island Shell Midden
D
317
Cedar Island/North Bay Barrier Strand
B
657.89
321
Cedar Point/White Oak River Marshes
C
265.56
334
Cherry Point Atlantic Field Runway Complex
B
77.28
336
Cherry Point Piney Island
B
12,159.65
397
Core Banks and Portsmouth Island
A
22,326.03
398
Core Sound (Wainwright) Nesting Islands
B
17.71
511
Emerald Isle/West End Beach
B
24.21
609
Fort Macon State Park/
C
478.18
665
Great Lake/Pond Pine Wilderness Natural Area
A
397.76
685
Hadnot Creek Natural Area
C
582.11
686
Hadnot Creek Ponds and Longleaf Pine Woods
C
584.82
716
Hibbs Road Pine Ridges
B
3,159.65
752
Hoop Hole Creek Maritime Forest
C
13.50
777
Indian Beach Maritime Forest
C
136.41
839
Lake Ellis Simon
B
1,865.80
970
Masontown Pocosin
B
3,653.93
1022
Millis Road Savannas and Pocosins
A
1,392.51
1023
Millis Swamp Road Pinewoods
C
346.18
1087
New Dump Island Bird Nesting Colony
C
9.22
1 108
Nine Foot Road/Broad Creek Pinewoods
B
726.93
1109
Nine Foot Road/Roberts Road Limesink Ponds
B
592.99
1123
North River Brackish Marshes
C
2,049.93
1 142
Ocracoke Inlet Bird Nesting Islands
B
79.59
1183
Patsy Pond Limesink Complex
A
711.98
1196
Pettiford Creek Open Flatwoods
B
214.43
1 199
Phillips and Annex Islands
D
1238
Pocosin Wilderness
A
19,133.12
1254
Pringle Road Bay Rims
A
2,448.02
M

Table 30 (continued)
H
Site Number*
Site Name
Significance
Acres
1265
Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve
B
1,954.02
1350
Salter Path Dunes Natural Area
D
22.00
1351
Salter Path Maritime Forest
B
65.19
1356
Sandbag Island Bird Nesting Colony
B
8.91
1385
Sea Gate Woods
D
200.00
1393
Shackleford Banks
A
5,465.39
1538
Theodore Roosevelt State Natural Area
A
300.98
1578
Union Point Pocosin
C
5,746.77
1627
Walkers Millpond and Black Creek
C
766.97
*Site numbers correspond with Map 11B.
Key to significance column:
A Nationally significant sites contain examples of natural communities, rare plant or animal
populations, or geologic features that are among the highest quality or best of their kind in the
nation, or clusters of such elements that are among the best in the nation.
B Statewide significant sites contain similar ecological resources that are among the highest
quality occurrences in North Carolina. There may be better quality representations or larger
populations elsewhere in the nation, including possibly a few within the state.
C Regionally significant sites contain natural elements that may be represented elsewhere in the
state by better quality examples, but which are among the outstanding examples in their
geographic region of the state. A few better examples may occur in nationally or state
significant sites.
D These sites are of local significance and are important on a county level basis.
Source: N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation.
k. Outstanding Resource Waters
In 1989, the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission designated certain
waters within North Carolina as Outstanding Resource Waters. These areas were designated
because they were considered to be significant marine resource areas having relatively clean
and pristine waters, and having significant value as recreational and natural resource areas.
Three areas of Carteret County were designated: (1) Western Bogue Sound, (1) Core and
Back Sounds, and (3) Southeast Pamlico Sound. Special development controls may be
imposed in each area. Development activities located within a distance of 575 feet landward
of a designated ORW are subject to CAMA permitting requirements (rather than the standard
distance of 75 feet landward from other, non-ORW estuarine waters). The Outstanding
Resource Waters areas are shown on Map 10, Areas of Environmental Concern.
1. Slopes in Excess of 12%
In Carteret County, slopes of 12% or greater are normally not found except on the
outer banks areas, where they are related to dune development. Ocean dunes affect Carteret
County's planning jurisdiction only in the Salter Path area of Bogue Banks. The only other area
in Carteret County with slopes in excess of 12% are scattered bluffs along the White Oak
River.
