Land Use Plan Update-1988

PROPERTY OF
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
LAND USE PLAN
UPDATE
Local Public Hearing: Sept. 8, 1987
Washington Co. Commissioners Adoption:
Sept. 23, 1987
CRC Certification: July 29, 1988

WASHINGTON COUNTY LAND USE PLAN - UPDATE
1985
PREPARED FOR: WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ADDRESS
WASHINGTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE
P. 0. BOX 1007
PLYMOUTH, NORTH CAROLINA 27962
PREPARED BY: WASHINGTON COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE
The preparation of this report was financed
in part through a grant provided by the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program
through funds provided by the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended, which
is administered by the Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.

WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LAND USE PLAN: 1985 UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION I: Analysis of Existing Conditions
A.
Introduction
1
B.
Present Population and Economy
2
1. Future Population and Economy
3
2. Seasonal Population
13
3. Economy
15
4. Agriculture
18
5. Water Resources
23
C.
Existing Land Use
25
1. Compatibility Problems
25
2. Major Problems from Unplanned Development and
Their Implications For The Future
27
3. Areas of Actual or Possible Change in Predominant
Land Use
30
D.
Washington County.Plans, Policies & Regulations
32
1. Regulations
32
2. Plans and Policies
32
3. Effectiveness
32
E.
Federal Licenses and Permits
36
F.
State Licenses and Permits
39
G.
Land Suitability
40
1. Physical Limitation(s) for Development
40
2. Hazard Areas
41
3. Manmade Hazards
46
4. Areas with Soil Limitations and Other Constraints
to Development
48
5. Foundations
48
6. General Soil Characteristics
51
7. Water Supply
57
8. Surface,Water Quality
60
9. Air Resources
61
H.
Fragile Areas
69
1. Public Trust
69
2. Estuarine Waters
72
3. Coastal Wetlands
73
I.
Areas With Resource Potential
77
1. Forest Land
77
2. Agriculture
77
3. Natural Habitat
79
4. Mineral Deposits
81
5. Peat Resources
83
6. Recreation Resources
85
7. Freshwater Swamp
88
J.
Publically Owned Parks -Fish and Game Land
90
1. Federal Holdings
90
2. State Holdings
90
K.
Community Facilities
91
1. Solid Waste
91
2. Central Water. Services
93

PAGE
3. Roads and Highways
4. Public Schools
L. Community Facilities Demand
1. Central Water Services
2. Sanitary Sewer
3. Public Safety
4. Public Schools
M. Constraints to Development
1. Cultural and Historic Resources
2. Historic Structures
3. Unplanned.Development Problems
4. Projected Changes in Land Use
SECTION II: ISSUES, POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. Citizen Participation
B. Storm Hazard Mitigation, Post Disaster Recovery,
and Evacuation Plans
1. Storm Hazard Mitigation
2. High Winds
3. Floodings
4. Wave Action
5. Erosion
6. Summary- Storm Hazard Mitigation Consideration
C. Policy.Statements: Storm Hazard Mitigation
1. High Winds
2. Floodings
3. Wave Action and Shoreline Erosion
D. Implementation: Storm Hazard Mitigation
1. Development Moratoria
2. Post Disaster Reconstruction Plan
3. Hurricane Evacuation Plan
4. Re-entry
E. General Policy on Growth
F. Coordination
G. Statewide Coastal Issues
H. Water Supply, Stormwater, and Agricultural
Runoff Issues
I. Peat Resource
J. Wastewater Problem
K. Resource Production and Management Policies
L. Economic and Community Development
M. Energy Facilities
N. State Guidelines For Areas of Environmental Concern
SECTION III: LAND CLASSIFICATION
A. Developed
B. Transition
C. Rural
D. Conservation
E. Local Approach to Land Class
96
98
99
99
99
100
101
102
102
103
110
110
113 .
116
116
11.7
117
117
118
118
120
120
120
120
120
121
122
125
128
129
131
132
133
137
139
140
142
145
146
147
147
149
149
151

PAGE
SECTION IV: REVIEW OF RECENT CHANGES IN THE MUNICIPALITIES
OF ROPER AND CRESWELL
A. Roper 178
B. Creswell 180

WASHINGTON COUNTY
LAND USE PLAN: 1985 UPDATE
LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS
FIGURE NUMBERS
PAGE
1.
Percentage of Population By Township and Municipality
6
2.
Age Distribution
9
3.
Comparison of Population Trends In Surrounding Counties
10
4.
Summary of Population Trends By County Townships
11
5.
Population Projections
12
6.
Employment By Industry
16
7.
Rate of Unemployment For Washington County and Other Areas
19
8.
Retail Sales
20
9.
Washington County/Acres Harvested
21
10.
Crop Utilization
22
11.
Soil Types and Limitations
49
12.
Block Diagram Showing The Relative Position and
59
Generalized Composition of the Uppermost Geologic
Units underlying the Albemarle -Pamlico Region
13.
Class Designations for Water Quality Standards
63
14.
Stream Classifications
66
15.
Summary of Water Demands
94
16.
Citizen Participation Plan/Land Use Plan Update
114
17.
An Inventory and Analysis of Land and Structures
127
at Rest Along the 28 Miles of Shoreline and the
Hazard Areas of Washington County
MAPS
1.
Major Area Employers
17
2.
Shoreline Erosion
45
3.
General Soils Map
50
4.
Location and Size of Main Water Lines
57A
5.
Pettigrew Park - Lake Phelps
76
6.
Timber Tracts
78
7.
Dumpster Sites
92
8.
Areas of Environmental Concern
123
9.
Flood Prone Areas
124
10.
Shelters and Evacuation Routes
126
11.
Land Classification Map
Attached

INTRODUCTION
Washington County, located on the Roanoke River and Albemarle Sound,
is a rural area primarily dependent on agriculture and the manufacturing
of wood products for its livelihood. This County is one of the official
"coastal counties" least affected by marine influences. When compared
with Outer Banks counties such as Dare and Currituck, striking a "planning
horizon" of 10 years has been used.
Although Washington County is a small, rural county with very limited
revenues, it has been a leader in the northeastern portion of the State
in the general field of developmental controls. Presently, we are one
of the few northeastern counties with an "in-house Planning staff.
Further, a Subdivision Regulations Ordinance, Mobile Home Park Ordinance,
Comprehensive Building Code Program, and Coastal -Minor Development
Permit Officer are in place.
However, over the last several years, Washington County has also
built an extensive but modestly financed economic development program.
Local elected officials have repeatedly stated that developmental
regulations should not stop industrial and commercial growth but should
influence the quality of location planning, and construction. Also,
there is an ongoing program to clarify and simplify developmental
regulations. Additionally, we recognize the statutory requirements to
adopt and update a County Land Use Plan. More importantly, we are
convinced that from a basic community planning (Throughout this document
the term "community planning" will be given roughly the same meaning
that the term "city and regional plan" has been given in city planning
literature) prespective, the Land Use Plan should be the sturdy
foundation upon which developmental regulations, and economic growth
policies are built. •-
1

PRESENT POPULATION AND ECONOMY
The 1980 decennial census population listed the official total
population of Washington County at 14,801. This compares with a
1970 official population of 14,038. The 1980 population figure is
the most current benchmark in a long term trend of slow but steady
population growth in Washington County. This county has not experienced
the recent increases in the rate of growth experienced by many of the
coastal counties. Conversely, Washington County did not suffer from
dramatic population losses like many of the eastern counties experienced
in the 1940's and 1950's. It is our position that the lack of
substantial population growth since 1960 [1960 official total - 13,4881
has been caused by a slow rate of industrial growth. During the 1940's
and 1950's substantial industrial growth did occur in Washington County
However, this industrial growth was partially offset by the reduced
demand for agricultural semi -skilled and unskilled labor. All across
North Carolina the decades of the 40's and 50's were characterized by
rapid mechanization of the agricultural industry.
If we carry our analysis one step further, the primary reason for
the lack of substantial industrial growth has probably been the
relatively poor highway system. We fully acknowledge that from an
agricultural and residential standpoint, local roads have been im-
proved dramatically. However, from a regional perspective, the lack
of four lane highways and limited access features have severely limited
industrial growth. Of course there are other causal factors such
as labor force characteristics and public schools capital facilities.
From a demographic standpoint, in recent years a relatively high
rate of natural increase has prevented actual reductions in population.
2

FUTURE POPULATION AND ECONOMY
Before proceeding to offer our official population projections
some discussion of the nature of population projections is in order.
We remain aware of the importance of population and economic forecasting
but we must also remain aware of the difficulties associated with such
a process. This sort of forecasting is difficult for all local govern-
mental units but it is even more difficultand subject to inaccuracies
in the smaller communities. In small corrmunities population projections
are even more difficult to make confidently due to the lack of a sub-
stantial base number with which to work. To illustrate this point,
if a new manufacturing industry with a workforce of 200 causes a pop-
ulation increase of 350 this one new plant location could alter the
total county population by 2.4%. If the same new plant location was
to occur in Wake County, the change would hardly be noticeable (Draft
Land Use Element, Town of Richlands, Jack Di Sarno, June 1980, Pages
36 and 37.)
The official population estimate provided by the North Carolina
Department of Administration for 1995 is 16,504. This would represent
an increase of 1,703 people or 11.5% over the 1980 Census figure.
The next Land Use Plan update presumablely will be due in July of 1990.
The Department of Administration's population projection for July of
1990 is 16,019. The projection by the Department of Administration
for July of 1985 is 15,433. Throughout this analysis, we will use
an average household size of 3.1. This average household size has
been derived from the 1980 Census. If we combined the average household
size with the projected increase in population of 1,703, we would pro-
3

ject an increase of approximately 550 households through the 10 year
planning horizon. If we were then to assume that all of the 550
families would live in subdivisions (and certainly they would not)
then we would expect to see approximately 225 acres of land converted
to residential development. We arrive at this estimate by assuming
a residential lot size of 20,000 square feet and the expression of
converted acreage,is based on a "Florida Acre." A Florida acre equals
401000 square feet. A substantial portion of the new housing starts
now and in the future are mobile home units. Although we normally
think of mobile home building sites as being much smaller than "stick
built" sites, in Washington County, the average mobile home building
site located outside of a mobile home park is running approximately
30,000 square feet. In the last four and a half years, there has been
only one platted mobile home park and this one was only 10 units.
Hence, our average residential lot size of 20,000 square feet is actually
a very conservative estimate. Without a Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision
Ordinance then becomes the major density controlling device.
We can expect to see development, especially residential develop-
ment to continue to occur along road frontage. This is partially the
result of the very strict road paving requirements of the Subdivision
Regulations. We will also continue to see new mobile home building
sites be located in the more rural areas of the county in a scattered
pattern. This is partially because of the zoning restrictions on
mobile homes in Plymouth and Roper.
I

Between 1975 and 1980 there were 2404 outmigrants and only 1682 inmigrants
for a net migration of -722. (1980-Census- -
and Populat-ion- -
- Suleme-n-t-ary
- -------------------------------pp -----
Re p_rt: "Gross Migration for Counties 1975 - 1980, Pg. 201).
--o--------------------------------
The largest single age group in terms of net outmigration was the
20 year old to 24 year old grouping with a new migration of minus 197.
This datum appears to confirm the lack of industrial growth referred to
above.
From a regional perspective, Washington County shares borders with
six other counties - Martin, Bertie, Tyrrell, Hyde, Chowan and Beaufort.
From 1970 to 1980 the average population growth for the surrounding
six counties was +7.7%. For the same period, Washington County's
population was only 5.4%. Again, looking at the surrounding six
counties, if we throw out the high (Chowan County +16.7%) and the
low (Bertie County +2.4%) we still have an average rate of growth of
6.7% for the ten year period.
_ Within the geographic confines of Washington County the population
movements are extremely nominal. In 1970, Lees Mill Township contained
24% of the total county population and in 1980 it still contained
24%. For the same period, Plymouth Township declined from 54% to 53%.
Scuppernong declined from 12% to 10% and Skinnersville Township increased
from 10% in 1970 to 13% in 1980.
There are three municipalities in Washington County. Plymouth
located at the western end of the county is the county seat and as of
1980 contained 31% of the total county population. The corresponding
figure for 1970 was 34%. See Figure 1. Roper located in central
Washington County experienced an increase in population from 649 in 1970
to 795 in 1980. Its percentage of the total county population remains
relatively unchanged at 5%. The municipality of Creswell actually declined in
5

FIGURE l
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION BY TOWNSHIP
AND MUNICIPALITY
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
1970
OF COUNTY
1980
OF COUNTY
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
POPULATION
Washington County
14,038
14,801
Lees Mill Twsp.
3,407
24%
3,589
24%
Roper
649
5%
795
5%
Plymouth Twsp.
7,512
54%
7,789
53%
Plymouth
4,774
34%
4,571
31%
Scuppernong Twsp.
1,733
12`.K
1,540
10%
Creswell
633
5%
426
3%
Skinnersville Twsp.
1,386
10%
1,883
- 13%
SOURCE: 1980 CENSUS
6

population according to the official census totals from 633 in 1.970
to 426 in 1970. As we might expect, the percentage of the total
county population residing in Creswell declined from approximately
5% in 1970 to approximately 3% in 1980. In the area of social
characteristics, in 1970, white persons made up 58.5% of the population
compared with 56.4% in 1980. Likewise, nonwhites constitutes41.5% of
the total county population in 1970 compared with 43.6% in 1980..
Although the' nonwhite category includes five ethnic classifications
the predominant classification is black. In 1980 the census reported
6410 in the black ethnic category in Washington County. The next
largest subgroup within the nonwhite category was Korean with 21
individuals. The largest subgroup under the caucasian category
is mexican with 78 persons. Finally, the distribution of the
Washington County population by age changed markedly between 1970
and 1980. See Figure 2 In all the age groupings, 19 years of
age and under there are small decreases. In the age groupings from
20 years of age to 44 years of age there had been moderate increases.
In the age groupings from 55 years old to 65 years of age and over
dramatic increases from 1970 to 1980 have occurred. For example,
in 1970 there were only 420 individuals in the 65 and over grouping
while the 1980 census showed 1529. The two most obvious implications
for this data are that we could see a slow but steady growth in public
school enrollment should the trends of the past continue on into the
future. However the most striking implication is that Washington
County should plan for changes associated with a "graying" population.
Specifically, if the trend of 1970 to 1980 continues into the future
there should be increased demand for rest home and nursing home beds
and health care services.
7

Washington County presently operates one of the most extensive
Senior Citizens Programs in Northeastern North Carolina. Assuming
federal funding remains in place, the county should experience little
difficulty in adding to the number of home delivered meals for elderly
shut-ins. The Plymouth Housing Authority has a good supply of housing
units specially constructed for elderly persons located on the western
end of Water Street in Plymouth. There are some minor service delivery
impacts which a larger elderly population could affect. The Sheriff's
Department might need training to make the department somewhat more
sensitive to security needs of elderly people living alone.- This
could include crime prevention services. Another needed service is
a call -in service where a volunteer organization would be responsible
for calling each elderly person living alone in Washington County.
Without such a service, these individuals, sometimes are literally
stranded due to their isolation when an unusual problem occurs.
0

Figure 2
AGE DISTRIBUTION
1970*
1980**
Under 5
1367
1195
5 - 9
1560
1158
10 - 14
1678
1513
15 - 19
1457
1429
20 - 24
996
1297
25 - 29
849
1229
30 - 34
725
1098
35 - 44
1537
1564
45 - 54
1515
1401
55 - 59
709
769
60 - 64
529
619
65 do Over
420
1529
*1970 Census of Population, "General Population Characters - North
Carolina," Pg. 150.
**Census of Population & Housing 1980, "Summary Tape File 3A-50," Pg. 1.
�7

FIGURE 3
COMPARISON OF POPULATION TRENDS IN SURROUNDING COUNTIES
COUNTY
* l 9 6 0 PCP-
* 1970 POP.
E
01976 PCP.
T
x 1980 POP.
%CHNNZ,E
Washington
13,488
14,038
+ 4.1
14,900
6.1
14,801.
.7
Martin
27,139
24,730
- 8.9
25,200
1.9
25,948
2.9
Beaufort
36,014
35,980
- 0.1
38,800
7.8
40,355
3.9
Chowan
11,729
10,764
- 8.2
11,500
6.8
12,558
8.9
Bertie
24,350
20,528
-15.7
21,000
2.3
21,024
.1
Tyrrell
4,520
3,806
-15.8
3,800
-.15
3,975
4.4
Hyde
5,765
5,571
- 3.4
5,600
.52
5,873
4.6
SOURCE:
0Profile Department of
Administration
- Update -
1978
XUS Census
1960 - 1970
- 1980
10

FIGURE 4
SLUAARY OF POPULATION TRENDS
BY
COUNTY
TOWNSHIPS
% CHANGE
% CHANGE
% CHANGE
%CHANGE
1940
1950
FROM '40
1960
FROM '50
1970
FROM '60
1980
FROM '70
Washington County
12023
13,488
+10%
13,488
0%
14,038
+ 4%
14,801
+ 5%
Lee Mill Twsp.
3,229
3,435
+ 6%
3,444
2%
3,407
- 1%
3,589
+ 5%
Roper
716
793
+11%
771
-3%
649
-16%
795
22%
Plymouth Twsp.
5,237
6,294
+20%
6,948
+10%
7,512
+ 8%
7,789
+ 4%
Plymouth
2,461
4,486
+82%1
4,666
+ 4%
4,774
+ 2%
4,571
- 4%
Scuppernong Twsp.
2,019
2,244
+11%
1,629
-27%
1,733
+ 6%
1,540
-11%
Cherry
108
73
-32%
61
-17%
No Record
Creswell
459
425
- 7%
467
+10%
633
+26%
426
- 33%
Skinnersville Twsp.
1,838
1,207
-34%
1,467
+22%
1,386
- 5%
1,883
+ 36%
Notes: 1. 82% population increase for Plymouth from 1940 to 1950 due to annexation.
SOURCE: x U.S. Census
11

FIGURE 5
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
July
1,
1984
15,313
July
1,
1985
15,433
July
1,
1986
15,551
July
1,
1987
15,669
July
1,
1988
15,787
July
1,
1989
15,906
April
1,
1990
15,994
July
1,
1990
16,019
July
1,
1991
16,118
July
1,
1992
16,218
July
1,
1993
16,31.6
July
1,
1994
16,415
July
1,
1995
16,504*
-Official 10 Year Population Projection
SOURCE: Office .Of Budget and Management
NC Population Projections - April 1984
12

Seasonal Population
We can see that major seasonal population variations can have
intense negative and positive impacts on a corrmunity. For example,
the storage capacity for central water systems must be designed based
on seasonal population peaks . However, fixed costs such.as insurance
do not decline with water consumption. On the positive side, high
levels of tourism can produce extremely high surrmertime sales tax
collections. Seasonal populations in Washington County however, are
nominal. We can'neither validatenor refute the seasonal population
estimate and projected seasonal population contained in the 1980
Land Use Plan. (See Figure 5 of the 1980 Land Use Plan)
Since 1980, there has been no change in the number of hotel
and motel rooms. However, since 1980 there has been a very limited
number of additional overnight accommodation rooms added through the
"bed and breakfast" system. More importantly, a massive woods and
peat fire in April of 1985 resulted in the total destruction of
approximately 25 summer homes along the southern shore of Lake
Phelps. Presently, we can not determine how many of these structures
will be rebuilt with fire insurance settlements or other financing.•
13

FIGURE 5 (1980 Land Use Plan)
ESTIMATED SEASONAL POPULATION
Motel/Hotel Units 60
Campsites 20 x 4.66 persons
Vacation Cottages (1970) 100 per household
280 units
PROJECTED SEASONAL POPULATION
1. 1970 estimate of tourist population:
2. 1970 estimate of tourists, Dare County:
3. Proportion of 1970 count, Washington
County to Dare County
280
93
466
839 total
tourists at an
one time, 1970
839
23,720
1:28 or 4%
4. Tourist Forecast, Tourist Forecast, .
Dare County Washington County (1:28)
1980 35,106 1242
1990 48,481 to 70,000 1,715 to 2,476
2000 68,067 to ? 2,408 to ?
SOURCE: Dare County Data from Stephens Associates, 1974
Washington County Data, DNER estimates, 1975
From the figures shown, any estimate of tourism in Washington
County has only represented a small impact on the local economy.
A second indicator is travel spending. The higher estimates, however,
are possible if growth along the Outer Banks occurs at the rate now
experienced in areas such as Myrtle Beach, Virginia Beach or Ocean City.
14

Economy
The "Employment By Industry" Table in Figure 6 shows the change
in employment of persons 16 years of. age and older by industry by
1970 to 1980. The largest increase is in the wholesale trade industry
which increased from 95 employees in 1970 to 233 in 1980. Two closely
related groupings,"Educational Services" and "Public Administration",
also showed sizable increases. The transportation category increased
by a large percentage although the 1980 figure of 131 still accounts
for a relatively small level of jobs. The percentage increase for
transportation was 98.5% between 1970 and 1980. Only two groupings
declined. Personal entertainment and recreational services declined
from 357 in 1970 to 133 in 1980 and other professional and related
services declined from 170 in 1970 to 116 in 1980.
Economist generally group industries into three extremely broad
groupings: Agriculture, manufacturing and service industries. Basic
economic theory also argues that generally speaking, all economies
develop in a direct line from agriculture to manufacturing and then
on to service industries as they grow in size and complexity.
Many North Carolina counties such as New Hanover County and Wake
County have clearly shifted from basic manufacturing work forces
toward predominantly service industry work forces. Washington
County on the other hand, is still iri the process of shifting from
an agricultural economy to an manufacturing economy. This is
especially true if we confine our analysis to the geographic boundaries
of Washington County. Since 1980, agricultural employment has declined
due to a number of bankruptcy proceedings surrounding medium sized
and small farms and a sizable lay off at one of the county's major
corporate farms. Further, since 1980, the Plymouth Weyerhaeuser
15

FIGURE 6
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
1970*
1980**
Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries & Mining
462
557
Construction
276
285
Manufacturing
Non -durable
1225
1317
Durable
586
820
Transportation
66
131
Communication, Other Public Utilities
37
38
Wholesale Trade
95
233
Retail Trade
557
674
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
96
111
Business & Repair Services
59
65
Personal., Entertainment & Recreation Services
357
133
Professional & Related Services
115
202
Educational Services
273
512
Other Professional & Related Services
170
116
Public Administration
130
235
*1970 Census of Population "General Social & Economic Characters -
North Carolina," Pg. 425
**Census of Population & History 1980, "Summary Tape File 3A-50," Pg. 4.
16

7-
0
u
K
W
Q
D
er 1353
cools 298
mart 255
;pital 100
t. 74
)er Cn. 61
i Sup. 57
17

i
payroll has leveled off and cannot be expected to grow substantially
i
through the end of the planning horizon. Presently, Washington
County is extremely dependent on forestry and forestry related
manufacturing. The economy of Washington County is extremely monolithic.
Later in this document we will examine the need for industrial
diversification. Although, over the last twenty five years Washington
County has benefited tremendously from the growth in employment due
to the Weyerhaeuser facility Most of the capital investment has
been located just across the county line in Martin County. An extremely
slow rate of growth in capital investement in Washington County is
one of the community's most pressing economic problems. This type of
trend makes it extremely difficult for local govermental units to
finance the inflated cost of doing business and/or enhancements in
public services. In the absence of increased capital investments
the only method to finance the increased cost of doing business
or service improvements is by increasing the ad volorem property tax
rate.
Agriculture
Presently, the entire agricultural economy of the United States
is in a state of chaos due to intense political challenges to the
traditional price support system. It is too soon to tell what the
precise effect of basic policy changes by the Federal Government
will be. The inability of First Colony Farms to secure environmental
permits for two large projects has resulted in large layoffs and
serious questions about the future of First Colony Farms.
Between 1970 and 1980, the number of farms declined from 800 -
to 350. However, by 1984 the number of farms recovered back to 812.
Between 1960 and 1974, harvested acreage rose 78% reaching 76,700 acres
18

COUNTIES
Washington County
Beaufort County
Bertie County
Chowan County
Hyde County
Martin County
Tyrrell County
North Carolina
Figure 7
RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT FOR
WASHINGTON COUNTY AND OTHER AREAS
AVERAGE RATE FOR
1974-1977
6.2%
4.5%
8.0%
6.8%
7.6%
8.8%
10.0%
6.3%
AVERAGE RATE
FOR MOST RECENT YEAR
YEAR 1984
7.7%
7.5%
10.8%
5.8%
12.8%
9.8%
15.5%
6.8%
SOURCE: NC Employment Security Commission
May 1985
19
AVERAGE RATE
FOR MOST RECENT QUART
OF RECORD (19 8 5 )
6.8%
8.3%
9.4%
6.6%
16.5%
13.7%
16.7%
7.1%

Figure 8
RETAIL SALES
1976-77
1976
Retail Sales
Population
Washington Co.
$ 54,544,801
14,900
$3660.70/person
Martin Co.
93,249,272
25,200
3700.36/person
Beaufort
177,794,659
38,800
4582.33/person
Bertie
43,818,867
21,000
2086.60/person
Chowan
45,173,953
11,500
3928.16/person
Hyde
12,521,008
5,600
2235.89/person
Tyrrell Co.
9,615,670
3,800
2530.43/person
SOURCE: Washington
County Land Use Plan (1980)
1982-83
1980
Retail Sales
Population
Washington Co.
$ 63,135,051
14,801
$4265.59/person
Martin Co.
116,978,108
25,948
4508.17/person
Beaufort Co.
249,8561,730
40,355
6191.47/person
Bertie Co.
59,864,930
21,024
2847.46/person
Chowan Co.
703,885,156
12,558
5644.62/person
Hyde Co.
19,704,118
5,873
3355.03/person
Tyrrell Co.
14,122,494
3,975
3552.83/person
SOURCE: Counties of North Carolina Profile
September 1984
20

Figure 9
WASHINGTON COUNTY
ACRES HARVESTED
CROP
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
TOBACCO
620
630
590
570
400
CORN FOR GRAIN
35,650
32,300
36,300
33,600
24,500
SOYBEANS
44,650
43,600
42,500
44,300
32,000
PEANUTS
3,070
3,050
3,200
2,680
2,720
COTTON
--
--
65
81
245
SWEET POTATOES
25
25
25
--
20
IRISH POTATOES
55
45
120
60
90
WHEAT FOR GRAIN
2,430
3,540
6,450
22,000
12,100
OATS
--
--
400
400
250
BARLEY
90
100
90
600
250
SORGHUM
90
70
260
720
440
ALL HAY
+
350
350
350
300
300
CORN FOR SILAGE
200
200
350
250
200
SOURCE: North Carolina Agricultural Statistics
1979-1982 Revised and 1985
21

Figure 10
CROPLAND UTILIZATION
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
PERCENTAGE
ACREAGE OF
ACREAGE OF
ACREAGE OF
ACREAGE OF
YEAR
CORN
SOYBEANS
WHEAT
PEANUTS
1960
42
42
8
1961
34
47
9
1962
32
51
8
1963
27
56
8
1964
27
54
8
1965
29
56
3
7
1966
29
59
6
1967
31
57
6
1968
28
62
6
1969
30
59
6
1970
38
53
5
1971
43
45
5
1972
42
46
5
1973
42
49
4
1974
44
46
4
1975
45
47
4
1976
52
42
4
1977
46
47
4
1978
46
47
4
1979
46
47
4
1982
32
43
21
3
1983
27
36
13
3
SOURCE: NCDA Land Utilization Survey, Washington County
1985
22
PERCENTAGE
ACREAGE OF
OTHER
(TOBACCO)
8
10
9
9
11
5
6
6
4
5
4
7
7
5
6
3
1
10
2
2
.6
.4

in 1977. By 1984 total harvested acreage had increased further to
90,000 acres. Corn and soybeans continue to be the two most important
crops with wheat increasing in importance more than any other crop
between 1979 and 1982. Livestock continues to be an important
component of the agricultural economy. The importance of hog production
is illustrated by the very large and modern Tyson Farms hog operation
in eastern Washington County. In the last ten years, poultry production
has been growing in importance. Several local farmers have contracts
with Perdue or other poultry processers and we expect growth in this
industry to continue. The county is also attempting to recruit a
poultry processing company to build a production facility in Washington
County. According to the Agricultural Extension Service, we have
approximately 22 substantial poultry farms, the largest of which produces
400,000 chickens per year.
Water Resources
Several potential changes in the economy over the planning horizon
could impact water resources substantially. One of the most certain
changes will be dependent on future agricultural practices. Since 1981,
several major farmers have examined the feasibility and showed continued
interest in developing irrigation systems. In 1983, a 2" well with a
depth of 200' was constructed on the Small's Farm near Mackeys.
Washington County Government should informally monitor the future
practices concerning popularity of irrigation in Washington County. On
the other hand, several major farmers are installing or examining the
possibility of installing flashboard riser structures which enables
farmers to store large amounts of water during wet seasons for later
use during dry periods. This new practice should also be carefully
monitored and if it is successful, other area farmers should be
encouraged to examine this possiblity. Agricultural runoff continues
to be a water resource issue which is difficult to describe precisely.
Research is presently underway at Tidewater Research Station and by
other researches which -nay answer many of the questions surrounding
agricultural runoff. Once again this research should be closely monitored.
23

