Special Land Use Plan Update-1982

I
1
IABSTRACT
TITLE:
Special Land Use Plan Update for the Town of Morehead City,
North Carolina
AUTHOR:
Town of.Morehead City
Consultants: Stottler Stagg Associates/Wang
and Engineering
SUBJECT:
Special Land Use Update reflecting effects of coal transpor-
tation on Town
DATE:
July 1982
LOCAL
PLANNING
Morehead City Planning Board
ISOURCE
AGENCY:
Morehead City, North Carolina
OF
COPIES:
Office of Town Administrator
Town Hall
Morehead City, North Carolina
Department of Nat-ural and Economic Resources
I
Office of Community Resources
Division of Community Services
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
HUD
PROJECT
NUMBER:
CPA-NC-04-00-0149 (37); revised project funded under CAMA
Project Number 9780
NUMBER OF
l
PAGES:
135
ABSTRACT:
The Special Land Use Plan Update contains information regard-
ing the future growth -of the -Town of Morehead City with
par-
ticular emphasis.on the land use and environmental effects of
coal transportation on the Town.
1.
-

1
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
PAGE
PHASE
I
'
I.
Introduction
1
Problem Statement
1
'
Update Objectives
2
'
II.
Coal Export Overview
5
III.
Existing Conditions
13
'
Population
13
Economy
15-
'
Labor Force
18
'
Land Classification
20
Existing Land Use
24
'
Constraints
32
IV.
Future Export Facilities Inventory
47
'
Projected New and Expanded Facilities: Port of Morehead
47
'
Projected New and Expanded Facilities: Radio Island
47
V.
Expected General Impacts of Proposed Export Facilities on
the Town
50
50
Population
Economy and Labor Force
51
Transportation57
Environmental Issues
61
VI.
Land Use Scenarios for Town
64
'
Scenario One: 3 Million Tons
64
Scenario Two: 15 Million Tons
65

VII.
Morehead Transportation Corridor Analysis
Existing Conditions
'
Town Ordinances and Policies Regarding Railroads
Projected General Effects of Coal Transportation on Corridor
Noise
Coal Dust/Air Quality
Vibration .
Transportation
Impact on Commercial Land Uses
Impact on Property Values
VIII.
Projected Corridor Land Use
Scenario One: 3 Million Tons
Scenario Two: 15 Million Tons
PHASE
TWO
IX..,
Zoning Ordinance Review
Procedure for Rezoning
Location of Existing IU and IP Districts
Existing Permitted Uses
X.
Major Land and Environmental Regulation and Permits
'
CAMA Permits
Environmental Impact Assessments
'
Other State and Federal Requirements
Water Quality
Water Supply
PAGE
69
70
78
80
80
83
.86
87
88
91
93
93
93
97
97
100
101
105
105
108
111
111
114

PAGE
Sediment Control
115
Service Roads
116
Noise
116
Noise Regulation
116
Noise Control
118
Noise Ordinance
119
Comprehensive Planning and Noise
120
XI. Recommended Land Development Objectives and Policies
124
'
Recommended Overall Objectives
125
Recommended Policies for Industrial Growth
127
Implementation
129
Other Overall Policies
133
Appendices
4
t
"
1

'
LIST OF TABLES
'
1
Population By Age and Sex
'
2
Retail Sales
3
Travel Expenditures
4
North Carolina State Ports Terminal - Morehead City, N.C.
5
Labor Force Estimates - Carteret County
'
6
Permits Issued Within City Limits
'
7
Permits Issued in Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
8
Coal Export Capacity Estimates
9
Population Projections
10
Estimated Employment and Payroll for Facilities
'
11
Alternate Bypass Routes
12
Major Traffic Generators
13
Average Daily Trips
'
14
Comparative Noise Levels
'
15
Vibration Readings
16
Calculation of Average Traffic Delay by Coal Trains in
the Town of Morehead City
PAGE
14
16
16
17
19
30
30
49
50
53
59
71
72
81
86
89

'
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
'
1
History and Projection of US Coal Exports
6
2
Existing and Proposed Coal Piers, Continental United States
8
'
3
Land Classification
21
'
4
Existing Land- Use
29
5
New Permit Activity
31
'
6
iVacant Tracts of 3 Acres or More
34
7
Flood Hazard Areas
37
-
8
Soils Map -
43
'
9
Areas Most Suitable for Industrial Development
46
10
Morehead City Rail Bypass Draft Alternatives
60
'
11
Overall ,Land Use Plan - 15 Million Tons
68
12
Major Traffic Generators
73
74
13
Average Daily Trips
'
14
Impact of Noise on Residential Property
82
_ 15
Impact of Noise on Corridor
P
84
'
16
Corridor Land Use Plan - 15 Million Tons
96_
17
Existing IU and IP Zones
102

' CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
' PROBLEM STATEMENT
The Board of Commissioners of the Town of Morehead City has authorized this
' "special"P Y Land Use Update because of recently announced intentions of several
' coal companies to export a maximum of approximately 15-20 million tons of
coal from the State Ports Authority Terminals at Morehead City and adjacent
' Radio Island.
Tha announcement of these plans has generated some public debate among the local
1 population concerning the impacts of such facilities on the Town. As early as
Spring 1980, discussions were being held between the State Ports Authority (SPA)
' and Alla-Ohio Valley Coals, Inc. (AOV). At that time Alla-Ohio was interested
in and desirous of obtaining and developing a coal export terminal with deep
' water capability for the export of its product. In turn, the SPA was interested
' in maximizing the use of its Port Facilities System by developing a coal.export
capability. The result of this mutual interest was a lease agreement entered
' into on the 6th of October, 1980, by and between SPA and Alla-Ohio.
' The announcement of the lease agreement instigated numerous questions and con-
cerns from Carteret County and Morehead City residents. Most of these concerns
were expressed during a Citizens' Meeting held on November 7,. 1980, at the Carteret
' County Courthouse. A review of the minutes of that meeting and of other meetings
held since that time shows major concern over transportation and environmental issues.
' The primary transportation related problems involve the proposed rail shipment

of a maximum of 3 million tons of coal through the Town of Morehead City. Impacts
of noise, coal dust, vibration, and effects on local vehicular and pedestrian
traffic have surfaced as major concerns. Other overall impacts of new coal
handling facilities on the Town's general environmental quality have been ex-
pressed. As a result of these and similar concerns expressed by citizens and
local governments, the State of North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission (CRC)
has funded a series of studies to assist local governments in coping with the
impacts of coal related facility development. This "special" Land Use Update,
funded by CRC, is designed to assist Morehead City in preparing for and
coping with the changes associated with the development of coal facilities and
' related support services.
UPDATE OBJECTIVES
Morehead City is not a heavily industrialized town. The.industrial land uses
are primarily light -industrial in nature and include a garment factory, roofing
plant, and some -boat and metal works. This pattern of light industrial activity
has remained constant for several years, i.e. there has not been any pressure
for major industrial development within the Town. Morehead City's Land Use Plan
and Policies therefore, have not been geared towards industrialactivity.
The arrival of coal export facilities on Radio Island and the SPA could con-
ceivably open a new era for the Town and, with this new era, a demand for indus-
trial and support facilities, the type of which.the Town has never experienced
before. More importantly, these new facilities, if located within the Town's
corporate limits, could severely test the governmental services and capabilities
of the Town.
2

'
Given this
lack of experience in dealing with the effects of heavy industry,
the overall
objectives of this Land Use Update are to:
'
1.
identify expected new coal facilities and allied industrial
facilities and uses;
2.
identify future changes and impacts associated with newly
developing facilities;
3.
assess direct impacts of coal transportation on the land uses in
the Town's major transportation corridor;
.4.
recommend new transportation corridor land uses;
5.
recommend overall land use changes in the Town; and
6.
recommend changes to the Town's zoning ordinances and
regulatory mechanisms to help accomodate future industrialization.
' The overall effect of this report should be to better acquaint Town officials
and residents with the potential for -and impacts of future industrialization in
and around Morehead City and to provide recommendations on how to cope with these
changes, once they arrive.
1 -
This report has been prepared in two phases. Phase.I provides an overview of the
coal export situation, a review of Morehead City's existing conditions, and a
' brief discussion concerning proposed export facilities. This is followed by
a discussion of the impacts of coal on Morehead's major transportation corridor'
and the town in general, concluded by four brief land use scenarios using 3 and
15 million ton export projections.
1
3

' Phase II of the report analyzes all existing federal, state and local land and
environmental permit programs and regulations and provides recommendations on
1 - how Morehead City can improve its land use and zoning programs in -the face of
1 possible rapid changes in the complexion of the community.
1
i -
1 .
1
1
1 -
1
4 i
i

M
CHAPTER I -I: COAL EXPORT OVERVIEW

CHAPTER II: COAL EXPORT.OVERVIEW
The demand for U.S. coal has helped push total coal exports to a record 90
million tons in 1980 - a 39% leap over.1979 figures. This has, in turn, touched
off a major expansion of U.S. coal port facilities to reduce present congestion
and to handle anticipated growth which, according to the Office of Technology
Assessment, some experts project will be as high as_225 million tons by the
year 2000. (See Figure 1.)
The reasons for this drastic increase in demand are many. Among the most im-
portant are the recent increase in the number of utilities which are currently
converting electric generating plants from oil to lower cost steam coal; increas-
ing use of metallurgical coal which is used in the,steelmaking process; and
greater availability of recoverable coal reserves (relative.to oil and gas).
A1.so, increases in the demand,for export coal have been directly attributed to
disruptions in production experienced by two of the other primary suppliers of
coal to Europe and Japan -- Poland and Australia.
This increasing demand for coal has exerted a number of physical, operational,
and administrative burdens on existing port -handling facilities, particularly
at major coal ports along the eastern seaborad.
Traditionally, the ports of Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Mobile and
New Orleans have handled almost all of the U.S. coal exports destined for foreign
markets. These ports have all been operating at near-100% capacity for quite some
5

Figure 1 —History and -Projection of U.S. Coal Exports
Note Steam cod at 90 percent of total in t98o is expecteYear
d to prow to 78 percent by 2000.
3OURCt3t Ntewf44N dm book pmj@onowtCt Task fat:e.,.th eaostwn t,= awsllurl" t:or adoee, ,
6

' time. Long lines of -ships, some waiting more than two months, are now waiting
just outside of Baltimore and Hampton Roads harbors..
Understandably, coal buyers and exporters are concerned about these costly de-
lays. Many ships awaiting entry to Baltimore and Hampton Roads harbors are in-
curring demurrage costs of $15,000 to $20,000 per day. Not only are these de-
murrage charges passed along to buyers, but the congestion has also cost the U.S.
' coal industry about 8 to 10 million tons of lost sales over the past year.
I
There appears to be little doubt that the demand for export coal will continue
to increase drastically during the coming years. In response to this growing
demand, Coal Export Task Force projects. that U.S. coal export terminal capacity
could expand from the congested 94.4 million -ton level of 1980 to as much as
277.8 million tons per year by 1985. This projection is based on terminal ex-
pansion projects of 23 million tons presently underway coupled with commitments
for an additional 160.4 million tons.
Nearly two dozen ports have announced plans for new coal export facilities. On
the eastern seaboard, expansion is underway not only at Norfolk, Newport News,
and Baltimore -- currently the most active coal ports -- but also at Camden,
New Jersey; Philadelphia; Morehead City and Wilmington, North Carolina; Charleston,
Savannah, and Brunswick, Georgia. (See Figure 2 .) In fact, if all of these
proposed expansions for export terminal facilities take place, officials at the
North Carolina Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) anticipate that coal could
' easilybecome the re ion's major export commodity during this decade.
9 J P Y 9
7

Figure 2 Existing and Proposed Coal Piers, Continental United States
Key
aOURCE:
Bellingham
Canada.
Astoria Kalama
Canada
Portland
Great Lakes Ports••"�
New York
tPhiladelphia
•Sacramento
CBI imore
Stockton
�•
ampton Roads
Morehead City
Los Angeles
•
Wilmingtonr,
Long Beach•••„—
Charleston
�•
Mobile
avannah
Brunswick
--
Jacksonville
Mexico
New Orleans
Houston .
Galveston
• 1.�
[�
t Existing terminals
t
• Proposed terminals
Office of Ucrinoiogy Assessment.
8

Specifically,during the past year, eight coal companies have expressed a desire
to develop coal export facilities in the State of North Carolina alone. Com-
bined company estimates of export volumes approach 90 million tons annually by
' 1990 and around 50 million tons in 1985. The large majority of North Carolina.
export coal will move through the Port of Morehead City. Operated by Alla-Ohio
Valley, the State Ports Terminal in Morehead City' is the only existing coal
export facility in North Carolina and has an effective capacity of three million
tons annually.
Due to its proximity to existing coal fields and strategic location on the North
Carolina coast, the Port of Morehead City as well as the adjacent Radio Island,
are prime candidates for site expansion of export facilities. Alla-Ohio, as a
1 producer and major exporter of coal, wishes to obtain a coal export terminal
' with deepwater capabilities, while the State Ports Authority is interested in
developing a new facility for handling coal exports. Morehead City meets the
' locational requirements of both.
' However, despite its obvious advantages, Morehead City as a potential expansion
site is not without its problems. In addition.to the normal environmental and
communit impacts associated with the development of coal export terminals and
Y P P. P
their associated support facilities, Morehead City is significantly impacted by
transportation -related factors caused by the movement of coal from its source
' to the export facility.
t

Current immediate rail access to the port is available only'by way of the New
Bern -Morehead City corridor of Southern Railway which bisects both cities and
many smaller communities between them. Three miles of this rail line run direct-
ly through the heart of Morehead City. The Town already suffers minor incon-
veniences due to this situation.
Generally, the location of new or expanding industrial -type facilities can have
profound effects on communities. Predicting the magnitude of these effects,
or changes, is often difficult, but.must be addressed if the "character" of the
community is to be preserved. If appropriate attention is given to these changes
' before they occur, their impacts can, in most cases, be anticipated. Decision -
makers can then maximize positive impacts for the benefit of the community, while
simultaneously minimizing negative externalities.
Generally, the negative effects of coal transportation by rail are of two kinds:
environmental effects and impacts at grade crossings. The first category is com-
posed of increased noise, dust, air and water pollution, and vibration from rail-
road movement through towns. Impacts at grade crossings are associated with in-
creased accidents, delays, impedence of emergency vehicles, and disruption of
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
There are a number of alternative solutions available which could greatly reduce
1 the impacts of railroads on communities -- installation of automatic gates and
' flashing signals at crossings, rescheduling trains so that they do not pass
through town during rush hours, separating the cars of stopped trains to permit
' emergency vehicles to pass through, and.vehicular.rerouting are just a few
10

techniques which address the problem retroactively.
Of course, the expansion of export facilities at the Port of Morehead and the
proposed development of Radio Island will have impacts on Morehead City above
and beyond those listed above. Increased industrial development brings with it
more people. Though the transshipment of coal is a capital rather than labor-
intensive,industry, the introduction of new deep -water export capabilities will
more than likely encourage exporters of other commodities to relocate in the area
as well.
The Town of Morehead then becomes responsible for accommodating more traffic,
more noise, more development, and more pollution, as well as providing more
housing, more health care services, more public utilities, and more services
(i.e. police and fire protection). Large scale development also means the
introduction of new support services -- new commercial activity, new residential
and hotel/motel facilities, new schools and hospitals and so forth.
There is little doubt that increasing coal export activities in Morehead City
will have tremendous impacts on the Town. Again, in order to move vehicular
' traffic respond quickly to emergency situations maintain water and sewer ser-
P q Y 9 Y � _
vices, strengthen the! Downtown Commercial District, preserve property values,
accomodate anticipated growth, and generally protect the character of the com-
munity, anticipated changes to be caused by expansion of export facilities must
be addressed before they take place.
11

1 Probably the most effective and least costly manner in which to do this is to
utilize proper land use planning to accomodate growth while purposely minimizing
1 the negative impacts of this growth: This can be accomplished by.carefully
1 situating various uses in a manner which lessens potential conflicts caused by
the juxtaposition of incompatible land uses.
1
1 -
1 .
i
1
1 .
i -
1 .
1 12
i i.

CHAPTER III: EXISTING CONDITIONS

CHAPTER III: EXISTING CONDITIONS
The most recent available statistics from the 1980 Census and the Carteret
County Statistical.Abstract were used to update existing data found in the
1980 Morehead Land -Use Plan. Since only one year has elapsed since that study,
much of this information will change only slightly, it at all. Changes which
have occurred during that period will become much more significant in sub-
sequent sections of this report.
As with the 1980 study, growth and demand estimates were based on a number of
factors such as population estimates, 201 planning projections, building per-
mits issued, annexation patterns/policy and economic conditions.
Existing plans were examined, utilized and refined where appropriate.
An examination of the 1980 Census of Population and Housing estimates the total
population of Morehead°City to be 4,359. At the time of the 1980 Land Use Study,
projections provided.by the Carteret County Complex 201_Facility Plan estimated
that the population would increase to 5,800, a 10.8% increase over the 1970 census
figure of 5,233. Rather, the actual 1980 Census estimate is a 16.7% decrease
from the 1970 figure. This trend is consistent with the previous decade (1960-
1970) in,which there was a decrease of 6.3%.
Population in the Morehead City planning area has continued to increase more
13

' rapidly in the one -mile extraterritorial jurisdiction than within the town
limits. A review of building permits from 1976 through 1981 indicates that .
' there were 40 new homes built within the town limits. While 242 residences
' and 104 mobile homes were constructed in the one -mile planning area, more spe-
cifically, building permits were issued for 53 new homes and 55 mobile homes in
' the extraterritorial jurisdiction within the past 2 years alone. In contrast,
permits were issued for only 7 new homes and 2 mobile homes within the town
limits during the same period. Since the time of the 1980 study, 90 more
building permits for new homes and mobile homes were issued in the extraterritorial
jurisdiction than in the town itself.
The 1980 Census data distributes Morehead City's population by age and sex as
' follows.
'
Table 1.
POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX
AGE
TOTAL
% OF TOTAL
MALE
FEMALE
'
Under 13
years
721
16.5
361
360
14
to.17
years
280
6.5
151
129
'
18
to 21
years
252
5.8
131
121
22
to 29
years
496
11.4
246
250
'
30
to 34
years
286
6.6
136
150
35
to 44
years
449
1.0.3
219
230
'
45
to 54
years
440
10.0
185
255
55
to 59
years
272
6.4
117
155
'
60
to 64
years
309
7.0
125
196
184
298
65
to 74
years
494
11.3
75
to 84
years
249
5.7
89
160
'
85
years
and over
111
2.5
24
87
TOTAL
4,359
100.0
1,980
2,379
'
14

0
Over the years Morehead City has experienced an influx of tourists during
approximately six months of the year. Spring and Fall fishing may extend the
season by two or three -months. This trend has been due to the recreational
facilities in the area and the access to ocean activities on East Bogue Banks.
It was previously estimated that the area's seasonal population increased by
approximately 20,000 during the summer months. The recent development of re-
sort type residences, mostly condominiums,. on Bogue Banks has increased this
figure substantially.
ECONOMY
Morehead City is still the largest town in Carteret County and is the retail
trade center for the county. A majority of retail and sales establishments in
the county are located within Morehead City. The Town contains over 50 percent
of the county's apparel.and accessory stores; furniture, home furnishings, and
equipment stores; eating places; drug stores and proprietary stores. The follow-
ing chart, Gross Retail Sales for Carteret County, prepared by the State
Department of Budget and Management, gives an indication of the retail sales
throughout the county.
15

Table-2: RETAIL SALES
1978-79
1980-81
1% Retail Sales
$ 1,028,562
$ 1,705,522
2t Auto, Planes, Boats
11,740,201
10,204,757
Apparel,
3,065,955
3,397,879
Automobile.
22,650,706
27,355,503
Food
58,193,859
77,876,509
Furniture
8,117,888
10,081,558
General Merchandise
26,483,868
34,234,233
Building Materials
11,512,447
12,111,085
Unclassified Group
31,398,236
38,081,705
.TOTALS
$174,191,722
$215,049,751
Source: North Carolina
Department of Revenue
The town serves not only as a trading center for county residents, but also as
a tourist center for the many visitors that travel to the coast each year.
(A considerable amount of the expenditures calculated above take place in
Morehead City due to the many tourist -related businesses and restaurants.)
The following chart indicates the growing number of travel expenditures in
Carteret County.
Table 3: TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
1973 $ 8,607,000.
1974 $ 9,117,000
1975 $ 9,714,000
1976 $11,007,000
16

Table 3. TRAVEL EXPENDITURES (Continued)
1977 $15,200,000
1978 $16,937,000
1979 $17,038,000
1980 $18,685,000
1981 $22,362,000
Source: Carteret County Economic Development Council
Of primary importance for the purposes of this study are the Morehead State
Port facilities, which have a profound impact on the local economy. The
volume of business handled by the port gives some indication of the port's
potential value to the overall economy of the county. Recent trends have
indicated that the value of imports has fluctuated considerably while the
value of exports has steadily increased. The total amount of business has
remained relatively high.
Table 4.
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE PORTS TERMINAL
MOREHEAD CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
General
Cargo
Asphalt and
Grand
Import
Export
Petroleum
Military
Total
1974
$538,683.74
$559,680.80
$252,53735
$ 5,623.28
$1,103,987.82
1975
395,133.36
610,823.58
156-375.39
3,192.84
1,009,149.78
1976
718,409.66
764,535.07
141,388.36
11,594.03
1,494,538.76
1977
160,087.54
871,251.36
708,604.22
.4,962.70
1,744,905.82
1978
2751,308.36
947,665.29
771,218.42
23,380.97
2,017,573.04
17.

' LABOR FORCE
An examination of the most recent available employment statistics.for Carteret
' County reveals that total county employment has fluctuated over the past five
' years. According_to labor force estimates published by the North Carolina
Employment Security Commission, total county employment in 1980 was 14,050.
' Total unemployment in 1980 was 8.1%. The local labor force can be classified
into the following employment categories:
18

Table 5. LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES - CARTERET COUNTY
YEAR
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
MANUFACTURING
TRADE
SERVICE
GOVERNMENT
AGRICULTURAL
OTHER
RATE OF
UNEMPLOYMENT
1976
13,040
2,010
2,540
1,550
1,800
430
3,580
7.7
1977
13,400
2,080
2,580
1,690
1,860
360
4,830
8.2
1978
14,390
2,210
2,950
1,760
2,160
330
4,980
6.2-
1979
13,930
2,070
3,160
1,800
2,160
310
4,430
6.6
1980
14,000
2,160
3,420
2,040
2,230
280
3,870
8.1

F
LAND CLASSIFICATION
The Coastal Area Management Act has required that all land within the twenty
coastal counties, including municipalities, be classified in one of five land
classifications. The land classifications described in the 1980 Land Use Plan
are still applicable. There is a likelihood that changes will have to be made as -
development occurs. This system of land classification will assure that proper
services are planned before the development occurs.
The five land classes that have been designated -to all the land area of this
county include (1) developed, (2) transitional, (3) community, (4) rural, and
(5) conservation. These five classes provide a framework to be used by local
governments to identify the general use of all lands within each county. It
is hoped that this classification system will help coordinate and encourage
consistency between all local land use policies, and those of the state. Of
the five land classifications designated, only four are pertinent to Morehead
City and its planning area at this time. `.(See Figure 3 page 21.)
1. Developed
Purpose:- The Developed class identifies developed lands which are
presently provided with essential public services. Consequently,
it is distinguished from areas where significant growth and/or new
I ervice requirements will occur. Continued development and redevelop-
ment should be encouraged to provide for the orderly growth in the
area.
' Description: Developed lands are areas within the corporate limits
of Morehead City that have existing public services including water
and sewer systems, educational systems, and road systems -- all of
20 ;

t
i
i
i
11
1
Figure 3 Land Classification

n
F
0
which are able to support the present population and its accompany-
ing land uses including residential, commercial, industrial, and
institutional. The majority of these areas have already been
developed. Minimal changes are expected to occur here.
2. Transition
Purpose: The Transition class identifies lands where moderate to
high density -growth is to be encouraged and where any such growth
that is permitted by local regulation will be provided with the
necessary public services.
Description: Most of the area north and west of Morehead City
within the one -mile planning area has been classified as transition.
The minimum services which will be required are the necessary water
and sewer facilities, educatiobal services, and roads.
According to Table 7, page 30, 174 building permits for new
residential construction and mobile homes have been issued within
the past three years in the transition area. When this figure is
multiplied by 2.66, the estimated average number of people per house-
hold, the resulting increase in population would be an increase of
330. This yearly figure yields a projected population increase of
3,300 over the next ten years.within the transition area. -
It should be noted that the multiplier of 2.66 was derived from the
1980 Census data and is different from the 2.9 figure used in the
1980 Land Use Plan.
22

3. Community
Purpose: The Community class identifies existing and new clusters
of low density development not requiring major public services.
Description: Not applicable to Morehead City.
4. Rural
Purpose: The Rural class identifies land for long-term management
for productive resource utilization, and where limited public
services will be provided. Development in such areas should be
compatible with resource production.
Description: The Rural class includes all lands not in the Developed,
Transition, Community and Conservation classes.
5. Conservation
Purpose: The Conservation class identifies land which should be
maintained essentially in its natural state and where very 11 mited or
no public services will be provided.
Description: Lands to be placed in the Conservation class are the
least desirable for development because:
1) they are too fragile to withstand development without losing
their natural value; and/or
2) they have severe or hazardous limitations to development; and/or
3) though they are not fragile or hazardous, the natural resources
they represent are .too valuable to endanger by development.
23

tIn Morehead City, these conservation areas include wetlands, estuarine
erosion areas, and floodways.
' EXISTING.LAND USE
The existing land uses identified and classified by the CAMA Land Use Plan in
1976 are still.largely applicable today with a few important exceptions which
' are detailed below. The existing land uses in Morehead City are still organized
into five use categories. A listing is given below of the typical uses in
' each of the general categories.
1. Residential - This category includes single family homes, apartments,
duplexes, mobile homes, cottages and cabins.
' 2. Commercial - This category includes retail and service trade. Are -
tail store is one that sells physical goods as opposed to intangible
services. Such stores include clothing stores, drug stores, service
stations and grocery stores. Service stores trade in intangible
.goods._ This sub -category includes motels, banks, and professional
' offices.
3. Industrial - This. category includes all industrial uses. Unoffensive
' industrial uses include such operations as wholesale storage, and the
production of textiles and apparels. Other industrial uses include
' boat manufacturers, metal works and metal shops.
' 4. Public and Semi -Public - This category includes schools, churches,
governmental facilities, recreational facilities, cemeteries and
' various types of rights -of -way.
24
{

5. Undeveloped Land - This category includes land that.is vacant.
In the extraterritorial area, undeveloped land is often used for
agriculture, woodland, and in the case of shallow estuarine areas,
for replenishing the valuable fish supply.
An analysis of existing land use activities which have occurred since the initial
CAMA plan was completed'has been conducted by city officials. The following de-
velopment trends and patterns have emerged.
1. Residential - Residential development continues to occupy the largest
percentage of the developed land within the city. Single-family
dwellings increased by 14 during the period from 1979 through 1981.
Residential additions accounted for 248 permits within the town limits
alone. A large number of these permits were issued in the area extending
north of Highway 70-A, westward from Maple Lane, to the town limits.
Also, two nursing homes have located in'this area.
The largest increase in residential development has occurred in the
one -mile planning area, primarily in the vicinity of Hedrick Boulevard
and Country Club Road. From 1979 to 1981 there were 92 building permits
issued for construction of residences and 106 permits for residential
additions in the one -mile planning area. Additionally, 82 mobile homes
were located in this area for a total of 174 new residences in the one -
area. Growth has not been as rapid during the past two years. This
is probably due, in large -part, to soaring costs of construction and
spiraling inflation rates. Growth is continuing, however.
25

' 2. Commercial.- The pattern -of commercial land use in Morehead City is
still lineal. The pattern follows a line that.extends along Arendell
' Street for four blocks from Seventh Street to Eleventh Street. Also
' in the downtown area there is a large amount of waterfront or marine
commercial development along Shepard and Evans Streets between Ninth
' and Fourth Streets. These provide moorings for many of the charter
boats and locations for fish houses and waterfront restaurants.
Since the 1980 study was completed, 71 new permits for professional,',
retail and/or restaurant uses have been issued in the town itself.
' For the same category, 17 permits have been issued in the extra-
territorial jurisdiction.
tCommercial development has been particularly heavy along Highway 70
West outside of the one -mile planning area and indications are that
' this pattern will continue. Building permits are numerous in.t his
area.
' Scattered shopping places are still found throughout Morehead City,
existing most commonly as non -conforming uses. The town is, however,
' making a conscientious effort through its zoning ordinance to avoid
past problems associated with mixed incompatible uses and strip com-
mercial development. 'Between 1979 and 1981, 71 building permits were
' issued for construction of commercial and professional facilities.
In addition, 17 were issued in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
26

'
3. Industrial - Morehead'City's current industrial.uses are virtually the
same as identified in' -.the initial plan.- The principal industrial uses
in the area are boat and metal works, a garment factory, a roofing
'
plant, and the port activity which includes storage and bulk goods
shipping. The port activity consists of nearly 150 acres on the
'
extreme eastern tip of the peninsula on which Morehead City is located.
the
In period between 1979 and 1981, 8 new building permits were issued
within the town for industrial development. All of these were issued
in 1981. One extraterritorial permit was also issued in 1981.
There is still ample undeveloped land in the planning area which
could support light industrial activity.
i- bli - This category includes schools churches 4. Public and Sem Pu c T s g y ,
' governmental facilities, recreational facilities, cemeteries and
various types of right-of-way. Between 1979 and 1981, permits were
' issued for 5 churches in the town proper, and 4 schools and/or churches
(combined category)' in the one -mile planning area. No new government
' facilities have been constructed since the last study.
Y
5. Undeveloped Land - Undeveloped land is placed into three.categories:
' farmland, vacant in -town, and wooded and estuarine.
Land used for farmland in the planning area has been decreasing as
' residential development continues to expand.
27

Usable vacant land in Morehead City is still generally scattered
throughout the town in small _lots. The vacant land in the downtown
area is primarily used for parking.
In the one -mile planning area, wooded land, swamp and spoils still
occupy a large percentage of land in the total planning area. This
includes a large amount of tidal marsh land in the northeast section
of the planning area. This land will probably not be developed for
residential use before the year 2000. The future potential.of this
land for estuarine -purposes is still to be determined.
There is, however, extensive land still undeveloped which could
possibly be used for Tight industrial development in the one -mile
planning area. At last count,- there were 28 parcels of 3 acres or
more that were currently undeveloped. The suitability of these par-
cels for industrial development are discussed in a subsequent section.
The existing Land Use Map contained in the 1980 Land Use Plan was not
accurate. Instead, please refer to the map on page 29, for identifying
the location of existing land uses.
a

In summary, the following chart categorizes the number and
types of
planning
permits issued since the.last study was completed._
Table 6. PERMITS ISSUED WITHIN
CITY LIMITS
'
TYPE
1979
1980
1981
Total
New Housing
7
3
4
14
Housing Additions
67
96
85
248
Professional
15
14
4
33
'
Repairs/Renovations
106
113
0
117
5
336
5
Churches/Schools
0
Multi -family
1
3
1
5
'
Retail/Commercial/Restaurants
17
8
13
38
Garages/Accessories
0
0
14
14.
Industrial
0
0
8
8
Signs
0
0
.10
' 10
'
Docks and Piers
0
0
10
10 .
Mobile Homes
0
0
2
2
'
Other Structures
45
0
0
45
TOTAL
258
237
273
768
Table-7. PERMITS ISSUED IN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
TYPE
1979
1980
1981
Total
'
New Housing
39
29
24
92
Housing Additions
25
52
.29
106
'
Professional
1
6
2
9
Repairs/Renovations
15
15
.8
38
'
Churches/Schools
4
0
0
4
Multi -family
0
0
0
0
'
Retail/Commercial/Restaurants
3
3
2
8
Garages/Accessories
0
0
10
10
'
Industrial
0
0
0
0
1
5
1
5
Signs
Docks and Piers
0
0
0
0
'
Mobile Homes
26
26
30
.82
Other Structures
34
0
0
34
'
TOTAL
147
131
ill
389
1
The map on page 31 illustrates the heaviest
3�
concentrations of new permit
activity.