1-91

IM. Excessive Erosion Areas
' Excessive erosion areas include ocean, sound, river, and inlet erodible areas.
Permanent construction within these areas should be limited unless stabilization along the
affected shoreline can be accomplished.
' Excessive or rapid erosion areas are found:
-- along the Intracoastal Waterway, especially along Core Creek
along most ocean beaches
along most estuarine shorelines having northeast exposure
-- along areas of the Bogue Sound shoreline
n. Sound and Estuarine Islands
' Carteret County contains numerous sound and estuarine islands. Concentrations of
such may be found at the mouths of the Newport and North Rivers and at the eastern most
portion of the county (i.e., Piney and Cedar Islands). Several of the county's sound and
' estuarine islands have been identified by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as
Natural Heritage Areas. Table 30 provides a summary of Natural Heritage Areas in the
county. The county encourages public purchase and conservation of these areas.
' 7. Areas of Resource Potential
I
a. Agricultural and Forestlands
Agricultural and forest lands have significant resource potential. Both agriculture and
forestry comprise important elements of the Carteret County economy. Map 4, Existing Land
Use, indicates significant agricultural and forestry production areas. However, many wetlands
areas may also be significant producers of forest resources.
Lands best suited for agricultural production may be located in the Carteret County Soil
Conservation Service detailed soil survey. Most soils in the county may be productive for
agricultural purposes if properly drained. However, "404" wetlands regulations may prohibit
the draining of many areas. The lands best suited for agricultural production are also the areas
best suited for development. Prime agricultural lands will continue to be lost to expanding
urban and built-up areas. Map 8 provides soil association locations. The agricultural
capabilities of Carteret County soils are summarized in Table 31.
1
1-92

Table 31
Carteret County, NC - Agricultural Farmland
Soil Association and Management Limitation Rate (Refer to Map 8)
Soil
Land Capability
Assoc. No.
Soil Association
Class
1
Deloss-Tomotley-Arapahoe
3w
2
Torhunta-Pantego-Rains
3w
3
Lafitte-Hobucken-Carteret
8w
4
Leon-Murville-Mand arin
4w-6s-5w
5
Wando-Seabrook-Kureb
3s to 7s
6
Ponzer-Wasda-Belhaven
3w to 4w
7
Croatan
4w
8
Baymeade-Onslow-Lynchburg
3s-2w-2w
9
Altavista -Augusta -State
2w-3w-1
10
Newhan-Corolla-Beach
8w-7w---
1 1
Masontown-Dorovan
7w
Source: Carteret County Soil Conservation Service Detailed Soil Survey.
usage:
Land capability classifications indicate relative degrees of limitation for agricultural
1 - slight limitation, to
8 - severe and restrictive limitations
w = wetness; s = low fertility
b. Public Forests
The Croatan National Forest includes 56,624 acres of Carteret County. The forest is
managed by the U.S. Forestry Service as a national recreation area and forest resource. The
area includes substantial fresh water wetlands, fragile natural areas, and provides habitat for
many endangered species. As private lands across the State continue to be developed or used
for intensive silviculture, areas such as the Croatan National Forest are becoming increasingly
important as major areas of biodiversity. The Croatan National Forest is delineated on Map
11 A, Fragile Areas.
C. Public Parks
The major public parks in Carteret County are either federally or state owned and are
located on the Outer Banks. The Cape Lookout National Seashore is of national significance
and is located on Shackleford and Core Banks. The Fort Macon State Park is of state-wide
significance and is located on the north end of Bogue Banks. The Theodore 'Roosevelt State
Park is also located on Bogue Banks at Salter Path.
The principal landward park areas are passive recreational facilities scattered
throughout the Croatan National Forest.
1-93

Id. Public Gamelands
The only public gameland in Carteret County is the Cedar Island Wildlife Refuge. The
area is a significant roosting and feeding area for many waterbirds. Hunting is not allowed.
' e. Private Wildlife Sanctuaries
There are no significant private wildlife sanctuaries in Carteret County.
