Core Land Use Plan-2007

� TOWN OF BEAUFORT
� NORTH CAROLINA
1
CORE LAND USE PLAN
Adopted by the Beaufort Town Board: December 11, 2006
r
Certified by the Coastal Resources Commission:
' January 26, 2007
IPrepared by:
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
' ENGINEERINGPLANNINGARCHITECTURE
The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant provided by the North Carolina
Coastal Management Program, through funds provided by the Coastal Zone Management. Act of
1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

u
n
1
1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................7
1.1 Purpose...................................................................................................................7
1.2 Overview of the Plan..............................................................................................9
1.3 Executive Summary .............................................................................................10
1.3.1 Summary of Land Use Issues...................................................................10
1.3.2 Summary of Data Collection and Analysis.................................................11
1.3.3 Summary of Policy Statements.................................................................14
1.3.4 Summary of Future Land Use Projections.................................................14
1.3.5 Summary of Implementation Strategies.....................................................16
SECTION II COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND ASPIRATIONS ............................18
2.1 Significant Existing and Emerging Conditions..................................................18
2.1.1 Land Use.................................................................................................18
A. General Development Trends...........................................................18
B. Land Suitability and Natural Constraints on Development.................18
C. Housing Trends................................................................................19
2.1.2 Economic Conditions...............................................................................19
A. General Economic Conditions...........................................................19
B. Population Growth............................................................................19
2.1.3 Transportation..........................................................................................19
2.1.4 Infrastructure............................................................................................
20
2.1.5 Water Quality...........................................................................................20
A. Stormwater Management..................................................................20
2.1.6 Other Environmental Concerns................................................................20
A. Providing Accessibility while Protecting Public Trust Waters.............20
2.2 Key Planning Issues.............................................................................................20
2.3 Vision Statement..................................................................................................22
SECTION III ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND EMERGING CONDITIONS ........... 23
3.1 Population Housing and Economy.....................................................................23
3.1.1 Population Analysis..................................................................................23
A. Permanent Population Growth Trends..............................................24
B. Population Characteristics................................................................25
3.1.2 Housing Stock..........................................................................................28
A. Building Permits Issued and Subdivision Lots Created .....................29
B. Seasonal Housing.............................................................................30
3.1.3 Local Economy........................................................................................30
3.1.4 Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections.....................................33
A. Permanent Population Projections....................................................33
B. Seasonal and Peak Population Projections.......................................34
3.2 Natural Systems Analysis....................................................................................35
3.2.1 Inventory of Natural Features...................................................................35
A. Areas of Environmental Concern......................................................35
B. Soil Characteristics...........................................................................36
C. Water Quality Classifications and Use Support Designations ...........38
D. Flood Hazard Areas..........................................................................42
E. Storm Surge Areas...........................................................................42
F. Non -coastal Wetlands.......................................................................44
G. Public Water Supply Watersheds.....................................................45
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 2 of 138
January 26, 2007
Table of Contents

1
H. Primary Nursery Areas.....................................................................45
I. Other Environmentally Fragile Areas..................................................45
3.2.2
Composite Environmental Conditions Map...............................................45
3.2.3
Assessment of Environmental Conditions................................................47
A. Water Quality Assessment................................................................47
B. Impaired Waters...............................................................................49
C. Closed Shellfishing Areas.................................................................50
D. Natural Hazards.................................................................................50
E. Natural Resources............................................................................51
F. Sources of Pollution...........................................................................51
G. Construction and Stormwater Issues................................................52
H. Septic System Impacts.....................................................................53
I. Wellhead Protection...........................................................................53
3.2.4
Summary of Limitations on and Opportunities for Development...............53
3.3 Analysis of Land Use and Land Development...................................................54
3.3.1
Existing Land Use Analysis......................................................................54
A. Description of Land Use Patterns within Watersheds ..........................55
B. Description and Analysis of Existing Land Uses.................................57
C. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Areas...................................................59
D. Estimates of Land Area by Land Use Category ..................................59
3.3.2
Description of Land Use/Water Quality Conflicts......................................59
3.3.3
Description of Development Trends.........................................................60
3.3.4
Projections of Land Needs.......................................................................60
3.3.5
Description of Conflicts with Class II and Class III Lands .........................62
3.4 Analysis of Community Facilities........................................................................62
3.4.1
Water System..........................................................................................62
3.4.2
Wastewater System.................................................................................64
3.4.3
Transportation System.............................................................................66
A. Proposed Major Highway Improvements......................:....................68
B. Major Streets with Capacity Deficiencies..........................................69
C. Traffic Volumes.................................................................................69
D. Air Transportation.............................................................................70
3.4.4
Stormwater System..................................................................................70
3.4.5
Police Protection......................................................................................70
3.4.6
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services....................................72
3.4.7
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal........................................................72
3.4.8
Recreation...............................................................................................72
3.4.9
Education.................................................................................................73
3.4.10 Public Administration Ability...................................................................73
3.5 Land Suitability Analysis.....................................................................................74
A. Consistency of Existing Ordinances with the Current Land Use
PlanPolicies..........................................................................................77
B. Adoption of the Current Implementation Measures ...........................77
C. Effectiveness of the Current Policies.................................................78
SECTION IV PLAN FOR THE FUTURE............................................................79
4.1 Land Use and Development Goals......................................................................80
4.2 Land Use and Development Policies..................................................................81
4.3 Analysis of the Impact of Policies on Management Topics...............................86
4.4 Statement of Local Support Regarding Areas of Environmental Concern ....... 88
4.5 Future Land Use Map...........................................................................................88
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 3 of 138
January 26, 2007
Table of Contents

I
A. Residential Classification..................................................................89
B. Commercial Classification.................................................................92
C. Mixed Use Classification...................................................................93
D. Public and Institutional......................................................................94
E. Industrial...........................................................................................94
F. Conservation/Open Space................................................................95
4.6
Cost Estimates for Planned Community Facility Improvements ......................96
4.7
Consistency With Natural Systems and Land Suitability Analyses..................96
4.8
Comparison of Future Land Use Allocations and Projected Land Needs ........
98
4.9
Use of the Future Land Use Plan Map to Guide Development ........................100
SECTION V TOOLS FOR MANAGING DEVELOPMENT..................................102
5.1
Guide for Land Use Decision-making..............................................................102
5.2
Existing Land Use and Development Management Program ..........................102
5.3
Additional Implementation Tools......................................................................103
5.3.1 Amendments or Adjustments to Existing Land Development
Ordinances.....................................................................................................103
5.3.2 Capital Improvements..........................................................................103
5.4
Implementation Plan and Schedule ........................................ .......................103
5.4.1 Public Water Access Implementation Actions........................................103
5.4.2 Land Use Compatibility Implementation Actions....................................104
5.4.3 Infrastructure Carrying Capacity Implementation Actions .......................104
5.4.4 Natural Hazard Areas Implementation Actions.......................................104
5.4.5 Water Quality Implementation Actions...................................................105
5.4.6 Areas of Environmental Concern Implementation Actions: .....................
105
5.4.7 Areas of Local Concern Implementation Actions: ...................................
105
5.5
Description of Public Participation Activities to Assist in Monitoring Plan
Implementation....................................................................................................106
APPENDICES..................................................................................................107
AppendixA............................................................................................................................108
Indexof Data Sources.................................................................................................108
AppendixB............................................................................................................................109
Summary of Land Use Issues, Goals, and Objectives...................................................109
Identified in the 1997 Beaufort Land Use Plan..............................................................109
AppendixC............................................................................................................................112
HousingCharacteristics..............................................................................................112
AppendixD............................................................................................................................113
SoilCharacteristics......................................................................................................113
AppendixE............................................................................................................................114
Water Quality Classifications.......................................................................................114
AppendixF............................................................................................................................115
Natural Area and Rare Species Inventory ..................................................................115
Appendix G...........................................................................................................................
116
Hazardous Weather affecting Beaufort Since August 1997.........................................116
AppendixH............................................................................................................................117
Summary of Policy Statements....................................................................................117
from the 1997 Beaufort Land Use Plan.........................................................................117
AppendixI.............................................................................................................................125
Citizen Participation Plan.............................................................................................125
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 4 of 138
January 26, 2007
Table of Contents

Appendix J
Maps and Land Use Plan Data Available at the Beaufort Town Hall ............................133
AppendixK............................................................................................................................134
Summary of CRC Land Use Plan Management Topic Goals and Objectives ................134
'
AppendixL............................................................................................................................135
Population Projections.............................................................135
AppendixM.........................................................................................................................136
Impact of Beaufort Policies on CRC Land Use Plan Management Topics .....................136
Figures
Figure 1: General Location Map.................................................................................................8
Figure 2: Environmental Composite and Natural Features Map...............................................43
Figure 3: Existing Land Use Map list of tables..........................................................................56
Figure 4: Water and Wastewater System Map.........................................................................65
Figure 5: Transportation System Map ......................................................................................67
Figure 6: Stormwater Systems Map.
.71
Figure 7: Land Suitability Map..................................................................................................76
Figure 8: Future Land Use Map...............................................................................................90
Tables
Table 1 Population Size and Growth Rates..............................................................................24
Table 2 Comparison of Beaufort's Population Growth Rate.....................................................25
Table 3 Age Distribution 2000..................................................................................................26
Table 4 Distribution of Males and Females in the Total Population...........................................26
Table 5 Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin 2000....................................................................27
Table 6 Components of Population Change.............................................................................27
Table 7 Housing by Structure Type..........................................................................................28
Table 8 Comparison of Housing by Structure Type.....................................28
Table 9 Residential Building Permits .................... .............................
29
Table10 Subdivision Lots........................................................................................................30
Table11 Seasonal Housing.....................................................................................................30
Table 12 Employment by Industry Town of Beaufort 2000.......................................................31
Table 13 Carteret County Employment by Industry Sector.......................................................32
'
Table 14 Valuations and Tax Rates for 2002 - 2003................................................................33
Table 15 Permanent Population Projections............................................................................33
Table16 Peak Population.........................................................................................................34
Table 17 Seasonal and Peak Population Projections...............................................................34
Table 18 Soils in the Beaufort Planning Jurisdiction.................................................................37
Table 19 North Carolina Water Quality Classifications.............................................................39
Table 20 Overview of SC, SA, HQW, AND ORW Water Quality Classifications .......................40
Table 21 Use Support Ratings for Monitored Waters...............................................................41
Table 22 Description of Hurricane Categories..........................................................................44
Table 23 Storm Surge Flooding...............................................................................................44
Table 24 Environmental Features Included in Land Classes.........................46
Table 25 Overview of the White Oak River Subbasins.............................................................
47
Table 26 Risk Level Rating of Weather Events........................................................................51
'
Table 27 Land Use by Type and Acreage.................................................................................59
Table 28 Land Needs Projections Beaufort Planning Jurisdiction.............................................61
Table 29 Existing Development In Areas Containing Natural Constraints................................62
ITable 30 Estimated Cost of Recommended Wastewater System Improvements .....................66
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 5 of 138
January 26, 2007
Table of Contents

1
U
I
Table 31 2002 Average Daily Traffic........................................................................................70
Table 32 Land Suitability Model...............................................................................................75
Table 33 Land Suitability Ratings.............................................................................................77
Table 34 Land Use Issues and Management Topics................................................................80
Table 35 Land Use and Development Goals............................................................................81
Table 36 Land Use and Development Policies.........................................................................81
Table 37 Impact of Local Policies on CRC Land Use Plan Management Topics ......................86
Table 38 Acreage by Land Suitability Rating............................................................................97
Table 39 Future Land Use Map Calculations...........................................................................99
Table 40 Comparison of Future Land Allocation with Projected Needs....................................99
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 6 of 138
January 26, 2007
Table of Contents

1
�I
1
1
J
Ci
I
11 SECTION I INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Purpose
Land development generally involves a series of decisions by both private individuals and the
public sector. In order to promote the public interest in the land development process, the. North
Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires that local governments prepare, adopt,
and keep current a land use plan. The land use plan is intended to provide a framework that will
guide local governmental officials as they make day-to-day and long-range decisions that affect
land development. The land use plan will also be used by state and federal agencies in making
project consistency, project funding, and CAMA permit decisions. Section 4.9 provides specific
information concerning use of the future land use plan in guiding decisions about future
development.
CAMA regulations require that an update be made of land use plans every five years. The Town
of Beaufort's previous land use plan was updated and certified in1997. The update is designed to
ensure that all current land development issues are reviewed and reflected in the land use plan.
Also, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) recently adopted revised planning guidelines
which include requirements not addressed in the town's 1997 plan. The land use plan update
also provides an opportunity to evaluate policy statements and to determine their effectiveness in
implementing the land development objectives of the community.
The study area for this land use plan update is the Beaufort Planning Jurisdiction which includes
the Town of Beaufort and its extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction (see Figure 1, General
Location Map). The plan includes both a short term (5-10 year) and long term (20-year)
evaluation of land use and land development. Implementation activities are based upon a five-
year action plan.
The goals and objectives of the land use plan are to:
• Identify and analyze new and emerging land use issues and concerns.
• Reexamine existing land use policies to determine their effectiveness.
• Revise existing land use policies and develop new policies that address
current land use and land development issues and concerns.
• Reexamine the existing land use maps to determine what revisions are
necessary to address new land use issues and concerns as well as revised
and newly developed policy statements.
• Further develop implementation strategies and an implementation
schedule.
• Promote a better understanding of the land use planning process.
• Promote citizen involvement in the process of preparing the updated land
use plan.
1 Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 7 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section I. Introduction and Executive Summary

m m m m m ! m m m r m m� m i i ! m m
Lk fir.
Figure 1:
General Location
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
is x[[..rc r�exxin. .xc nireeru
"�-
Nwember22,2004
TheV,p,bn of bis map was financed h pad lhmugh a gran/ pr,W,d by the Nodh
Caml'�m 6�eslsl Managenenl Pmgran, through finds pr,Mbd by the Coastal Zone
Wnag—lA of ign. as amaided,—is admhle— by treommofoceanand
C aslal Rewurce Management. NaW-amnk ar Almosphenc AdmnlsV41o1.
Kentuck .r
Y Virginia 3
Tennessee pw
j
2
r
ti.
Georgia South Carolina
�...
C'jU NIN
Pa+nlu'o K vcn•
�.
QEAUFORI Aurora
lowland
wanceboro
COUNTY r
\\
0
nqr
..
p4M��c'i�S
Emul
\T
Hobuck..
en
� +
Vantlemere
•
�•.. BayAQra PlcrenCe
PAMLICO
P
New BerrtABnl pbn
`James City COUNTY
d
«Arapahoe
OieMal QUf1�yftu
Pd lacksvllle `rN�`
`kwl
Ree
ny
N
i CRAVENJONES
eR
COUNTY
.Me iman
Pao
COUNTY
(at/is&nke�
Maysville `
G6m Su'n p (Long Lc A V Havelock
Atlantic
Seale el
3
CARTERET-lGrrur
� Hunters �C7xekLrrk c•I
COUNTY
j
`
Davis ia'
Newport
Otway
*
r
- h'vt.p,,,
ivw. u•Ur
G`
ONSLOV.' Broad Creek
'_
rehead Ci vP+ Mamhatlbwg
•
COUN1"J Y g gucSmrr !
•
�Bogue
Sw,ansbo ;y • tff! tiY "C", nv #SaA9, Path
B k,fo�n J
nfti
h'ngxnt 6fu'd`• . _
Beaufort
Rror Wd i I Ch'w Area "--

d
1
1
I
1.2 Overview of the Plan
This land use plan update for Beaufort follows the methodology recommended by CAMA in its
Land Use Planning Guidelines (Subchapter 713 of the North Carolina Administrative Code). This
Plan is organized to adhere to the format outlined in Subchapter 7B. In addition to requirements
for land use plan format and content, the guidelines also require that the land use plan update
process include a variety of educational efforts and participatory techniques to assure that all
segments of the community have a full and adequate opportunity to participate in all stages of
the preparation of the land use plan. A formal Citizen Participation Plan was developed to
involve, inform and educate a broad cross-section of the community's populace.
An Advisory Committee representing a cross-section of the community was appointed to serve as
the body responsible for guiding the land use plan formulation effort. The Advisory Committee
served in a review and advisory capacity to the elected officials of the Town of Beaufort and to the
project planning consultant, The Wooten Company. The Advisory Committee met on a periodic
basis with the planning consultant and local staff to assist the planning consultant in defining land
use and development issues and concerns, review draft land use plan components prepared by
the planning consultant, provide recommendations regarding land use plan content, and provide
general input. The public involvement activities undertaken during the preparation of this plan are
described in the Citizen Participation Plan, a copy of which is provided in Appendix I. No written
comments, including comments regarding the review of the preliminary draft land use plan by
adjoining jurisdictions, were received by the Town of Beaufort.
Section I of the plan includes introductory material and an executive summary of the plan
document. It is possible that this section of the plan can be reformatted into a simplified brochure
that could be utilized for general public informational purposes.
Section II of this land use plan involves an analysis of community concerns and aspirations in
Beaufort including existing and emerging conditions related to population, economy, land use,
water quality, and transportation. Key planning issues are identified in Section II. These issues
concern public access, land use suitability, infrastructure, natural hazards, and water quality. How
these issues are implicated with the future use of land is identified as well. A vision statement,
included in Section Il, sets the tone for the community's goals and desires for the future.
Through an analysis of existing and emerging conditions in Section III, an assessment of the
general suitability of land for development and a discussion of physical limitations for
development, fragile land and water areas, and areas with resource potential are provided. The
analysis of conditions is particularly useful in preparing the land classifications, goals and
objectives, and the future land use map which is discussed in Section IV. Section III also contains
an evaluation of the 1997 Land Use Plan policy statements and evaluates the consistency of the
policies with local land use and development ordinances. Action Plan implementation techniques
designed to address land development and growth management issues are reviewed. The
efficacy of the current policies in creating the desired land use patterns and protecting natural
systems is evaluated. The policy statements were developed based upon the previously
described analysis of existing conditions, land use trends, and constraints to land development as
well as citizen input obtained through the town's public participation process.
A plan for the future is developed in Section IV. Land use goals and objectives and development
policies are created as the basis of the plan. Consistency of the future policies and an analysis of
the impact of these policies on the management topics are provided in Section IV. A statement of
11
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 9 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section I. Introduction and Executive Summary

I�
L
I
�I
17
local support for Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) expresses the intent of Beaufort to
develop in a manner that is cognizant of sensitive environmental areas. The future land use map
described in Section IV assists local planning officials in the implementation of the land
development policy statements. The future land use map provides a basic framework for
identifying the future use of land and illustrates the town's policies as to where and to what density
it wants growth to occur. The future land use map also delineates where the town wants to
conserve natural and cultural resources. Section IV provides a description of the land uses
proposed within each future land use classification. The future land use map presented in this
section graphically illustrates the land classification system as applied to the Beaufort Planning
Jurisdiction. Section 4.9 provides information concerning use of the future land use map in
guiding decisions about future development.
Tools for managing land development are outlined in Section V of the plan. A description of the
specific management tools that the Town of Beaufort will utilize to implement the plan are
provided in Section V as is a five-year implementation plan and schedule. This section of the plan
also includes a description of the public participation activities that will be used to monitor
implementation of the land use plan.
1.3 Executive Summary
1.3.1 Summary of Land Use Issues
The major land use and development issues identified during the preparation of this land
use plan update that will affect Beaufort during the next ten year period include the
following (not presented here in any priority order):
Land Use Compatibility
• Control of strip commercialization along US 70 East and NC 101 North.
Infrastructure Carrying Capacity
• Coordination of the development/improvement of the Beaufort sewage
treatment system with Carteret County's plans and policies for the
t development of sewage treatment system(s)
• Annexation of portions of the extraterritorial jurisdiction to meet the extent
of water and sewer utilities provided by the Town of Beaufort
• Construction of a new bridge on US 70 at Gallants Channel to alleviate
disruptions to east -west traffic
• Creation of a stormwater ordinance and system improvements
Natural Hazard Areas
• The effects of sea level rise on the Town of Beaufort
Water Quality
• Improvements to stormwater system to protect water quality
• Improvements to wastewater treatment facilities and increased capacity
Areas of Environmental Concern
• Protection of Areas of Environmental Concern
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 10 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 1.- Introduction and Executive Summary

•
Protection of the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Sanctuary which
includes Carrot Island, Town Marsh, and Bird Shoal
•
The impact of offshore drilling on the Town of Beaufort
•
Stormwater runoff
Areas of Local Concern
•
Redevelopment/visual improvement of the US 70-Cedar Street area
dependent upon US 70 relocation/bridge projects
•
Management of the new US 70 corridor if a realignment is ultimately
•
approved
Removal of substandard dwelling units through enforcement of the town's
minimum housing code
•
Continued protection of the National Historic District, Beaufort Historic
District, and the waterfront area
•
Establishment of a Growth Management Plan
•
Development of service sector to support tourism
•
Establishment of a comprehensive annexation plan
•
Implementation of redevelopment/revitalization projects to eliminate
substandard housing
•
Continued protection of the town's historic district
•
Continued expansion of the Michael J. Smith Airport
Maritime Museum Expansion
'
•
Maintain the integrity and compatibility of land uses adjacent to the
Beaufort Historical Association (BHA) restoration site
1.3.2 Summary of Data Collection and Analysis
The data analyzed in Section III were collected from a wide variety of sources (see
Appendix A, Index of Data Sources) including published documents, governmental and
private organizations, and individuals. Printed and digital map data were utilized in the
preparation of this section of the plan. The major conclusions resulting from the data
collection and analysis include:
Population
• The estimated 2003 population of the Beaufort corporate area is 3,810
and approximately 5,000 for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
• In 2003, the municipal population of Beaufort, one of eleven incorporated
municipalities within Carteret County, comprised approximately 6.3
percent of the total county population.
• Between 1980 and 2000, the Town of Beaufort lost population.
Beaufort's population growth rate has been considerably lower than that
for Carteret County and the State of North Carolina.
• The town's growth rate since 1990 is lower than other coastal North
Carolina communities of similar size.
• Beaufort's age distribution is similar to that of Carteret County but differs
from the statewide averages in that the town contains a higher proportion
of the 65 and older population.
• Beaufort contains a more racially diverse population than does Carteret
County as a whole.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 11 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section I. Introduction and Executive Summary

• The estimated 2000 seasonal population of Beaufort is 2,041. The 2000
peak population, which is the sum of the permanent population and the
seasonal population, is estimated to be 5,812.
• The median age in Beaufort, in the year 2000, was 42.7 years.
• Beaufort's 2000 population density was 1,375 persons per square mile.
In comparison, some regional population densities in 2000 were.
Swansboro 1,165, Atlantic Beach 831, Morehead City 1,508, and
Newport 456.
• Projections indicate that the peak population (total of the permanent and
seasonal population) for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction will increase to
' 9,409 in 2010 and 9,893 in 2020. Complete population projections are
provided in Section 3.1.4.
I
1
n
n
1
fl
Housing
Economy
• Building permit data since 1998 indicate that Beaufort has averaged
about 44 new residential dwellings per year —approximately 87 percent of
those were single-family dwellings.
• The majority (47.1 percent) of seasonal units in Beaufort is composed of
seasonal single family dwellings. Seasonal dwellings comprise
approximately 12 percent of the town's total housing stock. Transient
marina slips account for just over 30 percent of all seasonal housing
units.
• Employment in Beaufort is based largely in the services and trade
sectors. The single largest employment industry sector is the arts,
entertainment, recreation, accommodations and food services category
which made up 18 percent of the total 2000 employment.
• Travel and tourism related employment is an important component of the
Carteret County economy.
Natural Constraints for Development
• Fragile areas within the Beaufort planning jurisdiction that could easily be
damaged or destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned land uses
include: floodplains, freshwater marshes, saltwater and brackish
marshes, beneficial non -coastal wetlands, and estuarine waters.
• Overall, for septic tank use, the soil types in the town's jurisdictional area
have substantial limitations. Over 92 percent of the Beaufort planning
jurisdiction contains soils that are rated as having severe limitations for
septic tank absorption fields.
• The waters in the Beaufort area are classified as SA, SC, HQW, and
ORW. The majority of the waters in the Beaufort planning jurisdiction are
classified as SA. Waters in Taylor's Creek and Town Creek are classified
as SC.
• Approximately 41 percent of the Beaufort planning area is within the 100-
year floodplain. An additional 24 percent of the town's planning area is
within the 500-year floodplain.
• Approximately three fourths of the Beaufort planning area is susceptible
to flooding from a Category 1 and Category 2 hurricane. The entire
Beaufort CA MA Land Use Plan Page 12 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 1. Introduction and Executive Summary

1
Beaufort planning jurisdiction land area is subject to flooding from a storm
surge resulting from a Category 4 and Category 5 hurricane.
• Non -coastal wetlands account for approximately 15 percent of the total
Beaufort land area.
• The NC Marine Fisheries Division has identified Turner Creek as the only
primary nursery area within the Beaufort planning area.
• The Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve is the most significant
natural heritage area within Beaufort.
• Based upon the environmental conditions assigned to each land class as
delineated in the Environmental Conditions Composite Map, the
'
overwhelming majority (94.6%) of the land area in the Beaufort planning
jurisdiction falls into Class III, serious hazards and limitations. Class II
lands (moderate hazards and limitations) account for approximately 5.4
percent of the Town's land area.
• The 2004 North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List includes portions of
the Newport River, Wading Creek, Gable Creek in subbasin 03-05-03 and
portions of Back Sound and the North River, Gibbs Creek, Turner Creek,
'
and Davis Bay in subbasin 03-05-04. The impaired use is shellfish
harvesting and the reason for the listings is elevated fecal coliform levels.
• According to the White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Management
1
Plan prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section
in September, 2001, the activities that contribute to the closure of shellfish
harvesting areas include, but are not limited to, construction, urban
'
stormwater runoff, failing septic systems, and agricultural activities.
Existing Land Use
• The predominant land use in Beaufort is residential, accounting for
approximately 22 percent of the total land area of the town's planning
jurisdiction and almost 51 percent of the total developed acreage.
• Approximately 40% of the town's planning jurisdiction contains
undeveloped land.
• Most of the recent development in Beaufort has been primarily low
density residential in nature. Recent nonresidential development has
occurred principally adjacent to the major highway corridors, particularly
US Highway 70.
• Projections indicate that some 1,300 acres of additional residential land will
be needed to accommodate the anticipated growth through 2025.
• The Land Suitability Map (see Figure 7) classifies land as High Suitability,
Medium Suitability, Low Suitability, and Least Suitable. In general, over
two-thirds of the Beaufort planning jurisdiction is within the higher
suitability ratings (High and Medium Suitability).
' Community Facilities
• The Town's existing water treatment plant design will not meet current
and future demands. Projected water system capital improvements,
including a new treatment facility; additional wells; and additional storage
facilities, total $10.6 million.
• The Town's sewer collection system experiences excessive inflow and
' infiltration during heavy rains. Currently, the Town is operating under a
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 13 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section I. Introduction and Executive Summary

i�
7—
L
11
1
1
r
Special Order by Consent for a 4-year period. During this time period,
sewer flow allocation is restricted by the SOC. Short term growth potential
will be impacted by the restrictions of the SOC.
• The most significant transportation improvements project currently
underway in Beaufort is the proposed replacement of the Gallants Channel
drawbridge and the realignment of US 70.
1.3.3 Summary of Policy Statements
The formulation of land use and development policies is based upon a review and
analysis of policy statements contained in the 1997 Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan (see
Appendix H for a summary of policies from this former plan); an evaluation of identified
concerns and aspirations (Section II) and the needs and opportunities identified in the
analysis of existing and emerging conditions (Section III); input from the Land Use Plan
Advisory Committee, local planning board, and elected officials; and input obtained
through citizen participation efforts including public informational meetings, public
forums, and Land Use Plan Advisory Committee meetings.
Updated policy statements have been formulated which address the following topics:
• Public access to public trust waters
• Land use compatibility
• Infrastructure carrying capacity
• Natural hazard areas
• Water quality
• Areas of environmental concern
• Areas of local concern
The Town of Beaufort supports state and federal law regarding land use and development
in Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). Specific policy statements have been
developed that support the general use standards of the North Carolina Administrative
Code (15 NCAC 7H) for development within the estuarine system (see Section 4.1). No
policy statements have been developed which exceed the requirements of CAMA
regarding land use and development within AECs.
1.3.4 Summary of Future Land Use Projections
The Future Land Use Map for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction encompasses the
Beaufort corporate limits and the Town's extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction.
The Town's Future Land Use Map classifications include the following categories and
subcategories:
• Residential
➢ Low Density Residential
➢ Medium Density Residential
➢ High Density Residential
• Commercial
➢ General Commercial
➢ Downtown Commercial
• Mixed Use
• Public and Institutional
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 14 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section I.- Introduction and Executive Summary

• Industrial
• Conservation/Open Space
The Low Density Residential classification is intended to delineate lands where the
predominant land use is low density detached residences. The residential density within
this classification is generally 2 or less dwelling units per acre. The majority of the lands
classified as Low Density Residential are located on primarily in the northern,
northeastern, and eastern portions of the Town's planning jurisdiction.
The Medium Density Residential classification is intended to delineate lands where the
predominant land use is higher density single-family residential developments and/or
two-family developments. The residential density within this classification is generally 3
to 5 dwelling units per acre. The majority of the properties classified as Medium Density
' Residential are generally located immediately surrounding the Beaufort downtown area
as well as north and east of the downtown area.
The High Density Residential classification is intended to delineate lands where the
predominant land use is higher density single-family residential developments and/or
multifamily developments. The residential density within this classification is generally 6
' to 16 dwelling units per acre. The properties classified as High Density Residential are
located in the northeastern portion of the Town's planning jurisdiction along the US
Highway 70 North corridor.
' The General Commercial classification is intended to delineate lands that can
accommodate a wide range of retail, wholesale, office, business services, and personal
services. Areas classified as General Commercial may also include some heavy
commercial uses as well as intensive public and institutional land uses. The properties
classified as General Commercial are located along the Town's major road corridor --US
Highway 70.
The Downtown Commercial classification is intended to delineate properties that can
accommodate a variety of retail, office, business services, and personal services. Areas
' classified as Downtown Commercial may also include some public and institutional land
uses. The Downtown Mixed Use classification specifically includes waterfront tourist -
oriented land uses. The properties classified as Downtown Commercial are located in
the Front Street commercial district and the downtown waterfront area. The core of the
Downtown Commercial area is generally bounded by Taylor's Creek on the south,
Orange Street on the west, and Pollock Street on the east.
' The Mixed Use classification is intended to delineate areas where there is potential to
redevelop the existing properties and adjoining vacant land, particularly for multiple land
uses. The properties classified as Mixed Use are located adjacent to Town Creek (2
' sites), at the former Beaufort Elementary School site, adjacent to the Cedar Street -
Carteret Avenue area, and along Lennoxville Road at the site of the Atlantic Veneer
Corporation and Beaufort Fisheries industries.
' The Public and Institutional classification is intended to delineate large land areas that
are used for intensive public and educational purposes. Land uses within this
classification include primarily government buildings and service facilities, public
' recreational facilities, and public educational facilities. The properties classified as
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 15 of 138
January26, 2007
Section I. Introduction and Executive Summary

' Public and Institutional are scattered throughout the Town's planning jurisdiction. The
largest individual property within the Public and Institutional classification includes the
Michael J. Smith Field and airport facilities located in the western section of Beaufort.
i The Industrial classification is intended to delineate lands that can accommodate
industrial and manufacturing establishments. Some heavy commercial uses as well as
services and businesses which support industrial land uses are also appropriate land
uses within the Industrial classification. The properties classified as Industrial are along
Lennoxville Road at Carteret Avenue in south central Beaufort and along the east side of
NC Highway 101 directly across from the airport property.
The Conservation/Open Space classification is intended to delineate areas where
traditional land uses are not desirable or expected to develop. Land development may,
however, include public building and facilities necessary to support existing land uses
within the areas classified as Conservation/Open Space. Conservation/Open Space
areas that are delineated on the Future Land Use Map include Town Marsh, Carrot
Island (including the portion of the Rachel Carson Estuarine Reserve lands within the
Beaufort planning jurisdiction), marshland in Davis Bay, and the county -owned Town
Creek wetlands area.
Generally, growth and land development is anticipated to occur in all future land use
categories except for the Conservation/Open Space classification. The type and
intensity of projected development varies within each future land use map classification.
' Future Land Use projections are delineated in Figure 8.
The land use patterns depicted on the Future Land Use Map are consistent with the
' analysis of natural systems and the analysis of land suitability.
The north central portion of the Town's planning jurisdiction and the areas adjacent to
the Newport River, North River and Taylor's Creek shorelines contain the greatest
concentrations of natural constraints, primarily floodplains and wetlands. Major
undeveloped areas with significant natural constraints and low suitability ratings within
the Beaufort jurisdiction are designated as Conservation/Open Space on the Future
Land Use Map.
The projected residential land needs through 2025 can mostly likely be met with the
estimated amount of available developable acreage in the current Beaufort planning
jurisdiction.
1.3.5 Summary of Implementation Strategies
In order to implement the policies outlined in the Land Use Plan Update, the Beaufort
Town Board and Planning Board will utilize the policy statements as one of the bases for
decision -making when land development requests are made. Policy statements will be
taken into consideration when reviewing rezonings, zoning text amendments, special
use permits, and subdivision plats. The Beaufort Board of Adjustment will also review
policies outlined in this plan prior to making decisions on variances and special use
permit requests.
' Beaufort will continue to administer and enforce its land use regulatory tools particularly
the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, and Flood Damage Prevention
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 16 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section I. Introduction and Executive Summary

I
Ordinance. The town will review the current regulatory tools to eliminate inconsistencies
which may exist between the tools and the policies outlined in this plan. In order to
assist with the implementation of the updated Land Use Plan, amendments to the zoning
ordinance regarding residential boat docks and piers and commercial marinas are
' anticipated. The development of a stormwater management ordinance is also expected.
Major capital improvements that will assist with Plan implementation include an
estimated $10.6 million of water system improvements, $15.6 million of wastewater
system improvements, and $372,000 of public water access facilities improvements.
' The town will ensure a continuous planning process by conducting periodic reviews of
the Land Use Plan's policies and implementation strategies. This review will be the
responsibility of the Beaufort Planning Board which will coordinate such reviews with the
Town Board.
I
I
G
I
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 17 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 1. Introduction and Executive Summary

I
11 SECTION II COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND ASPIRATIONS =1
This section of the Plan is organized in accordance with the requirements of Subchapter 76
.0702(b). Section II includes a description of the dominant growth -related conditions that
influence land use, development, water quality, and other environmental concerns within the
Beaufort planning jurisdiction. Descriptions of the land use and development topics most
important to the future of the town as well as a community vision statement are also provided in
Section II.
2.1 Significant Existing and Emerging Conditions
2.1.1 Land Use
A. General Development Trends
Beaufort is located on a peninsula that is bordered on the east by the North River, on
the south by Taylor's Creek, and on the west by the Newport River. The southern tip
of the peninsula contains relatively compact development generally south of Town
and Turner Creeks. Future expansion of Beaufort is anticipated mainly north of this
area along and between the US Highway 70 and NC Highway corridors. However,
infill development and redevelopment of existing developed properties are also
expected to accommodate future growth.
Most of the recent development in Beaufort has been primarily low density residential
in nature. Recent nonresidential development has occurred principally adjacent to
the major highway corridors, particularly US Highway 70. The Taylor's Creek and
Newport River waterfronts are essentially built -out within the town limits. Growth and
development within the Beaufort corporate area has been slow over the last two
decades.
In November 2004, the Beaufort corporate area was expanded by some 650 acres to
include a planned unit development, The North River Club. This proposed
development, located between US 70 and NC 101, potentially will include 1,500
mixed density dwelling units, 30 acres of commercial use, and a golf course.
The North Carolina Maritime Museum has proposed expanding the Maritime
Museum to a site located on Gallants Channel. An associated maritime village has
also been proposed for this site. Mixed residential and commercial uses, including
marine uses along waterfront areas, have potential at the other sites throughout
Beaufort.
B. Land Suitability and Natural Constraints on Development
The entire Beaufort planning jurisdiction has significant soil limitations for septic tank
drainfields. Also, approximately 42 percent of the land area in the planning
I
jurisdiction lies within the 100-year floodplain designation based upon Flood
Insurance Rate Maps prepared by FEMA.
' Beaufort CA MA Land Use Plan Page 18 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 11.• Community Concerns &Aspirations

C. Housing Trends
Residential growth in Beaufort has been modest in recent years. The town has
averaged approximately 44 new residential dwelling per year since 1998—
' approximately 87 percent of those were single-family dwellings. Single-family
residences are the predominant housing type in Beaufort. Multi -family residences,
however, comprise a growing proportion of the housing stock, accounting for about
1 27 percent of all housing units in 2000. Seasonal housing units account for about 13
percent of the town's total housing stock.
2.1.2 Economic Conditions
A. General Economic Conditions
Employment in Beaufort is based largely in the services and trade sectors of the
economy. Manufacturing employment is not a major component of the local
economy. The vast majority of jobs in Beaufort will most likely be provided by the
non -manufacturing sector for the foreseeable future. Travel and tourism is an
increasingly important sector of the economy.
The downtown Beaufort waterfront area is a viable commercial area of the
community. Most of the general commercial development in Beaufort is located
immediately adjacent to the US Highway 70 corridor.
B. Population Growth
The estimated 2003 population of the Beaufort corporate area is 3,810 and
approximately 5,000 for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction. In 2003, the municipal
population of Beaufort, one of eleven incorporated municipalities within Carteret
County, comprised approximately 6.3 percent of the total county population.
Between 1980 and 2000, the Town of Beaufort lost population. Beaufort's
population growth rate has been considerably lower than that for Carteret County
and the State of North Carolina. The town's growth rate since 1990 is also lower
than other coastal North Carolina communities of similar size.
The estimated 2000 seasonal population of the Town of Beaufort is 2,041. The 2000
peak population, which is the sum of the permanent population and the seasonal
population, is estimated to be 5,812. Seasonal population represents approximately
35 percent of the peak population.
2.1.3 Transportation
The most significant transportation improvements project currently underway in Beaufort is
the proposed replacement of the Gallants Channel drawbridge and the realignment of US
70.
A citizen's committee appointed by the Beaufort Town Board of Commissioners in
December 2004 recommended that the existing drawbridge be replaced with a new four -
lane drawbridge and that Cedar Street continue to be the designated route of US
' Highway 70. An official route has been determined and engineering work has begun.
Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in 2008. This project will have significant
' impacts on land use and future development patterns in Beaufort.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 19 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section II: Community Concerns & Aspirations

1
2.1.4 Infrastructure
I
The Town of Beaufort provides water and sewer service to the corporate area and to
some portions of the ETJ on the immediate periphery of the town. The sewer system also
extends beyond the corporate limits via remote pump stations connected to the primary
system by force mains. Such service is provided to Jarrett Bay Industrial Park, Parker
Boats, East Carteret High School, Duke Marine Laboratories, and Eastman Creek
subdivision.
There are plans for the construction of a new wastewater treatment facility in 2009. The
Town's sewer collection system experiences excessive inflow and infiltration during heavy
rains. Because of the need for necessary improvements, the Town is operating under a
Special Order by Consent imposed by the State for a 4-year period. During this time
period, sewer flow allocation is restricted to a total of 300,000 gpd for new growth within
the corporate limits which is distributed according to a local sewer allocation policy. Short
term growth potential will be impacted by the restrictions of the SOC.
Improvements to the Town of Beaufort's water treatment facility are also needed to
accommodate current and future demand.
2.1.5 Water Quality
A. Stormwater Management
The existing stormwater drainage facilities within the Town of Beaufort consist of a
system of piping, catch basins, and drainage ditches and swales. Currently, much of
the stormwater conveyed by the system is discharged into Taylor's Creek.
Beaufort is in the process of exploring the benefits a stormwater management plan
and land use regulations would provide in directing further development of its
stormwater system. There is concern that as new land is developed the increased
stormwater rate of runoff will overload existing stormwater structures.
2.1.6 Other Environmental Concerns
A. Providing Accessibility while Protecting Public Trust Waters
Increased demand for private boat docks and piers as well as commercial marinas is
anticipated. Maintaining water quality, scenic vistas, and compatibility with the current
waterfront character while meeting the demand for more boating facilities is a primary
concern.
2.2 Key Planning Issues
1 The major land use and development issues identified during the preparation of this land use plan
update include the following (not presented here in any priority order):
',J
it
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 10 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 1I. Community Concerns & Aspirations