It is appropriate to mention here that the three areas shown in figure 5 are -
presently under consideration for annexation to the Town of Morehead City.
This annexation is scheduled to take place within the next two years.
These areas will increase the town's and will also add significantly
population 9 Y .
to existing land uses. Most of the land is presently zoned for residential
use; however, property zoned for industrial, office/professional, industrial'
and highway uses i.s also present. More importantly, there are three plots of
three or more acres which are currently vacant and ready for development.
All
iCONSTRAINTS
This section of the report analyzes the general suitability of vacant land in.
' the Morehead City area for development with particular emphasis on light industrial
activities. Consideration has been given to physical limitations, fragile areas,
and areas with resource potential. By identifying these areas, effective decisions
' can be made regarding future uses of land which are in the best interest of the
area's economic well-being while not causing adverse effects on the environment
' or public welfare.
' 1. Land Availability and Suitability - An identification was made of
areas having conditions which make development costly or may cause
' undesirable consequences if developed. Included in these areas are
availability of hazard areas, soil limitations, water supply areas
' and environmentally sensitive areas.
The primary constraint to development in the Morehead City area is the
32'

availability of.land suitable for development. Discussion of any
other constraints (i.e. soils, water and sewer, hazard areas; etc.)
are relevant if analysis of these constraints can be applied to
actual sites -which are currently undeveloped. For the purposes of
a more acres .as identified
this study, only vacant areas of three or o ,
'
on page 34c- will be addressed.
is is, for the
Morehead City a peninsula which most part, surrounded
by water. This fact, coupled with the existence of vast areas of swamps
and marshlands has.s atiall constricted the town's growth. No land
P Y
suitable for any sizeable development, particularly of an industrial
nature, is still available within the town's corporate.limits.
There are, however, several tracts .of undeveloped land within the
one -mile planning area which are large enough to support industrial
P 9 9 9 P
development. Three of these are located within the areas slated for
"
annexation. 1 Refer to Figure 6, page 34,-for the location of these lots.
The majority of these undeveloped parcels are located along the rail-
road tracks and are west of the intersection of Highway 70A.
' Most of the other parcels are located north of the city around Smith -
Mills Shortcut Road and -Crab Point Road. However, their proximity,
in all directions, to already developed residential neighborhoods
makes them less suitable for industrial use. Yet, for port -related
activities, it must be recognized that these locations are on or. near
' the bay which could be advantageous from an economic perspective.
33

' Close proximity to the port facility could provide substantial
savings in transportation costs as well as reduce the environmental
impacts of additional transportation of commodities to the port
' through the center of town.
'
2. Hazard Areas - There are two types of hazard areas in the Morehead
City planning area: man-made and natural. Man-made hazards include
'
the state port-, bulk oil storage tanks, and the railroad. The'state
'
port contains storage tanks for acid as well as oil. The acid tanks
could explode and emit toxic gases.. In addition to the bulk oil
'
storage tanks located at -the port, there are many located throughout
the -city which constitute man-made hazard. areas: Texas Gulf, J. M.
'
Davis Industries, Colonial Oil Industries, Geer Oil Company, Carolina
'
Oil and Distributing Company, Wheatley Oil Company, Potter's Bulk
Storage, Coastal Oil Company and Exxon Heating Oil.
The railroad which traverses Arendell Street, carries rail tank cars
loaded with highly flammable aviation gas and JP-4 and JP-5 fuel. The
area extending one block on either side of Arendell Street is subject
to this hazard in the event that an accident would occur. Many of the
areas available for industrial development are adjacent to the rail-
road and are therefore subject to this hazard.
Natural hazard areas are areas where.uncontrolled or incompatible
development could unreasonably endanger life or property, and/or
other areas especially vulnerable to erosion, flooding or other adverse
effects of sand, wind and water. The natural hazard areas in Morehead
35 `.

' City include the estuarine erodible and flood hazard areas.
' Estuarine erodible areas are areas above ordinary high water levels
' where excessive erosion has a high probability of occurring. Sound
erosion is found in and around the shoreline that fronts on the
'
intra-coastal waterway. Many of the vacant parcels front the shore-
line and are thereby susceptible to excessive erosion.. This then.
is
a very important consideration for the site -planning stage of any
type of development. The area from loth Street to 35th Street is "
listed as an estaurine erodible area.
The coastal floodplain is defined as the land areas adjacent to coastal
'
flooding from
sounds, estuaries, or the ocean.which are prone to storms
'
with an annual probability of one percent or greater (100 year storm). .
These lands are subject to flooding or wave action during severe storms
J 9 9
or hurricanes and can endanger life or property if uncontrolled, in-
compatible or improper development occurs. (See Figure 7.)
'
It -should be pointed out that coastal North Carolina is presently
undergoing a re-evaluation of its flood hazard areas. The newly published,
9 9 Y
'
flood map for Morehead City should be available during the 1982 calendar
year. Projected flood levels are expected to be higher for Morehead
'
.
City, thereby placing more of the Town's land in flood prone areas.
3. Fragile Areas - Fragile areas are those which could be easily damaged
9 9 Y 9
or destroyed by inappropriate or poorly planned development. In the
36

'
coastal zone, competition between development and environment has in
many instances, caused an alteration, impairment, or destruction of
wetlands, sand dunes, ocean beaches and shorelines, estuarine waters,
'
public trust waters, complex natural areas, areas that sustain remnant
species, areas containing unique geologic formations, registered
'
natural landmarks, arthaeologicail and historic sites, and others. It
should be noted then, that "Fragile Areas" is a general term referring
'
to all be impacted by development.
natural systems which may
A discussion of the presence or absence of each of the fragile areas
in Morehead City follows. A description of the location of each type
of fragile areas is also included.
'
a. Coastal Wetlands - Coastal wetlands are defined as any salt
marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flood-
ing b tides, including wind tides, provided this shall not
9 Y 9
'
include hurricane or tropical storm tides. There are many
areas in Morehead City considered coastal wetlands. These
areas include the marsh area on the north shore of Morehead
City which lies on Calico Bay; the.perimeter of Calico Creek;
the remainder of Calico Bay and its tributaries, including
'
small islands north of the state port property and most of
the Newport marshes; the fringe marsh areas along the east of
4th Street to the State Port property; the marshes on Sugarloaf
'
Island which lies south of Morehead City; and the marshes along
Bogue Sound. Much of the vacant property described earlier is
partially wetland.
KM

' b. Estuarine Waters — Estuarine waters are defined as all the
waters of the Atlantic Ocean within the boundary of North
' Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds, rivers, and
tributaries thereto seaward of the dividing line between
' coastal fishingwaters and inland fishing waters. All the
9
water surrounding Morehead City is included in estuarine waters.
' c. Estuarine Shorelines- Non -ocean shorelines which are particular-
ly vulnerable to erosion, flooding, or other adverse effects
' of wind and water and are intimately connected to the estuary.
' Most of the study area's shorelines are in this category.
' d. Public Trust Waters--Publi_c trust waters are defined as all
natural bodies of water subject to measurable lunar tides and
' land thereunder to the mean high water mark. Public trust
' waters generally include all the waters surrounding Morehead
City. Again, much of the subject property is bounded by public
trust waters.
'
-not
The other areas distinguished as
fragile areas are applicable
to Morehead City.
4. Community Facilities Demand
a. Water
Morehead City has just completed
expansion of its municipal
water system. Elevated storage
is 1,000,000
gallons, the max-
imum daily capacity is 3,000,000
gallons and
the peak load is
1,100,000 gallons. Permits are
required for
additional wells,
39

but the quantities calculated in the Castle Hayne aquifer are
adequate for projected growth in the area. Projections.are
based on growth anticipated without regard for port facility
expansion.
b. Sewer
' The waste treatment facility serving Morehead City at present
will not be able to handle the projected 1990 population. The
existing facilities treating flows will not consistently dis-
charge wastewater that will be within current or proposed
effluent limitation parameters. Renovation of existing
' facilities, construction of additional treatment processes,
and reduction of infiltration/inflow will be required to adequate-
ly treat wastewater flows projected for the Morehead City ser-
vice area.
According to the engineers for the town's 201 Plan, the present
treatment plant is, however, scheduled to be upgraded within
the next three years to accomodate projected 1990 population.
It is important to note that projections of adequate water facilities and plans
P P J q
' to upgrade existing waste treatment facilities do not take into congideration the
anticipated growth which will result from any significant industrial development
in the area. Not only must industrial facilities themselves be adequately served,
but provisions must be made for ensuing residential development.
40
�

The provision of public utilities is an important consideration to industries
considering development in a municipality. As the installation of utility infra-
structure is a costly capital expense, industries desire to locate in areas where
utilities already exist, or are close -by.
Figure 9 on page 46 shows the location of undeveloped parcels available for
industrial development. Based on existing infrastructure,. most of the vacant sites
' are appropriate for industrial use.
c.. Transportation
Easy vehicular access to the site is another important ,
criterion for any development activity. The map on page 46
also shows existing streets and rail rights -of -way in the
Morehead City area.
Major thoroughfare additions are proposed or underway in the
area. If development is to be encouraged in Morehead City,
additions must be strategically located and be consistent
with the Town's development policies.
5. Soils —Morehead City is on a peninsula that ranges from sea level to
about 25 feet in elevation. The soils have formed a sandy and loamy
coastal plain sediment. Soils at the lowest elevation are in brackish
marshland that is a critical component of the coastal eco-system. -In
upland areas the main limitation to urban use is wetness. The soils
that are in depressions or at low elevations have a seasonal high water
table and are subject to flooding during severe storms. Response to
41 '�

i
artificial drainage is usually good if suitable outlets are available.
Other soil properties are generally favorable for urban use. The
' well drained soils in the higher, more convex areas are well suited
for urban use.
The six.soil association areas are shown on the general soil map found
on page 43. Each of these soil associations has one to three major
soils which occur together in a characteristic and repeating pattern.
Other soils also occur but to a lesser extent. Detailed soil infor-
mation is necessary for the planning of specific sites. Detailed
soil maps and interpretations are available at the Carteret Soil -and
Water Conservation District Office in Beaufort. Detailed descriptions
of. the major soils in the area are included in Appendix B. However,
they can be briefly described as follows:
GENERAL SOIL AREAS
1.. CARTERET: Nearly level, poorly drained sandy soils in
coastal marshes.
2. NEWHAN-CARTERET: Nearly level to sloping, excessively drained
areas where sandy dredge spoil has been placed on coastal
marshes.
3. MANDARIN-WANDO-LEON: Nearly level to gently sloping, somewhat
excessively drained to poorly drained sandy soils on upland.
4. ALTAVISTA-AUGUSTA-TOMOTLEY: Nearly level, moderately well drained
to poorly drained loamy soils on uplands.
5. ARAPAHO E-TOMOTL EY: Nearly level, poorly and very poorly drained
loamy soils on uplands.
6. AUTRYVILL E-ARAPAHOE: Gently sloping, well drained loamy soils
on ridges and nearly level, very poorly drained soils in
and on uplands.
' 42

' In the past, it has been cheaper to build further from downtown along the peninsula
than to fill land near downtown. The area with better soil and drainage has been
' and will continue to be developed first. When the demand for more land closer
' to town increases, land filling may become.a more common occurrence unless pro-
hibited by state laws protecting marshlands.
With specific reference to available sites for industrial purposes, according
' to the soil map shown on page 43, most of the tracts of undeveloped land which
' are large enough to support light industrial activity are located in areas contain-
ing Altavista-Augusta-Tomotley soil types. As described previously, these soils
' are nearly level, and depending on the particular site, may be moderately,,to poorly
drained. This is an important consideration because it affects not only the
• feasibility, but also the cost of industrial development in these areas.
Based on soil survey data contained in the 1980 Land Use Plan, the suitability
' of Altavista-Augusta-Tomotley soils for development without the installation of
artificial drainage is poor due to severe wetness. This has significant implications.
for industrial activity in these areas. Response to artificial drainage is generally
good; however, the costs of such activity can easily become prohibitive. If in
' cost-effective to install the proper drainage facilities, these
dustr�es find it co p P 9
' parcels.can be.conducive to light industrial activity.
There are also some undeveloped tracts of three or more acres consisting of
Mandarin-Wando-Leon and Autreyville-Arapahoe soils. As with Altavista -Augusta-
' oil types, Mandarin-Wando-Leon soils suffer from problems with wetness.
Tomotley s yp
' However, response to artificial drainage is good and these can be made suitable
for most urban uses.
44

' The remainder of the undeveloped tracts have Autre ville-Ara shoe soils.
P Y P
' Autreyville soil is well suited to urban use, and usually comprises about 65
percent of the Autreyville-Arapahoe soil type. On the other.hand, Arapahoe
' soils suffer from frequent flooding. Adequate drainage outlets are difficult
to construct due to the low elevation of the area. Suitability of development
1 on these soils types is site -specific.
Based on all of the constraints identified above, the following sites are
' recommended as being the most suitable for future development.
41
45

CHAPTER IV: FUTURE EXPORT FACILITIES INVENTORY

J
1

u
n
CHAPTER IV: FUTURE EXPORT FACILITIES INVENTORY
PROJECTED NEW AND EXPANDED FACILITIES: PORT OF MOREHEAD
Alla-Ohio and the State Ports Authority have proposed the development of expanded
export facilities at the Port of Morehead City. A throughput .of six to ten million
tons of coal annually has'been assumed for the Morehead terminal utilizing unit
trains averaging 100 cars per train. Thus, 100 unit trains of 10,000 tons each
would be required annually to move.each million tons. For six to ten million -
ton facility, -this would necessitate two or three unit trains per.day through
Morehead.
PROJECTED NEW AND EXPANDED FACILITIES: RADIO ISLAND
Gulf -Interstate has proposed an export facility for Radio Island. This facility
would ship high quality steam coal to European customers under long-term contracts.
The 77-acre site would be developed to export five million tons per year initially
with staged development to a 20 million ton -per -year design capacity.
Specific development plans for the Radio Island site had not been made public at
the time of this writing. Due to concern for rail impacts using the existing
New Bern -Morehead City corridor, alternative means of transporting coal to the
site are presently under consideration. Among those being considered are barges,
slurry pipelines, covered conveyors, and the use of alternative rail routes.
47

Assuming that -rail transportation is used, startup capacity would require an
average of 1.6 unit trains per day delivering nothing but coal to the facility,
according to the Corps of Engineers. This would eventually reach a capacity -of
eight unit trains per day. The trains would operate on a loop track enclosing
41 acres.
In addition to those facilities listed above, other companies are discussing
the development of facilities on Radio Island. 'At the time of this writing,
these plans -had not been made public. -More specific information will be detailed
in the Radio Island Plan now being written.
The following chart illustrates approximate coal export capacities for the
Morehead City/Radio Island area:
48
\ lk

TABLE 8: COAL EXPORT
'
CAPACITY ESTIMATES
COAL
EXPORT CAPACITY ESTIMATES
(million tons annually)
Morehead
City Sites
Date
Alla-Ohio
Gulf Interstate
American Coal
'
1981
1.5
1982
3.0
1.5
'
1983
3.0
1.5
1984
6.0
15
6.0
1985
7.0
15
6.0
'
1986
8.0
15
6.0
1987
9.0
15
6.0
1988
10.0
15
6.0
'
1989
11.0
20
6.0
1990
12;0
20
6.0
1
49

CHAPTER V: EXPECTED GENERAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED EXPORT.FACILITIES ON THE TOWN
It is difficult to adequately assess the impacts of proposed.facilities on the
Town without information concerning the exact composition, extent and likelihood
of those facilities. However, some conclusions are apparent and have been de-
tailed in this chapter.
According to the 1980 Land Use Plan, it has been the policy of Morehead City
to remain "a relatively small, friendly, tourist -oriented community. The
future population growth patterns of Morehead City are primarily based on two
factors: (1) the desires of the people and (2) the capability of the land to
sustain a growing population. The following chart illustrates the projected
population of Morehead City for the next fifty years, as estimated in the 1976
CAMA Land Use Plan.
Table 9: POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1980
1985
2000
2025
Morehead City
5,800*
6,100
7,100
9,500
One -Mile Planning Area
2,500
3,765
4,200
6,100
*Note that the CAMA estimate
for 1980 is
higher
than the.1980
census
estimate of 4,359 by 1,441
persons.
These projections were made by Planning Board and the Town Board of Commissioners
50

' prior to the announcement of proposed expansion of coal port facilities. The
proposed expansion at the State Ports Authority terminal is not expected to
' generate a substantial amount of employment. This i-s due to the fact that AOV
' is expanding an existing operational facility. For example, rather than hiring
new security guards or maintenance personnel, AOV will probably be able to
' utilize existing employees in an expanded capacity. At 3 million tons, therefore,
any population increases will be minimal.
On the other hand, if Radio Island develops to its full potential in excess of
15 million tons, and if there are significant new developments in Morehead City
' as a result of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) land -based activities, some measur-
able differences in Morehead City's future growth, both in numbers and composi-
tion will occur. Until all of the development possibilities become more clear,
it is reasonable at this time to assume that Morehead City will continue to
grow at its normal expected rate as indicated in the 1976 Land Use Plan popula-
tion projections. Next calendar year, however, the Town Planning Board and the
City Council should revise the Town's population projections to reflect the
' expected impacts of (1) Radio Island, (2) OCS activities and (3) the lowered
1980 census population count. .
' 'ECONOMY -AND LABOR FORCE
New industries contribute to local economies in several ways. They provide
' employment and hence payroll for workers to spend. The local tax base may be
' expanded or new industries may provide more business for established companies.
' 51

I
' The formation of new businesses to provide new or additional services may be
I
initiated.
Jobs Generated
Records indicate ,that the SPA has hired 46 full-time and 16 part-time workers
to operate the Alla-Ohio Valley coal facility in Morehead City. In addition to
the workers at SPA, there have been a few additional positions created due to
the-AOV coal shipments. These include workers in shipping and testing companies.
Including the SPA workers, approximately 68 full-time and 23 part-time positions
in the area have been filled in connection with the coal storage facility. There
have also been additional jobs created due to the transportation of coal.,, Southern
Railway estimates that they will use an additional 24 workers to ship the coal
for the AN facility.
Employment multipliers are used to estimate how many jobs will be created when
an industry comes into a community. Studies done by the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis using the Regional Industrial Multiplier
System II (RIMSII) indicate that employment multipliers for the Morehead City
area will be in the 1.5 to 2.5 range. The jobs reported above indicate an em-
ployment multiplier of approximately 1.5. That is, the 46 full-time positions
at SPA created a total of 68 full-time positions in Carteret County: 46 x 1.5 = 68.
Due to the fact that the AOV facility is an expansion of an existing operating
facility, many of the positions will be filled by merely broadening the duties of
existing personnel. The majority of new jobs to be created will be generated by the
Radio Island facility.
52
ti

' Employment and Payroll. Estimates for Facilities
Information was obtained from each coal export company proposing coal export
' activity in Morehead City or on Radio Island in order to identify the estimated
work force and payroll generated by these facilities. This information is
presented below.
Table 10: ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL FOR FACILITIES
Morehead City No. Workers Annual Payroll
Alla-Ohio 46 full-time $1,300,000
16 part-time
AOV Expanded N/A N/A
' Gulf Interstate 85 $3,000,000
Development Jobs
Businesses involved in the construction of these facilities include construction
1 and construction service companies, fence suppliers, marine services, restaurants,
motels, auto .rental firms, commercial printing firms, heating and air conditioning
' firms, real estate firms, and others. During the construction phase Alla-Ohio
Valley employed over 150 people and most of those jobs were full-time. Most of
' the workers were locally hired. AOV indicates that they spent over $2.5 million
of the $5 million investment with the State of North Carolina.
' Local Revenue ,
1. Coal Vessel Dockings*
' Each coal ship that loads coal at the Morehead City Port generates
53

' substantial economic benefits for various business firms in the area.
Assuming that the "average" coal ship that docks at Morehead City.
Port will load about 40,000 tons, will have a crew of approximately
30 men and will remain "on berth" about four days, approximate local
business revenues for the next two ears are estimated to be 1 098,604
Y �,
annually.
' Primary services involved in these revenues for local businesses include
pilot fees, tug services, line handlers, draft surveys, agency fees,
freight forwarders fees, chandler services, and crew expenditures
9 Y P
while the ship.is on berth.
2. Morehead City Port Revenues*
The Morehead City Port is paid a substantial fee each time a coal ship
' arrives to.load coal. The "average" coal ship that docks at Morehead
' City Port will be registered at about 40,000 Gross Registered Tons
and will remain "on berth" about four days. Based on these estimates,
' coal ship docking charges at Morehead City should generate approximately
$1,911,360.annually for 1982 and 1983.
I .
' In return the City provides the following services to the Port:
a. 'water and sewer
b. fire protection
' c. police protection
d. garbage collection
54

In addition, the current lease agreement between the North Carolina
State Ports Authority and Alla-Ohio Valley provides for substantial
' revenues for the Ports Authority during the term of the lease. Based
on the current lease agreement and projected throughput tonnages,
' annual net revenues for the Morehead City Port directly related to
exporting coal, including docking charges, should be approximately
$2,761,360 annually over the next two years.
.According to the ECU study, conducted by Paul Tschetter, each ton
of coal shipped from North Carolina will generate approximately $5.55
for the local community and $.87 for the Morehead City Port in 1981.
�r
In 1982 and 1983, these per ton benefits are $2.31 and $2.27 for the
local community and $.92 each year for the Morehead City Port.
' Further, it is estimated that each coal train will bring with it
approximately $18,000 annually for the local community in 1982 and 1983.
(* Estimates for each of these sections were calculated by Paul Tschetter
of East Carolina University.)
Taxes
1. Railroads
Railroad companies pay property taxes to the counties and cities
through which their tracks run. Each year the State reassesses the
' railroads' property. Each affected county and city then applies its
own property tax rate to determine the railroads' taxes. The re-
' 5 5

assessments made by the State tend to increase as the amount of
rail traffic increases.
Several of the railroad companies are currently in court protesting
the 1980 State assessments. It will not be possible to determine how
these tax receipts will change due to increased coal traffic until
the court case is settled. Settlement is expected in June 1982. Any
change in tax receipts will be felt in all North Carolina counties
through which the coal trains run.
2. Coal Storage Facilities
Privately -owned or leased facilities.located on State Ports land pay
the applicable city and county property taxes. These include the
current Alla-Ohio facility and the proposed expansion.
If a company owns the land on which it is planning to develop the
facility, :then the net real estate taxes to the local government will
probably not increase with the building of the facility. However,
an increase in personal property tax assessment may be expected.
The personal property tax is based on the company's investment in
machinery and equipment, with an allowance, for depreciation. The
coal itself will probably be exempt from taxes for the first four
years of operation as legislated under the Machinery Act.
56 \

' Loss of Tax Receipts Due.to Property Devaluation
It has been suggested that local property tax revenues might decrease due to
' property devaluation around the coal storage facilities. It is not possible to
estimate whether or not this would happen or what the revenue effect would be.
The issue of taxable property along the rail line is discussed.elsewhere in this
' report.
' Re-evaluations are required once every eight years., although a county can re-evaluate
every four years if desired. Carteret County was re-evaluated in 1980 and does
' not plan another evaluation before 1988.
Transportation
' Given a 3 million ton scenario, the impacts of coal transportation by rail on
the Town will be minimal. As discussed more thoroughly in Chapter VII, the volume
of train traffic required to move 3 million tons of coal annually through Morehead
City is not substantially greater than the one train per day that presently passes
' through town. Since most residents are accustomed to these trains, impacts will
ug P
' not be that significant.
On the other hand, if the State Ports Authority.and Radio Island facilities are
' developed as proposed, train traffic,. and the noise and vibration generated there-
from, will increase to undesirable levels. Several trains per day through the cor-
ridor, would be clearly unacceptable.
' In addition to increased rail traffic, expansion of the coal port facilities, coupled
with any associated industrial development elsewhere, will result in increased
57

vehicular traffic generated by work trips to and from the various sites. All of
the aforementioned transportation problems will be compounded during the summer
tourist season.
Alternate methods of transporting coal into the port facility are presently being -
studied inlight of the potential for adverse impacts along the corridor. Work
done by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to date has identified
four alternate rail bypass routes. (See map on page 60.) Admittedly, each route
has substantial associated problems. The following chart provides a brief' comparison
of each alternative. (Route D has been identified but has not been given detailed
study.)
S.

Table 11: ALTERNATE BYPASS ROUTES
A B
Preliminary.Cost Estimates $20-30 Million $25-35 M.
Number of existing.residences 51 39
within 250' either side of route
Number existing commercial/govt.
11
bldgs. within 250'-either side
of route
Distance through.coastal wetlands
5,000'
of primary nursery & shellfish
areas
Additional distance through salt
0
water marshes andother designated
wetlands
Additional distance through bogs
0
or pocosins
Total distance through water-
5,000'
related areas
Total distance through
0
National Forest
12
6,000'
C E
$50-70 M. $50-70M.
41 35
11 2
11,000, 2,000'
0 -1,600' 0.
6, 000'
10,500'
23,100'
33,000'
35,200'
22,500' 43,500'
Investigation of rail -barge and rail -slurry pipeline combinations from the New
Bern area is'in process. The rail -barge alternative is probably not a possibility;
there is not enough capacity in the Intracoastal Waterway. The pipeline may be a.
possibility but it is not being counted on very strongly.
59

Figure.10: Morehead City Rail Bypass Draft Alternatives
As Presented At Radio Island Task Force Meeting March 2, 1982
/ 3I
fill
LLI
/ w
arrrnrrrrt�rornrao L' aoroipla ®®reaArr■ rrrrom .
MIS rrrrosrror,�
�tUl
Ilia
,� T6 �� ♦
N♦ O ►twt •,� 111 s
1.1 13
fill lit
fill
toll
I W i- 3 � •' r � )
• ,��, ' t • .Ill •�`�.' � , � �� � / O� � \ 1� {'. .'I
' 9 1 G IJ•1
LAI�•r; l I _i -UJ
�•• 1
rill
Isis. • ! . T = \�,(
-fin :als n�i7 1 ,y + * ,,: i '� JG • (`► SIN,
till
till
a m::
�� �� �• . tilt, ! S �a� R� \ .� 1 \ \� •�� ��y�„ �1 't �.
�7JL ' 1 I {1 N Y 4
last
to
++� u►1 7s. _ �_.... is� �r OkENE AUli 34 ' !�J t .►,� �v�
C,! ct'
, , .Jun :,, — 1 e ,•. 1 .� dC. city K.. t,� ` -~
`..7.
„• 1 • 'tom_ _0L 777cgn
�QE%UtOki
-'''� „ 17J1117� tLi — , `• -.:n:, .._..........wdi'IfIMA%................................ _ ! =�'•T ��►r._ j�r �.t ���`- - H•
{ •N���µ+►� TA /• / �( •` ... • %�/ 'mil
0 IMAM
_ "WAN. 1 Jfi
t •

.1
.1
F
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Air Quality
The extent to which the ambient air quality will be affected by coal transfer
operations and terminal facilities will depend on the equipment, storage, and
transportation facilities used. The greatest problem is posed by fugutive coal
dust emissions which are common'to most transfer/terminal operations. These
emissions usually come from open storage and from spillage during transfer.
It is difficult if not impossible to accurately predict the total amount of
fugitive emissions which will be generated from any particular coal terminal
site. However, these emissions are continuous, and therefore should be analyzed
as part of any future en vironmental impact analysis.
Noise
The environmental impacts
of noise from transfer/terminal facilities
will
'
depend upon quantity and
quality of noise generated; distance of the
facility
to residential or natural.communities;
ability of surrounding terrain
to buffer.
'
noise; and existing land
uses in the vicinity of the site. Each of
these factors
should be considered in the siting and approval of future facilities
by the Town.
Water Quality
Loading, unloading, stacking, and reclaiming coal may contribute to changes in
water quality due to the interaction of water with fugitive dust emissions and
' coal spillage generated by these operations. Water contaminated by coal may be
degraded in quality, taking on suspended and dissolved solids. The amount of
61

' water quality degradation would therefore -be a function of the -quantity and
quality of coal dust and spillage and the characteristics of the water.
' The discharge of untreated chemicals and contaminated runoff from coal piles into
surface or groundwater can cause several adverse environmental impacts such as
' altering the pH of receiving streams; increasing the concentration of trace
metals, which when biomagnified in the food chain, adversely affect humans
' as well as animals; percolating through soils and contaminating groundwater;
and reducing the oxygen content of water. Approval of future coal facilities
must be contingent upon satisfactory resolution of possible water quality
problems which that facility might generate.
' Marine Fisheries and Ecology
' Secondary effects of development of coal export facilities could have adverse
impacts on coastal fishery resources. The need to deepen and enlarge existing
' channel and basin facilities, and to create new ones, will present site -specific
problems of habitat alteration through dredging and the larger problem of soil
disposal. As with other impacts, the effects of new facilities on the area's -
ecology must be determined on a case -by -case basis.
CONCLUSION
Without more definitive information concerning specific projects, it is difficult
to assess the difference in the overall environmental quality in the Town result-
ing from 3 or 15 million tons per year of coal export. It is assumed that each
coal export project will satisfy appropriate environmental regulations and there-
�
s,

' fore environmental quality should not degrade in a significant manner, under
either scenario. However, as mentioned elsewhere in this report, the environ-
mental effects of 15 million tons being transported by rail through the town
will have considerable negative environmental effects on the town's major trans-
portation corridor.
t
63

CHAPTER VI: LAND USE SCENARIOS FOR TOWN
SCENARIO ONE: 3 MILLION TONS ANNUALLY
With the exception of minimal additional industrial growth and the minor changes
noted in the 1980 Land Use Plan, the town's overall land use policies and programs
should remain basically the same.
Continued growth can be expected. This would be consistent with trends in build-
ing permit activity, existing zoning patterns., soil classifications_ and popula-
tion projections.
The 1980 Land Use Plan illustrates general land use trends that can be expected
for conditions up to and including the shipment of 3 million tons of coal annually
through Morehead City.
Particular growth trends can be summarized as follows:
1.. Limited industrial development may occur along the northern side
of Highway 70 West from the corporate limits to the extraterritorial
boundary.
2. Residential development will continue north of Highway 70 along
Hendrick Boulevard around Country Club Road, Sunny Drive and Meadow
Drive. New permit activity has been heaviest in this area.
3. Annexation of Areas "A," "B," and "C" as identified by the map on
page 31, will most likely occur, thereby adding those existing
land uses to the city.
64

SCENARIO TWO: 15 MILLION TONS ANNUALLY
For the purposes of this study, a 10-year period (through 1992) is assumed for
the 15 million ton scenario. It may take this long�for the full extent of
development, and subsequently the associated impacts, to be felt.
' As mentioned throughout Chapter V and again in Chapter VII, the amount of trains
necessary to transport 15 million tons of coal through Morehead City would
thave unacceptable adverse impacts on the Town. These would be primarily in
the areas of noise levels, dust, air and water quality, vibration, transportation,
ien im edence of emergency services commercial activity
(accidents, inconvenience, p g y ), Y
' and property values.
The anticipated land use implications of this increased rail traffic and its associat=
ed impacts would include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. An increase in the amount of land devoted to industrial activity,
particularly the area.north of Highway 70 West extending from
the corporate limits to the extraterritorial boundary, .and perhaps
beyond. This area is prime for industrial expansion because it
' is already easily accessible by highway and rail. Industrial
activity will also begin to extend into the CBD from the adjacent
port facilities. This is highly inconsistent with the Town's ongoing.
downtown revitalization efforts.
' 2. As a result of encroaching industrial activity, the "CD" as it is
known today, will probably move further westward on Arendell Street
as commercial establishments are gradually displaced. This too, is.
highly inconsistent with the Town's downtown revitalization efforts.
65
�

