Ocean & Estuarine Recreation Access-1979

mw, .
gn
APPIr
DCM COPY DCM COPY
lease do not remove!!!!!
6Management,. ., Division of
�I*
y y 4'
11
N11,
iF 3 fJ• � 'iir j ^.�
�. Y , L {
y M##
`y � S 'rh •Y�Yt.R 'La. t,J�s s''r'Sr.� .F�d } &
-
T.
N � = r C'�, r�M •q�y e 1 � J Y
�F
ti ><
All
aIA
1,
�r
jT a
e 1 §e
�x
j Recr
,. t«
Ilk'
e 6
Y
r �
.: jF

fl
OCEAN & ESTUARINE
RECREATION ACCESS
A KEYSTONE. OF LIFE
IN CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by
Recreation & Park Consultan Stt Inc.
4911 Waters Edge Drive, Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 919-851-7996
August 1979
Preparation of this report was 'financed in part through a grant provided
by the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds provided
by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is admin-
istered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. (NOAA Grant Number 04-8-M01-331)

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One of the pleasant benefits of work in Carteret County is the
friendly accommodation received from those whose help is requested.
More than 150 personal contacts were made by the study team in search
of information and opinions. All were very cordial.
County officials and staff were very accommodating, as were
those in State of North Carolina and federal offices. Neal Lewis,
County<Fark and 'Recreation Director, and his secretary, Tressa Jones,
were particularly helpful, Drafting technicians in the tax office
p7rovided' friendly, valuable assistance.
Business people and average citizens willingly gave their time
to help. Beth Taylor and the West Carteret High School students in her
Fnyironm'ental Studies Program provided a sounding board and beneficial
survey assistance.
It is hoped that those who helped, along with others, will be
interested in working with the County Commissioners and staff to react
to the report in a way that will assist in crystallizing goals for the
futura and implementing local initiatives aimed at continuation of the
pleasant life in Carteret County.
Recreation and Park Consultants, Inc.
Study Team: Ronald D. Johnson, Recreation
Planner and Study Director
John 0. Fussell III, Biologist
Robert L. Martin, Transportation
Engineer
Jerry M. Turner, Landscape
Architect
Donna Simon, Secretary
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
IINTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
A View of Carteret County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
The Recreation Problem/Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
II
PLANNING OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
III
BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Background Information - Federal Actions . . . .
10
State of North Carolina Actions. . . . . . .
12
.".
Regional Benefits -,State Actions. . . . . . . . . .
13
Beach Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
North Carolina Comprehensive Recreation Planning . . .
17
North Carolina Water Resources Planning. . . . . ... . . . . . .
19
Carteret County Access Related Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Carteret County Land Use Flan. . . . .
21
Responsibility For Providing Access. . . . . . . . .. . . . .
. 24
Private Landowner Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 26
IY
ACCESS RELATED LOCAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 31
iLocal
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 32
Environmental Protection Issues, . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 34
V
SUPPLY,..., PRESENT ACCESS AND USE. . . . . . . . . . .
37
Aeg Tonal Access •
38
Local Access . . . . . . . . ...
38
Local Access for Recreation Uses . . . . . . . . . • . . • • •
39
Major'Free Access Sites. . . ... . . .
41
:.
Minor Free Access Points
42
Public Lands/Easements Generally Restricted to Local Residents
43
Private Lands Regularly Used Without Permission. . . . . . . .
. 43
Commercial Launch Sites and Marinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 44
Perceptions of Population Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . .
. 48
Local Recreation Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 49
Attitudes and Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 52
VIANTICIPATED
DEMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 55
Population Increase Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 56
Population Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 56
Activity Interest. . . . . . . . •
57
Tourism Related Demand . . . . • . • . • • • . • • . • • .
58

SECTION
I
I
I
PAGE
Carteret County Travel Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
People and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Demand Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Patterns of Demand in the U.S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Adult Activity Days By Selected Activity (In North Carolina) . . 64
VIA ANALYSIS OF NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Relationship of Supply to Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Access Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Application of Standards to County Resources . . . . . . . . 68
Capacity for Expanding Present Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . 70
VIII FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCESS FACILITIES. . . . . . . . . . . .
71
,
Space Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Socio-economic Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
72
Recreation Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
73
Tourism and Growth Promotion
74
Carrying Capacity of Related Systems . . . . . . . . . . . .
74
Regulation of Population and Use Density . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
Management Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
76
Interpretation of Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Harbors of Refuge and Other Safety Considerations. . . . . . . .
77
Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
81
Location of Areas Recommended for Access Improvement . . . . .
84
ix RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
85
General'.
Recommendation 1: Develop a Vehicle for Coordinating a Search
86
For and Work Toward County -wide Goals. . . . . . . . . .
87
Recommendation 2: Establish Advisory Committee of Mainland
Down East Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Recommendation 3. Acknowledge and/or Modify Carteret County
Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Recommefdation 4: Establish Advisory Committee on Harbors
of Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
Recommendation 5: Assist in Retaining Open Space at
'
Harker's Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation 6: Establish Boat Launch Ramp at Salter's
88
Creek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .
88
Recommendation 7: Improve Car Top Launch Area at Harker's
Island Bridge. . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . .
88
'
Recommendation 8: Promote Improvement of Beaufort Jaycee
Park Boat Launch Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88
Recommendation 9: Acquire WaterfrontPark in Area of
Lennoxville Point. • •
89
vi

SECTION
PAGE
Recommendation 10: Seek Improvements to Cedar Point Boat
t
Launch Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation 11: Acquire Waterfront Park East of Cape
. 89
Carteret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 89
Recommendation 12: Assist in Securing Public Access to
Bogue Point. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 90
Recommendation 13: Seek to Retain Swansboro Coast Guard
Station in Public Ownership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 90
Recommendation 14. Assist in Expanding Capacity of Public•
'
Access at Atlantic Beach .
91
Recommendation 15: Improve Airport Marina. . . . . . . . . . .
. 91
Recommendation 16: Consider Highway 70 Bridge Spoilbank for
Major Boat Launch Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
91
Recommendation 17: Improve Emergency Evacuation Program. . . . .
. 91
Recommendation 18: Seek Changes to Federal Flood Insurance
'
Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 93
Recommendation 19: Require Boardwalks Over Existing Dune
Cross -ovens, and Limit ORV Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 94
Recommendation 20: Seek to Broaden Financial Base of N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission. . . ••
94
Recommendation 21: Improve Access Opportunities for Those
Recreationally Disadvantaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation 22: Seek Volunteer Force to Assist in Boat
. 94
Launch Operations at Busy Times. . . . . . . . . . •
95
Recommendation 23: Consider Acquisition of Use of Surplus
i
Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 96
Recommendation 24: Support Opportunities to Enhance Co mmercial
. Water Based Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.Growth
96
Recommendation 25: Review -inducing Potential of Third
'
Bridge to Bogue Banks. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .
. 96
Recommendation 26t Determine the Market for Inter -city Public
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 97
Recommendation 27: Study Local PublicTransportation System
Serving High Use Areas . . •
. 97
Recommendation 28: Request N.C. D.O.T. Study of County -wide
Bikeway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .
. 99
Recommendation 29: Encourage the State to Secure Access to
the Roosevelt Property at Salter Path . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 99
Recommendation 30: Request the State to Consider Salter Path
'
Road Parking Lanes at Access Points. •
. 99
Implementation Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
GENERALREFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
■
APPENDICES
A - State of North Carolina Recreation and Tourism Policies . . . . 106
vii

APPENDICES, ConC d.
PAGE
B - Open Space Categories and Associated Carteret County Open
Space InVentory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 109
C - Perspective Sketch of Recreation Development Proposed
Earlier for Spoil Bank East of Morehead Bridge. . . . . .
. 111
1
D - Harker's Island and Atlantic Harbors of Refuge . . . . . . .
. 112
E - Sketch Flans of Two Waterfront Parks . . . . . .
. 113
F - Sketch Plan of Large Marina.
115
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
PHOTOGRAPHS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
"Private Beach". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2
Black Skimmer Road,Emerald. Isle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 5
Morehead City Wildlife Resources Commission Ramp, 7/4/79
6
Airport Marina, 7/4/79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 6
Boca Raton,Florida, Beach Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 9
Bogue Pier •
29
State Ferry Landing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 29
Jaycee Park, Beaufort . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .
Beaufort Waterfront.
. 30
30
Sailing and Motorboating off Radio Island . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 36
Access Using Private Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 37
Beaufort Launch Ramp, 7/4/79 . . . . . .
. 40
Fort Macon State Park Beach, 7/8/79. • • • • • • . • . . • .
40.
Showers at a Beach Park, Boca Raton, Florida . . . . . . . . . .
. *53
Delray Beach, Florida, Beach Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 54
Boca Raton, Florida, Dune Trail.
54
Bogue Point, 7/8/79. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 55
Triple Ess Pier Beach, 7/8/79. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 62
Public Easement at Club Colony, Atlantic Beach . . . . . . . . .
. 66
Waterfront Park Trail, Boca Raton, Florida . . . . . . . . . .
. 70
Radio Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 71
Access Signage
78
Beaufort Harbor.
79
Beaufort Harbor Tours. . . . . . . .
85
Sketch Plan, Airport Marina. . . . .
92
viii

SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
"The encounter between man and the sea offers one of the most
rewarding of all human experiences. The edge of the sea has
a special meaning to the beachcomber who walks the tideline,
for the bather who absorbs the sun's relaxing warmth, for the
surfer who pits his skill against charging waves."
+twa r r.0
Neuse River Council of Governments,
Open Space Plan
Location Map

1
I
The Carteret County Board of Commissioners, on January 8, 1979, executed a
contract with the State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development, identifying interest of the County in the Coastal
Planning and Management Grant Program. The County agreed to undertake an
"Ocean/Estuarine Recreational Access Study for Carteret County" in response
to the State's invitation to provide partial funding for the Study, with
funds provided by the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-
583), as amended by P.L. 94-370.
It was the hope of Wm. Neal Lewis, Carteret County Recreation Director, that
the study commitment would be a positive response to the Coastal Area
Management Act implementation, responsibly setting the example among coastal
counties for recreation access to ocean and estuarine waters
"Access," as defined in the 1977 edition of Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, includes."permission, liberty or ability to enter. . .freedom
to make use of. . .the action of going to or reaching. . .a way or means
of access". For the purpose of this report, "access" refers to the above
definitions in relation to recreation uses of ocean and estuarine waters.
This ranges from opportunities one has to launch a boat, go swimming, enjoy
the vista of the ocean or sounds and all other forms of water -related recrea-
tions on coastal waters. It includes, superficially at least, the problem
of the traveler in driving into and out of Carteret County. It includes the
problem of moving the short distance from public roadways to public beaches.
1' 4
Aw
r 4 ii

A View of Carteret County
"We've been discovered, and need to do the best job we can in achieving an
orderly growth." These words of Joe Barbour of Barbour's Boat Works in
Beaufort capsulize the problems of Carteret County. Informal estimates
' place up to 100,000 people in the County on a summer weekend, enough to
qualify as a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) if the population
were permanent. For the 37,000 year around residents, the influx of summer
vacationers has caused a change in the way of life for most, and has created
an urban area beyond the city.
In spite of the linear urban area developing, commercial fishing goes on al-
most in its midst, the "down east" fishing communities survive, the waters
are relatively unpolluted, wilderness is still just a short step away in the
marshes, woods and uninhabited beaches, and life .is pleasant. Summertime
requires an adjustment for many. The boat ramps are crowded, traffic through-
out the County is heavy, "the beach" (at Atlantic Beach) is packed, cultural
and social values are tested and life styles are threatened.
With improved transportation and communication systems, settlement patterns
1 in the United States have changed. Long strips of urban area are now located
along the coasts, the Gulf and the Great Lakes. "Smaller settlements will
undergo a major spurt of growth in all sorts of now -isolated places where
the natural amenities are attractive."1 Cost -reducing improvements to trans-
portation and communications systems accelerate development of these pre-
viously out-of-the-way places. An energy crisis, of sufficient depth to
prohibit the moderately affluent to travel, will likely reverse this trend.
Bogue Banks and mainland areas in close proximity have experienced intense
1 development pressures. A modest number of retirees and other newcomers have
settled permanently, but most development has been oriented toward vacation
homes. These generally attract urban North Carolina residents. The Director
of the Carteret County Economic Development Commission feels that most of
the visitors to the County are from the Raleigh area. 2
Carteret County, then, already has an interaction and integration of small
town and metropolitan area residents. The common element among them is
their love for the coastal area. However, those -engaged in commercial
fishing, boating, shipping and related industry may see recreational uses
as competitive. The finding of a common interest toward preservation of
the coastal scene may serve to dissolve differences that may exist.
I Lon time residents have in relatively few ears been catapulted into a
g � Y years, P
society of a much different kind and scale than they were used to, at least
1 Melvin M. Webber, "The Post City Age," Daedalus, Journal of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 1968.
2 Personal conversation with Roy Stevens, Director of Carteret County Econo-
mic Development Council, 3/6/79.
3

r�
I
I
11
I
during the summer seasons. Most can, will or have adjusted to the change,
and some will provide the leadership to assure that local values are not lost
in accommodating newcomers and tourists to the County. It will be difficult
to formulate goals which will satisfy existing attitudes and interests; goals
may necessarily be somewhat competitive without mutually reinforcing programs.
The range of attitudes among people living now in Carteret County includes
those who want maximum promotion of industry and tourism, and those who wish
they could take a step back to a time of lesser population, an intermediate
technology and slower pace.
Tourism is based on enjoyment of a clean environment, where it
is still available, by people from urban areas whose environment
has been degraded. But the industry that attracts these tourists
is self-defeating, since it builds, for example, cities on the
beach to accommodate them. While tourists help give a monetary
value to the conservation of rare wild species or historic monu-
ments, too many hordes of them visiting national parks or famous
sites can endanger protected areas.
The tourist industry is accused of ignoring the fragility of the
local social structure that must adjust to tourists. Social
relations are less resilient than natural ecosystems. As,major
economic benefits of tourism escape the poorer, local population,
the people can become hostile or servile to visitors.3
The Recreation Problem/Challenge
It is important that recreation goals be established which will guide efforts
to provide for continued, and perhaps improved, availability of a menu of
leisure opportunities, including access to public waters. Value judgments
on recreation -related issues, like other public issues, often become politi-
cal decisions based on estimates.of the greatest benefits at the least cost.
Several questions regarding recreation and leisure opportunities need to be
addressed by the people of the County and judgments made:
(1) Is it important to extend the time that! access to the ocean
and its estuaries is no less available than it is now?
(2) Are there methods to control access and unregulated uses at
the same time absorbing more and more people as summer resi-
dents and tourists? Can additional access be provided to
permanent residents while continuing to accommodate visitors?
(3) Should the State of North Carolina be requested to assume a
larger share of responsibility for providing ocean access
for the users who reside outside the County?
(4) To what extent should the County assume responsibility to
serve non-residents with ocean and estuarine access, recog-
nizing the importance of tourism to the economic health of
the County?
3 Dominique Larre, "Environment and World Tourism," EPA Journal, June 1979.
I
4

(5) To what extent should this be financed by the users and those
benefiting financially most directly?
(6) Will the naturalness of the coastal environment be lost in
the process of accommodating increasing demands for access
and use of coastal waters and adjacent lands?
(7) What should be provided as public policy on these issues by
and for Carteret County?
Black Skimmer Road, Emerald Isle
5

IOATI�6
ACCESS ARFA
i
PUBLIC
►WELCOME
Morehead City Wildlife Resources Commission Ramp 7/4/79
}
Airport Marina, July 4, 1979
6

SECTION II
PLANNING OBJECTIVES
AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Section of Sketch Plan of Airport Marina

Consultant Retained
Carteret County, in subcontracting for the access study asked that the
following be accomplished:
(1) inventory of present recreation access resources;
(2) statement of assessed recreation access needs;
(3) guidelines for implementation of plans to meet needs;
(4) documentation/publication of all findings, recommendations;
and
(5) presentation of document to public.
The study is to cover both ocean and estuarine waters, covering all leisure
use aspects. It was requested that the study include significant input
from public and private groups and private individuals; a public meeting
was to be held.
Objectives have been defined as follows:
(1) using the existing Coastal Resources Commission inventory,
confirm and add to the listing of ocean beach and estuarine
recreation access facilities, both public and commercial;
(2) review previous studies and other background information;
(3) discuss the responsibility for providing access, local and
regional issues regarding access and environmental aspects of
recreation access and use;
(4) assess demand for recreation access, particularly as it relates
to county residents;
(5) analyze needs, comparing supply of access resources to the.anti-
cipated demand, again relating this primarily to local needs;
(6) identify funding sources for assistance in improving access
resources;
(7) make recommendations on access improvement and provide an imple-
mentation guideline;
(8) provide appropriate access area management recommendations;
(9) review recommendations at a public meeting in the county; and
(10) prepare and.publish a report, submitting ten copies and a
reproducible copy.
.11

SECTION III
BACKGROUND INFOR11ATION
"In its broadest sense, the access question extends beyond
physical presence and participation in recreational activities --
it encompasses visual, legal, social and economic access. . ."
R. B. Ditton and Mark Stephens,
Coastal Recreation: A Handbook
for Planners and Managers, U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM,
Washington, D.C., 1976.
Boca Raton, Florida, Beach Access

Background Information - Federal Actions
'
Several federal agencies have programs which directly relate to coastal
management, or which have domestic assistance programs which could theore-
tically be used in local area improvements. For example, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers provides navigation, flood control and beach
'
erosion control projects. Development grants are available from a
variety of agencies: Economic Development Administration, Coastal Plains
Regional Commission, Department of Interior Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These may not relate directly to coastal access, but can be used by states
and local governments located in coastal areas to enhance access opportuni-
ties.
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972_(P.L. 92-533) as amended
(P.L. 94-370), authorized grants to states to develop coastal zone manage-
ment programs, and identified the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NOAA) in the U.S. Department of Commerce as the agency to promulgate
and administer program regulations. Section 305(b)(7) of the Act requires
that shorefront access be a part of each coastal management program funded
under the Act; this with energy facility and shoreline erosion planning
constituted the 1976 amendments.Section 315(2) authorizes the following:
. . .grants to any coastal state for the purpose of. . .acquiring
lands to provide for access to public beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthe-
tic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the preservation of
islands. The amount of any such grant shall not exceed 50 per
centum of the cost of the project involved; except that, in the
case of acquisition of any estuarine sanctuary, the Federal share
of the cost shall not exceed $2,000,000.1
'
(These funds have not been appropriated, however.)
NOAA rules and regulations apply to those states receiving grants for
'
development of coastal zone management programs; those applying to shore-
front access planning follow:
(a) Requirement. In order to fulfill the requirements of subsection
305(b)(7) of the Act, the management program must include a planning process
that can identify public shorefront areas appropriate for increased access
and/or protection. This process must include:
(1) a procedure for assessing public areas requiring access or
protection;
'
(2) a definition of the term "beach" and an identification of public
areas that meet that definition;
(3) articulation of State policies pertaining to shorefront access
and/or protection;
'
1 Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 83, April 29, 1977, p. 22044.
10

(4) a method for designation of shorefront areas as areas of
particular concern (either as a class or as specific sites)
' for protection and/or access purposes, if appropriate;
(5) a mechanism for continuing refinement and implementation of
necessary management techniques, if appropriate; and
' (6) an identification of funding programs and other techniques that
can be used to meet management needs.
2
Advisory comments to the regulations significantly identify recreation
concerns and needs, and also imply rather directly that insufficient beach
access exists. .
' In developing a procedure for identifying access and/or
protection requirements for public beaches and other public
coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical,
esthetic, ecological, or cultural value, States should make
use of the analyses and considerations of statewide concern
developed to meet the requirements of Section 920.13 (Areas
of Particular Concern). It is also recommended that infor-
mation contained in completed State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plans be considered. If islands have not been
included in the areas considered under Section 920.13, then
their preservation needs should be considered under this
subsection. Preservation should be considered broadly,
in terms of ecological, environmental, recreational, histori-
cal, esthetic or cultural values.
In developing a procedure for identifying access and/or pro-
tection needs, States should take into account (a) the supply
of existing public facilities and areas, (b) the anticipated
demand for future use of these facilities, and (c) the capabi-
lity/suitability of existing areas to support increased
access. Based on these and other considerations, as appro-
priate, the States planning process shall include a descrip-
tion of appropriate types of access and/or protection, taking
' into account governmental and public preferences, resource
capabilities and priorities.
!J
In determining access requirements, States should consider
both physical and visual access. The emphasis, however,
should be on the provision of increased physical access.
Special attention should be given to recreational needs of
urban residents for increased shorefront access. . .
2 Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 83, April 29, 1977, Section 920.17,
p. 22044.
3 Ibid.

IState of North Carolina Actions
' State level counterparts of federal agencies also provide services and
programs related to coastal management. Significant actions by the North
Carolina Legislature include the State Lands Act of 1959, proclaiming that
submerged lands are to be preserved for use of all the people. This es-
tablished ownership of ocean beaches up to the elevation of mean high tide
and secured for the state ownership of most estuarine waters, including
marshes.
Passage of the state Coastal Area Management Act in the 1974 Session of
the General Assembly, was motivated primarily by State issues and concerns,
and proceeded largely independent of federal coastal management efforts.
CAMA is seen primarily as an environmental act protecting coastal resources,
but identifies that local planning is an important feature in its implemen-
tation. CAMA was and remains somewhat controversial in some coastal counties,
Carteret included.
u
L
Drafting of the North Carolina Coastal Management Plan followed, in accor-
dance with CAMA and federal guidelines.4 Shorefront access planning, energy
facility planning, and shoreline erosion concerns were "not required at
this time" by OCZM requirements for program approval. Elements were in-
cluded, however, discussing tourism and recreation issues in "beach access".
Related issues briefly discussed growth, management problems, transportation
and environmental issues. The state was required to prepare a plan including
access, energy facilities and shoreline erosion by October, 1978. Extensions
appear to have been granted, with the plan amending the Environmental Impact
Statement anticipated to be released in the summer of 1979. (This was re-
leased.)5
The original Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement did identify 308 miles of North Carolina coast with ocean beaches;
148 miles of this was shown .in public ownership, with public access. The
plan reported that public access in the remaining 160 miles is not as
favorable as that in public ownership. It reported few areas where access
is denied to the public. This was countered, however, with a statement
that "in many areas, access has never been a problem and no provisions
have been made to insure that it will not be a problem in the future. . .
however, increased development in and use of the shoreline may cause beach
access to become a problem in the future."6 The report also identified
conflicts between beach users and landowners and indicate that these conflicts
"often result in the restriction of public access by private landowners
and in the implementation of local laws to restrict the full use of the
public beach". 7
4 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office of Coastal Zone Management, State
of North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, n.d..
5 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared on Amendments to the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
Washington, D.C., January, 1979.
6 Op.cit., p. 81. 12
7 Ibid.

Discussion on the issue ended with a statement indicating the coastal
management Program "must address the issue of how to insure adequate access
to the public beaches in coastal waters in a manner which is not detrimental
to the delicate beach environment. ".8
In other parts of the report, the Coastal Management Program was charged
with addressing wetland preservation issues attempting to minimize destruc-
tion without denying reasonable access`to coastal waters for water dependent
uses.' They identified the problem of how to allocate planning and management
functions to local governments while retaining enough responsibility at
the state level to assure that legitimate regional, state and national
' interests are taken into consideration in any local planning activities.
Federal land holdings within coastal North Carolina were not included within
the state "coastal zone". The state recognized these "greater -than -local
interests which may require priority given to national interests, but which
also require federal agencies' compliance with the state management plan
' "to the greatest extent practicable". Federal consistency policies confirm
the desire to be consistent with the coastal states' management program.
An Executive Order by Governor Hunt requires executive agencies to also
be consistent in their actions.
Regional Benefits - State Actions
' The Federal Coastal 'Lone Management Act requires that the. State Coastal
Management Plan provide a method for assuring that local land and water
' regulations "do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses
of regional benefit". In response to this requirement, the State of North
Carolina has listed several "uses" perceived to relate to regional supply:
"(1) public recreational facilities of a regional or statewide
significance;
(2) major energy transmission for generating facilities;
(3) major transportation facilities such as interstate highways,
' ports, airports, and important navigational projects;
(4) regional water and waste water treatment facilities; and
(5) major public facilities such as multi -purpose reservoirs
9
state and federal prisons, hospitals, and universities."
IThese uses generally refer to what is described as "key facilities".
8 Ibid., p. 81.
9 State of North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
' Impact Statement, p. 223.
13

Continuing to quote from the Coastal Management Program;
' North Carolina will rely on two techniques to insure that
an adequate amount of specific sites are set aside to meet
a projection of reasonable and foreseeable demand for uses
of regional benefit. The first technique is state acquisi-
tion of sites as the need arises for particular uses of
regional benefit and the second technique is the designation
of 'areas which are or may be impacted by key facilities'
' (G.S. 113A-113) as areas of environmental concern. Both
methods can ensure that local regulations do not unreasonably
restrict uses of regional benefit.10
F
11
11
The Coastal Management Program identifies a number of state policies
relating to recreation, tourism, and beach access. Those seen to have
a rather direct relationship are included in Appendix A of this report.
As state policies, these imply direct actions by the state; some propose
to promote tourism, others protect environmental resources, and preserve
cultural resources. Growth management, transportation, coastal industries,
energy policies, and others are included in the list of policies included
in the Coastal Management Program. Beach access policies identify a 75
foot estuarine shoreline Area of Environmental Concern with high priority
of land use allocation to water access proposals; and permit structural
access ways to the beach on or seaward of frontal dunes providing no damage
results.
Beach Access
Chapter 7B, .0320 of the North Carolina Administrative Code defines ocean
beach as follows: "land areas without vegetation covering, consisting of
unconsolidated soil material that extends landward from the mean low tide
to a point where -anyone or a combination of the following occur: (1) vege-
tation, or (2) a distinct change in predominant soil particle size, or (31
a change in slope or elevation which alters the physiographic land form.i1
Administrative procedures of state agencies appear to be available upon
request. These identify to the public the procedure and identification
of actions and policies of administrative departments. Chapter 7 of these
policies applies to the Coastal Resources Commission, the agency charged
with the administration of CAMA. Section .0301 of this chapter, a declara-
tion of general policy on shorefront access policies reads as follows:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of North
Carolina to foster, protect, improve and ensure optimum access
to recreational opportunities at beach areas consistent with
10 Ibid., p. 223.
11 Ibid., Appendix B, p. 82.
14

0
k
public rights, rights of private property owners and the need
to protect natural resources from overuse. These policies
reflect the position that in areas other than State parks,
the responsibility of providing adequate beach access rests
primarily with local units of government. Thus, the following
policies are intended to supplement and strengthen any local
efforts.l2
Section .0302 defines the term "beach" in generally the same context as that
which is found in the Coastal Management Progran(quoted from Chapter 7B,
Section .0302), but adds the possibility that the beach may extend to the
point where the riparian owners have specifically and legally restricted
access above the Mean High Water line. "This definition is intended to
describe those shorefront areas historically used by the public. Whether
or not the public has rights in the defined areas above the 104 mark can
only be answered by the. courts. The public does have clear rights below
the MHW mark. The following policies recognize public use rights in the
beach areas as defined but do not in any way require private property owners
to provide public access to the beach." 3
The Coastal Resources Commission,as a followup to its responsibility to
develop shorefront access policies, held a public hearing January 12, 1979,
for the purpose of considering several policies including eight policy state-
ments on shorefront access:
(a) Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access
to the shorefront where acquired through public acquisition, dedication,
or customary use as established by the courts.
(b) The responsibility of insuring that the public can obtain ade-
quate access to public trust resources or the ocean, sounds, rivers
and tributaries is primarily that of local governments to be shared
and assisted by state and federal government.
(c) Public beach area projects funded by the state and federal govern-
ment will not receive initial or additional funds unless provisions
are made for adequate public access. This must include access rights,
adequate identification and adequate parking.
(d) Policies regarding State and Federal properties with shorefront
areas intended to be used by the public must encourage, permit and
provide public access and adequate parking so as to achieve maximum
public use and benefit of these areas consistent with establishing
legislation.
(e) State and Federal funds for beach access will be provided only
to localities that also provide protection of the frontal dunes.
12 North Carolina Administrative Code, Chapter 7B
' 13 Ibid.
15

(f) The state should continue in its efforts to supplement and
improve highway, bridge and ferry access to and within the twenty
county coastal area consistent with the approved local land use
'
plans. Further, the state should wherever practical work to add
public fishing catwalks to appropriate highway bridges and should
incorporate catwalks in all plans for new construction and for re-
'
modeling bridges. It is the policy of the state to seek repeal or
ordinances preventing fishing from bridges except where public safety
would be comprised.
'
(g) In order to avoid weakening the protective nature of frontal
dunes, no development will be permitted which would involve the removal
or relocation of frontal dune sand or frontal dune vegetation. (15
'
NCAC .7H.0306 (c).) The sands held in the frontal dune are recognized
as'vital for the nourishment and protection of ocean beaches.
' (h) All land use plans and state actions'to provide additional shore-
front access must recognize the need of providing access to all socio-
economic groups.14
David Brower begins his excellent publication, Access to the Nation's
' Beaches: Legal and Planning Prospectives, with the statement, "the problem
of insufficient public access to the nation's coastal beaches has been
recognized nationally for at least forty years". He quotes from a 1954
National Park Service Study which recommended that Smith Island (Bald Head)
' and Bogue Banks be acquired for public recreational purposes "before the
best of the remaining areas are acquired for private or commercial develop-
ment".15 Bogue Banks is now listed as "developed".16
David Owens, who collaborated with Brower on the book, is now an attorney
t with the Coastal Management staff of the State Department of Natural Re-
sources and Community Development. Paraphrasing a statement of Owens,
"There may be a public use right above the high tide line, but the North
Carolina Courts have never addressed the issue. When someone is stopped
by a property owner from crossing an area or going under a fishing pier,
and that action is challenged in court, we will probably get a clearer
picture of public use rights, but it will depend upon specific occurrences
and the attitude of the court.i17 Brower thoroughly discusses the ownership
1 of coastal areas including comments on the Public Trust Doctrine where public
trust lands (generally navigable waters and associated tidelands, and in
North Carolina and "other states wet sand beaches) are held in trust for
' the people and subject to the interests of the public.18
14
Ibid.
15
Brower, David, et al, Access to
the Nation's Beaches: Legal and Planning
'
Perspectives, UNC Sea Grant Pub.
SG-77-18, Raleigh, N.C., 1978, p. 1.
16
U.S. Dept. of Interior, "Report
of the Barrier Island .Work Group,"
Dec. 1978, p. 10.
17
Conversation with David Owens, N.C. Office of Coastal Management, 5-18-79.
'
18
Op. cit. , p.. 21.
16

' Brower quotes the U.S. Supreme Court which "in 1892 said that these lands
are held in trust for the people so that public rights of navigation,
' fishing and commerce could be preserved". Brower also discusses the concept
of implied dedication where an owner, by not preventing public use of the
beach implies from his conduct intent to give the land to the public by
public use of the beach. In effect the public accepts dedication through
' implication.19 The Doctrine of "Customary Rights" proposes that where there
has been "very long and common use of a defined area, that use becomes le-
gally established for that area".20"Prescriptive easements" are another
' related type of public right, with use adverse to the interests of the owner,
but where owners "cannot do anything on it that would reduce the public's
established rights to use it".21 This may begin as a trespass without the
owner seeking redress; historical use may be continued but additional types
' of uses cannot be established.
' In addition, Brower discusses a New Jersey case where the State Legislature
enabled cities to charge user fees to defray costs. A neighboring inland
city sued a beach community because it was charging a non-resident rate.
' The court found that, although user fees could be charged, they could not
charge more because of a user's non-resident status.22
North Carolina Comprehensive Recreation Planning
The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP), last published
' in 1973 or 1974, included several sections relating to coastal recreation.
Consistency with SCORP is required for the awarding of Land and [dater Con-
servation Fund Grants administered by the U.S. Department of Interior Heri-
tage Conservation and Recreation Service. The North Carolina SCORP recommends,
in response to an identified "lack of sufficient quantity and variety of
state -administered outdoor recreation areas. . ." that the State "Acquire,
develop and administer public water ac29ss areas at intervals on the coast
' and other places in the coastal area. The study leading to the publica-
tion of SCORP considered the potential for further recreation usage of
the North Carolina coast, and concluded generally, that recreational uses
' of ocean beaches can be increased without damage to the beach itself, that
the major demand will be for family beaches which do not require intensive
development or heavy use, that there may be some constraints due to asso-
ciated services needed to reach "optimum" use of family beaches, and that
' shorelines of sounds, with the exception of the Morehead City - Beaufort
area, had experienced only light pressure for recreation development.24
19 Ibid., p. 23.
' 20 Ibid., p. 28.
21 Ibid., p. 31.
22 Ibid., p. 22.
' 23 N.C. Dept. of Natural & Economic Resources, Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan, n.d.
24 Ibid., Section 53-100.
' 17

SCORP comments, reporting'on a study of island resources, concluded:
1 Islands can help fill the recreation need only if the burgeoning
urbanization that gives them a new recreation value does.not
overwhelm them with the kind of development that•makes public
recreation impossible. Like all natural islands they are endan-
gered by over -development and can serve public needs only if they
are protected and developed under active programs of conservation.
25
' All publications and programs reviewed, relating to water -based recreation,
tie social benefits to conservation and preservation of natural resources;
' damage to the resource will reduce opportunities for recreation.
' The current updating of NCSCORP is expected to be available in fall 1979.
Included in the objectives and planned actions of early drafts was the
objective of securing sufficient public access to beach areas and facili-
ties. Several tasks were identified to meet this objective:
Task a Determine the long term beach access needs based on the
current supply of access areas and the projected demands
of access based on population projections.
Task b Develop State position on beach access through comprehen-
sive policy statements.
Task c Establish funding source for land acquisition and construc-
tion of access facilities.
Task d Establish grant procedure for local governments to apply
for beach access funds.
Task e Develop planning guidelines as part of the CAMA planning
process to assist local governments in acquiring and
managing public access areas.
Task f Institute a uniform system of identifying public access
areas.
"Task c" above was proposed to be handled by the N.C. Division of Parks
and Recreation. "Task b" was assigned to the Coastal Resources Commission.
All other items identified the N.C. Office of Coastal Management as the
Lead agency. These were proposed to be completed during the State's
Fiscal Year 1978-1979, but reportedly were not funded. The amendment
to the North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Environmental Impact
Statement will address many of these elements. It is reported that the
Governor's letter transmitting SCORP to the Heritage, Conservation and
Recreation Service is more supportive than in the past, and commits the
State to solve its recreation problems and provide for balanced growth
25 Ibid., Section 53-8.40.
13

J
'
and a higher quality of life for residents and visitors to the State.
Reaction to the recent park land acquisition budget proposal, in legislative
action, does not evidence the same priority, for no funds were appropriated
for park acquisition for Fiscal Year 1979-1980, and only $250,000 for Fiscal
Year 1980-1981; this for all park acquisition by the State.
'
North Carolina Water Resources Planning
'
The North Carolina Water Resources Framework Study is presently being updated
by the staff of the Division of Environmental Management in the Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development. The draft of the report
is generally supportive and reiterates aspects of SCORP, the Coastal Manage-
1
ment Program and others, and identifies policies proposed for water manage-
ment including water based recreation, navigation, water supply, fish and
wildlife resources, the North Carolina balanced growth policy, and a variety
'
of other issues related to water resource planning. Recreation is treated
rather comprehensively, with identification of recreation issues related
to almost every topic discussed. Recommendations include a variety of
'
alternatives in development measures, and the following general recommenda-
tion: "that the State and local governments increase public access to its
waters and related land resources by increasing the number of: (1) addi-
tional boating and fishing access areas; (2) new State Parks and recreation
areas around large and small reservoirs; (3) scenic trails, rivers and
greenways, and (4) ocean and shoreline beaches". Another recommendation
proposed that the State and its political subdivisions acquire more outdoor
'
recreation sites in �9e vicinity of the growth centers identified in the
State growth policy. The State Planning Office has identified the More-
head City area as one of these growth centers with Beaufort a satellite.
Carteret County Access -Related Actions
"Local recreational needs and opportunities have not been given adequate
consideration in the past. As a result, those coastal areas of statewide,
regional, and/or national interest have received a greater part of the
financial to
aid available the state."27
' Carteret County, in seeking a consultant for the access study, stated
its desire to identify recreation access to the waterways surrounding
Carteret County, identify future access improvements desired and related
elements. At the pre -study public meeting, the Director of Parks and
Recreation indicated that present access to Carteret County waters is in-
adequate, this rounding out the full scale of federal, state and now local
feelings that there is inadequate access for coastal recreation.
The County has acted on issues related to access and preservation of natural
resources related to coastal and estuarine resources. The County zoning
I7
L
26 Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, N.C. Water
Resources Framework Study, review draft, n.d.
27 N.C. Coastal Management Program, p. 249.
Wt

r
ordinance, for example, requires preservation of primary dunes, major secondary
dunes in marsh area (Section 73-A.2 and 76-A.2(j)). The ordinance allows
pedestrian walkways and bicycle riding ways in Residential Resort Districts
(RR) but requires a 25 foot minimum setback from any street or highway
(Article 73-A.3). Marina requirements are provided for residential resort
districts, and marina business districts. The County Outer Banks Land
Protection Ordinance, administered by a Shoreline Protection Officer, im-
poses restrictions on all coastal areas whether incorporated or not. The
County has also adopted a Dunes Vehicle Control Ordinance as have some of
the municipalities in the County. A surfing Ordinance has been adopted
which does not allow surfing within 500 feet of fishing piers when a 500
foot marker buoy is in place.
Carteret County was the subject of a report authored by the State Department
of Local Affairs, Division of Community Planning: Carteret County, North
Carolina, -Community Facilities Plan and Public Improvements Program, dated
July, 1969. This report, among many other recommendations, recommended
that the County "acquire and develop water access areas (2-5 acres each)
to allow residents and visitors to utilize the County's waters. These sites
should contain boat ramps, parking, and picnic areas".28 Small access
areas were proposed to be located at Cedar Point, on the White Oak River,
east of Bogue Field, east of Broad Creek on the sound, at Pine Knoll Shores,
on the Newport River west of Beaufort, north of Beaufort, southeast of New-
port, one at the north end of North River, one east of Merrimon on the South
River, one at the west end of Harker's Island, and one each at Straits,
Gloucester, Marshallberg, Sea Level, Atlantic, and Cedar Island.
The report also proposed three roadside parks adjacent to major highways
for use by visitors to the County. These would be provided with picnicking,
camping, and public toilet facilities, and were proposed on U.S. 70 east
of Davis, and two sites in the Croatan National Forest on the U.S. 70 by-pass
at Newport and on the north side of N.C. Highway 24 west of Broad Creek.
Three other significant recommendations were made relating to access.
(1) Instigate a program of land and resource conservation designed
to assure. the protection of Carteret County's water bodies and
state and Federal parks. This program should include:
(a) zoning the access points to the National Seashore to
prevent deleterious commercial and residential developments
from detracting from the beauty of this national park;
(b) prevent total strangulation of public access to the sea-
shore by direct purchase, acquisition of development rights,
or long term leases from private owners to assure sufficient
public swimming and fishing areas; and
28 N.C. Department of Local Affairs, Carteret County, North Carolina,
' Community Facilities Plan and Public Improvements Program, Raleigh,
North Carolina, 1969.
20
1

(c) support and participate in all efforts to prevent the.
pollution of Carteret County's streams and sounds.
(2) Consider the possibility of developing waterfront parks along the
county's streams and water bodies. If acquired, this would result
' in a scenic system of parks and related activities, a pollution
prevention measure, and prevent development in areas susceptible
to periodic inundation.
' (3) Acquire and develop large (over 200 acres) county parks at the
western tip of Bogue Banks and another on Adams Creek south of
Merrimon. These parks should provide, facilities for active
recreation, boat docking and launching facilities, camping grounds,
washrooms and public toilets, and shower rooms.29
' The last proposal to develop the sizeable park at the western tip of Bogue
Banks also appeared in "A Plan for Parks and Recreation in Carteret County,"
prepared by the previous Recreation Director in 1974. however, only a 50
1 acre park was proposed, this specifically in order to provide residents
of Carteret County greater access to the ocean.
1 Carteret County Land Use Plan
The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission and Office of Coastal Manage-
ment prepared the County Land Use Plan in response to requirements of the
Coastal Area Management Act. Although the plan has been adopted by the
North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, to date, it has not been ac-
knowledged officially by the County, but the County is obliged to generally
follow its guidelines. The plan has not had wide distribution. The Land
Use Map associated with the report is not available in the county.
It is likely that people in the County will accept the information, objectives,
' standards, and comments contained in the plan, for it appears that the plan
is developed consistent with the majority of thinking in the County. Selected
objectives and standards which ave a relationship to beach access issues
are repeated below:
(1) Cultural and Historical Objectives
I(a) Preservation of meaningful local traditions and local culture
through:
' 1. Land use regulations that emphasize the value of the
local traditions within each township. In particular,
community development throughout the County has been
indicated as desirable and should be preserved.
1
29 Ibid.
21

1
2. Land use regulations and policies that will encourage
commercial and industrial development to fit in with
existing development. Proper buffer areas should be
emphasized.
'
(2) Land Development Objectives
(a) Encourage major residential and commercial growth to occur
near municipalities to prevent leapfrog development patterns,
and to facilitate the extensions of existing water and sewer
facilities. This objective can be accomplished through the
establishment of water and sewer extension policies by
municipalities which will locate these developments close
to their existing boundaries. Location of development near
towns will aid towns in future annexation proceedings.
(b) Preserve the 'rural nature of the County outside the munici-
palities. When land is developed in rural areas of the
County, it should be developed in basically a low density
'
residential character. Without the provision of water and
sewer services, most of the development will be at lower
densities. Also, through large lot zoning, the rural
1
character may be somewhat preserved.
(c) Encourage the preservation of the County's natural resources.
All development should consider the potential effect it has
on the County's natural resources and insure maximum effec-
tive.utilization of public facilities and services. Some
resources that should be considered include: (1) wetlands,
(2) estuarine waters, (3) frontal dunes, (4) water supply .
and (S) flood hazard areas. These land development objec-
tives can be achieved through:
Emphasizing the importance of County land use regulations
(zoning ordinance, subdivision regulation, group housing
ordinance, Outer Banks land protection ordinance, and mobile
'
home park ordinance and flood plain regulation). These regu-
lations should be developed and adopted in accordance with
the stated objectives of this land development plan.
(3) Economic Objectives
To develop an effective program to provide better job opportunities,
and increase personal income for all citizens of Carteret County,
without significantly affecting the "traditional" way of life
so important to the citizens of Carteret County. It is hoped
this objective can be achieved by:
(a) Continued emphasis on tourism as a major source of income
1 for Carteret County. It should be noted that efforts should
be closely coordinated with all local governments and organi-
zations within the County involved in tourist related activi-
ties. These interests include:
22

'
1. Sport fishing,
2. hotel and motel services,
3. restaurants
'
4. retail stores relying basically on tourist business,
and
5. other retail interests and services that help support
these interests and other tourist related business
(for example the construction industry).
(b)
Development of plans identifying areas to accommodate retail
trade and services for the expanding population of Carteret
County, and those who visit Carteret County. Land use regu-
lations,should be coordinated with the municipalities so
as to assure proper development of retail trade and services.
(c)
Emphasize and encourage improved transportation facilities.
This includes highways and roads, the Beaufort -Morehead
Airport, and freight services within the County.
(d)
Encourage and assist in providing improved navigational
channels in the County. This includes the Intracoastal
Waterway, the "Deep Water Channel" for the port, and other
service channels where economically justified. This will
improve all economic activities in the County including
commercial and industrial activities in general, and in
'
particular, the tourist industry.
(e) Encourage and promote the commercial fishing industry within
the County through:
1. Land management that will help preserve the productivity
of the estuarine waters within Carteret County.
(4) Service Objectives
I
Provide those services desired by the citizens of Carteret County
so as to improve the living conditions of all citizens of the
County.
'
(a) Encourage the development of a regional water and sewer plan
and its implementation.
'
(b) Encourage and strive for the development and improvement
of recreational opportunities and facilities for citizens
of all ages. This can be done through close attention to
the Carteret County Recreational Plan -and its proper imple-
1
mentation.
(c) To provide for the protection of the County's dunes system
'
on Bogue Banks. This is to be done by providing adequate
'
23

crossovers for access to beach areas. [,There feasible, the
County, in cooperation with the towns, will attempt to
provide parking facilities at selected areas along Bogue
Banks with crossovers provided nearby. Crossovers are
inexpensive means of protecting the valuable dunes system
1 which protects the mainland during storm surges.30
It is noted that the plan does not directly address access issues. Recrea-
tion aspects are based on the 1974 County Park and Recreation Plan which
generally addresses traditional park and recreation problems but does not
show access to coastal waters as a significant issue. This may be a function
of the direction and/or constraints under which the plan was prepared, and
' is not intended as a critical reflection.
I Land use plans have been prepared for incorporated coastal communities.
Many of these communities have a variety of ordinances which may either
provide access or restrict access to residents. The ordinances, land use
plans and State Coastal Management Program identify existing conditions,
restrictions and potential opportunities for access related services and
facilities. These publications along with Brower's Access to the Nation's
Beaches provide legal and background information basic to beach access issues.
1
Responsibility for Providing Access
It shall be a proper function of the State of North Carolina. . .
to. . .preserve park, recreational and scenic areas, to control
. . .pollution of our area and water. . .and in every other appro-
priate way to preserve as a part of the heritage of this State
its forests, wetlands, estuaries, beaches. . .3
II
Many agencies within state government in North Carolina have recreation
' related responsibilities, an indication that the state long ago assumed
responsibility for improvement of the general quality of life of its resi-
dents and the provision of leisure opportunities. Section 160A-351 of the
North Carolina General Statutes includes the statement, "the General Assembly
' therefore declares that the public good and the general welfare of the
citizens of this state require adequate recreation programs, that the
creation, establishment, and operation of parks and recreation programs
is a proper governmental function, and that it is the policy of North Caro-
lina to forever encoura e, foster, and provide these facilities and programs
for all its citizens".H
The above, a part of the Recreation Enabling Law, authorizes and enables,
rather than requires, this state and subordinate units of government to
engage in park and recreation functions.
30 Ibid.
31 1973 Amendment to the North Carolina Constitution.
32 GS 160A-351 of North Carolina General Statutes.
' 24

I
I
u
The state has evidenced commitment to beach access by its acquisition of
the Core Banks for transfer to the U.S. Government for use as a National
Seashore. Certainly much broader goals than merely beach access were in-
volved in this action. The state earlier accepted Fort Macon and adjacent
property as a gift from the U.S. Government; and accepted from the North
Carolina Education Association, Bear Island, now known as Hammocks Beach
State Park. Boat access areas are provided by the Wildlife Resources Commis-
sion; and both the Hampton Mariners Museum and Marine Resources Centers
provide interpretive services related to coastal waters and provide water -
based recreation services to some extent. With minor exception, the state
has not acquired coastal lands by purchase; gifts have directed the acquisi-
tion policy of the state.
The state, administering several federal programs, provides grants available
for use in a variety of applications which can be related to coastal water -
based recreations. State and federally funded bridge projects which link
Bogue Banks to the mainland, certainly enhance regional access and use of
coastal waters. Access to Cape Lookout National Seashore will be provided
by the federal government.
The Airport Marina in Beaufort is owned by Carteret County. Until July,
1979, the County leased the marina to a private operator. Except for the
marina and a few water -based recreation activities of the County Park and
Recreation Department, the county has not evidenced a serious concern toward
beach access. Termination of the lease on the airport marina is seen as
an attempt by the county to responsibly meet its commitment to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for the provision of a public wharf at this loca-
tion; recreation developments are a desired adjunct. The recreation ele-
ment of the Carteret County.Community Facilities Plan of 1969 has, in
general, not been implemented regarding facilities proposed. Certainly
the commitment by the county to undertake and partially fund a coastal
recreation access study indicates interest at the present time.
Except for the Town of Atlantic Beach, communities on Bogue Banks have
generally not seen the responsibility to provide beach or estuarine access
except to its own residents. The same is generally true of mainland communi-
ties, except as access is provided through commercial facilities. It is
assumed that the Beaufort and Morehead City boat ramps, both constructed
by the Jaycees, were designed to satisfy.needs of local residents, and that
they were turned over to the Wildlife Resource$ Commission when it became
apparent that local residents were not usually gaining benefits desired
during the peak tourist season. The Wildlife Resources Commission assumed
responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Morehead City ramp
in 1971 and the Beaufort ramp in 1978.
Commercial establishments have assumed the responsibility of providing a
majority of ocean and estuarine access in Carteret County. Related to this
25

77
J
is the real estate enterprise in the county,, with most beach homes being
sold as recreational second homes, thus providing private access to those
who can afford it.
Federal, state, county and local governments, as well as commercial and
private enterprise have a role to play in the provision of recreation oppor-
tunity. Governments, generally, do not participate in proprietary activities
with a profit making motive. The typical local government attempts to pro-
vide services to its own people. State and federal governments get involved
with those elements seen to be significant to them. Obviously there is
some overlapping, generally without conflict. Each level produces rules,
' regulations, ordinances, statutes which are intended to protect those fea-
tures seen to be important to the respective clientele.
One unique feature of coastal communities is that recreation facilities
provided, whether public or commercial, have inclined to be of a scope which
will respond to the regional demand; this a likely spinoff of the need for
tourism dollars to support local economies. This is a legitimate action,
but should not be done at the expense of local residents who lose access
to the tourists. Unfortunately, SCORP shows beach access type facilities
to exist in excess of need in Carteret County. Five Hundred seventy-seven
acres exist with a need shown for only 291 acres. It is obvious that during
the summer season facilities are overtaxed in most instances with permanent
residents rather disadvantaged by the tremendous influx of non-resident
users and the pressure applied to existing public facilities. (See Appendix B.)
In attempting to resolve this problem, it was learned that North Carolina
Division of Parks and Recreation, in the SCORP planning process, is directed
not to propose gross needs for non-resident populations. It was reported
that non-resident and tourism concerns were the responsibility of the
Division of Travel and Tourism Development in the State Department of
Commerce. The Division of Travel and Tourism Development reports that theirs
is a responsibility for promoting travel and for promoting tourism; they
do not have an assigned responsibility of promoting facilities.33 As a
result, there is a void in this area of responsibility at the state level,
and local people do lose a considerable portion of their recreational access
during the tourist season.
Private Landowner Responsibility
Landowners who allow free recreation access uses are immune from tort liabi-
lity in accordance with the following:
33 Conversation with William Arnold, Director of Travel and Tourism
Development.
26

A LAW RELATING TO THE LIABILITY OF LANDOWNERS
TO HUNTERS, FISHERMEN, TRAPPERS, CAMPERS,
HIKERS AND OTHER RECREATION USERS
Section 1. Chapter 113, General Statutes of North Carolina, is hereby amended
'
by adding, following Article 10A thereof, a new Article, to be designated
Article 10B, and to read as follows:
Article 10B - Liability of Landowners to Authorized Users. Sec. 113-
120.5. Except as provided in Section 113-120.6, an owner, lessee,
occupant or person in control of premises who gives permission to
another to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, or for other recreational
use upon such premises does not thereby extend any assurance that the
premises are safe for such purpose, or that a duty of care is owed
or that he assumes responsibility for or incurs liability for any in-
jury to person or property caused by an act of persons to whom the
permission is granted, nor to any person or persons who enter with-
out permission: Provided, that nothing contained in this Section
or Article shall be construed as limiting or nullifying the doctrine
of attractive nuisance as the same prevails in this jurisdiction.
Sec. 113-120.6. This Article does not affect the liability which
would otherwise exist for failure to guard, or to warn against a
dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or for injury
'
suffered in any case where permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp,
hike or for other recreational use was granted for a consideration
other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by
the State or paid by other governmental unit; or for injury caused,
by acts of persons to whom permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp,
hike, or for other recreational use was granted, or to other per-
sons as to whom the person granting permission, or the owner, lessee,
occupant, or person in control of the premises, owed a duty to keep
'
the premises safe or to warn of danger.:
'
Sec. 113-120.8. As used in this section the word 'premises' in-
cludes lands, waters, and private ways and any buildings and struc-
tures on such lands, waters, and private ways.
'
Section 2. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with the provisions
of this Act are hereby repealed.
Section 3. This Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its
ratification. The legislation, as printed, became law April 26, 1963. 4
34 Reprint from North Carolina Recreation Review, Volume 8, Number 2.
27

D e P oAmendments he
The raft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared n to t
North Carolina Coastal Management Program, the North Carolina State Com-
' prehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, and the North Carolina Water Resources
Framework Study all identify state policies regarding the provision of
adequate public beach access. In addition, the State of North Carolina
Coastal Management Program and draft Environmental Impact Statement iden-
tified state policies on recreation and tourism, including beach access and
the following state policy: "(5) to plan and promote recreational develop-
ments in these areas, with emphasis upon making the seashore areas of North
Carolina attractive to permanent residents".35 However, "it is state policy
that the responsibility of insuring that the public can obtain adequate
access to public trust resources for the ocean, sounds, rivers and tribu-
taries is primarily that of local governmentsto be shared and assisted by
State and Federal Government."36 Coastal counties with relatively small
populations are not accommodated by this policy.
In spite of the conflict in interest and gap in responsibility in state
programs, that ocean beach and estuarine waters are located in -Carteret
County requires Carteret County to recognize its responsibility in attempt-
ing to protect its very finite supply of beach area. Much of this has been
acquired by the State of North Carolina and Federal Government as Cape
' Lookout National Seashore, recognizing a federal interest and federal need
and not seen to be within the need to be supplied by Carteret County. With
the exception of Cape Lookout National Seashore, all state parks and natural
areas within the coastal counties have been acquired in response to gifts
from the federal government or private agency or individual. Planning,
preservation and provision of recreation facilities has been after the
fact.
Carteret County, with the exception of the Airport Marina which was leased
for operation, does not own or operate any areas with access to water. It
would seem the county should exercise responsibility for improving access
to its residents, particularly those who live away from beach areas and
' those who live in unincorporated beach areas. It would appear also that
the county, as a tourist area, should assume some responsibility to assist
in preserving and allocating other beach and water access areas for use by
other residents of North Carolina and the United States.
35 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management,
State of N.C. Coastal Management Program and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, p. 110.
' 36 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Office of Coastal Zone Management,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Prepared on Amendments to the
N.C. Coastal Management Program, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1979, pp. 18
and 19. 28