The development of the Washington County Industrial Park may also -
have a impact on water resources. Presently, the county has a tentative
commitment from an industrial prospect. This prospect plans to use
only a nominal amount of water [approximately 1500 gallons per day].
Over the next two to three years, Washington County hopes to locate
additional industries in the park. At the present time, preliminary
estimates indicate a total daily water consumption estimate for the
entire Industrial Park of approximately 25 to 30 thousand gallons
per day. This is an extremely modest amount of water consumption.
The mid and long term future of peat mining in the Lake Phelps
area is extremely difficult to predict. For example, if peat
is mined for horticultural purposes the impact on water resources
would probably be extremely limited. However, other types of potential
development for example, electrical generation or methanol production
could have a significant impact on water resources. In the event .
that such "heavier" types of development occur, water resources
regulatory systems at the federal and state level are in place to
address these issues. Finally, the construction of the Washington
County Waterworks, which is presently underway should not significantly
affect the total county water consumption. However, the widespread
utilization of a central water system could actually result in
water conservation. Most central water system customers become more
aware of their consumption rates when they are on an individually
metered supply. Also, it is generally assumed that a reduction in
the number of wells utilized to serve a constant number of people
results in a more efficient use of ground water.
24

EXISTING LAND USE
Compatibility Problems
Virtually all communities suffer from some level of land use
compatibility problems. "New Towns" such as Columbia, Maryland
have the fewest and least severe compatibility problems. However,
rural counties such as Washington County generally are characterized
by a significant number of land use compatibility problems. The
1976 Land Use Plan accurately cited the presence of livestock
operations in close proximity to residential structures and churches.
This problem is still present and generates some complaints concerning
odor. For example, poultry operations are subject to significant
losses of chickens during the warmest summer months. However, in
many cases, these problems can be reduced or eliminated by improved
farm management. When caucuses are disposed of consistent with
regulations of the State Veterinanrian's Office, ordor is rarely a
problem.
Further, the 1980 plan expressed concern over the possiblity
of development occuring near the Plymouth Airport. This situation
should be closely monitored and county officials should carefully
consider any requests they might receive from the Town of Plymouth
to provide zoning controls in the general area of Plymouth Airport.
In late 1984, Washington County was notified that the Federal
Government was considering proposed military airspace changes in
eastern North Carolina. Under the original proposal, a military
aircraft would be permitted to fly at an altitude of approximately
• 100 feet. Specifically, the military proposed to expand areas
R5301 and R5302 south of -latitude 360 0 minutes in the Albemarle
25

Sound southward toward Washington County. Washington County along
with several other northeastern counties submitted written objections -
to the military proposals. Presently, a final decision has not been -
reached. If the airspace is expanded, it could result in increased
noise and interference with normal civilian air traffic.
Finally, the citizen participation questionnaire used during the
1980 Land Use Plan Update documented concern by many citizens about
esthetic problems related to some types of mobile home sites.
This type of problem possibly could be reduced with a mobile home
siting ordinance. Presently, the county administers a Mobile Hpme
Park Ordinance but this ordinance only regulates mobile homes
located within rental parks. Although the North Carolina State
Building Code does regulate mobile home foundations it does not
for example, require any skirting, landscaping or setbacks.
More consistent enforcement of the existing mobile home revisions
of the North Carolina State Building Code however, have resulted
in 1 imi ted structural and esthetic improvements in the area of mobile
home siting. When the county receives proposed plats for large mobile
home parks, it should consider the existing proximity to fire stations,
water services, schools, sanitary sewers, and solid waste container
sites.
26

Major problems from unplanned development and their implications for
the future
Presently, Washington County seems to be a fairly typical rural
community when it comes to measuring the magnitude of problems from
unplanned development. A very typical problem and a persistent one
is the odor problems which occur when residential development occurs
near certain types of farming operations. Specifically, swine and
poultry producers often find new home construction occurring "downwind."
The North Carolina Supreme Court has given priority consideration to
agriculture in these types of circumstances. However we have found
that oftentimes these problems are exacerbated by poor farm management.
They also seem to ebb and flow with the season. Odor problems generate
many more complaints during the warmest months of the year.
These problems could be reduced and possibly even eliminated
over a long time period with strict zoning controls. Up to this
point, the Board of County Commissioners have indicated no inclination
to enact a zoning ordinance. Short of zoning, more careful subdivision
plat review can at least forewarn possible subdividers or posssibly
indicate the need for buffer strips or other remedial measures.
Many times simple compliance with existing agricultural regulations
will reduce or eliminate the problem. Poultry producers are already
regulated by waste disposal regulations which require prompt disposal
with a minimum of three feet of cover. The county might also wish
to require a disclosure statement on the face of the plat to encourage
27

the "buyer to beware."
Another problem in this category is the one of houses being
too close to U.S. 64. This problem is especially severe in "the Pines"
just east of Plymouth and in the neighborhood known as Macedonia.
This is another problem which could be addressed by a zoning ordinance.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has a more liberal
housing moving policy in those counties which require minimum setbacks
in their zoning ordinances. The existing project widening U.S. 64
from two lanes to four near the junction of N.C. 45 just east of
Plymouth has generated a lot of discussion on this topic. Since
local officials are continuing to lobby for the widening of additional
sections of U.S. 64, this problem could reoccur. In the absence of
district type zoning, the county should explore a rural development
ordinance which might limit its jurisdiction to minimum building
setbacks and driveway controls. This might accomplish the end of
maximizing house moving allowances by the Department of Transportation
and preventing future reoccurrences of this problem.
The county has also documented recurring complaints from residents
on unpaved secondary roads. Most of these homes have been built in
previously undeveloped areas. The road paving point system used by
the Transportation Department makes it very unlikely that many of these
roads will not be paved in the near future. This is a growing problem
since the county continues to petition the Department to add unpaved
private roads to the State system. In many years, the addition of
unpaved road mileage exceeds the mileage.of dirt roads scheduled
28

for paving. This is an extremely difficult problem which even the
strongest land use controls might not resolve. Once again, this is
a problem which could be addressed by disclosure requirements.
The final major land use problem which has been indentified
is the one presented by recurring woods fires in the Lake Phelps
area. In recent years,. woods fires and ground fires in Phelps
Field have spread to the residential strip on the Washington County
shoreline of Lake Phelps. In 1985, this resulted in the loss or
severe damage of approximately thirty homes. This situation could
reoccur since it is caused by normal seasonal conditions which occur
in the spring. The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
through its county ranger, has attempted to inform property owners
of the risks and educate them on alternatives for the future.
Specifically, he has shown property owners how they can reduce their
risks by keeping brush cleared away from their house and by purchasing
low cost water pumping equipment. First Colony Farms has also made
a sizeable investment in fire prevention improvements such as the
addition of an, elevated lookout tower. If all of the recommendations
of the county ranger are implemented by property owners, the seasonal
risk of fire should be somewhat reduced.
Washington County suffers from other types of problems related
to unplanned development. These problems which are of a smaller
magnitude than those discussed above include: the location of junk
yards, the location of taverns near residential and religious property,
and a possible problem from encroaching development around the Plymouth
Airport on Morratuck Road and the Washington County Industrial Park.
These lower level problems should be carefully monitored by the County
29

Department of Public Works & Planning.
Areas of Actual or Possible Change in Predominant Land Use
The most obvious location of change in predominant land use is
the U.S. 64 corridor through and just east of Plymouth. In the last
twenty four months, extensive commercial development has occurred
in this area, including shopping center development, fast food businesses,
and a proposed motel.
Secondary Road Number N.C. 149, more commonly referred to as
Ken Trowbridge Road from the intersection of U.S. 64 to the Martin
County boundary is an area also undergoing change. Twenty years ago
this area was largely woodsland but several businesses and a small
industry have been built here. Its close proximity to the Weyerhaeuser -
complex makes it a likely location for satellite businesses and -
industries. Presently, a large truck stop is being constructed -
on the corner of Ken Trowbridge Road and U.S. 64 and in recent years
a commercial truck repair facility has been built. Commercial develop-
ment related to the Weyerhaeuser facility will most likely continue.
Although the rate of land use conversion is less rapid, we should
expect to see farmland converted to residential strip development on
N.C. 32 just south of Plymouth and in the same general area on Long
Ridge Road and Morratuck Road. This area could be very attractive
because of its close proximity to services available in Plymouth
and its rustic rural character. Problems associated with the farm
economy are also a disincentive to continued agricultrual land use
which traditionally has been the predominant land use in this general
area.
30

Although the existing road network makes riverfront access limited,
new residential development has accelerated on the Roanoke River
just east of Plymouth, viz Roanoke Shores. Increased land use
conversion from agricultural to residential on the Albemarle Sound
shoreline will also continue. Limited road access is also a limiting
factor here. All road frontage along U.S. 64 is likely to experience
residential and small scale commercial land use conversion. The area
in and near the Pea Ridge Y could see a somewhat higher than normal
level of commercial development if the reconstruction of the Albemarle
Sound bridge increases the traffic count.
Finally, toward the end of the planning horizon, we predict that
residential growth will spill over from the Beaufort County portion
of N.C.,32 into Washington County. The southern section of N.C. 32
is within a comfortable commute to employment locations in Beaufort
County.
31

WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
Regulations
Washington County Subdivision Ordinance - Initially adopted in
June of 1977, subsequently amended in October 1977 and July
of 1979, the ordinance requires the platting and approval of
subdivided land in the County and Roper and Creswell. Minor
plats are reviewed by the Subdivision Review Committee. Major
plats are reviewed by the Washington County Planning Board
and the Washington County Board of Commissioners. This ordinance
is administered by the County Planner.
Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Park Ordinance - This ordinance
regulates the planning and construction of mobile home and
travel trailer parks throughout the County. The ordinance was
adopted in July of 1974 and subsequently amended in July of 1979.
This ordinance is enforced by the County Planner and the County
Building Inspector.
Laws and Rules for Ground Absorption Sewage Disposal Systems -
These regulations control the use of sanitary sewage disposal
systems with 3,000 gallons or less design capacity serving a
single or multifamily residence, place of business, or place of
public assembly. The District Health Department is responsible
for the administration of these regulations.
State Building and Electrical Codes - The codes call for the
inspection of new construction to assure conformance with
State standards. The Building Inspector is responsible for
the permitting and inspection of such construction.
Flood Hazard Ordinance - A flood hazard study for the county
has been completed. A new ordinance was adopted on 8-19-85.
This ordinance designates the CAMA Permit officer responsible
for program administration. The county is now in the regular
phase of the program.
Plans and Policies
County Soil Survey - A detailed soil survey containing maps and
soils information has been prepared by the Soil Conservation
Survey.
Housing Survey - The Department of Natural Resources and Corrmunity
Development inventoried the structural conditions of the county
housing in 1973.
Corrmunity Development Program - Prepared by Williams and Works
in 1976, the Program is a documentation of the need of low
and moderate income citizens in Washington County.
01K

Washington County Community Development Plan - This planning
document was developed in order to provide the citizens of
Washington County with a review of certain neighborhood, com-
munity, and county -wide improvements that are necessary to
upgrade the overall quality of living. It is intended to be a
planning guide by which certain actions and funds can be
directed over the next decade.
Washington County Housing Plan - Prepared by the Community
Development Office and adopted in December of 1977, the
Housing Plan assesses the County's present and anticipated
housing needs and proposes means by which to insure that these
needs are met.
Implementation and Permit Enforcement Plan - The Plan is an
outline for Washington County to follow in their.efforts to
properly guide growth and development in Areas of Environmental
Concerns.
Washington County Land Use Plan - The initial plan was adopted
in 1976 and included Roper and Creswell. The 1976 plan includes
statistical information relative to population and economy,
local goals and objectives concerning future growth, identification
of areas suitable for future development and a plan by which future
land use will be guided. The Plan was revised in 1980-81.
Washington County Land Use Element - This document addresses
those requirements set forth by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development under Section 701 guidelines. The purpose
of the element is to provide direction for addressing land use
concerns of Washington County and its citizens.
Land Use Element Region R - The main purpose of this document
is to address, focus on and draw specific regional land use
goals, policies, objectives and implementation procedures
from the individual County CAMA Plans while leaving the more
traditional detailed analysis and projections in the individual
county land use plans. Ten counties constituting Region R, are
addressed'in this 1977 Plan.
Recreation Plans - Washington County Recreation Plan prepared
by the Washington County Community Development office; Outdoor
Recreation Potential for Washington County, N.C. prepared by
Soil Conservation Service and U.S. Department of Agriculture;
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan for North Carolina
prepared by the State; An Appraisal of North Carolina's Potential
for Outdoor Recreation Development prepared by USDA Soil
Conservation Service: and Open Space -Recreation Plan Region R
prepared by Albemarle Regional Planning and Development Com-
mission--- Each document assesses the recreational resources
within the County, projects future need in types of recreational
33

uses and proposes long range plans and goals. The plan pre-
pared by the County is more explicit and detailed than Regional
and State Plans.
Economic Development Plans - Washington County Overall Economic
Development Plans, 1962, 1977; and Regional Overall Economic
Development Plan, 1977-- Each plan lists recommendations for
priority needs based on available data. The regional plan
designates Plymouth and surrounding areas as a growth center
and provides comparative data for surrounding counties.
Solid Waste Planning Study - The report was prepared to assist
the County in evaluating the existing system of solid waste
disposal, to review the adequacy of the present landfill site
that is serving the County, and make recommendations concerning
the feasibility of alternative sites. Preparation of the plan
in 1979 was a joint effort between ARPDC, Talbot and Associates
and the County Planning Office.
Water Feasibility Study For Washington County - The study, com-
pleted in 1975 includes information concerning groundwater
resources, existing water facilities, population projections and
present and future water requirements. A construction schedule
is also included. This study was revised in October 1982,
January 1984 and November 1984. The project is presently in the construction phase.
Albemarle Area Resource Conservation and Development Plan of
North Carolina - The plan, prepared by the Albemarle Resource
Conservation and Development Council, provides guidance in the
use and development of our natural resources. It was completed
in 1977.
Shoreline Erosion Inventory - A study prepared by the Soil
Conservation Service in 1975, the erosion inventory lists the
physical factors associated with shoreline erosion in fifteen
coastal counties, and attempts to assess the magnitude of the
problem.
Pettigrew State Park Master Plan - The Division of Parks and
Recreation has outlined plans for the expansion of recreational
facilities at Pettigrew Park along Lake Phelps.
Lake Phelps Lake Management Study - Also prepared by the
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, this 1980
report provides background information on the Lake Phelps
area, and proposes a plan for the management of the lake level.
34

Transportation Development Plan - This is a brief five year
Transportation for the purposes of coordinating Human Services
• Agency's client transportation and for achieving the most cost
efficient transportation services.
Ground Absorption Regulations (Septic Tanks) - Washington County's
Public Health programs are administrated on a regional basis by
the Martin -Washington -Tyrrell Counties Health Department. A
staff of two sanitarians receives and reviews applications for
ground absorption (septic tank) systems. The applicable permit
is known as the Improvements Permit.
Soil Erosion And Sedimentation Permits - Presently, all enforce-
ment is at the State Government level and assigned to the Washing-
ton, North Carolina Field Office of the North Carolina Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development (See Division of
Land Resources).
Airport Plan - The County is working with the Town of Plymouth to
secure Federal funds to lengthen the existing 3700 foot paved runway
to approximately 4500 linear feet in order to serve corporate jets.
Transportation Improvement Plan - With the completion of the
Albemarle Sound Bridge, the County's emphasis is on securing
State funding for four-laning U.S. 64 from Plymouth to Columbia.
r Effectiveness
Most policies are working fairly well. However, the County is
concerned about State proposals to strengthen ground absorption (septic
tank) regulations, and would probably resist such efforts. Also, the
Director of Public Works and Planning is urging the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to develop specific flood elevations and eliminate
the use of "unnumbered A zones" to remove their artificial inflation
of insurance premiums. The County has just recently revised its
Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Park Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations
reducing road paving requirements and accelerating the process proce-
durally, responding to local arguments that these ordinances were
preventing sound real estate development.
35

FEDERAL LICENSES AND PERMITS
Agency Licenses and Permits
Army Corps of Engineers - Permits required under
(Department of Defense) Sections 9 and 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors of 1899;
permits to construct in
navigable waters.
- Permits required under
Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
- Permits required under
Section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972; permits to under-
take dredging and/or filling
activities.
Coast Guard - Permits for bridges, cause --
(Department of Transportation) ways, pipelines over navi-
gable waters; required under -
the General Bridge Act of _
1946 and the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899.
- Deep water port permits.
Geological Survey - Permits required for off -
Bureau of Land Management shore drilling.
(Department of Interior)
- Approvals of OCS pipeline
corridor rights -of -way.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Licenses for siting, con-
struction and operation of
nuclear power plants; re-
quired under the Atomic
Energy act of 1954 and
Title II of the Energy Re-
organization Act of 1974.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - Permits for construction,
36

operation and maintenance
of interstate pipelines
facilities required under
the Natural Gas Act of 1938.
Orders of interconnection
of electric transmission
facilities under Section
202(b) of the Federal Power
Act.
Permission required for
abandonment of natural gas
pipeline and associated
facilities under Section 7C
(b) of the Natural Gas Act
of 1938.
- Licenses for non-federal
hydro -electric projects and
associated transmission
lines under Sections 4 and
15 of the Federal Power Act.
37

Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Division of Land Resources
Department of Natural Resources and
Corrmnu n i t y Development
Secretary of NRCD
Department of Administration
Department of Human Resources
3.8
- Permits to alter or con-
struct a dam (G.S. 143-215.66).
- Permits to mine (G.S. 74-51).
- Permits to drill an explor-
atory oil or gas well
(G.S. 113-381).
- Permits to conduct geograph-
ical exploration (G.S. 113-391).
- Sedimentation erosion control
plans for any land distrubing
activity of over one contig-
uous acre (G.S. 113A-54).
- Permits to construct an oil
refinery.
- Easements to fill where lands
are proposed to be raised
above the normal high water
mark of navigable waters by
filling (G.S. 146.6(c).
Approval to operate a solid
waste disposal site or fa-
cility (G.S. 130-166.16).
Approval for construction
of any public water supply
facility that furnishes
water to ten or more resi-
dences (G.S. 130-160.1).

STATE LICENSES AND PERMITS
Agency Licenses and Permits
Department of Natural Resources and
Conmunity Development
Division of Health Services
Department of Natural Resources and
Com unity Development
Division of Coastal Management
39
- Permits to discharge to
surface waters or operate
waste water treatment plants
or oil discharge permits;
NPDES Permits, (G:S. 143-215)
- Permits for septic tanks with
a capacity over 3000 gallons/
day (G.S. 143-215.3).
- Permits for withdrawal of
surface or ground water in
capacity use areas
(G.S. 143-215.15).
- Permits for air pollution
abatement facilities and
sources (G.S. 143-215.108).
- Permits for construction of
complex sources; e.g. park-
ing lots, subdivisions, sta-
diums, etc.
(G.S. 143-215.109).
- Permits to construct non -
domestic wells to pump less
than 100,000 GPD (capacity
use program) G.S. 215.12)
- Permits for construction 'of
a well over 100,000 gallons/
day (G.S. 87-88)
- Permits to dredge and/or fill
in estuarine waters, tide-
lands, etc. (G.S. 113-229)
- Permits to undertake develop-
ment in Areas of Environ-
mental Concern (G.S. 113A-118).
NDM: Minor development permits
are issued by the local
government.

LAND SUITABILITY
Physical Limitations for Development
In it's natural condition, substantial portions of Washington County
have clear physical limitations for development. However, with careful
site planning and engineering, these limitations can be overcome in
most instances. In addition to natural conditions, the layout of
the state road system also is a limiting factor. For example, there
are two massive rural portions of the county totally unserved by public
roads. The first one is the area between NC 32 and SR 1127, commonly
referred to as the east Dismal Swamp. The second is the general area
between SR 1126 and US 64.
Finally, in a broader sense, we may also consider the lack of
public utilities viz. water sanitary sewer and electrical has basic
physical limitations to growth in general and industrial development
in particular. Even in the area of public utilities, the limitations
should not be overemphasized. The growing acceptance of land application
wastewater systems, the construction of the county waterworks, and the
ability of both electrical power companies to add to their distribution
system demonstrate the adequacy of the basic infrastructure system to
accommodate further growth.
Further, when we view these limitations from the perspective of
the entire coastal area of North Carolina, this county is in a relatively
advantageous position to support economic development.
Specifically, we can illustrate our thesis by: the present of
the highly productive Castle Hayne aquifer, better drained soils, less
erosion, and less servere flooding hazards.
40

Hazard Areas
Although Washington County does have relatively less intense flood
hazard and shoreline erosion problems, extensive amounts of acreage
are plagued by one or both of these natural forces. These two forces
should be carefully considered in the planning and preliminary engineering
stages of development.
Potential flood hazard areas were shown on a Department of Housing
and Urban Development Flood Hazard Boundary Map dated June 9, 1978.
This map has been somewhat refined and augmented by,the draft Flood
Insurance Rate Map which was issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency on August 17, 1984. This map is available for public inspection
in the Washington County Planning Department Office.
z Further, on February 19, 1985, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency released the base flood elevations for the unincorporated areas
of Washington County. These elevations range from 5
feet above sea level along the Scuppernong River to 26 feet downstream
of NC 32 along the Conaby Creek tributary.
The 1981 Land Use Plan accurately stated that Creswell and Cherry
are two areas of the county experiencing major flooding problems.
Flooding in Creswell will be substantially reduced upon completion
of a dike construction project. This project was funded through the
Soil Conservation Service - Resource Conservation and Development
Program and is presently in the construction phase.
Further, efforts are underway to restore the stream -flow of the
Scuppernong River. Presently, Washington County is actively considering
official sponsorship of a Scuppernong River Section 205 Flood and
Control Project (Army Corps of Engineers).
41

In conclusion, the flooding problems in Washington County, once
again, when viewed from the overall coastal geography are relatively
mild. However, extensive land area is involved. The most recent
information from the Federal Emergency Management area shows that
the entire county is limited to flooding zones A, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6,
A7, A8, A9, B and C. Zone C is an area of minimal flooding. Washington
County has none of the notorious V zones associated with the Outer
Banks counties.
The county should not attempt to stop development in flood hazard
areas but should encourage the wise use of flood hazard information
in site development planning.
Generally, lot owners should seriously consider elevating houses
on lots located in Zone A and to a lesser extent in Zone A2-A9.
Failure to comply with the flood mitigation regulations may
cause problems in securing financing and/or flood insurance. Flood
mitigation measures should be calculated into overall development cost.
Presently, Washington County is attempting to design a simple,
yet efficient flood hazard regulation enforcement system through the
Planning and Inspections Department.
The 1981 Plan also contained the following statement: "A Shore-
line Erosion Study was prepared by the Soil Conservation Service in
i
October of 1975 to determinethe.magnitude of the erosion problem..."
The study referred to was the "Shoreline Erosion Inventory," USDA -Soil
Conservation Service - Raleigh, North Carolina - October 1975.
The 1981 Plan also stated "the county's shoreline erosion rate
of 4.5 feet per year ranks high compared to other coastal counties..."
According to the,Shoreline Erosion Inventory, this is a correct state-
42

ment. However, the "Inventory" was not a comprehensive examination
of erosion rates in the fifteen county study area. One page one of the
Inventory, we find the following statement: "No study was made of
the shorelines directly exposed to the ocean or the soundside of
the Outer Banks." In effect the inventory examined the most severely
eroding areas in Washington County and some of the least severely
eroding areas in Dare, Currituck and other counties.
Further, the manner in which the data is organized produces unusual
results. For example, Reach Number One in the study along the Roanoke
River was found to have no measurable erosion. When the average erosion
rate was calculated, instead of factoring in an erosion rate of zero
for Reach Number one, Reach Number One was not included. If we include
an erosion rate of zero for Reach Number one, the erosion rate drops
to 3.5 feet per year.
In conclusion, the Erosion Inventory is a very useful tool when
studying the individual reaches of coastline in Washington County.
The Study however, is -of little value when attempting to assess the
overall erosion problem for Washington County or for making county
to county comparisions.
Potential land purchasers and developers should carefully examine
the available data for site specific erosion information. The worst
section of shoreline from an erosion standpoint are Reach Number Eight
generally, and Lural Point especially, and Reach Number Two, especially
the western most portion of the Albemarle Sound shore up to Albemarle
Beach. We have identified no significant tract of land with a slope
exceeding 12%.
Since 1981, additional bulkheading had been installed reducing
the total amount of erosion taking place in Washington County. The
43

construction of the new Albemarle Sound Bridge will include a section
of riprap which will have an erosion reducing effect at that location.
Construction of bulkheading can increase erosion on contiguous
shorelines depending on the angle at which the waves strike the beach.
Developers and property owners should explore carefully the effect
of Coastal Management regulations on bulkheading before investing in
shoreline property. Generally, these regulations only permit the
reclaiming of the equivalent of one year of erosion.
44

MAP 2
SHORELINE EROSION
ja
n T r 5 /•,
O Y \ F.
SAY
LEGEND
REACH
I
WASHINGTON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
45

Manmade Hazards
Wash ington_County, like many rural communities is relatively free
of manmade hazards. The most obvious manmade hazard present is the
transporting of chlorine gas by rail in and out of the Plymouth
Weyerhaeuser facility. The Washington County Emergency Management
Office has a Chlorine Spill Plan on file.
Grain elevators can also constitute manmade hazards since their
contents are highly combustible. The Tyson Grain Elevator and Creswell
Grain Elevator are the two largest facilities of this type in the county.
Helena Chemical Company, a chemical distribution warehouse on Folly
Road is another potential manmade hazard. Further, Swain Gas Company,
East Carolina Supply, and Plymouth Oil Company, all store commercial
quantities of bottle gas and or oxygen. These three distributors are
located on U.S. 64 west, Rankin Lane, and U.S. 64 east respectively.
We are pleased to be able to state that all of the above companies
have established reputations for civic responsibility and good manage-
ment.
In recent years, a problem has occurred wherein local farmers
have failed to empty large herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer con-
tainers and some have thrown these containers into local streams. This
problem seems to have subsided somewhat in response to an extensive
educational program by the local Agricultural Extension staff. This
educational effort should be an ongoing one and should be continued
throughout the planning horizon.
Defense Department changes in the military airspace in Northeastern
North carolina will have some impact on Washington County. For a
more thorough discussion of this possible hazard, see page 23.
46

Finally, this Land Use Plan functions as a primary data base
containing a broad but relatively simple collection of socio-economic
and physical data.
We have attempted to prepare this document consistent with the
wishes of the citizenry and local elected officials yet we have also
attempted to follow the statutory requirements of the Coastal Area
Management Act and the accompanying guidelines found at 15 NCAC .0200.
47

Areas With Soil Limitations And Other Constraints To Development
Foundations
Extensive land area in Washington County is characterized by soils
with naturally limited foundation capabilities.. Some of these soils
have low, low strength characteristics and some of the clays are the
type that cause shrink -swell problems (See general soils descriptions).
Most of the soils in Washington County are'the type that are relatively
deep. Shallow soils are not a major problem in Washington County.
Poorly drained soils are extensive throughout Washington County.
In most cases however, these drainage problems can be overcome with
appropriate planning, engineering and construction techniques.
. In the case of residential development, these corrective actions
may inflate the cost of residential development so high that it becomes
prohibitive.
Finally, in their natural state, many of the soil types in
Washington County have very poor ground absorption capabilities.
In other words, they are poorly suited in their natural condition
for the use of septic tanks. Once again these problems can be..cor-
rected but may drive up the cost of residential development to the
point where the cost becomes artificially high or prohibitive.
Normally, the cost limitations for com ercial and industrial
development are not as critical as those for residential development.
Further, many times up industrial or commercial locational factors
overide soil limitations. The most obvious problems related to the
installation of septic tank systems are clay soils which do not allow
effluent to move downward, sandy soils which permit effluent to move
• downwardtoo fast and high water table.
48