' f. Valuable Mineral Resources
' There are some peat deposits in Carteret County. However, based on past studies, it
does not appear that mining of the deposits is economically feasible. There are no significant
phosphate deposits in Carteret County.
g. Marine Resources
' Carteret County's marine resources are delineated on Map 12. The outstanding
resource value of Core, Bogue, Back, and Pamlico Sounds is primarily due to the presence of
seagrass beds and their associated finfish and shellfish resources.
' The seagrass resource is of major importance. It is believed that North Carolina is
second only to Florida in abundance of seagrasses. Of the approximately 200,000 acres of
' seagrass existing in North Carolina, 20 percent is located in the Bogue, Back, and Core Sound
watersheds. Three types of seagrasses are found in these areas: eelgrass, shoalgrass, and
widgeon grass.
' The eelgrass variety is the most dominant. The seagrasses provide a safe environment
for marine life, help stabilize the sound bottom, impede water currents, and allow the passive
settling of marine larvae and fine particle organics.
The seagrass beds are essential to the abundance of many of North Carolina's coastal
fisheries, including the bay scallop and hard clam. In addition, the grass beds provide cover,
protection and food sources for estuarine finfish. Flounder, croaker, trout, and mullet are the
more numerous estuarine finfish caught for commercial and recreational purposes.
' The county's marine resources provide important nesting and living environments for
several endangered and protected species. These include the green .sea turtle, leatherback
sea turtle, and loggerhead sea turtle. Many of the county's beach (ocean hazard) areas
' provide vital turtle nesting areas.
The major concentrations of primary nursery areas in the county can be found in the
' North River; Long Bay, Pamlico Sound; Newport River; Core/Harlowe Creek, Newport; Core
Sound, Thorofare Bay, Nelson Bay; and the Hadnot Creek, White Oak River watersheds.
Smaller primary nursery areas are located in several other watersheds throughout the county.
' I-94

1
1
CRAVEN COUNTY
�y
I
a
11
dO
F
•� ��
. i
BgGU 5
v
:;
ewn sus
C
�
,1
0CEAIN
ATLANTIC
Nay
NEVS� �
Is
*
* *
* * *
*
* PAMLICO SOUND
MAP 12
CARTERET COUNTY
MARINE RESOURCES
The preparation of this map •as
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, wn4ch Is
odmWslered by fhe Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource -
Management. National Oceanic end
Atmospheric Administration.
LEGEND
SEAGRASS BEDS
(SUB -AQUATIC VASCULAR PLANTS)
0
PRIMARY NURSERY AREAS
'R
OYSTER CULTCH SITES
—
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACON NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PlAN1M
JURISDICTION
.''
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
Towns of Cedar Point and
Bogue Corporate Limit Line
NOTE: I YfATER CLAASIFICAT10N3- N eelwrl"
OW Public WW all voters In Carteret Cmntr en
clas iflad SA. except for the north end of Nelsen
Bay. seal of north sof Nelson Bay is classified
NOTE: 2 Shockleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Con
Banks, and Portsmouth Island an a Part of the
National Seashore System and not ceder the
Planning Iurl"ClIon of Cerlerel County.
NOTE: 3 The Emerald We Beach corporate WNf
tee eslanM L200 fe•I into Bogor SoW end
Pen11e1 the Bogor south elareene.
CAPE LOOKOUT
1-95

1
I
I
In addition, Map 12 shows the location of oyster cultch planting sites within the
county. The largest concentrations of sites are located in the South River, Turnagain Bay;
Long Bay, Pamlico Sound; Newport River; and the Core/Harlowe Creek, Newport watersheds.
With the exception of the Newport River, the majority of the oyster cultch sites lie in the rivers
and bays of the extreme northeastern portions of Carteret County. It is important to note that
there has been a steady annual decline in the areas open to shellfishing within Carteret County
since 1980. In Carteret County, there are approximately 305,050 acres of total shellfishing
area. Of that area, 5,315 acres were announced closed in 1980. By 1989, the number of
acres closed had reached 7,886, and as of November, 1995, the total had climbed to 8,934.