Bogue Pier
State Ferry Landing, Cedar Island
29

14
'Wil lip
Y
'.PYlSiL r . A, �y .
Jaycee Park, Beaufort
Beaufort Waterfront
30

I
11
1
I
SECTION IV
ACCESS - RELATED LOCAL ISSUES
P
romotin Tourism.,
. People on vacation are looking for
.:new places, new experiences, new
,perspectives. All this,- and more, can be
found here.
This holds true for those who come
here for 'the first time as well as for
.those who continue to return year after
-year to spend time here in their vacation
home.
. This is the attraction of Carteret
County. It offers beaches crowded or
uncrowded — all types of saltwater,
recreation, bunting, golf and tennis and
unique cultural authenticity found in the
people, their heritage and their habits.
Tourism is the county's largest
business. The spiraling tourist dollar of-'
fects every business in the county,
directly or 'indirectly.
But our commitment to tourism, or to
developing it, is being questioned. Bill
Arnold, state director _ of travel and
tourism who was in Morehead City last
week to speak at a meeting of the Travel
Council of North Carolina's new Region
IIA, . said this county is lagging behind
Wilmington and possibly the Outer
Banks area in developing its tourist
trade because of "some schizophrenia
about whether tourism is wanted."
He said that most of the opposition to
tourism here seems to come from peo-
.ple who have moved to an attractive
area and do not want it to change. He
said the attitude of Wilmington is that if
they don't take the intitiative in develop-
ing tourism, an outsider' will do it in a
way they don't like.
-.Carteret residents should make a
commitment to tourism if they favor it,
he said. If they oppose it, they should
enact zoning ordinances and other,
restrictions to prevent undesirable
development. "They should get it the
way they want, or take steps to prevent
it," he said.
Mr. Arnold's observation has been an
_undercurrent in this county for some
time. This: county has a lot to offer in its
sun and sand, giving it undeniable;np.-.
peal. But to what degreeWghould it the
county'901ts `appeal: be exploited?
Once an area decides to attract tourists,
it implicitly concedes the right to be ex-
ploited.
This issue has already been addressed
to some degree in the defeat of the 1976
convention center bond referendum and
in the recent defeat of the mixed drink
referendum. And it poses a paradox for
us. We say we want industry. But do we?
It has already been shown that we don't
want heavy industry, industry that
might pollute. "Light," non-polluting in-
dustry is fine. Does tourism qualify?
By its very appeal, this county has a
natural wealth. Some of it has been
tapped. We must now decide whether
the social and ecological costs of
tourism can be balanced by the benefits
of economic prosperity that the industry
may bring. If we agree that it should,
the political question of"how, can then be
addressed.'.,
1 Reprinted from April 30, 1979, Carteret County News -Times

' Local Issues
In discussing Carteret County environment, it is important that the human
environment serve as the base; the physical environment, the natural scene,
is related to social and economic aspects. Primary concern of this study
is to serve local residents. To serve them best is to retain pleasant
living conditions; the natural character of the coastal environment is the
principal amenity; the rich history and cultural traditions appear to run
' a close second. Although most enjoy life in the County, several issues
have been verbalized -by residents. It seems that the impact of tourism
is felt more than any other access issue. A variety of comments have been
heard as follows:
"Our family stays away from "the beach" (Atlantic Beach) during
the summer."
"After Labor Day we get our beach back."
"On weekends I can't launch my boat because so many outsiders
come in."
"Because there is limited opportunity for industrial development,
' we need to promote tourism as much as we can."
"The best thing you could propose is to blow up the bridges leading
' into Carteret County."
"I live in Pine Knoll Shores and can't get out on the road from
Friday night until Sunday night."
A local voluntary committee, the "Citizens Action and Awareness Group,"
has drafted and is discussing a "Quality of Life Statement" which identi-
fies local concerns:
' The present.life style in Carteret County is highly regarded by
the majority of citizens. There is concern that unbridled com-
mercialization, development, industrialization, population growth
and other factors may be proposed, or accepted as accomplished
to constituents unprepared to assess long term benefits vs. ad-
verse effects. While change is as natural as life itself, an
informed citizenry is obligated to be aware of arbitrarily im-
posed actions which may produce side effects unsatisfactory to
a large segment of the present population. Proposed changes
must be examined critically if there is real or suspected threat
to safety, health, clean .environment, water supply, land, wet-
lands., beaches, natural resources, and to economic stability,
or if there is concern that elected officials, their appointees,
and the laws, regulations and ordinances which constitute their
guidelines are failing to provide the required safeguards. Full
support should be given changes achieved through careful evalua-
32

tions if legally sound, and which offer every chance of enriching
the lifestyle of the majority, affording greater prosperity, more
and better jobs, improved living conditions and social benefits.l
It is feared that the quality of life is threatened, the friendliness of
small town life, ability to find a job, rear a family and enjoy life close
to the sea.
It is readily apparent that all desires relating to recreation access cannot
be accommodated. It is also apparent that maximum promotion of tourism
will further damage recreation opportunities for local residents. Many
people in the county, however, do not realize the extent to which tourism
is important for the economic health of the county. Continued access for
residents to waters within and surrounding the county needs to be maintained
in order that coastal waters continue to enhance leisure time life in the
county, for both residents and tourists.
Additional public and private or commercial developments of a major scale
will generate additional tourism, and will further constrain or limit local
uses. Increases in local populations and summer residents will also result
in more use. Transportation facilities into the county.and to Bogue Banks
will be further overloaded as well. Increases in the local economy will
result, but some will benefit more directly than others.
Many feel present law enforcement systems are not adequately able to handle
summer crowds. Many feel that emergency evacuation opportunities, the re-
verse of access, are not presently adequate to allow cautious people to
obtain safety away from coastal areas in the event of quickly developing
severe storms.
Instances have been cited of public -private incompatibility in coastal
areas. At times of high tide, it is possible that people walking along
the beaches are trespassing on private property, yet there are many cases
where landowners allow access over their private property. "If lenient
landowners change their attitude about access across their property, things
would be considerably worse," was the comment of a local resident. Local
young people desiring to seek access for surfing or swimming or for other
purposes have learned of the locations of paths over the dunes where they
will not be challenged by landowners for trespassing. Many of the fishing
piers allow access to view the ocean or for using ocean beaches, without
strictly enforcing parking for pier patrons only. Some pier owners do not
seek enforcement of the county ordinance prohibiting surfers from within
500 feet of the piers. Others have reportedly been much more severe in
action against those who have "invaded their space". Occasionally surfers,
surf fisherman, and swimmers compete for the same space. At times large
numbers of fishing boats in the Morehead harbor are seen to be a potential
problem to shipping and other boating activity. There is need on both
sides for respecting the rights of others in order that court battles do
not ensue.
1 "Discussion Outline, 1-23-79 Meeting, 7:30 P.M., Beaufort, N.C." ,
Citizens Action and Awareness Group. 33

There are many other examples of conflicts, many between different types of
users; sailing interferes with water skiing; commercial fishing and sport -
fishing are seen to be competitors by some. Four wheel drive vehicles are
seen by many as being inappropriate for beach areas; heavy use times such
as on Easter and Memorial Day weekends prior to the June 1 prohibition of
ORV's produces the most complaints.
In general, it appears that local issues revolve around three topics:
(1) Economic - how to maximize economic benefits;
(2) Social - how to maintain the present way of life;
(3) Environmental - how to enhance cultural and natural resources.
Environmental Protection Issues
Environmental quality in Carteret County is seen to be presently of quite
high quality. A current study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service com-
pares chemical content of black crowned night heron eggs with those col-
lected from an area on the Rhode Island coast considered to be relatively
polluted. About 350,000 acres of estuarine waters in the State are closed
to shell fishing, but at last count only 5,387 acres of County estuarine
waters was closed, this of an estimated 296,050 acres of estuarine waters
in the County.
' Mr. Robert Benton of the N.C. Department of Human Resources, speaking at
an Environmental Resources Commission meeting in Beaufort on May.3, 1979,
reported several instances where pollutants are being introduced to county
waters from a variety of sources, including waste water treatment plants,
inadequate septic systems, agricultural runoff, fish houses, and some boat
discharges.
' A "Capacity Use -Area" has been identified in the eastern part of the county
as a generalized condition of water depletion associated with phosphate
mining further north. William Jeter, hydrologist with the Natural Resources
and Community Development field office in Washington, North Carolina, in-
dicates, however, that the Carteret County area is not affected by this
condition, that the capacity use area boundary defined earlier may have
' been too broad. Mr. A. D. Fulford, County Sanitarian, has indicated that
some problem does exist in water supply with water level dropping in some
wells. Others have reported that water pressure in Atlantic Beach is very
low on heavy use weekends.
Heavy influxes of people strain utility systems. Should there be salt water
' intrusion into wells as a result of excessive pumpage, or if the sounds
become polluted and damage the nursery grounds for fin fish and shellfish
34

n
or create other undesirable conditions, many recreational uses would be
adversely affected. Ground water supplies are seen to be adequate to
accommodate needs in the foreseeable future, but a regional water supply
system may improve conditions assuring a continued supply to beach areas.
Some feel that no more tourism or visitation to the area should be promoted
until waste water treatment capacity has improved. Dr. Dan Okun in the
Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of North Carolina
is conducting a coastal water management study expected to be completed
by the summer of 1979, which studied Dare and Carteret Counties for waste
water options and costs. He feels septic tanks are a mistake and that no
waste water effluent should be discharged in estuarine areas.2 He feels the
best option for the County will be an ocean outfall, with all waste water
collected at one point. He feels there would be no damage to the ocean if
located somewhat further out than the Carteret County 201 Plan proposed.3
For the purpose of his study he used population projections of about 100,000
persons. It is generally considered, however,,that an increase in waste
water treatment capacity will have the effect of inducing additional popu-
lation increases.
Intensive uses of man on the land disturb natural processes. Non-structural
uses of the beach seaward of the high tide line is an exception to this.
The action of waves and tides continually renew wet sand areas, thus allowing
very intensive use of this narrow corridor. The same is not true for the
dry sand areas, the frontal dunes and secondary dunes; nor for the shrub
thickets and maritime forest. Development on barrier islands should be
placed as lightly on the land as possible, with an attempt made to create
the least amount.of change in the landscape, in order that the island sur-
vive as long as possible.
Beach erosion is seen by natural scientists to be a natural process of move-
ment landward, rather than an erosion process which typically has been
accelerated by man on the land. The continued availability of access to
coastal waters is dependent upon the continued existence of natural features
of the coastal landscape. Inlets move, overwashes occur, new inlets are
formed, sand continually moves both in the water and on the dunes. The
cost of stopping or delaying or "correcting" these processes can be very
expensive. Pilkey's How to Live With an Island specifically identifies
environmental.problems related to Bogue Banks. At least one resident of
Carteret County has indicated his feeling that the publication is an attempt
by Pilkey to ignite controversy. It seems to be an objective view that the
book is factual.. Problems Pilkey identifies appear to be the result of the
desire for coastal access, to some extent accelerated by developers. A view
of this process is proposed by Robert Tennenbaum, ". . .The developer simply
responded to market opportunities in his search for profit, an integral part
of the American capitalist system." The desire to create a family beach
atmosphere on most of Bogue Banks should have the result of providing ulti-
mately less use of the ocean beach than would the banks in public or commer-
cial ownership.
2 Personal Conversation of 3/5/79.
3 Henry von Oesen and Associates, and Wm. F. Freeman Associates, Carteret
County Complex 201 Facility Plan, n.d. (1975).
4 Orrin H. Pilkey r., et al, How to Live With an Island: A Handbook to
J
Bogue Banks, N.6. Dept. of Natural & Economic Resources, 'Raleigh, .,
'175.� 35

'
Continual use of even one foot path over the dunes will have the potential
result of eliminating the dune. The island is fragile. Intensive develop-
ment such as that at Indian Beach, or development on areas of previous or
potential overwashes and inlets, construction of roads perpendicular to
the beach, and other actions could, in time of a serious stom, induce damage
which would have the effect of, temporarily at least, reducing access op-
'
portunities, and could result in disaster relief and/or flood insurance
payments of massive proportion.
'
Estuarine areas have aspects which are likewise of environmental importance.
To many people "clam kicking" will ultimately destroy production of shell-
fish as well as reduce propagation of finfish and shrimp, and reduce the
protection marshes provide to adjacent land. Too much access will eliminate
bird rookeries found in estuarine waters.
'
Regarding most surface uses of open waters in the estuary, James Brown,
g g
of the State Division of Marine Fisheries, feels that an unlimited amount
'
of recreational use can be allowed. Excessive wave action in narrow reaches
would accelerate damage in areas of bulkheading and fragile estuarine shore-
lines. It is assumed that this and safety needs have precipitated "no wake"
'
zoning, although zoning would be appropriate in any area of congested boating.
' Implementation and enforcement of Carteret County ordinances relating to
land protection, dunes vehicle control; the Carteret County Land Use Plan
and Coastal Area Management Act, as well as local municipality counterparts
will assist in meeting the general public need for protection of environ-
mental features. Responsible private action will assist in maintaining
public access to public lands and waters.
r
L
I
Sailing and Motorboating off Radio Island
36

SECTION V
SUPPLY - PRESENT ACCESS AND USE
Most of the southern ocean shoreline in Carteret County is
privately owned. There are a number of public access points
in the Fort Macon State Park area and the municipality of
Atlantic Beach. Public access is also available at some
of the private lots, piers and illegally used foot paths
(leading from Salter Path Road to the beach). The county
neither owns nor manages these points. The majority of
the access points, both private and public have very limited
public service facilities and parking and have been estab-
lished only on paper, hence, have not been marked as being
public access points. A few walkways and ramps over the
frontal dune have been provided but the majority of the
points do not have them.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, Office
of Coastal Zone Management, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement Prepared
on Amendments to the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, Washington,
D.C., 1979.
i�'
Access Using Private Lands

' The problem of how to get to the ocean and sounds has been identified as
that of securing access to the coastal area, and that of transporting oneself
' the short distance from the public road to the public beach.
' Regional Access
State highways provide the principal access for regional visitors to the,
' county: Highways 70, 24, 53, and 101. Inter -city bus transportation is
available, again using major highways. The intracoastal waterway and navi-
gation channels with additional minor waterways, provide ingress and egress
for a small number of visitors.
The Beaufort -Morehead Airport manager, Craig Willis, reports that more than
' fifty private planes are, used by people vacationing in the county; rental
cars and taxies are available for local transportation. The commuter
airlines, Wheeler Airlines, reportedly discontinued service to the County
' because of inadequate business. Piedmont Airlines offers limited service
to Jacksonville and New Bern, within reach of the County, but not convenient
enough to induce visitation to Carteret County attractions. An airport
study considering future expansion is underway. "Airport planning is essen-
tial" according to the Carteret County Land Use Plan prepared by the North
Carolina Coastal Resources Commission.l
' The Southern Railway system also serves the area, but does not provide
passenger service.
1 Local Access
Local congestion on state highways and local streets is obvious to the
visitor and frustrating to the resident at busy times. Beaufort residents
report that it takes one hour to get to Atlantic Beach, with traffic some-
times backed up for six blocks west from the intersection to the bridge
' at 28th Street and Arendell Street in Morehead City. Highway 70 traffic
from the west has the same problem, with traffic reportedly regularly backing
up at least to the Plaza Shopping Center; at very busy times the line has
extended two miles west.2 Local streets are also occasionally congested
in Harker's Island, Cape Carteret, and the Cedar Point Area, as well as
that expected in the more populated areas.
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation Carteret Count Transportation
P P Y P
Plan of 1971 has not been implemented. Morehead City, which reports a traffic
1 increase of 30 percent between 1963 and 1973, has a "sketch thoroughfare
plan" which is expected to be completed shortly. Completion of the Salter
Path Road will improve some aspects of travel on Bogue Banks, but is con-
stricted by traffic at Atlantic Beach "circle" and at the two bridges to
' 1 N.C. Coastal Resources Commission, Coastal Area Management Act Land Use
Plan, Carteret County, N.C., Raleigh, N.C., 1978.
2 From 6/26/79 conversation with Major Condie of Morehead City Police
Department.
38

' the mainland. Access to both the Morehead City and Beaufort waterfront
areas is accomplished by using local streets which are quite constricted
' and unable to handle the potential volume of traffic generated by the water-
front attractions. Mayor Dixon of Morehead City would like their waterfront
area studied, designed and developed to better serve visitors to the area.3
1 The two waterfront areas, along with Fort Flacon State Park and the Atlantic
Beach amusement area, constitute the major destination points for recreation
traffic.
Local Access for`Recreation Uses
Most access for water -related recreation use is provided by commercial faci-
lities. It is expected this supply will continue as long as the market
holds up and as long as uses of the land continue to be seen by the owners
as the highest and best use for their respective properties. However,
those desiring simple access to water cannot depend entirely for their access
by the use of commercial or privately owned property; uses are likely to
change.
1
A wide variety of recreation uses require access: power boating and water
skiing, use of small boats and canoes, sailing, fishing, swimming, surfing,
scuba and skin diving, shelling, birding, nature observation, hiking or
jogging along the beach, four wheel drive or off road vehicle use, enjoying
vistas and visual uses, securing "wilderness" experience at remote places,
picnicking, camping, hunting, and possible other uses.
Access for recreational use of Cape Lookout National Seashore, is not in-
cluded in the scope or responsibility of this inventory, even though many
county residents use Core Banks and Shackelford Banks for family recreation.
Fort Macon State Park was also identified as being outside the scope of
this study, but the inventory does include Fort Macon facilities because
of their ease of access and importance to the non -boating public and to
the less affluent.
The Coastal Beach Access Inventory prepared -by the office of Coastal Manage-
ment staff and the inventory prepared by staff of the Division of Parks
and.Recreation which lists all recreation areas in Carteret County, were
used as the basis for inventory of access points. Additional minor access
points include private lands used by trespassing; highway right-of-ways
providing access for boat mooring, car top launching; and fishing or sun
bathing near bridges. Another type of access is that provided by the State
Port in allowing visitations to the port, when staff personnel are available
as guides.
An interesting opportunity is offered by the Sylvia II with tours of the
sound allowing passengers to take part in and experience the work of a small
commercial fishing boat, at the same time gaining information and apprecia-
3 Personal conversation 3/15/79.
IJ
39

tion of local cultural and natural history. The vessel is docked near the
Taylor Boat works on Peltier Creek. Interpretation of "privateering" by
experience sailing on the Meka II out of Beaufort is another unique type
of recreation access available. Local head boats and 46 sport fishing
vessels provide additional access to the ocean. Recently added harbor tours
provide relatively low cost narrated scenic tours. Commercial businesses
in Atlantic Beach provide a variety of other types of access opportunities.
Some of the parking at Beaufort Launch Ramp July 4, 1979
Fort Macon State Park Beach, July 8, 1979
40

Major Free Access Sites
0
n
(n
o
►v
w
C
7i
cn
n
w
M
n
n
w
�i
P.
W
E
M
G
ro
w
o
z
w
*
ro
G
Cr
NOTE: Maps keyed to these
p Y
o
w0
c
n
�'
C
w
N
n
rt0
co
0�
�'
w
�
n
rn
�'
G
H
N
tables begin on 45.
$ p•
w
i�
a
w
0
..
�
o �
rn
o
H.
n
P.
0
N•
0
H.
w
0
w•
�i
m
w
n
w
w
�
�'
w
o
ot4
w
rr,
ww
rt
a
o
m
p
P
rt
fD
0
�
Key Access Site
in
A-1
Harker's Island "Causeway"
ost of land is
-Northern-most brid e
X
40
X
X
X
X
X
State-owned.
A-2
Beaufort Jaycee Park
X
30
2
Add'l parking for
75 cars on shoulde
A-3
Radio Island, East -.side
X
30+
X
NX
X
X
Commercial Prop.;
use not restricted
A-4
LST Ramp, Radio Island
X
150
X
X
X
X
Closed during ma-
neuvers;SCUBA area
A-5
Fort Macon State Park
X
X
480
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Life uards in seas
A-6
Triple Ess Pier
X
100
X**
X
X
Cars w/surfboards
prohibited
A-7
Oceanana Pier
X
110
*
X
I
xi
it
A-8
Sportsman's Pier
X
60
**
X
X
it
A-9
Atlantic Beach "Circle"
X
285
X
X
The major public
1X1
I
beach; lifeguards
in season.
A-10
Morehead City Municipal Park
X
50
4
X1X1
X1
X
Often crowded
A-11
Iron Steamer Pier
X
130
1XI
1*
X
X
�-lla
"State of N.C. Ocean Access"
X
X
X
Not identified or
W. side of Iron Steamer Pkn .lot
JImanaged
for use.
A-12
Twin Piers
X
X
80
*
*
X
X
Little parking for
non -patrons.
A-13
Emerald Isle Pier
X1
50
X
*IX
I
X
A-14
Bogue Fishing Pier
X
30
*
X
X
Emerald Isle Life-
guards; commercial
parking adjacent.
A--15
Cedar Point Boat Access Area
X
20
1
Int. Paper leases
to NC WildlifeCom.
A-16
Cedar Point Recreation Area,
IXIX
Ramp not adequate
U.S. Forest Service
1X1
30
11
1
X
X
X
for most boats
* Fee charged for this use
Estuarine Shore Commercial Campgrounds With Boat Launching Ramps
(Not keyed to Maps)
Driftwood Campground, Cedar Island
' Cedar Creek Campground, Atlantic
Bullock's Marina and Campground, Harker's Island
Riverside Campground and Marina, Otway
' Cedar Point Family Campground, East of Swansboro
Sound View Campground, East of Swansboro
41

Minor Free Access Poirits Which Receive Regular Use
OMI-d
OMMn
Itmz
rt
NOTE: Maps keyed to these
N
w
G
�wi
C
f�D
u~i•
x
FED•
1
a
tables begin on p. 45.
i
G''
m
w a
p �d
.-
�`
w
0
w
p
w
p
w
n
o
�d0
w
OQ
�
aC
no
�
m
H
0N
v
rt
W10 rt
G
fD
o
0
n
o•
Key Access Site
o'
p
Comments
B-1 South End of Cedar Island Road
IX
I I
JU.S.
Fish and Wild -
(Adjacent to Lewis Creek)
X
5
life Service Ram
B-2 Adjacent to Thorofare Bridge, NC 12
X1
5
IX
I
If
B-3 Road End So. of SeaLevel Hospital
X1
5
Ramp in Poor cond.
B-4 Highway R.O.W. at Salter's Creek
X
15
I
1XI
B-5 Highway R.O.W. at Smyrna Creek
X
15
1
JXJ
B-6 Wards Creek East of US 70 Bridge
X
20
1 IX
Includes privateland
B-7 East and West Causeways at North R. Brid
X
25
1 IX
X
Poor ramp.
B-8 Large open area So. of Harkers Is. School
X
10
X
Used heavily by
(Privately owned)
Island residents
B--9 So. End of Straits Bridge @ Harker's Is.
X
20
X
Private above Mean
I
High Water line
B-10 Street Ends in Beaufort
X1
X
I
Mostly no parking
B-11 ..East -Side -of Beaufort Morehead Drawbridge
X
20
X
X
Some use on Private
........... . .... 1.
land; R.O.W. parking
B-12 East Side of Morehead -Beaufort Highrise
NC Marine Fisheries
.. .... Bridge __......_
X
10
X
X
X
X
X&
State Port land.
B--13 So. End of Oyster Creek Road at Mouth
Usable only at high
of Mill Creek
X
5
X
tide; USFS land
B-14 Morehead City Town Park, 800 Evans St.
X
X
X
Street parking; area
very small
B-15 Street ends in Morehead City
X
X
X
B-16 Calico Creek Bridge (20th St.) Morehead C
X
5
1
X
I
1"No Fishing" signs
B-17 NC 24 Bridge across Gales Creek
X
10
X
" (Ignored)
B-18 NC 24 Bridge across Broad Creek
X
10
xi
I
I it "
B-19 East End of Club Colony, Atlantic Beach
X
5
X
No parking ignored;
Pedestrian access;
IORV-damaged
dunes.
B-20 West End of Club Colony, Atlantic Beach
X
5
X
if
Trail not on easemnt,
B-21 Trail opposite Landmark Inn
X
-
X
Ocean access for
I
Landmark Guests.
B-22 State Road to Beach, just West of Salter
Pedestrian access
Path East of Squatters Campground)
X
-
X
I
X
X
for Indian Beach.
B-23 Road End at Bogue Inlet
X
-
X
X
X
Access.
fedestrian
rmerly major access.
o parking enforced.
In addition to the above, most motels and campgrounds provide guest access. Some
non -guest parking is overlooked and unregulated. The N.C. Marine Resources Center,
P:Lne Knoll Shores; and the Hampton Mariners Museum in Beaufort, provide water -related
nature observation activities and interpretation.
42

Public Lands/Easements Generally Restricted to Local Residents
Because of No Parking or No Access Identification
Map
Key
Access Site.
Uses
Comments
C-1
Club Colony, Atlantic Beach;
5 Easements
Pedestrian Ocean Beach
Access
No Parking Allowed
C-2
Atlantic Beach 6 Road Ends
Pedestrian Ocean Access
No Parking Allowed
C-3
Ocean Ridge (E. of Atlantic
Beach)• 11 Easements
Pedestrian Ocean Access
No Parking Allowed
C-4
Pine Knoll Shores ( 2 Parks)
Parking and Pedestrian
Access to Ocean Beach.
Owned by Homeowners Assoc.;
Resident Parking only.
Internal Access to Sound
Residents only
C-5
Hoffman Beach (E. of Salter
Path)• 5 - 10' Easements
Pedestrian Ocean Access
No Parking Available
C-6
Emerald Isle Easements
(3 every 1100' of development)
Pedestrian Ocean Access
No Parkin Allowed.
C-7
Cape Carteret Boat Launch
Areas (3)
Boat Access to Sound
No Parking Allowed.
Private Lands Regularly Used for Ocean Beach Access Without Permission
Key
Access Site
Owner, if Known*
Comments/Uses
D-1
Old Road West of "A Place at
Habib Engineering Contrac-
ORV, Pedestrian Access;
the Beach" Condominiums,
tin 'Co. Ltd.
Much unregulated use:.
D-2
Trail Opposite Croatan Trailer
H. Morrison Johnston, et al
"
Park
D-3
Trail Opposite Fast Fare
Philip R. Taylor
"
D-4
Trail Approx. 200 yards East
Edith C. Lumpkin, et al.
of Whaler Inn
Pedestrian Access only
D-5
Trail Approx. 100 Yards West of
Frances Webb Roosevelt
"
Iron Steamer Pier
Much unregulated use
D-6
Trail Approx. 1 Mile West of
ORV, Pedestrian; Room for
Ramada Inn
T.R. Roosevelt et al.
10 Cars; Unregulated Use.
D-7
Trail off Old Highway at
Walter C. Latham
Room for 5 Cars;Pedestrian
Indian Beach
access.
D--8
Trail Approx. 150 Yards West of
ORV, Pedestrian access.
Indian Beach Trail D-7)
Walter C. Latham
D-9
2 Trails in Undeveloped Area
Luther B. Fletcher, et al.
ORV, Room for 10 Cars; Much
Between Bogue Pier and Islander
Unregulated Use.
Motel
D-10
Clearing Immediately East of
?
ORV, Room for 10 Cars; Wire
Islander Motel
barricade regularly cut and
osted signs disregarded.
D-11
Trails about 1 Mile East of
Am. Classic Ind. and Lewis
ORV, Room for 15 Cars; Some
Bo ue Inlet
R. Holding
dune destruction from ORV's:
D-12
Area East of East End of Inlet
Section Fifty -One
ORV Access
Drive
Association
* Source: Carteret County Tax Collector Records
43

I
1
n
I
Commercial Launch Sites and Marinas
Note: These are not keyed to the maps
Access Site
w t
10
n0H0onCJn0
rt 0 5C
o
w 0 M ,�9En
rµr w k
tD
ro
9
w X�
n
rt
0
w
w
Comments
1 Gaskill's Boat Launch Cedar Island
5
1
2 Morris Mariria' Atlantic
25
20
1
Road access very poor
3 'Willis'Brothers Texaco Atlantic
20
20
2
4 - Cape --Lookout Motel and Mrina, Harker's Is.
. ... . .. .. ..
10
30
20
2
Being Closed in Fall
1979 - Park Service
5 Harkez s Marina Harker's Island
10
20
20
2
6 Calico Jack's Inn and Marina Harker's Is.
50
70
25
2
Cape Lookout Access
7 Grayson Motel and Marina Harker's Island
25
20
2
Ca a Lookout Access
8 Fishermans Inn Marina and C m roundHarker's
Island
9 Hill's Launching Ramp,South River
5
1
10 Mason's Motel and Marina Core Creek
15
1
11 'Airport Marina Beaufort
20
1
12 Lanes Marina Inc. Morehead -Beaufort C
25
13 Morehead Sports Marina if
20
20
30
2
14 Morehead City Yacht Basin
50
15 Triple Ess Yacht Basin Atlantic Beach
55
25
2
16 Anchorage Marina Inc. Atlantic Beach
80
140 115
1
17 - Port Macon Marina - sAtldntic Beach
160,
18 Atlantic -Beach Causewa 'Marina
20
12
20 '121
Rental Boats available
19 Bel -Air Motel Atlantic Beach ... ... ......10
..5
1
..........
20 'Herb's Tackle'Sho Atlantic Beach
10
1
21' Crow's Nest Marina Atlantic Beach
165
12
25
2
22 70'West Marina Morehead City
300
23 The Harbor Master Morehead City
20
30
24 Cannon Boat Works, Morehead City_30
25 Taylor Boat Works Morehead City
9
26 Spooners Creek Yacht Harbor, W. of
Morehead City
15
90
27 Newport River Boat Launch Newport
5
1
28 Island Harbor Marina Emerald Isle
15
65
25
1
29 Swansboro Yacht Basin, E. of Swansboro
40
30 Dudle s Gulf, E. of Swansboro
165
31 Stella Boat Launch, Stella
44

IV 0
46.
nONi.Ai, 4740
14.
ij
4 M
B -- 4
701
1 Y
{ o mo,,B—
S�/
`' vlaj
).f O >> vYl
p
1000
$
� G
,ti 1
... 444 G \�
lo
0 w Y
40
N M
fC, C
/ u, NOTE: Maps Keyed
to Access Inventory,
(4�a 0 pp. 41 - 43.
1
Base Maps from N.C. D.0.7..
-'�; T Carteret County Highway Map ,

C O U N T Yzz
Iu 3
L• ,
o wl
F QIGO
F �
s y. Ll,! LLu lot
Su! y Pi S sill '.' Ilia
ills; a w, n' IILL ` ..r
lilt •,i IL llN oil �� Ilff� /
II1L '1 � \ Y )o
1 I3L
Ila
B 6 Yj
14,
`(
LUJ
it
is ►
IWO
my
1.14
lit Ills 1 �y
Il0 IP J. V r 1
�) .k..., �, Y 1,,• sJ w �yl 7. lLLl 1 to i wL '��
Ills . �, Iw �. ••�• 1 �' �'�; ,� )
',�,�� l �,,,..r r<.� • •�'tl;� � �' ? , \ _ g. � �.7, u� ,u iil4-. ►il s•.I,.•.�! u ��� 1
uu
A-10 1 ,
_ n ^ �,1R1 ? w1 �/ l �S� I,:'i• / II 7 v .- � � �. 1
_ •� I! p� till — i roo
.I 'i; I l I IJ IO rti . 1dOREHE ��,� }` � �:,% (,///'��• r �;'; ,')• - x L111 /.7 ''•i;
j
....:::::::.::::.:: `---'•___ `ate ' .II_
A 11 1& A �6L)FORT
wisr �?®�
N K 5 :� - '"1eAY� IAAl10
� ' EAST NO T1l
__- BAr f(i
oulro. $1
-.l�.- Cif'
fl_— Iva
e s11o.e1 rw.'.us
POINT
l/° B
.. o �
�t �
•� .� N N CON 0` Oil O, Q B -1 2
,��,��- B_8
4N 0 U C] Om UUQ•QQm-Um

�a _ v "1 �, 6a it a 9
At a 9P't v 01 a Zl a
tr ,a Of` '( 1) 11 'R l 1— V O 7 s N04.
0 '
4._-_ �_ -� ;'•_- /�
nri
In
N n `. a
n 0 o it
:: •.
r fl ( rlrr � \_t:::•-. _�- orR.4.fv7(o.4�Rs tr TR
"�
y If �_-•-.. 7VISYOJI'H1N! �1( �Q �.•�' Iit,
ri
lk
rrrr � r r o .'1 . r r n/ �,J\ r� •) r -�
Al
( r t r ..I,. rr (( b. rit 1 t •;�' it If
( r \i
` 10
rrl - 1 Irl r ( �`. V �rrTl � (, J•MS
it �•� (•y r '�` ffrr _ -y Y � i:,��� �I l/1 (,,� �
rr `\ �,J
r 1rlr, T l n L— ar 'MT re. 1 9 — O
Oftra
RTT ( rrr7 - "" rinN ,.r r, , irjti C
`l b
�rnr
rrr r.\ AI
N I n ,
21,
rin
• r / J /1�
Oof Itry
tI
frtr in
T ►r� rarr
►tu hn `` d rot r Mn i
rrr o '"" ~•NI + orbe
to
'�%'1�1�-_` nr or � rr7i .H`r• i•�`'ya`..-/ Jrrn � b``^�h.~ ,.�j
To of
v. 7i
N ^ `

Perceptions of Population Characteristics
The Neuse
River Council of Government's Population and Socio-Economic Base
Spublished in August, 1975, provided general information regarding
'
Carteret
County, most of which reflects 1970 conditions:
1.
Carteret County Population - 1940 - 18,284; 1950 - 23,059; 1960 -
'
27,438; 1970 - 31,603; 1973 - 33,308.
2.
57.9% of residents were living in rural areas of the county.
-level
3.
The 1970 education for those 25 and over in the county was
10.9 years (10.7 years in Region P).
4.
The median age in 1970 was 28.3 years according to the Bureau of
Census.
5.
The median family income in the county was $7156, this compared
to $6514 in Region P and $7774 statewide. (This is low compared
to the U.S. median of $9590.)
J
F
7
Li
6. Carteret County had 16.6 percent of its population living in
"poverty families" in 1970; this is below the regional 22.2 per-
cent but a little more than the state average of 16.3 percent.
7. Of all counties in Region P, only Carteret County experienced
a net in -migration between 1960 and 1970, with 665 people moving
to the .county.
8. The 1970 non -white population included 11.1 percent of the total
who were black, and .139 percent who were Indians.
R. Curtis Fleshman, Assistant Superintendent of Carteret County Schools, re-
ports 7,398 children in the school system; 1,415 of these are at West Carteret
High School and 873 at East Carteret High School. He indicated a gradual re-
duction in school populations, with most fluctuations affected by situations
at Cherry Point Marine Air Station.
Nancy Ward, a County Recreation Supervisor, reports that 15 percent of the
county population is 55 years of age or older (est. 7100), that the Recrea-
tion Department and schools provide activities for 16 educable mentally
handicapped residing in the county, and that county statistics indicate
there are 28 persons physically handicapped.
48
1

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission reports boat registration
in Carteret County as follows:
Year Number Registered
1968 2,243
1970 2,591
1975 3,894
1976 4,971
1977 5,267
1978 5,477
Comments
Ten horsepower or over: average
six percent increase per year
1968 - 1977
All boats with motors (estimated
to include 783 boats under ten
horsepower).
Six percent increase.
Four percent increase.4
With the Office of State Planning and budget reporting 37,100 population
for the county in 1979, this equates to one boat for every 6.7 persons.
Carteret County has less than seven -tenths of one percent of the State
population and about 2.8 percent of registered boats in North Carolina.
Local Recreation Interests
The 1969 recreation interest survey by the Carteret County Recreation Com-
mission and the Environmental Studies program of Carteret High Schools re-
ported recreation interest of 744 students of East and West Carteret High
Schools. Respondents were asked to name two activities which take up the
majority of their leisure time. Team sports were first with 479 selecting
this, surfing was second with 200 choices, and sailing was the third ranking
activity with 125 identifying this choice.5
A 1979 study, again with the.assistance of the Environmental Studies Program
at West Carteret High School, surveyed 209 students from East and West
Carteret High Schools and 15 adults. Respondents were requested to identify
the number of times in the last year they had taken part in a water -related
recreation in Carteret County. Those recording participation ten or more
times or "on occasion" were recorded as having an interest in the respective
activities. Three exceptions, charter boat fishing, head boat fishing -
and excursion boat rides, constituted an interest if five or more times
were recorded. An average of thirteen activities per respondent were re-
4 Ms. Helen Gournas, Boat Registration Section, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, May 22, 1979.
5 Carteret County Parks and Recreation Commission, A Plan for Parks and
Recreation in Carteret County, n.d. (estimated 1975).
49

corded as interests
as follows:
No. Participating
Percent of Those Surveyed(224)
Water -Based Recreation Interest
148
66
Swimming/sunbathing at the
beach
125
56
Hiking/jogging/walking on
beach
112
50
Power boating on sound or
river
90
40
Visit waterfront areas to
watch commercial shipping
or look at vessels
79
35
Visit other shoreline area
to enjoy the scenery
76
34
Shell collecting/birding/
nature observation on beach
69
31
Clamming/oystering (non-
commercial)
68
30
Visit Ft. Macon
56
25
Fishing in sound or river
56
25
Launch boat from public
boat ramp
57
25
Power boating on ocean
53
24
Picnic on the beach
43
19
Fishing in ocean, other
than above
43
19
Go camping in tent or
trailer
39
17
Surfing
39
17
Sailing on,the sounds
36
16
Four wheel drive vehicle
use in coastal area
50

35
16
Take excursion boat ride
29
13
Fishing from commercial pier
28
13
Hunt waterfowl or rails
25
11
Visit Core Banks
19
8
Surf fishing
17
3
Head boat fishing
17
8
Sailing on ocean waters
17
37
Water skiing
15
6
Skindiving/SCUBA
15
7
Charter boat fishing
11
5
Jet ski/pedal boat rental
4
2
Rent a boat
One hundred three, 46 percent of those surveyed, reported not owning a re-
creational boat. Fifty-four percent reported owning boats, with 22 of these
(10 percent of those surveyed) having more than one boat. Of the 121 persons
who own boats, 40 have a permanent mooring, 48 transport their boat when they
want to use it, and 12 have their boat in dry storage until it is used. It
is not known how many of the latter are in commercial dry storage warehouses
and how many are merely stored on land adjacent to a launching ramp. It is
assumed that most of the inboard motor boats shown below and some of the out-
board motor boats would be listed in the class of "part time commercial" but
are used for family recreation as well.
Number of Owners Percent of Those Surveyed Type of Boat
68 30 Outboard motor boats
27 12 Inboard motor boats
24 11 Sailboats
15 7 Other (Prams, Rowboats)
9 4 -Canoe
51

Attitudes and Opinions
Groups surveyed included.(1) those attending the April 10, 1979, pre -study
public meeting on access, (2) homerooms at East Carteret High School se-
lected at random, (3) the journalism class and Environmental Studies Program
classes at West Carteret High School, (4) other classes at East and West
Carteret High Schools selected by the ESP project team. With one exception,
all attitudes expressed by the various groups were reasonably consistent.
The one exception to those printed below is question "g" in which the adults
answering the survey -indicated the feeling that drinking water supplies
are adequate to accommodate growth. Numbers reported below are percentages
of those surveyed; numbers do not add up to 100 percent because those not
responding to the question are not shown.
7-Yes %No
a. 46 38 Carteret County can accommodate additional growth and use
of shorelines.
b. 59 26 Growth of tourism and increased use of ocean and estuarine
areas will be of economic benefit to Carteret County.
c. 29 54 It is possible to accommodate more tourists in the County
and still retain pleasant living conditions.
d. 62 21 A moderate growth should be promoted, with additional beach
and boat access provided, to serve both residents and tourists.
e. 68 16 Growth in tourism in Carteret County will occur even if
nothing more is done to promote it.
f. 63 20 Highway transportation into Carteret County should be
improved.
g. 37 42 Drinking water supplies are adequate to accommodate growth.
h. 22 60 Waste water treatment facilities in the County are adequate
to accommodate growth.
' i. 34 49 Present law.enf.orcement systems are adequately handling
summer crowds.
j. 54 30 Subdivision developers should provide public access or allow
' public purchase of access rights to ocean and sound.
k. 71 10 Estuarine and ocean shoreline resources can be damaged by
' too much use or improper uses.
1. 34 46 Emergency evacuation (the reverse of access) opportunities
' in the event of severe storms are presently adequate to
allow cautious people to obtain safety away from coastal
areas.
52

M. 62
20
State Government should do more to assist in
providing beach
access.
n. 66
17
County government should do more to assist in providing
beach access.
o. 63
21
Local government should do more to assist in
providing beach
access.
p. 21
49
Providing beach access is a primary function
of private
enterprise.
Showers at a beach park, Boca Raton, Florida
53

s ( 1
�
r
Delray Beach, Florida, Beach Access
Boca Raton, Florida, Dune Trail
54

SECTION VI
ANTICIPATED DEMAND
"The pressures on the nation's coastal zone are even more
severe than in 1972. Certainly, the need for additional
recreational access to the nation's coasts and waters
continues to grow."
Robert W. Knecht, "Coastal Zone Management
Comes of Age," Practicing Planner, Dec.
1978.
Bogue Point, July 8, 1979

'
Population Increase Demands
'
By 1990, local population is anticipated to increase 21 percent over the
present 37,100. In addition, it is assumed that maximum interest in popular
recreation sites is generated within one-half day's drive of the attraction
(Area 1 on map below). A lesser demand exists as distance, time and travel
costs increase. It appears that the principal market area for Carteret
County is within North Carolina and includes counties outside a 160 mile
radius: Alamance, Caswell, Forsyth, Guilford, Randolph, Rockingham and
'
Person Counties (Area 2 on map). Counties principally attracted, because
of their proximity, to Dare County and the South coast were not included.
Demand in counties reported includes demand for competing coastal areas.
An 18 percent increase is projected for these populations by 1990. An
'
estimated 3.6 percent of this group may be found in Carteret County on an
average summer weekend.
Population Estimatesl
' Carteret County
1977 1980 1990
Carteret County 37,100 37,700 44,900
' N.C. Counties within
160 miles (1) (above) 1,876,900 1,982.200 2,259,300
' N.C. Counties within
160-200 miles (2) 836,400 872,500 944,100
' 2,750,400 21892,400 3,243,300
Carteret County reportedly has 75,000 to 100,000 people within its borders
' during summer weekends. Somewhere between 38,000 and 60,000 people would
be coming from outside Carteret County, with most of these going to locations
on Bogue Banks. Morehead City, although seen by some as a home for summer
' residents, reportedly does not increase its public drinking water consumption
during summer months, thus showing a limited number of summer residents.
Once here, however, summer residents on Bogue Banks compete with permanent
1 Source: N.C. Division of State Budget and Management.
' 56

residents for recreation amenities. Ten thou and additional seasonal
residents are expected in the next. ten years. Because they have driven
some distance, visitors are less likely to be disappointed by heavy traffic
or long lines at the boat launch. Demand, generally, is a function of
money, leisure time, and availability of the recreation resource. Thus,
' you could expect to find considerably more participation in coastal recrea-
tions by coastal area residents than you would find inland.
Activity Interest
Carteret County residents have an interest in some activities, but this
does not result in a demand for the activity because it is still too ex-
pensive for many to undertake. Carteret County high school students sur-
veyed in spring 1979, showed desires for some of the more costly recreations:
skin diving and scuba, sailing on the sounds and in the ocean, water skiing,
charter boat fishing, and four wheel drive vehicle use. Ten percent of
the respondents indicated a desire for one or more activities which were
'
"too costly". Ten percent is a low figure if the county continues to have
16 percent of its population at poverty level or below. On the other hand,
one boater responded, "I can go all over the place in a boat for $12 a day."
Money does not appear to be a problem to many. One fisherman interviewed
'
on Radio Island said, "The gas crisis won't keep me from driving here from
Statesville once or twice a year; you only live once."
'
The quality of the Carteret County environment and the type of local ex-
periences which can be gained in leisure, contribute to a significantly
higher demand for recreation activities related to the water than to other
'
recreations.
'
The Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, in its 1978 update
did not determine demand as was expected earlier. Demand in this context
usually includes estimates of visitor days and specific activities, and
'
proposes standards for land.area in order to meet demand. Standards are
maintained for different types of recreation areas, these based on local
populations without considering needs of tourists or other visitors to the
area. Standards which are identified, e.g., "Specialized Outdoor Recreation
'
Area Low" which is that for boat access areas and others, shows a standard
of 8 acres per 1000of existing population to meet the demand created by
'
that population. Reportedly, a multiplier is built into the standard of
8 acres per 1O00population to account for regional demand. Figures compiled
in 1976 by the State Division of Parks and Recreation show Carteret County
as being in need of 291 acres of "Specialized Outdoor Recreation Areas (low)"
'
and 728 acres of "Specialized Outdoor Recreation Areas (medium)".3
' The University of Wisconsin, in 1976, studied Great Lakes boaters in the
Wisconsin coastal zone. They found the average boater was boating 42 days
' 2 Coastal Resources Commission, Land Use Plan Carteret County, North
Carolina, 1978.
3 Inventory work sheet of N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation (See
' Appendix B)
57

per year, with 80 percent of this on the Great Lakes, because of the appeal
of large bodies of water.4 Eighty percent of boaters surveyed in 1975
1
listed fishing as the primary purpose of their boating, and they found
recreational boating increasing at 5.5 percent per year. They predicted
a doubling of registered boats in Wisconsin between 1968 and 2020. They
found the average boating trip to last 1.67 days and the average spending
$41.19 per trip per party. The report showed a Wisconsin demand for more
docks, more and cleaner toilets and showers, repair services, boating sup-
plies, food, pump outs, and additional marinas and/or additional slips.
1
The report seems to parallel situations in North Carolina. The North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission reports a 10 percent average increase in boating
licenses per year, although the last year only 4 percent was experienced.
Projecting present Carteret County boat registrations with an increase of
only.4 percent per year, 3,431 boats are predicted to be registered within
Carteret County in 1989; this is an increase of almost 65 percent over the
5,477 boats registered in 1973. Like most all outdoor recreations, interest
in the recreation increases at a faster rate than populations. Boat regis-
tration in Carteret County more than doubled in the last ten years. Boat
registration has been increasing about 10 percent per year statewide.
'
In 1962 the U.S. Department of Interior in its Outdoor Recreation for
America, indicated that shoreline needs were pressing, that the coast lines
will be centers of more population in the future, and yet the present supply
of publicly owned shoreline for recreation was not adequate.5 The report
predicted the demand for fishing opportunities to increase by 50 percent
by 1976 and 150 percent by the year 2000. Fishing and other water -based
'
recreations are felt to have grown more than the report predicted; yet
at the time, the report seemed overly optimistic; it is now seen as having
been conservatively drafted.
Tourism Related Demand
'
"A
trend toward increasing income, population and leisure time has resulted
in greatly increased demand for recreational and tourist services.116
This is shown by a congestion of existing parks and rapid growth of private
'
and commercial recreation and tourist facilities. A trend is particularly
notable in the development and use of water related sites for recreation
'
homes, commercial recreation facilities and support services. It is proposed
here that increasing demands for recreation and tourist facilities in Carteret
County, and the attendant competition for space, has reduced the demand
to local residents during the tourist season. Unfortunately for the resident
who prefers more solitude at the beach, the commitment was made long ago
to promote tourism to the area; the economic health of the county is depen-
' 4 Economic Impact and Needs of.Wisconsin's Great Lakes Boaters, Recreation
Resources Center, U.W..Extension, Madison, Wisconsin, 1976.
5 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for
' America, Washington, D.C., 1962.
6 W. Cris Lewis & Others, Regional Growth and Water Resource Investment,
Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1973, p. 66.
' 58

5)
CARTERET COUNTY TRAVEL INCOME
TOTAL
YEAR
NO. OF FIRMS
NO. OF EMPLOYEES
TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
1963
185
690
$ 4,329,000.00
1964
202
615
$ 4,506,000.00
1965
Not Available
Not Available
$ 4,682,000.00
1966
N.A.
N.A.
$.5,018,000.00
1967
N.A.
N.A.
$ 5',780,000.00
1968
239
791
$ 5,815,000.00
1969
279
818
$ 6,317,000.00
1970
N.A.
N.A.
$ 7,020,000.00
1971
N.A.
N.A.
$ 7,390,000.00
1972
N.A.
N.A.
$ 8,050o000.00
1973
N.A.
N.A.
$ 8,607,000.00
1974
N.A.
N.A.
$ 90117,000.00
1975
291
1,462
$ 9,7140000.00
1976
296
1,469
$11,007,000.00
1977
298
1,556
$15,2000000.00
1978
305
1,754
$16,937,000.00
SOURCE: Dr. Lewis Copeland
University of Tennessee
Reprinted from Carteret County, North Carolina, Statistical Abstract.
59

dent upon it continuing. The recession of 1973 did not apparently have
a materially adverse effect on the county, with about $1,000,000 increase
in business shown that year.? Attendance at Ft. Macon State Park did go
down considerably, yet County retail income increased. In spite of the
threat of impending gasoline shortages, one major campground owner on Bogue
Banks reports a 10 percent increase in gross revenue during 1979, at the
same time with decreasing numbers of out of state visitors.
Demand for access to the new national seashore will have to be accommodated
by the National Park Service and is not part of this study. Access will
be through Carteret County, however, and visitors attracted to the seashore
'
will discover natural features that attracted others here before them.
It is likely that visitors to the seashore will generate income to the county
beyond that per capita spending generated by visitors to Ft. Macon State
Park. Low estimates of attendance show 500 persons per day and 200 overnight
in the National Seashore. The highest level of use shown was in the neighbor-
hood of 51000 visitors per day with 1,100 overnight. It is expected that
demand, as a spin-off from Cape Lookout National Seashore use, will include
that for harbor tours, cultural attractions, access to places like Bird
Shoals and Carrot Island and visual access to shipping and scenic attractions.
1
In the attempt to respond to the market, provision of facilities and services
will generate additional crowded conditions. All major investments will
induce additional growth. Construction of the Highway 70 New Bern By-pass
has made it easier for some to travel to the coast; additional demand was
created. While a third bridge will potentially provide easier access and
evacuation routes for those on Bogue Banks, it will have the effect of
generating additional traffic to the island. The same is true should a
convention center come on the scene. People will be attracted to the county;
they will have leisure time, mobility, and money to spend; and existing
1
resources for recreation will become more crowded than they seem now.
Interest on the part of local residents to take part in their favorite water
based recreations will be further reduced and constricted.
People and Water
'
"Competition for shoreline use. . .has put a premium on availability of
bathing beaches, boating facilities and other facilities for marine recrea-
tion. Along with decreased opportunities for expanding the number and size
'
of areas for recreation, there has been a continuing increase in the demand
for existing sites. The net effect has been overcrowding and the construction
of parking lots, bathhouses, boardwalks, marinas, and other facilities that
'
frequently detract from the natural character of the coastal landscape." 8
Carls reported on some recreation studies which indicated that a preferred
1
alternative to crowding is not necessarily the absence of all people. 9
'
7 Carteret County Economic Development Council, Carteret County, North
Carolina Statistical Abstract, Morehead City, N.C., n.d.
8 Carls, Dr. E. Glenn,, "Recreational Use of the Coastal Zone: Effects of
Crowding and Development", Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone, Pro-
ceedings of a Conference Workshop, SUNY Syracuse, New York, 1976.
9 Ibid. 60

'
We know that teenagers refer laces where their peers are located such
g P P
as the Atlantic Beach Circle and the public beach there. Morehead City
and Beaufort residents have indicated on several occasions they go to Shackle -
ford Banks for their outing, "to get away from people", and they are happy
to find many of their neighbors also over -there. July 4, 1979, a mid -week
holiday, reportedly found Shackelford more crowded than ever before. Radio
'
Island provides the same sort of a place for those who do not have access
to a boat. As crowding in these places increase, they will also become
'
less attractive to local residents.10
Carls also identifies the desirability of water as a force which increases
1
recreational demand. A campground for instance, is more heavily used when
campers have a view of water nearby. Carls found that industrial or com-
mercial development which did not contribute to the recreation amenities
of an area, had a major effect in reducing preference and presumably user
satisfaction. Developments which are rustic and seen as desirable backdrops
to the recreation site are acceptable. Forty percent of those surveyed
in the 1979 Coastal Access Survey indicated they visit waterfront areas
'
to watch commercial shipping or look at vessels. In this case, the indus-
trial complex relating to the State Port is an interesting water related
feature. As an aside, it is reported that some ship captains allow visitors
to board their vessels and look around. Some waterfront buildings in Carteret
County are attractions and in themselves generate a demand for a recreational
use. The boat building places, the fish houses, the "clam shucking places"
and other structures which relate to .the culture of the area are interesting
to those who are not actively part of commercial fishing and boat building
operations. In general, however, structures on the waterfront are seen
generally to be unattractive to coastal visitors.and serve to reduce demand
'
for use of adjacent areas; the shore is not available.
Demand Assumptions
The interplay of many variables and forces on a given urbanizing area makes
demand assessment extremely difficult. Interest in water related recreations
1
has been increasing at.least twice as fast as populations are growing. Po-
pulation in the market area of Carteret County is anticipated to increase
'
18 percent by 1990, and predicted to increase 20 percent within the county.
Dr. Leon Abbas, Marine Recreation Economist with UNC Seagrant, has indicated
' in personal communication, that marina boat storage facilities in the county
are near capacity now, and will be at capacity within a year. Campgrounds
are at capacity on busy weekends, motels are full. Boat launch areas are
1 over capacity on most weekends and many area residents stay home to avoid
the crowds of people trying to get to beach and waterfront areas.
' 10 Op. cit.
1 61

' If only a linear projection were made, with recreation uses increasing only
as fast as population, by 1990, ocean beach and estuarine recreation uses
would increase by 20 percent over present levels. 1973 comprehensive state
plans for recreation, after watching 1965 federal projections fall far short
of actual increases, predicted annual increases in water -based recreations
averaging 8.66 percent. If this insight is correct, Carteret County may
expect increases in use exceeding the rate of population growth. Carteret
Count �JJ travel income is reported at an average increase of 13.7 percent per
year.11
However, retardants to growth are on the scene in the form of inflation,
' rising costs of living, and decreasing supplies of automobile fuels. In-
creases in crowded conditions and reduced environmental quality also slow
rates of increase in recreation uses. The peak may never be reached in
' Carteret County, for in relative terms, it is still undeveloped. It is
quite distant from heavy concentrations of people, and there are significant
numbers of local people who would like to apply brakes to the growth process.
1 All will have the effect of reducing demand for recreation in the county.
Traditional standards for public swimming propose that three percent of
local populations be accommodated at one time in public swimming pools. In
coastal areas with attractive ocean and estuarine beaches, local populations
seek access in disproportionate numbers, although not limited to swimming.
It is estimated that 20 percent of Carteret County residents are taking part
in water -related recreations at peak times. Up to 50 percent participation
among area visitors requires establishment of State waterfront park standards
which are considerably higher than those presently used. Regional demand
' cannot be met with previous standards as goals.
I
y
_ia �_M&v
1:
I
Triple Ess Pier, July 8, 1979
11 Dr. Lewis Copeland, University of Tennessee as reported in Carteret
' County Economic Development Council, Carteret County, North Carolina,
Statistical Abstract, Morehead City, N.C., n.d. (included as Table
P. )
62