1
I
1
I
Land Use Compatibility
• Management of strip commercialization along US 70
East and NC 101 North.
• Redevelopment of existing properties along the
Taylor's Creek waterfront.
• Compatibility of development in the vicinity of the
airport.
• Managing infill development in established residential
areas.
• Redevelopment/visual improvement of the US 70-
Cedar Street area dependent upon the US 70
relocation/bridge project.
• Management of a new US 70 corridor if realignment
is ultimately approved.
Infrastructure Carrying Capacity
• Improving the treatment capacities of the town's
water and sewer systems.
• Coordination of the development/improvement of the
Beaufort sewage treatment system with Carteret
County's plans and policies for the development of
sewage treatment system(s).
• Extension of water and sewer utilities into newly
developing portions of the town's extraterritorial
jurisdiction.
• Construction of a new bridge on US 70 at Gallants
Channel to alleviate disruptions to east -west traffic.
Water Quality
• Stormwater runoff impacts.
• Improvements to the town's wastewater treatment
facility.
• Stormwater management plan and ordinance.
Natural Hazard Areas
• The effects of sea level rise on the Town of Beaufort.
• Hazard mitigation plan strategies.
Areas of Environmental Concern
. Protection of Areas of Environmental Concern.
• Protection of the Rachel Carson National Estuarine
Sanctuary which includes Carrot Island, Town
Marsh, and Bird Shoal.
Beaufort CAAU Land Use Plan Page 21 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IL• Community Concerns & Aspirations

1
1
I
1
Areas of Local Concern . Removal of substandard dwelling units through
enforcement of the town's minimum housing code.
• Continued protection of both the historic district and
the downtown waterfront area.
• Establishment of a growth management plan.
• Development of service sector to support tourism.
• Establishment of a comprehensive annexation plan.
• Implementation of redevelopment/revitalization
projects to eliminate substandard housing.
• Expansion of the Michael J. Smith Airport.
• Maritime Museum Expansion.
• Beaufort Historical Association (BHA) restoration
site.
2.3 Vision Statement
Beaufort values its rich maritime history and the picturesque landscape which this history
' provides. These historical assets and the shoreline setting are the cornerstones of an important
tourist industry. As the town develops, these assets will be maintained and protected. At the
same time, the town will pursue development within its jurisdiction as well as within the utility
�l
�J
1
services area that is consistent with the 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards for AEC's. It is
the town's intention to protect its valuable maritime and historical resources. Industrial
development will be encouraged within the town's jurisdiction as well as within the utility
services area and outside of the AEC's. Finally, it is a priority of the town to carefully control
growth and development which is expected to occur between the west bank of the North River
and east bank of the Newport River.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 22 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IL• Community Concerns & Aspirations

1
I
1
I
11
I
I
I
1
ri
SECTION III ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND EMERGING CONDITIONS
This section of the Plan is organized in accordance with the requirements of Subchapter 76
.0702(c). The purpose of this section is to provide a sound factual and analytical base to
support the land use and development policies formulated in this Plan. Specific elements of
Section III include
• Population, housing, and economic analysis
• Natural systems analysis
• Environmental conditions analysis
• Land use and development analysis
• Community facilities analysis
• Land suitability analysis
• Review of the current CAMA Land Use Plan
3.1 Population Housing and Economy
3.1.1 Population Analysis
• The estimated 2003 population of the Beaufort corporate area is 3,810
and approximately 5,000 for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
• In 2003, the municipal population of Beaufort, one of eleven incorporated
municipalities within Carteret County, comprised approximately 6.3
percent of the total county population.
• Between 1980 and 2000, the Town of Beaufort lost population.
Beaufort's population growth rate has been considerably lower than that
for Carteret County and the State of North Carolina.
• The town's growth rate since 1990 is lower than other coastal North
Carolina communities of similar size.
• Beaufort's age distribution is similar to that of Carteret County but differs
from the statewide averages in that the town contains a higher proportion
of the 65 and older population.
• Beaufort contains a more racially diverse population than does Carteret
County as a whole.
• The estimated 2000 seasonal population of Beaufort is 2,041. The 2000
peak population, which is the sum of the permanent population and the
seasonal population, is estimated to be 5,812.
• The median age in Beaufort, in the year 2000, was 42.7 years.
• Beaufort's 2000 population density was 1,375 persons per square mile.
In comparison, some regional population densities in 2000 were:
Swansboro 1,165, Atlantic Beach 831, Morehead City 1,508, and
Newport 456.
• Projections indicate that the peak population (total of the permanent and
seasonal population) for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction will increase to
9,409 in 2010 and 10,084 in 2025. Complete population projections are
provided in Section 3.1.4.
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 23 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

1
I
I
1
1
A. Permanent Population Growth Trends
Beaufort's population growth has fluctuated since. 1980 and its rate of growth is
below that of Carteret County and the statewide average. Population decreases
were experienced between 1980 and 1990 and between 1990 and 2000. The
following table provides a comparison of the town's recent growth trends with those
of the county and the state.
Po.
Carteret.
Table I
the State
1980-2003
Population Size
1980
1990
2000
2003
Beaufort
3,826
3,808
3,771
3,810
Carteret County
41,092
52,553
59,383
60,574
North Carolina
5,880,095
6,628,637
8,046,962
8,418,090
Population
Growth Rates
1980-1990
1990-2000
2000-2003
Beaufort
-0.47%
-0.97%
1.0%
Carteret County
27.9%
13.0%
2.0%
North Carolina
13.0%
21.4%
4.6%
Sources: U.S. Census of Population, 1980-2000, NC State Data Center
In 2003, the municipal population of Beaufort, one of eleven incorporated
municipalities within Carteret County, comprised approximately 6.2 percent of the
total county population.
' The following table provides a comparison of Beaufort's population growth rates with
those of selected municipalities in coastal North Carolina.
1
1
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 24 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 11L• Analysis ofExisting and Emerging Conditions

1
1
1
Table
..... ..... .
with ....Region
1980-1990 1990-2002
Municipality County 1980 1990 2002 % Change % Change
Alliance
Pamlico
616
681 798
10.55%
17.18%
Atlantic Beach
Carteret
941
1,938 1,780
105.95%
-8.15%
Bayboro
Pamlico
759
733 743
-3.43%
1.36%
Beaufort
Carteret
3,826
3,808 3,787
-0.47%
-0.55%
Cape Carteret
Carteret
944
1,013 1,243
7.31%
22.70%
Cedar Point
Carteret
479
628 950
31.11 %
51.27%
Emerald Isle
Carteret
865
2,434 3,564
181.39%
46.43%
Havelock
Craven
17,718
20,300 22,463
14.57%
10.66%
Indian Beach
Carteret
54
153 93
183.33%
-39.22%
Jacksonville
Onslow
18,259
30,398 68,356
66.48%
124.87%
Maysville
Jones
877
892 993
1.71%
11.32%
Morehead City
Carteret
4,359
6,046 7,726
38.70%
27.79%
New Bern
Craven
14,557
17,363 23,415
19.28%
34.86%
Newport
Carteret
1,883
2,516 3,428
33.62%
36.25%
Oriental
Pamlico
536
786 870
46.64%
10.69%
Pine Knoll Shores
Carteret
646
1,360 1,534
110.53%
12.79%
Richlands
Onslow
825
996 909
20.73%
-8.73%
Swansboro
Onslow
976
1,165 1,457
19.36%
25.06%
Trenton
Jones
294
230 240
-21.77%
4.35%
' Source: U.S. Census Bureau; North Carolina State Data Center, U� jjice of J7ate
'Budget and Management, 2003
B. Population Characteristics
1. Age Characteristics
Beaufort's age distribution is similar to that of Carteret County but differs from the
statewide averages in that the town contains a higher proportion of the 65 and older
population. Beaufort's 65 and over population in 2000 comprised approximately 20%
of the population while the county and state were at 17% and 12% respectively. .
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 25 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III. • Analysis orExisting and Emerging Conditions

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
Table 3
Ag- Distribution
000
Beaufort Carteret
North
County
Carolina
Age Category
Number
% of Total
% of Total
% of Total
Under 18 Years
690
18.3%
20.7%
24.4%
School Age
18-24 Years
276
7.3%
6.4%
10.0%
College Age
25-64 Years
2,059
54.6%
55.6%
53.5%
Working Age
65+ Years
746
19.8%
17.2%
12.0%
Retirement Age
Totals
3,771
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: North Carolina State Data Center, Office of State Budget and Management, 2003.
2. Distribution of Males and Females
Beaufort contains a higher proportion of females than does Carteret County and the
State.
Source: US Census, 2000
3. Racial Characteristics
Beaufort contains a more diverse population than does Carteret County as a whole.
Racial composition data for Beaufort indicate that 79.5% of the population is white
and 20.5% all other races. The town's minority population is higher than the Carteret
County average but lower than the statewide average.
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan
January 26, 2007
Section 111.• Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions
Page 26 of 138

11
I
I
11
1
Table 5
Race and Hisp. or Latino Origin
000
Beaufort Carteret County North Carolina
Race Category
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
White
2,804
79.5%
53,443
90.0%
5,802,165
72.1%
Black/African American
617
17.5%
4,191
7.1%
1,734,154
21.5%
American Indian/Alaska
Native
7
0.2%
341
0.6%
100,956
1.3%
Asian
28
0.8%
253
1 0.4%
111,292
1.4%
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0
0.0%
29
0.0%
3,699
0.0%
Other Race
31
0.9%
392
0.7%
185,138
2.3%
Two or More Races
41
1.2%
734
1.2%
111,909
1.4%
Total
3,528
100.0%
1 59,383
100.0%
8,049,313
100.0%
Hispanic or Latino Origin
62
1.8%
1 9291
1.6%
372,964
4.6%
Source: US Census, 2000
4. Components of Population Change
In migration of population accounted for the majority of Carteret County's growth
between 1990 and 2000 resulting in over 88 percent of the total increase in
population. While Carteret County's 1990 to 2000 migration rate was among the
highest in the region, it was below the statewide average of 15.1 percent.
Table .
Components of Population Change
Carteret County . North Carolina
..i to 2000
Carteret County
North Carolina
Population Change
6,976
1,416,865
Births
6,438
1,054,045
Deaths
5,660
638,171
Natural Increase
778
415,874
Net Migration
6,198
1,000,991
Migration Rate'
11.8%
15.1%
Source: NC State Data Center
' 'Natural increase is the difference between total births and total deaths. Net migration is the difference
between total population change and natural increase. Migration rate is the difference between in -
migration and out -migration expressed as a percentage of the base year total population. It is
calculated by dividing net migration by the base year total population.
5. Income Characteristics
Beaufort's 2000 per capita income of $19,356 was approximately 95 percent of the
' statewide per capital income of $20,307. The 2000 per capita income level in
Carteret County of $21,260 was 104.7 percent of the North Carolina average.
Beaufort's median household income of $28,763 was considerably lower than the
Carteret County average of $38,344 and the North Carolina average of $39,184.
' Carteret County's 2000 median household income of ranked it as 38th statewide.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 27 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

C]
A
1
1
According to data from the 2000 U.S. Census, the percentage of families below the
poverty level in Beaufort was 13.3 % compared to the statewide rate of 9.0% and the
Carteret County rate of 8.0%.
3.1.2 Housing Stock
The predominant housing type in Beaufort is the single-family detached dwelling. Of the
2,191 housing units in Beaufort, approximately 66% are single-family detached
dwellings. Beaufort has a much higher number of multifamily dwellings (596) than
manufactured housing units (136). They represent 27.20% and 6.21 % of the housing
stock, respectively. Slightly more than 56 percent of housing units are owner -occupied
and almost 44 percent are renter -occupied. Beaufort's proportion of multifamily housing
is higher than both the Carteret County and statewide averages.
Comparison of Housing
Beaufort
Table 8
by Structure
,,,
Carteret County
Type
North Carolina
Single -Family
66.59%
59.72%
67.48%
Multi -Family
27.20%
14.54%
16.11 %
Manufactured Home
6.21 %
25.74%
16.41 %
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
Household population of housing units in Beaufort in 2000 was 2.07 persons per unit
' while the household population for the county and state were 2.31 and 2.49 persons per
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 28 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

' unit respectively. Beaufort had a homeowner vacancy rate (0.6%) in 2000 that was
lower than both the county (2.92%) and the state averages (1.2%). The rental vacancy
rate in Beaufort (3.40%) is lower than the county average (5.39%) but higher than the
state average (2.6%). The 2000 Census reported 407 vacant units and 241 intended for
seasonal use. Appendix C provides a summary of housing characteristics for the Town
of Beaufort, Carteret County, and the State.
1
1
11
1
According to the 2000 Census, the median value of owner -occupied homes in Beaufort
is $112,900 which is higher than both the county and state medians of $106,400 and
$95,800 respectively.
A. Building Permits Issued and Subdivision Lots Created
Town data indicates that 263 permits were issued for new residential dwellings since
1998. Of those permits, 229 were issued for single-family detached dwellings and 34
were issued for mobile homes. Building permit data since 1998 indicate that
Beaufort has averaged about 44 new residential dwellings per year —approximately
87 percent of those were single-family dwellings.
Year
Table•
Residential. Permits
Beaufort
SFR Mfg. Homes
Total
1998
32
8
40
1999
41
5
46
2000
37
6
43
2001
27
6
33
2002
30
3
33
2003
62
6
68
Total
229
34
263
Average
38.2
1 5.7
1 43.8
Percent
87.1 %
1 12.9%
1 100.0%
Source: Town of Beaufort
' Subdivision lot approvals in Beaufort since 1998 have resulted in the creation of an
average of 14 new building lots per year.
1
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 29 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III. • Analysis orExisting and Emerging Conditions

1
1
1
1
Year
Table ,
... .
Beaufort
Residential Nonresidential Total
1998
0
0
0
1999
48
0
48
2000
97
0
970
2001
0
0
2002
90
0
90
2003
0
0
0
2004
52
0
52
Total
287
0
287
Average
41.0
0.0
41.0
Source: Town of Beaufort
B. Seasonal Housing
In 2000, seasonal dwelling units constitute 12.6% of the town's total housing stock.
The majority (47.1 percent) of seasonal dwelling units in Beaufort is composed of
single family seasonal dwelling units. Single family seasonal dwelling units comprise
approximately 12 percent of the town's total housing stock. Transient marina slips
account for just over 30 percent of all seasonal dwelling units. Hotel, motel, and bed
and breakfast rooms comprise the remainder of the town's total seasonal dwelling
units
Table I I
Seasonal Housing
200,
Town of Beaufort
Total Seasonal Housing
% of Seasonal Housing
Units
W/I Jurisdiction
Seasonal Dwellings
277
47.1 %
Hotel, Motel, B&B
132
22.5%
Campsites
0
0.0%
Transient Marina Slips
179
30.4%
Totals
5881
100.0%
Source: US Census, 2000
3.1.3 Local Economy
Employment in Beaufort is based largely in the services and trade sectors. The single
largest employment industry sector is the arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodations and food services category which made up 18 percent of the total 2000
employment. Manufacturing employment accounted for just over 7 percent of total
employment in the 2000 census. The vast majority of jobs in Beaufort will most likely be
provided by the non -manufacturing sector for the foreseeable future.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 30 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section Ill. Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

Total
Table
Employment Industry
Town of Beaufort 000
Percent Industry
40
2.4%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, and Fishing
165
10.1 %
Construction
124
7.6%
Manufacturing
291
17.8%
Wholesale and Retail Trade
74
4.5%
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities
53
3.2%
Information
52
3.2%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental and Leasing
152
9.3%
Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste
Management
216
13.2%
Educational, Health and Social Services
294
18.0%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services
111
6.8%
Other Services, except Public Administration
64
3.9%
Public Administration
1636
100.0%
Total
Source: US Census, 2000
Travel and tourism related employment is an important component of the Carteret
County economy. In 2002, the NC Department of Commerce estimated that tourism
' generated an economic impact of $206.87 million. More that 3,720 jobs were directly
attributable to travel and tourism.
The Naval Depot and the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point is also a major
employer of Carteret County residents. According to data from the Business
Performance Office at the Marine Corps Air Station, 1,763 civilian employees at Cherry
Point (31 %) reside in Carteret County. Out of a total payroll of $357,584,693 for the
' four -county region of Carteret, Craven, Jones and Pamlico Counties, Carteret County
civilian employees earn approximately $110,851,255. The following table presents
employment data for employment by major sector for Carteret County. Employment by
' sector for Carteret County is provided to gain a better sense of employment trends in the
region.
u
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 31 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section Ill. Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

Carteret ounty
EmploymentTable 13
Sector Persons Employed
Service Professions
8,346
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
2,710
Retail
7,671
Wholesale
996
Transportation
1,147
Manufacturing
1,945
Construction
2,996
Mining
15
Agricultural/Forestry/Fishing/Other
1,329
Source: Federal Agency Data: Uureau of Economic Analysts
The total valuation of real, personal, and public service company property in Beaufort
totaled $373,038,454.00 in 2003. Real property constitutes approximately 90 percent of
the town's total valuation. Beaufort comprised approximately 5 percent of the total
Carteret County valuation.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis orExisting and Emerging Conditions
Page 32 of 138

L�
Table
Valuati• • Tax Rates
14
for/I 11
Total Assessed
Valuation
Tax Rate
(per $100)
Carteret County
7,330,795,475
$0.42
Atlantic Beach
826,469,876
$0.23
Beaufort
373,038,454
$0.36
Bogue
37,752,442
$0.05
Cape Carteret
181,239,601
$0.23
Cedar Point
160,316,119
$0.05
Emerald Isle
1,361,208,559
$0.185
Indian Beach
163,317,742
$0.16
Morehead City
899,596,917
$0.38
Newport
161,283,726
$0.43
Peletier
34,048,700
$0.05
Pine Knoll Shores
538,823,834
$0.17
I
Source: NC Department of -Revenue, Tax Research Division
3.1.4 Permanent and Seasonal Population Projections
A. Permanent Population Projections
Projections provided by the NC State Data Center indicate that the Carteret County
population will continue to increase through the next several decades but at a slower
rate. This projected trend of decreased growth rates also holds true for the
neighboring counties as well as the entire state. The following table provides
projected population figures for the County, the Town of Beaufort and the Beaufort
' planning jurisdiction.
*Planning Jurisdiction Estimates by The Wooten Company.
Sources: US Census, 1970-2000. 2002 Certified Population Estimates, NC State Data Center, October
2003. County Population Growth 2000-2030, NC State Data Center, April 2006.
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 33 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 11I. Analysis ofExisting and Emerging Conditions

1
Permanent population projections for Beaufort are based upon the average rate of
growth and the ratio of the town's population to Carteret County's population for the
1970-2000 period. Appendix L provides more detailed information regarding
population projections.
B. Seasonal and Peak Population Projections
The estimated 2000 seasonal population of Beaufort is 2,041. The 2000 peak
population, which is the sum of the permanent population and the seasonal
population, is estimated to be 5,812.
Table 16
Peak Po.
Beaufort Corporate Total
PPH
Pop
Seasonal Dwelling Units
277
4
1,108
Hotel, Motel, B&B
132
3
396
Campsites
0
0
0
Transient Marina Slips
179
3
537
Totals
588
2,041
Seasonal Population 2000
2,041
Permanent Population 2000
3,771
Peak Population 2000
5,812
Peak to Permanent Ratio
154.12%
Sources: US Census Summary File 3, Table Hl, Housing Summary and Table H33,
Population by Units in Structure by Tenure. Estimates by The Wooten Company.
' Based upon the estimated 2000 seasonal and peak population as delineated above
and the assumption that the ratio of seasonal population to permanent population will
remain constant, the following projections have been prepared for the Beaufort
corporate area and for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
Table 17
Seasonal and Peak Population Projections
2005 2010 2015 2020
2025 2030
Beaufort Corporate Area
Permanent Population
5,245
5,462
5,639
5,801
5,914
6,000
Seasonal Population
2,839
2,956
3,052
3,140
3,201
3,247
Peak Population
8,084
8,418
8,691
8,940
9,115
9,247
Beaufort Planning
Jurisdiction
Permanent Population
6,891
7,177
7,409
7,622
7,771
7,884
Seasonal Population
3,729
3,884
4,010
1 4,125
1 4,206
1 4,267
Peak Population
10,620
11,061
11,419
1 11,747
1 11,977
1 12,151
Source: The Wooten Company, April 2006
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 34 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

3.2 Natural Systems Analysis
' Subchapter 7B .0702(c)(2)re uires that the land use Ian describe and analyze the natural
P q P Y
features and environmental conditions within the Beaufort planning jurisdiction and to assess
' their capabilities and limitations for development. Section 3.2 provides an inventory of natural
features; a description of a composite map of environmental conditions that shows the extent
and overlap of natural features; and an assessment water quality, natural hazard, and natural
resource conditions and features and their limitation or opportunity for land development.
3.2.1 Inventory of Natural Features
' The inventory of natural features includes a description of Areas of Environmental
Concern (AECs), soil characteristics, water quality classifications and use support
designations, flood hazard areas, storm surge areas, non -coastal wetlands, water supply
watersheds, and other environmentally fragile areas. Fragile areas within the Beaufort
planning jurisdiction that could easily be damaged or destroyed by inappropriate or
poorly planned land uses include: floodplains, freshwater marshes, saltwater and
' brackish marshes, beneficial non -coastal wetlands, and estuarine waters.
A. Areas of Environmental Concern
Areas of environmental concern (AEC) include coastal wetlands, estuarine waters
and estuarine shoreline, and public trust areas. Coastal wetlands are defined as any
marshes subject to regular or occasional flooding by lunar or wind tides. Estuarine
waters are defined by the Coastal Management Act as all the waters of the Atlantic
' Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all the water of bays, sounds,
rivers, and tributaries thereto seaward of the dividing line between coastal fishing
waters and inland fishing waters. Public trust areas include waters and submerged
' lands in the coastal region where the public has rights of use and/or ownership,
including rights of navigation and recreation.
' Since Beaufort is located on a peninsula, areas of environmental concern virtually
surround the town. The shorelines of Newport River, North River, and Taylor Creek
and their estuarine waters and salt marshes comprise the majority of AECs in
' Beaufort. The estuarine shoreline considered to be an AEC in the Beaufort area is
all shorelands within 75 feet landward of the mean high water level, or normal water
level, of the estuarine waters and (ii) for those shorelands adjacent to Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), 575 feet landward of the mean high water level, or normal
' water level, of the estuarine waters. All of these areas are subject to stricter
regulations controlling development. Priority is, however, given to the conservation
of the ORW AECs.
CAMA standards for estuarine shoreline development generally require that (i) the
development not cause significant damage to estuarine resources; (ii) the
' development not interfere with public rights of access to or use of navigable waters
or public resources; (iii) the development preserve and not weaken natural barriers to
erosion; (iv) impervious surfaces not exceed 30 percent of the lot area located within
' the AEC boundary; (v) the development comply with state soil erosion,
sedimentation, and stormwater management regulations; and (vi) the development
comply with the CAMA Land Use Plans. Specific CAMA development standards for
AECs can be found in 15 NCAC 7H. Additional use standards for development
projects within the ORW estuarine shoreline include (i) having no stormwater
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 35 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

n
' collection system and (ii) providing a buffer zone of at least 30 feet from the mean
high water line. Specific CAMA development standards for AEC's can be found in 15
NCAC 7H.
B. Soil Characteristics
The majority of soils in Beaufort's planning jurisdiction are hydric soils. Hydric soils
often contain an abundance of moisture and generally lack oxygen. Soils such as
Leon sand, Leon -Urban sand complex, and Tomotley fine sandy loam are the
predominant soils and they are hydric. Other soils that are not entirely hydric, yet
include hydric soils or have wet spots, are Augusta loamy fine sand and Mandarin -
Urban land complex. All of these soils present limitations to development,
particularly, where a septic system is needed. Generally, many soil limitations can
be overcome with special engineering considerations. For instance, a severe
limitation precluding septic systems can be overcome by extending public sewer to
the affected area. While engineering can often work around problems presented by
soil conditions, there are soils and habitats that are not suited for development
' regardless of engineering capabilities. Soil conditions should be taken into
consideration when planning for land use.
Generally, most of the soils in the Beaufort planning jurisdiction have limitations for
1 many urban uses due to wetness, low strength, and restricted permeability. Overall,
for septic tank use, the soil types in the town's jurisdictional area have substantial
limitations. Over 92 percent of the Beaufort planning jurisdiction contains soils that
' are rated as having severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields. Additionally,
septic systems are not permitted within the corporate limits of the town, allowing
them only in the ETJ. Site -specific soil analyses are required by the Carteret County
Environmental Health Services to evaluate the suitability of a particular parcel for a
septic system. Centralized sewer facilities are needed to support intensive urban
development. The following table describes the soils within the Beaufort planning
jurisdiction and the specific limitations for septic system use.
�I
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 36 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III. • Analysis of Existing andEmerging Conditions

Il
Table
Soils.Jurisdiction
Symbol
Soil Description
Acres Percent
Limitation for
Septic Systems
Ap
Arapahoe fine sandy loam
1257.4
26.5%
Severe:
wetness/poor filter
Tm
Tomotley fine sandy loam
684.6
14.4%
Severe: wetness
AaA
Altavista loamy fine sand-0 to 2 percent slopes
477.3
10.1 %
Severe: wetness
Ag
Augusta loamy fine sand
469.0
9.9%
Severe: wetness
Ln
Leon sand
453.9
9.6%
Severe:
wetness/poor filter
Nd
Newhan fine sand-dredged-2 to 30 percent
281.5
5.9%
Severe: poor
slopes
filter/slope
CH
Carteret sand -frequently flooded
238.4
5.0%
Severe:
flooding/ponding/poor
filter
StA
State loamy fine sand-0 to 2 percent slopes
227.4
4.8%
Moderate: wetness
Lu
Leon -Urban land complex
128.7
2.7%
Severe:
wetness/poor filter
Mc
Mandarin -Urban land complex
127.0
2.7%
Severe:
wetness/poor filter
w
Water
113.2
2.4%
N/A
Mn
Mandarin sand
63.4
1.3%
Severe:
wetness/poor filter
Cu
Corolla -Urban land complex
54.2
1.1 %
Severe:
wetness/poor filter
WaB
Wando fine sand-0 to 6 percent slopes
43.6
0.9%
Severe: poor filter
CnB
Conetoe loamy fine sand-0 to 5 percent slopes
27.5
0.6%
Slight
KuB
Kureb sand-0 to 6 percent slopes
23.5
0.5%
Severe: poor filter
De
Deloss fine sandy loam
20.7
0.4%
Severe: wetness
WuB
Wando-Urban land complex-0 to 6 percent.
15.9
0.3%
Severe: poor filter
slopes
ByB
Baymeade fine sand-1 to 6 percent slopes
12.6
0.3%
Severe: poor filter
Se
Seabrook fine sand
7.2
0.2%
Severe:
wetness/poor filter
HB
Hobucken muck -frequently flooded
6.7
0.1 %
Severe: .
floodin / ondin
Mu
Murville mucky sand
6.5
0.1 %
Severe: ponding/poor
filter
Totals
4740.3
100.0%
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Specific soil limitations data for sewage disposal, dwellings, and small commercial
buildings are provided in Appendix D.
Hydric soils are soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of
hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrophytic vegetation along with hydric soils and wetland
hydrology are considered the three essential characteristics of wetlands.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions
Page 37 of 138

11
I
1
1
Consequently, the presence of hydric soils is one indicator of probable wetlands
locations. The precise location of wetlands must, however, be determined through
field investigation. Soils that are classified as hydric are also delineated in Appendix
D.
More detailed data regarding the criteria for defining hydric soils as well as
information regarding measures for mitigating particular soils limitations can be
obtained at the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
C. Water Quality Classifications and Use Support Designations
Water Quality Classifications. All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a
primary water quality classification by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
under the authority of the Environmental Management Commission. Classifications
are designations applied to surface water bodies that define the best uses to be
protected within these waters, as required by the Clean Water Act. The most
common primary classification within North Carolina is Class C, which protects
waters for the propagation of aquatic life and for secondary recreation. Other
primary freshwater classifications provide for additional levels of protection for uses
consisting of water supplies (Class WS-1 through Class WS-V) and for primary
recreation (Class B). Saltwater primary classifications are denoted as SC, SB, and
SA.
In addition to the primary classification, one or more supplemental classifications
may be assigned to specific surface waters to provide additional protection to waters
with special uses or values. North Carolina's supplemental classifications include
NSW (nutrient sensitive waters), Tr (trout waters), HQW (high quality waters), ORW
(outstanding resource waters), and Sw (swamp waters).
All primary and secondary water quality classifications are described in the following
table:
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 38 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions _

1
�I
1
1
1
Table 19
North Carolina Water Quality Classifications
Freshwater Primary Classifications
Classification
Best Usage of Waters
C
Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing, and
fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any other usage except for primary
recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing
purposes. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these uses at a minimum.
B
Primary recreation (which includes swimming on a frequent or organized basis) and any
other best usage specified for Class C waters.
WS I - WS V
Source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food -processing purposes for those users
desiring maximum protection of their water supplies and any best usage specified for
Class C waters.
Saltwater Prima Classifications
Classification
Best Usage of Waters
Sc
Aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing, fish and
functioning primary nursery areas (PNAs)),wildlife, secondary recreation, and any other
usage except primary recreation or shellfishing for market purposes.
SB
Primary recreation (which includes swimming on a frequent or organized basis) and any
other usage specified for Class SC waters.
SA
Shellfishing for market purposes and any other usage specified for Class SB or SC
waters.
Supplemental
Classifications
Classification
Best Usage of Waters
HQW
High Quality Waters. Waters which are rated as excellent based on biological and
physical/chemical characteristics through Division monitoring or special studies, native
and special native trout waters (and their tributaries) designated by the Wildlife Resources
Commission, primary nursery areas (PNAs) designated by the Marine Fisheries
Commission and other functional nursery areas designed by the Marine Fisheries
Commission.
NSW
Nutrient Sensitive Waters. Waters that experience or are subject to excessive growths of
microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Excessive growths are growths which the
Commission determines impair the use of the water for its best usage as determined by
the classification applied to such waters.
ORW
Outstanding Resource Waters. Unique and special surface waters of the state that are of
exceptional state or national recreational or ecological significance that require special
protection to maintain existing uses.
SW
Swamp Waters. Waters which are topographically located so as to generally have very
low velocities and other characteristics which are different from adjacent streams draining
steeper topography.
Tr
Trout Waters. Waters which have conditions that shall sustain and allow for trout
propagation and survival of stocked trout on a ear -round basis.
Source: NC Division of Water Quality
' The waters in the Beaufort area are classified as SA, SC, HQW, and ORW. The
majority of the waters in the Beaufort planning jurisdiction are classified as SA.
Waters in Taylor's Creek and Town Creek are classified as SC. Appendix E includes
a listing of the water quality classifications for the various water bodies in the
Beaufort area. The following table summarizes some of the major characteristics
and development regulations for SA, SC, HQW, and ORW waters.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 39 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing and Emerging Conditions

S i M M S M M r M S M M! M I' M M M M
Table 20
Overview of SC, SA, HQW, AND ORW Water Quality Classifications
Saltwater Quality Characteristics Stormwater Control*
Classification
Best Uses
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Low
High Density Option
Rules
Density
O tion
Division of Water Quality: Primes Classifications
SC
*Aquatic life
•Standard erosion protection and
•30' minimum
*Systems must control runoff from 1.0" of
propagation; and
sedimentation control required for projects
buffer.
rainfall and be designed for 85% TSS
*Secondary Recreation
greater than 1 acre.
•30%
removal.
*Required to manage 10-year storm runoff.
maximum built-
*Refer to Stormwater Management Rules
*Refer to NC Division of Land Resources
upon area.
15A NCAC 21-1.1000 for specific design
information.
SA
*Commercial shellfish
*The Sedimentation Control Commission
*30' minimum
*Systems must control runoff from 1.5" of
harvesting;
has as many as 5 increased design
buffer,
rainfall and be designed for 85% TSS
•Primary recreational
standards for projects in all HQW zones.
•25%
removal.
activities; and
See Sedimentation Control Rules for
maximum built-
Refer to Stormwater Management Rules
*SC Best Uses.
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds
upon area.
15A NCAC 2H .1000 for specific design
•AII SA waters are
(15A NCAC 4B.0024).
information.
HQW.
Division of Water Quality: Supplemental
Classifications
High Quality Waters (HQW)
•Excellent quality
The Sedimentation Control Commission
*Stormwater management measures are the same as the
saltwater.
has as many as 5 increased design
primary classification requirements.
•AII SA waters, ORW,
standards for projects in all HQW zones.
•Refer to the Stormwater Management Rules for specific
and PNAs are also
See Sedimentation Control Rules for
stormwater control requirements in the 20 coastal NC
HQW
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds
counties.
15A NCAC 4B.0024).
Outstanding Resource
*Excellent quality
The Sedimentation Control Commission
New developments located within 575' of the mean high water
Waters (ORW)
saltwater; and
has as many as 5 increased design
level of ORW class waters must meet, at a minimum, the Low
*Outstanding Fish
standards for projects in all HQW zones.
Density Options specified in the Coastal Stormwater
Habitat or fisheries; or
See Sedimentation Control Rules for
Management Rules for SA class waters. Specific stormwater
*High existing
Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds
control strategies for protecting ORW class saltwaters are
recreation; or
(15A NCAC 4B.0024).
developed during the process to reclassify waters with the
*Special Federal or
ORW supplemental classification.
State designation; or
*Part of a
State/National
Park/Forest; or
•High ecological/
scientific significance.
*ORW are also HQW.
*Stormwater controls are applicable only when a CAMA Major Development Permit or a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Permit is required and the
impacted area is more than one acre in size.
Source: General Overview of North Carolina Tidal Saltwater Classification System, DCM.
Draft Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 40 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analvsis orExistinQ and Emer.¢ing Conditions

1
F�
11
P,
Use Support Designations. Surface waters are classified according to their best
intended uses. Determining how well a waterbody supports its uses (use support
status) is an important method of interpreting water quality data and assessing water
quality. Surface waters are currently rated supporting and impaired. These ratings
refer to whether the classified uses of the water (such as water supply, aquatic life
protection and recreation) are being met. For example, waters classified for fish
consumption, aquatic life protection and secondary recreation (Class C for
freshwater or SC for saltwater) are rated Supporting if data used to determine use
support meet certain criteria. However, if these criteria were not met, then the
waters would be rated as Impaired. Waters with inconclusive data are listed as Not
Rated. Waters lacking data are listed as No Data.
In previous use support assessments, surface waters were rated fully supporting
(FS), partially supporting (PS), not supporting (NS) and not rated (NR). FS was used
to identify waters that were meeting their designated uses. Impaired waters were
rated PS and NS, depending on their degree of degradation. NR was used to
identify waters lacking data or having inconclusive data. The 2002 Integrated Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Guidance issued by the EPA requested
that states no longer subdivide the impaired category. In agreement with this
guidance, North Carolina no longer subdivides the impaired category and rates
waters as Supporting, Impaired, Not Rated or No Data.
In the White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, which was prepared by the
NC Division of Water Quality in September 2001, the waters within subbasin 03-05-
03 and 03-05-04 were rated as follows:
Table 21
Use Supp. Ratings for Monitored Waters
Subbasin 03-05-03
Use Support
Fully
Partially
Not
Not
Category
Supportin
Supporting
Su orting
Rated
Total
Aquatic
0 mi
0
0
21.6 mi
21.6 mi
Life/Secondary
Recreation
31,113.4
0 ac
31,113.4 ac
ac
25 coastal
25 coastal
mi
mi
Fish
0
25 coastal
0
0
25 coastal
Consumption
mi
mi
Primary
22,895.0
0
0
0
22,895.0 ac
Recreation
ac
25 coastal
mi
25 coastal
mi
Shellfishing
0
2.0 mi
15.7 mi
0
17.7 mi
Harvesting
26,683 ac
2,763 ac
4,700 ac
34,146 ac
Aquatic
4.4 mi
0
0
0 mi
4.4 mi
Life/Secondary
37,705.8
40.6 ac
37,746.4 ac
Recreation
ac
Fish
0
0
0
0
0
Consumption
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 41 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

Primary
33,283.9
0
0
0
33,283.9 ac
Recreation
ac
Shellfishing
0 mi.
2.7 mi
0 mi
0
2.7 mi
Harvesting
27,642 ac
1 10,132 ac
1,403 ac
39,177 ac
Coastal mi =miles of Atlantic coastline
Source: White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, September 2001
D. Flood Hazard Areas
The 100-year floodplain is land subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding
in any given year. Generally, the parcels adjacent to the shorelines of the Newport
River, North River, Taylor's Creek, Town Creek, and Turner Creek are the areas
within the 100-year floodplain. The eastern side of the Beaufort peninsula is the
most expansive area of floodplain. Approximately 41 percent of the Beaufort
planning area is within the 100-year floodplain. An additional 24 percent of the
town's planning area is within the 500-year floodplain. Floodplains are delineated in
Figure 2.
National Flood Insurance Program repetitive loss claims in Carteret County are in the
range of $2.5 million to $25 million according the Federal Emergency Management
Agency and the Federal Insurance Administration. The definition of a repetitive loss
property used by the Federal Insurance Administration is: "any insured structure with
at least two flood insurance losses, each of at least $1,000, in any rolling 10-year
period". During this 10-year period, Beaufort had 5 repetitive loss properties with 11
reported losses at a cost of $582,070.00.
E. Storm Surge Areas
Maps delineating hurricane surge inundation areas have been provided to the Town
of Beaufort by the Division of Coastal Management. Storm surge is the rise in sea
level caused by water being pushed towards land by hurricane winds. The storm
' surge inundation areas are based upon National Hurricane Center model maps and
have been recompiled by the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis. Surge inundation areas have been mapped to illustrate the extent of
hurricane -induced flooding based upon slow moving (forward velocity less than 15
mph) and fast moving (forward velocity greater than 15 mph) category 1 and 2,
category 3, and category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Storm surge areas for fast moving
hurricanes are shown in the Figure 2. The areas subject to storm surge inundation
delineated on this map are based upon the most intense storm intensity and storm
speed. Under this worst -case scenario, the entire Beaufort planning jurisdiction land
area is subject to flooding from a storm surge. More detailed storm hurricane surge
maps are available for review in the offices of the Town of Beaufort Zoning
Administrator.
Beaufort CAAM Land U.se Plan Page 42 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 11L• Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

Environmental Conditions Composite ;
Beaufort City Limits Q Class I: Minimal Hazards & Limitations
Beaufort ETJ Class II: Moderate Hazards & Limitations
I
Water Bodies Q Class III: Serious Hazards & Limitations t m
0 0.125 025 OS 075 1 I i
W.
I
0
� 1 � 1 MTH H,YtAOii CR
O� I NEP7'UNE LN�`�
pFi15S,•E.`N.. � ...�....�,` �.—.._�...—...—..�--
a WNW
Ci ..
tNCN E. :I DR
0R), STp F.PI. •\ `N� i JAGKSON L?R"_
Iwo
a y wD i
���•••''' I , � qN• FAMILY RD
/ yP� "1{t •`�
T`YL 1R FAR?rt RC
Hb.6n Cmek »CA %• yb <n
70 �J
10 s
J/ Ven bi cre
x� • ERo
o hL
c y �R5
Q
G•vl:le Cmek
'cIT l J. Smitli e-U� ��' - r.rM, Cmek
Feld
c
g8w `a p d� v
N� t
IV ST BEAUF T RD%Iva
-. Q � •7NE SY; -. v
tRViE4V UR ,
r ,,,. o-ee-it --- H nr,>rr Cmeh
-
k. o
yEj V J;OW Sl
i v e: r =y0 SEcoNo
S.\FRIT DR C
fJ OLF T ^ PREEDt,hi PA 12
Town T ti L J
Marsh".--•i_.__i�--
\\ 'Ta1ur Creek O O v
Ro
j Carrotl `r
Island
;\ a:,.I s,1,a; Rachel/
Carsol;Reserwe
l Back Sound lr x p—Ri,•e.
The preparation of this map wasTirSanoed•ia-partlhrough a grant provided by the North
Carolina Coastal Management Program. through funds pTovtded-by.ttte Coastal Zone %
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which is administered by the Office oiO�ean eFld__—___
Coastal'Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. - / 1 inch equals 2,850 feet
, 'r _ - - , I'll I I., i; IN
®�r Ill®j �
v41FtJ'����Ns
n _. t ^vap iii�--�1114
hhhµ� �__��„iiiNl'-K'1 Zc � 51ftY
\
r
r
I rVis_p
I
storm Surge
------
,
y�.
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
EA G:NEF giNC, PL�f: N'.N: APCNt'E Ci UflE
November 24, 2004
Wetlands & Other Natural Features
NPDES Coastal Wetlands
Natural Heritage Areas ® Beneficial Non Coastal Wetlands
Closed Shellfish Harvest Areas Estuarine Waters
Primary Fishery Nursery Area Exceptional Wetlands
Protected Lands
Storm Surge
Categories 1 & 2 Floodplains
Category 3 100 Year Floodplain
500 Year Floodplain
Categories 4 & 5
x
11
[Fio dplains
rat included in the composite evaluation.