Thus, over a 15-year period, the closed areas increased by 3,619 acres, a 68% increase. The
closed 1995 areas represented 2.93% of the county's total shellfishing areas.
According to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, in 1994 several of
Carteret County's watersheds experienced considerably high percentages of areas closed to
shellfishing in relation to total shellfishing waters within the entire watershed. In watershed
03020106030030 (Newport River), 78% of the total shellfishing waters had been closed,
watershed 03020106020020 (Hadnot Creek, White Oak River) 74%, watershed
03020106030060 (Gales Creek, Bogue Sound) 50%, and watershed 03020106030050
(Broad Creek, Bogue Sound) 17%. Two of these areas, Broad Creek, Bogue Sound and Gales
Creek, Bogue Sound have concentrations of point and nonpoint pollution and contain primarily
urban or built-up land. The Newport River and Hadnot Creek, White Oak River are primarily
forestland. The areas closed to shellfishing are generally delineated on Map 13. Since closed
shellfishing areas may change several times during the shelf life of this plan, a current map
may be obtained from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries showing all areas which
are closed to shellfishing.
While not shown on the marine resources map, significant crab spawning areas are
located in Core Sound. These area
Cape Lookout and Barden Inlet and
s are located north and south of Drum Inlet and behind
stretching almost to Harkers Island.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality assigns water quality classifications to
all waters of the State of North Carolina. The schedule of classifications is provided by 15
NCAC 26.0302 to .0317 (see Appendix 4). The classifications are based upon the existing
or contemplated best usage of the various streams and segments of streams within a basin,
as determined through studies, evaluations, and comments received at public hearings. The
state classifies tidal salt waters as follows:
Class SA: shellfishing for market purposes and any other usage
specified by the "SB" and "SC" classification;
Class SB: primary recreation and any other usage specified by the
"SC" classification;
Class SC: fish and wildlife propagation, secondary recreation, and
other uses requiring waters of lower quality.
Class C: aquatic life propagation and survival, secondary
recreation, and agriculture.
192

Most of the waters within Carteret County's planning jurisdiction are classified SA.
Exceptions include Nelson Bay and many of the streams and tributaries feeding into the
county's sounds. Nelson Bay is the location of the outfall for one of the Open Ground Farms'
major drainage ditches and is classified SC. Map 13 provides a general location of the water
quality classes for Carteret County. The SC locations cannot be accurately mapped in this
land use plan. Therefore, the written descriptions must be relied upon for SC locations.
In October, 1989, the state Environmental Management Commission established a High
Quality Waters classification. This action was in response to federal antidegradation
regulations which require that the quality of waters with quality higher than that defined by
the state's existing classification standards be maintained through additional protective
measures. The General Procedures Rule and Antidegradation Policy are defined by 15A NCAC
213.0101 and 15A NCAC 26.0201, respectively. Stricter requirements for water quality
standards, wastewater treatment, and stormwater runoff control will apply to high quality
water designated areas. The standards are defined in 15A NCAC 213.0201. All SA waters
in Carteret County are classified as High Quality Waters.
The economic analysis section of this plan clearly documents the economic importance
of Carteret County's marine resources. The policies section of this plan must provide
protection for these resources.
h. Marinas and Mooring Fields
Marinas are defined as any publicly or privately owned dock, basin or wet boat storage
facility constructed to accommodate more than 10 boats and providing any of the following
services: permanent or transient docking spaces, dry storage, fueling facilities, haulout
facilities, and repair service. Excluded from this definition are boat ramp facilities allowing
access only, temporary docking and none of the preceding services.
Carteret County allows the construction of marinas and any associated drystack
storage facilities that are in compliance with NCAC 7H standards. A discussion of marinas
by county township has been provided on pages 1-53 through 1-65.