Patterns of
Demand for
Selected Outdoor
Recreation Activities
in the U.S.
-- 1960*
Activity and Per-
Days per
Days
Days
cent Participating
Participant
per Person
per Person
(Summer '60)
(Summer '60)
(Summer '60)
(Annual '60)
Physically Active
Recreation:
Playing utdoor Games
'
and Sports (30)
12.3
3.63
12.71
Bicycling (9)
19.4
1.75
5.17
Horseback Riding (6)
7.5
.42
1.25
'
Water Sports:
Swimming
11.5
5.15
6.47
Canoeing 2)
3.0
.07
.12
'
Sailing (2)
3.0
.05
.11
Other Boating (22)
5.5
1.22
1.95
Water Skiing (6)
5.1
.30
.41
Fishing (29)
6.8
1.99
4.19
Backwoods Recreation:
Camping
5.7
.46
.86
'
Hiking (6)
4.4
.26
.42
Mountain Climbing (1)
3.7
.04
.09
1
Hunting (3)
5.6
.19
1.86
Passive Outdoor
Pursuits:
Picn g (53)
4.0
2.14
3.53
Walking for
Pleasure (33)
13.1
4.34
17.93
'
Driving for
Pleasure (52)
12.7
6.68
20.73
Sightseeing (42)
5.2
2.20
5.91
Attending Outdoor
'
Sports Events*(24)
5..5
1.32
3.75
Nature Walks (14)
5.2
.75
2.07
Attending Outdoor
Concerts (9)
2.4
.21
.39
Miscellaneous 5)
8.4
.40
.57
'
*Rates shown are for persons twelve years old and
over.
Source: U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission, National
'
Recreation Survey, Study
Report No. 19, Washington, D. 962).
Reprinted from Coastal Recreation Handbook: A Handbook for Planners and'
Managers, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, 1976.
1 63

(44-0.00)
ADULT ACTIVITY DAYS BY SELECTED ACTIVITY (In North Carolina)
1971-2020
Activity 1971 1976 1986 2020 % Chanae
Hunting
3,275,000
3,363,30C
3,397,40013,672,200
12.1
Fishing
5,795,000
6.8ol,00c
9,005,700
21,893,200
277.8
Swimming Pool
6,127,000
7,530,20C
10 67,300
30,636,400
400.0
Swimming Other
7,017,000
8,155,30C
10,605,6o0
241621,100
250.9
ICanoeing Exercise
558,000
625tOOc
790,900
1,713 700
207.1
Canoeing View Scenery
226 000
267t9
359,500
90913M
302.3
Hiking -Pack
423,000
58o,400
952,700
3,392,400
702.0
Nature Walking
6 428,0o0
6,875,400
7,603,600
10,317 100
66.5
Bird Watching
5,131,000
5, 223 5OO
5 123,000
4 581,500
-10.8
Picnicking
9 024 0oo
9,985 8o0
11,863,800
20,913,900
131.8
Camping
2,837,000
3,556,800
266 800
;52947,700
462.1
Biking
2,505,000
3 155,000
4 673,6o0
14 164 lo0
465.4
Rock Hunting
770,000
952 400
1,3841100
3,812,100
395.1
` Sailing
483,000
654 800
1,078,500
3,8124100
689.2
Power Boating
2 777 000
3,378,200
4 99,500
13 499 60o
386.1
' Golfing
4,376,000
5,104,500
6 722,800
16 017 700
226.o
Tennis
1 901 oo0
2,232,200
3,181,700
8 988 lo0
372.8
Play Outdoor Games
8,073,000
8,378,500
8,556,300
8,708,300
7.9
View Outdoor Games
8,028 oo0
9,048,200
11,144,800
22 103 000
175.3
Water Skiing
1 524 000
1,949,500
2,983,900
9,5472700
526.5
Snow Skiing
392,000
520,900
862 Boo
2,762,900
604.8
Ice Skating
573,000
699 400
970,700
2 553 , 000
345.5
Trap Shooting
241,000
297 600
467 400
1 503 800
524.0
Archea
483,000
5o6 000
503,300
454,700
-5•
Target Shooting
1,132 000
1,250,100
1,474 000
2 518 loo
122.4
Horseback Riding
1 328 00o
1,547,700
2,049,200
4 966 2o0
274.0
' Wildlife Photo
513,000
670,000
1,o60 6o0
3,497,300
581.7
Mountain Climb
1,147 000
1,235 200
1, 384,1o0
1,923 500
67.7
Show Horses Ring
453,000
476,200
503t3OO
559 6o0
23.5
Pleasure Driving
27,947,000
29 287,6o0
30,828,000
35 252 900
26.1
Sightseeing
16,373,000
17,769 000
20 276 4o0
31,091,100
89.9
Outdoor Concert Drama
785,E
997,100
1.474 000
4 441 600
465.8
2,912,000
3,452,600
4,691,600
12,030 700
313.1
'Historic
ultural
951 000
1,145,900
1,635,800
4 651,400
389.1
zoo
Totals
1 026,00o
133,531,000
1,145,900
148,819,E
1 348,200
179,755,E
2 273,300
349,731,000
121.6
161.9
1 Reprinted from 1973 N.C. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 64

SECTION VII
ANALYSIS OF NEEDS
" .What publicly owned access is available in the several
beach cities? We do not have this information in detail.
We know there is a public beach at Atlantic Beach, Ocean
Isle, and Several other cities. The total amount and dis-
tribution in each city is not known. If it is one small
public beach (100 feet) along a ten mile beach, it would
not represent balanced access."
"Preliminary Report on Beach Access Status,
North Carolina," North Carolina Department
of Natural and Economic Resources, Recreation
Section, December, 1975.
One of the Public Easements at Club Colony

Relationship of Supply to Demand
Demand, minus supply, equals need. The supply of access opportunities is
identified in Section V; additional commercial and informal access points
' exist along developed shoreline areas and causeways; principle water access
points available to the public are shown. Demand is not as easy to identify.
State planning agencies do not have recent demand information; Carteret
County did not have financial resources to sample preferences in the area of
influence. Unfortunately, samples of adult users obtained Memorial Day
weekend were found to be invalid and were not used in the study. Informa-
tion was limited to that obtained from local people, primarily high school
students (highest participants in water -based recreation) with results
showing similar preferences to a study of ten years earlier. Some of the
surveys were conducted with the assistance of the Environmental Studies Pro-
gram of West Carteret High School. The study was very population -specific,
but acceptable, for primary concern in the study was to seek accommodation
of local interest in recreation access to coastal waters.
' If there were no competing demands, from visitors to the area in this case,
local preferences and estimates of future use would be easier to compile.
' Non-resident participation acts as a competing demand and affects partici-
pation rates by local residents. Both groups, therefore, have to be accom-
modated.
In spite of State estimates of need shown in Appendix B as excessive supply,
it is apparent without any study that beach and boating access points are
overwhelmed on busy days and grossly inadequate. Severe restrictions on
travel will reduce demand relating to non-residents and will increase demand
for local people. The July 4th crowd at Shackelford Banks, the Morehead -
Beaufort beach for those with boats, was the largest seen there by Neal
Lewis, County Recreation Director. The Beaufort boat ramp was the busiest
of any day this year. It is estimated that most of the users were local
people. July 4th was mid -week, gasoline supplies were questionable, the
' weather was pleasant, predictions of use were down, and local boaters turned
out.
Demand is also increased by increases in supply of facilities. The addition
of harbor tour service created a demand that quickly generated a competitor,
' in response to a growing market. The addition of a major ocean beach with
support facilities and businesses will generate uses beyond present levels.
' Access Standards
Except when in public ownership or in long term publicly held leases,
access cannot be expected to survive in a free market system unless access
use is worth more to the owner than other uses.
it
1 66

' Recreation planners have, for many years, used the general standard that
ten percent of all shoreline within municipal jurisdictions be secured for
public use. This standard is not applicable when considering large coastal
counties such as Carteret, particularly when the standard was intended to
serve local interests. The addition of regional, state and national needs,
such as that present when considering coastal shorelines, creates additional
demand beyond the responsibility of the county to respond in supplying needs.
Ten percent of all shoreline in incorporated areas should be in public owner-
ship regardless of regional or larger needs.
Ocean beaches are more significant for recreation than any other shoreline.
'
As a result, the standard, as a long term goal, should be to secure public
ownership of a strip of land paralleling the entire coast to assure legal
access at times of high tides. "Private property rights must be protected
and respected, but the rights of the public to use and enjoy publicly owned
'
resources must not be restricted by lack of access." 1
Perpendicular public access points should be located where the greatest
accessibility is provided the general public and where the least impact is
felt by neighboring residents.
Non -water dependent facilities should be located, whenever possible, away
from shoreline areas. This would include land based recreation facilities
and commercial support.services. Access routes, bikeways or bus routes should
connect these with shoreline areas. Priority assigned water dependent de-
velopments should be high. Opportunity for coastal recreation should not
be blocked by other development except for that related to agriculture and
water -dependent industry. Development should not be permitted to interfere
with traditional public uses of shorelines.
It is proposed that Carteret County adopt a standard, seeking the long
term goal of four acres per thousand current and future populations, for
publicly owned and/or operated water access areas and waterfront parks..
This standard should be applied to numbers of seasonal residents as well
as those enumerated by the U.S. Census. It does not include state and
'
federal parks; nor acreage.in commercial uses however similar, because of
their lack of permanence.
Of the four acres per thousand, 'the following subordinate units are proposed:
'
Boat access areas and marinas:
Ocean waterfront parks:
One-half acre
Two acres per
per thousand population
thousand
Estuarine waterfront parks:
One acre per
thousand
Visual enhancement areas:
One-half acre
per thousand
1 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Outdoor Recreation for
America, GPO, Washington, D.C.,
1962.
'
67

Application of Standards to County Resources
1979 1990
Permanent residents 37,100 44,900
'
Seasonal residents 2 25,630 37,527
623,730 84,427
'
Four acres per thousand standard 251 acres 329 acres
Estimate of existing acreage
needed to meet the standard 201 acres 279 acres
Direct concern of county government is to -administer unincorporated areas
within its jurisdiction. Although county park and recreation areas may be
located within corporate limits, functions of these properties are to serve
larger than local needs. With a major concern of this study oriented to
'
problems of access on Bogue Banks, it is thus paradoxical that in the future
there may be no unincorporated land on .the island. The County, if it under-
took broad planning responsibilities, would be able to assume only an in-
fluencing posture in serving county residents. Urban sprawl characterizes
development on most of the Banks; with some development, by design, intended
to provide beach access only to residents. Inflated land values have been
precipitated by demand for water related second homes and promotion of the
area's assets. All contribute to a very short supply of land available for
public open space.
1
The same pattern exists on the mainland side of the county's southern sounds.
Should areas down east expand, there will be a greater need for public open
space in the population centers; this includes the need for water related
parks as well as traditional community parks. The existence of farms and
forests sometimes instills a false sense of adequacy regarding available
open spaces, particularly in urbanizing areas. The existence of open space
and public recreation areas assists in maintaining both neighborhood and
community identity and property values. In Carteret County, as it grows in
population,_ water based public open space may come to be the major (if not
the only) access point for traditional uses of marsh. shoreline and water.
In 1979, major access is provided using commercial and private property.
Public access facilities are in short supply. Most of the existing sites
are of poor quality and do not provide the type of experience desired. The
principal exception to this is the Beaufort waterfront, but even here, tra-
ditional traffic circulation subtracts from the visual experience during
busy times. Pine Knoll Shores, although well designed with good water access,
cannot be considered as providing public access to the water. This and
other development has interfered with traditional public use of public lands
and waters.
2 Coastal Resources Commission, Land Use Plan, Carteret County, North
Carolina, 1978.
DM

With the exception of the Atlantic Beach circle shoreline, the small park
at 9th and Shepard Streets in Morehead City, and waterfront access in
Beaufort, no fully public access is administered by local government in
Carteret County. It is anticipated that the county may begin operating
at least a portion of the Airport Marina in the near future. All other
local public access sites are administered by either State or federal
agencies. Minimum standards for public access opportunities are not being
met.
If Bogue Banks were undeveloped, it would be proposed that all development
'
be landward of a beach road, with the road located no closer than 300
feet from the high tide line, this to assure public access to the public
beach. An acquisition standard, then, would be to acquire the 300 foot
parallel strip. Although desirable from the point of view of providing
ocean access to maximum numbers, as a public service goal, it is unrealis—
tic to assume this can be accomplished in Carteret County.
What are the opportunities remaining? It would appear important that
flood prone ocean hazard areas, particularly inlet lands and overwash
areas, be in public ownership. To the extent that the Federal Flood
' Insurance Program; following hurricane damage, will assist; use of state
and federal grant monies can be matched with local funds, and donations
can be generated, opportunity purchases of shoreline lands should be
' consummated. The same action is proposed for flood prone areas on the
mainland, in and adjacent to populated areas.
Ideally, utilization should be secured of all publicly owned land within
the county adjacent to water resources, which appear to be in excess
of present need by the administering agency, if those lands can be utilized
' for public access purposes.. This includes local, county, state and federal
government properties of every description, whether on Radio Island, along
the Cedar Island highway, or wherever located. Several opportunities
' exist; more will become available in the future.
' Municipal governments should seek to accommodate local needs, with county
assistance. For example, if Calico Creek is dredged, in Morehead City,
creating potential access for the neighborhood around the 20th Street
Bridge, assistance should be provided by the county in developing public
' water access opportunities. County assistance should not be provided
where access will be limited to municipal residents only.
' Development and maintenance of public access areas should at least meet
the standard of adjacent properties, preferably setting the example in
aesthetic considerations.
r .
11
1 69

Capacity for Expanding Present Facilities
Concerns of county government for expansion potential are limited to that
of the Airport Marina. Expansion is possible and is treated in Recommenda-
tion 15. Other limited potential expansions are also discussed in the
recommendations, but county action would be limited to cooperative and
influencing actions or grant support. Other recommendations propose acquisi-
tion of new facilities.
Expansion of commercial facilities will respond to the market and will
accommodate non-residents primarily and those more affluent.
Waterfront Park Trail, Boca Raton, Florida
70

SECTION VIII
FACTORS INFLUENCING ACCESS FACILITIES
"While the nation's beaches remain a locus for swimming,
fishing, sunbathing, and fraternizing, burgeoning use pres-
sures and changing public preferences have spawned growing
recognition of less tangible recreation -related values,
including esthetic enjoyment, ecological interest, historical
and cultural enrichment and spiritual renewal."
R.B. Ditton and M. Stephens, Coastal Recreation:
A Handbook for Planners and Managers, U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Washington, D.C., Jan.
1976.
Radio Island

1
Space Requirements
Travel distance to recreation facilities, and travel time relationships,
determines the frequency of participation as much as any variable. Those
who live close to a water access point are likely to use it more than
'
those who live further away. As mobility has increased, people have been
willing to travel a greater distance for recreation experiences. In the not
too distant past, popular travel spots were located fairly close to homes
of the visitors. The more significant attractions, however, serve to in-
duce demand from more distant places, but may be once -in -a -lifetime trips
for many of the visitors. Carteret County residents need accommodations
for very frequent access to coastal waters.
Facilities attract users in direct proportion to their size. Generally, the
larger the investment, the larger the demand. Opportunity to participate
in ten different recreations at one general location will generate more
traffic than ten separate locations would induce.
Space between different activity locations also influences use of facilities.
It appears, for example, that surfing and fishing pier use is more a problem
'
of one invading another's "space" than a direct conflict between users. It
is reported that a "surfing and fishing pier" in Cocoa Beach, Florida, is
very popular. "Surfers: Beware of Fishermen," and "Fisherman:- Beware of
'
Surfers" are signs found at the entrance to the pier. A compatible exis-
tence results; pier owners probably have more revenue than those who restrict
use to fishing only. For safety reasons, however, there is need to separate
'
some uses. Power boating should be prohibited in swimming areas. Sailboats
need more room for maneuvering than motor boats; water surface zoning is
sometimes desirable for these and other reasons.
Socio-economic Factors
'
It is found, generally, that people in middle income brackets participate
more using public recreation facilities than those above or below in income.
Those in upper income groups provide more of their own resources, and are
more likely to object to sharing space with lower income groups. The nicest
'
residential development on Bogue Banks is also the least tolerant of other
users. The absence of discretionary dollars by a family limits its activity
in leisure and its demand for costly recreation activity. In a study related
to the 1973 SCORP, the State learned that only 5.2 percent of those in the
under $4,000 income participate in power boating; and that participation
rates increased to 23.3 percent in the $10,000 and over income group. Age,
'
income, race, and proximity of recreation facilities affect participation
rates. There is a need to limit financial barriers in the provision of
water access.
User characteristics and attitudes also influence use of access areas.
Some Carteret County residents refrain from swimming along ocean beaches
1
72

because of their presumed danger of sharks. Many residents avoid places where
non-residents are likely to congregate. In general, people enjoy most those
'
leisure activities which place them with others they see most like themselves.
In all groups there are differences in values, perceptions and preferences.
It is important that there be a respect for these differences.
Recreation Trends
A Gallup Poll has found that the number of Americans who exer-
cise daily has risen from 24 percent to 47 percent in 16 years.
'
An estimated 19 million jog and 25 million are regular cyclists.
Attendance at National Parks, recreation areas, and seashores
'
rose from about 31 million in 1160 to 96 million in 1975,
Attendance at State parks nearly doubled between 1962 and 1975,
from 285 million to 566 million. (The figures include many
repeat visits by the same individuals.)
A. C. Nielsen says swimming is now the most popular sport for
Americans, with 104 million swimming at least occasionally in
1976. Fishing also ranked high, with 64 million active parti-
'
cipants. The number of women who fish increased from 9 million
in 1970 to 21 million in 1976. There were also 58 million
campers as well as 43 million involved in boating and sailing.l
1
It is likely that percentages of participation related to Carteret County
would show more spectacular increases than that above. A trend associated
'
with 'increases in use identifies a related decrease in environmental quality.
Americans have always been resilient, however, with "necessity the mother
of invention". Concern for environmental quality has increased with the recog-
nition that opportunities for working and living and playing may be reduced
or lost for lack of resource protection. Governments at all levels have
reacted and a great many volunteer organizations have become more concerned.
Carteret County has adopted some excellent ordinances regarding land preser-
vation; it appears they are acceptable to residents and will be enforced.
Waste water treatment planning has been proceeding for some time, and other
environment -related studies have either been completed or are still being
' compiled.
Trends identified by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission in
' 1962 appear just as applicable today with the possible exception that mobi-
lity for the less affluent may be holding firm:.
' 1. Urbanization can be expected to increase.
2. Mobility can be expected to increase.
' 3. Population can be expected to increase.
' 1 Douglas M. Costle, "Recreation, Jobs, and Health," EPA Journal, June 1979.
73

' 4. If sufficient opportunities are available resent tastes and
PP � P
' preferences for recreation in the short run can be expected to
continue.
5. Life expectancy of persons can be expected to increase.
' 6. Leisure time can be expected to increase.
' 7. Real income can be expected to increase.2
' It is also perceived that participation rates in recreation will continue
to increase more rapidly than population increases. Federal government
agencies have, in recent years, participated rather generously in funding
local leisure services; this is expected to continue. 201 waste water
treatment facilities programs and the Coastal Management Program have re-
cently required recreation concerns to be added in apparent desire to
secure maximum benefit from public investments.
New recreation possibilities come on the scene regularly. "Wind surfing
becomes newest outdoor sport," was the headline of an article in the July 1,
1979, Raleigh News and Observer. The article reported popularity of the
sport in New York, Florida, Los Angeles and Wisconsin locations, with com-
petition in the latter. It would appear that the sounds offer great pos-
sibilities for this trend to spread to Carteret County. Interests in many
recreations are cyclical, some transitory. Water based recreations, how-
ever, tend to increase in popularity. It is anticipated that shortages of
gasoline, or high prices, will tend to give rise to increased popularity
of sailing and non-comsumptive recreations.
I
Tourism and Growth Promotion
The report includes an earlier section on demand related to tourism, which
' should be referred to. Tourism promotion in Carteret County has had the
effect of limiting, to some extent, the provision of public access facili-
ties. Principal access opportunities are provided by commercial businesses,
and reduces some, the need for regional facilities. It does not relieve
the need for access services to local residents, most.of whom are less
affluent than visitors. It is important that tourism and growth promotion
not proceed at a rate faster than the public infrastructure of waste treat-
ment, water supply and transportation facilities can accommodate.
' Carrying Capacity of Related Systems
As indicated, Carteret County cannot continue to handle increasing numbers
of people without coming to the point that environmental resources will be
' degraded and attractiveness reduced. There are substantial problems that
have affected life in other coastal areas because of lack of attention and
' 2 ORRRC, Outdoor Recreation for America, Washington, D.C., 1962.
' 74

investment applied to these concerns. "The continued use of septic tanks
in large developments will result in contamination of surficial sands and
' adjacent water areas. This would close the rivers and s3unds to recreation
and fishing and would damage the economy substantially."
1 The Convention Center report indicates that motels, restaur nts and other
services are operating at capacity during the peak periods ' Leon Abbas,
' Sea Grant economist has indicated in personal communication that marina
facilities in the county will be at capacity in 1980. Most of the camp-
grounds appeared to be at or near capacity during Easter weekend and early
' summer periods in 1979. The Convention Center report showed 1764 motel
rooms and 1023 campground spaces.
"Carrying capacity" has been defined as "the ability of something to ab-
'
sorb outside influences and still retain its essence.115 Elements of car-
rying capacity for recreation uses involve physical carrying capacity or
the limit to which use may be made without damaging physical characteristics,
'
the erosion of dunes for instance. Difficult to measure, use in fragile
dune environments needs to be restrained and managed in order to retain
desirable features.
James Brown of the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, in personal communi-
cation, reports that most recreation use of estuarine waters will not endanger
the condition of fisheries habitat. Carrying capacities of surface uses
are not of major concern to fisheries biologists. Discharge of septic
'
holding tanks from boats is of concern and is damaging, according to Brown.
Brown's comments refer to ecological carrying capacity, the effect of users
'
on habitats, food chains and species behavior in marine environments. Too
much use, as indicated elsewhere in this report, would likely damage habi-
tat of colony birds on coastal islands and spoil banks. Development of
Bogue Banks will seriously reduce populations of non -game species of ani-
'
mals and of maritime forest habitat.
'
Psychological carrying capacity ip the "effect of the environment to yield
satisfying experience to others,"O the effect of crowding discussed earlier.
The over capacity of boat launching ramps takes access opportunities away
'
from those unwilling to wait. While ocean beaches, the area seaward of
the high tide line, can withstand any non-structural uses, the carrying
capacity is limited by the number of people who occupy a given space. The
Atlantic Beach area is the only place where this may becoming a problem.
At present, the crowdedness is an attractive feature to young people.
' 3 Henry. vonOesen and Associates, Comprehensive Water and Sewer Planning
Report, Carteret County, N.C., 1970.
4 East Carolina University Regional Development Institute, Feasibility of
' Constructing a Convention Center, Carteret County, N.C., Nov. 1972.
5 Joseph W. Penfold, et al, National Parks for the Future, The Conservation
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1972, p. 35.
6 Ibid.
' 75

L�
7
I
I
Local zoning codes, county ordinances and CAMA permit process and other
regulations identify limitations and protection needed to treat environ-
mental resources compatibly.
Regulation of Population and Use Density
Land use patterns have been determined by developers in the county, and
unless resubdivision occurs, ultimate populations have already been es-
tablished. Indian Beach and Atlantic Beach would seem crowded by many
standards. If desired, the only potential for reduced numbers of future
populations per square mile exist in unincorporated areas; this is very.
limited on Bogue Banks. Some areas of beach are not crowded. If an area
can hold more people, additional parking will generate it. Parking re-
strictions will reduce use. In years past, Fort Macon State Park has had
a practice of limiting use by restricting swimmers within markers; manage-
ment needs were satisfied; users were not. Supervised areas are available,
but swimming and surfing are now allowed in other areas to those wishing
that freedom.
Management Problems
The Fort Macon situation is a management problem, these more intense in
areas of intensive use. Leadership or supervision increases liability and
generally restricts freedom. Some areas need to.be supervised to provide
the option to those who wish this type of access. When supervised areas
are provided, well -trained lifeguards are essential, and they must be
clearly identified. To avoid user problems, some ocean beaches fly a green
flag from lifeguard platforms to show the beach is open to swimming. The
provision of supervised beaches implies to users that a safe beach exists.
It is therefore important that both underwater and shoreline hazards be
identified and removed. Most of the more populated beaches around the
country use beach cleaning machines. It is possible that such machines
will be needed the whole length of Bogue Banks when population levels in-
crease. It would seem most economical that a coordinated, cooperative
program be established at that time, perhaps managed by the county.
Management of off -road vehicles appears to be a growing need. The County
Sheriff's Department reportedly will.shortly have a vehicle which will
operationalize this and accommodate other public safety needs, in unincor-
porated areas. Vehicles should be prohibited from the.beach during high
visitation, including Easter and Memorial Day weekends. Commercial fisher-
men and sports fishermen driving on beaches should be encouraged to use
approved access places.' Only the barest minimum of these ramps should be
provided to avoid worse problems in managing the land. Both the state road
at Salter Path and the Emerald Isle ORV access points show serious erosion
problems which could be accentuated by storm tides.
76

' Clamming is popular as a recreation. A concerted attempt should be made
to eliminate "clam kicking" in order to perpetuate this resource for both
recreational and commercial fishing.
' Identification of access points appears desirable. A sign for this purpose
is proposed, for primary use on public areas. Should landowners or commer-
cial establishments desire to denote free access across their property, use
of the sign should be allowed on an annual basis. Landowners allowing re-
creational use of their lands are immune from tort liability by State
Statute (See Section II, Responsibility for Providing Access).
' Recreation access, as part .of the total system of recreation in the county,
including public parks, recreation programs, commercial recreation and in-
formal family and private recreation, should be included in the broad con-
cerns of the Carteret County Parks and Recreation Department. A periodic,
informal evaluation should be made to assure that the total complement of
recreation options are available to residents of the county and to propose
modifications intended to improve either the quantity or quality of offerings.
' Interpretation of Access
If visitors or residents do not know of access opportunities, the access
' is non-existent. Opportunities are also limited by lack of skill or know-
ledge needed to participate in leisure activities. The State of Georgia
provides fishery publications for each coastal county, available free of
charge upon request. The State of North Carolina publishes a chart of salt
' water fishes, available for interpretation at marinas and other access points,
but which is used primarily for non -productive access uses; there is a
charge of SO cents each. The State of Michigan issues a Michigan Harbors
' Guide which identifies by location and aerial photo major marinas on its
shores.7
' Ocean shorelines, and most estuarine shorelines, are poor places to learn
to swim. Only 66 percent of high school students surveyed in May of 1979
indicated they participate in swimming. This may be a function of lack of
' water safety instruction opportunities., The County Parks and Recreation
Department does provide a small program at two motel pools, but this is
inadequate in scope. SCUBA participants undergo extensive instruction to
' allow free recreational pursuits. Motor boating, sailing and a variety of
other water based sports require a learning process for one to become in-
dependent. Bogue Sound appears to offer a great resource for wind surfing;
interest in this might be generated by wind surfing instructions. The same
is true for fishing and many other activities.
' Harbors of Refuge and Other Safety Considerations
A harbor of Refuge is designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when
7 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Harbors Guide,
' Lansing, Michigan, 1977.
77

ACCESS SIGNAGE
Proposed By Recreation and Park Consultants, Inc, 78

—I
x
R.R.
CLL rwL eR
YLRT.L.
CL. 1.s�R.w
OR" CLGIIC
1 ;A/CALL R'. DR.
�\ "Oft. CL. 80
�\ YLR T. CL.1.T'r.w.
---- ---SL-
..AI
OT
1 RADIO
CIIAM.
_ 1 ISLAro—��--
\ LOrI.
N
IN
OLAuroRT
AIRPORT
C A R T E R E A
��` �� •ioo •woo
NOGUE NANXS CA. STA.•
ropy \ \
MACON \ \
\
f0Pty�t
9�' I
II
11
11
11
II
11
4 T L g N T C I l
11
j1
1 1
1 /
1 !
1 1
1 1
1 1 .
1 1
1
1
t1. L.w.
VARYING
1�
L VARYING _)
r
TYPICAL SECTION
erACRLc tells
,:LIE
0CE'4 N
tG C,
N.C.
COUNTY
rr'rioo'
qR
r
NllrrC
35
N
t
6f h�
0
PROJECT
Ir'
1 to
't LOCALITY YAP.
SC.Lc 01 r111.
o s�o se
9
Mileages inGallonts and Bulkhead Channels are measured from the
old U.S. 70 highway bridge.
Mileage in the channel in front of the torn of Beaufort and Taylors
Crook is measured eastward from interseclion with Bulkhead Channel.
BEAUFORT HARBOR,
NORTH CAROLI NA
:CALL Of FEET
too 0 0 20" 4000 0000
CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C.
MAP REVISED JUNE 1273
79

a remote harbor is provided specifically to accommodate transient vessels,
not to provide a home port for water craft in the immediate area. G. T.
Swain, engineer with the Wilmington.office of the Corps of Engineers has
interpreted berthing needs for transients as the provision of public wharf
space sufficient to accommodate two "average size" vessels. Eighty to 100
feet of space would be required. Harbors.of Refuge must be 20 miles dis-
tant from the nearest available harbor. The Corps does allow docking and
mooring adjacent to the H.O.R., but temporary docking space must be available
for transient craft. This is normally concerned with commercial craft, but
larger recreation vessels can also use these for refuge.
Harbor of Refuge facilities in Carteret County have some problems. Mr. Swain
' identified these as including the following:
Atlantic: Piers built into the Harbor of Refuge.
' Harkers Island: Some of the area has been filled and platted.
"Corps cannot maintain until the County makes some
improvements."
' Cedar Island: "Private property owners are tying up and denying
others from tying up."
1 Beaufort: The County has not 9omplied with its agreement in providing
public wharf space.
It would appear that transient recreation craft would have difficulty finding
refuge in the event of a severe storm. Several other harbors exist, most
1 .of them down east,.primarily serving commercial fishing vessels. Boaters
have identified, however, that when problems occur they have no difficulty
being accommodated by area residents; The only instance of difficulty re-
ported was of a disabled catamaran which beached at the Fort Macon State
Park swimming area in 1978, and was told to "get out". Because of change
in personnel at the park, this is unconfirmed. The present Park Superinten-
dent reports that boats are.able to use the beach except at the jetties
and within the protected swimming area, for safety reasons. This is cer-
tainly acceptable.
The risk of hurricanes seems to be higher with each year of insignificant
damage. Unfortunately, the study found that most people are not aware of
emergency procedures even though a hurricane plan exists. Emergency pre-
parations should not be implemented for any but severe storms to avoid
calling "wolf," but the system should be improved -to inform and interpret
to visitors, in particular, evacuation procedures.
In spite of fairly heavy use of boats and beaches in the county, only seven
' drownings were reported for 1978, four related to boating. This is still
8 Personal conversation 5/24/79.
80

1
' seven too many, but should not precipitate beach and swimming restrictions.
Very often recreations are attractive which have an element of risk in them
and users need the option to use unsupervised beaches and waters. Super-
vised public beaches are available at the State Park, Atlantic Beach, and
Emerald Isle.
IBoating safety laws and other regulations are being enforced by the U.S.
Coast Guard and the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. The N.C. Division
'
of Marine Fisheries has assisted at times aiding boats in trouble.
Scott Daughtry, Superintendent at Fort Macon State Park, reports that the
jetties at the inlet are the source of most accidents, with fishermen and
others sometimes slipping on the rocks.9 Two locations in the park provide
emergency access to the beach; eleven others have been located in the county
which are somewhat more public (see inventory of access points, in Section V).
Funding Sources
Throughout the study, issues regarding growth keep surfacing. Growth pro-
ponents generally are seeking increases in per capita income or gross
spending in an area, to increase the private wealth of an area. It is
found, generally, that while one may be interested in seeing an area grow
in population, there is also a strong feeling against the growth of govern-
ment. The two are tied together. Growth in use of the beaches has preci-
pitated a recent action by the County Board of Supervisors to provide
Sheriff's Department patrolling of the beaches. Growth of resident popula-
tions will require additions to waste water treatment capacity - or -
additions to the waste water treatment facilities will allow additional
growth of populations and/or industry. Relationships regarding provision
of recreation access are similar, with one exception: recognition by
private industry that a profitable market would result from investment in
access facilities may provide an alternative to public investment in this
area. Because market conditions change, however, services providing basic
'
access to at least resident populations should be a governmental function.
Local government has several (limited) sources of financing its operations:
1. Current tax revenues
' 2. Operating revenues
3. Future bond authorizations
4. State grants
I5. Federal grants
' 6. Donations from private sources
I
9 Personal conversation 7/11/79.
� 81

1
1
All of these have application in financing access improvements in Carteret
County. Regarding the first three, and the funding oflocal match monies
which may be required by the last three; public policy decisions determine
which spending is for essentials that must be done, which is for those that
should be done, and which is for desirable options that might be done.10
With practical politics added to this mix, decisions include those based
on opinions of that which can be afforded, and that which the body chooses
to afford. In addition, priorities must be set on internal competing demands
to maintain acceptable.levels of service in all 'departments.
State grants most often are extensions of federal programs. The 1979
session of the General Assembly did, however, appropriate money for beach
erosion abatement grants to coastal areas. A condition of the grants is
that public access must be provided to those areas improved with state
funding. (Beach improvement activities of the Corps of Engineers have the
same condition.) Utilization of these or subsequently appropriated funds
may provide beach access "through the back door," if used for example, at
Bogue Inlet. Acquisition of.access lands .by the State Department of Ad-
ministration is possible, though. unlikely, unless responsibilities of the
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation would be broadened to administer
smaller areas or unless the Division's mission were broadened to include
the total supply of local.recreation, including recognition of impacts of
regional visitors on local recreation opportunities. Sites acquired by the
state which are too small or remote from existing parks should be transferred
to local government administration. Should there be lands along Salter Path
Road in excess.of need for the 100 foot right of way, use of these should
be sought for parking and access to the low capacity foot trails, if the
trails can be secured for general.public use.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has limited funding for
construction of boat launch areas. Local sponsors must provide the land.
According to William Jansen of the Commission Boating Division, there are
11
no plans for funding Carteret County projects in the next five years.,
Potential for future assistance is provided by several federal programs.
1. The U.S. Department of Commerce was authorized by the Coastal
Zone Management Act to provide 50 percent matching grants for
acquisition of beach access. Eighty percent federal grants
are available for planning. Acquisition funds, although author-
ized, have not been appropriated by Congress.
2. Section 308 of the CZ14A covers the Coastal Energy Impact Program,
which provides funding for "planning grants, credit and repayment
assistance and environmental and recreational loss grants". Should
Carteret County be impacted in the future, by refining, transpor-
tation or storage activities related to the energy program,
10 Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission, The Research Triangle
' Region of North Carolina Economic Indicators, Raleigh, N.C., 1970.
11 Personal conversation 3 5 79.
82

I
recreation loss mitigation funding should be sought. A resolution
adopted by the Coastal Resources Commission June 6, 1979, indicates
the absence of recreation impact consideration in the Core Creek
refinery by the Corps of .Engineers and requests this be corrected.
3. The Coastal Plains Regional Commission and associated Economic
Development Administration grants and EDA loans contribute to
tourism development (where none before or where there is a shortage
of local private capital.in a tourism -dependent area). Grant
monies earmarked for the convention center by EDA are presumed
to make it very difficult to secure other grants for Carteret
County from this source. CPRC grants for recreation have been
tied to net economic increases. It seems unlikely grants would
be awarded for facilities which do not have a direct relationship
to tourism income, e.g., free beach or boat access.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs provide 100 percent grants
or costs assumed for navigation projects; and when there is avail-
able money, 50 percent grants for recreation. Dredging of channels
to benefit recreational boaters, and other recreation projects,
are allowed within Corps programs; because of few projects many
Corps personnel are not aware of this possibility.
5. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently added recrea-
tion concerns to 201 waste water treatment grant programs, for
planning only. Should Carteret County get to the point of pro-
viding ocean outfalls or have other waste water treatment projects
which are related to bodies of water, recreation uses are suggested.
The related Section 208 planning program will shortly provide
recreation -related information; this program is intended to make
all waters "swimmable and fishable by 1983".
6. Both Title I Community Development funds and Revenue Sharing Funds
can be used to supply local match money in other federal grant
programs.
7. The grant program most relied upon by park and recreation agencies
is that administered by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service in the Department of Interior. Fifty percent grants are
available through an administering state agency (NRCD, BOR) which
fund acquisition and development projects. The program allows the
value of donated land (if not accepted prior to grant receipt) and
"bargain sale" donations, to contribute to the local match. "In
kind" contributions, or the value of local work associated with
the project may also contribute to the local match money.
A variety of publications describe in detail the above and other assistance
programs of the federal government.
83

0o
� Base Map Provided by Carteret County Planning Department

SECTION IX
RECOMMENDATIONS
"There is a balance between beauty and business that must
not be ignored."
James A. Michener, in The Quality of Life
Beaufort Harbor Tours

IGeneral
Recreation planning, as indicated earlier, should include the broad scope
of park and recreation functions, facilities and administrative services,
including provision of ocean beach and estuarine recreation access. When
considering total recreation needs and desires, there is an overlapping
relationship of water -related activities with other recreations. This in-
cludes concerns for informal family and individual recreation preferences,
provision of open space to preserve property values and environmental qua-
lity; and the provision of a balance of recreation options, including water
and shoreline activities. Planning activities within Carteret County should
accommodate this spread of interest, and work to avoid situations where
recreation options for local populations are reduced by the pressure of
tourists competing for use of finite resources.
Recommendations for action by local, state or federal agencies are intended
'
to precipitate discussion by county officials. If found acceptable, the
county should communicate their concerns and interest to appropriate offi-
cials.
It is proposed that, except for the seashore at Atlantic Beach, Bogue Banks
beaches continue to serve primarily as places for family recreation, without
provision of adjacent commercial zoning that would precipitate visitation
by large numbers of young people.
Access in down east areas should be limited, aimed at providing local access.
It seems appropriate that the county attempt to retain the character and
culture of down east fishing villages, not adding facilities which will in-
duce growth beyond that generated by traditional patterns or local community
decisions. Assuming that a majority of present down east residents and land-
owners want perpetuation of the rural atmosphere around the settlements, it
would appear desirable to secure a consensus of area residents as a prelude
to adoption of a county ordinance (or amendments) which will satisfy local
'
desires.
The Harker's Island community will be impacted by need for access to Cape
Lookout National Seashore and is likely not to retain its character to the
extent of other down east areas. It appears that access to the sound is
reasonably available to down east residents. In many cases this involves
a first come, first served claim for dockage of work boats and part time
commercial boats as well as recreation craft, along highway rights of way
and other access locations including those adjacent to and within harbors
of Refuge.
The Beauty -Business Balance
If, as it appears, a majority of present Carteret County citizens are con-
cerned about land uses in the county, feel a threat of impending disaster
86

n
fP,
to their quality of life; if permanent population will grow to 70,000 by
2025 and potentially with present zoning, to over 150,000 (including sea-
sonal residents), then it may already be too late to significantly moderate
the growth trend. It is not too late to develop a cooperative system of
planning which will seek consistency in development efforts and retain
desirable features of the coastal environment. It is not too late to seek
coordination with state and federal programs and policies, as well as with
private development interests. Discussion of the Carteret County Land Use
Plan, and changes desired, would provide one jumping-off place for such
cooperative activity to begin. Local values need to be protected.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Develop a vehicle for coordinating a search for and
work toward county -wide goals, -including recreation,
preservation and development. This might be achieved
by assignment of responsibility to County staff,
creation of an ad hoc committee; or the Board of'County
Commissioners could play an active role in concert with
principal elected officials from the municipalities.
In all cases, the County Planning Commission and planning
department staff should participate actively. There is
a need for a resident consensus effecting a self-deter-
mination toward enhancement of life in Carteret County.
There is need for a method of communicating concerns
to the various municipalities to encourage local pro-
grams which would complement county -wide goals. An
example of this is the basic need to improve waste water
treatment capacity before the sounds become polluted
(as they have in other places), and before the economic
base and environmental quality are degraded.
RECOMMENDATION 2: Establish advisory committee of mainland down -east
representatives, appointed by the County Board, for the
purpose of discussing local determination alternatives.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Acknowledge and/or modify the Carteret County Land Use
Plan, prepared by the North Carolina Coastal Resources
Commission, and secure copies of the land use map asso-
ciated with it for use in the County. The Plan should
be expanded, including policy statements on siting of
energy facilities, beach erosion and beach access. It
is recommended that sites of previous overwash on Bogue
Banks be considered for designation within Areas of
Environmental Concern.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Associated with the above or as a second related action,
establish an advisory committee for the purpose of
recommending actions to assure adequate operation of
the Harbors of Refuge and availability of safe refuge
for transient vessels. This group should be broad enough
to evidence concern for the Beaufort (Gallants Channel/
Town Creek) Harbor of Refuge.
87

RECOMMENDATION 5:
Assist in retaining open space across from the Harker's
Island School and Rescue Squad Headquarters. It appears
this is seen by the Islanders as a key feature of the
Island, with use allowed by the owner apparently without
complaint. Residents and others use the area for visual
access to the sound, Shackleford Banks and Cape Lookout
'
and for other informal uses. Harker's Island residents
reporting a desire to retain this local amenity also
report acquisition is unlikely to be accomplished
(1) because of property value and (2) because of the
desire to keep the land in the owner's family. It may
be possible to secure development rights or a scenic
easement or provide preferential taxation which will
assure, temporarily at least, existence of this open
land, picturesque trees and comfortable vista.
RECOMMENDATION 6:
Secure use of excess state land to be made available by
relocation of the bridge over Salter's Creek, to es-
tablish a boat launch ramp, courtesy dock, and 40 car/
trailer parking area, to provide access to the new Nelson
Bay -Long Bay channel, a shorter route to Pamlico Bay from
Core Sound. Purchase of some adjacent land may be neces-
sary in order to provide parking. "Part of old roadway
will be available for access to the channel", according
to William G. Marley of the N.C. Department of Transpor-
tation.
RECOMMENDATION 7:
Seek improvement of the small beach and car top launch
area on State Right of Way at the Harker's Island bridge
(storage area for pilings). The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will shortly undertake a dredging project
adjacent to this, estimated to produce 20,000 cubic yards
of spoil. The site is now used for car top boat launching
and some sunbathing. The shoulder and parking area could
be graded occasionally. No other improvements should be
made; a paved ramp would not have adequate slope and
would generate too much use for this location. Several
area boaters have requested access to this area. The
N.C. Department of Transportation should be contacted
for support.
RECOMMENDATION 8:
Promote improvement of Beaufort Jaycee Park/Wildlife
Resources Commission Boat Launch area. Parking available
is inadequate to serve the two launch ramps. The exist-
ing ramps can handle twice present capacity of parking
area, with a short wait during busy times. Construction
of additional ramps would not improve capacity because
'
of parking limitations. The parking area should be
improved and expanded, and parking spaces clearly
88

1
L�
I
r-,
11
identified for maximum utilization. Parking spaces should
also be identified on streets. Approximately 120 cars
were parked at this location July 4, 1979.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Acquire 6-10 acres for a waterfront park in area of
Lennoxville Point. Facilities should include three boat
ramps, 130 boat and trailer parking spaces, courtesy
docks, boat beaching area, -public restrooms and picnic
area. A vista of the sound is desirable. This area is
within zone V4 and A4 (Base Flood el. 8' MSL) of HUD
Flood Hazard Boundary map and is undeveloped, but has
development pressure.l
RECOMMENDATION 10: Seek improvements to W/R Commission/International Paper
boat launch area at Cedar Point. Secure "First Right of
Refusal" for acquisition of property east of ramp (appears
to be 2 lots, one improved). Construct one additional
ramp and a car top launch area. Provide a beach area
for temporary placement of boats leaving the water.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Acquire 15-25 acres for a waterfront park and major boat
launch area east of Cape Carteret, for operation as a
county park and outdoor recreation area. Facilities
should include four boat ramps with spaces for parking
40 cars per ramp, courtesy dock, boat beaching area (also
used as car top launch area), fenced dry surface storage
area for 40 trailers and/or boats, restrooms, area mana-
ger office/concession stand, picnic area and rental slips.
A community park ballfield and/or other needed recreation
facilities adjacent could utilize parking areas during
slack times and contribute to other recreation needs.
West Bogue Banks
The Town of Emerald Isle controls beach access for 10 miles from Bogue
Inlet East. Current political controversy over beach access will likely
culminate in voters determining local beach policy by either re-electing
current or electing new Town officers. Traditional access to Bogue Point
has been prohibited by imposition and strict enforcement of no parking re-
gulations. Many in the area including some Emerald Isle residents, have
expressed frustration because of the closing action. Some Cape Carteret
residents were shown access points to the ocean at the time of land purchase
there (2 miles from the beach), and have been frustrated by change in land
use in one case and by parking prohibitions in another.. Hammocks Beach State
Park is five to seven miles distant (close to the area), but caters to wil-
derness uses and requires great vigor to walk to the shadeless beach
1 U.S. Department of HUD, Flood Insurance Study, Carteret County, North
Carolina (Unincorporated Areas), n.d.

(acceptable for wilderness uses and preservation). A beach recreation area
is needed at the west end of Emerald Isle, but is expected to be very dif-
ficult and expensive to secure.
RECOMMENDATION 12: Assist in securing public access to Bogue Point. A
non-commercial beach access area, with parking for 100
cars, public restrooms, drinking water, pedestrian cross-
overs and temporary lifeguard chairs should be sought
for this area. The Corps of Engineers is studying Bogue
'
Inlet and "beach erosion problems" on several miles of
Emerald Isle ocean front. It is likely that beach im-
provement activities of the Corps will require public
access to the improved beach in order to proceed with
the project. These lands are all within the corporate
limits of Emerald Isle. If the majority vote in the
fall to continue prohibiting access to non-residents,
'
an impasse may be reached and the circle of frustration
broadened. Take no action that will officially involve
the County in Emerald Isle pre -election politics. Seek
'
participation of Emerald Isle officials in County -wide
planning activity described in Recommendation 1.
RECOMMENDATION 13: In the event the Swansboro Coast Guard Station is
abandoned, the County should take whatever action is
necessary to assure it is transferred to other public
'
ownership. The site would provide limited parking and
access to the shoreline, and meeting room space for lei-
sure time activities and interpretation of cultural
history and recreations on and around Bogue Banks. Some
anticipate the Station will one day be located on an
island, in which case public ownership of the site will
be beneficial.
RECOMMENDATION 14: Assist in expanding capacity of public access at Atlantic
Beach. Unlike other beach communities, it appears the
Town of Atlantic Beach is interested in promoting growth
and use of the beach by the general public. Additional
capacity can be gained by securing beach access and
parking west of the developed area. A fee for parking
would assist considerably in generating operating revenue;
other concessions could be provided. A 500-car parking
area would.satisfy many people who are otherwise unable
to use the beach on busy days. (See Recommendation 27).
The cost of land on Bogue Banks and the desirability of
avoiding development of new commercial areas makes ex-
pansion of capacity of Atlantic Beach particularly
appealing.
06
I

'
RECOMMENDATION 15:
Improve Airport Marina. Construct 30'-100' public
(See Page 92)
wharf for temporary and emergency use associated with
and within 25' of adjacent Harbor of Refuge and to meet
agreement with Corps of Engineers. Include three boat
launch ramps, "courtesy" piers/boarding docks, adjacent
small beach area for car top launching and boat beaching,
finger piers and parallel piers for slip rental, parking
for 100 cars, fish -cleaning station, boat sanitary pump -
out station, boat washing station, site manager's office/
concession/rest rooms, perimeter fence with gate, en-
'
trance sign and flag pole. If possible, provide space
for Mariner's Museum boat -building facility. Dry stack
storage, more economical of water space, cannot be pro-
vided because of small site (maximum of five acres),
location in line with airport runway, and building height
restrictions. If development of the full site is imple-
mented, it is possible, and more desirable, that commer-
cial boat storage facilities fill the need for storage
capacity. A site analysis and master plan are necessary
as preliminary steps toward permitting and construction
contracts. Over-riding public benefits to be realized
from encroaching on a small amount of marsh are expected
to result in project approval by permitting authorities.
RECOMMENDATION 16:
Consider for a major boat launch site, 10 acres of the
33 acre spoil bank at the east end of the Morehead -
'
Beaufort high rise bridge. Preliminary analysis indicates
feasibility as a launch site; sand can be stabilized, and
a channel can be dredged on the east side of the site.
A feasibility analysis and functional design study is
desirable, however, to best determine access ramp location,
traffic circulation, parking and site access. The N.C.
Department of Transportation should be requested to
undertake a signalization study for the Highway 70 in-
tersection with Morgan Street and Inlet Drive, and should
be approached regarding highway modifications to allow
storage and turning lanes. Use of the north 23 acres
as a "put and take" spoil bank, its practicality and
potential for funding development and operation of the
site need to be reviewed. In State ownership, State
Ports Authority and N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
staff are both tentatively agreeable to the proposal;
additional commitment is necessary. The State Ports
Authority has indicated possible future need for port
expansion. A sketch prepared for the Marine Fisheries
Division several years also in included as Appendix C.
RECOMMENDATION 17:
Request emergency evacuation preparation improvements.
'
Recent acquisition of the Navy surplus LCU's by the
91
F

1, 16
::CC::)Iilill
O
I !AtKO A�,V W \'

7
11
-1
u
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, for use out of their
Morehead City headquarters, improves somewhat the oppor-
tunity .for emergency evacuation of Bogue Banks and Cape
Lookout National Seashore. Utilization of the craft for
evacuation is to be triggered by the State Division of
Civil Preparedness. For the safety of those who secure
access, and to seek the least expenditure of public funds,
the countyts operational evacuation plan must be further
developed and interpreted to result in timely evacuation
and minimum property damage and personal injury. It
appears there is a lack of citizen information regarding
evacuation activities. An education process is necessary.
Installation of warning flag/weather flag locations
throughout the county, operated perhaps by volunteers and
public safety agencies with associated flag chart signs
for interpretation, would provide interest to visitors
and boaters, and assist in early warning communication.
With each year of hurricane -free damage, the risk of
severe storms seems to increase.
RECOMMENDATION 18: Seek changes to Federal Flood Insurance Program to bene-
fit both access preservation and economy. The Federal
Flood Insurance Program and federal disaster programs in
general, are subsidized by the people of the United States.
Carteret County has qualified for the emergency phase of
the flood insurance program. County ordinances prohibit
rebuilding or repair of any buildin� damaged more than
60 percent of its pre -damage value. Not enough is done
to prohibit reconstruction.in hazard areas, but such
prohibition contravenes the Federal Flood Insurance Code.
It would seem appropriate that a system be promoted
thxough local, state and federal authorities, that would
reduce future public liability for flood damage claims,
(1) by imposition of flood plain -flood prone area develop-
ment prohibitions (sites of predictable or previous over -
washes included); (2) by funding for public use, access
and conservation, acquisition of undeveloped shorefront
property, and property seriously damaged within flood
prone areas; (3) providing relocation assistance and full
replacement costs for new structures in non -hazard areas;
and (4) working to secure public access to water in hazard
areas, when and where public liability is assumed for
private hazardous actions and continued use of pre-existing
structures. Without waiting for changes in the Flood
Insurance Program, an attempt should be made to influence
developers not to build in overwash areas and other areas
subject to flood tides.
2 Section 60.4, Zoning Ordinance of Carteret County.
93

L�
RECOMMENDATION 19: For preservation of natural systems which make ocean
beaches attractive, (1) require boardwalks over frontal
dunes for continued unrestricted use of existing pedes-
trian access; (2) limit and identify ORV access points.
At all locations where permitted, wooden ramps should
be provided for vehicle crossovers to allow continued
use and in order to maintain frontal dune elevations.
Existing State and Emerald Isle vehicle crossovers should
be included. This may require additions to the "Outer
.Banks Land Protection Ordinance of Carteret County".
RECOMMENDATION 20: Seek legislative assistance, and assistance from Wild-
life Resources Commission members and staff to broaden
the financial base of the Commission, encouraging their
participation in State Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
funding programs (Land and [dater Conservation Fund of
U.S. Department of Interior (HCRS), and use of State
General Funds for acquisition, development and operation
of areas. The Wildlife Resources Commission needs to be
influenced to seek and accept funds other than those
which are sportsman -generated to meet needs for boat
access areas. The Commission practice in the past has
been to limit itself to traditional programs and practices
in order to perform well in those areas. Boating programs
have suffered. The policy of accepting, for administration
and maintenance, existing boat launch areas does not add
to the inventory of sites available, only to the manage-
ment load. Their need to have land acquired previous
to construction of ramps and the provision of only small
amounts of construction dollars have contributed to the
inadequacy of access in Carteret County. The Commission
does not appear to have funds available for improvements
"promised" for the Beaufort access area.
RECOMMENDATION 21: Improve access opportunities for those recreationally
disadvantaged.
1. Accommodating the Physically Handicapped. Unfor-
tunately, one cannot push a wheelchair down the beach.
High vantage points are difficult to reach for those
with walking impairments. A blind person cannot enjoy
the sight of sailboats.in the sound or the oyster catcher
on the. spoil bank. In Carteret County there are a few
places where one can see the ocean from an automobile,
but literally no place one can reach the top of a dune
by way of a 5 percent or less slope. There are innova-
tions, however, which are allowing greater numbers of
recreationally disadvantaged to enjoy more of these
simple pleasures in life. Trails for Braille -readers
have been constructed, gentle crossover ramps and plat-
forms provide vistas to handicapped and aged in Florida,
94

1
1
F
fishing places have been provided for those in wheel-
chairs (rails are lower and planking is not gapped);
and in Carteret County, the Marine Resources Center has
a ramp which allows handicapped access, for interpreta-
tion of the coastal scene. Gravel paving in the parking
area makes it difficult to reach the ramp, however. The
best existing access for wheelchairs is at the Ft. Macon
jetties.
Public recreation programs could provide special event
tours for the handicapped if there is enough local demand.
Tours could include a boat ride, tour of the State Port,
Mariners Museum or Radio Island, a fishing experience,
a look at the ocean from Triple Ess parking area, a
trip to a boat builder, look at a fish or clam processing
house, or any number of other experiences.
2. Accommodating the Less Affluent. Head boats, fishing
piers,.rental cottages, motels, campgrounds and other
rental opportunities provide access to those not able to
afford the luxury of boat or second home ownership. Some,
of course, are not able to afford even these, but can enjoy
use of public beaches, go clamming, fish at many places
along rivers and sounds --if transportation is within reach.
The road to Radio Island (Highway 70) seems hazardous;
yet one can occasionally see a Beaufort fisherman on a
bicycle heading to the LST Ramp. Radio Island is avail-
able for many uses as long as owners including the U.S.
Navy don't object or don't develop the industrial sites.
With 16+ percent of Carteret residents reported at poverty
level or below, many cannot afford much. It may be ap-
propriate to provide public recreation opportunities
similar to those proposed for physically handicapped, at
minimum or subsidized fee, without low income or handi-
capped pre -qualification. The Community Action Agency
does allow transportation for recreation, but cannot
accommodate those with severe handicaps. They report
"full use" of present vans, but should be requested to
look for funding and opportunities to add amenities for
program clientele, perhaps by extending service hours
and use of volunteers.
RECOMMENDATION 22: Consider establishing a volunteer work force, perhaps
among retired residents, who would supervise and assist
boaters in launching and retrieving boats, thus reducing
launch time. This service is needed on days when the
Beaufort and Morehead City access sites receive high use.
Parking assistance provided may increase capacity and
reduce feelings of insecurity some boaters have toward
leaving their car at the site. Local authorities and
Wildlife Resources Commission should approve.
95