Figure 1.1.
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR
SYMBOL
SOIL NAME
DRAINAGE
SEPTIC TANK
FOUNDATION
NUMBER OF ACRES
3
Altavista fine sandy loam
Fair
None
None
69530
6
Arapahoe loamy sand
Poor
.°''Severe
Severe
99500
9
Argent silt loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
8,045
12
Augusta fine sandy loam
Poor
Severe
Severe'
69610
15
Belhaven muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
259645
18
Bojac loamy fine sand
Good
None
None
19220
21
Cape Fear loam
Poor
Severe.
Severe
289155
24 <
Conaby muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
3,600
I 28
Conetoe loamy sand
Good
None
None
3,365
35
Dogue fine sandy loam
Fair
Severe
Severe
2,650
38
Dorovan muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
17,600
39
Dorovan mucky silt loam.
Poor
Severe
Severe
2,255
41
Oragston loamy sand
Poor
Severe
Severe
49950
43
Fortescue silt loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
720
51
Hyde silt loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
5,010
94
Wehadkee silt loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
2,115
57
Pettigrew muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
6,310
60
Ponzer muck
Poor
Severe
Severe,,
1,120
63
Portsmouth fine sandy loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
209000
71
Pungo muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
14,815
75
Roanoke -loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
15,550
78
Roper muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
69590
- 80
Scuppernong muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
2,040
86
Tarboro sand
Good
None
None
945
88
Tomotley fine sandy loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
3,825
90
Wahee fine sandy loam
Poor
Severe
Severe
4,140
92
Wasda muck
Poor
Severe
Severe
7,360
98
Wickham loamy sand
Good
None
None
3,425
TOTAL
2149690
_
49
,
•
1 %
f I

i
7
156AUC'Uni 1111.= ----- .,vvav I
5 Y Enrh area oatlhred on shh map mown or
nwrt Meru one k1rd rut .11.. The nwy 15 rh.
mean/ far general Ols"Ing rusher than a limit
+ for de[islons an the use al 5p rih[ bars. _
MAP 3
LEGEND
- AUG USTA-ALTAVISTA-WAHEE: Nearly level, somewhat poorly drained and
moderately wall drained sails that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy or
clayey subsoil; on uplands
CONETOE-WICKHAM-TARBO RO: Nearly level and gently sloping, well drained
and somewhat excessively drained soils that have a sandy surface layer and a
dominantly loamy subsoil or sandy underlying material; on uplands
- DRAGSTON-CONETOE-ALTAVISTA: Nearly level and gently sloping, somewhat
poorly drained, well drained, and moderately well drained soils that have a sandy
or loamy surface layer and a loamy and sandy subsoil; on uplands
CAPE FEAR-PORTSMOUTH-ROANOKE: Nearly level, very poorly drained and
poorly drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy or clayey
subsoil; on stream terraces
DOROVAN: Nearly level, very poorly drained soils that are dominantly muck
throughout; on flood plains
® BELHAVEN-WASDA-ROPER: Nearly level, very poorly drained soils that have
a mucky surface layer and a dominantly loamy subsoil; on broad, level flats
Fj PUNGO: Nearly level, very poorly drained soils that are muck to a depth of
51 inches or more; on broad, level flats
Co:np+ad Ivan
i
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL SOIL MAP
WASHINGTON COUNTY
N NORTH CAROLINA
Scale 1:190.080
1 0 1 2 3 Mlles
1 0 3 6 Km
I, I I I I I I I

Specifically, when these problems occur, side ditches will often
lower the water table to an accetable level. Installation of a modified
ground absorption system for example, a "mound system" will often permit
a landowner to install an efficient on -site wastewater disposal system.
The Tidewater Research Station near Roper has a statewide reputation
for experiments with modified septic tank systems, especially the
mound system. Property owners should make sure that innovative
construction techniques do not reduce the disinfecting capability of
the soil below acceptable public health standards.
General Soils Characteristics
lAugusta-Altavista-Wahee - Nearly level, somewhat poorly drained
and moderately well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and
a loamy or clayey subsoil; on uplands. The soils in this unit are used
mainly as cropland. In a few areas they are used as pasture and wood-
land. These soils are well suited to use as cropland and pasture and
to woodland use, and they are suited or poorly suited to most urban
uses. Wetness and permeability are the main limitations to use and
management.
Conetoe-Wickham-Tarboro - Nearly level and gently sloping, well
drained and somewhat excessively drained soils that have a sandy surface
layer and a dominantly loamy subsoil or sandy underlying material; on
uplands. The soils in this map unit are used mainly as cropland. In
a few areas they are used as pasture and woodland. These soils are
suited or well suited to use as cropland and pasture and to woodland
use, and they are well suited to most urban uses. Leaching of plant
nutrients, soil blowing, and droughtiness are the main limitations
to use and management.
• 1Soil Survey of Washington County, North Carolina, US Department of
• Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, December 1981 - Pages 5-7.
51

Dragston-Conetoe-Altavista - Nearly level and gently sloping,
somewhat poorly drained, well drained, and moderately well drained -
soils that have a sandy or loamy surface layer and a loamy and sandy
subsoil; on uplands. The soils in thismap unit are used mainly as crop-
lands. In a few areas they are used as pasture and woodland. These
soils are well suited or suited to use as cropland and pasture and to
use as woodland. They are well suited, suited, or poorly suited to
most urban uses. Wetness, leaching of plant nutrients, soil blowing,
and droughtiness are the main limitations to use and management.
Cape Fear -Portsmouth -Roanoke - Nearly level, very poorly drained
and poorly drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy
or clayey subsoil; on stream terraces. The soils in this map unit
are used mainly as cropland. In a few areas they are used as pasture -
and woodland. These soils are well suited to most locally grown crops
and pasture and to woodland, and they are poorly suited to most urban
uses. Wetness and permeability are the main limitations in use and
management.
Dorovan - Nearly level, very poorly drained soils that are domi-
nantly muck throughout; on flood plains. The soils in this map unit
are used almost exclusively as woodland. They are poorly suited to
use as cropland and pasture, to use as woodland, and to most urban
uses. Wetness, flooding, and low strength are the main limitations
to use and management.
Belhaven-Wasda-Roper - Nearly level, very poorly drained soils
that have a mucky surface layer and a dominantly loamy subsoil; on
broad, level flats. The soils in this map unit are used mainly
52

as cropland. In a few areas they are used as woodland and wildlife
habitat. If drained, these soils are suited or well suited to use
as cropland and pasture and to use as woodland. They are poorly
suited to most urban uses. Wetness and low strength are the main
limitations to use and management.
Pungo - Nearly level, very poorly drained soils that are muck to
a depth of 51 inches or more; on broad, level flats. The soils in this
map unit are used almost exclusively as wildlife habitat and woodland.
They are poorly suited to use as cropland and pasture, to woodland use,
and to urban uses. Wetness, low strength, and logs, stumps, and roots
are the main limitations to use and management..
Although the 2"Soil Survey of Washington County is an excellent
planning tool, the information does have limitations. For example,
estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the
soil within a depth of 5 or 6 feet. Because of the map scale,
small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas
of a specific soil.
The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the
need for on -site investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis
by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering
works.
In conclusion, a basic point of emphasis is once again, that the
soil limitations described herein refer to the soils in their natural
conditions. With proper planning, engineering and construction
techniques, these limitations can largely be overcome. The best
2Soi1 Survey of Washington County, North Carolina, US Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, et. al. - December 1981 -
Page 34.
53

illustration of this is the Tyson Grain Elevator. This structure is
probably the single heaviest structure in Washington County. However,
it was built on a site with extreme soil limitations. This site
contained Portsmouth -Cape Fear soils. Foundation for the structure
consists of a 3 foot spread footing. Steel piling were not used, yet
the structure has performed well.
54

The capability of coastal soils to accorrmodate on -site sewage
disposal systems is limited. The ability of these soils to ac'comnodate
industrial wastewater is even more limited. However, the innovative
land application systems recently approved by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency do provide additional alternatives.
Presently, there are only three conventional wastewater treatment
systems in Washington County. These three are those operated by the
municipalities of Plymouth, Roper and Creswell. According to the 1984
North Carolina Profile for Plymouth, the town's wastewater system
consisted of an creation type treatment plant rated at 800,000 gallons
per date. According to the report, in 1984 there was an available
surplus of 250,000 gallons per day. The corresponding profile for
Roper dated 1984 described that town's plant as an extended areation
plant with hydrologic capacity of 85,000 gallons per day and an avail-
able surplus of 10,000 gallons per day. For Creswell, the 1984 Profile
describes a lagoon [pressure sewer] system with a hydrologic capacity
of 64,000 gallons per day. This new system has an available surplus
of 20,000 gallons per day according to the Department of Cormerce.
Generally, all three wastewater treatment systems are in relatively good
condition and are either new systems or systems which have undergone
renovation through the Environmental Protection Agency 201 Wastewater
Facilities Program. However, we can see from the data above that the
ability to accorrmodate future growth is limited. For this reason and
others, the county should pursuit a very careful approach when attempting
to match new economic development with the service capacity of the three
existing systems.
55

Further, the county should fully examine the possibility of
planning for the use of automated package sewage treatment plants on
receiving streams and on -site land applications systems.
56

Water Supply
Virtually all corrmunities have two basic sources of water. These
two basic sources are ground water and surface water. Typically, in
eastern North Carolina, water is supplied by ground water sources.
This is also the case in Washington County. However, let us discuss
very briefly the major bodies of surface waters in Washington County.
The major bodies are: the Albemarle Sound, the Roanoke River, Phelps
Lake and Pungo Lake. The Albemarle Sound, which is one of the largest
sounds in the United States has great limitations for practical use
due to its salinity. The Roanoke River is presently plagued by over-
all water quality problems including turbidity and industrial wastes.
Of course, this does not mean that it is scientifically impossible
- to treat water from these two sources for human consumption, but
the expense would be prohibitive. '
Phelps Lake have extremely high quality water but the recharge
is basically from precipitation (See Heath, 1975). The county should
however work toward maintaining water withdrawal structures for seasonal
limited firefighting purposes.
Pungo Lake is a Federally protected resource and the legal and
political barriers to water withdrawal are virtually exclusive.
Hence, we proceed to a discussion on ground water resources.
There are four basic ground water sources in Washington County. These
geological units starting with the one closest to the surface are the
Quaternary deposits, the Yorktown formation, the Pungo River formation,
• and the highly productive Castle Hayne limestone (See Figure13). The
• Quaternary deposits includes surface soils and the underlying sediments
• to depths ranging,from about 40 feet in western Washington County to
57

MAP 4
00 __
' M
o.
I
...�+.��INGTON COUNT
WATER SYSTEM
mxm WOINA walboa O1 TwMOKA➢ON
rrw a Yrrr.-w.N.o w �rrr rwrr
Y. p.Y1WN1 O N/.xYC• WpY
IMi1W NG•NW MrrOI41W
^ ... 1
it �I � w e•rw r.—.
LOCATION AND SIZE OF MAIN WATER LINES
57-A

approximately 200 feet in the eastern part. (Hydrology Of The Albemarle-
' Pamlico Region, North Carolina, 9-75, By Ralph C. Heath, Page 28). This
geological unit is composed of sand -silk clay and shells. Many shallow
wells in Washington County go no deeper than the quaternary sediment.
The quaternary sediment is approximately 40 feet thick in Washington
County.
The Yorktown formation is about 150 feet thick in western Washington
County. The Yorktown yields approximately 5 to 20 gallons per minute
for wells approximately 2 inches in diameter and yields of 75 to 100
gallons per minute can be drawn from wells with diameters of 6 inches
or larger. The sand and.limestone portion of the Yorktown is the prin-
ciple source of water.
The Pungo River formation is relatively unimportant as a source of
water supply (Heath 1975). The top of the Pungo River formation occurs
at less than 80 feet in western Washington County.
Finally, the Castle Hayne limestone is the most important hydrologic
unit in North Carolina. It consists of limestone containing abundant
casts and molds of molifs which grades downward into calcareous sand.
It is approximately 100 feet thick in Washington County and curves at
about 150 feet below sea level in western Washington County. At ap-
proximately the boundary of Tyrrell County, the depth to the top of
the Castle Hayne aquifer is approximately 400 feet. The yield of wells
located in the Castle Hayne depend on the thickness of the formation
penetrated. Yields of several hundred gallons per minute are readily
obtainable.
The Yorktown formation contains water less mineralized generally
than that of the Castle Hayne aquifer. Groundwater in Washington County
58

Figure 12
D '
` �.•/
0 °OW5 l�
I rif
l.vF/� �r ,yfJ-� f rryFs�O °NGp giYfq rOgvjLp,N
goo•
Sr
EXPLANATION
Sond
Sandy and silty Cloy
y• Z ( r c
FEET
LSCvECloy
_ ® Limestone
400
• �� - `�� -vv_ -- _ — - i y
0 0 _.�5 )0 )`
APP0011MAIr )CALF
--Block diagrams showing the relative position and generalized composition of
the uppermost geologic units underlying the Albemarle -Pamlico region.
59

although not of uniform quality is satisfactory for most domestic uses.
Water from the Castle Hayne limestone is sometime hard, high in iron
and contains hydrogen sulfide.
Yorktown aquifer water ranges from hard to soft and generally
contains iron. The Washington County Waterworks, at least in its initial
phase of development will not have its own independent source of water
but purchases water from the municipalities of Plymouth, Roper and
Creswell.
Surface Water Quality
The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development consistent with the guidelines of the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency maintains a water quality classification system
which ranks fresh and salt waters according to their levels of pollution.
The classifications are defined by types of permitted uses (See Figurel5).
Bull's Bay contains the highest quality water in Washington County.
According to some experts, water quality problems in the Albemarle Sound
can largely be attributed to upstream problems in the Chowan River Basin.
Further, although some news media reports have speculated that
water quality problems are largely the result of poor agricultural
practices, there is considerable evidence to the contrary. Researchers
R. W. Skaggs, J. W. Gilliam, T. J. Sheeks, and J. S. Barnes in a 1980
study seemed to disprove this notion. However, even this report points
to the need to repricate the study and generally engage in comprehensive
research on the subject.' One of their basic findings is that "....
because of limited capacity of current canals, there may be little
difference between runoff rates from developed and undeveloped lands
during the largest runoff events" (Water Resources Research Institute
Report No. 159 -Skaggs, Gilliam, Sheets, & Barnes, August 1980 - Page ii)
.N

These researchers do caution livestock owners to take precautionary
measures to prevent runoff from pastures into drainage systems or
streams. Even here though, the problem is only severe when pastures .
are located close to shellfish waters and this would be an extremely
rare occurrence in Washington County. But it could be a serious
problem in communities to the east.
Air Resources
Both Federal and State air quality legislation regulates the
emission levels of peat development activities in the study area.
Pursuant to the Clean Air Act of 1970 as amended, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for seven criteria pollutants. The latest
version of these standards is shown in Table 1. The primary standards _
are designed to protect public health, while the secondary standards _
are intended to protect public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects. In heavily polluted areas, EPA has historically
concentrated efforts on attainment of the primary standards.
Primary air quality standards are, in general, now being attained
in most areas of the country. The notable exception to this trend is
oxidants, with entire states not in attainment.
Congress included in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 new
rules for the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) or air
quality in areas attaining both primary and secondary NAAQS. These
regulations apply to the study region because the air in this part
of the state is cleaner than the NAAQS dictate. The PSD regulations -
identify levels by which pollutants may increase within three different -
class areas. The class areas are defined as follows:
61

o Class I applies to areas in which practically any air quality
• deterioration would be considered significant, and therefore
little or no energy or industrial development is allowed.
o Class II applies to areas in which deterioration that would
normally accompany normal, well -managed growth would not be
considered significant.
o Class III applies to areas in which deterioration would
be permitted in order to allow concentrated or very large
scale energy or industrial development, as long as the NAAQS
are not exceeded.
For each designation, maximum allowable increases over baseline
concentrations are established for two of the seven criteria pollutants
regulated by the NAAQS: sulfur dioxide (SO2) and total suspended
particulates (TSP). These allowable increments are defined for
both a long-term (annual) average concentration and maximum concentrations
over short periods of time. The values are shown in Table 2.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 automatically designated as
. Class I areas much of the park land and wilderness areas in the United
States. The Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County was
included in this designation (The Design of a Planning Program To
Help Mitigate Energy Facility -Related Air Quality Impacts in the
Washington County, North Carolina Area - Rogers, Golden & Halpern,
September 1982 - Pages 11 be 13).
As we can see, Washington County has two air quality limiting
factors. The first is the presence of the Plymouth Weyerhaeuser
Complex located just over the Martin County line. The primary impact
of course, is on western Washington County. In the extreme eastern
portion of the county, a limiting factor is the special designation
for the Swanquarter Refuse and its accompanying Class I designation.
However, research generated since the 1980 Land Use Plan by Peat
r1K

FIGURE 13
CLASS DESIGNATIONS FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FRESH WATERS
CLASS WS-I - Waters protected as water supplies which are in
natural and uninhabited or predominantly undeveloped
(not urbanized) watersheds; no point source dis-
charges are permitted and local land management
programs to control nonpoint source pollution are
requried; suitable for all Class C uses.
CLASS WS-II - Waters protected as water supplies which are in low
to moderately developed (urbanized) watersheds;
discharges are restricted to primarily domestic
wastewater or industrial non -process waters
specifically approved by the commission; local
land management programs to control nonpoint
source pollution are required; suitable for all Class
C uses.
CLASS WS-III - Water supply segment with no categorical restrictions
on watershed development or discharges; suitable for
all Class C uses.
CLASS B - Suitable for swimming, primary recreation and all
Class C uses.
Class C - Suitable for secondary recreation and fish propagation.
TIDAL SALT WATERS
CLASS SA - Suitable for commercial shellfishing and all other
tidal salt water uses;
CLASS SB - Suitable for swimming and primary recreation and
all Class SC uses.
CLASS SC - Suitable for secondary recreation and fish propagation.
SUPPLEMENTAL WATERS
TROUT WATERS - Suitable for natural trout propagation and maintenance
of stocked trout
SWAMP WATERS - Waters which have low velocities and other natural
63

characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams.
NUTRIENT SENSI-
TIVE WATERS - Waters requiring limitations on nutrient inputs
OUTSTANDING
RESOURCE - Unique and special waters of exceptional state or
WATERS (CRW) national recreational or ecological significance
which require special protection to maintain
existing uses.
64

Methanol Associates has demonstrated that when the finest available
industrial technology is used, substantial heavy industrial development
can occur and still remain within the confines of the Class I permitting
regulations (See Figure 13).
Further, the Weyerhaeuser Company has made massive capital invest-
ments in recent years to reduce air quality problems associated with
the Plymouth complex.
65

Figure 14
STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
ROANOKE RIVER
From 18 mile marker at
C Sw
9/l/57
Jamesville to Albemarle
Sound (Batchelor Bay)
Welch Creek
From source to Roanoke
C Sw
7/13/80
River
Conaby :Creek
From .source -to Roanoke
C Sw
9/1/57
River
ALBEMARLE SOUND
West of line extending
B Sw
9/l/74
(Batchelor Bay)
from a point of land on
the southside of the
mouth of Black Walnut
Swamp in a southerly
direction to a point
of land on the east -
side of the mouth of
Roanoke River
Eastmost River
From Roanoke River to
B Sw
9/1/57
N.C. Hwy. 45
Eastmost River
From N.C. Hwy. 45, in-
B Sw
9/l/74
cluding cutoff between
Eastmost River and Mid-
dle River to Albemarle
Sound
Kendrick Creek
From source to U.S. Hwy.
C Sw
3/1/77
(Mackeys Creek)
64 at Roper
Kendrick Creek
(Mackeys Creek)
From U.S. Hwy. 64 at
SC
7/1/73
Roper to Albemarle
Sound
Beaver Dam Branch
From source to Kendrick
C Sw
9/1/74
Creek
Skinners Canal
From source to Beaver
C Sw
9/l/74
Dam Branch
. .,Main Canal
From source to Kendrick
C Sw
9/1/74
Creek
66
23- (53)
23-55-
23-56
24
30-9-3
30-9-3-1
30-9-4

Canal B
i
I
From
source
to
Main
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-9-4-1 -
Canal
'
Canal A
From
source
to
Main
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-9-4-2
Canal
I
Lewis Canal
From
source
to
Main
C
Sw
9/l/74
30-9-4-3
Canal
Bakers Swamp
i
From
source
to
Ken-
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-9-5
drick
Creek
Pleasant Grove Creek
From
source
to
Albemarle
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-10
Sound
Chapel Swamp
From source
to
Albemarle
C
Sw
9/l/74
30-11
Sound
Newberry Ditch
From
source
to
Albemarle
C
Sw
9/l/74
30-12
Sound
Sleights Creek
From
source
to
Albemarle
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-13
Sound
Bull Bay,
Entire Bay
SB
7/1/73
30-14 _
Bull Creek
From
source
to
Bull
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-14-1
Bay
Deep Creek
From
source
to
Bull
C
Sw
7/1/73
30-14-2
Bay
Bunton Creek
From
source
to
Bull
C
Sw
7/1/73
30-14-3
Bay
Moccasin Canal and
From
source
to
Scupper-
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-14-4-2
connecting canals
nong
River
Western Canal and
From
source
to
Scupper-
C
Sw
9/l/74
30-14-4-3
connecting canals
nong
River
Ten Foot Canal
From
source
to
Western
C
Sw
9/l/74
30-14-4-3-
Canal
Nine Foot Canal
From
source
to
Ten Foot
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-14-4-3-1-1
Canal
Mountain Canal and
From
source
to
Scupper-
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-14-4-4
connecting canals
nong
River
,
Thirty Foot Canal
From
source
to
Scupper-
C
Sw
9/1/74
30-14-4-5
nong
River
. ,•
67

Old Canal From source to Scupper- C Sw
• nong River
Phelps Lake Entire Lake C Sw
9/1/74
4/6/61
30-14-4-6
30-14-4-6-
68

FRAGILE AREAS
In Washington County, fragile areas are limited to public trust
waters, the estuarine shoreline and its adjacent waters, and -coastal
wetlands. From a regulatory standpoint, all of the fragile areas
also are areas of environmental concern for construction permit purposes.
Public Trust
The major public trust waters are the Albemarle Sound including
Bulls Bay, Lake Phelps, Pungo Lake, the Roanoke River, Scuppernong
River, Welch's Creek, Conaby Creek, and Mackey's Creek. "Formally,
public trust areas are 'all waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the lands
thereunder from the mean -high-water mark to the seaward limit of the
States's jurisdiction; all natural bodies of water subject to measurable
lunar tides and lands thereunder to the mean high-water mark; all
navigable natural bodies of water and lands thereunder to the mean
high-water level or mean water level as the case may be, except ^
privately -owned lakes to which the public has no right of access;
all water and artificially created bodies of water containing significant
public fishing resources or other public resources which are accessible
to the public by navigation from bodies of water in which the public
has rights of navigation; and all waters and artificially created
bodies of water in which the public has acquired by prescription,
custom, usage, dedication, or any other means.'" For regulatory
purposes, the final administrative authority on the extent of public
trust areas is contained in a publication entitled: North Carolina
Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters, 1985, as amended from time
to time. -
The water quality in public trust waters has declined in recent -
decades for a variety of -reasons. Some local activities such as -
69

logging have contributed to water quality problems. Other regional
industrial activities are also suspect. According to many researchers,
paper mills as far away as Virginia have had a direct negative influence
on the water quality of the Roanoke River. The rapid growth of alligator
weed in the Scuppernong River has impeded the natural flow and ag-
gravated the siltation problem. The county presently is benefiting
from a very active soil conservation service outreach program. The
local SCS staff is encouraging farmers to convert to "low till"
practices and to make sure that they are not applying more fertilizer
than is necessary. The SCS has also cooperated with the Corps of
Engineers and State government to attempt to reduce the alligator weed
growth in the Scuppernong River. The county commissioners are also
sponsoring a project to snag and clear within the Scuppernong.
Hopefully, both of these projects will increase stream flow to
produce a "flushing action." Both of the projects appear to be
good examples of manmade efforts to help restore a stream to a more
natural condition. Once the snagging and clearing project is complete,
the county should establish a monitoring system to try to prevent a
reoccurrence of the Scuppernong River problems.
The problems associated with the Albemarle Sound may be more
complex but seem to be at least partially related to the same type
of problems affecting the Roanoke River.
The county's two major lakes appear to be suffering from regional
agricultural influences. The deposition of ash from wild peat fires
is a seasonal influence. The county's best information indicates
that the planting of natural vegetative wind breaks could help the
windborne dust deposition problem. The efforts of the county forest
ranger to prevent the reoccurrence of peat fires could also reduce
70

the seasonal ash deposition problem.
The county should continue to administer the minor coastal area
management construction permit program at the local level. In 1985,
the county adopted a Flood Mitigation ordinance which also has the
indirect effect of slowing growth adjacent to the public trust waters.
Where it is practical to do so, the county should also attempt to
educate developers on the need to be sensitive to public trust waters
through its subdivision plat review process.
71

Estuarine Waters and Shoreline
This category of land and water represents an extensive geography
in Washington County. Estuarine waters are "all water of the Atlantic
Ocean within the boundary of North Carolina and all waters of the bays,
sounds, rivers, and tributaries thereto seaward of the dividing line
between coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters. . . (G.S. 113A-
113(b) (2). In Washington County, this generally means the southern
shore of the Albemarle Sound from the Roanoke River to the Tyrrell
County line, the portion of the Albemarle Sound in Washington County
which is generally the southern half, the, shoreline of the Roanoke
River within Washington County (from a legal standpoint, the waters
of the Roanoke River are within Bertie County). The estuaries functions
as a link between open waters and the land and therefore should be
analyzed and monitored. In a general sense, estuarine waters are
usually considered to be salty waters capable of producing menhaden,
flounder, shrimp, crabs, and oysters. These species are not generally
found in Washington County however. Once again, the final administrative
authority for determining the exact delienation of estuarine waters
should be the North Carolina Fisheries Regulations for Coastal Waters
which is cited above. The determination of the exact limits of the
estuarine shoreline often require measurements in the field from
mean high water.
In spite of the absence of the salt water species of fin -fish
and shellfish, normally associated with estuarine waters, the county
does possess significant stocks of bluegill, white perch, and other
72

pinfishes. Catfish, crappy, and redbreast are also prevalent. Large- ,
mouth and small -mouth bass and striped bass are available but their
numbers are significantly less. *Substantial problems are associated
with the greatly diminished numbers of striped bass in spite of
intensified efforts to restock the Albemarle Sound. The county should
continue to carefully locally administer the minor CAMA construction
permits. The Washington County permit officer should continue to
coordinate with the Bertie County officer concerning development on
the shoreline of the Roanoke River. The subdivision plat review
and mobile home park plat review should include consideration of
the impact of development on estuarine waters and the shoreline.
As mentioned above, the county's Flood Mitigation Ordinance has
an indirect effect of producing the impact of development on the
estuarine shoreline.
Coastal Wetlands
According to the most recent State regulations, coastal wetlands
are "any salt marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional
flooding by tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide
waters reach the marsh land areas through natural or artificial
water courses). . The regulations go on to describe the coastal
wetlands as land supporting a specific list of marsh species. The
fist consists of ten types of grasses: cord grass, black needle
rush, glasswort, salt grass, sea lavender, bull rush, saw grass,
cat -tail, salt meadown grass and salt reed grass. There is relatively
little marsh grass located within Washington County. When compared
with the Outer Banks counties, the difference is striking. The ;
series of maps prepared by the Office of Coastal Management in _
*1980 Washington County Land Use Plan [Data from N.C. Wildlife Commission]
73