A "freestanding mooring" is any means to attach a ship, boat, vessel, floating
structure, or other water craft to a stationary underwater device, mooring buoy, buoyed
anchor, or piling (as long as the piling is not associated with an existing or proposed pier,
dock, or boathouse). When more than one freestanding mooring is used in the same general
vicinity it is commonly referred to as a mooring field. Carteret County is concerned with the
potential for the development of mooring fields. As a result, the county plans to develop an
ordinance to regulate mooring field establishment.
I
A
1
1
1
1
1-97

i'I
Ll
CRAVEN COUNTY
1
y )
1
�J
1co
H
ha..
O Y[ Y
U `O
I?'
� uE
SB
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.
'y 1
•�' f • �}4 • • rG'� s
Q�Ep•N
A I-L A N T I c
fr♦ it+r♦'
+a�'!��/ �♦�'II,, +'rI'Ia �•II<I•I �m1r ••'P♦\INla'I •II YTrf•f=•. , fr`�� •r<♦=!\��d '..��jj�tl.
a'tbO l!•�I•\•!a'~+'d',rfld•'tf Pfll•+�'•eYb♦P•d�'�'i',I•aft •�baf ba•=fa"'=>e •I a'II. •Iiz �"�°a 1'wd ..♦
••�•I��,t jO♦�•♦P �.� ♦•fib r•a ed *�; Is a♦<`bf'i �lI Ia P"P �1e'•�=i�„fl�.'.a f♦I• N:aI't rNt �dal�lz.d �' �'•I,a a,♦'+N l; Id�w: N `, •.ditN zl IN '��.�aY"a`f ._
.a'a. �: r� •r d,r !� f•• a • a`fd , ♦ tfb • ♦ •. !I'f� aff'•<•� f,a+a ,.•s.P!♦ at,1�r aI! a nor �•♦` �`��I`\o°fI11, ��...
•.�=lI<�IH��a'•�l1��1�•I`s♦<rrlYaa♦1•td ♦Ptl `••, ia;/�+P �i e;efy`♦tP♦•i •.!a♦•'•a•.l. i.i..':d.`. :ai f••. •,Na I•�r :1a♦t. w+aa♦:a
l N, ,ae•♦♦♦a•...d 10• fd r'�'�r.N., a; rt\♦r \•♦•,t ,tl •r �; f•Pia♦Ir;:Y ,I`aa♦f .♦z+♦1•l+, d: fa ;ie ra.�a!• a.�:•t •zifr al +a•i/a°1I `•1 •;Ir• ♦�'
.i `:.♦. t''•Iy,ar \+♦•d'•� +a. ° ♦� • f . _ i+b"d I W I�r _!. ts� • o' ••♦q a♦i1•'.�. �
_ � ♦_?ad'Id \� d... d.. r�N ra1.. . •N r= Y ft ra Ya wM .=•-1 z�NINa♦ Yfd<d •d. r-•=s : *�•'. rdN: ida ♦ ;1
YSiiC ems. `J .: � t!L--+S�yaaa wY lt•mata:f ter ale:'.��t♦ ' iNle •<•!•r aPd1 ,ftrr1 `! •b If'♦!aI•s�z l' �'�I• of u\
• �e♦r.at::�: ai :<o\i: `ws,',.a;: �. Y,�t- ca.��.. r�s•�'•: 43�<•a\!,.•:• •' •i a">'L::b•d�"r•Rdf'°afh .,. _ •+ A I • .
!� e
d��•`ii.i.i�•'..�•.`i�.�=♦.♦���_♦�`.=ei�•�.i.��s b�<a •�..��aa°f `�. aai'a �a.a�� ee N,� d/,,��•=',, �+, ����a °r �� �Y �r� rei:�/d ,' dza.bf � C
;�����:�1•f::: id•<I`�f ♦<I/fe •a�� :♦aaat••t1j/•Plla e.r.'�zd.•bw�°•<•Ri.I.1at,I'=01 \Ia .Yb sd�Is 11 .bft z•.�.=�" I !Y'a :'�'Y♦r♦Y�Ir•• �� N� �.