1
1 RECOMMENDATION 23: Consider acquisition or use of federal or state propert
that may in
the future be
declared in excess of need.
The Salters
Creek -Highway
70 right-of-way is one that
shortly could
be secured
to enhance water access for
residents.
As hindsight,
continued seasonal operation
of the Cape
Carteret -Emerald
Isle ferry would have been
'
attractive
as a cultural
experience adding to typical
water uses.
IRECOMMENDATION 24: Support activities and opportunities to enhance har-
monious development of commercial water -based recreation
' services and support functions. Improvement of waterfront
aesthetics, such as Beaufort accomplished, is a good
example. Ownership of Town Marsh acreage, across from
' Front Street, serves to protect scenic values and en-
hances the harbor development. Use of the Morehead City
waterfront would be enhanced by redesign of both local
circulation and the waterfront itself (see Recommendation
' 27).
'
Third Bridge to Bogue Banks
Issues related to feasibility of a third bridge are broader than this access
study. It is anticipated that the independent study being carried out by
Acres American Inc. will shortly have recommendations for the North Carolina
Department of Transportation. Construction of a third bridge should reduce
congestion at the Atlantic Beach causeway, improve conditions at the Emerald
Isle bridge and reduce traffic problems in Morehead City, temporarily at
'
least. Growth vs. no growth policies need to be considered. Completion of
a third bridge will most likely induce further growth, development and traf-
fic on Bogue Banks and possibly on Highway 58 and Highway 24. Regional access
will be improved much as the New Bern Bypass improved access to the region.
It is felt, however, that the New Bern Bypass induced traffic to and increased
congestion in Morehead City and Atlantic Beach by allowing more vehicles ease
of access to the area without attendant local improvements. It is anticipated
that Salter Path Road (now Highway 58) will not be able to handle local traf-
fic to and from three bridges without further changing the design cross
'
section of the improved road.
RECOMMENDATION 25: Review growth -inducing potential of a third bridge to
Bogue Banks. It is recommended that the county secure
information from the N.C. Department of Transportation
which estimates the amount of traffic, growth and develop-
ment which will be induced by the construction of a third
bridge. A conscious action should be taken to establish
county policy regarding growth. A third bridge is anti-
cipated to further reduce beach access to permanent
residents, while making beach access more available to
tourists and summer residents. This may properly be
addressed in Recommendation 1 on County -wide goals.
96

' Inter -city Bus and Train Transportation
It is expected that the automobile will continue as the most convenient form
' of transportation into and within Carteret County. For the long range, how-
ever, it may be practical to institute excursion train and bus service from
Raleigh -Durham east, leaving on Friday nights and returning on Sunday nights
during the heavy tourist season. It is possible that the gasoline shortage
and high prices may ultimately make feasible an autotrain/passenger train
terminating at a site west of Morehead City, perhaps on land leased from
' the Southern Railway and linked with local attractions by a shuttle bus
system.
' RECOMMENDATION 26: Determine the market for inter -city public transportation
service. The beginning step would be to seek funding
for a study, hopefully following indication of tentative
' support from the Southern Railway. .
1 Local Access
Preliminary analysis indicates that a bus or tram system with parking on the
mainland is not feasible at this time. Bogue Banks does not have a large
' number of visitors who go to the island for a day's experience or family
outing who do not see themselves in need of automobile transportation. The
urban area on the mainland is not populated enough to make such a system
feasible. Population concentrations on the island are spread the entire
length of the island, making operating costs more prohibitive than presently
can be justified. The exception to this is the area of Atlantic Beach and
' Ft. Macon State Park. (Ft. Macon has more of a family beach atmosphere than
Atlantic Beach.)
Consideration and study of a weekend or seasonal bus or tram system for the
beach areas should be tied to both a possible passenger railroad terminus
and a local shuttle/excursion bus serving Morehead City and Beaufort water-
front and historic areas.
RECOMMENDATION 27: Study the feasibility of a public transportation system
'
to and from high use areas. An automobile parking struc-
ture may be too expensive and season too short to amor-
tize costs from revenue produced. In anything but publicly
owned surface parking storage facilities, land uses and
prices are such that operation of a parking facility
would not be the highest and best use of land in central
locations. Public transportation systems are not usually
self-supporting, but will often provide public benefits
which exceed the net operating loss expected. The study
of a potential public transportation system should ad-
dress several considerations and alternatives, including
the following:
97

(a) The likelihood of extended cooperative activity
between the municipalities involved and establishment
of either public, quasi -public, or private transporta-
tion agency.
(b) Establishment of automobile -free zones in areas
with central attractions. This might include the Atlantic
Beach "circle", the historic area of Beaufort, and certain
waterfront areas. Similar actions are popular in Europe
and used in Williamsburg, Virginia. Actions such as these
will result in disbenefits to automobiles.
(c) Timing of bus or tram schedules coordinated with
harbor excursion tours, bridge openings and arrival of
excursion trains.
(d) The provision of parking areas on the fringes of
the central locations with services to avoid impeding
commercial traffic.
(e) A shuttle bus with limited parking may be one al-
ternative at Atlantic Beach. To effectively extend the
public beach at Atlantic Beach, a cooperative effort
I
should be initiated between Carteret County, the Town
of Atlantic Beach and the State of North Carolina, for
the funding of access and development of a parking area
'
immediately west of the Town.of Atlantic Beach. (See
Recommendation 14.)
(f) Bus transportation to fishing piers, particularly
those on the east end of Bogue Banks, may become a
practical source of access if other rail and/or bus
systems develop. Seasonal minibus or van operation by
a cooperative group of pier owners may be practical;
with customer pickups at motels and central parking lo-
cations.
(g) An open tram in Atlantic Beach and causeway area,
circulating among various attractions and motels.
Bikeway/Pedestrian Way on Salter Path Road
The potential for bicycle -automobile accidents makes a bikeway somewhat
infeasible directly adjacent to Salter Path Road. It seems possible, how-
ever, that a parallel bikeway is practical for the entire length of High-
way 58 on Bogue Banks, particularly with the likelihood of continuing
gasoline shortages and high prices.
M

1
I
I
RECOMMENDATION 28: It is recommended that the N.C. Department of Transportation
Bicycle Coordinator be requested to make a feasibility
study for a County bikeway system. Modify the County
Zoning Ordinance regarding walkways and bikeways to en-
courage development of safe bikeways and safe pedestrian
ways, rather than restrict them through excessive set
back provisions (included only in Section 73-A.3 of
Residential Resort District).
Bogue Banks Parking Lot Access
Similar to the situation within central business districts, surface parking
may not be the highest and best use of land to a private developer, because
of the increasing costs of property on Bogue Banks. Parking facilities
which are not in public ownership will likely not remain as parking facili-
ties because of the market for land. Parking structures are not financially
feasible on the island with only four or five months of use. State acquisi-
tion of the 25 acre Roosevelt property at Salter Path is reported to require
public access and limited parking as a condition of the potential gift.
RECOMMENDATION 29: The State Department of Administration should be en-
couraged to proceed to secure access to the Roosevelt
property, and should also be requested to survey, im-
prove and identify its property adjacent to the Iron
Steamer Pier (a 100 foot strip) as a public parking and
ocean beach access location. This could be accomplished
by either agreement with the pier owner or construction
of highway access. The former would provide the maximum
of service to both the public and the pier. Management
of both sites by the State should be most economically
provided by extending management responsibility of Fort
Macon State Park; park staff presently administers the
Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area nearby.
RECOMMENDATION 30: The practicality of parking strips or lanes on the Salter
Path Road right-of-way should be recommended for study
to the State Department of Transportation, in order to
make publicly -owned beach foot paths more accessible.
This would be particularly beneficial to residents,
off-season surfers, and others willing to walk to the
ocean beach from the road. Considerable parking may
already be possible along shoulders of the improved
road. Identification of parking areas and access points
is recommended; however, roadway/traffic safety must be
taken into consideration.
Q9
I

I
Implementation Proposal
1
Many of the recommended actions have fairly equal priority and can be car-
ried on concurrently. In general, however, actions are listed in order of
priority.
Generalized Capital
Cost Estimates
Phase I
1. Request comments on the report, including the following:
County advisory commissions, N.C. Coastal Resources Com-
mission and Departments of Administration, Commerce, Nat-
ural Resources and Community Development and the Wildlife
Resources Commission; local legislators and municipal
officials.
2.
Implement Recommendations 1 and 3, with staff support as-
signed by the County Manager. - - -
3.
Implement Recommendation 2, and with concurrence, Recom-
mendations 5 and 7. - - -
4.
Contact Town of Beaufort regarding Recommendations 8, 9,
and 15. Seek joint action on 8 and 9. - - -
i5.
Contact N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission on Recommen-
dation 7, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 20. - - -
'
6.
Contact Towns of Beaufort and Morehead City regarding
Recommendation 22. - - -
7.
Implement Recommendation 4; establish contact with Mr.
G.T. Swain, engineer with Wilmington Corps of Engineers. - - -
8.
Contact N.C. D.O.T. regarding Recommendations 4 and 6
1
establishing boat access, and number 23. - - -
9.
Seek grant from Coastal Resources for construction
planning of Airport Marina parking, two ramps and
bulkheading (Recommendation 15). 1,000 (County)
10.
Discuss grant funding criteria with NRCD Division of
Parks and Recreation and State Bureau of Outdoor Rec-
reation; identify projects and desired funding. In
addition, seek major State participation in Atlantic
Beach and Emerald Isle projects, but propose local
operations. - - -
i
11.
Discuss Recommendation 12 and 13 with Emerald Isle
officials, seeking a long term solution'to Bogue Point
access. Establish contact with Corps of Engineers on
the issue. - - -
:xQo
1

'
12.
Contact ToWn of Atlantic Beach regarding Recommendation
14. Seek agreement for bargain sale or donation of land.-
13.
Seek bargain sale (for owner's tax benefit) or donation
"first
of property and/or execute option or right of refu-
sal" aggreement for waterfront park east of Beaufort
■
i
(Recommendation 9). - - -
14.
Seek "first right of refusal" agreement on Cedar Point
land (Recommendation 10). 500. (plus land
eventually)
15.
Seek "first right of refusal" agreement on land east
of Cape Carteret (Recommendation 11) 1000. "
16.
formally indicate interest in Spoil Bank (Recommendation
16) to State Ports Authority and NRCD Division of Marine
Fisheries. - - -
17.
Request N.C.D.O.T. study of Highway modifications pro-
posed in Recommendation 16. - - -
18.
Implement Recommendation 19 through ordinance review and
activities of Dunes Protection Officer. - - -
19..
Seek implementation of Recommendation 17 through County
Ctvtl Preparedness Office. 0 - ?
j20.
Contact NRCD flood Insurance Coordinator regarding
Recommendation 18, seeking its implementation. With
1
the State, draft a contingency plan to acquire flood hazard lands; other coastal counties may - - -
participate.
21.
Identify to N.C.D.O.T., U.S. Coast Guard and others,
r
f
interest in Recommendations 13 and 23. - - -
22.
Discuss Recommendation 24 with Towns of Morehead City
and Atlantic Beach regarding redesign of waterfront areas
and the "circle" to maintain and improve circulation and
pproperty values. Request funding comments from Neuse
River Council of Governments. - - -
23.
Request Neuse River COG to respond to Recommendations
26 and 27. - - -
1
24.
Request N.C.D.O.T. to respond to Recommendations 25, 27,
28 and 30. - - -
'
25.
Request N.C. Department of Administration to respond to
Recommendation 29. - - -
26.
Request Chamber of Commerce or County Parks and Recreation
Department to prepare information brochure on access op-
portuntties, including those for the handicapped. 500
101
i

I
27. Encourage adaptation of public and commercial access
1 facilities to accommodate physically handicapped.-
28. Review conditions and ordinances prohibiting surfing
within 500 feet of commercial piers and prohibiting fishing from certain bridges. - - -
29. Encourage Fort Macon State Park to design and paint
parking lines to increase beach parking capacity.
Encourage establishment of a trail to the Sound. - - -
30. Seek construction funding for improvements to Airport
Marina (HCRS, CRC, Corps of Engineers). 60 000 (County)
Total Phase I. . . . . . . . 631000
Phase,Il -'Second Year
1. Assess extent to which access program is meeting goals.
Revise program accordingly.
2. Consider bond issue funding to provide local match monies
for acquitsltlon and cbvelopment of the following:
Airport Marina - docks, piers, building, fencing
Cape Carteret area park - acquisition, road, gravel
parking and boat launch area
Lennoxville Point - acquisition, road, gravel parking
and boat launch area
Salter's Creek Boat Launch development
Portion of Atlantic Beach local match money
(Estimated to total $400,000 for Acquisition)
Portion of Bogue Inlet local match money
(Estimated to total $300,000)
Total Phase II . . . .
Phase III - Third Year
70,000 (County)
130,000 (County)
130,000 (County)
5,000 (County)
20,000 (County)
10,000 (County)
1. Review previous activities; revise program accordingly - - -
' 2. Assuming "put and take" spoil area is functional (Recom-
mendation 16) use funds generated from sale of sand as
' match for construction grant on Highway 70 site. Secure
planning grant from CRC; project cost should be limited
to that generated from sand sales and grant match. - - -
1
102

1 GENERAL REFERENCES
Baker, Simon, Storms, People and Property in Coastal North Carolina, Ui1C
Sea Grant Publication 78-lb,.Raleigh, N.C., 1978.
Brower, David J., et al, Access to the Nation's Beaches: Legal and Planning
Perspectives,-UNC-SG-77-18, Raleigh, 11.C., 1978.
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, California Coastal Plan,
t Sacramento, 1975.
Carls, E. Glenn, "Recreational Use of the Coastal Zone: Effects of Crowding
and Development," Visual Quality and the Coastal Zone, Proceedings of a
Conference/Workshop, SUNY, Syracuse, 1976.
Carteret County Economic Development Council, Carteret County, North Carolina
Statistical Abstract, Morehead City, N.C., n.d.
Carteret County Parks and Recreation Commission, A Plan for Parks and
Recreation in Carteret County, n.d.
Center For Marine and Coastal Studies, Proceedings of a Conference on
tCoastal Management, UNC-SG-74-16, Raleigh, 1974.
Coastal Zone Resources Corporation, The Economic Impact of Commercial Sorts
IFishing Activities in Morehead City, North Carolina, 1972.
Ditton, Robert, and Thomas Goodale, Marine Recreational Uses of Green Bay:
A Study of Human Behavior and Attitude Patterns, Univ. of Wisconsin Sea
Grant Pub. 72-217, 1972.
Dunham, J. W. and A.A. Finn, Smallcraft Harbors: Design, Construction and
Operation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 1974.
East Carolina University Regional Development Institute, Feasibility of
Constructing a Convention Center, Carteret County, N.C., Greenville, iV.C.,
19 TZ.
' Elfers, Karl and Maynard M. Hufschmidt, Open Space and Urban Water Management,
Water Resources Research Institute, UNC, Chapel Hill, 1976.
Floyd, C.F. and C.F. Sirmans, The Economic Impact of Recreational Land -Use
in an Island Environment: A Case Study of Jekyll Island, Georgia,
Georgia Marine Science Center, Skidaway Island, GA, 1976.
I
Geoffrey McLean and Co., Comprehensive Land Use Element, Neuse River Council
of Governments, New Bern, N.C., 1976.
Graetz, Karl E., Seacoast Plants of the Carolinas, UNC-SG-73-06, 1974.
103

Henry von Oesen and Associates, and Wm. F. Freeman Associates, Carteret
County Complex 201 Facility Plan, n.d. (Est. 1975)
Lewis, W. Cris, et al, Regional Growth and Water Resource Investment,
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1973.
Marine Extension Service, University of -Georgia, Fishing Locations and
Information, Brunswick, GA, n.d..
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan Harbors Guide, Lansing,
1977.
1 National Park Service, Environmental Assessment, Cape Lookout National
Seashore, North Carolina, Denver, 1978.
Neuse River Council of Governments, Population and Socio-Economic Base Study,
New Bern, N.C., 1975.
Neuse River Council of Governments, An Inventory and Analysis of Recreation
Open Space and Historic Sites in the Neuse River Region of North Carolina,
New Bern, 1974.
North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, Coastal Area Management Act Land
Use Plan, Carteret County, forth Carolina, Raleigh, 1978.
North Carolina Department of Administration, North Carolina Municipal Popula-
tion, 1977, Raleigh, Dec. 1978.
North Carolina Department of Local Affairs, Community Facilities Plan and
Public Improvements Program, Carteret County, IN.C., Raleigh, 1969.
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Raleigh, n.d. (Est. 19 3
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
;forth Carolina Water Resources Framework Study, Review Draft, Raleigh,
n.d.
North Carolina State Goals and Policy Board, A Balanced Growth Policy For
North Carolina, Raleigh, 1978.
Office of Management & Budget, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance,
G.P.O., Washington, D.C., 19 9.
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation for
America, Washington, D.C., 1962.
'
Owens, David W., et al. Access to the Nation's Beaches: An Annotated
Bibliography, UNC Center for Urban and Regional Studies, Chapel Hill,
1978.
104

Pilkey, Orrin H. Jr., et al, How to Live With an Island, N.C. Department of
Natural and Economic Resources, Raleigh, 1975.
Recreation and the Environment, EPA Journal, Washington, D.C., June 1979.
Recreation Resources Center, UW Extension, Economic Impact and Needs of
Wisconsin's Great Lakes Boaters, Madison, 19767.
Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission, Economic Indicators, The
Research Triangle Region of North Carolina, Raleigh, 1970.
Sargent, Frederic 0., Rural Environmental Planning, University of Vermont,
1976.
Schoenbaum, T.J. and K.G. Silliman, Coastal Planning: The Desi nation and
Management of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, UNC-SG-76-U9,
Raleigh, 1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1970
Salt Water Angling Survey, Washington, D.C., 1973.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Coastal Recreation: A Handbook for
Planners and Managers, Washington, D.C., 1976.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, State of North Carolina Coastal
Management Program and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Washington,
D.C., n.d.
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, OCZM, Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared on Amendments to the North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
1
Washington, D.C., 1979.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Flood Insurance Study,
Carteret County, North Carolina (Unincorporated Areas), n.d.
U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Assistance in Outdoor Recreation, G.P.O.,
Washington, D.C., 1968.
U.S. Department of Interior, Report of the Barrier Island Work Group,
'
Washington, D.C., 1978.
U.S. Department of Transportation, A Bikeway Criteria Digest, n.d.
Urban Research Development Corporation, Optimum Recreation Carrying Capacity,
Prepared for Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Bethlehem, PA, 1977.
1
Wilkening, E.A., et al, Quality of Life in Kickapoo Valley Communities,
•Center for Human Systems, Univ. of Wisconsin,
Madison, 1973.
1 105

.1
APPENDIX A
P J
I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA RECREATION AND
TOURISM RESOURCE POLICIES*
Recreation
It is State policy:
(1) To protect and preserve its land and waters for the
benefit of all its citizenry by acquiring and preserving
park, recreational and scenic areas. As set forth in
Section 5, Article 14 of the Constitution of North
Carolina and implemented under all authorities mentioned
below.
(2) To preserve to the greatest extent feasible, the public's
opportunity to enjoy the physical, esthetic, cultural,
and recreational quality of the natural shorelines of
the State. As set forth in and implemented under the
CAMA.
(3) To maintain superior quality of water and air resources
to ensure continued enjoyment of the natural attractions
of the coast. As set forth in G.S. 143-211 and imple-
mented under authority of G.S. 143-214.1 and G.S.
143-215.1.
(4) To provide or help provide outdoor recreation opportuni-
ties for all citizens and visitors. As set forth in the
"State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan" (SCORP)
and implemented under authority of G.S. 113-34,
Acquisition and Control of State Forests and Parks.
(5) To plan and promote
recreational develop-
ments in these areas,
with emphasis upon
making the seashore
areas of North Carolina
attractive to permanent
residents. As set forth
and implemented under
G.S. 113-14.1, Promotion
of Seashore Industry and
Recreation.
i
generally consistent =
with local land -use and
land classification -
plans, and with local
land -use regulations.
As set forth in the
CRC's "State Guidelines for Local Planning" and imple-
mented under the authority of the CAMA. 106
*State of North Carolina Coastal Management Program, pp. 110-112.
(6) That the State acquire,
locate and manage state-
owned lands in a manner

(7) To maintain a continuing planning program for outdoor
recreation to guide decision -malting in outdoor recreation
programs and needs. As set forth in the "State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan" (SCORP) and
implemented under authority of G.S. 113-34, Acquisition.
and Control of State Forests and Parks.
(8) To acquire adequate examples of natural outdoor recre-
ation features and to preserve them in as close to a
natural state as feasible. Such natural features should
be made accessible to the public for outdoor recreation
to the extent that such use does not destroy or degrade
the resource. As set forth in the "State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan" (SCORP) and implemented
under authority of The Natural and Scenic Rivers Act
of 1971 (G.S. 113A-30 et seq); The- North Carolina
Trails System Act (G.S. 113A-83 et seq); and G.S.
113-34, Acquisition and Control of State Forests and
Parks; and G.S. 113-29 et. seq., Acquisition and
Development of State Forests.
Tourism
It is State policy:
(1) To assist in the sound development of the seacoast
areas of the state, giving emphasis to planning and
.promoting attractions and facilities for travelers in
these areas; with particular interest upon the develop-
ment of the scenic and recreational resources of the
seacoast.. As set forth and implemented under authority
of G.S. 113.14.1, Promotion of Seashore Industry and
Recreation.
(2) To coordinate the activities of local government and
state and federal agencies in planning and development
of seacoast areas for the purpose of attracting visitors.
As set ' forth and implemented under authority of G.S.
1
113-14.1, Promotion of Seashore Industry and Recreation.
(3) To discourage sprawl and strip development and roadside
advertising where they detract from scenic quality by
encouraging the Department of Transportation and local
governments to adopt and enforce design standards for
all roadside advertising. As set forth by the Land
Policy Council and implemented under authority of
G.S. 136-122 et. seq., Preservation, etc., of Scenic
Beauty of. Areas. Along Highways.
(4) That reforestation and preservation . of vegetative cover
be encouraged as much as possible toward enhancing
state visual quality. As set forth by the Land Policy
Council under authority of the Land Policy Act (G.S.
113A-50) .
107

i
I
I
Unique Cultural and Natural Resources
It is State policy:
(1) To promote and encourage
throughout the coastal
area knowledge and ap-
preciation of North
Carolina history and
heritage by providing
assistance for identi-
fying places of his-
torical significance
and, where feasible,
acquiring such pro-
perties. As set for
and implemented under
authority of G.S.
121.9, Administration
of Historic Properties.
(2) To foster the preservation of coastal complex natural
areas, unique coastal geologic formations, and coastal
areas that sustain remnant species by receiving and
studying recommended acreas that may fall into those
categories, designating as AECs areas as are deemed
to qualify, and establishing a management program for
the preservation of those areas. As set forth in the
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern"
and implemented under authority of the CAMA .
Beach Access
It is State policy:
(1) That in the 75 foot estuarine shoreline AEC high
priority of land use allocation shall be given water
access proposals, provided that public resources will
not be detrimentally affected. As set forth in CRC's
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern"
and implemented by authority of the CAMA.
(2) That in the ocean hazard area (ocean beaches, frontal
dunes, and inlet lands), structural access ways to the
beach may be permitted on or seaward of the frontal
dunes, provided that their specific location and design
are demonstrated to be the most suitable alternatives
and will not damage the dunes. As set forth in CRC's
"State Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern"
and implemented by the authority of the CAMA .
108

APPENDIX B
BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION OPEN SPACE CATEGORIES AND,
N.C. DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION INVENTORY SHEET
FOR CARTERET COUNTY
Chapter II 22-1.10
Summary of Findings, Policies, and Recommendations 2 of 2
BOR
Class, Subclass Designation
I High Density Recreation Areas
II
III
IV
V
01
Mini -Park
02
Playground
03
Neighborhood Park
04
Combined Neighborhood Park and Playground
05
Playfield
06
Community Park
07
Citywide Park
08
District Park
General Outdoor Recreation Areas
09 Countywide Park
10 Specialized Outdoor Recreation Area --
Low Intensity Use (SORA LOW)
11 Specialized Outdoor Recreation Area --
Medium Intensity Use (SORA MED)
12 Specialized Outdoor Recreation Area --
High Intensity Use (SORA HIGH)
Natural Environment Areas
13 Natural Specialized Outdoor Recreation
Area --Low Intensity Use
14 Regional State Park
15 Destination Park/Recreation Area
Outstanding Natural Areas
16 Unique Natural Area
Primitive Areas
17 Wilderness Area
VI Historic and Cultural Sites
18 Historic/Cultural Area 109
* Reprinted from North Carolina Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan

N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation Inventory Worksheet Region___._
I
County C.A P %f,,.( 7—
County Population Subclass
Subclass , In Thousands X Standard Cross Need ;Present Supply Net Need
1 I t t
1 1 1 I 1
Neigh. Emph. qO 2. 5 d 0
...:.......... ' ...... ........ ► . 0 ...It... 0 ....... 4........ r.... { ................ J8 ........ .
Comm. Emph. 2.5 a L �` L4
..................................ti...........{...........
..�.................�.........
City Park i i 5.0
O
..............�...................{............'1.... .......
.;................�.........
District Park ; n� 2.5 i /_ �7 /
1
County Park
SORA LOW
t
t
1
SORA MED
1
t
..............�.........
t
SORA HIGH
............../..........
1
III SORA LOW
i
..............�..........
t
State Park
1
t
Dest. Park 1
t
.
1 l I 1
4Op 10.0
......:... ;........... ;............ ;................;........
8.01 a aZ 9/ Sot 7
• ......... SO .......... 4............ 7 . • .............. ........ O
20. o ;_ 0.36
.........;...........{............;......................
1 t
2.0 7,3
i i �J / e
.........1.... ...... .'............
4---.,•.......... .4..•.O....
150.0 O i O �-7 r ice` 7O s�
.........:..........
04............;..... .........4.....%..
15.0 1 3 04
1 125.0 i L. ��Q I
1 1 t t
........ .l..........
.l............l................l.........
IN 0 T E S k /q76 .
I
1
0
d
110

rr .rr r � i ■r
Perspective Sketch Sketch of Recreation Development Proposed
Earlier for Spoil Bank East of Morehead Bridge
(Provided by James Brown, N.C. Division of Marine
~ Fisheries)

33 b
.1
�l
THE STRA/TS
0
h♦ KS CREEKCb
--------��� SPOIL AREA
6'X 60' J MARKERS ISLAND
HARBOR OF REFUGE
:.-;�.i:'-,r�i �,,I• �...� .�' ••y _ - - SOLE N FEET
. �-yo
J.
so
tob
;ate �3i'•`'i�w�rr •%' �'�•'�t ,/ '
ATLANTIC
\ 4 HARBOR OF REFUGE
\ \ o goo goo 1200
\ SCALE M /[L7
APPENDIX D
WATERWAY CONNECTING PAMLICO SOUND AND
BEAUFORT HARBOR, NORTH CAROLINA
DETAIL OF SIDE CHANNELS
M L W
AND BASINS
VARYING
•YI,RYING:�st�zi:, x_y`I-•
.Tyr.' .L ...,i• .,' :tek_*�- �,i3.1ji•,.� =.
�;: isT?�j'=s, t'`` �%►�.�•-� CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON, N.C.
' 'TYYIC�I'ECI4DN!4 Z.'•;
= MAP REVISED JUNE 1972
HARKER'S ISLAND AND ATLANTIC HARBORS OF REFUGE
112

Y
Y
W
h
P �
4
�- -
- - o
MASTER PLAN scale -1"=50 -O'
N COLINGTON HARBOUR RECREATION COMPLEX
U o
jerry turner & associates - landscape architects, planners- raleigh, n.c.

�W-

rr r it �r r r r� r rr rr �r rr rr �r r� r rr rr �r
'2�• '�%ii� .l.' '•,�• ii�• •..•j i�{:.1; ��: +'!' � •j: :•i. �.';i ;t:; �; .; .,•:.� �t.:'i.••'. i�,•; •,• •�:'
'.ti •:••t. ..:, .: ? cat•;>' �:.' +.: :;: I � y - 1,L••t• %r •1`
TRANSIENT W
HOUSING 4� MOTEL
YACHT CLUB
• I � COMPLEX
1 SHORE FRONT PARK
�•. TRANSIENT .HOUSING
i.
u I FUT. DRY.* Q j
_►_'- STORAGE• m • : � I!
= u J '6 LAUNCH; } 20
BOARDING DOCKS •� u a0 z '^ w m
WAVE BREAKER / a a a
W C ';s HARBOR MASTER °' °' m
~•
OCH VISITORS DK
m a
W
ADM.BLDG.
: , i S
BOAT-• W FUEL DOCK
'REPAIRS:
,. L• • W m PROJECT DEPTH ITYP.I 10
COAST GUARD
MARINA
-' C0MU. �m •: MAINT.
z FISH •
o W .YARD
•_
,Q 1 i Wj •p p r
PROCESSING , P.5 S F z z z ='
• z a
i
_ u z W 1
V1 Q N to N L3
m CO p a z
d a m Y s m d ANCILLARY
ANCILLARY a FACILITIES
FACILITIES A.F.
e- PUBLIC ROADWAY
N
Schematic layout of a marina showing desirable interrelation of facilities.
L Plan -credit: U.S. Army Cpastal Engineering Research Center, Kingman Building, Ft. Belvoir,
Virginia 22060
H
H

I
Ii. Floating Homes
A floating home or structure is any structure, not a boat, supported by a means of
flotation, designed to be used without a permanent foundation, which is used or intended for
human habitation or commerce. A structure will be considered a floating structure when it
is inhabited or used for commercial purposes for more than thirty days in any one location.
A boat may be deemed a floating structure when its means of propulsion has been removed
or rendered inoperative and it contains at least 200 square feet of living space area.
Carteret County does not oppose the location of floating homes in commercial marinas
that are in compliance with 15A NCAC 7H standards and where applicable, county zoning.
j. Aquaculture
As defined under N.C. General Statute 106-758, aquaculture is the propagation and
rearing of aquatic species in controlled or selected environments, including, but not limited to,
ocean ranching. Aquaculture has not been a significant issue within the county's planning
jurisdiction.
E. DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS: PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Water Supply
There are several community water systems in Carteret County, including the North River,
Merrimon, Harkers Island, Carolina Water Service, West Carteret Water Corporation, and
Bogue Banks Water community systems. The North River and Merrimon systems are both
owned by Carteret County and operated by the Town of Beaufort. The county does not
maintain any community water supply systems. The North River system serves
unincorporated areas of the Beaufort Township, while the Merrimon system serves Silver
Dollar Road. The Harkers Island system serves the Harkers Island community, and Carolina
Water Services serves the Town of Pine Knoll Shores and a portion of Indian Beach. The
towns of Cape Carteret, Cedar Point, and unincorporated areas of White Oak and Morehead
Townships are served by the West Carteret Water Corporation; and the remainder of Indian
Beach, Salter Path, and Emerald Isle are served by Bogue Banks Water. The towns of Atlantic
Beach, Beaufort, Morehead City, and Newport operate their own municipal water systems.
All existing municipal water systems obtain water from aquifers located in the
Yorktown/Castle Hayne formations. Based on existing analysis of well yields and studies
conducted by the United States Geological Survey, the groundwater supply is adequate to
serve demand during the planning period. However, close monitoring of well yields is needed
to prevent salt water intrusion. This is especially true during the peak summer months when
' wells often pump at nearly twice their average rate. If salt water intrusion occurs in a
particular well, it essentially cannot be removed and may potentially contaminate other wells
due to their proximity. When salt water intrusion occurs in a well, it must either be
abandoned and a new well drilled, or a desalinization plant constructed. Both alternatives are
very expensive and better off avoided.
I
1 1-99

Approximately 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 N.C.
Environmental Management Commission 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.
2. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Carteret County does not own or maintain any wastewater collection or treatment systems.
Wastewater disposal throughout the county is provided by municipally -owned systems,
privately -owned individual septic tank systems, and public/private package treatment and
disposal systems. However, the county Environmental Health Department plays an active role
in regulating wastewater disposal in the county's municipalities and unincorporated areas
through the permitting system for all individual septic systems in the county, including
municipal areas.
Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport currently own and maintain central wastewater
collection and treatment systems. Table 32, below, outlines specific data for these municipal
wastewater systems.
Table 32
Carteret County, 1995
Outline of Municipal Wastewater Systems
Collection Pumping Treatment Treatment Plant
Location Sewers Stations Capacity Description
Morehead City 41 mi. 13 1.7 MGD Secondary type,
trickling filter
Beaufort 16 mi. 13 1.5 MGD Secondary type,
aeration
Newport 12 mi. 7 0.5 MGD Oxidation ditch
Source: Director of Public Works for each individual municipality.
Dried sludge from all three municipal treatment plants is transported to the new tri-county
landfill for ultimate disposal. Treated effluent from the Morehead City plant is currently
discharged into Calico Creek. However, in order to provide for future expansions of the plant,
relocation of the discharge site to Beaufort Inlet is being considered. Beaufort's treatment
plant discharges into Taylor's Creek, and Newport's plant discharges into the Newport River.
Adoption of the Neuse Basinwide Management Plan in November, 1997, may necessitate
changes both in terms of discharge volume and sites at the above mentioned wastewater
treatment plants. The old NCDWQ system of evaluating one discharger at a time has proven
inadequate and will be replaced in favor of a process which takes a basinwide approach to
water quality management.
1-100

11
7
1
1
1
I
1
In October, 1989, an Environmental Impact Statement addressing short and long-term
wastewater treatment and disposal alternatives for the entire county was prepared. The EIS
pointed out that the collection systems serving Beaufort and Morehead City had severe inflow
and infiltration problems due to the age of the systems. The 1994 Morehead City and 1995
Town of Beaufort Water Supply Plans, prepared for the Division of Water Resources,
document that both municipalities have successfully reduced inflow and infiltration problems
through the replacement of aging sewer pipes. This process of pipe replacement is not
complete and will continue as funds are available.
It is believed that between two-thirds and three -fourths of the county's year-round population
depends on individual septic tanks for wastewater disposal. Septic tanks provide sewage
disposal in unincorporated areas of the county and areas of the beach communities not
otherwise served by package treatment plants. Non -biodegradable solids from these tanks
are periodically pumped out and transported to land disposal sites approved by the North
Carolina Division of Health Services. Liquid effluent passes through nitrification lines before
being filtered and biologically treated in the soil. Obviously, the depth to the water table and
the soil conditions are important factors in determining the efficiency of septic tanks. If the
water table is high, or soil conditions such as hard clays or coarse sands do not allow
adequate filtration of effluent, ground or surface water contamination can result. In Carteret
County, approximately 98% of the land area has soil conditions that pose "severe" limitations
to septic tank installation. However, the county Health Department approves over 90% of
the requests for septic tank permits throughout the county, although site modifications are
often required.
While suitable for single-family detached dwellings developed at low density in most areas of
the county, septic tanks are not capable of serving high density development. In Carteret
County, publicly or privately -owned central collection, treatment, and disposal systems have
typically served higher density developments outside of Morehead City, Beaufort, and
Newport. Many of the privately -owned central treatment systems serve condominiums and
motels on Bogue Banks. Non -municipal central wastewater treatment systems normally
consist of mechanical "package" plants for wastewater treatment with land disposal of the
effluent accomplished through nitrification lines, rotary distributors, or low pressure disposal
fields. In Carteret County, publicly -owned central "package" systems are permitted by the
Division of Water Quality, while privately -owned "package" systems are permitted by the
Division of Health Services. Table 33 provides a listing of all currently permitted public/private
package treatment and disposal systems in Carteret County and their associated watershed.
The majority of the systems discharge into the Bogue Sound watershed.
Table 33
Carteret County, 1995
Public/Private Package Treatment and Disposal Systems
Public
Name Design Flow (gpd) Watershed
A Place at the Beach — Bogue Sound
A Place at the Beach III 87,000 Bogue Sound
Dunescape Villas 60,000 Bogue Sound
Island Beach & Racquet Club 90,000 Bogue Sound
1-101

Table 33 (continued)
Public
Name
Design Flow (gpd)
Watershed
Sand Villa
43,000
Bogue Sound
Sugarloaf Properties
100,000
Genesis Condos
30,500
Bogue Sound
Ocean Glen/Ocean Bay Villas
32,500
Bogue Sound
Ocean Oaks
—
Cape Emerald
50,000
White Oak R./Bogue Sound
Pebble Beach
70,500
White Oak R./Bogue Sound
Point Emerald Villas
52,950
White Oak R./Bogue Sound
Queens Court
24,000
White Oak R./Bogue Sound
Sound of the Sea
40,000
White Oak R./Bogue Sound
Brandywine Bay
50,000
Newport River
The Haystacks
22,000
USMC-Bogue Air Field
9,000
Goose Creek/Deer Creek
USMC-Piney Island
--
South River/Turnagain Bay
Hestron Park
67,000
Newport River
Merritt Fort, Inc.
--
Sailors Snug Harbor
--
Sea Level Extended Care Facility
--
Core Sound/Thorofare Bay/Nelson Bay
West Carteret
-
Pettiford Creek/White Oak R.
Windward Dunes
25,000
Bogue Sound
Private
Name
Design Flow (gpd)
Watershed
Beachwalk
17,340
Bogue Sound
Bogue Shores Club
12,000
Bogue Sound
The Bluffs
18,000
Cape Carteret SASS
25,000
Goose Creek/Deer Creek
Cedar Point Villas
50,000
Pettiford Creek/Deer Creek
Colony By The Sea
20,160
Coral Bay West
10,000
Bogue Sound
Country Club Apts.
18,000
Newport River
Diversified Concrete Products
7,500
Eight and One -Half Marina Village
30,000
Bogue Sound
Mariners Point
13,680
McGinnis Point
30,600
Bogue Sound
The Oceans
6,000
Bogue Sound
Ocean Terrace
12,000
Bogue Sound
Pine Knoll Townes Phase II
11,040
Bogue Sound
Sea Spray
50,000
Bogue Sound
1-102

ITable 33 (continued)
Private
Name Design Flow (gpd) Watershed
' Southwinds 43,200 Bogue Sound
Summerwinds 75,000 Bogue Sound
Tar Landing 19,000 Bogue Sound
Whaler Inn Beach Club 20,000 Bogue Sound
Beacons Reach Utilities, Inc. 100,000 Bogue Sound
Deerfield Shores Utilities, Inc. 10,000
Spooners Creek Utilities, Inc. 21,000 Newport River
Emerald Plantation Utilities, Inc. 55,000 White Oak R./Bogue Sound
USCG Ft. Macon 10,000 Bogue Sound
Peppertree Resorts Utilities, Inc. 50,000 Bogue Sound
Source: Division of Water Quality and Carteret County Division of Health Services.
Problems with package plants are generally due to improper maintenance or operation, and
are endemic due to the lack of financial resources or management expertise available to
homeowners associations, which often have the responsibility of maintaining the systems.
As a result of the continuing high rate of residential development in Carteret County, pressure
by residents of incorporated areas not currently served by municipal sewer has increased in
recent years. Atlantic Beach has actively pursued the construction of a wastewater collection
treatment system since 1986. There is significant interest in county -sponsored central sewer
service.
The lack of central sewer service has restricted industrial development in all areas except
Morehead City, Beaufort, and Newport. The county must develop sewer service districts or
provide an alternative approach to providing central sewer service to its unincorporated areas
if it wishes to attract industry to unincorporated areas where industrial development would
not be an incompatible land use.
In the rural areas, reaction to the possibility of county -sponsored central sewer service has
been decidedly negative based on a county -wide water and sewer referendum conducted in
February, 1987. Cost to taxpayers and fear of rapid development in rural areas were the
reasons most often cited against sewer improvements at that time. However, continued
problems with failing septic tanks and package plants in high density areas has gradually
increased public support for publicly -owned central sewage treatment.
1
1-103

In July, 1994, the Carteret County Interlocal Agency (CCIA) was formed to address the need
for regional sewage collection. All nine incorporated municipalities within the county were and
remain voting members of the agency. The task assigned to this agency was that of
determining if land application methods for wastewater treatment and disposal were viable
alternatives for the municipalities in Carteret County. Funding was obtained from state,
county, and local sources; the scope of work was defined; feasibility study bids were let; and
the firm of Camp, Dresser & McKee was chosen to perform the study. As a result of CCIA's
efforts, major state funding was also granted for a Four County Regional Task Force Study for
Carteret, Craven, Onslow, and Pamlico counties which would be undertaken during the same
approximate timeframe as the CCIA study.
The Interlocal Agency study has now been completed and the results and findings generally
conclude that land application treatment and disposal methods alone cannot feasibly meet the
wastewater disposal needs of all of Carteret County's municipalities. Under current state and
federal guidelines, there is simply not enough suitable land area available in Carteret County
to handle the projected wastewater volume. However, the study does conclude that land
application in conjunction with existing treatment and disposal facilities could be a feasible
alternative provided state permitting allows for such a system.
The findings of the Four County Regional Task Force Study were unveiled in August, 1996.
In this study, six separate scenarios were examined for the treatment and disposal of
wastewater for the Four County area. These six possible scenarios are as follows:
-- Status quo: This plan calls for improving existing treatment plants and
continuing to rely on septic tanks in unincorporated areas.
-- Consolidation of existing facilities with continued surface water discharge
(streams): Similar to the first option, this also would call for the upgrade of
existing facilities to handle independent package systems.
-- Ocean outfall discharge: This plan has two alternatives, both with multiple
treatment plants. Alternative one calls for one ocean outfall (a pipe which
carrier treated wastewater miles into the ocean). Under the proposal, the pipe
would be somewhere in the Swansboro area. Alternative two calls for two
points of ocean entry, one near Swansboro and one north of Cape Lookout.
-- Maximum water reuse: The key concepts under this proposal are golf course
irrigation, wetlands restoration and forestland application. Secondary reuse
potential includes agricultural irrigation, landscape irrigation, and industrial
reuse. Under this proposal, in the extreme long-term the water may be
reclaimed for a drinking source or used for deep well injection to provide a
saltwater barrier in the aquifer.
-- Maximum use of natural systems: This proposal calls for a surface discharge
system that relies primarily on land application or constructed wetlands as
means of effluent polishing (the purifying of treated wastewater).
1-104

11
17
r
rJ
-- Three service areas: This calls for breaking the four -county area into three
groups: Onslow County and Carteret coastal communities, Craven County and
the remainder of Carteret County, and Pamlico County. Discharge limits of
wastewater would be restricted to current permitted flow with an emphasis on
improving water reuse. Septic tanks would continue to be used extensively in
unincorporated areas.
Now that the Four County study is complete, the task force is seeking funds to complete an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine the potential impact of each scenario on
the environment. The cost to complete an EIS of this magnitude has been estimated at $3
million. As of April, 1998, the N.C. General Assembly had appropriated $850,000 for the EIS.
The remaining $2.15 million has been requested through the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund (CWMTF). However, the CWMTF will not consider Carteret County's funding request
until the county initiates the preparation of a Growth Management Plan or explains how the
issue of Growth Management will be addressed as part of the EIS process.
"Growth Management" is a conscious government program intended to influence the rate,
amount, type, location, and/or quality of future development within a jurisdiction. It should
be noted that this definition, which in fact focuses on actively guiding growth, differs from
the popular notion of stopping growth completely.
Carteret County has proposed that it complete a Comprehensive Development Plan which
would address, among many other issues, growth management. The CCIA has already
approved a resolution that such a plan be prepared. Once the county has decided exactly how
it will address the issue of growth management, the CWMTF will consider the county's EIS
funding request.
3. Transoortation
a. General
Carteret County benefits from a diverse existing transportation system that includes
an adequate arterial highway system, a growing municipal airport, rail transport to serve
county industries and the State Port Terminal, and the Intracoastal Waterway, which provides
both bulk commercial transportation as well as a convenient alternative travel route for
tourists and residents in the shoreline areas.
Continued maintenance and upgrading of the county's transportation system are
needed to attract industry, to preserve the import/export business associated with the port,
as well as to continue the appeal of the county to retirees and tourists.
b. Roads
In most coastal North Carolina counties, complaints about existing transportation center
around the inability of the highway system to handle the rapidly growing population. Carteret
County is no exception to this rule. In recent years, there has been strong local support for
improvement of the county's roads and bridges to better accommodate the continuing influx
of residents and tourists. In some areas of the county, non -seasonal traffic loads are taxing
the capacity of existing thoroughfares. In these areas, congestion during the tourist season
1-105

frequently becomes intolerable, and poses a significant safety hazard as well as a negative
impact on the tourism trade.
Map 14 outlines average annual daily traffic (ADT) counts compiled by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation for 1994 in Carteret County. Map 14 indicates that
ADT volume on U.S. 70 between Wildwood and Morehead City (near the junction of U.S. 70
and N.C. 24) is the highest in the county. Another particularly high -volume area is N.C. 58
west of Atlantic Beach, which is a two-lane road. Traffic counts are also high on N.C. 24
east of the Onslow County line to the U.S. 70 intersection, on N.C. 58 at the southern end
of the Emerald Isle Bridge, and along the U.S. 70 corridor in the Morehead City/Beaufort area.
ADT counts in these heavily traveled areas have steadily increased for the last decade. For
example, the ADT count on N.C. 24 between Gales Creek and Hibbs Road increased from
5,600 in 1987 to 10,700 in 1994. On U.S. 70 immediately west of the Atlantic Beach
Bridge, the ADT volume increased from 25,000 in 1987 to 35,100 in 1994. These rapid
increases in traffic volume have severely tested the ability of NCDOT county and municipal
planners to minimize congestion and safety problems. The traffic volume on many highways
in the county has exceeded design capacity, and road and bridge maintenance demands have
increased with traffic flow throughout the county. Additionally, the ADT figures shown on
Map 14 are average annual figures and do not really convey the full impact of the traffic
congestion problem that exists during peak seasonal periods such as the 4th of July weekend.
In the county's 1991 land use plan, the need for several transportation improvement
projects was discussed. A brief summary of these projects is listed below:
• Continued four-laning of N.C. 24 between Swansboro and
Morehead City.
• Construction of a third bridge to Bogue Banks to help with
congestion on N.C. 58.
• Widening of N.C. 58 on Bogue Banks.
• Demand for traffic synchronization and limited access
improvements on U.S. 70, Morehead City/Beaufort corridor.
• Continue traffic signal/railroad crossing projects.
• Replacement of several bridges on N.C. 12, N.C. 58, and N.C.
24 (including the Broad Creek Bridge.
The current transportation improvement program, outlined in the NCDOT publication
Transportation 2001, indicates that many of the projects listed above have been completed
or are currently underway. Projects which have been completed include: the four-laning of
N.C. 24 between Hibbs Road and Broad Creek; bridge replacement at Thorofare Bay, Broad
Creek, Gales Creek, and Core Creek; multiple traffic signal/railroad crossing projects in the
Morehead City area; and traffic synchronization improvements on U.S. 70 between Craven
County and Beaufort. The replacement of Hadnot Creek Bridge and four-laning of N.C. 24
between Hibbs Road and Morehead City are currently under construction. The continued four-
laning of N.C. 24, along with multiple traffic signal/railroad crossing projects, are scheduled
to continue throughout the planning period. Additional bridge replacement at the White Oak
River (S.R. 1 101 and S.R. 1442), Newport River (S.R. 1 125) and Black Creek (S.R. 1154) are
scheduled for right-of-way and construction between the years 1999-2002.
M;,

O
v
a as as as as as aI as as as aaas as a as as a as as
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
MAP 14 Coastal Resource Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
1. Stella 11. Gloucester
2. Cape Carteret 12. Marshallberg �`GO�t,�
3. Emerald Isle 13. Smyrnat P-0 GOJ
4. Salter Path 14. Williston
5. Newport 15. Davis
5. Wildwood 16. Stacy
7. Morehead City 17. Sealevel •
8. Atlantic Beach 18. Atlantic
9. Beaufort 19. Cedar Island Point
10. Harkers Island
1994 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY 24-HOUR VOLUME t 2200
ON HARD SURFACE ROADS
CARTERET COUNTY
CRAVEN COUNTY
------
�5 G� ,'�••-------_- - 17600 8500 V-5
100 ��•.3 4900 lot 7700
-� ,.•.i �` 5 3200 -rt � `\ 5000
se 6700
12500
6.
3 v
o t
zO n 1E
11800
1
21100
11
5900 OV
0 p _
13100 /
i
2r 700 ,Q .
22800 �•- 1
12400 v
CARTERET COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
1200
1800
1 0 1 2 3 4
MILES

I
A feasibility study for the construction of a third bridge west of Morehead City to Bogue Banks
has been completed. This project is currently classified in the T.I.P. as an "identified future
need." Construction of the bridge is contingent upon whether or not state -level legislators/
administrators consider the project to be worthy of funding. It is expected that if the decision
to build the bridge is made and funds allocated, the actual construction would not begin prior
to the year 2001.
C. Navigable Waters
The Intracoastal Waterway traverses Carteret County from the White Oak River east
to Morehead City and north to the county's border with Craven County. The waterway
provides an indispensable route for fishermen, commercial barge traffic, and recreational boat
traffic, all instrumental to the county's economic well-being. The waterway and the berthing
channel/turning basin at the State Port Terminal in Morehead City are both maintained by the
U.S. Corps of Engineers. Recent years have seen a continuing increase in waterway and port
traffic as tourism and import/export activities have grown.
Carteret County participates with the N.C. Division of Water Resources and the Corps
of Engineers in maintaining several less heavily used navigable waterways and harbors of
refuge throughout the county, most of which have also experienced increasing usage in recent
' years.
d. Air Transportation
1
Michael J. Smith Field, a general aviation facility, is located on 403 acres northwest
of Beaufort. The airport is county -owned and is managed by the Beaufort -Morehead City
Airport Authority. The existing facility can accommodate up to medium sized propeller aircraft
and small business jet aircraft. Currently the airport offers one FBO with hangar/tiedown
space and fuel service and two maintenance/repair services. The most recent Airport Master
Plan was completed in 1994. This plan breaks airport development into two phases. The
major projects in Phase 1 (1993-1997) include the extension of Airport Road into the T-hangar
and corporate hangar areas, addition of T-hangars as demand warrants, taxiway
improvements, and land acquisition of approximately 135 acres for future runway expansion.
Phase II (1998-2002) includes runway expansion of approximately 1,251 feet and its related
projects. The expansion of the main runway would require the relocation of N.C. 101
approximately 7,000 feet to the east. Expansion of the existing facility would certainly be
required if the county wished to attract a commuter service to serve the growing recreational
population.
4. Solid Waste Disposal
In 1993, the Carteret County landfill, located on Hibbs Road in the Newport Township, shut
down operations and stopped the acceptance of waste material. By 1994, the county had
met all of the necessary requirements and the closure was made official. The day after the
Hibbs Road landfill stopped accepting waste, the new Tri-County landfill was opened. The
Tri-County landfill is operated by the Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority
(CRSWMA). The management authority is a board of directors appointed by Carteret, Craven,
and Pamlico counties' Boards of Commissioners. There are seven board members. Pamlico
1-108

and Carteret counties each have two board members, and Craven County is represented by
three. The fundamental idea behind this regional approach is that one large landfill is less
expensive to construct and operate than three individual landfills. The landfill is located in
Craven County near Tuscarora. The present site will be expanded by approximately 400 acres
and modified to meet new federal and state regulations regarding environmental safeguards.
In 1998, a new disposal cell was being constructed. Upon completion, the cell will have a
five year capacity. Carteret and Pamlico county residents are served via transfer stations
located in Newport and Grantsboro.
In unincorporated parts of Carteret County, trash disposal is handled almost entirely by
individual household/business transport to one of twelve greenbox sites owned or leased by
the county. The county also maintains one trash compaction station. Another trash
compaction station in Otway is owned by Waste Industries, a private waste disposal
contractor that is also responsible for picking up solid waste from all of the county greenbox
sites and transporting it to the Tri-County landfill. According to solid waste management
personnel in Carteret County, some private haulers do pick up trash and yard waste from
individual residences and businesses. In general, the greenbox compaction system has been
adequate to serve waste disposal needs in unincorporated areas of the county over the past
several years.
5. Educational Facilities
The Carteret County Board of Education receives federal, state, and county assistance. In
FY95-96, the county school system will receive $12.1 million in county assistance. The
county school system serves the entire county and currently includes fourteen (14) schools:
three high schools, three middle schools, and eight elementary schools. The following table
provides a comparison of county school enrollment in 1989 and 1995.
Table 34
Enrollment in Carteret County Schools, 1989-1995
Atlantic Elementary
Beaufort Elementary
Beaufort Middle
Broad Creek Middle
Cape Lookout High (new)
Morehead Elementary Ill
East Carteret High
Harkers Island Elementary
Morehead Elementary at Camp Glenn (new)
Camp Glenn Elementary Ill
Morehead City Middle
Morehead City Primary (new)
Newport Elementary
Smyrna Elementary
1995-96 Change
1989 1995 Capacity
162
181
232
+19
679
530
592
-149
353
374
390
+21
686
838
758
+152
N/A
47
N/A
N/A
593
N/A
N/A
N/A
749
782
795
+33
204
170
216
-34
N/A
390
416
N/A
587
N/A
N/A
N/A
568
666
677
+98
0
823
792
+823
864
954
808
+90
437
366
402
-71
1
1-109

1
1
Table 34 (continued)
1995-96 Change
1989 1995 Capacity
West Carteret High 1,431 1,521 1,480 +90
White Oak Elementary 547 636 625 +89
Total 7,859 8,278 8,183 +419
[1I Since 1989, Morehead Elementary has dosed and the building reopened as a new alternative high school called Cape Lookout. Pre-K-3 is now
served by the new Morehead City Primary and grades 4-5 by Morehead Elementary at Camp Glenn. Therefore, no conclusions may be drawn
by examining a change in enrollment from 1989-95.
[2] Since 1989, Camp Glenn Elementary, serving grades K-2, has closed and has since reopened as Morehead Elementary at Camp Glenn serving
grades 4-5. Therefore, no conclusions may be drawn by examining a change in enrollment from 1989-1995.
Source: Carteret County Board of Education and the N.C. Department of Public Instruction.
Table 34 indicates that overall county school enrollment in Carteret County grew by 419
individuals from 1989-1995. This growth in public school enrollment is more than twice that
experienced between 1984-1989. During the early 1980s, public school enrollment in the
county actually decreased, so this steady growth in enrollment may be indicative of a shift
toward public school as opposed to private.
Carteret County's continued devotion toward improving education is evidenced by the recent
passage of a $29 million bond referendum in November, 1994. The bond provides $6.2
million for educational technology. This includes the purchase of instructional computer
equipment and software, and the networking of the county's fourteen schools. The majority
of that equipment has been purchased and received by the schools, and the networking
project will be completed in the fall of 1996.
The remaining bond money will fund construction and renovation projects. A new high school
and a new elementary school are currently under construction in the western part of the
county off Highway 24 and are scheduled for occupancy in the fall of 1998. Both schools are
being built on the same site with natural buffers separating them.
Other bond projects include the construction of a new cafeteria and renovations to the main
building at Beaufort Elementary School, the construction of a new classroom building with
media center and office area at Smyrna Elementary School, and renovations to the kitchen at
White Oak Elementary School.
Community expectations for the Carteret County School System are high. The overwhelming
support for the bond referendum and the arrival of a new superintendent have set a
challenging course for this system. Carteret County schools strive for excellence in education
and continue to innovatively address student needs. A five-year strategic plan provides
direction for the school system beyond the year 2000. Called a blueprint for action, that plan
will soon be revised and long-range plans will be extended through 2010. The plan was
developed by a team of parents, business leaders, teachers, retirees, school administrators,
support and classified school staff, and board of education members.
Cape Lookout High School is the system's newest school. It opened in January, 1995, and
is an alternative school offering small class sizes and individualized instruction. It is attended
by students who are having difficulty in the traditional school setting.
1-1 10

The county's voluntary year-round school pilot program was extended another two years
based on its success. Students at Newport Elementary School attend four nine -week
quarters. During the three-week breaks, enrichment and remediation programs are offered.
The year-round program is run along with a traditional calendar program at Newport
Elementary.
Geographically, growth is occurring in the western end of the county. Student populations
continue to decrease on the eastern side of the county. West Carteret High, Morehead
Middle, Broad Creek Middle, and Newport Elementary are severely overcrowded. West
Carteret High did get some relief when a new two-story, 21-classroom addition opened in
August, 1995.
Private schools located in Carteret County include: Carteret Academy (grades 6-9), Grace
Christian (K-12), St. Egbert's Catholic (K-5), Beaufort Christian (K-12), Gramercy Christian (K-
12), Tiller School (K-6), White Oak Christian (K-12), and the Newport Developmental Center
for the handicapped (children and adults). Based on the estimated 1995 school -age
population, Carteret County private schools had a total enrollment of approximately 800
students, not including the Newport Developmental Center.
6. Parks and Recreation
As a shoreline county located in a mild climate, Carteret County offers a variety of water -
related recreational activities including boating, swimming, scuba diving, water skiing, surfing,
fishing, and hunting. The public beaches, Cape Lookout National Seashore Park, Fort Macon
State Park, and the Croatan National Forest provide an abundance of open space for public
recreation. Preservation of these public recreational areas, as well as improvement of public
access facilities at the county's parks and public beaches, have been growing concerns of
county officials and year-round residents.
In addition to the state and federally -maintained recreational areas outlined above, there are
numerous recreational facilities in Carteret County that are maintained by the county Parks
and Recreation Department. The parks, recreational facilities, and shoreline access areas
maintained or planned by Carteret County are shown on Map 15. The county has full
responsibility for maintaining the five county parks and six shoreline access areas. Also, the
county improves and maintains several school athletic fields, inspects community parks, and
supervises year-round programs, classes, athletic activities, and special events. For many of
these programs, the department utilizes school facilities and grounds.
As a result of its extensive national and state park system, and the county -sponsored parks
and recreation effort, open space and passive recreation needs are addressed on an adequate
level. However, all county and community parks are in need of renovation. The county's
population is more demanding of athletic and active recreation areas and the county is forced
to make multi -use of facilities and existing areas to the point of overuse. Reconfiguration of
existing parks is a viable, yet costly, option for making maximum use of available county
parkland. In addition, the purchase of adjacent land for park expansion is also desirable.
The lack of regional and neighborhood public estuarine access sites in unincorporated areas
of the county is a need that has assumed more consequence as those areas continue to grow.
Ocean shoreline access has primarily become a municipal concern as the beachfront
communities on Bogue Banks have expanded.

