Land Use Plan Update Public Participation Plan-2008

1
r
r
r
i
r APPENDICES 1-5
1
Appendix 1— Public Participation Plan
1 Appendix 2 — Vision Statement/Goal Workshops Report
r Appendix 3 -- Citizen Involvement Poll (CIP) Report
r Appendix 4 -- Review of 2003 LUP Policies
1 Appendix 5 — Pasquotank River Basinwide Report and Portions
of the Tar —Pamlico River Basin Report
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Appendix 1
'
Dare County 2008 LUP Update
Public Participation Plan
1
Public participation is an important element of any land use planning document.
This document details the various public participation activities that will be
'
undertaken during the update process of the Dare County Land Use Plan.
Tentative dates are provided however, it is recognized that these dates are
subject to change since this Public Participation Plan is one of the first steps
'
taken in the update process. The Dare County website site and local
government access channel will be used extensively to provide meeting
'
notification of public participation activities and progress reports of the LUP
update.
The Dare County Planning Board will be designated by the Board of
'
Commissioners as the steering committee for the update process. The Planning
Board has served in this capacity for every land use plan update completed by
Dare County. Most of the work on the LUP update will be completed in-house
'
by the Dare County Planning Department staff with assistance from the Dare
County Information Technology Department. Some consultant services will be
utilized during the latter stage of the update process at workshops on the draft
policies before a draft version of the update is forwarded to the Dare County
Board of Commissioners.
rIn
order to accommodate the numerous special interest and community groups in
Dare County, a Planning staff will maintain a community outreach mailing and
email list of community groups that wish to receive notices of all workshops and
'
meetings held in conjunction with the update process. There are many
community groups in the County that represent a broad range of interests such
as environmental groups, civic organizations, economic development groups,
'
homeowners associations, and professional organizations. This outreach
process will allow the County to facilitate the groups' desire to participate in the
update process and receive their input based on their stated objectives and
'
interests of their respective organization.
A hyperlink on the Dare County webpage for the update process will be available
' which will be used for on-line completion of the Citizen Involvement Poll, for
meeting notification, and progress reports on the update.
1
Page 1

Appendix 1
Phase One — Analysis and Review of Current Policies and Issues
Citizen Workshops -- A series of citizens input workshops throughout Dare
County for property owners and residents will be held in the fall of 2007. The
workshops will consist of three 2-hour long sessions with the first hour dedicated
to a review of the 2003 LUP policies and their saliency to current conditions.
The second hour will focus on the discussion of a vision statement and
identification of additional issues and concerns that should be addressed in the
2008 update.
Notice of the workshops will be advertised in the local newspapers, posted on the
Dare County website and flyers posted at County offices, libraries and other
public buildings. One workshop will be held in Buxton for Hatteras Island
residents, one workshop will be held in Kill Devil Hills for residents of the northern
beaches, and one workshop will be held in Manteo for residents of the Mainland
and Roanoke Island. It is anticipated to conduct these workshops in later
September or early October.
Citizen Involvement Poll (CIP)— An on-line questionnaire will be provided on the
Dare County website for completion by property owners, residents and other
interested parties. Copies of the CIP will be mailed to all resident and non-
resident property owners in the unincorporated areas. To encourage
participation of residents and citizens in the incorporated areas of Dare County,
the CIP will be offered on the Dare County website for completion. Newspaper
ads will be used to notify the public of the opportunity of the on-line CIP
completion. Copies of the CIP will also be placed in all County offices and
libraries for pick-up and return mail service. A deadline of October 31 for return
of the completed CIP will be set.
Results of the CIP will be compiled by the Dare County Information technology
Department and a report of the results prepared by the Planning Department.
These results will be used in combination of other public input activities in the
development of the policies and goals for the 2008 LUP.
Phase Two — Plan Development
Planning Board Work Sessions -- The Planning Board will conduct numerous
workshops separate from their regularly scheduled monthly meetings in order to
prepare a draft LUP. Results of the phase one public participation activities will
be analyzed. A vision statement will be developed as required by the State land
use plan guidelines. Demographic information and maps will be created and
policies on the CAMA-specified management topics and other local issues will be
drafted by the staff and presented to the Planning Board at these workshops.
The exact format and duration of these workshops will be determined at a later
date. It is anticipated that these workshops will begin in early 2008. Notice of
Page 2 ,
F

7
H
Appendix 1
the workshops will be posted on the Dare County webpage and advertised as
required by the open meeting law of North Carolina. The workshops will be
open to the public however interaction at this stage will be between the Planning
Board and Planning Department staff. A rough draft of the plan, including policy
statements will be completed at these work sessions.
Policy Assessment Workshops -- Upon completion of a rough draft of the LUP
update, a second series of public workshops will be conducted at the same
locations of the phase one input sessions. The focus of these workshops will be
the draft policies and associated maps. Revisions to the policy statements may
be necessary as a result of the input at the policy assessment workshops.
Similar notification procedures used for the phase one workshops will be used for
these workshops.
'
Following the policy assessment workshops, final revisions to the draft LUP and
policy statements and maps will be made by the Planning Board and staff.
Phase Three — Review of Draft Plan
CAMA Review — The Division of Coastal Management staff will be involved in
the LUP process and provide coordination and review services to ensure
consistency with the CAMA land use plan guidelines. The Planning staff will
maintain contact with the CAMA staff throughout the LUP update process.
Notice of workshops and meetings will be provided to the CAMA staff. Copies
of the draft policies and maps will be submitted to the CAMA staff for feedback
'
following the policy assessment workshops for their comments as required by the
State regulations. Revisions to the document and maps that are necessary as a
result of the CAMA review will be discussed with the Planning Board and made
as needed. It is anticipated that the CAMA review will occur prior to the
'
Planning Board making an official recommendation on the LUP update to the
Dare County Board of Commissioners.
Planning Board Review — After the development of a draft plan and any
revisions that may be necessary as a result of the policy assessment workshops,
a recommendation from the Planning Board to the Board of Commissioners is
'
required. The Planning Board may chose to conduct a public hearing on the
draft plan before a recommendation is made to the Board of Commissioners.
However, the Planning Board may decide that a public hearing is not necessary
'
depending on the amount of public participation held during the development of
the draft LUP. The CAMA guidelines do not require a hearing at the Planning
'
Board level but leave this option to the discretion of the local government.
Page 3

WNM
--Z4. 1
Appendix 1
,
Board of Commissioners Review — The draft LUP will be presented to the
Board of Commissioners following a recommendation by the Planning Board.
This does not constitute official adoption of the LUP which can only occur after a
'
formal public hearing is conducted following the procedures set forth in the
CAMA land use planning guidelines. A copy of the draft plan, as presented to
the Board of Commissioners will be posted on the Dare County website and
'
copies available for viewing in the Planning Department offices and the Dare
County libraries. Copies of the draft plan will be sent to all local governments in
Dare County and for their review and comment.
'
The Board of Commissioners may adopt the LUP, upon completion of a Public
Hearing. Tentative date: December 2008. '
n
I
Page 4

Appendix 2
DARE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
WORKSHOP RESULTS
September 25-27, 2007
"Planning Today, for Dare's Tomorrow"
Page 1

Appendix 2
1
Abstract
A critical component to any public initiative is the role and input of the affected citizens. The '
current update of the Dare County Land Use Plan seeks to "employ a variety of educational
efforts and participation techniques to assure that all socio-economic segments of the community
and non-resident property owners have opportunities to participate during plan development" ,
[15A NCAC 7L .0506 (a)]. The first of these efforts was to conduct public participation
workshops with a twofold purpose of educating the public on the intent and scope of the Land
Use Plan, as well as the solicitation of public concerns and ideas about the future of Dare '
County.
The workshops were conducted during a three day period from September 25-27, 2007. Each '
workshop was held in a separate targeted region of the county (Roanoke Island, Kill Devil Hills,
and Hatteras Island), advertised intensively, and conducted during the evening, to generate as
much public participation as possible. '
The following results contain those comments received at each workshop and categorized by
discussion topics. These comments will be used to complement other research strategies and '
public participation methods that staff will employ to conduct a comprehensive update of the
Dare County Land Use Plan.
Page 2
I
E
1

anal{t. '�i'.. aaslil.
Appendix 2
Roanoke Island - September 25, 2007
' Total Attendance: 9
PlanningSStaff/Facilitators (4): Elmer Midgett, Chairman, Planning Board; Ray Sturza, Planning
' Director; Donna Creef, Senior Planner; Ryan Simons, Planner
Commissioners (2): Warren Judge, Chairman; Virginia Tillett
Plammniz Board Members (1): John Myers
Agency Representatives (1): Cyndy Holda, National Park Service
Citizens (2): Cyndy Holda, Robin Mann
'
Comments received on Workin-a Waterfronts:
- The development of working waterfronts may be a measure to preserve culture,
- The commercial fishing industry is a traditional economic catalyst;
r-
Methods should be developed to avoid the displacement of residents due to the rising
value of land;
'
Comments received on Public Access:
- The county should pursue ways to acquire and improve public sound/ocean access;
'
- A balance should be struck between publicly and privately owned waterfront to control
sound/ocean access;
- "Quality of life" programs for residents should be maintained and improved;
- The county and federal agencies should cooperate in efforts to improve public water
access on Hatteras Island;
- The county and federal agencies should cooperate in efforts to manage off -road vehicle
'
access on Hatteras Island;
- An emphasis should be placed on free and convenient public water access on Hatteras
Island;
- Clarification should be provided on the ownership/title status of National Park Service
properties on Hatteras Island;
- Street end public beach access is not a strong possibility on Hatteras Island;
Workforce Housing::
Comments received on
- The term "workforce" housing should supplant "affordable" housing in the county's
'
lexicon, due to the subjective and nebulous nature of the term "affordable";
- Seek community acceptance of the "workforce" housing concept;
'
Comments received on Stormwater Regulations:
New stormwater regulations drafted by the Division of Water Quality are viewed
negatively;
The county should monitor progress of efforts to further regulate stormwater
management by the Division of Water Quality;
The county should look to acquire erosion -prone lots;
Page 3

Appendix 2
- "Tailor-made" stormwater standards may need to be developed, which recognizes the ,
Y P � g
unique features of Dare County, with a focus on managing stormwater without '
prohibiting growth;
Comments received on Environmental Topics: '
- "Green" initiatives, such as recycling and alternative energy, should be considered;
- Our visitors expect services such as curbside recycling; '
- Wind energy is an emerging technology, with potential costs and benefits;
- Look to 2003 Policy #32 on sea -level rise for possible revision;
- Off -shore energy exploration, due to rising energy costs, should be considered;
- Architectural controls should be implemented to regulate the aesthetics of certain tourist- '
oriented commercial structures, including limitations on outdoor displays of goods;
- The presence of "big box" stores with limited regulation, compromises the historical,
family -oriented nature of Dare County ,
Comments received on Wastewater Treatment:
- Central wastewater systems may potentially lead to higher density. However, if managed '
correctly, such as targeting the capacity of the facility, growth and density can be
controlled; '
- Policies on central wastewater should be reconsidered;
- Private wastewater treatment systems may need to be acquired by the county in the event
of their failure;
Hatteras Island — September 26, 2007 '
Total Attendance: 17
Planning Staff/Facilitators (3): Elmer Midgett, Chairman, Planning Board; Donna Creef, Senior '
Planner; Ryan Simons, Planner
Commissioners (0):
Planning Board Members (1): Beth Midgett '
Agency Representatives (1): Charlan Owens, NC Division of Coastal Management
Citizens (,12): Frank Jacobs, Amberly Dyer, Ricki Shepherd, Carol W. Sanderson, K.P. Lapeya,
Sylvia Mattingly, Don Rankin, Jarvis Williams, Danna McDaniel, Bernie Tetreault, Karen
Tetreault, John F. Conner, Jr.
Comments received on Workforce Housing and Housing in General: '
- Zoning regulations should be "inclusionary" to encourage "workforce" housing;
- Some policies inhibit development directly related to establishing "workforce" housing '
("linkage");
- The integrity of existing wellfields should not be compromised for the sake of
establishing "workforce" housing. These wellfields are of greater importance than what '
is suggested in the SED-1 zoning district language;
Page 4

Appendix 2
- Potential uses for the now defunct USCG base (zoned NH) need discussion;
- Density and minimum lot size requirements for single family, duplex, and multi -family
'
development may need adjustment;
- Oceanfront rental structures should be distinguished from non -rented houses with
separate regulatory requirements;
- A regulatory distinction may be made between single family homes and vacation rental
accommodations;
'
Comments received on Development Standards:
'
- The Village of Avon lacks a sense of "place", which may need to be.remedied with
revised zoning and density standards;
- Development should be directed in a way which emphasizes "nodes", rather than the
sprawling nature of "strip" development;
- Further develop pedestrian paths as an alternative means for visitors to experience
Hatteras Island;
- Where inconsistencies exist, land use policies should be reconciled with enforced
ordinances;
- A corridor management plan would address structural aesthetics along NC Hwy. 12;
- Architectural reviews of "big box" structures and "tourist oriented businesses" are means
'
to improve structural aesthetics;
- Further regulate structural fill material;
- The porosity of surfaces (particularly for residential parking) determined for lot coverage
'
calculations and stormwater management purposes may need reconsideration;
- Residents should be notified of potential zoning changes;
'
Comments received on Environmental Topics:
- SED-1 setback requirements should be reduced, particularly those affecting the wellfield
'
AEC's, and acknowledge that such a change would only affect a limited amount of
properties;
- Install "flapper valves" to properly maintain Peter's ditch;
- Monitor reforestation in Buxton Woods;
- Maintain drainage ways including ditches and canals;
- Clean and maintain the old dump site on Hatteras Island, as it continues to devolve into
'
an eyesore;
Comments received on Governmental Cooperation
'
- The county should continue to monitor efforts by the Division of Water Quality to
increase stormwater regulations, and recognize that if imposed, these regulations could
have a dramatic affect on development on Hatteras Island;
- Beach driving is a desirable feature of Hatteras Island, and a cooperative effort should be
made to properly manage off road vehicle access, rather than their prohibition;
- Acknowledge the uniqueness of Dare County, and Hatteras Island in particular, and relay
that sentiment to other regulatory agencies;
Page 5

1
Appendix 2
- Advocate and monitor efforts to replace the Bonner Bridge, and develop policies to
support the replacement strategies endorsed by the Board of Commissioners;
- The county should continue to work cooperatively with state regulatory agencies;
Comments received on Stormwater Management
- Stormwater recharge remains an important environmental issue on Hatteras Island;
- Identify local cemeteries as "local areas of concern" when developing the required maps
for the LUP update;
- Current stormwater management regulations should re reconsidered;
- Develop methods to alleviate flooding along the "S" curves on Hatteras Island;
Comments received on Other Topics
- A legitimate public boat launching area in Rodanthe should be considered, perhaps at the
current ferry dock location;
- Public access to sound waters should be acquired and improved;
- Working waterfronts is a measure to preserve culture;
- Recognize emerging wastewater treatment technologies, and consider these
advancements when regulating development;
- Septic tank maintenance requirements need development and enforcement, particularly as
it relates to the degradation of fill material;
Kill Devil Hills — September 27, 2007
Total Attendance: 8
Planning Staff/Facilitators (3): Elmer Midgett, Chairman, Planning Board; Donna Creef, Senior
Planner; Ryan Simons, Planner
Commissioners (0):
Planning Board Members (3): John Myers, John Finelli, Cathy Morris
Agency Representatives (0):
Citizens (2): Johnnie Robbins, John Robbins
Comments received on Utility Topics:
- Central water service and other public utility expansion needs consideration;
- Privately owned central wastewater facilities may pose a threat to public health;
- Aesthetic characteristics of wastewater treatment facilities need regulation;
- Drip irrigation systems should be disapproved, or consider requiring back-up systems in
the event of drip irrigation system failure;
- No "pump and haul" septic systems;
Comments received on Environmental Topics:
- Windmills are a viable alternative residential energy source;
Page 6
I
F_�

Appendix 2
t
- There are "cumulative" impacts of growth and development;
' - The phrase "at a rate" should be removed from the Resource Protection vision statement
on the handout (this handout was provided at the public meeting);
- Superior water quality should be maintained and encourage best management practices
' for lawn maintenance (low impact developments);
-
Support legal fishing activities, and the NC saltwater fishing license;
- There exist many distractions and hazards to drivers along Hwy. 158;
' - Wildlife management policies which address water fowl need consideration;
Comments received on Transportation Topics:
' - The regional airport should be improved and/or relocated;
Public transportation needs improvement, including the possible consideration of
seasonal services to address traffic problems during the peak season;
' - Develop multi -use paths;
Monitor dredging activities to ensure they are conducted appropriately, and that
navigation channels are maintained;
Comments received on Development Standards:
' - The definition of "floating structures" needs clarification, so that it does not inadvertently
prohibit piers or conventional vessels;
- Maintain bedroom density limits;
- The efficacy of where single family and multi family structures are permitted should be
reevaluated;
- Architectural review standards should be applied to commercial structures, including
' churches and publicly owned buildings; -
Stronger regulation of personal water crafts and "jetboats" is needed;
- The cumulative impact of individual boat slips, and their consistency with marina
developments, needs consideration;
-
Implement architectural reviews of "big box" structures and "tourist oriented businesses"
as a means of improving structural aesthetics;
Comments received on Other Topics:
I
Relay the uniqueness of Dare County to other regulatory agencies;
Continue to offer "workforce" housing development incentives;
Page 7

Appendix 3
N®r C A R Dy1�
2007 Citizen Involvement Poll
Results Report
Prepared by the Dare County Planning Department
December 2007
Page 1

1
1
1
Appendix 3
2007 Dare County Citizen Involvement Poll
In September 2007, the Dare County Board of Commissioners adopted a Public Participation Plan (PPP) in
conjunction with the update of the Dare County Land Use Plan. This PPP outlines the various activities and
workshops planned to solicit public input for the 2008 Land Use Plan update. Public participation is an
important element of the update process and Dare County makes significant efforts to incorporate citizens
and property owners into the update process.
One of the tools used to garner public input was a Citizen Involvement Poll (CIP) of various questions on land
use issues and other local matters. Copies of the CIP were mailed to all resident and non-resident property
owners in unincorporated Dare County. A large number of the County's property owners are non-residents
but their views and opinions are important to the Board of Commissioners and the CIP provides these non-
resident property owners an excellent opportunity to participate in the land use plan update process. A total
of 13,448 questionnaires were mailed to property owners. The CIP was also available on the Dare County
website for completion. Any citizen or resident of the County who was not a property owner was able to
complete the survey on-line. Copies of the CIP were also available for pick-up in the County offices or for
mailing if requested.
This report details the results of the CIP with a narrative analysis and results tables for each question. A
Likert scale ( Strongly Agree, Agree, No Opinion, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree) was the response format for
the majority of the questions. Several of the questions offered a different set of responses due to the subject
nature of the question. All of the responses were tabulated using a software program provided by the Dare
County Information Technology Department. The first section of this report is a narrative analysis of the
results. The second section is a series of tables. Each table lists the survey question, how many individuals
answered the question, how many skipped the question, the total number of responses as a percentage and a
total number count for the response category of Strongly Agree, Agree, No Opinion, Disagree, or Strongly
Disagree. A total of agreement or disagreement was calculated by the Planning Department staff with the
majority category indicated in boldface text. Each table also provides a breakdown of the responses filtered
by resident or non-resident property owner status.
Public input from workshops and other public forums will be analyzed with the CIP results and used by the
Dare County Planning Board and Planning staff in drafting the 2008 update of the Dare County Land Use Plan.
The CIP provides a good foundation of public input.
Page 2

Appendix 3
CIP ANALYSIS
A total of 2,050 responses to the survey were received by mail or by completion of the CIP on-line. This
represents a 15.3% response rate based on the number of surveys that were mailed. Of this total, 1,067
responses (54.3%) were completed by Dare County residents and 885 responses were completed by non-
resident property owners. Four demographic questions were included in the opening of the CIP to determine
residency status and location of property ownership. Respondents were asked to indicate their area of
residence by tax district and where they owned property by tax districts. A complete breakdown of the
responses is provided in the tables included with this survey report. The Avon tax district had the highest
number of responses (326) with the Manteo outside district (314) and the Colington district (292) ranking
second and third respectively.
Following the demographic questions, the CIP asked respondents to list what they felt were the most
important issues facing Dare County. Table 5 ranks the issues that were mentioned most often in the
responses to question 5. Affordable housing and the replacement of the Bonner Bridge tied with the most
responses at 172.
Question 6 addressed the limitation of estuarine bulkheads by the State of North Carolina. 47.3% of the
respondents indicated that Dare County should support efforts by the State to limit the use of estuarine
bulkheads while 31.6% expressed disagreement or strong disagreement with the question.
Questions 7 and 8 focused on the adequacy of the 30-foot CAMA estuarine buffer and ocean front setbacks.
In regards to the 30-foot estuarine setback, a majority (60.2%) indicated they felt this buffer was adequate.
Concerning ocean front setbacks, the results are evenly matched with 41.5% indicating agreement and 41.4%
indicating disagreement.
Regarding the regulation of land clearing on private property, a slight majority of the responses (971 versus
805) felt that land clearing regulations should not adopted by Dare County. Among the resident property
owners, 288 indicated strong disagreement with the adoption of local land clearing regulations.
Question 10 asked about the adequacy of federal flood elevations for first floor elevations of buildings. Of the
1849 responses to this question, 1202 expressed strong agreement or agreement with the statement and 300
expressed disagreement or strong disagreement.
Question 11 posed the need to re-evaluate the 15,000 square feet minimum lot size. The responses were
evenly matched with 39.5% of the responses supporting the re-evaluation of minimum lot size standard and
42.2% not supporting any re-evaluation. 18.5% indicated "no opinion" on this question.
Question 12 addressed the use of fill material on lots beyond what is required for wastewater improvements
and whether this practice should continue to be unregulated by Dare County. A slight majority (53.3% or
1006 responses) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the question. Among resident property owners, 56.7%
Page 3
E
1
L7

LI
Appendix 3
indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with the question, a figure slightly higher than the combined
resident/non-resident responses.
Current federal regulations for wetland protection were addressed in question 13. Most respondents, both
resident and non-resident, indicated agreement with the adequacy of the current regulations. Of the 1844
answers, 763 were in the agree category combined with 246 answers of strongly agree for a total level of
support of 53.6% or 1009 responses.
The adequacy of marina development was the focus of question 14. The highest ranking category for this
question was "no opinion" with 43.2% which seems to indicate that most respondents did not understand the
question or did not feel informed enough about the issue to respond with agreement or disagreement. The
' next question asked whether floating homes/structures should be prohibited. 58.0% or 1102 of the
individuals answering the question agreed with the prohibition on floating homes/structures.
The continuation of single family homes as the preferred land use in unincorporated Dare County was the
issue of question 16. An overwhelming majority (80.9%) expressed support. This strong level of support was
shared by both residents and non-resident property owners.
Question 17 involved the use of single family homes as boarding houses and whether this use should be
evaluated by Dare County. Of the 1882 responses, 943 answered strongly agree or agree, 350 offered no
opinion, and 593 answered disagree or strongly disagree.
The format of question 18 varied by asking respondents what they felt was the appropriate dwelling density
range for multi -family structures Three options were offered —with 72.9% selecting 3-5 units per acre as the
preferred range, 19.6% selecting 6-8 units per acre, and 7.7% selecting 10-12 units per acre. These
percentages followed the same patterns among the resident property owners and non-resident property
owners.
Should single family homes that are rented on a short-term basis have different standards for parking, trash
pick-up and water rates? The results for question 19 indicated that 46.2% of the respondents did not think
rentals should be treated differently. However, when filtered by residency status, the results indicate a 58.2%
of residents agreed that rentals should be held to different standards while 60.5% of the non-resident
property owners disagreed with the concept of different standards. This is not surprising since the majority of
the non-resident property owners use their homes as short-term rentals.
Currently Dare County does not regulate parking lot/street vendors. Question 20 asked whether this
unregulated state should continue. 53.5% indicated that such uses should continue to be unregulated.
19.2% indicated no opinion.
The proliferation of tourist -oriented stores was the focus of question 21 and whether these uses should be
studied for possible regulatory standards. A clear consensus of the respondents (70.3% or 1327 answers) felt
Page 4