•t`Pr1�1aa df�.,I.d. i� a.e•I _♦ ••a•°+♦=!a\<♦ r\•ab 'a�•i i�f /` °a/<Y fl♦ ♦` •=;<a, <I'61•IP I�fzI'.!`' N.•..♦t`i.,� �•-
IY:Ia' Nzf�•daNlal way ♦._♦ P • a •I• tlr� ♦/_• ale: z•♦tl fP `i t= • a � ♦ �.I•dM `z \�•I ��az••trr �i `" •�
ra <• � z • � ♦ r •
b lY•'e•�f�IP'���• d°,�/Iar'•ra t'�'�`I • b't f=Nfd=\ .•;.♦ rll.waae•f=N<•f1+•<'a 1I N.. dIs�1,••w der deYr. a•,a _`zla N•I. ;`= ;...<�
a!a• r '1•♦° aar r�'r'd'af '• r•. a•e°a 'a`a••a't� a'1•. \•. a` �•'als Plt♦• ♦ fseas=�.•1. .\♦ a4 ♦ ' ••.•a. ,. Y a•j
♦a•a ,Itl'Y '•l Yaa ;. �aR YID `��`e�b+r°♦i �`l ;mod}! dr/Iz'a•f �fra a'fa♦ tl'e fP\ft�'+••'d I'•+1•`tl Yz♦' a:Y • a'•e! „P' ° f'1•r r'♦,II z
'\ tla a `z ! • ' ♦If♦+•• rf•b=f Yf=. a Y•' •=•Nf rf ♦ ® I e' •mil mod,' • • ••tee , mdr`Y i•a ♦ ae t
;z♦r'a!'��ar• •Sz I•��♦Naa'w• a •a fm 1. a,rd aw♦ I•.6ai•1'� ►01 •�'Ys ••\'!f•I PO'f tl�i:t•a.! daa�r d.a daz dN• ♦•��..
G 'mob `��.�•�•'! :: <roi��P: '�Nl ia•f!<d r•'e,� ♦' `111 afri�f�: /'ate .♦ ♦dtz'�.f+�t: aNN.N�\'�t♦♦s a•t!�•Y'd' a.z�e�!'f°�e.Y•iii: .•�:�N�• It /•�N�d'°��ia'''•fd 'I
`bs♦� ' i j •:i' ♦ada•t, a,�"•I a• •d• zl�.d! ! r♦ •adazf ,. •/<\.\af ♦a'a•••f 1 Nef1r P da1 !b<' ' • t'PP•a'\•' ♦ ♦ ♦. a'♦
C •+�Il�Iab �.�Na •ss 1, • �e!•� ss • raz �.1 t= a.i.=;! .': :j1./fa�a •1♦a�•r=fs�Y'b. '.•z M f�ay.LNY"A•rtz 'ril. �� 11!° ♦�:,z'•♦z�iYa=1. ��♦�
��G I•o rr1 • s a -d_\�� �� a�a. ';f • " .alf.♦.f.!• d• ft ♦ ♦_ ♦ '� •..aa ♦ ' e
♦. r m f I ♦ '• r • N• r •a a
• to +I '• _
•f 1I=•' • I '�• m}
wY Ia fr•I ..♦ • 'Y r. a1 N • ♦ I a • N r
A 'r• _• =a I• r •
Qr `did,. '�+�+'1' ;1a 6: �, f�, •♦+f'Y r�•!•e� �.r: .�Ns'�>/�:Ii1• •ael+ate .:ae' fo♦�rald�•alr••m�{t•tar<♦;'a ��.a•.i:��.a, � of+tl�Yf,+,<f�•� N�,��;
b•-f r �I ! z a•a bib ♦ •wl.+ •!\•r • •f♦ Y PYd° s• t Im ra• d! • •• aa!