1
i
' CRAVEN COUNTY
CIO ---- -- -� r
G°J
eP��\GI�IhJ�
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.
��EAN
AT L ANT IC
��JER
N��SE
SCALE
1 O 1 2 3 4 MILES
CAPE LOOKOUT
PAMLICO SOUND
.. O
MAP 15
LOCATION OF COUNTY -MAINTAINED
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES
a
O
LEGEND
CARTERET COUNTY DARKS S RECREATION
MAJOR COUNTY PARKS
Full Responsibllity of CCPR
1 - Srinson Park
2 - Fceadom Park
3 - 2 .....Park
1 - N.. iris ra Park
5 - Western Park
BEACH AND ESTUARINE ACCESS
Acquired throoyh grant program administered by N.C. Division of Coastal
Management) maintained by CCPR
B1 - Salter Path Beach Access B3 - Radio Island Beach Acceee
B2 - Newport River Estuarine Access B4 - Harker, Island Beach Acceee
PIERS B5 - Town Creek Public Boat Ramp
I )
Acquired through funding program administered by N.C. Division of
Coastal Managament
P - Straits Pier/Parking - early planning atagea; future maintenance
by CCPR
CARTERET COUNTY SCHOOLS
Occasional gym programs and use of athletic fialde; sumser day camp. at
selected sites
S - Schools
CONHUNITY PARKS
Monetary assistanc. rh.n built; maintained by individual communities
is.eoci.tions) rlth monthly inspections by CCPR
C - Community Parks
ATHLETIC FIELDS
F•-Ball/Athlatic field deeded to and maintained by CCPR
F - Pall/Athletic field (.pproa. 1 acre) leased from .chool system;
maintained by CCPR
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: Shockleford Bonk&, Cape Lookout, Core
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a part of the
National Seashore System and not under the
planning Jurisdiction of Carteret County. I-1 1 2
NOTE: The Emerald Isle Beach corporate limit
line extends L200 feet Into Bogue Sound and
parallels the Bogue bound shoreline.

1 7. Other Countv Facilities
The inventory of hospitals; health care facilities; police, fire, and emergency medical facilities;
and other institutional facilities has not changed appreciably in Carteret County since the 1991
land use plan. The locations of the county's 23 fire departments (eight serving the
municipalities, 15 serving unincorporated areas designated by taxing districts) are shown on
Map 16. Existing police, fire, and emergency medical facilities and services are adequate to
meet existing demand. Map 16 also indicates the locations of eight community centers in
' Carteret County.
Carteret General Hospital and Sea Level Hospital/Extended Care provide adequate major health
' care services for county residents. The Carteret County Health Department provides clinical
and public health services to county residents. Services include the operation of an orthopedic
clinic, three screening clinics, and various educational programs. The county departments of
Environmental Health, Solid Waste, and Mosquito and Rabies Control contribute to the
county's public health effort through the control of health hazards, nuisances, and private
wastewater disposal systems.
tOther county facilities include court system facilities, the county jail, the social services
building, and county offices housing various departments such as the tax office, permit office,
sheriff's office, planning, and administration, all located in Beaufort. The county has recently
completed several major improvements to county buildings and is continuing the effort to
upgrade its services and facilities. The provision of parking facilities for county employees and
' visitors is still a concern to be addressed.
8. Summary
' The following provides a summary of the most significant Development Constraints: Public
Facilities issues:
-- Saltwater intrusion in water supply wells may be a problem during the planning
period and should be carefully monitored.
-- Malfunctioning septic tanks and package treatment plants will continue to be
a problem during the planning period.
I-- The traffic volume on many highways in the county has exceeded design
capacity, and road and bridge maintenance demands have increased with traffic
flow throughout the county.
-- The county will continue to support a regional approach to solid waste disposal.
-- The school system is experiencing substantial growth in enrollment which is
placing pressure on system facilities to accommodate the students.
' -- Preservation of public recreation areas, as well as improvement of public access
facilities at the county's parks and public beaches, have been growing concerns
of county officials and year-round residents.

1 pCE"Hn �/
ATLANTIC
CAPE LOOKOUT
�1� v
The
preparationor this map wa
financed In part through s
a proof
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
through funds provided by the
Coaatol Zone Management Act of
1972. as amended, which Is
administered by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National OcaaNc and
Atmospheric Administration.
LEGEND
FIRE DEPARTNIDITS
■'
SCNOOLB
1. Cedar Island
1.
Atlantic ElesM nary
2. Atlantic
2.
Smyrna School
3. Sea Level
3.
ma
Harkers Ialand Eleacary
e. Stacy
6.
Beaufort Eleousntazy
S. Davi■
S.
Beaufort Middle
6: Narshallberg
6.
East Carteret High
7. Hackers Island
7.
Cape Lookout High
a. Otway
9.
Morehead Middle
9. North River
9.
Carteret Coasounity College
10. Esau fort
11. NorsMad City
S0.
Morehead 6launta ore C
ry, amp Glenn
12. Atlantic beach
11.
west Carteret High
13. Mill Creek
12.
Newport Elementary
13. Marlowe
Marloweil
13.
Broad Creek Middle
14.
le.
White Oak Elementary
16. Pine Knoll Shares
15.
Morehead City Primary
179alter Path
la.. Newport
HARBORS OP SAPS RUMS19.
Broad 6 Gales Creek
20. Burald Isle
1.
Cedar Island
21, Cape Carteret
2.
Atlantic
22. Stella
3.
Harkers Island
23. South River/Marrimn
COMMUNITY CENTERS
PAWS
1. Cedar Island
1.
Mariner Park
2. Davis
2.
Sastern Park
3. North River
3.
'Freedom Park
e. Beaufort
e,
Newport River Park
S. Morehead City
S.
Srinson Park
6. Broad 6 Gales Creek
6.
Newport Park
7. Stella
7,
Salter Path Beach Access
N. western Park
a.
Western Park
---COUNTY BOUNDARY LINZ
INCOBPORATBO AREA AND FORT
MACON NOT UNIONS CARTERET
COUNTY PLANNING JURISDICTION
.y;.• EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION AREAS NOT
UNDER CARTERET COUNTY PLANNING
JURISDICTION
NOTE: Shatkleford Banks, Cape Lookout, Core
_ _ Towns of Cedar Point and
Banks, and Portsmouth Island are a pat of the
National Seashore System and not under the
Bo ue Corporate
+] rP to Limit Line
planning Jurisdiction of Carteret County.
NOTE: THE EMERALD ISLE BEACH CORPORATE
LIMIT LINE EXTENDS 1200 FEET INTO 90GUE
SOUND AND PARALLELS THE BOGUE SOUNO
SHORELINE.
1-114

IF. CURRENT PLANS, STUDIES, AND REGULATIONS
Carteret County maintains an active comprehensive planning program. In June, 1997, the
county's Planning and Central Permit Departments merged to form one department with two
separate divisions. The county's Planning Commission is supported by the Planning Division
' which includes the following staff positions: Planning Director, Planner 11, Planning
Technician, and Senior Office Assistant. The Central Permit Division enforces the North
Carolina State building, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical codes and several land -use
related ordinances. The following provides a summary of all county plans, policies, and
ordinances which relate to land use planning.
' 1. Plans
a. 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan
The document was certified by the Coastal Resources Commission on March 22, 1991.
The plan is an update to previous land use plans prepared in 1967, 1978, and 1985.
b. A Plan for Parks and Recreation in Carteret County, 1974
' This document provided a definition of recreation needs in Carteret County. It was
updated in 1985, but is currently out of date and is not being implemented.
' C. Transportation Plan
In 1971, the North Carolina Department of Transportation prepared a transportation
plan for portions of the county; however, the document was not adopted. Lack of an adopted
thoroughfare plan is a serious planning deficiency.
d. Regional Sewer Plan
In 1979, a county -wide sewer plan was prepared to comply with Section 201 of the
1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Since the preparation of the plan, there has been
continuing debate concerning the best method of sewage disposal for Carteret County and its
municipalities. The 201 sewer plan has not been implemented.
e. Hurricane Evacuation, Hazard Mitigation, and Post -Disaster Plan, 1984
This is a county -wide plan which was prepared in 1984 in conjunction with Beaufort,
Morehead City, and the Bogue Banks towns. The county incorporated hazard mitigation
policies into its 1985 land use plan.
U

2. Regulations and Ordinances
a. Carteret County Subdivision Regulations
The Carteret County Subdivision Regulations were adopted in 1961 and updated in
1983 and 1986. The 1986 revision was particularly significant because complete review and
rewrite of the ordinance was accomplished. The revised ordinance included shoreline access
requirements and increased the minimum lot size from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet.
Subdivision plats are reviewed by the Carteret County Planning Department staff and
a Subdivision Technical Review Committee to ensure consistency with the subdivision
regulations. The technical review team is composed of representatives of all county
departments affected by development. The plats are presented to the Planning Board for
preliminary and final approval.
b. Carteret County Zoning Ordinance
The Carteret County Zoning Ordinance was originally adopted in 1963 and revised in
1980. Approximately thirty percent of the county's area was zoned. All of the zoned areas
are in Western Carteret County. By the early 1980s, the ordinance became very disjointed
and difficult to implement. A thorough review and rewrite was undertaken, and the ordinance
was reenacted in 1987. Additional review and revision were undertaken in 1988. A revised
zoning ordinance was adopted by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners in June, 1990.
One area of concern addressed was the incorporation of planned unit development regulations
and a conditional use overlay.
C. Carteret County Mobile Home Park and Camp Park Ordinance
The county's Mobile Home and Camp Park Ordinance was adopted in 1972 and revised
in 1980 and 1997. The Carteret County Planning and Inspections Department staff reviewed
all plans for mobile home parks and camp parks to ensure consistency with the ordinance.
The plans are subsequently reviewed and approved by the Carteret County Planning Board.
The Carteret County Building Inspections staff enforce the ordinance to ensure compliance
with the approved plans.
d. Group Housing Ordinance
This ordinance was adopted in 1981. The ordinance regulates the construction of
condominiums, townhouses, rowhouses, and apartments. The Carteret County Planning and
Inspections Department reviews all plans to ensure consistency with the ordinance. Site plans
are reviewed and approved by the Carteret County Planning Commission.
e. Bogue Banks Land Protection Ordinance
This ordinance was adopted in 1973. It was designed to regulate development
occurring in sand dune areas. The ordinance is still in effect but has limited utility. The only
area of Carteret County under the county's planning jurisdiction and having dune areas is the
section of Bogue Banks lying between east and west Indian Beach. All of Shackleford and
Core Banks are in the Cape Lookout National Seashore and are under federal jurisdiction.
1-1 16

rj
Also, the CAMA regulatory program now provides most of the control for which the ordinance
was originally intended.
f. North Carolina State Building, Electrical, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes
The Carteret County Building Inspections staff enforce all state building codes to
ensure compliance with minimum construction standards.
' g. Septic Tank Regulations
In 1974, the Carteret County Health Department adopted regulations to govern the
' design, construction, installation, cleaning, and usage of sewage disposal systems. The
regulations are enforced by the county's Environmental Health Department.
7,
h. National Flood Insurance Program
Carteret County participates in the National Flood Insurance Program. The program is
administered locally by the Carteret County Inspections Department.
i. Carteret County Billboard Ordinance
In 1985, the county adopted a sign ordinance to regulate the location, size, and
appearance of signs in the unincorporated areas of the county. The ordinance is enforced by
the county's Building Inspections staff.
j. Junkyard Control Ordinance
In 1983, Carteret County adopted a Junkyard Control ordinance. The ordinance
regulates the location and screening of yards. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Carteret
County Sheriff's Department.
k. CAMA Minor Permit Program
Carteret County issues permits for all developments which meet the CAMA regulatory
definition of a minor permit. Carteret County Building Inspectors serve as the local permit
officers.
I. North Carolina Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
The county does not enforce the 1983 Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. However,
the county cooperates with the state to ensure that new developments meet the standards
of the act. The act is designed to control siltation and surface stormwater runoff.
M. National Fire Prevention Regulations
The Carteret County Fire Marshal enforces these federal regulations, which are
designed to increase the safety of public buildings and privately -operated establishments.
1-117

n. "404" Wetlands Regulations
Carteret County does not have any regulatory authority for enforcement of the "404"
wetlands program. Regulation is provided by the Regulatory Branch of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers through the Wilmington, North Carolina, district office. Anyone who undertakes
work in a wetlands area is required to obtain a permit. The county coordinates its local
planning, and in particular its subdivision review and approval process, with the "404"
program. The subdivision plat approval process requires that "404" wetland areas as
delineated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers be identified on subdivision plats.
3. Consistency of Local Policies and Ordinances with the Land Use Plan
The 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan emphasized improving consistency between local
land use regulatory ordinances and the state's 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards for
areas of environmental concern. In order to accomplish this, the following changes were
recommended for consideration by Carteret County:
-- Incorporate open space or conservation classifications into the county's
zoning ordinance.
-- Increase the minimum lot sizes allowed. This will be an important
consideration for the control of density when central water and sewer
service areas are expanded.
-- Extend zoning jurisdiction into the "Down East" area.
-- Establish specific density guidelines for each land classification category.
-- Review all ordinances and repeal those which may no longer be needed,
such as the Outer Banks Land Protection Ordinance.
None of these changes have occurred since certification of the 1991 Land Use Plan. During
the consideration of policy statements as a part of this updating process, the county should
decide if these changes/issues should continue to be emphasized. In addition, the Carteret
County Planning Department staff indicates that the county's subdivision and group housing
ordinances are in need of revision. These revisions should be addressed in the policy
statements section of this document.
In general, the policies contained in the 1991 Land Use Plan are clearly linked to the 15A
NCAC 7H use standards. All policies either meet or exceed the state's minimum 15A NCAC
7H use standards. (See Appendix 1 to identify existing policies which exceed the state's
minimum use standards.)
4. Implementation/Effectiveness of the 1991 Land Use Plan Update Policies
The following sections include an evaluation of the policies addressed in the 1991 Carteret
County Land Use Plan Update and a discussion on subsequent actions to implement these
policies. The 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan Update addresses many issues, including
Resource Protection, Resource Production and Management, and Economic and Community
Development.
1�
1
1-1 18

F
L✓I!
Many of the policies from the 1991 Carteret County Land Use Plan Update have been
successfully implemented through coordinated efforts by county officials, residents, and other
agencies. Many of these implementation actions required a commitment of funds, as well as
effort, and reinforce the County Commissioners' intentions of improving the quality of life in
Carteret County.
The Carteret County Board of Commissioners, Planning Board, and Planning Department staff
believe that the majority of the policies contained in the 1991 Land Use Plan have been
effectively implemented and have served to guide the development process within the county.
In summary, the county has diligently tried to enforce the policies contained in the 1991 Land
Use Plan.
Resource Protection
The 1991 Plan Update provides a detailed discussion of Areas of Environmental Concern
(AECs) and other fragile natural systems in the county. Generally, the policies addressing
these sensitive natural resources reflect a concern for their conservation. The following are
included as conservation areas: coastal wetlands, 404 wetlands, natural heritage areas,
estuarine shoreline, ORW estuarine shorelines, primary nursery areas, estuarine and public
trust waters, outstanding resource waters, and ocean hazard areas. These areas include
fragile areas which are not identified as AECs by the 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards.
The Sea Gate Woods fragile area was provided some protection through the adoption of
zoning for the area in 1991. Large -lot residential zoning has provided some protection for this
area's fragile environment.
The 1991 plan establishes a policy for undeveloped sound and estuarine islands by stating
that Carteret County opposes any development on sound or estuarine islands for which a
subdivision plot was not approved or a building permit issued for any portion of such island
prior to the certification of the 1991 plan (March 22, 1991) by the CRC. The sound and
estuarine island policy was not successfully implemented because a local ordinance was not
adopted to support this policy.
In order to assist the county in maintaining a link between water quality issues and the fishing
industry, a Marine Fisheries Advisory Board was appointed by the county in 1989. This board
continues to function as a working group through which commercial and sport fishermen are
provided an opportunity to discuss fisheries -related issues with the County Commissioners.
This board has successfully provided input to the Marine Fisheries Commission on a number
of controversial rule changes.
The Resource Protection policies address historic and archeological properties. The 1991
policies state that code enforcement activities/redevelopment projects and public works
projects will be coordinated with the N.C. Division of Archives and History to ensure the
identification and preservation of significant archaeological sites. The county has supported
this policy.
1
1-119

Resource Production and Management
The 1991 Land Use Plan included policies which were protective of recreation resources,
agricultural lands, and productive forest lands. Aquaculture activities were encouraged. In
addition, the plan included policies intended to minimize the impact of residential, commercial,
and industrial development and off -road vehicles on AEC's and other fragile areas. The
county's 1991 off -road vehicles policy stated that the county would investigate the
development of an ordinance to address the usage of off -road or all -terrain vehicles in areas
of environmental concern. An ordinance addressing off -road vehicles has not been adopted
and is addressed in the policy statement section of this update. The county supports the use
standards for estuarine public trust and ORW waters as specified in 15A NCAC 7H. With the
possible exception of the off -road vehicle policy, these policies have been implemented by the
county.
The 1991 plan did not oppose offshore exploratory drilling for oil or gas. In the event that oil
or gas is discovered, Carteret County will not oppose drilling operations and on shore support
facilities for which an Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared with a finding of
no significant impact on the environment. The county has supported the policy.
Economic and Community Development
This section of the 1991 plan expresses the county's desire to expand its economic base,
including agriculture and forestry, tourism, recreation, commercial and recreational fishing,
retirement communities, retail and wholesale trade, real estate and construction, industrial
development, and continued growth and development of the State Port. It was stated that
Carteret County did not want to jeopardize fragile areas and vital natural resources.
The 1991 plan included policies addressing the provision of water and sewer. In 1991, an
Environmental Impact Statement for a county sewage collection and treatment system was
under review by the Division of Water Quality. A number of obstacles were encountered and
this document was never approved. In 1998, a Four County Regional Sewer Study had been
completed (see page 1-104).
The 1991 plan addresses the role in the military in the discussion of man-made hazards. The
plan recommends that sound attenuation zoning be established near Bogue and Atlantic Fields.
This has not been accomplished. The plan discourages expansion of military operations areas
(MOA's). This policy has been implemented by the county.
Since adoption of the 1991 plan, the West Carteret Water Corporation has completed the
provision of water service to the towns of Cape Carteret, Cedar Point, and Bogue. This was
an objective policy of the 1991 plan. Other community water systems, identified in the
Development Constraints Section of this plan, continue to be supported by the county's
planning policies.
u
d
1-120

' The 1991 policies support many transportation -related issues, such as encouraging D.O.T. to
develop a Thoroughfare Plan for Carteret County (underway in 1995) and construction of a
' third bridge from the mainland to Bogue Banks. The plan also supports the replacement of
important bridges throughout the county including Gales and Broad Creeks. These
improvements have been accomplished. Improvements to lessen congestion on N.C. 24 were
supported. Since 1991, a number of N.C. 24 improvements have been accomplished which
have served to reduce congestion.
In 1991, the county employed a Clean County, Keep America Beautiful Coordinator (hired
1987) to oversee recycling programs and littering problems. That position has been replaced
by a solid waste warden. The county continues to operate a recycling program with recycling,
1 transfer, and compaction sites dispersed throughout the county. The county supported a
regional multi -county approach to solid waste management which has been accomplished
through the Coast Regional Solid Waste Management Authority.
' The 1991 plan expressed general support for public shoreline access. However, specific sites
were not identified in the policies. The county has continued to support public estuarine
I
access.
Fj

0
' SECTION II: PROJECTED LAND DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
' A. PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. General Discussion
' In this section, recent trends in Carteret County's population and housing characteristics will
be utilized to project population growth and housing characteristics in the county. The
continuing tide of year-round and seasonal migration into Carteret County is expected to have
' progressively greater impact on land use issues throughout the next ten years.
As development continues near fragile areas, resource protection will assume greater
significance in the public eye. Continued development in areas within Carteret County's
planning jurisdiction will strain the capacity of the existing transportation system; increase
demand for municipal or county -supplied water and wastewater and solid waste disposal; and
place increasing demands on schools, recreational facilities, law enforcement agencies, fire
departments, and administrative/regulatory agencies. Despite increased pressure to control
residential development, the basic demand for housing by incoming population -- in particular,
affordable housing for the year-round population -- will be an important need to be addressed
by local planning agencies in the coming decade. An informed analysis of where and how fast
development will occur is crucial to the development of land use policies for Carteret County's
' next ten-year planning period.
2. Year-round Population Proiections
Based on Coastal Area Management Act planning guidelines, population projections prepared
by the Office of State Planning are the appropriate data to be utilized in projecting year-round
' population for Carteret County from 1995-2005. Table 37 "Total Population by Age and
Percent Change" and Table 38 "Population and Percent Increase by Race and Sex" have been
compiled directly from data provided by the Office of State Planning. However, population
projections by township for Carteret County are unavailable. Therefore, the projections found
in Table 35 "Summary of Year -Round Population Growth by Townships and Municipality" are
based on the assumption that the relative growth rates by specific area will remain the same
from 1994-2005 as experienced between 1990-1994. In order to provide more accurate
estimates, projections were made at five- and ten-year intervals from the year of the last
available hard data (1993).
d

Table 35
Carteret County, NC
Summary of Year -Round Population Growth by Township and Municipality, 1990 - 2005
Township
Municipality or Area
Year Round Population
Percentage Change
Overall
1990
1994
2000
2005
'94-'00
'00-'05
'94-'05
1) Atlantic
Total Township
805
803
799
796
-0.49%
-0.35%
-0.84%
2) Beaufort
Beaufort
3,808
3,997
4,351
4,600
8.85%
5.72%
15.08%
Unincorporated Areas
4,205
4,644
5,467
6,045
17.71 %
10.58%
30.16%
Total Township
8,013
8,641
9,818
10,645
13.61 %
8.43%
23.19%
3) Cedar Island
Total Township
385
407
448
477
10.11 %
6.46%
17.23%
4) Davis
Total Township
535
553
587
611
6.15%
4.08%
10.48%
5) Harkers Island
Total Township
2,237
2,375
2,634
2,816
10.90%
6.91 %
18.56%
6) Harlowe
Total Township
1,190
1,289
1,474
1,604
14.37%
8.84%
24.48%
7) Marshallberg
Total Township
646
674
726
763
7.75%
5.06%
13.20%
8► Merrimon
Total Township
542
591
683
747
15.54%
9.46%
26.46%
9) Morehead City
Atlantic Beach
1,938
2,267
2,846
3,252
25.52%
14.30%
43.47%
Indian Beach
153
177
222
254
25.39%
14.24%
43.24%
Morehead City
6,046
6,384
7,017
7,462
9.91 %
6.34%
16.88%
Pine Knoll Shores
1,360
1,543
1,886
2,127
22.21%
12.78%
37.82%
Unincorporated Areas
10,985
11,485
12,420
13,078
8.15%
5.30%
13.88%
Total Township
20,482
21,856
24,390
26,173
11.60%
7.31%
19.75%
10) Newport
Newport
2,516
2,778
3,269
3,614
17.66%
10.55%
30.08%
Unincorporated Areas
4,817
5,337
6,312
6,997
18.26%
10.86%
31.09%
Total Township
7,333
8,115
9,580
10,611
18.05%
10.75%
30.75%
11) Sea Level
Total Township
773
872
1,056
1,186
21.16%
12.28%
36.05%
12) Smyrna
Total Township
782
843
958
1,039
13.61 %
8.42%
23.18%
13) Stacy
Total Township
401
434
497
541
14.40%
8.85%
24.52%
14) Straits
Total Township
1,948
2,129
2,468
2,706
15.91 %
9.65%
27.10%
15) White Oak
Cape Carteret
1,008
1,179
1,499
1,724
27.16%
15.02%
46.25%
Emerald Isle
2,434
2,798
3,480
3,959
24.36%
13.77%
41.49%
Cedar Point
628
688
800
879
16.33%
9.87%
27.81 %
Unincorporated Areas
2,413
2,379
2,316
2,271
-2.66%
-1.92%
-4.53%
Total Township
6,483
7,044
8,095
8,834
14.92%
9.13%
25.41 %
Total Municipalities
Total Unincorporated Areas
Total County
19,891 21,811 25,369 27,870 16.31 % 9.86% 27.78%
32,662 34,813 38,840 41,673 11.57% 7.29% 19.70%
52,553 56,624 64,209 69,543 13.40% 8.31 % 22.82%
Sources: N.C. State Data Center; extrapolation of data for unincorporated areas by Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
II-2

1
'
Based on Table 35, the average annual population growth rate
for the county, municipalities
and unincorporated areas should continue to decrease during the planning period. This trend
'
is outlined in Table 36, below:
Table 36
'
Carteret County, NC
Average Annual Year -Round Population Growth Rate
and Percent Change, 1994-2005
Area Average Annual Year -Round
Percent Change in
Population Growth Rate
Growth Rate
'
1994-2000 2000-2005
'94-'00 to '00-'04
Municipalities 2.7% 2.0%
-27.6%
'
Unincorporated Areas 2.0% 1.5%
-24.4%
Total County 2.2% 1.6%
-25.6%
E
Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
Despite the expected decrease in annual growth rate, the population growth rate in Carteret
County will still be considerably higher than the North Carolina rate over the next ten years.
From 1995-2005, the state population is estimated to show a 13.0% increase. The Carteret
County population is anticipated to grow 17.9% over the same period.
From 1994-2005, the county's municipalities should grow approximately 8.1 % faster than
its unincorporated areas. The beach communities will continue to display high growth rates
as their recreational potential continues to attract retirees, younger professionals and
entrepreneurs. However, it is conceivable that growth in some of the beach communities may
not keep up with the projections in Table 35 due to building density restrictions or municipal
inability to provide services -- in particular, wastewater disposal. Morehead City is also
anticipated to experience appreciable population growth over the planning period as it
develops as a commercial center for the nearby waterfront recreational communities.
Continuing the trend of the '70s, '80s, and early '90s, the unincorporated areas in townships
containing incorporated towns are expected to grow faster than less urbanized townships
throughout the next ten years. This growth should be concentrated in areas where municipal
services are available or soon to be available, largely due to increasing difficulties associated
with sewage disposal near fragile areas and in areas with soils restrictions. As evidenced by
the recent incorporation of the Bogue community in White Oak Township, a general trend of
annexation of developing areas and incorporation of communities is expected to continue
through the 1990s as demand for municipal services increases.
As shown in Table 35, of the townships with no existing incorporated towns, Sea Level,
Straits, and Merrimon are expected to have the highest rates of growth through the year
2005. Development in these and the other "rural" townships within the county's planning
jurisdiction must be closely regulated due to numerous environmental constraints including the
existence of wetlands, fragile estuarine shoreline areas, soil restrictions, and flood hazard
areas.
H
II-3

The following two tables are based on population projections by the North Carolina Office of
State Planning.
Table 37
Carteret County, 1990-2005
Total Population by Age and Percent Change
Percent
Age
Population by
Age Group
Change
1990
1995
2000
2005
1995-2005
0-4
3,345
3,398
3,440
3,576
5.2%
5-19
9,812
10,885
11,236
11,642
7.0%
20-29
8,024
7,628
7,985
8,507
11.5%
30-39
8,301
9,601
9,306
9,052
-5.7%
40-49
7,099
8,657
9,906
10,875
28.6%
50-59
5,524
6,707
8,189
9,963
48.6%
60-69
5,830
6,128
6,919
7,643
24.7%
70 and up
4,621
5,959
7,228
8,285
39.0%
TOTAL
52,556
58,963
64,209
69,543
17.9%
Source: 1990 U.S. Census and Office of State Planning.
It is expected that the most rapidly growing age groups from 1995-2005 in Carteret County
will be those aged 50-59 and 70 and up. The growth of the 50-59 age group will be strongly
influenced by the aging of the 40-49 age group which grew rapidly during the early 1990s.
The over-70 age group will continue to experience significant growth both as a result of in -
migration and the steady decrease in the death rate for elderly individuals. Overall, Carteret
County's population will experience a significant increase in median age through 2005. In
1990, 44% of the county's population was age 40 or above. By the year 2005, 53% is
expected to be age 40 or above.
Table 38
Carteret County, 1990-2005
Population and Percent Increase by Race and Sex
Category
Total Population
1990
1995
2000
2005
Total White
47,618
53,549
58,425
63,375
Males
23,626
26,526
28,920
31,322
Females
23,992
27,023
29,505
32,053
Total Non -White
4,938
5,414
5,784
6,168
Males
2,484
2,543
2,694
2,848
Females
2,454
2,871
3,090
3,320
Total Males
26,110
29,069
31,614
34,170
Total Females
26,446
29,894
32,595
35,373
Total County
52,556
58,963
64,209
69,543
Source: 1990 U.S. Census and Office of State Planning.
Percent
Chance
fE:I:�•'��d�1;s�
18.4 %
18.1 %
18.6%
13.9%
12.0%
15.6%
17.6%
18.3 %
17.9 %
11-4

1
As was the case from 1980-1995, the white population will continue to grow faster than the
non -white population from 1995-2005, and thus assume a gradually larger share of the total
county population. In 1990, the non -whites composed 9.4% of the county's population. By
the year 2005, the percentage is expected to decrease to 8.9%. The female population will
continue to grow slightly faster than the male population in Carteret County from 1995-2005.
In the year 2005, females will still slightly outnumber males in Carteret County.
3. Seasonal Population
Table 39 shows projections of peak seasonal population and total peak population for Carteret
County from 1995-2005. The table is based on Table 10 on Page 1-19, and assumes that the
' average annual growth rate of the seasonal population from 1990-2005 will be the same as
the 1980-90 rate.
'
Table 39
Carteret County, 1990-2005
Peak Seasonal Population
and Total Peak Population Projections
% of Peak % of
'
Permanent
Total Peak Seasonal Total Peak
Total Peak
Year Population
Population Population Population
Population
1990 52,556
40.0% 78,846 60.0%
131,402
1995 58,963
34.5% 111,811 65.5%
170,774
2000 64,209
28.8% 158,559 71.2%
222,768
'
2005 69,543
23.6% 224,852 76.4%
294,395
Sources: Tschetter, Paul D.,
"Characterization of Baseline Demographic Trends in the Year -Round and
'
Recreational Populations in
the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area," and Holland Consulting
Planners, Inc.
' The growing impact of seasonal population on the entire county is best demonstrated by the
fact that the county's seasonal population is expected to grow over three times as fast as its
year-round population throughout the planning period. In addition, Carteret County may have
' a total peak population by the year 2005 of over 220,000, which is over three times the
estimated permanent year-round population.
C
It is important to point out again that the seasonal population growth shown in Table 39 is
based on the supposition that the average annual growth rate will not decrease from 1990-
2005. It is possible that in some areas -- the beach communities in particular -- growth rates
will slow in the late 1990s and early 2000s as building density regulations and wastewater
disposal problems limit development. During the five-year planning period, these types of
restrictions to development in municipal areas along Bogue Banks may have the effect of
increasing estimated growth rates in unincorporated areas of the county, specifically in White
Oak, Beaufort, and Morehead townships.
4. Proiected Housing Characteristics
Since the population analysis above indicated that Carteret County's seasonal population is
expected to grow over three times faster than the year-round population from 1990-2005, the
development rate for seasonal private housing units is expected to be much higher than the
development rate for year-round units over the same period. Table 40, below, was prepared
II-5

using the ECU Seasonal Housing Study cited previously, as well as population projections
provided by the North Carolina Office of State Planning. For year-round housing units, it was
assumed that the vacancy rate will remain the same from 1990-2005, and that average year-
round household size will decrease slightly from 2.43 persons in 1990 to 2.40 in 1995, to
2.39 in 2000, and to 2.37 in 2005. For seasonal housing units, it was assumed that the ratio
of population occupying private seasonal housing units to total population in seasonal units
(including motels, marinas, campgrounds) will be the same from 1995-2005 as was indicated
in the 1987 ECU study (74.1 %). Also, the household size for private seasonal units was
assumed to be the same from 1990-2005 as in the 1987 ECU study (4.4 persons per
seasonal household).
Table 40
Carteret County, 1990-2005
Number and Percentage Increase of Year-round and Seasonal Private Housing Units
Type of Unit
Number of Units
1990 1995 2000 2005
Percentage Increase '
1990-2005
Year-round
21,230
24,568
26,866
29,343
38.2%
Seasonal
13,338
18,830
26,703
37,867
183.9%
Total
34,568
43,398
53,569
67,210
94.4%
Sources: Tschetter, Paul D., "Characterization of Baseline Demographic Trends in the Year -Round and
Recreational Populations in the Albemarle -Pamlico Estuarine Study Area," and Holland Consulting
Planners, Inc.
The table above indicates that the growth rate for seasonal housing will continue to be higher
than the growth rate for year-round housing throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. More
importantly, the number of new seasonal units constructed annually will begin to surpass the
number of permanent units constructed annually during the early 2000s. Of the total
32,000± new housing units expected to be constructed through the year 2005, 75% are
anticipated to be seasonal units.
The geographic impact of this private housing development is expected to parallel the pattern
of population growth discussed in the previous sections. The most rapid residential
development will be centered in and near the municipalities since higher density development
will be constrained by environmental conditions and the unavailability of adequate waste
disposal in other areas of the county. The documented trend of rapid growth in multi -family
housing from 1980-1990 is expected to continue. Almost all of the multi -unit construction
is expected to take place in urbanized areas outside of the county's planning jurisdiction due
to unit density restrictions in many unincorporated areas of the county. The majority of new
year-round residential units county -wide will continue to be single-family detached units. In
particular, many year-round and seasonal units constructed in areas under county planning
jurisdiction will be higher priced, single-family homes on relatively large building lots. In many
predominantly rural areas, mobile home development will be an important planning issue
throughout the next decade. The overall trend of continued rapid residential development in
Carteret County will require increased efforts by county and state regulatory and planning
agencies, as well as cooperation between the county and rapidly growing municipalities, to
ensure that environmental quality is maintained.
I I
F
M ".

IB. PROJECTED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND RELATED LAND USE ISSUES
1. General Economic Proiections
Based on population and housing projections included in the previous section, it is anticipated
that Carteret County's per capita income, retail sales, and total employed labor force will
continue to grow appreciably throughout the planning period. This continued healthy
economic climate will be primarily the result of the continued in -migration of retirees and
seasonal population. As Carteret County grows as a recreational/retirement center, the
financeireal estate/construction industries and retail and service industries will continue to
thrive. Increased buying power by resident employees in these industries will help to stimulate
other sectors of the economy such as manufacturing, fishing and agriculture, and wholesale
trade. Retail purchases, housing investment, and investment in local banks by civil service
employees, local government employees, and military personnel will further stimulate the
' economy. Although the county unemployment rate is expected to continue at or above the
state average due to the seasonal nature of many retail businesses, the next decade should
be marked by prosperity for most county citizens.
The table below provides an outline of the anticipated growth of the various industries in
Carteret County from 1990-2005 in terms of personal earnings and employment.
ITable 41
Carteret County, 1990-2005
'
Relative Growth of Income -Producing Industries and Trades
% Change
Industry
1990
2005
1990-2005
1
'87$)
Personal Earnings (Millions of
Total
303.75
435.53
43.4%
Farm
2.87
2.89
0.7%
Agricultural Serv., Other
7.54
8.87
17.6%
Mining
0.47
0.61
29.8%
Construction
30.19
40.31
33.5%
Manufacturing
25.69
29.75
15.8%
Trans., Comm., & Pub. Util.
17.34
23.67
36.5%
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
13.23
56.26
16.95
91.67
28.1 %
62.9%
Finance, Ins. & Real Est.
15.90
26.55
67.0%
Services
69.90
102.73
47.0%
Federal Civilian Government
6.01
7.53
25.3%
Federal Military
9.06
9.40
3.8%
State & Local Government
49.28
74.59
51.4%
Employment (Thousands)
Total 23.15 28.29 22.2%
Farm 0.28 0.2 -28.6 %
Agricultural Serv., Other 1.29 1.22 -5.4%
Mining 0.01 0.01
Construction 1.41 1.59 12.8%
' Manufacturing 1.60 1.50 -6.3%
Trans., Comm., & Pub. Util. 0.69 0.76 10.1 %

Table 41 (continued)
% Change
Industry 1990 2005 1990-2005
Wholesale Trade
0.8
0.82
6.5 %
Retail Trade
6.11
8.72
42.7%
Finance, Ins. & Real Est.
1.95
2.64
35.4%
Services
5.17
6.15
19.0%
Federal Civilian Government
0.25
0.27
8.0%
Federal Military
0.59
0.54
-8.5%
State & Local Government
3.01
3.87
28.6%
Sources: Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., and Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
Through the year 2005, employment in the retail trade, finance/real estate, and state and local
government sectors of employment will continue to show high growth rates. The growth rate
of total employment is expected to decrease between 1990-2005 from a rate of 39%
experienced in the 1980s to 22%. This amounts to a 17% drop in the growth rate of total
employment. Therefore, the majority of the individual employment sectors will experience
growth at a rate slower between 1990-2005 than that experienced in the 1980s. Wholesale
trade and federal civilian government are the only sectors expected to experience a growth
rate higher throughout the 1990s and early 2000s than that experienced in the 1980s. The
farming industry has steadily shrunk in terms of the percent of the total labor force since
1970, and by the year 2005 will make up only 0.7% of the labor force. However, earnings
in the farming industry are expected to remain steady through 2005. The top three sectors
in terms of growth in earnings from 1990-2005 are expected to be finance/real estate, retail
trade, and state and local government. It should be noted that the forestry and fishing
industries are included within the "agricultural services, other" sector in Table 41. It is also
important to be aware that the figures provided for employment and earnings are based only
on insured employment. Therefore, many of the workers in the farm and fishing industries
have not been considered in the totals provided.
The rank of industry types in Carteret County in 1990 and 2005 is shown in Table 42, below:
Table 42
Carteret County, 1990 and 2005
Rank of Industry by Employment and Earnings
Industry
(13 Total)
Farm
Agricultural Serv., Other
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trans., Comm., & Pub. Util.
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Employment
Rank
Earnings
Rank
1990
2005
1990
2005
11
12
12
12
7
7
10
9
13
13
13
13
6
5
4
4
5
6
5
5
9
9
6
7
8
8
8
8
1
1
2
2
X-1

Table 42 (continued)
Industry
Employment Rank
Earnings
Rank
0 3 Total)
1990 2005
1990
2005
Finance, Ins. & Real Est.
4 4
7
6
Services
2 2
1
1
Federal Civilian Government
12 11
11
10
Federal Military
10 10
9
11
State & Local Government
3 3
3
3
Source: Holland Consulting Planners, Inc.
From 1990-2005 the retail trade and services sectors will continue to be the most important
in terms of employment and earnings in Carteret County. Changes in the rank of industry by
employment between 1990-2005 are limited to farming and manufacturing where each
dropped one rank, and construction and federal civilian government which gained one rank.
1 The largest change in sector rank in terms of earnings is expected to be in the federal military
sector which dropped from a rank of 9th out of 13 sectors to 11 th. The transportation,
communications, and public utilities sector dropped one rank, while the agricultural services,
finance/real estate, and federal civilian government sectors each gained one rank.
Projected economic trends and land uses for specific industries are outlined in the sections
below.
2. Tourism and Recreation
The projected growth of seasonal population indicated in the previous section will continue
to make tourism Carteret County's single most important source of income throughout the
planning period. Retail and service businesses and the real estate and construction industries
will continue to flourish as Carteret County grows as a retirement and recreation center.
Demand for seasonal housing, motel and marina development, and the growth of individual
commercial buildings and small shopping centers will demand a constant planning effort to
avoid incompatible land use and strip commercialization problems. Preservation of water
quality and the county's areas of environmental concern are mandatory if tourism is to
continue as a viable industry in Carteret County. To preserve environmental quality,
developers of seasonal housing and tourism -related commercial businesses will have to
cooperate with planning and regulatory agencies to avoid uncontrolled and incompatible
development. While a controlled approach to seasonal development may result in the loss of
short-term revenue, the overall economic benefit will be greater than that generated by a "hit
and run" approach to recreational development.
3. Agriculture and Forestry
The gradual drop in farm employment experienced during the '70s and '80s will continue
throughout the remainder of the 1990s and early 2000s, while farm earnings will remain
stable. The total amount of harvested cropland should fluctuate from year to year through
2005 with no major decrease in total cropland foreseen. While earnings increases will be
' paralleled by corporate farm earnings increases, a general trend of consolidation of cropland
will result in more efficient farm production.

Since a large portion of the land suitable for development in Carteret County has already been
developed, much of the land currently being utilized for agricultural purposes has become
prime real estate. This has prompted many farm owners to place their farms for sale. It is
expected that a considerable number of acres of farmland will be converted for development
during the planning period.
The export of wood chips from the State Port Terminal in Morehead City has significantly
influenced the timber products industry in the eastern part of the state. It is conceivable that
Carteret County's small forestry/wood products industry will continue to grow during the late
1990s and early 2000s. The opening up of timber cutting in the county could also benefit
several local manufacturing businesses/wholesales who currently depend on timber products
imported from outside the county. The forestry industry is expected to continue to make up
the majority of the total agricultural sales in the county.
4. Commercial Fishinq
While full and part-time employment in the fishing industry will gradually decrease during the
late 1990s and early 2000s, the earnings from fishing for those who elect to stay in the
industry may increase with projected increased demand for fresh and processed seafood.
Although the industry is extremely dependent on environmental factors, it is expected that
total finfish/shellfish landings will continue to follow the overall trend of the early 1990s. The
commercial fishing industry will continue to strongly impact local wholesale and retail trade
and local manufacturing industries and have a very positive impact on local employment
earnings during the planning period. Growth of the county's aquaculture industry will add to
this positive impact by eliminating some of the environmental factors that contribute to rapid
market fluctuations in the shellfish industry. The fishing industry will continue to flourish only
if water quality is maintained.
5. Marine Research
The North Carolina General Assembly adopted a capital expansion appropriations bill in July,
1995, which included $7.8 million for marine sciences facilities in Carteret County. The funds
will be used for expansion and renovations at the UNC-Chapel Hill Institute of Marine Sciences
(IMS) in Morehead City, as well as the construction of a new N.C. State University Center for
Marine Sciences and Technology (CMAST) located on the campus of Carteret Community
College.
The CMAST facility will be an interdisciplinary research, extension and outreach center
including the colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, and
Veterinary Medicine. In addition, the center will house the North Carolina State University
Seafood Laboratory and the Sea Grant extension program.
The Institute of Marine Sciences began construction in September, 1995, of a new laboratory
wing which is being funded through a National Science Foundation grant. The wing will house
14 laboratories used for research in Marine Ecology, Chemistry, Geology, and Physics.
Architects have recently developed additional plans for expansion expected to begin in the
1996-1997 fiscal year. These additional facilities will consist of new laboratories for research
in coastal processes and environmental health and fisheries, shared dormitories, docking
facilities, and classrooms. With the addition of the CMAST and IMS facilities, Carteret County
II-10

1
1
11
will become the home of the fifth largest concentration of marine research in the entire
country. A discussion of existing marine research facilities is provided in Section I, Part 7 of
this plan.
6. Manufacturing and Import/Export
Employment in manufacturing is expected to decrease by about 6.25% through the year
2005. However, manufacturing earnings will increase substantially from 1990-2005, and
manufacturing will be the fifth largest source of employment income in the county by 2005.
The building products industry is expected to expand as residential/commercial development
continues at a rapid pace.
With the expected increase of wood chip exports and the fact that Waterman Steamship
Corporation will be offering regular service to the State Port Terminal, the total tonnage
handled and revenue generated at the port should continue to grow throughout the planning
period. At the present time, the port is operating at maximum capacity. There is virtually no
room on the existing terminal for new breakbulk commodities or the expansion of existing bulk
export products. Programmed improvements at the State Port Terminal include continued
development of Radio Island. The extent of development depends largely on the extension
of water and sewer to the island. The replacement of the wooden rail trestle to Radio Island
with a higher capacity concrete trestle is scheduled to take place during fiscal year 1996-97.
If local and regional manufacturing industries can coordinate their marketing efforts with the
North Carolina State Ports Authority, the import/export industry will assume a more significant
role in the county's economy during the next decade.
An important planning priority during the upcoming decade will be the ability of Carteret
County to generate additional high paying jobs. It is expected that Carteret County will
continue to remain near the bottom of state rankings in terms of wage rates unless the lack
of employment in the manufacturing sector is addressed. The ability of an area to attract new
industry is largely contingent on the availability of industrially zoned parcels and their
accessibility to existing water and sewer. Carteret County currently has a shortage of both.
Recent expansion at Hankinson International and the new ownership at Bally Refrigerated Box
will provide the county with some additional new jobs, but the overall shortage of high paying
manufacturing jobs will remain. One potential solution which would supplement existing
infrastructure and increase the attractiveness of the county to manufacturers would be the
construction of an industrial park within the county. An industrial park would provide the
county with the additional sites needed to lure new industry. In addition, the proposed Global
TransPark may create opportunities to attract manufacturers to an industrial park if one were
to locate in the county.
7. Real Estate and Construction
The finance, insurance and real estate industries will show a high percentage increase in both
earnings and employment through the year 2005. Earnings and employment in the
construction industry will also grow considerably during the planning period. The growth of
this sector of the county's economy is completely dependent on the continuing appeal of
Carteret County as a recreational area. Real estate development and the tourism industry are
directly responsible for the majority of the county's employment. Efforts to stop or severely
curtail seasonal development in Carteret County may be appreciated from a strictly

environmental point of view, but are not realistic in terms of maintaining a healthy local
economy. Cooperation among developers and planning and regulatory agencies will help to
achieve desired goals of preserving environmental quality and ensuring compatible land use
while maintaining stable employment and growth in the construction and retail trade industries
and a sound local banking industry.
8. Wholesale and Retail Trade and Services
Throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s, retail trade will continue to rank first in
employment and second in earnings in Carteret County. The service industry will remain the
leading sector in terms of earnings through the year 2005. Like the real estate and
construction industries, the retail trade and service industries depend largely on the seasonal
population, and preservation of the county's recreational resources is instrumental to their
continued growth.
As the number of retail businesses, professional offices, and other service outlets increases
during the next decade, an important land use issue will be the integration of residential and
commercial growth. Careful planning will be required to avoid strip commercialization, traffic
congestion, billboard/signage clutter, and other problems frequently associated with rapid
commercial development. While the majority of commercial development is expected to take
place in and near existing municipalities, commercial development along major thoroughfares
in unincorporated areas of the county will also continue.
9. Government Employment
Federal civilian and state and local government employment will grow relatively slowly
compared to most private industries' employment. Federal military employment is expected
to show a slight decrease in employment through 2005. However, total employment and
earnings from government employment, particularly earnings from state and local government,
will continue to be a major factor influencing the county economy.
Continued communication between military planning personnel and Carteret County is
imperative, as any major base expansion at Cherry Point, or new installation, will have
significant economic impact in Carteret County. In July, 1995, the Base Realignment and
Closure Commission announced that the F/A-18 Hornet jets from Cecil Field, Florida, would
not be relocated to Cherry Point. However, local government supports future expansion of
the base and anticipates that during the planning period other additional personnel will be
coming to Cherry Point. The number of civilian contractors from Carteret County engaged on
projects at Cherry Point and other military installations throughout the county is not expected
to increase substantially during the next decade; however, military contracting will still
continue to be an important source of county income.
The projected increase in state and local government employees will be the logical result of
the need to regulate and respond to population growth throughout the county. The number
of state and local employees may grow faster than the 28% indicated in Table 41 through the
year 2005 if water and sewer system development speeds up in response to regulatory
pressure.
II-12

I
C. PUBLIC FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND LAND USE ISSUES
j1. Water Sumfly
Through 2005, it is anticipated that the existing municipal and community water systems in
Carteret County will expand to meet the demands of a growing year-round and seasonal
population in and near the existing municipalities. In particular, the West Carteret County
Water Corporation is expected to grow rapidly as the towns of Cedar Point, Cape Carteret,
' recently incorporated Bogue, and unincorporated areas of White Oak Township continue to
grow rapidly.
1
Ll
The eastern portion of the county is expected to continue to rely exclusively on private wells
for potable water supply through 2000. At projected development densities, it is probable
that eastern communities will not provide utility revenues sufficient for financing county -
sponsored, community -sponsored, or private construction of central water supply systems.
However, there have been some discussions indicating that if the Carteret County Interlocal
Agency is successful in obtaining county -wide central sewer, a logical extension of the
approach would be to incorporate the various municipal and public utility water systems into
the authority as well. The idea of regionalized water service will not be developed until a
successful sewer system has been put in place. Additionally, construction of central water
systems should not be necessitated by environmental conditions in the eastern part of the
county over the next five years. Point sources of potential groundwater contamination such
as agricultural runoff, industrial effluent, and septic tank effluent should not pose a serious
threat to the shallow or artesian groundwater supply in the "Down East" area through 2000.
The permitting process for water well and septic tank installation should be adequate to
alleviate most contamination problems associated with shallow wells in the area east of
Beaufort throughout the planning period. However, efforts to control stormwater runoff,
particularly in areas nearby harvested cropland, should be maintained to further reduce the
threat of groundwater contamination in the eastern land other) areas of the county.
In the existing municipalities and more densely populated areas in the western portion of the
county, expansion of central water service will provide the benefits of 1) more efficient use
of the artesian aquifer, and 2) assurance of domestic water quality through gradual elimination
of shallow wells that are susceptible to point source pollution.
The fact that the entire county is located in a capacity groundwater use area should prompt
county and municipal officials to pursue an organized and informed approach to providing
potable water to growing development. The county should support regional water system
studies with adjacent counties, and periodically monitor existing groundwater withdrawal rates
for all central water systems in the county. However, the groundwater supply is expected to
be adequate to meet residential, commercial, and industrial growth throughout the planning
period.
Demand for land for water system development will follow right-of-way patterns associated
with existing or ongoing development, except for required treatment plant
expansion/construction, the impact of which should be minimal. However, the degree to
which water system construction will act as an inducement to new development is a policy
issue of some significance.
II-13

2. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
The issue of wastewater treatment and disposal will undoubtedly attract more discussion than
any other single planning issue in Carteret County throughout the next five-year planning
period. It is the crux of the entire pro-development/anti-development controversy. There are
those who argue that additional high density development should be curtailed unless municipal
or county -supplied sewage collection is available. On the other side is the belief that current
state sanitary standards and existing county environmental health and zoning standards are
adequate to maintain environmental quality in areas not currently served by existing municipal
systems. Proponents of this policy think that properly permitted "package" treatment systems
should be allowed in high density areas. In the policy statement section, package treatment
plant and sewer policies address these issues.
A history of Carteret County's involvement in the effort to establish a regional sewage
collection system has been discussed in detail on pages 1-103 and 1-104 of this plan.
The county is currently seeking approximately $2.15 million through the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
which will examine six separate scenarios for wastewater disposal in the four -county
(Carteret, Craven, Onslow, and Pamlico) area. However, the CWMTF will not consider the
county's request for funding until it decides how the issue of growth management will be
addressed.
Carteret County has proposed that it complete a Comprehensive Development Plan which
would address, among many other issues, growth management. The CCIA has already
approved a resolution that such a plan be prepared. Once the county has decided exactly how
it will address the issue of growth management, the CWMTF will consider the county's EIS
funding request.
It is anticipated that if the EIS is funded, some type of a Sewer Authority would be established
to manage these funds and oversee the preparation of the EIS.
Since additional municipal -owned or county -owned sewer service systems will take at least
three to ten years to develop in areas of the county not currently served by the three existing
municipal systems, the issue of package treatment plants will continue to be a source of major
controversy throughout the planning period.
Due to the expected residential and commercial growth in Carteret County during the planning
period, it is expected that package treatment plants will continue to be utilized. Regardless
of the decisions made by the county and several municipalities concerning the extent to which
package treatment plant construction will be allowed in Carteret County over the next five
years, the issue of continued maintenance and inspection of these small central treatment
plants must be addressed by local regulatory agencies if water quality in fragile areas,
particularly along Bogue Banks, is to be maintained.
East of Beaufort, almost all new residential and small commercial development during the
1995-2000 planning period is expected to utilize individual septic tank systems for
wastewater disposal. It is likely that larger commercial developments and isolated
subdivisions in the eastern portion of the county will increasingly look to package treatment
1
1
17
II-14

1
1
I
t
1
plants as a wastewater disposal alternative due to environmental constraints associated with
septic tank placement. The extent to which package plant construction is allowed in the
"Down East" area will be contingent upon state regulations and supplementary county
intervention in this permitting process. The placement of septic tanks will continue to be
supervised by the county Environmental Health Department. It is expected that the county
will more actively enforce guidelines for individual and package treatment sewage disposal
systems in the eastern portion of the county during the planning period due to the growing
public awareness of the potential for groundwater and surficial water contamination from
improperly functioning systems.
3. Storm Drainage
With the inception of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality basinwide approach to
water quality management, the issue of managing stormwater runoff will assume more
importance in Carteret County over the next several years. As is the case with the sewage
disposal question, most controversy centers on how much regulation is required to protect
fragile estuarine waters. Some individuals believe that existing regulations, which require
retention prior to discharge in some cases, result in the construction of ponds and retention
basins that contribute to groundwater contamination and can be safety hazards to small
children. Others argue that existing regulations do not do enough to prevent contaminated
surface runoff from reaching estuarine waters. Of particular concern to environmentalists is
the runoff of pesticides and fertilizer from harvested cropland in the eastern part of the
county.
As residential and commercial development continues in Carteret County, so will the
construction of impervious and semi -permeable surfaces, and the potential for surficial water
contamination will increase. Given that fact, it is recommended that the county strongly
support existing Division of Water Quality regulations (15A NCAC 2H.1000) during the
planning period. The county should also participate in and contribute to studies of storm
drainage undertaken by public and private agencies, support U.S. Department of Agriculture
Best Management Practices for cropland, and work closely with the Division of Marine
Fisheries to protect prime shellfishing areas.
4. Transportation
Through 2000, traffic flow and congestion will undoubtedly increase in Carteret County as the
year-round and seasonal populations continue to grow. The highest daily traffic counts should
still continue to be on U.S. 70 west of Morehead City, N.C. 58 west of Atlantic Beach, N.C.
24 west of the U.S. 70 intersection, and U.S. 70 in the Morehead City/Beaufort corridor. It
is safe to say that without continued improvements traffic congestion would appreciably
discourage year-round and seasonal development in Western Carteret County by the year
2005.
Some of the congestion in the western part of the county has been alleviated by the ongoing
project to widen N.C. 24 to four lanes east of Swansboro. However, it is likely that
congestion on sections of N.C. 24 will increase during the next four years since construction
(scheduled through the year 2000) will cause slowdowns and lane blockages, particularly
during the summer months.
II-15

Due to increased congestion on N.C. 58 in the Bogue Banks area, public support for a third
bridge to Bogue Banks should grow during the 1995-2000 period. Also, support for widening
N.C. 58 in particularly congested areas, including the provision of turning lanes, should grow
during the next five years.
A feasibility study for bridge construction has been completed. The project is currently
classified in the Traffic Improvement Plan as an "identified future need." Construction of the
bridge is contingent upon whether or not state -level legislators/administrators consider the
project to be worthy of funding. However, it is expected that if the decision to build the
bridge is made and funds allocated, the actual construction would not begin prior to the year
2001.
As traffic flow increases on U.S. 70 in the Morehead City/Beaufort corridor, the demand for
continued traffic synchronization and limited access improvements will grow. Several traffic
signal/railroad crossing projects in Morehead City are on the current Transportation
Improvement Plan. Other major projects on the current T.I.P include replacement of bridges
at the White Oak River (S.R. 1101 and S.R. 1442), Newport River (S.R. 1125), and Black
Creek (S.R. 1154).
Carteret County Proiects of Highest Priority for Consideration in the 1996-97 TIP
1. Replacement of the current Gallants Channel Bridge with a new bridge.
2. To provide for the connection of Highway 70, south of Havelock to 101 east
of Newport, to serve as a northern bypass of Morehead City to Beaufort. This
project would redirect traffic from Highway 70 north of Morehead City and
create improved access to the Morehead City Port through Beaufort by Highway
101. The project should be multi -lane and utilize the existing Core Creek
Bridge.
3. Convert U.S. 70 into a limited access highway from Carteret County to Raleigh
by (i) expediting right-of-way acquisition and construction of limited access
bypasses of Havelock, Kinston, Goldsboro, and Clayton; and (ii) eliminating at
grade intersections in remaining areas. This highway is the critical corridor
between the Morehead City Port, the Global TransPark, and the state's
interstate highway system.
4. The widening of N.C. 24 (R-2105) from Swansboro to U.S. 70 at Morehead
City to five lanes with an overpass on Highway 24 at intersection of Highway
58.
Additional Proiects for Consideration in the 96/97 TIP
1. Expand from two lanes to four lanes Highway 58 from N.C. 24 to U.S. 70 in
Kinston.
1
u
I
I

H
n
1
1
1
2. N.C. 101 -- If traffic counts indicate substantial increased traffic resulting from
the replacement of the Core Creek Bridge, feasibility studies should be
undertaken for highway improvements and possible widening to three or four
lanes to accommodate for future Beaufort Airport expansions.
3. Improve N.C. 12 and U.S. 70 from Atlantic to Beaufort. Although much has
been done to widen and repave portions of this highway, the completion of the
project should be accelerated, and the highway should be regularly maintained.
4. New Railroad Bridge -- Replace railroad bridge crossing Newport River in
Morehead City for access to Radio Island and expansion of the Morehead City
Port System.
Maior Regional Projects Supported by Carteret County
1. U.S. 17 - South Carolina to Virginia. Expansion to four lanes is an urgent need.
This highway is the major north -south transportation line in eastern North
Carolina, and it is critical to the economic success of the region.
2. N.C. 24 -- Must be expanded to four lanes from Morehead City to Charlotte.
The improvement of this highway would be a catalyst to the N.C. Ports, to the
state's tourism industry, and to employment growth along the Highway 24
corridor. The highway improvement would divert substantial commerce and
tourism from South Carolina to North Carolina.
The existing rail and navigable waters serving Carteret County should be adequate to serve
commercial and seasonal population growth during the next planning period. Issues
surrounding navigable waters will be the placement of spoil material from dredging operations
in wetlands areas, and concern for maintaining safe recreational boating corridors in
increasingly congested Bogue Sound. Marina development along Bogue Sound will be an
important planning concern during the next five years as a result of those two issues.
Maintenance of adequate rail service and the channel/turning basin at the State Port Terminal
will be important to ensure the viability of the county's import/export and manufacturing
industries.
The most recent Airport Master Plan was completed in 1994. This plan breaks airport
development into two phases. The major projects in Phase 1 (1993-1997) include the
extension of Airport Road into the T-hangar and corporate hangar areas, addition of T-hangars
as demand warrants, taxiway improvements, and land acquisition of approximately 135 acres
for future runway expansion. Phase II (1998-2002) includes runway expansion of
approximately 1,251 feet and its related projects. The expansion of the main runway would
require the relocation of N.C. 101 approximately 7,000 feet to the east, and might be an
important land use issue and environmental impact issue during the planning period.
Expansion of the existing facility would certainly be required if the county wished to attract
a commuter service to serve the growing recreational population.
II-17

5. Solid Waste Disposal
The new tri-county landfill, as mentioned earlier (p. 1-32), opened in 1993. The current site
is permitted by the Division of Health Services through the year 1997. By June, 1998, the
current site will have reached its allowed capacity. An Environmental Impact Study for site
expansion has recently been submitted to the state for review. The plan calls for the purchase
of approximately 400 acres of land adjacent to the current site, after which modifications will
be made to meet all federal and state regulations regarding environmental safeguards. With
this expansion, the landfill is expected to serve the waste disposal needs of Carteret, Craven,
and Pamlico counties through the year 2020. The twelve greenbox sites currently serving the
unincorporated parts of Carteret County are expected to be adequate through the five-year
planning period.
6. Educational Facilities
Overcrowding of county schools, particularly in the western end of the county, will continue
to be a problem throughout the planning period, and site location/land acquisition for proposed
new schools will be the most important institutional land use issue in Carteret County in
upcoming years.
The recent completion of the Morehead City Primary School and expansions at West Carteret
High were successful in relieving some of the overcrowding problems associated with the
early 1990s. However, a continued in -migration of population and increases in enrollment
quickly exceeded expansions at West Carteret High. Schools which are currently considered ,
overcrowded include Newport Elementary, Morehead Middle, Broad Creek Middle, and West
Carteret High. Due to recent passage of the bond referendum in November, 1994, several
construction and renovation projects are scheduled to take place during the planning period.
A new high school and a new elementary school are currently under construction in the
western part of the county on 90 acres off Highway 24 and are scheduled for occupancy in
the fall of 1998. Both schools are being built on the same site with natural buffers separating
them.
In addition, the construction of a new cafeteria and renovations to the main building at
Beaufort Elementary School, the construction of a new classroom building with media center
and office area at Smyrna Elementary School, and renovations to the kitchen at White Oak
Elementary School are expected to take place during the planning period. These projects
should serve to eliminate many of the school deficiencies as a significant constraint to
development during the next decade.
7. Parks and Recreation
The only major non -shoreline related recreational improvement made by the Carteret County '
Department of Parks and Recreation since 1991 is the initial development of Western Park
near Cape Carteret. This new park facility (Western Park) in the western portion of the county
provides more equitable geographic distribution of the county's existing major park facilities. ,
However, the Western Park master plan calls for additional athletic and recreational facilities
that have yet to be constructed.

Though the state and federal parks are considered adequate to serve the passive recreation
needs of county residents and visitors, the county's offering of community and district parks,
school facilities, and ballfields is inadequate to serve the county's growing resident population
and demand for active recreation sites. The county Parks and Recreation Department
operates one community recreation center at Western Park. Other programs and particularly
1 recreational athletics, depend on schools for gymnasiums and indoor space. Schools need
after school use of their facilities more and more, causing them to be less available for
recreational sports and activities, a trend expected to continue. The county has experienced
an increased demand for athletic fields for softball, baseball, and soccer. The seasons of
these sports often overlap, causing competition for use of outdoor areas and overuse of field
space. In general, seasonal residents do not require the use of non -shoreline recreational
facilities outlined above to the extent that year-round residents do. Many resorts in Carteret
County offer tennis and indoor recreational facilities. However, the county needs to address
residents' demands for more athletic and recreational facilities, including ballfields, athletic
complexes, playgrounds, picnic areas/shelters, tennis courts, and basketball courts.
The provision of public access to estuarine waters is a major recreation -related problem facing
Carteret County today. The county should make every effort to cooperate with existing
municipalities and the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management to provide better
estuarine boat access, parking, picnic facilities, and related improvements to its estuarine
areas during the planning period. Carteret County should also recognize that the provision of
adequate ocean access improves tourism and trade throughout the entire county, and should
actively support all municipally -sponsored attempts to improve public ocean access areas
throughout the planning period. Due to environmental and budget considerations, providing
new shoreline access areas and shoreline parking will become increasingly difficult as time
goes by.
' The county expects to have a Shoreline Access/Parks and Recreation Master Plan in place
May of 1999 which will recommend future action to address these needs.
8. Other County Facilities
Ongoing improvements to the county's existing two hospitals, health care facilities and
programs, and volunteer fire and emergency medical facilities should allow the county to
provide adequate medical and health care and fire protection to incoming residents over the
next five years. Construction of the 43,000 square foot county law enforcement center and
the 10,000 square foot addition to the county Social Services Department have both been
completed. With the completion of the law enforcement center, many of the parking spaces
committed to the county administration building have been relegated to the Sheriff's
department and associated law enforcement -related personnel. Lack of parking for county
administrative building personnel and visitors will continue to be a problem.
' Lack of space in the county administrative building is also expected to become a more
significant problem during the next several years. In particular, the county tax office and
register of deeds offices are very short of space. The county government may construct new
1 administrative office space or renovate existing buildings to accommodate growth during the
planning period; however, impact on land use patterns in Beaufort should be minor unless a
major parking project is undertaken by the county.

D. REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES
Carteret County's greatest continuing redevelopment issue will be the preservation and
renovation of housing for its low -to -moderate income families and individuals. As stated in
the existing housing conditions section, the Merrimon and North River communities have the
most severe substandard housing conditions remaining in the county's unincorporated areas.
While housing conditions improved during the '80s and early '90s, substantial problems still
exist. The county will undertake the following in support of residential development:
-- Support applications for North Carolina Community Development
housing rehabilitation funds.
-- Support applications for North Carolina Housing Finance Agency
home improvement funds.
-- Investigate the development and enforcement of a minimum
housing code.
A second area of concern will be redevelopment of areas following a hurricane or other natural
disaster. The specifics of such redevelopment are dealt with in the storm hazard mitigation
and post -disaster reconstruction plan. However, Carteret County will support the
reconstruction of any properties destroyed by natural disaster, consistent with applicable
Carteret County ordinances.
In 1996, Carteret County was directly impacted by two powerful hurricanes. These were
Hurricane Bertha in July and Hurricane Fran in September. Both of these storms caused
considerable damage. Hurricane Bertha caused an estimated $125 million dollars in damages
and the damages caused by Hurricane Fran were estimated to be $175 million dollars. An
estimated 95% of all damages were insured.
Carteret County Emergency Management coordinated a county -wide recovery process. The
county asked for state and federal assistance for debris removal and other clean-up efforts.
Labor and monetary assistance was given for most of the clean-up.
Carteret County has applied for a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
This grant will be used to develop a comprehensive hazard mitigation plan. This plan is
designed to identify hazardous building areas throughout the county and formulate a
development plan for those areas found to be susceptible to hazardous conditions.
E. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
All meetings of the Carteret County Planning Board and Board of Commissioners at which the
update of the Land Use Plan was discussed were advertised in a local newspaper in a non-
legal ad section. Public service announcements were mailed to local radio stations and posted
in the Carteret County Administration Building. All meetings were open to the public. Copies
of the plan were available for public review at the Planning and Inspections Department prior
to each meeting.
1
1
1
1
II-20

' The Carteret County Mayor's Association conducted a joint land use plan meeting on August
21, 1996, at 7:00 pm in the County Administration Building with officials from each of the
' county's municipalities. The purpose of the meeting was to identify and discuss issues of
mutual concern relevant to the land use planning process.
Prior to the final public hearing on the Land Use Plan, the plan was forwarded to each of the
county's municipalities to help ensure consistency of this plan with municipal planning efforts.
Intergovernmental coordination and cooperation will continue through the ten-year planning
period. This will be essential to accomplish effective planning for public utilities, thoroughfare
projects, community facilities, housing needs, and environmental protection. The Carteret
County Board of Commissioners and Planning Board will be responsible for ensuring adequate
1 coordination with the county's municipalities, and other government entities as may be
required.
1
I

1
I
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS
As explained in the introduction to the policy statements, land use plans prepared to comply
with 15 NCAC 7B regulations have three areas of impact on application: (1) to set policy to
guide local planning and land use management decisions; (2) review of projects for
consistency with local planning policies; and (3) the establishment of local policies for areas
of environmental concern. CAMA regulations require the establishment of a specific land
classification system to support the local government's policy statements. The CAMA 15A
NCAC 7B regulations state:
"The land classification system provides a framework to be used by local
governments to identify the future use of all lands. The designation of land
classes allows the local government to illustrate their policy statements as to
where and to what density they want growth to occur, and where they want
to conserve natural and cultural resources by guiding growth."
CAMA regulations provide for the following land classifications: developed, urban transition,
limited transition, community, rural, rural with services, and conservation. These
classifications may be further defined by a local government. In applying these classifications,
a local government should carefully consider where and when various types of development
should be encouraged. Additionally, the areas of environmental concern requiring protection
should be identified and mapped. Each applicable land classification must be represented on
a land classification map.
' Carteret County will support growth and development at the average densities specified in the
land classification definitions. These densities are only a general guide and must be
accomplished through land use control ordinances.
' The following land classifications will apply in Carteret County:
I
11 I
DEVELOPED: Areas included in the developed land classification are currently urban in
character, with only minimal undeveloped land remaining. Municipal types of services are in
place or are expected to be provided within the next five to ten years. Land uses include
residential (single and multi -family), commercial, institutional, transportation, industrial parks,
open space, industrial, and other urban land uses at high or moderate densities. Residential
densities are allowed in excess of an average of three dwelling units per acre, with a minimum
single-family residential lot size of 10,000 square feet.
URBAN TRANSITION: Areas included in the urban transition classification are presently being
developed for urban purposes, or will be developed in the next five to ten years. These areas
will eventually require complete urban services. The urban transition areas include mixed land
uses such as residential (single and multi -family), commercial, institutional, industrial, industrial
parks, transportation, and other uses approaching high to moderate densities. Residential
densities are allowed in excess of an average of three dwelling units per acre, with a minimum
single-family residential lot size of 10,000 square feet.

LIMITED TRANSITION: The purpose of limited transition class is to provide for development
in areas that will have some services, but are suitable for lower densities than those
associated with the urban transition class, or are geographically remote from existing towns
and municipalities. Areas included in the limited transition classification are areas which will
experience increasing development during the next five to ten years. Some municipal type
services will be required. This classification may be found near valuable estuarine waters or
other fragile natural systems. The limited transition classification is intended for
predominantly residential use. However, some scattered commercial, health care, and
industrial development may occur. Clustering or development associated with planned unit
developments may be appropriate. Residential densities at an average of three units per acre
or less are acceptable. The minimum lot size shall be 10,000 square feet, with the majority
of the lots having 15,000 or more square feet. Clustering or development associated with
planned unit developments are acceptable in this classification. This classification is
necessary to accommodate increasing development north of the Town of Beaufort along the
N.C. 101 and U.S. 70 corridors; along the N.C. 24 corridor from Morehead to Bogue; and in
the area of the U.S. 58 corridor north of Cape Carteret. This classification will support
economic development and natural resources protection by supporting controlled development
with services, including sewage treatment. Areas classified as limited transition occupy
approximately 3.5% of the county's total land area.
North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 7B states that the reliability of services such as
sewage treatment systems is critical in areas classified as limited transition and that if the
local government intends to allow the private provision of urban services such as sewage
systems and garbage collection, then the local government should require special assurances
that these private services will reliably protect the public resources and avoid unnecessary
public expenses. Carteret County has addressed this concern in its policy statements included
in this plan. Specifically, the county's policy regarding package treatment plant use requires
that any approved package plants prepare a specific contingency plan specifying how ongoing
private operation and maintenance of the plant will be provided, and detailing provisions for
assumption of the plant into a public system should the private operation fail. Operational
plans should also address elimination of package treatment plants when the system owner
elects to connect to a central sewer system.
COMMUNITY: Areas included in the community classification are presently developed at low
densities and are suitable for septic tank usage. Uses are limited to single-family residences,
isolated general and convenience stores, churches, public facilities, health care facilities, and
mixed land uses at low densities. Very limited municipal type services, including water
service, may be available. Sewer service may be provided to correct an existing or projected
public health hazard. Residential densities shall average two dwelling units per acre, with a
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.
RURAL: Areas included within the rural classification include lands that are appropriate for
or presently used for agriculture, forestry, mineral extraction, and other uses that should be
located in a relatively isolated and undeveloped area. The predominant land uses are
agricultural and residential. However, public facilities, health care facilities, and scattered
industrial and commercial uses are allowed. Rural water systems may be available to help
avert poor water quality problems. Residential densities shall average two dwelling units per
acre, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet.
III-2

RURAL WITH SERVICES: Areas included within the rural with services classification are
developed at very low density. Land uses include residential use where limited water services
are provided in order to avert existing or projected health problems, public facilities, health
care facilities, and scattered commercial and industrial uses. Lot sizes will be large and the
provision of services will not disrupt the primary rural character of the landscape. Residential
' densities shall average two dwelling units per acre, with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square
feet. Development should be low density in order to maintain a rural character.
CONSERVATION CLASSIFICATIONS:
Coastal Wetlands --This classification includes all areas of coastal wetlands which include any
salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind
tides. However, tidal flooding is understood not to include hurricane or tropical storm tides.
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management must determine the presence and extent
of coastal wetlands on a site. Except as prohibited in the policies section of this plan, only
development allowed by 15A NCAC 7H will be permitted in areas classified as coastal
wetlands.
S404 Wetlands -- This classification includes concentrated areas of 404 wetlands which meet
the wetlands definition contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Only uses
Iconsistent with the policy statements section of this plan will be allowed.
There may be areas of the county considered to be 404 wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers which have not been included in the Conservation 404 wetlands classification as
indicated on the Land Classification Maps (17A and 1713). The policy statements addressing
404 wetlands which are included in Section IV of this plan are intended to apply to only those
areas delineated as 404 wetlands on the Carteret County Land Classification Maps. In all
other areas of the county considered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to be 404
wetlands, the applicable federal regulations shall apply.
' Natural Heritage Areas -- This classification includes lands which support native plant and
animal communities and provide habitat qualities that have remained essentially unchanged
by human activity. They may be surrounded by landscape that has been modified but does
not drastically alter conditions within the natural area. All areas within this classification have
been recognized by either the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program or the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service as having special significance. These areas should be primarily
' preserved in their natural state with only the following development allowed:
-- Public facilities and improvements to provide shoreline access;
-- The use of areas by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as spoil disposal sites;
-- Development of public facilities by the National Parks Service and the State of North
Carolina. However, Carteret County requests the opportunity to review and comment
on all plans for development of public facilities.
-- Development of any sound or estuarine island that is consistent with the development
of sound and estuarine islands policy included on page IV-10 of this plan.
' -- Uses that are consistent with and allowed by the policies section of this plan.

Estuarine Shorelines -- All areas lying 0-75 feet landward of the mean high water level of
estuarine waters not designated as outstanding resource waters are classified as estuarine
shorelines. Because of map size and scale, these areas cannot be accurately mapped.
Precise locations must be determined in the field.
ORW Estuarine Shorelines -- All areas lying 0-575 feet landward of the mean high water level
of estuarine waters designated as outstanding resource waters are classified as ORW
estuarine shorelines. Because of map size and scale, these areas cannot be accurately
mapped. Precise locations must be determined in the field.
Primary Nursery Areas -- This classification includes all areas designated as primary nursery
areas by the Marine Fisheries Commission.
Estuarine and Public Trust Waters -- All public trust areas and estuarine waters are included
in this classification. All waters of Carteret County are classified as estuarine waters as
described by 15A NCAC 71-1.0206, or public trust waters as described by 15A NCAC
71-1.0207.
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) - This area includes all waters which have been
designated by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission as Outstanding
Resource Waters. While not under the county's planning jurisdiction, the ORW designations
extend into the municipalities' areas of planning jurisdiction. The ORW locations are indicated
on Map 10.
Ocean Hazard Areas -- This classification includes all ocean hazard areas. These areas include
lands along the Atlantic shoreline where, because of their special vulnerability to erosion or
other adverse effects of sand, wind and water, uncontrolled or incompatible development
could unreasonably endanger life or property. These areas include beaches, frontal dunes,
inlet lands, and other lands with excessive erosion or flood damage. Development shall be
permitted which is allowed by 15A NCAC 71-1.0306.
The Land Classification Maps provide the locations of the various classifications. Because of
the complexity and importance of Carteret County's areas of environmental concern, the
conservation classification was divided into nine subcategories of conservation areas. The
classification map indicates a continuation of existing development patterns with the following
locations of land use categories:
Developed: This area is located west of Morehead City's extraterritorial jurisdiction
along both sides of U.S. 70 for a distance of approximately 0.8 mile and south of N.C. 24
between Morehead City's extraterritorial jurisdiction and S.R. 1147. Bogue Field and Cedar
Point are also classified as developed.
Urban Transition: This area is located along both sides of U.S. 70 from Newport's
extraterritorial boundary southeast of within 0.8 mile of Morehead City's extraterritorial area,
south from U.S. 70 to the north side of N.C. 24 and along the western side of S.R. 1147.
Limited Transition: This classification exists along the N.C. 24 corridor from Cape
Carteret and Bogue Field east to the urban transition and developed areas located along N.C.
24. The limited transition category extends north of N.C. 24 for a distance of 0.5 mile.
III-4

Rural With Services: These areas are located north of Cape Carteret along S.R. 1107,
1108, 1111, 1109, and portions of 1106. Other areas are located along both sides of S.R.
1300 north of U.S. 70 for a distance of three and one-half miles, along S.R. 1 163 between
N.C. 101 and S.R. 1300, along N.C. 101 between S.R. 1 163 and the Intracoastal Waterway,
and in the Sea Gate Woods development north of N.C. 101 and west of the Intracoastal
Waterway.
Rural: The rural areas are delineated on the Land Classification Maps. Major
concentrations are found in the northern two-thirds of Western Carteret County and in open
grounds areas of the Down East area of Carteret County.
Community: The community classification is found in the following locations: north
of the Cedar Point town limits; east of the White Oak River marshes; and in the Davis,
Atlantic, Marshallberg, and Sea Level communities.
' Conservation: The conservation classification locations are described in detail in the
fragile areas section of the plan.
DISTRIBUTION OF LAND CLASSIFICATIONS BY WATER BASIN
' The watershed boundaries for Carteret County are delineated on the Land Classification Map.
The majority of the county's developed, urban transition, and limited transition classified areas
are concentrated in the Goose Creek -Deer Creek; Broad Creek-Bogue Sound; Gales Creek-
, Bogue Sound; Newport River headwaters; Core/Harlowe Creek, Newport; Newport River; and
North River watersheds. These areas include most of the county's developed shoreline and
almost all of the incorporated municipal areas. In addition, many of the county's AEC's are
located in these watersheds. The remaining watersheds are primarily classified as rural.
Except for some community classified areas and AEC's, all of the "Down East" area
watersheds are classified as rural.

LEGEND
DEVELOPED
URBAN TRANSITION
LIMITED TRANSITION
RURAL WITH SERVICES
C�
RURAL
COMMUNITY
COASTAL WETLANDS
404 WETLANDS
ESTUARINE SHORELINE
See NOTE 2
ORW ESTUARINE SHORELINE
See NOTE 3
PRIMARY NURSERY AREAS
ESTUARINE AND PUBLIC TRUST WATERS
See NOTE 4
OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
(ORW)
OCEAN HAZARD AREAS
See NOTE 5
r----A RIVER BASIN BOUNDARY
■ ------ WATERSHED BOUNDARY
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: 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.
NOTE: The area of Carteret County lying between
the east and west areas of Indian Beach is
classified as developed except for the area along
the beach shoreline which complies with the
definition of an ocean hazard 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 of 1972,
as amended, which is administered by the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
REFER TO MAP 17A FOR NOTES 1 THROUGH 8
Im.

The preparation of this map was
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
coastal Management Program,
through finds provided by the
Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended. which Is
ach th stored by the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
SEE PAGE III-6 FOR LEGEND
SCALE
1 0 1 2 3 4 MILES
�'10-low'
Natural Heritage areas frequently coincide with other
NOTE 5)
conservation areas such as fresh water wetlands and
coastal wetlands. When Natural Heritage areas coincide
with other conservation areas, the more restrictive policy
statements will apply. The location of Natural Heritage
areas have been provided on Map 11 B.
NOTE 6)
All areas lying 0-75' landward of the mean high water level
or normal water level of estuarine waters not classified as
Outstanding Resource Waters are classified as estuarine
shoreline areas.
All areas lying 0-575' landward of the mean high water
level or normal water level of estuarine waters classified as
NOTE 7)
Outstanding Resource Waters are classified as estuarine
shoreline areas.
All waters of Carteret County are classified as estuarine
waters as described by 15 NCAC 7H.0206, or Public Trust
NOTE 8)
Areas as described by 15 NCAC 7H.0207. In areas not
designated as Outstanding Resource Waters or primary
nursery areas, all development shall be consistent with the
use standards contained in 15 NCAC 7H.0206 and .0207.
CRAVEN
The only Ocean Hazard area under Carteret County
jurisdiction is the ocean beach and dune area in Bogue
Banks between the east and west incorporated areas of
Indian Beach. This area is classified as Ocean Hazard
Area.
A portion of the Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area has
been designated a Outstanding Resource Waters. The
designation does not extend into the saline 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.
Because of map scale, the conservation classification
cannot be accurately mapped. Precise locations for all
conservation classified areas must be determined in the
field.
The locations of all coastal wetlands and 404 wetlands
have not been mapped. Exact locations must be
determined in the field by staff of the appropriate
permitting agency.
COUNTY
MAP 17A
~••�"N E A N CARTERET COUNTY
LA
p C ND CLASSIFICATION MAP
A L A N _T C WESTERN CARTERET COUNTY
III-7

N�vSE
/
i
NEUSE RIVER BAS1 /
WHITE OAK RIVER BASIN
6°
MARSHALLBERG
NOTE: These inserts correspond to the
community classified areas In the "Down East'
area.
SCALE
1 O 1 2 3 4 MILES
PAMLICO SOUND
� .. ^�,.. • ^�' y� s w ' ter.
The preparation of this map was
financed In part through a grant
provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program,
throuugqh 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.
SEE PAGE III-6 FOR LEGEND
SEE NOTES 1 THROUGH 8 ON MAP 17A
MAP 17B
CARTERET COUNTY
LAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
"DOWN EAST"
SEA LEVEL
SCALE FOR INSEKTS
� o z
E LOOKOU7

SECTION IV: POLICY STATEMENTS
A. INTRODUCTION TO POLICY STATEMENTS
The previous sections of this plan identify a number of areas of concern dealing with growth,
development, and the environment. The plan also discusses many opportunities and assets
that exist within Carteret County. This section provides policies designed to address growth
management and protect the county's assets. The policy statements should address the
desires and objectives of the citizens of Carteret County, and respond to the policy statement
requirements of the Coastal Resources Commission as defined by 15A NCAC 7B.
The policy statements are extremely important and have a day-to-day impact on businesses
and individual citizens within the county. The statements have an impact in three areas:
• CAMA minor and major permitting as required by NCGS 1 13A-1 18 prior
to undertaking any development in any area of environmental concern.
• Establishment of local planning policy.
• Review of proposed projects requiring state or federal assistance or
approval to determine consistency with local policies.
For the issuance of CAMA permits within areas of environmental concern, the state's
minimum acceptable use standards are defined by 15A NCAC 7H. A local unit of government
must adopt policies which are, at a minimum, equal to and consistent with the state's
minimum use standards. A local unit of government may adopt policies which are more
stringent than the minimum use standards. For example, the state standards allow marinas
to be located within primary nursery areas if some minimum conditions are met. A local
government may adopt a policy stating that marinas will not be permitted within primary
nursery areas. If this were to occur, a CAMA permit for marina construction in a primary
nursery area would not be issued. IT IS CRUCIAL THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF ITS POLICIES WITHIN AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERN.
The second area of land use plan application is that of establishing policies to guide the
jurisdiction's local planning. This may apply both within areas of environmental concern
where CAMA regulations apply and in non-CAMA regulated areas of the county. Under North
Carolina legislation, land use plans are not regulatory controls. Non-CAMA related
recommendations must be implemented with local land use ordinances such as zoning or
subdivision ordinances. If a land use plan recommends that the average residential density
should be three dwelling units per acre within a particular area, then that density must be
achieved through local zoning ordinance or other regulatory control. (This should not be
confused with the interaction of the land use plan with the CAMA regulations and 15A NCAC
7H use standards.)
The final area of application is that of "Consistency Review." Proposals and applications for
state and federal assistance or requests for agency approval of projects are normally reviewed
IV-1

against a jurisdiction's land use plan to determine if the project is consistent with local
policies. Inconsistencies of a project with local policies could serve as grounds for denial or
revision of a project. For example, an individual or agency may request state or federal
funding to construct a 30-unit low -to -moderate income housing project. If the proposed
location of the project is within an area in which the land use plan states that the residential
density should not exceed two dwelling units per acre, the project may be judged to be
inconsistent with the local land use plan.
The Coastal Resources Commission requires all governments to specify stated development
policies under each one of five broad topics. These topics include:
-- Resource Protection
-- Resource Production and Management
-- Economic and Community Development
-- Continuing Public Participation
-- Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and Evacuation Plans
During 1995 and 1996, the 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 to interstate waterways.
IV-2

' Based on the analysis of existing conditions and trends, suggestions from the county's
citizens, and substantial input and guidance from the Carteret County Planning Board, the
policies in the following sections have been formulated to provide a guide for regulating
growth, development, and resource management throughout the planning period. In
developing these policies, many alternatives were considered by the Planning Board. The
alternatives that were not adopted are included as Appendix 5.
B. 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.
I
C. RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICIES
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD RESOURCE PROTECTION
Carteret County will implement resource protection on policies which meet or exceed the
state's 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards for the protection of areas of, environmental
concern. The county is sensitive to resource protection but does not desire to implement
policies which will exclude industrial and business development. Emphasis will be placed on
protection of the county's extensive coastal resources. The types of land uses which the
county feels are appropriate for its areas of environmental concern are provided in Section III
of this plan, under Conservation Classifications.
PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS
SOILS (Issue discussed, page 1-78)
1 POLICIES.
n
To mitigate existing septic tank problems and other restrictions on development posed by soil
limitations, Carteret County will:
(a) Carteret County opposes the installation of package treatment plants and septic tanks
or discharge of waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands,
or publicly -owned natural heritage areas. Generally, this policy applies only to areas
shown as coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, or publicly -owned natural heritage
areas on Maps 17A and B, Land Classification Maps. However, there may be areas
of the county considered to be 404 wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
which have not be included in the Conservation 404 wetlands classification as
indicated on the Land Classification Maps (17A and 17B).
IV-3

1
(b) Support planning for and the development of a central sewers stem(s) to serve areas '
P 9 P Y
of Carteret County classified as developed, urban transition, limited transition, and rural
with services. All areas which are provided central sewer service should be zoned,
when zoning is requested by the property owners.
(c) Carteret County will cooperate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the '
regulation/enforcement of the 404 wetlands permit process.
IMPLEMENTA TION.• '
(a) Enforce, through the development and zoning permit process, all current regulations
of the N.C. State Building Code and North Carolina Division of Health Services relating
to building construction and septic tank installation/replacement in areas with soils
restrictions.
(b) Coordinate all development activity with appropriate county and state regulatory
personnel, and in particular with the Carteret County Building Inspector and Sanitarian.
(c) In areas not served by central or community sewer and water service, development on
lots of 20,000 square foot size or greater shall be promoted through existing zoning,
subdivision, and other regulatory ordinances.
(d) The county's subdivision ordinance requires that the following disclaimer be included
on all final plats: "This certifies that this copy of this plat accurately depicts the
boundary of the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act pursuant to the
1987 Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual as determined by the
undersigned on this date. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination of Section 404 jurisdiction may be relied upon for a
period of five years from this date."
SCHEDULE (a) - (d): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
(e) The county should prepare a complete and accurate land classification map. This map
may be developed by any such committee established for the purpose of developing
a county -wide Comprehensive Plan.
SCHEDULE (e): FY2000-2002.
FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (Issue discussed, pages 1-74/1-77)
POLICY. Carteret County desires to minimize the hazards to life, health, public safety, and
development within flood hazard areas.
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) Carteret County will continue to coordinate all development within the special flood
hazard area with the county Inspections Department, North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management, FEMA, and the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
IV-4

(b)
Carteret County will continue to enforce its existing zoning and flood damage
prevention ordinances and follow the storm hazard mitigation plan contained herein.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
GROUNDWATER/PROTECTION OF POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES (Issue discussed, pages 1-77,
1-99, and II-13)
POLICY. • Carteret County desires to conserve its surficial groundwater resources.
IMPLEMENTATION:
(a) Carteret County will conserve its surficial groundwater resources by supporting CAMA
and N.C. Division of Water Quality stormwater run-off regulations, and by coordinating
' local development activities involving chemical storage or underground storage tank
installation/abandonment with Carteret County Emergency Management personnel and
the Groundwater Section of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. The county
will plan for an adequate long-range water supply. In the planning process, Carteret
County will cooperate with adjacent counties to protect water resources. Public and
private water conservation efforts will be encouraged.
' (b) Carteret County will encourage and support water conservation efforts such as those
required by the N.C. State Building Code.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
MANMADE HAZARDS (Issue discussed, page 1-80)
POLICIES:
(a) Expansions of Aviation Military Restricted Areas or Military Operations Areas in eastern
North Carolina must be consistent with civil aviation regulations, must comply with
other applicable state and federal regulations, and must be supported by environmental
' impact statements addressing the cumulative impact of such airspace uses.
(b) Carteret County is opposed to the expansion of the Military Airspace (MOAs)
' designated as Cherry I and Core.
(c) Carteret County supports growth and material expansion of the North Carolina State
Port Terminal when plans have been prepared which address the impact of associated
rail and road traffic increases on Morehead City and Carteret County.
I(d) Carteret County supports plans for expansion of Michael J. Smith Field as detailed in
the airport's Master Plan.
' (e) With the exception of bulk fuel storage tanks used for retail and wholesale sales, and
individual heating fuel storage tanks, Carteret County opposes the bulk storage of
man-made hazardous materials in areas classified as developed, urban, transition, and
limited transition which are not also zoned for industrial use. Storage of hazardous
IV-5

materials (not toxic waste) in low density areas classified as rural or rural with services
will be allowed. In those areas within the county in which federal holdings are located,
applicable state and federal regulations shall apply.
(f) Carteret County is opposed to the establishment of toxic waste dump sites within the
county.
(g) Any expansion of fuel storage tank facilities on Radio Island must comply with
applicable state and federal regulations for which proper environmental safeguards
have been provided.
IMPLEMENTATION:
(a) Carteret County will coordinate the regulation of underground storage tanks with the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Carteret County will support 15A NCAC 2N,
Sections .0100-.0800, which includes the criteria and standards applicable to
underground storage tanks.
(b) Carteret County will rely on the State Port Authority to prepare plans which address
the impact of associated rail and road traffic increases on Morehead City and Carteret
County prior to any material expansion.
(c) Agricultural quarantine and decontamination facilities shall not be established on Radio
Island by the U.S. Navy or other agent of the federal government unless a full
Environmental Impact Statement with a finding of no significant effect on the
environment has been prepared and proper environmental safeguards are implemented.
The Environmental Impact Statement should include mitigation measures for the loss
of any public beach access.
(d) Carteret County recognizes that it does not have any authority to regulate the area or
elevation of military flights. However, the county opposes any low level military
training flights that are not in compliance with the minimum safe altitudes for aircraft
operation as described in the Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 91.
SCHEDULE (a) - (d): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
STORMWATER RUNOFF (Issue discussed, page 1-74/1-77 and II-15)
POLICIES:
(a) Carteret County supports water quality maintenance in order to protect fragile areas
and to provide clean water for recreational purposes.
(b) Carteret County supports control of agricultural and forestry runoff.
(c) Carteret County supports the policy that all North Carolina Department of
Transportation projects should be designed to limit to the extent possible stormwater
runoff into estuarine waters.
17-
IV-6

IIMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) The county will support existing state regulations relating to stormwater runoff
resulting from development (Stormwater Disposal Policy 15 NCAC 2H.001-.1003).
' (b) Carteret County will control forestry runoff through implementation of "Forestry Best
Management Practices" as provided by the North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources.
(c) Carteret County will control agricultural runoff through implementation of U.S. Soil
Conservation Service "Best Management Practices" program, and/or North Carolina
State "Best Management Practices."
(d) Carteret County will cooperate with the NCDOT, the North Carolina Division of Water
' Quality, and other state agencies in mitigating the impact of stormwater runoff on all
conservation classified areas. The county will actively support the Division of Water
Quality stormwater runoff retention permitting process through its subdivision
' regulations which requires a stormwater management plan.
(e) Carteret County will rely on the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
' NCAC 7H guidelines to limit stormwater runoff impacts on estuarine waters resulting
from NCDOT projects.
SCHEDULE (a) - (e): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
CULTURAL/HISTORIC RESOURCES (Issue discussed, page 1-87/1-88)
' POLICY. • Carteret County will protect its historic and archaeological resources as valuable
cultural and economic assets.
' IMPLEMENTATION:
(a) Carteret County shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/ redevelopment projects
with the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to ensure that any significant
architectural details or buildings are identified and preserved.
' (b) Carteret County will coordinate all county public works projects with the N.C. Division
of Archives and History, to ensure the identification and preservation of significant
archaeological sites.
' SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007
INDUSTRIAL IMPACTS ON FRAGILE AREAS (Issue discussed, page 1-37/1-40 and II-1 1)
POLICY: Except as may be allowed by state and federal agencies, no industrial development
' of any type shall be located in lands classified as coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands (as
shown on Land Classification Maps 17A and 17B), and Natural Heritage Areas.
I
IV-7

IMPLEMENTATION. Carteret County will work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
coordinate approval of industrial projects with the "404" permitting process.
SCHEDULE. Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
MISCELLANEOUS RESOURCE PROTECTION
PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT USE (Issue discussed, page 1-100/1-105 and II-14/1-15)
POLICY. Carteret County wishes to reduce the number of point source pollution discharges
and have sewage treatment systems within the county centralized. However, the county will
not oppose the construction of state -approved package treatment plants in areas not provided
with central sewer service. The county supports more effective monitoring by the state of
the operation of package treatment plants. This policy shall not prohibit the discharge of
waste into wetlands.
If any package plants are approved by the state, Carteret County supports the requirement
of a specific contingency plan specifying how ongoing private operation and maintenance of
the plant will be provided, and detailing provisions for assumption of the plant into a public
system should the private operation fail. Operational plans should also address elimination of
package treatment plants when the system owner elects to connect to a central sewer
system.
IMPLEMENTATION: Carteret County will rely upon the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
to implement this policy.
SCHEDULE. • Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
MARINA AND FLOATING HOME DEVELOPMENT (Issue discussed, pages 1-97/1-99)
Marinas are considered to be any publicly or privately owned dock constructed to
accommodate more than ten boats, as defined by 15 NCAC 7H.0208(b)(5). Docks and piers
are defined by 15 NCAC 7H.0208(b)(6). Carteret County will enforce the following policies
to govern floating homes and marina development.
POLICIES.
(a) Carteret County considers boating activities an extremely important part of its tourist
industry and overall economy. Subject to the policies stated herein, the county does
not oppose the construction of marinas.
(b) Carteret County opposes the location of floating structures in all marinas, primary
nursery areas, outstanding resource waters, public trust areas, and estuarine waters.
Floating structures are defined as any structure or vessel used, designed, and occupied
as a permanent dwelling unit, business, office, or source of any occupation or any
private or social club, which floating structure or vessel is primarily immobile and out
of navigation or which functions substantially as a land structure while moored or
docked on waters within county jurisdiction. Floating structures shall not be used
commercially or inhabited in one place for more than 15 days.
I
n

J
I
1
(c) Carteret County opposes marina construction or expansion in coastal wetlands and
primary nursery areas, and opposes upland marina construction with access channels
connected to primary nursery areas. Coastal wetlands that have volunteered within
upland marinas shall be exempt from this policy. Carteret County will allow access
structures not exceeding six feet in width to be constructed above coastal wetlands
for the purpose of providing access to marinas which otherwise meet state standards.
(d). Carteret County opposes the construction of docks or piers with more than four boat
slips in primary nursery areas. One dock or pier with four or less slips used for
residential purposes or purposes directly related to commercial fishing shall be allowed
per parcel of land which borders a primary nursery area. Waterfront parcels of land
with more than one -quarter mile of shoreline bordering a primary nursery area shall be
allowed one dock or pier with four or less slips for residential purposes or purposes
directly related to commercial fishing within every one -quarter mile (1,320 feet) of
shoreline along the primary nursery area.
(e) Carteret County's policy for marina construction in ORW waters or ORW estuarine
shoreline shall be consistent with the state's management strategies of ORW
designated regulations.
(f) No marina associated dredging will be allowed through active shellfishing areas. When
dredging through coastal wetlands is essential for access to upland marinas, as
provided for in 15A NCAC 7H, the county requires replacement of lost wetland areas
with mitigation at a 1:1 ratio.
(g) Carteret County will allow construction of dry stack storage facilities for boats
associated either with or independent of marinas. All applicable zoning and subdivision
regulations must be satisfied.
IMPLEMENTATION. The county will rely on 15A NCAC 7H, and where applicable, its zoning
ordinance, to control the location of open water marinas, upland marinas, and floating homes.
SCHEDULE. • Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
MOORING FIELDS (Issue discussed, pages 1-97/1-99)
POLICY. Carteret County supports the regulation of mooring fields within its planning
jurisdiction.
IMPLEMENTATION. • Carteret County is concerned with the potential for the development of
mooring fields. The county will pursue the development of an ordinance to regulate the
establishment of mooring fields.
SCHEDULE. • FY1998-1999.
IV-9

DEVELOPMENT OF SOUND AND ESTUARINE ISLANDS (Issue discussed, page 1-92)
POLICY. • Carteret County will allow the development of estuarine islands consistent with state
minimum use standards and local ordinances. However, the county encourages public
purchase and conservation of sound and estuarine islands which have been identified by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program as important natural area locations. These areas are
identified on the Fragile Areas Map and the Land Classification Map.
IMPLEMENTATION. • Carteret County will rely on 15A NCAC 7H to control sound and estuarine
island development.
SCHEDULE. • Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION (Issue discussed, page 1-77)
POLICY.- Carteret County does not oppose bulkhead construction in any areas of the county
as long as they fulfill the use standards set forth in 15A NCAC 7H.
IMPLEMENTATION. • Carteret County will rely on 15A NCAC 7H to implement this policy.
SCHEDULE. • Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
SEA LEVEL RISE (Issue discussed, page 1-77)
POLICY. • Carteret County recognizes the uncertainties associated with sea level rise. The rate
of rise is difficult to predict. Those factors combine to make it difficult, if not impossible, to
establish specific policies to deal with the effects of sea level rise. While a policy is not
provided, Carteret County will implement the following.
IMPLEMENTA TION:
(a) Carteret County will cooperate with local, state, and federal efforts to inform the public
of the anticipated effects of sea level rise.
SCHEDULE (a): Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
(b) Carteret County will monitor sea level rise and consider establishing setback standards,
density controls, bulkhead restrictions, buffer vegetation protection requirements, and
building designs which will facilitate the movement of structures.
SCHEDULE (b): FY1999-2000.
MARITIME FORESTS (Issue discussed, page 1-87)
Based on the CRC initiative Final Report of the Maritime Forest Working Group, May 24,
1990, there are no major maritime forest sites that are under Carteret County jurisdiction.
However, Carteret County supports the recommendations contained in the report for the
protection of maritime forest areas.
n
0
IV-10

' WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT (Issue discussed, page 1-67/1-68)
' POLICY. • Carteret County supports addressing the following issues in the development of the
White Oak and Neuse Basinwide Management Plans:
' 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.
' Animal Operation Waste Management
-- Between 1990-1994, swine population in the White Oak Basin more than
doubled.
Nutrients/Toxic Dinoflagellate
' -- Reduction in nitrogen and phosphorous levels.
IMPLEMENTATION:
(a) Carteret County will pursue development and adoption of a local ordinance to regulate
swine production.
' SCHEDULE (a): FY 1999-2000.
(b) The Carteret County Planning Department will undertake a review of all local land use
' regulation ordinances during the period to determine if revisions should be undertaken
to respond to specific water quality management problems.
SCHEDULE (b): FY1997-2007.
I
D. RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
n
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
Carteret County will implement policies which support resource production and management.
All policies will meet or exceed 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards. Resource production
should not be allowed to adversely affect Carteret County's sensitive coastal environment -or
natural heritage areas.