'
3.
Further, noise level which would result from the.movement of 15
million tons would be totally unacceptable for residential use.
'
As commercial activity increases, more residential units along
Arendell Street will probably be displaced.
'
4.
Increasing populations will require additional housing units,
'
preferably near places of employment. Therefore, residential
activity will probably increase north of the industrial areas.
'
described above, and around existing residential developments.
5.
As population increases, community.facilities will need to be
expanded to service them. Hence, institutional and recreational
'
uses will increase, proportionate to population increases. .
6:
Increasing commercial activity, particularly in the CBD, will
'
probably result in extending the CBD another block or so north
and south of Arendell Street as well as extending it linearly.
'
This will minimize the amount of additional CBD commercial
frontage on Arendell Street.
7.
However, as adverse impacts of increased train traffic become
greater, the Town may wish to rezone much of the corridor to
office/professional type uses as residents move out in.order to
'
Rezoning
protect future residential uses from excessive noise.
will not protect residential households that choose to remain
in the impacted area.
8.
More Commercial -Marina (CMD) uses will probably be generated
around the Port as a result of export activity.
V
66

It must be recognized that if alternate modes of transporting coal into the Port
which bypass Morehead City are implemented, the impacts of 15 million tons of
coal will be altered. For example, if a bypass rail line is constructed north
of the Town, industrial activity would probably gravitate that way also.
This would certainly relieve congestion along the corridor and would change
the complexion of land use in the Town. However, it must be realized that the
potential problems would not disappear, they would merely be displaced.
The future land use plan provided herein is not intended to be a definitive
description of what must take place or what should take place, but rather a
guide which,.based on sound planning principles, describes what can reasonably
be anticipated should the 15 million ton scenario become reality. Since these
expected trends are clearly incompatible with the desires of local residents or
officials, this guide should be used to assist local decision -makers in prepar-
ing for or fighting against the possibility of 15 million tons of coal being
shipped through Morehead City each year.
67

CHAPTER VII: MOREHEAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ANALYSIS

' CHAPTER VII: MOREHEAD TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
' At present, the only existing rail access to the Port of Morehead City, as
well as to proposed export terminal facilities on Radio Island, is via the
' New Bern -Morehead City Corridor of Southern Railway. As a matter of fact,
three miles of this track bisect not only residential neighborhoods in Morehead
' City, but the town's Downtown Commercial District as well. Many of these structures
throughout town are extremely close to the tracks and are therefore susceptible
to -adverse impacts of rail traffic through the town.
p 9
For the purposes of this report, the study area, hereinafter referred to as
"the corridor," will be limited to the area directly impacted by train traffic
' through Morehead City. This area is comprised of all properties with frontage
on Arendell Street, on either side of the railroad tracks for the entire length
' of Morehead City. This area, approximately three miles in length, extends from
the intersection of Arendell Street and Highway-70A, easterly to the Port of
' Morehead City.
' It is the purpose of this study to (1).describe existing conditions within the
' rail corridor, (2) briefly identify adverse environmental and economic impacts
imposed on existing land uses by increased rail traffic and (3) recommend
' changes in the land use patterns of the corridor which are reflective of expected
impacts of increased rail traffic.
' It is important to note that though this study deals directly with only
those properties fronting the tracks, some impacts -- namely noise and vibration --
1
69

affect properties beyond these boundaries and may deserve further attention.
These impacts will be discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Impact
Study currently underway by SSA/WE.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Vehicular and Pedestrian Traffic -Loads
As.mentioned previously, the New Bern -Morehead City corridor of Southern
Railway runs through the median of Arendell Street for the entire length
of the study area. There are no bridges or tunnels at any of the inter-
sections along the corridor. There are 38 streets which intersect Arendell
Street throughout the corridor necessitating through or turning movements.
All crossings are at -grade, meaning that all vehicles and pedestrians
wishing either to cross Arendell Street or turn onto or off of it must
cross the railroad tracks.
There are six traffic lights along Arendell. They are located. at 7th, 8th,
9th, loth, 24th and 30th Streets. However, in most cases, these lights
do not correspond with major traffic generators as identified by local
officials. Congested intersections without signalization have been
identified •by city officials as 4th, 5th, 6th, 20th, and 28th Streets,
34th Street, 35 Street,, and at intersection of Arendell Street (U.S. Highway
70 West) and Bridges Street extension.
70

Table 1.2. MAJOR TRAFFIC
GENERATORS
Generator
Location
'
N.C. State Port Authority
Eastern. -boundary of the study area
Theater
14th Street
Commercial establishments
Between 17th and 18th Streets,
North of Arendell and north side
of 3400 block of Arendell Street
Bogue Banks
South on 24th Street
Morehead Plaza
28th Street, 30th Street
Schools
North via 28th Street, Glenn Drive
Post Office
North on 35th Street
Carteret -General Hospital
West of 35th Street
'
(north of Arendell)
Carteret Technical College
West of 35th Street
(south of Arendell)
1
Offices -
Bonner Avenue, 35th Street,
Highway 70A
'
Of these major generators, only the 24th
Street intersection leading to the
bridge to Bo ue Banks has a traffic light.
9 9 9
Vehicular and pedestrian'traffic
P
'
loads crossing Arendell are heaviest at
these intersections. (See map on page 73.).
'
The following average daily trip (ADT)
estimates were calculated for the
specified areas along Arendell Street,
consistent with the map on page 74.
71

Table 13. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS
ADDroximate Location on Arendell Street ADT (1981 figures
4th Street 13,800
Southbound on 24th Street 15,090
Just west of 24th Street 19,900
Bruton Street 19,800
Lockart Road, 27,000
W
72 ,

kZ4
b
4-
4-
r�

Figure 13- Average Doilly Trips
It 7
VL
L*
&mvfo"-&Aw*kood coy
X
41
k.' LI
'.� Jt.�
MOREHEAD CITY
Pot,
r
r
ob
1A I ILA (114 k r.4 --\'BEAUFO,
117
RA61i
LAND
74

' Carteret County's many unique natural assets are a.major attraction for
visitors. The seasonal population in the county has become more signi-
ficant in recent years with Bogue Banks being the focal point for seasonal
' residents. According to the 1980 CAMA Land Use Plan, the year-round pop-
ulation of 2,000 on Bogue Banks swells to 25,000 during the summer months.
' This has significant impacts on transportation along the rail corridor in
Morehead because at present, there is only one bridge connecting. the barrier
' island with Morehead City.
ADTs for 1981 calculated at the south end of the Atlantic Beach Bridge
' by the N.C. Statewide Planning Survey range from a low of 9,153 in January
to a high of 22,871 in July.
-t
'
The traffic problems that adversely impact Morehead City are caused pri-
marily by summer weekend traffic, which is related to the number of visitors
'
to east Bogue Banks. The extent to which this traffic will increase in
the future depends on the growth in population of east Bogue Banks.
'
According to the Draft EIS for the proposed new bridge across Bogue Sound,
summer population estimates and projections for east Bogue Banks alone are
as follows:
'
1980 1995 2000
Atlantic Beach 7,850 8,300 13,200
1
21,000
Other* 13,000 16,800
*These areas include Indian Beach/Salter Path, Pine Knoll Shores, and the
land between Fort Macon State Park and Indian Beach/Salter Path which is
'
outside the planning limits of the three cities mentioned.
75
_ a

' Existing vehicular and pedestrian volume problems are aggravated by train
traffic through town. As a train passes through Morehead City, movement at
' each intersection is delayed for the time it takes for the entire train
' to cross.
' Currently, only one train per day travels through Morehead City. As per
Sec. 19-26 of the Town Ordinance, maximum speed limits for all trains
' within the corporate limits are imposed as follows:
' Twenty (20) miles per hour from 24th Street westwardly to
the western municipal limits; and
Fifteen (15) miles -per hour from 24th Street eastwardly to;;
the eastern municipal limits.
' These relatively slow -moving trains are considered no more than a nuisance
right now. Having come through the City at this frequency for many years
' most residents are accustomed to the present level of train traffic.
' To date no coal trains have travelled through the town since Alla-Ohio
' was awarded -the three-year lease contract..in October 1980. However, the
additional train traffic that would result from increased coal export
activities would certainly have a much greater impact on vehicular
and pedestrian traffic.
Other studies are presently being conducted by Stottler Stagg and Associates/
Wang Engineering Company which address the traffic problem in more detail.
76

'
Land Uses
In terms of absolute numbers, residential properties are the land uses
most frequently impacted by trains along the corridor. Based on aerial
'
photographs taken by the North Carolina Department of Transportation,
Division of Highways, there are approximately 154 residences with frontage
'
on Arendell Street between 4th Street on the.east and Highway 70A on the
west. These are all directly impacted by rail movement along the corridor.
'
The town's Downtown Commercial District.(CD) is bisected -by Arendell Street,
bounded b 5th Street
and therefore, by the railroad tracks. In the area u y
'
on the.east and 18th Street on the west, 20 city blocks of commercial, _
professional and/or service establishments front Arendell Street. Most
house than
of these commercial buildings on Arendell Street more one
establishment and entail more than one floor.
Many of the commercial and residential buildings on Arendell Street are
quite close to the train tracks. A random survey of 25 properties -from
the Citv Hall at 706 Arendell Street westward to,34th conducted by the
Town indicates that the average distance from the rail centerline to the
front door of the property is 84.36 feet. More importantly, almost all
of these buildings were less than 75 feet from the rail centerline.
This fact has significant implications with reference to impacts from rail
transportation which will be discussed in the sections on the impacts of
noise and vibration which follow.
Z7 \

' Other rail impacted establishments in the study area,include.Morehead
Plaza along with several smaller commercial establishments located westerly
' on'Arendell Street; industrial.uses located between 25th and 28th Streets;
' the Fire Station near Bonner Avenue;"the school at G1enn.Drive;.Carteret
Technical College; and perhaps most important, -Carteret General Hospital.
At last count, city officials estimated that there were 11 unoccupied
buildings facing Arendell Street in the downtown CBD between 4th.and 12th
' Streets. Further, aerial photographs.indicate.6 parcels of various sizes
which are presently undeveloped. These vacant buildings and undeveloped
' tracts will be of primary concern when addressing the -regulation of future
land uses.
TOWN ORDINANCES AND POLICIES REGARDING RAILROADS
Ordinance No. 1981-9 regarding the operation of railroad trains within the municipal
limits of Morehead City, was adopted on June 9, 1981. This ordinance was necessitated
by several factors: (1) rail traffic has increased recently due to the addition
of coal trains and other tonnage; (2) this increased traffic through town makes
necessary the imposition of appropriate speed limits in order to protect the public
safety; and (3) the tracks divide the Town of Morehead City and cross numerous
road intersections in town, blocking vehicular and pedestrian traffic when a train
is on the railroad, increasing the possibility of making fire protection, police
protection, and ambulance service difficult or impossible should trains stand on
these intersections for extended periods of time.
78 k

U
Pursuant to the ordinance, the following provisions are set forth:
1._ No train shall sound its whistle or horn while within the corporate
limits of the Town of Morehead City except at the Twenty-fourth Street
intersection and when a train is moving westwardly approaching or
crossing the -Fourth Street intersection. While moving along the
track within the municipal limits of the Town of Morehead City, all
trains shall burn their headlights and shall ring their bells.
2. No train shall be left standing so as to block the Fourth Street inter-
section for more than ten (10) consecutive minutes,
3.- From 7:00 A.M. through 6:00 P.M., no standing train shall block the
intersection of Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Streets
for more than ten (10) consecutive minutes.
4. Maximum speed limits for all trains within the corporate limits of
the Town of.Morehead City are imposed as follows:
a. Twenty (20) miles per hour from Twenty -Fourth Street westwardly
to the western municipal limits.
b. Fifteen (15) miles per hour from Twenty -Fourth Street eastwardly
to the eastern municipal limits.
5. In the event that any train should have a mechanical failure or other
problem preventing its moving, the time limit for blocking of intersections
shall be extended to not more than thirty (30) minutes.
A thirty minute time limit may not be realistic in light of the complexity of many
mechanical failures. This section of the ordinance should be re-evaluated.
79

u
PROJECTED GENERAL EFFECTS OF COAL TRANSPORTATION ON CORRIDOR
Noise
Noise resulting from train movement is a complex mixture of sounds generated
by many different pieces of equipment and operations. The major sources
of railroad -generated noise are listed as follows in order of descending
noise levels. For diesel-electric trains: horns, car coupling, diesel
exhaust muffler, diesel engine and surrounding casing, cooling fans, wheel/
rail interaction, electrical generators, empty cars with loose chains or
vibrating parts, and bells/whistles. For electric locomotives, major
sources of noise are: horn, cooling blowers, wheel/rail interaction and
electric traction motors.
Braking.the locomotive from high.speeds produces the most noise because
of the brake -cooling blowers. Other than these periods of high-speed
braking, the electric locomotive is considerably quieter than the diesel-
electric locomotive. Southern Railway, the rail line which currently
operates through Morehead City uses diesel-electric locomotives.
Trains generally cause noise levels of 80 to 100 decibels average sound
level (dBA) at 50 feet from the source. As a relative source of com-
parison, the dBA levels of some familiar sounds are listed below: .
A

Table 13 COMPARATIVE NOISE LEVELS
OUTDOOR
INDOOR
NOISE LEVEL.
'
db(A)
Threshold of Pain
Threshold of Pain-
140
Jet Take -off, 200 ft.
120
'
Train Warning Whistle
120
IMaximum
Rock Band
110
Train, 50 ft.
108
'
Jet Fly -over, 1,000 ft.
105
Maximum Train, 100 ft.
102
Lawn Mower, 3 ft.
95
Average Train, 50 ft.
86
Garbage Disposal, 3 ft.
80
Average Train, 100 ft.
Shouting, 3 ft.
80
Vacuum Cleaner,.10 ft.
70
'
Commercial Area
Normal Speech, 3 ft.
65
'
Large Business Office
55
Threshold of Hearing
Threshold of Hearing
5
SOURCE: Adapted from Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway
Traffic Noise,
U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1973.
81

' The noise .generated by rail operations may produce significant impacts
on nearby residential property as shall be discussed in the chapter on
' property values. These impacts are dependent upon a number of factors,
' such as the number of operations per day or night, proximity of residential
properties to the railway, quality of the track, number of railcars in
the train, and train speed.
' A recent study of the impact of railroad noise on residential land planning*
' suggests that, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) acceptability criteria (Circular No. 1390.2), property lying further
ithan 270 feet from the railroad right-of-way centerline was found �o be
normally acceptable for residential use. Residential structures located
there do not necessarily require special noise abatement construction,
but it is advisable to follow certain acoustical principles.
' The HUD limitation for normally unacceptable regions is that the noise
not be damaging to human hearing, that is 90 dBA. The figure below shows
that 90 dBA can occur up to-270 feet from the right-of-way centerline. New
' residential construction should be avoided here, if at all possible.
Figure 14: Impact of Eloise on Residential Property
CLtARLT MORMALLT NORMALLY
r 1 LOd=VTYL[ YMOCC[PT►M •CC[RYil
1�
1
' wy 0M>w ,ns►
R1T�MOO /ROM R 0.9. C[IR[Ig11t �
* Campanella, A.J. "Railroad Noise Impact on Residential Land Planning,"
' Community Noise ASTM STP 692, R.J. Peppin and C.W. Rodman, Ede. American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1979, pp. 276-87.
UG2.

'
All of the residential.property fronting Arendell Street and most of
'
the occupied property fronting Bridges and Evans Streets as well as
side streets in the area, is located less than 270 feet from.the right-
of-way centerline and is therefore in an area deemed "normally unaccept-
able" by HUD's criteria. This includes approximately 164 residential
'
structures facing Arendell Street. The map on page 84 shows generally
how property adjacent to Arendell Street is impacted by railroad noise.
'
Noise is a serious public health problem. Though hearing loss is the most
easily quantifiable noise hazard, it may not be the most serious threat
ito
health. Mounting evidence from recent studies, both in this coyntry
and abroad, suggests that there are other, equally, if not more serious
hazards -- high blood pressure and other heart -related disorders, circula-
tory problems, ulcers, asthma, headaches, fatigue, colitis, among others.
These health hazards must be recognized and accounted for when considering
'
potential future land uses on vacant and existing --property adjacent to
Arendell Street.
'
Coal Dust/Air Quality
Although coal dust from the transportation of coal by rail was once a
'
problem, today most coal shippers spray their coal with either water or
oil as it is loaded if they consider its surface moisture insufficient to
prevent fugitive dust from escaping: A recent study concluded' that ". ..
coal dust pollution from modern unit trains - at least in the west - is not
a significant environmental. problem."
83

Figure 15 - Impact of Noise on Corridor
(Shaded area indicates up to 90 dBA
as far as 270 feet from the right-of-
way centerline.)
CIfy LIMIT l ,•__�••
9J
7
• CARTERET
U W
J
U
Q
IW-.j
ELM STREET a .
Q
n�
PINE
O
.c
/ u - N.C. STAT E I
Q INSTITUTE
FISHERIES
do
- Q
AT
CITY
RFIS LANE
I 1 !
L
n
ESCr
MOR EHEAD P L A Z A
THE ET
R II... L
\.1
BRIDGES
---.--------- —
EVANS STREET
HEPAR D S'
X -
..
R A rERRI ' �� • FORD
roRIA` ..-
JURISTIC- ••..
1pN ••-
~ A
i
E K,
AV ERY STREET •.
8<AY STREET '•�;"
FISHER S TR EET
SCHOOL
E:2—
i
-✓

' The problem with coal dust is caused by fugitive particulate emissions
generated by coal transport and storage operations. These particulates
' contain small concentrations of lead, mercury, beryllium, and trace
metals. Uncontrolled airborne fugitive particles may leave the terminal
and can potentially cause water quality problems and nuisance problems
' such as soiling. Small quantities of gaseous pollutants are emitted from.
coal storage piles and diesel fuel combustion from trains, on -site vehicles
' and ships. Visible emissions may result from coal handling operations.
Along with the potential direct air quality effects that may be associated
' with the coal export facilities themselves, secondary air.quality impacts
may occur. For example, more frequent use of certain railroad lines
' which extend through downtown areas or near transportation corridors may
' create traffic congestion or aggravate existing congestion problems which
would lead to increased motor vehicle emissions. Increased emissions of
' carbon monoxide might create air pollution problems where the railroad line
and highway intersect, while. increased emissions of hydrocarbons or nitrogen
oxides would contribute to areawide pollutant concentrations.
The extent to which coal export facilities indirectly impact air quality
' depends upon the traffic patterns, roadway and railway configurations,
traffic volumes and peak volume periods, and frequency and duration of
' railway movements. Although it is not likely that train movements alone
will cause a significant air pollution problem, train movements interfere
with normal traffic patterns creating a vehicular emission problem.
85

'
Vibration
Vibration is an often mentioned, but poorly documented environmental
impact of coal train traffic. The effects depend upon train speed,
population density, soil conditions, the structural conditions of sur-
rounding buildings, and land use patterns.
Vibration refers to ground transmitted oscillations. These perceptible
of few thousandths
earth movements run generally on the order a of an
inch. The following chart shows approximate vibration readings for trains
moving rapidly.
Table 15. VIBRATION READINGS
Distance Vibration
'
10 ft from source 2 thousandths of an inch
35 ft from source 1 thousandths of an inch
'
75 ft from source 0.6 thousandths of an inch
'
(Source: Planning Advisory Service, Industrial Performance Standards,
Report No. 272, Sept 1971)
Various structures. along rail lines used by coal unit trains will be
'
'present
susceptible to increased vibration compared to conditions with
'
little or no coal train traffic. In addition to underlying lines, residences,
stores, public facilities, industrial plants, and warehouses lying close
'
86

(within 100 yards) to rail lines will be affected. In many small towns,
such as Morehead City, numerous structures are immediately adjacent
to -the railroad right-of-way. As stated previously, many residential
' properties along -the Morehead Corridor are situated less than 75 feet,
from the right-of-way centerline, definitely making them susceptible to
' the effects of vibration.
TRANSPORTATION
Given a 3 million ton per year scenario, transportation impacts on. the corridor
' r e one train per day which would be
will be minimal. As mentioned previously, the p y
' required to move 3 million tons would not pose any significant incremental pro-
blem. The average daily train delay has been estimated at only 2.7 minutes per
' train. This volume of train traffice is, however, considered a nuisance or
an annoyance. That perception would undoubtedly continue. Probably more so
' than any other factor, residents.. attitudes towards the movement of coal, rather
' than the trains themselves, will determine the level of citizen complaints at
the 3 million ton per year level.
On the other hand, if 15 million tons are to be transported, the situation will
' change drastically. It has been estimated that as many as 10 trains (5 coal trains
' going to the Port and 5 empty trains leaving it) will be required to move 15 million
tons per day. In both cases, the following assumptions have been made:
' 1. average length of a coal car will be 53 feet;
2. 100 tons of coal will be carried per car; and
3. each coal train will consist of 80 cars.
' Given 15 million tons annually, the daily time delay will still be 2.7 minutes per
87

1
' train. However, with 10 trains per day, the total daily time delay would average
27 minutes. As the amount of time delay increases, citizen complaints will cer-
tainly increase also. (See chart on page 89 .)
Increased coal train traffic will impact the corridor to varying degrees in a
number of ways.These include, but are not limited to, increasing:
1. delays for -emergency vehicles;
2. accidents at grade crossings;
3. interference with the conduct of daily business and commercial activity;
4. air emission problems; and
5. strain on underground utilities. (Note that on August 26, 1981, a
City water main ruptured in the vicinity of the Port elevated water
tank. The rupture was reportedly caused by railroad coal traffic
over the water main. The new section of railroad tracks that was
installed to accommodate coal traffic was installed without adequate
ground cover over the water main).
' As mentioned previously, should an alternative method for transporting 15 million
tons of coal around Morehead City be used, impacts will not be as severe along
' the corridor. Of course impacts will vary with the alternative p y t h selected. .(See
,Map on page 68 .) In that case, the impacts of the 3 million to scenario would
be more appropriate.
' Impact on Commercial Land Uses
As with residential land uses, commercial activity would probably be minimally
impacted by train traffic through Morehead City if only 3 million tons of
88

Table 16. CALCULATION OF AVERAGE TRAFFIC DELAY BY COAL TRAINS IN THE TOWN OF MOREHEAD CITY
Assumption: Average length of coal car: 53 feet
1-00 tons of coal will be carried per car
Each coal train consists of 80 cars
3 Million Tons of Coal per Year
10 Million Tons of Coal per Year
15 Million Tons of Coal per Year
Train
Speed
Mile/
Hour*
No. of trains
per day both
ways**
Daily time
delay per
train
Total daily
time delay
No. of trains
per day both
ways**
Daily time
delay per
train
Total daily
time delay
No. of trains
per day both
ways**
Daily time
delay per
train
Total dail
time delay
5
2
10 mina.
20 min.
7
10 min.
70 min.
10
10 min.
100 min.
10
2
5 min.
10 min.
7
5 min.
35 min.
10
.5 min.
50 min.
15
2
3 min..
6 min.
7
3 min.
21 min.
10
3 min.
30 min.
20
2
2.5-min.-
5 min.
.7
2.5 min.
17.5 min.
10
2.5 min.
25 min.
co *The Town Ordinance Sec. 19-126 indicates that maximum speed limits for all trains within the corporate limits
of the town are imposed as:
Twenty (20) miles per hour from Twenty -Fourth Street westwardly to the western municipal limits
Fifteen (15) miles per hour from Tw.nety-Fourth Street eastwardly to the eastern municipal limits
**The coal train westwardly and empty train eastwardly are covered.
r'r

'
coal per year were to be transported. Again, this is due primarily to
the fact that most residents are accustomed to similar traffic volumes
already. At 3 million tons, train traffic would probably not be much
'
more than a nuisance or an annoyance.
If the volume of coal transported increases to 15 million tons per year,
this situation would surely change. Much of the business and shopping
'
done in the Downtown Commercial District is done by people who travel there
'
by car. Even now, there appears to be growing competition from.neigh-
borhood shopping centers moving westward of the CBD. These same shopping
centers are less likely to be inconvenienced by slower moving trains.
More frequent movement of trains moving slowly through the Downtown Commercia l
1
District would heighten this problem of loss of business from the CBD.
As shoppers find it more and moree-inconvenient to drive -around slow -moving
trains or wait for them to pass, they may be more likely to shop in areas
'
other than downtown.
' In addition to vehicular circulation problems, there are pedestrian problems
as well. One of the attractive features of downtown shopping and business
areas has always been the ability to reach a wide variety of establishments
' quickly and conveniently by foot. If there is a significant increase in
train traffic, business activity could .be negatively affected because
frequent trains would disrupt the flow of pedestrian traffic which must
move from one side of Arendell Street to another.
' The interruption of conversation:,.and/or concentration which would result
90

from increased train noise would also serve ass -a disincentive to conduct
business in the Central Business District.
Impact on Property Values
The impact of train traffic..on residential property values is a *difficult
-one to -quantify. It is widely accepted that noise associated with trains.
is an annoyance and can cause or contribute to a number of physical and
psychological disorders.' However, its empirical effect on residential
property assessments in dollars is almost impossible to determine.
Given a 3 million ton per year scenario, the amount of coal train traffic
and its impact on housing values should be minimal. As one area appraiser
cited, trains have been passing through New Bern and Morehead at the rate
of 1 or 2 per day for "as long as anyone can remember." Because these
trains have become an habitual part of the Morehead community, their nega-
tive effect on_property values has neutralized over time. Any decline in
housing values occurring recently can probably be more accurately attributed
to declining market conditions caused by rapidly rising construction costs
and interest rates.
Should the transportation of coal through Morehead rise much above the
3.million ton per year level, however, the impact on property values may
be substantially different. As the volume of coal train traffic increases,
increased noise and vibration could begin to have observable negative
effects on residential property values. A decline in assessed value of
U

i
Iresidential
properties would result in a decrease in the city's overall
tax base. This would result in lower tax revenues.
'
On the other hand, if the 15 million ton scenario becomes a reality, the
upgrading of much of the impacted residential property to more profitable
'
uses (namely commercial, office/professional or industrial) could serve
.not only to preserve the city'.s present tax yield, but may also act as a
positive tax multiplier. Therefore, how the city handles land uses along
the impacted corridor will affect the tax base.
It is not being suggested that the Town rezone all of the impacted property
at present. But rather.that should the volume of trains increase significantly
Imaking
residential become
uses totally incompatible, rezoning may then neces-
sary.
I
_
1
1
1
1
92
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHAPTER VIII: PROJECTED CORRIDOR LAND USE

' CHAPTER VIII:- PROJECTED CORRIDOR LAND USE
SCENARIO ONE: 3 MILLION TONS ANNUALLY
' As indicated throughout the study, the shipment of 3 million tons annually through
Morehead would only minimally impact land uses along the corridor. It is assumed
that existing uses took the railroad into consideration when they first decided
to move into the corridor. Therefore, if the Town can limit train traffic to 3
' million tons annually, existing land uses would be acceptable, particularly
in light of the fact that most of the land throughout the corridor has already
been developed. The rezoning of some properties, which are or may become vacant
throughout. the corridor from residential to office/commercial and/or professional
uses would be appropriate. However, "spot zoning" should -be avoided.
1
In the Downtown Commercial District, the city should continue to strongly en-
courage utilization of existing structures for commercial use, consistent with
' their ongoing revitalization efforts.
1 Since most of the corridor.has already been developed, existing land uses provide
' an accurate assessment of the 3 million ton scenario. For that reason, a separate
land use map for 3 million tons has not been prepared.
' SCENARIO TWO: 15 MILLION TONS
' As with the overall Land Use Plan, a 10 year design period (through 1992) is assumed
for this scenario. Adverse impacts of the transport of 15 million tons through
' the corridor would be most severe -in the areas of noise and vibration.
93

The map on page 84 ,.indicates the extent to which residential and commercial
properties are impacted by noise. Approximately 154 residential properties
■ have direct frontage on Arendell Street.
Though noise is not a significant problem at present, the number of trains required
' to transport 15 million tons of coal along the corridor would generate noise
levels that would be totally unacceptable for residential use. For that reason,
■ land uses along the corridor would gradually change from residential to office/
professional uses as residents begin to.move away. (See the map on page 96.)
The extent to which commercial, office and professional uses extend westward
along Arendell will depend primarily upon the ability of the local market to
absorb these activities. Rezoning these properties to more profitable uses will
■ positively impact the Town by increasing local tax yields.
However, an addition to the general trends described in Chapter VI, the movement
of 15 million tons can be expected to have certain disbenefits:
1. a long strip of commercial development is likely to develop as
associated industrial activity around the port pushes the Downtown
Commercial District westwardly along Arendell Street;
2 more vacant properties will probably crop up.along the corridor
' as Increased noise causes more and more residents to leave their
homes. Properties closest to the CD will probably be converted
first into commercial or office/professional uses. Until enough
new or expanded business activity occupy abandoned structures, they
will remain vacant. As people move out, however, the Town will need
94
�.