I
1
Flooding as well as high winds would impact the Beaufort area during a major
coastal storm. The table below describes the impact of the various categories of
hurricanes:
Category
-
..22
Description of Hurricane Categories
Winds Storm Surge
Damage Expected
Category 1
74-95 MPH
4-5 Feet
Minimal Damage
Category 2
96-110 MPH
6-8 Feet
Moderate Damage
Category 3
111-130 MPH
9-12 Feet
Extensive Damage
Category 4
131-155 MPH
13-18 Feet
Extreme Damage
Category 5
155+ MPH
18+ Feet
Catastrophic Damage
While the identified hurricane storm surge inundation areas resulting from Category 1
and 2 hurricanes often parallel the 100-year flood hazard area shown in Figure 2,
there are some additional portions of Beaufort that are particularly subject to more
intensive hurricane -induced flooding. Such areas are generally located in the center
of the peninsula north of the intersection of US 70 and NC 101 and west of Live Oak
Street between Taylor's Creek and Turner Creek. The table below delineates storm
surge flooding in the Beaufort planning jurisdiction by hurricane category.
Category
Table
Storm Surge Flooding
Acres Inundated
% of Total
Planning Jurisdiction
Category 1 and 2
3,293.5
73.2%
Category 3
1,150.8
25.6%
Category 4 & 5
53.8
1.2%
Totals
4,498.1
100.0%
F. Non -coastal Wetlands
' Non -coastal wetlands include all other wetlands not classified as coastal wetlands.
These non -coastal wetlands are not covered by CAMA regulations (unless the
Coastal Resource Commission designates them as a natural resource AEC) but are
protected by the Clean Water Act. Consequently, the US Army Corps of Engineers
is responsible for regulating these '404' wetlands. Authorization must be obtained
from the Corps prior to disturbing such wetlands.
' As with coastal wetlands, the precise location of non -coastal wetlands can only be
determined through a field investigation and analysis. However, the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, through its National Wetlands Inventory, has identified the general
' location of wetlands. The National Wetlands Inventory Maps are available from the
US Department of the Interior and the NC Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The wetlands maps
are not intended to be utilized for regulatory purposes.
The north central portion of the Beaufort planning jurisdiction is the area where
freshwater wetlands are primarily concentrated. The general location of coastal and
Beaufort CA MA Land Use Plan Page 44 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section Ili: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

non -coastal wetlands is shown in Figure 2. Non -coastal wetlands account for
' approximately 15 percent of the total Beaufort land area.
G. Public Water Supply Watersheds
There are no public water supply watersheds in the Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
H. Primary Nursery Areas
Primary Nursery Areas are identified by the Marine Fisheries Commission. PNA
areas have been designated by the State as being highly productive for juvenile
habitat of marine species. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries is
responsible for preserving, protecting, and developing Primary Nursery Areas for
' commercially important finfish and shellfish. The NC Marine Fisheries Division has
identified Turner Creek as the only primary nursery area within the Beaufort planning
area.
I. Other Environmentally Fragile Areas
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve is the most significant designated
' natural heritage area within Beaufort. The islands and estuarine waters of the
Reserve encompass some 2,600 acres. Town Marsh, Bird Shoal, and a portion of
Carrot Island are located within the Beaufort planning jurisdiction. The general
location of Natural Heritage Areas is shown in Figure 3. Appendix F contains an
inventory of natural areas and rare species found in Carteret County.
' Areas with Excessive Slope and High Erosion Potential
The topography of Beaufort rises quickly from Taylor's Creek to a maximum
elevation of about 14 feet above mean sea level (msl). The shoreline along Gallants
Channel is similar; although, the elevation is closer to 8 feet msl. These shoreline
areas are subject to erosion and have been stabilized in many areas. In the region
between the Newport River and North River, the topography is fairly level with a
maximum elevation of approximately 25 feet msl.
Other Fragile Areas
Estuarine system islands are other fragile areas that are present in the Beaufort
' area. The shorelines of estuarine islands are classified as areas of environmental
concern. The majority of the estuarine system islands in the Beaufort planning
jurisdiction are within the Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve and Town
' Creek.
The water source for the Town of Beaufort water system is three deep wells that
draw water from the Castle Hayne Aquifer. Beaufort is within the 15-county Central
Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area designated by the Environmental Management
Commission. A capacity use area is an area where the use of water resources
threatens to exceed the replenishment ability of the aquifers. Ground water
withdrawals are regulated by the State and investment in alternative sources of water
is encouraged.
3.2.2 Composite Environmental Conditions Map
The environmental composite map must show three categories of land based upon
natural features and environmental conditions:
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 45 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
r
• Class I is land that contains only minimal hazards and limitations for
development which can be addressed by commonly accepted land
planning and development practices. Class I land will generally support
the more intensive types of land uses and development.
• Class II is land that has hazards and limitations for development that can
be addressed by restrictions on land uses, special site planning, or the
provision of public services, such as water and sewer. Land in this class
will generally support only the less intensive uses, such as low density
residential, without significant investment in services.
• Class III is land that has serious hazards and limitations. Land in this
class will generally support very low intensity uses, such as conservation
and open space. The following table delineates the environmental
features which are included in each land class:
Table
Environmental Features
Feature
24
Include. in Land Classes
Class I Class II
Class III
Coastal Wetlands
✓
Exceptional or Substantial Non -Coastal
Wetlands
✓
Beneficial Non -Coastal Wetlands
✓
Estuarine Waters
✓
Public Trust Areas
✓
Soils with Slight or Moderate Septic
Limitations
✓
Soils with Severe Septic Limitations
✓
Flood Zones
✓
Storm Surge Areas
✓
Wellhead Protection Areas
✓
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
✓
Protected Lands
✓
HQW/ORW Watersheds
✓
Based upon the environmental conditions assigned to each land class as delineated
in the above table, the overwhelming majority (94.6%) of the land area in the
Beaufort planning jurisdiction falls into Class III, serious hazards and limitations.
Class II lands (moderate hazards and limitations) account for approximately 5.4
percent of the Town's land area. No land area is classified as Class I, minimal
hazards and limitations. Land classes within Beaufort are shown in Figure 2,
Environmental Composite and Natural Features Map.
The Environmental Composite and Natural Features Map is a very general depiction
of the three land classes as defined above. The model utilized to produce this map
uses one acre of land area to delineate a pixel or cell on the map. Consequently, the
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 46 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

information provided by this map is intended to show generalized patterns and is not
' intended for permitting or regulatory purposes. Based upon an evaluation of the
individual environmental features included within each individual land class category,
it appears that soils with severe limitations for septic systems skews the composite
analysis since so much land area contains soils with severe limitations. However,
severe soil limitations for septic systems can be mitigated in areas where public
sewer service is available, as is the case within the corporate limits of Beaufort. The
impact of adequate infrastructure to overcome environmental limitations is
' demonstrated in Section 3.5, Land Suitability Analysis; Figure 7, Land Suitability
Map; and Section 4.7, Consistency with Natural Features and Land Suitability
Analyses.
' 3.2.3 Assessment of Environmental Conditions
A. Water Quality Assessment
' White Oak River Basin Overview. Preparation of a basinwide water quality plan
is a five-year process. While these plans are prepared by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, their implementation and the protection of water quality
entail the coordinated efforts of many agencies, local governments and stakeholder
groups in the state. The first cycle of plans was completed in 1998, but each plan
is updated at five-year intervals. Much of the information in this CAMA land use
' plan regarding water quality has been obtained from the DWQ and the White Oak
Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
The White Oak River Basin lies entirely within the southern coastal plain, and
' includes four separate river systems: the New River and its tributaries; the White
Oak River and its tributaries; the Newport River and its tributaries, and the North
River in the eastern area of the basin. The basin also includes the Bogue, Back,
' and Core Sounds, as well as portions of the Intracoastal Waterway.
Beaufort is within subbasins 03-05-03 (Newport River) and 03-05-04 (North River)
of the White Oak River Basin. Beaufort comprises approximately 0.22% of the
White Oak River Basin's geographical area. The Town's population comprised
2.58% of the population present in the river basin in 2001.
Table 25
Overview of the White Oak River Subbasins
Beaufortwithin the
Subbasin 03-05.03 at a GlanceSubbasin 03-05-04 at a Glance.
Land and Water Area (sq. mi.) Land and Water Area (sq. mi.)
' Total area: 228 Total area: 170
Land area: 168 Land area: 102
Water area: 60 Water area: 68
Population Statistics Population Statistics
' 1990 Est. Pop.: 11,404 people 1990 Est. Pop.: 8,514 people
Pop. Density: 68 ersons/mil Pop. Density: 83 ersons/mil
Land Cover (%) Land Cover (%)
Forest/Wetland: 59 Forest/Wetland: 35
Surface Water: 26 Surface Water: 40
Urban: 4 Urban: 1
Cultivated Crop: 6.5 Cultivated Crop: 23
' Pasture/ Pasture/
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 47 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
7,
L
Managed Herbaceous: 4
Managed Herbaceous: 1
Water Area:
Water Area:
Stream Miles: 18
Stream Miles: 6
Estuarine Acres: 34,723
Estuarine Acres: 39,498
Coastal Miles: 25
Coastal Miles: 0
Shellfish Harvest Acres: 34,146
Shellfish Harvest Acres: 39,176
Source: Draft White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, September 2001
1 Subbasin 03-05-03 (Bogue Sound and Newport River). This subbasin lies in the
center of Carteret County, extending from the Croatan National Forest to Beaufort
and Beaufort Inlet. With the exception of Newport, most of the development in this
subbasin is along the coast; Morehead City, Beaufort, Atlantic Beach, and Bogue
Banks. Most of the waters in this subbasin are estuarine with the Newport River as
the only major source of freshwater. There are 34,146 acres of estuarine water
classified for shellfish harvesting; 11,368 of these acres are ORW. The most
significant discharger in this subbasin is the Morehead City WWTP (3.4 MGD) which
discharges into Calico Creek.
There are two Outstanding Resource Waters in this subbasin. The larger area is the
western half of Bogue Sound, and the smaller is the swamp and salt waters of the
Theodore Roosevelt State Natural Area.
Subbasin 03-05-04 (North River, Jarrett Bay, Nelson Bay, and Core Sound).
This subbasin contains major waterbodies, including North River, Jarrett Bay and
Nelson Bay, plus the landward halves of Back Sound and Core Sound. Atlantic, at
the northern end of the subbasin, and Harkers Island, at the south, are the two most
densely developed areas within the subbasin. A large part of the subbasin is in
' cultivated cropland (Open Grounds Farm). Water quality in this subbasin is generally
high. Ambient monitoring data at one station indicated drainage from swampy areas
near Open Grounds Farm. Most of this subbasin is estuarine with freshwater
drainage from adjacent land. There are no freshwater streams in this subbasin.
There are 39,176 acres of shellfish harvesting waters in the subbasin.
Most of these waters (25,958 acres) are classified as ORWs in the Core Sound.
There are no coastal miles in this subbasin. The most densely populated areas are
near the Town of Atlantic in the northern part of the basin and Harkers Island in the
southern portion. The most significant discharges within this subbasin include the
Beaufort Fisheries facility (3.0 MGD) and the Town of Beaufort WWTP (1.2 MGD),
both of which discharge into Taylor's Creek.
' Land Cover. The White Oak River Basin contains some of the most biologically
significant habitats along the eastern Atlantic Coast, including longleaf pine, pocosin,
limesinks, freshwater tidal marsh and swamp communities, tidal red cedar forest,
and extensive marsh and tidal creeks. Only 1 percent of the White Oak River
subbasin is covered by urban use; while, 4 percent of the Newport River subbasin is
under urban use. Forests and wetlands account for most of the land cover in both
' subbasins.
Water Quality. According to the White Oak Basinwide Assessment Report, all rivers
' in the basin have periods of anoxia, as well as incidents of high fecal coliform counts
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 48 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Exisling & Emerging Conditions

1
and turbidity levels. Water quality problems in the basin include fecal coliform
bacteria contamination affecting shellfish harvesting. Fecal contamination in the
basin is largely attributed to nonpoint source pollution. Additionally, many of the
basin drainages are classified as nutrient sensitive waters. Nutrient loading,
channelization, habitat removal and degradation, beach closures and shellfish
harvesting closures are among the water quality concerns in the basin.
Basinwide Goals. The DWQ goals of basinwide management are to:
• Identify water quality problems and restore full use to impaired waters;
• Identify and protect high value resource waters;
• Protect unimpaired waters while allowing for reasonable economic
growth;
• Develop appropriate management strategies to protect and restore water
quality;
• Assure equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for
dischargers; and
• Improve public awareness and involvement in the management of the
state's surface waters.
1 In addition, DWQ is applying this approach to each of the. major river basins in the
state as a means of better identifying water quality problems; developing appropriate
management strategies; maintaining and protecting water quality and aquatic habitat;
assuring equitable distribution of waste assimilative capacity for dischargers; and
' improving public awareness and involvement in management of the state's surface
waters.
The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is a nonregulatory program
established by the NC General Assembly in 1996 to restore wetlands, streams and
streamside (riparian) areas throughout the state. The goals of the NCWRP are to:
• Protect and improve water quality by restoring wetland, stream and
riparian area functions and values lost through historic, current and future
impacts.
• Achieve a net increase in wetland acreage, functions and values in all of
North Carolina's major river basins.
• Promote a comprehensive approach for the protection of natural
resources.
• Provide a consistent approach to address compensatory mitigation
requirements associated with wetland, stream, and buffer regulations,
and to increase the ecological effectiveness of compensatory mitigation
projects
B. Impaired Waters
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. Listed waters must be
prioritized and a management strategy or total maximum daily load must
subsequently be developed for all listed waters.
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 49 of 138
' January 26, 2007
Section 111.• Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

The 2004 North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Waters List includes portions of the
Newport River, Wading Creek, Gable Creek in subbasin 03-05-03 and portions of
Back Sound and the North River, Gibbs Creek, Turner Creek, and Davis Bay in
subbasin 03-05-04. The impaired use is shellfish harvesting and the reason for the
listings is elevated fecal coliform levels. These particular waterbodies have been
listed as impaired since 2002.
C. Closed Shellfishing Areas
The North Carolina Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is responsible for protecting
the consuming public from shellfish and crustacea which could cause illness. Rules
and regulations following national guidelines have been implemented to ensure the
safety of harvesting waters and the proper sanitation of establishments which
process shellfish and crustacea for sale to the general public. Waters are sampled
regularly and closed if levels of fecal coliform indicate that harvesting shellfish from
those waters could cause a public health risk.
Closed shellfishing areas in the Beaufort vicinity include the impaired waters
delineated in the previous section. Closed shellfishing areas are delineated in Figure
2, Environmental Composite and Natural Features Map.
1 Land uses that potentially adversely impact shellfishing waters include the
conversion of undeveloped and underdeveloped land to more intensive land uses,
the wastewater treatment plant, industrial uses, and the intensive urban development
' in and near the downtown waterfront. Increased stormwater runoff from developed
uses also can adversely impact shellfishing waters.
D. Natural Hazards
Generally, severe thunderstorms producing lightning, high velocity winds, and hail
are common in eastern North Carolina. In addition to the hazards posed by
thunderstorms, seven categories of hazardous weather have been identified by the
North Carolina Division of Emergency Management: earthquake, landslide,
hurricane, nor'easter, tornado, severe winter weather, wildfire, and flood. As
described in the Draft North Carolina Natural Hazards Mitigation (Section 322) Plan,
each of the one hundred counties in North Carolina was categorized into one of three
levels of risk, 'Low,' 'Moderate', and 'High' for these seven natural hazards. The
table below indicates how Carteret County rates in terms of the risk of damage from
natural hazards.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 50 of 138
' January 26, 2007
Section 111. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

I
I
Table 26
Risk Level Rating .
Risk Level
Weather Event
Low
Moderate
High
Earthquake
X
Landslide
X
Hurricane
X
Nor'easter
X
Tornado
X
Severe Winter Weather
X
Wildfire
X
Flooding
X
Appendix G describes hazardous weather events that have affected Beaufort since
the adoption of the previous land use plan. Information contained in Appendix G
includes: type of event, magnitude, property damage, crop damage, and deaths.
In addition to the hurricane and tropical storms that have impacted the Carteret
County area since 1950, other major weather -related events include tornados,
thunderstorm wind and high winds, waterspouts, hail, winter storms, and floods.
Wildfires are a moderate risk for the Carteret County in general. Wildfires have
occurred in the Croatan National Forest and adjacent forest lands within the last 15
years.
Beaufort participates in the National Flood Insurance Program by adopting and
enforcing a floodplain management ordinance to help reduce future flood damage.
In exchange, the National Flood Insurance Program makes Federally -backed flood
insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners. As of December
2003, there were 646 National Flood Insurance Program policies in force within
Beaufort totaling over $115.3 million. According to loss statistics data from the
I Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the period January 1978 to
December 2003, 61 claims were filed and the amount of payments made totaled
approximately $311,100. The Town of Beaufort Hazard Mitigation Plan, approved by
FEMA in November 2004,. identifies and analyzes natural hazards, evaluates
vulnerability to natural hazards, assesses the town's capability to mitigate the effects
of natural hazards, and outlines mitigation strategies and policies.
E. Natural Resources
Environmentally fragile areas and natural resource areas that may be impacted as a
result of incompatible development are delineated in Section 3.2.1. Identified
environmentally fragile areas include AECs, flood hazard areas, storm surge areas,
and non -coastal wetlands. Natural resource areas include Significant Natural
Heritage Areas.
F. Sources of Pollution
Water pollution is caused by a number of substances including sediment, nutrients,
' bacteria, oxygen -demanding wastes and toxic substances such as heavy metals,
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 51 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

F�
1
I
I
chlorine and pesticides. Sources of these pollutants are divided into two general
categories: point sources and nonpoint sources.
Point sources are basically discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe,
ditch, or other well-defined point of discharge and often include discharges from
wastewater treatment plants or large urban and industrial stormwater systems.
Within the Beaufort planning jurisdiction, the major point source dischargers include
the Town of Beaufort wastewater treatment plant and Beaufort Fisheries, both of
which discharge into Taylor's Creek.
Nonpoint sources generally include stormwater runoff from small urban areas (less
than 100,000 population), forestry, mining, agricultural lands and other. Examples of
the types of land use activities that can serve as sources of nonpoint pollution
include land development, construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing
septic systems, landfills, roads, and parking lots. Fecal coliform bacteria and
nutrients are major pollutants associated with nonpoint source pollution. Unlike point
source pollution, nonpoint pollution sources are diffuse in nature and occur at
random intervals depending on rainfall frequency and intensity. Within the Beaufort
planning jurisdiction, the primary water pollution sources of estuarine waters are
estimated to be multiple nonpoint sources including: agriculture, forestry, urban
runoff, septic tank runoff, and marinas.
According to the White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan
prepared by the NC Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section in September,
2001, the activities that contribute to the closure of shellfish harvesting areas include,
but are not limited to, construction, urban stormwater runoff, failing septic systems,
and agricultural activities. Control of these types of activities includes a wide variety
of state agencies, local health departments, local municipal and county governments,
and private property owners. There is no prescriptive remedy to solve the problem of
closed shellfish waters; rather, it will require a great deal of collaboration and
coordination to achieve the common goal of protecting and restoring shellfish waters.
Areas closed to shellfishing in the Beaufort planning jurisdiction are delineated in
Figure 2.
In 1990, the Division of Water Quality reported findings of a special study of marinas
in coastal North Carolina. Eleven marinas were the subject of the study and five of
these were located in Bogue Sound. While the primary objective of the study was to
characterize the water quality of marinas relative to ambient waters, there was no
evidence that the marinas in the study were a source of pollutants to ambient
monitoring stations. Dye tracer studies suggested that the transport of pollutants
from marinas might be concentrated near shore instead of in open waterways where
the ambient stations were located. The report recommended that marina siting and
design use features which promote flushing such as locating marinas near inlets,
1 minimizing the restriction of entrance channels, and minimizing stagnant corners by
using rounded corners, level bottoms sloping towards the entrance, and avoiding
bends.
G. Construction and Stormwater Issues
According to the White Oak Basinwide Assessment Report, no development
threshold can be identified at present and it is apparent that closings throughout the
state have increased despite the management policies currently in place. The
Beaufort CAMA Land U.se Plan Page 52 of 138
January26, 2007
Section 11h Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

u
1-1
reasons for this are not clear. There are many aspects of the development process
that relate to factors influencing fecal coliform export from urban areas. These
aspects include size of disturbed area, length of non -vegetated stage, size of
vegetated buffer, amount of impervious surface, and design of sediment or
stormwater control devices.
Shellfish closures and draining developed areas may be related to buffers and
sediment control best management practices (BMPs) not being properly maintained
or ditching/piping being installed inappropriately. The density levels allowed without
stormwater BMPs may be too high or required buffers for low density development
may be too small. Buffers for high density projects or the cumulative impact of the
numerous small projects that are not subject to the regulations may partially relate to
closures. Closures may also be related to the lack of vegetative buffers or stringent
revegetation schedule during the construction phase. Most likely it is some
combination of these factors, but adequate information does not exist to confirm this.
DEH shoreline surveys often do not verify specific causes of contamination or
identify specific aspects of stormwater management or erosion/sediment control
which may need attention. Shellfish closures can also occur adjacent to agricultural
or forested areas. Animal populations (both wildlife and livestock), timber cutting and
associated land disturbance, and crop preparation all may contribute to fecal coliform
bacteria levels in adjacent waters.
H. Septic System Impacts
Septic systems are common throughout North Carolina. Most are located in rural or
small town areas that fall outside of a regional wastewater treatment plant's service
area. Septic systems are utilized in the portions of the Beaufort planning jurisdiction
that are located outside of the Town of Beaufort's sewer system service area.
Unfortunately, many citizens fail to properly care for their septic systems. Improper
maintenance leads to failing systems that may pollute nearby waters. A regular
maintenance program benefits the effort to preserve water quality. Regular
inspections by local governments can encourage proper maintenance.
1. Wellhead Protection
In 1986, Congress passed amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act that
established requirements for states to develop Wellhead Protection (WHP)
Programs. These programs were intended by Congress to be an integral part of a
national ground water protection strategy to prevent the contamination of ground
waters that are used as public drinking water supplies. The North Carolina WHP
Program is part of this national strategy. Currently, the Town of Beaufort does not
have a wellhead protection program.
3.2.4 Summary of Limitations on and Opportunities for Development
Land development activity within most environmentally fragile areas is subject to local,
state, and/or federal restrictions. Local land use regulations such as the zoning
ordinance, subdivision ordinance, and flood damage prevention ordinance include
specific standards for land development activities. Site -specific soil analyses are
required by the Carteret County Environmental Health Services to evaluate the suitability
of a particular parcel for a septic system if outside of the corporate limits. Encouraging
good site planning principles and best management practices can assist with mitigating
the impacts of land development on environmentally fragile areas.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 53 of 138
' January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

Development within the designated Areas of Environmental Concern is limited b CAMA
P 9 Y
regulations and development guidelines. Generally, the development standards ' for
coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas permit only water -dependent
uses such as navigation channels, dredging projects, docks, piers, bulkheads, boat
ramps, groins, and bridges. Priority is, however, given to the conservation of these
AECs. CAMA standards for estuarine shoreline development generally require that (i)
the development not cause significant damage to estuarine resources; (ii) the
development not interfere with public rights of access to or use of navigable waters or
public resources; (iii) the development preserve and not weaken natural barriers to
erosion; (iv) impervious surfaces not exceed 30 percent of the lot area located within the
AEC boundary; (v) the development comply with state soil erosion, sedimentation, and
stormwater management regulations; and (vi) the development comply with the CAMA
Land Use Plans. Specific CAMA development standards for AECs can be found in 15
NCAC 7H.
The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating non -coastal or '404'
wetlands. Authorization must be obtained from the Corps prior to disturbing such
wetlands.
Opportunities exist for the conservation of fragile areas and natural resource areas
through both private and public means. Private land trusts and conservancies are tax-
exempt organizations that acquire and preserve natural areas, open spaces, and
historical properties. Such organizations offer mechanisms such as conservation
easements to protect natural resources (natural habitats, places of scenic beauty, farms,
forestlands, floodplains, watersheds, etc.) while also providing compensation and
possible tax incentives to private property owners. Tax incentive programs, such as the
North Carolina Conservation Tax Credit Program, provide opportunities for property
owners donating land for conservation purposes to receive tax credits. State and local
governments may also accept land donations for conservation purposes.
Public land use regulations, such as conservation design subdivision requirements, can
be developed to assist with the conservation of environmentally sensitive areas and
open space as land is being subdivided into building parcels.
3.3 Analysis of Land Use and Land Development
3.3.1 Existing Land Use Analysis
The predominant land use in Beaufort is residential, accounting for approximately 22
percent of the total land area of the town's planning jurisdiction and almost 51 percent of
the total developed acreage. Public and institutional land uses comprise the second
largest land use category in Beaufort. The largest single use within the public and
institutional land use category is the Michael I Smith Airport which accounts for
approximately 55 percent of the total acreage in this land use category. Commercial land
uses make up approximately 13 percent of the developed land area and industrial land
uses, about 4 percent.
A considerable amount of vacant land remains throughout the town's planning region,
estimated at approximately 40 percent of the total acreage within the town's corporate
limits and its extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction. Figure 3 delineates the
existing land use patterns with the Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 54 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
Ci
1
1
L�
1
1
1
A. Description of Land Use Patterns within Watersheds
The Beaufort planning jurisdiction is located within three 14-digit watersheds (Town
Creek, #03020106030070; Turner Creek, ##03020106040010; and Wading Creek,
#03020106030040) as delineated by the Natural Resource Conservation Service of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Town Creek and Wading Creek watersheds
are located within the White Oak River Subbasin 030503 and the Turner Creek
watershed is within subbasin 030504. The boundaries of these three watersheds are
delineated on Figure 8, Future Land Use Map.
The Wading Creek watershed, the smallest of the three, encompasses a small amount
of acreage in the northwestern and north central sections of the Beaufort planning
jurisdiction. Properties west of NC 101 are primarily developed for low density
residential purposes. With the exception of a cemetery, all of the land east of NC 101
is agricultural or undeveloped.
The Town Creek watershed essentially encompasses the western one-half of the
Beaufort peninsula. Of the three watersheds within the Beaufort Planning Area, the
Town Creek watershed is the most intensively developed. The predominant land use
is medium density single-family residences and includes the residential areas
surrounding the Beaufort downtown area and west of NC 101. Commercial land uses
within this watershed are chiefly located in the Beaufort Downtown area, along the
Beaufort waterfront, and along the Cedar Street (US Highway 70) corridor.
Institutional land uses within this watershed include Carteret County and Beaufort
governmental facilities, cemeteries, and the airport. The majority of the vacant,
undeveloped land in this watershed is located north of West Beaufort Road between
the airport and NC Highway 101. Several vacant tracts are also located north of the
airport along Copeland Road.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page SS of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

B FA 1 I F"I R- T
Figure 3: Existing Land Use
CAMA Land Use Plan 10 November 23,2004
Legend
Public Water Access Existing Land Use
Beaufort Historic District Undeveloped
[--_-2'Beaufort City Limits Dedicated Open Space
Beaufort ETJ Agricultural
Residential
i. Public/ Institutional
Commercial
Industrial
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
rN,(NEFAIN�, --N-NG AR,,H:'ZCTi,R.-
1 inch equals 3,000 feet
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Mile
0
ti
4A
70
0
4'
IC
a6wl j sm,
X
. ....... ..
—J
T.— C,,;
Trrn.rI I
IF
70
J)
d/
Ji
. . .... ...........
J4 c'
M a r S ti
Carrot
Bird
I stand
Shoal
aChed Carson
s e v e
Back Sound
rne pep—t— of this was financed m p.M inrough a grant provided by ft. North
-olina Coastal Marogement PmigruM through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
tv,aq.—nt A,,A of 1972, ae amended, whid, t. ad—n .redl N the Office of 0—n and

I, J
The Turner Creek watershed includes the eastern one-half of the Beaufort peninsula.
The predominant land use is low density single-family residences and includes the
residential areas east of the Beaufort downtown along the Taylor's Creek, along
Lennoxville Road, adjacent to the US Highway 70 corridor. Commercial land uses
' within this watershed are located primarily along the Live Oak Street (US Highway 70)
corridor. The majority of the town's industrial uses
are located within the Turner Creek watershed along Lennoxville Road. Major
institutional land uses within this watershed include Carteret County schools, parks,
and the town's wastewater treatment facility. The majority of the vacant, undeveloped
land in this watershed is located north of Lennoxville Road and south of Turner Creek
' and on the east and west sides of the US Highway 70 corridor.
B. Description and Analysis of Existing Land Uses
Residential. The residential classification includes all types of residential structures.
The majority of residential uses in Beaufort are low density detached single-family
residences at densities of 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Such low density areas are
concentrated in the northern, northeastern, and eastern portions of the Beaufort
planning jurisdiction. Medium -density residential areas (3 to 5 dwellings per acre) are
located immediately surrounding the downtown area as well as north and east of the
downtown. Higher -density residential areas are generally small scattered sites and
area located primarily along the US Highway 70 corridor in the northeastern portion of
the planning jurisdiction.
Over 72 percent of the residential land uses are comprised of single-family detached
dwellings on lots generally ranging from 10,000 square feet to one -acre. As seen in
Section 3.1.2, of the 2,191 dwelling units in Beaufort in 2000, over 66 percent were
single-family residences, about 27 percent were multi -family dwellings, and slightly
over 6 percent were manufactured homes. Beaufort's proportion of single-family
dwellings is similar to that found in Carteret County and statewide. The town's
proportion of manufactured homes is much lower than the county and statewide
percentages. The overwhelming majority of recent construction has been single-family
residential. Of the residential construction since 1998, almost 79 percent has been
single-family detached dwellings and about 9 percent has been mobile homes.
The majority of future residential land uses are expected to be low density residential
developments on vacant land located in the ETJ, particularly the eastern and north
central potions of the planning jurisdiction. Plans for an approximate 630-acre mixed
use development, North River Club, were recently approved and the site annexed to
the Town of Beaufort. This proposed development, located between US 70 and NC
101, potentially will include 1,500 mixed density dwelling units, 30 acres of commercial
use, and a golf course.
' Commercial. Uses in this classification include highway commercial, general
retail, as well as office and service uses. Uses identified by this classification include
but are not limited to: restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, gift shops, and
' professional service establishments. Most of the commercially -used land is located
along Front Street in the Beaufort downtown and along the US 70 highway corridor. A
few commercial land uses exist on Lennoxville Road near its intersection with Front
' Street and the intersection with Safrit Drive. Also, there are commercial land uses
along the NC 101 corridor and near the Gallants Channel shoreline.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 57 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

F1
' The town's current zoning patterns indicate that future commercial areas are
anticipated to be located along the NC 101 and the US 70 corridors. Some change in
the current land uses to commercial land use is anticipated along these corridors. The
potential rerouting of US 70 will effect development patterns and possibly the rate at
' which redevelopment occurs. Some older residential structures in the section of town
west of Live Oak Street are being redeveloped as commercial uses. Many of these
structures have been converted to offices, bed and breakfasts, and specialty shops.
' Further conversion or demolition of older residential structures is expected.
Industrial Land Use. Industrial land uses exist on Lennoxville Road near its
intersection with Front Street and the intersection with Safrit Drive. The largest
industrial land uses are the Beaufort Fisheries and Atlantic Veneer properties on
Lennoxville Road.
Public/institutional. Public and institutional uses include recreational uses,
waterfront access sites, parks, government offices and facilities, schools, churches,
and government owned open space.
The majority of the town's developed land is contained within this land use category
primarily due to the large acreage of Michael J. Smith Field. Other land uses within
this category include all town facilities, the elementary and middle schools, churches,
cemeteries, and public access sites. The state-owned boating access is also included
in this land use category.
Agricultural. Land that is regularly under cultivation is considered agricultural land.
Agricultural uses are primarily located in the north central portion of the planning
jurisdiction between highways NC 101 and US 70. Portions of these existing
agricultural lands have recently been proposed for urban development, such as the
North River Club mixed use golf course development.
Forestry. There are no major tree farms or commercial forestry lands with the
Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
Dedicated Open Space. Dedicated open space includes land that is permanently
reserved for open space use. Traditional land uses are excluded in such areas.
Approximately 10 percent of the land area is classified as dedicated open space, the
' majority of which is located within the Rachel Carson Estuarine Research Reserve
located across Taylor's Creek from the Beaufort waterfront. Other dedicated open
space includes the wetlands area on the south side of Town Creek which is owned by
Carteret County.
Undeveloped. Land classified as 'undeveloped' is vacant land that currently is not
' under cultivation, used as a tree farm, or utilized on a regular basis for any other
purposes. Vacant, developable land is scattered throughout the planning area, but the
largest tracts are located southwest of Turner Creek and in the area between NC 101
' and US 70. Vacant lots are scattered throughout some of the existing residential
areas described above. The overwhelming majority of the vacant tracts are currently
zoned R-20, Single-family Residential. Two small vacant tracts (one on the south of
West Beaufort Road and one on the north side of Broad Street) are zoned R-8,
Medium Density Residential and one tract east of the airport is zoned R-10, Single -
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 58 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111.• Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
�1
11
�I
family Residential. The majority of the vacant tracts have potential for low density
residential development. Commercial development is anticipated on the vacant
parcels located in the Live Oak Street corridor. There is a potential for a small amount
of industrial development on the undeveloped tracts located on the east side of
Highway 101 in the vicinity of the area of the proposed Highway 101 relocation.
C. Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Areas
Beaufort's historic architecture includes residences from the 18�' to the 20' centuries,
ranging in style from plain, traditional cottages to elaborate Queen Anne and Neo-
Classical Revival houses. Architectural details for which the town is noted include
porches, roof lines, chimneys, and mantels. In 1985, the Town of Beaufort created the
Beaufort Historic Preservation Commission and delineated the boundaries of the
present local Historic District. The Historic Preservation Commission has adopted
guidelines that promote, enhance, and preserve the historic and architectural character
of the local Historic District. The boundaries of the Beaufort Historic District are shown
in Figure 3 Existing Land Use Map.
In addition to the Beaufort Historic District, the following structures are listed in the
National Register of Historic Places:
• Carteret County Home, NC 101
• Gibbs House, 903 Front Street
• Jacob Henry House, 229 Front Street
• Old Burying Ground, Ann Street
D. Estimates of Land Area by Land Use Category
Table 27
Land Use by Typ- and Acreage
Beaufort Planning Jurisdiction
0r-
Percent of Percent of
Land Use Acres Developed Acreage Total Acreage
Residential
1046.6
50.9%
22.2%
Commercial
256.2
12.5%
5.4%
PubliGlnstitutionaVRecreational
664.1
32.3%
14.1 %
Industrial
88.6
4.3%
1.9%
Agricultural
362.1
0.0%
7.7%
Dedicated O en S ace
413.5
0.0%
8.8%
Undeveloped'
1,888.1
0.0%
40.0%
Totals
4,719.2
100.0%
100.0%
Inch idac varant rtavalnnnhip land as well aS
land suhiect to flood hazard.
wetlands. etc.
Source: Estimated from existing land use maps prepared by The Wooten Company.
3.3.2 Description of Land UseMater Quality Conflicts
The following have been identified as existing conflicts in Beaufort:
• Development on the periphery of Beaufort of small -lot residential
subdivisions utilizing subsurface sewage disposal systems.
• Loss of natural buffers as land is developed into more intensive uses.
r
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 59 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
I
C�
1
1
• Land development occurring without a coordinated comprehensive
stormwater management plan.
• Intensive land development within 100-year floodplains.
• Encroachment of incompatible land uses in the vicinity of the Michael J.
Smith Airport.
• Currently, the Town is operating under a Special Order by Consent for a 4-
year period. During this time period, sewer flow allocation is restricted by
the SOC. Short term growth potential will be impacted by the restrictions of
the SOC.
3.3.3 Description of Development Trends
Beaufort is located on a peninsula that is bordered on the east by the North River, on the
south by Taylor's Creek, and on the west by the Newport River. The southern tip of the
peninsula contains relatively compact development generally south of Town and Turner
Creeks. Within the next five years, Beaufort is anticipated to grow mainly north of this
area and in the area between the US Highway 70 and NC Highway 101 corridors.
However, infill development and redevelopment of existing developed properties are
also expected to accommodate future short-term growth.
Most of the recent development in Beaufort has been primarily low density residential in
nature. Recent nonresidential development has occurred principally adjacent to the
major highway corridors, particularly US Highway 70. The Taylor's Creek and Newport
River waterfronts are essentially built -out.
Between 1999 and 2003, Beaufort average approximately 44 new residential building
permits per year, with the highest number being issued in 2003 and the lowest, in 2001.
The majority of new residences built during this time period were single-family, detached
dwellings. Manufactured homes accounted for about 13 percent of the new residential
permits issued. Section 3.1.2 provides data concerning the types and numbers of
building permits issued and the numbers of new subdivision lots created during the
period 1998 to 2003.
3.3.4 Projections of Land Needs
The following table provides short and long-term projections of residential land area
needed to accommodate the projected future permanent and seasonal population
projections. These land needs projections are based, in part, upon permanent
population projections for Carteret County prepared by the NC State Data Center
(Section 3.1.4 A) and seasonal and peak population projections made by The Wooten
Company (Section 3.1.4 B.). The 7B Guidelines allow the projections of land needs to
be increased by up to 50 percent to account for unanticipated growth and to provide
market flexibility.
The table also projects commercial, industrial, and public and institutional land needs
I through 2025. Nonresidential land needs projections are based upon the proportional
relationship of each of the nonresidential land use categories to total existing residential
land as demonstrated in the existing land use patterns evaluated in Section 3.3, Analysis
of Land Use and Land Development. Commercially -used land represents about 24
percent of the existing residential acreage, industrially -used land approximately 8
percent, and public and institutionally -used acreage about 25 percent. The
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 60 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
2000-2005
2005-2010
2010-2015
2015-2020
2020-2025
2000-2025
Projected
Permanent
Population
6,891
7,177
7,409
7,622
7,771
Permanent
Population
Increase
1,937
286
232
213
124
2,792
Permanent
Dwelling
Unit
Increase*
936
138
112
103
60
1,349
Seasonal
Dwelling
Unit
Increase**
118
17
14
13
8
170
Total
Dwelling
Unit
Increase
1,054
156
126
116
67
1,519
Residential
Acres Per
Dwelling
Unit***
1
1
1
1
1
Additional
Residential
Acres
Needed
1,054
156
126
116
67
1,519
Total
Residential
Acres
w/50%
Adjustment
1,580
233
189
174
101
2,278
Additional
Commercial
Acres
Needed
258
38
31
28
17
372
Additional
Industrial
Acres
Needed
90
13
11
10
6
129
Additional
Public and
Institutional
Acres
Needed
262
39
31
29
171
378
* Assumes 2.07 persons per household
'* Assumes 12.6% of the seasonal population will be in seasonal dwelling units
*** Assumes 1.0 acre per person
Nonresidential land needs projections are based upon the current proportional relationship of each category
of nonresidential land to residential land
,source: 1 ne Wooten Lompany, ✓uiy -,uuo.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan
January 26, 2007
Section 111.• Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions
Page 61 of 138

nonresidential land needs projections assume that these proportional ratios will remain
constant in future years.
It appears that sufficient undeveloped land and redevelopable tracts currently exist
within or on the immediate periphery of the current Beaufort planning jurisdictional area
to meet projected residential land needs through 2025.
3.3.5 Description of Conflicts with Class II and Class III Lands
Almost the entire Beaufort planning jurisdiction, including existing developed properties,
is classified as Class III lands as defined in Section 3.2.2 and as shown in Figure 2,
Environmental Composite and Natural Features Map. The following table shows the
' extent of existing development that is within areas containing natural constraints
(wetlands and 100-year floodplains).
1
Table 29
Existing Development Areas Containing Natural Constraints with Percent
Existing Land Use Category
Acres
Natural
Constraints
w/
Constraints
Residential
1,046.3
473.4
45.2%
Commercial
256.2
89.0
34.7%
Public/InstitutionaVRecreational
677.6
383.0
56.5%
Industrial
88.6
25.4
28.7%
Agricultural
1,002.3
262.8
26.2%
Dedicated Open Space
436.3
431.4
98.9%
Vacant
1,233.0
719.0
58.3%
Totals
4,740.3
2,384.1
Source: The Wooten Company.
Many of the potential conflicts with Class III lands can be mitigated through the provision
of public utilities and careful site planning. The provision of public sewer can alleviate
potential conflicts in areas where subsurface septic systems are currently being utilized.
Wetlands and/or flood hazard can be conserved as part of any development proposals
through such techniques as conservation subdivision design, buffering and open space
requirements, etc. Effective site planning techniques, buffering, and conservation of
natural vegetation can possibly ensure compatibility of new development.
' 3.4 Analysis of Community Facilities
' Subchapter 7B .0702(c)(4) requires that the land use plan include a community facilities
analysis that evaluates the existing and planned capacity, location, and adequacy of key
facilities and services that serve the community's population and economic base; that protect
' important environmental factors such as water quality; and that guide land development.
Section 3.4 provides an analysis of water and wastewater systems, stormwater systems,
transportation systems, and other municipal services.
3.4.1 Water System
Beaufort owns and operates its own water treatment and distribution system. Water is
drawn from the Castle Hayne Aquifer by three deep wells. The town's distribution
system includes 36 miles of water mains (sizes 2% 10"), two elevated storage tanks with
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 62 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III. • Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

a combined capacity of 0.4 MG, and one 0.3 MG ground storage tank. The oldest
portion of the water system is over 60 years old. The existing water treatment plant
facilities include two iron filter/softener water treatment plants. The existing Beaufort
water system is delineated in Figure 4, Water and Wastewater Systems Map.
The 12-hour supply capacity of the town's water supply wells is 0.828 MGD, while its
average daily use during 2002 was 380,800 GPD. The water system serves
approximately 2,500 users, 2,200 of which are residential customers. Commercial and
industrial users total approximately 300 but their water use constitutes only a minor
portion of the total water consumed. Approximately 98 percent of the system's total
service population of 4,500 is composed of year-round customers. The system has a
current available supply of 1.152 MGD and a total water treatment capacity of 2.304
MGD. Current average daily demand is 42 percent of the total available supply.
' According to the town's 2002 Water Supply Plan, the average annual daily use was
0.483 MGD with a peak daily use of 0.759 MGD. The average annual daily use in 2002
was 0.246 MGD for residential uses, 0.081 MGD for commercial customers, 0.0 MGD for
industrial uses and 0.014 MGD for institutional uses. Water used by the system
accounted for .069 MGD and there was .073 MGD of unaccounted for water (leaks etc.)
Projected average daily demand is expected to increase from the current level of 0.483
' MGD to 1.002 MGD by 2030, or to 24 percent of the total available supply. The average
annual daily use in 2030 will be 0.632 MGD for residential uses, 0.090 MGD for
commercial customers, 0.040 MGD for industrial uses and 0.080 MGD for institutional
' uses. Water used by the system is estimated to account for .080 MGD and there is
anticipated to be .080 MGD of unaccounted for water (leaks etc.) Average daily water
demand is not projected to exceed 27 percent of available supply through 2050.
' Preliminary projected water system demands for the year 2030 include:
Parameter
Treatment Capacity 18-hour capacity)
030
1.47 MGD
Average Day Projected Demand
0.7317 MGD
Maximum Day Projected Demand
1.1 MGD
Peak Hour Projected Demand
1.6463 MGD
Storage Capacity Required
0.35 MG
Source: Town of Beaufort Capital Improvements Plan, 2004.
' The town is anticipating the completion in FY 06 of a comprehensive water facilities plan
which will identify water system needs and provide a strategy for prioritizing and
' implementing recommended improvements. Several water system improvements that
are currently in the Town's Capital Improvements Plan include:
• Replacement of one existing well that is failing.
• 2 additional wells.
• 1-2 elevated storage tanks.
' • 1-2 surface water storage facilities.
• New water treatment facility.
These proposed water system capital improvements are currently estimated to total over
' $10.6 million.
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 63 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