�w.Y .A+��+ • ° a /'Y 'Yfb • z1 <t• d• • • I •'w 1!/♦ a��! °_ •_ `ae Oft. If'•'!t� •f: `I • � a1'\<a• A ''a•Y z� I♦'� tlfa ♦ ',
I.�;f ara i d•+••1♦ rz-♦a irl•l..lsa.'az '•o'+• ♦ \I�� a1E•z! a r• •tl a*d l,�=�f�•\a aa!!'°le.a' •fe a/ r1Y• <'INf <Y♦a ' <•a •r<+!I•
\�� °sd•=s I•'IN•°'le if la. \tz.Os.°.♦:' adateld •zl+dal N•.•f a!♦.♦ ♦!•• N I. •=f °a.
e,\`I f d a • IN I I' •af• f z ae' Ii•tl; •r•'!9 ja.a1 \♦Y'!l•a aa� � •I°e ♦ ffa a ,♦,'r,� tl+'Ir •
did `�♦a ar � Sr•a OzN'e..P•r.d •. da •. \r IzPI!• f= •�•• /! •a` < I•!a , ••,ar'I=�;1 1°eaf rY•'�• 'Pf It •�`
' � Ialb ,a ,♦� r '.• ♦ ♦ . <. - e11aa •.I a tf a<\N a.!• tl• i;e al ♦ •I••<r� _ . ♦. bfr: . `!♦'' aI 1
f�' '.je•.;::r �+: I'dP <'.I e:• cy Ii Yf Palrl�IP'•'•'�.ar �°' o°+ I' i�fa �+vfl.f.=•<a•etN ea�:� ♦�� ter. d _ •r•.
•°fr��- a♦ a = I♦ ' Ia r •I♦ea♦If �♦ � e�Ia :♦.•<.••ft
ra r•♦lab aattl Y!t! •\m fd ,`C n• ttl a I! !<ea iz i ♦♦ • P f
• y•.fie O•`Y r .ram°a• Yr a� I a• 6 /f+ a '• / �r f N.f r♦•''a! <
ram; r� y°`P � �rf °. `l. .:'::.�• e•r ftl♦o a!a♦•+•!I ♦ e° ra .. 'dIr !°a �''�•a•��!`b+o<•.` . �• , .
•1�= -d a; Idf.Ysi11 �' zetlz ••,�a_sfJ - a+♦1,•Ia N.a1;•/;a +d `', 1! a a N±al zf `.f!•zfa
♦jfl3s' I .• N+. as d.�l��'. -�T�tl7F •� ,,r• �•�.. �i ;; rf
1; d'11a .•1 � I + ♦I.. r • + .! ♦I a .: ±=i1'Ip I \z•
SS
`iti.��iY'r b• - _ -' ♦d.d=��a. `a°♦I• f�a�ewl� a ,, �.P f,•� t�1
+��°s°o°d. �� :�. iii �• '. •.. ••a. �`, °•et °s'e♦NI ••• .I�. o�!'!a'!°'!: w•'
�° Pr.• ,•..t! "! _�Jiroyrt(� 1 ♦ a• �-i�.�,.{�•..' z.z of
MAP 13
CARTERET COUNTY
nC a' a SURFACE WATER CLASSIFICATIONS
LLF
scat F
O p 3 4 DES
SC ORW
o
ORVV
.. •a' SA
_ N J
ORW
y
•'+"
TIE snwrs_ --- ORW
oeW S° O
O
G.
K_1
LEGEND
COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE
INCORPORATED AREA AND FORT MACON
NOT UNDER CARTERET COUNTY
PLANNING JURISDICTION
EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS
NOT UNDER CARTERET COUNTY
PLANNING JURISDICTION
•..'.••L,••�•-`,
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE/DISCHARGE
NUTRIENT SENSITIVE WATERS
PARTIALLY SUPPORTING WATERS
WATERS CLOSED TO SHELLFlSHING
Towns of Cedar Point and
Bogue Corporate Limit Line
SA CLASS SA WATER
SB CLASS SB WATER
SC CLASS SC WATER
C CLASS C WATER
ORW OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
ORW BOUNDARY LINE
1. The SC waters cannot be accurately mapped
and the written descriptions must be relied on for
SC locations.
2. The location of primary/secondary nursery
areas and outstanding resource waters (ORW)
have been provided on Map 10,
3. Areas closed to sheltfishing are discussed on
page 1-96
4. There are no non -supporting SA waters in
Carteret County
'V CAM LOOKOUT 1-98