1977 shows a very small coastal wetlands area on the Albemarle Sound
between Leonard's Point and Bateman's Beach and a second at the
mouth of Deep Creek. The county is not in possession of any written
confirmation on the actual existence of marsh grasses in either of
these two areas. The county does have some written confirmation of
the existence of one genus of protected grass species on the southern
shore of Lake Phelps. The Natural Areas Inventory referred to earlier,
states that there is some black needle rush type vegetation in the
south shore marsh adjacent to Lake Phelps. The investigators do
not give a specific species, but do mention the genus juncus. This
marsh area is generally limited to the shoreline landward to approximately
a limit of 60 to 150 feet. Much of this area is already within the
CAMA construction permit jurisdiction, if the author's statements are
correct. In any event, the local permit officer has been notified
of the possible existence of protected marsh grass in this area,
and he will record any locations of this and other types of marsh
grass as he may encounter them in his field work. The county is
also of the opinion that permits from the south shore of Lake -Phelps
should generally attempt to condition construction activity on the
protection of black needle rush or other protected plant species.
The county is asking the local soil conservation service for a
written opinion on the existence of protected plant species at or
near the mouth of the Deep Creek and ,in the area between Bateman's
Beach and Leonard's Point. The regulatory protection described fully
above also shall be available for the protection of the coastal wet-
land areas. Here, particular attention will be directed to the
location and maximum protection of marsh grass located on the south
74

shore of Lake Phelps.
We are investigating further what the proper regulatory treat-
ment of needlerush of the Lake Phelps area is. We must acknowledge
some additional uncertainty caused by the vegetation's location ad-
jacent to a lake as opposed to a saltwater sound.i.
0
75

WASHINGTON COUNTY P 5
M
C M O Ir ♦ M C O Y II
NORTH CAROLINA
�1_ - c, ; �•� -`�" - PETTIGREW PARK - LAKE PHELP
U
is r + - Wt''' � r �+ �—"•--
Z� ���-1 ^� •� r�• i •7
�r�.` 'fir J, � �.�4�.� �..:,,�� �•
F, •�
1 f - Y 1 O f t ' C O Y M / 1
I j
•,; "Tnr w 11
41, Mut
C A t t I t t!♦ I
W t
I �•,t 1
M 1 D i C O Y M f f
Legend
® Big Point Access Area
(proposed)
® Cypress Natural Area
0 Somerset Place
0 Evergreen Pocosin

AREAS WITH RESOURCE POTENTIAL
Identification of areas with resource potential reflects natural
resources which should be used for their highest and best uses. They
include forestland, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat, peat resources
and recreation resources.
Forest Land
There are five timber tracts located throughout the County of
significant size ( Map 6 ). One wooded area is located between
Long Ridge Road and Highway 32 and is owned by Georgia Pacific and
Weyerhaeuser. This will continue to be managed as timber land. A
large area spanning between Highway 99 and Roper is owned almost ex-
clusively by Weyerhaeuser. A large (approximately 5,000 acres) timber
holding known as Juniper Farms has, since 1980 been converted to
agricultural use. A tract adjacent to this owned by Champion Inter-
national will be utilized as forestland. Another forested area near
Roper on Newland Road owned by Union Camp and Weyerhaeuser has been
converted for agricultural use. Bulks Bay is a forest wetland and
is expected to continue as forestland., This area has been logged
by a helicopter logging contractor. It is the first logging of this
type to occur in Washington County although Mr. Ralph G. Plumblee,
former Plant Manager of the Plymouth Georgia Pacific Hardwood sawmill
introduced the practice to Northeastern North Carolina where he logged
the Bertie County side of the Roanoke approximately 7 years ago.
Agriculture
According to figures from Soil Conservation Service and the Agri-
cultural Extension Agency, 530 of the County's land area is used for
77

00
WASHINGTON COUNTY ' fr
MAP 6
NORTH CAROUNA
TIMBER TRACTS
• LEGEND
• Georgia Pacific
Weyerhauser O
Weyerhaeuser
Juniper Farms
Champion Internation
Union Camp/Weyerhauser
zv
Bull's Bay Timber (9

agriculture production. The largest tracts in production lie in the
eastern two-thirds of the County. Soils in this area are highly organic. -
However, drainage improvements have made these area highly productive.
The Washington County Soil Survey identifies several County soils
which have high agricultural yields, with and without management
practices.
Most soils within Washington County can be successfully used for
agriculture with the aid of management techniques. Those requiring
management are located primarily south of Highway 64 and make up
approximately 70 percent of the County's soils.
Natural Habitat
Washington County contains a diversity of habitats which support
a wide variety of wildlife species. The area is primarily -rural and
intensely farmed, yet forested areas are interspersed with wetlands
which are valuable to wildlife.
Dorovan muck, Dorovan mucky silt laom and Wehadkee silt loam soils
are associated with wetland, wooded swamp and drainage basin conditions.
These areas are important ecologically and productive as wildlife,_water
fowl and fish habitat areas. These soils comprise of approximately
22,000 acres.
We can increase most species in these areas through proper
habitat management.
Waterfowl habitat areas in the county are located along the es-
tuarine system and adjacent to the lakes. The primary wintering area
is Lake Phelps. Wood duck habitat is scattered along Conaby Creek,
Mackeys Creek, Deep Creek, Bull Creek and the Scuppernong River.
White-tailed deer -are common throughout the County but are abundant -
79

in the southwestern area of the County. Black bear occupy an area
running along Long Ridge Road from the Beaufort County line, adjacent
to Plymouth along the Roanoke River, between Lake Phelps and'Pungo
Lake and ares east and southwest of Roper. Areas which are conducive
to bear sighting are Bull's Bay and an area south of Plymouth.
M

Mineral Deposits
Like most eastern North Carolina counties, Washington County is
not rich in mineral deposits at the present time. However, the in-
formation concerning certain mineral deposits is not readily available.
Washington County has achieved a nationwide reputation as a community
possessing massive peat resources.
Other mineral deposits are present in the community. Also, the
potential for identifying and extracting other mineral deposits is
significant. The Washington County Soil Survey identifies eight soil
groupings which may contain commercial sand deposits. These groupings
are Corn, Bojac,Conetoe, Dogue,Dorovan, Dragston, Portsmouth, Scuppernong,
and Tarboro (Soil Survey, Table 12)
Although there are very few drill holes and no mining activity,
we have reason to believe that eastern Washington County is rich in
phosphate deposits. These deposits are located below approximately _
50 to 150 feet of overburden and for this reason have not been mined
(Environmental_Geologic_Atlas _Over _The Coastal Zone Of North Carolina:
-------------------------------
Dare,_HXde,_TXrrell_and _Wash ingtonCountiesPage 43.) "... Progress is
being made in developing technologies which may be applied to such
deposits. When perfected, phosphate sediment may be brought to the
surface without the necessity of removing the overburden." (Geologic
Atlas - Page 44)
The Albemarle Sound shoreline is the location of extensive beach
placer.deposits of titanium oxide. This mineral is used as a pigment
in paints, linoleum, white inks, colored glass, powdery glazes, and
for dying leather. It is also used in alloys as a coating for welding -
rods and in electrodes for arc lamps. (Geologic Atlas - Page 43). .
81

As noted above, the presence of fuel grade peat in Washington
r
County is widely known and for that reason will not be described in
detail here. The Washington County Manager's Office and County Plan-
ning Department have an extensive collection of resource material on
this valuable resource. Phelps Field near Lake Phelps has been studied
extensively and mined on an experimental basis. Many peat deposits
in this field are ripe for development.
In conclusion, more information should be gathered on the mineral
deposits of Washington County and State government should actively
cooperate with County government to encourage their careful but rapid
development.
82

Peat Resources
Studies conducted by the Department of Energy indicate that there -
are approximately 582 square miles of the Albemarle -Pamlico peninsula
containing fuel grade peat deposits. These deposits occur primarily
in broad shallow depressions of up to 10 feet thick and in narrow
former streamchannels of up to 16 feet thick. The total resources
of this peat deposit are approximately 278 million tons of moisture -
free peat.
The area is separated into a higher elevated Western Area and a
lower elevated Eastern Area. A substantial portion of southeastern
Washington County lies within the higher elevated Western Area peat
deposit. This deposit differs in some respects from the Eastern Area
in that its peat is slightly more decomposed and less fibrous. It
yields a higher heating value while containing more carbon and less
ash and sulfur. This deposit also contains less moisture and has a
higher bulk density making it a very attractive fuel resource.
The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development has granted to First Colony Farms, Inc. a Mining Permit
to mine a 15,000 acre tract of the Western Area peat deposit. Ap-
proximately 8,700 acres of this tract is located in Washington County.
First Colony Farms, Inc. has completed an intensive program of
developing mining technology and equipment for producing commercial
quantities of fuel grade peat. In 1981, Peat Methanol Associates
announced plans to construct a plant, on First Colongy Farms property
in southeastern Washington County, that would convert peat into fuel
grade methanol. Although the plan was later abandoned in 1984, the
project did progress through the environmental studies with favorable .
conclusions and into the final permitting state. These studies concluded
83

that peat could be mined in commercial quantities in an economic and
environmentally attractive manner.
84

Recreation Resources
The Pungo National Wildlife Refuge and Pettigrew State Park are
two major public recreation lands in Washington County.
Presently the major emphasis in the National Wildlife Refuge ids to
provide resting and feeding areas for migratory waterfowl. Recreational
uses are non intensive and include primarily deer, waterfowl hunting
and nature study. Future potential uses include wildlife observation
towers, nature trails and environmental education facilities.
Recreation potential on Lake Phelps has been assessed during the
Pettigrew State Park Master Plan preparations. The Plan reviews the
existing park facilities and proposes improvements and expansion.
Attendance figures for the Park for 1984 reached 60,943 people,
of which were 59156 boaters, 5,188 fishermen, 4,670 picnickers, 3,372
hikers and 2,781 campers. Hiking trails, lectures, slide shows and
picnic areas are available upon request from school groups and clubs.
The picnic areas will accommodate several hundred for large gatherings
and family reunions.
The master plan calls for an additional 82 acres to be purchased
to add to the existing Pettigrew access area to develop overnight
camping areas and picnic facilities. A fishing pier, expanded boat
launching and parking facilities are also planned.
Big Point located on the northern edge of the Lake connected to
the State natural area has potential for recreational activities
( Map 5 ). Not presently owned by the state, the 130 acre area has
a sandy deep lake area which would be ideal for water recreation.
The Natural Heritage designated natural area joining Big Point
with Pettigrew Park would be used primarily for nature study with the
85

development of interpretive trails.
The 500 acre site owned by Division Parks and Recreation on the
southern end of the Lake is primarily a peat, evergreen pocosin.
Only 50 acres of this area are suitable for recreational use, and
include only the rim of the Lake.
In 1982, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution
calling for expanded shoreline access especially on the Sound. The
County has initiated negotiations with the North Carolina Department
of Transportation to attempt to add recreational features to the
Albemare Sound Bridge reconstruction project. Further, the County
is examining the possibility of accepting shoreline land donations
and applying for Beach Access grant-in-aid funds from the Department
of Natural Resources and Community Development.
Approximately two or three additional access points on the
Albemarle Sound are needed. Ideally, one area should be located
between Conaby Creek and the Railroad Trestle. A second should be
located between the Railroad Trestle and the NC 32 bridge, and the
third between the NC 32 bridge and the Tyrrell County boundary.
At least one of these areas should include picnic facilities and an
access for waders or swimmers. There are virtually no public swimming
areas on the Albemarle Sound, Roanoke River or Lake Phelps. The County
should also work toward and encourage•.at least one additional shoreline
access point on Lake Phelps and Pungo Lake. These areas should not
be limited to boat launching facilities but should include some type
of picnicing and swimming or wading.
On the Roanoke River, the municipality of Plymouth has made
tremendous stridesin improving riverfront access for the public.
.86

The County Recreation Plan identifies potential recreation areas
and access needs. For more information, refer to this Plan.
87

Freshwater Swamps
The three largest legitimate swamps are East Dismal Swamp in south-
central Washington County, Bull's Neck Swamp on Bull's Bay in north-
eastern Washington County and Van Swamp in the extreme southwestern
portion of the County. The floodplain of Conaby Creek has also been
described by some authors as a swamp.
Geologically, Van Swamp is a relatively flat basin bordered on
its eastern and western margins by two parallel eastern facing scarps.
Elevation is approximately 35 feet above mean sealevel.
The East Dismal Swamp is situated on a broad, very flat upland surface
which is poorly drained due to the lack of extreme drainages in the
area. Elevation is approximately seventeen feet above sealevel. The
Bull's Neck peninsula is characterized by organic sedimentation. It
has a series of long arcuate sand ridges. Some of these are as low
L as one foot while others reach a height of eight feet above sealevel.
(Natural Areas Inventory Report)
Although these swamp areas do contain significant botanical and
animal species, it is the finding of Washington County that the existing
State and Federal regulations are adequate to protect legitimate swamps.
In fact, it is the position of Washington County that the State and
Federal Government should re-examine these programs particularly the
LAMA Major Permit Program and the Federal Dredge and Fill Program to
see if they can be made less obtrusive from the standpoint of protecting
private property owners rights. Specifically, in order to enable the
farming and forestry community to survive in a challenging economic
era, we are proposing that farmers and foresters be permitted to run
drainage lines through swamps to outlets. Of course, when this is done,
i
88
I

the very best drainage construction techniques should be used. For
example, ditch slopes should be considered carefully and banks which
have the potential for erosion should be seeded.
j
89

PUBLICALLY OWNED FOREST PARKS - FISH AND GAME LANDS
Federal Holdings
The only major federal holdings are the Pungo National Wildlife
Refuge. Pungo consists of Pungo Lake and a natural area surrounding
the Lake. Both the Lake and the acreage also extend into northern
Hyde County.
State Holdings
The major state land holding in Washington County is Lake
Phelps and Pettigrew State Park. This area is clearly depicted
on virtually all maps of Washington County including the North Carolina
Department of Transportation County map. In addition to Pettigrew Park
three separate boat launches areas are located in Washington County.
The most visible is the one at Zeb Vance Norman Bridge. The Conaby
Creek launching area is located very close to the Zeb Vance Norman
Bridge launch site just to the south. A third launching facility
is located in northeastern Washington County at Deep Creek. A fourth
launching facility is located just over the county line and Martin
County on the Roanoke River. Finally a launch facility has been
proposed as part of the overall Scuppernong River Project. According
to the information furnished by the Washington County Tax Office there
are no privately owned wildlife sanctuaries presently in Washington
County. A sixty to seventy acre tract of wet lands located near
Rankin Lane may soon be transferred by a donation to the Boy Scouts
of America; however, this transfer has not been completed so of
this time the title has not been transferred.
90

COMMUNITY FACILITIES
We cannot over -emphasize the importance of community facilities
to a community's quality of life and ability to grow. Treatment of
this extensive and complex subject here must be generalized and brief.
Prior to the next five year Land Use Plan update, the County should
attempt to complete a comprehensive Community Facilities Study.
Solid Waste
Presently,the approved sanitary landfill site in Washington County
is a 9 acre site just northeast of Westover, approximately 1 mile north
of State Road 1300. The site is maintained by a private contractor
who leases the land from the property owner. The site serves Washington
and Tyrrell counties with approximately 18,776 people. A private con-
tractor and the municipalities collect solid waste.
Twenty-eight dumpster sites are scattered throughout the County
with a capacity of 490 cubic yards. (Figure 18). Sixty-eight commercial
sites are served twice weekly. Plymouth provides collection service
f•or residential areas and businesses. Creswell and Roper serve residents
and small businesses.
Littering and placement of appliances and other large items at
the container sites has been a recurring problem. County Government
has intensified enforcement of its Sanitation Ordinance and should
further intensify enforcement. Further, the Board of Commissioners
modified its.landfill contract so that homeowners may now dispose of
large household items at the landfill without a fee.
91

l0
N
!R SITES
Z
0
V
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Central Water Services
The Towns of Plymouth, Roper and Creswell have agreed to supply
water for Washington County's distribution system. The following is
a summary of their water supply capabilities. Tab leI summarizes the
demands for the combined system.
Plymouth has an existing water production capacity of 800,000
gallons per day (gpd) and a total elevated storage of 800,000 gallons.
Their present production is 500,000 gallons during an average day and
875,000 gallons during a peak day.
The proposed Plymouth service area has approximately 1,040 potential
customers. Plymouth has agreed to allocate 150,000 gpd of its capacity
to the County. In order to do this, the existing plant will be ex-
panded to 1,200,000 gpd. After expansion of the Plymouth plant and µ
the connection of 475 County customers, the total plant production
will be about 583,000 gpd on an average day and 1,025,000 gpd on a
peak day.
Roper has an existing water production capacity of 288,000 gpd
and elevated storage of 100,000 gallons. Their present production
is 55,000 gallons during an average day and 110,000 gallons during a
peak day.
The proposed Roper Service Area has approximately 489 potential
customers. Assuming 80 percent of the potential would become customers
in the outlined service area and a per capita water consumption of
65 gpcd, the average day demand by the county system would be 69,000 gpd
and 125,000 gpd during a peak day.
Roper's total plant production would increase to 124,000 gpd on
an average day and peak day production to 235,000 gpd.
93

. 4 S
Production Capacity
GPO
GPO
Service Area
Existing
Proposed
Plymouth
800,000 �,
1,200,000
Roper
288,000'
2889000
Creswell
1101000
300,000
Total
191988000
1,788,000
Basis of County Demand Calculations:
FIGURE 15
Summary of Water Demands
Existing
Water Demands
County
Water Demands
GPO
GPO
GPO
GPO
Ave. Day
Max. Oaf►
Ave.
Day Max. Day
500,000
875,000
83,500
150,000
55,000
110,000
69,000
125,000
351000
70',000
87,000
1571000
590,000
1,055,000
239,500
432,000
(1) 2.72 persons per household (connection)
(2) 65 gallons per person per day consumption
(3) 80% connection of potential customers Roper and Creswell service areas
(4) 475 connections maximum (150,000 GPD) in Plymouth Service area
Total Demands
GPD GPD
Ave. Day Max. Day
583,500 1,025,000
124,000 235,000
122,000 2271000
829,500 1,487,000
/
0

Creswell has water production capacity of 110,000 gpd and elevated
storage of 100,000 gallons. Their present average production is ap-
proximately 35,000 gpd and the peak day is estimated to be 70,000 gpd.
The proposed Creswell Service Area has approximately 619 potential
customers. Assuming 80 percent connection to the system and a per
capita water consumption of 65 gpcd, the average day demand by the
county system would be 87,000 gpd and 157,000 gpd on a peak day.
Creswell's total plant production would increase to 122,000 GPD
on an average day and 227,000 gpd during a peak day. Initially, the
Creswell plant will be expanded to 300*000 gpd. A 100,000 gallon
County owned elevated storage tank and booster pump station is being
built in the Leonards' Point Area, which would help alleviate heavy
demands on the plant.
Upon completion there; the County waterworks presently under -
construction will consist of approximately 60 miles of water transmis-
sion lines, one 100,000 gallon elevated water tank, and utilize the
water supply, treatment and elevated storage components of all three
minicipal waterworks.
Further, a water supply subsystem which is part of the staged
Washington County Industrial Park Project will add an additional
(second) 100,000'gallon elevated water tank and an additional ap-
proximately 3500 linear feet of water transmission lines. Upon com-
pletion, the improvements in the Park will be consolidated into the
County Waterworks.
The towns' get their water from the Castle Hayne aquifer.
95

Roads and Highways
Currently, there are two major highway projects underway in Wash-
ington County. In May of 1985, the construction phase of the Albemarle
Sound Bridge reconstruction was initiated. The construction contract
for this project is the largest single award in history of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. The second major project is
the improvements scheduled for U.S. 64. This project consists of
improvements from Williamston eastward to the Junction of N.C. 45
north. The improvements include widening the two lanes from Williamston
to Dardens, a by-pass of the area west of Plymouth, additional lanes
through Plymouth and east of Plymouth to N.C. 45 and the construction
of a rest area adjacent to the Washington County Hospital just east
of Plymouth.
In addition to U.S. 64, the other primary highways serving Wash-
ington County are N.0 149 (Ken Trowbridge Road), N.C. 45-99, N.C. 308
and N.C. 32. N.C. 149 which primarily functions as the plant entrance
to the Plymouth Weyerhaeuser mill is in fairly good condition but could
need resurfacing in approximately two years. In the next three to four
years, N.C. 45 near the Bertie County line will also need resurfacing.
In a matter of weeks, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
will begin resurfacing N.C. 308. Finally, in approximately three to
four years, N.C. 32 will also need resurfacing.
In summary, he county's primary roads are in generally good con-
dition to serve existing needs.
I
_ Over the planning horizon, additional improvements are needed.
• Additional four laning of U.S. 64 east toward the "Pea Ridge Y" is
_ I
especially important. Continuing the four laning toward the Outer Banks
96

4
is also a high priority. Four laning of U.S. 64 from Tarboro, North
Carolina to Williamston is another high priority for Washington County.
Finally, from an economic standpoint, further improvements especially
four laning of U.S. 17 north to the Virginia line is especially im-
portant. U.S. 17 has the capability of opening up massive markets in
the Norfolk, Richmond, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore markets.
97

Public School System
Washington County is presently involved in a massive effort to
completely modernize the physical plant of its public school system.
In 1985, Pines Elementary School was opened. This school consolidated
and replaced the old Roper Elementary, Fourth Street Elementary, and
Washington Street Elementary school campuses. The 1980 Land Use Plan
described these three old campuses as very deteriorated and in need of
replacement.
Phase II of the County's modernization will be to eliminate the
mobile classroom units at Plymouth High School and enlarge the cafeteria
and library. The 1980 plan described Plymouth High School overall as
in "good structural condition." Phase II also includes funding to
finance improvements to the administrative offices and library at this
long term facility. The 1980 plan described Washington County Union
as "in generally good structural condition." In 1985, a_ large portion
of Washington County Union was air conditioned.
The final phase calls for consolidating Creswell Elementary School
on to the Creswell High School campus. Modern classroom space for both
elementary students and high school students will be constructed on
the existing high school campus. The 1980 plan described the condition
of Creswell Elementary School as "poor." Also, structural limitations
in the high school building were also noted.
General Obligation Bond Authorization for Phases II and III was
enacted in 1984.
In summary, the 1980 Land Use Plan stated capital improvement
goals for the public school system and it appears that these goals will
be exceeded. _.
98

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEMAND
Central Water Services
Although Washington County presently is constructing its original
Countv Waterworks system, the maximum capacity will be reached soon
after completion. Within the next 24 months, Washington County should
begin planning for the first expansion of the County Waterworks System.
Special emphasis should be placed on the water supply component.
Specifically, Washington County should attempt to construct a new well
or wells and a Water Treatment plant. Even with no increase in pop-
ulation, the increased popularity of the County Waterworks and the
relatively small percentage of the total population which will be served
make it necessary for Washington County to seriously explore expansion
of this vital service.
Sanitary Sewer
Once again, even in the absence of raw population growth, there
appears to be an increasing need for sanitary sewer services throughout
the county. Increasing conmercial development and potential industrial
development indicate the need for expanded sanitary sewer services
even in the absence of raw population growth. If wastewater disposal
regulations are tightened by State or Federal Government, the demand
could increase even more. In view of these factors, within the next
five years, Washington County should explore several possibilities
for meeting this demand. These possibilities include but are not
limited to:
1. County financing of expansion of the existing municipal
W

wastewater systems;
2. Utilization of package of wastewater treatment plant on
receiving streams. Such a system might be planned and oper-
ated by County Government but financed by property owners,
especially industrial property owners;
3. Planning and operation of on -site land application systems
(irrigation).
As of this date, Washington County has already financed two
Plymouth Wastewater Capital Improvements Project. The first was
the project to extend sanitary sewer services to Plymouth Garment
Company, which at the time was outside of the corporate limits. The
second project is currently in the design phase and will provide a
force main pipeline and ,pumping station to serve the new elementary
school at the junction of N.C. 45 north and U.S. 64 just east of
Plymouth. The wastewater system for the Industrial Park is basically
similar in its financing arrangement although here, the Town of
Plymouth along with Washington County and the Federal Government has
made a contribution to the financing package.
Public Safety
i
Since 1981, Washington County's Emergency Medical Services,
Firefighting services, and Law Enforcement services have improved
dramatically. Two additional deputies have been added, the two-way
i
radio system improved, and the departmental fleet dramatically improved.
In the area of firefighting, two new departments have been established
in Beaufort County but include large land areas in southern Washington
County in their service area. Further, the older departments have
made substantial improvements in equipment and training. Finally,
the County has recently placed in service two sets of emergency
extrication equipment which is used to rescue people trapped in
100

wrecked motor vehicles. One of these units is housed in the Creswell
Fire Department.and the other in the Plymouth Fire Department giving
Washington County excellent coverage for this type of service. By
way of illustration, there are only two units of this type presently
in service in New Hanover County.
Public Schools
As of September 12, 1983, the enrollment of the Washington County
School System was 3,015. In recent years, public school enrollment
has declined in Washington County. As late as 1970, the total average
daily membership was 3,818. Hence, we see that the public school system
is capable of accommodating a substantial amount of growth and should
be able to accommodate the growth projected through the end of the
planning horizon. However, from a qualitative standpoint, even with the
three phase building improvements project which will be in the con-
struction phase in a matter of weeks, further improvements are needed.
Presently, it appears that the bonds issued for improvements on the
Plymouth High School campus will be for a term of approximately 26 years.
In view of this, the County should make every effort to improve it
maintenance and capital outlay at all of the long term schools.
Long term schools are Plymouth High School, Creswell High School, and
Roper Union. Toward the end of the planning horizon, the County should
very carefully examine major renovation projects forthese three schools.
101

CONSTRAINTS TO DEVELOPMENT
Cultural & Historic Resources
When cultural and historic resources can be protected without
violating private property rights, protection measures should be en-
couraged. Protection measures which create property tax advantages
for the owners should not be provided by County Government. Before
issuing demolition permits for any structure on the "Historic Structures"
list (Pages SS through92 ), the County Building Inspector's Office should
confirm that the owner is aware of the age and significance of the
property.
Finally, in the absence of zoning regulations Washington County
does not attempt to protect historic structures for inconsistent con-
tiguous development. If such a problem threatens any of the listed
properties, the Planning Department will attempt to point out the
predicted adverse impact.