'
3.4.2 Wastewater System
The Town of Beaufort operates a sanitary sewer collection/interceptor system which
consists of more than 23 miles of 6-inch to 12-inch gravity mains, 17 pumping stations,
and associated service laterals. All potential users within the corporate limits are
ETJ
'
currently served by the municipal system; however users within the are not currently
served by the town. Additionally, the North River Club (NRC), a planned unit
development located between Highway 101 and Highway 70 is within the town's
'
corporate limits and is to be served by the town's sewer system once the infrastructure
has been built. Section One of the NRC will be constructed in late 2006 and Section
Two is expected in early 2007. The sewer system also extends beyond the corporate
limits via remote pump stations connected to the primary system by force mains. Such
service is provided to Eastman Creek subdivision, Jarrett Bay Industrial Park, Parker
Boat Manufacturing, Capt. Kenny's BP gas station along Highway 101; and East
'
Carteret High School, and Duke Marine Laboratories along Highway 70,
Although the force mains currently extend well beyond the town's corporate limits and
the planning jurisdiction, accessing service to the line is currently limited to the entities
'
listed above and in limited capacity that is not expected to increase. Currently the town
requires annexation of a property as a precursor to provision of sewer. Eastman Creek
subdivision and the Duke Marine Lab have petitioned for annexation and are pending.
'
Jarrett Bay Industrial Park and other uses on Highway 101 were part of a federally
funded community development block grant (CDBG) economic development partnership
between the town and the county. East Carteret High School was recently built to
address the needs of the school system, and the infrastructure is jointly owned by the
county and the town. The town has reserved specific amounts of capacity for each of
the above mentioned projects, including Section one and Two of the NRC; however it is
not possible at this time for new projects of any size to tap into the force main that runs
up Highways 101 and 70.
Potential short term growth is currently limited because the town's existing sewer
collection system has been documented to suffer from severe infiltration/inflow. The
entire system recently underwent a phase 1 sewer system evaluation survey to identify
the most significant areas of the system will excessive inflow and to locate potential
' sources of inflow. Over 50 percent of the system was found to exhibit some degree of
infiltration and over 80 potential sources of inflow were identified.
' Because of the above stated problems with the sewer infrastructure, the town is
operating under a Special Order by Consent (SOC) from the State of North Carolina for
a 4-year period. During this period the town is . responsible for the
rebuilding/rehabilitation/ new construction of a majority of its sewer infrastructure. The
SOC severely limits the amount of new development that may occur in Beaufort in the
form of restricted state approvals for sewer line extension permits. During this time
' period sewer capacity is allotted in a limited fashion based on a policy set by the town
council in 2005. Over the 4-year period the State will give the town 300,000 gpd of
additional permitted 'flow' for projects that were permitted before the SOC, but had not
reached build -out and for a limited amount of new growth initiated since the SOC. New
growth over the 4-year period will only be located within the town's corporate limits.
The town owns and operates a secondary wastewater treatment facility with a design
' capacity of 1.5 MGD that discharges into Taylor's Creek, a Class SC -designated stream
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 64 of 138
' January 26, 2007
Section 111. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

Figure 4: Water and Wastewater Systems
CAMA Land Use Plan 0 November 24,2004
Legend
E-�, Beaufort City Limits Water Pipes by Size
Beaufort ETJ --- 1-4
Wells —5-8
Pump Stations —9-20
WVVTP —21
Sewer Pipes
Gravity
Pressure
V,V
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
1 inch equals 3,000 feet
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 We
Q,)
Q) Q)
Cl)
I
.... ......
70
0
irhaei
j
Field 4,
6
Ik
f
J,
T— I
70
Ri
2
b 19 12 2
P
Z", .. . . . ........
W f I
4 8 4,
Marsh
Carrot
Bird
Shoal I s I a n d
a C h e I
C a r n
e v
Back S I d
The prep' ralion or this min -ts financed in pal throogh a gram provided by the North
carotii. (:p7t.1 Management p"g."' th..ghf.,ds provided by fln. Coastal 7.n.
K,lan.9-1 Ad of 1972, as iillebded,.�bid, is admrcnislersd by the Offloe of ocean and
Coastal Resourceful aqemert. NabobaliDoft—cabcl AtirbosphericAdin—Vation,

1
I
of the White Oak River Basin. The wastewater treatment facility produces a Class B
sludge cake that is land applied by a contract hauler to permitted disposal sites.
Beaufort provides wastewater treatment for 2,390 sewer service connections. The
average annual discharge is approximately 0.783 MGD. The average annual discharge
for residential uses is 0.399 MGD, 0.131 MGD for commercial uses, 0.0 MGD for
industrial use, 0.023 MGD for institutional uses, and 0.230 MGD for plant use and
maintenance. The existing Beaufort sewer system is delineated in Figure 4, Water and
Wastewater Systems Map.
The normal hydraulic design of the wastewater treatment facility for the year 2030 is
projected at 1.3141 MGD, with facilities to handle individual day peak hydraulic loads of
up to 3.2853 MGD. In 2030 the land use breakdown will be as follows (based on current
percentage of total use): for residential uses is 0.829 MGD, 0.118 MGD for commercial
uses, 0.052 MGD for industrial use, 0.105 MGD for institutional uses, and 0.210 MGD for
plant use and maintenance. It has been recommended that planning for proposed
improvements to the wastewater treatment facility tentatively provide for a daily hydraulic
capacity of 1.5 MGD that is consistent with the current permitted capacity. In addition, it
has been recommended that the wastewater treatment facility be designed to
accommodate peak daily flows of 3.75 MGD.
A Wastewater Facilities Plan (Rivers and Associates, December 2004) was recently
prepared for the Town of Beaufort. This document identifies the town's wastewater
collection, treatment, and disposal needs and provides a comprehensive planning tool
for funding and implementing needed wastewater system improvements. The following
table provides a summary of the estimated cost of the recommended improvements:
Table 30 1
Estimate.
Cost of Recommended Wastewater System Improvements
Projected Capital
Phase
Recommended Improvements Cost
and III
Phase 2 Sewer system evaluation survey and gravity
$3,837,000
sewer rehabilitation
II
Immediate force main improvements
$ 736,100
IV
Wastewater treatment facilities, sludge disposal & effluent
$8,724,500
disposal
V
Future force main improvements
$2,342,800
Total
$15,640,400
Source: Wastewater Facilities Plan, December 2004.
The Town of Beaufort has already begun implementation of the sewer system evaluation
survey activities of Phase I. The gravity sewer rehabilitation construction (Phase III) is
projected to begin in 2007. Phase II force main improvements are anticipated to begin in
2006. Construction of the Phase IV improvements, including the construction of a
recommended tertiary wastewater treatment plant, is projected to be initiated in 2007.
3.4.3 Transportation System
The Town of Beaufort maintains about 20 miles of streets within its corporate limits.
Major thoroughfares and other streets outside of the town limits are maintained by the
NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The state also has maintenance
responsibility for all bridges in the area. Existing and proposed streets are delineated in
Figure 5, Transportation System Map.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 66 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

BEAUFORT, N
Figure 5: Transportation Systems
CAMA Land Use Plan 19 November 24, 2004
I
Legend 1
I �
— Major Roads j
-- Streets
i
Proposed Roads' iqf n RDR
Beaufort City Limits \ SO
Q
(MTH H4R8 TR OR
Beaufort ETJ �� NEPTLINE LN
r
—_�
IXO RUSSELL LN
O \o TIFF� UNIM EAST OR -_
�
ANY WA
STO EP1. �('�- JACKSON DR fa'RA �^rr I
THE WOOTEN COMPANY w�04
r NGINE EAING FLAN NI MG ARCS:IZCI 60F f OpK� Aw FAMILYRD 1�•
KEVIN CT
1 inch equals 3,000 feet FAN
4
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 eL�lO o�"
Mile
apt \
T YLOR FARM ft0
9
w I
3, c YS � t7r
Cr
Co
„1r
•i I
5 //J Uyy° Och
S� J So'th
POW"' ' Field
'v ,> ) RD
OLIV
RONNNE
',VvST8EAUF TRD
�? NE S
RL/EW OR
• T.—C- Y '? ,., Opa;`\.,, f,.. /....taro ('n«k.,..._✓�� 10
NNN' :rp RADIO IStn -- __` :...J._ U � �.^. �■ • % .. J
0 L
'4) I.
y - ',yi �+ 2 J' q C ECOND ST D■ �t �_ Y!
snFRir Da- m■ --'-.`.-" - `� `\ x�._%)
n �7 ti
a
oF
o m
TO
o
b _
Marsh
r '
I j in
8ird s� I aid
Shoal 1
Back
Sound
A h'en rwrr Rn cr
Thepreparalion of this rrahp was fnancetlin Pad lhragh agrant provitletl by the Nodh __--_"-----______- ~'-;\
Carolina CoasLi[ Maragement ProgmrR ihroughfuds provided by me Coastal Zone `----_.___
Management Pal of 1972, as amended, which isadmnistered by file Office of Ocean and --� ---__._ `�--�� l *proposed road alignments are conceptual only.
Coastal Resource Managemer/, National Oceanic and Almosphenc Administration. -

The North River Club development, a large mixed use golf course development will take
access from NC 70. All streets within the North River club will be public, although only a
small portion of the development has been platted out.
The Morehead City -Beaufort Thoroughfare Plan Study Report, prepared by the NC
Department of Transportation, was prepared in 1992. This study includes a
recommended thoroughfare plan to accommodate anticipated future traffic demands.
The study includes recommendations for improving both major and minor thoroughfares.
The Carteret County Transportation Committee, on which Beaufort had representation,
identified priorities and made recommendations for transportation improvements within
Carteret County. This committee produced a document in 1999 entitled Transportation
Improvement Program Priorities for Carteret County. The priorities of particular concern
to Beaufort are: Replacement of Gallants Channel Bridge, 'Northern Bypass' from
Havelock Bypass to Beaufort/Port of Morehead City, widening and improvement of US
70 from Beaufort to East Carteret High School, and a feasibility study for stormwater
improvements in Beaufort and Morehead City.
A. Proposed Major Highway Improvements
Transportation improvement projects, as determined by the NCDOT, are cataloged
in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program. There are currently two
transportation improvement projects underway in Beaufort. One project (R-3307) is
the relocation and multilane widening of approximately 2.2 miles of US 70 between
' Radio Island and US 70 north of Beaufort near SR 1303. This project is currently in
the planning stage. Design is scheduled to begin in federal fiscal year (FFY) 05.
Right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for FFY 07-08 and construction is scheduled to
begin after 2012. The Gallants Channel drawbridge will be replaced with a high-rise
bridge in conjunction with this project. Several routing alternatives were evaluated,
but the official transportation corridor has been decided.
A citizen's committee appointed by the Beaufort Town Board of Commissioners in
December 2004 recommended that the existing drawbridge be replaced with a new
four -lane drawbridge and that Cedar Street continue to be the designated route of
US Highway 70. However, the alternative was not evaluated as a part of NCDOT's
selection process.
The US 70-NC 12 Feasibility Study (FS-9902D) evaluated the possibility of
upgrading 30.7 miles of existing roadway from NC 101 in Beaufort to Cedar Island.
This project was recently upgraded and is currently identified in the Transportation
Improvement Program as R-4746.
Other proposed projects included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement
Program that are not yet in progress are:
• R-3624 NC 101 near Beaufort -Morehead City Airport, relocation of NC
101 to accommodate extension of runway 26; two lanes on a new
location; 2.2 miles at a projected cost of $9.4 million. This project was in
anticipation of the airport significantly expanding runway 26, which has
been scaled back and currently there is not a need to relocated NC 101.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 68 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

I
• R-4431 a new route from the Havelock Bypass in Craven County to
Beaufort, 33.1 miles at a projected cost of $173.5 million. The recent
annexation and development of the North River Club has necessitated
the relocation of project R-4431. A new route has recently been
researched and is under study. The impact of the new route is unknown
at this time.
• R-3437 US 70-NC 101 Connector. This proposed road would provide a
direct east -west connection between US 70 near the existing Pinners
Point Road intersection and NC 101 in the vicinity of the existing
Copeland Road intersection. The location of and need for this proposed
connector will be impacted by the ultimate route that is selected for the
US 70 realignment and Gallants Channel bridge replacement project (R-
3307).
The Morehead City -Beaufort Thoroughfare Plan Study Report also included
recommendations for improvements to the following streets in the Beaufort area:
• Leonda Drive Extension. This proposed extension of Leonda Drive from
its current terminus at Freedom Park Road northward to Sycamore Drive
would provide a north -south minor thoroughfare for the eastern portion of
Beaufort that would facilitate traffic between the Front Street area and the
US 70 area.
B. Major Streets with Capacity Deficiencies
The Morehead City -Beaufort Thoroughfare Plan Study Report identified portions of
NC 101, Cedar Street, Live Oak Street, Turner Street, and Front Street as having
capacity deficiencies in 1986. Streets with projected 2010 traffic volumes that would
be near or exceed practical capacities include the following:
• The entire US 70-designated route (portions of Cedar and Live Oak
Streets) through the Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
• NC 101.
• West Beaufort Road
• Turner Street
• Lennoxville Road from Live Oak Street to Leonda Drive.
• Front Street from Turner Street to Live Oak Street.
• Live Oak Street from Front Street to Cedar Street.
• Queen Street from Front Street to Cedar Street.
C. Traffic Volumes
As would be expected, the heaviest traffic volumes are on the major US and NC
numbered thoroughfares (US 70 and NC 101). The following table summarizes the
2002 traffic volumes on major streets in the Beaufort area.
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 69 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section Ili: Analysis of Existing& Emerging Conditions

1
1
Table 31
200- ..- Daily Traffic
Highway ADT Location
US 70
21000
Cedar Street east of Gallants Channel Bridge
15000
Cedar Street east of Turner Street
16000
Live Oak Street south of Lennoxville Road
17000
Live Oak Street north of Lennoxville Road
15000
Live Oak Street south of Steep Point Road
NC 101
7000
South of Taylor Farm Road
8200
North of West Beaufort Road
Turner Street
3700
South of West Beaufort Road
Lennoxville Road
3000
East of Live Oak Street
Pinners Point Road
450
South of Live Oak Street
Airport Road
230
West of NC 101
Source: 2002 Average Daily Traffic, Beaufort, NCDO7
D. Air Transportation
Commercial air service to Beaufort is available through Craven Regional Airport in
New Bern. Michael J. Smith Field, in Beaufort, offers full general aviation services
and fueling. The airport, which encompasses some 403 acres, is owned and
operated by the Beaufort -Morehead City Airport Authority. Michael J. Smith Field is
among the busiest general aviation non -towered airports in North Carolina. Runway
8-26 is in the process of being extended to 5,000 feet.
3.4.4 Stormwater System
The existing stormwater drainage facilities within the Town of Beaufort consist of a
system of piping, catch basins, and drainage ditches and swales. Currently, much of the
stormwater conveyed by the system is discharged into Taylor's Creek (see Figure 6,
Stormwater Systems Map).
Beaufort is in the process of exploring the benefits a stormwater management plan and
ordinance would provide in directing further development of its stormwater system. The
town is also evaluating the need for mapping the stormwater system as a planning and
maintenance tool. There is a concern that as new land is developed the increased
1 stormwater runoff will overload existing stormwater structures. The town intends to
explore all options available for handling its stormwater in a way that protects both
private property and the environment.
A reduction in off -site storm water will also assist in the reduction of infiltration into the
town's aging sewer infrastructure. Although the town is undergoing an extensive
upgrade to its sewer system, a reduction in off -site stormwater through various land use
controls and stormwater management techniques is another approach the town is taking
to address its near -shore water quality issues.
3.4.5 Police Protection
Beaufort receives police protection from the Beaufort Police Department. The Beaufort
Police Department, with a staff of 13 full-time and 2 part-time personnel, appears to have
adequate manpower to provide police services to the community. The current ratio of
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 70 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

R F
Fim irP f - Stnrmwgtpr 11;vstPm5
CAMA Land Use Plan December 5, 2004
0
Legend
14 Digit HUC Watersheds Elevation _ C�
— Major Roads High: 26 \ ,
— Streets �q, rtl�oq
0 " soy
—
Streams/Canals Low:-3' NotATHvnRE+cxa oR
NEWT; INE LN
OlO RUSSELL LN _ --
PQZ, 5 ':'fF.;/,JY SliN1 _DR
\ WA
THE WOOTEN COMPANY j s oC;,�N,N
rNilxE Efl;N6 PLANNING 4H�, H'.T ACT„A: A! PAAHL�. �..,
1 inch equals 3,000 feet f
111III
-" 0 0.125 02505 0.75 � _......m..._ �� " t�N� " �,�co•N
Male
TAYLOR FARM RD _\ 4 n
cwp1 .L
P_
WEE RGi _ 70 9
oil
hq
k RSl•:f.//,, :r. HU.
03�2610663004CC
�I:ER Rn
q C
k
G T�1fi�Y
, 11
_
"A'(
A/'n'FrZ51
•S�?h ,�, f\mil '.
\1 O
'�!
P G
S
<y
�
r
PTA..
a�NNr ao
��
�e ,>
°
4l5T0Y? iN "9t
-
S�PFAt,I [)Rr
RD
P�S� y...
rT
m01BK'".
'VINE s,-
i�A R.IrN [)R
c
2,gy`" Oxy Q. JC WILL0W ST
U
� VY
4
. i
vi
z
LENI�'()XVILLE RD
,n
far '
and
ohG;al
`Car,
14 dyt HU /
03020106030070
/ Back Sound
prenara;on of Uns n,pp wa; f:nan��Qd m pad to—qI,. a gran) prov;dwt by tre Nci.
--irolina Coastal Marc+gement Program, through funds pnwided by the Coaslal Zone
anage—A Act of 1972, as amended, which Is ad—slered by the Offiw of Ocean and
>t _._, A0,n;stration.

police officers to Town population is 1 full-time officer per 290 residents. National law
enforcement standards recommend two police officers per 1,000 people.
3.4.6 Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The Beaufort Fire Department provides fire prevention and suppression services as well
'
as emergency medical services assistance to the town and a fire district that
encompasses areas outside the corporate limits of Beaufort. The fire services area
extends to the North River Bridge on US 70, to Back Creek on Merrimon Road, and to
Core Creek on NC 101.
The department is staffed by 11 full-time employees as follows: 1 fire chief, 9 firefighters,
and 1 administrative assistant. Twelve volunteer firefighters complete the fire
department staff. The fire insurance rating within Beaufort is `5' and in the rural portions
of the service area '9S'. In 2003, the Department responded to approximately 200 fire
calls and responded as EMS assistance to another 100 calls. The department has
equipment consisting of two 1,000 gallon pumpers, one 1,250 gallon pumper, one 3,000
gallon tanker with a 750 gallon pump, and one heavy rescue equipment truck. The
equipment and water supply of the fire department appear adequate to provide fire and
emergency response services as well as maintain the current fire insurance rating.
The Beaufort Rescue Squad provides emergency medical services to the Beaufort
jRescue District which includes the Town of Beaufort and a large geographic area
extending northward along the Intracoastal Waterway to Adams Creek. The rescue
squad employs 9 full-time, 15 part-time, and 21 volunteer staff persons. The squad
operates 2 ambulances and 1 chase vehicle. The rescue squad anticipates the need for
additional equipment and personnel based upon pending development in the Beaufort
Rescue District.
1
3.4.7 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
The Town of Beaufort offers curbside trash and recycling pick up. Three full-time
equipment operators and 3 to 4 inmates collect solid waste on Monday/Thursday and
Tuesday/Friday schedules. Recyclables are picked -up on Tuesday or Thursday. Yard
waste service is also provided on Tuesday and Thursday.
Refuse is disposed of in the Tuscarora Regional Landfill located in the Craven County
and operated by the Coastal Regional Solid Waste Management Authority (CRSWMA).
According to a landfill capacity study prepared by the NC Division of Waste Management
in 2003, CRSWMA had 37.41 years of remaining landfill capacity under permit as of July
1, 2002. With an additional approximate 100 acres owned and available for future
permitting, the CRSWMA's Ten -Year Solid Waste Management Plan 2003-2013 (June
2003) estimates that the Authority can meet its solid waste needs for the next 50 years
or more.
Carteret County operates a system of greenbox collection sites throughout the county
portion of the study area. County residents are responsible for private disposal of solid
waste.
3.4.8 Recreation
The Town of Beaufort operates 9 facilities used for recreation and tourism purposes.
The facilities include four parks: Curtis Perry Park located at the intersection of Front
Street with Lennoxville Road, Grayden Paul Park at the intersection of Pollock Street
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 72 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

r
with Front Street, Orange Street Park at the intersection of Orange with Front Street, and
Randolph Johnson Park on the corner of Pine Street and Carteret Avenue. The town
boardwalk along Front Street and the Old Burying Ground on Broad Street are favorite
tourist attractions. The Town also maintains three public restroom facilities; one on the
south side of Front at Turner Street, second is in the 500 block on the south side of Front
' Street, third is at the Curtis Perry Park at the end of Front Street near Lennoxville Road.
A 25-acre Carteret County -owned park, Freedom Park, is located on Freedom Park
Road and contains athletic fields, picnic facilities, playground equipment, and restroom
facilities.
Five public water access sites are located within the Beaufort planning jurisdiction.
These access sites include:
• The Downtown Beaufort waterfront park at Front Street
• Curtis Perry Park at the eastern end of Front Street
• Topsail Park at the end of Orange Street in the downtown area
• Grayden Paul Park at the intersection of Pollock Street with Front Street
' just east of the downtown area
• Carteret County's Town Creek Water Access area off of West Beaufort
Road
Additional public water access and recreational facility improvements, totaling almost
$372,000, are planned for the following projects:
I�
1
1
I
• Front Street Boardwalk Rehabilitation
• Harborwalk at Turner Street
• Carrot Island Boardwalk
The Beaufort Waterfront Access Plan adopted in 2000 identified water access needs as
well as potential locations for additional public water access. Article VIII, Section 13 of
the Town's Subdivision Ordinance requires that waterfront subdivisions provide boat
docks or boat launching ramps every one -quarter mile along the shoreline.
3.4.9 Education
Carteret County operates three schools in the Beaufort area. Data for the 2003-2004
school year is provided in the table below.
' 3.4.10 Public Administration Ability.
The Town of Beaufort operates under a mayor -council form of government. The town
has a municipal staff of 39 employees that perform general administration, public works,
public utilities, planning, and building inspection services. The current staffing level is
considered sufficient to provide most municipal services necessary to meet current and
anticipated demand.
r
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 73 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

n
11
1
1
3.5 Land Suitability Analysis
Subchapter 713 .0702(c)(5) requires that the land use plan include a land suitability analysis to
determine the community's supply of land suited for development based upon the following
considerations:
• Natural system constraints
• Compatibility with existing land uses and development patterns
• Existing land use and development criteria of local, state, and federal
agencies
• Availability and capacity of water, sewer, stormwater management
facilities, and transportation systems
The primary purpose of the land suitability analysis is to provide the local government with
information regarding the best areas for development in order to guide the formulation of
policies and the preparation of the future land use map.
The following factors must be considered to assess land suitability:
• Water quality
• Land Classes I, II, and III
' Proximity to existing developed areas and compatibility with existing land
uses
• Potential impact of development on areas and sites designated by local
historic commissions or the NC Department of Cultural Resources as
historic, culturally significant, or scenic
• Land use and development requirements of local development
regulations, CAMA Use Standards and other applicable state regulations,
and applicable federal regulations
• Availability of community facilities, including water, sewer, stormwater and
transportation
The development of a Land Suitability Map is required as part of the suitability analysis. The
Land Suitability Map is intended to illustrate the degree to which land within the planning area is
suitable for development. The Division of Coastal Management and the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis have jointly developed a GIS-based land suitability
analysis model for analyzing and mapping land suitability. The suitability criteria, ratings, and
' weight factors used in this model to prepare the Land Suitability Map are delineated in the table
on the following page.
j
The Land Suitability Map produced through this modeling process classifies land as High
Suitability, Medium Suitability, Low Suitability, and Least Suitable. In general, over two-thirds of
the Beaufort planning jurisdiction is within the higher suitability ratings (High and Medium
Suitability). Lower suitability ratings (Low Suitability and Least Suitable) are found in areas
subject to flooding and in wetlands areas. Figure 7, Land Suitability Map graphically illustrates
the suitability ratings.
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 74 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section Ill. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
I
1
Ci
1
I
Table 32
L. . Suitability Model
-------------Criteria and Rating-------
Layer Name
Least
Suitable
Low
Suitability
Medium
Suitability
High
Suitability
Assigned
Weight
Percent
Weight
Multiplier
0
-2
1
2
Coastal Wetlands
Inside
Exceptional and Substantial
Noncoasta/ Wetlands
Inside
Estuarine Waters
Inside
Protected Lands
Inside
Federal Lands
Inside
State Lands
Inside
Beneficial Noncoasta/ Wetlands
Inside
Outside
1
4.348
0.04348
High Quality Waters
Inside
Outside
1
4.348
0.04348
Storm Surge Areas
Inside
Outside
2
8.696
0.08696
Soils with Septic Limitations
Severe
Moderate
Slight
1
4.348
0.04348
Flood Zones
Inside
Outside
2
8.696
0.08696
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
< 500'
> 500'
2
8.696
0.08696
Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites
< 500'
> 500'
1
4.348
0.04348
NPDES Sites
< 500'
> 500'
1
4.348
0.04348
Wastewater Treatment Plants
< 500'
> 500'
1
j 4.348
0.04348
Municipal Sewer Discharge Points
< 500'
> 500'
1
4.348
0.04348
Airports
< 500'
> 500'
1
4.348
0.04348
Developed Land
> 1 mi
.5 -1 mi
< .5 mi
1
4.348
0.04348
Primary Roads
> 1 mi
.5 -1 mi
< .5 mi
2
8.696
0.08696
Water Pipes
> .5 mi
.25 - .5
mi
< .25 mi
3
13.043
0.13043
Sewer Pipes
> .5 mi
.25 - .5
mi
< .25 mi
3
13.043
0.13043
Total
23
100.000
1.00000
Assigned weight: 1 = Important 2 = Very important 3 = Most important for development
'Inside' = physically located within the layer. 'Outside' = not physically located within the layer.
Sources: William B. Farris; Frederick Steiner, The Living Landscape; Carteret County Land Suitability Analysis; Kaiser et al,
Urban Land Use Planning; review by Onslow County Planning Department. Layers Not Used in Beaufort: Land Application
Sites and Water Supply Watersheds. The DCM model default settings were utilized in this analysis.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 75 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 111. Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

RFAI 1FrQPT Nr
Raure 7: Land Suitability
CAMA Land Use Plan November 23, 2004
Legend
Beaufort City Limits Land Suitability
Beaufort ETJ High Suitability ri 4
4,
Water Bodies Medium Suitability
Low Suitability
Least Suitable
A
THE WOOTEN COMPANY 7
ERGIIEENING
... .... ...
1 inch equals 3,000 feet
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
. . ... .......
z
70
0
A
A16
N
Ichael J. SSMi
7 NPA
\J
F ly r
Bird
Shoal
Back
Sound
F,)eprepay al,onolthis ,m pw fin raced inpart Uirwgtlagent pmdnibytteNorth
C,y hna Coastal Nlamge,haht Program, through furls th—dad by the Coastal Zo-
Ad .11972, --ndd, which -s d,a—l—d by the Office of C-11 -d
,IA M..g—dt, Nah-al Oceanic and Ahrosphenc AdrI—tralion

n
L�
I
Table 33
. . Suitability
Suitability Rating Acres Percent
High Suitability
2,126.5
44.9%
Medium Suitability
1,105.7
23.3%
Low Suitability
256.3
5.4%
Least Suitable
1,251.3
26.4%
Source: The Wooten Company
A comparison of Figure 3, Existing Land Use Map with the Land Suitability Map reveals that a
considerable number of vacant/under-utilized tracts are located within the areas with the higher
suitability ratings. Approximately 62 percent of the existing vacant land within the Beaufort
planning jurisdiction is outside of areas identified as containing natural constraints.
3.6 Review of Current Land Use Plan
Subchapter 7B .0702(c)(6) requires that the preparation of the land use plan update include an
evaluation of the community's success in implementing the policies and programs adopted in
the current land use plan as well as the effectiveness of those policies in achieving the goals of
the plan. The current Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan was certified in September 1997. A
summary of ordinance consistency, implementation actions taken, and overall effectiveness of
current land use plan policies follows.
A. Consistency of Existing Ordinances with the Current Land
Use Plan Policies
Beaufort's land use and land development ordinances include a zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance, and flood damage prevention ordinance. The Town considers
their existing ordinances to generally be consistent with the 1997 Land Use Plan
Policies.
Ordinance revisions/adoptions that have been made to ensure consistency with the
1997 Plan policies include:
• Adoption of airport height regulations for the Michael J. Smith Field
(Beaufort -Morehead City Airport) in 2000.
• A zoning ordinance revision in 2002 regarding landscape plans and tree
preservation.
1 . Adoption of an updated Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance in July
2003.
' B. Adoption of the Current Implementation Measures
Major implementation activities undertaken by Beaufort since the preparation of the
1997 Land Use Plan include:
• Adoption of a Parks and Recreation Master Plan in 1997.
• Approval of the Gallants Channel Bridge/US 70 Transportation Corridor
Study and Impact Analysis in 1997.
' • Adoption of a Strategic Growth Plan in October 1999.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 77 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

1
1
• Development of Transportation Improvement Program Priorities for the
2002-2008 TIP.
• Adoption of a Waterfront Access Plan in 2000.
• Annexation of the airport property in 2001.
' • Approval of special legislation in June 2003 regarding satellite
annexation.
• Approval of a Utility Service Area Boundary with Carteret County in 2003.
C. Effectiveness of the Current Policies
Beaufort considers that their current Land Use Plan policies are generally achieving
the desired land use patterns and protecting natural systems. However, additional
' and/or revised policies are needed to ensure continued effective land use planning
and protection of fragile natural environments. General policy areas that will be
considered for revision of existing policies or development of new policies include:
• Stormwater management.
• Land development principles and techniques to better ensure land use
1 compatibility with land suitability.
• Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination.
d
fl
I
I
11
ri
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 78 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section III: Analysis of Existing & Emerging Conditions

u
SECTION IV PLAN FOR THE FUTURE
This section of the Plan is organized in accordance with the requirements of Subchapter 713
.0702(d). Section IV includes goals, land use and development policies, and a future land use
map. This portion of the Plan is intended to guide the development and use of land within the
Beaufort planning jurisdiction in a manner that achieves the community's goals as well as the
goals of the Coastal Area Management Act program.
Within this section specific definition of terms used in the goals and policies are as follows:
' Continue: Follow past and present procedures to maintain desired goal, usually with Town staff
involved at all levels from planning to implementation.
Encourage: To stimulate or foster a particular condition through direct or indirect action the
private sector or through Town regulation, staff recommendation and decisions.
Enhance: Improve existing conditions by increasing the quantity or quality of desired features or
current regulations and decisions towards a desired state through the use of policies and Town
staff involved at all levels of planning. This could include financial support.
Implement. Actions to guide the accomplishment of the Plan recommendations.
Promote: Advance the desired state through the use of Town policies and codes and Planning
Boards and staff activity at all levels of planning. This may include financial support.
' Protect: Guard against a deterioration of the desired state through the use of Town policies and
regulations, staff, and, if needed, financial assistance.
Provide: Take the lead role in supplying the needed financial and staff support to achieve the
desired goal. The Town is typically involved in all aspects from planning to implementation to
maintenance.
Support. Supply the needed staff support, policies, and financial assistance at all levels to
achieve the desired goal.
Work. Cooperate and act in a manner through the use of Town staff, actions, and policies to
create the desired goal.
' During the course of the preparation of the land use plan update, specific issues have been
identified that the Town's goals and policies strive to address. The following table summarizes,
by CRC land use plan management topic, those issues.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 79 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV. Plan.jor the Future

11
Table 34
Land Use Issues and ..-Topics
Management
Topic Issue
Public Water Providing for public water access to all segments of the community, including
Access persons with disabilities.
Development of comprehensive policies that provide access opportunities for the
public along the shoreline within the planning jurisdiction.
Land Use
Development of local development policies that balance protection of natural
Compatibility
resources and fragile areas with economic development.
Development of policies that provide clear direction to assist local decision making
and consistency findings for zoning, divisions of land, and public and private
ro'ects.
Compatibility of Town land use regulations in future municipal utility service areas.
Development of land use and development policies that minimize adverse impacts
on Areas of Environmental Concern AECs and which support overall CAMA goals.
Infrastructure
Establishment of service area boundaries for existing and future infrastructure
Development of infrastructure service policies and criteria consistent with future land
Carrying Capacity
needs projections
Correlating future land use map categories with existing and planned infrastructure
such as water, sewer, and transportation facilities
Ensuring that public infrastructure systems are appropriately sized, located, and
managed so that the quality and productivity of AECs and other fragile areas are
protected or restored
Natural Hazard
Development of policies that minimize threats to life, property, and natural resources
Areas
resulting from land development located in or adjacent to hazard areas such as
those subject to erosion, high winds, storm surge, flooding, or sea level rise.
Development of location, density, and intensity criteria for new, existing
development, and redevelopment (including public facilities and infrastructure) so as
to avoid or better withstand natural hazards.
Ensuring that existing and planned development is coordinated with existing and
planned evacuation infrastructure.
Water Quality
Development of policies to prevent or control nonpoint source discharges (sewage
and storm water) such as impervious surface limits, vegetated riparian buffers,
wetlands protection, etc.
Establishment of policies and land use categories for protecting open shellfishing
waters and restoring closed shellfishing waters.
Adoption of policies for coastal waters within the planning jurisdiction to help ensure
that water quality is maintained if not impaired and improved if impaired.
Areas of Local
Identify and address local concerns and issues, such as cultural and historic areas,
Concern
scenic areas, economic development, or general health and human service needs.
4.1 Land Use and Development Goals
' The formulation of land use and development goals is based upon Beaufort's evaluation of its
identified concerns and aspirations (Section II) and the needs and opportunities identified in the
analysis of existing and emerging conditions (Section III). These land use plan goals were
formulated after a review and analysis of the goals and objectives contained in the 1997 Town
of Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan (see Appendix B) and the Coastal Resource Commission
(CRC) management goals and planning objectives (see Appendix K). Delineation of goals is a
foundation upon which policy statements can be built.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 80 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV. • Plan, for the Future

11
i
The following table summarizes the land use and development goals, organized by CRC land
use plan management topic, that have been formulated by Beaufort.
Table
Land Use . Development Goals
Management Topic Beaufort Land Use and Development Goals
Public Water Access
Provide adequate opportunities for public access to coastal waters
Land Use
Balance growth and development and conservation/preservation of natural
Compatibility
resources
Promote land use and public infrastructure development that is compatible with
land suitability as well as capabilities to provide requisite public services
Promote land use and land development compatible with the functional purposes
of Areas of Environmental Concern
Infrastructure
Promote land use and public infrastructure development that is compatible with
Carrying Capacity
land suitability as well as capabilities to provide requisite public services
Natural Hazard Areas
Conserve and maintain areas that help protect against natural hazards
Water Quality
Maintain and enhance the water quality of coastal waters
Areas of Local
Preserve historic and cultural resources
Concern
Ensure compatible development along the Beaufort waterfront
Provide a variety of housing opportunities
Promote diversified economic development
Protect existing waterfront vistas in the Town of Beaufort
4.2 Land Use and Development Policies
The formulation of land use and development policies is based upon a review and analysis of
policy statements contained in the 1997 Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan (see Appendix H for a
summary of policies from the former plan); an evaluation of identified concerns and aspirations
(Section II) and the needs and opportunities identified in the analysis of existing and emerging
conditions (Section III); input from the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee, local planning board,
and elected officials; and input obtained through citizen participation efforts including public
informational meetings, public forums, and Land Use Plan Advisory Committee meetings.
Table 36
Land Use and Development Policies
4.2.1. P_ ublie Access to Public Trust Waters
Policy 1. The Town of Beaufort will provide a variety of opportunities for
access to public trust waters to all segments of the community, including
persons with disabilities.
Policy 2. Beaufort supports the state's shoreline access policies as set forth
in NCAC Chapter 15A, Subchapter 7M and will implement the goals and
recommendations set forth in the town's Waterfront Access Plan.
Policy 3. Beaufort supports public access to Radio Island shoreline areas
and coordination of such access with Morehead City.
Policy 4. Continue to require, through Article Vill, Section 13 of the
Subdivision Ordinance, that waterfront subdivisions provide boat docks or
boat launching ramps every one -quarter mile along the shoreline.
4:2.2 : Land.Use'Compatibility'
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 81 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV. • Plan.for the Future

Table
Land Use . Development Policies
. Mana ement Topic: Policy.
Policy 1. Beaufort will ensure that land use and development activities
provide a balance between economic development needs and protection of
natural resources and fragile environments.
Policy 2. Beaufort will support growth and development at the densities
specified in the Future Land Use Map land classifications as delineated in
Section 4.5 of this plan.
Policy 3. In order to preserve natural vegetation and scenic views, no
buildings or houses or structures, except residential docks or piers, will be
erected on the south side of Front Street outside of the designated urban
waterfront.
Policy 4. Beaufort opposes private development on sound and estuarine
islands located within its planning jurisdiction. The Town supports public
access facilities and other development as outlined in Policy 5 below on
sound and estuarine islands.
Policy 5. Beaufort will support the policies for the management of the
Rachel Carson Reserve, Carrot Island, and Town Marsh as identified in the
North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan.
This includes, but is not limited to, the construction of scientific monitoring
devices and associated structures, structures for environment protection
purposes, and other construction necessary to the management of the
reserve. The town also approves the current policy of maintaining a viable
population of feral horses on the property.
Policy 6. Residential, commercial and industrial development should be
allowed in coastal wetlands which is consistent with 15A NCAC 7H and the
policies contained in this plan.
Policy 7. Only commercial and industrial uses that are water dependent and
which cannot function elsewhere or are supportive of commercial fishing will
be allowed in conservation -classified areas. Examples of such uses would
include but not necessarily be limited to commercial fishing and fish
processing, marinas consistent with the policies of this plan, boat repair and
construction facilities, any business dependent upon natural salt water as a
resource, and restaurants that do not extend into or over estuarine waters
and/or public trust waters. All uses must be consistent with established
zoning.
Policy 8. New industrial sites should be located where they may be
connected to municipal/central water and sewer services.
Policy 9. Industries not dependent on commercial fishing which are noxious
by reason of the emission of smoke, odor, dust, glare, noise, and vibrations,
and those which deal primarily in hazardous products such as explosives,
should be located away from population centers and sensitive natural areas.
Policy 10. New industrial development and/or industrial zoning should not
infringe on established residential development.
Policy 11. Coordinate all development activity with appropriate Carteret
County and state regulatory personnel, and in particular, with the Carteret
County Sanitarian.
Policy 12. Coordinate with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the
regulation/enforcement of the 404 wetlands permit process.
4.2.3 Infrastructure Carrying
Capacity
Policy 1. Beaufort will coordinate the establishment of service area
boundaries for existing and future water and sewer infrastructure with Carteret
Countv and other utility providers.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 82 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 1V: Plan. for the Future