Appendix 3
these uses should be studied. This consensus was evident in both the resident and non-resident answers.
Also, the proliferation of tourist -oriented commercial establishments was listed by several respondents as an
important issue in question 5.
Questions 22 and 23 broached the topic of home occupations and the parking of heavy equipment in
residential neighborhoods. Question 22 asked if the current regulation of home occupations is adequate.
51.2% of the total respondents indicated agreement. A large number of respondents (33.5%) indicated no
opinion. Regarding the possible prohibition on the parking of dump trucks and heavy equipment in
residential neighborhoods, the majority (70.8%) answered that such a prohibition was a good idea.
Does there need to bean annual limit on the number of building permits for unincorporated Dare County? Of
the 1895 answers, 406 strongly agreed, 574 agreed, 297 offered no opinion, 392 disagreed, and 230 strongly
disagreed.
Question 25 asked if funding for the enforcement of junked vehicles and unsightly structures should be
increased. There was strong support among residents and non-residents for increased funding. 1416
respondents indicated support for a 74.6% majority.
The adequacy of sign enforcement in unincorporated Dare County was examined in question 26. 46.4%
indicated agreement, 27.8% indicated no opinion, and 25.9% indicated disagreement.
The next three questions addressed the use of central wastewater treatment and collection plants, whether
Dare County should investigate their construction, and whether they are acceptable alternatives when
privately -owned or should only be government owned. Concerning the investigation of construction of central
wastewater plants, 62.5% of the total responses offered support for the concept. This support was stronger
among the non-resident property owners, perhaps because many of these individuals live in urban areas
serviced by central wastewater treatment systems. 50.9% of the respondents to question 28 felt privately -
owned central wastewater systems were acceptable. 27.4 % indicated no opinion on this question.
Government ownership did not seem to make a difference to the respondents with only 46.3% indicating that
central wastewater was more acceptable if owned by a government agency. The status of ownership, public
versus private, did not appear to influence support relative to central wastewater facilities.
Questions 30 and 31 followed the theme of central wastewater treatment with these two questions asking if
lot sizes should be decreased and dwelling densities increased for properties served by a central wastewater
system. The status of public ownership versus private ownership was also factored into the questions. In
response to publicly -owned wastewater systems, 53.0% or 998 individuals disagreed or strongly disagreed
with decreased lot sizes and increased dwelling densities for properties served by central wastewater systems.
This percentage increased to 61.8% of disagreement if the central wastewater facility is privately -owned.
Page 5
11
u
n
0
1

J
Appendix 3
The next question inquired about the zoning of Dare County waters to protect traditional uses and activities.
A high percentage (72.2%) of the respondents agreed with this concept. This level of support was evident
among both resident and non-resident property owners.
Should Dare County seek consensus from the State to re-evaluate the strict regulation of the SED-1 zoning
district that applies to the Buxton Woods maritime forest? 1869 individuals responded to this question.
911 indicated no opinion, for a total of 48.7%. A total of 353 individuals answered strongly agree or agree and
609 answered disagree or strongly disagree. Most of the respondents to this question were resident
property owners. Among the 1008 resident property owners that answered this question 215 selected
strongly agree or agree and 328 selected disagree or strongly disagree, the largest number of responses
among resident property owners was no opinion with 467 responses.
The location of non -maritime related industrial uses on oceanfront and soundfront properties was the topic of
question 34. 1229 respondents agreed that non -maritime industries should not be permitted on oceanfront
and soundfront sites. This represents a majority opinion of 65.2% of the 1887 individuals that chose to
answer this question. This support was similar in both the resident and non-resident responses.
Question 35 examined the funding of a full-time stormwater management and ditch maintenance
department. There was support for this effort among both residents and non-residents. A total of 65.2% of
the answers indicated agreement with this question.
Question 36 asked about the re-evaluation of current lot coverage standards. No clear consensus can be
determined from the results of this question. 1866 individuals chose to answer the question, with 39.6%
choosing strongly agree or agree, 30.3% chose no opinion for their answer, and 30.4% chose disagree or
strongly disagree. This same pattern was true for the resident and non-resident responses.
No determination of consensus was also the case with question 37 which questioned the adequacy of current
State stormwater regulations. The highest number of responses was no opinion at 36.8%, followed by 35.2%
responding disagree or strongly disagree and 28.3% indicating strongly agree or agree.
The topic of expenditures of occupancy taxes and land transfer taxes on non -tourist related items and
infrastructure was examined in question 38. 64.5% of the 1880 responses expressed the need to re-evaluate
the allocation of these two taxes. 18.4% disagreed with the need to examine how these taxes are spent.
The next two questions concentrated on off -shore exploration of oil and natural gas. The current Dare County
policy opposes off -shore exploration of oil and natural gas. Question 39 asked if the County should continue
to oppose exploration and question 40 asked if the exploration should be supported in light of recent fuel
increases. 55.4% of the 1895 respondents felt the current policy opposing exploration should be continued.
Of this 55.4% majority, 39.1% indicated strong agreement. 6.5%of the respondents selected no opinion to
the question and 38.4% of the respondents disagreed with the continuation of the current policy. When the
Page 6

1
Appendix 3
question was posed relative to high fuel costs, the level of support for continued opposition to exploration
decreased to 39.6% of the 1895 respondents.
Question 41 addressed a similar topic, alternative means of energy production. There was a strong level of
support for encouragement of alternative means in unincorporated Dare County. 77.2% of the 1902
individuals that answered this question felt alternative means of energy production, including personal use
windmills, should be supported.
The next two questions involved transportation issues. Should Dare County and its municipalities investigate a
County -wide public transit system? Only 49.6% indicate such a concept should be investigated. 16.4%
offered no opinion to this question. Question 43 asked if current NCDOT funding for transportation
improvements in Dare County is adequate. 45.2% of the total answers indicated that the funding is
inadequate. There were a large number of no opinions offered for this question, with non-residents selecting
this response more often than residents.
Question 44 examined whether Dare County should resist efforts by the federal government to further restrict
beach driving on federal lands. 65.1% of the respondents indicated Dare County should resist efforts to
restrict beach driving. Of this 65.1% majority, 45.6% of the responses were in the strongly agree category.
This strong level of agreement was selected by 44.0% of the resident property owners that answered this
question and 47.6% of the non-resident property owners that answered this question. This topic was also
listed many times as an important issue in question 5 found earlier in the survey.
Support for the acquisition of lands for future public projects was addressed in question 45. There was
support for additional acquisitions with 62.3% of the answers or 1169 individuals offering support for such
efforts. This majority was true for both resident and non-resident property owners.
Re -direction of current funding to promote tourism to funding of quality of life issues for Dare County
residents was the next question. 68.1 % or 1278 persons agreed with this question. The breakdown of
resident versus non-resident resulted in a higher level of agreement (78.1%) of the residents responses
compared to 56.1% of non-residents responses.
The last 3 questions were of a different format. Question 47 questioned what response to shoreline
management the barrier island communities should take: abandon shoreline, beach nourishment, seawalls
and groins, or relocate inland. Of the 1678 individuals that chose to answer this question, beach nourishment
was chosen as the preferred alternative at 46.5%, followed by abandon shoreline at 25.4%, seawalls and
groins at 24.9%, and relocate inland at 17.4%. The pattern of preferred alternatives was the same for both
resident and non-resident respondents. Beach nourishment was favored by 35.5% of Dare County residents
that responded to this question. Among non-resident property owners, beach nourishment garnered 60.2% of
the responses over the other alternatives. Continuing with the shoreline management issue, question 48
presented 5 payment options for shoreline stabilization: occupancy tax, special district taxes, user fees,
Page 7
r
1

Appendix 3
' federal/state funding, or property taxes. Of the 1738 responses, federal/state funding was selected by 57.7%
or 1002 persons. The second preferred option was occupancy tax at 36.4%, followed by user fees at 26.6%,
special district taxes at 22.1% and property taxes at 12.2%. This same order of preferred options was
selected regardless of residency status.
In the last question, respondents were presented with 9 options and asked to indicate whether they would
support paying higher taxes to fund each option. Only one of these options, acquisition of land for public use
gained a majority of the responses (50.1%). Several other options such as stormwater management/ditch
maintenance and bicycle path construction had favorable responses in the high 40 percentile range. The
option of county mass transit system generated the most opposition among responses with 60.1%.
Page 8

Appendix 3
What is your residence status?
Res onse
Percent
Count
Resident Property owner
52.9%
1067
Non-resident property owner
- -
- : 43.9%
885
Resident Renter
1.3%
26
Other
1.9%
39
answered question
2017
skipped question
33
Where do you live?
Res onse
Tax District
Percent
Count .
Avon
7.3%
88
Buxton
8.8%
106
Colin on
15.6%
187
Duck
0.8%
9
East Lake
0.3%
3
Frisco
8.7%
104
Hatteras
5.6%
67
Kill Devil Hills town
3.7%
44
Kill Devil Hills outside
3.0%
36
Kitty Hawk
2.7%
32
Manns Harbor
2.5%
30
Manteo (town).
1.2%
14
Manteo outside
19.2%
230
Martins Point
3.4% -'
41 '
Mashoes
0.3%
3
Nags Head
3.1 %
37
Rodanthe
1.5%
18
Salvo
2.8%
33
Southern Shores
1.7%
34
Stumpy Point
2.4%
29
Wanchese
5.1%
61
Waves
1.4% .
17
answered question
1199
skipped question
851
Page 9
1
I

Appendix 3
Where do you own property?
Res onse
Tax District
Percent
Count
Avon
16.4%
326
Buxton
8.1%
160
Colin on
14.7%
292
Duck
1.2%
23
East Lake
0.4%
7
Frisco
1 L8% .
234
Hatteras
9.0%
179
Kill Devil Hills town
3.8%
76
Kill Devil Hills (outside)
3.9%
78
Kitty,Hawk
2.9%
58
Manns Harbor
2.4%
48
Manteo town
1.4%
28
Manteo (outside)
15.8%
314
Martins Point
2.5%
49
Mashoes
0.4%
8
Nags Head
3.5%
70
Rodanthe
4.5%
90
Salvo
6.9%
136
Southern Shores
1.7%°
34
Stum Point
1.2%
24
Wanchese
3.8%
75
Waves
2.9%
58
answered question
1984
ski d uestion
66
Status of property
Percent
Count
Permanent residence
54.3%
1058
Weekly rental
23.9%
466
Monthly<rental
7.0%"
136
Business
3.4%
66
Vacant _ .
12.1%
235
Other
17.0%
332
answered question
1949
skipped question
101
Page 10

Appendix 3
What issues do you think are most important to the future of Dare County?
Answered question -
1338
Skipped question
1713
Response
Number
Affordable housin workforce housing
172
Bonner 'Bridge r lacement -- short 17 long 16
172
Wetlandprotection/conservation of natural resources.
77
Property taxes
75
Wastewater/septic issues
73
Beach access/public access
71
Continued beach drivin /ORV use
62
Drinking water/central - general comments
55
Beach nourishment —support
55
Traffic congestion
53
Transportation improvements/infrastructure needs
51
Bike aths/ multi -use paths
46
Growth control/overdevelopment/zoningcontrol/overdevelopment/zoning restrictions
45
Stormwater management
44
Repairs to NC 12
43
Drug and alcohol abuse
39
Commercial development regulations/limitation of tourist -oriented retail stores
39
.Schools
37
Junk vehicles, junk boats, etc
35
Density limitations
32
Use of fill material on property
23
Commercial fishing/fisheries resources
20
Rising insurance rates
19
Controlling government spending
19
Illegal aliens
19
Tourism —importance to local economy
19
Economy growth/ expanded opportunities
18
Large residential homes
" 18
No beach nourishment
17
Mid Currituck bridge construction
15
Central water on Roanoke Island (support)
11
Central water on Roanoke Island (oppose)
9-
9—
Working
Working waterfronts/ ublic access
7
Economic development - not just tourism
5
Prohibited beach drivin ORV use
4
Buxton Woods — revisions for more flexibility -
3
Buxton Woods — no revisions
3
Page 11
L
E
I
F-�
1

Fj
n
Appendix 3
Efforts by the State of North Carolina to limit the installation of bulkheads should be supported b Dare Coun .
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
20.1%
374
Strongly A ee+ Agree
22.4%
226
17.2%
143
Agree
27.2%
505
47.3% 879
25.5%
257
29.4%
244
No Opinion
21.3%
396
17.1%
172
26.3%
218
Disagree
18.4%
342
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
19.6%
197
16.8%
139
Strongly Disagree
13.2%
246
31.6%
588
15.6%
157
10.6%
88
answered question
1859
1007
830
skipped question
191
86
94
The State 30-foot setback along ditches and canals that interconnect with
estuarine water bodies is adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
17.3%
326
Strongly Agree + Agree
- 19.4%
196
15.1%
128
Agree
42.9%
807
60.2% 1133
43.5%
439
42.1%
357
No Opinion
19.7%
370
15.0%
151
25.4%
215
Disagree
13.5%
253
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
13.9%
140
12.9%
109
Strongly Disagree
6.9%
129
20.4%
382
8.5%
86
4.8%
41
answered question
1881
1010
848
skipped question,169
83
76
Oceanfront setbacks for construction are adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
9.2%
174
Strongly Agree + Agree
9.3%
94
9.2%
78
Agree
32.3%
608
41.5% 782
29.7%
301
35.5%
301
No Opinion
17.3%
326
15.8%
160
19.1%
162
Disagree
24.6%
463
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
25.4%
257
23.5%
199
Strongly Disagree
16.8%
316
41.4%
779
20.1%
204
12.9%
109
answered question
1883
1014
867
skipped question
167
79
77
Dare County should
adopt regulations to control land clearing and tree removal on your property.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
16.4%
311
Strongly Agree + Agree
15.7%
160
17.4%
148
Agree
26.0%
494
42.4% 805
23.7%
242
29.3%
250
No Opinion
6.6%
125
5.5%
56
8.0%
68
Disagree
27.4%
519
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
27.2%
278
27.0%
230
Strongly Disagree
23.8%
452
51.2% 971
28.2%
288
18.5%
158
answered question
1897
1022
852
skipped question
153
71
72
Page 12

Appendix 3
Current Federal flood regulations for first -floor elevations of buildings are adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
11.3%
212
Strongly Agee + Agree
12.91/o
130
9.7% "
82
Agree
52.7%
990
64.0% 1202
51.5%
521
53.8%
455
No Opinion
20.3%
381
18.0%
182
22.9%
194
Disagree
11.1%
209
Strongly Disagree+
Disa ee
11.9%
120
10.4%
88
Strongly Disagree
4.8%
191
15.9
300
5.9%
1 60
3.4%
1 29
answered question
1879
1011
846
skipped question
171
82
78
The 15,000 square feet minimum lot size for new subdivision lots should be re-evaluated.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
12.6%
235
Strongly Agree + Agree
14.4%
145
10.6%
89
Agree
26.9%
503
39.5% 738
27.9%
280
25.8%
217
No Opinion
18.5%
345
16.0%
161
21.4%
180
Disagree
28.0%
524
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
27.8%
279
28.5%
240
Strongly Disagree
14.2%
266
42.2%
790
14.1%
1 142
14.0%
1 118
answered question
1869
1005
842
skipped question
181
88
82
The placement of fill on lots in excess of that required for the installation of wastewater improvements should
continue to be unregulated.
Totals
Resident
;
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
10.4%
197
Strongly Agree + Agree
12.5%
127
7.9%
67
Agree
22.4%
424
32.8% 621
21.6%
220
23.2%
197
No Opinion
14.1 %
267
9.4%
96
19.7%
167
Disagree
31.5%
595
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
30.9%
315
32.3%
274
Strongly Disagree
21.8%
1 411
53.3%
1006
25.8%
1 263
17.1%
145
answered question
1890
1019
848
skipped question
160
74
76
Current federal re ulations to protect wetlands are adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
13.1 %
246
Strongly Agree + Agree
13.8%
140
12.4%
105
Agree
40.5%
763
53.6% 1009
38.1%
386
43.4%
368
No Opinion
10.8%
204
9.4%
95
12.5%
106
Disagree
20.1 %
379
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
20.6%
208
19.4%
165
Strongly Disagree
15.7%
1 296
35.8% 675
18.3%
1 185
12.6%
1 107
answered question
1884
1012
849
skipped question
166
81
75
1
Fj
Page 13

u
0
k
P
Appendix 3
Current State regulations for the development
of marinas are adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
7.6%
144
Strong1y Agree + Agree
8.7%
88
6.6%
56
Agree
28.9%
544
36.5% 688
30.6%
311
26.%
226
No Opinion
43.2%
815
36.9%
375
51.0%
431
Disagree
12.6%
238
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
14.0%
142
10.8%
91
Strongly Disagree
7.9%
148
20.5% 386
10.1%
103
5.1%
43
answered question
1885
1017
845
skipped question
165
76
79
Floating homes/structures should be prohibited.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
26.8%
509
Strongly Agree + Agree
24.9%
255
29.2%
249
Agree
31.2%
593
58.0% 1102
28.0%
287
34.6%
295
No Opinion
20.5%
390 _
21.3%
218
19.7%
168
Disagree
15.3%
290
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
16.9%
173
13.5%
115
Strongly Disagree
6.4%
122
21.7%
412
9.1%
93
3.3%
1 28
answered question
1900
1024
853
skipped question
150
69
71
Dare County should continue to advocate single family homes as the preferred land use in unincorporated Dare
County.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
41.1%
775
Strongly Agee + Agree
39.0%
397
43.5%
369
Agree
39.8%
751
80.9% 1526
39.6%
403
40.3%
342
No Opinion
7.6%
143
7.4%
75
7.5%
64
Disagree
8.4%
159
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
9.7%
99
6.8%
58
Strongly Disagree
3.4%
64
11.8% 223
4.4%
45
2.1%
1 ' 18
answered question
1888
1017
849
skipped question
162
76
75
Dare County should
evaluate the use of single family homes as boarding
/rooming houses.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree .
16.3%
307
Strongly A ee + Agree
15.3%
155
17.8%
151
Agree
33.8%
636
50.1% 943
35.4%
359
32.1%
272
No Opinion
18.6%
350
17.3%
175
20.0%
169
Disagree
20.7%
390
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
21.6%
219
19.4%
164
Strongly Disagree
10.8%
203
31.5% 593
10.6%
107 '
11.0%
93
answered question
1 1882
1013
847
skipped question
1 168
80
77
Page 14

Appendix 3
Multifamily structures should only be permitted at which d Iling densities.
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
3-5 units per acre
72.9%
1324
69.8%
685
76.3%
621
6.8 units per acre
19.6%
356
21.8%
214
17.1%
139
10-12units peracre
7.7%
140
8.6%
84
6.9%
56
answered question
981
981
814
skipped question
112
112
110
Single family homes that are rented on a short-term basis should be considered as commercial activity with
different standards for parking, trashpick-u and water rates.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
23.7%
448
Strongly Agree + Agree
32.5%
329
13.3%
113
Agree
21.1%
398
44.8% 846
25.7%
261
15.5%
132
No Opinion
9.3%
175
7.7%
78
11.0%
94
Disagree
24.9%
471
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
20.6%
209
29.9%
255
Strongly Disagree
21.3%
402
46.2% 873
13.7%
139
30.6%
261
answered question
1890
1014
853
skipped question
160
79
71
Parkin lot/street vendors should continue to
be unregulated.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
7.4%
141
Strongly Agree + Agree
9.2%
94
5.3%
45
Agree
25.9%
490
53.3% 631
29.1%
296
21.6%
184
No Opinion
19.2%
363
18.6%
189
20.0%
171
Disagree
34.9%
660
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
31.9%
324
38.6%
330
Strongly Disagree
12.9%
244
47.80/( 904
11.4%
116
14.8%
1 126
answered question
1894
1017
854
skipped que,stion
156
76
70
The proliferation of tourist -oriented retail stores should be studied for regulatory standards.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
31.6%
596
Strongly Agee + Agree
38.6%
391
23.6%
201
Agree
38.7%
731
70.3% 1327
35.4%
359
42.3%
360
No Opinion
14.0%
265
12.0%
122
16.6%
141
Disagree
10.8%
203
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
9.3%
94
12.3%
105
Strongly Disagree
5.1%
97
15.9% 300
4.8%
49
5.5%
1 47
answered question
1888
1013
852
skipped question
162
80
72
Page 15

I
Appendix 3
Dare County zoning regulations for home offices/home occupations in residential nei hborhoods are adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
9.8%
185
Strongly A ee + Agree
12.0%
121
7.3%
62
Agree
41.4%
779
51.2% 964
47.4%
480
34.0%
287
No Opinion
33.5%
630
23.8%
241
45.6%
385
Disagree
11.2%
210
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
12.1%
122
9.9%
84
Strongly Disagree
4.3%
80
15.5% 290
4.9%
50
3.4%
29
answered question
1880
1012
845
skipped question
170
81
79
Dare County should amend current zoning regulations to prohibit the parking of dump trucks, 18-wheelers and
other similar heavy equipment in residential nei hborhoods.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
32.8%
624
Strongly Agee + Agree
30.0%
307
36.1%
309
Agree
38.0%
721
70.8% 1345
35.1%
359
41.6%
356
No Opinion
12.1%
230
12.3%
126 '
l 1.2%
96
Disagree
12.0%
228
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
15.1 %
154
8.5%
73
Stron ly Disagree
5.3%
101
17.3% 329
7.6%
78
2.7%
23
answered question
1900
1022
855
skipped question
150
71
69
An annual limit on the number of residential and commercial building permits should be considered in
unincorporated Dare County.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
21.4%
406
Strongly A ee +'Agree
18.3%
186
25.0%
214
Agree
30.3%
574
51.7% 980
28.3%
287
32.9%
282
No Opinion
15.7%
297
15.7%
159-
15.8%
135
Disagree
20.7%
392
Strongly Disagree+
Disagree
22.1%
224
18.9%
166
Strongly Disagree
12.1%
230
32.8% 622
15.9% '
162
7.6%
65
answered question
1895
1016
856
skipped question
155
77
68
Dare County should increase funding for enforcement activities to address the removal of junked vehicles and
unsightly structures.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
33.9%
644
Strongly A ee + Agree
34.5%
353
33.1 %
282
Agree
40.7%
772
74.6% 1416
38.8%
397
42.8%
365
No Opinion
10.5%
200
9.1%
93
12.3%
105
Disagree
10.4%
197
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
11.9%
122
8.8%
75
Strongly Disagree
4.7%
90
15.1% 287
5.9%
60
3.3%
28
answered question
1899
1023
853
skipped question
151
70
71
Page 16

Appendix 3
Current County regulation of signs, including off -premise billboards is adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
6.0%
114
Strongly Agree + Agree
7.2%
73
4.7%
40
Agree
40.4%
763
46.4% 877
44.3%
450
35.7%
303
No Opinion
27.8%
525
22.9%
232
34.0%
289
Disagree
17.5%
331
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
16.7%
169
18.5%
157
Strongly Disagree
8.4% 1
159
25.9% 490
9.2%
93
7.4%
63
answered question
1889
1015
850
skipped uestion
162
78
74
Dare County should investigate the construction of publicly -owned and operated central wastewater collection
and treatment facilities for all areas on unincor orated Dare County.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
20.6%
389
Strongly Agree + Agree
21.5%
218
19.7%
169
Agree
41.9%
792
62.5% 1181
38.7%
392
45.4%
389
No Opinion
17.9%
338
16.1 % `
163
20.1 %
172
Disagree
12.1%
229
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
13.1%
133
10.7%
92
Strongly Disagree
7.8%
148
19.9%
377
10.7%
1 108
4.3%
37
answered question
1892
1012
857
skipped que,stion
158
81
67
Privately -owned and operated on -site central wastewater collection and treatment plants are acceptable
alternatives only when natural soil conditions reclude the use of traditional on -site wastewaters stems.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
8.4%
157
Strongly A ee + Agree
8.4%
85
8.3%
70
Agree
42.5%
797
50.9% 954
42.6%
430
42.7%
360
No Opinion
27.4%
513
24.5%
247
30.8%
260
Disagree
14.5%
271
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
14.8%
149
13.8%
116
Strongly Disagree
7.6%
142
22.1%
413
10.0%
101
4.6%
39
answered question
1876
1010
843
skipped question
174
83
81
Off -site central wastewater treatment and collection systems should be authorized only if owned and operated by a
government agency .
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
14.4%
271
Strongly Agee + Agree
15.2% :
154
13.6%
116
Agree
31.8%
603
46.3% 874
31.3%
315
32.9%
281
No Opinion
25.4%
474
23.3%
236
27.3%
233
Disagree
20.7%
391
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
20.5%
207
20.6%
176
Strongly Disagree
8.2%
154
28.9% 545
10.1%
102
5.9%
50
answered question
1889
1012
854
skipped question
161
81
70
Page 17
n