1
1 to rezone the property for higher uses, in order to avoid continued
residential use. Again, it must be re-emphasized that this is not
1 a suggested solution, but rather what would be most appropriate if
1 15 million tons per year were to be permitted;
3. The area closest to the SPA would either become very light, small
1 scale industrial, or business catering to the type of industrial
activity at the SPA Terminal or on Radio Island. The compatibility
' of these businesses with existing Downtown Commercial District business
' is questionable. Should the'use in fact prove to be incompatible, the
encroachment of these new business -on the Downtown Commercial District
' would be inconsistent with the Town's downtown revitalization efforts.
1 If the Town of Morehead City wants Arendell Street to retain its residential
1 character, the 15 million ton scenario must not be permitted.
i
1
1
1 - .
1
1
1
95

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHAPTER IX: ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW

. • - - ��
Atoll
mr
• des • • •OOZI . 009 000 0 OOb
0rl•. .• .• ��
.-. , •• • .. •' •••• asp .
• kinr
41
• • • • t • as
• • • ' • • • • •
• • •• • • • • , •• • _ _ I I
a of
• to aa0A • ••. d a l X 3
• :>•
do
Omni
n.1
milli•y •
,�uLaa=sa�aesaitYWiirYYiiii
::±J. :, .,: ,a�'•, :. :, • «.� >:� J 13 38.1.S a a d d 3 H
t _ !�`la-♦�i it •�: o
• • J I :� tit C. i � • a3 1 _'� �� ) 7 as 4 4•�') C] r
• ^
'�� : cnL` a:,';') -''"� -t •. ? :) 13 3 %i 1S ^' S 3
'_ Own � ,�•. .,, � ✓ .._t/ •• 1 J ..,, �• -) � ail u� !3 ,v.` ,+ X-•� •) V'). .(:• !v •�
r •7 ( r 1 i, O ♦ -, li .� f ✓ [� •„ .0 t t9 S.1 _ :� `� f tt C , C
ti •t `r • a t•' i •� L� r. t:i + (7 ) f ;C± 4 t, M
•• 6 . ^r'•�'• .. �J ��. v. _iI y („ 1> U •" I (• (' r J, ) t:^. " �-
= i +• r 1• 't!,,., i1, :J ,•+ ,,J •.f t• '�• 'J t.) - •#t•. tom, f,)'ry- .•a.. lta• (i :, y,' a..•�y`1 a•.1 )•'• t- V •J�
• • v Si�dA3 r r •i e: C)'c f .. r, .� ) J S J .3 L'e f �� :� a t�,• .r -,� j ., �_ a at s t p, L•1 - a `�.l(� b ,+_. �r c7 :�
_ i) - J . • 13 3 O 1 r• • ) ' C ) ; n ' sr �tiJ •, ") • rr• t .' •J � . L .i r. 1, ..C` f; �. C� #; '� L :• ` t: �j
S rr � a ) •J t; r : J � ,• 't^ � r' r 1� , J • r • `") 'a a "• - ; �•
;,, .s - •.'1 ••i J J r , ♦ r •, i) J r, �' ;•, a1 t u ') u)t. •a.) u %i %t. C b f j.) J rJ .Y)� Ja 'vi •J fJ it t �c•� .) • - �. !�' i h V t� t. J :♦ �' J a.
f, )• r.a,' ,• •J `• �) _ u 1 r. r r ) a 'r• fa• r ^•.. ? a• J n � ) + 3,`� r M .•• s{} Ci t•. lj : r ) r, � •t 't .✓� LJa .f - � •t1L - a,r Ct .a ;,.: a.. t C1
. a I ✓ •t7I (J C., -R n R ,•, o,i, •) r•- • �) « ♦ • „ , �{ '•)... !'• M • (.• .)u �+♦ •] `r /-• p t+ �:• fr •+ 1.r' iJ rt �i ♦ ' /J hLYa a. (,v 1• `.)'.(,` •) a'): a • •t - a - y ) , t Lt - c` �'r ••
aM ^. * a" 7� :• 't ) * a.] .y � t (J rt # W r- aJ�c • L . .) „) it _ r.L r ♦ J, i .,,, s . f t ^1 •• �) tr rJv " •�•� ` ✓ .J - ' i ♦ �; .. � ., ' tJ • L.i .. t• n .,J . f+ [. � •, i : .. .� . •� , ") ' :
rA-
1 •.0 f`7• V a' h �' ur� t � C • 1, + '/• � n f u r• •, •.') J �•� •, fr..) 1 '! r^'-• J •� •• i� 7✓ 'i+ •1'('.,v tJ1✓, ,. �_:)` aa:)a• .. . t ♦. ,� "� U •) �. •, 4 , a r f arm c: )- J r f1•* Cat,. rSL 14 - 1' t `C ()' �«
`? 4 . •✓ ' r � l . a, ' ♦ C••••� .. r, •�1 • a• :, •� � • r. Ci + •. � .' * (• # i C. ya..�
C•: a :any -.^" -, ^1., . .a .>.. Qf; aa�' j J a,%•♦ r .w tJ (� . 'J >•" •)'(y 1 t) ✓ J :) r+� F,� r ( 1 r .) t;; f� ,r .ri ✓ a r'
C's• Jx{ � tiC vl ') �'�+,._, � l': (�'•:) , .i •,^,l ! � c 7, aa+ )�••? + � * � r' "+tv rr ,!•)•.-, ) J '1 � /4,•C� • -') F' '
:l` •,,• .. V n- J7 1 [7C � � . ^ •• ^ � ' '� ' `� ) • n ^ .. . aJ n ,J .\ _ � r•' 1 ,- J r'• � �!• .-kr •r " ^ , '+•
_ .t a f ♦ a r ' � C L J I ) a rJ• (•� A C J • V [, t , :• r• rl �. f � r• a.✓ %" 1 a. .+ •'t, Cam) 1 �, +1� r ,
C) ✓ a .Lt r, .1 a tit �) ♦ t^) a, ) r t. 1 ' r t 1
.. # � t) •, - t.• :�' �'. %:•r�7i. x a• . '� )�' r' � Q )• G' .r?(.i� .. ( ., r:' f•• ) r3.V.' r')' r•,�a. +' „Jr• r" .�,• .r } '*v' -1] ['J n } r•
•7 :•�, -�• .� •i .0 a ! •') a.J Y ' �) ti . Z La t<,, � r tC.+a,. r '.J tr"- ) ( ✓ <� , •a � .1 :), ar ^ -r
v 1 V .] (�►{
..t i �••• ? is - r. •) • • <• ) >
•,� f , f r• C 1 ! 1
'i` `J'r •la •ti C••� ;,= - � 'i i+''r . ), .,, d• •J ,, •�' ) r t 'a ,>-)• ^ln t) 1 W •I f `J FaY n vF '•' '�✓1` , + ••(1!# :y
• �`' . Cl/�'r t:1 a`i •�. ./a � 4 ..•: f 1.`.. ] a ) . ' (.i ' \ •1 s , .,, .) c a• � # n f+ J l C'J 'r sr
s�W C,' � e, ♦ n r• • ,, a, J . y 7� �•• t• r n o •✓i. c'+ t a.•• 1 r) •J.-•��.•t(. .� (:... ', rf t � [✓ ii � , #':1 .. a • t.
.�� f,` t t. —_ :) '* .)�)"'a• .) - a t } J ••( J, ., ^t ., r ^ n r^ .J � '•1*• , �. .t.n� t (✓n r .. C .• ^�b. •'') r •t ',• +iC t:Y'a. a * u ') (• M ),•, > r. ) n<1• •rt• J ) , ., ,,� •f7 i) J (• J f + n i ( t3 CJ iJp C.r• #t � C- f ,' ,•p •1 .+ ^r1 t J�
a. s ,J (t • t :, •? i' '- .+ . ( 1 , [. rl • ,+lat . ••J t.J •• t[•'.. Jan rt ( h . , 1
C,• i• •� is f �_ l ,> ', t) C•' t.. <,- - , � )- ,a• is rl'• ,):� I•r. } , (• -}rL ♦' •.V / '>•#'J•✓•#✓ �i (• ••+ r. )
> ,✓ nr a" f, ,!' J ,... *•. i7 ' i) •a •C ) ) 4• i ,• ✓ Ci
.i :, r„ :) < t ', r a. ' r f n � � •. Ci • JiS . r:f' rt'• . V '•.' ' (: C• ♦'• r
:..r -, '- a' i a+.fi5 r•, )'' .)„ .r, ia� ,f• r•( ., .. a- •su )• (eJ F,rn• •,"r 7 ,^• •f1)•� , .► ('r fal :)r r ., c••u ,f,3 'CJ +�,>r r �Jra. ,'l'> fJ r '7♦ + Sn•.> fJr✓,t^r. ri �•> Cr .•
, e • r, , # i ... J
r J I )� a . a , . I �• r 'fi. , 7r1 r• r J. > rs u tr , � L J sJ , t n ♦.
,.J ] r tea. , (,• r J ) S •J A U ••
L a> •. f t r•
• ,. C, C."f. .t - PJ ') ,1.` 4''i' i .. r, ♦ •1} n. # ! t• JP , .. (, � �) ,^.a - C A �r 'i !.. 'r• I .�. CrJ , ,t- rJ aJ. •!• •J •'. •^ ,^ lJ ,
:+ v � t a t 1• a rr
n �•P . ) 1 r w ! a. ) l+ • tr••,, J r r
�• • , ,, 1 1 Mi J J t.
•, .M ' • J CJ + n
r Cr• '(• f1 'J a
,V' t .1 'f `.) , r . r a. 3 r• - a'7 • t ' a: ( :i (J t k rt t' l7 r'• a J ,.., `:a• •• .•, a, u: ♦ a) .) r•, rr - y J •• ar ( n r
:C ^f .•,' .ia - r, /•� 'r'7' c. `` , �. l Fi.' •r, , ✓. � •k. ;.
F3 a. .) t t, :, �.� yr' ! t '� •') 1V� ! f•�^aaa .r t) ; '.)' ram �• 'P Jr .:•' .f).. a r• ,.. !� r1 i•, C r [.'M r>,r)} aJ r• 7• �>ryr'• •(jr r#n a1- r.` rf # a. ) !'
V •.� •' f r, !•` •' _ rf rt r a, .i n •r r. > • r .r r. n !J a •l " { (yJ ,
�t.rt, -• r• � •7 r)' 1 a• � f n t•`• * ( N '• t...' a,. ♦. ' C• ) 7 e ) rU > \' •. •1 4' t > ]•.•, •' .r +'7 , t i + C r• rt .'t ✓ A#• '✓ w. !J �,� j, t.., ra P .(• .# �' !j• * V w • r
a'1 a•J L:l JC:1 wTa :/ a„ a.., f): .. )'. J CJ •' J �J i, �3 r• ^ a,"• a �1-tr i + C. •.1 rJ r r - �'^ r. rt t+ ✓ -y.•• .. rf. [• t•r rJ ✓ :J J •n .'+ .. n •+
(ts) ( .� r ^� �. t� � l , :J •, � �,' � (� �•,',�, :) �j r a�: s> t r'T L rat �a r) a.•' a. • C.••7
_ :� a. • " -, ,'• , ^' • i ra ^ M1 . t # ,�� J • J )• • i •r a] ( ' r •., •) r � 1 J 4 l� r.� (� J n f• # n 'i k _ •t ,• I YTTJ f> .) r) - •+ tJ r tJ
�•� f,. •♦ C♦ Z •l n J f
) r
J f
•t' • J, c .)) f •) P r • t C
a �, ,/•. ,.j .(•,, *. J. r •'tom
_;A • P a'J r. �s ^ !' " .-, ) � rp • �. .? •, '.J) �) . r: ] t' •�_ J �[ �• r%' n a� t• f fs �.:.t �• l ✓ ...� t::., f ✓ J � C J - =•r .:; ..
t� `•i. f T .af . •aa t•, S39a I a 8 t.V r: •-!^lit] tJ'✓ t,• �. .3. .. •;, l� ,r^ •':• Jv N (.+ +f: r,r •' •: 7
b:1 .C9 ♦ice ( ,. _ _ O f• '# Jr, t•L i
IN �rr J�
J.! a� # •s •.f.• V, a. ,t. '�...%l♦ r.i •C h tt r•
J� �.[: r�t(•t�•J #^�,t�#tJrr,,;*tnJs ; (, �i •f+'t
V ,n `. ' ,• •` �',l- - ✓ " h'1.'i mar •�''nr) �L••., J I' tJ a'•• r t:. • )j.., a]I
r r J •. • 'J
.�, •a _ J � •1• " ' a.' •• i �.�, ':`)C " y�J �, �t • ) :) ���a. - t1' � (� (J.r f .. CJ• , CJ •� .. �J •,r •• � �F .J y. � f. u 4.•'t t .. ,f r �•
" ai rCi A � _ -^ _' �7 ' i< • * :, ., , � - \ • •L,O • ... .• V p tr :.] • ' ' r� - ' ,, S.• r • > •. ti, t,;, � t i " l rt . •' (J .,
# ^a." � �• :.� .a: �` :� . T ') t • i+ #'�•' ^# I� r• t',,, l + ' •� •• ,♦ yf.� a' t v n , t. J (. t J• •> h f�• t� ^ •.+ ,� •� y, ,
1 ' 1 t •%..� a i .�� C -C �,y t) - �' .v}.{�,<) L�l9 _cT , � `)r. ' �? ` :, c ,�•'. t�•;J:,,a,`, t:1.a",•..:_;) )•: �:,C',✓�)a•.t:l 7 • •• '#Lr.Lr l..rr•,;.%.-„Ci t•.�/�/t,J� ('. J •.,.+ (,yJ ��Y>/ i2'MJ
Ci✓••..Wi,DU•iJ, H3HSI S ���"100HOS �,1.,1.�;^i ..,r.'J(;C• ,l'✓•�f•,� •l. lj C•L.•, t• ilJ r,!J. r.t ... t.i aarJ'a#toml nJ. `,.
L� n r: 11♦ t. •'t' ;�*fi'� r n tt.f'� •,F
Aq
��• + =). -,� " L,^ J t] •.+,. iJ .*'•' ' (; 1, C. ,t r I1 t.] •, ..',' •J )IJ�, tar •,# [� �%J•c� �,t3 i Jt:i f
I IS:- r ..� ;� la•, •[' a,- ', J iJ {•rC.i h'�>. •1•#t, �!'q rv+tt •"rJ lam• J'.*' •a '• J •*� r �J„ L, a:S -F.7 't.
-C a �7� �) a�a • :ra J L3.. ',i '# ytar',. V t� arr. .�# J ,tC r{ tr•✓`
., C) `t••' ' t ✓ r '• � >r t� L
1 1 , , _ 133a1S •)..J ' t :,•.)/: ;, ;t, r. i > f,cw' �•y Jv)
CJ � •) *• a�:. • L.^ • � :) ia, C) �n 'i �+ ` #�, a ��j,/•1�� •r •J t • � h ✓ i `k ^ v J I s a t L• > r. f..
x =, ) 1' f V t` - l 't`• r• l • ~� , t.i rl C • #u s) �,� 6J . , ry y #•) , to
t . C' r. (� "J •C:i . r.
C•� ���%:',�-• . ` J`fl �t Lf ,C•J"� -, •.J ! C.S>.# t '..I •> ✓ tJ ,r h r ; •. rr ; ara J t• r, �.
• • b ✓ � � ♦ :') � .� a 1 -it :'1 ari * .a �•? : •� tl e � t� (n I r t' �i a �t
. 133a1S -
• _
• ' • ' 1s �a3 v
3
r•
1
IpuoLssaJoad/aoLJJ0/IRLOJawmo0 *7
ram• ,•F ^�J�
- t
.t= 1
t^
r
0
-133a15
�A
D
r
�r
D
r
r
. (,
D
A
rn
�!•„' t• a :i row -' %^ _ " r• �rtL
f•
J n r
t f�
r
• rtf,
tJ
)
n •, . r •1 r
�•
I w ). P J :n t•
'
,.• t'}
r Si+•a+v �t � J.,#
u (
r
, f 1
r 3
. •J
liWj1 �lI
suol u0 M [W 5 t - UpId as-n Pup, aoppao0 •g L aan6 L j

n
F
u
CHAPTER IX:
PROCEDURE FOR REZONING
ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW
Pursuant to Sections.14 through 14-8 of the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of
Morehead City, the following.procedure for amending the ordinance has been
officially adopted.
A petition for zoning amendment may be initiated by the Town Board,Commissioners,
the Planning Board, any department or agency of the Town, or the owner of any.
property within the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Morehead City, North
Carolina. Filing fee is.$25. Applicant must also be charged for all postage
for notification of adjacent property oweners and any additional cost for
advertising.
The application must be filed with the Administrator of this ordinance at least
fifteen (15) days prior to the date on which it is to be introduced to the Planning
Board. The Administrator of this ordinance shall be responsible for presenting
the application to the Planning Board. Each application is to be signed, be in
duplicate, and shall contain at least the following information:
1. the applicant's name in full, applicant's address, and description
of the property to be rezoned;
2. applicant's interest in the property and the type of rezoning
requested;
3. if the proposed change would require a change in the zoning map,
an accurate diagram of the property proposed for rezoning showing::
a. all property lines with dimensions; north arrow;
b. adjoining streets with rights -of -way and paving widths;
97

' c. the location of all structures;
d. the use of all land;
' e. zoning classification of all abutting zoning districts;
f. comprehensive site plan if the application is for commercial,
' industrial, or multi -family development; and
' 4. a statement regarding the changing conditions as opposed to those
proposed and set -forth in the Morehead City Land Development Plan,
' in the planning area or in the town, generally, that make the pro-
posed amendment reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public
' health, safety, and general welfare.
' (Refer to Appendix for copy of the actual Application For Change of
Zoning in the Morehead City Planning Area.)
Unless initiated by the Planning Board, the Board of Commissioners submits all
' proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance to the Planning Board for review and
' recommendation. The Planning Board has forty-five (45) days within which to sub-
mit its report. If the Planning Board fails to submit a report within the above
period, it is assumed to have approved the proposed amendment.
A public hearing is then held
by the
Board of Commissioners. before the adoption of
any proposed amendment to the
zoning
ordinance. A notice of the public hearing
must be given once a week for
two (2)
successive calendar weeks in a local news-
paper in the Town of Morehead
City.
The first notice must be not less .than fifteen
(15) days prior to the date established
for the public hearing.
98

Should the Board of Commissioners deny an application for rezoning, the Board
will not thereafter accept any other application for the -same change of zoning
affecting the same property, or any portion thereof, until the expiration of.
six (6) months from the date of such previous denial.
If the application is approved, the rezoning becomes effective immediately and
is to be so indicated on the official map within seven (7) days of the Board hearing.
In the case of a protest against an amendment, supplement, change, modification,
or repeal signed by the owners of twenty (20) percent or more of the -area of the
lots included in such proposed change, or of those immediately adjacent, either
in the rear or on either side, extending one hundred (100) feet therefrom, or
of those directly opposite extending one hundred (100) feet from the street front-
age of such opposite lots, the amendment will not become effective except by
favorable vote of three -fourths (3/4) of all.members of the Board of Commissioners.
(N.C. G.S. 160A-385.)
Any petition for an amendment to this ordinance may be withdrawn at any time at
the discretion of the person initi.ating such a request, upon written notice to
the Town Administrator.
Morehead's rezoning process is a thorough one. In order to further ensure its
effective enforcement, the following recommendations are presented:
1. that an addition be made to Sec. 14-3 which officially requires that
a list must be included which contains the names of all residents
99

and/or property owners within a 800 foot radius of the subject property;
2. that Chapter.Five, Section 5-3 of the new zoning ordinance be strictly
enforced and implemented by the Town. One Town official should be
specifically assigned the task of making the changes in ink on the
official map, to be initialled by him or herself and the Mayor.. Fur-
ther, each year the map should be officially amended or updated.
Also, the same procedure should be formally adopted regarding the
amendment of the town's official zoning ordinance. Though these -pro-
cedures are generally practiced, there should be a formal statement
in the document itself.
LOCATION OF EXISTING IU AND IP DISTRICTS
According to the most recent zoning map provided by town officials, there are
presently five IU districts within the town's corporate limits. Three are located
east of Morehead Plaza in the area bounded by Bay Street on the north, 25th Street
on the east, Arendell Street on the south, and the railroad tracks on the west. The
remaining two are located between 15th and 17th Street bounded by Fisher Street on
the north and Bridges Street on the south. All of these areas are relatively small.
Also, there are two small areas zoned IU in Annex Area "B", just north of the three
areas described above. -Annex Area "C" contains five IU districts. Four front High-
way 70-A at or near the intersection of Bruton Street. The other is located at the
southwestern intersection of South and Banks Streets.
100

' There are two very large (more than 3-acre tracks located in the extraterritorial
jurisdiction north of the railroad tracks on either side of Friendly Road).
' There are only three small IP districts within the town's corporate limits.
One block each, they are located east of 5th Street bounded by the bay on the
' north and northeast, 4th Street on the east, and Arendell Street on the south.
The entire State Ports Authority Terminal is.zoned IP, along with the island
' directly north of it: 'One IP district is also located in Annex Area "C," 'north
of Highway 70 west between Friendly Road and Raleigh Avenue. These districts
are shown in Figure 5.
' Existing Permitted Uses
Zone IU
' Pursuant to Section 7-19 of the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Morehead City,
the Unoffensive Industry District (IU) is designed to "provide for and protect
�. areas for those uses of an industrial, warehousing and storage nature which do
not create noise, odor, smoke, dust, airborne debris, or other objectional
characteristics which might be detrimental to surrounding neighborhoods either
' residential, commercial, or industrial or to the other uses permitted in the
district."
The following uses are permitted in zones designated "IU."
1. Airport and related activity
' 2. Automobile rental agency
3. Bakery
' 4. Bottling plant
101

5. Building contractor and related activities
6. Building supplies and materials sales and storage
7. Circus, carnival, fair
8. Cold storage and freezing plant, ice storage
9. Farm implement sales and storage
10. Feed and grain sales and storage
11. Greenhouse and plant nursery
12. Laundry and dry cleaning plant
13. Marine equipment sales
14. Marine club or organization
15. Marine cabinet or metal shop
16. Marine electronic sales or repair
17. Outdoor advertising sign
18. Principal use sign
19. Printing and letter shop
20. Public utility building or use
21. Railroad freight and passenger station
22. Restaurant
23. Service station
24. Temporary sign
25.' Tire recapping plant
26. Tobacco redrying
27. Truck stop
28. Truck terminal
29. Wholesale fish sales
30. Wholesaling and warehousing
31. Water conditioning service
102

ZO L
...�.�V . `'t •
• j 41J. is �. a
ICJ s o f;'1MID.
�:�i:•}. �i �•luq•a�r m••u•gr,tnu
000to
-
*)�•tiy4 wt7�l. yJ�t.• w • w • • • r r - • • w r • _ w • • • _ • • • • • • • • « • .w.w '♦
Eli S]
vv� too
L--JHH
� 1 t r w - _ • _ �- _ �
d 8 I -
• -
Tt
oft
P �
•
'�♦1f
- ,•Ir•�I•■ t t
i
—
43La4sL0 dI -�:•
43La4sL0 flI �•��
- •�M-r_I w_r•1r ••-MrP•
16GI 1 Jlw
_� sauoZ dI Pue nI 6UL4S�X3 :ZL aan6L3

U
0
.1
C
In addition, the following "special" uses are permitted in zones designated "IU."
-1. Other unoffensive industrial activities which, in the opinion of
the Board of Adjustment, are compatible with the permitted uses in
this district.
2. Junk yard or auto graveyard
3. Fire stations and other public buildings
Zone IP
Pursuant to Section 7- 20, the Port=Industrial District (IP) is designed to
"provide and protect areas from those uses which would offend the community
by excessive noise, odor, smoke, dust,.airborne debris, or any other ob
jectionable characteristic which might be detrimental to.the health, safety,
and welfare of surrounding neighborhoods and the community:
The following uses are permitted in zones designated as "IP."
1. Permitted uses of the IU district
2. Chemical storage
3. Bulk petroleum plant and storage
4. Feed and grain mixing
5. Fish processing - edible only
6. Lime and fertilizer storage
7. Meat packing plant
8. Outdoor advertising sign
9. Radio and television towers and substations
10. Railroad.and freight classification
: --103

11. Service station
12. Stone and gravel works
13. Truck stop
In addition, these special uses are also permitted in zones designated "IP."
1. Sanitary landfill
2. Public utility building or use
3. Upholstery shop
4. Fire stations and other public buildings '
lb4

CHAPTER X: MAJOR LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND PERMITS

1 CHAPTER X: MAJOR LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND PERMITS
1 This section of the plan details the various federal and state permits and
regulations with.which-coal export facilities must comply. This section will -
provide -local officials with a quick reference'guide to the various a 't
P q g v us p rmi s
and programs which will be invoked as new facilities are proposed in and around
Morehead City. A further objective of this compilation is to familiarize town
1 officials with these otherwise unfamilar programs so they will participate
1 more fully in the permit and regulatory process of the federal and state
governments. A further and equally important reason for this review is to
1 determine if gaps exist between these various.permit programs.
' A review of the various permit programs indicates that, used properly, the
existing web of federal, state and local programs should, with.few exceptions,
1 provide ample opportunity for review and comment of major development. However,
P PP Y P
1 in order to assure protection of community values and the local envi:ronment, this
plan recommends, in later sections, the adoption of local goals, policies, and
1 development standards to supplement and strengthen already existing land use and
zoning programs. Furthermore, this section makes other recommendations concern-
ing the Town's involvement in federal and state permit programs.
1 CAMA PERMITS
The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 401, 33-C.F.R.
Section 114.01) and subsequent amendments of 1976 established an assistance pro-
1
105
1

' gram available to those state coastal management programs which have been
approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office
of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). The North Carolina Coastal Management Program,
based largely on the 1974 North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
(G.S. Section 113 A-100), was prepared by OCZM on September 1, 1978. The prime
' mary policy -making body for the program is the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC).
' According to the Management Program and CAMA, any development activities occuring
wholly or partially in designated areas of environmental concern (AECs) require a
CAMA development permit. The definition of AECs is set out in detail in the State
Guidelines for Areas of Environmental Concern (15 N.A.C. 7H)., but basically include
coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, public trust areas, estuarine shoreline, ocean
hazard areas (including beaches, frontal dunes, inlet lands, and other areas subject
' to excessive erosion or flood damage), and some natural and -cultural resource areas.
Development activities outside these AECs are not required to obtain a CAMA develop-
ment permit, but are still subject to other applicable federal, state, and local
regulatory authorities which will be discussed in subsequent sections of this
report. These authorities are required to consider coastal policies in their permit
or regulatory decisions.
The authority for administering the program is shared by the Office.of Coastal
Management and local government units in the coastal areas. The OCM processes
applications for CAMA "major development" permits, "Development" is defined as
' any activity in a duly designated area of environmental concern" (except as
provided in G.S. 113A-103(5)(b) and 15 NCAC 7K .0100) "involving, requiring, or
106

' consisting of the construction or enlargement of a structure; excavation;; dredging,
filling; dumping; removal of clay, silt, sand, gravel or minerals; bulkheading,
driving of pilings; clearing or alteration of land as an adjunct of construction
' alteration or removal of sand dunes; alteration of the shore, bank or bottom
of the Atlantic Ocean or any sound, bay, river, creek, stream, lake or canal."
(15 NCAC 7J .0101(2)
' "Major development," which falls under the jurisdiction of OCM, is defined -as
' any development which:
1. requires permission, licensing, approval, certification of authorization
' in any form by Environmental Management Commission, Mining Control
Board, or the Department of Human Resources, Natural Resources and
Community Development, or Administration;
2. occupies a land or water area in excess of 20 acres;
3. contemplates drilling for or excavating natural resources on land or
' underwater;.or
4. occupies, on a single parcel, a structure or structures in excess of a
ground area of 60,000 square feet.
1 " ' falls under the purview of local overnments refers
- Minor .development., which f p g
' to any development other than major.
The AECs requiring CAMA development permits in the Morehead City area have been
defined by CAMA officials as being composed of all shoreline areas extending
75 feet from the mean high water mark.
107

' The formal process of obtaining a CAMA major development permit begins with the
submission of an application to OCM or to the Regional Field Office of DNRCD.
The application is then circulated to several other PP stateagencies for review
' and comment and public notice of the proposed development is'published.
' Although the processing of the permit application is handled by OCM, the final
decision to grant or deny a permit is made by the CRC. CAMA directs that the
CRC consider the following criteria in making their permit decision:
' 1. the State Guidelines for AECs promulgated under CAMA;
2. local land use plans;
' 3. general policy guidelines for the coastal area promulgated by-ithe CRC; and
4. any other criteria listed in G.S. Section 113A-120.
1
' One of the key provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act is the establishment
of joint planning efforts between state and local governments in areas in the
' coastal zone. CAMA requires that a land use plan be developed for all the
localities in the coastal zone area, and these plans must be approved by the
' CRC according to guidelines developed by the CRC. These land use plans must
be consulted by the CRC in issuing-CAMA development permits, and all permit
decisions must be consistent with those land use plans.
1 '
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
The development of any coal export facility requires state and/or federal permits
and is subject to some degree of regulatory control. The type(s) of permits
108 �:

' required is dependent on the site and operational procedure. The need for different
permits must be determined on an individual basis. Most permits'relate.to a par-
ticular aspect of the facility (i.e. water discharge standards, volume and quality
' of air emissions, etc.).
' Of the various regulatory or permit requirements, only two address full development
or total project review, including primary and secondary effects and which allows
' ample opportunity for review and comment by government agencies and the public.
Such reviews may be necessary under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
or the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Federal Environmental Impact Assessment
The National.Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires.that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) be prepared by the responsible federal agency for major federal
actions which will significantly affect the environment.
According to NEPA, "major.federal actions" are defined as actions with major
environmental effects which are subject to federal control and responsibility.
This includes the issuance of permits. Coal exporting terminals which require
approval could be considered
federal permit app major federal actions and thus may
require an EIS. This determination is made by the lead federal agency taking
action. In the case of proposed coal export facilities at the Port of Morehead
1 City, the lead agency would probably be the Army Corps of Engineers since any
construction work in or affecting navigable waters must be approved by the Corps
through the permitting rocess.
P 9 P
I
109

If prepared, the EIS would include an assessment of primary and related secondary
impacts for coal projects. Major impact issues to be addressed would be developed
by a "scoping meeting" for the specific project covering environmental, -social and
economic factors.
If the Corps decides that an EIS will not be prepared, a "negative declaration"
is issued for review by the public and governmental agencies. Prior to a decision
on issuance of any applicable permit, a brief environmental assessment of the
proposed action is prepared for the files by the applicant: This is a much less
formal document that describes the particulars of the site, the operational
approach to the project, and generally, what changes will be made to the existing
environment.
State Requirements
Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), any project which involves
the expenditure of state monies for actions which may significantly affect the
quality of the state's environment must be documented by an environmental
statement or negative declaration. If a state funded project also utilizes federal
funds, then the -applicant meets those requirements for environmental review of
the federal agency in lieu of state requirements.
The North Carolina EIS would probably not be required for the proposed coal facilities
at the Port of Morehead City since state monies would not be expended for these
projects. However, SEPA does allow local governments by ordinance to require an
EIS for certain development activities. The appropriate local -officials may want
' to consider the possibility of having Morehead City require EIS's under SEPA.
110

' For -both Federal and State EISs,.it is recommended that Morehead City officials
attend all relevant meetings in the future. It is important that they be abreast
of and involved in all development decisions affecting Morehead City. Furthermore, _
the goals and policies set forth herein should be used as guiding instruments in
' their deliberations.on any EIS.
A second and distinct form of state environmental review is the environmental impact
' assessment (EIA) which. is required under G.S. 143B-437 for any."new or expanding
industry or manufacturing plant" locating in North Carolina. According .to the statute:
' The Department of Commerce shall conduct an evaluation in conjunction with
the Department of Natural Resources and Community Development -of the effects
on the State's natural and economic environment of any new or expanding
industry or manufacturing plant locating in North Carolina. (NCGS 143E-437)•
Implementation of this statute to.date has been informal and the processing and
' issuance of environmental permits is considered by Commerce as compliance with
the statute.
Morehead City should examine the possibility of requesting the state to invoke
' this statute in those instances in which new or expanding industry is proposed
for the Town and for which no federal EIS, SEPA, or CAMA action or permit is
required.
OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
Water Quality
Federal Requirements
North Carolina General Statutes mandate a wastewater discharge -permit program
111

' in GS 143-215.1. In addition, Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act of 1972 requires that EPA administer a permitting program for point
' source discharges into'surface waters. This ro ram, entitled the National
P 9
' Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES), has been delegated by the
U.S.EPA to the State and is administered by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (DEM).
An NPDES permit is required for -any proposed project which would involve the con-
struction, alteration, extension and/or operation of any sewer system, treat-
ment works, or disposal system -which would result in a discharge to surface
' waters. F
' For coal handling facilities in North Carolina, all runoff from coal storage,
' handling, and processing areas must be contained, stored, monitored and treated
to meet final effluent limits stipulated in a NPDES permit if discharge to the
surface waters is considered as ultimate disposal.
'
With regard to industrial development
in general, if a municipality were planning
to extend
the existing municipal water
and sewer system.in order to serve a new
facility,
the municipality would have
to obtain an NPDES permit for such an
'
extension.
An NPDES permit would also
be required if the facility had a pre-
treatment
system which would discharge
to a publicly owned treatment works.
To obtain a NPDES permit, a company or individual must file an application and
provide production rates for various parameters of pollutants, and site limitations.
DEM will then process this application by generating a draft permit which contains
discharge limits based on State Water Quality Standards or Best Practicable
112
a