1
5
�
Table 36
Land Use an. Development Policies
Mana ement To is Polic
Policy 2. Beaufort will ensure that public infrastructure systems are sized,
located and managed in accordance with the need to protect or restore natural
resources and fragile environments.
Policy 3. The Town supports the implementation of the system
improvements recommended in the Town of Beaufort Wastewater Facilities
Plan.
Policy 4. The Town will permit the construction of package treatment plants
located in the ETJ which are approved and permitted by the State Division of
Environmental Management. Plants must be designed for future connection
to the municipal WWTP. The Town, however, opposes the installation of
package treatment plants and septic tanks or discharge of waste in any
areas classified as coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands (404), or natural
heritage areas.
Policy 5. Beaufort will work cooperatively with Carteret County to provide a
ear -round recreation program.
Policy 6. The town requires that all existing and new residential and
commercial development located within the town limits to be connected to
both the town water and sewers stems.
Policy 7. The town will allow the installation of private wells within the
corporate limits for irrigation only.
Policy 8. Beaufort will support the development of central sewer service
throughout its incorporated area and will develop a policy to control
extending sewer service to areas within its unincorporated planning
jurisdiction.
Policy 9. Beaufort supports Carteret County's participation in a regional
multi -county approach to solid waste management. This includes disposal of
waste in the Tri-County Regional Landfill.
Policy 10. The town will support efforts to educate people and businesses
on waste reduction and recycling. The town supports recycling by all users
of the Tri-County Landfill and supports setting up practical collection
methods and education efforts to achieve a high degree of county -wide
recycling.
Policy 10. Beaufort supports the placement of recycling -centers, within
public and commercial land classifications.
Policy 12. Beaufort supports implementation of the following land
transportation improvements:
• Replacement of the drawbridge between Morehead City and
Beaufort with a medium height 4-lane drawbridge. A medium height
bridge is considered to be between 40-45 feet.
• Improvements to US 70.
• A connector between NC 101 and US 70 (the corridor for this road
has not yet been determined).
• Utilize Orange and Turner Streets as a one-way pair providing
access to the waterfront.
• Elimination of the `Y' intersection with NC 101 and US 70.
• A minor thoroughfare to connect Steep Point Road just east of US
70 and Mulberry Street at its intersection with Ocean Street.
• Addition of a turn lane to facilitate traffic flow and safety at the US
Highway 70 intersection and Tiller School.
4 2.4 Natural Hazard Areas
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 83 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan.for the Future

Table
Land Use . Development Policies
Management Topic Polic
Policy 1. Beaufort will conserve the natural resources and fragile
environments that provide protection from such natural hazards as floods and
storm surges.
Policy 2. Beaufort will minimize the threat to life, property, and natural
resources that may result from land use and development within or adjacent to
identified natural hazard areas.
Policy 3. Beaufort will continue to coordinate all development within the
special flood hazard area with the town's Inspections Department, North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management, FEMA, and the U.S. Corps of
Engineers.
Policy 4. Beaufort will implement strategies recommended by the hazard
mitigation plan.
Policy 5. The town will implement its storm hazard mitigation post -disaster
recovery plan to control redevelopment.
4.2.5 Water Quality
Policy 1. Beaufort will establish land use and development policies to help
ensure that water quality in coastal wetlands, rivers, streams, and estuaries is
maintained if not impaired and improved if impaired.__
Policy 2. The town will support existing state regulations relating to
stormwater runoff resulting from development and will investigate and
pursue adopting even more stringent stormwater regulations where it is clear
that existing state regulations are inadequate to protect the receiving waters
from significant pollution.
Policy 3. The Town of Beaufort supports the development of a town -wide
stormwater management plan.
Policy 4. The Town of Beaufort Building Inspections Department will
coordinate building inspections with state and federal regulations governing
underground storage tanks and will endeavor to advise building permit
applicants of those regulations.
Policy 5. Beaufort supports developing a wellhead protection program to
manage land use in the vicinity of public wellheads to help prevent the
contamination of the public water supply.
Policy 6. The town will support the Division of Environmental Management
stormwater runoff retention permitting process.
Policy 7. Beaufort supports and encourages use of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service 'Best Management Practices' program.
Policy 8. Beaufort objects to any discharge of water from aquaculture
activities that will degrade in anyway the receivin waters.
Policy 9. Beaufort objects to withdrawing water from aquifers or surface
sources if such withdrawal will endanger water quality or water supply from
the aquifers or surface sources.
Policy 10. Beaufort opposes any additional point source discharges of
pollution into primary nursery areas and shellfishing areas. In addition,
Beaufort reserves the right to review and comment on the approval of
outfalls on a case -by -case basis.
4.2.61 Areas of EnvironmentalConcern',
Policy 1. The Town of Beaufort supports state and federal law regarding land
use and development in AECs.
Coastal Wetlands
Policy 2. Beaufort will only permit uses in coastal wetlands which are
authorized by 15A NCAC 7H.
Estuarine Waters and
Policy 3. Beaufort supports the use standards for estuarine and public trust
Public Trust Areas
areas asspecified in 15A NCAC .0207.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 84 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section !V Plan. for the Future

F]
Table
F]
Land Use . Development Policies
Mana ement To is Policy.
Policy 4. Beaufort will allow the construction of open water and upland
marinas within its planning jurisdiction which satisfy the use standards for
marinas asspecified in 15A NCAC 7H.
Policy 5. Beaufort will allow construction of dry stack storage facilities for
boats associated with marinas.
Policy 6. Construction of boat ramps, piers, and bulkheads within
conservation -designated areas will be allowed if 15A NCAC 7H use
standards and local ordinances are met.
Policy 7. Beaufort supports the state's minimum use standards for the
regulation of floating structures.
Policy 8. The town supports the development of mooring fields in
coordination with and with assistance from the appropriate state agencies.
General Policy 9. Beaufort encourages aquaculture activities which meet applicable
federal, state and local policies and permit requirements and which do not
alter significantly and negatively the natural environment of conservation-
designaled areas.
Policy 10. Beaufort opposes the utilization of off -road vehicles in any areas
classified as coastal wetlands and in the entire Rachel Carson Sanctua .
4.2. 7''Areas of Local Concem .
Policy 1. Beaufort will support the technical requirements and state
program approval for underground storage tanks (40 CFR, Parts 280 and
281), and any subsequent state regulations concerning underground storage
tanks adopted during the planning period.
Policy 2. Beaufort encourages the establishment of appropriate
environmental and operational safeguards for all development and port
expansions on Radio Island. Beaufort opposes the storage of any non -fuel
hazardous materials on Radio Island.
Policy 3. Beaufort supports development of sound attenuation zoning
requirements for the areas affected by the aircraft operating patterns at the
Michael J. Smith Field and the coordination of such zoning requirements with
Carteret County.
Policy 4. Beaufort shall coordinate all housing code
enforcementiredevelopment projects which involve any historically significant
structure with the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to ensure that any
significant architectural details or buildings are identified and preserved.
Policy 5. Beaufort will coordinate all public works projects that entail
significant excavation with the NC Division of Archives and History, to ensure
the identification and preservation of significant archaeological sites.
Policy 6. Beaufort will continue to support and protect the town's Historic
District and the Taylor's Creek waterfront area.
Policy 7. Beaufort will support and cooperate with efforts by the Corps of
Engineers and state officials to maintain channels.
Policy 8. The town will provide assistance in maintaining the waterway by
helping to obtain or providing dredge spoil sites.
Policy 9. Beaufort will support projects that will increase public access to
shoreline areas.
Policy 10. Beaufort will continue to support the activities of the North
Carolina Division of Travel and Tourism; specifically, the monitoring of
tourism -related industry, efforts to promote tourism -related commercial
activity, and efforts to enhance and provide shoreline resources.
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 85 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan. for the Future
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 85 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan. for the Future

I
4.3 Analysis of the Impact of Policies on Management Topics
The following table summarizes the general impact of the Beaufort land use and development
policies on the CRC land use plan management topics.
Table 37
Impact of Local Policies on CRC Land Use Plan Management Topics
CRC Land Use Plan Mana ement To ics
Policies
Public
Land Use
Infrastructure
Natural
- Water
Local
Water '
Compatibility
Carrying
Hazard. ;
Quality
Areas of ,
Access
Ca a Ity
Areas
Concern
Public Water
Positive
Positive
Access
Land Use
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Compatibility
Infrastructure
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Carrying Ca acit
Natural Hazard
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Areas
Water Quality
Positive
Positive
Positive
Areas of
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Environmental
Concern
Areas of Local
Positive
Positive
Positive
Positive
Concern
Note: Blank space in table indicates neutral impact. All local policies have been determined to have
either a positive or neutral impact on CRC management topics. No specific actions or programs are
required to mitigate negative impacts.
A more detailed analysis of the impact of Beaufort's policies on the CRC land use plan
management topics is provided below.
4.3.1 Public Water Access
Five public water access points currently exist within the Beaufort planning jurisdiction. Article
VIII, Section 13 of the Town's Subdivision Ordinance requires that waterfront subdivisions
provide boat docks or boat launching ramps every one -quarter mile along the shoreline.
The Beaufort Waterfront Access Plan, adopted in 2000, identifies water access needs and
potential locations for additional public water accesses. Additional water access improvements
are scheduled for FY 05. The Town's policies support the implementation of the Waterfront
Access Plan.
The Town's policies encourage the provision of public water access and the continued
assessment of its water access needs and opportunities for improving public water access. The
Town's policies have a positive impact on the CRC public water access goals and objectives.
4.3.2 Land Use Compatibility
t Overall, the Town's existing building intensities and densities are consistent with infrastructure
availability and land suitability. Generally, the most intense development is located in areas with
adequate water and sewer facilities and other support infrastructure and outside of sensitive
natural environments.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 86 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV. Plan.for the Future

' The Town's policies provide for a balance of growth and the preservation of fragile
environments. Development with acceptable impacts on natural resources and which is in
harmony with the Town's existing character is encouraged. Town policies concerning Areas of
Environmental Concern support state and federal law regarding development with AECs.
' Development is encouraged in those portions of the Town's planning jurisdiction that possess
the support infrastructure necessary to sustain that growth.
Beaufort's policies support the implementation of the Wastewater Facilities Plan recommended
improvements which will vastly improve the Town's ability to provide effective and reliable
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems. The Town's policies have a positive
' impact on the CRC land use compatibility goals and objectives.
4.3.3 Infrastructure Carrying Capacity
The Town of Beaufort supports managing and directing development in balance with the
availability of municipal services. The most intensive land uses and highest residential densities
are guided to those portions of the Town's planning jurisdiction that possess the support
infrastructure necessary to sustain that level of development.
Within the next five years, Beaufort is anticipated to grow mainly north of this area and in the
area between the US Highway 70 and NC Highway 101 corridors. However, infill development
and redevelopment of existing developed properties are also expected to accommodate future
short-term growth. The majority of the Town's future land development will be in areas that
currently have the necessary infrastructure already in place or in areas where that infrastructure
can be readily provided.
Beaufort's policies support the implementation of the Wastewater Facilities Plan recommended
improvements which will vastly improve the Town's ability to provide effective and reliable
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems. The Town's policies also support the
development of a water facilities plan which will identify water system needs and provide a
strategy for prioritizing and implementing recommended improvements. The Town's policies
ensure that public infrastructure is located and managed in harmony with fragile environments
and natural resource areas. Beaufort's policies have a positive impact on the CRC
infrastructure carrying capacity goals and objectives.
4.3.4 Natural Hazard Areas
Town policies encourage the conservation of natural resources and fragile environments that
provide protection from natural hazards. Intensive nonresidential development and high density
residential development is discouraged within areas susceptible to storm surge and flooding.
Flood damage prevention policies encourage compatible development and redevelopment
1 within flood hazard areas. The Town's policies have a positive impact on the CRC natural
hazard areas goals and objectives.
4.3.5 Water Quality
The Town's policies support the maintenance, protection, and enhancement of water quality.
Beaufort's policies support land development that has minimal adverse impacts on water
quality. Best management practices are encouraged to minimize stormwater impacts. Town
policies support the continued use of land in conservation -designated areas for appropriate land
uses that are compatible with their fragile nature.
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 87 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan for the Future

Beaufort's policies support the implementation of the Wastewater Facilities Plan recommended
improvements which will vastly improve the Town's ability to provide effective and reliable
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems that assist in protecting water quality.
Beaufort's policies also support the development of a stormwater management plan and
ordinance. The Town's policies have a positive impact on the CRC water quality goals and
iobjectives.
4.3.6 Local Areas of Concern
Beaufort's policies regarding local areas of concern support and have a positive impact on the
CRC public water access, land use compatibility, and infrastructure carrying capacity goals and
objectives. The Town's policies encourage increased public access, compatible development,
and the preservation of the historic district and waterfront area. Town policies also promote
tourism -related economic development.
Appendix M provides a further evaluation of each individual town policy's impact on the CRC
land use plan management topics.
4.4 Statement of Local Support Regarding Areas of Environmental Concern
The Town of Beaufort supports state and federal law regarding land use and development in
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). Specific policy statements have been developed that
support the general use standards of the North Carolina Administrative Code (15 NCAC 7H) for
development within the estuarine system (see Section 4.2.6). No policy statements have been
developed which exceed the requirements of CAMA regarding land use and development within
AECs.
4.5 Future Land Use Map
The purpose of the Future Land Use Map is to graphically depict Beaufort's policies for growth
and land development and the projected patterns of future land use. The Future Land Use Map
has been prepared with consideration given to land development objectives and policies, natural
constraints and limitations, overall land suitability, and the ability to provide the infrastructure to
support growth and development.
tThe Future Land Use Map for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction encompasses the Beaufort
corporate limits and the Town's extraterritorial planning and zoning jurisdiction. The Town's
Future Land Use Map classifications include the following categories and subcategories:
• Residential
➢ Low Density Residential
➢ Medium Density Residential
➢ High Density Residential
• Commercial
➢ General Commercial
➢ Downtown Commercial
• Mixed Use
• Public and Institutional
• Industrial
• Conservation/Open Space
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 88 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan for the Future

1
1
i_i
I
1
I
1]
F1
Generally, growth and land development is anticipated to occur in all future land use categories
except for the Conservation/Open Space classification. The type and intensity of projected
development varies within each future land use map classification. Future Land Use projections
are delineated in Figure 8, Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map classifications are
considered part of the Land Use Plan's policy.
A. Residential Classification
The Residential classification is subdivided into three subcategories: Low Density,
Medium Density, and High Density.
Low Density Residential Classification. The Low Density Residential
classification encompasses approximately 3.19 square miles (2,041 acres) or about
43 percent of the total planning jurisdiction. The majority of the lands classified as
Low Density Residential are located on primarily in the northern, northeastern, and
eastern portions of the Town's planning jurisdiction.
The Low Density Residential classification is intended to delineate lands where the
predominant land use is low density detached residences. The residential density
within this classification is generally 2 or less dwelling units per acre. Minimum lot
sizes vary from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet unless a larger minimum lot area is
required by the health department for land uses utilizing septic systems. Single-
family detached residences are the predominant types of dwellings within these
areas. Manufactured homes on individual lots are also dwelling types found within
this classification. Land uses within Low Density Residential -designated areas are
generally compatible with the R-20 and R-15, Single -Family Residential zoning
classifications. Public water service is widely available throughout the Low Density
Residential -classified areas. Public sewer service is generally not available within
this classification.
The Town's goals and policies support the continued use of land in Low Density -
classified areas for low density dwellings and for public and institutional land uses
that support and that are compatible with this type of residential development.
Future development is projected to be no more than 2 dwelling units per acre. Some
Low Density Residential areas that are located on the immediate fringe of the
intensively -developed urban core may evolve into higher density areas over time,
particularly where public utilities and other infrastructure will be available to support
increases in residential density.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 89 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan_for the Future

Land Use Plan
CAMA November 24, 2004
Legend
Proposed Roads' Future Land Use
OBeaufort Historic District yrrf': Conservation & Open Space
l — 14 Digit Hydrological Units (USDA) Public & institutional
Beaufort City Limits Low Density Residential
Beaufort ETJ Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Mixed Use
p General Commercial
g
- Downtown Commercial
Industrial
2�
o`er
c
�c
Pt.
THE WOOTEN COMPANY
f NGINEERING PLANNING AR f.H ITCG'URP�
'�
1 inch equals 3,000 feet
/ p
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Mile
-\!
`r
m
/
c
3
-
m
z
r J l Y txd
IVER DR. --. -
) 0DR
NE LN
W FAAtILV RD
J 'AR
tSrDED 41R 14 dipI HU:
R �~� 030201061
's
O 'INE J 2 h 14 digit HU
RYIEW DR 2 03020103O40010
Q N,
C�
F r ux.
C \ 1 (. .fi" yfLIOW Ci
ri , ?�C,ONp Si
~'
SAfftDI:OR , o
� m
S � � •fs, .� -2
� Tr ! o � i7 a 1, •�.' _
o
yp T
F p
C'row n?RD
i w
RD
c ,
BiPd
CaYrot ) ' � �i Shoal .._.Island
1 "
arsonerve
'I. 14 digit Hu
aw2GlowRroTo
� � Back Sound
H.c k.S
Tile preparation of 'his map was financed in part through a grant provided by the North -- _ — — — — —— — — — — — — — — '
^ardina Coastal Management Program. through funds provided by the Coastal Zone —'-
.•,rage ent Act of 1972, m amended. which is administared by the Office of Ocean and —"--
OaastalResource Mmegement, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. --� `Proposed road alignments are conceptual only.

Medium Density Residential Classification. The Medium/High Density Residential
classification encompasses approximately 0.8 square miles (483 acres) or about 10
percent of the total planning jurisdiction. The majority of the properties classified as
Medium Density Residential are generally located immediately surrounding the
IBeaufort downtown area as well as north and east of the downtown area.
The Medium Density Residential classification is intended to delineate lands where
the predominant land use is higher density single-family residential developments
and/or two-family developments. The residential density within this classification is
generally 3 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Minimum lot sizes vary from 8,000 to 10,000
1 square feet unless a larger minimum lot area is required by the health department for
land uses utilizing septic systems. Land uses within Medium Density Residential -
designated areas are generally compatible with the R-10, One or Two-family
Residential; R-10MH, Single-family Residential and Manufactured Home; R-8,
Medium Density Residential; and R-8A Single-family Medium Density Residential
zoning districts. Public water is widely available and sewer service is required to
support the higher residential densities in this classification. Streets with the capacity
to accommodate higher traffic volumes are also necessary to support Medium
Density Residential development.
The Town's goals and policies support the use of land in Medium Density -classified
areas for single-family and two-family dwellings where adequate public utilities and
streets are available or can be upgraded to support the higher residential densities
encouraged in this classification.
High Density Residential Classification. The High Density Residential
classification encompasses approximately 0.05 square miles (32.6 acres) or about
0.7 percent of the total planning jurisdiction. The properties classified as High
Density Residential are located in the northeastern portion of the Town's planning
jurisdiction along the US Highway 70 North corridor.
The High Density Residential classification is intended to delineate lands where the
predominant land use is higher density single-family residential developments and/or
multifamily developments. The residential density within this classification is
generally 6 to 16 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size is 2,750 square feet
per unit unless a larger minimum lot area is required by the health department for
land uses utilizing septic systems. Land uses within High Density Residential -
designated areas are generally compatible with the RMF, Multi -Family High Density
Residential and the R-5, Residential Cluster zoning classifications. Public water and
sewer service is required to support the residential densities in this classification.
Streets with the capacity to accommodate higher traffic volumes are also necessary
to support High Density Residential development.
The Town's goals and policies support the use of land in High Density -classified
areas for single-family and multifamily dwellings where adequate public utilities and
streets are available or can be upgraded to support the higher residential densities
t encouraged in this classification. The higher density residential developments
anticipated to occur during the planning period are encouraged within the High
Density -classified areas.
' Beaufort CANIA Land Use Plan Page 91 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV. Plan, for the Future

B. Commercial Classification
The Commercial classification is subdivided into two subcategories: General
Commercial and Downtown Commercial.
General Commercial Classification. The General Commercial classification
encompasses approximately 0.24 square miles (154 acres) or about 3.3 percent of
the planning jurisdiction. The properties classified as General Commercial are
located along the Town's major road corridor --US Highway 70.
The General Commercial classification is intended to delineate lands that can
accommodate a wide range of retail, wholesale, office, business services, and
personal services. Areas classified as General Commercial may also include some
heavy commercial uses as well as intensive public and institutional land uses.
Minimum lot sizes typically range from 5,000 to 8,000 square feet unless a larger
minimum lot area is required by the health department for land uses utilizing septic
systems. Maximum floor area ratios (the total building floor area divided by the total
lot area) range from 0.57 to 0.83. Land uses within General Commercial -designated
areas are generally compatible with the B-1, General Business; B-2, Highway
Business; B-3, Marina Business; and the O & I, Office and Institutional zoning
districts. Public water service is needed to support the land uses characteristic of
this classification. Public sewer service is needed to support the most intensive
commercial uses. Streets with the capacity to accommodate higher traffic volumes
are necessary to support commercial development.
General Commercial -classified areas are anticipated to accommodate some of the
most intensive land uses found in the Town's planning jurisdiction. The Town's goals
and policies support the use of land in General Commercial -classified areas for a
wide variety of retail and commercial services uses where adequate public utilities
and streets are available or can be upgraded to support the intensity of development
encouraged in this classification. Public and institutional land uses that support and
that are compatible with this type of commercial development are also encouraged.
Downtown Commercial Classification. The Downtown Commercial classification
encompasses approximately 0.03 square miles (18 acres) or about 0.4 percent of the
planning jurisdiction. The properties classified as Downtown Commercial are located
in the Front Street commercial district and the downtown waterfront area. The core
of the Downtown Commercial area is generally bounded by Taylor's Creek on the
1 south, Orange Street on the west, and Pollock Street on the east.
it
The Downtown Commercial classification is intended to delineate properties that can
accommodate a variety of retail, office, business services, and personal services.
Areas classified as Downtown Commercial may also include some public and
institutional land uses. The Downtown Mixed Use classification specifically includes
waterfront tourist -oriented land uses. The minimum lot size is 3,000 square feet
unless a larger minimum lot area is required by the health department for land uses
utilizing septic systems. Maximum floor area ratios range from 1.73 to 2.13. Land
uses within the Downtown Commercial -designated areas are generally compatible
with the C-D, Central Downtown Business and the W-C, Waterfront Commercial
zoning districts.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 92 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan. for the Future

Public water and sewer service is needed to support the land uses characteristic of
this classification. Streets with the capacity to accommodate higher traffic volumes
are also necessary to support the intensive land uses within this classification.
The Town's goals and policies support the use of land in Downtown Commercial -
classified areas for a wide variety of retail and commercial services uses where
adequate public utilities and streets are available or can be upgraded to support the
intensity of development encouraged in this classification. Redevelopment of the
downtown waterfront area for tourist -oriented mixed uses consisting of retail shops,
places of entertainment, restaurants, boating services, and overnight lodging is
promoted by the Town's goals and policies.
' C. Mixed Use Classification
The Mixed Use classification encompasses approximately 1.3 square miles (826
acres) or 17.4 percent of the total land area. The properties classified as Mixed Use
are located adjacent to Town Creek (2 sites), at the former Beaufort Elementary
School site, adjacent to the Cedar Street -Carteret Avenue area, and along
Lennoxville Road at the site of the Atlantic Veneer Corporation and Beaufort
Fisheries Industries.
The Mixed Use classification is intended to delineate areas where there is potential
to redevelop the existing properties and adjoining vacant land, particularly for
multiple land uses. The North Carolina Maritime Museum has proposed expanding
the Maritime Museum to a portion of the Mixed Use -designated area located on the
north side of Town Creek. An associated maritime village has also been proposed
for this site. Mixed residential and commercial uses, including marine uses along
waterfront areas, have potential at the other Mixed Use -designated sites.
The Cedar Street corridor is anticipated, with the proposed relocation of US Highway
70, to redevelop from a general commercial area into more of an office, light retail,
professional services, institutional, and residential area.
The anticipated residential density within this classification ranges from medium to
high density. Multifamily densities are consistent with the current requirements of the
' Town's zoning ordinance which allows a density range of up to 16 dwellings per acre
for planned developments. Residential building types encouraged within this
classification include single-family attached dwellings, condominiums, cluster
developments, and multifamily dwellings. Commercial uses include a variety of
retail, office, business services, and personal services. Minimum lot sizes are
generally dependent upon the specific nature and characteristics of the land use but
typically range from 2,750 to 20,000 square feet for residential land uses and 3,000
to 8,000 square feet for nonresidential land uses. Maximum floor area ratios for
nonresidential land uses range from 0.57 to 2.13. Land uses within the Mixed Use -
designated areas are generally compatible with B-1, General Business; B-3, Marina
' Business; O & I, Office and Institutional; RMF, Multi -family Residential; and PUD,
Planned Unit Development zoning districts. Public water and sewer service is
needed to support the land uses characteristic of this classification. Streets with the
capacity to accommodate higher traffic volume are necessary to support the intensity
of development expected within the Mixed Use Classification.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 93 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan.for the Future

11
LI
1
F
The Town's goals and policies support the use of land in Mixed Use -classified areas
for a range of uses where adequate public utilities and streets are available or can be
upgraded to support the intensity of development encouraged in this classification.
Public and institutional land uses that support and that are compatible with this type
of mixed development are also encouraged.
While the Mixed Use areas are expected to accommodate future growth and
development, they may or may not actually be developed during the planning period.
Critical factors that will determine the development potential of these areas include
market demand and the provision of the necessary support infrastructure (particularly
public water and sewer utilities). Consequently, the development potential of the
some of the lands within the Mixed Use areas may be more long-term than short-
term.
In order to permit the type of mixed use development envisioned in this classification,
the Town of Beaufort may have to prepare amendments to its existing zoning
ordinance and subdivision ordinance to establish specific conditions and standards
for such mixed use development.
D. Public and Institutional
The Public and Institutional classification encompasses approximately 0.9 square
miles (576 acres) or about 12 percent of the total planning jurisdictional area. The
properties classified as Public and Institutional are scattered throughout the Town's
planning jurisdiction. The largest individual property within the Public and
Institutional classification includes the Michael J. Smith Field and airport facilities
located in the western section of Beaufort.
1 The Public and Institutional classification is intended to delineate large land areas
that are used for intensive public and educational purposes. Land uses within this
classification include primarily government buildings and service facilities, public
recreational facilities, and public educational facilities. Some private office and
institutional facilities may also be included within this classification. Minimum lot
sizes are generally dependent upon the specific nature and characteristics of the
land use but typically range from 5,000 to 40,000 square feet for low intensity uses to
' multiple acres for more intensive land uses. Maximum floor area ratios range from
0.59 to 0.83. Land uses within the Public and Institutional -designated areas are
generally compatible with B-1, General Business; O & I, Office and Institutional; and
' R-8 Medium Density Residential zoning districts. Generally, public water service is
needed to support the land uses characteristic of this classification. Public sewer is
needed to support the most intensive public and institutional uses. Streets with the
capacity to accommodate higher traffic volumes are necessary to support the
intensity of development expected within the Public and Institutional Classification.
' E. Industrial
The Industrial classification encompasses approximately 0.2 square miles (135
acres) or about 2.8 percent of the planning jurisdiction. The properties classified as
Industrial are along Lennoxville Road at Carteret Avenue in south central Beaufort
and along the east side of NC Highway 101 directly across from the airport property.
The Industrial classification is intended to delineate lands that can accommodate
Iindustrial and manufacturing establishments. Some heavy commercial uses as well
' Beaufort CA AV Land Use Plan Page 94 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section 1V: Plan.for the Future

1
I
n
11
as services and businesses which support industrial land uses are also appropriate
land uses within the Industrial classification. The minimum lot size typically is 8,000
square feet unless a larger minimum lot area is required by the health department for
land uses utilizing septic systems. Maximum floor area ratios range from 0.36 to
0.57. Land uses within the Industrial -designated areas are generally compatible with
the L-I, Light Industrial and the I-W, Industrial Warehouse zoning districts. Public
water and sewer service is needed to support the land uses characteristic of this
classification. Streets with the capacity streets to accommodate higher traffic
volumes are necessary to support the intensity of development expected within the
Industrial Classification.
The Industrial areas are expected to accommodate the majority of the future
industrial growth projected for the planning period. Critical factors that will determine
the development potential of these Industrial -classified areas include market demand
and the provision of the necessary support infrastructure (particularly public water
and sewer utilities). Consequently, the development potential of the majority of the
lands within the Industrial areas may be more long-term than short-term.
The Town's goals and policies support the use of land in Industrial -classified areas
for a wide variety of manufacturing and heavy commercial services uses where
adequate public utilities and streets are available or can be upgraded to support the
intensity of development encouraged in this classification. Public and institutional
land uses as well as commercial services that support and that are compatible with
this type of industrial development are also encouraged. Industrial -classified areas
may include certain land uses which, due to their nature and characteristics, have
potential adverse impacts on surrounding land use types. Consequently, the Town's
objective is to ensure the compatible location of industrial land uses and to require
the necessary measures to mitigate any adverse impacts.
F. Conservation/Open Space
Conservation/Open Space areas are scattered throughout the Beaufort jurisdiction
and include coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shoreline, public trust
areas, and '404' wetlands. Due to the small size of such areas, they are not
individually identified on the Future Land Use Map. Generally, the precise location of
such areas must be determined by field investigation. Conservation/Open Space
areas that are delineated on the Future Land Use Map include Town Marsh, Carrot
Island (including the portion of the Rachel Carson Estuarine Reserve lands within the
Beaufort planning jurisdiction), marshland in Davis Bay, and the county -owned Town
Creek wetlands area. These Conservation/Open Space -designated areas
encompass approximately 0.7 square miles (472 acres) or approximately 10 percent
of the planning jurisdictional area.
The Conservation/Open Space classification is intended to delineate areas where
traditional land uses are not desirable or expected to develop. Land development
may, however, include public building and facilities necessary to support existing
land uses within the areas classified as Conservation/Open Space. Land uses within
the Conservation/Open Space -designated areas are generally compatible with the
O-S, Open Space zoning district. Public water or sewer utilities are not needed to
support the types and intensities of land uses in these areas. Extensions of water
and sewer utilities into these areas are not expected or encouraged.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 95 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan.for the Future

fl
1
it
1
The Town's goals and policies support the continued use of land in
Conservation/Open Space -classified areas for appropriate uses that are compatible
with the fragile nature of the Conservation/Open Space areas. Traditional urban
growth and development in such areas is discouraged. Conservation/Open Space
areas are expected to retain their existing character over time.
4.6 Cost Estimates for Planned Community Facility Improvements
Water system improvements: $10.6 million (See section 3.4.1 for a description
of proposed improvements)
Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems improvements: $15.6
million (See section 3.4.2 for a description of the proposed improvements).
Water Access and recreational facilities improvements: $372,000 (See section
3.4.8 for a description of proposed improvements)
4.7 Consistency With Natural Systems and Land Suitability Analyses
' The land use patterns depicted on the Future Land Use Map are consistent with the analysis of
natural systems and the analysis of land suitability. The Future Land Use Map depicts very
generalized patterns of projected land use. The intent of the map is to illustrate a typical pattern
u
of use for a general area and not the specific use of an individual parcel. The Future Land Use
Map is not intended for site -specific land planning or for regulatory purposes.
The north central portion of the Town's planning jurisdiction and the areas adjacent to the
Newport River, North River and Taylor's Creek shorelines contain the greatest concentrations of
natural constraints, primarily floodplains and wetlands. Major undeveloped areas with
significant natural constraints and low suitability ratings within the Beaufort jurisdiction are
designated as Conservation/Open Space on the Future Land Use Map. The majority of
developed areas with significant natural constraints and low suitability ratings are designated on
the Future Land Use Map for low density residential use.
Other Conservation/Open Space areas are scattered throughout Beaufort and include coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shoreline, public trust areas, and '404' wetlands. Due to
the small size of such areas, they are not specifically identified on the Future Land Use Map.
Other areas with significant natural constraints and low suitability ratings are designated on the
Future Land Use Map for low intensity land uses such as those anticipated to occur in the Low
Density Residential classification.
The table below illustrates the amount of land area within the Beaufort planning jurisdiction by
land suitability rating.
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 96 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan. for the Future

fl
1
11
Table 38
Acreage by Land Suitability Rating
Beaufort Jurisdiction
Suitability Rating
Total Acres
%
High
2,126.5
44.9%
Medium
1,105.7
23.3%
Low
256.3
5.4%
Least
1,251.8
26.4%
Totals
4,740.3
100.0%
Source: The Wooten Company
Some portions of the projected use classifications shown on the Future Land Use Map may
include land which is designated as having moderate or serious natural limitations or land which
is rated as having low suitability for development. Inclusion of such areas within a specific
projected future use classification does not denote a recommendation for future development.
Rather, it means that while such areas are located within a broader general use pattern, their
ultimate future use may be different from other properties because of their natural constraints
and regulatory limitations. Some of the designated fragile areas may always remain in their
current natural state or, if permitted by regulatory authority, may be altered and any negative
impacts overcome through approved mitigation measures. Some of the areas currently
designated as having low suitability for development may lose that rating over time as, for
example, public utilities are installed and roads are constructed. Consequently, the future use
of such areas, if the low suitability conditions are eliminated, will be in accordance with the
broader general use classification.
Land development activity within most environmentally fragile areas is subject to local, state,
and/or federal restrictions. Local land use regulations such as the Town's zoning ordinance,
subdivision ordinance, and flood damage prevention ordinance include specific standards for
land development activities. Site -specific soil analyses are required by the Carteret County
Environmental Health Department to evaluate the suitability of a particular parcel for septic
system suitability. Encouraging good site planning principles and best management practices
can assist with mitigating the impacts of land development on environmentally fragile areas.
Development within the designated Areas of Environmental Concern is limited by CAMA
regulations and development guidelines. Generally, the development standards for coastal
wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas permit only water -dependent uses such as
navigation channels, dredging projects, docks, piers, bulkheads, boat ramps, groins, and
bridges. Priority is, however, given to the conservation of these AECs. CAMA standards for
estuarine shoreline development generally require that (i) the development not cause significant
damage to estuarine resources; (ii) the development not interfere with public rights of access to
or use of navigable waters or public resources; (iii) the development preserve and not weaken
natural barriers to erosion; (iv) impervious surfaces not exceed 30 percent of the lot area
located within the AEC boundary; (v) the development comply with state soil erosion,
sedimentation, and stormwater management regulations; and (vi) the development comply with
the CAMA Land Use Plans. Specific CAMA development standards for AECs can be found in
15 NCAC 7H.
The US Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for regulating non -coastal or '404' wetlands.
Authorization must be obtained from the Corps prior to disturbing such wetlands.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 97 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV. • Plan.ror the Future

11
Opportunities exist for the conservation of fragile areas and natural resource areas through both
' private and public means. Private land trusts and conservancies are tax-exempt organizations
that acquire and preserve natural areas, open spaces, and historical properties. Such
organizations offer mechanisms such as conservation easements to protect natural resources
' (natural habitats, places of scenic beauty, farms, forestlands, floodplains, watersheds, etc.)
while also providing compensation and possible tax incentives to private property owners. Tax
incentive programs, such as the North Carolina Conservation Tax Credit Program, provide
' opportunities for property owners donating land for conservation purposes to receive tax credits.
State and local governments may also accept land donations for conservation purposes.
' Public land use regulations, such as conservation design subdivision requirements, can be
developed to assist with the conservation of environmentally sensitive areas and open space as
land is being subdivided into building parcels.
The timing of the provision of infrastructure improvements, particularly water and sewer services
and roads, will also have a tremendous impact on the rate and location of growth and
development. Development will occur where infrastructure is available or can readily be made
available to sustain that development. Consequently, achieving the Future Land Use Map land
use projections will depend in large part upon if and when infrastructure is provided. The
provision of public infrastructure generally depends upon capability to provide the service and
' demand for the service. Economic climate will be a major factor in the capability to make
infrastructure available as well as the level of service demand.
' 4.8 Comparison of Future Land Use Allocations and Projected Land Needs
' The following table provides estimates of the acreages within each Future Land Use Map
classification. In addition to providing total acreage within each classification, the table also
shows estimated acreage with natural constraints (100-year floodplains and wetlands), and
probable developable acreage (total acreage less acreage with natural constraints). It should
be noted, however, that existing development currently exists in some areas identified as
floodplains and wetlands, particularly in the southern peninsula area. Also, some
developmental limitations created by natural constraints, such as location within a 100-year
floodplain, can be mitigated (for example, by elevating a structure). Consequently, `acreage
11
with natural constraints' does not equate with 'undeveloped' or'undevelopable' land.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 98 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan for the Future

1
1
11
Table
39
Future .. Use Map Calculations
Developable
Acreage w/ Probable Acres as a
Total % of Total Natural Developable % of Total
Classifications Acres Acres Constraints Acres Acres
Low Density Residential 2,041.5 43.1% 1,075.0 966.5 47.306
Medium Density Residential 483.9 10.2% 192.6 291.2 60.2%
High Density Residential 32.6 0.7% 0.2 32.5 99.5%
General Commercial 154.3 3.3% 5.4 148.8 96.5%
Downtown Commercial 18.0 0.4% 11.9 6.1 33.8%
Mixed Use 826.8 17.4% 287.2 539.6 65.3%
Public and Institutional 576.3 12.2% 343.2 233.1 40.4%
Industrial 134.9 2.8% 1.1 133.7 99.2%
Conservation/Open Space 472.0 10.0% 467.1 4.9 1.0%
Totals 1 4,740.3 1 100.0% 2,383.8 2,356.5 1 49.7%
Source: The Wooten Company
As shown in the above table, approximately 50 percent of the total Beaufort jurisdiction contains
natural constraints that present limitations but do not prevent the use of the land for future
development. If this acreage is deducted from the total land acreage within each jurisdiction,
the resultant probable developable acreage is land that is, generally, most readily available to
accommodate future land development. As previously stated however, some developmental
limitations created by natural constraints can be mitigated. Consequently, a larger amount of
acreage is available for development purposes than is portrayed here as 'probable developable
acres'.
The following table provides a comparison of the amount of projected future land area, as
delineated on the Future Land Use Map, with projected land needs:
Source: The Wooten Company
Gross Future Land Use Map Acres less Existing Land Use Map Acres.
** Includes the allowable 50% increase in residential acreage to accommodate market flexibility and
unanticipated growth (see Section 3.3.4, Projections of Land Needs).
Note that the 'Mixed -Use' future land use classification has been omitted from the comparison
table as a separate line item, as there is no corresponding category on the existing land use
map. However, the Mixed Use future land use category has been integrated into the
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 99 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan. for the Future
Source: The Wooten Company
As shown in the above table, approximately 50 percent of the total Beaufort jurisdiction contains
natural constraints that present limitations but do not prevent the use of the land for future
development. If this acreage is deducted from the total land acreage within each jurisdiction,
the resultant probable developable acreage is land that is, generally, most readily available to
accommodate future land development. As previously stated however, some developmental
limitations created by natural constraints can be mitigated. Consequently, a larger amount of
acreage is available for development purposes than is portrayed here as 'probable developable
acres'.
The following table provides a comparison of the amount of projected future land area, as
delineated on the Future Land Use Map, with projected land needs:
Source: The Wooten Company
Gross Future Land Use Map Acres less Existing Land Use Map Acres.
** Includes the allowable 50% increase in residential acreage to accommodate market flexibility and
unanticipated growth (see Section 3.3.4, Projections of Land Needs).
Note that the 'Mixed -Use' future land use classification has been omitted from the comparison
table as a separate line item, as there is no corresponding category on the existing land use
map. However, the Mixed Use future land use category has been integrated into the
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 99 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan. for the Future