1
P
Appendix 3
Decreased lot sizes/increased dwelling densities should be available for property served by a central wastewater
treatment plant that is owned and operated b the local governments.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
6.0%
113
Strongly Agree + Agree
6.7%
68
5.3%
45
Agree
25.1%
472
31.1% 585
26.5%
267
23.6%
201
No Opinion
16.1%
304
14.8%
149
17.6%
150
Disagree
29.9%
563
Strongly Disagree +
Disagjee
29.1 %
294
30.7%
261
Strongly Disagree
23.1%
435
53.0% 998
23.1%
233
23.0%
196
answered question
1883
1009
851
skipped question
167
84
73
Decreased lot sizes/increased dwelling densities should be available for property served by a central wastewater
treatment plant that is owned and operated b a private company.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
4.6%
86
Strongly A ee + Agree
4.9%
50
4.1 %
35
Agree
16.8%
318
21.4% 404
17.3%
175
16.1%
137
No Opinion
17.1 %
322
16.3%
165
18.1 %
154
Disagree
33.9%
639
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
33.8%
343
34.0%
289
Strongly Disagree
27.9%
527
61.8%
1166
27.9%
283
28.0%
238
answered question
1888
1014
851
skippedquestion
162
79
73
Dare Coun should
zone its surrounding water bodies to protect traditional activities and uses.
` Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
30.1 %
566 '
Strongly Agree + Agree
29.0%
294
31.9%
269
Agree
42.1%
791
72.2% 1357
40.7%
413
43.4%
366
No Opinion
10.1%
189
8.9%
90
11.6%
98
Disagree
11.8%
222
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
13.6%
138
9.4%
79
Strongly Disagree
6.2%
117
18.0% 339
8.0%
81
4.0%°
34
answered question
1881
1014
844
skipped question
169
79
1 80
Dare County should seek consensus from the State that the strict regulations of the SED-1 zoning district for the
Buxton Woods maritime forest should be re-evaluated.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
5.9%
111
Strongly Agree + Agree
7.1 %
72
4.5%
38
Agree
13.0%
242
18.9% 353
14.2%
143
11.3%
95
No Opinion
48.7%
911
46.3%
467
51.6%
432
Disagree
16.5%
308
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ree
16.7%
168
16.6%
139
Strongly Disagree
16.1%
301
32.6% 609
15.9%
160
16.2%
1 136
answered question
1869
1008
838
skipped question
181
85
86
Page 18

1
Appendix 3
Non -maritime related industrial uses should not be permitted on oceanfront
and soundfront pro erties.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
31.9%
601
Strongly A ee + Agree
30.3%
307
33.7%
286
Agree
33.3%
628
65.2% 1229
31.7%
322
35.1%
298
No Opinion
13.9%
263
14.6%
148
13.2%
112
Disagree
14.6%
276
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
16.1%
163
13.0%
110
Strongly Disagree
6.5%
123
21.1 %
1 399
7.6%
77
5.3%
1 45
answered question
1887
1015
849
skipped question
163
78
75
Dare County should
establish and fund a full-time stormwater manage ent and ditch maintenance department.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
21.2%
402
Strongly A ee + Agree
23.6%
240
18.6%
159
Agree
44.0%
834
65.2% 1236
43.5%
443
44.7%
382
No Opinion
17.1 %
324
14.5%
148
20.3%
173
Disagree
12.8%
242
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
12.4%
126
13.1%
112
Strongly Disagree
5.1%
1 97
17.9% 339
6.3%
1 64
35%
30
answered question
1895
1019
854
skipped question
155
74
70
Current lot covera a standards for residential
and commercial uses should be re-evaluated.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
9.5%
177
Strongly A ee + Agree
11.9%
119
6.8%
57
Agree
30.1%
562
39.6% 739
31.2%
313
29.1%
244
No Opinion
30.3%
565
20.9%
210
41.4%
348
Disagree
22.9%
427
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
26.9%
270
17.9%
150
Strongly Disagree
7.5%
139
30.4% 566
9.3%
93
5.1%
43
answered question
1866
1003
840
skipped question
184
90
84
Current State regulations to address stormwater runoff are adequate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
5.2%
98
Strongly A ee + Agree
5.9%
60
4.3%
36
Agree
23.1%
432
28.3% 530
26.0%
263
19.5%
164
No Opinion
36.8% .
689
28.9%
292
46.5%
391
Disagree
25.2%
472
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
26.3%
266
23.7%
199
Strongly Disagree
10.0%
187
35.2% 659
13.0%
131
6.3%
T 53
answered question
1874
1010
841
skipped question
176
83
83
Page 19
L 7
Ell
1

I
1
Appendix 3
The use of occupancy taxes and land transfer taxes should be re-evaluated to allow expenditures on non -tourist
related items and infrastructure improvements.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
20.6%
387
Strongly A ee + Agree
29.0%
295
10.5%
88
Agree
43.9%
825
64.5% 1212
44.5%
453
42.8%
360
No Opinion `
17.3%
325
12.0%
122
24.0%
202
Disagree
12.0%
226
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
9.3%
95
15.3%
129
Strongly Disagree
6.4%
1 121
18.4% 347
5.3%
1 54
7.6%
64
answered question
1880
1017
841
skipped question
170
76
83
Dare County should
continue to oppose off -shore exploration for oil and natural gas off the NC coast.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
39.1%
741
Strongly Agree + Agree
39.3%
401
38.9%
332
Agree
16.3%
309
55.4% 1050
14.5%
148
18.6%
159
No Opinion
6.5%
123
5.5%
56
7.5%
64
Disagree
20.3%
384
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
21.3%
217
19.1%
163
Strongly Disagree
18.1%
342
38.4% 726
19.6%
200
16.1%
137
answered question
1895
1020
853
skipped question
155
73
71
Off -shore exploration for oil and natural gas off the NC coast should be supported in response to increased fuel
costs in the US.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
18.4%
349
Strongly Agree + Agree
20.6%
210
15.7%
134
Agree
21.2%
402
39.6% 751
22.2%
226
20.2%
173
No Opinion
7.9%
150
7.6%
77
8.1 %
69
Disagree
21.0%
398
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
18.9%
193
23.7%
203
Strongly Disagree
31.7%
600
28.9% 998
30.9%
315
32.5%
278
answered question
1895
1019
855
skipped question
155
74
69
Alternative means of energy production, including personal use windmills, should be encouraged in
unincorporated Dare County.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree ,
37.1%
706
Strongly Agree + Agree
41.3%
421
32.6%
280
Agree
40.1%
762
77.2% 1468
38.1%
389
42.4%
364
No Opinion
10.8%
206
10.7%
109
10.9%
94
Disagree
7.8%
149
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
6.2%
63
9.8%
84
Strongly Disagree
4.4%
83
11.9% 232
3.9%
40
4.5%
39
answered question
1902
1020
859
skipped question
148
73
65
Page 20

Appendix 3
Dare County and its municipalities should investi ate a County -wide public transits stem.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
16.8%
318
Strongly Agree + Agree
22.8%
232
9.9%
84
Agree
32.8%
620
49.6% 938
36.3%
369
28.7%
243
No Opinion
16.4%
309
12.0%
122
21.8%
185
Disagree
21.8%
411
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
18.9%
192
25.5%
216
Strongly Disagree
12.4%
234
34.2% 645
10.3%
105
14.4%
122
answered question
1888
1018
848
skipped question
162
75
76
Current State/NCDOT transportation fundin
of road improvements in Dare County is ade uate.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
3.8%
71
ee
Strongly A + Agree
3.9%
39
3.8%
32
Agree
24.7%
465
28.5% 336
26.6%
269
22.6%
191
No Opinion
26.5%
499
21.7%.
219
32.2%
273
Disagree
27.7%
521
Strongly Disagree +
Disa ee
28.2%
285
27.0%
229
Strongly Disagree
17.5%
328
45.20/(o
849
19.8%
200
14.6%
1 124
answered question
1880
1010
847
skipped question
170
83
77
Dare County should
resist efforts by the Federal government to further restrict beach drivingon Federal lands.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
45.6%
867
ee
Strongly A + Agree -
44.0%
447
47.6%
411.
Agree
19.5%
371
65.1% 1238
19.8%
201
19.2%
166
No Opinion
6.8%
129
7.3%
74
6.0%
52
Disagree
13.8%
262
Strongly Disagree +
Disaglee
14.4%
146
13.1%
113
Strongly Disagree
14.6%
278
28.4% 540
14.9%
151
14.3%
1 123
answered question
1903
1017
863
skipped question
147
76
61
Acquisition of additional lands for future public
projects should be sup
orted.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
20.0%
376
Strongly A + Agree
18.8%
190
21.5%
181
Agree
42.3%
793
62.3%ee 1169
41.8%
422
42.8%
361
No Opinion
17.7%
332
16.6%
168
19.0% `
160
Disagree
12.4%
232
Strongly Disagree+
Disa ee
13.5%
136
11.1%
94
Strongly Disagree
7.9%
148
20.3%
380
9.5%
96
5.9%
50
answered question
1877
1010
844
skipped question
173
83
80
Page 21
u
I
7

C
Appendix 3
Current funding used to promote tourism should be re-evaluated for spending on quality of life issues for Dare
County residents.
Totals
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Strongly Agree
30.1 %
565
Strongly A ee + Agree
41.4%
419
16.5%
139
Agree
38.0%
713
68.1% 1278
36.7%
371
39.6%
334
No Opinion
13.6%
255
8.4%
85
20.1%
169
Disagree
13.3%
250
Strongly Disagree +
Disagree
10.0%
101
17.3%
146
Strongly Disagree
5.2%
98
18.5% 348
3.8%
38
6.8%
57
answered question
1877
1012
843
skipped question
173
81
81
The barrier island communities of Dare County
should implement which of the following:
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Abandon Shoreline
25.4%
426
30.3%
273
19.2%
145
Beach nourishment
46.5%
780
35.5%
320
60.2%
456
Seawalls, groins, hardened structures
24.9%
418
26.2%
236
23.4%
177
Relocate inland
17.4%
292
20.0%
180
14.3%
108
Answered question
1678
901
757
Skipped question
372
192
167
Which of the followin2 o tions should be used to fund shoreline stabilization:
Resident
Non-resident
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Percent
Count
Occupancy tax
36.4%.
633
42.5%
388
30.1%
243
Special district taxes
22.1%
384
27.3%
249
16.5%
133
User fees
26.6%
463
25.9%
236
27.0%
218
Federal/State funding
57.7%
1002
49.9%
455
67.0%
541
Property taxes
12.2% `
212
9.5%
87
15%
125
1738
912
808
312
181
116
Page 22

Appendix 3
I would support higher taxes to fund:
Response
Resident
Non-resident
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Opinion
Opinion
Opinion
Stormwater management/ditch
46.2%
41.5%
12.3%
45.3%
44.6%
10.2%
47.3%
38.0%
14.7%
maintenance
858
770
228
449
442
101
398
320
842
Bicycle/multi-use paths
49.4%
43.1%
7.6%
50.3%
42.6%
7.1%
48.3%
43.6%
8.1%
926
808
142
508
430
72
408
368
68
Acquisition of land for public
50.1%
41.8%
8.1%
47.8%
43.7%
8.5%
52.7%
39.5%
7.8%
use and recreation
934
780
152
479
438
85
444
333
66
Removal of junked
46.8%
46.5%
6.7%
44.5%
49.4%
6.0%
49.1%
43.3%
7.6%
vehicles/unsightly structures
872
865
125
444
493
60
414
365
64
County mass transit system
29.6%
60.1%
10.3%
36.0%
54.9%
9.1%
22.1%
66.1%
11.8%
551
1118
192
359
539
91
186
556
99
Road improvements to
36.7%
49.9%
13.4%
33.9%
54.2%
12.0%
40.4%
44.4%
15.2%
accelerate NCDOT projects
679
924
248
337
539
119
337
371
127
Curbside recycling pick-up :
43.4%
49.3%
7.3%
42.6%
51.4%
6.0%
44.7%
46.4%
8.9%
811
920
136
426
515
60
377
392
75
Shoreline access improvements
44.9%
44.7%
10.4%
42.9%
47.8%
9.3%
47.4%
40.8%
11.8%
840
835
194
431
480
93
400
344
100
Community centers
32.3%
54.7%
13.0%
37.2%
52.8%
10.0%
27.0%
56.5%
16.5%
602
1019
242
372
528
100
227
476
139
Page 23
M M M M M M

M
Appendix 4
ANALYSIS OF 2003 LUP POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Natural Resources
WETLANDS
Policy
Implementation Strategies
Response
Policy #1
Dare County advocates the use of existing (2002) State
and Federal regulatory programs for protecting and
preserving coastal wetland areas of environmental of
concern. Dare County reserves the right to review,
comment, advocate, or oppose any proposed regulations
or programs that may affect the regulation of coastal
wetland areas of environmental concern.
1. Implementation and enforcement of CAMA use
Policy #2
Dare County supports the use of mitigation for the loss
standards for coastal wetland AECs as identified under
FULLY IMPLEMENTED, the county maintains a
of wetland areas for public purpose projects. Private
15NCAC7H, Sections .0205 and.0208.
2. The County will continue to administer the CAMA
full-time permit officer who continues to implement
development projects that proposed wetland mitigation
local permit enforcement program and maintain the staff
CAMA use standards for coastal wetland AECs and
may be supported by Dare County if such projects will
necessary for this work.
enforces wetland management permit programs.
The have been in
serve an identified public need and/or policy of the land
3. As may be necessary to facilitate implementation of
current policies effective
use plan. For booth public and private mitigation
permit programs for wetland management.
protecting these natural systems.
projects, up to 25 /o of the mitigation should take place
on site or in Dare County.
Policy #3
Dare County supports the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers nationwide permit program as administered
in 2002. This support is based on the current scope of
permitting limits on the nationwide program and not
on any changes that may result in a different policy.
Page 1

Appendix 4
OCEAN SHORELINE
FULLY IMPLEMENTED, the county maintains a
Policy #4
1. Implementation and enforcement of the CAMA use
full-time permit officer who continues to implement
Oceanfront shoreline development should continue to
standards for ocean hazard areas as contained in
CAMA use standards for ocean hazard areas. The
be managed to protect and preserve the natural and
15NCAC7H, Sections .0306 through .0310.
county continues to enforce the National Flood
recreational resources along the oceanfront. Dare
2. Implementation and enforcement of the National
Insurance Program's base flood elevation standards,
County reserves the right to review, comment,
Flood Insurance Program's base flood elevation
including the adoption of the September, 2006
advocate, or oppose any proposed regulations or
standards, including the standards for those areas where
update of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These
programs that may affect the regulation of ocean
wind driven waves create potential for damage by
maps ensure that standards applying to V-zones can
hazards areas of environmental concern.
velocity also known as V-zones.
be properly enforced. The application of thesepolicies
have been effective in protecting and
preserving the natural and recreational resources
along the oceanfront.
Page 2

M i M ' M M M M M M M M a M M M M M M
Appendix 4
ESTUARINE SHORELINE WATERS
Policy #5
Estuarine shoreline development should continue to be
managed to protect and preserve the natural resources
of the estuarine waters and the estuarine shoreline.
The appropriate tools for this is the existing CAMA
permit program and the Areas of Environmental
Concerns (AECs) designated under the CAMA
program. Dare County reserves the right to review,
comment, advocate, or oppose any proposed regulations
or programs that may affect the regulation of estuarine
waters and/or the estuarine shoreline.
1. Implementation and enforcement of the CAMA use
standards for estuarine shoreline AECs as stated in
15NCAC7H, Section .0209
FULLY IMPLEMENTED, the county maintains a
full-time permit officer who continues to implement
Policy #6
Dare County supports the installation and maintenance
2. Refer property owners to the Elizabeth City regional
CAMA use standards for estuarine shoreline AECs.
of estuarine bulkheads. Offshore breakwaters, slopes,
office for assistance with bulkhead permits.
The permit officer refers applicants to the Elizabeth
rip -rap, and voluntary setbacks in excess of CAMA 30-
3. Oppose efforts to eliminate or prioritize the use of
City regional office for assistance in securing
foot buffer rules should be promoted as additional
estuarine bulkheads.
bulkhead permits when necessary. These measures
methods for estuarine shoreline management in lieu of
have effectively protected against shoreline erosion.
estuarine bulkheads along estuarine shorelines where
these less invasive techniques would be equally
effective in abating a shoreline erosion problem
Policy #7
Development of estuarine systems islands that are only
accessible by boat shall be carefully managed. Low
intensity uses such as open space, recreation, and
detached single family residential development shall be
the preferred uses of these islands.
Page 3

Appendix 4
PUBLIC TRUST AREAS
Policy #8
Dare County supports the preservation and protection
of the public's right to access and use of the public trust
areas and waters.
1. Implementation and enforcement of the CAMA use
standards for public trust areas AECs as stated in 15A
Policy#9
NCAC 07H, Section .0207.
Dare County advocates a local level management
2. Consideration of Dare County management standards
program to address the competition among recreational
for the use of public trust waters by various competing
users of the public trust waters. Dare County reserves
recreation users.
the right to review, comment, advocate, or oppose any
proposed Federal or State regulations or programs that
affect the public trust waters or public trust areas.
Policy #10
Development in any public water supply AEC should
be managed to protect the long-term viability of the
groundwater resources.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AEC'S
1. Continued support for the CAMA use standards for
public water supply wellfield AECs as contained in
15NCAC7H, Section .0406.
2. Dare County will continue to implement and enforce
the provisions of the SED-1 zoning ordinance for the
Buxton Woods maritime forest.
3. Nomination of Skyco public wellfields for designation
by the Division of Coastal Management as a Public
water Supply Area of Environmental Concern.
Page 4
FULLY IMPLEMENTED, the county maintains a
full-time permit officer who continues to implement
CAMA use standards for public trust area AECs.
The county continues to monitor the use of public
trust waterss by various competing recreation
interests, and has taken measures to restrict certain
uses through vehicles such as conditional use
permits. The current policies have been effective in
preserving and protecting the public's right to access
and use public trust areas.
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county maintains a
full-time permit officer who continues to implement
CAMA use standards for public water supply AECs.
The status of the Skyco public well fields as an AEC
continues to be monitored. While the policies have
been effective in protecting groundwater resources,
the efficacy of the SED-1 zoning district may need
to be reevaluated during the next review of the LUP,
due to a number of requests to amend the district.

M M = = M M M M = M = M
Appendix 4
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
1. To continue efforts to make a central water supply
PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED. The county has
available to all areas of unincorporated Dare County.
Proceeded in extending central water service so
Coordinate with Water Department (multiple years,
several areas of the county successfully. However,
Policy #11
Stumpy Point 2003)
efforts to do so in Wanchese has recently been met
Dare County recognizes groundwater resources as an
2. Review any proposals by private sector withdrawals
with some resistance from the public. Development
essential element for the County's drinking water
greater than withdrawals for individual residential
Proposals which which seek to withdraw from the
supply. The management of groundwater resources
private wells.
public water supply continue to be reviewed
and their protection is a priority issue in Dare County.
3. Dare County will consider a permitting program for
critically by county officials. These measures have
private wells used as a drinking water supply (2004)
Proven effective at protecting and preserving local
4. Contract with independent planning consultant to
groundwater resources. A Carrying Capacity Study
update Carrying Capacity Study for Dare County. (2004)
has yet to be implemented by Dare County,
however, the prospect of administering such a study
is still a matter of consideration.
SURFACE WATER OUALITY
Policy #12
Dare County supports efforts by local, state, and federal
agencies to preserve, protect and improve water quality.
These efforts include the designation of Outstanding
1. Continue local water quality monitoring program.
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The Dare County
Resource Waters and shellfish water classification
2. Support State legislation for basin -wide water quality
Department of Environmental Health maintains a
criteria established by the State of North Carolina.
regulations, as exemplified by HB 1858 introduced in
rigorous surface water quality monitoring program.
the NC House in 2000, which proposed that counties
The Health Department also advocates for basin -
Policy # 13
upstream from the coastal area develop and implement
wide water quality regulations. These policies have
Dare County encourages the management of surface
water quality management plans.
been effective in maintaining the pristine quality of
water quality on basin -wide approach recognizing the
Dare County's surface waters and shellfish habitat.
importance of water quality in other inland regions
influence and impact the water quality of the coastal
regions.
Page 5

Appendix 4
SHORELINE ACCESS
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
Policy #14
1. Continue to evaluate opportunities for additional
evaluate opportunities for additional access facilities
Dare County supports North Carolina's shoreline
access facilities and grant funding programs to provide
and grant funding programs to provide for their
access policies as stated in 15A NCAC 7M, Section
money for their construction.
construction on a case by case basis. The county
.0303. Dare County recognizes shoreline access to both
2. Continue to pursue federal Shoreline Protection Plan
maintains a full time Shoreline Manager whose
ocean and estuarine shorelines as a key component in
for beach nourishment to provide sandy beaches and
responsibility includes the monitoring of federal
the local tourist economy.
public ownership.
Shoreline Protection Plans and beach nourishment
activities. These measures have been effective at
properly managing and promoting shoreline access.
CHANNEL MAINTENANCE
Policy #15
Dare County advocates the maintenance of all existing
navigable channels and will
FULLY IMPLEMENTED, the Oregon Inlet and
work to secure permit authorization for those non-
Waterways Commission and staff continue to be the
federal projects that require CAMA permit
1. Continued funding for Oregon Inlet and Waterways
Primary advocates and monitors of the conditions
authorization.
Commission and staff to provide support for the on-
and issues regarding navigable waterways in Dare
going efforts to secure jetty permit authorization.
County. The Commission and staff have been
Policy #16
effective in their role, particularly with regards to
Dare County advocates and supports the permit
Oregon Inlet and the fishing industry in Dare
authorization and federal funding necessary to
County.
construct jetties to stabilize Oregon Inlet.
Page 6

M = = = = M M = = = = M = ! M M M
Appendix 4
BEACH NOURISHMENT
1. Continue to serve as the non-federal sponsor of the
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county maintains a
Dare Beaches Hurricane Protection Plan.
full-time Shoreline Manager whose responsibilities
Policy #17
2. Use the Dare County Beach Nourishment Committee
include monitoring beach nourishment strategies.
Beach nourishment is the preferred shoreline
to advise the County Commissioners on policy issues
Other measures related to ocean shoreline
management alternative along the ocean beaches of
related ocean shoreline management.
management, well as the preservation and
Dare County.
3. Coordinate with NCDOT and the appropriate federal
maintenance off NC 12 continue to be considered on
agencies on matters relating to shoreline movement and
a case by case basis. These efforts have been
its impacts on NC 12.
effective at balancing the environmental and
economic implications of beach nourishment
strategies.
1JL V LLUY1V1LIN 1 1MJrAL,1 J UN KLJUUKI LJ
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. While no codified
Policy #18
vegetation protection standards have yet been
Development projects shall be designed and constructed
implemented, the issue remains a topic of
to minimize detrimental impacts on surface water
1. Consider tree removal and vegetation protection
consideration for the county. Developers are
quality, groundwater quality and air quality.
standards for commercial sites.
encouraged to preserve topographic and vegetative
Structures should be designed to fit the natural
2. Encourage property owners to design residential sites
conditions, and in some cases, required to install
topographic conditions and vegetation versus
limit impacts on the natural topography and vegetation.
certain vegetative features (e.g., buffers) as a
modifications to natural conditions to accommodate
condition of approval for development. These
structures.
strategies have been effective at limiting adverse
impacts to the natural terrain and vegetation Dare
MINERAL
1. Enforcement of dune standards contained in Dare FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
Policy #19 County Zoning Ordinance enforce standards to protect shorline dune systems.
Dare County advocates local level management of those Borrow pit and sand mining activities are monitored
2. Dare County will evaluate the need for local level
mining activities that are not subject to permit for compliance with State standards, while local
regulations to address mining activities that are exempt
authorization by the State of North Carolina. from State -level permitting. (2004) level regulations remain an issue for consideration.
These efforts have effectively regulated sand mining
activities, and limited degradation of dune systems
Page 7