RECREATION RESOURCES (Issue discussed, pages 1-93, 1-1 11, II-9, II-18, and II-19) ,.
POLICIES: '
(a) All lands classified as coastal wetlands and freshwater wetlands are considered
valuable passive recreation areas and should be protected in their natural state. Some '
development, as allowed by this plan, may occur in these areas.
(b) Carteret County supports the development of additional estuarine and ocean shoreline I
access areas to ensure adequate shoreline access within all areas of the county.
IMPLEMENTA TION: I
(a) Carteret County will rely on 15A NCAC 7H guidelines and its subdivision regulations
to protect coastal wetlands and freshwater wetlands. '
(b) Carteret County will cooperate with municipalities and state and federal agencies to
secure adequate shoreline access. Areas that have traditionally been used by the '
public will be given special attention.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007. '
(c) Carteret County will develop a shoreline access plan to define the need for additional
publicly -owned waterfront recreational facilities. This effort should be closely I
coordinated with shoreline access planning by the municipalities.
SCHEDULE (c): FY1999-2001. ,
(d) Carteret County supports public access to Radio Island shoreline areas which is
consistent with state port plans for development of the Island. ,
SCHEDULE (d): Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS (Issue discussed, page 1-92)
'
POLICIES.
,
(a) Carteret County supports and encourages use of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
"Best Management Practices" program. This includes agricultural practices which limit
the runoff of sediment.
'
(b) Carteret County discourages the direct point source discharge of agricultural runoff into
primary nursery areas, productive shellfishing waters, and ORW designated areas.
'
(c) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest
Lands," Carteret County supports and encourages the mapping of prime agricultural
,
lands.
IV-12 1

7
IMPLEMENTATION. The county will undertake a review of its zoning ordinance to ensure
adequate protection of agricultural lands and to mitigate agricultural runoff. This shall include
consideration of zoning to allow for the transfer of development rights to encourage
preservation of prime agricultural lands.
SCHEDULE. • FY1999-2001.
AQUACULTURE ACTIVITIES (Issue discussed, page 1-99)
POLICIES:
(a) Carteret County does not oppose all aquaculture activities. However, Carteret County
reserves the right to comment on all aquaculture activities which require Division of
Water Quality permitting.
(b) Carteret County objects to withdrawing water from aquifers or surface sources if such
withdrawal will endanger water supply from the aquifers or surface sources.
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) Carteret County will support only aquaculture activities which do not alter significantly
and negatively the natural environment of coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, public
trust areas, natural heritage areas, and freshwater wetlands as shown on the Land
Classification Map.
(b) Carteret County will rely on the N.C. Division of Water Quality to implement these
policies.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
PRODUCTIVE FORESTLANDS (Issue discussed, page 1-92/93)
POLICIES.
(a) As authorized by Executive Order 96, "Conservation of Prime Agricultural and Forest
Lands," Carteret County supports and encourages the mapping of prime forest lands.
(b) Carteret County encourages and supports forestry best management practices as
defined in the Forest Best Management Practices Manual, 1989, North Carolina
Division of Forest Resources.
IMPLEMENTATION. The county will undertake a review of its zoning ordinance to ensure
adequate protection of prime forest lands. This shall include consideration of zoning to allow
for the transfer of development rights to encourage preservation of prime forest lands.
However, zoning will be imposed only where requested by property owners.
SCHEDULE. • FY1999-2000.
IV-13

RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ON RESOURCES
(Issue discussed, page 1-53/1-65 and 1-70)
POLICIES:
(a) Except as otherwise permitted by state and federal agencies, residential, commercial,
and industrial development should not be allowed in coastal wetlands, freshwater
wetlands, or publicly -owned natural heritage areas, as those areas are shown on Land
Classification Maps 17A and 17B.
(b) Carteret County discourages any additional point source discharges of pollution into
primary nursery areas, outstanding resource waters, and shellfishing areas. In addition,
Carteret County reserves the right to review and comment on the approval of outfalls
on a case -by -case basis.
(c) Residential development meeting the use standards of 15A NCAC 7H.0209 shall be
allowed in estuarine shoreline and ORW estuarine shoreline classified lands.
(d) All construction along estuarine shoreline will be in accordance with Carteret County
Subdivision and/or Zoning Ordinance.
(e) Carteret County encourages private acquisition of conservation areas by purchase or
gift from land owners.
(f) For all waterfront development, parking lots shall be set back from the shoreline 75'
or 20% of the depth of the lot, whichever is less. This setback issue shall be further
studied by any such committee established for the purpose of developing a county-
wide Comprehensive Plan.
IMPLEMENTATION. The county will rely on 15A NCAC 7H and where applicable its zoning
and subdivision ordinances to regulate development within areas of environmental concern.
Outside areas of environmental concern, development will be allowed consistent with the
county's zoning and subdivision ordinances where applicable.
SCHEDULE. Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
MARINE RESOURCE AREAS (Issue discussed, page 1-94/1-97)
POLICIES:
H
(a) Carteret County supports the use standards for estuarine, public trust, and ORW '
waters as specified in 15A NCAC 7H.0207, with the following exceptions:
1. When new navigational channels and canals must be constructed
through coastal wetlands, Carteret County requires replacement of lost
wetland areas with mitigation at a 1:1 ratio.
IV-14
0

I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
2. Unless essential for mosquito and vector control, new drainage ditches
shall not be constructed which discharge into primary nursery areas.
Existing drainage ditches may be maintained but not increased in depth
or width.
3. Carteret County reserves the right to review and comment on individual
questions concerning trawling and other commercial and marine fisheries
issues.
4. Carteret County supports efforts by N.C. Marine Fisheries to identify
areas suitable for shellfish bottom leases.
IMPLEMENTATION. Carteret County will rely on 15A NCAC 7H standards and the CAMA
permitting process to implement these policies.
SCHEDULE. • Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
OFF -ROAD VEHICLES (Issue discussed, pages 1-73 and 1-120)
POLICY: Carteret County supports the regulation of off -road or all terrain vehicles in areas of
environmental concern.
IMPLEMENTATION: Carteret County will investigate the development of an ordinance to
address the usage of off -road or all -terrain vehicles in areas of environmental concern.
SCHEDULE. FY1999-2001.
PEAT OR PHOSPHATE MINING (Issue discussed, page 1-94)
POLICIES.
(a) Carteret County opposes any peat mining.
(b) Phosphate mining activities will be allowed when an Environmental Impact Statement
has been prepared with a finding of no significant effect on the environment.
IMPLEMENTATION. Carteret County will rely on the N.C. Division of Water Quality to
implement these policies.
SCHEDULE.- Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
E. ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
COMMUNITY ATTITUDE TOWARD ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
' Carteret County desires to expand its economic base, including agriculture and forestry,
tourism, recreation, commercial and recreational fishing, retirement communities, retail and
Iwholesale trade, real estate and construction, industrial development, and continued growth
I
IV-15

and development of the State Port. However, Carteret County does not want to jeopardize
fragile areas and vital natural resources. Community Development will be supported with
emphasis placed on housing rehabilitation, provision of low -to -moderate income housing,
water and sewer installation, and provision of rural water systems.
Carteret County will support growth and development at the average densities specified in the
land classification definitions. These densities are only a general guide and must be
accomplished through land use control ordinances. Major development of urban nature should
be concentrated in the developed, urban transition, and limited transition areas. Western
Carteret County will contain the majority of the county's urban type development. The "Down
East" area is expected to remain a low density, relatively undeveloped area. The county
supports zoning where property owners request it.
WATER SUPPLY (Issue discussed, page 1-99 and II-13)
POLICIES:
(a) Carteret County supports efforts to extend central water service in the county.
(b) Carteret County recognizes that rural classified areas of the county may not be
provided central water service within the planning period. However, the county
supports development of a county -wide plan for the provision of central water service.
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) Carteret County will cooperate with and support the West Carteret Water
Corporation's efforts to construct a central water system in Western Carteret County
along portions of the N.C. 24 corridor and U.S. 58 immediately north of Cape Carteret.
(b) Carteret County will continue to support the efforts of the Carteret County Interlocal
Agency (CCIA) in their efforts to establish regional sewer system and ultimately a
regional water system.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Until achieved, continuing activities.
(c) Carteret County should revise its Subdivision Ordinance to ensure adequate water
system design standards.
SCHEDULE (c): FY 1999-2001.
SEWER SYSTEM (Issue discussed, page 1-100/1-105 and II-14)
POLICIES.
(a) Carteret County recognizes that rural classified areas of the county may not be
provided central sewer service within the planning period. However, the county
supports development of a county -wide plan for the provision of efficient and cost-
effective waste water disposal.
I
I
1
I
1
11
t
IV-16

1
1
I
11
1
I
I
1
1
(b) Carteret County supports the extension of central sewer service into all areas classified
as developed, urban transition, limited transition, community, and rural with services,
when service is requested by the citizens in those areas. Carteret County encourages,
but does not require, that such extensions should be preceded by zoning of the areas
to receive sewer service.
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) Carteret County encourages the consolidation of municipal systems and the
centralization of high density development in areas served by municipal sewer systems.
(b) Carteret County will continue to support the efforts of the Carteret County Interlocal
Agency (CCIA) in their efforts to establish a regional sewer system.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities.
SOLID WASTE (Issue discussed, page 1-108 and II-18)
POLICY. • Carteret County supports a regional multi -county approach to solid waste
management. The county will support and dispose of its solid waste in the Tri-County Landfill.
IMPLEMENTATION:
(a) The county will cooperate with any efforts to educate people and businesses on waste
reduction and recycling. The county supports recycling by the county and other users
of the landfill and supports setting up practical collection methods and education
efforts to achieve a high degree of county -wide recycling.
(b) Carteret County favors the siting of recycling centers within all land classifications
except those within the conservation category.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
ENERGY FACILITY SITING AND DEVELOPMENT (Issue discussed, page 1-80)
POLICIES:
(a) 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.
(b) Carteret County does not oppose offshore exploratory drilling for oil or gas.
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) The county will review proposals for development of electric generating plants on a
case -by -case basis, judging the need for the facility by the county against all identified
possible adverse impacts.
IV-17

(b) In the event that oil or gas is discovered, Carteret County will not oppose drilling
operations and onshore support facilities for which an Environmental Impact Statement
has been prepared with a finding of no significant impact on the environment. Carteret '
County supports and requests full disclosure of development plans, with mitigative
measures that will be undertaken to prevent adverse impacts on the environment, the
infrastructure, and the social systems of the county. The county also requests full ,
disclosure of any adopted plans. Offshore drilling and the development of onshore
support facilities may have severe costs for the county as well as advantages. The
costs should be borne by the company(ies) which profits from offshore drilling and
onshore support facilities.
SCHEDULE (a) - (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES (Issue discussed, page 1-109/1-113 and II-18/11-19)
POLICY. • Carteret County supports the provision of adequate community facilities to meet the
demands of its residents and visitors.
IMPLEMENTATION. During the planning period, Carteret County will develop a community
services/facilities plan (as a stand-alone document, not as an expansion of this plan), which
will define existing deficiencies in police protection, fire protection, local administrative
buildings, public recreational facilities, public shoreline access, and public parks. This plan will
not address school system needs. The plan will prioritize needs and make specific
recommendations concerning financing and budgeting the high priority needs. The county will
coordinate facility planning with the school system and the municipalities.
SCHEDULE. • FY 1997-2007.
REDEVELOPMENT OF DEVELOPED AREAS (Issue discussed, page II-20)
POLICY. • The most significant redevelopment issues facing Carteret County through 2007 are
substandard housing and deteriorating commercial structures. During the planning period, the
county will attempt to correct its worst substandard housing conditions.
IMPLEMENTA TION:
(a) Supporting the development and enforcement of a Minimum Housing Code.
(b) Applying for Community Development Block Grant Community Revitalization funds. _
(c) Coordinating redevelopment efforts with the Carteret County Building Inspection
Department.
SCHEDULE (a) - (c): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
(d) Preparing a county -wide housing strategy to increase the quantity and quality of
affordable housing.
SCHEDULE (d): FY1999-2001.
IV-18 1

LAND USE REGULATION (Issue discussed, page 1-1 16)
POLICY. • Carteret County will review and update its subdivision and group housing ordinances.
This will be done to make the ordinances more responsive to current county needs and
conditions.
' IMPLEMENTATION. Funding assistance for revision of the ordinances will be requested from
the North Carolina Divisions of Coastal Management and Community Assistance.
SCHEDULE. FY1999-2001.
ESTUARINE ACCESS (Issue discussed, page 1-1 1 1 and II-19)
POLICY. • Carteret County supports the state's shoreline access policies as set forth in NCAC
Chapter 15, Subchapter 7M.
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) The county will conform to CAMA and other state and federal environmental regula-
tions affecting the development of estuarine access areas.
SCHEDULE (a): Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
(b) Carteret County will apply for CAMA funding to assist in financing the funding of a
shoreline access plan.
SCHEDULE (b): Until funding is granted.
TYPES AND LOCATIONS OF DESIRED INDUSTRY (Issue discussed, pages 1-38/1-40, 1-70, and
61 II-1 1)
'' Industrial development is extremely important to the continued economic growth and stability
of Carteret County. The county's heavy reliance on employment in the service and retail trade
sector should be balanced by the development of a stronger base of industrial/manufacturing
employment. However, the county desires to achieve responsible industrial development
which will not adversely affect the natural environment or the quality of established residential
areas.
POLICIES:
(a) Carteret County encourages the development of industrial sites which are accessible
to municipal/central water and sewer services.
(b) Industrial development should occur in areas classified as developed, urban transition,
and limited transition. Industries generating only domestic sewage are acceptable in
areas classified as community and rural with services. Carteret County does not
oppose industries locating within rural classified areas. Industrial uses that are not
water dependent or related to fishing or aquaculture activities will not be allowed in
I IV-19

estuarine shoreline and ORW estuarine shoreline areas. This policy shall not apply to
the estuarine shorelines of mosquito ditches.
(c) Industries which are noxious by reason of the emission of smoke, dust, glare, noise, '
and vibrations, and those which deal primarily in hazardous products such as
explosives, should not be located in Carteret County. ,
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) Carteret County encourages the location of industries in "industrial park" settings. The
county will develop industrial park standards to be incorporated into the county's
zoning ordinance. Industrial park development will be encouraged in areas zoned for
industrial development.
SCHEDULE (a): FY1999-2000. 1
(b) Carteret County fully supports the concept of developing a marine resources complex
for marine research and education. Carteret County supports marine related
employment and industrial opportunities.
SCHEDULE (b): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007. 1
(c) Carteret County will investigate the development of an ordinance requiring industries
to pre -treat non -domestic waste prior to discharge into any central sewer system. ti
SCHEDULE (c): FY1999-2000.
COMMITMENT TO STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS (Issue discussed, numerous references i
to state and federal programs throughout the plan)
POLICY. Carteret County is generally receptive to state and federal programs, particularly
those which provide improvements to the county.
IMPLEMENTATION. The county will continue to fully support such programs, especially the
North Carolina Department of Transportation road and bridge improvement programs, which
are very important to Carteret County.
Examples of other state and federal programs that are important to and supported by Carteret
County include: drainage planning and erosion control activities carried out by the U.S.D.A.
Soil Conservation Service, which is valuable to farmers; dredging and channel maintenance
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; federal and state projects which provide efficient and
safe boat access for sport fishing; and community development block grants, low -to -moderate
income housing, housing rehabilitation, and North Carolina Housing Finance Agency housing
improvement programs. However, Carteret County does not support expansion of military
restricted airspace in eastern North Carolina.
SCHEDULE. • Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
IV-20 I

I
ASSISTANCE IN CHANNEL MAINTENANCE (Issue discussed, page a e 1-108)
POLICY. • Proper maintenance of channels is very important to Carteret County because of the
substantial economic impact of commercial fisheries, boating, sport fishing, and successful
operation of the State Port. If silt or other deposits fill in the channels, this could impede
efficient docking of the commercial fishing and transport vessels.
IMPLEMENTATION. • Carteret County will provide assistance to the U.S. Corps of Engineers
and state officials by either helping to obtain or providing spoil sites, especially to maintain all
inlets.
SCHEDULE. • Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
ASSISTANCE IN INTERSTATE WATERWAYS (Issue discussed, page 1-108)
POLICY. • Carteret County considers the interstate waterway to be a valuable economic asset.
Carteret County supports continued maintenance and protection of the interstate waterway.
IMPLEMENTATION. The county will provide assistance in maintaining the waterway by
helping to obtain or providing dredge spoil sites and, when possible, providing easements
across county -owned property for work.
SCHEDULE: Continuing activity, FY1997-2007.
TOURISM (Issue discussed, page 1-16/1-18, 1-32, and II-5)
POLICY. • Tourism is extremely important to Carteret County and will be supported by the
county.
IMPLEMENTATION:
(a) Carteret County will support North Carolina Department of Transportation projects to
o, improve access to and within Carteret County.
1
(b) Carteret County will support projects that will increase public access to shoreline
areas.
(c) Carteret County will continue to support the activities of the North Carolina Division
of Travel and Tourism; specifically, the monitoring of tourism -related industry, efforts
to promote tourism -related commercial activity, and efforts to enhance and provide
shoreline resources.
(d) Carteret County will continue to support the activities of the Carteret County Tourism
Development Bureau.
SCHEDULE (a) - (d): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
V-21

TRANSPORTATION (Issue discussed, pages 1-105/1-108 and II-15)
POLICY.- Carteret County supports transportation improvements which will improve highway
safety, regional accessibility, and traffic flow within the county's planning jurisdiction.
IMPLEMENTA TION.
(a) Carteret County will support the development of a county -wide thoroughfare plan.
(b) Carteret County supports the following priorities for transportation improvements:
1. Carteret County Projects of Highest Priority for Consideration
-- Replacement of the current Gallants Channel Bridge with a new bridge.
-- To provide for the connection of Highway 70 south of Havelock to 101
east of Newport, to serve as a northern bypass of Morehead City to
Beaufort. This project would redirect traffic from Highway 70 north of
Morehead City and create improved access to the Morehead City Port
through Beaufort by Highway 101. The project should be multi -lane and
utilize the existing Core Creek Bridge.
-- Convert U.S. 70 into a limited access highway from Carteret County to
Raleigh by (i) expediting right-of-way acquisition and construction of
limited access by-passes of Havelock, Kinston, Goldsboro, and Clayton,
and (ii) eliminating at grade intersections in remaining areas. This
highway is the critical corridor between the Morehead City Port, the
Global TransPark, and the state's interstate highway system.
-- The widening of N.C. 24 (R-2105) from Swansboro to U.S. 70 at
Morehead City to five lanes with an overpass on Highway 24 at
intersection of Highway 58.
2. Additional Proiects for Consideration
-- Expand from two lanes to four lanes Highway 58 from N.C. 24 to U.S.
70 in Kinston.
-- N.C. 101: If traffic counts indicate substantial increased traffic resulting
from the replacement of the Core Creek Bridge, feasibility studies should
be undertaken for highway improvements and possible widening to three
or four lanes to accommodate for future Beaufort Airport expansions.
-- Improve N.C. 12 and U.S. 70 from Atlantic to Beaufort. Although much
has been done to widen and repave portions of this highway, completion
of the project should be accelerated, and the highway should be
regularly maintained.
IV-22

-- New Railroad Bridge: Replace railroad bridge crossing Newport River in
Morehead City for access to Radio Island and expansion of the
Morehead City Port System.
3. Major Regional Proiects Supported by Carteret County
-- U.S. 17 South Carolina to Virginia. Expansion to four lanes is an urgent
need. This highway is the major north -south transportation link in
eastern North Carolina, and it is critical to the economic success of the
region.
-- N.C. 24 must be expanded to four lanes from Morehead City to
Charlotte. The improvement of this highway would be a catalyst to the
North Carolina Ports, to the State's tourism industry, and to employment
1 growth along the Highway 24 corridor. The highway improvement
would divert substantial commerce and tourism from South Carolina to
North Carolina.
(c) If a need is demonstrated, Carteret County will support the construction of a third
bridge between Bogue Bank and the mainland.
(d) Carteret County will work with the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
ensure that all road hazards are clearly marked or corrected. The county will identify
and report hazards to the NCDOT.
SCHEDULE (a) - (d): Continuing activities, FY1997-2007.
LAND USE TRENDS (Issue discussed, pages 1-44/1-65 and 1-70/1-73)
POLICY: The county's land use trends have been thoroughly discussed in other sections of
this plan (see reference above). The county supports addressing the following trends during
the planning period:
Increasing waterfront development.
Development of the N.C. 24 corridor.
-- Anticipated low density development in the "Down East" area.
-- Continued concentration of urban development in areas served by municipal water and
sewer facilities.
-- Continued minor losses of agricultural and forest lands
,� -- Continued expansion of the mainland municipal areas.
IMPLEMENTATION: These land use changes should be controlled through existing local, state,
and federal land use regulations including CAMA "404" regulations, sanitary regulations, and
the county's subdivision and zoning ordinances and building inspections program. Carteret
County will establish zoning in all areas of the county where it is requested by the property
owners. Carteret County will establish an educational program to advise property owners of
the benefits of zoning. The County will work towards county -wide zoning but will not
arbitrarily force zoning upon unreceptive citizens.
ISCHEDULE. • FY1997-2007.
i IV-23

F. CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES
Carteret County recognizes that a basic element in developing and implementing a land use
plan is the successful involvement of a jurisdiction's citizenry in the development of the plan.
As the initial step in the preparation of this document, a "Public Participation Plan" was
adopted. The plan outlined the methodology for citizen involvement (see Appendix 6). Public
involvement was generated through public information meetings, advertising in local
newspapers, and meetings with both the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners.
The Carteret County Planning Board was instrumental in the development of this plan. Input
was provided by the Planning Board to guide plan development. The following individuals
served as members of the Planning Board: Chuck Bissette, Joe Koller, David Heath, Rodgers
Hunt, Bobby Hill, Robert Long, Jack Parks, Patrick Smith, and Jesse Vinson.
A public information meeting was conducted at the outset of the project. This meeting was
held at the Carteret County Administration Building on September 11, 1995. Subsequently,
meetings of the Planning Board to discuss the land use plan update were held on October 9,
1995; November 20, 1995; January 22, 1996; April 22, 1996; June 17, 1996; August 12,
1996; January 21, 1997; and January 19, 1999. The Board of Commissioners was advised
of the Planning Board meeting schedule. A joint meeting with Carteret County's municipalities
was conducted on August 21, 1996. All meetings were advertised and were open to the
public.
The draft plan was approved by the Planning Board for submission to the Carteret County
Board of Commissioners on February 10, 1997. The Board of Commissioners conducted a
public information meeting for review of and comment on the plan on March 17, 1997. The
meeting was advertised in the Carteret County News -Times on March 5, 1997.
The preliminary plan was submitted to the Division of Coastal Management for comment in
March, 1999. Following receipt of DCM comments on July 6, 1999, the plan was amended
and a formal public hearing on the final document was conducted on September 13, 1999.
The public hearing was advertised in the Carteret County News -Times on August 13, 1999.
The plan was approved by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners on September 13,
1999, and submitted to the Coastal Resources Commission for certification. The plan was
certified on November 19, 1999.
Citizen input will continue to be solicited, primarily through the Planning Board, and with
advertised and adequately publicized public meetings held to discuss special land use issues
and to keep citizens informed.
G. STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY, AND EVACUATION
PLANS
The purpose of a storm hazard mitigation plan is to assist a town or county in managing
development in potentially hazardous areas through establishing storm hazard mitigation
policies and to reduce the risks associated with severe storms and hurricanes by developing
post -disaster reconstruction/recovery policies. The following provides the Carteret County
Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post -Disaster Recovery, and Evacuation Plan.
IV-24

ISTORM HAZARD MITIGATION POLICIES
The effect of storm related flooding in Carteret County is discussed on pages 1-74 and 1-75
of the Land Use Plan, and areas subject to flooding are shown on Map 7, page 1-76. The most
severely affected section of the county during a major storm would be the "Down East" area
where a Category 3 storm would inundate over fifty percent of eastern Carteret County.
However, all developed areas of Carteret County are subject to wind damage. In a severe
storm, over fifty percent of the county's developed areas could be subjected to flood damage.
! Hazard mitigation, or actions taken to reduce the probability or impact of a disaster could
involve a number of activities or policy decisions. The starting point, however, is to identify
the types of hazards (including the relative severity and magnitude of risks), and the extent
of development (including residential, commercial, etc.) located in storm hazard areas.
' Hurricanes are extremely powerful, often unpredictable forces of nature. The four causes of
fatalities and property damage are high winds, flooding, wave action, and erosion. Two of
these, high winds and flooding, apply to Carteret County.
a. High Winds
High winds are the major determinants of a hurricane, by definition, i.e., a tropical disturbance
with sustained winds of at least 73 miles per hour. Extreme hurricanes can have winds of up
to 165 miles per hour, with gusts up to 200 miles per hour.
These winds circulate around the center or "eye" of the storm. Although the friction or
impact of the winds hitting land from the water causes some dissipation of the full force,
there is still a tremendous amount of energy left to cause damage to buildings, overturn mobile
homes, down trees and power lines, and destroy crops. Also, tornadoes are often spawned
by hurricane wind patterns. Wind stress, therefore, is an important consideration in storm
hazard mitigation planning.
b. Flooding
1 The excessive amounts of rainfall and the "storm surge" which often accompany hurricanes
can cause massive coastal and riverine flooding causing excessive property damage and
deaths by drowning. (More deaths are caused by drowning than any other cause in
hurricanes.) Flooding can cause extensive damage in inland areas, since many areas of
Carteret County have low elevations. Approximately 40% of Carteret County's total area is
subject to storm related flood damage. Consideration of potential flood damage is important
to Carteret County's efforts to develop storm mitigation policies.
The impact of the 1996 hurricanes on Carteret County has been discussed in Section 11, Part
D, Redevelopment Issues, of this plan.
C. Policy Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation
In order to minimize the damage potentially caused by the effects of a hurricane or other major
storm, Carteret County proposes the following policies:
IV-25

High Winds
Carteret County supports enforcement of the N.C. State Building Code. The county
will continue to enforce the State Building Code on wind resistant construction with
design standards of 110 mph wind loads.
Flooding
Carteret County is an active participant in the National Flood Insurance program and
is supportive of hazard mitigation elements. The county is participating in the regular
phase of the insurance program. This program is administered locally by the Carteret
County Building Inspections staff. Carteret County also supports continued
enforcement of the CAMA and 404 Wetlands development permit processes in areas
potentially susceptible to flooding. When reviewing development proposals, the county
will work to reduce density in areas susceptible to flooding. In addition, the county will
encourage the public purchase of land in the most hazardous areas.
Mitigation Policies Related to Redevelopment of Hazard Areas After a Storm
Reconstruction of damaged properties in Carteret County after a storm will be subject
to the following:
" The North Carolina Building Code requires any building
damaged in excess of 50 percent of its value to conform with
code requirements for new buildings when repaired. (This will be
particularly beneficial in the event of wind damage.)
" The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance requires that all
existing structures must comply with requirements related to
elevation above the 100-year floodplain elevation and flood -
proofing if they are substantially improved. A substantial
improvement is defined as "any repair, reconstruction, or
improvement of a building, the cost of which equals or exceeds
50 percent of the market value of the building either before the
improvement or repair is started, or before damage occurred if
the building has been damaged."
Evacuation Plans
The county will coordinate evacuation planning with all county agencies and
municipalities. Carteret County will encourage motels, condominiums, and multi -family
developments (five or more dwelling units) to post evacuation instructions that identify
routes and the locations of available public shelters. The county will update an
evacuation route map annually. Copies will be kept at the County Administration
Building in Beaufort for free distribution to the public.
Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation
(a) Carteret County will continue to enforce the standards of the State Building
Code.
IV-26

(b) The county will continue to support enforcement of State and Federal programs
which aid in mitigation of hurricane hazards, including CAMA and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit process, FEMA, as well as local
ordinances such as zoning and flood damage prevention regulations.
jj (c) The county will discourage high density development in high hazard areas
■ through implementation of the county's Zoning, Subdivision, and Mobile Home
Park Ordinances.
(d) Carteret County supports the public acquisition of high hazard areas with state
a. 9d federal funds when voluntary acquisition can be accomplished. The county
discourages condemnation of land for this purpose.
(e) Developed structures which were destroyed or sustained "major damage" and
which did not conform to the county's building regulations, zoning ordinances,
and other storm hazard mitigation policies, i.e., basic measures to reduce
damage by high winds, flooding, wave action or erosion, must be repaired or
redeveloped according to those policies. In some instances, this may mean
relocation of construction, or no reconstruction at all. Building permits to
restore destroyed or "major" damaged structures which were built in
conformance with the county's building code and county storm hazard
mitigation policies shall be issued automatically. All structures suffering major
damage will be repaired according to the State Building Code and county Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance. All structures suffering minor damage,
regardless of location, will be allowed to be rebuilt to the original condition prior
to the storm.
POST -DISASTER RECONSTRUCTION PLAN AND POLICIES
a. Introduction
A post -disaster plan provides a program that will permit a local government to deal with the
aftermaths of a storm in an organized and efficient manner. The plan provides the
mechanisms, procedures, and policies that will enable a local community to learn from its
storm experiences and to rebuild the community in a wise and practical manner.
A post -disaster reconstruction plan encompasses three distinct reconstruction periods:
The emergency period is the reconstruction phase immediately after a storm.
The emphasis is on restoring public health and safety, assessing the nature and
extent of storm damage, and qualifying for and obtaining whatever federal and
state assistance might be available.
The restoration period covers the weeks and months following a storm disaster.
The emphasis during this period is on restoring community facilities, utilities,
essential businesses, etc., so that the community can once again function in a
normal manner.
I IV-27

The replacement reconstruction period is the period during which the
p p g
community is rebuilt. The period could last from months to years depending on
the nature and extent of the damaged incurred.
It is important that local officials clearly understand the joint federal -state -local procedures for
providing assistance to rebuild after a storm so that local damage assessment and
reconstruction efforts are carried out in an efficient manner that qualifies the community for
the different types of assistance that are available. The requirements are generally delineated
in the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) which authorizes a wide range of financial
and direct assistance to both local communities and individuals. The sequence of procedures
to be followed after a major storm event is as follows:
1. Local damage assessment teams survey storm damage within the community.
2. Damage information is compiled and summarized and the nature and extent of
damage is reported to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
3. DWQ compiles local data and makes recommendations to the Governor
concerning state action.
4. The Governor may request a Presidential declaration of "emergency" or "major
disaster." A Presidential declaration makes a variety of federal resources
available to local communities and individuals.
5. Federal Relief assistance provided to a community after an "emergency" has
been declared typically ends one month after the initial Presidential declaration.
Where a "major disaster" has been declared, federal assistance for "emer-
gency" work typically ends six months after the declaration and federal
assistance for "permanent" work ends after 18 months.
Federal disaster assistance programs previously provided aid for communities to rebuild in the
same way as existed before the disaster occurred. This policy tended to foster recurring
mistakes. However, recent federal policy has started to change the emphasis of disaster
assistance programs. Specifically,
-- Executive Order 1198 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to
avoid either directly or indirectly supporting future unwise development in
floodplains (e.g., through sewer grants in locations that foster floodplain
development.)
-- Section 406 of the Disaster Relief Act can require communities, as a
prerequisite for federal disaster assistance, to take specific actions to mitigate
future flood losses.
The county has been provided a comprehensive listing of the Federal Disaster Assistance
Programs that may be available following a major storm. The programs identified fall into the
categories of Temporary Housing, Individual Assistance, and Assistance to Local and State
Governments. The listing is comprehensive and therefore all the programs listed may not be
applicable to Carteret County.
IV-28 I

1
1
11
1
The remainder of this chapter presents recommended recovery procedures in the general
sequence of response by the county. While damage assessment (Sections B and C) will be
the first operations conducted by the county after a disaster, it should be realized that the
recommended recovery operations (Section D) will begin simultaneously. The remainder of
this chapter is, therefore, organized as follows:
1. Procedures that Carteret County should follow to carry out its damage
assessment program to meet all federal and state requirements including
organization of the damage assessment team and recommended damage
assessment procedures.
2. An overall organizational framework for restoration operations after the
emergency period.
3. Replacement/reconstruction policies that the county should adopt to insure that
future development that does occur in local hazard areas is constructed in a
manner consistent with sound land use planning, public safety considerations,
and existing and evolving federal and state policy.
b. Organization of Local Damage Assessment Team
A local damage assessment team should include individuals who are qualified to give reliable
estimates of the original value of structures, an estimated value of sustained damages, and
a description of the repairs. Additionally, the logistics involved in assessing damage in
unincorporated sections of the county after a major storm will necessitate the organization of
several damage assessment teams in Carteret County. The following are recommended team
members.
Public Propertv Survev Team
County Department Head(s)
Professional Engineer
Architect *
Sheriff's Deputy (driver)
Business and Industry Survey Team
Tax Assessor
Building Inspector
Industrial/Commercial Real Estate Broker
Chamber of Commerce Representative
Architect *
Sheriff's Deputy (driver)
IV-29

Private Dwellinci Survey Team I
Two teams, depending upon capacities and plans of Cape Carteret and Newport: _
Tax Assessor
a
Building Inspector
Residential Real Estate Broker
Building Contractor *
Sheriff's Deputy (driver)
'
*Community volunteers
The Emergency Management Coordinator should immediately undertake a recruitment effort
to secure the necessary volunteers and to establish a training program to familiarize the
members of the damage assessment team with required damage classification procedures and
reporting requirements. It is suggested that the county assume the responsibility for
developing and implementing a training program for both county damage assessment teams
and the local damage assessment teams that the towns establish. In establishing the county
teams, it must be recognized that it might be very difficult to fill certain positions, such as the
building contractor position, because the services of individuals with such skills will likely be
in great demand after a storm disaster. A commitment from the Home Builders Association
may be a way of guaranteeing needed assistance. Additionally, the Emergency Management
Coordinator should establish an active "volunteer file;" volunteers should have standing
instructions where to automatically report following a storm. Damage assessment forms and
procedures should be prepared now and distributed to volunteers as part of the training
program.
C. Damage Assessment Procedures and Requirements
Damage assessment is defined as rapid means of determining a realistic estimate of the
amount of damage caused by a natural or manmade disaster. For a storm disaster, it is
expressed in terms of 1) number of structures damaged; 2) magnitude of damage by structure
type; 3) estimated total dollar loss; and 4) estimated total dollar loss covered by insurance.
After a major storm event, members of the Damage Assessment Team should report to the
Emergency Operations Center for a briefing from the Emergency Management Coordinator.
One way to effectively deploy teams to areas where damage seems to be concentrated would
be to have prearranged commitment from the Marine Corps to provide for a helicopter in
reconnaissance of storm damage within the county for the Emergency Management
Coordinator in order to establish field reconnaissance priorities. The Civil Air Patrol may also
appropriately provide assistance during the damage assessment phase.
The extent of damage will depend on the magnitude of the storm and where landfall occurs
along the Atlantic coast. Because of the potentially large job at hand, the limited personnel
resources available to conduct the assessments, and the limited time within which the initial
assessment must be made, the first phase of the assessment should consist of only an ,
external visual survey of damaged structures. A more detailed second phase assessment can
be made after the initial damage reports are filed.
I
IV-30 I

1
1
I
The initial damage assessment should make an estimate of the extent of damage incurred by
each structure and identify the cause (wind, flooding, wave action, combination, etc.) of the
damage to each structure. This first phase assessment should be made by "windshield"
survey.
Damaged structures should be classified in accordance with the suggested state guidelines
as follows:
-- Destroyed (repairs would cost more than 80 percent of value).
-- Major (repairs would cost more than 30 percent of the value).
-- Minor (repairs would cost less than 30 percent of the value, but the structure
is currently uninhabitable).
-- Habitable (some minor damage, with repairs less than 15 percent of the value).
It will be necessary to thoroughly document each assessment. In many cases, mail boxes and
other information typically used to identify specific structures will not be found.
Consequently, the Damage Assessment Team must be provided with tax maps (aerial
photographs with property line overlays), other maps and photographic equipment in order to
record and document its field observations. Enough information to complete the Damage
Assessment Worksheet must be obtained on each damaged structure.
The second phase of the Damage Assessment Operation will be to estimate the value of the
damages sustained. This operation should be carried out in the Emergency Operations Center
under the direction and supervision of the Emergency Management Coordinator. A special
team consisting of county tax clerks, tax assessment personnel, and other qualified staff
should be organized by the Emergency Management Coordinator. This team should then be
incorporated into this Damage Assessment Plan.
In order to estimate total damage values, it will be necessary to have the following information
available for use at the Emergency Operations Center:
-- A set of property tax maps (including aerial photographs) identical to those
utilized by the damage assessment field team.
-- County maps delineating areas assigned to each team.
-- Copies of all county property tax records. This information should indicate the
estimated value of all commercial and residential structures within the county.
Because time will be of the essence, it is recommended that the county
immediately commence a project listing the property values of existing
structures in unincorporated areas of the county on the appropriate lots of the
property tax maps that will be kept at the Emergency Operations Center. While
somewhat of a tedious job, it should be manageable if it is initiated now and
completed over a 2 to 3 month period. The information will prove invaluable
if a storm disaster does occur. This set of tax maps should be updated annually
prior to the hurricane season.
IV-31

An alternative method that would be less accurate but perhaps more practical due to the time
constraints would be to utilize median housing values from the 1990 census or derived from
the county's tax digest. A simple chart could be devised for use in the field that presents
median values for houses and mobile homes by township. This chart could include the
multiplying factors to avoid the need for actual math calculations in the field. Because there
are significantly less commercial and industrial structures than homes, this portion of the
assessment could still be made utilizing the first method above.
The flood insurance policy coverage for property owners in flood hazard areas should be
updated before each hurricane season. This can be accomplished in concert with the local
mortgage institutions. Annual updates should be disseminated to each town and kept
available in the Emergency Operations Center for estimating the value of sustained damages
covered by hazard insurance.
In order to produce the damage value information required, the following methodology is
recommended:
1. The number of businesses and residential structures that have been damaged within
unincorporated areas of the county should be summarized by damage classification
category.
2. The value of each damaged structure should be obtained from the marked set of tax
maps and multiplied by the following percentages for appropriate damage classification
category:
-- Destroyed-80%
-- Major Damage-30%
-- Minor Damage (uninhabitable)-30%
-- Habitable-15%
CAMA regulations consider a structure to be destroyed if damaged more than 50% of
its value and a CAMA permit will be required for reconstruction of such structures.
3. The total value of damages for the unincorporated areas of the county should then be
summarized.
4. The estimated value loss covered by hazard insurance should then be determined by:
1) estimating full coverage for all damaged structures for situations where the average
value of such coverage exceeds the amount of damage to the structure; and 2)
multiplying the number of structures where damage exceeds the average value of
insurance coverage by the average value of such coverage.
5. Damage assessment reports should be obtained from each municipality and the data
should then be consolidated into a single county damage assessment report which
should be forwarded to the appropriate state officials.
6. Damage to public roads and utility systems should be estimated by utilizing current
construction costs for facilities by lineal foot (e.g., 10'.water line replacement cost =
X$/L.F.).
IV-32 I

The Damage Assessment Plan is intended to be the mechanism for estimatingoverall property
P P Y
damage in the event of a civil disaster. The procedure recommended above represents an
approach for making a relatively quick, realistic "order of magnitude" damage estimate after
a disaster. This process will not provide the required information within the time constraints
if organization and data collection are not completed prior to the storm event.
d. Organization of Recovery Operation
1 Damage assessment operations are oriented to take place during the emergency period. After
the emergency operations to restore public health and safety and the initial damage
assessments are completed, the state guidelines suggest that a Recovery Task Force to guide
restoration and reconstruction activities be created to guide restoration and reconstruction
activities during a post -emergency phase which could last from weeks to possibly more than
a year. The responsibilities of the Task Force will be:
1. Establishing an overall restoration schedule.
1 2. Setting restoration priorities, in advance, by definition.
3. Determining requirements for outside assistance and requesting such assistance when
' beyond local capabilities. (Pre -disaster agreement, procedures, contact persons, should
be defined before the disaster event.)
4. Keeping the appropriate state officials informed using Situation and Damage Report.
5. Keeping the public informed.
6. Assembling and maintaining records of actions taken and expenditures and obligations
incurred. Standardized forms should be developed in advance and kept on file at the
EOC.
7. Proclaiming a local "state of emergency" if warranted.
8. Commencing cleanup, debris removal and utility restoration activities which would
include coordination of restoration activities undertaken by private utility companies.
9. Undertaking repair and restoration of essential public facilities and services in
accordance with priorities developed through the situation evaluations.
' 10. Assisting private businesses and individual property owners in 1) obtaining information
on the various types of assistance that might be available from federal and state
agencies, 2) in understanding the various assistance programs, and 3) applying for
such assistance. When a major storm does eventually hit Carteret County and major
damages occur, consideration should be given to establishing a Community Assistance
Team within the appropriate county department to carry out the above functions as
long as there is a need to do so.
1
I IV-33

In Before the Storm, a sequence and schedule for undertaking local reconstruction and
restoration activities is presented. The schedule was deliberately left vague because specific
reconstruction needs will not be known until after a storm hits and the magnitude of the ,
damage can be assessed. The following sequence of activities and schedule is submitted as
a guide which should be considered by the Recovery Task Force and reviewed as necessary
after the damage assessment activities are completed.
Activity Time Frame
1) Complete initial damage assessment. Immediately after storm passes.
2) Complete second phase damage Completed by second week after
assessment. the storm.
3) Prepare summary of master reconstruction Completed one week after second
schedule. phase damage assessment is
completed.
4)
Decision with regard to imposition of
One week after second phase
temporary development moratorium.
damage assessment is completed.
5)
Set reconstruction priorities and prepare
Completed one week after
master reconstruction schedule.
summary of reconstruction needs is
completed.
,
6)
Begin repairs to critical utilities and
As soon as possible after disaster.
facilities.
7)
Permitting of reconstruction activities for
One week after second phase
all structures receiving minor damages not
damage assessment is completed.
included in development moratorium areas.
8)
Permitting of reconstruction activities for
Two weeks after second phase
all structures receiving major damages not
damage assessment is completed.
included in development moratorium areas.
9)
Initiate assessment of existing mitigation
Two weeks after second phase
policies.
damage assessment is completed.
10)
Complete reevaluation of hazard areas and
The length of the period for
mitigation policies in areas subjected to
conducting reevaluations and
development moratorium.
receiving input from the state
should not exceed two months.
1 1)
Review mitigation policies and
Two months after temporary
development standards for areas subjected
development moratorium is
to development moratorium and lift
imposed. (Subject to change based
development moratorium.
on circumstances encountered.)
12)
Permit new development.
Upon suspension of any temporary
development moratorium.
V-34 I

11
Ie. Recommended Reconstruction Policies
I
P
1
1
It is recommended that the Carteret County Task Force consist of the following individuals:
• Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
• Carteret County Manager
• Emergency Management Coordinators
• Chief County Tax Appraiser
• County Finance Director
• County Inspections Supervisor
• County Planning and Inspections Director
The following policies have been designed 1) to be considered and adopted by the Carteret
County Board of Commissioners prior to a storm; and 2) implemented, as appropriate, after
a storm occurs.
Permitting
1. Building permits to restore structures located outside of designated AEC areas that
were previously built in conformance with local codes, standards, and the provisions
of the North Carolina Buildina Code shall be issued automatically.
2. All structures suffering major damages as defined in the county's Damage Assessment
Plan shall be repaired or rebuilt to conform with the provisions of the North Carolina
Building Code, the Carteret County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Carteret
County Zoning Ordinance, the Bogue Banks Land Protection Ordinance, Group Housing
Ordinance, and Mobile Home Park Ordinance.
3. All structures suffering minor damage as defined in the Carteret County Damage
Assessment Plan shall be permitted to be rebuilt to their original state before the storm
condition, provided non -conforming use regulations of the zoning ordinance are met.
4. For all structures in designated AECs and for all mobile home locations, a determination
shall be made for each AEC as to whether the provisions of the N.C. Building Code, the
state regulations for Areas of Environmental Concern, the Carteret County Flood
Prevention Ordinance, and Carteret County Mobile Home Park Ordinance appeared
adequate in minimizing storm damages. For areas where the construction and use
requirements appear adequate, permits shall be issued in accordance with permitting
policies 1, 2 and 3. For AECs where the construction and use requirements do not
appear to have been adequate in mitigating damages, a Temporary Development Mora-
torium for all structures located within that specific AEC shall be imposed.
5. Mobile home parks damaged at least 50% shall be required to conform with the
provision of the Carteret County Mobile Home, Mobile Home Park and Recreational
Vehicle Ordinance, and the county's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance regardless
of whether such park is currently subject to these ordinances.
6. Permits shall not be issued in areas subject to a Temporary Displacement Moratorium
until such a moratorium is lifted by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners.
IV-35

Utility and Facility Reconstruction I
1. All damaged water and sewer systems (both public and private) shall be repaired so
as to be elevated above the 100-year floodplain or shall be floodproofed, with the
methods employed and the construction being certified by a registered professional
engineer.
2. All damaged roads used as major evacuation routes in flood hazard areas shall be
repaired so as to be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain elevation.
3. All local roads that have to be completely rebuilt shall be elevated so as to be above
the 100-year floodplain elevation. I
Temporary Development Moratorium
Under certain circumstances, interim development moratoriums can be used in order to give
a local government time to assess damages, to make sound decisions and to learn from its
storm experiences. Such a moratorium must be temporary and it must be reasonably related
to the public health, safety and welfare.
It is not possible to determine prior to a storm whether a temporary development moratorium
will be needed. Such a measure should only be used if damage in a particular area is very
serious and if redevelopment of the area in the same manner as previously existed would
submit the residents of the area to similar public health and safety problems. The Carteret
County policy regarding the proclamation of temporary development moratoriums shall be to:
Require the Carteret County Recovery Task Force to assess whether a
Temporary Development Moratorium is needed within one week after the
damage assessment process is completed. Such an assessment should clearly
document why such a moratorium is needed, delineate the specific uses that
would be affected by the moratorium, propose a specific schedule of activities
and actions that will be taken during the moratorium period, and establish a
specific time period during which the moratorium will be in effect. '
1
IV-36 I

1
D
1
1
SECTION V: RELATIONSHIP OF POLICIES AND LAND CLASSIFICATIONS
As required by the Coastal Area Management Act, the land use plan must relate the policies
section to the land classification map and provide some indication as to which land uses are
appropriate in each land classification. The allowed uses identified in this section are a
general identification and is not an all inclusive list. All uses must be consistent with
established zoning, where applicable.
A. DEVELOPED CLASS
As mentioned in the discussions of recent and projected population growth, most of the
county's recent growth has occurred in and around existing municipalities, and this trend
should continue throughout the planning period. Developed areas are those where basic
services such as water and community support services are available or might be feasible
within the planning period. The developed class is specifically designated to accommodate
more intensively developed areas and land uses, including single and multi -family residential,
commercial, industrial parks and open space, community facilities, and transportation.
Population densities will be high. The greatest demand for urban services will exist within this
classification. This area is located west of Morehead City's extraterritorial jurisdiction along
both sides of U.S. 70 for a distance of approximately 0.8 mile and south of N.C. 24 between
Morehead City's extraterritorial jurisdiction and S.R. 1147. Bogue Field and Cedar Point are
also classified as developed.
B. URBAN TRANSITION CLASS
Areas classified urban transition will provide lands to accommodate future urban growth
within the planning period. The average development densities will be less than the developed
class densities and greater than the limited transition class densities. These areas must be
able to support urban development by being generally free of physical limitations and be
served or accessible to service by urban services. Development may include mixed land uses
such as single and multi -family residential, commercial, institutional, transportation, industrial,
and other uses at high to moderate densities. Urban services should include water, sewer,
streets, police, and fire protection. Population densities will be high and seasonal population
may swell significantly. This area is located along both sides of U.S. 70 from Newport's
extraterritorial boundary southeast of within 0.8 mile of Morehead City's extraterritorial area,
south from U.S. 70 to the north side of N.C. 24 and along the western side of S.R. 1147.
C. LIMITED TRANSITION CLASS
This classification will provide for controlled development with services. These areas are
developing and require some level of municipal type services. This classification is necessary
to provide for growth occurring along the N.C. 24 corridor and in the area north of Beaufort
along S.R. 1300 and 1163, and N.C. 101. Both areas are adjacent to or near numerous
conservation areas. The orderly development of the areas including proper development of
some municipal type services, will support the economic development and natural resource
policies of this land use plan. The predominant land use shall be moderate density residential.
Clustering or development associated with planned unit developments may be appropriate
V-1

within this classification. However, some scattered commercial, health care, and industrial
development may occur.
D. COMMUNITY CLASS
Intensive development will not be encouraged in this class due to the lack of urban services
and/or physical limitations. The general range of acceptable uses are limited to single-family
residences, isolated general and convenience stores and churches, public facilities, and health
care facilities. The community classification is found in the following locations: north of the
Cedar Point town limits; east of the White Oak River marshes; and in the Davis, Atlantic,
Marshallberg, and Sea Level communities.
E. RURAL WITH SERVICES CLASS
The rural with services classification is to provide for very low density land uses including
residential use where limited water services are provided in order to avert an existing or
projected health problem. Areas meeting the intent of this class are appropriate for very low
intensity residential uses where lot sizes are large and where the provision of services will not
disrupt the primary rural character of the landscape. Most development will be supported by
a closed water system. Other services such as volunteer fire protection, rescue service, and
health care facilities are allowed. These areas are located north of Cape Carteret along S.R.
1107, 1108, 1 1 1 1, 1109, and portions of 1106. Other areas are located along both sides
of S.R. 1300 north of U.S. 70 for a distance of three and one-half miles, along S.R. 1163
between N.C. 101 and S.R. 1300, along N.C. 101 between S.R. 1163 and the Intracoastal
Waterway, and in the Sea Gate Woods development north of N.C. 101 and west of the
Intracoastal Waterway.
�.T1�:i1��Il��t►'��
The rural class is the broadest of the land classes and is designated to provide for agriculture,
forest management, mineral extraction, and other low intensity uses. Residences may be
located within the rural class where urban services (other than public water system) are not
required and where natural resources will not be permanently impaired. Some large
developments may be encouraged in the rural class when there is an absence of otherwise
suitable land within the developed and transition classes and/or when there is a possible
adverse environmental impact to the urban populace from the proposed development. Such
large developments or uses include airports, land application sewer systems, and power
plants. Public facilities and health care facilities are allowed. The rural areas are delineated
on the Land Classification Maps. Major concentrations are found in the northern two-thirds
of Western Carteret County and in open grounds areas of the Down East area of Carteret
County.
G. CONSERVATION CLASS
The conservation classes are designated to provide for effective long-term management of
significant limited or irreplaceable areas which include the following categories: coastal
wetlands, freshwater wetlands, natural heritage areas, estuarine shorelines, ORW estuarine
shorelines, primary nursery areas, estuarine and public trust waters, outstanding resource
waters, and ocean hazard areas. Policy statements under Resource Protection and Resource
J
V-2

Production and Management in Section IV of this plan address the county's intentions under
this classification. When conservation areas coincide, the more stringent policies shall apply.
' The conservation classification locations are described in detail in the fragile areas section of
the plan.
1
1
1
11
The following policies exceed state and federal standards for 404 wetlands and AECs:
-- Carteret County opposes the installation of package treatment plants and septic tanks
or discharge of waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands or freshwater
wetlands (404). This policy applies only to areas shown as freshwater wetlands and
coastal wetlands on Maps 17A and B, Land Classification Maps.
-- No marina associated dredging will be allowed through active shellfishing areas. When
dredging through coastal wetlands is essential for access to upland marinas, as
provided for in 15A NCAC 7H, the county requires replacement of lost wetland areas
with mitigation at a 1:1 ratio.
-- When new navigational channels and canals must be constructed through coastal
wetlands, Carteret County requires replacement of lost wetlands areas with mitigation
at a 1 : 1 ratio.
-- Unless essential for mosquito and vector control, new drainage ditches shall not be
constructed which discharge into primary nursery areas. Existing drainage ditches may
be maintained but not increased in depth or width.
-- Carteret County opposes the location of floating structures in all marinas, primary
nursery areas, outstanding resource waters, public trust areas, and estuarine waters.
Floating structures as defined as any structure or vessel used, designed, and occupied
as a permanent dwelling unit, business, office, or source of any occupation or any
private or social club, which floating structure or vessel is primarily immobile and out
of navigation or which functions substantially as a land structure while moored or
docked on waters within county jurisdiction. Floating structures shall not be used
commercially or inhabited in one place for more than 15 days.
-- Carteret County opposes marina construction or expansion in coastal wetlands and
primary nursery areas, and opposes upland marina construction with access channels
connected to primary nursery areas. Coastal wetlands that have volunteered within
upland marinas shall be exempted from this policy. Carteret County will allow access
structures not exceeding six feet in width to be constructed above coastal wetlands
for the purpose of providing access to marinas which otherwise meet state standards.
-- Carteret County opposes the construction of docks or piers with more than four boat
slips in primary nursery areas. One dock or pier with four or less slips used for
residential purposes or purposes directly related to commercial fishing shall be allowed
per parcel of land which borders a primary nursery area. Waterfront parcels of land
with more than one -quarter mile of shoreline bordering a primary nursery area shall be
allowed one dock or pier with four or less slips for residential purposes or purposes
directly related to commercial fishing within every one -quarter mile (1,320 feet) of
shoreline along the primary nursery area.
V-3

-- For all waterfront development, parking lots shall be set back from the shoreline 75'
or 20% of the depth of the lot, whichever is less. This setback issue shall be further
studied by any such committee established for the purpose of developing a county- ,
wide Comprehensive Plan.
-- Industrial development should occur in areas classified as developed, urban transition,
and limited transition. Industries generating only domestic sewage are acceptable in
areas classified as community and rural with services. Carteret County does not
oppose industries locating within rural classified areas. Industrial uses that are not
water dependent or related to fishing or aquaculture activities will not be allowed in
estuarine shoreline and ORW estuarine shoreline areas. This policy shall not apply to
the estuarine shorelines of mosquito ditches.
I
u
1�
V-4 I

IAPPENDIX 1
' SUMMARY OF 1991 CARTERET COUNTY
POLICY STATEMENTS WHICH EXCEED 15A NCAC 7H USE STANDARDS
IPhysical Limitations
I
Soils:
(e) Carteret County opposes the installation of package treatment plants and septic tanks or
discharge of waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands, fresh water wetlands (404), or
natural heritage areas. This policy applies only to areas shown as fresh water wetlands, coastal
wetlands, and natural heritage areas as shown on the Land Classification Map.
Industrial Impacts on Fragile Areas: Except as may be expressly allowed elsewhere in this plan,
no industrial development of any type shall be located in lands classified as coastal wetlands,
fresh water wetlands, and natural heritage areas.
Miscellaneous Resource Protection
IMarina and Floating Home Development:
(b) Carteret County opposes the location of floating structures in all marinas, primary nursery
L areas, outstanding resource waters, public trust areas, and estuarine waters. Floating structures
are defined as any structure or vessel used, designed, and occupied as a permanent dwelling
units, business, office, or source of any occupation or any private or social club, which floating
structure or vessel is primarily immobile and out of navigation, or which functions substantially as
a land structure while moored or docked on waters within the county jurisdiction. Floating
structures shall not be used commercially or inhabited in one place for more than 15 days.
1
(c) Carteret County opposes marina construction or expansion in coastal wetlands and primary
nursery areas, and opposes upland marina construction with access channels connected to
primary nursery areas. Coastal wetlands that have volunteered within upland marinas shall be
exempt from this policy. Carteret County will allow access structures not exceeding six feet in
width to be constructed above coastal wetlands for the purpose of providing access to marinas
which otherwise meet state standards.
(d) Carteret County opposes the construction of docks or piers with more than four boat slips
in primary nursery areas. One dock or pier with four or less slips used for residential purposes or
purposes directly related to commercial fishing shall be allowed per parcel of land which borders
a primary nursery area. Waterfront parcels of land with more than one -quarter mile of shoreline
bordering a primary nursery area shall be allowed one dock or pier with four or less slips for
residential purposes or purposes directly related to commercial fishing within every one -quarter
mile (1,320 feet) of shoreline along the primary nursery area.
(f) No marina associated dredging will be allowed through active shellfishing areas or
subaquatic vegetation. When dredging through coastal wetlands is essential for access to upland
marinas, as provided for in 15A NCAC 7H, the county requires replacement of lost wetland areas
with mitigation at a 1:1 ratio.