' Residential and Commercial Future Land use categories in the table. Mixed Use was divided
according to the ratio of residential and commercial development which currently exists within
' the Town, with the assumption that the ratio will roughly continue. The breakdown results in the
following division of the 827 acres of proposed Mixed Use: 126 additional acres added to the
Commercial category, and 701 acres added to the Residential category for comparison with
existing land use acreage.
Based upon this comparison, the projected residential land needs through 2025 can be met with
t the estimated amount of available developable acreage in the current Beaufort jurisdiction. It
should be noted, however, that some undeveloped land within the Town's jurisdiction containing
developmental constraints can be utilized by employing mitigating measures. Therefore, a
' greater supply of land that will support development, with environmental mitigation techniques,
exists than is delineated here.
Based on the water and wastewater capacity and projected needs through the year 2030 as
' outlined in Sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2, the projected land use needs will be supported by the
associated necessary water and sewer infrastructure. The improvements to each system that
the town has planned within the next five years will support the associated growth and need for
additional land to accommodate projected growth.
4.9 Use of the Future Land Use Plan Map to Guide Development
tIn preparing the Future Land Use Map, consideration was given to land development objectives
and policies, land suitability, and the ability to provide the infrastructure to support growth and
' development. The Future Land Use Map depicts the general location of projected patterns of
future land uses. The Future Land Use Map is a plan or guideline for the future.
t The ultimate use and development of a particular parcel of land will be determined by property
owners' desires, overall market conditions, implementation tools employed by the Town to
regulate land use and development (such as the Town's zoning ordinance, subdivision
regulations, flood hazard regulations), the absence of specific natural constraints to
development, and the availability of the necessary infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, etc.) to
support development. Consequently, even though the Future Land Use Map may indicate a
specific projected use in a particular location, many factors come into play to determine if the
' projected use is appropriate and the land can be developed as projected. Also, formal
amendments to the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance will be required to specifically
authorize the type of mixed use development envisioned in this Land Use Plan.
In the way of an example, the Beaufort Future Land Use Map indicates Industrial use on the
east side of NC 101 directly across from the airport property. Thus, it has been determined
' through the Land Use Plan that the industrial use of property in this area is desirable and is
expected to occur. However, the actual industrial use of a specific piece of property in this
generally -identified area will depend upon the following:
• Is the property owner willing to use or sell the parcel for the proposed
industrial use? Change of use or change of development intensity is, in
most cases, initiated by the desires of the property owner.
• Is the parcel properly zoned for industrial use? If not, a rezoning must be
requested and approved by the Town Board of Commissioners. In
reviewing the rezoning request, the Board of Commissioners will
determine if industrial use is appropriate and desirable for the parcel.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 100 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV. Plan.for the Future

1
' If the parcel is already zoned for industrial use, a building permit must be
requested and approved by the Town. The proposed use and layout of
the proposed building will be reviewed to determine conformance with the
Town's land use and development regulations and standards. Water
supply and sewage disposal systems must be approved.
' In reviewing rezoning requests and zoning and building permit
applications, site characteristics of the parcel will be a major
consideration by the review and approval authority. Are site
characteristics such that the parcel can be physically used for the
proposed industrial use? Do poor soils, poor drainage, wetlands, flood
hazards, etc. limit the use of all or a portion of the parcel for industrial
development? Can adverse site conditions be overcome or mitigated in
accordance with Town, County, State, and Federal regulations? The
allowable building intensity and density of development may need to be
reduced to ensure compatibility with existing site conditions.
• Are adequate utilities in place to support the proposed industrial use? If
adequate utilities are not in place, improvements will have to be planned,
approved, and extended to the parcel in accordance with Town, County,
State, and utility provider standards and regulations. Are improvements
and extensions economically feasible?
• Are adequate roads in place to provide access to the parcel? If new
roads or improvements to existing roads are needed, they will have to be
planned, approved, and constructed in accordance with Town and
NCDOT standards.
Achieving the projected patterns of land use indicated by the Future Land Use Map will be
greatly impacted by timing. Much of the projected land use indicated on the Future Land Use
Map will not come to fruition without market demand. Therefore, market and economic
conditions must be conducive for growth and development. While the Land Use Plan attempts
to provide a general expectation of growth based upon projected population change, it simply
cannot predict the economic future. The demand for houses, businesses, industries, etc. will
fluctuate widely with economic conditions.
The timing of the provision of infrastructure improvements, particularly water and sewer services
and roads, will also have a tremendous impact on growth and development. Development will
occur where infrastructure is available or can be made available to sustain that development.
Consequently, achieving the Future Land Use Map land use projections will depend in large part
upon if and when infrastructure is provided. The provision of public infrastructure depends upon
capability to provide the service and demand for the service. Economic climate will be a major
factor in both the capability to make infrastructure available and the level of service demand.
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 101 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section IV: Plan.for the Future

IL SECTION V TOOLS FOR MANAGING DEVELOPMENT`
This section of the Plan is organized in accordance with the requirements of Subchapter 76
.0702(e). Section V includes a description of the Town of Beaufort land management tools and
programs as well as the actions and strategies that the Town will use to implement the Land
Use Plan.
5.1 Guide for Land Use Decision -making
The Land Use Plan, as adopted b the elected officials of the Town of Beaufort and as may be
p Y
amended from time to time, will serve as the primary guide upon which to make land use policy
decisions. Every land use policy decision, such as a rezoning request or approval of a
conditional or special use permit, will be measured for consistency with the goals, policies, and
recommendations of the Plan. The elected officials, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment,and
Town staff should utilize the Land Use Plan as the basic policy guide in the administration of the
zoning ordinance, subdivision .regulations, and other land development regulatory tools.
Persons involved in the land development business as well as the general public can also utilize
the Land Use Plan to guide private decisions regarding land use and land development.
The policy statements and recommendations of the Land Use Plan can also be of assistance to
the elected officials in making long-range decisions regarding such matters as the provision of
' municipal services, thoroughfare planning, stormwater planning and management,
implementation of economic development strategies, recreational facility planning, and
preparation of capital and operating budgets.
It should be noted, however, that the Land Use Plan is one of a variety of guides in making a
public policy decision. The Plan should be viewed as a tool to aid in decision making and not as
the final decision.
Additional information regarding utilizing the Land Use Plan to guide development is provided in
Section 4.9.
5.2 Existing Land Use and Development Management Program
Beaufort's existing land development management program includes the following land
regulatory ordinances and related plans:
• Zoning Ordinance.
• Subdivision Ordinance.
• Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, July 2003.
• Airport Height Regulations for the Michael J. Smith Field, 2000.
• CAMA Land Use Plan Update, Certified in September 1997.
• Strategic Approach for Growth, October 1999.
• Waterfront Access Plan, 2000.
• Parks and Recreation Master Plan, August 1997.
• Beaufort Historic District Guidelines, 1994.
Beaufort CA MA Land Use Plan Page 102 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section V.• Tools.for Managing Development

The Town's land development regulations are applicable to all land areas located within the
Beaufort planning and zoning jurisdiction. The Planning Board serves primarily in an advisory
capacity, making recommendations to the Town Board of Commissioners on zoning and
subdivision matters. The Board of Adjustment is responsible for hearing requests for special
use permits as well as requests for appeals and variances from the zoning ordinance. The
Town Board of Commissioners' responsibilities in the zoning process include adopting and
amending the zoning ordinance text and map and making approval decisions regarding
applications for planned residential developments. The Town Board of Commissioners is also
responsible for making approval decisions on all preliminary and final subdivisions.
5.3 Additional Implementation Tools
5.3.1 Amendments or Adjustments to Existing Land Development Ordinances
Amendments to land development ordinances necessary to ensure consistency with the
Land Use Plan include the following:
• Zoning ordinance amendment regarding residential boat docks and piers.
• Zoning ordinance amendment regarding commercial marinas.
• Development of a Stormwater Management Ordinance.
' 5.3.2 Capital Improvements
In February 2004, the Town of Beaufort adopted a Capital Improvements Plan.
Proposed water and wastewater capital improvements include the following:
• Water system improvements: $10.6 million (See section 3.4.1 for a
description of proposed improvements).
• Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems improvements:
$15.6 million (See section 3.4.2 for a description of the proposed
improvements).
In addition, proposed public water access and recreation facilities improvements include:
• Water access and recreational facilities improvements: $372,000 (See
section 3.4.8 for a description of proposed improvements).
Estimated total cost for all proposed capital improvements is $26.5 million.
5.4 Implementation Plan and Schedule
Beaufort has developed the following action plan and schedule to implement the Land Use Plan.
5.4.1 Public Water Access Implementation Actions
1. FY05: Beaufort will undertake improvements to water accesses and
recreational facilities.
' Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 103 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section V.• Tools. for Managing Development

'
2. Ongoing: Review, through the subdivision plat and site plan review and
approval process, proposed waterfront land development projects to
ensure consistency with the Town's public access goals and policies.
5.4.2 Land Use Compatibility Implementation Actions
1. FY 05: Zoning ordinance amendments regarding residential boat docks
and piers and commercial marinas.
2. FY06: Comprehensive zoning ordinance update.
3. FY07: Review, and revise as determined appropriate, the County land
use and development regulations to include development principles and
techniques that promote land use compatibility as open space subdivision
design, clustering, innovative stormwater management design, etc.
4. Ongoing: Review the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, and
other Town land use and development regulations to ensure that
residential densities and building intensities are consistent with the
Town's land suitability goals and policies. Prepare revisions and updates
as determined appropriate. Coordinate the review with the Carteret
County Health Department.
5.4.3 Infrastructure Carrying Capacity Implementation Actions
1.
FY 06: Completion of a comprehensive water system improvements
plan.
2.
FY 06: Annexation boundary agreement with the Town of Morehead City.
3.
FY 09: Completion of sewer system improvements.
4.
FY 10: Completion of water system improvements.
5.
Ongoing: Utilize the Land Use Plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision
ordinance, and utilities extension policies to guide public infrastructure
and services to areas where growth and development are desired.
5.4.4 Natural Hazard Areas Implementation Actions
1.
Ongoing: The Town will review its zoning ordinance, subdivision
ordinance, and flood damage prevention ordinance to determine if more
specific locational and density regulations regarding development or
'
redevelopment activities within identified flood hazard areas and storm
surge areas are warranted. Issues to be addressed include restrictions
on land uses that utilize or store hazardous materials on -site,
establishment of riparian buffers, increasing the minimum freeboard
height above base flood elevation, etc.
2.
Ongoing: The Town will avoid zoning areas susceptible to storm surge
for high density residential or intensive nonresidential use.
3.
Ongoing: Based upon the availability of federal and state grant funds,
land acquisition programs will be utilized in the most hazardous areas to
minimize future damage and loss of life.
4.
Ongoing: If any portion of the Town's public infrastructure is significantly
damaged by a major storm, consideration will be given to the feasibility of
relocating or modifying the affected facilities to prevent the reoccurrence
of storm damage.
5.
Ongoing: Coordinate the review and approval of development plans for
major subdivisions, multifamily developments, and large public and
institutional uses located within identified natural hazard areas with the
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 104 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section V.• Tools. for Managing Development

' County Emergency Management Agency. Continue the active
enforcement of the State Building Code provisions regarding wind -
resistance requirements and participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
1
5.4.5 Water Quality Implementation Actions
1.
FY06: The Town will investigate the feasibility of developing and
implementing a stormwater management plan.
2.
FY06: The Town will prepare and implement a wellhead protection
program.
3.
FY07: The Town will review its zoning ordinance and subdivision
regulations to determine if revisions are needed to include additional
measures, such as riparian buffers and impervious surface limitations, to
control stormwater discharges. A stormwater management ordinance will
be developed.
4.
FY08: Beaufort will make significant advances in the rehabilitation of it's
sewer infrastructure to reduce infiltration, thus preventing overflows and
reducing the amount of discharge released into Taylor's Creek.
1
5.
Ongoing: The Town will continue to require, through its subdivision
regulations and technical specifications manual, adequate stormwater
drainage systems for new developments. The Town will continue to
promote the use of best management practices to minimize the
degradation of water quality resulting from stormwater runoff. The Town
will continue to coordinate the approval of land development projects with
the applicable State agencies.
5.4.6 Areas of Environmental Concern Implementation Actions:
1.
FY06: The Town will review its zoning ordinance to determine if revisions
are needed to include additional protective measures for AECs.
5.4.7 Areas of Local Concern Implementation Actions:
1.
FY05: The Town will employ a Town Planner to coordinate land
development and growth management plans and to oversee the
administration of land use regulations.
2.
FY 08: The Town will prepare a comprehensive community
services/facilities plan. This plan will identify major municipal services and
facilities needs and deficiencies, prioritize those needs, and prepare cost
estimates and a budgeting plan for the recommended improvements.
I
Beaufort CA AM Land Use Plan Page 105 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section V.• Tools.for Managing Development

I
I
9
5.5 Description of Public Participation Activities to Assist in Monitoring Plan
Implementation
Beaufort has developed the following action plan to assist in monitoring implementation of
the Land Use Plan.
Annual Performance Review
The Town of Beaufort, through the Town Planner and the Planning Board, will undertake
an annual review of the proposed implementation activities delineated in Section 5.4 to
determine the following:
The status of the implementation actions proposed during the previous
fiscal year.
If the implementation action has been completed, evaluate the general
effectiveness of the implementation action taken and make
recommendations on any follow-up action deemed necessary to assist in
implementing the goals, objectives, and policies of the Land Use Plan.
If the implementation action has not been undertaken, assess the
reasons that the action has not been completed, evaluate the current
need to undertake the action, and make recommendations regarding a
revised schedule for carrying out the action.
In addition to reviewing specific implementation actions outlined in Section 5.4, the Town
will also undertake an assessment of the general effectiveness of the policies outlined in
Section 4.2 and make recommendations on any follow-up action deemed necessary to
improve the effectiveness of the policies.
The Planning Board will forward its evaluation and recommendations to the Town of
Beaufort Board of Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners, following a review of the
Planning Board's recommendations, will make a determination of what action, if any,
should be taken to ensure implementation of the Land Use Plan. All Planning Board and
Board of Commissioner meetings are open to the public and citizen comments are
welcomed.
If a formal amendment to the Land Use Plan is deemed necessary, such amendment shall
be processed in accordance with the requirements of NCAC 76.0900.
I The Town of Beaufort will utilize its webpage to distribute information regarding the Town's
overall planning program, annual reports and evaluations, and specific implementation
activities.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 106 of 138
January 26, 2007
Section V.- Tools. for Managing Development

I
I
I
I
I
1
I
APPENDICES
AppendixA.................................................................................................................108
Index of Data Sources
AppendixB.................................................................................................................109
Summary of Land Use Issues, Goals, and Objectives
Identified in the 1997 Beaufort Land Use Plan
AppendixC.................................................................................................................112
Housing Characteristics
AppendixD.................................................................................................................113
Soil Characteristics
AppendixE.................................................................................................................114
Water Quality Classifications
AppendixF.................................................................................................................115
Natural Area and Rare Species Inventory
AppendixG.................................................................................................................116
Hazardous Weather affecting Beaufort Since August 1997
AppendixH.................................................................................................................117
Summary of Policy Statements from the 1997 Beaufort Land Use Plan
AppendixI..................................................................................................................125
Citizen Participation Plan
AppendixJ.................................................................................................................133
Maps and Land Use Plan Data Available at the Beaufort Town Hall
AppendixK.................................................................................................................134
Summary of CRC Land Use Plan Management Topic Goals and Objectives
AppendixL.................................................................................................................135
Population Projections
AppendixM................................................................................................................136
Impact of Beaufort Policies on CRC Land Use Plan Management Topics
Beaufort CA MA Land Use Plan Page 107 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendices

'
Appendix A
Index of Data Sources
• United States Bureau of Census, 2000 Census of Population and Housing
• North Carolina State Data Center, Office of State Budget and Management
• Division of Coastal Management, Subchapter 76, Land Use Planning Guidelines
• Division of Coastal Management, Subchapter 7H, State Guidelines for AECs
0 North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, Technical Manual for Coastal Land Use
Planning, Version 2.0, July 2002
• White Oak River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, September, 2001
• Soil Survey of Carteret County, North Carolina, US Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources Conservation Service
• United States Bureau of Economic Analysis
• North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
• North Carolina Division of Archives and History
• Draft North Carolina Natural Hazards Mitigation (Section 322) Plan
• White Oak Basinwide Assessment Report, North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality.
• A Guide to North Carolina's Tidal Saltwater Classifications, Cape Fear Council of
Governments, 1994
• NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
• North Carolina 2004 Impaired Waters List, April 26, 2004, DWQ
• Ten -Year Solid Waste Management Plan 2003-2013, Coastal Regional Solid Waste
Management Authority, June 2003.
• Town of Beaufort Zoning Ordinance.
• Town of Beaufort Subdivision Ordinance, September 1998.
• 1996 Land Use Plan, Town of Beaufort (certified on September 27, 1997), Holland
Consulting Planners, Inc.
• Parks and Recreation Master Plan for the Town of Beaufort, North Carolina; Hayes,
Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc.; August 1997.
• Waterfront Access Plan, Town of Beaufort, 2000, Benchmark, Incorporated.
• Town of Beaufort Gallants Channel Bridge/US70 Transportation Corridor Study and
Impact Analysis, Holland Consulting Planners, Inc., August 1997.
• Town of Beaufort Gallants Channel Bridge/US70 Transportation Corridor Study and
Impact Analysis, Water and Wastewater and Stormwater Systems Proposed Systems
Development; Rivers and Associates, Inc., April 1997.
• North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve Management Plan, North Carolina
National Estuarine Research Reserve Staff, 1998.
• Carteret County Transportation Improvement Program Priorities for the 2002-2008
Transportation Improvement Program, Carteret County Transportation Committee,
November 1999.
• Historic District Design Guidelines, Town of Beaufort Historic Preservation Commission,
1994.
• Town of Beaufort Strategic Plan for Growth, Benchmark Incorporated, October 1999.
• Town of Beaufort Capital Improvements Plan, Rivers and Associates, Inc. February
2004.
• Town of Beaufort, Hazard Mitigation Plan, Holland Consulting Planners, November
2004.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 108 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix A

P
it
11
I
Appendix B
Summary of Land Use Issues, Goals, and Objectives
Identified in the 1997 Beaufort Land Use Plan
Summary of 1997 Land Use and Development Issues
Land Use Compatibility
• Control of strip commercialization along US 70 East and NC 101 North
Infrastructure Carrying Capacity
• Coordination of the development/improvement of the Beaufort sewage
treatment system with Carteret County's plans and policies for the development
of sewage treatment system(s)
• Extension of water and sewer utilities into the town's extraterritorial jurisdiction
• Construction of a new bridge on US 70 at Beaufort Channel to alleviate
disruptions to east -west traffic
• Stormwater runoff
Natural Hazard Areas
• The effects of sea level rise on the Town of Beaufort
Areas of Environmental Concern
• Protection of Areas of Environmental Concern
• Protection of the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Sanctuary which includes
Carrot Island, Town Marsh, and Bird Shoal
• The impact of offshore drilling on the Town of Beaufort
• Stormwater runoff
Areas of Local Concern
•
Redevelopment/visual improvement of the US 70-Cedar Street area dependent
upon US 70 relocation/bridge projects
•
Removal of substandard dwelling units through enforcement of the town's
minimum housing code
•
Continued protection of both the historic district and the waterfront area
•
Establishment of a Growth Management Plan
•
Development of service sector to support tourism
•
Establishment of a comprehensive annexation plan
•
Implementation of redevelopment/revitalization projects to eliminate
substandard housing
•
Continued protection of the town's historic district
•
Continued expansion of the Michael J. Smith Airport
•
•
Maritime Museum Expansion
Beaufort
Historical Association (BHA) restoration site
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 109 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix B

Summary of 1997 Goals and Objectives
General
'
•
Protect and maintain the town's historic assets and shoreline setting.
•
Protect valuable maritime resources.
•
Control growth and development.
Resource Protection
•
Mitigate septic tank problems and other restrictions on development posed by soil
limitations.
•
Conserve the town's surficial groundwater resources.
•
Encourage the establishment of appropriate environmental and operational safeguards
for the expansion of fuel storage tank facilities on Radio Island.
•
Discourage agricultural quarantine and decontamination facilities on Radio Island.
•
Support sound attenuation zoning requirements for the areas affected by airport
operations.
•
Support the airport operation, development, and expansion.
•
Support the development of a comprehensive town -wide stormwater drainage plan.
•
Protect the town's Historic District.
I
•
Support the construction of package treatment plants which are approved and permitted
by the State.
•
Allow open water and upland marinas.
•
Allow dry stack storage facilities.
•
Support the development of mooring fields.
'
•
•
Oppose any development of sound and estuarine islands.
Support the State's management of the Rachel Carson Reserve.
•
Support the construction of bulkheads.
•
Support recommendations of the White Oak River Basinwide Management Plan
concerning long-term growth management, shellfish water closures, animal operation
waste management, and nutrients/toxic dinoflagellate.
Resource Protection and Management
• Discourage resource production that adversely affects Beaufort's sensitive coastal
environment or natural heritage areas.
' • Support the protection of coastal wetlands.
• Support aquaculture activities that meet all state, federal, and local policies and permit
requirements.
• Discourage any additional point source discharges into primary nursery areas and
shellfishing areas.
• Preserve natural vegetation and scenic views on the south side of Front Street in the R-8
zoning district.
• Oppose off -road vehicle use in coastal wetlands and in the Rachel Carson Reserve.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 110 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix B

FI
Economic and Community Development
• Expand the town's economic base.
• Maintain a reasonable policy of annexation.
• Support growth and development at the densities specified in the land classification
definitions.
• Require that all existing and new residential and commercial development be connected
to both the town water and sewer systems.
• Support the extension of water services beyond the ETJ area if adequate demand for
service exists.
• Support the development of central sewer service throughout the incorporated area and
unincorporated planning jurisdiction.
Support participation in a regional multi -county approach to solid waste management.
• Allow the reconstruction of any structures demolished by natural disaster which will
comply with existing state and local codes.
• Support the State's shoreline access policies.
• Encourage industrial development which will not adversely affect the natural
environment or the quality of established residential areas.
• Support NCDOT projects that improve access to the town.
• Support projects that will increase public access to shoreline areas.
I • Support activities of the NC Division of Travel and Tourism.
• Preserve the town's historic district and Taylor's Creek waterfront areas.
Beaufort supports implementation of the following land transportation improvements:
o A connector between N.C. 101 and U.S. 70 (the corridor for this road has not yet
been determined).
o Reroute U.S. 70 from Cedar Street to TurnerMest Beaufort Road.
o Utilize Orange and Turner Streets as a one-way pair providing access to the
waterfront.
o Elimination of the "Y" intersection with N.C. 101 and U.S. 70.
1
o Replacement of the drawbridge between Morehead City and Beaufort with a medium height bridge.
o A possible minor thoroughfare is proposed to connect Steep Point Road just east
of U.S. 70 and Mulberry Street at its intersection with Ocean Street.
1
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page I I of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix B

t
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Appendix C
Housina Characteristics
Total Housing Units
Beaufort
2,187
Carteret
County
40,947
North
Carolina
3,523,944
Occupied Housing Units
1,780
25,204
3,132,013
% Occupied
81.39%
61.55%
88.88%
No. Owner -Occupied
998
19,316
2,172,355
No. Renter -Occupied
782
5,888
959,658
• Owner -Occupied
56.07%
76.64%
69.56%
• Renter Occupied
43.93%
23.36%
30.72%
% W/1.01 or More Persons Per Room
1.46%
1.75%
3.01 %
Median Value, Owner -Occupied Units
$112,900
$106,400
$95,800
Total Vacant Units
407
15,743
391,931
For Seasonal, Recreational Use
241
13,537
134,870
Homeowner Vacancy Rate
0.6%
2.92%
1.2%
Rental Vacancy Rate
3.4%
5.39%
2.6%
Household Population
(Persons per Occupied Dwelling)
Beaufort
2.44
2.21
2.07
Carteret County
2.66
2.43
2.31
North Carolina
2.78
2.54
2.49
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; North Carolina State Data Center,
Office of State Budget and Management, 2003.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan
January 26, 2007
Appendix C
Page 112 of 138

[1
Appendix D
tSoil Characteristics
' This Appendix contains the following Carteret Count soils data prepared b the
pp 9 Y P p Y
Natural Resources Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture:
' D1 Ma Unit Legend. A description of soil name b soil ma symbol.
p 9 p Y p Y
' D2 Sewage Disposal. Rating classes and limiting features for septic tank
absorption fields and sewage lagoons.
D3 Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings. Rating classes and limiting
features for dwellings without basements, dwellings with basements, and
small commercial buildings.
D4 Hydric Soils. Delineates soils that are classified as hydric soils.
' The Carteret County soil survey was published in 1987. Soils maps have been
digitized. Soils maps are available at the offices of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service located at:
New Bern Field Office
302 Industrial Drive
New Bern, NC 28562-5434
Telephone: [phone] or 252-637-2642
' Fax: [phone]
11
1
Il
L Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 113 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix D

t
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Map Unit Legend
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map I Map unit name
symbol
AaA Altavista loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Ag Augusta loamy fine sand
Ap Arapahoe fine sandy loam
AuB Autryville loamy fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Be Beaches, coastal
Bf Beaches, storm tidal
BH Belhaven muck
Bn Beaches-Newhan complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes
ByB Baymeade fine sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes
Cd Corolla-Duckston complex
CH Carteret sand, frequently flooded
CL Carteret sand, low, frequently flooded
CnB Conetoe loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Co Corolla fine sand
CrB Craven loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes
CT Croatan muck
Cu Corolla -Urban land complex
DA Dare muck
De Deloss fine sandy loam
Dm Deloss mucky loam, frequently flooded
DO Dorovan muck, frequently flooded
Du Duckston fine sand, frequently flooded
Fr Fripp fine sand, 2 to 30 percent slopes
GoA Goldsboro loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
HB Hobucken mucky fine sandy loam, frequently flooded :
KuB Kureb sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
LF Longshoal muck, very frequently flooded. .
Ln Leon sand
Lu Leon -Urban land complex
Ly Lynchburg fine sandy loam
MA Masontown mucky loam, frequently flooded
Mc Mandarin -Urban land complex
Mn Mandarin sand
Mu Murvilie mucky sand
Nc Newhan-Corolla complex, 0 to 30 percent slopes
Nd Newhan fine sand, dredged, 2 to 30 percent slopes
Ne Newhan-Urban land complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Nh Newhan fine sand, 2 to 30 percent slopes
NoA Norfolk loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
NoB Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes
On Onslow loamy sand
Pa Pantego fine sandy loam
PO Ponzer muck
Ra Rains fine sandy loam
Ro Roanoke loam
Se Seabrook fine sand
StA State loamy fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Tm Tomotley fine sandy loam
To Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 1 of 2

Map
symbol
W
Wa6
Ws
wu6
1
1
1
11
I
Map Unit Legend
Carteret County, North Carolina
Water
Wando fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Wasda muck
Wando-Urban land complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Map unit name
Tabular Data Version: 3
Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004
Page 2 of 2
I

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
[The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite
investigation. The numbers in the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the
potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional
limitations]
Map symbol
and soil name
AaA:
Altavista
Ag:
Augusta
Pct.
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
of
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Restricted
0.5
permeability
85
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Restricted
0.5
Seepage
0.5
permeability ,
Ap:
Arapahoe, undrained
80 Very limited
Very limited -
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated 1
zone
zone
Seepage
1
Seepage_ 1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding 0.4
Arapahoe, drained
10 Not rated
Not rated
AuB:
Autryville
85 Somewhat limited
Very limited
Restricted
0.5,
Seepage 1
permeability
Depth to saturated
0.4
zone
Be:
Beaches 95 Not rated Very limited
Flooding 1
Seepage 1
Depth to saturated 1
zone
Bf:
Beaches 95 Not rated Very limited
Flooding 1
Seepage 1
Depth to saturated 1
zone
USDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit. Others may exist.
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 1 of 10

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
and soil name
Pct.
of
map
unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
BH:
Belhaven, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Restricted
1
Flooding
0.4
permeability
Flooding
0.4
Belhaven, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
Bn:
Beaches
65
Not rated
Very limited
Flooding
1
Seepage
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
Slope
0.08
Newhan
30
Very limited
Very limited
Filtering capacity
1
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Slope
1
Slope
0.84
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
ByB:
Baymeade
85 Very limited '
Very limited
Seepage
1
Seepage
1,
Depth to saturated
0.84
Slope
0.32
zone
Depth to saturated
0.17
zone
Cd:
Corolla
60 Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Filtering capacity
1
zone
Seepage
1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
Slope
0.08
Duckston
30 Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Filtering capacity
1
zone
Seepage
1
USDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exisL
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 2 of 10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Pct.
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Map symbol
of
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
CH:
Carteret, high
95
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
CL:
Carteret, low
95
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
CnB:
Conetoe
90
Very limited
Very limited
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Slope
0.08
Co:
Corolla
90
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Filtering capacity
1
zone
Seepage
1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
CrB:
Craven
85
Very limited
Very limited
Restricted
1
Depth to saturated
1
permeability
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Slope
0.08
Seepage
1
CT:
Croatan, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Restricted
0.68
Seepage
1
permeability
Croatan, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
USDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils In each map unit Others may exist
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 3 of 10

Map symbol
and soil name
Cu:
Corolla
Urban land
DA:
Dare, undrained
Dare, drained
De:
Deloss, undrained
Deloss, drained
Dm:
Deloss, undrained
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Pct.
of
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
50
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated 1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Filtering capacity 1
zone
Seepage 1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding 0.4
Slope
0.08
35
Not rated
Not rated
80 Very limited
Depth to saturated
zone
Subsidence
Seepage
Flooding
10 Not rated
Very limited
1 Depth to saturated 1
zone
1 Seepage 1
1 Content of organic 1
0.4 matter
Flooding 0.4
Not rated
80 Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1 Seepage, 1
zone
Depth to saturated 1
Seepage
1 zone
Ponding '
1 Ponding 1
Restricted
0.5
permeability
10 Not rated
Not rated
80 Very limited
Flooding
Depth to saturated
zone
Seepage
Ponding
Restricted
permeability
Very limited
1 Flooding 1
1 Seepage 1
Depth to saturated 1
1 zone
1 Ponding 1
0.5
USDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit. Others may exist.
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 4 of 10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Pct.
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Map symbol
of
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
DO:
Dorovan
90
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Subsidence
1
Seepage
0.5
Restricted
0.5
permeability
Du:
Duckston
90
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Filtering capacity
1
zone
Seepage
1
Fr:
Fripp
90
Very limited
Very limited
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
GOA:
Goldsboro
90
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone :
Depth to saturated -
1
Restricted
0.5
zone
permeability
HB:
Hobucken
90
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Ponding
1
Ponding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Content of organic
1
matter
KuB:
Kureb
80 Very limited Very limited
Seepage 1 Seepage 1
Slope 0.08
USDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils In each map unit Others may exist
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 5 of 10

Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Pct.
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Map symbol
of
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
LF:
Longshoal
90
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Content of organic
1
zone
matter
Subsidence
1
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Seepage
1
Ln:
Leon
80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Restricted
0.5
zone
permeability
Lu:
Leon
40
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Restricted
0.5
zone
permeability
Slope
0.08
Urban land
35
Not rated
Not rated
Ly:
Lynchburg
85
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone .
Restricted
0.5
Seepage <
1
permeability
MA:
Masontown, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Ponding
1
Ponding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Mc:
Mandarin
50
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Restricted
0.5
zone
permeability
Urban land
35
Not rated
Not rated
USDANatural Resources
This report shows only the major soils in each map unit. Other: may exist
Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 3
Tabular Data Version
Date: 12/10/2004
Page
6 of 10

1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
and soil name
Pct.
of
map
unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
Mn:
Mandarin 80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated 1
Seepage 1
zone
Depth to saturated 1
Restricted 0.5
zone
permeability
Mu:
Murville, undrained 85
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Ponding
1
Ponding
1
Nc:
Newhan 60
Very limited
Very limited
Filtering capacity
1
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
Corolla 30
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Filtering capacity
1
zone
Seepage
1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
Slope
0.08
Nd:
Newhan 75
Very limited
Very limited
Filtering capacity
1
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
Ne:
Newhan 60
Very limited
Very limited
Filtering capacity
1
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Slope
0.68
Urban land 30
Not rated
Not rated
Nh:
Newhan 85
Very limited
Very limited
Filtering capacity
1
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
USDANatural Resources
This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist.
Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 3
Tabular Data Version
Date: 12/10/2004
Page
7 of 10

Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
and soil name
Pct.
of
map
unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
NoA:
Norfolk 85
Somewhat limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated 1
Seepage 1
zone
Depth to saturated 0.71
Restricted 0.5
zone
permeability
NoB:
Norfolk 85
Somewhat limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
0.71
Restricted
0.5
zone
permeability
Slope
0.32
On:
Onslow 90
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Restricted
0.5
zone
permeability
Pa:
Pantego, undrained 85
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1 '
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Restricted
0.5
Seepage
1
permeability
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
Pantego, drained 10
Not rated
Not rated
PO:
Ponzer, undrained 80
Very limited
Very limited
Restricted
1
Depth to saturated
1
permeability
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Content of organic
1
zone
matter
Seepage
0.32
Ponzer, drained 10
Not rated
Not rated
Ra:
Rains, undrained 80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Restricted
0.5
Seepage
0.5
permeability
Rains, drained 10
Not rated
Not rated
USDANatural Resources
This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist
Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 3
Tabular Data Version
Date: 12/10/2004
Page
8 of 10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A
1
1
1
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Pct.
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Map symbol
of
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
Ro:
Roanoke, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Restricted
1
Depth to saturated
1
permeability
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Seepage
1
Roanoke, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
Se:
Seabrook
90
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
StA:
State
90
Very limited
Very limited
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
0.71
zone
zone
Restricted
0.5
permeability
Tm:
Tomotley, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
Seepage.
1
Seepage
1
Restricted
0.68
permeability
Tomotley, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
To:
Torhunta, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Depth to saturated
1
Seepage
1
zone
Torhunta, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
W:
Water
100
Not rated
Not rated
USDANatural Resources
This report shows only the major soils in each map unit. Others may exist
Conservation Service
Tabular Data Version: 3
Tabular Data Version
Date: 12/10/2004
Page
9 of 10

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
i
1
Sewage Disposal
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
and soil name
Pct.
of
map
unit
Septic tank absorption fields
Sewage lagoons
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
WaB:
Wando
90
Very limited
Very limited
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Depth to saturated
0.4
Slope
0.08
zone
Ws:
Wasda, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated"
1
zone
zone
Seepage
1
Content of organic
1
Restricted
0.5
matter
permeability
Seepage
0.5
Flooding
0.4
Flooding
0.4
Wasda, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
WuB:
Wando
50
Very limited '
Very limited
Seepage
1
Seepage
1
Depth to saturated
0.4
Slope
0.08
zone
Urban land
35
Not rated
Not rated
USDANatural ataral Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist.
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 10 of 10

Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
[The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation. The numbers in the value
columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The table shows only the top five limitations for any given
soil. The soil may have additional limitations]
Map symbol
Pct.
of
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Aak
Altavista 80 Somewhat limited Very limited
Depth to saturated 0.39 Depth to saturated
zone zone
Ag:
Augusta
Ap:
Arapahoe, undrained
Arapahoe, drained
AuB:
Autryville
Somewhat limited
1 Depth to saturated 0.39
zone
85
Somewhat limited
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Depth to saturated
0.98 Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated 0.98
zone
zone
zone
80
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1 Flooding
1
Flooding 1
Depth to saturated
1 Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated 1
zone
zone
zone
10
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
85
Not limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
0.15
zone
Be:
Beaches 95 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1 Flooding 1 Flooding 1
Depth to saturated 0.95 -
zone
Bf:
Beaches 95 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1 Flooding 1 Flooding 1
Depth to saturated 0.95
zone
BH:
Belhaven, undrained
Belhaven, drained
80 Very limited
Flooding
Depth to saturated
zone
Subsidence
10 Not rated
Very limited
1 Flooding
1 Depth to saturated
zone
1 Subsidence
Not rated
Very limited
1 Flooding 1
1 Depth to saturated 1
zone
1 Subsidence 1
Not rated
USDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 1 of 8

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
Pct.
of
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Bn:
Beaches 65 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1 Flooding 1 Flooding 1
Depth to saturated 0.95
zone
Newhan 30 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1 Flooding 1 Flooding 1
Slope 0.84 Slope 0.84 Slope 1
ByB:
Baymeade 85 Not limited Somewhat limited Not limited
Depth to saturated 0.35
zone
Cd:
Corolla
60
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
0.98
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
0.98
zone
zone
zone
Duckston
30
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
CH:
Carteret, high
95
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding _
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone ;
zone
CL:
Carteret, low
95
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1-
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
CnB:
Conetoe
Cc:
Corolla
90 Not limited
Not limited
90 Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1 Flooding
Depth to saturated 0.98 Depth to saturated
zone zone
Not limited
Very limited
1 Flooding 1
1 Depth to saturated 0.98
zone
USDANatu)l iU Resources This report shows only the major soils In each map unit Others may exist
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 2 of 8

t
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
Pct.
of
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
I
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
I
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
CrB:
Craven
CT:
Croatan, undrained
Croatan, drained
Cu:
Corolla
85 Somewhat limited
Shrink -swell
80 Very limited
Subsidence
Depth to saturated
zone
10 Not rated
Very limited
0.5 Depth to saturated
zone
Shrink -swell
Very limited
1 Subsidence
1 Depth to saturated
zone
Not rated
Somewhat limited
1 Shrink -swell
0.5
Very limited
1 Subsidence
1" Depth to saturated
zone
Not rated
0.5
50 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1 Flooding 1 Flooding 1
Depth to saturated 0.07 Depth to saturated 1 Depth to saturated 0.07
zone zone zone
Urban land
35 Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
DA:
Dare, undrained
80 Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Subsidence
1
Subsidence
1 Subsidence
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1 Flooding
1
Depth to saturated.
1
Depth to saturated
1 Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone.
Content of organic
1
Content of organic
1
matter
matter
Dare, drained
10 Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
De:
Deloss, undrained
Deloss, drained
Dm:
Deloss, undrained
80 Very limited
Depth to saturated
zone
Ponding
10 Not rated
80 Very limited
Flooding
Depth to saturated
zone
Ponding
Very limited
1 Depth to saturated
zone
1 Ponding
Not rated
Very limited
1 Flooding
1 Depth to saturated
zone
1 Ponding
Very limited
1 Depth to saturated 1
zone
1 Ponding 1
Not rated
Very limited
1 Flooding 1
1 Depth to saturated 1
zone
1 Ponding 1
USDANatural Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 3 of 8

Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
I
Pct.
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
Map symbol
of
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
Value
Rating class and
Value
Rating Gass and
Value
limiting features
limiting features
limiting features
DO:
Dorovan
90
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Subsidence
1
Subsidence
1
Subsidence
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Du:
Duckston
90
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Fr
Fripp
90
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Slope
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
GoA:
Goldsboro
90
Not limited
- Very limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
1
zone
HB:
Hobucken
90
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Ponding
1
Ponding
1
Ponding
1
Flooding
1-
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone '
KuB:
Kureb
80
Not limited
Not limited
Not limited
LF:
Longshoal '
90
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Subsidence
1
Subsidence
1
Subsidence
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Content of organic
1
Content of organic
1
Content of organic
1
matter
matter
matter
Ln:
Leon
80
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
V SDA NatuM Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist.
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 4 of 8

Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
I
Map symbol
Pct.
of
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and TValue
limiting features
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
I
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Lu:
Leon
40
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Urban land
35
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
Ly:
Lynchburg
85
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Masontown, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Ponding -
1
Ponding
1
Ponding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Mc:
Mandarin
50
Not limited
Very limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
1
zone
Urban land
35
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
Mn:
t
Mandarin
80
Not limited
Very limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
1
zone
Mu:
Murville, undrained
85
.Very limited.
Very limited
Very limited.
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
Ponding
1
zone
Ponding
1
zone _
Ponding
1
Nc:
Newhan
60
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
Corolla
30
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
0.07
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
0.07
zone
zone
zone
USDA Natull a Resources
This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service
Date: 12/10/2004
Page 5 of 8
Tabular Data
Version

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
Pct.
of
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
limiting features
FVae
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Nd: ---
Newhan 75 Very limited Very limited Very limited
Flooding 1 Flooding 1 Flooding 1
Slope 1 Slope 1 Slope 1
Ne:
Newhan
60
Not limited
Not limited
Somewhat limited
Slope
0.13
Urban land
30
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
Nh:
Newhan
85
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Flooding
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
Slope
1
NoA:
Norfolk
85
Not limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
0.61
zone
NoB:
Norfolk
85
Not limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
0.61
zone
On:
Onslow
90
Somewhat limited
Very limited
Somewhat limited
Depth to saturated
0.07
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
0.07
zone
zone
zone`
Pa:
Pantego, undrained
85
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Flooding
1
Flooding_
1
Flooding
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Pantego, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
PO:
Ponzer, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated
1
zone
zone
zone
Subsidence
1
Subsidence
1
Subsidence
1
Ponzer, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
USDANatural aturai Resources
This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist.
Conservation Service
Tabular Data
Version: 3
Tabular Data
Version
Date: 12/10/2004
Page
6 of 8

Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
Pct.
of
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Ra:
Rains, undrained
Rains, drained
Ro:
Roanoke, undrained
Roanoke, drained
Se:
Seabrook
80 Very limited
Depth to saturated
zone
10 Not rated
80 Very limited
Depth to saturated
zone
Shrink -swell
10 Not rated
Very limited
1 Depth to saturated
zone
Not rated
Very limited
1 Depth to saturated
zone
0.5 Shrink -swell
Not rated
Very limited
1 Depth to saturated 1
zone
Not rated
Very limited
1 Depth to saturated 1
zone
0.5 Shrink -swell 0.5
Not rated
90 Somewhat limited Very limited Somewhat limited
Depth to saturated 0.39 Depth to saturated 1 Depth to saturated 0.39
zone zone zone
StA:
State
90
Not limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
0.61
zone
Tm:
Tomotley, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited'
Depth to saturated
1 Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated 1
zone
zone
zone
Tomotley, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
To:
Torhunta, undrained
80
Very limited
Very limited
Very limited
Depth to saturated
1 Depth to saturated
1
Depth to saturated 1
zone
zone
zone
Torhunta, drained
10
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
W:
Water
100
Not rated
Not rated
Not rated
WaB:
Wando
90
Not limited
Somewhat limited
Not limited
Depth to saturated
0.15
zone
USDA Natural Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit Others may exist
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 7 of 8