Policy #20
The continued productivity of commercial and
recreational fisheries shall be fostered through
restoration and protection of the unique coastal
ecosystems upon which they depend.
Policy #21
Dare County supports measures to protect and preserve
designated primary nursery areas. Dare County also
recognizes the importance of all areas in our
surrounding waters that serve as habitats for the area's
abundant fisheries resources.
Policy #22
State and federal agencies with the authority to manage
fisheries resources should be the responsible parties for
the resolution of conflicts involving fisheries resources
in Dare County. However, Dare County reserves the
right to review, comment, advocate, or oppose any
proposed regulations or programs that may affect the
fisheries resources or management.
Policy #23
Dare County supports the development of the
aquaculture industry as a source of fishery production
as long as the proposed fishery or fish species does not
negatively impact native or indigenous fish species.
Policy #24
Dare County recognizes the traditional practices of
commercial fishing in Dare County and supports the
use of traditional shellfish and other fish harvesting
methods including trawling.
Appendix 4
FISHERIES RESOURCES
1. Support efforts for basin -wide water quality
regulations. As such programs are developed, Dare
County will become engaged in the process using
resolutions and other techniques to demonstrate our
support of basin wide water quality efforts.
2. Continued implementation of CAMA 30-foot buffer
rules, CAMA AEC regulations, and other local zoning
setbacks.
Page 8
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county maintains a
full-time permit officer who continues to enforce the
CAMA 30-foot buffer and AEC regulations. Local
zoning setbacks are strictly enforced during the
building permit review process. The county
advocates the development of "working waterfronts"
in an effort to promote responsible and sustainable
use of sensitive estuarine shorelines, while
contributing to the preservation of certain
historically -significant maritime industries. These
efforts have been substantially effective at
preserving fisheries resources and fishing activities.

i = M = = = = = M = = = = i = M M M
Appendix 4
MARITIME FORESTS
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. Despite various efforts
to amend or repeal measures of the SED-1 zoning
district, most components of the district have
1. Continued enforcement ofSED-1 zoning district.
remained fully enforced. However, the S-1 district
Policy #25
2. Support of funding sources, like the Clean Water
has been amended to allow mobile homes, in an
Dare County advocates a combination of limited
Trust Fund, for acquisition of lands in Buxton Woods
effort to promote affordable housing options. Dare
development guided by the local SED-1 zoning
and other maritime forest settings.
County continues to advocate funding for the
ordinance and a program of public acquisition to
3. Consideration of other measures on vegetation
preservation of maritime forests. While no
manage the Buxton Woods maritime forest.
protection incentives for the maritime forest areas on
vegetation protection standards have yet beenimplemented,
Colington and Roanoke Island.
the issue remains a topic of
consideration for the county. The county currently
encourages vegetation protection measures to be
included in subdivision covenants. These strategies
have been effective at preserving maritime forests
and other vegetative features throughout the county.
COMMF.RCiA1: FORF.STRV
Policy #26
Commercial forestry activities shall be supported by
Dare County, so long as activities are done in
accordance with the standards and recommendations of No strategy necessary at this time due to minimal Commercial forestry activities continue to play a
the U.S. Forest Service. The County also advocates the amount of commercial forestry activities in Dare County minimal role in the commerce of Dare County.
voluntary participation in the State of North Carolina's
best management practice program for forestry
management.
Page 9

Appendix 4
PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Policy #27
Dare County supports the use of certain portions of the
Mainland area for crop agriculture. The County also
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. While no new or
advocates voluntary participation in the State of North
Proposed wholesale livestock operations have been
Carolina's best management practices program for
1. Monitor and advocate State -sponsored legislative
introduced in Dare County, the county continues to
farm management.
efforts that address the location and permitting of
monitor legislative activities which might regulate
wholesale livestock operations.
these operations. This may prove effective if
Policy
livestock operations are proposed in the future.
Wholesaalele or industrial livestock operations are
opposed.
ARCHAEOLOGICAUHISTORICAL RESOURCES
Policy #29
The Dare County Board of Commissioners supports the
protection of structures, lands, and artifacts that have
NOT YET IMPLEMENTED. While this strategy
been identified by the NC Department of Cultural
1. Seek funding from the State of North Carolina to
has not yet been implemented, the county continues
Resources, Division of Archives and History, as
undertake a comprehensive inventory of those historic
to recognize the importance of preserving
archaeologically or historically significant. On a case-
architect and landscape, not already in public
archaeological and historic resources. Efforts to
by -case basis individual protection/management
ownership, to be used as a planning tool to identify any
preserve these resources will continue to be
strategies should be implemented to ensure
historic, cultural, and/or archeological resources.
considered, and may be effective tools to increase
archaeological and/or historical resources are not
cultural awareness.
destroyed.
WILDLIFE RESOURCES
Policy #30
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
Dare County supports the maintenance of preserve
advocate for public access to federal property for the
areas for wildlife habitat and access to the public to
1. Work with appropriate federal agencies to allow the
purposes of hunting, fishing, and similar activities.
these areas for managed wildlife harvesting and
continued access to federal property in Dare County for
'These efforts have effectively balanced the
observation.
hunting, fishing and other similar activities.
protection of wildlife resources and promoting
traditionally popular activities such as hunting and
Page 10
M M M = = =

Policy #31
Dare County supports as minimum standards, the
administration and enforcement of all applicable
floodplain management regulations and the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Policy #32
Dare County believes that there is insufficient, reliable
data to quantify the rate of sea level rise. The
phenomenon needs additional study. Until a more
reliable and conclusive database has been established,
Dare County will continue to rely of CAMA standards
for development in CAMA designated "areas of
environmental concern" or AECs.
Appendix 4
Regulatory Issues
TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
1. Continue to participate in the Community Rating
System and implementation and enforcement of the
Dare County Flood Ordinance.
M
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county maintains a
full-time floodplain administrator who is
responsible for the enforcement of the Dare County
Floodplain Ordinance and all applicable floodplain
management regulations. This strategy has been
effective at protecting property loss from flood
hazards as much as is applicable.
Until a more reliable and conclusive database has
No implementation strategies were identified at the time been established, Dare County will continue to rely
of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update. on CAMA standards for development in CAMA
designated "areas of environmental concern" or
AECs.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Policy #33
1. Consideration of stormwater management ordinance
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. Stormwater
Stormwater runoff should be managed to the greatest
to address those projects that are not subject to State
management contintues to be a substantial
degree possible to protect the water quality of the public
stormwater regulations with an emphasis on addressing
consideration for Dare County. While no local
trust waters surrounding Dare County, particularly
stormwater runoff on sites that are adjacent to Class SA
ordinances have been drafted to supplement State
Class SA waters.
waters.
regulations, the concept remains under
2. Recommendation of a full-time stormwater/ditch
consideration. Subdivisions are reviewed with
maintenance program. (coordinate with Public Works
scrutiny to ensure stormwater management issues
Department and NC Department of Transportation.
are addressed. A Floodplain Hazard Ordinance has
Policy #34
3. The Dare County Planning Board shall continue to
been adopted to restrict fill material in VE flood
Dare County recognizes the public health issues
address drainage issues associated with proposed new
zones. The regulation of fill material on vacant lots
associated with mosquitoes and standing areas of water
subdivisions.
continues to be considered, however no consensus
and the public safety issue for motorists resented b
P Y P y
4. Draft amendments to the Dare County Zoning
has been reached to date. These measures have
stormwater ponding on roadways.
Ordinance to address the use of fill material on vacant
effectively managed stormwater thus far, however
sites to alter the existing natural ground elevations and
improvements to the current management strategies
drainage as the need arises. (2204/2005)
will continue to be considered.
Page 11

Policy #35
Dare County supports the development of marinas to
provide boating access to the area's water bodies.
Marina development should comply with all State and
federal guidelines concerning location and design. The
County encourages the dry stack option of boat storage.
Appendix 4
MARINAS
1. Dare County will rely on local land use plan
consistency review process used by State and Federal
agencies to implement this policy since all proposed
marinas require a CAMA major permit.
2. Examine the Dare County Zoning Ordinance and
shorelines to ensure the proper location or exclusion of
marinas and marina development.
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. Marina developments
are monitored on a case by case basis. The siting of
marinas are oftentimes addressed in various zoning
districts and corresponding maps. The county also
continues to rely on the CAMA review process to
ensure proper marina development. These
strategies have been effective at regulating the
location of marina developments, while recognizing
the importance of providing opportunities for the
development of adequate boat launching and storage
facilities.
FLOATING STRUCTURES
Policy #36
Dare County is strongly opposed to the mooring of 1. Consideration of local regulations to prohibit the FULLY IMPLEMENTED. By ordinance, floating
floating homes and other floating structures, as defined location of floating homes and structures in the structures are effectively prohibited in all portions o
in 15A NCAC 7M0602, anywhere in Dare County and surrounding public trust waters of Dare County. (2004) unincorporated Dare County.
its surrounding waters.
LAND DISTURBING/TREE REMOVAL ACTIVITIES
1. Enforcement of sand dune protection standards in the FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
Policy #37 Dare County Zoning Ordinance.
Dare Count advocates best management practices of enforce standards to protect shorline dune systems.
Y g P 2. Draft amendments to the Dare County Zoning The county has adopted a Floodplain Ordinance to
the NC Forest Service for tree removal and land Ordinance to address the use of fill material on vacant
restrict fill material in VE flood zones. These
clearing on private property. sites to alter the existing natural ground elevations and strategies have been effective limit the amount of
drainage as the need arises. land disturbing activities.
Page 12

Appendix 4
MANMADE HAZARDS
Policy #38
Due to potential land use conflicts and hazardous
conditions. Dare County does not support the No implementation strategies were identified at the time The Dare County Regional Airport has not
expansion of the Dare County Regional Airport at its of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update. substantially expanded.
current location.
Policy #39
Proposals to expand the area of the existing bombing
ranges on the Dare County mainland should be
reviewed on a case -by -case basis with support or No implementation strategies were identified at the time Any proposals will be reivewed on a case by case
opposition offered depending on the terms of the of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update. basis.
proposal and its potential impacts on the local
community and the importance to our Nations' national
defense.
Policy #40
The County recognizes the importance of four-wheel
drive vehicle access to the beaches of Hatteras Island
that are under the management authority of the federal
government. Efforts to prohibit beach driving on these
federally -managed areas are not supported. Proposals
to impose additional driving restrictions will be
reviewed on a case by case basis with support or
opposition offered depending on the proposal and its
potential negative impacts on the local tourist economy.
BEACH DRIVING/OFF-ROAD VEHICLES
1. The County will continue to monitor actions of the
U.S Department of Interior to further restrict beach
driving and/or initiate other management programs that
will impact or prohibit beach driving access along
Hatteras Island. These monitoring activities may
include participation at public hearings and workshops
or correspondence with our congressional delegation
and other federal officials.
Page 13
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county monitors
closely any activity which may prohibit beach
driving along Hatteras Island, and actively
participates in rule -making for off -road vehicle
access to Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
Understanding the cultural importance of beach
driving on the island, the county will continue to
advocate properly managed public access for four-
wheel drive vehicles. These actions have effectively
preserved public vehicle access along Hatteras
Island.

Appendix 4
FEDERAL AND STATE SUPPORT
Policy #41
Additional Federal or State regulatory programs or
expansion of existing programs will be reviewed on a
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
case by case basis. Dare County reserves the right to
monitor state and federal proposals which impact
support, oppose, review, or comment on additional
the citizens of Dare County, and will continue to
regulations that may impact Dare County and its
1. Monitor federal and state proposals and participate as
participate in decision -making processes whenever
economy. Local Public Hearings by federal or state
needed.
applicable. This strategy has been effective at
agencies should be extensively advertised and
maintaining open dialogue and cooperative
conducted in Dare County before any new regulations
relationships among local, state, and federal
are adopted or existing programs are expanded.
agencies.
Page 14

M S
Appendix 4
Growth and 'Development
WASTEWATER
Policy #42
The current minimum lot size standards shall not be
reduced regardless of the availability of central
wastewater treatment or the availability of a
combination of central wastewater treatment and a
central water supply.
1. The creation of a wastewater treatment authority or
Policy #43
commission to address wastewater treatment issues
Dare County advocates the use of on -site septic
including the maintenance of traditional
tank/drainfield systems as the primary method of
wastewater treatment in unincorporated Dare County.
septic/drainfield systems, package treatment plants, non -
PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED. The county is
Non-traditional methods of wastewater treatment
traditional methods of wastewater treatment, such as the
peat systems, and the monitoring of existing septic tank
actively seeking permits for the construction of a
should be used only when natural soil conditions
and nitrification fields. (2004-2006)
wastewater treatment facility in Stumpy Point.
ty Py
dictate their use and not solely to accommodate larger
2. Continue to pursue opportunities to address
Construction of this project should commence in
P J
structures or a greater dwelling density.
wastewater issues in unincorporated Dare County
2008Other opportunities which might address
. er o PP g
including construction of a -owned package
county -wide wastewater treatment are constantly
publicly
treatment plant or publicly -owned small centralized
explored. While several wastewater treatment
Policy #44
Package treatment plants maybe considered only when
treatment plant as a remedial measure to replace
issues remain to be considered, actions thus far have
proven effective at treating wastewater in an
natural conditions prohibit the use of septic systems, as
existing outdated septic systems that threaten estuarine
environmentally sensitive manner.
remedial efforts to correct existing failing septic
water quality due to their location in poorly drained soils
improvements, or if required by ordinance and should
or to facilitate a publicly -financed or publicly -endorsed
be constructed to serve a specific development without
housing developments.
excess capacity for off -site wastewater treatment
connections.
Policy #45
Maintenance of privately owned package treatment
plants should be supervised by the NC Utilities
Commission or other public agencies.
Page 15

Appendix 4
TRANSPORTATION
Policy #46
Dare County recognizes the vital importance of NC 12
to Hatteras Island and the need to protect this
transportation route, including Bonner Bridge.
Recommendations by the NC Department of
Transportation on NC 12, including beach
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
nourishment, the replacement of Bonner Bridge,
require all subdivisions that feature private roads to
elevated sections of the highway, or other options that
bear a disclaimer stamp on the final plat indicating
may be identified, will receive the highest level of
1. Continue to require all subdivisions that feature
that Dare County will never be responsible for the
consideration from Dare County.
private roads to bear a disclaimer stamp on the final plat
indicating that Dare County shall never be responsible
road maintenance. Restrictive covenants shall also
contain language concerning the road maintenance
Policy 947
Dare County encourages intergovernmental cooperation
for the road maintenance. Restrictive covenants shall
responsibility. Due to clean-up and repair needs
with the municipalities and its surrounding counties to
also contain language concerning the road maintenance
which tend to arise in the wake of major stom events
such as Hurricane Isabel, the county continues to
study of the transportation needs of Dare County and
responsibility.
P y
encourage that new subdivisions dedicate roads as
our region.
2. Work with our State legislative delegation to secure
public rather than private. The county continues to
authorization for a NC Department of Transportation
private road maintenance and repair assessment
monitor NCDOT activities regarding private road
Policy #48
Dare County shall not be responsible for the cost of
program.
g
maintenance and repair assessment. A Bonner
maintaining or repairs to privately owned streets.
Bridge replacement committee has been established
Experimental programs sponsored by the State to
to address issues related to the eventual replacement
maintain private roads shall be supported.
of the bridge spanning Oregon Inlet. These
stragetigies have been effective at maintaining and
improving transportation systems in Dare County.
Policy #49
Whenever possible, local roads should be designed to
interconnect to result in alternative transportation
routes subordinate to the principal and well-known
highway system
Page 16
M M M M M M M M M M ' = M M

M M M M M M
Appendix 4
SOLID WASTE
Policy #50
Dare County advocates participation in a regional solid
1. Develop a public information campaign using public
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county contines to
waste authority and continued operation of voluntary
information office brochures and local governmental
utilize a variety of public information mediums to
recycling efforts. Additional programs for hazardous
access channel to circulate information about hazardous
notify the public of waste collection. This has been
materials disposal and large item pick-ups are
waste collections and large item pick-up schedules.
an effective method of ensuring that solid waste is
encouraged.
collected as frequently as applicable.
COMM[JNITY GROWTH PATTERNS
Policy #51
Dare County values its coastal village atmosphere and
will continue to work toward the development of use -
specific zoning maps for those areas currently unzoned.
1. Continue work to develop use -specific zoning maps
for those portions of unincorporated Dare County that
PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED. The county has
are unzoned or have minimal S-1 zoning. (2002-2005)
2. Work with the Town of Manteo to coordinate
zoned the previously unzoned villages of Wanchese,
Manns Harbor, and Mashoes, and anticipates a
Policy #52
Private sector development is encouraged to
regulation of development on Roanoke Island
continued effort to zone other portions of the county.
acknowledge Dare County's coastal village qualities
where the County's unincorporated boundary joins the
A Carrying Capacity Study remains a topic of
and incorporate these traits in their development plans
Town's boundary.
consideration, but such a study has yet to be
and building designs.
4. Contract with independent planning consultant to
implemented. Some additional draft development
update Carrying Capacity Study for Dare County. (2004)
standards have been drafted and reviewed, however,
Policy #53
5. Draft for Dare County Board of Commissioners
a concensus has not been reached. Gross -floor
Public services shall be provided to meet the needs of,
consideration a set of building design,
limitations have been adopted in all areas of Dare
but not to serve as an incentive to growth and
landscaping, and parking standards for commercial uses
County. The strategies which have been adopted
development.
as overlay districts along NC 12 on Hatteras Island and
have effectively managed certain community growth
other areas of unincorporated Dare County.
patterns.
Policy #54
Dare County reserves the right to review additional
acquisitions of private property for public ownership on
a case -by -case basis.
Page 17

Appendix 4
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Policy #55
1. Amend the Dare County Zoning Ordinance to delete
Detached residential structures shall be the preferred
the term "single family" residential houses and replace
PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED. While the
land use in unincorporated Dare County. Although the
with "detached individual residential housing units" in
possiblity that neighborhoods may contain seasonal
expanding market for seasonal accommodations as
recognition of the possibility that neighborhoods may
rentals or structures in the neighborhood may be
structures that resemble traditional domiciles has
contain seasonal rentals or that structures in the
occupied by unrelated individuals is recognized, use
resulted in a shortage of year-round housing, it is
neighborhood may be occupied by unrelated individuals.
of the term "single family" has proven effective with
agreed that the policy advocating residential structures
(2003)
no immediate public request for its change having
as the preferred land use shall continue.
2. Adopt standards that address unsightly structures and
been made. The county continues to address
conditions that are more flexible than the current
unsightly structures, nuisances, and home
Nuisance Ordinance, which is designed to address
public safety and welfare issues rather that eyesores.
occupations on a case by case basis. New zoning
districts have been established in Wanchese, Maims
Policy #56
Dare County recognizes the diverse housing needs of
(2004)
Harbor, and Mashoes which address limited
the community. Private sector development projects
3. Amend Zoning Ordinance to better define an
densities for residential development. An
intended to expand housing opportunities for year-
acceptable level of home occupations (2004)
intergovernmental Affordable Housing Committee
round residents are encouraged. Partnerships between
4. Consider revisions to Zoning Ordinance to lower the
has been established to address workforce housing
the private sector and the public sector will be reviewed
number of permitted dwelling densities for multifamily
in Dare County. These strategies which have been
on a case -by -case basis when appropriate. Regional
structures. (2003)
implemented have been effective at properly
efforts to address the housing needs of the Outer Banks
5. Consideration of an intergovernmental task force on
managing residential development as a preferred
will also be reviewed on a case -by -case basis.
housing issues. (2003)
land use in Dare County.
Page 18
M i M M M S M i M M M M M M M M M M M

Policy #57
Dare County will address opportunities for commercial
development by adopting zoning maps for those
portions of unincorporated Dare County currently
unzoned or with minimal S-1 zoning regulations.
Policy #58
Dare County encourages the continued existence and
development of locally owned businesses in
unincorporated Dare County.
Policy #59
Large franchise operations proposing to locate in
unincorporated Dare County are encouraged to
individualize their establishments to reflect Dare
County's coastal village character and not rely solely
on corporate building designs, color designs or manner
of construction.
Policy #60
Redeveloped areas and structures shall conform to
current development standards.
Appendix 4
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. Adopt zoning amendments to include building design
standards, landscaping, lighting and sign control
standards. (2003)
2. Continue zoning initiatives with focus on detached
residential development with limited commercial areas.
(2003-2005)
REDEVELOPMENT
1. The County shall enforce the NC State Building
Codes for coastal construction and the Dare County
Flood Ordinance in the event of reconstruction.
2. Whenever feasible, non -conforming structures
destroyed by an act of nature or an accident will be
rebuilt to comply with applicable zoning codes.
3. The re -use and rehabilitation of historic structures is
encouraged as a means of preserving Dare County's
coastal village environment.
Page 19
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
consider zoning amendments which serve the best
interests of its citizens. Recent zoning initiatives
have been persued to embrace detached residential
development as the preferred land use, with limited
commercial development. Gross floor area
limitations have been established, and new zoning
districts have been adopted in Wanchese, Manns
Harbor, and Mashoes. These stragegies have
proven effective in creating desired land use
patterns related to commercial development.
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county employs a
staff of inspectors whose responsibility centers on
enforcing the NC State Building Code. And though
the county generally requires that non -conformities
come into compliance when destroyed by natural
means, Dare County seeks to act sensitively when
these circumstances occur. The county continues to
encourage the preservation and proper rehabilitation
of historic structures. These strategies have been
effective at promoting responsible redevelopment
and swift economic recovery following disaster

licy #61
3ustrial development that is environmentally suited
Dare County and its surrounding water bodies is
couraged. Dare County also supports the traditional
iustries of commercial fishing, boat building, and
construction.
Policy # 62
Opportunities to diversify and expand Dare County's
local tourist economy should be investigated.
Appendix 4
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
1. Proposals for industrial development in zoned areas
will be reviewed for compatibility under the provisions
of the Dare County Zoning Ordinance. For unzoned
areas and those areas currently zoned S-1, use -specific
zoning maps will be established and the designation of
industrial zoned areas thoroughly evaluated based on
geographic proximity to water bodies and other sensitive
natural areas.
2. Update the Zoning Ordinance to evaluate the scope of
uses allowed in the I-1 zoned areas of unincorporated
Dare County.
3. Investigate the need for a County -owned industrial
park on the Mainland of Dare County.
ENERGY FACILITIES
Policy #63
Dare County is opposed to the development of any
1. Any major energy facility proposed to be located in
petro-chemical energy facility or related improvements
Dare County shall make a full disclosure of all costs and
within its jurisdictional lands and/or waters. This
benefits associated with the project. This disclosure
includes all structures, operations, and activities
shall be in the form of an environmental impact
associated with petro-chemical energy facility
statement independent of and not funded by any petro-
development such as, but not limited to on -shore
chemical company or the Mineral Management Service.
support bases for offshore exploration activities, staging
2. In the event an energy facility is proposed for Dare
areas, transmission and/or productions pipelines,
County, the County will support the policy statements
pipeline storage yards, and other similar structures
and administrative regulations referenced in
activities and improvements related to petro-chemical
15NCAC7M, Section .0400 entitled "coastal energy
energy facility development, exploration, or production.
policies."
Dare County supports research and development of non
fossil fuel alternatives for energy production.
Page 20
PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED. Industrial
development is reviewed with substantial scrutiny
by the county to ensure its compatibility with its
vicinity and the Zoning Ordinance. New zoning
districts in Wanchese, Manns Harbor, and Mashoes
address the impact of industrial development with
similar caution. The I-1 zoning district has been
amended to include gross floor area limitations. No
immediate need for an industrial park on the
mainland of Dare County has yet been identified.
These measures have effectively regulated the
limited industrial activity in Dare County.
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. While no recent energy -
related development has been proposed in Dare
County, any such future proposal will be monitored
closely for compliance with current policies and
strategies. This will effectively ensure that any
proposed energy facility will be constructed with
minimal risk to the community.