HISTORIC STRUCTURES
1. Alexander House. N. End of SR 1319, Skinnersville vic.
Two-story Federal era house with double -shoulder
chimney. Private.
2. Arnold House. N. side SR 1316 at jct. with NC 32.
Leonard's Point vic. Early nineteenth century.
Two-story frame dwelling, three bays wide and
two deep. Exterior end chimney, front shed
porch and rear addition, Federal interiors,
flush sheathing under porch. Private.
3. Belgrade. N. side of SR 1158, 0.3 mi. E. of jct. with
SR 1159, Creswell vic. One -and -one -half -story
frame Federal style house with gable roof and
double exterior chimneys of Flemish bond; built
about 1800; original simple interior trim
remains intact, was home of "Parson" Pettigrew
who was elected first bishop of the Episcopal
church in North Carolina (but never consecrated).
Private. SL.
4. Blount House. Faces Albemarle Sound, 1.5 mi. N. of SR
1324, Westover vic. Fine two-story frame center -
hall plan Federal style dwelling with two exterior
chimneys, built about 1800; wide porch on south -
side of house and ell constructed during Victorian
era; interiors intact. Private. SL.
5. Bower Farm. E. side NC 32, 2.6 mi. S. of jct. with SR
1101, Plymouth vic. Two-story gable roof frame
nineteenth century house. Exterior end chimneys
one rebuilt, six -over -six sash with easement
windows in gable end on right side. Private.
6. Chesson House. At N. end of SR 1320, Skinnersville vic.
Nineteenth century. One-story frame dwelling;
center -hall plan two room deep with later wing;
original nine -over -nine window sash, interesting
interiors include doors with unusual painted
designs. Private.
*from: Historic and Architectural Resources of the Tar-Neuse
River Basin, "North Carolina, Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History.
103

7. J.A. Chesson House. W. Side of SR 1301, 1.0 mi. of N.
of jct. with SR 1331, Roper vic. Two story frame
Federal dwelling with single -shoulder chimney
with tumbled weatherings at each end, hall -and -
parlor plan with late Victorian two-story ell
added; stairway enclosed and attic floored.
Private.
8. Will Chesson House. On N. side of US 64, 1.0 mi. W.
of jct. with SR 1135, Skinnersville vic. Fine,
large scale center -hall plan Federal era house
built about 1820 by sea captain; vernacular
interior. Private.
9. Joshia P. Davenport House. W. side SR 1141, 0.2 mi. S.
of jct. with US 64, Scuppernong vic. Two-story
frame Greek Revival farmhouse, three bays wide
and two deep. Exterior end chimney, central
entrance, front shed porch and rear addition.
Private.
10. Furlough House. N. side of US 64, opp. jct. with SR
1119, Roper vic. Two-story frame dwelling built
during the Federal era; unusually small windows
atithe second level; first floor altered. Private.
11. Garrett's Island Home. S. side SR 1112, 1.8 mi. E.
ofjct. with SR 1113, Plymouth vic. Built about
1750, probably by Daniel Garrett; small frame
house with gambrel roof, shed dormers, and
exterior brick chimneys; interior contains fluted
mantel with paneled overmantel. Private SL.
12. Harrison -Blount House. SE. corner of jct. of SR 1119
and 1122, Roper vic. Federal style center -hall
plan dwelling with Victorian alterations. Probably
built by James J. Harrison. Nearby is site of
Lee's Mill, begun in 1702 by Capt. Thomas Blount,
operated until 1921. Private. SL.
13. Holly Grove Plantation. Long drive on E. side of SR
1310, 0.1 mi. S. of jct. with SR 1311, Creswell
vic. One-story cottage with gable roof and front
shed porch. Nine -over -nine sash on first level,
six -over -six on second. Exterior end chimneys,
Federal and Greek Revival elements in interior.
Private.
104

14, Homestead Farm (Hassell House). SW. corner of jct. of,
US 64 with SR 1120, Roper Vic. Original two -
room frame Federal style farmhouse built about "
1800, later two-story front portion. Private.
15.. House. Private road W. side of SR 1137, 0.3 mi. S. of jct, with SR 1136, Pleasant Grove vic. Two-
story frame mid -nineteenth century house, three
bays wide with gable roof. Front hip roof porch,
interior chimneys, six -over -six sash, central
entrance. Private.
16. Jackson House. W. side SR 1100, 0.5 mi. N. of jct. with
SR 1101, Hoke vic. Main block is a two-story
center -hall weatherboard frame dwelling, three
bays wide and two deep. Gable roof on main house,
shed porch along front, two exterior end double -
shouldered and stepped brick chimneys. Kitchen
had exterior and single -shouldered mud and slick
chimney, now gone, one of very few known standing
recently in North Carolina. Private.
17. Johnson -Swain House. S. side of SR 1111, 0.7 mi. E. of
jct-`with SR 1113, Plymouth vic. Two-story frame
house with large- double -shouldered brick chimney.
Private.
18. Mockingbird Hill Cottage. S. side of end of SR 1151,
Cherry vic. One-story and attic frame cottage,
mid -nineteenth century. Gable roof with full
length shed porch, replaced end chimney. Private.
.19. Morattuck Church. N. side of SR 1106, 0.8 mi. E. of jct.
with SR 1105, Plymouth vic. Congregation established
in 1785. first building burned and was replaced by the
present structure built in 1865; one-story frame gable
roof building, two bays wide and four deep. Abandoned
and deteriorated. Private.
20.. Nichols -Vale House. N. side of SR 1111, 0.8 mi. SW. of
jct. with US 64, Plymouth vic. Ca. 1800. Two-
story frame Federal style house, center -hall plan;
exterior double -shouldered chimneys. Private.
21. Ephram Pritchett House. E. side SR 1301, at jct, with
SR 1308, Creswell vic. Two-story frame dwelling
with double tier front porch with shed roof. Three
bays wide, two deep, exterior end chimneys, later
.rear addition. Second half nineteenth century.
Private.

22. Rehoboth Church. S. side of US, 0.4 mi. W. of jct.
with SR 1317, Skinnersville Vic. One-story
frame temple -form church completed in 1853; said
to have been constructed and finished by slaves
of J.S. Norman who donated the land. Private. NR.
23. St. David's Chapel. SE corner jct. of SR 1158 and 1159,
Creswell Vic. Original portion of this frame
church was built in 1803 by the Reverend Charles
Pettigrew of Belgrade and known as Pettigrew's
Chapel; building altered in 1857 after a design
by Richard Upjohn and in 1858 reorganized under
the name of St. David's Chapel. Private. SL.
24. Somerset Place State Historic Site. N. side of Lake
Phelps, just S. of jct. of SR 1167 and 1168, Creswell
vic. The plantation itself was developed in late
eighteenth century with a vast system of canals,
draining swampland and providing irrigation for early.
rice crops. The machinery there, very advanced for
the period, was widely admired. Slaves brought direct
from Africa late in eighteenth century retained their
African culture to a remarkable extent. House,
outbuildings, much of canal system remain. The
house, built for Josiah Collins III about 1830,
is one of the best extant examples of coastal
plantation houses of the period. State Historic
Site. public. NR.
25. B.F. Spring Farm. N. side SR 1126, 0.3 mi. E. of jct,
with SR 1149, Cherry vic. One-story frame cottage
with gable roof and engaged front shed porch and
rear shed. Beaded siding, brick exterior end
chimneys. Typical small nineteenth century dwelling.
Private.
26. Dewey Spruill House. Long Drive on S. side of SR 1163,
0.1 mi. E. of jct. with SR 1162, Cherry vic.
Two-story mid -nineteenth frame dwelling three
bays wide, six -over -six -sash. Exterior end
chimneys, single -stepped shoulders. Much original
interior fabric intact, deteriorated condition.
Private.
106

27. Winfield Spruill House. N. side SR 1300, 0.2 mi. W.
of jct. with US 64, Pleasant Grove vic. Two-story
frame dwelling, three bays wide and two bays
deep. Central entrance, gable roof, two
exterior stepped double -shoulder chimneys
nine -over -six sash. Enclosed stair, much
original fabric. Deteriorated. Private.
28. Swanner-Lamb House. Jct. of SR 1318, 1319, and 1320.
Skinnersville vic. Mid -nineteenth century
two-story frame house, wide shed front porch
and enclosed rear shed. Private.
29. Thompson House. SE. side SR 1119, 0.5 mi. SW. of jct.
with SR 1120, Roper voc. Simple two-story frame
Federal house; unusual is the New England type
saltbox form, rare in North Carolina. Private.
SL.
30. Walker House (Harrison House). On E. side SR 1119,
0.4 mi. N. of jct. with SR 1120, Roper vic. Saltbox
type dwelling with exterior chimneys and unusually
high water table; and said built by retired New
England sea captain. Private.
31. Westover Plantation. S. side Sr 1300, 0.3 mi. W. of
jct. with SR 1329, Westover vic. A two-story, three -
bay frame structure in the Greek Revival style.
One one-story porch covers the center bay. Numerous
outbuildings. Private. SL.
CRESWELL
32. Creswell CoTrmercial Buildings. Creswell. Cohesive
group of late nineteenth century, early twentieth
century commercial structures, mostly frame with
gable front.s. SL.
33. Houses. Collection of mid -through late nineteenth
century and early twentieth century frame structures
showing Greek Revival and Victorian influences.
Many ornamental porches. Private.
PT VA" TTTa
34. Armistead House. 302 W. Main Street. Mid -nineteenth
century. Two-story frame dwelling, five bays
wide with exterior end chimneys. Greek Revival
interior detail. Private.
107

35. Addie Brinkley House. 201 E. Main Street. Handsome
two-story Victorian house with bracketed eaves,
other ornament. Private.
36. Dave Brinkley Cottage. 212 Jefferson Street. Mid -
nineteenth century. One-story frame cottage,
central entrance with transome and side -lights.
Front shed porch with turned posts, interior
end chimney, later addition at rear. Private.
37. David Clark House. 219 Jefferson Street. Built ca.
1811. Two-story frame side -hall -plan Federal
style dwelling. Private.
318. Fort Williams. N. side of 1325, opp. jct. with SR 1342:
Sitc of confederate fort captured by Federal
troops early in Civil War and recaptured by
Confederate forces in April 1864. Private.
39. Grace Episcopal Church. SW corner of Madison and Water
Streets. Established 1837; constructed after
plans drawn by Richard Upjohn; brick Gothic
Revival structure completed 1861. Private. SL.
4Q. Hampton Academy. Across from 109 E. Main Street. Two-
story brick building with hip roof and front
cross gable, round arched window surrounds. Private.
4.1. Hornthall House. 108 W. Main Street. Two-story frame
house with hip roof intersected by cross gables
with sawn bargeboards and finials. Recent
two-story porch and altered central entrance.
Late nineteenth century. Private.
42. Latham House. 311 E. Main Street. Ca. 1850. Two-story
center -hall plan frame dwelling; Greek Revival
style with bracketed cornice. Built by Charles
Latham, lawyer, state legislator and sheriff.
Private, SL.
43. Nichols House. 220 Washington Stree. Ca. 1804.
Two-story center -hall plan frame Federal style
dwelling. Altered. Private.
44. Plymouth Depots (Passenger and Freight). Four one-story
gable roof structures, two of brick and two of
frame. Typical early twentieth century railroad
buildings. Private.
m

45. Plymouth United Methodist Church. SW. corner of 3rd
at Adams Street. One-story brick veneered
gable end church, one -by -five bays. Two-story
central bay tower. Built ca. 1832, brick
veneered 1932. Congregation founded in 1832.
Private.
46. Spruill House. 326 Washington Street. Late nineteenth
century, story -and -a -half cottage ornee. Frame
structure with a hip roof intersected by cross
gables. Sawnwork, interior chimneys and an
ornate finial. Private. SL.
47. Stubbs House. Winesett Circle, Ca. 1830. Large two-
story Greek Revival frame dwelling. Porch recent.
Private.
ROPER
48. Roper Corrercial District. Small late nineteenth -early
twentieth century corrmercial district with brick
and frame structures. Similar period frame
houses, forming a homogenous townscape.
49. Downing -Spruill House. N. side US 64, 0.1 mi. W. of
Jct. with SR 1301. Two-story Federal period house
with hip roof. Private.
50 Herbon Methodist Church. N. side Buncombe Avenue, opp. '
Jct. with Bank Street. Greek Revival era structure
built in 1842. Private.
51 . Mizell -Lewis House. NW. side of Buncombe Avenue, just
SW. of Deep Creek. Greek Revival era dwelling
constructed about 1850 by Anson Mizell; interior
chimneys, pedimented gable ends. Private.
52 St. Luke's Episcopal Church. E. side of Bush Street
between John Street and Buncombe Avenue. Early
twentieth century. Small frame church with pointed
arch windows, entrance tower with belfry. Private.
109

Unplanned Development Problems
We have already discussed one of the most obvious problems from
unplanned development, the one of conflicting land uses between res-
idential development and agriculture. In addition to the problem
of odor,- these two types of land uses can result in hazards associated
with aerial spraying and dust. Further, the farmer can also be subject
to threats of lawsuits. Presently, in North Carolina, farmers are gen-
erally immune from nusiance lawsuits when they were in operation prior
to the residential development. Also, in extreme situations, farmers
may have access problems when long stretches of road frontage are
developed. In Washington County, there have been several recorded
nusiances caused by taverns located in residential neighborhoods and
close to churches. Also, highway improvement projects can produce
r negative impacts on residential structures. Specifically, when ad-
ditional lanes are constructed, the close proximity to houses may
cause safety hazards and high levels of noise. Toward that end.
we encourage the North Carolina Department of Transportation to liber-
alize its policy of financing the movement of houses toward the rear
of lots. By the end of the planning horizion, the County should consider
the enactment of a zoning or rural development ordinance.
Projected Changes in Land Use
The improvements including the addition of traveling lanes to
U.S. 64 just west of Plymouth and to the east of Plymouth is the area
most likely to experience changes in predominant land use. In this
same general system, we have the largest pipeline in the Washington
County Waterworks (an 8" line). Also, at the junction of U.S. 64 east
and N.C. 45 north, 'a new consolidated elementary school will be con-
110

structed adjacent to the County Resources Center. This school will
house approximately 800 students. Nearby, Washington County is de-
veloping its 60 acre Industrial Park just off of Mackeys Road ap-
proximately one mile east of Plymouth. Closer into Plymouth, we have
in recent months seen a flurry of commercial activity including the
construction of a MacDonalds outlet, a new Winn Dixie supermarket, and
a fast food steakhouse. We can expect to see further commercial and
light industrial development all along this corridor from Washington
County Hospital out to and past the junction of N.C. 45 north. Res-
idential development here will also probably quicken.
During the last two.decades, from the perspective of Washington
County, there has been a considerable change in land use along the
Albemarle Sound. This area contains some of the most productive ag-
ricultural soils in the county but has also been attractive for res-
idential development. From the perspective of the coastal area, the
pace of development has been moderate to slow. We can expect to see
further residential development, especially in specific locations
served by good roads.
Lake Phelps - The Allen Road Fire will have a downward affect on
land use and will most likely result in a significant number of lots
laying fallow. On the other hand, we may very well see an increase
in the quality of residential development. We may see for example,
former mobile home sites as the site for single family detached structures_
This projection is based on a very general assumption that oftentimes
when middle to upper class families rebuild, they build a higher quality
of structure than the one they lost. Also, Phelps Field is a prime
location for a peat resources development project. Washington County
officially and informally encourages the development of this important _
111

resource in this location as well as others.
In northeastern Washington County, we could see additional residen-
tial and commercial development stimulated by the Albemarle Sound Bridge
construction project and the overall attractiveness of the Sound. In
addition to improv
ing the esthetics of the general area, the project
includes erosion control measures which could substantially lessen this
i
problem in the Leonard's Point area. Most importantly, we will most
I
likely see an increased traffic count on the Albemarle Sound Bridge
specifically and N.C. 32 in general.
Finally, we can expect to see additional residential development
on N.C. 32 south near the Beaufort County border. This area is at-
tractive as a bedroom community for individuals com-nuting to Washington,.
North Carolina towork. The area is presently predominantly agricultural
and woodsland. For similar reasons, we could see residential develop-
ment occur just south of Plymouth on N.C. 32. This area is also prima-
rily agricultural.
112

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The basic foundation of Washington County's ongoing citizen par-
ticipation program is a lay Planning Board. This Board is composed
of 11 seats. Of these, 10 are citizen members. Of the citizen
members, only three are in allied occupations. The Board presently
has one registered land surveyor, one professional engineer, and one
professional soil conservationist. The remaining members are citizens
representing virtually all neighborhoods in the community. The Com-
missioners and staff look to the Planning Board members to provide
them with input from citizens in the various neighborhoods. The
Planning Board members also keep the citizenry informed concerning
land use issues, regulations, and future questions. Hence, we have
a dialogue between the Planning Board and the citizenry of Washington
County. -
From a more formal standpoint, Washington County has taken specific
steps to afford the public formal opportunities to com-nent on land
use planning as it relates to the revision of this document. On
April 17, 1985, the County published its Citizen Participation Plan
in the local weekly newspaper, The_Roanoke_Beacon. The plan was
published as an easily readable display advertisement approximately
two columns wide and six inches. Additionally, The Roanoke Beacon
provided prominent news coverage of the update process. For example,
the edition published on May 8, 1985, included a large front page
banner headline entitled "Officials Discuss Land Use Policy". This
plan which is set out in Figure 20 established five formal opportu-
nities for citizens to comment on the Land Use Plan. Three Planning
113

Figure 16
rA
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN - LAND USE PLAN UPDATE
Washington County is presently revising its official Land Use Plan.
We solicit questions, comments, and suggestions from Washington County
citizens, and landowners concerning the content of the Land Use Plan.
Specifically, we invite questions and comments concerning the
portions dealing with land use planning issues and policy issues.
Issues and policies will be discussed at upcoming meetings of the
Washington County Planning Board and the Washington County Board of
Corrmissioners.
PLANNING BOARD*
April 25, 1985 - Room 201
Courthouse.- 7:30 pm
May 9, 1985 - 7:30 pm
Creswell Municipal Building
COUNTY COMIAISSIONERS
May 6, 1985 - Room 201
Courthouse - 9:15 am
May 22, 1985 - Room 201
Courthouse - 7:45 pm
May 23, 1985 - 7:30 pm
Roper Corrmunity Building
Written questions and comments may be directed to the Washington
County Planning Department, P. O. Box 1007, Plymouth, NC 27962. A
copy of issues which must be addressed is posted at the Washington
County Planning Department, 4th Floor - Courthouse. A public hearing
on Land Use Planning issues has been scheduled by the Washington County
Planning Board at 7:30 pm, Thursday, April 25, 1985 in Room 201 of
the Washington County Courthouse.
Finally, for illustrative purposes, a copy of the 1981 Land Use
Surrmary including land use planning issues and policy statements
are available on request from the Washington County Planning Department.
Ann C. Keyes
Planning Board,Clerk
4/17/85
114

Board meetings were scheduled with one in Plymouth, one in Creswell,
and one in Roper. Two County Commissioners meetings in May were also
scheduled for public hearings.
Finally, we invited written questions and comments and offered
to provide copies of the 1980 Land Use Plan Summary for illustrative
purposes. As of this writing, formal public input has been non-
existent.
We do not interpret the lack of formal public input as a negative
occurrence. As we stated earlier, our basic ongoing citizen partic-
ipation program utilizing the Planning Board members will continue.
However,. in the final analysis, the true importance of citizen partic-
ipation is the opportunity for comment not the extent of direct partic-
ipation. We have all seen instances where the legitimate citizen
participation process has been corrupted by highly organized well fi-
nanced single issue groups and other lobbing organizations.
In conclusion, we would submit that at the present time, it ap-
pears that the Washington County citizenry is fairly satisfied with
the land use planning process or else they would make their protest
known.
115

r STORM IiAZARD MITIGATION, POST -DISASTER RECOVERY, AND
EVACUATION PLANS
The entire North carolina Coastal region, including Washington
County, faces strong threats of damage each year from hurricanes,
Northeasters, or other major storms. For nearly 20 years, there
was a marked "slowdown", or "lull", in hurricane activity along
the State's coast., Predictions were that a major storm could strike
the State at any time during the hurricane season, since such a
rA
storm was "long overdue". And then, in September, 1984, the "waiting"
ended. Hurricane Diana, with some of the strongest sustained winds
ever recorded, rammed into the Southeast coast near Wilmington.
Although damage was extensive, the potential destruction was much
greater and the damage would have been greatly escalated had the
storm hit land at a slightly different location.
Storm Hazard Mitigation: Discussion
Hazard mitigation, or actions taken to reduce the probability
or impact of a disaster could involve a number of activities or
policy decisions. The starting point, however, is to identify the
types of hazards (including the relative severity and magnitude of
risks), and the extent of development (including residential, com-
mercial, etc.) located in storm hazard areas.
Hurricanes are extremely powerful, often unpredictable forces
of nature. The two most severe effects are fatalities and property
damage, which are usually the result of four causes: high winds,
flooding, wave action, and erosion, each of which are discussed
briefly in this section.
116

n
High Winds
High winds are the major determinants of a hurricane, by definition,
i.e., a tropical disturbance with sustained winds of at least 74 miles
per hour. Extreme hurricanes can have winds of up to 165 miles per
hour, with gusts up to 200 miles per hour. These winds circulate
around the center or"eye" of the storm. Although the friction
or impact of the winds hitting land from the water causes some dis-
sipation of the full force, there is still a tremendous amount of
energy left to cause damage to buildings, overturn mobile homes,
fell trees and powerlines, and destroy crops. Also, tornadoes can
often be spawned by hurricane wind patterns. Wind stress is an
important consideration in storm hazard mitigation planning. Be-
cause of a hurricane's size and power, it is likely that all of
Washington County would be subject to the same wind velocity in the
event of a storm.
Flooding
With Washington having the entire northern boundary located on the
Albemarle Sound and the northwestern boundary located on the Roanoke
River and with elevations in these areas ranging from 2-8 feet above
sea level, we are left vulnerable to most types of flooding conditions
(i.e., hurricanes, northeasters and high winds). See Map 9.
Wave Action
Damage from wave action is connected very closely to the storm
surge, i.e., wind -driven water with high waves moving to vulnerable
shoreline areas. Areas most likely to be affected are ocean erodible
areas and estuarine shoreline areas.
There are no ocean erodible area
117

t
in Washington County, but there are extensive estuarine shoreline
areas (75 feet inland from the mean high water mark of estuarine
waters) in the County. However, wave action damage would have the
most significant impact along the Albemarle Sound Shoreline.
Erosion
The final major consideration in storm hazard mitigation is
severe erosion, caused by high winds, high water, and heavy wave
action. Again, in Washington County, the area most susceptible to
storm -related erosion is the estuarine shoreline AEC along the Albemarle
Sound. This is essentially the same area potentially affected by the
action of damaging waves and described under wave action above. Shore-
line erosion could lead to loss of property through, portions of water-
front lots being washed into the Sound or even actual structural damage
to buildings. Erosion potential is an important factor to consider in
developing storm hazard mitigation policies.
Summary: Storm Hazard Mitigation Considerations
In Summary, Washington County is not confronted with the same
degree of hazard from hurricanes as an oceanfront county, but our
entire northern boundary adjoins the Albemarle Sound and does, however,
present a hazard.
It is not possible to delineate on a map the areas of our county
that may affected by the powerful winds associated with a hurricane.
The areas that can be predicted as problem or hazardous areas are shown
in Map 8 and 9 as areas of environmental concern and flood prone areas.
The area of environmental concern (AEC is a strip. of land that is
seventy five (75) feet landward of the mean high water mark on our
118

northern border where Washington County joins the Roanoke River and `
the Albemarle Sound. This estuarine shoreline has been designated an
(AEC) under the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
The flood prone areas as shown on Map 9 are -the shoreline and low-
lying sections of.kour county which are quite obviously in danger of
flooding during a hurricane. High tides in the sound will push water
back up the creeks and streams. The very heavy rainfall associated
with a hurricane won't be able to drain normally and flooding will
occur in previously unmapped areas.
Although Washington County's geography includes extensive shore-
line on the Albemarle Sound, Roanoke River, Lake Phelps and Pungo Lake,
it is not vunerable to the type of hurricane and tropical storm damage
that is associated with barrier island counties or even those just -
slightly to the east. It would appear that generally speaking, existing
regulations scattered over several programs enable the county to regulate
redevelopment after severe storms. Here, we refer specifically to the
County's Flood Migigation Ordinance, provisions of the NC State Building
Code, the Health Departmen's septic tank rules, and the CAMA development
permit controls. Two ares which may not be addressed by existing pro-
grams are the possible impact on the county's new water system and the
increased risk of vandalism and looting. The county should consider
adding a policy statement to its existing set of Water System Rules
and Regulations which would disclose to the public the county's
reluctance to rebuild water lines following a major storm should such
an investment carry higher risks. Also the county should remain
aware of its Emergency Powers Ordinance and the possible need to
trigger a curfew or other special crime prevention measures in the .
wake of a major hurricane.
119

POLICY STATMENTS: STORM HAZARD MITIGATION
In order to minimize the damage potentially caused by the effects
of a hurricane or other major storms, Washington County proposes the
following policies.
High Winds
Washington County supports enforcement of the N.C. State Building
Code, particularly requirements of construction standards to meet wind -
resistive factors,i.e., "design wind velocity". The County will also
support provisions in the State Building Code requiring tie -downs
for mobile homes, which help resist wind damage.
Flooding
Washington County is supportive of the hazard mitigation elements
10. of the National Flood Insurance Program. Currently, Washington County
is participating in the regular phase of the insurance program.
Washington County also supports continued enforcement of the LAMA and
404 Wetlands development permit processes in areas potentially suscepti-
ble to flooding.
Wave Action and Shoreline Erosion
Washington County is supportive of the CAMA development permit
process for estuarine shoreline areas and the requisite development
standards which encourage both shoreline stabilization and facilitation
of proper drainage.
IMPLEMENTATION: STORM HAZARD MITIGATION
Washington County enforces a building inspection program with
the services of a building inspector enforcing all provisions of
the NC State Building Code. These provisions include designing
120

for wind resistance and mobile home tie -downs for newly placed mobile
w
homes.
Washington County.has adopted the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance for the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance
Program. This ordinance requires basis floodproofing for all new
construction and substantial improvements including all first floor
elevations being at or above the base flood elevations, which is
being enforced as part of the County's building inspection program.
The County will continue to support enforcement of State and
Federal programs which aid in mitigation of hurricane hazards,
including CAMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit process.
Development Moratoria
The general powers of the building inspector probably permit
the county to enact a temporary moratorium on building permits in
storm damaged areas following a hurricane. Should the county suffer
a high enough level of damage, a moratorium would permit the develop-
ment of stricter setback requirements, or outright condemnation and
acquisition. The problem here, of course, would be to identify
revenues to provide just compensation to property owners should
acquisition be the only alternative.
121

Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan
1. Emergency Management will be the lead agency with responsi-
bilities for immediate cleanup and removal activities to
minimize health and safety hazards.
2. The N.C. Department of Transportation will clear the major
highways and then as soon as possible the secondary roads
will be cleared. Special attention will be given to areas
where emergency vehicles need to get through.
3. North Carolina Power Company will repair damaged power
lines and restore electricity.
4. Carolina Telephone Company will repair their lines
and restore communications.
5. Local policies will not restrict reconstruction provided
private funds are used. The need for reconstruction with
public funds would probably require a much longer period of
reconstruction because of the red tape and strict guidelines
to be followed.
6. We have established a recovery task force consisting of
all members of the support group from our local Emergency
Management Plan.
7. A damage assessment shall be conducted with the Tax Ad-
ministrator being in charge of the survey. He shall choose
or call upon key people throughout the county to assist
him in the compilation of this damage assessment report.
This report should be compiled as quickly as possible
for use by the recovery task force and other agencies
that will need it to provide emergency services.
8. Repairs and reconstruction will be permitted on a worst
need basis with minor repairs needed for re-occupany to
be permitted first. Major repairs and reconstruction would
be permitted only after the building trades labor force
had completed the major repairs.
9. All construction is to comply with State, Federal and the
North Carolina Building Code regulations.
10. Our support group or recovery task force shall be responsible
for implementing the policies and procedures contained in this
Post -Disaster Reconstruction Plan.
11. The repair and/or replacement of public utilities and
facilities including possible relocation to less hazardous
areas shall be given individual consideration by the
_ administrative and elected officials of the County or the
affected municipality within the county.
122

MAP 8
i
This map isonly an approximation of Areas of Environmental
Concern and does not delineate any official boundary line.
\SHINGTON COUNTY
iproximate location of
eas of Environmental Concern
. AEC —Estuarine Waters
and
AEC —Public Trust Waters
AEC —Coastal Wetlands
AEC —Estuarine Shoreline
123

N
bob
Evacuation Zone A"
Evacuation Zone B
ti
WASHINGTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Shaded areas shown on map are flood prone. If flooding of your area is predicted,
evacuate early to avoid being marooned.

Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Washington County has an official Emergency Management Hurricane
Plan which was adopted in 1977. A review of this plan indicates
that it is generally adequate for the County`s needs. Because
of our location between Dare.County, the Outer Banks and the higher
ground of Martin County and other points to the west, Washington County
will have many residents and vacationers evacuating from Dare County
on U.S. Highway 64. See Map 10 for evacuation routes and shelter
locations. Although our shelters will be opened as needed, our
primary goal is to keep non-residents moving inland until the weather
forces us to begin sheltering everyone. Sine our public schools are
to be used as shelters, no attempt has been made to define evacuation
routes for our residents who already know the best and alternate
routes to the school nearest them.
The non-residents entering Washington County and traveling west
on U.S. Highway 64 will continue to Pleasant Grove where the traffic
will be split. Alternate vehicles will follow N.C. Hwy. 308 to the
right and into Bertie County -where they can intersect and follow U.S.
17 and 64 westward. Those vehicles that continue from Pleasant Grove
west on U.S. 64 will continue through Roper and Plymouth into Martin
County and other points westward.
We are attempting to give an inventory of the property and struc-
tures at risk from the effects of a hurricane in or near our county.
We have Also taken a close look at the monetary value losses that
might be sustained in our jurisdiction, how our tax base could be
affected, and the percent of our population at risk. See Figure 17.
125

MAP 10
9Ay »• \
' BULL Mr
`' G�6 :aril - � /%• • ,. q W r t
Hwy 308 W40J, .._..•... - „r , *'- ` M1, tir
To U.S. 17 „•, _ .. �rs .��..tw
1 � UV no -
From
1 ,% Dare
' ,r ' po.M - m' County o
rtgNoutM /� r urt� „rw U
it US t. r.7 ,e�,� iV. '\ F-J � •ir �W f{0 O aay► � yyuu .w. ,rr►
up ,r
OA
To U.S. 17 .�+'. „r • ur ;w
C r, S• w A x r r, e
4
a ° �/-' Lam~ �•'�.� •..r �
School
f • i J `, / /[TTIGREW STATE ►ARK •••
_ -i
I NOTE: All schools
L A R[ P x c L P s are shelters to be
•! opened on an as
7 ,
�••-•-p \ \` r- , , 1 needed basis.
PU
!The evacuation routes shoo
lare primarily designated fu
PUNCO
%I • ' w
LAKE �thexodus of Dare County
-res►c+ents and vacationers.
WASHINGTON COUNTY Washington County reside ,
should follow the best rout•
►.�noTLJ I-ADON' It, A to nearest shelter.