1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dwellings and Small Commercial Buildings
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol
Pct.
of
Dwellings without basements
Dwellings with basements
Small commercial buildings
and soil name
map
unit
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Rating class and
limiting features
Value
Ws:
Wasda, undrained
Wasda, drained
WuB:
Wando
Urban land
80 Very limited
Flooding
Depth to saturated
zone
10 Not rated
Very limited
1 Flooding
1 Depth to saturated
zone
Not rated
Very limited
1 Flooding
1 Depth to saturated
zone
Not rated
50 Not limited Somewhat limited Not limited
Depth to saturated 0.15
zone
35 Not rated Not rated Not rated
1
1
USDA NatuM Resources This report shows only the major soils in each map unit. Others may exisL
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Sei Ace Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 8 of 8

Hydric Soils
Carteret County, North Carolina
[This report lists only those map unit components that are rated as hydric. Dashes (—) in any column indicate that the data were not included in the
database. Definitions of hydric criteria codes are included at the end of the report]
Ag:
Augusta loamy fine sand
Tomotley, undrained
Ap.
Arapahoe fine sandy loam
Arapahoe, undrained
Arapahoe, drained
AuB:
Autryville loamy fine sand, 0 to 6
Muckalee, undrained
percent slopes
Be:
Beaches, coastal
Beaches
i
Bf:
Beaches, stone tidal
Beaches
BH:
Belhaven muck
Belhaven, undrained
Belhaven, drained
Bni
Beaches-Newhan complex, 0 to 30
Beaches
percent slopes
ByB:
Baymeade fine sand, 1 to 6 percent
Leon
slopes
Cd:
Corolla-Duckston complex
Duckston
CH:
Carteret sand, frequently flooded
Carteret, high
CL:
Carteret sand, low, frequently flooded
Carteret, low
Co:
Corolla fine sand
Duckston
USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Carteret, high
5 Depression, Flat Yes 2B3
80
Flat
Yes
2B3
10
Flat
Yes
2B3
2
Flood plain
Yes
2B3
95
Barrier beach, Barrier
Yes
2B1
flat
95
Barrier beach, Barrier
Yes
2B1
flat
80
Pocosin
Yes
1
10
Pocosin
Yes
1
65 `
Barrier beach, Barrier
Yes
2B1
flat
5
Flat
Yes
2B3
30
Barrier island,
Yes
2B1
Depression, Flat
95
Tidal marsh
Yes
2B1
95
Tidal marsh
Yes
2B1
5
Barrier island,
Yes
2B1
Depression, Flat
2
Tidal marsh
Yes
2B1
Tabular Data Version: 3
Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004
Page 1 of 5
Map symbol and
Component
Percent
of map
Landform
Hydric
Hydric
map unit name
unit
rating
criteria

1
1
t
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hydric Soils
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol and
map unit name
Component
Percent
of map
Landform
Hydric
rating
Hydric
criteria
unit
CT:
Croatan muck
Croatan, undrained
80
Pocosin
Yes
1
Croatan, drained
10
Pocosin
Yes
1
Cu:
Corolla -Urban land complex
Duckston
5
Barrier island,
Yes
2B1
Depression, Fiat
DA:
Dare muck
Dare, undrained
80
Pocosin
Yes
1
Dare, drained
10
Pocosin
Yes
1
De:
Deloss fine sandy loam
Deloss, undrained
80
Depression, Flat
Yes
2B3
Deloss, drained
10
Depression, Flat
Yes
2B3
Dm:
Deloss mucky loam, frequently flooded
Deloss, undrained
80
Depression, Flat
Yes
2B3
DO:
Dorovan muck, frequently flooded
Dorovan
90
Flood plain
Yes
1,4
Du:
Duckston fine sand, frequently flooded
Duckston
90
Barrier island,
Yes
281
Depression, Flat
Fr:
Fripp fine sand, 2 to 30 percent slopes
Conaby, undrained
5
Depression, Pocosin
Yes
2B3
GoA:
Goldsboro loamy fine sand, 0 to 2
Rains, undrained
5
Carolina bay,
Yes
2B3
percent slopes
Depression
Muckalee, undrained
1
Flood plain
Yes
2B3
HB:
Hobucken mucky fine sandy loam,
Hobucken
90
Tidal marsh
Yes
2B3, 3
frequently flooded
KuB:
Kureb sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Leon
5
Flat
Yes
2B3
LF:
Longshoal muck, very frequently
Longshoal
90
Marsh
Yes
1, 4
flooded
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 2 of 5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hydric Soils
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol and
Component
Percent
of map
Landform
H dric
Y
H dric
Y
map unit name
unit
rating
criteria
Ln:
Leon sand Leon 80 Flat Yes 2B3
Lu:
Leon -Urban land complex Leon 40 Flat Yes 2B3
Ly:
Lynchburg fine sandy loam
Rains, undrained
5
Depression
Yes
2B3
Woodington, undrained
2
Depression
Yes
2B3
MA:
Masontown mucky loam, frequently
Masontown, undrained
80
Flood plain
Yes
2B3, 3, 4
flooded
Mc:
Mandarin -Urban land complex
Leon
5
Flat
Yes
2B3
Mn:
Mandarin sand
Leon
5
Flat
Yes
2B3
Murville
2
Depression
Yes
2B3
Mu:
Murville mucky sand
Murville, undrained
85
Depression
Yes
2B3
Nc:
Newhan-Corolla complex, 0 to 30
Duckston
5
Barrier island,
Yes
2B1
percent slopes
Depression, Flat
Ne:
Newhan-Urban land complex, 0 to 8
Duckston
5
Barrier island,
Yes
2B1
percent slopes
Depression, Flat
Nh:
Newhan fine sand, 2 to 30 percent
Beaches
5
Barrier beach, Barrier
Yes
2B1
slopes
flat
NoB:
Norfolk loamy fine sand, 2 to 6 percent
Woodington, undrained
3
Depression
Yes
2B3
slopes
Muckalee, undrained
1
Flood plain
Yes
2B3
On:
Onslow loamy sand
Rains, undrained
5
Carolina bay,
Yes
2B3
Depression
USDA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 3 of 5

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hydric Soils
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol and
Component
Percent
of map
Landform
Hydric
Hydric
map unit name
unit
rating
criteria
Pa:
Pantego fine sandy loam Pantego, undrained 85 Flat Yes 2133
Pantego, drained 10 Flat Yes 2B3
PO:
Ponzer muck
Ponzer, undrained
80
Flat, Pocosin
Yes
1
Ponzer, drained
10
Flat, Pocosin
Yes
1
Ra:
Rains fine sandy loam
Rains, undrained
80
Carolina bay, .
Yes
263'
Depression
Rains, drained
10
Carolina bay,
Yes
2133
Depression
Ro:
Roanoke loam
Roanoke, undrained
80
Depression, Flat
Yes
2133
Roanoke, drained
10
Depression, Flat
Yes
263
Se:
Seabrook fine sand
Nimmo, undrained
5
Depression, Flat
Yes
2133
Leon
2
Flat
Yes
2133
Tm:
Tomotley fine sandy loam
Tomotley, undrained
80
Depression, Flat
Yes
263
Tomotley, drained
10
Depression, Flat
Yes
263
To:
Torhunta mucky fine sandy loam
Torhunta, undrained
80
Flat
Yes
2133
Torhunta, drained
10
Flat
Yes
2B3
WaB:
Wando fine sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes
Leon
3
Flat
Yes
2133
Muckalee, undrained
2
Flood plain
Yes
2133
Ws:
Wasda muck
Wasda, undrained
80
Depression, Flat
Yes
2133
Wasda, drained
10
Depression, Flat
Yes
263
USA Natural Resources
Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004 Page 4 of 5

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
Hydric Soils
Carteret County, North Carolina
Map symbol and
Component
Percent
of map
Landform
Hydric
Hydric
map unit name
unit
rating
criteria
WuB:
Wando-Urban land complex, 0 to 6 Leon 3 Flat
percent slopes
Explanation of hydric criteria codes:
1. All Histels except for Folistels, and Histosols except for Folists.
2. Soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups, Albolls suborder, Historthels great group,
Histoturbels great group, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that:
A. are somewhat poorly drained and have a water table at the surface (0.0 feet)
during the growing season, or
B. are poorly drained or very poorly drained and have either:
1.) a water table at the surface (0.0 feet) during the growing season if textures are
coarse sand, sand, or fine sand in all layers within a depth of 20 inches, or
2.) a water table at a depth of 0.5 foot or less during the growing season if permeability
is equal to or greater than 6.0 in/hr in all layers within a depth of 20 inches, or
3.) a water table at a depth of 1.0 foot or less during the growing season if permeability
is less than 6.0 in/hr in any layer within a depth of 20 inches.
3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long or very long duration during the growing season.
4. Soils that are frequently flooded for long or very long duration during the growing season.
USDA Natural Resources Tabular Data Version: 3
Conservation Service Tabular Data Version Date: 12/10/2004
Yes 2133
Page 5 of 5

Appendix E
' Water Quality Classifications
White Oak River Subbasins 03-05-03 and 03-05-04
Source: NC Division of Water Quality
1
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 114 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix E

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Report Date: 02104105
North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin Records Found. 91
Search Parameters:
Note: Waterbodies are listed in more than one Subbasin if they cross subbasin boundaries.
Subbasin: 03-05-03
Class:
Name:
Desc:
Index#:
Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
.....tL6x.e �z.vea'�,$t+i+e.`4�<+'G.».S.G?z"±.rweu.✓.n«wr',�"✓x"*v+.3»aa✓.r�r.`.ir-ais,.,asn�.i'aaaaa.�u�,a:�:.m5.r..�±::'k:�.w,t.uxaa6'ssn..-.ddrii�.N^a:'z'.w
+�=w� „:�;d.,u«� `iasd6'.�'x3»s. ��v..s
�dx+Kw'+Arwm%.dW..;ra'ati.nii �Y Mrw�sofffi�..w�"evw.v..
Intracoastal
From the southwest mouth
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
19-41-(15.5)
Waterway
of Queen Creek to Whiteoak
River
WHITE OAK RIVER
From Hunters Creek to
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-(18)
Atlantic Ocean, including
the Intracoastal Waterway,
with exception of restricted
shellfish area adjacent to
Swansboro
Bogue Sound
From Bogue Inlet (from a
SA;ORW
01/01/90
White Oak
20-36-(0.5)
(Including
line running from the
Intracoastal
eastern mouth of Bogue Inlet
Waterway)
to SR 1117 on the
mainland) to a line across
Bogue Sound from the
southwest side of mouth of
Gales Creek to Rock Point
Deer Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;ORW
01/01/90
White Oak
20-36-1
Hunting Island
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-2
Creek
Taylor Bay
Entire Bay
SA;ORW
01/01/90
White Oak
20-36-3
Goose Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-4
Sanders Creek
From source to Goose Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-4-1
Archer Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;ORW
01/01/90
White Oak
20-36-5
(Piney Cr.)
Sanders Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;ORW
01/01/90
White Oak
20-36-6
East Prong
From source to Sanders Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-6-1
Sanders Cr.
Sikes Branch
From source to East Prong
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-6-1-1
Sanders Creek
Broad Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-7
West Prong
From source to Broad Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-7-1
Broad Creek
Hannah Branch
From source to West Prong
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-7-1-1
Broad Creek
Sandy Branch
From source to Hannah Branch
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White Oak
20-36-7-1-1-1
Page 1 of 6

Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Wolf Branch
From source to West Prong
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-7-1-2
Broad Creek
East Prong
From source to Broad Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-7-2
Broad Creek
Gales Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-8
East Prong
From source to Gales Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-8-1
Gales Creek
Bogue Sound
From a line across Bogue
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-(8.5)
(Including
Sound from the southwest
Intracoastal
side of mouth of Gales Creek
Waterway to
to Rock Point to Beaufort
Beaufort Inlet)
Inlet
Jumping Run
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-9
Roosevelt Natural
All of the fresh waters
C;Sw,ORW
06/01/88
White
Oak
20-36-9.5-(1)
Area Swamp
within the property
boundaries of the natural
area including swamp forest,
shrub swamp and ponds
Roosevelt Natural
All of the saline waters
SA;Sw,OR
06/01/88
White
Oak
20-36-9.5-(2)
Area Swamp
within the boundaries of the
W
natural area including
brackish marsh and salt
marsh
Spooner Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-10
Peltier Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SB:#
06/01/92
White
Oak
20-36-11
Hoop Pole Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-12
Money Island Bay
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-13
Money Island
From source to Money
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-13-1
Slough
Island Bay
Allen Slough
From source to Money
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-13-2
Island Bay
Harbor Channel
Entire Channel
SC
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-14
Tar Landing Bay
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-15
Fishing Creek
From source to Tar Landing
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-15-1
Bay
Fort Macon Creek
From source to Bogue Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
20-36-16
NEWPORT RIVER
From source to Little
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-(1)
Creek Swamp
Northwest Prong
From source to Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-2
Newport River
Little Run
From source to Northwest
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-2-1
Prong Newport River
Cypress Drain
From source to Northwest
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-2-2
Prong Newport River
Page 2 of 6

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Southwest Prong
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-3
Newport River
Mairey Branch
From
source
to
Southwest
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-3-1
Prong
Newport River
Millis Swamp
From
source
to
Southwest
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-3-2
Prong
Newport River
Juniper Branch
From
source
to
Southwest
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-3-3
Prong
Newport River
Peak Swamp
From
source
to
Southwest
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-3-4
Prong Newport River
Jasons Branch
From
source
to
Southwest
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-3-5
Prong Newport River
East Prong Jasons
From
source
to
Jasons Branch
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-3-5-1
Branch
Milldam Branch
From
source
to
Southwest
C
06/01/56
white
Oak
21-3-6
Prong Newport River
Big Ramhorn
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-4
Branch
Little Ramhorn
From
source
to
Big Ramhorn
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-4-1
Branch
Branch
Meadows Branch
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-5
Shoe Branch
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-6
Cedar Swamp Creek
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
white
Oak
21-7
School House
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-8
Branch
Smiths Swamp
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-9
Slakes Branch
From
source
to
Smiths Swamp
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-9-1
Smiths Swamp
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
white
Oak
21-10
Branch
Deep Creek
From
source
to
Newport River
C
09/01/74
White
Oak
21-11
Laurel Branch
From
source
to
Deep Creek
C
09/01/74
White
Oak
21-11-1
Little Deep Creek
From
source
to
Deep Creek
C
09/01/74
White
Oak
21-11-2
Snows Swamp
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-12
Branch
Sandy Branch
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-13
Lodge Creek
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-14
Hull Swamp
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-15
Black Creek (Mill
From
source
to
Newport River
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-16
Pond)
Main Prong
From
source
to
Mill Pond,
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-16-1
Black Creek
Ghouls Fork
From
source
to
Main Prong
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-16-1-1
Money Island
From
source
to
Mill Pond,
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-16-2
Swamp
Black Creek
Page 3 of 6

Name of Stream Description
Curt. Class Date Prop. Class Bain Stream Index #
Billys Branch
From source to Mill Pond,
C
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-16-3
Black Creek
NEWPORT RIVER
From Little Creek Swamp to
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-(17)
Atlantic Ocean with
exception of Morehead City
Harbor restricted area
Little Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-18
Swamp
Mill Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-19
Big Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-20
Little Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-21
Harlowe Creek
From source (at N.C. Hwy.
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-22
# 101) to Newport River
Harlowe Canal
From Neuse River Basin
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-22-1
Boundary (at Craven -Carteret
County Line) to Harlowe
Creek (at N.C. Hwy. # 101)
Alligator Creek
From source to Harlowe Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-22-2
Oyster Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-23
Core Creek
From Neuse River Basin
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-24
(Intracoastal
boundary to Newport River
Waterway Adams
Creek Canal)
Eastman Creek
From source to Core Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-24-1
Bell Creek
From source to Core Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-24-2
Ware Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-25
Russell Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-26
Wading Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-27
Gable Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-28
Willis Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-29
Crab Point Bay
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-30
Page 4 of b

Name of Stream Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Newport River
All waters within a line SC 06/01/56 White Oak 21-31
Restricted Area
beginning at a point of land
(Morehead City
near the south end of llth
Harbor)
street in Morehead City at
Lat. 34 43' 08, Long. 76
43, 04; thence in straight
line to the western end of
Sugarloaf Island; thence
along the north shore of the
Island to the eastern end of
the Island; thence in a
straight line to Channel
Marker C 1 near the
western end of the Turning
Basin; thence in a
straight line to a point
in the Turning Basin at Lat.
34 42'50, Long. 76 41' 36;
thence in a northerly
direction to a point in
Intracoastal Waterway at
Lat. 34 43' 25, Long. 76
41' 40 adjacent to the
channel leading to
Morehead City Yacht Basin;
thence in a straight line in
a westerly direction to a
point of land on the
Morehead City Mainland at
Lat. 34 43' 23, Long. 76
42, 24.
Calico Creek
From source to Newport River SC;HQW 06/01/56 White Oak 21-32
(The mouth of Calico Creek
is defined as beginning at a
point of land on the north
shore at Lat. 34 43' 46,
Long. 76 43, 07, thence
across the creek in a
straight line to a point
of land on the south shore
at Lat. 34 43' 36, Long.
76 43' 05)
Town Creek
From source to Newport River SC 06/01/56 White Oak 21-33
(The mouth of Town Creek
is defined as beginning at a
point of land on the north
shore at Lat. 34 43' 41,
Long. 76 40, 04, thence
across the creek in a
straight line to a point
of land on the south shore
at Lat. 34 43' 23, Long.
76 40' 04)
Page 5 of 6

Name of Stream
Description
Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Taylor Creek
From source to Newport River
SC 06/01/56 White Oak 21-34
(The mouth of Taylor Creek
'
is defined as beginning at a
point of land on the north
shore at Lat. 34 43' 07,
Long. 76 40' 13, thence
'
across the creek in a
straight line to a point
of land on the south shore
at Lat. 34 42' 55, Long.
76 40' 10)
Back Sound
From Newport River to a
SA;HQW 06/01/56 White Oak 21-35-(0.5)
point on Shackleford Banks
at lat. 34 40'57 and long 76
37'30 north to the western
most point of Middle Marshes
and along the northeast
shoreline of Middle
Marshes to Rush Point on
IHarkers
Island
Atlantic Ocean
The waters of the Atlantic
SB 07/01/73 White Oak 99-(4)
Ocean contiguous to that
portion of the White Oak
River Basin that extends
from the northern boundary
of White Oak River Basin
'
(southwest side of Drum
Inlet) to the southern
boundary of White Oak
I
River Basin (northern
boundary of Cape Fear
River Basin at the southwest
side of the mouth of Goose
Bay in the Intracoastal
Waterway.
IPage 6 of 6

Report Date: 03112105
North Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin Records Found: 61
Note: Waterbodies are listed in more than one subbasin if they cross subbasin boundaries.
Name of Strcam Description Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin
Search Parameters:
Subbasin: 03-05-04
Class:
Name:
Desc:
Index#:
Strcam Index #
Wading Creek
From source to Newport River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-27
Taylor Creek
From source to Newport River
SC
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-34
(The mouth of Taylor Creek
is defined as beginning at a
'
point of land on the north
shore at Lat. 34 43' 07,
Long. 76 40' 13, thence
across the creek in a
straight line to a point
of land on the south shore
at Lat. 34 42' 55, Long.
76 40' 10)
Back Sound
From Newport River to a
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-(0.5)
point on Shackleford Banks
at lat. 34 40'57 and long 76
37,30 north to the western
most point of Middle Marshes
and along the northeast
'
shoreline of Middle
Marshes to Rush Point on
Harkers Island
'
North River
From source to Back Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1
Feltons Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-1
Deep Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-2
Crabbing Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-3
Lynch Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-4
Thomas Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-5
Fulcher Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-6
Ward Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-7
Gilliklin Creek
From source to Ward Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-7-1
North Leopard
From source to Ward Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-7-2
Creek
'
South Leopard
From source to Ward Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-7-3
Creek
Newby Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-8
Goose Bay
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-9
Gibbs Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-10
Page I of 3

' Name of Stream
Description
Curr. Class
Date Prop. Class
Basin
Stream Index #
Davis Bay (Cheney
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-11
Bay)
' Turner Creek
From source to Davis Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-11-1
The Straits
From Core Sound to North
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-12
River
Sleepy Creek
From source to The Straits
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-12-1
Whitehurst Creek
From source to The Straits
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-12-2
Westmouth Bay
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-12-3
Henry Jones Creek
From source to Westmouth Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-12-3-1
Eastmouth Bay
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-12-3.5
1 Janes Creek
From source to The Straits
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-12-4
Brooks Creek
From source to North River
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-1-13
Back Sound
From a point on
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-(1.5)
Shackleford Banks at lat. 34
40'57 and long 76 37'30
north to the western most
point of Middle Marshes
and along the northwest
shoreline of Middle
Marshes (to include all of
Middle Marshes) to Rush
Point on Harkers Island
and along the southern shore
of Harkers Island back to
Core Sound
Core Sound
From northern boundary of
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7
White Oak River Basin (a
line from Hall Point to Drum
Inlet) to Back Sound
Little Port
From source to Core Sound
SC
12/01/92
White
Oak
21-35-7-2
Branch
(including Atlantic Harbor)
Styron Bay
Entire Bay
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-3
Glover Creek
From source to Styron Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-3-1
'
Annis Run
From source to Styron Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-3-2
Styron Creek
From source to Styron Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-3-3
Cedar Creek
From source to Styron Creek
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-3-3-1
Nelson Bay
From mouth of Salters
SC
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-10-(1)
Creek to a line extending
from mouth of Broad Creek
'
due east across Nelson Bay
Salters Creek
From source to Nelson Bay
SC
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-10-2
' Mingo Creek
From source to Nelson Bay
SC
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-10-3
Broad Creek
From source to Nelson Bay
SC
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-10-4
Nelson Bay
From a line extending from
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-10-(5)
mouth of Broad Creek due
east across Nelson Bay to
Core Sound
Lewis Creek
From source to Nelson Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-10-6
Page 2 of 3

1
1
1
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Name of Stream Description
Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Baffin Stream Index #
Pasture Creek
From
source
to
Nelson Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-10-7
Willis Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-11
Fulchers Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-12
Brett Bay
Entire Bay
SA;ORW
01/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-13
Maria Creek
From
source
to
Brett Bay
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-13-1
Fork Creek
From
source
to
Brett Bay
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-13-2
Oyster Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-18
Spit Bay
Entire Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-21
Jarrett Bay
Entire Bay
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-22
Smyrna Creek
From
source
to
Jarrett Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-22-1
Ditch Cove
From
source
to
Jarrett Bay
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-22-2
Broad Creek
From
source
to
Jarrett Bay
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-22-3
Great Creek
From
source
to
Jarrett Bay
SA;ORW
01/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-22-4
Howland Creek
From
source
to
Jarrett Bay
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-22-5
Williston Creek
From
source
to
Jarrett Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-22-6
Wade Creek
From
source
to
Jarrett Bay
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-22-7
Jump Run
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-23
Middens Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA;HQW
06/01/56
White
Oak
21-35-7-24
Tush Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-25
Great Marsh Creek
From
source
to
Core Sound
SA;ORW
O1/01/90
White
Oak
21-35-7-26
Page 3 of 3

1
1
1
Appendix F
Natural Area and Rare Species Inventory
Carteret County
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 115 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix F

M M= M a== m i s t is m m m m m m
Natural Area and Rare Species Inventory
Carteret County
Major Grouo
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status '
Federal
, Status
.. State
;` Rank,
Global
Rank
County - Status
Mammal
Neotoma flondana floddana
Eastern Woodrat Coastal Plain
population
T
S1
G5T5
Carteret - Historic
Mammal
Puma concolor couguar
Eastern Cougar
E
E
SH
G5TH
Carteret - Obscure
Mammal
Sciurus niger „t;,
_. _..,,..
.Saste4n,F4x Squirrel
_ ..w, _,.:a.,
SR
_...
-
, : S3 , ..:_
G5
. Carteret -. Obscure
Mammal
Trichechus manatus
West Indian Manatee
E
E
S1 N
G2
Carteret - Current
Bird
Aimophila aestivalis „_*„�, „
Bachman S Sparrow
SC
FSC
S36,S2N
, G3
Carteret - Current
Bird
Ammodramus henslowii
Henslow's Sparrow
SR
FSC
S2B,S1 N
G4
Carteret - Current
Bird
Anhinga anhingak.., <. _
An hinga �. r,-
_.. - __.
„ -, SR µ „
S26,SZN
G5
Carteret -Historic_
Bird
Botaurus lentiginosus
American Bittern
SR
-
S1 B,S3N
G4
Carteret - Current
Bird.
Charadrius melodus ,. „., „ Piping,Plover,m �.;',; , , ,
_.: w_..,,. ; _
T
a.,
�„
S2B,S2N .
, G3
Carteret- Current
Bird
Charadrius Wlsonia
Wilson's Plover
SR
-
S3B,SZN
G5
Carteret - Current
Bird
Circus cyaneus , , ,
Northern Harper , - ,
, ,;:;, SR , .,_
,., , _
,;; S18,S4N
ti G5
„.Carteret -Current
Bird
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Yellow Rail
SR
-
S2N
G4
Carteret - Current
Bird
Dendrolca wens waynei
Black -throated Green Warbler - Coastal
; SRS3B,SZN
G5TU
Carteret - Current
j'tain pulaUon{
_ .m
Bird
Egretta caerulea
Little Blue Heron
SC
-
S3B,S3N
G5
Carteret - Current
Bird
Egretta thula
Snowy Egret
SC,.
S 3B,M
G5 ,.
Carteret - Current
Bird
-, .,_ w: ...., : w..
Egretta tricolor
... , .. . _
Tricolored Heron
_ , ,..,:
SC
. A w
-
_ ,
S3B,S3N
_,.
G5
_.
Carteret - Current
Bird
Falco peregrinus
Peregrine Falcon£, , -
E
..x ., w
r
_ $1 B,S2N
s ,, ._ _ -2 .
; G4
_ , _ .
,_ Carteret -Current
Bird
Himantopus mexicanus
Black -necked Stilt
SR
-
S213
G5
Carteret - Current
Bird _
Ictinia mississippiensis_;
Mississippi )Cite'ry
SR
S26
G5
Carteret -Current
Bird
Lanius ludovicianus ludovicianus
Loggerhead Shrike
SC
-
S3B,S3N
G4T4
Carteret - Current
Bird
Laterallus jamaicensis :
Black Pail ;, Fw w ..
SR FSC
t S3B S2N _,
G4
Carteret - Current ,
Bird
Passerina ciris ciris
Eastern Painted Bunting
SR
FSC
S3B,SZN
G5T3T4
Carteret - Current
Bird
Pelecanus occidentaiis;, ., , ..;.;, ._,,..:
Brown Pelican ,. ;_....
SR 4tS
_ ..
..: S38,S4N .
. _> G4 ,
Carteret- Current
Bird
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
E
E
S2
G3
Carteret - Current
Bird
Plegadis_falcineilus ; o., - w„ 1 F.,,_.:
plossy,;lbis s.rw
SC t.. ,.�.4
S2B,SZN
- G5 „,
.. ....
Carteret -Current .
Bird
Rynchops niger
Black Skimmer
SC
-
S3B,S3N
G5
Carteret - Current
Bird
Sterna antillarum
_
S3B,SZN
,
G4
_ . .
Carteret -Current
Bird
_
Sterna dougallii
Roseate Tern
E
E
SAB,SZN
G4
Carteret - Historic
Bird
Sterna hirundo yam.
Common Tern., ;
SC
u
S3B,SZN
G5 v
Carteret -Current
Bird
Sterna nilotica
Gull -billed Tern
T
-
S3B,SZN
G5
Carteret - Current
Reptile
Alligator mississippiensis „ ...,.,. ..y
American Alligator , y .v
,.<. _, ., ..._..
; T ..,.ate..
T(S/A�,
, S3
,
G5 _
Carteret - Current
Reptile
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead
T
T
S3B,S3N
G3
Carteret - Current
Reptile.,Chelonia
mydas Green Turtle
T
T
S1 B,SZN
_ G3
Carteret - Current
Reptile
Crotalus adamanteus
Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake
E
-
S1
G4
Carteret - Current

s M M= M s M= M M= M a == M M M M
Major Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status .
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County - Status
Reptile
Crotalus horridus
Carteret -Current
Reptile
Deirochelys reticulana
Chicken Turtle
SR
-
S3
G5
Carteret - Obscure
Reptile • ,
,, Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback ,. _ ,w
w, _, , .,,, E , .., : ,
E, ;; _, ,4
i _ SAB,SZN , ,
, , G2
„. Carteret -Current_
Reptile
Eretmochelys imbricata
Hawksbill
E
E
SZN
G3
Carteret - Historic
Reptile.
Heterodon simus
_ _ _ ,,. , .._.
Southem Hognose Snake
_
SC x
_; FSC _
,.: S2 , , , ,, „
G2
Carteret - Obscure
Reptile
Lampropeltis getula sticticeps
Outer Banks Kingsnake
SC
S2
G5T20
Carteret - Historic
Reptile _
Lepidochelys kempii ;, ,
'Atlantic fildley_;„ �_ ,_ ,,, E
E
SAB,SZN , ,
,,•„ G1,
Carteret - Historic
Reptile
Malaclemys terrapin centrata
Carolina Diamondback Terrapin
SC
-
S3
G4T4
Carteret - Current
Reptile
Masticophis flagellum . ,; , - _ .._ ..__,
Coachwhip , u ..
.. _ ,...,.
SR �.,.. ,v,
r ...
S3
, .., .
G5
Carteret -Obscure
Reptile
Nerodia sipedon williamengelsi
Carolina Water Snake
SC
-
S3
G5T3
Carteret - Current
Reptile. _ „
Ophisaurus mimicus
Mimic Glass Lizard ,; _
SC„ ,
; FSCa_ , ,
; S2
G3 , , , .
,. Carteret -Current
Reptile
Regina rigida
Glossy Crayfish Snake
SR
-
S2S3
G5
Carteret - Obscure
Reptile
Seminatrixpygaea : _,: , .
Black Sv�amp $nake,w „, ..
SR y.,„,;;s
S2 _
G5 .....:.....
.. Carteret - Obscure
Reptile
Sistrurus miliarius
Pigmy Rattlesnake
SC
-
S3
G5
Carteret - Current
Amphibian
Rana capito „ , Carolina Gopher,Frog, ;;., _ „„_
T
FSC
S2 , _ ,
G3
Carteret -Current,
Fish
Acipenser brevirostrum
Shortnose Sturgeon
E
E
S1
G3
Carteret - Historic
Fish
Eleotris pisonis, -
W
, Spinycheel Sleeper Ar„ _
SR _.4:.
.w „ ,
._ _. S2 _.-
G5
Carteret -Obscure
Fish
Evorthodus lyricus
Lyre Goby
SR
-
S2
G5
Carteret - Historic
Fish
Fundulus confluentus
Marsh Killfish 46 ;,,
SR - ; w,.u,,,„
;v ,
„';; S2„ : __
G5
Carteret- Historic
Fish
Fundulus luciae
Spotfin Killifish
SR
-
S2
G4
Carteret - Obscure
Crustacean
„ Procambarus plumimanus
- Croatan Crayfishes,
SR
FSC
S3
, G4 , , ,.
Carteret -:Historic
Insect
Amblyscirtes reversa
Reversed Roadside -skipper
SR
-
S3
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Insect
At rytone arogos_arogos; - ,,, - . _,�
,; Arogos,Skipper. , y , .;,
, _,„, ,z;; SR „_
FSC
S1
G3G4T1T2 .
Carteret -Current
Insect
„
Atrytonopsis sp 1
an undescribed skipper
SR
FSC
S1?
G1?
Carteret - Current
Insect
Calephelis yirginiensis c,
k„ Little Metalmark »,-
w ....a„„ SR�„,
S2 _ _ .....
: G4
Carteret - Current
_ ...
Insect
Doryodes sp 1
a new owlet moth
SR
-
S3?
G3G4
Carteret - Obscure
Insect „
Dysgonia similis -„ _.,
a ; an owlet moth
SR„,_, , ,,-
_, _
„ _, S2S3 W , ,
G3G4 ,
Carteret -Obscure
Insect
Euphyes berryi
Berry's Skipper
SR
-
S1?
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Insect -.
Euphyesbimula< ..
.,..
S2
r,
Carteret -Current
Insect
Fixsenia favonius ontario
Northern Oak Hairstreak
SR
-
S3?
G4T4
Carteret - Obscure
Insect
Hemipachnobia subporphyrea,
'Venus,F)ytrap Cutworm Moth
SR -
FSC„
r S1?
G1
Carteret - Obscure
Insect
Meropleon cinnamicolor
an owlet moth
SR
-
S2S3
GU
Carteret - Current
Insect
Papilio, cresphontes ,:.
Giant Swallowtail
SR
_. „
_, S2
G5 , , _
„Carteret -Current
Insect
Phragmatiphila interrogans
an owlet moth
SR
-
S2?
G3G4
Carteret - Obscure
Insect
Satyrium king' . , ,,
KingsxHairstreak
SR
S2S3 ..
G3G4 ,,. ,
Carteret - Obscure
Insect
„
Spartiniphaga carterae
Carter's Noctuid Moth
SR
FSC
S2S3
G2G3
Carteret - Historic
Insect,
Zale eans
S2
Carteret Obscure
Lichen
Teloschistes f/avlcans
Sunrise Lichen
SR-P
-
S1
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Livewwort:
Lejeunea bermudiana
a lverwort
__, _ ,; SR Pµ
w » e ,.,,,
SH ,_, „,
, G3G4
Carteret -Historic
Liverwort
Lejeunea dimorphophylla
a liverwort
SR-L
S1
G2G3
Carteret - Historic

! i= S M= s= M M M IM M= M! M
Maior Group
Scientific Name
Common Name
State
Status
Federal
Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County - Status
Liverwort_
Plagiochila miradorensis varmiradorensis
,liverwo�tp„ _ _
; - , _ ;SR.Pr„ �_
„ ._ , ,,,.
, . SH ,.,.,;;;.
; _ G47T4
Carteret- Historic
Moss
Campylopus carolinae
Savanna Campylopus
SR-T
FSC
S1
GiG2
Carteret - Current
Moss
Sphagnum fit2geraldii _ _,�„_
itzgerald's Peatmoss ,,; ._ _ ....
_.. SR T,,, ,w- ,
»
,,,,, S2S3 ,
„ , WG3 , , , .
,-, Carteret- Historic
Vascular Plant
Agalinis aphylla
Scale -leaf Gerardia
SR-P
-
S3
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Agalinis virgata
Branched Gerardia
SR P
S2
G3G40
„ Carteret - Current _
Vascular Plant
Amaranthus pumilus
Seabeach Amaranth
T
T
S2
G2
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Asclepias pedicellata
Savanna MiltCweed
SR P
„-, . -<. „-,
S2 . -,..,
, , G4 , -
„ , Carteret ,- Current
Vascular Plant
Ceratophyllum muricatum ssp australe
Southern Hornwort
SR-P
-
S1
G5T?
Carteret - Historic
Vascular Plant
Cirsium lecontei _ . -;, _ _ ::. w..
_
_r ,..` LeGonte's Thistle; „ Y _ „
SR P
_,,..r,,,.. ,...w.�..._.�__
S2
_.,..
G4G5
Carteret -Current
_
Vascular Plant
Cladium mariscoides
Twig -rush
SR-O
S2
G5
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
C erus tetra on
yp 9. , >.
,._ Four -angled ,!atsedge .,.> , _
;; SR P
St
G4?
Carteret; Historic
Vascular Plant
Dichanthelium caerulescens
Blue Witchgrass
SR-T
S1
G5T?
Carteret - Historic
Vascular Plant ,
, , Dichanthelium sp 5 I'll , . , ._ �..
Nerve -flowered Witch.Grass :
4... r __ .,
, SR D
_ .
; S1,. ; , _
G5?
Carteret - Historic
Vascular Plant
. _
Dionaea muscipula
Venus Flytrap
SR-L, SC
FSC
S3
G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
,, Eleocharis cellulose
.,,., ; Gulfcoast Spikerush ,. , r .,. , v
„„. E_ SR P
S1
G4.G5 _ ,-
. - ; Carteret - Current.
Vascular Plant
Eleocharis robbinsii
Robbins's Spikerush
SR-P
S2
G4G5
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant s.
, Eleocharis rostellata , .zy.
m Beaked Spikerush
- -�, ._,..�. ......,
SRO YN
-,-,....,.._.
S2
„ G5 , , „ ..
; Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
-
Erythrina herbacea
Coralbean
SR-P
-
S1
G5
Carteret - Historic
Vascular Plant
_Helianthemum carolinianum
Carolina Sunrose
SR P
S1 _ ; , n
_;, G4
„ ;Carteret -Historic
Vascular Plant
Helianthemum corymbosum
Pinebarren Sunrose
SR-P
-
Si
G4G5
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Helianthemum georgianum ;;
Georgia Sunrose
SR P ,
Si - .. ;
G4 , ,
Carteret - Historic
_ _.,
Vascular Plant
,
Hibiscus aculeatus
Comfortroot
SR-P
-
Si
G4G5
Carteret - Historic
Vascular Plant
Ipomoea imperati , w
,Beach Moning.gloryr r.
,. „ w SR P, „ ,
y , _ ,., . ,-,
_ ,; S1
G5 , .
Carteret ;Current -
Vascular Plant
Litsea aestivalis
Pondspice
SR-T
FSC
S2
G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Ludwigia elate,, �
� Wrn ed Seedboz
SR P
S2
04 4
Carteret -Current
Vascular Plant
Ludwigia lanceolata
Lanceleaf Seedbox
SR-P
-
S1
G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Ludwigia linifolia
Flax leafySeedbox
SR P
S2 _-,.,.„,
, , _,., G4 „ ,.-.
Carteret -,Current
Vascular Plant
Ludwigia ravenii
Raven's Seedbox
SR-T
S2?
G2?
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant :,,,
;, Lysimachia asperulifolia,
Rough; leaf Loosestnfe
S_., i-
E : _
S3
G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Malaxis spicata
Florida Adder's Mouth
SR-P
-
S1
G4?
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
„Myriophyllum,laxum
Loose Watermilfoil„ y
T
FSC
S1
G3 „ ,
_ ; Carteret - Current_
Vascular Plant
Panicum tenerum
Southeastern Panic Grass
SR-P
S3
G4
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant..
l?arietaria praetermissa.:., .., ,xw ..� ..,__ merge shed F?ellitarJ!_tr,-. w._...
�. ...:K SR_P.,.a�->.
i,<;:. , . _
.w. S1 , .
G3G4
Carteret -Current
Vascular Plant
Peitandra sagittifolia
Spoonflower
SR-P
-
S2S3
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Pinguicula pumila w,
Smat( f3utterwon - ,.,.,, , :.,.
„ _. ; SR P;-0z „_
„ , ,,.
S2 .,.,, :;,,
_ G4 - ,.,,,
Carteret -Current
,
Vascular Plant
,;
Platanthera integra
Yellow Fringeless Orchid
T
-
S1
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Polygala hookeri ,
Hooker's Milkwort
SR T -.
- h
„„ S2
a; G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant
Polygonum glaucum
Seabeach Knotweed
SR-T
-
S1
G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant-,
Polygonum htrsutum w
, ,; �1airy Smarhnreede �zw „
SR-P
S1
G4G5 , ,,
Carteret - Historic
Vascular Plant
-
Ponthieva racemosa
Shadow -witch
SR-P
-
S2
G4G5
Carteret - Current