M =
Appendix 4
TOURISM
Policy #64
Dare County recognizes the vital importance of tourism
to our local economy and supports efforts to maintain
our status as a desirable place to visit and vacation.
Dare County also recognizes the need to address the
infrastructure and service demands of our seasonal
populations. The use of tourist -generated revenues,
such as occupancy taxes, to address the year-round and
seasonal population needs is encouraged.
1. Use revenues generated by tourism to fund quality of
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
monitor revenue generated by tourism for its
Policy #65
Dare County supports the concept of combining natural
life related projects such as sidewalks, bikepaths,
application towards "quality of life" related projects.
resources and tourism to promote the area's ecological
streetscape and landscaping improvements and open
This will effectively ensure that the tourism industry
values, known as "eco-tourism".
space acquisitions
will continue to be recognized for its importance to
the economy of Dare County.
Policy #66
The quality of life of Dare County residents should be
carefully balanced with the growing tourist -based
economy of the Outer Banks. Maintaining a good
quality of life for our permanent population and
ensuring a safe and enjoyable vacation experience
should be a goal of all local, state, and federal agencies
responsible for the promotion of tourism in Dare
County and North Carolina.
BIKEWAYS/WALKWAYS/GREENWAYS
Policy #67
1. Continue to work with participating agencies to
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county continues to
Dare County supports the development and
pursue opportunities for construction of additional
walkways/bike paths throughout all of unincorporatedconstruction
support efforts which might promote the
construction of sidewalks, bike paths, greenways, and
Dare County, including interconnection of the Roanoke
of additional pedestrian paths. The
other walking/jogging trails to provide a safe setting for
Voyages multi -use path into Wanchese
county may continue consideration of seeking funds
these types of outdoor recreation and as alternative
2. Request revenues through local funding or grants to
for other pedestrian projects, including greenways.
transportation routes.
provide an areawide greenway plan (2004)
These strategies have been effective at promoting
the development of multi -use path facilities.
Page 21

Appendix 4
Storm Hazard Mitigation, Reconstruction and Recovery
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county, through
Policy #68
several enforcement programs including those
Dare County shall use construction standards and
1. Dare County will continue to enforce all applicable
mandated by CAMA , continues to implement those
zoning regulations to mitigate the effects of high winds,
Federal, State, and local regulations relating to
regulations imposed by local, state, and federal
storm surge, flooding, wave action, and erosion.
construction in storm hazard areas.
agencies regarding storm hazard areas. This inter-
agency cooperation has been effective at addressing
Policy #69
The County maintains a fully -staffed Emergency
Dare County is committed to maintaining a full-time
No implementation strategies were identified at the time
Management Department. During periods of local
emergency management department and emergency
of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update.
emergencies, the Emergency Management Dept. is
operation centers and places a high a priority on
capable of immediate response, while operating
hurricane preparedness and response.
from a secure operations center
Policy #70
The Dare County Board of Commissioners shall be
ultimately responsible for supervising the
No implementation strategies were identified at the time
implementation of various policies and procedures
of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update.
regarding reconstruction and recovery after a natural
disaster.
Policy #71
Recovery priority shall be directed to restoring or
repairing infrastructure improvements such as
transportation routes, utilities and medical and
No implementation strategies were identified at the time
emergency management facilities. Once the
of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update.
infrastructure has been restored, recovery priorities
shall then be directed at essential commercial and
primary residential structures.
Page 22
M

Appendix 4
Storm Hazard Mitigation, Reconstruction, and Recovery
Policy #72
In the event of extensive hurricane damage to publicly -
owned utilities or other improvements requiring
replacement or reconstruction, alternative locations that
No implementation strategies were identified at the time
will mitigate the potential for similar repetitive losses
of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update.
will be examined and implemented wherever feasible
and practicable.
Policy #73
In the event of a damaging hurricane or other
disastrous event, the Dare County Board of
Commissioners may declare a moratorium on all
No implementation strategies were identified at the time
building permits and/or rezoning requests pending an
of the 2003 Land Use Plan Update.
evaluation of the damage and any reconstruction
strategies that may serve to mitigate future damage or
repetitive losses.
FULLY IMPLEMENTED. The county takes
1. The County will continue efforts to inform, educate,
substantial measures to involve the public in all
and involve the public in planning for the future of the
forms of community planning activities, giving
County, primarily through the regular and special
particular consideration to meetings conducted by
Policy # 74
meetings of the Dare County Planning Board and Board
the Board of Commissioners and Planning Board.
Dare County supports the active involvement of all
of Commissioners.
Several methods of information distribution,
including extensive use of the county website and
interested persons in its land use planning and policy
2. The County will encourage continued representation
mailings are used. Residents are also encouraged to
development activities.
by a broad range of Dare County residents on its
participate as members of various advisory boards.
Planning Board.
When requested, any citizen may recieve periodic
3. Continue to maintain the mailing list for the Planning
mailings informing them of Planning Board
Board meetings.
meetings and agendas. These measures have been
effective in keeping the public abreast of Planning
Department issues and activities.
Page 23

Pasquotank River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan
August 2007
of µ nTE9
'01w North Carolina Department of 3�r Division of Water Quality
AMA Environment and Natural Resources o�, Basinwide Planning Unit

Figure i General Map of the Entire Pasquotank
River Basin in North Carolina and Virginia
VIRGINIA
� NORTH CAROLINA
0 4.5 9 18 27 36
Miles
Southern Shores
Kitty Hawk
Kill Devil Hills
'"'CCC\ Nags Head
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 8, 2007

Figure ii General Map of the Pasquotank River Basin in North Carolina
GATES '�, CAMQEM
CU
�- 03-01\-50
o
PAS UOTANK
03-01-'42 Elizab-'
i Winfal lyl
Hertford L ,
Southern Shores
'YjVe
r
03-01-53 TYR
04
�,— Columbia_, -
P--Riper
s WASHINGTON /
Legend
OSubbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
County Boundary
Hydrology
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
January 8, 2007
0 3 6
- \ Kitty Hawk
Sound
Albemaxle 0 Kill Devil Hills
7.
„ Nags Head
0
0
co i mot, �.
-0ARE
Q
41VHYDE �_ 3
0
N 1
0
c
0
a
I
N 03-01-55
W F
s
12 18 24 --
�>-
Miles

1
1
Chapter 2
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
Including: Alligator River and portions of the Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke Sounds
2.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-01-51 at a Glance
Land and water Area
Total area: 978 mil
Land area: 568 miz
Water area: 410 miz
Land Cover percent
Forest/Wetland: 53%
Surface Water: 39%
Cultivated Crop: 8%
Urban <1 %
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: <1 %
Counties
Dare, Hyde and Tyrrell
Mnnieipalitigs
Manteo
Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total: 8.8 mi/106,724.7 ac
Supporting: 8.8 mi/106,7247 ac
Recreation
Total: 8.8 mi/132,%4.3 ac
Supporting: 8.8 mi/132,564.3 ac
Shellfish Harvesting.
Total:- 54,628.7 ac
Supporting: 52,547.2 ac
Impaired: 2,081.5 ac
This subbasin contains the Alligator River and several
tributaries. Most streams are of low relief and often
swampy. Channelized ditches are common. Most waters
in this subbasin are brackish estuarine, including
Albemarle, Croatan and Roanoke Sounds, and the Alligator
River to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW). Ecologically,
the subbasin contains characteristics of the Chesapeake -
Pamlico lowlands and tidal marshes, as well as nonriverine
swamps and peatlands. Land cover generally consists of
evergreen forests, mixed forests, forested wetlands and
marshes.
The Alligator River upstream of US 64 and all of its natural
tributaries (not canals, Alligator Lake or ICWW) are
classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). Based
on their designations by the Marine Fisheries Commission
as primary nursery areas, two tributaries (upper Scarboro
Creek and Doughs Creek) to Shallowbag Bay are classified
as High Quality Waters (HQW).
This subbasin contains a mixture of public lands and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas including Roper Island,
Durant Island, Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Reserve,
the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge and the Preyer
Reserve. Portions of Dare, Hyde and Tyrrell Counties can
be found in this subbasin with the highest concentration of
urbanized areas located on Roanoke Island in the Towns of
Manteo and Wanchese. Rapid population growth is
occurring in Dare County and along coastal areas.
Additional information regarding population and land use
changes throughout the entire basin can be found in
Chapter 11.
There is one major and five minor National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharges in this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 1.5 MGD. The major NPDES facility
is the Manteo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) with a permitted flow of 1.0 MGD. The
Manteo VWVTP discharges to Shallowbag Bay [AU# 30-21-3] on Roanoke Island and significant
noncompliance issues were identified during the last two years of the assessment period. There
are two stormwater discharge permits in this subbasin. For the listing of NPDES permit holders,
refer to Appendix III.
IChapter 2 - Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
33

Figure 4 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
� ever
us 64 --,
N /
Albemarle Sound
16
Miles
RO41�10
re
J
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
January 8, 2007
J
M M M M a M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

M= M M M = M M M i M = M! == M
Table 5 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
Shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation
Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter % Exc
REC Rating
Station Result SH Rating
GA
Stressors Sources
ALBEMARLE SOUND
30b SB 106,724.7 S Acres S MA3 NCE
S
MA3 NCE
Dioxin Industrial Site
MA5 NCE
MA5 NCE
Portion of Albemarle Sound in subbasin 03-01-51. Waters
of Albemarle Sound (All waters south and east of a tine
running in a southerly direction from Homiblow Point
(North end of Norfolk -Southern Railroad Bridge) to a point
of land on the east side of R
Baum Creek
30-20-5 SA;HQW 10.9 S Acres +dtt
r ;
I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Croatan Sound
H-2
Broad Creek
30-21-7a SA;HQW 126.0 S Acres N'D
ri :
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
DEH closed area at head of creek
H-1
30-21-7b SA;HQW 392.2 SAcres N7
F.i
S
APP
Approved area at mouth of creek
H-1
Callaghan Creek
30-20-4 SA;HQW 24.8 S Acres Ni,
P.C`
I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Croatan Sound
H-2
Cedar Bush Bay
30-20-7 SA;HQW 207.8 SAcres Nil
tiD
S
APP
Entire Bay
H-2
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51

Table 5 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation
Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter % Exc
REC Rating
Station Result SH Rating GA
Stressors Sources
Croatan Sound
30-20{2)a SA;HQW 24,496.4 S Acres i D
S
N68 NCE S APP
N69 NCE
From Northwest Point on Roanoke Island following a line
1-2
west to Reeds Point on the Daze County mainland to a line
running from a point of land just below Long Wretch Creek
on Dare County mainland to the Southern tip of Smith
Island south of Roanoke Island
30-20{2)b SA;HQW 169.3 SAcres f,4[1
1 PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The waters of Croatan Sound enclosed in a line beginning at
H-2
a point near north shore of Spencer Creek at 35 degrees 51'
45" N- 75 degrees 44' 53" W; and thence 250 yeards in an
easterly direction to a point at 35 degrees 51' 45" n- 75
degrees 44' 43" west
30-20-(2)c SA;HQW 340.9 S Acres NI)
raC
i PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The waters of Croatan Sound which include all waters
H-2
within a line beginning at a point on the shore at 35 degrees
53' S6" N- 75 degrees 41' 36" W, thence WSW 800 yards to
a point in the sound at 35 degrees 53' 38" N- 75 degrees 41'
53 W, thence 1975 yard
30-20-(2)d SA;HQW 156.3 S Acres M)
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The waters of Croatan Sound which include all waters on
H-2
the North shore of Baum Creek to a straight line to Fl.
Beacon number 2 at 35 degrees 50' 27" n-75 degrees 40' 06"
W, thence in a straight line tto a point on an island at 35
degrees 50' 05" N- 75 de
30-20-(2)e SA;HQW 92.2 S Acres vG
N
1 PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The waters of Croatan sound which include all waters below
H-2
Oyster Creek southeast to Cut Through. DEH closed area
Croatan Sound 5-e
30-20.(2)f SA;HQW 22.1 SAcres
r;D
( PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
DEH Closure Area at Mann's Harbor
H-2
Cut Through
30-20-8a SA;HQW 128.6 S Acres ^ D
i s
S APP
From DEH closure line to Croatan Sound
H-2
30-20-8b SA;HQW 178.5 S Acres T,'E,
1 PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From Roanoke Sound to DEH closure line
H-2
Pasquotank Snbbasin 03-01-51
M M M M M M M M M M M a M M M M M M M

M
Table 5 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
Shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation
Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter %Exc
REC Rating
Station Result SH Rating
GA
Stressors Sources
Doughs Creek
30-21-3-2 SC;HQW 21.2 S Acres IND
S
N86 NCE
From source to Shallowbag Bay
Hog I Creek
30-20-9 SA;HQW 15.4 SAcres ND
?tD
S
APP
Entire Creek
H-2
Intracoastal Waterway (Pungo River -Alligator River Canal)
30-16-12 SC;Sw 8.8 S Miles S MA12 NCE Turbidity 9.E
S
MA12 NCE
Turbidity Unknown
From Currituck-Fairfield Township line to Alligator River
Johns Creek
30-21-5 SA;HQW 10.7 S Acres P 0
:,
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Roanoke Sound
H-1
Long Wretch Creek
30-20-10 SA;HQW 1.7 S Acres i 'D
P i%
S
APP
From source to Croatan Sound
H-2
Mill Landing Creek (Mill Creek)
30-21-8 SC 29.8 S Acres ND
S
N67 NCE
From source to Roanoke Sound
Oyster Creek
30-21-9 SA;HQW 84.2 S Acres NCB
N`
S
APP
Entire Creek
H-2
Oyster Creek (Croatan Sound)
30-20-6 SA;HQW 62.8 S Acres iNd D-
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Croatan Sound
H-2
Pamlico Sound
30-22j SA;HQW 18,083.5 S Acres ND
S
APP
Portion of Pamlico Sound (from Croatan and Roanoke
H-6
Sounds to a line running from Sandy Point south of Stumpy
Point Bay to the northeast tip of Ocracoke Island) in
subbasin 03-01-51.
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-S1

Table 5 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment
Year/
Description AL hating Station Result Parameter % Exc
Shellfish
Recreation Assessment Harvesting
REC Rating Station Result SH Rating GA
Stressors Sources
Pond Island
30-21-4a SA;HQW 165.1 S Acres ' 0'
tv')
I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
WWTP NPDES
The waters surrounding the Island within 1,000 feet from
H-1
shore within subbasin 03-01-51
Roanoke Sound
30-21a SA;HQW 9,134.1 S Acres N'D
r4p
S
APP
Those waters in subbasin 03-01-51 in the western portion of
1-2
Roanoke Sound, from a line running from Northwest Point
on Roanoke Island northward to Rhodoms Point on
Colington Island, thence a line running eastward through
Wright Memorial Monument, to a line
30-21b SA;HQW 130.2 SAcres NU+1:
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
WWTP NPDES
DEH closed area on east side of Roanoke Island extending
H-1
from mouth of Shallowbag Bay to Johns Creek along the
shoreline
30-21c SA;HQW 109.2 S Acres dU
: Li
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
DEH closed area west of Pond Island in subbasin 03-01-51
H-1
30-21d SA;HQW 351.4 S Acres J
i
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
DEH closed area adjacent to Mill Landing on east side of
H-1
Roanoke Island
Rockhall Creek
30-21-6 SA;HQW 5.7 S Acres ',10
N,)
i
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Entire Creek
H-1
Sand Beach Creek
30-21-5-1 SA;HQW 38.7 SAcres rn
'!U
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
WWTPNPDES
From source to Johns Creek
H-1
Shallowbag Bay
30-21-3 SC 534.1 S Acres NR
S
N70 NCE
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
WWTP NPDES
Entire Bay
Ammonia
WWTP NPDES
Low Dissolved Oxygen
WWTP NPDES
Smith Creek
30-20-I1 SA;HQW 3.3 SAcres w`.; fd )
Entire Creek
S APP
H-2
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51
M= M i=== M = = = M= M M M M M

Table 5 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-51 shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter %Exc RECRating Station Result SHRating GA Stressors Sources
,Spencer Creek
30-20-3 SA;HQW 86.8 SAcres ND ND I PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Croatan Sound H-2
Use Categories: Monitoring data type:
Results:
Use Support Ratings 2006:
AL - Aquatio Life MF - Fish Community Survey
E - Excellent
S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation MB - Benthic Community Survey
G- Good
NR - Not Rated
SH - Shellfish Harvesting MA - Ambient Monitoring Site
GF - Good -Fair
NR*- Not Ratedfor Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
ML- Lake Monitoring
F - Fair
ND -No Data Collected to make assessment
N- DEH RECMON
P - Poor
NR+-Not rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
Results
GA - DEH SS Classification and Growing Area
S- Severe Stress
CE-Criteria Exceeded> 10%and more than 10 samples
APP- Approved
M-Moderate Stress
NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
CAO- Conditionally Approved -Open
N- Natural
Miles/Acres
CAC- Conditionally Approved -Closed
FW- Fresh Water
PRO- Prohibited
S- Salt Water
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
Recreation Rating Summary
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
Shellfish Harvesting Rating Summary
S
in 8.8 S Miles
S in
8.8
S Miles
I
in 106,724.7
S Acres
S in 52,547.2 S Acres
S
in 106,724.7 S Acres
S in
131,806.2
S Acres
I
o 9.9
S Miles
I in 2,081.5 S Acres
NR
a 534.1 S Acres
ND
1.1
S Miles
I
e 126,031.2
S Acres
ND
1.1 S Miles
ND
100,949.7
S Acres
1
e 497.2
FW Miles
ND
125,497.0 S Acres
ND
497.2
FW Miles
1
e 4,980.6
FW Acres
ND
497.2 FW Miles
ND
4,980.6
FW Acres
ND
4,980.6 FW Acres
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-SI

A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 4. Table 5 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin. Appendix V provides definitions of the terms used throughout
this basin plan.
No benthic samples were collected during this assessment period (2000 — 2005); however, data
was collected from three ambient monitoring stations (MA3, MA5 and MA12). No water quality
standards were exceeded.
Many of the waters in subbasin 03-01-51 are classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA).
Many also have the supplemental classification of High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW). Several management strategies are in place to protect these waters.
Waters in the following sections and in Table 5 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.
2.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
All surface waters in the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best -intended use of
that water. Waters are regularly assessed by DWQ to determine how well they are meeting their
best -intended use. Table 6 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-51.
In subbasin 03-01-51, use support was assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and
shellfish harvesting categories. Waters are Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, and No Data in the
aquatic life and recreation categories on a monitored or evaluated basis. All waters are Impaired
in the fish consumption category on an evaluated basis based on fish consumption advice issued
by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). There are no water supply
watersheds designated in this subbasin.
Criteria for making use support determinations for the shellfish harvesting category were based
on Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Sanitary Surveys (SS) growing area classifications.
The problem parameter for all shellfish waters is the potential for fecal coliform water quality
standard exceedances. Differences in acreage estimates between basin cycles are not just related
to changes in water quality; they are also due to changes in acreage are related to more refined
methods of estimating acreages, changes in growing area classifications, extension of closure
areas as a result of additional boat slips, and changes in use support methodology.
For more information about use support determinations, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina's Basimvide Planning. Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality
Plans found at DWQ's website http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinAvide/SupplementaIGuide.htm.
40 Chapter 2—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-51 1

1
Table 6 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-51
Use Support
Aquatic Life
Recreation
Shellfish Harvesting
Ratin
Freshwaterl
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Monitored Waters
Supporting
0
i
0
8.8 mi
0
52,547.2 ac
1068.8
- - ac
0
13 ac
Impaired*
0
0
0
0
2,081.5 ac (3.8%)
Total
0
8.8 mi
0
8.8 mi
0
106 724.7 ac
131 806.2 ac
54 628.7 ac
nmonitored Waters
Not Rated
0
534.1 ac
1.1 mi
0
0
0
0
No Data
497.2 mi
497.2 mi
1.1 mi
0
0
4,990.6 ac
125,497 ac
4,980.6 ac
100,949.7 ac
Total
497.2 mi
1.1 mi
497.2 mi
1.1 mi
0
0
4,980.6 ac
126 031.1 ac
4 980.E ac
1-00,949.7 ac
otals
FAli Waters
497.2 mi
9.9 mi
1
497.2 mi
9.9 mi
1
0
54,628.7 ac
4,980.6 ac
232,756 ac
14,980.6 ac
232,756 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored mikslacres only.
' 2.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
Waters
1�
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
newly Impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state's 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Chapter 15.
For more information about use support determinations for the Impaired Class SA waters
presented in Table 7 below, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina's
Basimvide Planning: Support Document for Basnnwide Water Quality Plans found at DWQ's
website http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/basinwide/Supl2lementaIGuide.htm. Refer to Figure 4 for a
map of subbasin 03-01-51.
Table 7 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-1, H-2 and I-2 Classifications in Subbasin
03-01-51
Class SA Waters
Assessment Unit #
Growing Area
DEH Growing Area
Classification
Broad Creek
300--21 �
PPP
H-1
Johns Creek
30-21-5
PRO
H-1
Pond Island
30-21-4a
PRO
H-1
30-21a
APP
Roanoke Sound
30-21b
PRO
H-1,1-2
30-21 c
PRO
30-21 d
PRO
Rockhall Creek
30-21-6
PRO
H-1
I
Chapter 2—Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
41

1
Sand Beach Creek
30-21-5-1
PRO
H-1
Baum Creek
30-20-5
PRO
H-2
Callaghan Creek
30-20-4
PRO
H-2
30-20-(2)a
APP
30-20-(2)b
PRO
Croatan Sound
H-2, I-2
30-20-(2)d
PRO
30-20-(2)e
PRO
30-20- 2 f
PRO
Cut Through
30-20-8a
APP
H-2
30-20-8b
PRO
Oyster Creek Croatan Sound
30-20-6
PRO
H-2
Spencer Creek
30-20-3
PRO
H-2
PRO=Prohibited, CAC=Conditionally Approved Closed, CAO=Conditionally Approved Open
2.3.1 West Shore Roanoke Sound Growing Area H-1
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-1. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 7 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.
According to the Sanitary Survey of Roanoke
Sound, Area H 1(DEHShellftsh Sanitation &
Recreational Water Quality Section, October 2002
and August 2006), little change in bacteriological
water quality has occurred since the last review in
2002; however, some water quality improvements
have resulted in opening of shellfish waters. Area H-
1 includes waters of the Roanoke Sound, Shallowbag
Bay, Broad Creek, and Mill Creek. Roanoke Sound
is bordered on the east by the Outer Banks and on the
west by Roanoke Island. H-1 is located in Dare County, which is undergoing rapid population
growth with large influxes in seasonal populations. Manteo population is estimated at
approximately 1,100 permanent residents and with a seasonal peak population of approximately
3,500 people (CAMA LUP-Town of Manteo, 2007). However, much of the survey area in area
H-1 is uninhabited marshland. Wildlife and waterfowl are abundant in the marshland areas of
this growing area.
Notable activities on Roanoke Island include new housing developments and the construction of
wetlands. This area has had significant flooding with heavy rainfall events affecting low-lying
areas and flooding septic systems. The growing Pirate's Cove subdivision also hosts the largest
marina in the area with 181 boat slips. The survey reports all violations noted from previous
surveys have been corrected. The Manteo Municipal WWTP is the only WWTP in H-1 that
discharges to the sound. The discharge location is approximately 3,400 feet offshore in
Shallowbag Bay. The WWTP has a history of exceeding its permit limits for fecal coliform,
petroleum, and ammonia levels in its effluent.
42 Chapter 2 — Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51
1