Figure 17
N
J
AN INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF LAND AND STRUCTURES AT RISK
.ALONG THE 28 MILES OF SHORELINE AND THE
HAZARD AREAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY
COUNTY TOTALS
AT RISK
% OF TOTALS
Population
159433
1,800
11.7%
Housing
4,460
750
16.8%
Commercial
260
3
1.2%
Tax Base
$350-,000,000
$34,500,000
9.86%
Current Tax Dollars
$ 2,135,000
$ 210,510
9.86%
4, 1

Re -Entry
Factors regarding re-entry are also included in the Emergency
Management Hurricane Evacuation Plan.
128

GENERAL POLICY ON GROWTH
The general land use policy of Washington County concerns the
optimum rate of growth. This policy is designed to state the local
discretion and is heavily influenced by the existing circumstances,
problems and resources occurring and in place in Washington County.
The general growth policy and all of the others are proposed consistent
with and tempered by applicable Federal and State regulations. In
a nutshell, the county agrees to comply with all Federal and State
developmental regulations but once these requirements have been Met,
seeks to promote a wide range of economic development including
industrial expansion, commercial development, residential growth,
and sheer growth in population. The county acknowledges serious
growth lag problems and is aware of the typical rural obstacles to
achieving economic growth. In a specific sense, the county's growth
policy maintains a high priority on the development of native peat
resources.
Policy Alternatives
We can identify a wide range of policy alternatives surrounding
the issue of overall growth. The alternatives organized from one
extreme to the other are:
1. A virtually no growth policy;
2. A very limited highly selective growth policy;
3. A moderate growth policy which would also be some-
what selective and would not include.extensive
promotional efforts;
4. Ari aggressive wide ranging growth policy augmented
by broad promotional activities;
5. A complete laissez faire policy encouraging and
permitting -any type of development.
129

• Washington County dismisses the alternatives at both extremes - the
new growth policy and the "anything goes" policy. This narrows the
choices considerably.
Policy of Choice
The policy of choice is the aggressive growth policy. However,
this policy does not intend to favor each and every development
proposal which might surface. In addition to the aforementioned
requirement that existing State and Federal developmental regulations
be met; the county reserves the right to examine each individual
proposal on its on merits. When serious land use conflicts, nusiances,
or real public health risks can be identified, proposals will be dis-
couraged or rejected in the discretion of county elected officials.
Such a rejection might even occur when a proposal meets the bare minimum
State and Federal regulatory requirements. The general tone of this
progrowth policy however, will be to present a community attitude
favorable to new economic growth.
Implementation
We propose several specific policies and procedures to attempt to
implement the progrowth policy:
1. The county proposes to continue an active industrial recruit-
ment program and to explore new points of emphasises in this
program including but not limited to participation on regional
and State boards and committees, and expiration of moderately
priced advertising programs.
2. The county commits itself to keeping locally developed
regulations simple and responsive. Here, we are especially
interested in quick turn -around times for.plat review and
permit applications.
_ 3. Close cooperation with the industrial recruitment program
of the North Carolina Department of Commerce will be main-
tained and intensified.
130

4. The county will attempt to focus its recruiting efforts
in a way that maximizes its peculiar circumstances and
unique factors of the local community. For example, the
county should not attempt to recruit industries which it
cannot support. Conversely, it should not simply recruit
industry without any idea about which types of industry
might be profitable in a small rural county.
COORDINATION
Here, we are defining coordination as the process of dovetailing
municipal land use plans with the Washington County Land Use Plan.
In the cases of Roper and Creswell, there have been no separate
freestanding documents. If that practice continues, coordination
should be a rather straightforward process. The municipality of Plymouth
does operate its own land use planning program.
Policy Alternatives ti
We preceive three basic policy alternatives:
1. Provide virtually no coordination between Washington 4
County and the Town of Plymouth except that required
by law;
2. Have a specific coordinating procedure with meaningful
dialogue;
3. Have a formally consolidated program.
Discussion of these alternatives are difficult since they have
not been explored in great detail by the two jurisdictions. However,
we shall explore some ideas and by providing a copy of this passage,
encourage feedback from the Town of Plymouth.
Policy of Choice
The policy of choice shall be the middle alternative which will
attempt to increase the coordination and dialogue past its present
level. We propose here that the process be formalized somewhat.
Toward the end of the five year period, there may be the possibility w
131

to completely consolidate the entire process?
Implementation Methods
Implementation methods shall include the following specific
measures:
1. Provide the Town of Plymouth with a complete set of
the county land use planning documents including
the land use plan text and maps;
2. Provide a briefing once the final plan is adopted;
3. Send specific invitations to the county's final
public hearings.
4. Hold one joint meeting of the Plymouth Planning Board
and the County Planning Board per year.
Of course, the final implementation results will depend on the
Town of Plymouth's response to these suggestions.
e STATEWIDE COASTAL ISSUES -
Here, we refer to five planning issues directly related to unique
coastal considerations. The five subareas are:
1. Marina development
2. Floating home development
3. Island development
4. Protection of maritime forests
5. Sand dune protection and measures
After consulting with the County Tax Assessor, Soil Conservation
Service, and after reviewing aerial photography, we are virtually
certain that there are no actual islands located within the jurisdiction
of Washington County. Further, we can identify no real sand dunes
or maritime forests. However, we are aware that there are high quality
pure atlantic white cedar stands in the Bull's Neck Swamp and are aware
132

of the stand of water tupelo in the Chapel Swamp area. We understand
that neither of these stands technically can be described as maritime
forests. Finally, we can identify no floating home developments or
even mention of proposal to construct floating homes and we know of
no,)marinas or plans to construct marinas in Washington County.
Policy Alternatives
We have not developed any policy alternatives because of the
absence of problems associated with the purely coastal planning
issues.
Policy of Choice
No policy decisions have been made for the same reason.
Implementation
No specific implementation strategies are necessary at this
time.
In conclusions• the county should monitor the future developments
in the following areas:
1. Marina development; and
2. Floating home development.
Proposals to construct these types of developoments could trigger the
necessity for specific developmental controls but such developments
at the present time do not appear to be likely.
WATER SUPPLY, STORMWATER AND AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF ISSUES - Definition
In Washington County, water supply issues almost invariably
refer to groundwater. Since the presence of abundant groundwater `
virtually rules out the use of relatively poor quality surfacewater.
133

r
Stormwater runoff outside of the municipalities is generally limited
to roads, highways and multi -family housing or commercial development.
Agricultural or "non -point" runoff is a meaningful issue and is
related to water quality questions.
Policy Alternatives
In the area of stormwater runoff, the alternatives when considering
the county's relatively undeveloped state, are rather limited.
Realistically, stormwater runoff is primarily the responsibility of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation and private landowners.
Stormwater runoff is a much more relevant issue for municipalities in
general. However, the county and its local school system are landowners
also and in that respect should consider stormwater management alterna-
tives. In the area of stormwater management, we see the alternatives
basically as twofold. Stormwater can either be properly managed or
ignored.
In the area of water supply questions, we offer a slightly more
complex set of alternatives. Water supply should be considered in
two parts. The first part of the discussion should deal with the
county government's direct water supply responsibility due to the
operation of the new county waterworks. The second part of the issue
deals with water supply in general, especially those property owners
not served by the county water system but still reliant on private
wells. The alternatives related to the county's central water system
include:
1. No plans to protect groundwater supplies;
2. More extensive use of the existing programs available
for monitoring and protecting water supply;
3. Exensive urban type programs to protect water supply.
134

The alternatives relating to water supply in general can be described
as follows:
1. No policy development or a complete market system
with no planning or regulations;
2. A limited monitoring system with primary reliance
on services provided by the local Health Department,
State government,'and the Federal government;
3. An extensive urban type program with new local monitoring
capabilities and extensive watershed controls.
Policy of Choice
On the question of policies relating to protecting the water supply
in general and the county's central water system supply, we are electing
to choose the moderate policy alternatives. The county should attempt
to use more extensively the existing programs available for monitoring
and protecting water supplies. With the present rate of growth and `•
land use conversion, this alternative should be sufficient. If
conditions change, and many more irrigation projects are built or if
other types of development put the groundwater supplies at risk, the
county should reconsider its position. By using programs and services
presently available, the county should be able to protect the planned
water supply for the central water system through the end of the planning
horizon.
It is a little more difficult to accurately assess the county's
overall groundwater resources and the threats posed to them. The
construction of the county waterworks system seems to have greatly
reduced the number of compliants associated with private wells. Hence,
the policy of choice is to once again, use the information and progamatic
resources available in the local area.
135

Implementation
A rather extensive body of information concerning groundwater
use and possible abuse is available locally. The county has access
to water supply and development information to the following programs:
1:. Building code enforcement
2. Flood insurance program enforcement
3. Subdivision plat review
4. Mobile Home park plat review
5. CAMA permit administration
6. Public health well inspections program
Further, at the :Mate and Federal level, additional information
is available. The State distributes to counties, information on test
wells and commercial wells. Virtually all the programs above offer
some limited capability to protect water supply and prevent degradation
to local acquifers. If the pace or quality of development changes
substantially, the county should be prepared to examine additional
planning programs and regulatory controls for which it possesses
enabling legal authority. Such controls would include zoning and
watershed controls of the type presently being utilized by Orange
County, North Carolina. One particularly helpful implementation
strategy would be to instruct the building inspector to identify
any specific project which might damage groundwater supply even where
such a project might not violate any specific provisions of the North
Carolina State Building Code. This type of monitoring would require
additional training for the county's building inspector. Over the
next two to three years, the county will attempt to cross -train
its building inspector for that purpose.
The county has already entered into an engineering agreement
for the planning and preliminary design of a county well field
and treatment plant. Presently, the county purchases its raw
RKIR

water supply from the three municipalities. The engineering contract
does include a study of -the existing groundwater resources and at
least the obvious threats to the quantity and quality of groundwater
resources. There is evidence to suggest that by centralizing individual
water supply to a county waterworks system, groundwater resources can
be utilized more efficiently. More importantly, this does provide
a better opportunity to protect one or two well fields as opposed to
trying to protect each private land well in the county. One of the
most basic implementation consideration should be for the county to
attempt to purchase adequate land surrounding the proposed well field
to enable it to protect it from negative encroachment. In the event
that the land cannot be purchased, the county should explore the
possiblity of purchasing mineral rights or other zoning type controls
which would at least apply to the specific site of the well field. %
The county should be able to protect groundwater supplies even
in the face of large peat development projects. Here, the key is
the specific methodology used for peat extraction and development.
It is our finding that the PMA project successfully demonstrated
that by using the best available design and technology, peat develop-
ment can occur without serious degradation to the groundwater supply.
On the other hand, the county should be vigilant to the potential
of wreckless development of peat resources.
PEAT RESOURCES - Definition
Extensive peat resources are located in eastern Washington County
and along its river banks. Specifically, Phelps Field in the Lake .
Phelps area contains approximately 15,000 acres of partially developed `
peat fields. This area has been the subject of numerous studies calling
137

for peat mining and peat related industries. It is the county's
• policy to encourage the orderly and careful development of Phelps
Field and other local peat resources. Support for this policy,
however is not a passive *one but is contingent on landowner and developers
keeping county officials fully informed of background information and
development proposals.
Policy Alternatives
The policy alternatives in this area appear to be:
1. Take no position on the matter;
2. Take an extremely conservative position and develop
local regulations in addition to State and Federal
programs which would slow down or at least add extra
layers of regulatory controls to the peat extraction
process;
3. Promote the careful development of peat resources
consistent with existing State and Federal regulatory
requirements;
4. Promote peat resources development at any costs.
Policy of Choice
Washington County herein selects the third alternative of promoting
careful peat resources development consistent with existing State and
Federal environmental regulations. This policy alternative assumes
that there will be free if any additional local regulatory programs
established based on our overall finding that there is already a great
deal of regulatory protection embodied in the existing statutes and
regulations.
Implementation
One of ithe county's primary implementation tactics will be for its
economic development commission to work closely with First Colony
Farms and other organizations to encourage the orderly development
of the peat located in Phelps Field.
138

On a secondary basis, the county should also cooperate with other land-
owners and developers interested in peat resources development.
If neither of these responsive tactics are successful, the county
should consider taking an active lead in attempting to identify and
attract investors interested in peat resources development.
WASTEWATER PROBLEMS - Definition
Due to problems associated with shallow water tables, and somewhat
limited soils, Washington County, like many other eastern North Carolina
counties is experiencing some difficulty where ground absorption systems
cannot adequately treat wastewater. This problem is not limited to
new development or population growth. The problem can occur where
homes or other structures are already in use. If performance standards
are increased by the State Public Health Service, the program can
create new pressures, even in settled neighborhoods.
Policy Alternatives
One alternative is to simply ignore the problem and assume that
is, that it must be addressed by the landowner. 2) The county
could choose to play a very limited role of monitoring the situation
and providing technical assistance to landowners facing wastewater
treatment problems. 3) The county could become actively involved
by constructing a county -owned and operated wastewater collection
and treatment system.
Some counties in North Carolina, for example, Moore County, have
already constructed a county -owned and operated wastewater collection
and treatment systems similar for those operated for years by cities
and towns. The extreme alternative of simply not getting involved
does not appear to be realistic. The county should, then attempt
139

to monitor the extent and nature of the problem and at least offer
technical assistance to landowners and investors interested in building
industries or commercial properties in Washington County. Here, we
specifically recommend that the county either through its in-house
staff, or through it retained engineer become familiar with the alternative
on site sewage disposal. So far, sewage disposal in Washington County
has been limited to either groundwater absorption (septic tank)
systems or municipal conventional wastewater treatment plants.
Another option would be to provide technical assistance and promote
the construction of privately owned small package wastewater treat-
ment plants using conventional secondary treatment technology.
Of course, this alternative would require the location to be near
an adequate receiving stream with enough assimilative capacity.
In the event this is not practical, prospective new industries
could consider privately owned sight specific wastewater treatment
systems using spray irrigation.
Finally, toward the end of the planning horizon, the county should
reexamine the level of demand and environmental need for a county
operated wastewater treatment facility. In any event, the county
should explore possibilities of reducing its dependence on the three
wastewater collection and treatment systems operated by the municipalities.
RESOURCE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES - Definition
This policy issue deals primarily with agriculture and forestry.
It:seeks to explore the resources from a productive standpoint, and
also attempts to analyze the environmental risks associated with
poor agricultural and forestry practices.
140

Policy Alternatives ,
We can identify three basic policy alternatives. The first would
be to simply take no position on matters of this sort or where mandated
by State and Federal law. The moderate policy alternative would be
for the county to operate its existing local programs, monitor
changes in agricultural and forestry and on a highly selective basis,
add additional regulatory controls only where State and Federal
controls break down or there is a critical local set of circumstances.
The final policy alternative would be to enact an aggressive
comprehensive land use control and management system. Some local
governments in North Carolina have enacted environmental impact
ordinances, extensive watershed land use controls, and land clearing
regulations.
Policy of Choice
The policy of choice selected is the moderate one where the county
continues to operate its local planning programs already in place,
carefully monitor future development, and add additional controls
where State and Federal programs break down and where a particularly
critical situation arises.
Here, there is an implicit statement that generally speaking,
the existing body of local, State and Federal regulations are
performing adequately. There are some exceptions, such as the
dwindling fin fish resources, especially striped bass. Even in
this instance, there is substantial evidence to indicate that the .
water quality and fin fish problems are beyond the capability of
local governments. It is our finding that water quality problems
141

are so complex and regional in nature that they must be addressed
primarily by State government and in some cases, even the Federal
Government.
Further, we find that much of the opposition to land clearing and
super farming is populist in nature and very difficult to substantiate
from an environmental standpoint.
From an educational standpoint, the county should continue to
encourage its Agricultural Extension Service and Soil Conservation
Service to promote sound farm and forestland management practices
through the educational approach. Where possible, educational
efforts should be augmented by financial incentives such as those
included in the cost share program operated by the Soil Conservation
Service.
Implementation
As noted above, the preferred implementation strategy is participation
in State and Federal programs and extensive use of the educational
approach.
ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- Definition
One of the most basic policy statements of Washington County
is to increase the rate of economic growth and to diversify economic
growth and community development. Specifically, the county should
attempt to reduce it reliance on agriculture and wood products
manufacturing, but not to the point that it would discourage additional
wood products or agricultural development.
142

Policy Alternatives
The policy alternatives are basically those set out above in
the basic general policy statement. The policy choice is also consistent
with that selected under the general policy statement. Some additional
explanation is necessary here, however. The county's severe need for
growth does not put it in a position to be able to actually screen out
developmental proposals simply because they do not advance economic
diversification. According to the most recent State estimate,
Washington County suffered a real decline in population and had the
largest decline of any North Carolina county. For this reason, and
simply in order to maintain good relationships with existing businesses,
the county should not discourage expansion of existing agricultural
and wood products industries or fail to attempt to accommodate new `
proposals.
However, in its promotional and recruiting practices, the county
should emphasize non-traditional type industries, commercial develop-
ment, and service industries.
Implementation
The county should continue an attempt to expand its ongoing
economic development program. Specifically, county officials should
work cooperatively with municipal officials in Plymouth and Roper
to explore all economic development and community development pos-
sibilities as they apply to the three surplus elementary school
campuses. With the completion of the new Pines Elementary School last
fall, the old Roper Elementary School, Fourth Street Elementary School .
and Washington Street Elementary School campuses are now vacant and
143

represent an economic development resource of sorts. With the recent
problem of actual declining population, the county might consider
offering up residential development tracts to private developers
for the construction of unsubsidized housing. These campuses should
also be redeveloped to remove any possible blighting influences and
to examine the possibility of'creating new passive recreational
resources.
In order to attempt to maintain an environment which accommodates
new economic growth, the county should attempt to monitor all develop-
mental permit applications to State agencies. This practice would
attempt to encourage State permit officials to not go beyond their
legislative authority in enforcing environmental regulations. From
a community development standpoint, we also plan to implement the Scupper-
nong River snagging and clearing project which has been in the planning
stage for a decade. Successful completion of this project would reduce
flooding of cultivated fields. This problem has grown over the years
as the Scuppernong River has become seriously clogged with debris.
Further, the community development implementation strategy would be
to attempt to increase shoreline access resources for county residents
through the construction of a local shoreline park, swimming area,
or pier. Specifically, the county has examined the possibility of
retaining a section of the old Albemarle Sound Bridge for pedestrian
access.
144

ENERGY FACILITIES _
In Washington County, the location of energy facilities realistical-
ly means peat resources development and/or the construction of an
electrical generating power station fired by peat, "dirty" wood chips,
clean wood chips, coal or a combination of these fuels. With all
of North Carolina Power Company's generating facilities located in
Virginai, there are public relations reasons and engineering reasons
to attempt to secure generating facilities in the southern portion
of their service area.
Washington County supports ongoing efforts to encourage the
construction of electrical generating facilities using non-nuclear
fuels. The top priority in term of fuel stocks are placed on wood
and peat but the County does support coal as a fuel if air emissions
can be controlled.
Naturally, if peat was the fuel, there would be considerable
advantages to locating a generating station in or near Phelps Field.
Suitable sites for a more conventional generating station (e.g. wood -
fired) are readily available. However, Washington County does support
the construction of a electrical generating station in or near Phelps
Field if the developer follows sound environmental planning guidelines.
145

NRSCD - COASTAL HANIGERENT
? 15: 078 .0100
SUBCHIPTER 7H - STATE GUIDELINES 701 AREAS OP 1.10
INVIROVEIR?AL CONCEIN
SECTION .0100 - IN?10DVC?101 AND G1N11At CONNENlS 1.13
.0101 INTRODUCTION 1.15
1a) one of the basic purposes of North Carolina's Coastal Area 1.17
management Act (CAmA or the act) Is to establish a state 1.18
management plan that is capable of rational and coordinated
management gf coastal resources. The act recognises that the key 1.19
to sore effective protection and use Qf the land and water 1.20
resources of the coast is the development of a coordinated
approach to lesource management. The Coastal Area management Act 1.21
provides two principal jiechavisms to accomplish this purpose. 1.22
First, the formulation of local land use plans Srticulating the 1.23
objectives of local citizens and translating these objectives
into future _4esired land use patterns; and second, the 1.24
designation of areas of environmental concern for the protection 1.25
of areas of statewide concern within the coastal area.
Sb) Both the development of local land use plans and the 1.26
designation and regulation of critical ,resource areas contribute 1.27
to rational management by encouraging local and state governments
to exercise their full authorities over coastal resources and to 1.28
express their management goals to a comprehensible and uniform 1.29
manner. Local objectives benefit through their incorporation
into g state management scheme, and the statewide objectives of 1.30
resource protection and development kenefit through an integrated 1.31
and comprehensive management approach. It is the purpose of the
state guidelines to ensure this uniformity and consistency in the 1.32
local land use plans and the regulation of critical resource 1.33
areas, or areas of environmental concern (AECs) , through the
establishment of unified policies, criteria, standards, methods, 1.34
and processes.
1c) These state guidelines are designed to provide individuals 1.35
and governmental agencies ?ith a complete statement of the 1.36
uniform policies and standards adopted by the Coastal Resources
Qoamission (CRC or the commission) for areas of environmental 1.37
concern, as mandated by the act.
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-101 ; 1.40
1131-102; 1131-124 (c) (5); 1. 41
Eff. September 9, 1977. 1.42
.0102 CIm1 PROVISIONS MR ABCs 1.44
NORTH CIROLINI IDBINISTRITIVE CODE 12/10/83 7-1
OEM

LAND CLASSIFICATION
Developed
In Washington County, as one might expect, the most heavily
developed nonincorporated areas are in and around the municipalities,
especially the county seat, Plymouth. Community facilities in and
near Plymouth are capable of supporting additional population and
industrial growth. The Town of Plymouth possesses considerable
access water supply capacity and to a more limited extent, sanitary
sewerage capacity. Built up areas around Roper and Plymouth are
less pronounced. Also, although not presently classified as developed,
the land area generally north of U.S. 64 and south of Albemarle shore-
line is capable of supporting growth. This area contains some of
the county's best soils and best drained parcels.
Of course, the Washington County Industrial Park, located between
U.S. 64 and Mackeys Road, just east of Plymouth is the prime location
for industrial growth. The park is served with electricity, rail,
water utilities including an elevated tank and sanitary sewerage.
In conjunction with the North Carolina Department of Transportation's
Industrial Access Program, the county is presently constructing a
paved road within the park.
Transition
We have predicted that transition or change.will occur along
U.S. 64 from Plymouth eastward to the Tyrrell County line. Unless
zoning controls are enacted, there will be a mixing of residential
growth from a qualitative standpoint. Commerical growth will be
147

interspersed with the residential growth and some industrial develop-
ment may also occur. As the demand for farming acreage in the Wenona
area declines, we may see some retirement residential construction.
In the southwestern section along N.C. 32 by the end of the planning
horizon, we will most likely see some additional bedroom community
development with homes being built by people working in Beaufort County.
We expect similar bedroom type development to occur along S.R. 1100.
Over the next five to ten years, the County should plan for extensions
of its water main southward down N.C. 32 to accommodate the projected
growth.. Industrial growth could easily occur near the Plymouth Airport
in spite of the lack of central wastewater facilities. This area is
in large undivided tracts and is served by rail. In most of the areas
classified as community, we expect slow single family residential
growth. In many cases, this growth will occur in the form of mobile
home installations on large privately owned lots. Many parcels
classified as community are served by shallow wells and septic tanks.
Within its resources, the County should attempt to serve additional
locations with its central water system. Subdivision plat review in
areas labeled community, rural and conservation should take special
note of the developers' plans for water service, wastewater service,
and surface drainage. Where individual parcels within the community
classification can support -industry,- industy should be permitted to
develop.
Farming and logging will continue to be a very important land use
within many of the areas classified as community.
148

Rural
A large percentage of Washington County has been classified
as rural. The road network is an unusual one with massive expanses
of land not served by public roads. The area in central Washington
County between S.R. 1126 and U.S. 64 is a good example. From a
realistic standpoint, most of the land in rural classification will
continue in its present land use. The predominant land uses are:
unmanaged woodsland with low grade hardwoods, managed woodsland
subject to periodic logging, and agriculture. However, within this
general area, there are parcels suitable for residential or other types
of development. Landowners, and prospective developers are cautioned
to carefully examine soil conditions and drainage limitations before
committing financial resources to development in areas classified as
rural.
Conservation
We have classified the shore of the Roanoke River and Albemarle
Sound as conservation. The shoreline of Lake Phelps has also been
classified as conservation. However, even within this classification,
there are parcels clearly suitable for residential, commercial or
industrial development. Along the Albemarle Sound, one of the major
limitations on residential development is erosion. The area also
has some suceptability to hurricane flooding, although not nearly
of the magnitude of the eastern region of the Albemarle Sound. The
Roanoke River is also somewhat subject to flooding although in most
locations, the banks are extremely high. A hurricane of category three,
four, or five however, would produce substantial flooding along the
149

Roanoke River. The County should caution prospective developers about
the special characteristics of the areas labeled conservation. The
County presently is effectively enforcing its Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance in these areas, especially the Roanoke shoreline near the
Plymouth city limits which is undergoing residential development.
Even here however, the County's information in some places is limited
because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has
provided the Planning Office only with "unnumbered A zones." These
plates do not give specific topographic vertical information.
150

Local Approach to Land Classification
Consistent with the overall inter -governmental structure of the
Coastal Area Management Program, Washington County herein states for
the record its approach to the interpretation and utilization of the
land classification system. G.S. 113A-101 outlines a cooperative
State -local program. This cooperative program outlines state roles
local roles, and concurrent roles. Enforcement is described as a
concurrent state -local responsibility. Toward that end, Washington
County proposes its method for interpreting and utilizing the land
classification system. The actual system itself has been designed
and put into place by the Coastal Resources Con -mission.
Our approach toward the utilization of the land classification
system is that this system shall be used as a basic planning criteria.
It shall not be an exclusive planning criteria. By way of illustration,
when a potential developer proposes to construct a specific structure
on a specific site, the land classification system should not be the
only factor considered by the permit letting agency when reviewing
the permit application. At the local level, the land classification
system should be one of several planning factors considered when local
government decides whether to locate infrastructure components. The
land classification system should be made available to federal agencies
and lending institutions for their voluntary use. Specifically, when
the Washington County Economic Development Commission endorses an
industrial prospect, said industrial project should not be inhibited
by the land classification system.
'In areas shown as conservation areas, the primary emphasis should
be placed on the streams and/or shorelines located within the conservation -_
151

areas. Special emphasis should be placed on the land area within 1300
feet of the banks of streams located within the areas of environmental
concern. In the case of lakes such as Lake Phelps, the primary emphasis
once again should be within 75 feet of high water. A less obtrusive
approach should be taken to the area beyond 75 feet in the case of lakes
and beyond 1300 feet in the case of streams. Also the designation of
an area in the conservation category should not deny access to streams
and other bodies of water. Drainage structures that otherwise would
be permitted, should be allowed to drain into streams and other types
of bodies of water as long as the construction activity is done con-
sistent with good soil conservation practices. The designation of an
area as conservation should not prevent barge landing or other types
of access from being constructed. However, where it is practical,
construciton activity should be set back from the shoreline or the
stream. Washington County does acknowledge that the conservation land
classification was developed to protect the whole environmental integrity
of the coastal region. We understand that failure to protect sensitive
areas within Washington County could in certain circumstances, have
a negative environmental impact in neighboring counties.
Finally, the land classification system is based not only on im-
mediate growth projections, but on economic development goals through
the planning horizon.
152