Treatment Standards (BPT), whichever is more stringent. Once prepared, the draft
permit will be made available for public review and comment for thirty (30) days.
r
' Following the issuance of a NPDES permit, the applicant must file final plans and
-specifications for proposed treatment works with the DEM for review and Authorization
to Construct. Only after issuance of the Authorization to Construct can the
company enter into a contract to construct waste treatment facilities.
In addition to the NPDES regulations, any person who engages in an activity
that may result in a discharge to navigable waters, and which requires a federal
' permit, must obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification. Based on Section 401 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, this permit requires .that such a
rdischarge be in compliance with state water quality standards.
' Since the activityassociated with construction of coal terminals would require
.q
' Corps of Engineers permits, a 401 Water Quality Certification would likely be
required. The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) is the
rcertifying agency.
State Requirements
If a project proposes to use a disposal system in which its waste is not discharged
to surface waters or to an existing sewage system, this will require a Permit for
Waste Not Discharged to Surface Waters, otherwise known as a "nondischarge permit"
instead of a NPDES permit.
The permit program, administered by DEM, also mandates a nondischarge permit for

any project involving the construction, alteration, or extension and/or operation
of any sewer system or treatment works whidh does not discharge to surface waters.
' Septic tank systems of over 3,000 gallons per day design capacity, except those
receiving industrial process wastewater, are included in the program and require
a state nondischarge permit. Septic tank systems under 3,000 gallons per day
design capacity do not require a state permit but must be approved by the local
health department.
Water Supply
State Requirements
1 Any industrial development requires a water supply system, and various state permits
' and supply system approvals might be -necessary for this system, depending on the
source of the water. If the facility is able to tap onto an existing public
' water supply system, without modifications to that system, then no permit or
special approval would be required.
If access to a public water supply system is unavailable, a well would have to
be constructed to provide water. A Well Construction Permit must be obtained
from DEM if the well has a design capacity of 100,000 gallons per day or greater.
Also, a -Water Use Permit from DEM is required in "capacity use areas" if the facility
Iis going to withdraw surface water or groundwater in excess of 100,000 gallons
' per day.
114

' That portion of Carteret County north of US Highway 70 is a designated capacity
use area.and any facilities locating in this area are subject to the Water Use
Permit requirements.
l
If the industry itself provides piped water for human consumption to at least
25 individuals per day, for at least 60 days of the year, or has at least 15
service connections, the system would be considered a public water system.
If this -is the case, the industry must submit its water supply system plans for
approval by the Department of Human Resources (DHR). DHR must approve the proposed
well site and may .impose certain 1 imi tations on the use of the designated public
' water supply watershed. The water supply system must meet the criteria established
by DHR regulations.
Sediment Control
State Requirements
Any proposed land -disturbing activity which will be undertaken on a tract of
land of one or more acres and will involve uncovering more than one contiguous -
acre will require the submission of the Sedimentation Control Plan to the Division
of the Land Resources (DLR). "Land-disturbing.activity" is defined in the statute
as any use of the land that results in a change in the natural cover to topo-
graphy and that may cause or contribute to sedimentation. The control plan
Imust provide sediment control for the calculated peak rates of runoff from a
10-year frequency storm. The plan should also include a description of the
proposed development of the site, measures to meet mandatory and performance
115

standards, and protection of stream banks and channels downstream.
' Local.governments may supercede the state law by adopting their own erosion con-
trol ordinances, which must be at least as stringent as the state law.
l
Service Roads
' State Requirements
New industrial developments will require that access roads be built to connect
the site with a state system street or highway. Before construction of such
a road, the industry would have to obtain a driveway permit through the local
District Engineer for the North Carolina DOT. When built, the driveway must
' comply with DOT driveway entrance regulations.
Service roads may also be subject to other state permits, depending on what land
is impacted.
NOISE
Noise Regulation
Although a community may traditionally have authority to control all of the
various sources of community noise, recent legislation at the federal level
and in some states has taken away, or preempted, the authority of communities
to regulate certain types of noise sources.
At the federal level, the Noise Control Act of 1972 (49 U.S.C. Sections 4901
et seq.) contains provisions under which certain areas of state and local
116

authority have been pre-empted by EPA under Sections 6, 17 and 18 of the Act.
As an essential part of the Noise Control Act of 1972, Section 17 requires the
Administrator to Publish proposed noise emmission regulations that "shall include.
noise emission standards, setting such limits on noise emission resulting from
operation of the equipment and facilities of surface.carriers engaged in inter-
state commerce by railroad which reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
through the application of the best available technology, taking into account
Ithe cost of compliance."
Further, after the effective date of such a regulation, no state or political
subdivision thereof may adopt on enforce any standard applicable to noise emissions
resulting from the operation of the same equipment or facility of such carrier
unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to noise emissions
resulting from such operations as prescribed by these regulations. The Admin-
istrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation may, however,
determine that the state or local standard, control; license, regulation, or
restriction is necessitated by special local conditions and is not in conflict
with regulations promulgated under Section 17.
' According to EPA guidelines, state and local regulations on noise emissions
resulting from the operation of equipment and facilities of surface carriers
engaged in interstate commerce by railroad that are notpre-empted by applicable
Federal regulations under Section 17 are subject to the Commerce Clause of the
U.S. Constitution. Under that Clause, any state or local regulations that con-
stitute an undue burden on interstate commerce cannot stand.
117

State and local governments can deal with railroad noise problems in several
different ways. The first, the method adopted by EPA in the regulation, is to
set emission standards on railroad equipment to reduce the noise produced at the
' source. Second, they can set noise emission standards on facilities where rail
operations occur. A variation of this approach is the use of property line
standards, for which measurements are taken at the railroad property.boundaries.
Third, they may impose affirmative requirements on railroad equipment or facilities
("design" or "equipment" standards), such as the installation -of mufflers on
locomotives, the elimination of wheel flats on rail cars, or the construction
of noise barriers along right-of-way. A fourth possibility is to .regulate,
license, control or restrict the use, operation or movement of any equipment
or facility, for example prohibiting idling of locomotives on sidings within
communities or prohibiting railroad yard operations between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Fifth, -a state or community may set receiving land -use standards
for property line of -residential property not to exceed 55 dBA: Each of these
methods presents special problems that affect the determination of the pre-emptive
relationship of the EPA railroad noise regulation.
Noise Control
' Noise is a major rail -related problem as evidenced.by the findings of this
study and Morehead City's efforts to control noise of the railroad via the
whistle ordinance. As indicated earlier in the plan, unacceptable noise levels
directly affect approximately 154 households facing Arendell Street and may
eventually have 1 significant detrimental effect on Arendell Street's environ-
ment. a g
ment. Speed is also a major problem. Speed of trains is easier to control
118

than is noise. Therefore, given the concern over noise, and the.fact that it is
' more difficult to regulate, some suggestions for a coordinated noise control pro-
gram are set forth herein. It should be noted that the techniques suggested are
performanced-based.
Noise Ordinance
It is recommended that the Town of Morehead City adopt a noise control ordinance
which will restrict the noise emitted from trains passing through town. However,
the Town's Legal Counsel must make the final decision on whether or not such an
' ordinance would be legally appropriate for Morehead City's situation. Public
Relations officials at Southern Railway indicated a desire to work cooperatively
' with local communities wherever possible. Unless the community's ordinances
are totally unreasonable, Southern Railway attempts to comply, or at least compromise.
To avoid legal complications, Southern Railway's Public Relations Officials should
' be consulted in the drafting of this ordinance.
A basic community noise ordinance usually contains provisions covering the follow-
ing general I categories, which are organized into -articles of the ordinance:
1. definition of terms
2. grants of authority to administer and enforce the ordinance
3. prohibited acts, including performance standards and use and zone
restrictions.
4. exceptions, variances, or permits
5. minumum qualifications for enforcement personnel
6. mandatory review of the act's effectiveness at regular intervals.
119

Traditionally noise ordinances have specified the type of land use permitted in
an area, but more recently, they have become performance based. For example,
an area zoned as light'industrial might be required to meet a set of performance
standards such as maximum allowable noise levels. According to a recent
Pennsylvania State University study, data from more than 100 cities with operat-
ing noise ordinances show an average daytime allowable noise level of 57 decibels
(dBA) and an average nightime allowable level of 53 dBA for residential neigh-
borhoods. In business and commercial districts allowable levels for daytime and
nightime are 63 dBA and 59 dBA respectively. In manufacturing and industrial areas,
the average levels are 68 dBA during daytime hours and 64 dBA at night. Acceptable
noise levels will vary with each community, dependent upon local conditions. For
comparison purposes refer to Figure 15 on page 84 for comparable noise levels.
anticipated for rail traffic in Morehead City.
Comprehensive Planning.and.Noise
Land use policies should reflect a thorough consideration of the noise environment.
Care must be taken to insure that development in the immediate environs of these
sources is either discouraged or closely scrutinized in terms of. its compatibility
with the existing environment.
In order to decrease and/or prevent the many environmental noise pollution problems
that can result from poor land use planning, Morehead City may wish to develop
guidelines regarding noise criteria for planning. These guidelines may either be
incorporated into the noise control ordinance or included in separate community
land use planning guidelines. Regardless of where they appear, these guidelines.
should provide criteria for the placement of residential structures and sensitive
institutions, such as hospitals, schools, or nursing homes, and should eliminate
incompatible use of land in all newly developing areas, particularly near and
120

' around coal transport and operating facilities.
With regard to the construction of housing and structures to be used for noise
sensitive activities, guidelines should be set which mandate the maximum site
' exposure to sound. An example of such guidelines are those developed by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD Circular, 1390.2),
which has site noise exposure criteria used to determine the acceptability of a
site for use in HUD -funded projects.
The HUD guidelines state that property lying further than 270 feet from the rail -
,road right-of-way centerline is normally acceptable for residential use. Con-
versely, property located less than 270 feet from the railroad right-of-way
' centerline is normally unacceptable. New residential construction should be
avoided here, if at all possible.
Most.of the property fronting Arendell Street is located less than 270 feet from
the railroad right-of-way centerline, and is therefore subject to various levels
tof noise generated from the railroad. In fact many properties which face Bridges
and Evans Streets are also indirectly impacted. (See map on page 84.)
As coal train traffic has been interrupted throughout the course of this study,
' actual noise level readings were not obtained. However, a study by SSA/WE to
' be released shortly will address this issue -in more.detail.
tBecause commercial and industrial land uses are not generally sensitive to
exterior noise, it is not'necessary to develop ambient sound level site criteria
' for these uses. However, because these uses often. contain activities which
1
121

generate exterior sound, there should'be some planning criteria controlling the
amount of sound that a new or substantially modified commercial or industrial
activity may,.'be.allowed to emit into the surrounding land uses. It is recommended
' that standards for the maximum sound levels for receivingland uses be developed and
P
' used as the planning criteria for new or modified commercial and industrial sources.
Thus, a person applying for a building permit for a structure to be used. for a
commercial Or industrial purpose must include information in the application to
' show that the,activities conducted when the property will be in full operation
' will not cause sound levels on nearby land uses which exceed the applicable
receiving land.use standards set by Morehead City for those uses.
Noise Barriers
' In some cases, noise barriers are erected to diminish the impacts of noise on
' receiving land uses. Most often used in connection with highway noise abatement
programs, these "noise walls" are generally steel, sound -reflecting barriers
' `located between a highway, railroad or industrial noise source and the desired
quiet zone
Due to their prohibitive cost (average: $7 per square foot) and minimal reduction
in actual noise levels, noise barriers are. not recommended for the railroad
' corridor.
Landscaping
' Careful planning of land contours and suitable planting of trees and shrubs
along the edge+of highways can also be used as barriers for sound reduction.
' "Natural" barriers of this type are generally more pleasing and may form psycho-
logical noise.`barriers; however, the amount of noise reduction that can.be
122

' obtained is. limited. Furthermore, because of the location of the railroad
track, it is virtually impossible to utilize natural barriers to reduce noise
' levels.
123

CHAPTER XI: RECOMMENDED LAND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

' CHAPTER XI: RECOMMENDED LAND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
' It is customary that before any major plan is developed for an area, or any
detailed standards or regulations formulated, overall community goals and
' objectives should be established to provide guidelines for what is wanted and
needed. The determination of such goals and objectives is not an end in itself
' but rather the means whereby more specific development policies, standards
' and/or regulations are examined.
' A review of the 1976 and 1980 Land Use Plans reveals that neither sets forth
any definitive goals or objectives which serve as a guide for local planning
' decisions. In the past, this may have been acceptable. In view of the fact that
' Morehead City was primarily a residential and tourist -oriented community, overall
goals and objectives may not have been necessary. However, with the recent surge
' of industrial activity at the SIO.A. Terminal and Radio. Island, along with the
anticipation of increasing pressure for industrial growth around the Town, it
' has now become necessary to develop some basic public policy positions which
' will encompass the most fundamental questions dealing with future development
in the Town.
Morehead City must be concerned with the possibility of increased industrialization
because industrial activity:
' 1. is characterized by concentration in limited land areas;
2. requires locations with specialized characteristics;
3. usually requires relatively large tracts of land;
4. contributes significantly to the overall local economy;
' 124

U
5. involves complex linkages among industries and with other activities;
6. constitutes a major focus for transportations; and
7. can cause a myriad of undesirable environmental consequences if left
uncontrolled.
' Further, decision makers must also decide to what extent industrial activity
should be allowed in the Morehead City area. How much development? Of what
' type? In what areas? All of these quest ions are important and must be addressed.
1 .
It is recommended that Town officials develop a set of objectives which they will
' be committed to utilizing whenever a rezoning or development decision is required.
Use of these overall development objectives will result in a well-balanced and
properly coordinated planning program that reflects the needs and desires of
' Morehead City residents.
' Community goals and objectives may change. However, these changes will not
invalidate the original goals and objectives. Rather they will indicate that
' the situation and environment has changed, thus necessitating a reevaluation of
existing goals and the establishment of new and more relevant objectives.
' Recommended Overall Objectives
Specific overall objectives for all development within the Town of Morehead City
' are recommended as follows:
' o to ensure that all development within Morehead City and the one -mile
extraterritorial jurisdiction harmoniously fits into the existing
' natural environment; and
125

- will not adversely affect existing uses, scenic character
natural resources or property values in the surrounding
areas;
- will meet federal, state and local environmental standards; and,
- includes adequate provisions for solid waste disposal, the con-
trol of offensive odors and intolerable noise, and -the securing
and maintenance of sufficient and healthful water supplies neces-
sary to serve the population densities or land use intersities
proposed.
o to encourage future growth to take -place in compact clusters supported
by adequate transportation facilities and related community facilities.
o to ensure that all development which takes place is properly located on
soil types which are suitable to the nature of the undertaking and
that the development will have a minimal adverse impact on the natural
environment and its surroundings.
o to ensure that unplanned, uncoordinated and unrelated strip development
of any kind should be prohibited, especially along major transportation
routes.
o to ensure that all development within the planning area reflects the over-
all location standards � P P design criteria and.principles les of land use
'
arrangements.
o to promote orderly and systematic utilization of land within the planning
'
area in a that the be the
such way area can provided.with necessary streets
'
and community facilities in the most efficient manner possible.
o to or streets,J
promote maximum coordination and integration of land use, major P 9
and community facilities.
o to generally promote the health, safety and welfare of citizens of
Morehead City through rational land planning.
' 126

F
Recommended Policies for Industrial Development
As'mentioned previously, the complexion of Morehead City's "character" is chang-
ing and will continue to do so as pressures for industrial growth continue. It
cannot be overstated that local -decision -makers must be equipped with coordinated
development policies which will guide them in making decisions. Due to the in-
dustrial nature of many land use changes which may occur in the near future, in-
dustrial development policies are of special importance. If the overall goals
and objectives of the community are to be met, these development policies must
be instrumental in all future decisions concerning industrial rezoning and/or
development.
Industrial development policies for Morehead City should include, but not be
limited to the following:
All future industrial development in the Town of Morehead should:
o occur in areas where the terrain is well -drained, free from flooding and
has a good soil bearing capacity. Those.areas outside the 100 year flood
plain are most suitable in meeting this criteria. If industrial develop-
ment is to occur in the flood plain, special permit conditions must be
required.
o be provided with, or easily accessible to, basic utilities such as water,
sewers and electricity. Those land areas of the Town of Morehead which possess
those basic utilities required by industrial users should be utilized for
industrial purposes. This prevents the Town from having to provide those
basic services to new areas, unless it is the express desire of the Town's
Planning Board to do so.
127

'
o have direct access to one or more major transportation systems including
highways, railroads, and.water facilities where appropriate. Morehead
'
highway is the "spine" includes
City's primary rail and access which
'
the railroad line and Highway 70. Outside of these immediate areas, all
other transportation amenities are minimal.
'
o be located within easy commuting distance of employees. Locational choice
theory indicates that the place of work should be close to the labor force.
'
Because Morehead City is a small town, geographically speaking, this factor
is not of major concern. However, as the town grows, it will become more
critical.
'
o be located so as to avoid forcing major traffic through.residential
neighborhoods. Heavy industrial traffic can have a severe effect on
tresidential
neighborhoods; therefore, access to and from industrial locations
should be such that residential streets will not be impacted by vehicular
traffic. For this reason many areas north of the center of town are
1
less desirable for industrial uses.
o be separated from adjacent and incompatible land uses by a buffer strip
including streets, parks, open space, plantings and building setbacks
for the mutual protection and desirability of both industrial and non-
industrial land uses. Zoning and subdivision regulations for industrial'
'
uses should be strictly enforced. Also, as recommended elsewhere in this
report, industrial performance standards should be developed to assure
'
proper implementation of this policy. Such standards should not duplicate
'
already existing Federal and State standards but rather should fill-in
regulatory gaps in those already existing programs.
1
4
128

' o be located so as to m.i.nimize any possible adverse effects on -surrounding
areas. The town can best implement this policy through required site
plan reviews of all industrial rezonings by both the Planning Board and
Town Board.
' o be operated and maintained in a manner that will minimize or eliminate
' any detrimental.effects. The Town Building Department and other depart-
ments under the Town Administrator should provide periodic routine visits
to industrial locations to assure continued compliance with Town ordinances.
The Town should continue its commitment to rovidin services for development that
providing P
' is consistent with the above guidelines dependent upon economic and political
feasibility.
Based on all of the above, industrial development should be encouraged particularly
in the area northwest of the intersection of Highway 70 West and Arendell Street.
(See map on page 46.) In terms of soil, easy accessibility, proximity to res-
idential areas, availability of buffer zones, etc., this area is most well -suited
ifor industrial development.
Implementation
' Once overall objectives and policies have been established, an effective method
of implementation must be adopted to insure that development activity is needed
consistent with these goals and objectives.
The conventional zoning ordinance which Morehead City currently uses designates
r
129

' two distinct categories of industrial or manufacturing districts, IP and IU.
Within each of these, certain types of activities are permitted or excluded, in
various locations within the city. The establishment types which were permitted,
restricted, or prohibited by most zoning ordinance "use lists" are generally based
on subjective judgment as to the characteristic amount of noise, odor, vibration, or
other "nuisance" characteristics which are presumed to result from each type of activity.
One of the major problems with any traditional zoning ordinance "use list" is -
that it is difficult, and in many cases impossible, to anticipate the technological
changes within a given type of industry which would decrease - or increase - the un-
desirable characteristics. Nor is it always possible to anticipate the prolifera-
tion of new.types of industries. The inability to predict the emergence of coal
export facilities as a major industrial land use in Morehead City is a prime example.
Discussions with local planning officials in a number of port cities along the east
coast have failed to identifya definitive list of industries that can be expected
P
to develop as a result of coal port activity.
The traditional response to -these deficiencies has been to amend the zoning ordinance
time and -time again to reflect the introduction of new industrial establishments.
' However, there is almost always a la between the need for change and the actual
Y 9 9
change in the ordinance.
These difficulties have to a large extent been diminished or eliminated in some com-
munities by the use of "performance standards" industrial zoning provisions. With
such standards, any YP Y type of industrial activity is permitted in any industrial district,
' provided that the activity does not produce an undesirable amo.unt or intensity of
emission or result beyond a specified distance from the origin.
130

' Rather than adding more activities to the list of uses permitted in the existing
IP and/or IU.districts, or creating an entirely new district, Morehead City
officials should consider adopting simple performance standards on such items
as noise, air and water quality, vibration, and the like. Careful review of all
of the alternatives suggests that performance standards would be much more
' appropriate for Morehead City's special situation for two main reasons:
1. continued use of the traditional zoning "use list" will necessitate new
' amendments and.updates each time an unanticipated industrial.use or-
technological change in an existing use takes place. It would be
' impossible to accurately predict all the changes which may.occur.within.
the next several years. This continuous -amendment and revision process
would be quite costly and time-consuming for the Town; and
2. use of performance standards is much more effective and would give Morehead
City officials more power to control the environmental impacts associated
' with industrial activities because new or expanding industries would be
required to show how they will comply with these provisions before they
' are allowed to develop.
Performance standards industrial zoning is not without problems; such standards
require some degree of technical expertise and enforcement abuses may occur.
However, basing the location of industry on inherent characteristics rather than
' on an arbitrary listing of types of activities is a much more loqical method of
land planning.
131

The following diagram graphically depicts the two basic options for implementing
objectives and policies which are available to Morehead City: (1) traditional
zoning "Use Lists" and (2) performance standard zoning provisions.
Overall. Objectives
Policies
Option •1
Traditional Zoning
T
"Use Lists"
Advantages
o eliminates undesirable uses
o easy to administer
o understandable to the general public
Disadvantages
o does not account for
unanticipated uses
o does not account for
changes in technology
o arbitrary list based on perceived
characteristics
Option 2
Industrial Performance
Standards
Advantages
o accounts for unanticipated
technological changes
o more local -control over
environmental concerns
o based on inherent characteristics
Disadvantages
o technical expertise
o enforcement
132

Other Overall Policies
As a result of existing and proposed industrial activity around the Town of
iMorehead City, industrial development policies have become the most important
policies to consider at present. However, as with industrial policies, the
1976 and 1980 Land Use Plans do not address specific policies for commercial
or residential development either. The following policies are submitted for
review.
Residential development in and around Morehead City should:
o
be encouraged in areas where the terrain is best suited for development
1
of the soundest and most aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods. Those
areas north and west of town where residential permits are most frequent,
are prime areas for continued residential activity;
'
o
be restricted in areas where the land is extremely unstable, poorly
drained or subject to flooding; (Refer to Figure 8 on page 43.)
o
provide a variety of housing types and costs;
o
provide a choice of densities ranging from lower single-family densities
'
to higher density multiple -family apartments located close to permanent
open space, major streets and community shopping facilities;
o
be provided with water -and sanitary sewer facilities, sidewalks, paved
streets and storm drainage facilities. This is best accomplished by
developing near existing utilities so that services can merely be ex-
panded.
o
be provided internally with a system of collector and minor streets and
bounded, but not penetrated, by arterial streets.
i
133

o
be located and developed in -such a manner so'as to protect them -from
noise, dirt, fumes, and safety hazards of major streets, commercial
and industrial areas.
o
be free from the influence and possible encroachment of incompatible land
uses. Residential development should be discouraged on property adjacent .
'
to the railroad tracks as well as to industrial activity. Buffer zones
as well as sound acoustical principals should be utilized where appropriate.
1
o
employ good design and high standards which utilize the natural environ-
ment to its best advantage.
o
be in the form of cohesive neighborhoods supported by appropriate com-
munity and neighborhood facilities.
1
Commercial
areas in general should be: _
o
centrally located to the particular trade area they are designed to serve.
o
located, designed and developed in a compact and cost-efficient manner
'
with adequate off-street parking, loading and unloading space, and internal
walkways designed for pedestrian convenience and safety.
'
different
o
located and developed so as to be easily accessible from
directions and should be bounded but not penetrated, by major streets.
o
designed to provide for as much separation of pedestrian and vehicular
traffic as possible.
o
separated from incompatible land uses by means of a buffer strip including
setbacks, in
streets, open space, plantings and particularly commercial
areas adjacent to the railroad tracks.
o
composed of stores and shops offering a wide selection of shopping and
comparison goods designed to meet the needs of both local and regional
trade areas.
134

o be pedestrian -oriented, where appropriate, with stores and shops located
in compact groupings along streets and malls designed for leisurely
shopping and attractive surroundings.
o not be unplanned or uncontrolled so as to create "strip" commercial
development. This is particularly important along Highway 70 West moving
1 westward from the Downtown Commercial District.
In summary, the goals and objectives contained in this document are designed to
9 J 9
1 serve .as general guidelines for preparing, adopting and implementing a basic
Land Use Plan for the Town of Morehead City. It cannot be overemphasized that these
1 and/or similar objectives and policies should be used by decision -makers when
considering any rezoning or development decision in or around Morehead City.
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
.1
1
I
135

' APPENDIX A
APPLICATION FOR CHANGE
OF ZONING IN THE z.
MOREHEAD.CITY PLANNING AREA
' -..TO: The Morehead City Planning Board and the Morehead City Board of
Commissioners
FROM:
(Name) (Complete Address
I (we) the undersigned applicant(s), do hereby respectfully make application
and request the Morehead City Planning Board and Morehead City Board of
Commissioners to amend the Morehead City Zoning Ordinance and/or to amend
the Official Zoning Map of Morehead City as hereinafter requested and in
support of this application. -the following fact are shown:
1. The property sought to be rezoned is located at
W
and is known as lot(s) No. It has
a frontage of feet and a depth of feet.
2. The property sought to be rezoned is owned by:
as evidenced by deed from
as
recorded -in Book page
ge
'
of the Registry of Deeds of Carteret
County.
I
It is desired and requested that the
above described property be rezoned
from azoning classification
to a zoning
classification.
4.
Public water is, is not available to
the above described property.
S.
Public sewer is, is not available to
the above described property.
6.
The following is a list of all individuals,'
firms, businesses, or corpo-
ration's owning property within eight
hundred (800) feet in any direction
including in front of above described
property sought to be rezoned.
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
1
(1)
A-1

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(t1)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
1
(16)
(17)
18
( )
(19)
(20)
Z. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed:
8. Briefly, the zoning change will have the following impacts on the below
listed community facilities and services:
(A) Public Water -
A-2
•

I
(B)
Public Sewer -
(C)
Streets
(D)
Refuse Collection
(E)
Fire Protection
(F)
Police Protection
(G)
Recreation Facilities
(H)
Other -
9. The
applicant shall make a statement regarding -the proposed change as opposed
to
the proposed plans set forth in the Morehead City Land Development Plan
and
shall also indicate that.the proposed change is reasonably necessary to
Ahe
promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare.
1
10. Attached is an accurate diagram of the property proposed for rezoning show-
ing:
-and
(a)
North arrow and all property lines accurate property line dementions.
(b)
Location of all easements, rights -of -way, stormsewers, paving widths, and
street names.
t(c)
Location of all structures.
(d)
Zoning classification of all property within eight hundred (800) feet
of the property sought to be rezoned.
A-3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11. Also attached is a comprehensive site plan (for commercial, industrial
or multi -family development only).
(DATE) (APPLICANTS SIGNATURE)
DO NOT COMPLETE
FOR ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES
A. Rezoning.Fee & Application recieved on 19
B. Application is complete: Yes No
C. Deficiencies in application
(1)
(2)
{
w
D. Application scheduled for presentation
- To Planning Board on 19
- To Board of Commissioners on 19
Planning Board Action:
F
A-4 (SECR
�1
DATE

SECRETAR DATE
A-5
a

APPENDIX B
Soil types found in the Morehead City area are as follows:
a. CARTERET
This mapping unit consists of nearly level, poorly drained
sandy soils in coastal marshes. The water table is at or
near the surface continuously and the soils are subject to
tidal flooding.
These soils are a critical.component of the coastal eco-system
and are unsuited for urban use.
b. NEWHAN-CARTERET
These are nearly level to sloping areas where sandy dredge
spoil has been placed marshland. About 90 percent of the area
has been filled with anywhere from 1 to 20 feet of sand. The
filled areas consist of the excessively drained Newhan soils.
Depth to the water table depends on the depth of fill. About
10 percent of.the area is poorly drained Carteret soils in
small areas of marsh.
This unit reflects urban development and channel maintenance at
expense of coastal marshland. The suitability for further
urban development of this mapping unit should be determined
at specific sites.
B-1

c. MANDARIN-WANDO-LEON
This unit consists of nearly level to gently sloping, somewhat
excessively drained to poorly drained sandy soils. Low areas
also flood occasionally. It is about 35 percent Mandarin soils,
30 percent Wando soils and 25 percent Leon soils.
The moderately well drained Mandarin soils are on low ridges.
These soils have a water table at a depth of 2 to 3.5 feet
is by
during rainy periods. This caused an organic stained,
Iweakly
cemented hardpan. Drainage for some urban uses such;
as septic tank absorption fields is often necessary. Response
to artificial drainage is very good, although ditchbanks cave.
easily in the sandy soil. Also, these soils are extremely
droughty and lawns and shrubs are often difficult to establish.
Otherwise, Mandarin soils are suited for most urban uses.
The poorly drained Leon soils are in depressions. The seasonal
high water table is within 1 foot of the surface during winter
and spring and during rainy periods. There is a weakly cemented,.
organic stained hardpan within 2.5 feet of the surface. This
layer interferes with drainage and temporarily perches the water
Y 9 P
table during rainy periods. These wet, sandy soils are poorly
suited for most urban uses unless adequate artificial drainage
fis
installed. Response to drainage is fair to good if an
'
adequate outlet is available. Caving ditchbanks is also. a
problem because of the sandy texture.
1
B-2

d. ALTAVISTA-AUGUSTA-TOMOTLEY
These are nearly level, moderately well drained to poorly drained
loamy soils. They are on broad, smooth to slightly convex
areas near drainageways. Low areas may flood occasionally.
This unit is about 45 percent Altavista soils, 30 percent
Augusta soils and 15 percent Tomotley soils .
The moderately well drained Altavista soils are on the higher,
slightly convex areas nearest to the drainageways. They have
a seasonal high water table at depth of 2 to 2.5 feet. Wetness
is the main limitation for urban use. Response to artificial
'
drainage is Undrained have limitations
good. areas severe for
I
septic tank absorption,fields and moderate limitations for
most other urban uses. Drained areas are well suited for most
urban uses.
The somewhat poorly drained Augusta soils are on smooth areas,
slightly lower than Altavista soils. The seasonal high water
table is 1 to 2 feet below the surface. Wetness is the main
limitation for urban use. Response to artificial drainage is
good if adequate outlets are available. Undrained areas
have severe limitations for urban use. Drained areas have
fair suitability for some urban uses.
B-3

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
f. AUTRYVILLE-ARAPAHOE
This unit consists of gently undulating ridges and depressions.
It contains the highest elevations in the area and is about
65 percent Autryville and similar soils and 20 percent Arapahoe
soils. About 10 percent of the unit is Leon soils.
The well drained Autryville soils are on gently sloping
ridges. The seasonal highwater table is below 6 feet. This
soil is well suited for urban use.
The very poorly drained Arapahoe soils are in low depressions.
The seasonal highwater table is at or near the surface in winter
and spring and during rainy periods Flooding is frequent.
Adequate outlets for drainage are difficult to develop because
of the low elevation. Undrained areas are poorly suited for
urban use because of wetness.
B-4