1
C
As a result of the DEH 2O06 survey report, approximately 45 acres around Manteo have been
reclassified from Prohibited to Approved for shellfish harvesting and an additional 240 acres are
classified as Approved in the Wanchese area. However, approximately 34 acres are Prohibited
east of Wanchese Harbor due to development and observed pollution in runoff waters.
Broad Creek [AU# 30-21-7a]
Broad Creek (126 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Broad Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. Broad
Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
The marina along Broad Creek is limited to 29 boats with no boats over 24' in length. Runoff
from boat maintenance and from the parking lot of the marina drains to Broad Creek and
eventually to waters east of Wanchese Harbor. Constructed wetlands have recently been
completed in the mouth of Broad Creek and were observed to be hosting an abundant waterfowl
population with associated accumulated fecal matter. Further downstream (AU# 30-21-7b), 392
acres are classified as approved and supporting shellfish harvesting
Johns Creek [AU# 30-21-51
Johns Creek (10.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Johns Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Johns
Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Pond Island [AU# 30-21-4a]
Pond Island (165.1 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Pond Island is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Pond
Island will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21b, 30-21c and 30-21d]
Portions of the Roanoke Sound (590.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Roanoke
Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. Roanoke Sound will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters. An
additional 9,134.1 acres are classified as approved and supporting shellfish harvesting in area 1-2.
Rockhall Creek [AU# 30-21-61
Rockhall Creek (5.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Rockhall Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Rockhall Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Sand Beach Creek [AU# 30-21-5-11
Sand Beach Creek (38.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Sand Beach Creek is
classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial
levels. Sand Beach Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Chapter 2—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-51 43

2.3.2 Croatan Sound Growing Area H-2
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-2. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 7 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.
According to the Sanitary Survey of Croatan Sound,
Area H-2 (DEHShellfish Sanitation & Recreational
Water Quality Section, December 2005), water
quality remains good. The largest water quality
issues are along the backside of Roanoke Island, near
Manteo and Wanchese with high bacteria counts.
Oyster production is limited to areas surrounding
Wanchese and no clams are produced there. Area H-
2 is bordered by Roanoke Island in the east and the
mainland village of Manes Harbor to the west. The
permanent population is estimated at approximately 2,000 people, but drastically increases
during the summer months.
Development is scattered throughout much of the area. In North Manteo, 100+ lots have been
created, Sunnyside Subdivision in Manteo has extended to make room for an additional 30 units
and several new residential units have been built in Skyco. With the exception of the houses
connected to the Manteo VWVTP, all the residences utilize onsite septic systems and seven
violations were noted during the sanitary survey. Of these violations, one house had a crushed
septic system with drainage to the sound and pipes from four mobile homes were disconnected
and were found to be discharging directly onto the ground within 20 feet of the marsh.
Other possible water quality pollution sources include landfills, wildlife, and increased
impervious surface runoff. Dredge material from Shallowbag Bay in area H-1 was deposited in a
30-acre site in area H-2. Several drainage ditches connect possible runoff from Dare County's
demolition landfill to the sound. An illegal dumpsite was discovered in Manteo consisting of
boats, appliances and other trash. Possible chemical pollutants may come from the NCDOT
Marine Maintenance Facility located on Spencer Creek.
Baum Creek [AU# 30-20-5]
Baum Creek (10.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Baum Creek is classified by DER
SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Baum
Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Callaghan Creek [AU# 30-20-41
2002 Status
To evaluate the impact of a fire treatment berm at a Dare County landfill in 1998, DWQ
monitored chemicals (metals), toxicity and benthic macroinvertebrates. One station failed
1
r
1
44 Chapter 2 — Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-51 1

n
u
toxicity tests and metals were extremely high (i.e., silver, selenium, copper, zone, arsenic,
aluminum, lead, manganese and iron). Biologists noted some impacts to the benthic
communities nearest the landfill. DWQ recommended that a follow-up study be conducted on
Callaghan Creek. It was also recommended that DWQ regional office staff work with landfill
managers to generate appropriate disposal options.
Current Status
Callaghan Creek (24.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Callaghan Creek is classified
by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Callaghan Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
DWQ sampled unnamed tributaries to Callaghan Creek and Billys Creek in October 2000 to
assess the long-term impacts from the 1998 landfill fire. The sample sites were all channelized
drainage ditches without bends or pools. Use of a non-standard sampling methodology
precluded assignment of bioclassifications to these sites; however, this method collected enough
taxa to make between site comparisons of the invertebrate communities. All sites had dissolved
oxygen levels below 4.0 mg/1 and no flow conditions existed. Substrate consisted of detritus -
mud mixture. Macroinvertebrate communities at all sites in this study were very pollution
tolerant. The sample site near the landfill showed a biotic community still impacted from the
landfill fire; however, several taxa rarely found in DWQ collections were also found during the
study (DWQ ESS, December 2000).
Croatan Sound [AU# 30-20-(2)b, 30-20-(2)c, 30-20-(2)d, 30-20-(2)e and 30-20-(2)fj
Croatan Sound (580.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Croatan Sound is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Croatan Sound will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Cut Through [AU# 30-20-8b)
Cut Through (178.5 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Cut Through is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Cut
Through will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters. An additional 128.6 acres are
classified as approved and supporting shellfish harvesting in area H-2.
' Oyster Creek [AU# 30-20-61
Oyster Creek (62.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Oyster Creek is classified by
' DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Oyster Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Spencer Creek [AU# 30-20-31
Spencer Creek (86.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Spencer Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Spencer Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
' Chapter 2—Pasquo"River Subbasin 03-01-51 45

2.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts
The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements. DWQ will notify local agencies of these water quality concerns
and work with them to conduct further assessments and to locate sources of water quality
protection funding. Additionally, education on local water quality issues and voluntary actions
are useful tools to prevent water quality problems and to promote restoration efforts. The current
status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and each is
identified by an AU#. Nonpoint source program agency contacts are listed in Appendix IV.
2A.1 Shallowbag Bay [AU#30-21-3]
Shallowbag Bay (534.1 acres) is Not Rated on an evaluated basis in the aquatic life category due
to significant noncompliance issues with biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia
permit limits at the Manteo WWTP (Permit NC0079057). Manteo's WWTP is permitted to
discharge 0.6 MGD and it has a phased NPDES permit under which it can expand to 1 MGD by
obtaining an Authorization to Construct from DWQ. Many of the effluent violations with
Manteo WWTP were results of mechanical malfunctions. In 2005 and 2006, there were two
Notice of Violations issued against MWWTP and 9 Permit Enforcement penalties issued against
the plant. In 2005, the Town of Manteo received a grant from the North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) to develop a feasibility study of nutrient removal options for
wastewater discharged to Shallowbag Bay. The 2007 Manteo Land Use Plan states water quality
conditions in Shallowbag Bay are concerns and recommends actions to improve their WWTP
and reduce pollutants from stormwater runoff and marinas to improve water quality. BMPS are
needed to reduce runoff from highly impervious areas of historic downtown Manteo to reduce
stormwater runoff into Shallowbag Bay (CAMA LUP- Town of Manteo, 2007). The Town of
Manteo prepared a stormwater management plan in 2000 with intentions to augment its zoning
ordinance with stormwater management requirements. The 2005 Zoning Ordinance requires the
runoff generated by new development to not exceed the predevelopment site volume for the first
1.5" and it shall be retained on the site. Residential and historic sites are exempt from this
ordinance.
Shallowbag Bay is also monitored by the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Recreational
Monitoring Program (RECMON). Based on DEH monitoring data, the bay is Supporting in the
recreation category.
2.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-51
The previous sections discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. The
following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not
specific to particular streams, lakes, or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters
near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
The increase in impervious surfaces throughout the basin contributes to the growing water
quality issues associated with stormwater runoff. An increase in the numbers of slips at marinas
is a concern to water quality because of the limited number of marina facilities with pump out
1
1
46 Chapter 2—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-51 1

' capabilities. Establishing marinas that meet Clean Marina standards is essential to protect public
health and water quality.
' According to the Sanitary Survey ofAlbemarle and Currituck Sounds, Areas I-1, I-3 through
I-16 (DEHShellftsh Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality Section, December 2005), there
has been little change in water quality since the last survey. The only shellfish found in this area
' is Rangia clams. No commercial shellfish harvesting occurs. Freshwater runoff is the most
significant factor affecting water quality in this region and can be associated with agricultural
runoff or natural runoff from swampwaters following heavy rains.
Area I-4 consists mainly of forest and swamps surrounding the Alligator River. Logging is the
main industry in this region. There are some farming operations on the western side of the river.
The eastern side of the river is part of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge.
According to the Sanitary Survey of Eastern Albemarle Sound, Area I-2 (DEII Shellfish
Sanitation Unit, June 2005), water quality has improved with a few exceptions. The only
shellfish present in this area is Rangia clams. The estimated population of this area is 11,000
people, which is a 50 percent increase since the last survey. With the influx of tourists the
population more than triples. There are 15 subdivisions, many of which are located along closed
waters.
IChapter 2—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-51 47

6.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-01-55 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area
574 mil
Land area:
% mi2
Water area
478 mil
Land Cover (percent)
Surface Water:89%Forest/Wetland:
11%
Urban:
<1%
Cultivated Crop:
<1%
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: <1%
Counties
Dare
Communities
Stumpy Point, Rodanthe,
Avon,
Waves
Monitored Waterbody
Statistics
Aquatic Life:
Total:
0
Recreation
Total•
315,259.3 ac
Supporting:
315,259.3 ac
Shellfish Harvesting:
Total:
319,557.8 ac
Supporting:
316,953.0 ac
Impaired:
2,6018 ac
Chapter 6
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
Including: Northeastern Pamlico Sound
This subbasin consists of Pamlico Sound from Oregon Inlet
to Hatteras Inlet and the Outer Banks in Dare County.
Subbasin 03-01-55 contains Black Lake and Stumpy Point
Bay on the mainland and the Pea. Island National Wildlife
Refuge and Cape Hatteras National Seashore on the Outer
Banks. Ecologically, the Subbasin consists primarily of
Carolinian Barrier Islands and coastal marshes with
portions of the mainland consisting of nonriverine swamps
and peatlands. Streams on the mainland are few and low
gradient with channelized ditches being common and all are
either estuarine or oceanic. Land cover generally consists
of surface water and forested wetlands.
Dare County, located in this Subbasin, experiences a high
seasonal population fluctuation with tourists visiting the
Outer Banks. Dare County projected to experience a
population increase of 35 percent by 2020. Additional
information regarding population and land use changes
throughout the entire basin can be found in Chapter 11.
There are three minor National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facilities in this
Subbasin with a total permitted flow of 2.1 MGD. All three
facilities are reverse osmosis (RO) water treatment plants
(WTP) that discharge filtered backwash or reject water into
saline waters. All three are required to monitor whole
effluent toxicity (WET). The permit for the Cape Hatteras
RO WTP specifies chronic toxicity monitoring. WET
results submitted by the facility indicate that it failed to
meet its chronic toxicity target on one occasion between
January 2000 and December 2005. The permits for the
Stumpy Point RO WTP and the Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo RO
WTP specify acute toxicity monitoring. No acute effluent
toxicity violations were reported at the Stumpy Point RO
'
WTP; however, results from the Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo RO WTP show that the facility failed to
meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent concentration on four occasions between
January 2000 and December 2005. There is one non -discharge permit and no stormwater
discharge permits for this subbasin. For the listing of NPDES permit holders, refer to Appendix
III.
'
Chapter 6—Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55 77
7

Figure 8 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
{
1� }
N
Z pMI
DARE
11 L1.
1
1 � F 1 i
\
S
i s 1;ji�{
\
t�
r
a 4
t .A
i
r n ;A�
} Pamlico Sound 1 i
1
n
] f �
CI
Legend
x n 1 y �1
O Municipality)
t County Boundary
Subbasin Boundary �-
c r
Primary Roads
bA
Monitoring Stations v
Ambient Monitoring Station
p
® Benthic Community '
A• Recreation Locationss>
NPDES Dischargers
Q Major 1
s k' -
A Minor-
Non -Dischargers
is � t t i NC12 � x
0 Major��
A Minor Zi w s
Aquatic Life Rating/
Shellfish Harvesting Rating
Impaired
F,t
No Data��
4o\.-o Not Rated Planning Section
0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Basinwide Planning Unit
�� Supporting Miles January 8, 2007

M
Table 18 Pasquotank
Subbasin 03-01-55
Shellfish
AU Number Classification
Length/Area
Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation
Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description
AL gating Station Result Parameter %Exc
REC Rating
Station Result SH Rating
GA
Stressors Sources
Askins Creek
30-22-24 SA;HQW
49 S Acres
ND
;•{:7
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
Austin Creek (Clubhouse Creek)
30-22-31 SA;HQW
7.9 S Acres
'ND
`vi_
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-4
Beach Slue
30-22-9 SA;HQW
76.9 S Acres
ND
N
S
APP
Entire area of Beach Slue
H-5
Blackmar Gut
30-22-13 SA;HQW
4.6 S Acres
NR
PRO
Toxic Impacts WWTP NPDES
From source to Pamlico Sound
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-5
Boat Creek
30-22-25 SA;HQW
1.9 S Acres
ND
rar?
S
APP
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
Brooks Creek
-
30-22-28 SA;HQW
24.8 S Acres
ND
r1;
I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-4
Cape Creek
30-22-27 SA;HQW
15.8 S Acres
ND
N '
1
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
Clarks Bay
30-22-16 SA;HQW
19.8 S Acres
NO
S
N29 NCE S
APP
Entire Bay
H-5
Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond
30-22-30-1-1 SA;HQW
10.3 S Acres
ND
;
I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Entire ponds and connecting streams to The Slash
H-4
Eagle Nest Bay
30-22-2 SA;HQW
55.5 S Acres
"dD
^;u
S
APP
Entire Bay
H-5
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55

Table 18 Pasquotank
Subbasin 03-01-55
Shellfish
AU Number Classification
Length/Area
Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation Assessment
Harvestinz
Description
Year/
AL Rating Station Result Parameter %Exc
REC Rating Station Result SH Rating
GA Stressors Sources
Goat Island Bay
30-22-3 SA;HQW
40.8
S Acres
iJU
Ni!
S
APP
Entire Bay
H-5
Goose Creek
30-22-32 SA;HQW
1.7
S Acres
M-,
IN D
S
APP
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-4
Gull Island Bay
30-22-18 SA;HQW
16.5
S Acres
iJD
",Ci
S
APP
Entire Bay
H-5
Hatteras Inlet
30-22-33 SA;HQW
143.1
S Acres
ND
F E'
S
APP
Entire Inlet
H-4
Joe Saur Creek
30-22-29 SA;HQW
17.9
S Acres
ND
::'
I
PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-4
Long Point Creek
30-22-26 SA;HQW
6.3
S Acres
NIE,
S
APP
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
Midgett Cove
30-22-15 SA;HQW
36.4
S Acres
":)
_
S
APP
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
Mill Creek
30-22-22 SA;HQW
16.2
S Acres
N'D
"dC
I
PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
No Ache Bay
30-22-17 SA;HQW
38.1
S Acres
HD
S
APP
Entire Bay
H-5
North Drain
30-22-14 SA;HQW
2.0
S Acres
N)
t 4: D
S
APP
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
M

M
Table 18 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55 Shellfish
9
AU Number Classification Length/Area
Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter % Exc REC Rating Station Result SH Rating GA Stressors Sources
Oregon Inlet
30-22-1 SA;HQW 571.2 S Acres f=D t, r S APP
Entire Inlet H-6
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55

Table 18
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55
Shellfish
AU Number
Aquatic Life Assessment
Classification Length/Area 9
Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter %Exc
REC Rating Station
Result SH Rating GA Stressors Sources
Pamlico Sound
30-22a
SA;HQW 315,239.5 S Acres NR
S N26A
NCE g APP Low Dissolved Oxygen WWTP NPDES
N26C
NCE
N28
NCE
N28A
NCE
N29A
NCE
N31
NCE
N33
NCE
N33A
NCE
N38
NCE
N39
NCE
Portion of Pamlico Sound (from Croatan and Roanoke
Sounds to a line running from Sandy Point south of Stumpy
Point Bay to the northeast tip. of Ocracoke Island) in
subbain 03-01-55 except DEH closure areas 30-22b
through 30-22j.
30-22b SA;HQW 28.5 S Acres
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area of a boundary begnning at a point on land west of the
Hatteras Ferry Landing at 35 degrees IT 30" N- 75 degrees
42' 24" W, thence to a point in the ferry channel at 35
degrees 12' 37" N-75 deg
30-22c SA;HQW 15.2 S Acres NU
The waters of the Pamlico Sound which include the DEH
closed area with mouth 1.17 miles southwest of Durant
Point.
30-22d SA;HQW 3.6 S Acres M)
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area with mouth 321 meters east of east mouth of Austin
Creek
30-22e SA;HQW 18.7 SAcres idD
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area: all creeks, canals, and tributaries along Hatteras
Island between Brooks Point to west mouth of Joe Saw
Creek.
H-6
1 PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-4
is 1 PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-4
PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-4
td I PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-4
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55

M M M M M M M M M
Table 18 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55 Shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area
Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter % Exc REC Rating Station Result SH Rating GA Stressors Sources
30-22f SA;HQW 187.8 S Acres ND ,;;;
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area: All waters south of a line bginning at a point on the
shore north of Buxton at 35 degrees 16' 44" N- 75 degrees
31' 05" W, thence in awesterly direction through Bald Point
to a point on the B
30-22g SA;HQW 1.3 S Acres Pd1)
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area at the mouth of Askins Creek
30-22h SA;HQW 29.2 S Acres 11D
The waters of Pamlico Sound which include the DEH closed
area at the mouth of Mill Creek. This includes all waters
south of a line from Big Island to the Outer Banks and all
waters east of line from Big Island to Gibbs Point.
Pauls Ditch
30-22-12 SA;HQW 6.9 S Acres Nui ND
From source to Pamlico Sound
Pea Island Bay
30-22-6 SA;HQW 18.3 S Acres ND h•JO
Entire Bay
Pea Island Creek
30-22-5 SA;HQW 4.6 S Acres Nn
Entire Creek
Peters Ditch
30-22-23 SA;HQW 2.7 S Acres *_:) PJC)
From source to Pamlico Sound
Phipps Cove
30-22-19 SA;HQW 5.8 S Acres N'D N
From source to Pamlico Sound
Round Hammock Bay
30-22-11 SA;HQW 276.4 S Acres NC idC
Entire Bay
1 PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-5
1 PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-5
1 PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-5
S APP
H-5
S APP
H-5
S APP
H-5
I PRO
H-5
S APP
H-5
S APP
H-5
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55

Table 18 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55 Shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter % Exc REC Rating Station Result SH Rating GA
Sandy Bay
30-22-30a SA;HQW 37.6 S Acres C
DEH Closure Area
30-22-30b SA;HQW 123.7 S Acres F.L)
Entire Bay excluding DEH closure Area
Spencer Creek
30-22-21 SA;HQW 4.4 S Acres iND
From source to Pamlico Sound
Stumpy Point Bay
30-22-8a SA;HQW 1,688.5 S Acres N+?
Entire Bay except DEH area closures
30-22-8b SA;HQW 198.2 SAcres tl"D
All those waters bounded by a line beginning at a point 35
degrees 41' S5" N-75 degrees 46' 09" W, thence in a
southeasterly direction to a point 400 yards offshore at 35
degrees 41' 46" N- 75 degrees 45' S4" W, thence in a
southwesterly direction in a st
30-22-8c SA;HQW 260.3 S Acres AND
All those waters within an area bounded by a line beginning
at a point on the east shore at 35 degrees 41' 44" N- 75
degrees 44' 18" W, thence to a point in the bay at 35 degrees
4 F 28" N- 75 degrees 44' 45" W, thence to a point in the bay
at 35 degrees
Terrapin Creek
30-22-7-1 SA;HQW 2.8 S Acres N-D
From source to Terrapin Creek Bay
Terrapin Creek Bay
30-22-7 SA;HQW 163.7 S Acres
Entire Bay
The Drain
30-22-20 SA;HQW 1.4 SAcres ND
From source to Pamlico Sound
Stressors Sources
f;D
I PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-4
i7
S APP
H-4
t C)
S APP
H-5
JC>
1 PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-3
J J
I PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-3
P;D I PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
H-3
PJ�
S
APP
H-5
iD
S
APP
H-5
t• D
S
APP
H-5
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55

Table 18 Pasquotank
Subbasin 03-01-55
Shellfish
AU Number Classification
Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description
ALRating Station Result Parameter%Exe
RECRating Station Result SHRating
GA Stressors Sources
.,The Slash
30-22-30-1 SA;HQW
30.9 S Acres N D
PJD I
PRO Fecal Coliform Bacteria
From source to Sandy Bay
H-4
The Trench
4.
30-22-4 SA;HQW
51.5 S Acres PJD
PJD S
APP
From source to Pamlico Sound
H-5
Wreck Creek
u 4
30-22-10 SA;HQW
43.5 SAcres PJD
ND S
APP
Entire Creek
H-5
Use Categories: Monitoring data type:
Results:
Use Support Ratings 2006:
AL - Aquatic Life MF - Fish Community Survey
E - Excellent
S - Supporting, I - Impaired
REC - Recreation MB - Benthic Community Survey
G- Good
NR - Not Rated
SH - Shellfish Harvesting MA - Ambient Monitoring Site
GF - Good -Fair
NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
Ml- Lake Monitoring
F - Fair
ND -No Data Collected to make assessment
N- DEH RECMON
P - Poor
NR+-Not rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
Results
GA - DEH SS Classification and Growing Area
S Severe Stress
CE-Criteria Exceeded> 10%and more than 10 samples
APP- Approved
M-Moderate Stress
NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
CAO- Conditionally Approved -Open
N- Natural
Mlles/Acres
CAC- Conditionally Approved -Closed
FW- Fresh Water
PRO- Prohibited
S- Salt Water
Aquatic Life Rating Summary Recreation Rating Summary Fish Consumption Rating Summary Shellfish Harvesting Rating Summary
NR a 315,244.1 S Acres S m 315,259.3 S Acres I e 319,580.0 S Acres S m 316,953.0 S Acres
ND 4,335.9 S Acres ND 4,320.6 S Acres I e 117.6 FW Miles I m 2,604.8 S Acres
ND 117.6 FW Miles ND 117.6 FW Miles
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-55

Flooding continues to be a concern along the Outer Banks. Groundwater levels are high,
limiting the lands ability to infiltrate rainwater. Also, the increase in impervious surfaces
contributes to higher stormwater runoff and flooding events.
A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 8. Table 15 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
lengths, streams monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin. Appendix V provides definitions of the terns used throughout
this basin plan.
Neither benthic samples nor ambient stations are located in this subbasin; however, there are
several recreational monitoring stations (RECMON) located throughout the subbasin. These
stations are evaluated by the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH). Long-term trends in
water quality cannot be assessed in this subbasin. Refer to the 2006PasquotankRiver Basinwide
Assessment Report http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/PASQUOTANK2006FinaLpdf and
Appendix I for more information on monitoring.
Many of the waters in subbasin 03-01-55 are classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA).
Many are also classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW). Several management strategies are in place to protect these waters.
Waters in the following sections and in Table 15 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is a
subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the
end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter
indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.
6.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
All surface waters in the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best -intended use of
that water. Waters are regularly assessed by DWQ to determine how well they are meeting their
best -intended use. Table 16 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-55.
In subbasin 03-01-55, use support was assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and
shellfish harvesting categories. Waters are Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated, and No Data in the
aquatic life and recreation categories on a monitored or evaluated basis. All waters are Impaired
in the fish consumption category on an evaluated basis based on fish consumption advice issued
by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). There are no water supply
watersheds designated in this subbasin.
Criteria for making use support determinations for the shellfish harvesting category were based
on Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Sanitary Surveys (SS) growing area classifications.
The problem parameter for all shellfish waters is the potential for fecal coliform standards
exceedances. Differences in acreage estimates between basin cycles are not just related to
changes in water quality. Changes in acreage are related to more refined methods of estimating
acreages, changes in growing area classifications, extension of closure areas as a result of
additional boat slips, and to changes in use support methodology.
I
E
H
U
86 Chapter 6—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-55 1