.0204 LAND CLASSIlICATION 10.11
Sa) A land classification system has been developed as a means 10.13
of assisting in the _implementation of the policies adopted as 10.14
proviied in Rule .0203 of this Section. By delineating land 10.15
classes on a Rap, local government and its citizens can specify
those areas where certain policies (local, state and federal) 10.16
will apply. Although specific areas are outlined on a land 10.17
classification Rapt it must be remembered that land
classification is merely a tool to help implement pclicies and 10.18
not a strict regulatory mechanism. The land classification Rap
must be of a scale and quality that is easily read by local, 10.19
state and federal agencies. To further clarify its intent, the
local government should describe how land classificaticn is 10.20
linkei to policy. For example, a local government may have a
policy to protect surface water quality from agriculture and 10.21
urban development runoff. The implementation strategy might be
to require land buffers, swales etc. between develcpment and 10.22
water bodies. The local government could then designate a
conservation buffer around water bodies. This buffer could- be 10.23
described in the narrative of the plan as "...a one mile buffer
?f conservation lands..." which would clarify the lccal 10.24
governmentts intent.
jb) The land classification system provides a framework to be 10.25
used by local governments to identify the future use of all 10.26
lands. The designation of land classes allows the local 10.27
government to illustrate their policy statements as to where and
to what density they want growth to occur, and where they want to 10.28
conserve natural and cultural resources by guiding growth.
jc) The land classification system includes five classes: 10.29
developed, transition, community, rural and conservation. Local 10.30
governments Ray subdivide these classes into wore specific
subclasses. •ny subclass should be able to aggregate back to the 10.31
WORTH CIROLIVI •DRIAISTRATTY1 CODE 07/09/84 7-15
153

NR&CD - COASTAL MANAGEMENT
T 15: 07B .0200
original class. Some classes may not apply to each local
government; for example, the community or rural class may not
apply in an incorporated municipality. 10.32
Id) In applying the land classification system each local 10.33
government should give particular attention to how, where and 10.34
when development of certain types and intensity will to
encouraged or discouraged. Urban land uses and higher intensity 10.35
uses which presently require the traditional urban services
should be directed to lands classified developed. Areas 10.36
developing or anticipated to develop at urban densities which
will eventually require urban services should be directed to 10.37
lands classified transition. Low density development in
settlements _which will not require serer services should be 10.38
directed to areas classified as community. Agriculture,
forestry, mineral extraction and other similar low intensity uses 10.39
and very low density, dispersed residential uses should be
directed to lands classified rural. Generally, public or private 10.40
water or serer systems will not be provided in areas classified
rural as an incentive for intense development. 10.41
(1) Developed: 10.43
.LA) Purpose. The purpose of the developed class is to 10.45
provide for continued intensive development and 10.46
redevelopment of existing cities.
,LB) Description and characteristics. Areas meeting 10.47
the intent of the developed classification are 10.48
currently urban in character where minimal
undeveloped land remains and have in place, or are 10.49
scheduled for the timely provision of, the usual
municipal or public services. Urban in character
.includes mixed land uses such as residential, 10.50
commercial, industrial, institutional and other
uses at high to moderate densities. Services 10.51
include water, sewer, recreational facilities,
streets and roads, police and fire protection. In
some instances an area may not have all the 10.52
traditional urban services in place, but if it
otherwise has . a developed character and is 10.53
scheduled for the timely provision of these
services, it still meets the intent of the
developed classification. Areas developed for 10.54
predominately residential purposes meet the intent
of this classification if they exhibit existing
high to moderate densities such as: 10.55
ji) a density at or approaching 500 dwelling 10.57
gnits Fer square mile; or 11.1
( i) a density of 3 or more dwelling units per 11.4
acre; or
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVi CODE 07/09/84 7-16
154

11g6CO — COASTAL M&NAGERENT
TiS: 07B .0200
a majority of lots of 15,000 square feet or
11.7
less, which are provided or scheduled to be
provided with the traditional urban services;
and/or
(iv) permanent population densities approaching Qr
11.9
exceeding 2000 persons per square mile and
the seasonal population may swell
significantly.
SC) Discussion. Local governments may subdivide the
11.11
developed class into subclasses. Developed /
11.12
multifamily residential, developed / single family
residential, developed / commercial and developed
11.13
/ industrial are examples. In applying the
developed class or subclasses, the local
government should discuss how, when and where it
11.14
will provide the services necessary to support the
needs of an urban area. This class is designed to
11.15
illustrate urban intensity development and
services necessary to support it.
j2) Transition:
11.16
,(A) Purpose. The purpose of the transition class is
11.18
to provide for future intensive urban development
11.19
on lands that are suitable and that will be
11.20
provided with the necessary urban services to
support intense urban development.
.LB) Description and Characteristics. Areas meeting
11.22
the intent of the transition classification are
11.23
presently being developed for urban purposes or
will be developed in the next five to ten years to
11.24
accommodate anticipated population and urban
growth. These areas are in, or will be in a
"transition" state of development going from lover
11.25
intensity uses to higher intensity uses and as
such will eventually require urban services.
11.26
,Si) Areas classified transition will provide
11.28
lands for intensive urban growth when lands
11.29
in the developed class are not available.
Transition lands must be able to support
11.30
urban development by being generally free of
physical limitations and be served or readily
served by urban services. Urban development
11.31
includes mixed land uses such as residential,
commercial, institutional, industrial and
other uses at or approaching high to moderate
11.32
densities. Urban services include water,
sewer, streets and roads, police and fire
protection that will be made available at the
11.34
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 07/09/84
155
7-17

MCD — CO1STAL BRIAGEREIRT
115: 07B .0200
time development occurs or soon thereafter.
Permanent population densities in this class
Brill be approaching 2,000 persons per square
11.35
mile and the seasonal population say swell
significantly.
Qi)
in choosing land for the transition class,
11.36
such land should not include: Areas with
11.37
severe physical limitations which would sake
the provision of urban services difficult or
11.38
impossible, lands which meet the definition
of conservation, lands of special value
(unless no other alternative exists) such as
11.39
productive and unique agricultural lands,
forest lands, potentially valuable mineral
deposits, water supply watersheds, scenic and
11.40
tourist resources including archaeological
sites, habitat for important wildlife
species, areas subject to frequent flooding,
11.41
areas important for environmental or
scientific values, lands where urban
development might destroy or damage natural
11.42
systems or processes of more than local
concern, or lands where intense development
might result in undue risk to life and
11.43
property from natural or existing manmade
hazards.
(i.ji)
If any designated area of environmental
11.44
concern is classified transition a definitive
11.45
explanation shall be included stating why the
area is felt to be appropriate for high
11.46
density development.
(1v)
Predominately residential areas meet the
11.47
intent of the transition classification if
11.48
they exhibit characteristics such as:
11) a density at or approaching 500
11.50
dwelling units per square mile, or
11.51
LI) a density which will meet or
11.52
exceed three dwelling units per
11.53
ace, or
01i) a majority of lots of 15,000
11.54
square feet or less which are
11.55
provided with or will be provided
with the necessary urban services
to support high intensity
development.
11.56
i
NORTH CAROLINA ADRIVISTRATI9E CODE 07/09/84
7-18
156

V29CO — COASTAL HAVAGEHENT
T 15: 07B .0200
Sv) In most cases the transition class will be 12.1
gdjacent or contiguous to the developed 12.2
class.
SC) Discussion. The developed and transition classes 12.5
and subclasses should be the only areas under
active consideration by the local government for
intensive urban development requiring urban 12,6
services. In applying the transition class or
subclasses the local government should gescribe 12.7
how, when and where it will provide services
necessary to support the needs of this intense
land class. If the local government intends to 12.8
allow the private provision of urban services such
as sewage package treatment systems, community
rater systems, private or rural fire protection, 12.9
private garbage pick up, etc. then the local
government should also discuss how it will ensure 12.10
these private services will be provided so as to
avoid unnecessary future public expenses. This
class is designed to illustrate emerging and 12.11
developing urban areas and to help local
governments ensure adequate urban services will be
provided to support such development. 12.12
j3) Community: 12.13
,[A) Purpose. The purpose of the community class is to 12.16
provide for clustered, mixed land uses at low
densities to help meet the housing, shopping,
employment and other needs in rural areas. 12.17
,JB) Description and Characteristics. Areas meeting 12.19
the intent of the community class are presently
developed at low densities which are suitable for
private septic tank use. These areas are 12.20
clustered residential and/or ccmmercial land uses
which provide both low intensity shopping and
housing opportunities and provide a local social 12.21
sense of a "community". Very limited municipal
type services such as fire protection and 12.22
community water may be available, but municipal
type sever systems are not to be provided as a
catalyst for future development. In some unusual 12.23
cases sever systems may be possible, but only to
correct an existing or projected public health 12.24
hazard. Areas developed at low density in a
cluster meet the intent of the community class if
they exhibit characteristics such as: 12.25
li) densities of less than 500 dwellings Per 12.28
square mile, or
WORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 07/09/84
157
7-19

YB6CD - COASTAL 31MAGENEW
T15: 07B .0200
(Li) few residential development densities j1hick 12.30
meet or exceed three dwellings per acre, or
(iji) residential lot sizes of 15,000 square €eet 12.32
or greater, and/or
(�v) low population densities such as 640 persons 12.34
per square mile (one person per acre).
SC) Discussion. It should be stressed that the 12.35
gommunity class applies to clustered low intensity 12.36
development in a rural landscape. This
development is usually lssociated with crossroads 12.37
in counties. Some "communities" may have or may
require municipal type services to avert an
gusting or anticipated health problem. Even 12.38
though limited services.may be available, these
areas should not be shown in the higher intensity 12.39
land classes, as the major characteristic which.
distinguishes community with limited services from
the developed and transition classes is that 12.40
services are not provided to stimulate intense
development in a rural setting, but rather to 12.41
neutralize or avert health problems. Due to the
small size of most communities, they will appear
as small areas in a dispersed pattern on the 12,42
-f county land classification map. This class
illustrates small, dispersed groupings of housing
and commercial land uses in a rural landscape. 12.43
14) Rural: 12.44
LA) Purpose. The purpose of the rural class is to 12.46
provide for agriculture, forestry, mineral 12.47
extraction and various other low intensity uses on
large sites including low density dispersed 12.48
residential uses where urban services are not and
will not be required. Any development in this
class should be compatible with resource 12.49
production and should not significantly impair or
permanently alter natural resources.
LB) Description and Characteristics. Areas meeting 12.50
the intent of this classification are appropriate 12.51
for or presently used for agriculture, forestry,
mineral extraction and similar allied uses. very 12.52
low density dispersed, single family residential
uses are also appropriate within rural areas where
lot sizes are large and where densities do not 12.53
require the provision of urban type services.
Private septic tanks and wells are the primary 12.54
onsite services available to support residential
development, but fire, rescue squad and sheriff
NORTH CAROLTNA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 07/09/84 7-20
158

NRSCD - COASTAL HINDGEBENT T15: 07B .0200
protection may slso be available. Population 12.55
densities will be very low, less than one person
per acre.
,SC)
Discussion. The rural class is the broadest of
12.56
the five classes and will generally constitute the
12.57
major land class on county land classification
maps. Local governments may subdivide the rural
13.1
class into subclasses such as rural/agriculture,
rural/forestry etc. in order to illustrate where
13.2
these basic rural activities will occur.
j5) Conservation:
13.3
.(A)
Purpose. The purpose of the conservation class is
13.6
to provide for the effective long -tern management
and protection of significant, limited, or
irreplaceable areas. Management is needed due to
13.7
the natural, cultural, recreational, scenic or
natural productive values of both local and more
13.8
than local concern.
.1B)
Description and Characteristics. Areas meeting
13.10
the intent of this classification include:
.Li) AEC's, including but not limited tc public
13.13
trust raters, estuarine waters, coastal
wetlands etc. as identified in 15 WCAC 7H;
(Ji) other similar lands, environmentally
13.14
significant because of their natural role in
13.15
the integrity of the coastal regicn and
13.16
include but are not limited to bottom land
hardwoods, pocasins, swamp forests, areas
that are or have a high probability of
13.17
providing wildlife habitat, forest lands that
are essentially undeveloped and lands which
otherwise contain significant productive,
13.18
natural, scenic, cultural or recreational
resources,
.LC)
Discussion. The conservation class is designed to
13.21
illustrate the natural, productive, scenic,
cultural and recreational features of the coastal
zone which make the region a desirable place in
13.22
which to live, work and visit. As such the
conservation class should be applied to areas that
,pecause of their unique, productive, limited,
13.23
cultural or natural features should be either not
developed at all (preserved) , or if developed,
13.24
done so in an extremely limited and cautious
fashion. Urban services, public or private,
should not be provided in these areas as a
13.25
catalyst to stimulate intense development. In
NORTH CAROLINA 1DRI8ISTRATI9P CODE 07/09/84
159
7-21

ERGCD - COASTAL MANAGEMENT
History Mote:
T 15 : 07D .0200
most cases limited onsite services will adequately
Support any limited development within tkis class
13.26
and will also protect tke very features which
justify the area9s inclusion in the conservation
13.27
classification. Mapping of Alcoa in the
conservation class on the local government's land
classification map jqhould be accomplished with the
13.28
understanding the ►EC•s are intensively defined by
their characteristics in 15 lICAC 7H, and therefore
13.29
saps only indicate approximate locations and are
not definitive enough for site specific regulation
purposes. Policy §evelopsent in the land use plan
13.30
should acknowledge the intent of this class and
policies should be consistent with the function of
13.31
areas shown in the conservation class.
Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107(a) ; 13.34
Eff. lebruary 1, 1976; 13.35
►vended Eff. July 1, 1984; September 1, 1979. 13.36
160

NRbCD - WASTAL NANAGENENT
T15: 078 .0100
Ja) The Coastal Area management Act requires that these state 1.46
guidelines "shall give particular &ttention to the nature of 1.47
development which shall be appropriate within the various types
of Areas of environmental concern that may be designated by the 1.48
commission."
Jb) The act further provides that local land use plans "shall 1.49
give special attention to the protection and appropriate 1.50
development of areas of environmental concerm.0
Jc) The 1974 Legislature found that "tbe coastal area, and is 1.51
particular the estuaries, are among Abe most biologically 1.52
productive regions of this state and of the nation," but in
recent years the area "has been subjected to increasing pressures 1.53
which are the result of the often conflicting geeds of society 1.54
expanding in industrial development, in population, and in the
recreational gspirations of its citizens." 1.55
ld) "Unless these pressures are controlled by coordinated 1.56
management," the act states, "the 'very features of the coast 1.57
which make it economically, aesthetically, and ecologically rich
will be destroyed." 2.1
Se) To prevent this destruction, the act charges the Coastal 2.2
Resources Commission with the responsibility for identifying 2.3
types of areas -- rater as well as land -- in which uncontrolled
2r incompatible development might result in irreversiile damage. 2.4
It further instructs the commission Jo determine what types of 2.5
development activities are appropriate within such areas, and it
;galls on local government to give special attention to these 2.6
environmentally fragile and important greas in developing their 2.7
land use plans. Also, the act provides that upon establishing
the types of development activities appropriate within areas of 2.8
environmental concern, the QRC should implement a permit program 2.9
capable of controlling an inappropriate or damaging development 2.10
activities within the IECs. The intent of this authority is not
to stop development, but rather to *azure the compatibility of 2.11
development with the continued productivity and value of certain 2.12
critical land and water areas.
Jf) The act divides the implementation responsibilities of the 2.13
permit program between local governments gad the CRC. 2.14
Individuals proposing "minor development" activities [defined in
Z;.S. 113A-118(d) (2) j within an AEC will be required to receive 2.15
permits from a local permit officer, while individuals
undertaking "major development" activities (defined in G.S. 1131- 2.16
1 18 (d) 41) j vill seek permits directly f ro■ the CBC. In either 2.17
case, the criteria and standards detersieing permit approval As; 2.18
described in this Subchapter of the guidelines will be identical.
History rote: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-102 (a); 113A-106; 2.21
1 13A-107; 1131-113 (a) ; 113A-118; 2.22
NORTH CARO-LINA ADNINISTR1TITZ CODE 12/10/83 7-2
M4:T1

VR&CD - COASTAL HAVAGEHENT T15: 078 .0200
Eff. September 9, 1977. 5.26
.0200 ABCs VITHIV THE ESTUARINE S?STE■ 5.28
.The following regulations in this Section define each AEC 5.30
vithin the estuarine systea, describi • JLta significance, 5.31
articulate the policies regarding development, and state the
standards for development within each AEC. 5.32
History Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 1131-107 (a) ; 5.35
113A-107 (b) ; 5.36
Eff. September 9, 1977. 5.37
.0205 COASTAL VETLAVDS 5.39
_(a) Description. Coastal vetlaads are defined as any salt 5.41
marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by 5.42
tides, including wind tides (whether or not the tide waters beach 5.43
the marshland areas through natural or artificial vatercoarses),
provided this shall not Include hurricane or tropical storm 5.4%
tides.
_Coastal wetlands contain some, but not necessarily all, of the 5.45
following marsh plant Species: 5.46
(1) Cord Grass (Spartina alterniflora) , 5.48
(2) Black Needlerush (suncus roeserianus), 5.49
(3) Glassvort (Salicornia spp.), 5.50
(4) Salt Grass (Distichlis spicata), 5.51
(5) Sea Lavender (Lisooiu■ spp.) , 5.52
(6) Eulrush (Scirpus spp.) , 5.53
(7) Sav Grass (Cladium jamaicense) , 5.54
(8) Cat -tail (Typha spp.) , 5.55
(9) Salt 8eadov Grass (Spartina patens),, 5.56
(10) Salt Reed Grass (Spartina cynosuroides) . 5.57
Included in this definition of coastal wetlands is "such 6.2
contiguous land as the Secretary of WR6CD reasonably deems 6.3
necessary to affect by any such order in carrying out the
purposes of this section." [G.S. 113-230(a) ] 6.4
1b) Significance. The unique productivity of the estuarine 6.5
system is supported by detritus Sdecayed plant material) and 6.6
nutrients that are exported from the coastal marshlands.- The
amount of exportation and degree of importance appears to be 6.7
variable from marsh to marsh, Aepending primarily upon its 6.8
frequency of inundation and inherent characteristics of the
various ,plant species. Vithout the marsh, the high productivity 6.9
levels and complex food chains typically found in the estuaries 6.10
could not be maintained.
Ian harvests various aspects of this productivity when he 6.11
fishes, hunts, and gathers shellfish Lroi the estuary. Estuarine 6.12
dependent species of fish and shellfish such as menhaden, shrimp,
NORTH CA9OLIEL ADRINISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/e3 7-8
162

NRbCO - COASTAL MANAGEMENT
T 15: 073 .0200
Clounder, oysters, and crabs currently sake up over 90 percent of
the total value of North garolina•s commercial catch. The
marshlands, therefore, support an enormous amount of commercial
.qad recreational businesses along the seacoast..
.Tke roots, rhLsomes, stems, and seeds of coastal vetlaads act
as good quality waterfowl. ;ad wildlife feeding and nesting
materials. In addition, coastal wetlands serve as the first line
of defense in retarding estuarine shoreline erosion. The plant
stems and leaves tend to jissipate Wave actioa, while the vast
network of roots and rhizomes resists soil erosion.. In this way,
the coastal wetlands serve as barriers against flood damage and
control erosion between the estuary and the uplands..
parshlands also act as nutrient and sediment traps by slowing
the water which flows over than !Lad causing suspended organic and
inorganic particles to settle out. In. this manner, the nutrient
storehouse is maintained, and sediment harmful to marine
organisms is removed. .11so, pollutants and excessive nutrients
are absorbed by the marsh plants, thus providing an inexpensive
water treatment service.
jc) Management objective. To give highest priority to the
protection and management of coastal wetlands so as to safeguard
and perpetuate their biological, social, economic and aesthetic
values; to coordinate and establish a management system capable
of conserving and utilizing goastal wetlands as a natural
resource essential to the functioning of the entire estuarine
system.
1d) Use Standards. Suitable land uses shall be those
consistent with the management objective in this Role. Highest
priority of use shall be allocated to the conservation of
existing coastal wetlands. Second priority of coastal wetland
use shall be given to those types of development Activities that
require water access and cannot function elsewhere.
Unacceptable land uses may include, but would not be limited
to, the following examples: restaurants and tusinesses;
residences, apartments, ■otels,� hotels, and trailer parks;
parking lots and private toads and highways; and factories.
Examples of acceptatle land uses may include gtLILty easements,
fishing piers, docks, and agricultural uses, such as farming- and
forestry drainage, as permitted under North Carolina's Dredge and
Fill Act and/or other applicable laws.
.In every instance, the particular location, use, and design
characteristics shall be in accord with the general use standards
for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas
3escribed in Rule .0208 of this Section.
History Vote: Statutory Authority G.S. 1131-107(a);
1 13A-107 (b) ; 113A-113 (b) (1)
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/e3 7-9
163
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
6.21
6.22
6.24
6.25
6.26
6.27
6.28
6.30
6.31
6.32
6.33
6.34
6.35
6.36
6.37
6.38
6.39
6.40
6.41
6.42
6.43
6.44
6.45
6.46
6.49
6.50

N$6CD - COASTAL HANAGERENT
t 15: 079 .0206
and establish a management system capable gf conserving and 7.32
utilising estuarine craters so as to maximize their benefits to
ma o and the tstuacino system. 7.33
ld) Use Standards. Suitable land/crater aces shall be those 7.34
consistent with the management qb jectivex in this Hole. Highest 7.35
priority of use shall be allocated to the conservation of
estuarine craters and its vital components. Second priority of 7.36
estuarine waters use shall be given to those types of development 7.37
activities that require water access and use uhiclk cannot
Cnnction elsewhere such as simple access channels; structures to 7.38
prevent erosion; navigation channels; boat docks, marinas, piers, 7.39
wharfs, and mooring pilings.
.In every instance, the particular location, use, and design 7.40
characteristics shall be in Accord with the general use standards 7.41
for coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, and public trust areas 7.42
described in Regulation .0208 of this Section.
History lots: Statutory Authority G.S. 1131-107 (a) ; 7.45
113A-107 (b) ; 113A-113 (b) (2) ; 7.46
Bff. September 9, 1977; 7.47
Amended Eff. January 24, 1978. 7.48
.0207 PUBLIC TRUST AREAS 7.50
1a) Description. Public trust areas are all eaters of the 7.52
_ - ) Atlantic Ocean and the lands thereunder from the mean high rater 7.53
mark to the seaward limit of state jurisdiction; all natural
_ bodies of water subject to measurable lunar tides and lands 7.54
_ thereunder to the mean high water jark; all navigatle natural 7.55
bodies of rater and lands thereunder to the mean high water level
or mean water level as the case may be, except privately -owned 7.56
lakes to which the public has no right of access; all water in 7.57
artificially created bodies of water containing significant
public fishing resources or other public resources which are 8.1
accessible to the public ty Davigation frcm bodies cf water in 8.2
which the public has rights of navigation; and all waters ;n 8.3
artificially created bodies of water in which the public has
acquired rights by prescription, custom, usage, dedication, or 8.4
any other means. In determining whether the public has acquired
rights in artificially created bodies of water, the following 8.5
factors shall be considered:
(1) the use of the body of water by the public, 8.7
(2) the length of time the public has used the area, 8.8
(3) the value of public resources in the body of water, 8.9
14) whether the public resources in the body of water are 8.11
mobile to the extent that they ran move into natural 8.12
bodies of water,
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/83
7-11
164

126CD - COASTAL HAVAGIBEHf
T 15: 070 .0200
15) whetber the creation of the artificial body of water 8.13
required permission from the &tat*, and 8.14
16► the value of the body of water to the public for 8.15
navigation from one public area to ;mother public area. 9.16
jb) Significance. The public has rights in these areas, 8.18
including navigation and recreation. -In addition, these areas 8.19
support valuable commercial and sports fisheries, have aesthetic
value, mad are important resources for economic development. 8.20
le) management objective. To protect public rights for 8.21
navigation and recreation and to greserve and manage the public 8.22
trust areas so as to safeguard and perpetuate their biological,
gconosic and aesthetic value. 8.23
1d) One Standards. Acceptable ones shall be those consistent 8.24
with the management objectives in 1c) of this Rule. In the 8.2S
absence of overridinq public benefit, any use which significantly
interferes _with the public right of navigation or other public 8.26
trust rights which the public nap be found to have in these areas 8.27
shall not be allowed. The development of navigational channels
or drainage ditches, the one of bulkheads to prevent erosion, and 8.28
the building of piers, wharfs, gr oarimas are examples of uses 8.29
that may be acceptable within public trust areas, provided that
luck uses will not be detrimental to the public trust rights and 8.30
the biological and Shysical functions of the estuary. projects 9.31
which would directly or indirectly block or impair .2xisting 8.32
navigation channels, increase shoreline erosion, deposit spoils
below mean high tide, Sause adverse water circulation patterns, 8.33
violate water quality standards, or cause degradation Sf 8.34
shellfish waters are generally considered incompatible with the
management policies of public Jrnst areas. In every instance, 8.35
the particular location, use, and design characteristics shall ,fie 8.36
in accord with the general use standards for coastal wetlands,
estuarine waters, and public trust areas. 8.37
History Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 1131-107(a); 8.40
113A-107 (b) ; 113 A-113 (b) (5) ; 8.41
Ef. f . September 9, 1977. 8.42
.0208 USE STANDARDS 8.44
(a) General Use Standards 8.45.
j1) Uses which are not water dependent will not be 8.47
permitted in coastal wetlands, gstuarine waters, and 8.48
public trust waters. Restaurants, residences,
apartments, motels, hotels, trailer parka, private 8.49
roads, factories, and parking lots are examples of uses
that gre not water dependent. Uses that are water 8.50
dependent may include: utility easements; _4ocks; 8.51
wharfs; boat ramps; dredging; bridges and bridge
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/t3 7-12
165

I86CO - WASTAL 11ANAGINNIT
T 15: 079 .0200
approaches; revetments, bulkheads; gulverts; groins; 8.52
navigational aids; soaring pilings; navigational
channels; simple &ccess channels and drainage ditches. 6.53
12) Before being granted a permit by the CBC or local 6.54
permitting authority, there Ahall be a f indleg that the 8.55
applicaat has complied witb the following standards:
JA) The location, desiym, and mead for development, as 0.57
well as the construction hctivities involved must 9.1
be consistent with the stated sanagemeat
objective.
J9) Wore receiving approval for' location of a use or 9.2
development within these ABCs, She permit-lett Lag 9.3
authority shall fiord that so suitable alternative
site or location outside of the ABC exists for the 9.4
use or development and, further, that the
applicant Jas soXected a coabimation of sites and 9.5
design that will have a minimum adverse impact
epos the groduct wLty and biologic intel'ritt of 9.6
coastal sarshlam , shellfish beds, submerged grass
heds, spawning and nursery areas, important 9.7
nesting and wintering sites for waterfowl and
fildlife, and important natural erosion barriers 9.8
(cypress fringes, marshes, clay soils) .
JQ Development shall not violate water and air 9.9
quality ltandards. 9.10
JD) Development shall mot cause vajor cr itreversible 9.11
damage to valuable docusented archaeological or 9.12
historic resources.
JE) Development shall not measurably, increase 9.13
siltation. 9.14
JF) Development shall not create stagtant water 9.15
bo -ii es . 9.1b
JG) 5evelopment shall be timed to have virinu■ adverse 9.17
significant affect on life cycles of estuarine MR
resources.
J4) Development shall not impede navigation cr create 9.19
undue interference with access to, or use of, 9.20
public trust or estuarine waters.
11) Development proposed in estuarine waters must also 9.21
be consistent with applicable Itandards for the 9.22
icean hazard system ABCs set forth in Section
.0300 of this Subchapter.
13) When the proposed development is in conflict with the 9.24
general or specific use standards get forth in this 9.25
Rule, the CRC say approve the development if the
applicant can demonstrate that the activity associated 9.26
with the proposed project will have public.tenefits as
KOFTH CAROLINA ADRINISTRATIVE CODE
12/10/83 7-13
166