ALTAVISTA FINE SANDY LOAM. 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPE;,
AI-'TAJ14fA _ URAIN LAND comP4Er,0 TO y PERaENi 3LJPEf, Al_TAvrsrl " PgRT
1-----------------------�SIt!leII:Q_SQ1IPIIQPERTIEJ
IDEPTIII I
1
I(IN.11 USDA TEXTURE I UNIFIED
IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILL QUID IP1.AS I
1 AASHTO
I
1---9
PASSING cI V
1>3 INlsnan_J: NU• -I LIMIT ITICIIYI
I
9 IFsI FSL--------1— CL-ML• SM. SM-SCIA-♦ -----
) 0 0 - (ML• ----
(PCTI II -4 L-0-140_ 1.2�o_L—gnu .I
I 0 195-100 95-100
19-♦6ICL. SCL• L ICL. CL-ML
146-621VAA I IA-♦. A-6. A-7
65-95 35-60 1 <23 _INP-7 I
10 I95-100 95-100 60-95 SO-75 120-.5 1 5-2e I
1 I I
1 I
i D I I I 1
I I I
I i
I I I I I I I I I
I---1--------------- --L—--L--1------ J— 1--_ i
1DEPTHIGLAY (MOIST BULK( PERMEAMEA- I AVAILABLE I SOIL I SALINITY I SHRINK- IEROSIONIWIND ICRGANICI CURROSIVITY 1
I(IN.)IIPCT I
OLNSITY 1 BILITY IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMH(IS/CM)I
I
I—_�S2tltl11_tSCt!!�L_1_2.0-6.0
SWELL IFAQIQR..JIEROO.IMATTER I-- I
(PHI 1 Ipy ,IfAL11C_j T 0211P1 IPCT) I STEEL JUBCRETEI
1 0-9 15.16 I 1 2.0-6.0
1—i1N�IN)
1 O. rA• 0.16 1♦.5-6.0 1 - I
1 9-46116.351 1 0.6-2.0 1 0.11-0•,2o 14.5-6.0 1 -
LOW 1.201 ♦ 1 - I INQDEBSTEIMODERAT EI
LOW
146-621 I 1 I i
I.24I 1 1 1-
1
I FLOOD LNG I_ HIGH PATER TABLE 1 CEMENTED
1—
PAN I—bFDRQM_—j%MSIDENCE IHYDIPOTENT-LI
_1 DEPTH I KIND (MONTHS IDEPTHIHARONESSIDEPTH IHARONESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST i
I—EBEQUENC --L_ UBAT.IQd_-_tMONTHS I tEIL—j--- I— 1(IN) I I IIN) I 1(IN) IIIN) I 1, TInu 1
11JQdE=RAKIZ---+1�
1— ---to",AJ APPARENT I DEC-14ABl - I
I >60 -1--- I - I I _sJ_ - I
SANITARY_Z"jLjjLU_ —
_--__ - CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL_
1 I SEVERE -WETNESS
ISEPTIC TANK 1
I I I FAIR WETNciS Low SYKF�VGTFI —1
II
1 ASSORPTION 1
1
1 FIELDS 1
II ROADF ILL
If
—
I 1
I I SEVERE -WETNESS.
SEWAGE
11 I IMPR08A1L9- LXCESi FINES I
I LAGOON I
II SAND I I
1 AREAS I
If
I
I I SEVERE-YETAESS•SEEPAGE
I SANITARY I
i i iMPltoawtLt-Excus FINEf — I
1 LANDFILL 1
1
II GRAVEL 1
I l TRENCH) I
I
I I I
1
I I SEVERE-WETNESS.SEEPAGEGOOD
—
1
SANITARY 1
I I I
I LANDFILL I
I
II TOPSOIL 1 1
(AREA)
II
I I GOOD
---1
1 OAILY I
I COVER FOR I
II—_.---___---WATER-BANAGEMENT
I LANDFILL I
II I MODERATE -SEEPAGE I
'------ —•.--1—__-- — —_---
II POND 1 I
1 I RESERVOIR
AREA ( 1
SEVERE-WETNESS.CUTBANKS CAVE
II I MODERATE- WETNESS I
1 SHALLOW 1
IIEMBANKMENTS I 1
IEXCAVATIONSI
11 DIKES AND I I
1 1
1--------1--------_--_- —
11 LEVEES 1
-- --1L__ I I
r I I MODERATE -WETNESS
I DWELLINGS I
11 I MODERATE -DEEP TO WATER.SLOW REFILL I
WITHOUT 1
11 EXCAVATED 1
11 PONDS I 1
BASEMENTS, 1
IIAOUIFER FED
— — --
1
—
i SEVERE -WETNESS
II I FAVORABLE -
DWELLINGS
I WITH I
II DRAINAGE ( I
1
i BASEMENTS I
II I I
I I MODERATE -WETNESS
II I WETNESS 1
SMALL I
11 I
I COMMERCIAL I -
II IRRIGATION 1 I
( BUILDINGS -1
if
I I M6DtR(ITE - WJ:TNiSS LoW Dr[LNGTN
I I I NOT NEEDED I
.I LOCAL 1 -
IRUAJS AND ) -
II TERRACES 1 _ 1
STREETS 1
II AND i
II DIVERSIONS 1 1
_ ---------_--------
I LAWNS. 1 d"CoMT
11 I FAVORABLE.
-ILANDSCAPING I - -
- II GRASSED
AND GCLF
WATERWAYS
I FAIRWAYS 1
II I
—__BI: stsreL_tniE
62

------------ ------------------------------drsarelttmeL_I�rYl:Luentnl----------------
I I MODERATE-WTNESS--------�•---------..___....--
II I MODERATE-Ve TNESS I
CAMP AREAS I IIPLAYGROUNDS I - I
j------------------ ------u---------j--------------------------------------
I I MDo IA4,m- Wmai,* I I I SLIGHT I
I II PATHS
(PICNIC AREAS( 11 AND 1 I
II TRAILS
.--______tAeedtLlIY_enQ YlELQaiP�B_eLEJ`DE_LBIIpl-enQ_PASTURE (HIGH Lfl(f.L_mfjesjF Lull ---_-_
I I CAPA- I CORN I OATS I WHEAT I TOBACCO I GRAIN I SOYBEANS I PASTURE
1! I QILITY 1 I �81O I 1 I SORGHUM 1
I __-LASI)__1__-1_-t9i/1---i---tLjLU__1___J2v)-_1-�ljiL-_1-_(AUM) _
)IkR_jtlRt_jbLR8_llB8a_jNIRR I IaR.�L{tsB_1t�Ba�nlnli�tP�a�nt�fl�t�1?L1i71tPi- IBR.
12W I 1120 1 I to 1 1 55 1 12600 1 1 55 1 145 1 19.0 1
I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1
I-
1 ( I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I J
I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I 1
I-
1
I -
IQGQLAnQ_SSIt2A51LIIY_----
j DiID. l_-_---�IEnASIEtlEtil_PBl29LEM5----1-P02Enijtl_eROQ C7LtIY_I I
I
I SYM I EROSION) EQUIP. ISEEOLING1 WINOTH.I PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT I
ee>?_l�.irtl-1_MDR TI sl_nezee�lsOM L1.1 _-_ltnaxL_ _I
I
1211 1 SLIGHT IMODERATEI SLIGHT I 1 ILOBLOLLY PINE 191 *ILOBLCLLY PINE I
I
1 I I I I I 1 I IYELLOW-POPLAR.. i
I
I I I I I I I YELLOW-POfJ_AR I- ISLACK WALNUT I
I
I I I I I I ISVEETGUM I84 ISWEETGUM
1
1 I I' I I 1 (WHITE OAK I- IAMERICAN SYCAMORE I
I
I I I I I 1 IREA MAf1: I- ICHERRY13ARK OAK. I
1
I I I I I I 13ourHEAN Ras OAK I-
I
1
I
I I I I I I i WATEA OAK
1 I I I 1
I I I I I 1 I I 1
I I I I I 1 I I I
1 i I 1 I I I I 1 1
1 I I I I 1 1
I
... -Sef&IES-_--Ln11--SefL1F�--1tSL1 SPECIESHTI
1
I NONE I I I I 1 1 I I
---_-____-------__-YtLQLIFF
HABITAI__ ikUAHtLtIY-__---__-____
I
I -- nrENLLAL_QQHA B ITAI_FLEMENTS __-- I -POTENTIAL AS HABITAT EUR:
I
IGRAIN GIGRASS GI WILD 1HARDWO ICONIFERISHRUBS IWETLANDISHALLOWIOPENLD IWOODLD IWETLANDIRANGELDI
I_— _—___--_j_.5EEQ
ILEfiin_j_.8EBBA_L_TREES IPLANTS_1—_ IPLANTS I ATER LjILOLF IWILDLF INIL DLF ULLQ1E_I
I
I
( GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I GOOD I - I POOR I POOR I GOOD I GOOD I POOR
I 1 I I I I 1 I I i
I I I I I I I I I I I
I----------1-----1----1----L-�----j-----1
1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1
I -j I I I I
----P.QIEl1LLAL-:I
AIIYE_2Lel1IS2tltlUNITY lg bfigLAND OR FOREST UNOERLu8X VEGEjATICNI
1
I PLANT I- PESLEHIA f_QMPQSIUDN (DRY WE)ynll i
COMMON PLANT NAME 1 SYMBOL I I I I ( 1
I FLowGRIAD DOGWDOn I coFLz i I I
I gWE6ERRY
1 VAC4
1 RFb &AV
I Pe.0 I I 1 I I I
I SeuRvJOoO
� oxAR i I I I
SwekT YkPP6(tdyfd I CLAL3 I I I I I I
I az, I9X GA4A^Aty
I ILUL 1 I I I I 1
I WAxMYRTL9
I MYGa
GtE"ditleA
I sMILAz
swam-reAV
I MAVIt
I HONEYsuciclr
i LONIG I I I I I 1
j SW1ELrL,9AF
I
i I I I 1
I POTENTIAL PROOUCTIGN (LBS./AC. DRY WT)S
I
FAVORABLE YEARS
I
NORMAL YEARS I I I I I
I--------5((lUYQRAQLE_CEeSS_--L------1-�_
I 1 I
• SITE INDEX IS A SUMMARY OF 5 OR MORE MEASUREMENTS ON THIS SOIL.
63

ARAPAHOE FINE SANDY LOAM yh9
.
I _�-_------�-_-
—_1 __^__
11T111ATED MOIL Pp CPmuffs
JOEPTHJ
(
IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIOUID
IPLAS-_-I
J(IN.II.. USCA TEXTURE
1
UNIFIED I AASHTO
1>3 )NI_ItlAtl 3a PASSING SIEVE 1lIDA_I LIMIT_ITICITYI
i 1 ---
1 0-171FSL
I
ISM
1
JA-2. A-4
11PCT) 1 A I In I An 1 20n 1
1 0 1 300 95-100 70-E5 20-49 i -
II rjLI
1 NP I
I17-42IFSL. L. SL
ISM
1A-2. A-4
1 0 1 100 95-100 70-85 20-49 t -
I NP' I
142-801SR{ S -SCL
ISM.
SP-5041SC JA-2. A-3 A-4,A-6
1 0 1 100 95-100 65-85 !.+9 i -
i NP
IOEPTNICLAY tNUIST BULKI
PERMEA-
I AVAILABLE I SOIL t SALINITY
I SHRINK- JERCSIONIWIND JORGANICI CORROSIVITY I
I(IN.)I(PCT I DENSITY I
BILITV
IWATER CAPACITY IREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)I SWELL ItAS',1MIERGO. IMATTER I
-I
I If2041411 IGfC j_1
IIN/HRI
1 SjtlLjtlL1 IPH) 1
IPOTENTIALI K 1 T IGROUPI IPCT) 1 STEEL ICONCRETEI
1 0-t71 S-I!<I 1
2.0-6.0
1 0.11-0.15 13.6-5.5 1 -
J LOW 1.151 5 1 - I I HIGH I
HIGH�I
1 17-421 5-15 1 1
2.0-6.0
1 0.10-0.14 13.6-7.8 1 -
I LOW 1.151 1 1 I
142-801 ;2-,Tsl 1
2.0-20
1 aos-o.14 16.6-7.8 -
LOW l.tCl 1 1 J
1 1 1 (
i
I I 1
,
;
1 I 1
1 FLOM ING I- HIGH WATER TABLE j [EWENiED PAM 1 BED IBUBslOE•,rE IHVDIPOTENTGLI
1� I DEPTH I KIND IMONTHS IDEPTH IHARDNESS IDEPTN 114AInNESSIiNIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
J FREOUEN[Y�1 DURATION IMONTHB 1 tir 1 1 IIINI 1 I climb I 11IN) IIIN) 1 1 A[TION 1
J OCCA,SICkAL I BRIEF IDEC-MARIf.S-).BIAPPARENTIS --NAYI 1 I �6n
SANjjARY PAC ILITI EB - CONStAL
I
arv"C-Forivoo.rL000a
P0011-WETNESS - I
(SEPTIC TANK i
ii
i
i ABSORPTION I
JI ROADFILL
t J
1 FIELDS i
I- 1
iI
It
I
1 1
I SEWAGE i
SEVERE-SEEPAGE.poWW& .FLOODS
i i
�IA1PicoAMALL- -§;;V-IAyy Fafj
I LAGCCN I
JI SAND
I 1
I AREAS I
11
1 I
I I
SEVERE-P*W4%V5 .FLOODS.SEEPAGE
I I
kmpoomd E-EXCESS PINES
SANITARY (
II
I
LANDFILL I
II GRAVEL
1
J (TRENCH) i
1
I
SEVERE- ArAfA?A6,9FL000S.SEEPAGE
II
Ii
1 J
I POOR -WETNESS I
J SANITARY i
11
I J
LANDFILL 1
II TOPSOIL
1 1
(AREA) I
II
I
jI
POOR- PAoVPa0 G
I DAILY (
1I
rATM MANASEMPNT
I COVER FOR I
II
I SEVERE -SEEPAGE J
1 LANDFILL I
II POND
I J
I
it RESERVOIR
I I
BUILOIN6 B[TE WENT
;i AREA
1 1
SEVERE- A YAIWb FLODOS.CUTEANKS CAVE
I1
I SEVERE- PONOLV6 17j
1 SHALLOW 1
11EMBANKMENTS
I J
JZXCAVATICNS 1
11 DIKES AND
I I
1
1 1
II LEVEES
11
I I
I I
SEVERE- 400NAi4O6,FLOODS
11
J SLIGHT J
J.DWELLINGS. I
-
II EXCAVATED
I J
1 WITHOUT (
II PONDS
I I
I BASEMENTS I
11AOUIFER FED
I
1
SEVERE-AAOVJZK.FLOODS
� 1
CUTBANKS CAVE.FLOODS
I DWELLINGS t
i
i WITH I
II DRAINAGE
J BASEMENTS I
II
I 1
I I
SEVERE- oAo*vAW.FLOODS
11
I PoNP1N4, FLOODS I
1 SIUILL I
II
I 1
COMMERCIAL 1
II IRRIGATION
J
I BUILDINGS.
11
1
I I
SEVERE- /O,VGSnC FLOODS
I I
I NOT NEEDED I
I ' LOCAL t
EI TERRACES
i I
I ROADS AND I
II AND
I I
I STREETS I
J 1
II DIVERSIONS
11
1
1 1
i LAWNS. I
SEVERE - .00*,AT,V6 , nooh$
I I
I
ILANDSCAPING I
-
II GRASSED
1 AND GOLF J
11 WATERWAYS
( I
FAIRWAYS I
I 1
II
11
I
1
REGI[NALINTEpPRETATIDNs
( J
"1
1
64

ARAPAHCE FINE SANOT LOAM USDA-SCS
__---___..--__9CSBEATIQNAL.�BY�LNE!!>aLI —_--------_--------.-'
I I SEVERE-WETNESSI ODDS JI J SEVERE -WETNESS 1
11 1
I CAMP AREAS I IIPLAYI:ROUNDS I I
I I I1 I 1
I I SEVERE -WETNESS II I SEVERE -WETNESS
II PATHS J J
IPICHIC AREASI II AND 1 1
acAia>;D
I
1
I
1
!� I CAPA- ( C06N
SILITV 1
I I _Losll
_ INIRRIIRR.INIRR 11�
aW 130 1
I I 1 1
1 I I I
II TRAILS I
E OF CegPS ANO aASTURE IMIGH
SOYBEANS I WHEAT ( OATS
I
ANAGEMENT)
PASTURE I CA156AGE. I POTATOES.I
1 1 Iso i 165 1 1 10.0 1
1 11 I I I 1 1
1 I I I 1 1
I I I 1 I I 1 I
I I I 1 I 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I
1 II ORD I ML,tl�GEeE�fi_I;RQOL
I I SVA I EROSIONI EQUIP. ISEEDLING1
I I 1 HAZARD 1 LIMIT 1 I106TSY.1
1 129 1 SLIGHT I SEVERE I SEVERE I
1 I I I 1 1
1 1 I 1
1 1 I 1
1 I I I I
1 I I 1
(�RArts) 1 (CWT.) J
1NIRR IIRR. INIRR IIRR.
406 I 122,r
1
1 1 I 1 t
I I I I I
1 I l
EMS -L POlalA lLeaQDmlmmf-I
WINOTH.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI
Ije2ARD 1 COMPET.I - IINDfi
- I
TREES TO PLANT I
I
I ILOBLOLLY PINE 190 ILDBLCLLV
PINE "I
I I I ISLASH
PINE "I
I JSWEETGUM 190
ISWEETGUN 2/1
1 IRED MAPLE I IAMEMICAN
SYCAMORE '"I
I IWATEN OAK I
1. 1
I ISALOCYPRESS I
1 1'
I 1POND PINE 1
t IYiLLOW-POPLAR 1
1 1
I I SLACK GUM I
1 1
'SWAMP CHESTNUT OAK I I
I
AG ANTIC wdi% cOAR
--- _ WILDLIFE NABI7AT gUIiABILITY
I I — POTENTIAL FOR HASUAT ELEMENTS 1 POTENTIAL AS HIRITAT FORT I
I IGRAIN SIGRASS 61 WILD 1HARDW0 ICONIFERISHRUSS IWETLANOISNALLOIIOPENLO JWOOOLD IWETLANOIRANsfl01
I �- FEED ILEGUME 1 HERB, I TREES IPL ANTS 1 IPLANTA 1 WATER IWIL<LF IWILDLF IWILOLP IWILDLP I
FAIR I GOOD I GOOD 10000 I GOOD I - 1 POOR I POOR 19000 I GOOD I FAIR
1 I I 1 I 1 I
I I I J I I 1 I I I 1 1
_,j 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
P TENTI AL NATIVE PLA MT [OMYIINITY (RINGELAND OR FOREST UNDERf70RY VE6 ET17IDNI
I 1 PLANT I PERjfIITAG! COMPOSITION IQIiY.lt[IfNT�_ 1
t COMMON PLANT NAME I SYMBOL I I 1 I
LINLSPNI I 1
I SWITGNCAAE I' ARTE,4 I I 1 1 I I
I3LuebeNRy I VAecT I I I 1 1 I
1 Farr9400914 LYoNIA ( 1-1LUS I I I ( I 1
I WAxAtyRTLE I MYee 1 1 I 1 I 1
GIIZENSIVAR SMILAL I I I I I
<3rrTI:R GA"03gtltdy 1 ILGI_ I I 1 I I I
I Rea SAY I pe80 1 1 I I 1 I
I sw.EEr PePP�R/fusN I cLALS I I I I 1 1
I 5wF-LpTi*Ay I. MAVIt I I I I I I
HONLY6UcICLE j 1.ONIG I t 1 1 1 1 x
I JvvssT�.elr I - 1 I I 1 I I
pAL-t497-ro
I I 1 1 1 1 I I
I POTENTIAL PRODUCTION IL03./AC. DRY WT12
I FAVORABLE YEARS I I ( I I I
—_ NORMAL YEARS I I I I I I
yh)<AMAOLF-YEARS 1 1 1 1 1 I
I Ioo /6. BAv7 of If/ Oertnr[!.
2 ADEQUATE SURFACE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR BEFORE PLANTING TREES.
_65

b O 1 L I N T E R P N E T A T l U N S N F_ C O F L
AUGUSTA FINE SANDY LUAM
--------- ----------- —_ __-------------`-----------.._. _
------------------------------------ ---- E,iIinAILILADI LPSflEmulES------------
IDEPTHI I I IFRACTIPERCLNT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIOUIO IPLAS- I
I(IN.)I USDA TEXTURE I UNIFIED 1 AASHTO 1>3 INI�tAI` 7=�ASSjn�SjEYE_h9s_I LIMIT ITICITYI
I--==-1 ----------1--------------1---P9
— IiI11__i_.PaD-1I
I 0-161FSL I59. SM-SC IA-2. A-4 1 0 190-100 75-100 So-eO 30-50 1 <25 INP-7 1
116-61ISCL. CL. L ILL. CL-ML IA-4. A-6. A-7 1 0 190-100 75-100 75-S5 51-80 1 20-4t 1 5-25 1
141-72ICUSL. L. •LS ISM. SP-SM. ML IA-2. A-4. A-1 1 0 175-100 55-100 30-90 10-10 1 <25 INP-5 I
I I 1 I I I 1 I
i 1 i 1 I I I
I Ot PTf11 CLAY INDt 5T OULKI PERNLA- I AVAILABLE I SOIL I SALINITY,I SHRINK- IEPOSIGNIr1NO IORGANICI CORRUSIVITY I
I(1N.)I(PCT I DENSITY I UILITY IWATEM CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)) SOELL IFAgTM IEROD.IMATIEH
I_—__15sL�L+11_iLts¢!]j-1�jt1111B1--1--11NL1ML—_l_LPr2--L-------1P�IEnILL1 K�_L15�91751P1_IPSIl_1_�SEE�—is&hsL�€1� {
I o-161 s•l6 I 12.0--0 1 0.10-0.15 14.5-6.0 1 - I Low 1.151 • 1 - I I —HIGH 1M9QkAisl
116-6111E-i51 1 0.6-2.0 1 o.12-o.la 14.5-6.D 1 - 1 LOW 1.241 1 1 1
161-721 1 1 2.0-G.0 1 0.06-0.12 14.5-6.0 1 - I LOW
I I I I I I I 1 I I
I I I I I I I 1 I
1 FLOODING I--Ljjritl_1rATER jABLE--l-SF.MENTED-eblj I J Q$QCK— ISUBSIDENCE_IHYDIPOTENT•LI
—_I OCPTH I KIND IMONTHS IDEPTHIHARONESSIOEPTH IHARDNESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
I _ J?�SISI �c�c--RiitiAiiL:9_—LllGtll(!ii_L iEIL_I 1_-- I (I N I I _ I (I A) I—_—litnt-1 (i N) I — I ACT I CN I
I-- • - •--!lZt.: �___-- • •-.----—_�1j�Q=t,>z1eePABEnI11�__l__--1_t�Q�—__1 - L_—_ 1_i_I_�__ 1
cQh.LjR CTjDD_.)AIJ RIAL _---__
I 15xv:Rt- w eTNe6i II I FAIR-wETNESS.LOW STRENGTH i
(SEPTIC TANK I 11 ( 1
1 ABSORPTION I II ROAOFILL I 1
I FIELDS I II I 1
I 1 SEVRRt - WiTNt46 I I I )MtlloMtt/- EKc tff RINtf 1
I SEWAGE I II I I
I LAGOON 1 II SAND
i AREAS I II 1 I
I I s[vERe - weTNEfy I i I ImPAousLt- ¢xcr33 FIH[s I
1 SANITARY I II 1 I
LANDFILL 1 11 GRAVEL ( I
1 (TRENCH) 1 11 1 i
I I seveRt- Wevo-o I I I Goop I
SANITARY I 11 1 I
1 LANDFILL 1 II TOPSOIL 1 I
I (AREA) I II I
1 DAILY —_—WATER MiSNAGEtlEnT
I COVER FOR I II I MODERATE -SEEPAGE I
I LANDFILL ( II POND 1 I
1___-----1--_--_--_---------__--I I RESERVOIR 1
II AREA I I
---- —----- —---
I SMALLCw I irve,ce - werNey, I I I 'WERE - WCTIV03 I
IIEMBANKMENTS I 1
(EXCAVATIONS 1 11 DIKES AND I I
I I II LEVEES I I
I- 1 sevCRE- wHNess, F(.00af I I 1 3azeXt I
I DWELLINGS I If EXCAVATED I I
I WITHOUT 1 11 PONDS I 1
I UASEMENTS I - IIAOUIFER FED I 1
I---_—_— ------- ------------------- -1 1-1--------- -- — --1
I SEVEAe-WETNt6s, PLA&bt, I I I FAVORABLE
DWELLINGS
WITH I II DRAINAGE I I
BASEMENTS 1 II I 1
1_--__——_--___--_
1 1 SRVEAE-WVrgE K, FL.000y I I I WETNESS I
SMALL I II
1 COMMERCIAL I 11 IRRIGATION I I
BUILDINGS I II I 1
I------�--- ------ --------- -- -----
------ 11--_—_—_1-------
I I MODCAATe-WETNr% Low STRe116TM 11 1 NOT NEECED I
I LOCAL 1 11 TERRACES I I
i ROADS AND I II AND I 1
I STREETS 1 II DIVERSIONS I
1
I LAWNS. I MODMArR- VJST)+Efs I I I WETNESS — I
ILANOSCAPING I II GRASSED I I
I AND GOLF I 11 WATERWAYS I I
I FAIRWAYS I 11 I I
1_—__-----1_-___----_—_-_-_-_--- _---__—_--__---_11------- —--- 1----___--_— I
1
66

/IUGuSTA -f IRE SANDY LOAM
----------------------- —------------ nCRJj9N&_j&YfLjjPMENI----------------------------------------- ---
I SevaAe - WETlgass� IY600Ds I I 15EvtaE - VVEYNEss I
II
' CAAA AACAS I 1(PLAYGROUNDS
II 1
i- ------- —------------ --------------------- --------11----------1---
IMoDCRAT[-WGT096 11 1 MUULRATL-WE7NLS5_---`---
I
1 I II PATHS I I
,PICNIC ARLIASI II AND I -
1 I II TRAILS I I
_ I
_—_SAPA91LLjY_AW_Y.jEL2S PCR ASBE OF CR PS AND PASTURE_tr1Sitl_L.U" MABiSEMFUjj------------- —_
1 I CAPA- I CORN 1 SOYBEANS I TALL I GRASS- I WHEAT I OATS I TogAtco I
I BILITY I I I FESCUE ILEGUME MAY I I I ���)
I
I --_----16SIL__L__LflS1i__1-.(AUM)—1SIDbSL—L_«(L---1—�411 --1— -- I
(--____-------- INIRRI1BB.INIR _LiB8._llilRB_LIRR,_jNlRR j18B._jMiBP1i8eA-IN 1S9-118e._1N1RR IIRg1b EB_1SBSA_I
1 1 jW I 1 120 1 1 40 1 110.0 1 1 6.0 1 0D 1 126001 1
1 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1 I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I I t I I I I I
I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I-
1 I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I t
t I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I f I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I
lCODLAND SU1TAHjUn __—_-----_—_ -----
I I ORD I_-----bAdAStEtlENI PROBLEMg—----1—PAubalAl-Eamix.IIYIIi1 I
I' I SYM I EROSION( EQUIP. ISEEOLINGI WINDTH.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT 1
t 1
I 12W I SLIGHT IMODERATEI SLIGHT I 1 ILOBLCLLY PINE 192 ILOBLOLLY PINE
I 1 1 1 I t I ISWEETGUM 190 ISLASH PINE I
I I I I I I I I I ISWEETGUM I
1WHITE GAK 180 IAMERICAN SYCAMORE I
ISOUTHERN RED CAK 180 IVELLOW-POPLAR I
IWATER OAK I- ICHERRYBARK-OAK- I
I I I I I I I ,Rea MAPL- I-
1 I I I I I 1 IYEL{aw-Pon-AA I-
I 1 1 1 I 1 I I gLpcKGuM I_ I 1
l
I I 1 1 I I 1 I
I I I 1 I I I
1
WINDBREAKS
I___--------_�EELiEfi---1tl11_ sPEt1Es— IMTI _—flEFSjES—___-1HT1 SPECIES IHTI
I I NONE 1 1 I I I I 1 1
1 I I 1 1 I I
I I I I 11 I I
1 I I 11 1 1 I.
I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1
jILDLIU HABITAT SWITAR " 1I1_
I 1 gTENTIAL. FOR HABITAT ELEMENTS ____—I POTENTIAL AS L1ABITAT FORZ
I IGNAIN cIGRASS GS WILD IHARDWD ICONIFERISHRUBS IWETLANDISMALLOWIOPENLO IWOOQLD IWETLANDIRANGELDI
I_—_ —_been—jLEGUM F_j_rF,B$t 1 TREES IPLANTS I IPjjAN75 I WATER Ij" LE IWILDLF IWILDLF IWILDLF 1
1 1 FAIR 1 GOOD ( GOOD 1 GOOD 1 GOOD ( — 1 FAIR 1 FAIR I GOOD I GOOD 1 FAIR
I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1
I 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I
1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I I 1
—ZUE6AL NATI VE-ELAbT COMMUNITY (RA�jF�LAND UR-EDRESI UNOERSIGAYEG - VETATIOMj—_
1_ — IL1 PLANT 1_—__ PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION t HI-Afjfifff ) 1
COMMON PLANT NAME I SYMBOL I I I I I I
1bL5ENI-1
8ITMR GA"dtltAy 1 ZLGL I I I 1
DwtTc►1CATJE 1 AAT*94 I I I 1 1 I
ALUEBEAKY 1 vAcc=
vdNAmyme 1 Myer I I I I I I
Got gag "16A. 1 3MtLA2. I I I I I I
j IRcb tsAy j PEflo I I I I 1 I
1 5WA=ET PEIPF�iu3!/ t cl µ� I I I I I I
I awEa7Mly 1 htAviz 1 I I I I I
1 SwaFr6TLC* I I I I I I
Ft-ovJaRtwG Dow,466b Co FL.z
1 Seuaweob t o%AIC I I I I I I
I FGTT8R9d6H L.yoNIA 1 LVA.J3 I I I I
I_�iNwcLeAf-----------L—=--1------1--- -1 -- 1 -- 1 I
I POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. DRY WTI: I-- -----
- FAVORABLE YEARS
I NORMAL YEARS I 1 I I 1 I
FCOTNOTES
67