For more information about use support determinations, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina's Basinwide Planning. Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality
Plans found at DWQ's website http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinNvide/Sup121ementaIGuide.htm.
' Table 16 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-55
0
1
H
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic Life
Recreation
Shellfish Harvesting
Freshwaterl
Saltwater
Freshwaterl
Saltwater iFreshwaterl
Saltwater
Monitored waters
Supporting
0
0
0
315,259.3 ac
0
316,953.0 ac
Impaired*
0
0
0
0
0
2,604.8 ac (0.8%)
Total
0
0
0
315,259.3 ac
0
319,557.8 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated
0
315,244.1 ac
4,335.9 ac
0
_ 0
0
0
No Data
117.6 mi
117.6 mi
4,320.6 ac
0
0
Total
117.6 mi
319,580 ac
117.6 mi
4,320.6 ac
0
0
otals
All Waters
1 117.6 mi
319,580 ac
1 117.6 mi
1319,579.9 ac
0
319,557.8 ac
* The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored miles/acres only.
6.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
' Waters
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
newly impaired based on recent data. If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state's 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
t The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an assessment unit number (AU#). Information regarding 303(d) listing and
reporting methodology is presented in Chapter 15.
For more information about use support determinations for the Impaired Class SA waters
presented in Table 17 below, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina's
' Basinwide Planning. Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality Plans found at DWQ's
website http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinNvide/SupplementaIGuide.htm. Refer to Figure 8 for a
map of subbasin 03-01-55.
' Table 17 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-3, H-4, H-5, H-6 Classifications in Subbasin
03-01-55
Class SA Waters
Assessment Unit #
Growing Area
Classification
DEH Growing Area
30-22-8a
PRO
Stumpy Point Bay
30-22-8b
PRO
H-3
30-22-8c
PRO
Austin Creek
30-22-31
PRO
H-4
Brooks Creek
30-22-28
PRO
H-4
Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond
30-22-30-1-1
PRO
H-4
Joe Saur Creek
30-22-29
PRO
H-4
I
Chapter 6—PasquotankRiverSubbasin 03-01-55
87

r�
30-22a1
APP
30-22a2
PRO
30-22b
PRO
30-22c
PRO
Pamlico Sound
30-22d
PRO
H-4, H-5, H-6
30-22e
PRO
30-22f
PRO
30-22g
PRO
30-22h
PRO
Sandy Bay
30-22-30a
PRO
H-4
30-22-30b
APP
The Slash
30-22-30-1
PRO
H-4
Askins Creek
30-22-24
PRO
H-5
Blackmar Gut
30-22-13
PRO
H-
Cape Creek
30-22-27
PRO
H 5
Mill Creek
30-22-22
PRO
H-5
PRO=Prohibited, CAC=Conditionally Approved Closed, CAO=Conditionally Approved Open
6.3.1 Stumpy Point Growing Area H-3
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-3. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 17 or refer to the
basmwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.
According to the Sanitary Survey of Stumpy Point,
Area H-3 (DEHShellftsh Sanitation & Recreational
Water Quality Section, May 2006), oyster production
is considered fair and there is no clam production.
The entire area consists of marsh and forest of the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge with the
exception of the community of Stumpy Point. The
area has a total population of 230 people with little
seasonal variation. The population is not expected to
grow unless a WWTP is constructed to facilitate
further development. There are two seafood businesses in area H-3.
Stumpy Point Bay [AU# 30-22-8a, 30-22-8b and 30-22-8c]
Stumpy Point Bay (2,147.0 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Stumpy Point Bay is
classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-3 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria
levels. Stumpy Point Bay [AU# 30-22-8a, AU# 30-22-8b and 30-22-8c] will be added to the
state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
The Stumpy Point area does not have any central wastewater collection or treatment facilities.
Unsuitable soils in this area leave homeowners with limited on -site wastewater treatment
options. Currently, 63 of the 110 known septic systems are known to have straight pipe
discharges that drain to a canal empting directly into Stumpy Point Bay, or have failed. A new
WWTP to serve the residents of Stumpy Point has been proposed. A Septic Tank Effluent Pump
88 Chapter 6—PasquotankRiverSubbasin 03-01-55

u
H
E
system would collect the wastewater in Stumpy Point and deliver it to a membrane bioreactor
wastewater treatment plant to provide advanced tertiary biological treatment and accomplish
disinfection by an ultraviolet light system. This system would discharge into Bayview Drive
Canal.
6.3.2 Hatteras Growing Area H4
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with
these waters are located within Growing Area
H-4. If the entire Class SA water is located
within more than one growing area it is noted
in Table 17 or refer to the basinwide Growing
Area map m the Executive Summary.
According to the Sanitary Survey ofHatteras
Area, Area H-4 (DEMShelash Sanitation &
Recreational Water Quality Section, May
2002, March 2007), an overall decline in
water quality has occurred. As a result of the
2007 survey an additional 4.5 acres will be
reclassified from approved to prohibited for
shellfish harvesting. The area covers 5,800 acres, of which 229.5 acres are closed for shellfish
harvesting. Oyster production is considered poor and clam production is poor. Samples taken
near an area referred to as Little Ditch, showed extremely high bacteria counts, but no major
pollution sources were noted Area H-4 is located along the Outer Banks at the western end of
Hatteras Island where tourism is the main industry. Hatteras Village has an approximate
population of 1,700 with an increase to 6,000 during peak tourist months; the Town of Frisco has
approximately 700 permanent residents, increasing to 5,000. There is no WWTP within this area
and all residences and businesses utilize conventional septic systems. Many of the septic
systems are old and are installed in fill or coarse sand, allowing possible discharge to adjacent
water via groundwater. Hatteras Landing uses a low-pressure pipe system for waste disposal.
Additional multifamily residences are being built on fill in this area.
Austin Creek (Clubhouse Creek) [AU# 30-22-31]
Austin Creek (7.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Austin Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Austin
Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Brooks Creek [AU# 30-22-281
Brooks Creek (24.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Brooks Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Brooks Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
I
Chapter 6 — Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-55
89

Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond [AU# 30-22-30-1-11
Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond (10.3 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Duck Ponds and
Isaac Pond are classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H4 due to potential fecal
coliform bacterial levels. Duck Ponds and Isaac Pond will be added to the state's 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.
Joe Saur Creek [AU# 30-22-291
Joe Saur Creek (17.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Joe Saur Creek is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Joe
Saur Creek will remain on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Portions of the Pamlico Sound [AU# 30-22b, 30-22c, 30-22d and 30-22e]
Portions of the Pamlico Sound (66.0 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. The Pamlico
Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H4 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. The Pamlico Sound will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Sandy Bay [AU# 30-22-30a]
Sandy Bay (37.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Sandy Bay is classified by DEH SS
as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Sandy Bay
will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
The Slash [AU# 30-22-30-11
The Slash (30.9 acres) is a tributary to Sandy Bay and impaired for shellfish harvesting. The
Slash is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-4 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. The Slash will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
6.3.3 Outer Banks Growing Area H-5
Growing Area
90
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-5. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 17 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.
According to the Sanitary Survey of Outer Banks,
Area H-5 (DEHShellftsh Sanitation & Recreational
Water Quality Section, October 2002, September
2006), water quality has declined in some areas. As a
result of the 2006 survey approximately 15 acres will
be closed to shellfish harvesting in Askins Creek and
an additional 10 acres has been reclassified as
prohibited near Salvo Marina. However, 120 acres in
Chapter 6—PasquotankRiverSubbasin 03-01-55
7
Ill
I

the Cape Creak Area has been opened for shellfish harvesting Area H-5 includes 66,800 acres
and oyster and clam production is considered fair. The survey area is characterized by three
small -populated areas separated by miles of uninhabited dunes and marshes. The permanent
population is estimated at 2,400 while seasonal tourism increases population to 40,000. Several
hurricanes impacted this area during this last Sanitary Survey resulting in debris from destroyed
houses, fuel tanks and vehicles being washed into the waterways. Most of the area is within
Cape Hatteras National Seashore and will never be developed.
Askins Creek [AU# 30-22-241
' Askins Creek (4.9 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Askins Creek is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Askins
Creek will remain on the state"s 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Beach Slue [AU# 30-22-91
Beach Slue is listed on the 2004 303(d) list of Impaired waters for shellfish harvesting. Beach
Slue (76.9 acres) is currently Supporting for shellfish harvesting. Beach Slue is now classified
by DEH SS as approved for harvesting, therefore DWQ will recommend that Beach Slue be
' removed from the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Blackmar Gut [AU# 30-22-131
' Blackmar Gut (4.6 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Blackmar Gut is classified by
DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels.
Blackmar Gut will be added to the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Blackmar Gut is Not Rated on an evaluated basis in the aquatic life category due to WET failures
associated with the Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water Treatment Plant
' (WTP) (Permit NC0083909). Between January 2000 and December 2005, the facility failed to
meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent concentrations on four occasions.
' Cape Creek [AU# 30-22-271
Cape Creek (15.8 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Cape Creek is classified by DEH
' SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Cape Creek
will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
'
Eagle Nest Bay [AU# 30-22-21
Eagle Nest Bay was listed on the 2004 303(d) list of Impaired waters for shellfish harvesting.
Eagle Nest Bay (55.5 acres) is currently Supporting for shellfish harvesting. Eagle Nest Bay is
'
now classified by DEH SS as approved for harvesting, therefore DWQ will recommend that
Eagle Nest Bay be removed from the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
1
1
Chapter 6—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-55 91

Mi11 Creek [AU# 30-22-221
Mill Creek (16.2 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Mill Creek is classified by DEH SS
as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Mill Creek
will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Portions of the Pamlico Sound [AU# 30-22f, 30-22g and 30-22h]
Portions of the Pamlico Sound (218.3 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting. The Pamlico
Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform
bacterial levels. The Pamlico Sound will remain on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waters.
Peters Ditch [AU# 30-22-231
Peters Ditch (2.7 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Peters Ditch is classified by DEH r
SS as prohibited in growing area H-5 due to potential fecal coliform bacterial levels. Peters
Ditch will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters. '
1
92 Chapter 6—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-55 1

Chapter 7
Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
Including: Roanoke Sound and small portion of Albemarle and Currituck Sound
7.1 Subbasin Overview
Subbasin 03-01-56 at a Glance
Land and Water Area
Total area:
Land area:
Water area:
Land Cover (percent)
Surface Water:
Forest/Wetland:
Urban:
Cultivated Crop:
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous:
Counties
Dare
1o9 mil
37 mi2
72 mi2
Municipalities
Kill Devil Hills, Nags Head,
Kitty Hawk, Southern Shores
70%
22%
7%
<1 %
2%
Monitored Waterbody Statistics
Recreation
Total:- 134.9 mi/22,216.2 ac
Supporting. 134.5 mi/22,211.5 ac
Impaired 0.5 mi/4.7 ac
Shellfish Harvesting.
Total• 21,045.2 ac
Supporting: 19,258.3 ac
Impaired 1,786.9 ac
This subbasin includes the Outer Banks from the northern
portion of Dare County south to Oregon Inlet. It also
includes portions of Currituck Sound, Albemarle Sound
and Roanoke Sound. Ecologically, it is within the
Carolinian Barrier Islands and Coastal Marshes ecoregions.
Land cover generally consists of beaches, marshes, forested
wetlands and evergreen forests with scattered urbanized
areas, wildlife habitat and recreational areas. Several
public lands and significant natural heritage areas can be
found in this subbasin, including Jockey's Ridge State
Park, Nags Head Woods Preserve, Run Hill State Natural
Area, Wright Brothers National Memorial and Kitty Hawk
Woods Coastal Reserve.
Portions of Currituck and Dare Counties are in this
subbasin. The Outer Banks have experienced rapid
population growth and development with the Towns of Kill
Devil Hills and Nags Head experiencing growth estimated
at an increase of 39 and 47 percent by 2020, respectively.
Refer to Chapter 11 for more information about population
growth and trends.
Water quality in areas with growing populations would
benefit from individual or community implementation of
backyard wetlands, rain gardens, bioretention areas,
conversion of impervious surfaces, use of cisterns,
streambank protection and restoration.
The Kill Devil Hills Reverse Osmosis (RO) Water
Treatment Plant (WTP) holds the only National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) minor permit in
the subbasin with a permitted discharge of 0.03 MGD. The permit specifies that the facility
monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET). During the last two years of the assessment period,
WET tests show that the facility has failed to meet its 90 percent acute toxicity target effluent
concentration on three occasions for both outfalls (outfall 001 and outfall 002). More
information can be found in Section 7.4.1. There are six non -discharge permits and two
stormwater discharge permits in this subbasin. For the listing of NPDES permit holders, refer to
Appendix III.
A map including the locations of the NPDES facilities and water quality monitoring stations is
presented in Figure 9. Table 18 contains a summary of assessment unit numbers (AU#) and
I
Chapter 7 - Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
93

Figure 9 Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
o� \
a•
DARE
a,•
(1N
C N
N S
P
ss
Legend
Municipality
Cam_ ,j county Boundary
QSubbasin Boundary
Primary Roads
Monitoring Stations
6 Ambient Monitoring Station
® Benthic Community
Recreation Locations
NPDES Dischargers
Q Major
n Minor
Non -Dischargers
O Major
,L Minor
Aquatic Life Rating/
Shellfish Harvesting Rating
Impaired
No Data
Not Rated
Supporting
Planning Section
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 Basinwide Planning Unit
Miles January 8, 2007
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Table 18
Pasquotank
Subbasin 03-01-56
Shellfish
AU Number
Classification
Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment
Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description
AL Rating Station Result Parameter % Exc
REC Rating Station
Result SH Rating GA Stressors Sources
Atlantic Ocean
99-(7)a
SB
110.1 Coast Miles
S N1
NCE
N12
NCE
N12A
NCE
N12B
NCE
N14
NCE
N14A
NCE
N15
NCE
N16A
NCE
N17
NCE
N17A
NCE
N18
NCE
NIA
NCE
N2
NCE
N23
NCE
N25
NCE
N26
NCE
N26B
NCE
N27
NCE
N29B
NCE
N3
NCE
N30
NCE
N32
NCE
N34
NCE
N37
NCE
N4
NCE
N40
NCE
N5A
NCE
N7
NCE
N7A
NCE
N85A
NCE
N19
NCE
The waters of the Atlantic Ocean contiguous to that portion
of Pasquotank River Basin that extends from the North
Carolina -Virginia State Line to the northeast tip of Ocracoke
Island
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
i M i M M M i M M M M s M M M M M M M

M M! M M M M M M M M M M M M M= S
Table 18 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56 Shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter %Exc REC Rating Station Result SH Rating GA Stressors Sources
ALBEMARLE SOUND
30fl SB 7,713.5 S Acres S N9A NCE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
Portion of Albemarle Sound in subbain 03-01-56. Waters
of Albemarle Sound (All waters south and east of a line
running in a southerly direction from Horniblow Point
(North end of Norfolk-Southem Railroad Bridge) to a point
of land on the east side of R
30f2 SB 0.1 S Acres I N91 CE Fecal Coliform Bacteria Marina
Colington Harbor swimming beach Enterrococcus Unknown
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56

Table 18 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
Assessment
Aquatic Life Ass
AU Number Classification Length/Area Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter % Exc
Shellfish
Recreation Assessment Harvesting
REC Rating Station Result SH Rating GA
Stressors Sources
99-(7)b SB 0.5 Coast Miles Pdl;
I
N22
CE
Enterrococcus
Unknown
Coastline 0.25 miles north and south of RECMON station
N22 near Old Oregon Rd and NC12
99-(7)c SB 0.5 Coast Miles NR
S
N85
NCE
Toxic Impacts
WWTP NPDES
Coastline 0.25 miles north and south of NC0070157
Blossie Creek
30-21-12 SA;HQW 33.3 S Acres
t iE%
S APP
Entire Creek
H-1
Colington Creek
30-19-la SC 758.1 SAcres r;D
S
N13A
NCE
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Marina
From Kill Devil Hills Bridge north to Kitty Hawk Bay
30-19-lb SC 0.4 S Acres `D
t
N13
CE
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Marina
Wildlife Ramp on Bayview Dr.
Enterrococcus
Enterrococcus
Unknown
Fresh Water Lake at Kill Devil Hills
30-23 WS-III;CA 23.8 FW Miles Ni",
Entire Lake
Georges Creek
30-21-10 SA;HQW 3.0 S Acres
From source to Roanoke Sound
Lighthouse Bay
30-21-11 SA;HQW 19.3 S Acres Ni
Entire Bay
Pamlico Sound
30-22i SA;HQW 5,150.1 S Acres r '?
Portion of Pamlico Sound (from Croatan and Roanoke
Sounds to a line running from Sandy Point south of Stumpy
Point Bay to the northeast tip of Ocracoke Island) in
Subbasin 03-01-56
S N16 NCE
r"D S APP
H-1
NCi S APP
H-1
"tf) S APP
H-0
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56

= M M M M M M= M M M= s M = = M M
Table
18 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56
Shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area
Assessment
Aquatic Life Ass
Recreation
Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter %Exc
REC Rating
Station Result SH Rating
GA
Stressors Sources
Pond Island
30-21-4b
SA;HQW 40.3 S Acres
C)
S
N20A NCE I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The waters surrounding the Island within 1,000 feet from
H-1
shore within subbasin 03-01-56
Roanoke Sound
30-21el
SA;HQW 14,052.7 S Acres
r;''
S
N24 NCE S
APP
N88A NCE
Those waters in 03-01-56 in the eastern portion of Roanoke
1-2
Sound, from a line running from Northwest Point on
Roanoke Island northward to Rhodoms Point on Colington
Island, thence a line running eastward through Wright
Memorial Monument, to a line running
30-21e2
SA;HQW 4.2 SAcres
.0
I
N88 CE
Enterrococcus
Stormwater Runoff
Jockey's Ridge Soundside Access
30-21f
SA;HQW 1,177.4 S Acres
NR
r4F)
I
PRO
Total Suspended Solids
WWTPNPDES
DEH closed area northeast of a line from Rhodams Point to
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
W WTP NPDES
Mann Point including Buzzard bay
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Marina
1-2
30-21g
SA;HQW 26.3 SAcres
NR
P;C
1
PRO
Low Dissolved Oxygen
WWTPNPDES
The waters of Roanoke sound which include those waters
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
around the Villa Condominium STP Outfall beginning at a
point 35 degrees 57' S4" N- 75 degrees 38' 46" W, thence
H-1
200 yards in a southwesterly direction to a point in the
sound at 35 degrees 5748" N-
30-21h
SA;HQW 405.0 SAcres
'!`-'
g
N21B NCE I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
WWTPNPDES
DEH closed area east of Pond Island adjacent of HWY 264
H-1
bridge
30-21i
SA;HQW 100.7 S Acres
'!G
I
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
DEH closed area adjacent to Mill Landing in subbasin 03-
H-1
O1-56
30-21j
SA;HQW 37.1 SAcres
r!G
P:v
i
PRO
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
DEH closed area in southern portion of Roanoke Sound
H-1
adjacent to Big Tim Island
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56

0
Table 18 Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56 Shellfish
AU Number Classification Length/Area Aquatic Life Assessment Recreation Assessment Harvesting
Year/
Description AL Rating Station Result Parameter %Exe REC Rating Station Result SH Rating GA
Use Categories:
AL - Aquatic Life
REC - Recreation
91- Shellfish Harvesting
Monitoring data type:
MF - Fish Community Survey
MB - Benthic Community Survey
MA - Ambient Monitoring Site
ML- Lake Monitoring
N- DEH RECMON
GA - DEH SS Classification and Growing Area
APP- Approved
CAO- Conditionally Approved -Open
CAC- Conditionally Approved -Closed
PRO- Prohibited
Stressors Sources
Results:
Use Support Ratings 2006:
E - Excellent
S -Supporting, I -Impaired
G- Good
NR- Not Rated
GF - Good -Fair
NR*- Not Rated for Recreation (screening criteria exceeded)
F - Fair
ND -No Data Collected to make assessment
P - Poor
NR+-Not rated because draft criteria used for rating
NI - Not Impaired
Results
S- Severe Stress
CE-Criteria Exceeded> 10%andmore than 10 samples
M-Moderato Stress
NCE-No Criteria Exceeded
N- Natural
Miles/Acres
FW- Fresh Water
S- Salt Water
Aquatic Life Rating Summary
Recreation Rating Summary
Fish Consumption Rating Summary
SheWish Harvesting Rating Summary
NR a
1,203.7 S Acres
S in
22,969.7
S Acres
I e 29,670.0 S Acres
S in 19,258.3 S Acres
NR a
0.5 Coast Mile
I in
4.7
S Acres
I e 23.8 FW Miles
I in 1,786.9 S Acres
ND
28,466.3 S Acres
S in
23.8
FW Miles
I e 111.1 Coast Mile
ND
23.8 FW Miles
S in
110.6
Coast Milo
ND
110.6 Coast Mile
I in
0.5
Coast Mile
ND
6,695.6
S Acres
M = M M S
Pasquotank Subbasin 03-01-56

7
lengths, streams monitored, monitoring data types, locations and results, along with use support
ratings for waters in the subbasin.
Many of the waters in subbasin 03-01-56 are classified for shellfish harvesting (Class SA).
Many are also classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW). Several management strategies are in place to protect these waters.
Neither benthic samples nor ambient stations are located in this subbasin; however, there are
several recreational monitoring stations (RECMON) located throughout the subbasin. These
stations are evaluated by the NC Division of Environmental Health (DEH). Long-term trends in
water quality cannot be assessed in this subbasin. Refer to the 2006 Pasquotank River Basinwide
Assessment Report http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/PASQUOTANK2006Final.pdf and
Appendix I for more information on monitoring.
Waters in the following sections and in Table 18 are identified by an assessment unit number
(AU#). This number is used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database,
list 303(d) Impaired waters, and is used to identify waters throughout the basin plan. The AU# is
a subset of the DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to
the end of the AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No
letter indicates that the AU# and the DWQ index segment are the same.
7.2 Use Support Assessment Summary
All surface waters in the state are assigned a classification appropriate to the best -intended use of
that water. Waters are regularly assessed by DWQ to determine how well they are meeting their
best -intended use. Table 19 provides a summary of use support for waters in subbasin 03-01-56.
In subbasin 03-01-56, use support was assigned for aquatic life, recreation, fish consumption and
shellfish harvesting. Waters are Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated and No Data in the aquatic life
and recreation categories on a monitored or evaluated basis. All waters are Impaired in the fish
consumption category on an evaluated basis based on fish consumption advice issued by the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). There are no water supply watersheds
designated in this subbasin.
Criteria for making use support determinations for the shellfish harvesting category were based
on Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Sanitary Surveys (SS) growing area classifications
The problem parameter for all shellfish waters is the potential for fecal coliform standards
exceedances. Differences in acreage estimates between basin cycles are not just related to
changes in water quality. Changes in acreage are related to more refined methods of estimating
acreages, changes in growing area classifications, extension of closure areas as a result of
additional boat slips, and to changes in use support methodology.
For more information about use support determinations, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental
Guide to North Carolina's Basimvide Planning: Support Document for Basimvide Water Quality
Plans found at DWQ's website http://l12o.enr.state.nc.us/basinNvide/SupplemenWGuide.htTm
Appendix V provides definitions of the terms used throughout this basin plan.
I
100 Chapter 7—PasquotankRiverSubbasin 03-01-56 1

n
Table 19 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-01-56
Use Support
Aquatic Life
Recreation
Shellfish Harvesting
Rating
Freshwater
Saltwater
Freshwater I
Saltwater
Freshwater
Saltwater
Monitored Waters
Supporting
0
0
23.8 mi
110.6 mi
0
19,258.3 ac
22 969.7 ac
Impaired
0
0
0
0.5 mi
4.7 ac 0.02%
0
1,786.9 ac 8.5%
Total
0
0
23.8 mi
111.1 mi
0
21,045.2 ac
22,974.4 ac
Unmonitored Waters
Not Rated
0
0.5 mi
0
0
0
0
1,203.7 ac
No Data
23.8 nu
110.E
0
6,695.6 ac
0
0
28,466.3 tic
Total
23.8 mi
111.1 mi
0
6,695.6 ac
0
0
28 771.4 ac
otals
All Waters
23.8 mi
111.1 mi
23.8 mi
111.1 mi
0
21,045.2 ac
28,771.8 ac
29,670 ac
' ' The noted percent Impaired is the percent of monitored milealacres only.
7.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously and Newly Impaired
' Waters
The following waters were either identified as Impaired in the previous basin plan (2002) or are
' newly Impaired based on recent data If previously identified as Impaired, the water will either
remain on the state's 303(d) list or will be delisted based on recent data showing water quality
improvements. If the water is newly Impaired, it will likely be placed on the 2008 303(d) list.
The current status and recommendations for addressing these waters are presented below, and
each is identified by an AU#. Information regarding 303(d) listing and reporting methodology is
presented in Chapter 15.
For more information about use support determinations for the Impaired Class SA waters
presented in Table 20 below, refer to Appendix II or the Supplemental Guide to North Carolina's
Basimvide Planning. Support Document for Basinwide Water Quality Plans found at DWQ's
website http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Supi)lementaIGuide.htm. Refer to Figure 9 for a
map of subbasin 03-01-56.
Table 20 Summary of DEH Growing Areas H-1, I-2 Classifications in Subbasin 03-01-56
. Class SA Waters
Assessment Unit #
Growing Area
Classification
DEH Growing Area
Pond Island
30-21-4b
PRO
H-1
30-21el
APP
30-21 e2
APP
30-21 f
PRO
Roanoke Sound
30-21g
PRO
H-1, I-2
30-21h
PRO
30-21 i
PRO
30-21'
PRO
PRO=Prohibited, CAC=Conditionally Approved Closed, CAO=Conditionally Approved Open
Chapter 7—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-56
101
CI