M i == i = M = = = i = M
Maior GroWQ Scientific Name '
-
Common Name
State '• Federal
S atus Status
State
Rank
Global
Rank
County - Status
Vascular Plant .. _:, Rhexia cubensis„ •„ ,
West Indies, Meadow beauty _ _,:
SRC? b; w
S1 „ .• , _ ,
G4G5 ,
• ,;Carteret -Current
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora breviseta
Short -bristled Beaksedge
SR-P -
S2
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora globularis var pinetorum _...,
Small's Beaksedge , _. , .' w.
SR T
.,.._.. , ,...: , ....
Si
G5?T3?
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora harped
Harper's Beaksedge
SR-P -
S1
G4?
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora macra :;_
Southern White Beaksedge N4 ,;;
E •.._�..,
Si , •. ,,
G3 . , _ _., _
Carteret -,.Current
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora odorata
Fragrant Beaksedge
SR-P -
S1
G4
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant, , Rhynchospora oligantha �-,
, Feather-brisile,_Beaksedge
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora pleiantha
Coastal Beaksedge
SR-T -
S1
G2
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Rhynchospora scp
-beak Baadsede k,
S2
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Sabal palmetto
Cabbage Palm
SR-P -
S1
G5
Carteret - Historic
Vascular Plant , :,;Sageretia minutiflora ; ;; u.,,,.� _.W , „.,
„„ Small-flowered,Buckthorn n
SR Pr;,•, ..,_
< S1 . • .;
G4
Carteret -Current
Vascular Plant Sagittana graminea var chapmanii
Chapman's Arrowhead
SR-P -
S1
G5T3?
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Schoenoplectus acutus, LL..:, _ Y
Hardstem Bulrush . > _ • . , c ;._.,
; Sf _P, .;;� yA ., , „ , _.
; SH ; , , ,
,. ; G5 .. ,_,,
Carteret-, Obscure
Vascular Plant Scleria baldwinii
Baldwin's Nutrush
SR-P
S1
G4
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant .._,.. Scleria georgiana:_.y_,,,,_;GeorgiaNutrush
S2
G4 _ :.,;
Carteret, -Current,.
Vascular Plant Scleria verticillata
Savanna Nutrush
SR-P -
S1
G5
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant SoGdago leavenworthil -
- l.eavenworth's Goldenrod
SR P .;;�.., .. >;.,. , •_,
, ; S1 „
G3G4 _ ,
Carteret -_Historic
Vascular Plant Solidago pulchra
Carolina Goldenrod
E -
S3
G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Solidago, verna
Spring flowering Goldenrod
SR t ..,-._ Epp,_ „ ,y
t S3
G3
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Spiranthes laciniata
Lace -lip Ladies' -tresses
SR-P -
S1
G4G5
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant_, Spiranthes longilabris,, ., , _ ,__;fie,-
_, •, faiant Spiral Orch(d _
SR T „ : , , „.
„51.. . .
>. • G3
Carteret .Current
Vascular Plant Trichostema sp 1
Dune Bluecurls
SR-L FSC
S2
G2
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant_, Utricularia olivacea , __. „• ,
,x DwarfBladderwort
T
S2,_ ......,
G4
Carteret- Current
Vascular Plant Xyris brevifolia
Shortleaf Yellow -eyed -grass
SR-P -
S2
G4G5
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant _ ;. ;, Xyris stricta , ;, # ; _,.., , ..
a yellow�eYed grass ,;_ _ y , ,., .
SR_P, .;; ;
S1
G3G4 _ ,
Carteret - Current
Vascular Plant Yucca gloriosa
Moundlily Yucca
SR-P
S2?
G4?
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Brackish Marsh
S5t ,__
G5
Carteret -Current
Natural Community Coastal Fringe Evergreen Forest
-
- -
S1
G3?
Carteret - Current
Natural Community, Coastal Fringe Sandhill
-
S1
G3?
Carteret - Current _
Natural Community Coastal Plain Semipermanent Impoundment
-
- -
S4
G5
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater
S5
G5
Carteret - Current
Subtype),
Natural Community Dune Grass
-
- -
S3
G3G4
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Ptne Forest .: .,,.,
. Estuarinefringe ...... _. __...._...
h, �4, ... N... F .. .... , w
,.., , , . m.>wwy ,< .._ ., ..
S3
_. ,
G3? , ..
.... Carteret -Current
Natural Community High Pocosin
-
-
S4
G4
Carteret - Current
Natural Community, Interdune Pond,;,,,,._
, . ; ..... , :.:. <,.... �.._.��.�.>.
_ ..._.
_- �..��,....�..,���,:�.... _ ... `,
y .<.,w �...,_....
,..,.
, Si S2
G2? , _
Carteret -Current
, ,..
Natural Community Low Pocosin
-
- -
S2
G3
Carteret - Current
Natural CommunityMaritime Dry Grassland. , «
. _;;, ,.,.. _.W, _., _
_ .,., �.o.w �..w�_.:.....
_ S2
„ G3
Carteret -Current
Natural Community Maritime Evergreen Forest
-
- -
S1
G2G3
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Maritime Shrub .-
�.,.. :....� a _
, e...
....., ,. ..K._ . ._
3
S......
G4 ... ,.,
Carteret - Current
_
Natural Community Maritime Shrub Swamp
-
- -
S1
G1
Carteret - Current

M M M M M M M M i M M M M M M M i M=
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain .
Natural Community
S4
G5T5
Carteret -Current
Subtype)
Natural Community Mesic Pine Flatwoods - -
S3
G5
Carteret - Current
Natural Community, Nonriverine Swamp Forest ,._ :
,,, S2S3,,.
G203 _
. , , , Carteret - Historic
Natural Community Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest -
- S1
G1
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Pine Savanna .. ......,.� _.;., ..mom..:, m...,,,
S2S3
. �..:.._...._.__ ,..
. G3 ,
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Pine/Scrub Oak Sandhill -
- S3
G4
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Pond Pine Woodland „ .. , r Kx� _. „
S4
G4G5
Carteret - urrent
Natural Community Salt Flat - -
- S4
G5
Carteret - Current
Natural Community, Salt Marsh .,,
„;, S5 _ ,
. G5
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Salt Shrub - -
- S4
G5
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Small.Depression Pocoain �, ,,-,, ,
S3
G2?
Carteret -. Current
Natural Community Small Depression Pond - -
- S3
G3
Carteret - Current
Natural Community Tidal Cypress --Gum Swamp.. w,. ...:: �.,_.. a._'a .. _.
S3
G4 _ ,
Carteret Current
Natural Community Upper Beach -
- S3
G4
Carteret - Current
Natural Community We Pine Flatwoods yu
S3
G3
Carteret -Current ,
Natural Community Xeric Sandhill Scrub - -
- S4
G5
Carteret - Current
Special Habitat Gull'Tern'Skimmer Colony ,., . ;.; _ _ .,, �_. , „ Colornal„�INaterbirds Nesting Site .
_ S3
G5 , .
Carteret -Current
Special Habitat Marsh Bird Nesting Area -
- S4
G5
Carteret - Historic
Special Habitat Shorebird Foraging Area
S3
G5
Carteret- Current
Special Habitat Wading Bird Rookery - -
- S3
G5
Carteret - Current
NC NHP database updated: January, 2004.
Search performed on Friday, 4 February 2005 @ 11:11:58 EST

1
U
Appendix G
Hazardous Weather affecting Beaufort Since August 1997
Location
Date Type Magnitude Deaths Injuries Property Crop
Damage Damage
Eastern North
1/19/1998 Winter N/A 2 14 0 0
Carolina
Storm
Eastern North
1/27/1998
Winter
N/A
0
0
600K
0
Carolina
Strom
Eastern North
2/3/1998
Winter
N/A
0
0
22.2M
0
Carolina
Strom
Eastern North
2/17/1998
Winter
N/A
0
0
25K
0
Carolina
Storm
Eastern North
3/11/1998
Extreme
N/A
0
0
0
350K
Carolina
Cold
Beaufort
5/17/1998
Hail
1 inch
0
0
0
0
Beaufort
6/13/1998
High Wind
52 kts.
0
0
0
0
Beaufort
8/26/1998
Tornado
F1
0
0
225K
0
Eastern North
8/26/1998
Hurricane
Category III
0
0
6.4M
117M
Carolina
Carteret
12/16/1998
Nor'easter
84 kts.
0
0
0
0
County
Eastern North
8/30/1999
Hurricane
Category II
0
0
0
0
Carolina
Eastern North
9/14/1999
Hurricane
Category II
13
0
410.6M
413.61VI
Carolina
Eastern North
10/16/1999
Hurricane
Category 1
1
0
0
0
Carolina
Carteret
12/16/2000
Nor'easter
62 kts.
0
2
0
0
County
Carteret
3/13/2001
Nor'easter
55 kts.
0
0
20K
0
County
Carteret
3/20/2001
Nor'easter
52 kts.
0
0
15K
0
County
Eastern North
9/17/2003
Hurricane
Category II
0
0
435.6M
14.31VI
Carolina
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 116 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix G

1
Il
Appendix H
Summary of Policy Statements
from the 1997 Beaufort Land Use Plan
A. 1997 RESOURCE PROTECTION POLICY STATEMENTS
Community Attitude on Resource Protection
Beaufort has demonstrated a concern with resource protection. This concern has been
displayed through the adoption of local ordinances and support for the 15A NCAC 7H minimum
use standards. Emphasis has been placed on restriction of floating structures and preservation
of estuarine shoreline areas, the historic district, the town's central waterfront area, and Carrot
Island.
Physical Limitations
Solis
Beaufort opposes the installation of package treatment plants and septic tanks or discharge of
waste in any areas classified as coastal wetlands, freshwater wetlands (404), or natural heritage
areas. This policy applies only to areas shown as freshwater wetlands, coastal wetlands, and
natural heritage areas.
Flood Hazard Areas
Beaufort will continue to coordinate all development within the special flood hazard area with the
town's Inspections Department, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, FEMA, and
the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Groundwater/Protection of Potable Water Supplies
Beaufort's policy is to conserve its surficial groundwater resources by supporting CAMA and
N.C. Division of Water Quality stormwater run-off regulations, and by coordinating local
development activities involving chemical storage or underground storage tank
installation/abandonment with Carteret County Emergency Management personnel and the
Groundwater Section of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality.
Manmade Hazards
Beaufort encourages the establishment of appropriate environmental and operational
safeguards for the expansion of fuel storage tank facilities on Radio Island. All expansions must
be in compliance with applicable state, federal, and local regulations. Beaufort opposes the
storage of any non -fuel hazardous materials on Radio Island.
Agricultural quarantine and decontamination facilities should not be established on Radio Island
by the U.S. Navy or other agent of the federal government unless a full Environmental Impact
Statement with a finding of no significant effect on the environment has been prepared and
proper environmental safeguards are implemented. The Environmental Impact Statement
should include mitigation measures for the loss of any public beach access.
Beaufort will support development of sound attenuation zoning requirements for the areas
affected by the aircraft operating patterns at the Michael J. Smith Field. The zoning for Michael
J. Smith Field should be coordinated with Carteret County and Morehead City.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 117 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix H

I
E
With the exception of fuel storage tanks used for retail and wholesales, Beaufort opposes the
bulk storage of fuel or other man-made hazardous materials within any areas not zoned for
industrial usage.
Beaufort does not object to increased air traffic which will not result in increased noise impacts
on properties within airport flight patterns.
Beaufort supports any runway extensions or other airport expansions which will not cause any
changes to NC 101 which will result in increased traffic in the vicinity of the Beaufort Middle
School.
The Town supports airport development projects.
Beaufort will support the development of a comprehensive town -wide stormwater drainage plan.
Cultural/Historic Resources
Beaufort shall coordinate all housing code enforcement/redevelopment projects which involve
any historically significant structure with the N.C. Division of Archives and History, to ensure that
any significant architectural details or buildings are identified and preserved.
Beaufort will continue to support and protect the town's Historic District.
Impacts on Fragile Areas
Only commercial and industrial uses that are water dependent and which cannot function
elsewhere or are supportive of commercial fishing will be allowed in conservation classified
areas. Examples of such uses would include but not necessarily be limited to commercial
fishing and fish processing, marinas consistent with the policies of this plan, boat repair and
construction facilities, any business dependent upon natural salt water as a resource, and
restaurants that do not extend into or over estuarine waters and/or public trust waters.
Miscellaneous Resource Protection
Package Treatment Plant Use
Beaufort will support the construction of package treatment plants which are approved and
permitted by the State Division of Environmental Management. If any package plants are
approved, Beaufort supports requirement of a specific contingency plan specifying how ongoing
private operation and maintenance of the plant will be provided, and detailing provisions for
assumption of the plant into a public system should the private operation fail or management of
the system not meet the conditions of the state permit.
Marina and Floating Home Development
Beaufort will allow the construction of open water and upland marinas within its planning
jurisdiction which satisfy the use standards for marinas as specified in 15A NCAC 7H. This
shall include marinas proposed for location within Conservation areas.
Beaufort will allow construction of dry stack storage facilities for boats associated either with or
i independent of marinas. All applicable zoning and subdivision regulations must be satisfied.
Construction of associated boat ramps, piers, and bulkheads within conservation areas will be
allowed if 15A NCAC 7H use standards are met.
�l
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 118 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix H

Beaufort supports the state's minimum use standards for the regulation of floating structures.
Mooring Fields
The town supports the development of mooring fields and will enforce its ordinance regulating
the establishment of mooring fields. The ordinance, as it is currently written, regulates the
establishment of mooring fields within the waters of Taylor's Creek. The town will consider
amending this ordinance to include all of the waters within Beaufort's planning jurisdiction.
Development of Sound and Estuarine Islands
Beaufort opposes any development on sound and estuarine islands located within its planning
jurisdiction.
Beaufort will support the following policies for the Rachel Carson Sanctuary:
• The Rachel Carson Sanctuary can be utilized for the deposit of dredge spoil. If spoil is
deposited in the Sanctuary, proper safety measures should be implemented to protect
the public and wildlife from hazards associated with spoil sites such as "quicksand."
However, if deposition must occur, the site should be located and constructed so as to
not obstruct the view of the sound areas from the Beaufort waterfront.
1 • Commercial boat access to the Rachel Carson Sanctuary should be limited.
• Beaufort requests the right to review and comment on all plans for spoil sites to be
located within the town's planning jurisdiction.
Bulkhead Construction
Beaufort supports the construction of bulkheads as long as they fulfill the use standards set
forth in 15A NCAC 7H and the sea level rise policies as defined by this plan.
Sea Level Rise
Beaufort recognizes the uncertainties associated with sea level rise. The rate of rise is difficult
to predict. Those factors combine to make it difficult, if not impossible, to establish specific
policies to deal with the effects of sea level rise.
Rachel Carson Reserve
The Town of Beaufort supports the State's management of the Rachel Carson Reserve (also
known as Carrot Island -Bird Shoal) for research, education, and compatible public uses. The
town also approves the current policy of maintaining a viable population of feral horses on the
property.
B. 1997 RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Community Attitude Toward Resource Production and Management
Beaufort will implement policies which support resource production and management. All
policies will meet or exceed 15A NCAC 7H minimum use standards. Resource production
should not be allowed to adversely affect Beaufort's sensitive coastal environment or natural
heritage areas.
Recreation Resources
Beaufort considers coastal wetland areas to be valuable passive recreation areas. These areas
should be protected in their natural state. Only uses which are permitted by 15A NCAC 7H will
be allowed.
Beaufort supports public access to Radio Island shoreline areas.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 119 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix H

I
Productive Agricultural Lands
Beaufort supports and encourages use of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
"Best Management Practices" program.
Aquaculture Activities
Beaufort encourages all aquaculture activities which meet applicable federal, state and local
policies and permit requirements. However, Beaufort reserves the right to comment on all
aquaculture activities which require Division of Environmental Management permitting.
Beaufort objects to any discharge of water from aquaculture activities that will degrade in any
way the receiving waters. Beaufort objects to withdrawing water from aquifers or surface
sources if such withdrawal will endanger water quality or water supply from the aquifers or
surface sources.
Beaufort will support only aquaculture activities which do not alter significantly and negatively
the natural environment of conservation areas as shown on the Land Classification Map.
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Development Impacts on Resources
Residential, commercial and industrial development should be allowed in coastal wetlands
which is consistent with 15A NCAC 7H and the policies contained in this plan.
A Beaufort discourages any additional point source discharges of pollution into primary nursery
areas and shellfishing areas.
'j Residential development meeting the use standards of 15 NCAC 71-1.0209 shall be allowed in
estuarine shoreline areas.
Only commercial and industrial uses that are water dependent and which cannot function
elsewhere or are supportive of commercial fishing will be allowed in conservation classified
shoreline areas. Examples of such uses would include but not necessarily be limited to
commercial fishing and fish processing, marinas consistent with the policies of this plan, boat
repair and construction facilities, any business dependent upon natural salt water as a resource,
and restaurants that do not extend into or over estuarine waters and/or public trust waters.
Where zoning exists, all uses must be consistent with established zoning.
In order to preserve natural vegetation and scenic views, "no buildings or houses or structures
excepting noncommercial docks or piers will be erected on the south side of Front Street in this
(R-8) district."
I
Off -Road Vehicles
Beaufort opposes the utilization of off -road vehicles in any areas classified as coastal wetlands
and in the entire Rachel Carson Sanctuary.
Marine Resource Areas
Beaufort supports the use
NCAC .0207.
standards for estuarine and public trust areas as specified in 15A
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan
January 26, 2007
Appendix H
Page 120 of 138

1
�Jv
C. 1997 ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Community Attitude on Economic and Community Development
Beaufort desires to expand its economic base. A reasonable policy of annexation will be
maintained. Beaufort will support growth and development at the densities specified in the land
classification definitions. The Town of Beaufort will pursue the development of an impact study
to determine the growth and development issues and needs associated with the construction of
the proposed NC 101 corridor.
Water Supply
There are no significant constraints to development or land development issues relating to the
town's potable water supply. The town's water system will provide adequate water supply
throughout the planning period. The town's policies concerning water supply shall be:
The town requires that all existing and new residential and commercial development be
connected to both the town water and sewer systems.
The town will allow the installation of private wells for irrigation only through the NCDEM permit
process.
The town will extend water services beyond its extraterritorial area if an adequate demand for
service exists.
The Town of Beaufort will support a study of the limestone aquifer underlying Carteret County
by the United States Geological Survey. This study would aid in determining the optimum
locations for wells 'and the long-term viability of the town's water supply. The issue of salt water
intrusion should be addressed by the study.
Sewer System
There are no problems or constraints to development caused by the town's sewage treatment
system. The town will implement the following policies:
• The town requires that all existing and new residential and commercial development be
connected to both the town water and sewer systems.
• Beaufort will support the development of central sewer service throughout its
incorporated area and its unincorporated planning jurisdiction.
!' Solid Waste
Beaufort supports Carteret County's participation in a regional multi -county approach to solid
waste management. This includes disposal of waste in the Tri-County Regional Landfill.
The town will support efforts to educate people and businesses on waste reduction and
recycling. The town vigorously supports recycling by all users of the Tri-County Landfill and
supports setting up practical collection methods and education efforts to achieve a high degree
of county -wide recycling.
Beaufort supports the siting of recycling centers within public and commercial land
classifications.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 121 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix H

II
Energy Facility Siting and Development
There are no electric generating plants located in Beaufort's planning jurisdiction. The town will
consider the need for establishing energy facilities on a case -by -case basis, judging the need
for development against all identified possible adverse impacts.
Beaufort has some concerns over offshore drilling. In the event that oil or gas is discovered,
Beaufort will not oppose drilling operations and onshore support facilities for which an
Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared with a finding of no significant impact on
the environment. Beaufort supports and requests full disclosure of development plans, with
mitigative measures that will be undertaken to prevent adverse impacts on the environment, the
infrastructure, and the social systems of Beaufort and Carteret County. The town also requests
full disclosure of any adopted plans. Offshore drilling and the development of onshore support
facilities may have severe costs for the town and county as well as advantages. The costs
should be borne by the company(ies) which profits from offshore drilling and onshore support
facilities.
Redevelopment of Developed Areas
The most important redevelopment issue confronting the Town of Beaufort would be
reconstruction following a hurricane or other natural disaster. The town will implement its storm
hazard mitigation post -disaster recovery plan to control redevelopment. However, the town will
allow the reconstruction of any structures demolished by natural disaster which will comply with
existing state and local codes.
The town will enforce its minimum housing code to ensure that minimum housing standards are
met.
Estuarine Access
Beaufort supports the state's shoreline access policies as set forth in NCAC Chapter 15A,
Subchapter 7M.
Types and Locations of Desired Industry
Industrial sites should be accessible to municipal/central water and sewer services.
Industries which are noxious by reason the emission of smoke, odor, dust, glare, noise, and
vibrations, and those which deal primarily in hazardous products such as explosives, should not
be located in Beaufort.
Industrial development and/or industrial zoning should not infringe on established residential
development.
Assistance in Channel Maintenance
Proper maintenance of channels is very important to Beaufort because of the substantial
economic impact of commercial and sport fisheries. If silt or other deposits fill in the channels,
safe and efficient movement of commercial and sport fishing and transport vessels could be
impeded. Beaufort will support and cooperate with efforts by the Corps of Engineers and state
officials to maintain channels.
Assistance in Interstate Waterways
Beaufort considers the interstate waterway to be a valuable economic asset. The town will
provide assistance in maintaining the waterway by helping to obtain or providing dredge spoil
sites and, when possible, providing easements across county -owned property for work.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 122 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix H

1
Tourism
Beaufort will support North Carolina Department of Transportation projects to improve access to
the town.
Beaufort will support projects that will increase public access to shoreline areas.
Beaufort will continue to support the activities of the North Carolina Division of Travel and
Tourism; specifically, the monitoring of tourism -related industry, efforts to promote tourism -
related commercial activity, and efforts to enhance and provide shoreline resources.
Beaufort will preserve its historic district and Taylor's Creek waterfront areas.
The Town of Beaufort supports the State's management of the Rachel Carson Reserve (also
known as Carrot Island -Bird Shoal) for research, education, and compatible public uses. The
town also approves the current policy of maintaining a viable population of feral horses on the
property.
Transportation
Beaufort supports implementation of the following land transportation improvements:
• A connector between N.C. 101 and U.S. 70 (the corridor for this road has not yet been
determined).
• Reroute U.S. 70 from Cedar Street to TurnerMest Beaufort Road.
• Utilize Orange and Turner Streets as a one-way pair providing access to the waterfront.
• Elimination of the "Y" intersection with N.C. 101 and U.S. 70.
• Replacement of the drawbridge between Morehead City and Beaufort with a medium
height bridge. A medium height bridge is considered to be between 40-45 feet. In
FY98, a planning study will be conducted by the DOT Planning and Environmental
Branch to determine the exact recommended bridge height.
• A possible minor thoroughfare is proposed to connect Steep Point Road just east of U.S.
70 and Mulberry Street at its intersection with Ocean Street:
D. 1997 CONTINUING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION POLICIES
Citizen input will continue to be solicited, primarily through the Planning Board, with advertised
and adequately publicized public meetings held to discuss special land use issues and to keep
citizens informed.
E. 1997 STORM HAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY, AND EVACUATION
POLICIES
In general terms, Beaufort's existing policies meet the requirements for storm hazard mitigation
planning in Before the Storm. These policies consist of a combination of accompanying land
use plan policies and regulations established by the town's land development ordinances.
Specifically:
1 • Lands in the estuarine shoreline AEC are subject to development limitations imposed by
the CRC. The expected effect will be to further limit the amount and placement of
t
development in these fragile areas. This will indirectly provide a further limitation on new
construction which would be at risk from hurricanes and tropical storms.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 123 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix H

A
1
d
1
I
1
• Lands in FEMA A -zones are subject to elevation standards and insurance requirements
which help ensure that damage to any new development which occurs will be minimized
in the event of a hurricane or tropical storm.
• The town's policies and ordinances support and are consistent with state policies and
regulations for development in Areas of Environmental Concern.
• All new development must conform with the provisions of the North Carolina Building
Code.
• The town's flood plain development policies conform with all federal and state
requirements.
Post -Disaster Reconstruction
The policies outlined are for the Mayor and Commissioners to consider after a storm occurs. It
is impractical to determine at this time what specific responses are appropriate, since the
circumstances surrounding a given storm can vary greatly. The following policy areas are
discussed:
• Permitting: Permits to restore previously conforming structures outside AEC's issued
automatically. Structures suffering major damage allowed to rebuild to original state but
must be in compliance with N.C. Building Code, Zoning, and Flood Hazard Regulations.
Structures with minor damage allowed to rebuild to original state before the storm.
Structures in AEC's allowed to rebuild only after determination has been made as to
adequacy of existing development regulations in these special hazard areas.
• Utility and Facility Reconstruction: Water system components repaired or replaced must
be floodproofed or elevated above the 100-year flood level. Procedures established to
effect emergency repairs to major thoroughfares if necessary.
• Temporary Development Moratorium: To be considered after major storm damage for
AEC's if existing regulations appear inadequate to protect structures from storm
damage.
Beaufort CAAfA Land Use Plan Page 124 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix H

Appendix I
Citizen Participation Plan
Subchapter 7B of the North Carolina Administrative Code, Land Use Planning Guidelines,
I requires that the Land Use Plan update process include a variety of educational efforts and
participation techniques to assure that all segments of the community have a full and adequate
opportunity to participate in all stages of the preparation of the land use plan. It is therefore the
responsibility of the Town of Beaufort to involve, inform and educate a broad cross-section of
the community's populace. It is the intent of the Town of Beaufort to have a continuous citizen
participation and education process that achieves these purposes.
The following steps will be taken to provide information to the public and to encourage citizen
involvement:
1. Establishment of Land Use Plan Advisory Committee
An Advisory Committee representing a cross-section of the community
will be organized to serve as the body responsible for guiding the Land
Use Plan formulation effort. The Advisory Committee will serve in a
review and advisory capacity to Town of Beaufort Mayor and Board of
Commissioners, the Town of Beaufort staff, and the project Planning
Consultant, The Wooten Company.
The Advisory Committee will meet on a periodic basis with the Planning
Consultant and Town staff to assist the Planning Consultant in defining
land use and development issues and concerns, reviewing draft land use
plan components prepared by the Planning Consultant, providing
recommendations regarding land use plan content, and provide general
input. The Advisory Committee members will keep the Beaufort Board of
Commissioners apprised of their activities and progress through regular
oral and/or written reports. The composition of the membership of the
Advisory Committee is delineated in Attachment A.
The local staffing of the Advisory Committee will be handled through the
staff of the Town of Beaufort. The Town of Beaufort Town Manager will
serve as the local coordinator of the CAMA Land Use Plan project.
2. Land Use Plan Advisory Committee Orientation
An orientation meeting of the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will be
held in September 2003. The meeting will focus on the purposes of the
CAMA Land Use Plan Update, the process and schedule for preparing
the plan, an overview of the 7B Land Use Planning Guidelines, the recent
changes to the guidelines, and a review of the draft Citizen Participation
Plan. This meeting will be open to the public and its time and location will
be advertised in the local media. It is anticipated that this meeting will be
held prior to the initial public informational meeting.
3. Initial Public Informational Meeting
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 125 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix 1

A meeting of the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will be held in
I October 2003 to serve as an educational opportunity to inform the general
public of the purpose of the CAMA Land Use Plan and the process for
preparing the Plan and an opportunity to solicit citizen comments. In
addition, the following specific topics will be discussed:
• The local policy statements contained in the current CAMA land
use plans.
• The effect of those policies on the community.
• Ways the current CAMA land use plans have been used to guide
development during the past planning period.
• The methods to be utilized to inform the general public of the plan
preparation process and to solicit the views of citizens in the
development of updated policy statements.
• Key planning concerns and issues regarding public access to
public trust waters, land use compatibility, infrastructure carrying
capacity, natural hazard areas, water quality, and other growth
and land development issues of local concern.
• Community aspirations and visions for the future.
Notification of the meeting will be achieved through local newspaper
notices and the preparation and distribution of public service
announcements to local radio and television stations.
Written notice of the public informational meeting will be published in a
local newspaper twice prior to the meeting date. The first notice will be
published not less than 30 days prior to the public informational meeting
and the second notice, not less than 10 days prior to the meeting. Notice
of the meeting will also be provided to the Coastal Resources Advisory
Council member and the Division of Coastal Management District
Planner.
4. Periodic Land Use Plan Advisory Committee Meetings
It is anticipated that the Land Use Plan Advisory Committee will meet at
strategic points throughout. the land use planning process to provide
general input into the plan development and to review materials prepared
by the Planning Consultant. Meetings will be held to identify project goals
and objectives; identify key planning and land use issues and concerns;
review an analysis of existing and emerging conditions; review draft policy
statements, land use suitability analyses, and future land use maps;
review land use management implementation plans and schedules; and
review a draft of the entire land use plan document. Advisory Committee
meetings will be held from September 2003 to March 2005. Newspaper
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 126 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix I

I
1
I
1
I
notices and public service announcements to radio and television stations
will be prepared and distributed prior to each meeting. An opportunity for
public comment and input will be invited and encouraged at each
meeting.
It is anticipated that at least six Advisory Committee meetings will be held.
The location for Advisory Committee meetings will be the Beaufort Town
Hall. The regularly scheduled Advisory Committee meetings will be held
during the third week of the month that a meeting is scheduled. A
tentative meeting schedule of the Advisory Committee is attached as
Attachment B.
At all regular meetings of the Advisory Committee, time will be provided
on the meeting agenda for public comment. A list of the names of the
speakers providing public comment and a copy of any written comments
provided will be kept on file by the Town of Beaufort. A copy of the
written comments will also be provided to the Division of Coastal
Management District Planner for use in the CAMA land use plan review
process.
5. Public Informational Meeting on the Preliminary Draft Land Use Plan
Following the completion of a preliminary draft Land Use Plan Update, a
public informational meeting will be held by the Advisory Committee. The
purpose of this meeting will be to review the draft Plan, particularly the
land use and development policies, future land use map, and
implementation plan and schedule. The public informational meeting date
is projected to be held in August 2004. Copies of the full preliminary draft
Land Use Plan as well as executive summaries will be available at Town
facilities. Notification of the meeting will be achieved through local
newspaper notices and the preparation and distribution of public service
announcements to local radio and television stations. Notice of the
meeting will also be provided to the Coastal Resources Advisory Council
member and the Division of Coastal Management District Planner.
7. Planning Board Review Meeting
The purpose of this meeting is to provide a review of the draft land use
plan by the Beaufort Planning Board and to provide another opportunity
for general public comments.
8. Board of Commissioners Review Meeting
The purpose of this meeting is to provide a review of the draft land use
plan by the Beaufort Board of Commissioners and to provide another
opportunity for general public comments.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 127 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix 1

1
I
I
E
I
9. Public Forum on Final Draft Land Use Plan
The purpose of this meeting is to provide public information regarding the
final draft land use plan document and a formal opportunity for general
citizen review and comments on the final draft land use plan. The
meeting will afford another opportunity for public involvement prior to a
formal public hearing on the adoption of the Land Use Plan.
10. Public Hearing
A formal public hearing will be held by the Beaufort Board of
Commissioners to review the final draft Plan and to solicit citizen
comments. Following the public hearing, the Board of Commissioners will
consider action on adoption of the Plan. The public hearing will be
advertised by newspaper notice at least 30 days prior to the date of the
public hearing which is anticipated to be held in May 2005. Notice of the
public hearing will also be posted at municipal facilities. Additional means
of public notification will include radio and television public service
announcements. Copies of the final draft Land Use Plan and executive
summaries will be available for review at municipal facilities and at the
local public library.
11. Additional Means of Soliciting Public Involvement
In addition to the meetings outlined above, Beaufort will utilize the
following means to increase public involvement and to disseminate public
information:
• Quarterly project progress reports will be made available to the
local media.
• Presentations by representatives of Town of Beaufort staff
and/or Advisory Committee members to civic, business, church,
and similar groups, as requested.
• Use of local CAN and Town Web page for meeting schedules,
meeting notices, project progress reports, plan drafts, and other
public educational materials.
• The Town of Beaufort may also utilize its utilities billings as a
means to provide meeting notice.
12. Additional Meetings
In addition to the meetings outlined above and in Attachment B, The
Town of Beaufort may elect to hold additional meetings if it is determined
that more meetings are needed to provide project information and/or
provide additional opportunities for soliciting citizen comments and public
participation in the Land Use Plan preparation process.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 128 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix I

1
I
1
1
t
I-]
1
1
13. Stakeholder Groups
During the Land Use Plan preparation process, specific stakeholder or
interest groups may be identified. Such groups or individuals will, if
requested, receive mailed meeting notices and will be specifically
encouraged to participate at all stages of the Land Use Plan preparation
process.
14. Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan
This Citizen Participation Plan will be reevaluated at the end of Phase I of
the project (May 2004) by the Town of Beaufort staff and amendments
may be recommended. Any amendment to the Plan will be approved by
the Town of Beaufort in the same manner as adoption of the original Plan.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 129 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix I

1
E
Ll
I
1
1
Attachment A
Advisory Committee Membership
Town of Beaufort Land Use Plan Update
Name Address Representing Information
Robert Davis Code Enforcement and P&Z
Liaison
Terri Parker-
Eakes
Town Manager (Ex Officio)
Billy Harvey
P&Z Board Chair
Bill Hubbard
Board of Commissioners
Tom Steepy
Mayor Ex Officio
Lisa Wim fheimer
A Extension Agency
John Young
Public Works Department
The following consultant&
will provide
technical planning assistance 10 the Advisory Committee:
Alex Fuller
Greenville,
NC
The Wooten Company
252-757-1096
Buddy Blackburn
Raleigh, NC
The Wooten Company
919-828-0531
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 130 of 138
January 26, 2007
Attachment A, Appendix I

F�
1�
1
1]
1
u
Attachment B
Tentative Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule
Town of Beaufort Land Use Plan Update
TargetDate
September 2003
Type of Meeting
Advisory Committee Orientation Meeting
October 2003
Initial Public Informational Meeting
November 2003
Advisory Committee #2 re: Community Concerns and Aspirations
January 2004
Advisory Committee #3 re: Analysis of Existing And Emerging Conditions
March 2004
Advisory Committee #4 re: Plan for the Future
May 2004
Advisory Committee #5 re: Management Tools
August 2004
Second Public Informational Meeting
November 2004
Planning Board review of draft document
January 2005
Board of Commissioners review of draft document
March 2005
Advisory Committee #6 re: final review of draft document and
recommendation for approval
April 2005
Public Forum re: final draft document
May 2005
Public Hearin
May 2005
Board of Commissioners meeting re: ado tion of plan
Post May 2005
CRC review and approval
Regularly scheduled Advisory Committee meetings will be held at the Town Hall, Beaufort, NC.
The location of all other meetings will be determined at a later date. Meeting dates are tentative
and are subject to change. Notification of the meetings will be achieved through local
newspaper notices and the preparation and distribution of public service announcements to
local radio and television stations. Notice of the meetings will also be provided to the Coastal
Resources Advisory Council member and the Division of Coastal Management District Planner.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 131 of 138
January 26, 2007
Attachment B, Appendix 1

Attachment C
Local Media Resources
1 1. Carteret County News -Times
1
2.
The Venture
3.
The Gam
4.
Local Public Access CATV station: Channel 10
5.
Local radio stations: WRHT-FM
WJNC-AM
W BTB-AM
6.
Local television stations: WYDO
W ITN
WCTI
i
1
1
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 132 of 138
January 26, 2007
Attachment C, Appendix I

1
1
I
U
1
1
1
I
ll
Appendix J
Maps and Land Use Plan Data Available at the Beaufort Town Hall
Maps
• Natural Features Map
• Composite Environmental Conditions Map
• Wetlands Map
• Floodplains Map
• Storm Surge Map
• Existing Land Use Map
• Water and Wastewater Systems Map
• Stormwater Management System Map
• Septic System Soil Limitations Map
• Land Suitability Map
• Future Land Use Map
Data
2005 Beaufort Core Land Use Plan
' Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 133 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix J

I
1
I
I
11
11
Appendix K
Summary of CRC Land Use Plan Management Topic Goals and Objectives
Objective
Develop comprehensive policies that provide access opportunities for the public along the
shoreline within the glanninq jurisdiction
Land Use Compatibility
Goal
Ensure the development and use of resources or preservation of land minimizes direct and
secondary environmental impacts, avoids risks to public health, safety and welfare, and is
consistent with the capability of the land based on considerations of interactions of natural
and manmade features
Objective
Adopt and apply local development policies that balance protection of natural resources and
fragile areas with economic development
Policies should provide clear direction to assist local decision making and consistency
findings for zoning, divisions of land, and ublic and RdygLeMjects
CapacityInfrastructure Carrying
Goal
Ensure that public infrastructure systems are appropriately sized, located, and managed so
that the quality and productivity of AECs and other fragile areas are protected or restored
Objective
Establish level of service policies and criteria for infrastructure consistent with future land
needs pro'ections
Natural Areas
Goal
Conserve and maintain barrier dunes, beaches, floodplains, and other coastal features for
their natural storm protection functions and their natural resources giving recognition to public
health, safety, and welfare issues
Objective
Develop policies that minimize threats to life, property, and natural resources resulting from
development located in or adjacent to hazard areas such as those subject to erosion, high
winds, storm sur e, flooding, or sea level rise
Water Quality
Goal
Maintain, protect and, where possible, enhance water quality in all coastal wetlands, rivers,
streams, and estuaries
Objective Adopt policies for coastal waters within the planning jurisdiction to help ensure that water
guality is maintained if not impaired and improved if impaired
LocalAreas.
Goal Integrate local concerns with the overall goals of CAMA in the context of land use planning
Objective
Identify and address local concerns and issues, such as cultural and historic areas, scenic
areas, economic development, downtown revitalization or general health and human service
needs
Source: CAMA Land Use Planning Guidelines, Subchapter 7B . U7U2(d)(J)
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 134 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix K

I
it
I
fl
Appendix L
Population Projections
Certified
ProjectionsUS Estimate
Census July
000 2002 2005i
Carteret County 59,383 60,064 1 62,435 65,019 1 67,128 69,056 70,406 1 71,427
Beaufort Corporate Area
3,771
3,787
Average rate of growth
5,245
5,462
5,639
5,801
5,914
6,000
_1970-2000
Town to county ratio
9,091
9,383
9,638
9,879
10,073
10,241
Average of both
methodologies
4,545
4,692
4,819
4,939
5,037
5,120
Beaufort Planning
1
Jurisdiction
4,954*
4,974*
6,891
7,177
7,409
7,622
7,771
7,884
Sources: US Census, 1970-2000. 2002 Certified Population Estimates, NC State Data Center, April 2006. County
Population Growth 2000-2030, NC State Data Center, July 2004. Block 2000 US Census data for the
ETJ area.
*2000 and 2002 estimates for the Beaufort planning jurisdiction by The Wooten Company.
' Carteret County projections by the NC State Data Center.
Beaufort corporate and planning jurisdiction projections by The Wooten Company.
I
�I
11
Beaufort Planning Jurisdiction population projections based upon the average of two the
methodologies delineated above for the Beaufort corporate area.
Assumptions:
1. The average rate of growth (0.4%) annualized rate for the period 1970-2000 will remain
constant through 2030.
2. The average ratio (8.4%) of the town's population to the Carteret County population for
the period 1970-2000 will remain constant through 2030.
3. The ratio (131.4%) of the estimated 2000 planning jurisdiction population to the 2000
Beaufort corporate population will remain constant through 2030.
Beaufort CA MA Land Use Plan Page 135 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix L

I=1 M iill■I Itr M =1 lit it = 11r IMI Ir M Ir A M Ir Ml M
Appendix M
Impact of Beaufort Policies on CRC Land Use Plan Management Topics
Land
Use Plan
ManagementCRC
.. .:-
Infrastructure
Water
Land Use
gPublic
ar in
Natural Hazard.,Local
Areas of
Access
Com atibility
��!,..Capaclty
Areas
Water Quality
Concern
• Improvements
• Reduce the
• Water, sewer,
Land uses and
Land use and
Reduction in
to existing
placement of
and other
development
development
the placement
access
incompatible
services being
patterns that
measures that
of incompatible
Land Use and
locations
land uses
available in
reduce the
abate impacts
land uses
Development
required
vulnerability to
that degrade
Development
• Preservation
locations at
natural hazards
water quality
Continued
Policies
of new access
of existing
adequate
Planning for
preservation of
(see Table 36
areas
character
capacities to
adequate
water access
for the details
support
evacuation
and town
of each policy)
I
I
development
infrastructure.
character
4.2.1 Public Water
Access:
• Policy 1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 2
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 3
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 4
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
4.2.2 Land ,Use
Com atibilit
• Policy 1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 2
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 3
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 4
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 5
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 6
Beneficial
• Policy 7
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 8
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 9
Beneficial
Beneficial
_ Beneficial
Beneficial
• Polic 10
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 136 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix M

= i m m m= i= m lip r m m= m MI m 1, m
• Policy 11
1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 12
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
4.2.3 Infrastructure Car!ying Capcity:
• Policy 1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 2
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 3
Beneficial
_
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 4
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Polic 5
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 6
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy7
Beneficial
Beneficial
_
• Policy 8
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 9
Beneficial
• Policy 10
Beneficial
• Policy 11
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 11
_
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
4.2.4 Natural. Hazard Areas.
• Policy 1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 2
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 3
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 4
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Polic 5
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
4.2.5 Water Qualit
• Policy 1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 2
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 3
_
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
_
• Policy 4
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 5
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 6
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 7
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 8
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 9
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Polic 10
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
_
4.2.6 Areas of Environmental Concern:
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan
January 26, 2007
Appendix M
Page 137 of 138

m m m� m m m m m m m= i= i m! i m

• Policy 1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 2
_
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 3
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 4
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 5
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 6
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 7
Beneficial
_
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 8
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 9
Beneficial
• Policy 10
Beneficial
4.2.7 Areas of Local Concern:
• Policy 1
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 2
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 3
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 4
Beneficial
• Policy 5
_
Beneficial
• Policy 6
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 7
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 8
_
Beneficial T
�T
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 9
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
• Policy 10
Beneficial
Beneficial
Beneficial
Note: Blank space in table indicates neutral impact. All local policies have been determined to have either a positive or neutral impact on CRC
management topics. No specific actions or programs are required to mitigate negative impacts.
Beaufort CAMA Land Use Plan Page 138 of 138
January 26, 2007
Appendix M