J U 4 1 a n. c w P n C. w. ♦ � .. . n L I , w .+
AUTRYVILLE LOAMY SAND. 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES l-7q
—_MINI= SOIL PR2ELMES
IOEPTHI�I
I
IFRACTIPERCENT OF 14ATERIAL LESS ILIOUID
IPLAS- I
I(IN.)I USDA TEXTURE
I
UNIFIED
I AASHTO
1>3 1NI THAN 3w PASSING`SIEVE NO, I LIMIT
ITICITYI
I I
1 0-261LS
J --
ISP-SM. SM
1
1A-2. A-3
I/PCTII • 1 10 "0 1 1
1 0 1 100 100 50-100 5-2
-20 I -
NP.lL
I NP I
126-411SL. SCL
ISM
IA-2
I O 1100 100 50-100 15-30 1 <20
I►dP-3 I
141-58IS. LS
ISP-SM. SM
IA-2. A-3
I O I t00 100 50-100 5-20 1 -
I NP.
1541-6015L. SCL
I I
ISM.
1
SC. SM-SC
IA-2. A-4
I O 1100 100 60-100 20-49 1 <30
INP-10
(
I 1
IDEPTHICLAY IMOIST BULK)
PERMEA-
I AVAILABLE
I SOIL I SALINITY I
SHRINK- IEROSICMIWIAO IC96ANICI CORROSIVITY I
I(IN.)I(PCT I DENSITY i
B1L1TY
(WATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM)I
SWELL Ij:MMIEROD.IMATTER I
1G/CM31 1
1-- 11<-1
(IN/MR)
I (IN/IN)
I tPH) 1 IPOTENTIALl-K 1 I IGRCUPI IPCTI I STEE ICONCRETEI
10-261 <� I 1
1
>6.0
1 0.04-0.09
14.5-6.5 1 - I
LOW 1.101 5 1 - 1 1- Lor 1
HIGH 1
126-41110-201 1
2.0-6.0
1 0.06-0.13
14.5-5.5 1 - I'
LOW 1.101 1 I 1
141-541I g-1 1 1
>6.0
1 0.03-O.OB
14.5-5.5 1 - 1
LOW 1.101- 1 i I
158-601to. tS1 1
0.6-2.0
1 0.10-0.15
14.5-5.6 1 - I
LOW 1.171
FLOODING
1at _ . CE11HNlL2 POLL-8928QEA— (SUBSIDENCE IHYOIPOTENTOLI
I DEPTH I KIND INONTHS I DEPTH I HARDNESS I DEPTH IHARDNESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
_ —SANITARY FACILITlga _ _ SDNSiRII[720M W7ERIAL
I I SLIGHT 11 I GOOD
(SEPTIC TANK
1 A830RPTION 1 II ROADFILL I 1
1 FIELDS I II 1 1
SEVERE -SEEPAGE
I SEWAGE I
I LAGOCN I
I AREAS 1
I SLIGHT
1 SANITARY I
1 LANDFILL 1
I (TRENCH) I
I I SL 1GHT
I SANS TARP I
I LANDFILL 1
I [AREA) I
IMROBASLC-tXCES$ FINES
SAND 1
IMPROSAPLE -EXCESS FINES
II GRAVEL I
II TOPSOIL
II
FAzK -TOO SANDY
I
!1
1
I
1
I
1
I I
FAIR -TOO SANDY
1I
I DAILY 1
11
WATER MANAGEMENT
(.COVER FOR I
II
I SEVERE -SEEPAGE
1 LANDFILL 1
11 POND
I 1
I 1
I1 RESERVOIR
I 1
BUILDING SITE DEVELOPYE�
II AREA
11 _
I 1
i 1
1 I
MODERATE-CUTSANKS CAVE
I1
1 SEVERE -SEEPAGE I
I SHALLOW I
-
IIEMBANKMENTS
I -
IEXCAVATION5 I
1i DIKES AND
1 a
-
I I LEVEES I
1
I 1
SLIGHT
II
I SEVERE -NO WATER i
DWELLINGS (
I1 EXCAVATED
I WITHOUT (
II PONDS
I
1BASEMENTS I
I
- IIAGUIFER FED
I 1
I I
SLIGHT
II
I NOT NEEDED
I DWELLINGS I
II
I 1
I WITH I
II DRAINAGE 1
1
I BASEMENTS I
II
I
I -I
-
If 1
I
1 I
SLIGHT
I1
I FAST IN7AKE.DR000HTV SL0101E
I SMALL I
I COMMERCIAL I
II IRRIGATION
I i
BUILDINGS I
I- _I-
I
-SLIGHT
II I
TOO SANDY I
I LOCAL I
11 TERRACES I
I
I' ROADS AND I
1 i AND
11
I STREETS I
II DIVERSIONS I
-I---
1I
1 LAWNS. i
MODERATE - aR0u6N1'y
I I I
DROUGHTY
ILANDSCAPING I
- II GRASSED I
I
I AND GOLF I
I1 WATERWAYS I
I FAIRWAYS I
II I
I
1---=----
—
-------------11— 1
1
-
1 --I
I
68

.AIITRYV)LLE LOAMY SAND. 0 TO S PEFCENT SLOPES USDA-SCS
-_RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT _
MODERATE- •SLOPE I
1 I 1I i
I CAMP AREAS I IIPLAYGRCUNOS I I
I
I 1 1
� Sts6HT II I SI-Z6HT _
(PICNIC AREASI II PATHS AND
I i
1 II 1 I
I - ,I 11 TRAILS
seE�IL1 TY ANO YIELDS PEER ACRE OF CROPS "D PA.TL�RE _tMiGN LtVLI MANAGEMENT) -- I
1 I CAPA- I T0OACC0 150118EAN5 ( ( I CORN ISAMIAGRASS I IMPROVED I
1 I BILITY I t I I I I IBERMUDAGR. I
1 I- tau) I 1 I taus 1 tAull) 1 uuBj_I
1 1NIeB1jBR&"IRR IIRR, INIRR IIRR, INIRR IIRR, INIRR 11RBa-INIRR IIRR, INjRR IIRR. INIRR IIRR. I
I 12S 1 12200 1 1 30. 1 1 1 1 1 1 75 1 13.0 I t 9.0 l 1
i i I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1
I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1
1
1
1 I 1 1 1 1 I
I 1 1 I I i 1
1 1 I 1 I I 1
I I I I I 1 1
I I 1 I I 1 i I
1 I 1 I 1 I I 1
I 1 I 1 1 i 1
I I 1 1 I i 1 I
1 I 1 I
1 i I I
I I I I
I I I 1
1 I I 1
I I I 1
1 I I I
1 1 1 I
I
I
I
I
t
1
1
I 1
I 1 1
1 1 1
I I L
I I I
1 I i
1 I I
MDOQL��SUITAeIL ITY
--
I ORC I MAdA�t�°HEILI-PBI�QLE11.�
1 PQjBtl1ieL PRDOII[TIVITY
I
I SYM I EROSIONI EQUIP. (SEEDLING) WINOTH.I PLANT
1 ^1 HAZARD 1 LIMIT 1 M96T•Y.1 HAZARD 1 r_n_rPw_t___1
I COMMON TREES
ISITEI
IINOXI
TREES TO PLANT
133 1 SLIGHT IMODERATEIMODERATEI I
ILOBLOLLY PINE
ISO
ILOBLOLLY PINE
1 I I I 1 I
1
183
ISLASH PINE
I I I I I i
ILONGLEAF PINE
165
ILONGLEAF PINE
I 1 I I I 1
I540YH6RN AEA oAk
I
1
1 wHm *Ate
I 1 I 1 I I
I POST OAK
I
1
SWEE76uM
I I I 1 i
1 1 I 1 1 1
1 1 I
FImko1W
f
I
I-
1 1 I I I I
1
1 1 �P22M IAL F(Yt HABITAT H-EMENTS I POTdiTIAI AS HABITAT FQM1
j(GRAIN LIGRAS3 iI MILO (HARDWD ICONtFERISHRUBS (VETLANDISHALLOMIOPENLD WOODED IIIETLANOIRANGEL0I
1 GOOD I coon 1 GOOD 1 GOOD I GOOD 1 - Iv. POORIV. POORI GOOD 1 GOOD Iv. POOH( - 1
1 I 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1
1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I
1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 1
i I 1 i I 1 I i I I I I 1 1
-
I PLANT
COMMON PLANT NAME
I SYMBOL I
1
MOIOERI46 aoGl dtx)la
Lt)tLSPN)
i t:o F1..s,1
SRSSAFAA S
SAALS
ISLACk.Ack OAK
I OUM41 1
roilstMMAN
I 61YS5 1
TIMICEY CA*
Out.AiL I
RED SAV
s•uRwoob
I DxRR I
AMRAICAN ftA✓fYAFRRY
) CAAmi-I
WA MVATtE
� MyCF
wlAesttgss
1 AAMST I
1 1
I _1
v
1 POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. ORV WT)i I - --
1 FAVORABLE YEARS
NOFMAL YEARS I I 1 1 1
FOOTNOTES
1 RATINGS EASED ON SRYPC COMMITTEE ♦ GUIDE. APRIL. I970.
.•

4
v
R
H
CARTERET SOILS �-yq
NAWHAA - CAR-IERL'T CorAe .RX, o -ro io P1=Rc.9P T SLepkS., CARTFRBT PART
I_--__
IOEPTHI I I IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS — ILIQUID IPLAS- I
1(1N.)l USCA TFXTU14E I UNIFIED ( AASHTO 1>3 INI-UAd-M PASSjbfi SIEVE NO. I LIMIT ITICITYI
�_---_—_i-- -- 1 I(PcTll A 1 ID I to -"Go I jtbGFA-I
10-901L 9 ISM. sP-sM IA-2. A-3 1 0-3 195-100 so-IGO SOTS 5-25 1 - I NP 1
1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I
IDEPTHICLAY IMOIST BULKI PERMEA- I AVAILABLE 1 SOIL I SALINITY I SHRINK- IERCSIGNIWIAD ICRGANICI CORROSIVITY. i
I(IN.)I(PCT I DENSITY I BILITY (WATER CAPACIFTIREACTIONI(MMHOS/CM11 SMELL JUCTORSIEROD.IMATTER I _ I
1-_1$ZIIM) 1 IG/0431 -1-llk/HR) 1 11SLIN) 1 (PHI 1— — I TENTIALI K 1 T 1fieCUP1 IPCT) I STEEL "ofiB&nj
I O-aal I I >6.0 1 0.02-0.10 13.6-8.4 1 >—)6 I LOW 1.151 5 1- I 1—lfiLti1_ HIGH I
1 I I i 1 I 1 I t 1
I FLOODING I-- 1 CEMENTED PAN 1 w-BgQC—JjUdtIDENCE IHYDIPOTENT•LI
I _ 1 DEPTH 1 KIND 1MNNTHS IDEPTHIHARONESSIQEPTH IHARONESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
FREQUENT 1 DjlgATICN IMONTHS 1 IFTI J__ j ItIN) 1 �I tIM) 1 Illml 11INS I I ACTION
1 FREQUENT 1- V.aRIEF IJAN-DELI f3-I. 01 APPARENT IJAN^-QFcI - 1 1 >60 1 1 - I 1 D 1 - —I
SANITARY FACILITIES _ _ [[INlTRU[TION WTEBILL
I 1 SEVERE-rOHESN6,FLOODS . P000f F'SLTkd 11 1 POOR-WETHESS 1
ISEPTICTANK
I
1I
1
I ABSORPTION
I
II ROADFILL
I
FIELDS
1
II
I
I
I SEWAGE
I SEVERE-podpZ4/6.FLOOD3.SEEPAGE
1
II
11
Iplt00ASL!
1
1 LAGCCN
I
II SAND
I
1 AREAS
I
11
I
I
1 SEVCR E-,00114 O.FLOCO3.SEEPAGE, 6kctt.S
SALT 11
iTJM/�ito�pLd-EX<E`�s ftrle5
1 SANITARY
t
II
1
I LANDFILL
I
II GRAVEL
1
I (TRENCH)
I
I)
I
I
1 SEVERE- 0 OxAIL FLOODS. SEEPAGE
II
I POOR- %Eid sM-T .VaTNUS.TGO "NOV
SANITARY
I
II
I
LANDFILL
I
II TOPSOIL
1
1 (AREA)
I
II
i
1 POOR-Par4VjW&,TOO SANDY , EK C.Gl.s^SgUT~
( I
I DAILY
1
I I
WATEA nAWffMffNT
I COVER FOR
(
II
I SEVERE-SEE►AGE
LANDFILL
1
II POND
1
RESERVOIR
I
aUlI DING BITE QF�LOPIEmy
i AREA
II
1
I
( SEVERE-PpA/OTWL$.FLOODS*CUTE ANK3 CAVE
I I
I SEVERE -SEEPAGE J6XCdSS SALT
i SHALLOW
I
119MBANKMEMTS
I
IEXCAVATICNS
I
11 DIKES AND
I
1
II LEVEES
1
I SeVERE-wziA—&' FLO003
I I
I S&JEAL- 54-1Y V✓AraR
I DWELLINGS
I
II EXCAVATED
I
WITHOUT
1
1I PONDS
BASEMENTS
I
I
�
IIAOUIFER FED
I
1
_
I SEVERE- FlallAidip.FLOODS ---
I t
I feNDZP/(i .FL000Sv Eja60419 IOAA-
DWELLINGS
i
II
WITH
1
II DRAINAGE
I
BASEMENTS
I
II
I
I
1 SEVERE-10NATda•FL000S
11
1 OND.:NG.EXCESS SALT
i SMALL
I
II
I COMMERCIAL
I
If IRRIGATION
I
BUILDINGS
I
II
I
I SEVERE ONDSNb .FLOODS
II
I MOT NEEDED
1 LOCAL
I
11 TERRACES
I ROADS AND
I
II AND
I
STREETS
1
II DIVERSIONS
1
LAWN39
151EV root a - pOdDSNb, FL"bXWC•; fiv9C.Q S4
4ALT 1 1
1 NOT NEEDED
ILANOSCAPING
I
II GRASSED
I
I AND GOLF
I
I1 WATERWAYS
I
FAIRWAYS
I
II

USDA-SCS
___$ECREATIONAL DIT.Yfd.flP�iEtlI_. _______ _ _
I 1 SEVERE-PdNPIIrbFLOODS, Ex%cIE6S 5-AS-T II I SEVERE-(dNpZNb FLOODS, Eric_F$5 SAs-z �! I
1 I II I I
1 CAMP AREAS I IIPLAYGROUNDS I I
I I II I I
1 I SEVERE-JljpINb rFLOODS� "Q&tl SIIl.'T I I I SEVERE-PONDINV rFLOCDS 1
I I II PATHS I
1PIC14IC AREASI II AND I 1
II TRAILS
CAPABjLjTY ANO YIELQ$ PER AOE OF CROPS AND PASTURE IHI6M_j,EYEL IUNA6EW.NT,
CAPA- 1 I 1 I I I I 1
i 1 B1LI TY
I_ INIRRIIRR.INj R IIRea-INIRR IIRR. INIRR IIRR, INIRR IIRBAIyIAR�"S A IMIRR IIRR, INXBB IIRR, I
I 1 Br
1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I II 1
i I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I 1
1 1 •I 1 1 1 1 I I i 1 I I. I I i I 1
1 1 t I I 1 t I I I I I 1 I I I I I
I 1 I 1 1 i I I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I
I I I i I I I I I i 1 1 t I I I I I
1 1 1 I i i I 1 I I i I I I I I 1
DAD I— �b�,jAGEMlNT PROBLIU_ I—eciLUXAL_PRNISIMIX-1 I
SYR I EROSIONI EQUIP. ISEEOLINGI WINOTM.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANTI
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 NONE 1 t 1
i I I I I I 1
I 1 I I I I I 1 1
i 1 I I I i 1 1 1 I 1
1 I I I I I 1 I I i 1
1 i I I I I I 1 I i 1
1 I 1 i I I I I I 1
1 I 1 1 1 I I i I I 1
1 I i I 1 1 1 1 1 I i
I I t 1 I 1 I I 1 I I
(GRAIN LIGRASS 91 WILD INAROWO ICONIFERISHRUBS
OPENLD IWOOOLD IVETLAN01RANSEL.O
PAIR 1 4000 1 - 1 - I PAIR 1
I I PLANT I PERCENTAGE [OMPOSITION [DAY WRIGHT)
I COMMON PLANT NAME I SYMBOL I I I I I
1 81-AcKlig9ble RUSH
3MocTH CORD G11A95
1 AIG C.oRDC-AA6S
I MARSHHgY C001049A66
I &I -ASS WORT
.Tulle
SPAL
SPcY
5PPA
SA I-TC
I POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LBS./AC. DRY WT)I
i FAVORABLE YEARS I I 1 1
I NORMAL YEARS I I I
1^0TNOTES
71

50 IL I N T E R P R E T'A T 1 0 N S RE Cana 9
LEDA SAND
LE0A • OeZ13AN ).pNp COMPLLA , i-Eo►i PAQT
ESTIMATED
SOIL PROPERTIES
IDEPTHI
I(IN.11 USDA TEXTURE
I_I----L
I
I UNIFIED
I
I AASNTO
IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIDUIO IPLAS- I
1>3 INI ThAb 3" PASSING SIEVE NO. I LIMIT ITICITYI
1(PCT11 A 1 10 1 AO 1 200 1—_jINDEX I
10-151S
I15-3015• FS
30-7515.-FS
ISP. SP-SM
ISM. SP-SM. SP
ISP. SP-SMISM
IA-3. A-2-4
IA-3. A-2-4
IA-3,. A-2-4
1 0 1 100 100 80-100 2-12
1 0 1 300 100 80-100 3-20
1 0 1 100 -10o so-100 2-$Lp
1 - 1 NP I
1 - 1 NP I
1 - 1 NP I
1 I
1
1
1 I
I I I
IOEPTHICLAY 1140IST BULKI.PERMEA-
IIIN.11(PCT I DENSITY I
I AVAILABLE 1 SOIL I SALINITY I
BIL1TY IWATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMMOS/CM11
SHRINK- IEROSIONIWIND JORGANICI
SWELL IUMB§IEROO.IKATTER I
CORROSIVITY I
----_ I
J
I 0-151 1-6 11.60-1.65 1 6.0-20 1 0.02-0.05 13.6-5.5 1 - IVERY LOW 1.201 5 1 - 1 .5-1 1 HIGH 1 HIGH
115-301 2-8 11.50-1.70 1 0.6-6.0 1 0.05-0.10 13.6-5.6 1 - IVERY LOW 1.201 1 1 1
130-751 1-6 11.40-1.65 1 >20 1 0.02-0.07 13.6-5.5 1 - IVERY LOW 1.171_ 1 1 1
_
SANITARY FACILITIES
C�JjIBI�jL�TERILL
I I
SEVERE-WETNESS,CEM EN UD PAN
II
( POOR WETNESS THIN LAYER I
ISEPTIC TANK I
11
I I
I ABSORPTION I
II ROADFILL
1 I
I FIELDS I
II
i I
I I
SEVERE -SEEPAGE. WETNESS , C11Mtrt'TED PAN
I I
I IMPROBABLE ` EXCISS FINES 1
1 SEWAGE I
Il
I LAGOON I
II SAND
1 AREAS I
II
I
I I
SEVERE-SEEPAGE.WETNESS.TOO SANDY
1I
I I
SANITARY I
I I
I IMPROBABLE - EXCESS FINES
I LANDFILL I
II GRAVEL
I I
I (TRENCHI I
II
I I
I I
SEVERE -SE EPA GE.WETNESB, GfMiNtZT) PAN
11
I POOR-T00 SINOV.WETNESS.AREA RECLAIM I
1 SANITARY 1
II
1 I
I LANDFILL. 1
II TOPSOIL
I
I (AREA) I
II
I I
1 _
J I
POOR-SEEPAGE.TOD SANDV.WETNESS, THIN LAYER,
I I'
I DAILY 1
AIM ICDC.LAIM I-
1 I
J�TER MA) AGEMENT _
I COVER FOR 1
II
I SEVERE -SEEPAGE , CEMINTLD PAN I
I LANDFILL I
If POND
I I
RESERVOIR
1 1
11 AREA
I 1
I I SEVERE-CUTBANKS CAVE.YETNESS,
I SHALLOW I
1EXCAVATIONS I
f
I I SEVERE -WETNESS
1 DWELLINGS I
J WITHOUT I
I BASEMENTS
_J
I I SEVERF-WETNESS, GSMiNIliO PAN
I DWELLINGS 1
WITH
1 BASEMENTS I
I I
I I SEVERE -WETNESS
i SMALL 1
I COMMERCIAL i
I BUILDINGS I
i ) SEVERE -WETNESS
I LOCAL I
i ROADS AND 1
STREETS
II I SEVERE -SEEPAGE. PI PING. WETNESS, THIN LAYER I
11E9BANKMENTS I - 1
I1 DIKES AND
II LEVEES
LI EXCAVATED
1 SEVERS - CUTPANKI CAVE i
II PONDS
1
IIAOUIFER FED
11
I I
1 1
I I
11
1 CU78ANKS CAVE , CiMENTLD PAK 1
I 1
11 DRAINAGE
I I
jL
1 1
WETNESS.FAST INTAKE, OR000NTY,GSMS)yTiD PAN
11 IRRIGATION
it
I I
I I
I I
I NOT ,NEEDED I
11 TERRACES
1 I
II AND
I I
II DIVERSIONS
It
I I
1 1
1 LAWNS. 1 SIYERE-WETp1E33, TNIN LAYIA
I I I WETNiss DRouGHTY, CLMLNTED PAN 1
ILANDSCAPING I -
, -
11 GRASSED I I
I AND GULF I
-II WATERWAYS I I
I FAIRWAYS i "
I
11 1 1.
It I I
Uf jj;b&-jNTE R PR E T A T I O N
1 1 i 72

.._.____.._.__._:._---------._..._-----•.--- -----81:LflEAI1LtleL�EYE�LiP1l1aL..____---------•---------.-'-- _... _
i ( :.LVLRL-LL7NE4b.TOO SANDY, CEMENTED PAN I I I SEVERE-70C SANDY. Lf TNl.:.S, CIMINTED PAN I
I CAMP AMI:AS I ((PLAYGROUNDS I f
1 I II I I
t------------ 1..__------------------------------1L------------------------------------------- 1
I ( bLVENE-lmETNE$S.TOO SANDY, CiMENTED PAN II I SEVERE-bETNESS.TOU SANDY I
I I 11 PATHS I I
(PICNIC AMbASI If AND f I
TRAILS ( I
_—_---__CAPABILITY_AI Q-11"QS PER ACRE DESB�S QE1-AbiL SSIBE IIJUGH LZIU- IehAGEtlE
-------
1yI1-------------------- 1
I i I:APA- I CORN I CoMMon 1 6ANIAc.RAfS I I I I I
1 I UILITY 1 I P1fArAuOA64ASSI I I I I J
(RuM_) �_ (AuM��._--1------1----- 1--------I
1ti18H118[3a1tl1flH_lIEBa_ltlIHH�1813a_1tl18fl_JJRRa INIflPJj89a_1NlHE�tEEi�H1AR�1!?L+a_lrlEP_11P£+i.I
I q �y II I qo
I I I I I I I I i I I I I i
1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 I
1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I ! I I I 1 !
I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1
I I I I I i I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 f
I I I I I I 1 1 ( I I I I I I I I I
__ - EOODND SUITAeILITV —_�_--
I I ORD 1 MAN AfiULU-PI AROQQSICIlY1�Ll
CLEMS I Pgubll-AL P I
I - I SYM I EROSIONI EOUIP. ISEEDLINGI YINOTH.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT '1
I— i HAZARD 1 LIMIT 1 MORTOY 1 HAZARD I COMPET-I —_ IINDXI —
I 1 i I I I I
I 1 4vV 1 SLt6NT I MocRRgTTc 1 MoosR41XI MDDEAM I MODERATE I I I 54ASH PIN£
i i I I I I 1 I LoNrGL13nF PINA I (e5 I
I 1 ( I I 1 I I POND PINe 1 Gp I 1
1 1 1 I 1 1 I I LoBLDI.LY PINE
1 I 1
I I I I I I I 1 1
1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I i
1 I I i I 1 I I l I 1
1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1
1 I I i
t------1-- I -- ----�- I J--
____ ___ ■INQBBEess_—_
SPECIF.a----IHTI _�EE1.:EaS,..—_.__I HT I__ -BELIES IHTI SPECIES ----hill
NONE
I I 1 1
I I I I 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 1
I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1
EQBI_^ I
RANGELOI
Jt)<LQL� 1
1
1
I
i
I
1
- -
I PLANT I PERCf, NTA GE j,QJy�051 TION jQRY ■j,Ij�jI1-
1 COMMON PLANT NAME
I SYMBOL
(---
----
I I
I .WIREGRASS
I ARISr t I I
BITTER GALLBERRY
j rLGL 11
I .SWEET GALLSERRY
I LLGo
BI-ve BERRY
VAcci j
1 FETMReS/1SH LYONIA
1 LYLUT I I I I I I
I SWEE T PEPPERBUSIY
I CL14L3 I i I I 1 1
I
I WAxMYATLA'
I MYca I 1 I I 1
45WM14CUE
ARrE4 1 1 I
I sweET6AY
I MA VIZ. I I I I I t
1. ReoISAY
I for. do 1 I I I I 1
69EEN150.1cA
I SMILA2I 1 1 1
I I
1 —
—1-- 1---- I I----1----- --
I POTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LOS./AC. DRY YT):
I FAVORABLE YEARS
I NORMAL
YEARS
1— — UbFAVORABLE X&ARS
FOOTNOTES
73

S U I L INT C R P R! JAY t u n a w e L c w o .. ao. .....
MANDARIN I SAND
MANAAA.t)J - U/COAN LAND c-mei.Ex, MANDARIN PARE Y-�4
_—------ --------- ---
'IDEPTHI
I
I
IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS
ILIOUID IPLAS- I
I(IN.)I USCA TEXTURE
I
UNIFIED
i AASHTO
1>3 INI THAN 32-EASSING SIEVE UjL_i
L1141T ITICITYI
I — —I —
I
—
I —. It CTl I • 1 to 1 40 1 2001---litlQf.)LI
1 0-261 S
ISP.
Sp-SM
IA-3
1 0 1 f00 100 90-100 2-10
I - I NP I
126-40IFS. S
ISP-SM. SM
IA-3. A-2-4
1 0 1 100. 100 90-100 5-15
1 - I NP I
1.0-731FS. S
ISP.
SP-SM
IA-3
1 0 1 100 100 90-100 2-7
I - I NP I
173-80IFE. S
I
ISP.
SP-SM
IA-39 A-2-4
1 0 1 100 100 90-100 3-12
I - I NP I
I
I
1
I I I I I
IDCPTHICLAY INOIST BULKI
PERMEA-
I AVAILABLE
I SOIL I SALINITY I
SHRINK- IERCSICNIWIND ICRGANICI
CORROSIVITY I
1(IN.)I(PCT I DENSITY I
BILITY
IAATER CAPACITYIREACTIONI(MMNOS/CN))
SWELL IfACIiiRJ EROD.IMATTER
1---isam1I aLSiw__l_inejjR,-1(IN/IN) 1 (PH) 1 IPOTENTI Ll K 1 T IGBCUPI (PCT) I STEEL SCNCRUzi
1 0-261 -I 16.0-20 1 0.03-0.07 13.6-6.0 1 - I LOW 1.151 5 1 2 1 1990FRATEI _bjjH 1
126-401 I 1 0.6-2.0 1 0.10-0.15 13.6-6.0 1 - I LOW 1.201 1 1 1 -
1.0-731 i 16.0-20 1 0.03-0.07. 16.6-7.3 1 - I LOW I.151_-� 1 _I
173-601 1 1 0.6-2.0 1 0.10-0.15 15.6-7.3 1 - I LOW 1.1EI
I FLOODING I_--jIGH SATEI1-IABLE — I CEMENTEO PAN 1 B92UC5- jSULU"hCE IHYOIPOTENT-LI
1 _----_---_-- ---I OEPTH I KIND IMONTHS IDEPTHIHARDNESSIOEPTH IHARDNESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
_-- SAb1TARY FACILLUZf ___---- _ -_--_ CENSTRUCTION MATERIAL
I ( SEVERE -WETNESS II I FAIR -WETNESS I
ISEPTIC. TANK 1 11 I 1
I ABSORPTICN I 11 ROAOFILL 1
FIELDS I If 1
1 I SEVERE-SEEPAGE.WETNESS— II IPAOBASLE I
1 SEWAGE I Ii 1
I LAGOON I II SAND I 1
AREAS I II I
I SEVERE-SEEPAGE.WETNESS.TOC SANDY II IEMPAOSAYLI. TOO SANDY I
I SANITARY I If I I
I LANDFILL i II GRAVEL I
1 (TRENCH) I 11 I 1
I I SEVERE-WETNESS.SEEPA GE
II
I'FOOR-TOO SANDY
SANITARY I
II
I 1
LANDFILL I
II TOPSOIL
(AREA) I
i1
I 1
I 1 POOR-700 SANDY 1 :siM M EDAI
NAGEMEMT
I COVERLFCR I
II
( SEVERE-SEEPAGEI
I LANDFILL I
II POND
I I
RESERVOIR
I I
II AREA
_-III(jLOING SITE QfyELpp�j
11 _
1 I
I I SEVERE-WETNESS.CUTEANKS CAVE
II
I SEVERE-SEEPAGE.PIPING I
I SHALLOW I
IIEMBANKMENTS
I I
IEXCAVATIONS I
1I DIKES AND
I I
i 1
11. LEVEES
1 1
I ( MODERATE -WETNESS
II
I MODERATE -DEEP TO WATER I
I DWELLINGS I
11 EXCAVATED
I 1
1 WITHOUT (
II PONDS
1
I BASEMENTS I
IIAGUIFER FED
I 1
I I SEVERE -WETNESS
if
I CUTISANK5 CA YE
I DWELLINGS 1
I WITH I
II DRAINAGE
I 1
1 BASEMENTS i
11
1 1
I I MODERATE-YETNESS
II
I WETNESS.OROUGMTV.FAST INTAKE I
SMALL I
II
I COMMERCIAL I
II IRRIGATION
1 1
BUILDINGS ►
II
I I
I. I MODERATE-IIETNESS
II
I NOT NEEDED I
I LCCAL 1
11 TERRACES
( 1
ROAOS ANC 1
1I AND
I STREETS I
I— I
II DIVERSIONS
I I
I 1
—
I LAWNS. 1 SEV ERE - DADU4HT-/
(LANDSCAPING I
_I
11
11 GRASSED
--
I PAO0
1 /�TY 1
I AND GOLF i
II WATERWAYS
( I
I FAIRWAYS 1
I1
I
_------aesu�ei�nleaeB>seuans _
1
74
1

USDA -SOS
------- — -----------------• •-------- —__.__PESf3EdI1�dL�2>:YEL.SSP.Pftil_—---------------_ _. _ ... _._ .-_ .. - - - - •--_... - - -- -- t
I I S6VLRL-TOO SANDY IJ I SEVERE -TOO SANDY
I II I 1
I CAMP AREAS 1 IIPLAV6ACUNDS 1
I
1 I II 1 1
I SEVERE -TOO SANDY __— — II I SEVERE-T00 SANDY 1
I I If PATHS 1 I
IPICMIC AREASI II AND 1
I II TRAILS i 1
--jAEAEIL,fTY ANO-XIZLU_PER ACRE CE_EFCPS AND PASTUFE (rIGH IEVjL MANAGEjiENTf
t I CAPA--IBANIAGRASS 1
I I ellu TY I 1 1 I I I 1 I
I—_—_—__—__--- N'RaLLf0&J=RR 1IRBA_lbllifi-IIBS, INIRR IIRR. Inlel�jlgB,lplge_liBE._1niaB�lae�1MI88�leBL l
1 1 6s 1 16.0 I
I I I i 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1
I I I 1 1 i I I l i 1 i I 1
I 1 I I i I I I I I I I I I I t I I
I I 1 1 I I I 1 ( I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I t I I I 1 I I I I I I
I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I
1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1
_JXLC.9liLAbiLlUnABILITY
I -----� oat 1--- _-HAbALEtlEbLIB09LZMA-- _-1_ UlZbIlAl PRDDUC MMC-1 1
I I SYM I EROSIONI EQUIP. ISEEDLINGI WINOTH.1 PLANT I CCMMCN TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT 1
I—-----1___—LtJAZARJZl_LIMu 1 MCRT lA1-tlAZMD I COMPET.1 IINOXI --I
1 14S I SLIGHT IMODERATEI SEVERE I SLIGHT IMODERATEI I ISLASI, PINE 1
I ) I I 1 I I ILONGLEAF PINE 160 ISAND PINE 1
1 I t I 1 I I i-rve OAK I-
i I I 1 1 I I LoBI-ol-Ly PUS
1 I I I I 1 I I I •I
i
1 I I I 1 1 I I 1 I I
1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I i
1 I 1 I I I I I 11
I I I I I 1 1 I t I I
WINDBREAKS
SPECIES---��I_--� ��j------1�- SPECIES IH71 SPECIES (HTI
I ISLASH PINE 14OICAROLINA LAURELCHY 130IJAPANESE PRIVET 1301SAMB00 1251
1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1
1 i I I I I i t I I
1 I I I I i 1 1 I
--ELIt:l�1dL_E!?8�fdilIEI�J:lIEtlLS--------_�—POTENTIAL A
[GRAIN LIGRASS GI WILD IHAROWD ICONIFERISHRUBS IWETLANOISHALLOWIOPENLD IWOODLD
V..POURI POOR I POOR I POOR I.FAIR I - IV. PCORIV. PCORI PEER" I POOR IV. PCORI
1 I I I 1 1 I I 1
I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I
EASTeRt' Rt
WAXAIYKTLE MYe-E I
wrszrz<-AASS j ARI57 j
FSLUEhEARy I VAce 1
BITTER GALLE3IERRY j ILL j
REo Oky I P5130 I
POTENTIAL PRODUCTION 11-8S./AC. DRY WTIS
FAVORABLE YEARS
NCFMAL YEARS
UNFAVORABLE YEARS
EGBI— I
RANGELDI
WILDLF 1
- I
I
I
I
1
I
PER[ENTAGE cDracslTlo��gY��1ybII - 1
1
I i 1
1 I I I I
1 1
i I I 1
i
1 1
1 i 1 1
I I I I I
FOOTNOTES
75