M86CD COISTAL HA1AGESENT T15: 078 .0200
Identified in the findings and goals of the Coastal 9.27
Area Management Act, that the public -benefits glearly 9.28
Outweigh the long range adverse effects of the project,
that there is no reasonable ,md pradeat alternate site 9.29
available for .the project, and that all reasonable
Maas and ■vasures Jo mitigate adverse impacts of the 9.j0
project Pave been incorporated into the prc ject design
and gill be implemented at the applicantos expense. 9.31
?hose measures taken to mitigate or minimize Adverse 9.32
impacts may include actions that will:
JA) minimize or avoid adverse impacts by limiting the 9.34
magnitude or degree of ,the action: 9.3S
1B) restore the affected environment; or 9.36
JC) compensate for the adverse impacts by replacing or 9.38
Providing Mubstituto resources. 9.39
Jb) Specific Use Standards 9.41
J1) Navigation Channels, Canals, and Boat Basins Navigation 9.43
channels, canals and boat basins aunt be aligned or 9.44
located so as to Avoid primary nursery areas 9.45
(identified in 15 NCAC 35 .1405; effective date
tiovember 1, 1977) highly productive shellfish beds, 9.46
tads or submerged tegetation, or significant areas of 9.47
regularly or irregularly flooded coastal Aetlands. 9.48
JA) Navigation channels and canals can be allowed 9.50
through Rarrow fringes of regularly and 9.51
irregularly flooded coastal wetlands if the loss 9.52
of wetlands will have ac significant ,Adverse 9.53
impacts on fishery resources, water quality or
adjacent wetlands, and, if there is no reasonable 9.54
alternative that would avoid the wetland losses. 9.55
JB) All spoil material from new constracticn shall be 9.56
confined landward of regularly and irregularly 9.57
flooded coastal wetlands and stabilized to prevent 10.1
entry of sediments into the Adjacent water bodies 10.2
or marsh.
JC) Spoil from maintenance of channels and canals 10.3
through Jrregularly flooded wetlands shall be 10.4
placed on non -wetland Areas, remnant spoil piles, 10.5
or disposed of by an acceptable method having j10 10.6
significant, long term wetland impacts. Under no
circumstances shall _qpoil be placed cm regularly 10.1
flooded wetlands.
1D) Vidths of the canals and channels shall be the 10.8
minimum lequired to meet the applicantle needs and 10.9
provide adequate ]Later circulation. 10.1
1E) Boat basis design shall maximize water exchange by 10.1
having the widest possible opening and the 10.1
NOBTB CAB01I91 ADMIVISTEATITZ CODE 12/10/63 7-14
167

1126CO COASTAL HAVACIRIIY
f 15; 078 .0200
_
shortest practical sntrance canal. Depths of boat
10.15
basins shall decrease frog the - matereard dad
10.14
inland.
jt)
lay canal or boat basis stall be excavated so
10.1E
deeper Jhaa the depth of the connecting channels.
10.16
10)
Canals for the purpose of multiple cesidestla1
10.17
development ghall have:
10.18
li) no septic tanks unless they most the
10.20
standards get by the Division of
10.21
Environmental Management And the rivision of
10.22
Health Services;
(Ji) no untreated or treated pcint source
10.23
Iischarge;
10.24
(iji) storm water routing and retenticn areas such
10.25
as nettling basins and grassed swales.
10.26
1H)
Construction of finger canal systems will not be
10.27
allowed. Canals jhall be either straight or
10.28
meandering with no right angle gorners.
10.29
11)
Canals shall be designed so as not to create an
10.30
erosion hazard to adjoining property. Design say
10.31
include bulkheading, Zegetative stabilization, or
10.32
adequate setbacks based on sail characteristics.
(2) Hydraulic Dredging
10.34
_ _LA)
The terminal end of the dredge pipeline should be
10.36
-
positioned at a distance $efficient tc preclude
10.37
erosion of the containment dike and a maximum
_
distance from spillways to allow adequate
10.38
.,
settlement of suspended sclids.
1H)
Dredge spoil must be either confined on high
10.39
ground by adequate retaining gtractuess or if the .
10.40
material is suitable, deposited on teaches for
purposes of renourishment, with the exception of
10.41
(G) of this Subsection (b) (2) .
1C)
Confinement of excavated materials shall be on
10.42
high ground landward of regularly and irregularly
10.43
flooded marshland and with adequate soil
gtabilization measures to prevent entry of
10.44
sediments into the adjacent water bodies or marsh.
ID)
Effluent from diked areas receiving disposal from
.10.45
hydraulic dredging operations just be contained by
10.46
pipe, trough, or similar device tc a point
waterward Qf emergent vegetation or, where local
10.47
conditions require, below mean low water.
JE)
phen possible, effluent from diked disposal areas
10.48
shall be returned to the Srea being dredged.
10.49
1r)
A water control structure must be installed at the
10.50
intake end of the jffluent Fipe.
10.51
- EOBTH CAROLINA ADNIVIST8ATWE CODE 12/10/e3 7-15

126CD - COASTAL MANAGEMENT
215: 07H .0200
JG)
Publicly funded projects will be considered by
10.52
review agencies on a case by Saxe basis with
10.53
respect to dredging methods aid spoil disposal.
13)
Dredge spoil from closed shellfish waters and
10.54
effluent from diked disposal Sreas used when
10.55
dredging in closed shellfish waters shall be
returned to the closed shellfish waters.
10.56
j3) Drainage
Ditches
10.57
_1A)
Drainage ditches located through any marshland
11.2
shall not exceed six feet wide by f our feet deep
11.3
(from ground surface) ualess the applicant can
show that larger ditches are necessary for
11.4
adequate drainage.
1H)
Spoil derived from the construction or maintenance
11.5
of drainage ditches through Keq ularly flooded
11.6
marsh most be placed landward- of these marsh areas
in a manner that will insure that entry of
11.7
sediment into the water or marsh will not occur.
Spoil Derived from the construction or maintenance
11.8
of drainage • ditches through irregularly flooded
marshes *hall be placed on non -wetlands wherever
11.9
feasible. Mon -wetland areas include relic
disposal sites.
jC)
Excavation of new ditches through high ground
11.10
shall take place landward of a temporary earthen
11.11
plug or other methods to minimize siltation to
adjacent water bodies.
SD)
Drainage ditches shall act have a significant
11.12
adverse effect on officially designated primary
11.13
nursery areas, productive shellfish beds,
submerged grass beds, or other documented
11.14
important estuarine habitat. Particular attention
should be placed on the effects of freshwater
11.15
inflows, sediment, and =utrient introduction.
Settling basins, water gates, retenticn structures
11.16
are examples of design alternatives that may be
used to minimize sediment introduction.
11.17
S4) Nonagricultural Drainage
11.18
1A)
Drainage ditches most be designed so that
11.20
restrictions in the volume or diversicn_ of flow
11.21
are minimized to both surface and ground water.
1H)
Drainage ditches shall provide for the passage of
11.22
migratory organisms by allowing tree Fassage of
11.23
water of sufficient depth.
1C)
Drainage ditches shall not create stagnant water
11.24
pools or significant changes in the velocity of
11.25
flow.
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/0
169
7-16
I

11 R&CD - OD ASTAL AANAGE11EbT
! 1Ss 071 .0200
1D) Drainage ditches shall act. divert or restrict 11.26
rater flow to important wetlands sr saris* 11.27
habitats.
j5) latimas.. marinas are defined as any publicly or 11.29
privately owned dock, basis sr boat storage facility 11.30
• constructed to accommodate more than 10 boats$ and
providing ,day of the following services: permanent or 11.31
temporary docking space; dry stack storage; haul-omt
facilities and repair services. Excluded from this 11.32
definition are boat ramp facilities gllosiag access 11.33
only and none of the preceding services.
.JA) marinas which require dredging shall not be 11.35
located in primary parsery areas, nor in areas 11.36
which require dredging through primary nursery
ireas for access. maintenance dredging in primary 11.37
nursery areas for existing marinas Xill be 11.38
considered on a case -by -case basis.
SB) Marinas should be developed on non-wetlhnd sites 11.39
or in deep laters (areas not requiring dredging) 11.40
and should not disturb valuable shallow water and 11.41
wetland habitat, except for dredging necessary for
access to higk ground sites. The following four 11.42
alternatives for siting marinas are ranked in
order of preference:
_Li) an upland site requiring no alteration of 11.44
wetland .2r estuarine habitat, and providing 11.45
adequate flushing by tidal sr wind generated 11.46
water circulation;
• (.Li) an upland site requiring dredging for access 11.47
when the necessary dredging will cause no 11.48
significant adverse impact on fishery or 11.49
wetland resources;
(ij i) a deep water site not a primary nursery area, 11.50
with go excavation or wetland alteration; 11.51
(JLv) a marina requiring excavation of relatively 11.52
unproductive estuarine oubstrate tc a depth 11.53
no greater than the depth of the connecting
channels. Projects shall be designed to. use 11.54
the highest of these four priorities that is
feasible.
(C) !Marinas should: 11.56
li) be designed to minimize use of public waters 12.1
by encouraging 1t mixture of dry storage 12.2
areas, public launching facilities, and
berthing spaces; 12.3
(_•i) shall prominently display a sign at the 12.4
marina slowing the location of the gearest 12.5
NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/83 7-17
170

NBSCD - COASTAL 0151GININT ?IS: 07E .0204
pospout facility, listing the telephone
-
numbers of local • asptic task Auapial
12.6
services, and including other appropriate
-
waste disposal iafOrsatica; Urawlelom (11)
12.7
applies only to permits applied for after
January 31, 1942 J; and
UILI demonstrate the implesentatioa of all
12.8
necessary means and measures to miniaito the
Lmpact of pollataats likely to be eaitted by
12.9
the operation of the wariaa and attendance
12.10
vessels upon the natural systems includiag
providing grease mad sediment traps got storm
12.11
water runoff.
1D}
Narinas shall be designed to ainiaLse adverse
12.12
effects on navigatioa mad Fnblic qse of waters
12.13
while allowing the applicant adequate access to
deep waters.
lE)
darinas shall not be enclosed within breakwaters
12.14
that preclude circulation sufficient to maintain
12.1S
rater quality.
if)
Marinas which require dredgiag shall provide
12.16
acceptaace &ream to accommodate dis;osal needs for
12.17
future maintenance dredging.
j6) Docks and Piers
12.18
1A)
Docks and piers shall not significantly interfere
12.20
with water flows.
12.21
JB)
To preclude the adverse effects of shading marsh
12.22
vegetation, structures which are bwilt over
12.23 `
vegetated marsh shall not exceed six feet in
width, Except that ny"s or platforms at the
12.24
waterward end are not restricted to these
dimensions but gannot have a total area of more
12.25
than S00 square feet.
1C)
Piers shall be designed to minimise adverse
12.26
effects 2a navigation and public use cf waters,
12.28
while allowing the applicant adequate access to
deep waters.
1D)
Pier alignments along federally maintained
12.29
channels oust moat Corps of Engineers District
12.30
guidelines.
1R)
Piers shall not extend beyond the established pier
12.31
length Along the same shoreline for similar use,
12.32
and is no case gxtead more than one-third of the
12.33
width of a natural water body or man-made canal or
basin.
.If)
Piers shall not interfere with the access to any
12.34
riparian property iad shall have a minimum setback
12.35
NORTH CAROLINA
kDRI1ISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/83 7-18
171

NBSCD COASTAL b1N1GENINT
T 15: 079 .0200
of 15 feet between any part of the pier and the
12.36
o
adjacent property owner's areas of riparian
access. The line Qf division of areas of riparian
12.37
access shall to established by drawing a line
along the channel or deep water in front of the
12.38
properties, them draw a line perpendicular to the
line of the channel so that it Intersects with the
12.39
shore at the point the upland property line meets
the water's edge. The minimum setback provided in
the Regulation may be waived by the written
12.40
agreement of the adjacent' ;iparian cwner(s) or
12.41
when two adjoining riparian owners are co -
applicants. Should the adjacent property .be sold
12.42
before construction of the pier coamences, the
applicant shall obtain a written agreement with
12.43
the new owner waiving the jinimu■ settack and
12.44
submit it to the permitting agency prior to
initiating any develoFment of the pier.
12.45
Application of this legulation may ke aided by
12.46
reference to an approved diagram illustrating the
Regulation as applied to various ,shoreline
12.48
configurations. Copies of the diagram say be
obtained from the North Carolina Administrative
Procedures Section of the Attorney General's
12.49
_
office or the Office of Coastal management.
1G)
Docks and piers shall not significantly interfere
12.50
with shellfish franchises or leases. Applicants
12.51
"
for authorisation to construct a dock or pier
shall provide notice of the permit application or
12.52
exemption request to the owner of any part of a
shellfish J•ranchise or lease over which the
12.53
proposed dock or pier would extend.
17) Bulkheads and Shore Stabilization measures
12.54
11)
Bulkhead alignsent, for the purpose of shoreline
12.56
stabilization, must Ipproxisate mean high water or
12.57
normal water level.
1B)
Bulkheads shall be constructed landward of
13.1
significant marshland Qr sarshgrass fringes. •
13.2
1C)
Bulkhead -fill material shall be obtained from an
13.3
approved upland source, or if the bulkhead is a
13.4
part of a permitted project involving excavation
.Cron a non -upland source, the material so obtained
13.5
may be contained behind the bulkhead.
jD)
Bulkheads or other structures estloyed for
13.6
shoreline statilization shall be permitted below
13.7
approximate mean high water or gormal water level
13.8
only when the following standards are met:
NORTH CAROLINA
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 12/10/83 7-19
172

VRaCD - Ca1STAt SIVAGENINT
21S: 0711 .0200
11) the property to be bulkheadtd has am 13.10
identifiable grosion problem, whether it 13.11
results from natural causes or ;djacest 13.12
bulkheads, or it has unusual geographic or
geologic features, g.g. steep grade bank, 13.13
which . will cause the applicant unreasonable
hardship ander the other provisions of this 13.14
Regulation;
UA) the bulkhead alignment extends no further 13.1S
below Approximate dean high water or normal 13.16
water level than necessary to allow recovery 13.17
of the area eroded is the year prior to the
-4ate of application, to align with adjacent 13.18
bulkheads, or to mitigate the gnreasonable 13.19
hardship resulting from the unusual
geographic or geologic features;
(ifi) the bulkhead alignment will not result in 13.20
significant Adverse impacts to public trust 13.21
rights or to the property Qf adjacent 13.22
riparian owners;
(f v) the need for a bulkhead below approximate 13.23
mean high water 4r normal water level is 13.24
documented in the Field Investigation Report 13.25
or other reports prepared by the Office of
Coastal Hanagement; and
Sv) the property to be bulkheaded is in a 13.26
nonoceanfroat Brea. 13.27
JE) Where possible, sloping riF-rap, gabions, or 13.28
vegetation may be used rather than vertical 13.29
seawalls.
(8) Peach Nourishment 13.31
11) Beach creation and/or maintenance may be allowed 13.33
tq enhance water related recreational facilities 13.34
for public, commercial, and private use. 13.35
1B) Beaches can to created and/or maintained in areas 13.36
_where they have historically been found due to 13.37
natural processes. They will not be allowed in 13.38
areas of high erosion rates where frequent 13.39
maintenance will be necessary.
1C) Placing unconfined sand material in the water and 13.40
along the _qhoreline will not be allowed as a 13.41
method of shoreline erosion control. 13.42
1D) Material placed in the water and along the 13.43
shoreline shall .4e clean sand free from pollutants 13.44
and highly erodible finger gaterial. Grain size 13.45
shall be equal to or larger than that found
naturally 9t the site. 13.46
50928 CAROZINA 1DMINISTRATITE CODE 12/10/e3
173
7- 20

1186CD - OD ASTAL MkIAGERRIT
T 151 071 .0200 ,
1E)
saterial from dredging projects can be drel for
13.47
beach gourishment if:
13.46
.ji) it is first h4adled in a manner ceisiiteat
13.$0
with Kegulations governing spoil distdsal:
13,51
(Ji) it is allowed to dry for a suitable letiod:
13.52
,dad
13.53
(i;Lf) only that material of acceptable gtaia size
13.54
is removed Cron the disposal site for
13.5S
placement on the beach. Raterial shall sot
13.56
be placed directly on the beach by dredge or
dragline wring maintenance excavati ca.
13.57
1t)
Beach creation shall not be allowed is any
14.1
designated primary nursery arsaa, not in any areas
14.2
where siltation from the jite would pose a threat
14.3
to shellfish ' beds.
1G)
Material. shall not be placed on. any coastal
14.4
wetlands or gubserged aquatic vegetaticn.
14.5
18)
Material shall not be placed on any submerged
14.6
bottom Pith sigJificant shellfish resources.
14.7
11)
Beach construction shall act create the potential
14.8
for filling adjacent or nearby navigation
14.9
channels, canals, Qr boat basins.
14.10
1J)
Beach construction shall not ♦iclate water quality
14.11
standards.
14.12
_JK)
Permit renewal of these projects shall require ga
14.14
evaluation of any adverse impacts of the original
q(ork..
14.15
1L)
Permits issued for this development shall be
14.16
limited to guthorizing beach nourishment only one
14.17
time during the life of the permit. Permits may
14.18
be renewed for maiatenance York or ro;eated need
14.19
for nourishment.
19) looden and Riprap Groins
14.21
1A)
Groins shall not extend more than 25 ft. waterward
14.23
9f the mean high water or normal water level
14.24
unless a ]Longer structure can be justified by site
14.25
specific conditions, sound gngineering and design
14.26
principals.
1B)
Groins shall be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from
14.27
the Adjoining property lines. This setback may be
14.28
waived by j1rittea agreement of the adjacent
14.29
riparian owner(s) or when two adjoining riparian
owners are co -applicants. Should the adjacent
14.30
property be sold before construction Qf the groin
14.31
commences, the applicant shall obtain a written
agreement with the gem owner waiving the minimum
14.32
setback and submit it tc the permitting ggency
14.33
NOIT8 CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODS 12/10/83
7- 21
174

NB&C0 - COASTAL mANAGlRENT
T 15: 078 .0200
prior to initiating any development of the groin.
(C) Groins shall pose so threat to navigation.
19) The height of groins shall mot exceed 1 ft. above
mean high later or the normal water level.
11) No more than two structures shall be allowed per
100 ft. of * 111orelims unless the applicant can
provide evidence that lore structures are needed
for shoreline stabilisation.
1!) "L" and "TO sections shall not be allowed at the
end Qf groins.
19) RiPrap material used for groin construction shall
be free from loose dirt or any other pollutant in
other than non-harafal quantities Ind of a size
sufficient to prevent its mcvement from the site
by wave and _gurreat action.
Bistcry Note: Statutory Authority G.S. 113A-107 (a) ;
1131-107 (b) ; 1131-113 (b) ;
Eff. September 9, 1977;
Amended Eff. July 1, 1983; may 1, 1983;
February 1, 1983; December 1, 1982.
.0209 ESTDIRINE SBORELINES
1a) Rat ionale. Is an IEC, estuarine shorelines, although
characterized as dry land, are, gossidered a component of the
estuarine system because of the close association with the
adjacent gstmarine waters. This ' Sectica defines estuarine
shorelinest describes the siBmificance, and lrticulater standards
for development.
1b) Description. Estpaclne ' showelines ace those non -ocean
shorelines which are especilelly jelnerable to erosion, flooding,
or other adverse effect�' of wind and water and are intimately
connected to the estuary. This area extends from the mean high
water level or normal water level along the estuaries, sounds,
bays, and brackish waters ass set forth in an agreement adopted ,py
the Vildlife Resources Coanission and the Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development (described in Regulation
.0206 (a) of this Section) for a distance of 75 Ceet landward.
Jc) Significance. Development within estuarine shorelines
influences the quality of estuarine life and is subject to the
damaging processes of shore front erosion and flooding.
1d) management Objective. To ensure shoreline development is
compatible with both the Aynamic nature of estuarine shorelines
and the values of the estuarine system.
1e) Use Standards
11) Ill development projects, propor-als, and designs shall
substantially preserve mad act weaken or eliminate
NOBTB CABOUNI ADIMISTRITIVE CODE 12/1C/e3 7-22
175
14.35
14.37
14.38
14.39
14.40
14.41
14.42
14.43
14.44
14.45
14.46
14.47
14.50
14.51
14.52
14.53
14.54
14.56
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.7
15.8
15.9
15.10
15.11
15.12
15.13
15.14
15.15
15.16
15.18
15.19

686cO - COASTAL DANAGIMUT
215: 072 .0200
natural barriers to erosion, iscludiag, bat- lot limited
15.20
to, peat marshland, resiataut clay shotnliaes, cypress -
gum protective fringe !teas adjacent to •ulmerable
15.21
shorelines.
12)
All development- projects, proposals, and dedgms shall
15.22
21ult the coast uctioa of Impervious surfaces aad areas
15.23
not allowing natural drainage to only so such as is
jecessary to adequately mcvlce the major purpose or
15.24
use for which the lot is to be detelopel. Iapetvious
15.25
surfaces shall not exceed 30 pence at of the AEC area , of
the lot, unless the applicant can effectively
15.26
demonstrate, through innovation design, that the
jroteetion provided by the desiga would be equal to or
15.27
exceed the ptotiection by the 30 percent limitatLas.
15.28
• j3)
All development projects, proposals, and designs shall
15.29
comply with the following aaadatory standards of the
15.30
North Carolina Sedimeatatioa Pellatioa Control Act of
1973:
1A) All development projects, proposals, and desigas
15.32
shall provide for a buffet game along the sargia
15.33
of the estuarine water •hick is sufficient to
confine risible siltation within 25 percent of the
15.34
buffer Zone nearest the land disturbing
development.
jn) No development project proposal of design shall
15.35
permit an angle for graded slopes Qt till which is
15.36
greater than an angle which cam be retained by
vegetative coves Qr other adequate erosion-coattol
15.37
devices or 'atsnctures.
1C) All development projects, proposals, and designs
15.38
which involve uncovering lore than one acre of
15.39
land shall plant a. ground cover sufficient to
restrain srosioa within 30 working days of
15.40
completion of the grading: Frovided that this
shall not apply to clearing land for the purpose
15.41
of forming a reservoir later to be inundated.
14)
Development shall not have a significant adverse impact
15.43
J5)
on estaarine Lesources.
tevelopsent shall not significantly interfere with
15.44
15.45
existing public rights of access to, Qr use of,
15.46
navigable paters or public resources.
No major public facility shall be permitted if such
15.47
.(6)
facility is likely to reguire txtraordLaary public
15.48
expenditures for maintenance and continued uses unless
it can be 11hown that the public perfume served by the
facility outweighs. the required public expenditures jot
15.49
15.50
construction, maintenance, and ccntiaued use. For the
■ONTN CAROLINA ADRINISTRATIIE CODE
176
12/10/83 7-23

526CD - COASTAL EAIACEBElt
?IS: O72 .0206
purpose of this standacd, ■public facility shall mean.
15.51
a project which is paid for in any part by public
funds.
17) De velopmKt shall not cause major or irreversible
1S- S3
damage to valuable, documented historic Architectural
15.54
or archaeological resoarces.
History late: tiled. as a TemporarT Amendment Ef. f.
1S. S7
Decembec 18. 1991, for a period of 120 Oars
16.1
to Espire on April 15, 1902;
16.2
Statutory. Authority O.S. 113A-107 )b) ;
16.3
113A-108 (a) ; 1131t-113 (b) ;
16. •
Ef. f. September 9. 1917;
16.5
Aneuded Eft. December 1. 1982; April 1. 1982;
16.6
June 1, 1980; October 23, 1979..
16.7
NORTH CAROLINA ADEINISTtATIVE CODE 12/10/e3
177
7-20
d

REVIEW OF RECENT CHANGES IN THE MUNICIPALITIES OF ROPER AND CRESWELL
ROPER
In 1980, Roper was constructing a new central sanitary sewer
system. Since that time, the town has made considerable progress
in tapping existing development to the new sanitary sewers. Also,
the town placed a high emphasis on deteriorating city streets and
drainage structures. In recent years, the town has been extremely
successful in securing community development block grants and has
used a substantial portion of this money for street improvements
and drainage improvements including the construction of storm sewers.
Roper also expressed concern about Federal flood insurance
regulatory requirements and emergency management services. At the
earliest opportunity, the Town of Roper cooperated effectively with
Washington County and has secured program compliance under the Federal
Flood Insurance Program through the county Department of Public Works
and Planning. This same county department provides hurricane and
flood evacuation services. The County Director of Public Works and
Planning also serves as the Emergency Management Coordinator and the
level of services has been improved and stabilized. Both Roper and
Creswell expressed concern over the county's emergency management
effort in 1980.
The county Sheriff's Department is providing limited animal
control services within the city limits of Roper. The Sheriff and
the Roper City Council are continuing discussions on overall police
protection concerns in Roper.
Roper also expressed concern over a lack of employment and
housing opportunities in 1980. Since that time, new subsidized
178

a
housing units have been constructed by the Mid -East Housing Commission
in Roper. Also, the construction of a small shopping center near the
old Roper Elementary school campus has produced a few additional
jobs. Recreation opportunities continue to be a concern.
179

CRESWELL
' In 1980, Creswell was also completing the construction of a new
central sanitary sewer system. Since that time, the town has concen-
trated on tapping the existing development to the new system in
developing an operating and maintenance program. Creswell shared
Roper's concern about the county's ability to provide realistic
emergency management services. This service, as in the case of Roper,
has been improved by assigning this function to the County Director
of Public Works and Planning. Another concern shared by both towns
was the limited employment opportunities available in or near Creswell.
This situation has not changed materially except that First Colony
Farms has drastically reduced its workforce.
Since 1980, the Town of Creswell, in conjunction with the Soil
Conservation Service has completed a sizable flood control project.
This project included the construction of a substantial dike system
and has been extremely effective in managing stormwater. The Town of
Creswell also praticipates in the County's flood insurance inspections
and permit program.
In Creswell, municipal officials also appear to remain concerned
about adequate police protection. Both towns continue to be sensitive
to the need to convert agricultural land within the city limits to
developed uses in order to get maximum revenue from utility systems
and to enhance the tax base. Since 1980, 20 units of subsidized
housing has been added to the Creswell housing stock and are owned
and managed by the Mid -East Housing Commission. Land use conversion
has increased but at a very slow rate.
:M

7--'
4
O gA Y
,,.
�
Piney
SWAMP
G 0 R %
�ti�
l.onar
]i5 �1�
b '..-.Grow 1344
.o
32
'�/
49
1
}
b
t
y
t o b• 't' t
7.7
Gf
Albemarle Beodl
t '�
744 - 117
: f
3.9
1241
'
i9e
1723
08 •2
�
J143 ,3 171 2
Grov.
), •�
1 03Deep
--
V.
'
35*55'
H"
} t
rC• 61
o
1139
/\\ \.
C Beasley
..
\
t fop
7 .5 -
® ` •q .
ar • Davenport.
!!
p t 1 Forwt�
A, 1]2.
9S'a
,t, ✓� 1]01
Id
1133
` 1110 .5 -
1 9
t
m
301
0
�
Westover
.7
B ]]
1 1 Y
>
10
328
is
t
'
c
L
`Ly
1112
n�1 ij,
n.]
M
Por. 7vs
Ilu
n45
—
1
PLYMOUTH ;
A.J
119494
1
A'1
'T \p
B
1142
POP. 1571 32 2
1"
1�_ 15 b I'm
.F. 11
- 1116
MEtabw�
CRC'
"\__ __ •"1114
111_9
� , V
� 116 POP.
1 0 1109
A. V
7• 6
2.3
A` S.
S.
I M ./ m
1311 0 ® 1171 PI
I fl.
35*50' d1 c Ue61
2 ? no
VILLE `�E• 115
a LAMES FA od
n b
1200 n !
'T I100
;fi %ymeulh / ]2
Cl ' n9� Municipal / Is
Ren Afrporl I/I(
J I104 1174 Pa.
7
v9
J o�
2 A
Union
103 .6 al•
c inda `
35'15' 1102
Chrislion Hope Ch. Q.
not
e r
lt
SWAMP S
N a
ry � VA t
32 o
0
11eo
S W A 'M P
I
r
s
1
,
�t
PUNGO - at
NAnoN,u
V 1130 0
.0
..
.0
4g a
:J
WILDLIFE
1121
PUNGO
LAKE,
1i : Can
PETTIGREW STATE PARK
L A K E P H E L P S
t ZA
94
BULL BAY
I
35°50'
I600
r
D
�
A.
1
•
.� ��•er�eio�eD - _
KL raag(t Lod t
eammunity =� r ••�
Aural
IQEouserbatior