L
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands: The county encourages public purchase and
conservation of sound and estuarine islands which have been identified by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program as important natural area locations. These areas are identified on the
Fragile Areas Map and the Land Classification Map.
Carteret County opposes any development on sound or estuarine islands for which a subdivision
plat was not approved or a building permit issued for any portion of such island prior to the
certification of this plan by the Coastal Resources Commission.
Recreation Resources:
(a) All lands classified as coastal wetlands, fresh water wetlands, and natural heritage areas
are considered valuable passive recreation areas and should be protected in their natural state.
Some development, as allowed by this plan, may occur in these areas.
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Impacts on Resources:
(a) Residential, commercial, and industrial development should not be allowed in areas
classified as coastal wetlands or fresh water wetlands, as shown on the Land Classification Map
and natural heritage areas.
(b) Carteret County discourages any additional point source discharges of pollution into
primary nursery areas, outstanding resource waters, and shellfishing areas. In addition, Carteret
County reserves the right to review and comment on the approval of outfalls on a case -by -case
basis.
(d) Only commercial and industrial uses that are water dependent and which cannot function
elsewhere or are supportive of commercial fishing will be allowed in estuarine shoreline or ORW
estuarine shoreline areas. Examples of such uses would include but not necessarily be limited
to commercial fishing and fish processing, marinas consistent with the policies of this plan, boat
repair and construction facilities, any business dependent upon natural salt water as a resource,
and restaurants that do not extend into or over estuarine waters and/or public trust waters. Where
zoning exists, all uses must be consistent with established zoning.
(e) In all ORW estuarine shoreline and non-ORW estuarine shoreline areas, rear and side
yards as specified by the Carteret County subdivision and/or zoning ordinances shall be
maintained in a vegetative state. Bulkheads, shoreline stabilization, decks, and marinas as
allowed under other sections and policies of this plan, and accessory structures as defined and
permitted by the Carteret County subdivision and zoning ordinances shall not be affected by this
policy.
Marine Resource Areas:
(a) Carteret County supports the use standards for estuarine , public trust, and ORW waters
as specified in 15A NCAC.0107, with the following exceptions:
1. Carteret County opposes the construction of new navigation channels and canals through
coastal wetlands unless mitigative action is taken to replace lost wetland areas with like
or comparable wetland areas. Existing channels and canals may be maintained.
iJ
II
1
L
2

2. Unless essential for mosquito and vector control, new drainage ditches shall not be
constructed which discharge into primary nursery areas. Existing drainage ditches may
be maintained but not increased in depth or width.
Types and Locations of Desired Industry:
(b) Industrial development should occur in areas classified as developed, urban transition, and
limited transition. Industries generating only domestic sewage area acceptable in areas classified
as community and rural with services. Carteret County does not oppose industries locating within
rural classified areas if they have approved applicable state permits for water supply and sewage
disposal systems. Industrial uses that are water dependent or related to fishing or aquaculture
activities will be allowed in estuarine shoreline and ORW estuarine shoreline areas. This policy
shall not apply to the estuarine shorelines of mosquito ditches.
1
rl

1
1
L
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 5. -ACREAGE AND PROPORTIONATE EXTENT OF THE SOILS
Map I
svmboll
Soil name I
Acres
(Percent
I
AaA (Altavista
(Augusta
loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes ---- -__-~---------- ---- ------
I
i 8,349
I
I 2.5
Aq
loamy fine sand-- --------------------~-----~-----------~- -----
I 4,376
I 1.3
Ap iArapahoe
fine sandy loam ------------ ---- ------ --~- --- ----------~----------1
15,366
I 4.5
A-,:B
(Beaches,
Autryville loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes --- ----
1,941
0.6
I
Be
(Beaches,
coastal ----------~--------------------------------~-~--- -----_I
2,870
0.8
Bf
storm tidal ---------------------------- ~-------------------------------
� 2,508
i 0.7
BH(Belhaven
muck-------------------------------------------------------------------
8,684
2.6
Bn (Beaches-Newhan
IBaymeade
complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes- --~-__----- - ------ _~____________i
1,067
i 0.3
ByB
fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes ---------- ----------- -- ------- -----------I
5,108
( 1.5
Cd(Corolla-Duckston
complex-~------------------------- ------- ------- ~~---~--
763
0.2
CH ICarteret
sand, frequently flooded --------------- ~~~~~~~-~~~~-~----�-~I
I 5,812
I
I 1.7
CL iCarteret
sand, ]ow, frequently flooded--------_~_w_~�_~____~___-_w____I
3,167
0.9
CnB
-----------»-i
Conetoe loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes ----- ---- -- ----------
,206
I 0.4
I
CoICorolla
fine sand------------------------------- --------»------------------I
1,203
0.4
CrB
(Craven loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes-----------------------------------------~--
238
I 0.1
CTICroatan
muck ------------------ ------------- ------------------------- -------I
------462
20,084
I 5.9
0.1
Cu
IDarelmuck
ban land complex---------------~
DA
------------------------------------i
IDeloss
4,487
i 1.3
De
fine sandy loam---------------------------------~------------------------
37,139
10.9
Dm
IDeloss mucky loam, frequently flooded ------ -------- ----- --------------- --------�
894
i 0.3
DO
I Dorovan muck, frequently flooded --- --- ------------- ------ ~---- -_- ----- w»_
IDuckston
I 1,741
I 0.5
Du
fine sand, frequently flooded-~-------- ----- -------------------~----~--I
I
2,488
I 0.7
Fr
Fripp fine sand, 2 to 30 percent slopes --------------- --- ~______~�____�_~~-
I 1,228
I 0.4
loamy fine percent slopes_
_-___~~__��»�»___I
HBA
iHobuckenomuck,frequently,flooded M---
15,760
4.6
KuB
Kureb sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes ----------- --- --------- --~---~--~----------I
I
4,778
I 1.4
LF
Lafitte muck, frequently flooded------------------~ -- -------- --~ ~-~--I
28,078
8.2
Ln
I Leon sand-------------------------------------»--»----------------------
ILeon-Urban
20,285
I 6.0
I
Lu
land complex ---------------- ~------ -----------------------~--~---I
ILyncbburg
321
0.1
I
Ly
fine sandy loam ----------------------- --- ----------- ------- ----------I
IMasontown
3,057
i
0.9
I
MA
mucky loam, frequently flooded ---- ------ -_------------- -_-_- -----
IMandarin-Urban
6,068
1.8
I
Mc
land complex -------------------- ------ ----- ------ - ----- - --- ----I
IMandarin
1,410
I
0.4
I
Mr
sand ------------------ ------------------------ ------------ ------------
2,999
0.9
Mu
iMurville mucky sand -------------------------- ----------------------------------=i
15,828
4.6
Nc
Newhan-Corolla complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes --- ------- -------------- ---__
INewhan
i
Nd
fine sand, dredged, 2 to 30 percent slopes ------------ -------- -_______
2,165
0.6
I
Ne
iNewhan-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes -----_--___~____-___--_____~_I
495
0.1
Nh
Newhan fine sand, 2 to 30 percent slopes ------------ -----------------
(Norfolk
I 1,296 I
0.4
(
NoA
loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent s]opes-__~__»__-_____~___~_�_~_____I
(Norfolk
362
0.1
I
NoB
loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes -------------------------- -----------i
11358
I
0.4
On
IOnslow loamy sand -~--------------------------------------------- ------ -~--------I
4,454
I
1.3
PaiPantego
POPonzer
fine sandy loam ----------- --------- --------------------------- ----------I
muck --------------------------------- --------- -------------------- ------
7,670
I 17,204 I
2.3
5.1
Ra
Ro(Roanoke
(Rains fine sandy loam ------ ----- ------------- ------------- --------- ---- -----
loam --- ------- -~--------------------------- --- ---- ----------------i
I 5,830 I
1,519 i
1.7
0.4
Se
(Seabrook fine sand------~-------------------------------------------- --- ------
2,365
0.7
St.A
State to percent slopes ----
I
Tm
-2 ------ -~_- ------ ~_-w--_____I
ITomotleyafineisandynloam
21,965
6.5
To
ITorhunta mucky fine sandy loam_________________ ~-___~-_____________-_~_~_I
(Wando
14,396
I 4.2
I
haB
fine sand 0 to 6 percent slo s--------_~_-_____-______�______________I
i p
5,299
I
1.6
I
Ws
Hasda muck------~-------- --~-~-~---~ »-~�
---~----~-----»
IWando-Urban
13,956
4.1
WuB
land complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes----------~-~--------- ----�
746
i 0.2
Water areas less than 40 acres------------------~--~~--------~----~-~---
1 702
0.5
Total ----- -------------------- ---- ~_--_- ---- - --- -__- ---- -_- ----- ~_i
340,480
i 100.0
' *HYDRIC SOILS
1 Soils generally having only slight
limitations for development.
Hydric Soils Thtals 268,742 790

1
1
1
1
7
8
9
�
,o
11
APPENDIX 3
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LOCATIONS
CARTERET COUNTY, NC
Location
NC Ferry Service, Cedar Island
Fulcher Clayton Seafood Co., Atlantic
Calico Jacks Marina, Harker's Island
Atlantic Veneer, Lennoxville Road,
Beaufort
Gaskill True Value Farm and Garden
Center, Lennoxville Road & Hwy. 70,
Beaufort
Town of Beaufort
a. Town Garage
b. Water plant
c. Waste treatment plant
Beaufort Gulf Dock, 330 Front Street,
Beaufort
Beaufort Ice & Coal Company
Carteret Quick Freeze, end of Ann
Street West, Beaufort
Aviation Fuel Terminal, Radio Island,
Morehead/Beaufort Causeway
NC Stage Port
-- Southside
-- Southside - Tumbull/Owens Coming
1
Materials
Fuel Storage
Ice Plant (ammonia)
Fuel storage, regular, unleaded
gasoline, #2 fuel oil
Propane, propylene, hydrochloric acid,
caustic soda -anhydrous, isopropyl
alcohol, casamite, sodium hypochlorite,
fuel oil, kerosene, perch lorothylene,
ammonium chloride, caustic soda,
hydrogen, sodium hydroxide, xylene,
aliphatic alcohol
Pesticides/agriche mica Is
Unleaded & diesel fuel
Chlorine
Chlorine
Fuel storage - regular & unleaded
gasoline
Ammonia (ice plant)
Ammonia (ice plant)
Storage REC/ship FRY/TPS, 25,000,000
gallons
Woodchips
Asphalt, fuel oil, heating oil, blending oil,
propane, gasoline, sand 80B and D100,
limestone, titanium dioxide, roofing
granules, lime -hydrated, talc TC 100,
Saran coated polypropylene film, Kraton
rubber, polyester fiberment, fiberglass,
roofing material, atatic polypropylene,
poly wax, El Paso-App, ISO

Appendix 3 (Continued)
Location
-- Northside
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Anchorage Marina, Fort Macon Road,
Atlantic Beach
J.M. Davis, Inc., 201 Arendell Street,
Morehead City
Geer Oil, 612 Evans Street, Morehead
City
Town of Morehead City
a. WWTP, Loop Road
b. Public Works, 600 25th St.
c. Water Supply, Bridges & Bruton St.
Wheatley Oil Company, Bridges Street
Ext., Morehead City
Carolina Telephone & Telegraph, Crab
Road, Morehead City
CP&L, Morehead City IC Turbine Plant
Potter Oil Company, Hwy. 70 West,
Cape Carteret
Barrus Construction Co., US 70 West,
Morehead City
Town of Pine Knoll Shores
a. Town Hall
b. Water Treatment Plant
Mallard Oil Co., Hwy. 24 West, Cape
Carteret
Emerald Isle Water Treatment Plant
Island Harbor Marine, Old Hwy. 70,
Emerald Isle
Dudley Marina, Hwy. 24, Cedar Point
Town of Newport
a. Waste Treatment Plant
b. Water Treatment Plant
Parker Marine Enterprises, Hwy. 101,
Laura Road & Beaufort
Materials
Storage methyl bromide, phosphoric
acid
Storage all gasoline, #2 fuel oil
Automotive fuel storage
Regular, unleaded gas storage,
kerosene, fuel oil, motor oil
Nitric acid, sulfuric acid, chlorine
Propane, storage fuel
Fuel storage, fuel oil
Fuel storage
#2 fuel oil
Fuel oil storage; underground tanks
regular, unleaded, supreme gasoline
Fuel storage - gasoline/diesel
Gasoline storage
Chlorine
Storage regular, unleaded, diesel fuel,
kerosene, propane 30,000 gal. tank
Chlorine
Gasoline storage, leaded/unleaded
Storage - all gasolines/fuel oil
Chlorine
Chlorine
Acetone, styrene, fibrous glass
2

Appendix 3 (Continued)
Location
28 Bock Marine Builders, Inc., Hwy. 101,
Core Creek, Beaufort
29 Open Ground Farms, Center of Down
East Area
Materials
Fuel storage, liquid oxygen, oxygen,
acetylene, paint, paint thinner, sulfuric
acid
Pesticides/agrichemicals
Note: There are numerous filling stations and convenience stores that dispense fuel, too
numerous to list. All are within fire districts and locations are well known by fire departments.
3

APPENDIX 4
CLASSIFICATION AND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR CARTERET COUNTY WATERS
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
NEW RIVER
Cowford Branch
Squires Run
Mill Swamp
Cowhorn Swamp
Juniper Swamp
Bear Prong
Margaret Branch
Jenkins Swamp
Bachelors De Swamp
Huffmans Branch
Hewitts Branch
Half Moon Creek
NEW RIVER
Blue Creek
Little Creek
Mill Creek
Deep Gully Creek
(Elizabeth Lake)
Socoe Creek
Chainey Creek
Sandy Run Branch
Burnt House Branch
NEW RIVER DRAINAGE AREA
-----------------------
From
source
to
Blue Creek
C NSW
8/1/91
19-(1)
From
source
to
New River
C NSW
8/1/91
19-2
From
source
to
New River
C NSW
8/1/91
19-3
From
source
to
Squires Run
C NSW
8/l/91
19-3-1
From
source
to
New River
C NSW
8/1/91
19-4
From
source
to
Cowhorn Swamp
C NSW
8/1/91
19-4-1
From
source
to
Cowhorn Swamp
C NSW
8/1/91
19-4-2
From
source
to
Cowhorn Swamp
C NSW
8/1/91
19-4-3
From
source
to
Cowhorn Swamp
C NSW
8/1/91
19-4-4
From
source
to
New River
C NSW
8/1/91
19-5
From
source
to
Bachelors Delight Swamp
C NSW
8/1/91
19-5-1
From
source
to
Bachelors Delight Swamp
C NSW
8/1/91
19-5-2
From
source
to
New River
C NSW
8/1/91
19-6
From
Blue Creek to U. S. Hwy. 17
SB NSW
8/1/91
19-(7)
bridge
From
source
to
New River
SC NSW
8/1/91
19-8
From
source
to
New River
SC NSW
8/1/91
19-8.5
From
source
to
New River
SC NSW
8/1/91
19-9
From
source
to
Mill Creek
SC NSW
8/l/91
19-9-1
From
source
to
Mill Creek
SC NSW
8/1/91
19-9-2
From
source
to
New River
SC NSW
8/1/91
19-10
From
source
to
Chainey Creek
SC NSW
8/1/91
19-10-1
From
source
to
Chainey Creek
SC NSW
8/1/91
19-10-2
Page 1

Doc
NEW RIVER
NEW RIVER
Brinson Creek
Edwards Creek
Strawhorn Creek
Wilson Bay
Stick Creek
NEW RIVER
Northeast Creek
5)
Wolf Swamp
Little Northeast Creek
Horse Swamp
Rocky Run
Poplar Creek
Mott Creek
Northeast Creek
5)
Scales Creek
Northeast Creek
5)
Southwest Creek
5)
Catherine Lake Creek
Catherine Lake
Deep Run
Harris Creek
Haws Run
From U. S.Hwy. 17 bridge to
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Trestle
From Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Trestle to Mumford Point
From source to New River
From source to New River
From source to Edwards Creek
Entire Bay
From source to New River
From Mumford Point to a line
extending across the river from
Grey Point to point of land
approximately 2200 yards downstream
from mouth of Duck Creek
From source to N. C. Hwy. 24
From source to Northeast Creek
From source to Northeast Creek
From source to Little Northeast Creek
From source to Little Northeast Creek
From source to Little Northeast Creek
From source to Northeast Creek
From N. C. Hwy.24 to downstream
side of mouth of Scales Creek
From source to Northeast Creek
From the downstream side of mouth
of Scales Creek to New River
From source to Mill Run
SB HQW NSW 8/1/91
SC HQW NSW 8/l/91
SC NSW 8/1/91
SC HQW NSW 8/1/91
SC HQW NSW 8/.1/91
SC HQW NSW 8/1/91
SC HQW NSW 8/1/91
SC NSW 8/1/91
SC NSW 8/1/91
C NSW
8/1/91
C NSW
8/1/91
C NSW
8/1/91
C NSW
8/1/91
C NSW
8/1/91
C NSW
8/1/91
SC HQW NSW
8/1/91
SC HQW NSW 8/1/91
SC NSW 8/1/91
C NSW 8/1-91
19-(10.5)
19-12
19-13
19-13-1
19-14
19-15
19-(15.5)
19-16-(0.
19-16-1
19-16-2
19-16-2-1
19-16-2-2
19-16-2-3
19-16-3
19-16-(3.
19-16-4
19-16-(4.
19-17-(0.
From Catherine
Lake to Southeast Creek
C
NSW
8/1-91
19-17-1
Entire Lake
B
NSW
8/1-91
19-17-1-1
From source to
Southwest Creek
C
NSW
8/1-91
19-17-2
From source to
Southwest Creek
C
NSW
8/1-91
19-17-3
From source to
Southwest Creek
C
NSW
8/1-91
19-17-4
Page 2
= = = = = M M M M M = = r m =

rr rr ■r rr rr
ri rr
rr rr rr r
r
r
rr rr
rr rr r
Doer
Tank Creek
From source to Southwest Creek
C NSW
8/1-91
19-17-5
Hicks Run (Hickory Run)
From source to Southwest Creek
C NSW
8/1-91
19-17-6
Southwest Creek
From Mill Run to New River
C HQW NSW
8/1-91
19-17-(6.
5)
Mill Run
From source to Southwest Creek
SC
NSW
8/1-91
19-17-7
Morgan Bay
Entire Bay
SC
NSW
8/1-91
19-18
Lewis Creek
From source to New River
SC
HQW
NSW
8/1-91
19-19
Wallace Creek
From source to New River
SB
NSW
8/1-91
19-20
Bearhead Creek
From source to Wallace Creek
SB
NSW
8/1-91
19-20-1
Beaverdam Creek
From source to Wallace Creek
SB
NSW
8/.1-91
19-20-2
Town Creek
From source to New River
SC
HQW
NSW
8/1-91
19-21
Farnell Bay
Entire Bay
SC
NSW
8/1-91
19-22
Cogdels Creek (Coglin
From source to New River
SC
NSW
8/1-91
19-23
Creek)
Frenchs Creek
From source to New River
SC
NSW
8/1/91
19-24
Jumping Run
From source to Frenchs Creek
SC
NSW
8/1/91
19-24-1
Cowhead Creek
From source to Frenchs Creek
SC
NSW
8/1/91
19-24-2
Duck Creek
From source to New River
SC
NSW
8/1/91
19-25
Whitehurst Creek
From source to New River
SC
HQW
NSW
8/1/91
19-26
NEW RIVER
From a line extending across New River
SA
6/l/60
19-(27)
from Grey Point to a point of land
approximately 2200 yards downstream
from mouth of Duck Creek to Atlantic
Ocean; including all unnamed bays,
creeks, and other waters except
restricted areas # 1 and # 2 described
below.
Goose Creek
From source to New River
SC
HQW
8/1/90
19-28
Two Pole Branch
From source to New River
SC
HQW
8/1/90
19-29
Stones Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/l/56
19-30
Mill Creek
From source to Stones Bay
SA
6/l/56
19-30-1
Muddy Creek
From source to Stones Bay
SA
6/1/56
19-30-2
Stones Creek
From source to Stones Bay
SA
6/l/56
19-30-3
Millstone Creek
From source to Stones Creek
SA
6/l/56
19-30-3-1
New River Restricted
All waters within 1,000 yards of
Sc
6/l/56
19-31
Area # 1
earthen dock at the United States
Marine Corps Rifle Range
Everett Creek
From source to New River
SA
6/l/56
19-32
Ellis Cove
Entire Cove
SA
6/l/56
19-33
Page 3

Doc
Sneads Creek
Fannie Creek
Wheeler Creek
Courthouse Bay
New River Restricted
Area # 2
Unnamed Tributary to
New River (Rufus Creek)
Traps Bay
Traps Creek
Toms Creek
Intracoastal Waterway
.5)
Rogers Bay
Goose Bay
Alligator Bay
Mill Creek
1
Intracoastal Waterway
.5)
Chadwick Bay
Fullard Creek (Salt
From source to Ellis Cove Bay
From source to New River
From source to New River
Entire Bay
All waters within a line beginning at
the Government Dock in from of U.S.
Coast Guard Detachment Barracks at
Marines and running a southwest
course 1,000 yards to Channel Marker
#13, thence a southeasterly course
1,000 yards to Flash Beacon # 11,
thence a northeasterly course 500
yards to al point on the mainland at
Wilkins' Bluff, thence following
the shoreline to the Government Dock
From source to New River Restricted
Area # 2
Entire Bay
From source to Traps Bay
From source to Traps Bay
From northeastern boundary of Cape
Fear River Basin to Daybeacon #17
including all unnamed bays, guts,
and channels
Entire Bay
Entire Bay
Entire Bay
From source to Alligator Bay
From Daybeacon #17 to New River
including all unnamed bays, guts,
and channels
Entire Bay
From source to Chadwick Bay
SA
6/1/56
19-33-1
SA
6/1/56
19-34
SA
6/1/56
19-35
SA
6/1/56
19-36
Sc
6/1/56
19-37
SC HQW
8/1/90
19-37-1
SA
6/1/56
19-38
SA
6/1/56
19-38-1
SA
6/1/56
19-38-2
SA ORW
1/1/90
19-39-(0
SA
6/1/56
19-39-1
SA ORW
1/1/90
19-39-2
SA ORW
1/1/90
19-39-3
SA
6/1/56
19-39-3-
SA
6/1/56
19-39-(3
SA 6/1/56 19-39-4
SA 6/1/56 19-39-4-
1
Branch)
Biglins Creek From source to Fullard Creek SA 6/1/56 19-39-4-
Page 4

M
Doc
1-1
Charles Creek
From source to Fullard Creek
SA
6/l/56
19-39-4-
1-2
Bumps Creek
From source to Fullard Creek
SA
6/l/56
19-39-4-
1-3
Hell Gate Creek
From source to Intracoastal Waterway
SA
6/1/56
19-39-5
Wards Channel
From Intracoastal Waterway to New
SA
6/l/56
19-40
River
Intracoastal Waterway
From New River to northeast mouth
SA
6/l/56
19-41-(0
.5)
of Goose Creek
Howard Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/1/56
19-41-1
Mile Hammock Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/1/56
19-41-2
Salliers Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/l/56
19-41-3
Holover Creek
From source to Salliers Bay
SA
6/l/56
19-41-3-
1
Gillets Creek
From source to Intracoastal Waterway
SA
6/1/56
19-41-4
Freeman Creek
From source to Intracoastal Waterway
SA
6/l/56
19-41-5
Browns Swamp
From source to Freeman Creek
SA
6/1/56
19-41-5-
1
Clay Bank Branch
From source to Freeman Creek
SA
6/1/56
19-41-5-
2
Mirey Branch
From source to Freeman Creek
SA
6/l/56
19-41-5-
3
Banks Channel
From Browns Inlet to Intracoastal
SA
6/1/56
19-41-6
Waterway
Browns Inlet
From Atlantic Ocean to Intracoastal
SA
6/l/56
19-41-7
Waterway
Browns Creek
From source to Intracoastal Waterway
SA
6/l/56
19-41-8
Shacklefoot Channel
From Bear Creek to Intracoastal Water-
SA
6/l/56
19-41-9
way
Goose Creek
From source to Intracoastal Waterway
SA
6/l/56
19-41-14
Intracoastal Waterway
From the northeast mouth of Goose
SA ORW
1/1/90
19-41-(1
4.5)
Creek to the southwest mouth of
Queen Creek
Cow Channel
From Bogue Inlet to Intracoastal
SA ORW
1/1/90
19-41-15
Waterway
Page 5

Doc
Intracoastal Waterway
From the southwest mouth of Queen
SA
6/1/56
19-41-(1
5.5)
Creek to Whiteoak River
Queen Creek
From source to Intracoastal Waterway
SA
6/1/56
19-41-16
Bell Swamp
From source to Queen Creek
SA
6/l/56
19-41-16
-1
Pasture Branch
From source to Queen Creek
SA
6/1/56
19-41-16
-2
Halls Creek
From source to Queen Creek
SA
6/l/56
19-41-16
-3
Parrot Swamp
From source to Queen Creek
SA
6/1/56
19-41-16
-4
Dicks Creek
From source to Queen Creek
SA
6/l/56
19-41-16
-5
Bogue Inlet
From Atlantic Ocean to Intracoastal
SA ORW
1/1/90
19-41-17
Waterway
Bear Island ORW Area
All waters within an area north
SA ORW
1/1/90
19-41-18
of Bear Island defined by a line
from the western most point on Bear
Island and running along the eastern
shore of Sanders Creek to the northeast
mouth of Goose Creek on the mainland,
east to the southwest mouth of Queen
Creek, then south to green marker #49,
then northeast to the northeastern most
point on Huggins Island, then southeast
along the shoreline of Huggins Island to
the southeastern most point of Huggins
Island, then south to the -northeastern
most point on Dudley Island, then
southwest along the shoreline of Dudley
Island to the eastern tip of Bear Island,
then to the western most point on Bear
Island including Cow Channel
WHITE OAK RIVER DRAINAGE AREA
-----------------------------
WHITE OAK RIVER
From source to Spring Branch
C
6/1/56
20-(1)
Page 6

Doc
North Fork White Oak
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-2
River
South Fork White Oak
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-3
River
Barnes Branch
From
source
to
South Prong White
C
6/l/56
20-3-1
Oak River
Chinkapin Branch
From
source
to
South Prong White
C
6/l/56
20-3-2
Oak River
Great Branch (Grape Branch)
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-4
Fork Branch
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/.1/56
20-5
Mundine Branch
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/1/56
20-6
Gibson Branch
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-6.5
Mirey Branch
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-7
Brick Kiln Branch
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/1/56
20-8
Black Swamp Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/1/56
20-9
Catfish Lake
From
source
to
Black Swamp Creek
C
6/l/56
20-9-1
Starkeys Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-10
Gravelly Branch
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-11
Holston Creek -
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-12
Mulberry Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/1/56
20-13
Spring Branch
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-14
Grants Creek
From
source
to
Spring Branch
C
6/l/56
20-14-1
Halls Branch (Cummins
From
source
to
Grants Creek
C
6/1/56
20-14-1-1
Creek)
WHITE OAK RIVER
From
Spring
Branch to Hunters Creek
C HQW
8/1/90
20-(14.5)
Calebs Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-15
Freemans Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-16
Hunters Creek (Great Lake)
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-17
Wolf Swamp
From
source
to
Hunters Creek
C
6/l/56
20-17-1
WHITE OAK RIVER
From
Hunters Creek
to Atlantic Ocean,
SA
6/l/56
20-(18)
including the
Intracoastal Waterway,
with
exception
of restricted shellfish
area
adjacent
to Swansboro
Webb Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-19
Taylor Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-20
Pitts Creek (Hargetts
From
source
to
White Oak River
SA
6/l/56
20-21
Creek)
Cales Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
SA
6/l/56
20-22
Hadnot Creek
From
source
to
White Oak River
SA
6/l/56
20-23
Page 7

Doc
Schoolhouse Branch
From
source to Hadnot Creek
SA
6/l/56
20-23-1
Steep Hill Branch
From
source to Hadnot Creek
SA
6/l/56
20-23-2
Caleb Branch (City Weeks
From
source to Hadnot Creek
SA
6/l/56
20-23-3
Branch)
Godfry Branch
From
source to White Oak River
SA
6/1/56
20-24
Hargetts Creek
From
source to White Oak River
C
6/l/56
20-25
Holland Mill Creek
From
source to White Oak River
SA
6/l/56
20-26
Cartwheel Branch
From
source to Holland Mill Creek
SA
6/1/56
20-26-1
Hampton Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/l/56
20-27
Stevens Creek
From
source to White Oak River
SA
6/1156
20-28
Pettiford Creek Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/1/56
20-29
Pettiford Creek
From
source to Pettiford Creek Bay
SA
6/1/56
20-29-1
Mill Creek
From
source to Pettiford Creek
SA
6/l/56
20-29-1-1
Starkey Creek
From
source to Pettiford Creek Bay
SA
6/1/56
20-29-2
Mullet Gut
From
source to Starkey Creek
SA
6/1/56
20-29-2-1
Dubling Creek
From
source to White Oak River
SA
6/l/56
20-30
Boathouse Creek
From
source to White Oak River
SA
6/l/56
20-31
White Oak River Restrict-
That
portion of White Oak River
SC
6/1/56
20-32
ed Area
within
an area bounded by a line
running in an easterly direction
from
a point below Foster Creek
to east
end of Swansboro Bridge
(N.C.
Hwy. 24), thus across
bridge to west end of bridge,
thus
running along shore line
to a
point below Foster Creek
Ward Creek
From
source to White Oak River
SC
6/1/56
20-33
Dennis Creek (Demkis
From
source to White Oak River
SC
6/l/56
20-34
Creek)
Foster Creek
From
source to White Oak River
SC
6/1/56
20-35
Bogue Sound (Including
From
Bogue Inlet (from a line running
SA ORW
1/1/90
20-36-(0.5
Intracoastal Waterway)
from
the eastern mouth of Bogue Inlet
to SR 1117 on the mainland) to a line
across
Bogue Sound from the southwest
side
of mouth of Gales Creek to
Rock
Point
Deer Creek
From
source to Bogue Sound
SA ORW
1/1/90
20-36-1
Hunting Island Creek
From
source to Bogue Sound
SA
6/1/56
20-36-2
Page 8

M M M M M M M M M DM M M M M M M M M M
Taylor Bay
Goose Creek
Sanders Creek
Archer Creek (Piney Cr.)
Sanders Creek
East Prong Sanders Cr.
Sikes Branch
1
Broad Creek
West Prong Broad Creek
Hannah Branch
1
Sandy Branch
1-1
Wolf Branch
2
East Prong Broad Creek
Gales Creek
East Prong Gales Creek
Bogue Sound (Including
Intracoastal Waterway
to Beaufort Inlet)
Jumping Run
Roosevelt Natural Area
(1)
Swamp
Roosevelt Natural Area
(2)
Swamp
Spooner Creek
Peltier Creek
Hoop Pole Creek
Money Island Bay
Entire Bay
From source to Bogue Sound
From source to Goose Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
From source to Bogue Sound
From source to Sanders Creek
From source to East Prong Sanders Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
From source to Broad Creek
From source to West Prong Broad Creek
From source to Hannah Branch
From source to West Prong Broad Creek
From source to Broad Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
From source to Gales Creek
From a line across Bogue
Sound from the southwest
side of mouth of Gales Creek
to Rock Point to Beaufort Inlet
From source to Bogue Sound
All of the fresh waters within the
property boundaries of the natural
area including swamp forest, shrub
swamp and ponds
All of the saline waters within
the boundaries of the natural
area including brackish
marsh and salt marsh
From source to Bogue Sound
From source to Bogue Sound
From source to Bogue Sound
Entire Bay
Page 9
SA ORW
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
SA
1/1/90
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/1./56
6/1/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/l/56
6/1/56
6/l/56
SA 6/l/56
C Sw ORW 6/1/88
20-36-3
20-36-4
20-36-4-1
20-36-5
20-36-6
20-36-6-1
20-36-6-1-
20-36-7
20-36-7-1
20-36-7-1-
20-36-7-1-
20-36-7-1-
20-36-7-2
20-36-8
20-36-8-1
20-36-(8.5
20-36-9
20-36-9.5-
SA Sw ORW 6/l/88 20-36-9.5-
SA 6/l/56 20-36-10
SB# 6/l/92 20-36-11
SA 6/l/56 20-36-12
SA 6/l/56 20-36-13

Doc
Money Island Slough
From source to
Money Island Bay
SA
6/1/56
20-36-13-1
Allen Slough
From source to
Money Island Bay
SA
6/1/56
20-36-13-2
Harbor Channel
Entire Channel
SC
6/l/56
20-36-14
Tar Landing Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/l/56
20-36-15
Fishing Creek
From source to
Tar Landing Bay
SA
6/1/56
20-36-15-1
Fort Macon Creek
From source to
Bogue Sound
SA
6/1/56
20-36-16
NEWPORT RIVER
Northwest Prong Newport
River
Little Run
Cypress Drain
Southwest Prong Newport
River
Mairey Branch
Millis Swamp
Juniper Branch
Peak Swamp
Jasons Branch
East Prong Jasons
Branch
Milldam Branch
Big Ramhorn Branch
Little Ramhorn Branch
Meadows Branch
Shoe Branch
Cedar Swamp Creek
NEWPORT RIVER AND NORTH RIVER DRAINAGE AREA
-------------------------------------------
From
source
to
Little Creek Swamp
C
6/1/56
21-(1)
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-2
From
source
to
Northwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-2-1
River
From
source
to
Northwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-2-2
River
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-3
From
source
to
Southwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-3-1
River
From
source
to
Southwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-3-2
River
From
source
to
Southwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-3-3
River
From
source
to
Southwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-3-4
River
From
source
to
Southwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-3-5
River
From
source
to
Jasons Branch
C
6/1/56
21-3-5-1
From
source
to
Southwest Prong
Newport
C
6/1/56
21-3-6
River
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-4
From
source
to
Big Ramhorn Branch
C
6/1/56
21-4-1
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-5
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-6
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-7
Page 10

M M M M M M M M M DI" M M M M M M M M M
School House Branch
Smiths Swamp
Blakes Branch
Smiths Swamp Branch
Deep Creek
Laurel Branch
Little Deep Creek
Snows Swamp Branch
Sandy Branch
Lodge Creek
Hull Swamp
Black Creek (Mill Pond)
Main Prong
Ghouls Fork
Money Island Swamp
Billys Branch
NEWPORT RIVER
Little Creek Swamp
Mill Creek
Big Creek
Little Creek
Harlowe Creek
Harlowe Canal
Alligator Creek
Oyster Creek
Core Creek (Intracoastal
Waterway - Adams Creek
Canal)
Eastman Creek
Bell Creek
Ware Creek
Russell Creek
Wading Creek
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-8
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/l/56
21-9
From
source
to
Smiths Swamp
C
6/1/56
21-9-1
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-10
From
source
to
Newport River
C
9/1/74
21-11
From
source
to
Deep Creek
C
9/l/74
21-11-1
From
source
to
Deep Creek
C
9/1/74
21-11-2
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-12
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-13
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-14
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-15
From
source
to
Newport River
C
6/1/56
21-16
From
source
to
Mill Pond, Black
Creek
C
6/1/56
21-16-1
From
source
to
Main Prong
C
6/1/56
21-16-1-1
From
source
to
Mill Pond, Black
Creek
C
6/l/56
21-16-2
From
source
to
Mill Pond, Black
Creek
C
6/1/56
21-16-3
From
Little
Creek Swamp to
SA
6/1/56
21-(17)
Atlantic Ocean
with exception
of Morehead
City Harbor
restricted area
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/l/56
21-18
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/1/56
21-19
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/l/56
21-20
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/1/56
21-21
From
source
(at N.C. Hwy. # 101)
to
SA
6/l/56
21-22
Newport River
From
Neuse
River Basin Boundary
(at
SA
6/l/56
21-22-1
Craven -Carteret County Line) to
Harlowe
Creek (at N.C.
Hwy. # 101)
From
source
to
Harlowe Creek
SA
6/l/56
21-22-2
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/1/56
21-23
From
Neuse
River Basin boundary
to
SA
6/1/56
21-24
Newport River
From
source
to
Core Creek
SA
6/l/56
21-24-1
From
source
to
Core Creek
SA
6/1/56
21-24-2
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/1/56
21-25
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/1/56
21-26
From
source
to
Newport River
SA
6/l/56
21-27
Page 11

Doc
Gable Creek
From source to Newport River
SA 6/1/56 21-28
Willis Creek
From source to Newport River
SA 6/l/56 21-29
Crab Point Bay
Entire Bay
SA 6/1/56 21-30
Newport River
All waters within a line beginning at
SC 6/1/56 21-31
Restricted Area
a point of land near the south end of
(Morehead City
llth street in Morehead City at Lat.
Harbor)
34 43' 08", Long. 76 43' 04"; thence
in straight line to the western end of
Sugarloaf Island; thence along the north
shore of the Island to the eastern end of
the Island; thence in a straight line to
Channel Marker C "1" near the western end
of the Turning Basin; thence in a
straight line to a point in the Turning
Basin at Lat. 34 42'50", Long. 76
41' 36"; thence in a northerly direction
to a point in Intracoastal Waterway at
Lat. 34 43' 25", Long. 76 41' 40"
adjacent to the channel leading to
Morehead City Yacht Basin; thence in a
straight line in a westerly direction
to a point of land on the Morehead City
Mainland at Lat. 34 43' 23", Long.
76 42' 24".
Calico Creek
From source to Newport River (The
SC 6/l/56 21-32
mouth of Calico Creek is defined as
beginning at a point of land on the
north shore at Lat. 34 43' 46", Long.
76 43' 07", thence across the creek
in a straight line to a point of land
on the south shore at Lat. 34 43' 3611,
Long. 76 43' 0511)
Town Creek
From source to Newport River (The
SC 6/1/56 21-33
mouth of Town Creek is defined as
beginning at a point of land on the
north shore at Lat. 34 43' 4111, Long.
76 40' 0411, thence across the creek
in a straight line to a point of land
on the south shore at Lat. 34 43' 23",
Page 12

Do- M M M
Long. 76 40' 04")
Taylor Creek
From source to Newport River (The mouth
SC
6/1/56
21-34
of Taylor Creek is defined as beginning
at a point of land on the north shore
at Lat. 34 43' 07", Long. 76 40' 1311,
thence across the creek in a straight
line to a point of land on the south
shore at Lat. 34 42' 55", Long. 76
40' 10")
Back Sound
From Newport River to a point on
SA
6/1/56
21-35-(0.5
Shackleford Banks at lat. 34 40157"
and long 76 37130" north to the
western most point of Middle Marshes
and along the northeast shoreline of
Middle Marshes to Rush Point on
Harkers Island
North River
From source to Back Sound
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1
Feltons Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-1
Deep Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-2
Crabbing Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-3
Lynch Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-4
Thomas Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-5
Fulcher Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-6
Ward Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-7
Gilliklin Creek
From source to Ward Creek
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-7-
1
North Leopard Creek
From source to Ward Creek
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-7-
2
South Leopard Creek
From source to Ward Creek
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-7-
3
Newby Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-8
Goose Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-9
Gibbs Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-10
Davis Bay (Cheney Bay)
Entire Bay
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-11
Turner Creek
From source to Davis Bay
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-11
-1
The Straits
From Core Sound to North River
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-12
Sleepy Creek
From source to The Straits
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-12
Page 13

Doc
-1
Whitehurst Creek
From source to The Straits
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-12
-2
Westmouth Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-12
-3
Henry Jones Creek
From source to Westmouth Bay
SA
6/1/56
21-35-1-12
-3-1
Eastmouth Bay
Entire Bay
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-12
-3.5
Janes Creek
From source to The Straits
SA
6/1./56
21-35-1-12
-4
Brooks Creek
From source to North River
SA
6/l/56
21-35-1-13
Back Sound
From a point on Shackleford
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-(1.5
Banks at lat. 34 40157" and
long 76 37130" north to the
western most point of Middle
Marshes and along the north-
west shoreline of Middle
Marshes (to include all of
Middle Marshes) to Rush Point
on Harkers Island and along
the southern shore of Harkers
Island back to Core Sound
Whale Creek
From source to Back Sound
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-2
Cabs Creek
From source to Back Sound
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-3
Bald Hill Bay
Entire Bay
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-4
Johnson Bay
Entire Bay
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-5
Blinds Hammock Bay
Entire Bay
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-6
The Ditch
From Lighthouse Bay to Blinds Hammock
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-6-1
Bay
Core Sound
From northern boundary of White Oak
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7
River Basin (a line from Hall Point to
Drum Inlet) to Back Sound
Point of Grass Creek
From source to Core Sound
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-1
Little Port Branch
From source to Core Sound (including
Sc
12/1/92
21-35-7-2
Atlantic Harbor)
Styron Bay
Entire Bay
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-3
Glover Creek
From source to Styron Bay
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-3-
Page 14
M M

M M M = = Do= = M M= M= M M
1
Annis Run
From
source
to
Styron Bay
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-3-
2
Styron Creek
From
source
to
Styron Bay
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-3-
3
Cedar Creek
From
source
to
Styron Creek
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-3-
3-1
Negro Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-4
Horsepen Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-5
Sheep Pen Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-6
Gutter Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-7
Cedar Inlet
From
Old Channel
to Core Sound
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-8
Old Channel
From
Core Sound
to Cedar Inlet
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-8-
1
Yaupon Hammock Gut
Entire Gut
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-9
Nelson Bay
From
mouth of Salters
Creek to a
SC
6/1/56
21-35-7-10
- (1)
line
extending
from mouth of Broad
Creek due east
across Nelson Bay
Salters Creek
From
source
to
Nelson Bay
SC
6/l/56
21-35-7-10
-2
Mingo Creek
From
source
to
Nelson Bay
SC
6/1/56
21-35-7-10
-3
Broad Creek
From
source
to
Nelson Bay
SC
6/l/56
21-35-7-10
-4
Nelson Bay
From
a line
extending
from mouth of
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-10
-(5)
Broad Creek
due
east across Nelson Bay
to Core Sound
Lewis Creek
From
source
to
Nelson Bay
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-10
-6
Pasture Creek
From
source
to
Nelson Bay
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-10
-7
Willis Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-11
Fulchers Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-12
Brett Bay
Entire Bay
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-13
Maria Creek
From
source
to
Brett Bay
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-13
-1
Fork Creek
From
source
to
Brett Bay
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-13
Page 15

Doc
-2
Head of the Hold
Entire Bay
The Swash
Entire Bay
Great Island Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Horse Island Creek
From source
to
Great Island Creek
-1
Fortin Bay
Entire Bay
Oyster Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Great Island Bay
Entire Bay
Johnson Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Spit Bay
Entire Bay
Jarrett Bay
Entire Bay
Smyrna Creek
From source
to
Jarrett Bay
-1
Ditch Cove
From source
to
Jarrett Bay
-2
Broad Creek
From source
to
Jarrett Bay
-3
Great Creek
From source
to
Jarrett Bay
-4
Howland Creek
From source
to
Jarrett Bay
-5
Williston Creek
From source
to
Jarrett Bay
-6
Wade Creek
From source
to
Jarrett Bay
-7
Jump Run
From source
to
Core Sound
Middens Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Tush Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Great Marsh Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Deer Pond
Entire pond
Horsepen Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Lewis Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Zack Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Mullet Cove
Entire cove
Sheep Pen Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Codds Creek
From source
to
Core Sound
Try Yard Creek
From source
to
Codds Creek
-1
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-14
SA
ORW
1/l/90
21-35-7-15
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-16
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-16
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-17
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-18
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-19
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-20
SA
6/1/56
21-35-7-21
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-22
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-22
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-22
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-22
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-22
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-22
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-22
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-22
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-23
SA
6/l/56
21-35-7-24
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-25
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-26
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-27
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-28
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-29
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-30
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-31
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-32
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-33
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-33
Page 16

Doc
Hogpen
Bay
Entire Bay
SA
ORW
1/l/90
21-35-7-34
Caggs
Creek
From source to Hogpen Bay
SA
ORW
1/l/90
21-35-7-34
-1
Rawson
Creek
From source to Core Sound
SA
ORW
1/1/90
21-35-7-35
Iron Creek
From source to Core Sound
SA
ORW
1/l/90
21-35-7-36
Lighthouse Bay
Entire Bay
SA
ORW
1/l/90
21-35-7-37
Barden
Inlet
From Atlantic Ocean to Core Sound
SA
ORW
1/l/90
21-35-7-38
Atlantic
Ocean
The waters of the Atlantic Ocean con-
SB
7/1/73
99-(4)
tiguous to that portion of the White
Oak River Basin that extends from the
northern boundary of White Oak River
Basin (southwest side of Drum Inlet)
to the southern boundary of White
Oak River Basin (northern boundary
of Cape Fear River Basin at the
southwest side of the mouth of
Goose Bay in the Intracoastal Water-
way.
# Discharges of sewage are prohibited to segments classified SB or SC with a pound sign according to t
he
provisions of 15A NCAC 2B .0203 and 2H .0404(a) in order to protect adjacent shellfishing waters.
Source: Division of Coastal Management.
Page 17

IAPPENDIX 5
CARTERET COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
POLICIES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ADOPTED
' RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Manmade Hazards
' -- Carteret County will consider developing sound attenuation zoning requirements for the
areas affected by the aircraft operating patterns at Atlantic and Bogue Fields and the
' Michael J. Smith Field. The zoning for the Michael J. Smith Field should be
coordinated with Beaufort and Morehead City.
-- Carteret County will support the technical requirements and state program approval for
' underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts 280 and 281), until such time as the State
Division of Environmental Management is authorized to regulate underground storage
tanks under North Carolina state law.
' -- The Board of County Commissioners of Carteret County is strongly opposed to the
expansion of the Military Airspace (MOAs) designated as Cherry I and Core.
' Mooring Fields
' -- Carteret County does not object to the establishment of mooring fields within its
planning jurisdiction.
' -- Carteret County is concerned with the potential for the development of mooring fields.
The county opposes the development of mooring fields and will pursue the
development of an ordinance to regulate the establishment of mooring fields.
' RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
' Assistance in Channel Maintenance
Proper maintenance of channels is very important in Carteret County because of the
' substantial economic impact of commercial fisheries, boating, sport fishing, and successful
operation of the State Port. Commercial fishing employment (full and part-time) is increasing
in the county. If silt or other deposits fill in the channels, this could impede efficient docking
of the commercial fishing and transport vessels. Carteret County will provide assistance to
' the U.S. Corps of Engineers and state officials by either helping to obtain or providing spoil
sites, especially to maintain the Drum Inlet Channel.

ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Water Supply
-- Carteret County will investigate establishment of a policy requiring water conserving
plumbing fixtures in all new construction.
Solid Waste
-- Carteret County will consider ordinances with severe penalties for illegal dumping.
Sewer System
-- The long-term solution to sewage disposal should be ocean outfall disposal. No new
point source discharge of sewer systems into estuarine waters should be permitted,
and the existing estuarine discharge systems should be eliminated within 20 years.
Carteret County recognizes that land application may be an acceptable short-term
alternate.
2

1
APPENDIX 6
CARTERET COUNTY
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
PREPARATION OF LAND USE PLAN
FISCAL YEAR 1995-96
Carteret County has received a FY95-96 Coastal Area Management Act grant for the update of
its existing Land Use Plan. Adequate citizen participation in the development of the Plan is
essential to the preparation of a document responsive to the needs of the citizens of Carteret
County. To ensure such input, the following citizen participation program will be utilized by the
county.
The Board of Commissioners will work with the county's planning consultant to ensure that the
final product will survey existing land use, identify policies, recommend strategies/actions, and
identify Areas of Environmental Concern. The plan will focus on issues expected to occur during
the planning period, including infrastructure needs, housing needs, transportation planning, and
environmental. A completely new land classification map will be provided. Specifically, the
planning consultant and the Board of Commissioners will be responsible for ensuring
accomplishment of the following:
— Establishment of policies to deal with existing and anticipated land use issues.
— Preparation of a land classification map.
— Preparation of hurricane mitigation and post -disaster recovery plans and policies.
— Assessment of opportunities for participation in state and federal programs.
— An updated Land Use Plan based on an effective citizen participation process.
The following schedule will be utilized:
September, 1995 — complete identification of existing land use problems, develop
socioeconomic base data, and review community facilities needs.
2. September, 1995 — Conduct initial meeting with the Carteret County Board of
Commissioners, and have the Citizen Participation Plan adopted.
3. September, 1995 — The Board of Commissioners will conduct a public information
meeting. The meeting will be advertised in a local newspaper. The county will specifically
discuss the policy statements contained in the 1993 Carteret County Land Use Plan. The
significance of the policy statements to the CAMA land use planning process shall be
described. The process by which Carteret County will solicit the views of a wide
cross-section of citizens in the development of the updated policy statements will be
explained.
4. October, 1995 - May, 1996 — Continue preparation of a draft Land Use Plan and conduct
meetings with the Carteret County Planning Board.
5. June, 1996 — Present complete draft sections of the plan and preliminary policy
statements to the Carteret County Board of Commissioners.

6. July, 1996 -- Review draft Land Use Plan with Board of Commissioners, conduct a public '
information meeting for review of the proposed plan, and submit draft of completed Land
Use Plan to the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources staff for '
review and comment.
7. Following receipt of Coastal Resources Commission comments (estimate October or ,
November, 1996) -- Present proposed Land Use Plan to Board of Commissioners for
adoption, and conduct a formal public hearing.
All meetings of the Carteret County Planning Board and Board of Commissioners at which the '
update of the Land Use Plan will be discussed will be advertised in a local newspaper in a non-
legal ad section. In addition, public service announcements will be mailed to local radio stations '
and posted in the Administration Building. All meetings will be open to the public. The county
will encourage and consider all economic, social, ethnic, and cultural viewpoints. No major
non-English speaking groups are known to exist in Carteret County. I
8/29/95 ,
u

CAMA LAND USE CLASSIFICATION
LAND CLASSIFICATION
DEVELOPED
TRANSITION
COMMUNITY
Q RURAL
- CONSERVATION
� ISLE
EMER ALO
'"�INDIAN
BEACH
ATLANTIC OCEAN
�w
V SouN� �oC
A 0 /
\ I Oo
A
q y�"co
s
CEDAR
s ISLA
9
TIC
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.
CAPELOOKOUT

�MERA�o
EXISTING LAND USE
GENERALIZED CATEGORIES
r URBAN AND RURAL BUILT-UP
AGRICULTURE
FOREST
- WETLAND
BARREN
'�NDIAN
BEAGH
ATLANTIC OCEAN
A
9M<ic0
S
CEDAR
ISLA
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.
CAPELOOKOUT

COUNTY, N.C.
0
4 I APE LOOKOUT

FLOOD ZONES (general)
Areas of 100 year coastal flood velocity (wave
action)
Areas of minimal flooding
Areas of 100 year flood; base flood elevations
and flood hazard factors not determined
❑ Areas of undetermined, but possible flood
hazard
u+
FORE,,_
aP �
N
P
ti
0
U
1
�
24
INL
NG
1
rr
SOUND
G P
BOGLE
NO 58
G'
b
EKNOLLLy
D c
o Dq
I IAN
SHORE' \\
BEAGH
BE
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
i
z
0
0
o AiVER ,\
Q
NEB
O
MOREHEA c O 0
BE/
©ATLAN7I6��
BEACH
CEDAR
ISLAND
IN
AT NTICVA
SEA !\\
OPEN GROUNDS LE L
FARM O \,
0 �y
` V
O OTWAY
9
Z
P�
100-
b .o \ ,o
�L M
�X
�►PE LOOKOUT
O
P
P
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.

ZZ
CARTERET COUNTY GENERAL GROWTH PATTERN
1 �
IICAPE
LOOKOUT
COUNTY, N.C.

I
I
1
I
I
CARTERET COUNTY POPULATION: 1980
TOWNSHIPS MUNICIPALITIES
ATLANTIC
810
(950)
ATLANTIC BEACH
941
(6,550)
BEAUFORT
6,992
(12,950)
BEAUFORT
3,826
(5,400)
CEDAR ISLAND
333
(350)
CAPE CARTERET
944
(1,500)
DAVIS
492
(625)
EMERALD ISLE
865
(700)
HARKERS ISLAND
1,910
(3,200)
INDIAN BEACH
54
HARLOWE
956
(925)
MOREHEAD CITY
4,359
(7,000)
MARSHALLBERG
580
(675)
NEWPORT
1,883
MERRIMON
426
PINE KNOLL SH.
646
MOREHEAD CITY
15,803
(21,650)
NEWPORT
5,469
Winter Population
12345
SEA LEVEL
540
(425)
Summer Population
(12345)
SMYRNA
637
(575)
STACY
322
(425)
CARTERET COUNTY Totals
STRAITS
1,520
(1,375)
54,610
(70,650)
WHITE OAK
4,302
(5,975)
I \1
INCORPORATED Boundaries------ — - --
TOWNSHIP Boundaries ---------
N FOREST 1
1
Newport
,
o
,
5F
CEDAR
ISLA
2 0
o
MERRIMON Z r IS
P; "�
9 F,fl vONG 6
Merrimon
i/ to
Davis
OPEN GROUNDS I `
I `
FARM I `
1
1 `
1
1 1
Straits '
Smyrnannnn '
1 Ha owe '
1 N
1
i
,
e 1 /• 1
NEQ'
1 / �
White Oak
—
ead
' - 24 MOR �•.
NO
B4GUE SOUND
4 a 1 -
b
D
ATLANTIC
1 1
I O OTWAY
p Beaufor 1, „
o I
BE R
...............
NO 58 PI
' KNOLL ` I ATLANTIC
NE
J�0 Sh K o
qC
ey
OCEAN
brs
11C
lb erg
I �
B,qOj, .00
�l O
SOUND O p
0 0
n 60
1 ,
, AT N IG
,
Se
1 SEA
LE L �
1
Stac
1
� Q�4
co P�
G
2�
P
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.
O CAPELOOKOUT
1

CARTERET COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ELEMENTARY
HIGH SCHOOLS
1 ATLANTIC
A
EAST CARTERET
2 BEAUFORT
WEST CARTERET
3 CAMP GLENN
JUNIOR HIGH
4 HARKERS ISLAND
BEAUFORT
5 MOREHEAD❑
Q
MOREHEAD
6 NEWPORT
7 SMYRNA
-----.—.--
Elementary boundary
8 WHITE OAK
_ _ _ —
— _ High School boundary
x PROPOSED SITE
Carteret Technical College
BEACH
n�
SLE
ALp ATLANTIC OCEAN
EMeP
A
0
s,
CEDAR
\ ISLAI
9
NOTWAV
�yP
P
iS p
C �
d
O
SOUNO dD
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.
� n
CAPELOOKOUT

PUBLIC RECREATION AREAS
county park
O
community
S
state
x
municipal
P
federal
F
(��r
D ISLE
Eoe Al
INDIAN
SHOHt.
BEACH
ATLANTIC OCEAN
o'
P
JyE mN
0
SOONO
eo
°p
A
q y� CIO
S
CEDAR
ISLA'
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.
CAPELOOKOUT

CARTERET COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
Rescue Squads
1 Altantic Beach
2 Beaufort
3 Bogue Banks (Salter Path)
4 Broad & Gales Creek
5 Cape Carteret
O
—SQUAD BUILDING LOCATIONS
6 Emerald Isle
7 Harkers Island
— HOSPITAL LOCATION
8 Mill Creek
9 Morehead City
1
Carteret General, Morehead City
10 Newport
11 Otway
2
Sea Level, Div. of DUKE UNIVERSITY
12 Pine Knoll Shores
MEDICAL CENTER
13 Sea Level
14 South River - Merrimon
Zf N D v pod d 4
I
� IBLE
Eoef;
N FORESr
I o 1
24
NG 1
� � SOUND
BOGUE
d
INDIAN
BEAGH
ATLANTIC
PINE �'
SNORES
OCEAN
o'
P`P
,� � op
J5� mN
G9
2 m
v2
N
O
MERRIMON
IO11G n 1 J
OPEN GROU
FARM
Z
O
0
Z
O
A
4 �
NEAP �
E �l� V
6
LANTIC
BEACH BqC
J�O� SHACK ( D O K SI
0�e 2 eA
N
A
qy� c
0
s,
ATjd(NTIC
CEDAR
ISLAI
0
r COUNTY, N.C.

FIRE STATIONS
1 Stella
2 Cape Carteret
3 Emerald Isle
4 Salter Path
5 Pine Knoll Shores
6 Atlantic Beach
7 Broad/Gales Creek
8 Newport
9 Wildwood
10 Harlowe
11 Mill Creek
12 Morehead City
13 Morehead City
14 Beaufort
15 Otway
16 Harkers Island
17 Marshallberg
18 Davis
19 Stacy
20 Sea Level
21 Atlantic
22 Cedar Island
�ED ISLE
MEPA1
j SHun
IN 1
BEACH
ATLANTIC OCEAN
A
�M<�C
0
s
CEDAR
ISLAI
4
C
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.
CAPELOOKOUT

COUNTY, N.C.
rPELOOKOUT

%Mrill NBOX LOCATIONS A
0
s
GREENBOX SITE (CONTRACT) A
Jy� ml CEDAR
GREENBOX SITE (COUNTY) 0 IS
ROLL-OFF SITE 92
■ / c r
SITE LOCATION 92 3�
o f
TRANSFER STATION 0
C2)
MERRIMOiJ�J ``-�� 1 9 Py
SANITARY LANDFILL X e
` F9 SONG
i O A
/
CRAVEN COUNTY
�
© N
FOREgr
10
JONES COUNTY �
�ONP`� _. �
0 �
�y
9 •
to
N
1
0 AQ
O
gryFq
at ■
10
'ONSLOW
COUNTY
24
MOREHEq
D
O NG
13
B
-�
'
G E
G R
�
SOUND
BOGUE
NC 58
KNOLL
A7 �
ATLANTIC �
BEACH
d
PINE
Q'
D e
s Oq'
INDIAN
SHORES
P�Ov
BEACH
jAlp
ISLE
OCEAN
ATLANTIC
EMERA�O
dAT NTIC
N
f COUNTY, N.C.

1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CARTERET
COUNTY POLITICAL
PRECINCT BOUNDARIES
1 ATLANTIC
18 MOREHEAD 1
p ,
2 ATLANTIC BEACH
19 MOREHEAD 2
3 BEAUFORT 1
20 MOREHEAD 3
4 BEAUFORT 2
21 NEWPORT
5 BETTIE
22 NORTH RIVER
�P
6 BOGUE
23 OTWAY
7 BROAD CREEK
8 CEDAR ISLAND
24 PELETIER
25 PINE KNOLL SHORES
9y
m
9 CEDAR POINT
26 SALTER PATH
9
2
94
10 DAVIS
27 SEA LEVEL
11 EMERALD ISLE
28 SMYRNA
o
12 HARKERS ISLAND
29 STACY
13 HARLOWE
30 STELLA
MERRIMON
9�9
y
eP
14 INDIAN BEACH
31 STRAITS
\,GNG
8
O
15 MARSHALLBERG
16 MERRIMON
32 WILDWOOD
33 WILLISTON
17 MILL CREEK
34 WIRE GRASS
16
OPEN GROUNDS
FARM
FOREST
13
33
JJ
o
a
21
17
Z
O
5
5
®
N
o
Y
® O OTW
2e
Q R/V"
O
FF
x G8
O
�p
NE
9 O S
9 23
24
O
O A
20
tlo
G
MOR EA
4
�
N '�
6 ter•' 7 SOUND
19
.,
BE QED0
yr 31 • .o
M 1
��,.. ROGUE
G
9 P
NC 58
KNOII
TLANTIC
18
A,
O
3 St
d
• • D
4 IBEAAN
D,
PINE
SHORES 25
BEACH
2
Q'
O
V eAC 4
s O p k SOUND aC
ACK<
e
14
0�e?�
B.qN 12
Ise 11 ATLANTIC
OCEAN
c o0
EM�RA`O
0
CAPELOOKOUT
0
P
'1A'4%
0
S
CEDAR
I S L A
9
CARTERET COUNTY, N.C.