SOIL INTEAPRE TAT ILNS RECCRO USDA-SCS
NEW AAN -. CA RTE9ETcar4PLtA, 0 Tod pERCENr SLopEf ,NEW11AN PA,cr t-71
� JOEPTHI - ---- 1
I IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS
(LIQUID IPLAS- I
I(IN.)1 USCA TEXTURE J UNIFIED
I__� I 1
I AASHTO 1>3 INI_>lyAN_J: 2A= NG SIEVE NO_I
1 IIPCTII • 1 10 1 AO 1 20D
LIMIT ITICITYI
1 [INDEX
0-66IFS ISP
_
IA-3 1 0 195-100 65-100 60-75 0-5
1 - RPI
1 I I
1 I
1 I I
I I I
I I I
1
IDEPTHICLAY 1140IST BULKI PERMEA- I AVAILABLE
I SOIL I SALINITY I SHRINK- JEACSIONIWINO JORGANICI
CORROSIVITY I
IlIN.1I(PCT I DENSITY I BILITY (WATER CAPACITY IREACTION1(MMHOS/CMII SWELL IFACTORSIEROD.IMATTER I
I 1<204MIl1G/CM31 1 !IN/HR1 I /IN/IN1
I IpH) I IPOTENTIALI_K 1 T IGROUPI [PCTI I
STEEL ICUINCRETEI
1 0-641 1 I >20 1 <0.06
I 1 1 I I
16.6-7.8 1 - 1 LOW 1.101 5 I - 1 I
I I 1 1 I I I I
HIGH 1 LOW 1
1 1 I
_ t
1 I I I 1
I -� FLOODING I HIGH
Y1T o raw 1 Y I+► O PAN ,I SEOROCK ISUBSIDE_NCE
IHTDIPOTENT$LI
I I DEPTH I
J -FREQUENCY 1 - DURATION IMONTHS I IFT) I
KIND IMDNTHS I DEPTHI HARDNESS I DEPTH IHARDNE25IINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
1 I[INj_1 1 [iNl I 111Y1 11IN1 I I A[7I DN
I NUht-RARE
-�
1A 1 -
__ SAUTARY FACILITIES
CDNSTRUCTION 1U\TERIAL
I 1 SEVERE-. 0049 PrILTRd
I I I GOOD -
1
ISEPTIC TANK I
I ABSORPTICN I
II ROADFILL J
I
I FIELDS 1
it 1
1
I
I I SEVERE -SLOPE. SEEPAGE
II I GOOD
1 SEWAGE 1
1I 1
1 LAGCCN I
II SAND
i
I AREAS
1
J 1
11 I
I
i I SEVERE -SEEPAGE I Too SANDY
I I IiMpROBRgLE -Toe SA/VDY
J SANITARY I
1 LANDFILL I
11 GRAVEL J
w I ITRENCHI I
II J
I I SEVERE- SEEPAGE
II I POOR -TOO SANDY
' I SANITARY 1
11
LANDFILL 1
IJ TOPSOIL 1
j
I (AREA(
J I POOR- TOO SAND 4WA61t
II
J DAILY I
II HATER MANAGEMENT
•
1 GUveR FOR I
11
1 SEVERE -SEEPAGE J
LANDFILL I
I 1 POND
I
RESERVOIR
�fSujLDING SITE DEVELOPMENT
AREA
11
I I
1 - I
I 1
_
SEVERE- CUTBANKS CAVE
JI
I SEVERE-SEEPAGE,PYQypIG I
I SHALLCY I'
((EMBANKMENTS
IEXCAVATICNS I
11 DIKES AND
J
1 I
11 LEVEES
I J
SLt�MT
JJ
I SEVERE- NO WATER
J DWELLINGS 1
IJ EXCAVATED
I I
J WITHOUT 1
If PONDS
1
1 BASEMENTS 1
IIADUIFER FED
I
I I
SLIr.HT
II
I NOT NEEDED
1 DWELLINGS I
it
I. I
J WITH I
II DRAINAGE
I f
J BASEMENTS I
it
I 1
I I
SLIC. Fri
I I
I MST IMTAKE.OR000!lTY, SLOIC
1 SMALL I
II
1 I
I COMMERCIAL I
JJ IRRIGATION
I
I BUILDINGS I
II
I I
1 I
Suc.FIT
II
I NOT NEEDED
LOCAL. I
JI TERRACES
I
ROADS AND
AND
J STREETS i
( 1
II DIVERSIONS
11
1
1 I
LAWNS. I
$RNCRfi - bgouGFlTy
11
I •nR006VVVY
(LANDSCAPING I
II GRASSED
I
I AND GOLF J
II WATERWAYS
I I
1 FAIRWAYS J
11
RE ALLb PRETATIQNS
1
1.76

------------
----------- j
-
-lid
I �
a
--i
------------
I
�a�
I
— —�
V
W
pp2
Z
r
Z
Z
------------
_
--------------
--
----------
g�
H
--------------
I
--
-----------
0
--------------
1 r
<nj
-
C
um
o
m
Ion
__
______________
p i Y
1
g
a
0 r
W
la
r
o
u
1 1
IL
_______________.r__y
a�
-----------
ff�
ul1yyy<
J >
o¢j
1;a
IL z
iz
I
d
M `
e
Q
p�(
C Y
r
IL

b U I L I- 1 G .. Y .. c 1 w 1 ♦ u". n
0
TOMOTLEY FINE SANDY LOAM
Y-71
1—_--__---_.�_—__----__—
_—FSIIbATED SOIL-EB�ERTIES ____—_---.�—_
—
1
IDEPTHI I
I
I
IFRACIIPERCE14T OF MATERIAL
LESS ILI9UID
IPLAS- I
IIIN.)I USDA TEXTURE
I
UNIFIED I
AASHTO
1>3 INI-IIJAN 3- PASSjNG SIEVE
NOL I LIMIT
ITICITYI
1_—L---___ _____-1
1
I tPCTI l 4-1 10 11-40
1 200 1
IINDEX I
I 0-131FSL
ISM. SM-SC IA-2.
A-4
1 0 196-100 95-100 75-98
25-50 1 <30
INP-7 I
113-44IFSL. SCL. CL
ISM -SC.
SC. CL-ML. CLIA-2.
A -A. A-6
1 0 198-100 95-100 75-98
30-70 120-40
1 6-18 I
1 N-591FSL. SCL. SC
ISM -SC.
SC. CL-ML. CLIA-6.
A-6. A-7
1 0 198-100 95-100 75-98
36-75 1 20-45
1 6-22 I
159-80IFSL. LFS
ISM -SC.
SM IA-2.
A-♦
1 0 198-100 95-100 75-98
15-50 1 <30
IMP-7 I
IDEPTHICLAY 1140IST BULKI PERMEA- I AVAILABLE I 5O1L I SALINITY I SHRINK- IEROSIONIVtNO JORGANICI CORROSIVITY i
I(1N.)I(PCT I DENSITY I BILITY IWATER- CAPACITY I REACT IONI(MMHOS/CMII SMELL If ACTORSI ERGO. I MATTER I __ 1
II&ZMI IG/CM3) 1-LlNzgj- I (IN/IN)--1—IPH) 1 IP13TENTIALI K 1 T Ifi4OUPI tPCTI 1 STEEL ICONCRETE I
1 0-131-I�Af'1 1 2.0-6.0 1 0.10-0.15 13.6-5.5 1 - I LOW 1.171 5 1 - 1 1 HIGH I HIGH i
113-44IjO-3i1 1 0.6-2.0 10.12-0.18 13.6-5.5 1 - I LOW 1.201 1 1 1
144-591141-KO1 1 0.2-2.0 1 0.12-0.18 13.6-6.0 1 - I LOU 1.201-1 1 1
15s-Bol <x0 I I -A.0-6.0 1 0.08-0.12 13.6-6.0 1 - I LOW 1.201
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I FLOODING (�— HIGH WATER TABLE 1 CEMENTED PAN 1-�EDROCX j�U®SjDEN[! 1HYDIPOTENT-4.I
I_ I DEPTH I KIND IMONTHS IDEPTHIHARONESSIDEPTH IHARDNESSIINIT.ITOTALIGRPI FROST I
1—FUQJJENCY—_—DURATION __JjMTHS I tFI) 1 I_ I IINI 1 ( IINI I 11IN1 11INI 1 1 ACTICH
1 RARE - 1 __J__QH.DIAPPARENTIDEC-MART - I I j60 1 I- 1 IB/DI -
SANITARY FACILITIES —__— CCMSipU[T IOW WTYajAL
I i SEVERE -WETNESS. I I I POOR-WETNESS)I.OV) S•TAEpIGTtI I
(SEPTIC TANK I
1 ABSORPTION ( II ROADFIIl I I
1 FIELDS I II 1 I
J
1 SEWAGE
J SEVERE -WETNESS
I
II
II
I IMPROSAILE- EXCESS FINES I
I 1
1 LAGCCN
I
II SAND
I I
AREAS
I
11
I
I SEVERE -WETNESS
tzlJEb
I SANITARY
I -
i i
iIMPROBAeI[-�XCE35
J LANDFILL
I
II GRAVEL
( I
I (TRENCH)
I
II
I 1
SEVERE=WETNESS
Ii
I POOR -WETNESS `1
1 SANITARY
(
II
I
-1 LANDFILL
I
II TOPSOIL
I
I (AREA)
I
11
i 1
.)
—
1 PCOR-WETNESS
1i
J DAILY
I
I I—
_ rATER YAWL NT
-J
I COVER FOR
I
II
( MODERATE -SEEPAGE
I LANDFILL
I
JI POND
I 1
RESERVOIR
I
1I AREA
1
SUILDIHG�IIE QEYELQIMENX__ --
j(
---`
i
n
I - - I
SEVERE -WETNESS
11 1 $EVERT-WC'NE1j - I
I SHALLOW I
((EMBANKMENTS I I
1EXCAVATIONS 1
11 DIKES AND I I
LEVEES
I (
SEVERE-WETNESS.FLOODS
II ( SLIGHT I
I DWELLINGS I
II EXCAVATED I I
I WITHOUT I
II PONDS I I
I BASEMENTS I
I I 1
IIAOUIFER FED I
1 1' - I
I I
SEVISRE-METNESS.FL000S
.1
11 1 FAVORABLE - I
I DWELLINGS 1
11 1 I
I .WITH I
- II DRAINAGE I I
I BASEMENTS 1
I 1
II I I
1 1 1
I I
SEVERE- WETNESS. FLOODS
II I WETNESS - I
SMALL I
II I I
I COMMERCIAL 1
11 IRRIGATION I I
I BUILDINGS 1
I— I—
11
it 1 I
I I
SEVERE -WETNESS A Low1sTIIRN6T1(
11 I NOT NEEDED
J LOCAL . I
II TERRACES ( I
I ROADS AND i
II AND
J STREETS I
11 DIVERSIONS ( I
1 LAWNS. I
5EVSRE-WE:T1JEsi
11 I WETNXSc
ILANDSCAPING 1
11 GRASSED I
J AND GCLF I
II WATERWAYS I
1 FAIRWAYS (
II I
—_---UfdCNAL INTEBPRETATIO"
1 I 178
1 I

TOMOTLEV FINE SANDY LUAM USDA-Sc%
RECREAIIQNAL
1 I SEVERE -WETNESS, Fl000A
MLLnorFNT
II
I SEVERE -WETNESS
1
1 I
I CAMP AREAS t
II t
((PLAYGROUNDS I
I
I I SEVERE-99INESS
11
( SEVERE -WETNESS
1
I I
II PATMS
I
I
1PICNIC AAEA51
II AND
I
t
I I
II TRAILS
1
I
CAPABILITY AND_XLUAJ PER ACRE DF CROPS
AND PASTURE
!HIGH LEVEL MANA(.11!MENjl _
I-- I CAPA- ( CORN I SOYBEANS I OATS
1 CABBAGE I WHEAT
IBAHIAGRASS I-- I
I 1 BILITY I I
I
I I
I I
1 I- __1, tau) 1 tau)I
lBul
1 ICRATESI 1 • 11)_
1 IAURI 1
INIRRIIga&jUM_"RR,INIRR-11A3.
INIRR IIRR.
INIRR IIRR, Ii1IRR 11 g, INIRR IIRR, INIRR IIRR, 1
IXAE"hb 13W 1 I 120 J I 40 1
1 I I I 1 I
I f I t I 1 I
I I I 1 I 1 I
I 1 I 1 I I I
I I I I I I I
1 1 I I 1 I 1
I I I I 1 I I
1 I I I 1 1 I
I 1 1 I 1 I 1
1 TD 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
1 350 1 1 60 I
I I 1 1
I I I I
1 I I 1
I I I I
1 1 I I
I I I I
I I I I
1 I 1 I
I I I I
I to I I I I
1 1 1
I I I I I
1 I I I 1
1 I I I I
I 1 1 1 I
I I I 1 1
1 1 1 1 I
I I I I I
I I I I I
__UQDLAN2
AMLIAEILIjy
I I ORD I MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
1 POItyIjAL PRODucT[VIjY_J
I
I I SYM I EROSIONI EQUIP. ISEEOLINGI
I 1 HAZARD 1 LIMIT 1 MORTl Y.1
WINDTH.1 PLANT
HAZARD 1 COMPET.1
I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT J
IINDSII J
1 120 1 SLIGHT I SEVERE I SEVERE 1
I
ILOOLOLLY PINE
194 ILOBLOLLV PINE I
I ( I I I
I
I6►JAMPVff+lNtlTOAK
I. ISLASH PINE I
1 I t I I 1
1
ISYEETGUM 190
ISMEE*GUM I
I RED MAPLE
I- IAMERICAN SYCAMORE I
1 1 l 1 I I
1
I WATER OAK
I I I I 1 1
I
I yet -Law -PaPLA,E
1_ 1
1 1 1 I I 1
I
I dr.�cic6uM
1
1_ 1 1
1 1
t I I 1 I
1 I I I I I
1 I
1
1
I
t
I
1
I 1 1
I 1 I I I I
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1 I
I
I
1 1
_
_ r1LM.Mg_tWlTAj.3jljlABILITY
I
I POTENTIAL FOR 1l.ASIIAL_&LIZUTE 1_�pjt�lTIAL A! N1BILj�E,�t_I
J
IGRAIN 91GRASS 61 WILD IHAROWD ICONIFERISHRUBS IWETLAND ISHALLCVIOPENLO IMOODLD IMETLANDIRANGaD1
I
1 SEED (LEGUME I_bFRB• 1 TRFFR (PLANTS 1 IPL_NT! 1 SMtR IMILDLE IMII nL R_IM l E 1WILLR I
I
I PAIR I PAIR I FAIR I GOOD, I GOOD I - I GOOD I GOOD I FAIR I GOOD I GOOD
I
1 I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1
(
I
I
1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1
I I 1 I I I I 1
I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1
NATIVE PLANT COMMWaTY (RANGEL/NO OR FamPT ukoffaslany VreRTAT ON)
_POTENTIAL
I PLANT 1-_� PERCENT GE COMPOSITION /D9Y-yjjLtlTf I
I COMMON PLANT
NAME 13YMBOL I I I 1 1 1
1 INLlPNI
II sw7rcHC�A/E
I ARrE* t I I 1 I
I: RFb ally
1 pEda 1 1 1 I I
1, FAMMeBUSM i-YdYL*'
I LYLa9 1 I 1 I I 1
SWLtTSAY
I MA✓Ii. 1 I t 1 I 1
GfMNBiiEtt
I SMSLA21 I I 1 I
. SWEET PEPPLRBglH
I cl_AL2 I I 1
I. BIT)'ER GA11BEARY
1
I TL6L 1
1 SWEET 6ALLBiRRY
I hc.0 I I t
WA><MVRTt_E
MVCE
aLuearpxv
I VAta:>: 1 1 I 1 I
1 )'1oNlsvtuaKtE'
I IANLc. I I. I I 1
I
I I 1 I 1 1
L I 1 I 1 I
POTENTIAL PRODUCTION ILOS./AC. ORY OTIS I I
-
FAVORABLE YEARS 1 I I I 1 I
I
NOFMAL YEARS ( I ( I I I
I
UNFAVORABLE YEARS_
FCOTNOTES .
79

i0NDO rime 1". 0 TO I PERCtNT SLOPES K-7q
WANDO-URBAI(*AND comPL6A,oT• 6 PPAGENT 51-00, wAHVo PART
MINAIED SOIL PROPENT IES —+ --- ---_r -I
IDEPTHI - I _ — I IFRACTIPERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS ILIDUID IPLAS- I
I(IN.II 0650A TEXTI.RE I UNIFIED I AASHTO 1>3 1NI-THAN 3- PASSjl((1_SIEYE NO, I LIMIT ITICITYI
4 1_10 1 40 1 200 1 I1NDEX I
10-51IFS ISP-SM. 3M IA-2. A-3 - 1 0 196-100 95-100 60-SE 5-25 - 1 NP 1
I51-72IS. FS ISP. SP-SM. SN IA-2. A-7 1 0 195-100 96-100 51-94 2-20 - 1 NP I
IDEPTHICLAY IMOIST BULKI PERMEA- I AVAILABLE I SOIL I SALINITY I SHRINK- IERCSIONIWIND ICRGANICI CORRo31VITY I
I(IN.)I(PCT I DENSITY I BILITY 11NATER CAPACITYIREACTIONIIMMMOSICMII SWELL IPACTORSIERCD.IMATTER I 1
1 1<2MnJ_IGI M31 L (IN/HRI JL (Itjll N) I IF, I I IPOTENTIALI_&1 T IGROUPI (PCT)ONC9ETEI
1 0-511 l 1 6.0-20 1 0.05--0.0e 15.6-7.3 1 (VERY LOW 1.101 s 1(MODERATE(
151-721 I 1 6.0-20 1 0.03-0.07 15.6-7.3 1 - IWERY LOW 1.101 1 I I
1 1 I I 1
I FLOODING INIGH WATER TABLE —I. CEMENTED Peh_L -BEDROCK ISUBSIDENCE IHYDIPOTENTILI
I —1 DEPTH I KIND IMONTHS IDEPTHIHARDNESSIDEPTH IHARDMESSIINIT.ITOTALI4RPI FROST I
I— FREQUENCY_ I URATION IMONTHL--jE I11 1 [IN) I 1[IN) 1(IN1 1 1 ACLOM I
I NONE A I - 1
TART FACILITIES
1 I SEVERE- POOR FIITYA 11 I GOOD I
ISEPTIC TANK I
I ABSORPTION I II ROADFILL- I 1
1 FIELDS 1 II I 1
I I SEVERE -SEEPAGE ii i PR64A,BLE
I SEWAGE I
1 LAGCCN I II SAND I
1 AREAS I 11 1 I
I I SEVERE-5EEPAGE.TOO SANDY 11 1 IMPR0lAE16--i&- _5ANDY
I SANITARY
I LANDFILL I II GRAVEL I 'j
1 (TRENCH( I II 1 I
I I SEVERE -SEEPAGE
11 1
POOR -TOO SANDY �)♦
I SANITARY 1
1I I
I LANDFILL 1
11 TOPSOIL I
(AREA) 1
II I
1
1 1 POCR-SEEPAGE.TOO SANDY
II
I DAILY I
li —
WATER rArA6FOUNT
1 COVER FOR 1
II I
SEVERE -SEEPAGE I
I LANDFILL I
If POND I
I
---I I RESERVOIR 1
II AREA I
I
_ _ BIIILQ Idfj $jTE DEVElOP11E�-_—_
1 1 _ 1
j
I I SEVERE-CUTBANKS CAVE
11 I
SEVERE-SEEPA4E.PIPING j
I SHALLCW I
IIENUANKMENTS I
I
IEXCAVATIONS I
- II DIKES AND I
I
11 LEVEES 1
I I SLIGHT
11 I
SEVERE -no WATER i
DWELLINGS •i
II EXCAVATED I
I
WITHOUT I
II PONDS I
1
IBASEMENTS I
IIAOUIFER FED I
1 I SLIGHT
11 I
NOT NEEDED
DWELLINGS (
II
I WITH 1
11 DRAINAGE I
1
BASEMENTS 1
I1 I
t
I I SLIGMI
II I
DROUGNTY.FAST INTAKE. SLOPE 1
I SMALL
COMMERCIAL 1
II IRRIGATION (
I
1 BUILDINGS i
II I
I
1 I SLIGHT
1 ( 1
I00 SANDY
1 LOCAL I
II TERRACES I
i
1 ROADS AND (
11 AND
1 STREETS I
II DIVERSIONS i
I
I LAWNS. 1 M0014ATI - 040U4NTY , Too SANDY
) i I
pRa+4NTY I
ILANDSCAPING I
11 GRASSED I
1
i AND GOLF 1
If WATERWAYS I
1
j FAIRWAYS I
I1 1
1
_-EZQIC IAL INTERPRE1e1"B L-..--_.��..-, p
1 1

USOA-SCS
_-BUREATIOHAL_Q__
I SIVg1E-700 SANDY I I ! SEVERf- TOO SANDY f
I 1 II 1
1 CAMP AREAS ( 11PLAYGROUNDS I I
I I II I
1 I Stvegj -100 SANDY I ( 1 S!V[RE -Tao SANDY I
11 PATHS
IPICNIC AREASI II AND
1 I II TRAILS 1 I
CAPABILITY AND VIELDS PER ACRE 7F CROPS, AND PASTURE_-"IGM LUEL MANAGEMFNTI
I I CAPA- I CORN I SCYBEANS I 1 1 I IMPROVED I I
I I BILITY 1 I I I I ISERMUDAGR. I I
I-=--- I /BUl j— caul 1 _1 _� _ 1 (AUK) 1 I
IINI RlIRRajajW_jIRR, INIRR IIRR, INIRR IIRR. INIRR IIRR, INIRR IIRR, INIRR IIRR. INIRR IIRR. I
I 13S I I ss I 1 20 I I I I 1 I I l a l I I 1
1 I t I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I
1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I
1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1
1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1
I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I
1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 ( I I I
I 1 I t I I I I 1 I I 1 t t I I I 1
I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I
ii
�QQ�[IQ_�ITA6ILf7Y _ '
1. I ORO 1 MANAGEMENTPRQB EMS I Tn ENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY I 1
I SYM 1'.EROSIONI EQUIP. ISEEDLINGI MINOTH.1 PLANT I COMMON TREES ISITEI TREES TO PLANT I
1- I HAZARD I LIMIT I bQB1!.X.l NA2ARD I Cn_Mes_►_-_1 IINDXI 1
13S I SLIGHT IMODERATEIMOOERATEI I ILONGLEAF PINE 170 IL09LOLLY PINE 1
1 t t ( I I I ILOBLOLLV PINE ISO ILONGLEAF PINE 1
1 I I 1 1 I I I I ISLASH PINE t
1 I 1 I 1 1 I 15avrN"W AO OAK I I I
I I 1 I I 1 I &AVA" OAK i
I 1 I I I I I. 11sVJE OAIc
I I 1 1 I I I I I
1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 i
1 11 1 1 11 1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 !
--l�llIQ08EAlS5_ v
1 — 1 SPECIES IHTI SPECIES IffI —jQjt IES IHTI SPECK INTI
I 1 NONE I I 1 t t l 1 1
1 I I 1 I 1
YILDLIFE HABITAT SUITABILITY I__POTENTIAL FOR HANITAT ELEMENTS _ l POTEN7I AL Al HAe1TAT Fowl 1
I IGRAIN CIGRASS tl MILD INARDMO ICONIFER13HRUSS IMETLANDISHALLOMIOPENLD ISOOOLD IMETLANDIRANOEL.DI
I - 1 SEED ILEGU(g1 bgRAA 1 7REE5 IPLANTS 1_ IPLANTS_I YATr,O MILDLF,_1NILOLF_1N LDLF IMILDLF 1
I I POOR 1 POo)t I FAIR I POOR I FAIR 1 - IV. POORIV. PCORI POOR I FAIR IV. PCORI - 1
1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 1
1 1 I I I I I I I I I I
1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I
OCTENTIAL NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY.cRANGELANO OR FOREST UNDENSTneV VEesTATIO 1
COMMON PLANT NAME
I wrRaGR.tss
1 SAssAt'RAS
t �jeu1(wee0
I AmeA;ZGxN ,SBAVTY�ERRr
1 SLACK39tCK OAK
I.JAl4kF-Y 0Alc
1 FLewCRiN4 p.cwaee
� PI[R�MMoh
PLANT
SYMBOL
Alin
SAAI.S
OxAR
C.44im
PUMAS
Ge'F4Z
bsv25
1 POTENTIAL PRODUCTICN (LBS./AC. ORY MR)i
1 FAVORABLE YEARS I I I I I I
1 NORMAL YEARS I ( I I I I
— UNEAVORABLI: -MRS
FCCTNOTES
I RAPID PERMEABILITY MAY CAUSE POLLUTION OF GROUND HATER.
81

Description of Land Classification System
The land classification system for the coastal area and Morehead
City consists of five classes listed as follows:
(1) Developed
(A) Purpose: The purpose of the developed class is to provide
for continued intensive development and redevelopment of
existing cities.
(B) Description. Areas to be classified developed include
lands currently developed for urban purposes at or approach-
ing a density of 500 dwellings per square mile that are
provided with usual municipal or public services including
at least public water, sewer, recreational facilities,
police and fire protection. Areas which exceed the minim-
um density but which do not have public sewer service may
best be divided into a separate class to indicate that
although they have a developed character, they will need
sewers in the future.
(2) Transition
(A) Purpose. The purpose of the transition class is to provide
for future intensive urban development within the ensuing
ten years on lands that are most suitable and that will be
scheduled for provision of necessary public utilities and
services. The transition lands.also provide for additional
growth when additional lands in the developed class are not
available or when they are severly limited for development.
(B) Description.
(i) Lands to be classified transition may include: (1)
lands currently having urban services, and (2) other
land necessary to accomodate the urban population and
economic growth anticipated within the planning
jurisdiction over the ensuing ten year period.
(ii) Lands classified transition to help meet the demand for
developable anticipated population and economic growth
must: (1) be served or be readily served by public water,
sewer, and other urban services including public streets,
and (2) be generally free of,severe physical limitations
for urban development. In addition, the Transition class
should not include: (1) lands of high potential for
agriculture, forestry, or mineral extraction, or land
falling within extensive rural areas being managed com-
mercially for these uses, when other lands are available;
(2) lands where urban development might result in major
or irreversible damage to important environmental
scientific, or scenic values or (3) land where urban
development might result in damage to natural systems or
processes of more than local concern. Lands where develop-
ment will result in undue risk to life or property from
natural hazards (including inlet hazard areas and ocean
erodible areas as defined in 15 NCAC 7H.) or existing land
uses shall not be classified Transition.
56

(iii) If any designated area of environmental concern is
classified transition, an explanation shall be included
stating why the area is felt to be appropriate for high
density development.
(iv) In determining the amount of additional transition lands +
necessary to meet projected urban population and economic
growth, the county may utilize estimates of`average future
urban population density that are based upon local land "
policy, existing patterns and trends of urban development
within the county, and densities specified in focal
zoning, if any; and estimate of additional Transition
class lands should be based upon a guideline density of
2,000 persons or 500 dwellings per square mile.
(3) Community
(A) Purpose. The purpose of the community class is to provide
for clustered land development to help meet housing, shopping,
employment, and public service needs within the rural areas
of the county.
(B) Description. Lands to be classified community are those"
areas within the rural areas of planning jursidictions
characterized by a small grouping of mixed land uses,
(residences, general store, church, school, etc.), and which
are suitable and appropriate for small clusters of rural
development not requiring municipal sewer service.
(4) Rural
(A) Purpose. The purpose of the rural class is to provide for
agriculture, forest management, mineral extraction and other
low intensity uses. Residences may be located within "rural" -
areas where urban services are not required and where natural
.resources will not be permanently impaired.
(B) Description. Lands that can be identified as appropriate for
resource management and allied uses include lands with high
potential for agriculture, forestry, or mineral extraction;
lands with one or more limitations that would make development
costly and hazardous; and lands containing irreplaceable;
limited, or significant natural, recreational, or scenic
resources not otherwise classified.
(5) Conservation
(A) Purpose. The purpose of the conservation class is to provide
for effective long-term management of significant limited or
irreplaceable areas. This management may be needed because of
its natural,'cultural, recreational, productive or scenic values.
These areas should not be identified as transition lands in the
future.
WA

(B) Description.. The conservation class should be applied
to lands that contain: -major wetlands; essentially
undeveloped shorelands that are unique, fragile, or hazardous
for development; necessary wildlife habitat or areas that
have a high probability for providing necessary habitat
conditions; publicly owned watersupply watersheds and
aquifers; and forest lands that are undeveloped and will re-
main undeveloped for commercial purposes.
y
Morehead City's Land Classification
Morehead City's Land Classification has taken into account the needs
of Carteret County as well as Morehead City, and is consistent with the
county's classification. A reference to the Land Classification Map will
familiarize the reader to the four different classifications existing in the
planning area.
Developed - the area within the city limits of Morehead City has-been
classified as developed since water and sewer services are provided through-
out the town. An estimated populational increase of 450 people is expected
to occur in the developed area of Morehead City within the next ten
years.
Transitional - Most of the area north and west of Morehead City in the.
one mile planning area has been classified as transition. It has been
determined that this area will most likely receive water and sewer services
and will continue its, moderate density subdivision growth in the next ten
years.
From 1976 thru 1979 there were 237 building permits issued for housing
and mobile homes in the transitional area of the one mile planning juris-
diction. Total residential building permits in this area during this
period was 237. 'When this figure is'multiplied times 2.9 (estimated no.
of people per household) the increase in population would equal 687.
M*1

From 1976 thru 1979 there were a total of 237 building permits
issued for housing and mobile homes in the transitional area of the one
mile planning jurisdiction. Total residential building permits in this
area during this period was 237. When this figure is;multiplied times
2.9 (estimated no. of people per household) the increase in population
would equal 687. This figure broken down to a one year average of 171.75
multiplied by 10, projects a ten year increase of 1,718, or 282 less
than the land use plan increase of 2000 people.
Indications are that the transitional area will adequately handle
the rate of growth for the next ten year period. Additionally water and
sewer services will still be extended into this area although the 201 plan
has been slow to gain approval.
Conservation - The conservation classification identifies land which should
be maintained essentially in its natural state, and where very limited or
no public services are provided. In Morehead City these include.wetlands,
estuarine erosion areas, and floodways as indicated on the Land Classification
Map.
The importance of these areas have been discussed in the Constraints
Section of this plan. Basically, improper development in these areas will
cause undesirable effects. It should be noted that by classifying these
areas Conservation, Morehead City is not indicating development should not
occur in these areas. This classification indicates these.areas are
important to the town, and if development occurs it should consider the
effect the development will have on the objectives for local planning, and
the effect these areas may have on the development. Careful consideration
of appropriate development in these areas has already begun.
59

It should be noted that since the conservation class covers
all sound islands there is a recommended location for dredge spoil
to go. Spoil should be located northeast of the highrise bridge
on N.C. State Ports Authority property and on the island at the
mouth of Calico Creek as described by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and labeled Disposal Area.
Rural - The areas classified as rural are the areas in the one mile
planning area which are not classified developed, transition, or
conservation. These areas are generally along the one mile line
where no subdivisions have begun. (See Land Classification Map).
It is anticipated that these lands will basically remain farmland
and will not require water and sewer. An insignificant population
growth will occur in this area.
60