7.3.1 Eastern Shore of Roanoke Sound Growing Area H-1
Growing Area H-1
over 60,000 during summer months.
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with these
waters are located within Growing Area H-1. If the
entire Class SA water is located within more than one
growing area it is noted in Table 20 or refer to the
basinwide Growing Area map in the Executive
Summary.
According to the Sanitary Survey of Roanoke
Sound, Area H-1(DEHShellfish Sanitation &
Recreational Water Quality Section, October 2002
and August 2006), little changes in water quality
were detected. Roanoke Sound is bordered on the
east by the Outer Banks and on the west by Roanoke
Island. H-1 is located in Dare County, undergoing
rapid population growth and large influxes in
seasonal populations. Nags Head has an estimated
permanent population of 3,200 with an increase to
Nags Head area continues to have significant construction of seasonal residences and retail
businesses adding to impervious surface cover. Much of the construction ties into the municipal
wastewater treatment system with land application disposal or package plants with low-pressure
pipe drain fields for final effluent disposal. One of the two septic systems operated by the US
National Park Service was found to be failing during the 2006 survey.
As a result of the 2002 survey an additional 10 acres of shellfishing waters were closed at the
canals of Old Nags Head Cove.
Pond Island [AU# 30-21-4b]
Pond Island (40.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. Pond Island is classified by DEH
SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. Pond Island
will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
Roanoke Sound (Jockey's Ridge Soundside) [AU# 30-21e2]
Roanoke Sound at Jockey's Ridge State Park (4.2 acres) is Impaired in the recreation category
based on RECMON exceedences at site N88 for enterococci bacteria. The sampling location is
near the storm drain just south of Jockey's Ridge. This section of the Roanoke Sound will be
added to the state's 303(d) list of Impaired recreational waters.
Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21g]
2002 Status
DEH posted a swimming advisory for a portion of the Roanoke Sound centered around the
discharge associated with the Villas Association, Inc. The Villas is a residential/resort
102
Chapter 7—PasquotankRiverSubbasin 03-01-56
J

community in the Town of Nags Head. The advisory was posted in 1998. In 2002, the Villas
' Association received a non -discharge permit to eliminate the direct discharge to Roanoke Sound.
The facility is now utilizing a land application method for its treated wastewater.
Current Status
Roanoke Sound (26.3 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. This section of the sound is
classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria
levels. This section of the Roanoke Sound will be remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired
waters for shellfish harvesting.
' This segment of the Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21g] is Not Rated for recreation due to concerns
with the previous WWTP discharges and will remain on the 303(d) list until further bacterial
assessment is completed. No RECOM samples were collected in this section of the Roanoke
' Sound. The RECMON sampling location closest to the Villas is near the storm drain just south
of Jockey's Ridge. DEH has had 35 advisory days at this location since the 2004 swimming
season.
Roanoke Sound [AU# 30-21h, 30-21i and 30-21j]
' Current Status
These segments of the Roanoke Sound (542.8 acres) are Impaired for shellfish harvesting. This
portion of the Roanoke Sound is classified by DEH SS as prohibited in growing area H-1 due to
potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. Roanoke Sound will remain on the state's 303(d) list of
Impaired waters.
1
7.3.2 Eastern Shore of Roanoke Sound Growing Area I-2
Growing Area 1-2
SZ
4.
s �
=�
The following DWQ Class SA waters and the
Impaired assessment units associated with
these waters are located within Growing Area
I-2. If the entire Class SA water is located
within more than one growing area it is noted
in Table 20 or refer to the basinwide Growing
Area map in the Executive Summary.
According to the Sanitary Survey of Eastern
Albemarle Sound, Area I-2 (DEH Shellfish
Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality
Section, June 2005), water quality has
improved with a few exceptions. The only
shellfish present in this area is Rangia clams.
The estimated population of this area is
11,000 people, which is a 50 percent increase since the last survey. With the influx of tourists
the population in this area more than triples. There are 15 subdivisions, many of which are
located along waters closed for shellfish harvesting.
Chapter 7—PasquotankRiver Subbasin 03-01-56
103

Roanoke Sound (Buzzard Bay) [AU# 30-21fj
Roanoke Sound (1,177.4 acres) is Impaired for shellfish harvesting. This impaired section runs
from Rhodams Point to Mann Point and includes Buzzard Bay. It is classified by DEH SS as
prohibited in growing area I-2 due to potential fecal coliform bacteria levels. This section of the
Roanoke Sound will remain on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters.
7.3.3 Previously or Currently Impaired Freshwater and Non -Shellfish Harvesting Waters
Albemarle Sound [AU# 30f2]
The Colington Harbor Swimming Beach in the Albemarle Sound (0.1 acres) is Impaired in the
recreation category based on recreational monitoring (RECMON) exceedances at site N91. This
section of Albemarle Sound -,ill be added to the state's 303(d) list of Impaired recreational
waters.
Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(7)bl
This 0.5 mile of coast line is Impaired in the recreation category based on RECMON
exceedeces at site N22. This section of the Atlantic coastline will be added to the state's 303(d)
list of Impaired recreational waters.
Colington Creek [AU# 30-19-1b]
Colington Creek (0.4 acres) is Impaired in the recreation category based on recreational
monitoring (RECMON) exceedances at site N13. During the assessment period extreme
elevated bacteria counts were detected. Shore birds and other waterfowl are abundant in this
area The predominant southwest winds lead to limited flushing rates and often the waters
become stagnant adjacent to the shoreline. Also, a dock was being built at the end of Dock
Street, which was the location of the sampling site. During construction, sediments that include
bacteria were being re -suspended in the water column by the pumping of pilings and the use of
heavy equipment. This sampling station (N13) has now been dropped and replaced with a
station (N13a) about 200 yards offshore.
7.4 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts
The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns were documented for these waters during this assessment. Attention and
resources should be focused on these waters to prevent additional degradation and facilitate
water quality improvements.
7A.1 Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(7)c]
The Dare County Reverse Osmosis (RO) WTP (Permit NC0070157) for Kill Devil Hills
discharges to an unnamed tributary that reaches this 0.5-mile section of the Atlantic coastline.
The permit specifies that the facility monitor whole effluent toxicity (WET). During the last two
years of the assessment period, WET tests show that the facility has failed to meet its 90 percent
acute toxicity target effluent concentration on three occasions for both outfalls (outfall 001 and
outfal1002). DWQ regional office staff report that outfall 001 is currently in compliance per the
104 Chapter 7 — Pasquotank River Subbasin 03-01-56
J

permit; however, outfall 002 is showing high levels of chlorine. DWQ staff is working with the
facility to ensure that both outfalls are in compliance per permit limits.
7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-56
The previous sections discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. The
following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not
specific to particular streams, lakes, or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters
near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
Several pump stations contribute to the Kill Devil Hills WWTP non -discharge system (Permit
WQ0002829), which have been non -compliant because of maintenance issues. Improved
operational management and the possible consolidation of ownership of the pump stations would
make inspections easier and maintenance issues could possibly be resolved. The facility is also
expanding from 300,000 GPD to 500,000 GPD.
Town ofNa s��Head
In the fall of 2000, the Town of Nags Head implemented the Septic Health Initiative to improve
management of septic systems and to reduce a potential source of microbes. This initiative
includes four major programs including a public education program, septic tank inspection and
pumping, water quality monitoring and the development of a long term decentralized wastewater
management plan. This voluntary program is designed to encourage homeowners to have their
septic systems inspected and pumped on a regular basis by providing refunds for inspection costs
and utility credits for septic pumping. A homeowner low interest loan program also promotes
the replacement of failing systems. The development of a decentralized wastewater management
plan is Nags Head's long-term strategy in protecting water quality while allowing the continued
use of on -site wastewater systems.(http://NNNvNv.toNvnofnagshead.net)
Chapter 7 — PasquotankMver Subbasin 03-01-56 105

permit; however, outfall 002 is showing high levels of chlorine. DWQ staff is working with the
facility to ensure that both outfalls are in compliance per permit limits.
7.5 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-01-56
The previous sections discussed water quality concerns for specific stream segments. The
following section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not
specific to particular streams, lakes, or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters
near certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
Several pump stations contribute to the Kill Devil Hills WWTP non -discharge system (Permit
WQ0002829), which have been non -compliant because of maintenance issues. Improved
operational management and the possible consolidation of ownership of the pump stations would
make inspections easier and maintenance issues could possibly be resolved. The facility is also
expanding from 300,000 GPD to 500,000 GPD.
Town ofNa s
In the fall of 2000, the Town of Nags Head implemented the Septic Health Initiative to improve
management of septic systems and to reduce a potential source of microbes. This initiative
includes four major programs including a public education program, septic tank inspection and
pumping, water quality monitoring and the development of a long term decentralized wastewater
management plan. This voluntary program is designed to encourage homeowners to have their
septic systems inspected and pumped on a regular basis by providing refunds for inspection costs
and utility credits for septic pumping. A homeowner low interest loan program also promotes
the replacement of failing systems. The development of a decentralized wastewater management
plan is Nags Head's long-term strategy in protecting water quality while allowing the continued
use of on -site wastewater systems. (http:/hvww.toNvnofnagshead.net)
I
Chapter 7—PasguotankRiverSubbasin 03-01-56
105

1 Section B - Chapter 8
Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08
' Pamlico Sound, Lake Mattamuskett and Swanquarter Bay
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCccc=cCCCCCCCCCCCCc=c:cc=cc
t8.1 Subbasin Overview
NW."
With the exception of the Outer Banks, this subbasin is
Subbasin 03-03-08 at a Glance
one of the most rural on the coast. Lake Mattamuskeet
and the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuges also cover
Land and Water Area
large areas in this subbasin. The predominant land cover
'
Total area: 1,220.0 miz
is forest and wetland with some cultivated cropland.
Land area: 356.1 miz
Water area: 863.9 mil
There are seven NPDES wastewater discharge permits in
'
Population Statistics
this subbasin with a total permitted flow of 0.58 MGD
2000 Est. Pop.: 9,053 people
(Figure B-8). There is also one general NPDES
Pop. Density: 25 persons/mil
stormwater permit in the subbasin. Refer to Appendix I
'
for identification and more information on individual
Land Cover (percent)
NPDES permit holders. Significant issues related to
Forest/Wetland: 21.3
compliance with NPDES permit conditions are discussed
'
Surface Water: 71.0
below. There are also four registered animal operations
Urban: 0.2
Cultivated Crop: 7.3
in this subbasin.
'
Pasture/
Managed Herbaceous: 0.2
Fish tissue data have been from the Atlantic Ocean in this
subbasin. DEH monitors four swimming areas and five
Counties
shellfish growing areas in the basin as well (Figure B-8
'
Carteret, Dare, Hyde and Pamlico
and Table 13-15).
Municipalities
Swanquarter and Englehard
Refer to 2003 Tar -Pamlico River Basinwide Assessment
Report at http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/bar.htmi and Section A,
Chapter 3 for more information on monitoring.
' Use support ratings for all waters in subbasin 03-03-08 are summarized in Part 8.2 below.
Recommendations, current status and future recommendations for waters that were Impaired in
1999 are discussed in Part 8.3 below. Current status and future recommendations for newly
' Impaired waters are discussed in Part 8.4 below. Waters with noted water quality impacts are
discussed in Part 8.5 below. Water quality issues related to the entire subbasin are discussed in
Part 8.6. Refer to Appendix III for a complete list of monitored waters and more information on
' Supporting monitored waters.
1
Section B: Chapter 8 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08 153

Figure B-8 Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08
10 0 10 Miles
Planning Branch
Basinwide Planning Program Unit
April 22, 2004

M
Table B-15 DWO Assessment and Use SUDDort Ratines Summary for Monitored Waters in Subbasin 03-03-08
Data Type with Map Number and
Use Sup ort Rating
Assessment Unit
Length/
Data Results
Biological
Ambient
Other
Waterbody
Number
DWQ Classification
Area
Category
2004
1998
Pamlico Sound
Swanquarter
Bay/Juniper Bay
ORW Area, including
the Northeast
Swanquarter Bay
A-44 to
Area
29-46.5
SA ORW
11,670.0 ac
AL
A-46 nce
S
Lake Mattamuskeet
29-57-1-1
SC
40,314.1 ac
AL
L-I nce
S
Swanquarter Bay
29-49a
SA ORW
136.2 ac
REC
DEH nce
S
Atlantic Ocean
99-(6)
SB
17.3 mi
FC
I
See Appendix III
189 segments
ISA
505621.5 ac
I SH
DEH nce
S
See Appendix III
123 segments
ISA
2404.6 mi
I SH
DEH ce
I
Assessment Unit Number - Portion of DWQ Classified Index where monitoring is applied to assign a use support rating.
Use Categories:
Monitoring data type:
Bioclassifcations: Use Support Ratings 2004:
AL - Aquatic Life
F - Fish Community Survey
E - Excellent N - Natural S - Supporting, I - Impaired, NR - Not Rated
REC - Recreation
B - Benthic Community Survey
G - Good MS - Moderate Stress
FC - Fish
SF - Special Fish Community Study
GF - Good -Fair SS - Severe Stress Use Support Ratings 1998:
Consumption
SB - Special Benthic Community Study
A - Ambient Monitoring Site
F - Fair FS - fully supporting, ST - supporting but threatened,
P - Poor PS - partially supporting, NS - not supporting,
L - Lakes Assessment
Ambient Data INR - not rated, N/A - not applicable
FT - Fish Tissue Site
nce - no criteria exceeded
ce - criteria exceeded
Section B: Chapter 8 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08 155

J
8.2 Use Support Assessment Rating Summary
Use support ratings were assigned for waters in subbasin 03-03-08 in the aquatic life, recreation, '
fish consumption and shellfish harvesting categories. All waters are Impaired on an evaluated
basis in the fish consumption category because of statewide fish consumption advice for mercury
that is applied in this category to basins east and south of I-85 (page 90). Also, 17.3 Atlantic ,
coastline miles are Impaired in the fish consumption category based on fish tissue monitoring
data.
There were 509,926.1 estuarine acres (93 percent) monitored during this assessment period in
the aquatic life category. There were no Impaired acres in the aquatic life category. There are
2,404.6 estuarine acres Impaired in the shellfish harvesting category. Refer to Table 13-16 for a
summary of use support ratings for waters in the subbasin 03-03-08.
Table 13-16 Summary of Use Support Ratings by Category in Subbasin 03-03-08
Use Support
Rating
Aquatic
Life
Fish
Consumption
Recreation
Shellfish
Harvesting
Monitored Waters
Supporting
509,926.1 Est ac
0
136.2 Est ac
505,621.5 Est ac
Impaired
0
17.3 coastline mi
0
2,404.6 Est ac
Not Rated
0
0
0
0
Total
509,926.1 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
136.2 Est ac
508,026.1 Est ac
Unmonitored Waters
Supporting
77.0 Est ac
0
0
0
Impaired
0
71.3 mi
548,788.2 Est ac
0
0
Not Rated
28.5 mi
0
0
0
No Data
42.7 mi
38,785.1 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
0
71.3 mi
548,652.0 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
0
Total
71.3 mi
38,862.2 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
71.3 mi
548,788.2 Est ac
71.3 mi
548,652.0 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
0
Totals
All Waters
71.3 mi
548,788.2 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
71.3 mi
548,788.2 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
71.3 mi
548,788.2 Est ac
17.3 coastline mi
508,026.1 Est ac
I I
r
L
7
Section B: Chapter 8 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08 156 1

I.
'
8.3 Status and Recommendations of Previously Impaired Waters
'
8.3.1 Impaired Class SA Waters
Portions of Class SA waters were partially supporting in the 1999 basin plan because they were
classified as prohibited to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS. No specific recommendations were
made to address bacterial contamination in these waters in the 1999 basin plan. Because of
changes in use support methodology, there are changes in the acreages and areas that are
'
Impaired in the shellfish harvesting use category. These waters are discussed below in Part
8.4.2.
' 8.4 Status and Recommendations of Newly Impaired Waters
Waters in the following section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). This number is
used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d) Impaired waters
list, and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a subset of the
DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the end of the
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.
7�
8.4.1 Atlantic Ocean [AU# 99-(6)]
Current Status and 2002 Recommendations
The Atlantic Ocean (17.3 coastline miles) is currently Impaired in the fish consumption category
because there is a statewide consumption advice for mercury in fish tissue that is applied to
waters east and south of I-85, including the Atlantic Ocean where king mackerel fish tissue was
analyzed in 1999.
8.4.2 Impaired Shellfish Harvesting Waters (Class SA)
Current Status
The following groups of waters are Impaired in the shellfish harvesting category. The current
status is discussed briefly for each below. Recommendations are presented at the end of this
section for all the Impaired waters. Refer to Appendix III for descriptions of the specific
assessment units areas.
Pamlico River [AU# 29-(40.5) b, c, d and e]
Portions of the Pamlico River (759.3 acres) adjacent to Middle Town, Long and Far Creeks near
Ocracoke are currently Impaired because these areas are prohibited or permanently closed to
shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Middle Town Creek and Far Creek are part of DEH
shellfish growing area G-5. The Long Creek area is part of DEH shellfish growing area G-3.
The Ocracoke area is part of DEH shellfish growing area G-6. DEH sanitary surveys indicate
fair clam and oyster production in G-6, and good oyster production in G-5 and G-3.
I
Section B: Chapter 8 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08 157

Rose Bay [AU# 29-44a] and Rose Bay Creek [AU# 29-44-11
Rose Bay and Rose Bay Creek (472.3 acres) are currently Impaired because these areas are
prohibited or permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). These segments
are part of DEH shellfish growing area G-3. DEH sanitary surveys indicate good oyster
production in G-3, with no clam production.
Germantown Bay and Tributaries [AU# 29-42-1a]
Germantown Bay and tributaries (241.6 acres) are currently Impaired because these areas are
prohibited or permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Germantown
Bay and tributaries are part of DEH shellfish growing area G-3. DEH sanitary surveys indicate
good oyster production in G-3, with no clam production.
Swanquarter Bay [AU# 29-49a]
Swanquarter Bay and tributaries (171.5 acres) are currently Impaired because these areas are
prohibited or permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Swanquarter
Bay and tributaries are part of DEH shellfish growing area G-3. DEH sanitary surveys indicate
good oyster production in G-3, with no clam production.
Juniper Bay [AU# 29-52a]
Juniper Bay and tributaries (86.0 acres) are currently Impaired because these areas are prohibited
or permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Juniper Bay and tributaries
are part of DEH shellfish growing area GA DEH sanitary surveys indicate fair oyster
production in G-4, with no clam production.
Wysocking Bay [AU# 29-60a]
Wysocking Bay (126.3 acres) is currently Impaired because this area is prohibited or
permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Wysocking Bay is part of
DEH shellfish growing area G-4. DEH sanitary surveys indicate fair oyster production in G-4,
with no clam production.
Middle Town Creek [AU# 29-661
Middle Town Creek (71.5 acres) is currently Impaired because this area is prohibited or
permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Middle Town Creek is part of
DEH shellfish growing area G-5. DEH sanitary surveys indicate good oyster production in G-5,
with no clam production.
Cedar Creek [AU# 29-671
Cedar Creek (12.1 acres) is currently Impaired because this area is prohibited or permanently
closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Cedar Creek is part of DEH shellfish
growing area G-5. DEH sanitary surveys indicate good oyster production in G-5, with no clam
production.
Lone Tree Creek [AU# 29-691
Lone Tree Creek (1.8 acres) is currently Impaired because this area is prohibited or permanently
closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Lone Tree Creek is part of DEH shellfish
growing area G-5. . DEH sanitary surveys indicate good oyster production in G-5, with no clam
production.
J
1
U
Section B: Chapter 8 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08 158 1

Far Creek and Tributaries [AU# 29-70-(4)]
Far Creek and tributaries (545.8 acres) are currently Impaired because these areas are prohibited
' or permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Far Creek and tributaries
are part of DEH shellfish growing area G-5. DEH sanitary surveys indicate good oyster
production in G-5, with no clam production.
' Berrys Bay [AU# 29-71a]
Berrys Bay (1.8 acres) is currently Impaired because this area is prohibited or permanently
' closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Berrys Bay is part of DEH shellfish
growing area G-5. DEH sanitary surveys indicate good oyster production in G-5, with no clam
production.
' Long Shoal River [AU# 29-73-(2) a and c]
Long Shoal River and tributaries (455 acres) are currently Impaired because these areas are
prohibited or permanently closed to shellfish harvesting by DEH SS (page 51). Long Shoal
' River and tributaries are part of DEH shellfish growing area G-5. DEH sanitary surveys indicate
good oyster production in G-5, with no clam production.
2004 Recommendations
DEH SS will continue to monitor bacterial water quality. DWQ, DEH, DCM are currently
developing tools to better track water quality changes, make use support assessments, and
' support research in shellfish harvesting waters of North Carolina. The North Carolina Coastal
Nonpoint Source Program (page 176) is developing a series of programs to help local
governments address bacterial contamination in coastal waters. DWQ is also cooperating with
' DCM to assure that water quality problems identified in basinwide water quality plans are
considered in development of local land use plans in coastal counties.
8.5 Status and Recommendations for Waters with Noted Impacts
Waters in the following section are identified by assessment unit number (AU#). This number is
' used to track defined segments in the water quality assessment database, 303(d) Impaired waters
list, and the various tables in this basin plan. The assessment unit number is a subset of the
DWQ index number (classification identification number). A letter attached to the end of the
AU# indicates that the assessment is smaller than the DWQ index segment. No letter indicates
that the assessment unit and the DWQ index segment are the same.
' The surface waters discussed in this section are not Impaired. However, notable water quality
problems and concerns have been documented for these waters based on this assessment. While
these waters are not Impaired, attention and resources should be focused on these waters to
' prevent additional degradation or facilitate water quality improvement.
8.5.1 Lake Mattamuskeet [AU# 29-57-1-11
' Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Lake Mattamuskeet (40,314 acres) is currently Supporting in the aquatic life category based on
' lakes monitoring data at site L-1. Both nitrogen and turbidity were elevated during monitoring
ISection B: Chapter 8 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08 159

in 2002. Lake levels were low during the drought and bottom material may have been mixed
readily into the water column.
DWQ will continue to monitor water quality in Lake Mattamuskeet. Land -disturbing activities
should implement BMPs to minimize or prevent future impacts to water quality in the Lake
Mattamuskeet watershed.
8.5.2 Boundary Canal [AU# 29-70-5-2-11
Current Status and 2004 Recommendations
Boundary Canal (28.5 miles) is currently Not Rated in the aquatic life category because of six
whole effluent toxicity failures at the Hyde County -Fairfield water treatment plant during the last
two years of the assessment period.
DWQ is working with Hyde County to minimize potential impacts to aquatic life that may be
caused by the discharge.
8.6 Additional Water Quality Issues within Subbasin 03-03-08
This section discusses issues that may threaten water quality in the subbasin that are not specific
to particular streams, lakes or reservoirs. The issues discussed may be related to waters near
certain land use activities or within proximity to different pollution sources.
8.6.1 Impacts of Post -Hurricane De -Snagging on Instream Habitats
Many streams in the subbasin have noted impacts from the recent hurricanes. The biological
community in the streams can recover rapidly if instream habitat is maintained. De -snagging
operations should carefully remove debris from stream channels to restore natural flow and leave
enough instream habitats so the biological community can recover. For more information on this
issue, refer to page 81.
Section B: Chapter 8 - Tar -Pamlico River Subbasin 03-03-08 160